Articles

As in all things, there are dimensions to our reality. As biomedical scientists discover greater and greater complexity, instead of elevating the nuance, they choose to focus on less and less. attempting to distill life forces down to simple units.

This is extremely convenient for purposes of tinkering and compiling data, yet inversely destructive to essential life function.

I recall several decades ago studying simple chemistry in school, and being struck with the fact that a molecule synthetically constructed from its elements, being identical to that of the living molecule, takes on a different three dimensional shape and therefore function than the real thing. In particular, the shape will be angular, less expanded, and static as opposed to smoothly curved, full of life, and dynamic. The essential effects of this difference are that the potential for the molecule to relate to other molecules is limited while its potential for getting stuck to and irritating other structures is great.

This exposure of what manipulation is, has always stayed with me, and has perhaps been a central catalyst of my interest in nature, natural health and disease, human nature, and the like.

Let’s look at the biochemistry of vaccines, from their inception to where we are today. The originals were based on whole live viruses. The body’s response to this exposure would be very similar to the actual disease process (though not identical…that is another topic). Now jump forward decades to the current vaccines, and in particular covid vaccines. Instead of a whole live virus, the vaccines introduce a code for a part of the virus. The resulting response to this will be a mono culture of antibody molecules, each having identical angular structure. This contrasts to the great variety of antibody molecules produced from natural exposure (or even to the original vaccines), each of which has a smooth and buoyant shape characteristic of living molecules.

There are real consequences to these differences. The response of a vaccinated person to the actual disease will in some ways appear stronger than natural immunity, and of course this is the main aspect being highlighted in the media and literature. The reasons for this are complicated, yet can be approximated by an analogy: whereas in natural immunity the weapons may be considered blunt yet having an intimate consideration for the whole virus, modern vaccine-induced immunity is like a sharp knife created to disable one “key” part of the virus. And so far this part has not mutated enough itself to evade the knife, despite overall changes to the virus as a whole (variants).

Yet this manufactured and more targeted approach to immunity ultimately comes at a great cost, when we consider its underbelly. First, the loss of motivation for the body to produce its own natural and varied antibodies, coupled with reliance on a mono-culture of antibodies with one shape and function (the knife), ultimately tips the balance of power in favor of viral (and other pathogenic) dominance. While this appears to be not as yet relevant to the latest threat of covid, in reality we are well into these effects, and covid-19 is simply getting the headlines. When it changes enough to warrant a change in the target for antibody production, we’ll have given it and its vaccines a new name.

This is bad enough, certainly enough for a poor prognosis for vaccine evolution. Yet there is more. Some of the more has already been prefaced above, in reference to the structural and behavioral differences between naturally created and manufactured antibodies. It has to do with the issue of adherence to, and irritation of other body tissues.

In recent decades we have experienced an explosion of so-called “auto-immune” diseases, whose signature is micro-inflammation caused by clogging of tissues by immune complexes. From joint swelling to skin lesions to vertigo to swollen glands to endocrine and organ disease, these immune complexes are being implicated. Essentially the more manufactured an antibody is, the greater its potential to itself become an antigen (toxin). In the scientific literature, there is virtually no precedent for natural antibodies to attach themselves to anything other than the target for which they were intended. Why, then, in just a blink of an evolutionary eye, is our newly minted immune system behaving this way? Why indeed.

Yet there is more. It is abnormal, and absurd, for immune responses to respiratory viruses to originate in muscle tissue and blood vessels, yet that is where the vaccines are introduced. Why would this be an issue? The short answer, already explained in more detail in my previous article (Both Sides of the Shot), is that it induces both an over-reaction of antibody response, and an under-reaction of the primary immune responses in the local lymphatics. Essentially this results in a compounding of the same scenario above, including an exacerbation of so called auto-immune conditions, and a compromise in proper immune function, which leaves us increasingly prone to the next viral challenge.

A secondary issue is the adjuvants that accompany the injected antigen, which can be added to the litany of toxins to which we are exposed in these modern times; one difference though, is that these toxins are being directly introduced into the blood stream. Again, see my previous article for a bit more on this.

Expanding the lens a bit, vaccine technology is simply in parallel with other technologies that are shaping medicine, food production and preparation, manufactured products of all kinds, social media, etc. Rather than being a nefarious plan, these trends, as irony would have it, appear to be an organic evolution. So, what’s there to do about it? While I don’t have a pat answer, the age-old concept of balance may be a way forward and through.

Consider the bare-boned activities that comprise our lives: eating/drinking, moving about, and sleeping. Surely every person realizes the need for some degree of balance among these things, to simply exist. Furthermore, the more attention and energy is spent in improving the quality of, and relationship between these things, the greater we may realize our potential and happiness.

So it is the same with all things. Take time spent sitting at a computer: this would fit into the category of “moving about” (it isn’t sleeping or eating/drinking). If we spend all of this moving about time sitting at the computer, I’d bet not one day would go by without a problem arising (numb butt, stiff body, jammed-up digestion, sore eyes, etc). So we get up and do something else…at least stretch and allow our eyes to relax their focus. It’s necessity at the least.

Yet there’s more to our lives than the necessities of survival. Fortunately, or not, we are not just animals. We made the computer. We made it with our unique gift of awareness, and it is that awareness which then must be counted as an essential part of our existence. Yet it isn’t simply another part, added to eating/drinking, moving, and sleeping. Rather, it infuses each of these things, guides them, and is an essential element in the outcome of our potential and happiness.

Back to vaccines. Where do they fit? It makes the most sense to consider them as a form of awareness; they contain information that guides the functioning of our defensive energies. So, the question becomes, how much of this defensive awareness, and its potential energy, is wise to delegate out to scientific tinkering, itself an increasingly narrow interpretation of reality? Some, maybe…in extreme circumstances, maybe, and with full disclosure that it may offer temporary benefit, with a guarantee of some degree of compromise down the line. But as a regular practice, across the entire population? Hmmm, that doesn’t strike me as a balanced approach.

While technology may continue to be in our face, it can never functionally define our face, because its awareness is essentially dead, and we simply break down to the degree we let it take over our reality. So, again, some degree of balance, involving our awareness, is called for, to at least prevent this breakdown, and to at most use technology for actually increasing our potential. The paradox seems to be: the lower the level of our technology (think cavemen), the lower is our freedom to expand our potential, while the greater the power of the technology, the greater it can destroy that potential. Again, balance is key, a dynamic balance informed by awareness.

Yes, it is work. Yes it more tempting to fire up the laptop than go for a walk, blah blah blah. This internal struggle is not new to this age. What is new is the degree to which we are now compromised, while facing the same choices. It is exponentially more difficult to get up off the couch when your being is truly compromised and addicted, vs just bored, out of shape, and distracted. This reality has shifted the dynamic. We are already over the edge as a population.

One scenario that may come to fruition, is that the trend will inexorably continue and burn itself out, along the way resulting in a massive reduction in functional human beings, and a resetting of the status quo with technology. That prediction is like extreme heat transforming to cold, a journey all the way around the circle back to the beginning (whatever that means). Entirely possible.

More likely, however, is that undercurrents of ever-present wisdom will steer the ship on a different course, one that runs more on awareness and a hunger for internal balance. We will continue to see and be aware of death, yet it will more clearly be related to events under our conscious control, and therefore better accepted, and even honored. Dying will take its place along the continuum of living as a natural event, hand-in-hand with the ebb of chronic disease from our new shores.

We each share in the essential human emotion of personal fear, and also concern for others.

There is an image portrayed of the broad group being vaccinated as cooperative, brave, and elevating concern for others. The corresponding image is that the equally diverse group of people who do not support vaccination are selfish and free-riding on the actions of the other.

This portrayal works only from a narrow point of view. It assumes various things. One is a general point: that any motivation itself can be virtuous in absolute, in contrast to another.

More specific is the assumption that the process of vaccination is a valid vehicle for public health, both in the immediate and distant future.

In fact, if we expand the lens just a little, these assumptions begin to blur. In the process, those who would see themselves as brave, cooperative, informed, and concerned, begin to resemble the accused as fearful, selfish, and ignorant. This is actually a natural state of dynamic flow between any two poles.

One story being told is that the motivation of the vaccinated person is to save the lives of those they may come in contact with, in the process assuming some personal risk hailed as virtuous. There is truth here, yet what are the other motivations? There is the fear of guilt of feeling responsible for others. There is the fear of shame of straying from a growing pressure in society to be vaccinated. And there is an easy acceptance of a version of health being created by the same medical establishment that perennially repudiates its past methods and treatments (we’ll get more into this).

On the other side, those in the broad camp of avoiding vaccinations are subject to the same motivations for differing reasons. There is some degree of shared fear of the immediate effects of shots, and there is also a varied degree of awareness of longer-term effects and the role of vaccine-centered health policy on human immunity. Equated with this awareness is a real concern for the fate of humanity, the public at large, as well as loved ones and self. Out of this concern emerges a brave allegiance with what they see as human nature, as well as a courage to face the consequences of their own and others’ suffering.

Who is right? This question becomes absurd to argue, as it depends completely upon how and where one looks. And each view shares essentially the same motivations. In fact within each group are contained equally diverse viewpoints, and so on and so forth.

This same analysis can be applied to virtually any argument that casts one viewpoint in the dark, in contrast to one in holy light. The middle road, harmony, is the nuanced path that sees darkness and light as integral parts of the same reality. It requires a desire and willingness to become more whole, to embrace the spice of life. Perhaps in this way we may save life itself.

Now, let’s look a bit deeper.

The common beef many opposed to vaccines in general have, is the direct introduction of “toxins” into the body. By design, this is required for the vaccine to stimulate the desired response from the immune system, whether the “toxin” is an adjuvant (something assisting to stimulate a reaction, like formaldehyde or metals), or a weakened yet live version of the microbe itself. This is intentional, and is not debated. The debate is over what effect the toxins have on the body.

Most people who receive vaccines can relate to at least some level of felt toxicity, from sore swollen arms, to nausea, headaches, fevers, etc. There are also more rare documented severe reactions, from shock to nerve and circulation disorders to death. None of this is under contention.

The contention begins when links are created between actual numbers of ever more common conditions like anxiety and autism spectrum disorders, and the corresponding rise in number of vaccines given, and how they are given (in bundles, and starting in infancy). Again, the numbers of new cases and the timeline/pattern of vaccines given are not in contention, only the correlation between them. Certainly the patterns match up, and to date there are no other theories that completely explain the sudden rise in conditions like autism. There are many possible factors acting in concert that may explain autism, including other sources of toxicity in the food chain and environment, the poor nutritional value of modern agriculture food, the unbalanced diets of many Americans, etc. Yet among these factors, it is becoming clear that nervous system toxicity is at least part of the problem, and it is also clear that vaccines are at least one source of that toxicity, especially as they are introduced in infancy (when the body is ill-equipped to handle strong stimuli…you don’t give them quantities of liquor or hot spices, do you?) and in ever increasing numbers of injections.

Next let’s look into the effects of vaccines on immune function, a subject that is far less talked about. It is mostly assumed that vaccines will be either beneficial to immunity or at worst benign. It will be helpful first to have a rough idea of how the immune system functions.

Our innate immunity operates in stages, and there is an order to it. The first is a local response at the level of the mucous membrane involved, e.g., if it’s a respiratory viral invasion, the nose, eyes, or throat. Immune cells are always present, and respond immediately. If they are successful, there are no symptoms, and most likely no harboring of disease, as the invaders are literally ushered out, via excretions that are under your sense radar. If there is a struggle, these same immune cells contribute to the common symptoms of a cold or flu, namely a feeling of heat and/or chill, runny and/or stuffy nose, tickle in the throat, etc.. They literally create mucous and heat, and this activity may also block the body’s natural warmth from circulating, leading to chills. Modern medicine tends to label this activity “inflammation” and attempts to quell it with “anti-inflammatories” in the form of tylenol, anti-viral drugs, or even steroids. Traditional medical views such as Traditional Chinese Medicine see this activity as part of the body’s strategy to burn off the congestion, and the helping strategies are to encourage fluid and heat and an outward direction of the battle. To oversimplify, drinking fresh ginger and lemon hot tea accomplishes adding heat (the ginger and hot water) and fluid (the water and lemon) to open the pores and expel the virus.

We haven’t gotten to the level of action of vaccines yet.

Now let’s suppose this first defensive level did not expel the virus. The next stage of immunity, several days later, is in the local lymphatic glands. Here, the body’s strategy is to bog down the invaders, transform them, and drain them through the lymph channels. The common symptoms at this stage will then be swelling of the glands, perhaps alternating fever and chill (as the battle waxes and wanes), lung congestion, and just more of feeling lousy (tired, achy, etc). The response of modern medicine is essentially the same as in the first stage, to quell the activity. Traditional medicine again attempts to align its treatments with what the body is trying to do, namely transform and drain thick fluids, and continue to disperse the virus (toxin), yet not outward as in the first stage, rather “through the middle”, or lymphatic channels.

We still haven’t gotten to the level of vaccine action.

If the local lymphatics do not get the job done, the final stage of immunity is then called to action. This is the production of antibodies, and involves the whole body lymphatic and circulatory systems. If the body still has trouble at this stage, it may have symptoms of high or prolonged fevers, exhaustion, bleeding disorders, and organ damage. Traditional medicine calls this stage the blood level, and treats it by cooling and supporting the structure of the blood, and continuing to address the pathogen, yet more by subduing it than dispersing, as dispersal at this stage is further taxing to the body. Modern medicine is mostly limited to steroids (which can be viewed partly as very strong dispersing agents), and may also rely on antibiotics, yet mostly for anti-inflammatory effect and opportunistic bacterial co-infections, as they have no positive effect on viral disorders.

It stands to reason that a strong and specific antibody arsenal is quite important in avoiding serious complications and death. No doubt. That is the goal of vaccines, to directly stimulate antibody production specific to a virus (or bacteria, parasite, etc). Fair enough idea. The issue that muddles this approach is that the body has this hierarchy of immune responses we just talked about. The first is located relatively externally, at the surface. The next is midway between external and internal, the lymphatics. And only at the last stage does it really involve the blood. Now, consider the route of introduction of vaccines: an injection into the blood. This is by design, to directly engage this deepest level of immunity. The problem is that we are bypassing the first two levels.

So what, one may ask? Traditional medicine has always operated by careful observation of natural occurrences and behavior, and then by trying to go with the flow. The flow of dealing with pathogens [or really any stressor to the body or mind] is first to parry, brush off, sweat out, talk out, or otherwise externally direct it. This is the first level of immunity.

The fallback is to shunt the nuisance to the sides (where the lymphatics are located), out of the way of our direct interface with the world. Those lymphatics are the unheralded garbage handlers, mostly quietly dealing with whatever falls through the cracks (toxins, toxic thoughts or emotions, etc). This is the second level of immunity.

The last frontier is already inside. Any engagement at this level is by definition already a taxation to the inner body and circulation. Conditions that fester at this level are the world of chronic disease so prevalent in modern times. And conditions that begin at this level will tend to incite over-reaction.

Now, let’s go back to the injection. Some form of toxin is injected directly into the blood to directly engage the deepest level of immunity. This action immediately starts the antibody production. Think about this a moment. Relatively little first or second stage response is elicited, instead immediately stimulating the deepest and most sensitive aspect of our defenses.

Now consider for another moment the corresponding timeline of skyrocketing chronic immune disorders lumped into the moniker “auto-immune disease”. What is that? Well, in a nutshell, it is an over response of antibodies to a perceived threat, whether or not that threat is foreign/harmful to the body. Also consider the acute condition of “cytokine storm” prevalent in severe case of flu in recent times, leading to rapid accumulation of fluid and blood in the lungs.

Again, there are no answers coming from modern medicine as to why this is happening, and essentially no treatments other than steroids to temporarily squelch the “inflammation”. There’s that word again, and the usual response to it.

One could say that there are a growing number of people who are becoming savvy to this pattern of cause and effect, and are putting up some level of resistance, or “heat” upon the status quo medical system. And the response? Well you guessed it, squelching with anti-inflammatory propaganda, with the rigid message to tow the line in the name of care for others. The issue, really, is the level at which care is being expressed. Do we care to theoretically protect a minority of the populace from death at the expense of creating chronic disease for the majority? Do we care to spare the majority of chronic disease in favor of losing some to what may be called a natural death? Clearly, there is no “right” answer here; it is dependent upon one’s point of view.

Yet we can say this: one group’s point of view needn’t conflict with the other. In this case it is mostly a medical issue…if the public medical system is overwhelmed, there are options to change that system to adapt to modern disease patterns. The burden of change needn’t be forced upon people’s internal terrain. This should remind folks of historical precedents which are quite ugly and disgraceful. The alternative is to honor and encourage each person’s sense of personal compassion for their fellow kind, as opposed to coercion of any sort.

 

The following is a discussion of common acute respiratory ailments and their treatment with traditional Chinese herbal medicine in my clinic. A short note on prevention is added at the end. Please call with any questions and/or to purchase the herbs. All herbs are processed individually in alcohol, and then combined in my clinic to make the formulas; they are very easy to take in a small amount of water, and remain viable for at least 5 years with no refrigeration necessary.Continue reading

This first article will serve to introduce traditional Oriental Medicine as it has grown out of a particular way of looking at life. The philosophy that forms the fabric of the medicine is essentially of Far Eastern origin (including India, but traditional Indian medicine is by itself known as Ayurveda). Although there are parallels in other cultures, it is the breadth and depth of its /continuous/ expression, for over 5000 years, that provide the solid foundation for an effective and gentle medicine.Continue reading

This article and the next will serve to introduce the practice and clinical range of Oriental Medicine: what one may expect to find upon a visit to a practitioner. This, in turn, will pave the way for discussing the treatment of specific disease in subsequent articles.

First, how does someone become a practitioner of Oriental Medicine?Continue reading

This article completes the introduction to the clinical side of Oriental Medicine, briefly describing its main techniques.
Qigong (pronounced ‘chee gung’) may be used to show how relaxation and movement blend together harmoniously. Qigong basically means working consciously and patiently with life’s forces. It includes aspects of awareness, posture, and breath. Any human act that blends these things is qigong. A good practitioner will help the client become aware of ways she already does these things and work to enhance or expand them. Also qigong is an art and science itself, and can be taught for health and well-being, or prescribed to treat disease (similar to physical therapy).Continue reading

Many cultures share a long history of ‘folk’ or local usage of nature’s gifts for healing purposes. In China, however, dovetailing with this tradition has also developed a recorded system rich in theory and substance (the word ‘herbs’ as used here includes many animal and mineral products in addition to plant material). Over the centuries, the Chinese have described the natures of thousands of substances, including those imported from foreign countries. Their formal medical use has consistently been applied in formulae that treat the whole of a person’s condition, as opposed to simply matching symptoms to individual herbs. As such, Chinese herbalism forms a complete form of medicine.

The growing, harvesting, and processing of these medicinals has traditionally been regulated as a special branch of Chinese medicine requiring special knowledge and skill. Today, modern standards also apply, including laboratory screening and the push towards organic and local production. From the fields, oceans, and forests these medicinals are transported to companies, pharmacies, and also direct to practitioners for formula preparation.

Traditionally, herbs were prepared in a variety of simple ways. Most commonly, the fresh and/or dried medicinals were boiled together in water and taken as a highly concentrated tea. This method yields strong medicine that excels at ridding acute diseases, especially those of respiration and digestion.  Otherwise, they might have been dried, ground into a powder, and either taken as a draft or formed into pills with honey. This method was more suited to chronic ills that required long-term treatment. In some cases, especially those involving circulation, the herbs were extracted in alcohol or vinegar and taken as liquor. Other methods included: the simmering down of decoctions to syrups for irritated membranes like sore throats; preparation into plasters, poultices, liniments, and oils for external use on strains, fractures, and joint pain, or to heal skin conditions; and the special extraction of volatile oils for aromatherapy.

All of these methods are still in use today. A visit to a typical Chinese Pharmacy, usually found in urban centers in the US, will provide a lively view of this world of medicine. One will see Chinese doctors diagnosing clients, pharmacists weighing out raw herbs for home brewing, and a host of pre-prepared products. Most non-Asian Americans, however, do not visit these herb shops, excepting practitioners. And it is increasingly rare, even for Asian- Americans, to smell the distinct aroma of simmering Chinese herbs wafting from the kitchen.

More often, clients receive a diagnosis from a private practitioner, or even self-diagnose from a common source on Chinese medicine, and purchase patent type formulae in pill, powder, or extract form for easy digestion. These formulae are available from these Chinese pharmacies, from practitioners themselves, and increasingly from common grocery stores as well. They are usually time-honored prescriptions that treat general patterns of disharmony matched as closely as possible to the client’s presentation. Unfortunately, there is little room for improvisation to the person’s unique presentation and to the natural flux of disease. Along with this trend has also ebbed traditional home care with poultices, washes, steams, and especially remedial cooking.

To counter this situation, some practitioners are making use of herbs processed as single powders or liquid extracts, and then combining these as custom formulae for the client. This practice more closely resembles the traditional way, and lends itself to a closer relationship between the client and doctor, leading to better results with minimal side effects.

Indeed, the methods of traditional Chinese medicine differ greatly from those of the modern western medicine, including western herbalism and naturopathy. They deserve special focus for an adequate appreciation of their art and science. We will devote next month’s article to this topic, differentiating East from West, and illustrating how each is put into practice.

 

This month, we illustrate the method of Chinese herbalism with a clinical case of the flu, and compare this approach with common western ways of treatment.Continue reading

This last article on Chinese Herbs will describe in general how they are prescribed, and define their role within the contemporary medical world. Last month, we saw how a specific case of the flu might be handled with Chinese Herbs versus the commercial use of herbs and pharmaceuticals. Continue reading

In this article and the next, we will explore the art and science of acupuncture from its roots in qigong. Acupuncture is a branch of traditional Oriental medicine that works with the physical body, yet affects the function of the person as a whole: body, mind, and spirit. What does this mean, and how is it so? Continue reading