For quite a while now, I have been suggesting that people get more fibre in their diet.  So, how can we do that in one hit in our busy climate and adhere to the principles of a modified mediterranean way of eating at the same time?

Current dietary recommendations suggest that females get around 25-28 grams of fibre a day and males around 35 grams.  There is also some suggestion that in millennia gone by, we ate closer to 100 grams per day.  This amount may not be as appropriate today because our gut microbiome has changed, but I would suggest that the recommended amounts are the minimum that we need for optimal health.

So, in the spirit of deliciousness, here’s what I’d recommend for a high fibre, dairy-free, gluten-free, low to moderate carb option: porridge.  In winter, eat this hot and in summer, it’ll keep in the fridge for a day or two.

The recipe:

2 tablespoons flax seeds (ground up — buy them like this or better, use a coffee grinder to pulverise whole seeds.  This is essential because the seed coating is resistant to human digestion).
2 tablespoons chia seeds
2 teaspoons psyllium fibre
2 tablespoons lupin flakes (https://thelupinco.com.au) 
​1 scoop pea protein powder (Coles homebrand is fine — get from health food section)
2 teaspoons olive oil
1 teaspoon organic turmeric powder (Coles homebrand - health food section)
3-4 grinds of pepper
Spices to taste — cinnamon / cardamom / nutmeg / ground cloves ….
Honey or Stevia (proper organic stevia from a health food store only) to taste
Add some blueberries / raspberries / or pomegranate seeds —  maximum of half a cup
1 packet of konjac rice — get from Coles.  If you omit this, add an extra tablespoon of chia seeds and lupin flakes to make up the fibre content.

You could added some other seeds like pepitas or sunflower seeds which are high in fibre,  Just chew them well so they break down.

Use some non-dairy milk and water to mix to your desired consistency.

Instead of spices, half the time I grind up a mixture of dried herbs in the coffee grinder that I get in bulk from the health food store.  The herbs I choose are for liver health (plus other things) and include:  1 tablespoon each of nettle / lemon balm / lemon myrtle / thyme / lavender.  

This may make one or two servings depending on your want?!

You’ll need to drink extra water during the day so it doesn’t gum you up.

See how you go?!

Be well.

In a recent paper titled COVID-19 Vaccine Frontrunners and Their Nanotechnology Design, the authors make the introductory statements:
​
Moderna reached clinical trials 63 days after their sequence selection. It is striking that an unestablished nanotechnology formulation reached clinical testing almost a full month before established approaches (ie, inactivated and live-attenuated vaccines) entered clinical trials.

And, ...

It is also of note that in previous severe coronavirus outbreaks of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV clinical trials were not reached until 25 and 22 months after the outbreaks began.

And, ...

The improved speed into clinical trials is hopeful, but despite the rapid progress, there are still reasons for concern.
​
The fact is, vaccine development does not happen overnight. They must be preventative but also risk-free. Most substances are given to unwell patients, but vaccines are dispensed to healthy individuals and so necessitate an extremely high protective promise.

The current SARS CoV 2 vaccines are emergency use drugs and have bypassed usual developmental methodology.  It is important to note, because it has previously been shown with other respiratory type viruses (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, RSV and measles) that antibodies produced can intensify disease ferocity via antibody dependant enhancement (this means the infection can get worse or the intensity of the immune response can be overwhelming).

The Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are ‘nanotechnologies’ and these have not been proven before in clinical environments. In fact, this technology (called an mRNA vaccine) has been researched and tested for 30 years but never been approved.

Every virus is contrasting so there isn’t one perfect solution for all infections. Even within this single SARS-CoV 2 virus some hugely infected people are asymptomatic while others become critical. The enormous inconsistency may infer that a vaccine will not deliver consistent or prolonged immunity in all?

​The Questions ...

One of the major questions is what type of immune response in needed to guard against the virus?

At this point in time, we don’t know definitively. This should be somewhat of a concern given that we now have two (in Australia) vaccines available designed to produce a response without knowing if it the specific response we need.

In the entire history of vaccines, there has only ever been one that has eradicated a disease: the smallpox vaccine.  Some have come close, but eradication is evasive: polio, measles and mumps ...
Respiratory viruses, as the SARS-CoV 2 is, are particularly hard to vaccinate for, despite heavy efforts to manufacture a vaccine. This is partly because the airways and lungs are not an enclosed environment and can’t be protected as can cervical cancer, for example. With respiratory viruses you can be continuously exposed to the infection, in theory.

Most vaccines are delivered by intramuscular injection, and as such, they produce an antibody response that is better developed in the blood (called IgM or IgG responses). The type of protection we need on the mucosal surfaces of the lungs is an IgA response, which is minimal with intramuscular vaccines. At this point in time, there are other vaccines in trials that are looking at improving the IgA response, but this is not the mechanism of the vaccines that are on offer in Australia.

SARS-CoV 2 is different for a respiratory virus because it hitches to a receptor called the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).  This receptor is found in almost all organs but particularly on the surfaces of the lungs and the digestive system, along with the brain. Hence, this particular virus damages at sites distal to its entry point. This is why it can have such destructive and broad effects. Predominantly, it hangs around in respiratory, circulatory, nervous and urogenital systems and why it’s responsible for many varied symptoms. Much of the pathology here, outside of the airway, is defended by IgG antibody responses, and this is the target of the vaccines we now have. This is vital to note, because the vaccine is not designed to promote an IgA response, and therefore, it’s not designed to prevent infection or its transmission in the airways.

This is one of the issues that hasn’t been addressed by governments or chief health officers. If the vaccine isn’t designed to prevent positive tests, do we shut down a city or state again when someone tests positive, as they will?

So, what is different about the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines compared to traditional vaccines?

Both rely on nanoparticle technology.  These nanoparticles are of the same proportions as the virus. As such, it confers an ability to enter cells as the virus would. Nanoparticles encapsulate the nuclear material (mRNA for Pfizer and DNA for AstraZeneca) and adjuvants for use of the immune system once inside the target cells.

Once inside the nucleus of the cell, the lab formulated genetic material from the virus is incorporated with our genetic material to produce an inert viral protein that our cells recognise as foreign and subsequently mounts an immune response.

Different nanoparticles are available. In the case of Pfizer, they use lipid (fats) nanoparticles (LNPs) and for AstraZeneca, they use another virus (which comes from chimps. It can enter human cells but seems to be inert once inside).

Older types of vaccines would have used actual live or dead virus.

What about the issue of adjuvants?

Adjuvants are immunostimulatory molecules that are designed to annoy the inflammatory and immune systems to hopefully produce a heightened response to vaccine stimulation. The issue here is that many adjuvants have earlier not passed muster due to toxicity pitfalls. In the past, and at times today, the adjuvants in vaccines include molecules like mercury and aluminium. These have no business being in the human body.

Where the Australia’s available vaccines should potentially improve their efficacy is that when encapsulated in nanoparticles, both viral nucleic material and adjuvants should reach their target destination cells. This serves multiple purposes that other types of vaccines don’t.

Firstly, it means that adjuvants aren’t as likely wander off and affect other cells. If you are targeting lung cells, you don’t want the adjuvants backstroking towards the brain, for example.

Secondly, it may mean that the amount of adjuvant is less because you don’t have to account for the loose amount that wanders off, reducing its effectiveness.

Thirdly, the adjuvant is less likely to degrade along its journey, also reducing its effectiveness.

Fourthly, if the antigen (here, nucleic material) and the adjuvant arrive at the target cells at different times, it can set up an autoimmune response where we react against our cells (self-antigens) if these other cells, rather than the target cells,  have taken up the adjuvant.

This type of nanoparticle delivery process is already utilised with common supplements or formulas you may have taken.  For example, liposomal vitamin C or Mutaflor (an Iron formula), in which the iron molecule is attached to a sugar molecule for ease of absorption.

Another possible positive for this nanoparticle process is that the smaller molecules can also move through the spaces between cells, where other larger, non-nanoparticle vaccines cannot. Material in these spaces is picked up by the lymphatic system rather than the circulatory system. The lymphatic system is vital to our immune response whereby certain cells in the lymphatic system called antigen presenting cells take the antigen (inert viral material) to the lymph nodes to meet other immune cells which go on to stimulate much longer lasting immune responses (sometimes years, although we’re not sure this is the case yet with SARS-CoV 2?).

Although this may be seen as a positive, what is not talked about is that if viral material can be delivered to the lymphatic system, then so can the adjuvants. If we react to the adjuvants then this is a problem, because as many of you will know, once something is in the lymphatic system (like cancer), it can end up creating a problem anywhere.

So, while nanoparticle technology would seem to be a safer, more efficient way of delivering a vaccine, there are issues as noted in the previous paragraph.

So, what are they adjuvants in the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines?

Only 29 of the 202 companies that applied to produce a vaccine made it through the initial standards to start trials. Of these companies, very few have released their initial data on safety and ability to produce an immune response.

To get the viral material into the cellular mechanism, amongst others, Pfizer has used lipid nanoparticles cholesterol, phosphatidylcholine and polyethylene glycol-lipid.  They did not list all the LNPs they used.  There is no indication from Pfizer that they did or did not use adjuvants.  However, they do mention that the viral material can act as an adjuvant and there is increasing use of certain LNPs themselves as adjuvants.  This would seem to be better than, say, mercury.

Early trials did not list any severe reactions, but common adverse events included headache, fever and pain. Note here that Pfizer was judging its response on IgG mediated assays, which, as already mentioned, is not aimed at preventing infection or transmission of coronavirus.

The AstraZeneca vaccine doesn’t mention whether it used an adjuvant. It only tested for an IgG response and its adverse events were listed as pain, fatigue and headache.

Of the 29 listed trial participants, only 4 companies directly mention the use of adjuvants. The rest? Do they or don’t they?

Part of the problem with both vaccines is that limited information is available. Many researchers and scientists outside of the company bubble are guessing at the possible mechanisms of function.

Adjuvants should be fully and specifically listed. According to an article in Frontiers in Immunology titled Adjuvants for Coronavirus it is written:

Aluminium salt-based adjuvants (alum) were the first adjuvants used in licensed human vaccines. They are still the most widely used because of their wide-spectrum ability to strengthen immune responses and their excellent track record of safety.  In limited coronavirus vaccine studies, it has been suggested that neutralizing antibody against the spike protein might be mechanistically correlated with immune protection. When alum was formulated with S protein or receptor- binding domain (RBD), it significantly enhanced humoral immune responses. This was demonstrated by higher titres of serum IgG1, increased high affinity viral neutralising antibodies, and the generation of long-lasting memory B cells in mice.

The Pfizer vaccine uses the S protein / RBD mechanism for its action, but it doesn’t it doesn’t say whether it does or doesn’t use aluminium as a adjuvant?

Mentioned above in the Pfizer vaccine ingredient list is the lipid nanoparticle polyethylene glycol. Whilst it is not a heavy metal adjuvant like mercury or aluminium, please read the following article elsewhere in this newsletter:

Immediate Hypersensitivity to Polyethylene Glycols and Polysorbates: More Common Than We Have Recognized.

This article highlight just a few of the questions that should be asked about when making this important decision.  Unfortunately, it’s not the kind of information you are likely to get via many of the media outlets we utilise.  It’s important to be informed.

​Be well.

Polyethylene glycols (PEG) have many and varied uses in medical and commercial environments.  

They are commonly used as carrier molecules in liquid or solid type medications.  It is used to conjugate (bind) with medications to improve their efficiency, their effectiveness and ability to generate an immune response.

It is a petroleum based product, although more natural forms have been developed.  It has been banned from organic cosmetic products in the EU.

In the US, it is used as the primary component in oral bowel preparation formulas for colonoscopy.

In recent times, focus has been on its role in anaphylaxis to bowel prep liquids.  There seems to be insufficient understanding of its reactive capability in medications.  There have been reports of multiple skin related exposures to topical creams containing PEG.

Gastrointestinal exposure is suggested to cause reactions in those with already impaired mucosal barriers.  In general, impaired epithelial lining of the gut and blood vessels (here called endothelium) is thought to be one of the factors associated with the co-morbidities of CoV-19.

At this point in time, it is important to know that the mechanism of action is not well understood.

It may be relevant to note that PEG is being used as a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) to help increase the efficacy of the current Pfizer vaccination.  Part of its role may be to act as a adjuvant to provoke the tissue into a heightened inflammatory or immune response?

​Be well.

By the way, if you’d like to read more (and I suggest you do!) have a look at the following:

The Dirty Dozen: PEG Compounds and their contaminants
Safety Evaluation of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Compounds for Cosmetic Use
​Probable neuropsychiatric toxicity of polyethylene glycol: roles of media, internet and the caregivers

​In the end, these co-morbid conditions all share similar causes.  Different lifestyles, genetic predispositions,  environmental factors and other facets then go on to determine which disease these factors manifest into.  So, the real question becomes, how do we prevent the inflammation, the oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage, the immune storms and the breakdown of detoxification pathways?  These are all upstream questions and solutions as opposed to a downstream solution like vaccinations.  Downstream solutions ignore the causes and focus on the symptoms. Meanwhile, the upstream causes are free to cause further damage.

Very few are championing the simple solutions which prevent these co-morbid and upstream cellular issues.  What would happen if we ate less sugar and processed foods?  What if we lost weight?  What if we stopped overeating?  What if we got more exercise? Or more sun?  What if we learned to meditate?  Reduce stress? What if we stopped over-prescription of synthetic medications? What if we mandated organic farming and made it cheaper?  What if we drank more water? What if we consumed more vegetables and less meat?

The research is all out there.  The problem is, on average, it takes 17 years for published research to become mainstream teaching and indoctrinated into clinical practice.  We don’t have that long.  The next health pandemic will be around the corner - same dog, different leg.

I would implore everyone to become educated on CV and walk with caution through the mainstream narrative.  Unless you are reading the original research, don’t take second hand information as truth.  I appreciate it is hard to resource correct scientific information and often, even harder to understand.  If you have any questions around the CV and preventative health, I would be happy to address them in articles like this or on Paragon’s Wellness Wall facebook page.
 
Be well.

It’s a conversation I have a couple of times a week in the clinic: ‘What can I do’? Sometimes it’s about self-improvement or bigger aspects like climate change. Lately, of course, it’s been about CV. The statement is usually accompanied by resignation and possibly, ‘it’s too hard’ or ‘I’m just one person.’

There’s generally a fear of moving against the tide and speaking up, or of being too busy.

I could answer this many ways, but here’s my take on it ... and it speaks to who we are, down deep and to the frequency that we generate and emit to the world. The tipping point all starts with you.

We all need to do what we can. We all need to play our part. Most of us were not born to change the world on our own, but all of us were born to fulfill our potential: to be happy, to love, to contribute. 
(Actually, I believe we are already filled to the brim with our ‘potential’. Our journey is to recover who we already are: our state of being. To truly ‘be’, does have the power to change the world).

In this particular context, I am going to say the greatest source of unhappiness is not being able to like oneself. Here, happiness implies that we have self-worth or value that we attribute to ourselves and not attributed to recognition by others. It would follow then, that ‘I am of benefit to the community’ or ‘I am of benefit to another’ may be the sole thing that allows us to appreciate our worth?

As mentioned, a consequential matter here is that contribution to others does not imply it is on display for others to see.

One of the reasons for my being in this lifetime is to recognise that the only tasks I have are my own and not to take on other people’s roles. Also, it is not for people to impose their roles upon me.

So, it is not for me to decide if my contributions are helpful. That is for others to decide and it’s not for me to interfere. In fact, there have been thousands of times in my career when I have not known if I’ve made a contribution! But, I centre myself with the knowledge that my contribution does not have to be evident. All we need is the is the internal sense that ‘I am of benefit to another’ or more specifically, a consciousness of contribution.

In short, happiness and peace are the consciousness of contribution.

People, in general, seek recognition. Today, more so than ever before. I believe it’s because people want to have regard for themselves. They want to feel valued or that they have value. Recognition becomes a yardstick for contribution. Conversely, if people don’t get recognised, they stop contributing in the end. This cannot be our fate. Because if we fail to act, for our self-improvement, climate change or the deeper issues behind global health, we will have zero choice but to swim with the current of other’s wishes, opinions or social norms.

If we want to change ourselves, our relationships or the world, there is no freedom in the desire that the change must be a grand gesture and be something that is seen, influences thousands or gains recognition. Freedom is only achieved through happiness (which is only defined by the self and not others) and contribution.

A true sense of contribution means that you will have no need of recognition from other sources but will come from the sensibility of knowing ‘I have been of worth to someone or something’. Ultimately, the feeling of contribution creates a sense of community, whether it’s a community of two, or a community of millions. I think this is part of our process of evolution, this community feel and our ability to contribute to it. If we are individually going to have a sense of belonging, which I think we a desperately seeking, then ‘community’ and ‘contribution’ are vital. 

So, ok ... the bare bones. We don’t need big, grand gestures to feel we are contributing. Most of it will go unnoticed and the important thing is our ‘consciousness of contribution’ and to know that we ‘are of worth’. It may not mean that today you planted a grove of trees or you got arrested at a climate change rally or sharing your thought over a beer with the Deli Lama was really worth the trip. It may simply mean that you decided these thoughts were worth passing on in an email to others? Who knows? Maybe your email goes down the line 100 times? What a contribution you facilitated! And without recognition!

The point of this article is that for us to change the world, we start by changing who we are. 
We learn self-acceptance: that is ok and valuable to be who we are and that we are immeasurable just as we are. 

We learn to have confidence in others: unconditional belief that others with do the right thing, even when they don’t! Doubt will keep us right where we are.

We contribute to others: we develop self-worth and a sense of community in our interpersonal relationships (near and far). Keep to your own tasks and don’t take on those of others. It’s ok to sever ties with those who interfere with yours (this circles back to self-acceptance).

If we can achieve this (or even some of it), we become those who people want to be near or listen to. This is not the aim, but a consequence. See you at the tipping point!

​Be well.

This is an article I posted towards the end of last year on a private Facebook page for my patients called the Wellness Wall.  It was in response to sentiment at the time.  I thought I’d share it here.  It’s called ...

         The Tide and Tipping Point of Public Opinion (And how YOU can change the world)

At some point in 2020, have you ever wondered ‘how we got here’? Obviously, the CV king tide washed in but here I’m talking about the social, cultural, economic oil-slick that came with it.

The social changes we now swim in are constant. This year, the current has been fierce and sadly, too strong for many. Some who drowned were competent swimmers but were caught unprepared. Many in Australia needed lifejackets. Most telling is the number of people who couldn’t swim. Most of us headed for higher ground and are waiting for the tide to recede. Some built boats and sold them to others: they’ve done quite well.

Social change, civil unrest, inequality, injustice and climate change were in-your-face apparent before this year ever happened. Think revolution, demonstrations and protests in Hong Kong, France and the United States and across the world.

But I’ve been intrigued by the flow of public opinion this year. How easy has it been for people to take up a cause, when the cause hasn’t been based on fact. I’m intrigued about how the thoughts of many have been controlled by the machinations of the few. Rather than a narrative based on research and fact, we have been drowning in a sea of fear and vested opinions and directives.

I read a study last week that may shed some light on how this happens and ironically, how the same methods may get us moving again. The question that the paper asked was, ‘what percentage of a population does a minority have to reach the reverse or sway the majority viewpoint?’ The tipping point, they ascertained, is only 25%. At that percentage and above, the contrarians (I love that word) converted 72 to 100 percent of their target groups and before the minority started their intervention, the group/s were in 100% in accordance with their initial stance.

They found a 24% or less minority changed nothing (actually, the maximum change in opinion was 6% at minorities of this size).

Based on computer modelling, they predicted minorities of 25% or more would have an effect of a population up to or at least, 100,000 people.

What tips the scale?

Part of the problem in trying to change opinion is that, on a larger scale, you may never actually realise when you have a 25% committed minority, and many apparently give up without knowing they may be a few percent away from achieving the goal.

They were unwavering. They wholeheartedly expressed new habits or suggestions and constantly exposed others to it until they started to replicate the actions.

It helps to have a lack of competing minorities which dilutes opinion. This, it’s said, may be part of the problem today, where rather than two or three opinions (or groups), we have multiple competing interests as part of the modern trends towards individualistic viewpoints.

It helps to have regular contact with other members of the minority. This is important even when there is a critical mass.

Whether you’re in a business or part of a social change in the larger community, people spend time trying to align with other people and demonstrate etiquette that shows you’re part of the gang. This has the capacity to lift a business up, or bring one down. All you need is a strong minority. Alternatively, the minority can be non-caring as long as they are steadfast in their apathy.

The study also mentions the online environment, particularly because it’s possible to have a significant number of exchanges, including those you’d not normally meet or influence.

Finally, consider this: can a robot represent a member of a committed minority? Can robots actually drive the change to influence real people? According to the study, ‘In a space where people can’t distinguish people from bots, yes. If you get a concerted, focused effort by a group of agents acting as a minority view, they can be really effective.’

The real point of this article is in support those of us who have been feeling overwhelmed and without a voice in recent times. Part of my purpose in starting the Wellness Wall was to respond to the sentiment I hear and feel within the clinic. For most of us, our purpose isn’t to change the world by ourselves. But I think it is part of our purpose to do everything that we can do to aid a healthy collective consciousness. Know that we have a voice and together, perhaps we form a strong and healthy minority?

​Be well.

​The first thing I want to say, is that I sincerely hope that you are doing fine?  We are at a crossroads in history and the knock-on effects from SARS CoV 2 will likely travel as both waves and ripples across life as we know it from now on.  
 
There are many ways to examine SARS CoV 2 but the issue concerning me at the moment is the social isolation that has been forced upon us.
 
Now, the circumstances around SARS CoV 2 are a serious issue, but just as in treatment sessions with you, I often pause to feel the path of least resistance within a problem, and this morning, I decided to embody the spirit of Steve McQueen.  I was thinking about the greatest self-imposed or imposed isolation movies of all time and added the ‘Great Escape’ to that list (is that irony?)
 
Take a moment to escape the gravitas of the Corona virus and imbibe the Steve McQueen cool.  Double click on the clip and cue the theme music ...

So, you’ll still be here when I get out, right?
 
The social isolation that has been forced upon us is a serious issue.  Despite having a more than reasonable understanding of the immune system and virology and having had to accept the mandate around social distancing, it is still perturbing for me, as a human being, to remain isolated for months and to have people jump back when they suddenly realise I’m in the vicinity or to be faced with the open palm upon approach; and to have to deal with the defensively raised voice and the constant wide-eyed analysis over what you’re next move might be in the shopping isle.  Little things they might be, but they have a snowballing effect on your psyche.
 
When you spend time exploring the plethora of research papers comparing social isolation with various health issues and outcomes, you realise the magnitude of this situation.  To be fair, there is research arguing both sides of the coin:  social isolation does and does not affect health outcomes.  However, the majority of evidence ups in favour of poorer health for those that are isolated.  Most of us will not need to read through research statistics to know this.
 
It doesn’t matter whether the outcomes are emotional, mental physical or otherwise.  When you analyse all-cause morbidity (this means it doesn’t matter what you die from), those that are socially isolated die sooner within a given time frame than those who have regular social contact.  You can smoke, drink, have high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease – it doesn’t matter what you die from, you are much more likely to die earlier than if you have these issues but maintain your connections.
 
The following points I wish to stress here are highlighted in an article - Social Isolation: A Predictor of Mortality Comparable to Traditional Clinical Risk Factors (2013).
 

• Social isolation factors predicted mortality at hazard ratio levels similar to or higher than those of several standard clinical risk factors.  The paper goes on to suggest that social isolation affects mortality just as much as smoking and more than other clinical benchmarks, including ethnicity, age, education levels, and income.

 

• In models comparing social isolation variables, unmarried status and infrequent religious activity are predictive of mortality in both men and women.

 

• A lack of group memberships predicted mortality amongst men and infrequent social contact predicted mortality amongst women.

 

• A point to note: amongst socially isolated people, only smoking and high blood pressure were (constantly) predictive of mortality amongst other variables measured.  Obesity and cholesterol levels were not.

 
The point we have to understand here in relation to SARS CoV 2, is that social isolation affects your health.  Does this matter?  You bet.
 
The paper Social regulation of gene expression in human leukocytes (2007) clearly highlights some of the biological mechanisms produced by social isolation.  For example, gene expression alters when you are socially isolated.  This means the make-up of your genes change such they (and therefore, your cells and organs) produce different by-products or that they don’t produce their normal by-products at all.  To be specific:
 

• Isolated individuals had greater expression of genes producing pro-inflammatory cytokine signalling and prostaglandin synthesis.  In short, you house more inflammation.  If prolonged, it’s a sure pathway towards autoimmune issues and chronic disease.

 

• Isolated people had under-expression of genes related to antiviral resistance, antibody production and lymphocyte function.  This last sentence is worth reading again.

 
My point here is that there is a cost-benefit analysis to be done comparing protective biological mechanisms with social isolation.  I haven’t even touched on the mental and emotional issues, but they need to be included here, as well.  
 
This is just information, but information is power.  What you do with it is up to you.  My goal here is to have people think, and when it comes down to it, make informed decisions for the greater good around the Corona Virus.
 
I have noticed in my clinic, that people want to talk about the Corona Virus.  People NEED to talk about it.  VENT about it, even.  Whilst people are towing the isolation line, there is a sense of fear, frustration and a lack of trust.  People have questions.  And rightly so!
 
So, stay connected.  Observe reasonable and common-sense restrictions but stay connected with what it means to be human.  Get out and get some sun and exercise.  You can still exercise with another.  Grab a coffee on the way back.  Be in touch. Don’t give in to the fear.  Encourage others to do the same.  
 
I’ll still be here when you get back!

Whether or not you believe or participate in such things New Year’s resolutions or Valentine’s Day, I think they at least offer a chance to ponder and reassess life for ourselves. 

If I were to ask you, what resolutions you made for this year and you were to reply that you didn’t, perhaps because you don’t believe in them, that’s fair enough.  But, do you consider why?  Why don’t people keep resolutions?  Why don’t you keep them? What’s the deeper perspective?  What can be learnt from this perspective?  

Now, this may seem like it’s taking up too much hard drive space six beers deep on New Year’s Eve, but it has wider implications for our evolution and survival as a species and for our planet. 

We tend to define socio-cultural aspects in relation to decades, so I spent some time recently contemplating the 10’s and wondered what the next decade will bring?  Aside from deciding what I will wear to avoid embarrassment in decades to come (back to short shorts, guys, really?) I explored the current reality we are facing as individuals and collectively.  Our health is intrinsically linked with a global reality, and our reality is the world is becoming more unstable and unsustainable.  But, we do have a choice to invest in a hazy, dysfunctional world or a new one full of possibility?

Very recently I read the pleas of an author who, in 2007, recognised that life as we know it in ecological, economic, social, political and cultural arenas, had reached a fatal tipping point.  Change now or perish was the message.  Some 13 years on, I wondered what that author thought and felt of the world today?  Was he happy?  Have we done well?  Was his warning heeded?  The author’s name is Ervin Lazlo.  Ever heard of him?  He has written 83 books and twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize.

In 2017, Professor Stephen Hawking stated humans needed to colonise a new planet and soon.  We had around 100 years to keep our species alive.  His expanded theory is that the chance of disaster on Earth adds up over time and because we’ve been relatively disaster-free, it’s a near certainty to happen.  He had originally stated we had 1000 to 10,000 years but revised it down to 100 years to establish life on another planet and 600 years before we had to leave earth.   He said, ‘With climate change, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our own planet is increasingly precarious.’ 

In an interview with the BBC, Hawking also said, ‘ I fear evolution has inbuilt greed and aggression into the human genome.’  

I believe there is a growing tendency for our lives to be veiled in a fearful and dramatic energy.  I don’t watch the popular news for these reasons.  With the rise of social media the term ‘disaster fatigue’ has arisen, highlighting our loss of motivation due to prolonged exposure of news coverage.  It’s important to recognise this fear factor in our immediate lives and lives at large and make a choice to move beyond it.   From a health perspective, fear is at the base of many illnesses and pain.  It starts early in life and is exacerbated by our experiences and environment.  I believe most of our search for meaning involves shedding these fears to reestablish our true sense of self that we came into the world with before it was bombarded with fears and threats to our survival.  There are enough fear based situations in our early lives that we already take on as part of who we are.  These don’t need to be accentuated by social and environmental factors as we grow older.  Conversely, we also don’t want to make individual contributions to a global consciousness of fear, because it affects entire countries and the planet as a whole.

Anyone who doubts the planet, and therefore our health, is changing, needs to get seriously invested.  The fact that our lives and the climate are changing, is beyond doubt.  The debate seems to exist around whether this is a natural cycle of things or whether we as humans, are contributing or causing this?  The earth is now the warmest it’s been in 120,000 years.  Part of the consequence of this is rising carbon dioxide concentrations.  However, are we as a species contributing to this?  The answer is yes.  For example, 18 of the last 19 years have been the warmest on record and concentrations of carbon dioxide are the highest they’ve been in millions of years.  Despite attempts to reduce carbon footprints, in 2018 carbon dioxide emissions rose 3.4 percent in the US over the year prior.

We, in Australia, don’t need to look to far afield to notice the effects of climate change.  This summer, the devastating effects of a significant proportion of the country being on fire has been overwhelming.  The collective response by everyday Australians to disaster relief has been outstanding.  I believe this is in large part because it’s who we are as a nation, but also because so very many have been unable to escape some personal association, whether it be because of the heat levels this summer, the sensationally poor air quality and smoke laden skies, the lack of rain, dust storms, reduced crop availability in supermarkets or rising vegetable prices … 

What if, in the near future, you order your morning latte and your barista says to you, ‘that’ll be $20 thanks’, will you hand it over?  Currently 60% of the planet’s wild coffee species are facing extinction due to disease and pests (higher temperatures), climate change and deforestation.  Whilst it hasn’t yet affected the world’s coffee supply, it’s likely it will.  This will imply developing (genetically modifying) the coffee bean to resist the consequences of these changes.  You may still be able to get your fix, but just not as nature intended.

Change is no longer something that may happen in the future,  It is here now and we are experiencing it on a daily basis in one form or another.  Change is not an option and it’s something that you and I have to make a reality for not only for generational survival but for our current state of health.  To assume that things will take their course and be ok, is suicidal. 

Please think about this as we begin our new decade.

​
​                                                To be, or not to be: that is the question:
                                                Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
                                                The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
                                                Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
                                                And by opposing end them?