Content Sections
By Rob Verkerk PhD, founder, executive and scientific director
At ANH, for around 15 years now, we’ve been pushing out, in your direction, two pieces of content every week, along with an international news roundup. Then there’s all the information we also release via social media and our practitioner channels. Over the last year, we’ve added more video content with the help of our inhouse multimedia expert, Ellen, in keeping with the growing popularity of video as a communication medium.
But while we do all that, there’s a huge amount that goes on behind the scenes that we don’t publicise. That includes the work we do to keep the natural health sector (in the UK, Europe and beyond) from the ravages of over-zealous regulators, misinformed and mischief-making press reporters and protective business forces, notably those closely associated with Big Pharma.
We don’t often publicise this information because it’s simply too sensitive to be put into the public domain. It would give those forces intent on curtailing the development of natural health more grist for the mill, more rope with which to hang the very natural health sector that we so passionately support and promote. So we keep it under wraps.
Connecting dots, framing pictures
This brings me to the main purpose for this blog which is motivated by a degree of frustration. Our thoughts, feelings, ideas and belief systems are inevitably framed by the experiences we’ve accrued, the information we’ve received and our ability to use our frontal lobes to rationalise this net experience and information.
If we can’t tell you – our long-suffering supporters – about the inside track of everything we do, the challenges we face, and our victories and losses along the way, how are you to really appreciate just how uncertain the future of natural healthcare is?
The grim reality of the effects of incomplete information has hit me hard these last few days and weeks. I’m reminded of the plethora of different views about whether Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal is better or worse for the future of the UK and Ireland. The British people and even families and spouses are split on the issue. Or we can ponder on whether Donald Trump’s decision to withhold US aid to the Ukraine after he alleged wrongdoing by Hunter Biden is an impeachable offence.
Nearly all of us have an incomplete picture of these kinds of events. Yet our desire to apply logic and rationality to the world we perceive means we are compelled to join whatever dots we do have to make some kind of a picture that at least makes sense to us. The result of our unique experiences and different information and backgrounds means that we all create different pictures. Sometimes, the picture created by a friend, a political commentator or someone we respect like our family doctor seems more complete than ours and we decide it’s better to adjust our views to this new, apparently more enlightened, perspective. Other times we reject it because there seems to be an inconsistent logic to the view – it simply doesn’t make sense to us. However we see these issues, many of us, as social beings, like to be part of a group. So we seek out others who share the same world view, that being the basis of groups as diverse as political parties, special interest groups or hobbyists.
Fear ain’t no fad
Another part of our inheritance that has helped us get at least this far is our response to fear. Many people are driven by it, or should I say, away from it. A sense of fear is hard-wired into us and our amygdala is on constant lookout to keep us safe. The trouble is our response to fear, being located in a more primitive part of our brain, is not necessarily rational. Fear concerns our uncertainty about the future – be it near or far.
If we are fearful about a world in which everyone is subjugated to a healthcare system that dispenses little more than new-to-nature drugs to treat the symptoms of disease and recombinant DNA vaccines loaded with chemical adjuvants that risk exposing our children to unpredictable harms, we might feel we need to do everything we can to keep open health choices that involve other, more natural ways of staying healthy. Conversely, if we interpret these very same interventions as life-saving, we’ll do everything to protect them. Few of us have exhaustive information one way or another so it’s hard to make any one view stick with everyone.
If we are fearful about being ruled by an unelected executive that loads us down with red tape and limits our freedoms, we may see fit to walk away from the EU. If we are concerned that a ‘no deal’ Brexit is akin to pushing ourselves off a cliff and it will cause insurmountable hardship, job losses, price rises and environmental destruction, we may think it better to stick with the devil we know. Or perhaps lobby for a more democratic or proportionate way of governing half a billion people across the EU.
When we reject something that has had a major influence on our lives we need to fill the vacuum. This is how Obama was replaced by Trump, or May by Johnson. Because we don’t have very much information about the uncharted waters into which we are now driven by our fear, we can create an idealised picture that seems better than the one that’s been up on our mind’s wall for some time and has begun to fade or deteriorate.
Nature rules
It’s here that I come full circle back to the subject of my real passion: living naturally and sustainably with and alongside Nature. The majority of people on our delicate planet, so it seems, have not really come to terms with the extent to which our genes, physiology, metabolism and behaviours are adapted to the world that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution some 200 years ago.
Popping a pill for an ill seems quite a natural thing to do, yet it’s so unnatural. Despite copious information suggesting that this method of healthcare contributes to the third leading cause of death, so many still see this as our best available option – the mainstay of healthcare. Despite its clear risks, it feels like the way forward, because it’s endorsed by everyone from our local family doctor through to our governments. That means we can blur out any of the rough edges in our own pictures and coalesce our own vision with those with which we entrust our health or our sense of security in what might otherwise be an anarchical world.
Hope in the empowerment of youth
Yesterday I spoke to a group of students about how they can take control of their lives. How they can work with the 12 domains of health we describe in our blueprint and optimise function across multiple systems and so elevate their level of health without needing to rely on pills from their doctors. Whenever I do something like this and I witness the reaction and sense of empowerment that it instils, I see hope.
When the stories of the incredibly positive experiences of natural approaches to health among a critical number of us reaches a tipping point, the change that so many of us have been looking to see in our lifetimes will come to pass.
These areas of natural health and medicine will continue to be regarded as areas of emerging science for some time because research investment is hard to come by given the prevailing business models. That means we will find it difficult to draw pictures that are agreeable to our opponents. We simply don’t have enough dots to change their minds.
But the power of experience and story is here today. Taking a leaf out of a widely held view about Brexit, originated of course by Nike, let’s "just do it”.
Comments
your voice counts
Ruth Templeton www.dinutrigen.com
24 October 2019 at 10:26 am
As ever, a well written and thought-provoking piece. Whilst it might sometimes feel as though the effort is akin to turning the Titanic, I do have the optimistic belief that with each step forward, more and more are beginning to recognise the validity, relevance and value in what we do - so keep going! A great read Rob, thank you.
Melissa Smith http://www.anhinternational.org
24 October 2019 at 3:30 pm
Thank you for your comment and support Ruth. We truly appreciate it without which our job would be that much harder.
Brian Steere http://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.co.uk/
24 October 2019 at 10:39 am
Seeking communication rather than agreement would pivot us back to honouring and acknowledging differences instead of persisting in a battle of judgements asserted as fact.
For my part the key dissociation from reality is where the mind is invoked to override the heart's recognition - which is always subject specific to a mental substitution of diversion and displacement. When fear conflicts the heart of the power of accepted decision, a mind of rules and conditions interjects as processes of solution that propagate the problem in new and seemingly unrelated forms - while establishing itself as the protective provider of security from deeper or now hidden fears.
That denied or evaded relational conflicts can be pushed onto others, onto outer conditions, and onto our body, is not so much a personal responsibility for outcome - but a breakdown of relational communication that results in a sense of personal fear, threat, disconnection and lack of support and direction - into which the mind as defence operates as an identity set in and by opposition, conflict or fear.
When any method of healing is identified hopeful by common agreement all kinds of ills are brought to it in hope of magical cure. By magical, I mean effecting a removal of the symptoms without addressing truly the subject specific cause or causes. A false flag is wrongly addressed. To acknowledge what is - where it is may entail recognising and releasing false flagged attempt to re-assert control under a sense of fear of threat of pain of loss.
The mind is in a sense thus trained to marketise and weaponise (everything) for maintaining a sense of possession and control that in truth is the heart's decision of alignment and not a mind-set-in-its-own-spin seeking reinforcement as a default reaction to a block or recoil from communication and relation under fear that I often call 'separation trauma' - or indeed a fear of extinction that generates a rebellion against communication as an intensity of emotional force given to a mind-rule of evasion.
'Do something - pay later' is an inability to abide with and through our chaos of symptoms that seem to overwhelm our sense of self existence in Relation. The fight-flight mechanism elevated to command and control centre - to which a weak or broken heart must now appeal for protection - and sacrifice to in sympathy of support.
I am not suggesting we can seek psychic emotional or relational causes as if that in itself heals - because the mind loves to engage in processes of self-justifying and overriding interventions. But that a core component to healing - rather than symptom suppression in lieu of healing - is a true forgiveness of Self and self release.
Pausing from reactive thinking, calms to a clearer presence of free awareness in which fresh perspective and opportunity arises naturally or from the nature of our actual wholeness beneath the presentation of sickness and disease. This quality of a living discernment is denied by systemic assertions of intervention and coercion - even where there are helpful elements in the course of action.
I am told that on arriving at a scene of mass carnage paramedics have learned they must first become still or releasing of emotional reaction -perhaps for a period of minutes- so as to be able to truly discern who can be helped from who cannot and attend the need that can be met. The mind will frame the 'heart' as weak and emotional by rationalising hindsight set in judgements that undermine true insight and transformational learning. But the heart is the capacity to abide and embrace 'what is' to the point of recognising and aligning in love - which knows itself in the act of giving or sharing and is naked of pretensions and manipulations seeking sympathy and reinforcement for who we are.
The substratum or foundation from which we live is what is being undermined by a false-framed sense of power and protection. Self-responsibility is RELATIONAL responsibility as an individual extension of uncovered and shared worth. Its denial works the ruleset of an overriding collectivism given power by sacrifice of the heart's decision to a fear-defined SUBSTITUTION. But there is no substitution for love - but empty forms that suck out our wealth and life and joy by baiting us to sacrifice our self to their sustainability - as protecting 'even the little that we hath'.
Wholeness of being under compression must release what is dissonant and does not work or serve. This means 'clearing up our room' or sweeping the Temple of our devotions.
But an identity invested in possession of control will contract from the field of relation into limitation by withdrawal and withholding so as to 'survive' in fear rather than become the seed of new life.
The 'political' underbelly to our world is nothing to do with the circus of its facade but to an enforced and imposed 'austerity' of broad spectrum subjection that are humanly unthinkable in not just the suffering - but as the commitment to denial of Life as the basis for remaking a world in the image of its 'gods' of possession and control.
Insofar as this presents itself as a achievement rising even to 'Heaven' it will reveal itself as the babel of separate agendas of conflicted chaos as a breakdown of communication - because that is what denial 'does' in uniting against a greater fear of exposure - otherwise running as 'private self interest' masking as social concern and acceptability.
A subject specific approach to healing is firstly a relational willingness to pause (from reactivity), listen for resonant recognition (practical insight or prompt) and align in actions and associations or relationship and communication that unfolds a reintegrative solution. This is also a path of growing a consciousness of conscious willingness that is a re-educative and rehabilitating way of life. It isn't just to get rid of an 'interruption' to 'my life' so as to persist in the denial of the messengers or feedback to a deeper or hidden dissonance that is coming up to be recognised and released.
Whatever we deny becomes drawn into our experience - when that denial is a demonising or negatively charged rejection. Aligning in wholeness is not the demonising of the flagged or framed 'threat'.
That is the baiting of an identity in conflict that seeks to delay acceptance of Life in fear of loss of self.
It seeks the sustainability of conflict by reframing identity in righteous overriding denials of anything that would disclose its lack of true substance. And assign its hateful motive to its targets.
True Sustenance is relational integrity that extends its qualities in true 'with-ness' as willingness of true 'worth-ship'.
Can we be with ourselves when we meet the 'other'?
Not as a mind-should but as an ongoing willingness to learn TO be with ourselves and each other?
We already know how to ritually re-enact all kinds of social masking - even without having to notice we do it. And adopt all kinds of roles as part of inherited and acquired strategies of survival.
But when the social order breaks down we find we cannot 'do' or lose support for doing what once worked.
This is the opportunity for a re-evaluation instead of a re-enactment of the same sense of lack in 'New Robes'.
Melissa Smith http://www.anhinternational.org
24 October 2019 at 3:30 pm
Thank you as always for sharing your thoughts Brian.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences