
Trading Hope for Reality Helps Me Parent Through the Climate Crisis
When I gave birth to my first child, in 2019, it seemed like everything that could possibly go wrong went wrong. He came out white and limp, his head dangling off to the side. People swarmed into the hospital room, trying to suction his lungs so he could breathe. Hours later, my husband and I stood in the NICU, looking down at this newborn baby, hooked up to wires and tubes.
We had spent months talking about how to protect him from various harmful influences, and here we were, an hour out of the gate, dealing with a situation we hadn't even considered. Had his brain been deprived of oxygen for too long? Would there be lifelong damage?
That night in the hospital, I learned the first lesson of parenting: You are not in control of what is going to happen, nor can you predict it. This applies to your child's personality, many of his choices and to some extent his health. It also applies to the growing threat of climate change.
The climate crisis is bad and getting worse. Here in Oregon, we've endured several severe heat waves and wildfires in recent years. As the impacts compound, it's clear a lot of people around the world — many of them children — are going to suffer and die.
Globally, one in three children is exposed to deadly heat waves, and even more to unclean water. A study estimated wildfire smoke to be 10 times as harmful to children's developing lungs as typical pollution. Researchers also concluded that nearly every child in the world is at risk from at least one climate-intensified hazard: extreme heat, severe storms and floods, wildfires, food insecurity and insect-borne diseases.
If you are someone like me who has children and lies awake terrified for their future, you should not let hopelessness about climate change paralyze you. In fact, I would argue that right now the bravest thing to do — even braver than hoping — is to stop hoping.
'When I think deeply about the nature of hope, I see something tragic,' the Vietnamese Buddhist monk and author Thich Nhat Hanh, who died in 2022, wrote in his book 'Peace Is Every Step.' 'Since we cling to our hope in the future, we do not focus our energies and capabilities on the present moment.'
What does parenting without hope look like? For me, it is living with the knowledge that my two children will likely face challenges I cannot even imagine. It is grieving that I cannot give them the life I would wish for them. It is choosing to act, by joining local climate activist groups and curbing my air travel.
I do it not because I think I can magically save my children from the climate crisis, but because I am fully aware that I cannot. But most of all, it is accepting that I cannot know, nor control, everything that will happen to my children.
I often think of the writer Emily Rapp Black, whose son Ronan died just before his third birthday from Tay-Sachs disease. 'This is what parenting a child with no future has taught me: Nothing is forever,' she wrote in a 2013 essay. 'There is only now, the moment, the love you bear, the knowledge that loving is about letting go, and that the power of a person's grief is a reflection of the depth of their love.'
Recognizing impermanence is the whole game. Loving and losing and loving and losing some more. This is the only way I know how to parent. It's the only way I know how to live.
Last month, as fires destroyed huge parts of Los Angeles, I was in Oregon, at the park with my father and my two young children, pushing them on the swings.
Later, as we walked home from the park, my father told me that when he and my mother first met, he had been afraid to have children. It was the 1980s, and he was certain the world was headed toward nuclear war. 'I couldn't imagine exposing my children to that,' he told me.
'What changed?' I asked him.
'I realized it was arrogance,' he said. 'To think I could see into the future and decide that life should not extend past me.'
We kept walking. The afternoon sun lit up everything in golden hues. My children in the distance: two little bobbing hats. Their entire futures, unknown to me. Out of my control.
I thought of everything my father would have spared me from: loneliness and loss and failure and a body full of microplastics. A world that is both underwater and on fire. Also, friendship and pizza and laughing until I have to catch my breath. Holding my children for the first time. This moment, here at the park, walking with my father. So much that could go wrong. I'm truly terrified of what's coming. But I wouldn't miss it for the world.
'I'm glad you changed your mind,' I said.
'Yeah, me too,' he said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
The Gattaca Future Is Here
Advances in the world of embryonic screening: The company Nucleus Genomics announced the launch of Nucleus Embryo yesterday, which they bill as "the first genetic optimization software that lets parents pursuing IVF [in vitro fertilization] see and understand the complete genetic profile of each of their embryos." It's a dashboard, essentially, that lets parents see the full analysis of their frozen embryos—each embryo's probability of having some 900 diseases, as well as information about their appearance (male pattern baldness, eye color, hair color), IQ, and more. You can now compare each embryo to the others, and rank order your preferences for which ones you implant, if you so choose. You can know which embryos are more likely to have seasonal allergies, asthma, restless leg syndrome, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis, alcoholism, celiac disease, and more. "Some people don't think you should have access to the choice Nucleus Embryo empowers you to make," writes Nucleus CEO Kian Sadeghi. "Here's the thing. It's not their choice to make. It's yours." (For the price of $6,000, of course.) Competitors like Orchid offer essentially the same thing. What's discussed a bit less in all the marketing copy is that you're not genetically tweaking the embryos, you're just discarding the ones that don't meet your specifications. And, look, I don't mean to let my Catholic show too much, but I have a hard time getting excited about a Gattaca future—as do many others who've been following the developments in the world of embryonic screening: Other folks within Silicon Valley are bullish on this, and interested in investing in gene-editing technology, applying it to embryos specifically. So expect this to be something we hear a lot more about in the future: Some people surely believe this is a means to reduce suffering, and that it is better to eliminate embryos that would be possibly destined for great suffering than to allow them to continue to grow and develop into children, and then adults, who would incur extreme hardship (like a life with cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs disease). To me, this argument is less compelling, because I don't believe it is the parent's role to pick and choose which children are "desirable" and to discard those with traits that might lead to suffering. I also fear the use of this technology as a means of indulging parental hubris, a belief that you are responsible not just for your child's care and safekeeping and spiritual growth—no matter what is thrown their way—but that you may also craft them into perfect beings who become as attractive as can be, as smart as can be. To some degree, parents do this once the children are outside the womb—they provide them with the best opportunities to grow and learn and foster their natural talents—but I do wonder how it might psychologically alter a child to know that they were selected for life due to their potential for excellence vs. their innate value. But, honestly, my own personal beliefs on this are beside the point. Many libertarians probably disagree with me, and see this technology as a massive expansion of human choice applied to the most important realm. This future is here; public support for IVF is already extremely high, and genetic screening is already routine in pregnancy. It's not crazy to theorize that, as the price tag continues to drop as the marketplace becomes more crowded, this type of screening will catch on for those who use IVF, and that some people—perhaps the most type-A parents with the most disposable income—will even be spurred to choose IVF creation of babies vs. the good old-fashioned method, as it gives them greater control over outcomes (but, if we're being honest, less fun). In other words, we're a far cry from parents trying to optimize their kids' intellect by letting them watch Baby Mozart; techniques for optimization are much more sophisticated now, and a whole bunch of ethical quandaries will come along with that. Expect progressives to object to a society increasingly bifurcated based on ability, corresponding to the disposable income of one's parents, and expect conservatives to object on pro-life grounds. Though, interestingly, maybe the MAGA types—who voted for "the fertilization president" (an image I still hope to get out of my head)—and the Silicon Valley types who are broadly supportive of this technology will sort of join forces with IVF-approving normies and it will all become broadly accepted. It's hard to say how it all plays politically. Another Trump travel ban: On Wednesday, President Donald Trump banned citizens of 12 countries—Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from entering the United States. He also announced restrictions on travel for citizens of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, but stopped short of a full ban. People from those countries will not be allowed to come to the United States permanently or get tourist or student visas, but will be allowed to enter under certain circumstances. This is more extensive than the so-called Muslim travel ban of his first term, and it's not totally clear what the specific reasoning is for barring citizens of these countries from visiting or living in the United States. The attack on Jews in Boulder, Colorado, by an Egyptian man who had overstayed his visa and was thus here illegally, "underscored the extreme dangers" posed by the entry of foreigners, said Trump. Oddly, though, he didn't announce any restrictions on travel by Egyptians. I don't believe this statistic is correct, and I am also very curious about where all our taxpayer dollars are going if they're not going to food assistance for poor kids. Articles like this one claim that "an estimated 1 in 4 children don't have enough to eat—a 46% increase over pre-pandemic numbers" and cite the nonprofit Feeding America. When I follow the link, there's nothing to substantiate this number, and this X user is roughly correct that a huge chunk—some estimates say more like 43 percent—of NYC elementary schoolers are overweight. "Many today insist that it is critical—even morally required—that we use the word 'genocide' to describe Israel's war in Gaza. No other term will do. Those not joining the chorus are allegedly complicit in genocide. Those questioning the nature of the accusation are labeled genocide deniers," write Norman J.W. Goda and Jeffrey Herf for The Washington Post. "Why this insistence? Efforts to delegitimize Israel as colonial and racist began before the state was declared in 1948. Genocide, meanwhile, is the crime of crimes; a state committing genocide is forever illegitimate. Given this history and gravity, we should pose some questions. Israel's war against Hamas in the urban environments of Gaza has led to thousands of civilian casualties. But is genocide really the correct way to describe the war?" "Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34, citizens of the People's Republic of China, were charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United States, false statements, and visa fraud, announced United States Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon, Jr.," per a press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. "The FBI arrested Jian in connection with allegations related to Jian's and Liu's smuggling into America a fungus called Fusarium graminearum, which scientific literature classifies as a potential agroterrorism weapon. This noxious fungus causes 'head blight,' a disease of wheat, barley, maize, and rice, and is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year. Fusarium graminearum's toxins cause vomiting, liver damage, and reproductive defects in humans and livestock." But it sounds like the scientists mostly failed to file the proper paperwork; will be interesting to see what more comes out about this case. Classic Trump administration: Hell yeah, New Jersey! With age, I conquer my animus and grow in respect for that scrappy little state: The post The Gattaca Future Is Here appeared first on
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Yahoo
How your genes interact with your environment changes your disease risk − new research counts the ways
Sitting in my doctor's examination room, I was surprised when she told me, 'Genetics don't really matter for chronic disease.' Rather, she continued, 'A person's lifestyle, what they eat, and how much they exercise, determine whether they get heart disease.' As a researcher who studies the genetics of disease, I don't fully disagree – lifestyle factors play a large role in determining who gets a disease and who doesn't. But they are far from the entire story. Since scientists mapped out the human genome in 2003, researchers have learned that genetics also play a large role in a person's disease risk. Studies that focus on estimating disease heritability – that is, how much genetic differences explain differences in disease risk – usually attribute a substantial fraction of disease variation to genetics. Mutations across the entire genome seem to play a role in diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, which is about 17% heritable, and schizophrenia, which is about 80% heritable. In contrast to diseases such as Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis, where mutations in a single gene cause a disease, chronic diseases tend to be polygenic, meaning they're influenced by multiple mutations at many genes across the whole genome. Every complex disease has both genetic and environmental risk factors. Most researchers study these factors separately because of technical challenges and a lack of large, uniform datasets. Although some have devised techniques to overcome these challenges, they haven't yet been applied to a comprehensive set of diseases and environmental exposures. In our recently published research, my colleague Alkes Price and I developed tools to leverage newly available datasets to quantify the joint effects that genetic and environmental risk factors have on the biology underlying disease. To illustrate the effect gene-environment interactions have on disease, let's consider the example of aspirin use and colon cancer. In 2001, researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were studying how regularly taking aspirin decreased the risk of colon cancer. They wondered whether genetic mutations that slowed down how quickly the body broke down aspirin – meaning aspirin levels in the body would stay high longer – might increase the drug's protective effect against colon cancer. They were right: Only patients with slow aspirin metabolism had a decreased risk of colon cancer, indicating that the effectiveness of a drug can depend on a person's genetics. This raises the question of how genetics and different combinations of environmental exposures, such as the medications a patient is taking, can affect a person's disease risk and how effective a treatment will be for them. How many cases of genetic variations directly influencing a drug's effectiveness are there? The gene-environment interaction of colon cancer and aspirin is unusual. It involves a mutation at a single location in the genome that has a big effect on colon cancer risk. The past 25 years of human genetics have shown researchers that these sorts of large-effect mutations are rare. For example, an analysis found that the median effect of a genetic variant on height is only 0.14 millimeters. Instead, there are usually hundreds of variations that each have small but cumulative effects on a person's disease risk, making them hard to find. How could researchers detect these small gene-environment interactions across hundreds of spots in the genome? We started by looking for cases where genetic variants across the genome showed different effects on a person's biology in different environments. Rather than trying to detect the small effects of each genetic variant one at a time, we aggregated data across the entire genome to turn these small individual effects into a large, genome-wide effect. Using data from the UK Biobank – a large database containing genetic and health data from about 500,000 people – we estimated the influence of millions of genetic variants on 33 complex traits and diseases, such as height and asthma. We grouped people based on environmental exposures such as air pollution, cigarette smoking and dietary patterns. Finally, we developed statistical tests to study how the effects of genetics on disease risk and biomarker levels varied with these exposures. We found three types of gene-environment interactions. First, we found 19 pairs of complex traits and environmental exposures that are influenced by genetic variants across the genome. For example, the effect of genetics on white blood cell levels in the body differed between smokers and nonsmokers. When we compared the effects of genetic mutations between the two groups, the strength of gene-environment interaction suggested that smoking changes the way genetics influence white blood cell counts. Second, we looked for cases where the heritability of a trait varies depending on the environment. In other words, rather than some genetic variants having different effects in different environments, all of them are made stronger in some environments. For example, we found that the heritability of body mass index – the ratio of weight to height – increased by 5% for the most active people. This means genetics plays a larger role in BMI the more active you are. We found 28 such trait-environment pairs, including HDL cholesterol levels and alcohol consumption, as well as neuroticism and self-reported sleeplessness. Third, we looked for a type of gene-environment interaction called proportional or joint amplification. Here, genetic effects grow with increased environmental exposures, and vice versa. This results in a relatively equal balance of genetic and environmental effects on a trait. For example, as self-reported time spent watching television increased, both genetic and environmental variance increased for a person's waist-to-hip ratio. This likely reflects the influence of other behaviors related to time spent watching television, such as decreased physical exercise. We found 15 such trait-environment pairs, including lung capacity and smoking, and glucose levels and alcohol consumption. We also looked for cases where biological sex, instead of environmental exposures, influenced interactions with genes. Previous work had shown evidence of these gene-by-sex interactions, and we found additional examples of the effects of biological sex on all three types of gene-environment interactions. For example, we found that neuroticism had genetic effects that varied across sex. Finally, we also found that multiple types of gene-environment interactions can affect the same trait. For example, the effects of genetics on systolic blood pressure varied by sex, indicating that some genetic variants have different effects in men and women. How do we make sense of these distinct types of gene-environment interactions? We argue that they can help researchers better understand the underlying biological mechanisms that lead from genetic and environmental risks to disease, and how genetic variation leads to differences in disease risk between people. Genes related to the same function work together in a unit called a pathway. For example, we can say that genes involved in making heme – the component of red blood cells that carries oxygen – are collectively part of the heme synthesis pathway. The resulting amounts of heme circulating in the body influence other biological processes, including ones that could lead to the development of anemia and cancer. Our model suggests that environmental exposures modify different parts of these pathways, which may explain why we saw different types of gene-environment interactions. In the future, these findings could lead to treatments that are more personalized based on a person's genome. For example, clinicians might one day be able to tell whether someone is more likely to decrease their risk of heart disease by taking weight loss drugs or by exercising. Our results show how studying gene-environment interactions can tell researchers not only about which genetic and environmental factors increase your risk of disease, but also what goes wrong in the body where. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Arun Durvasula, University of Southern California Read more: Your environment affects how well your medications work − identifying exactly how could make medicine better People don't mate randomly – but the flawed assumption that they do is an essential part of many studies linking genes to diseases and traits Researchers uncovered hundreds of genes linked to OCD, providing clues about how it changes the brain − new research Arun Durvasula has received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Science.


CNN
11-04-2025
- CNN
That chronic pain is not all in your head, but the solution may not be in your body, expert says
Summary Psychotherapist Nicole Sachs advocates a solution for chronic pain rooted in mind-body medicine. Sachs contends that physical symptoms can result from nervous system responses to stored trauma and repressed emotions. Her treatment approach includes education about brain science, a writing practice called JournalSpeak, and self-compassion. JournalSpeak involves 20 minutes of unfiltered emotional writing that releases raw emotions. Sachs says to approach your body with compassion, listen to its signals and remember that healing is possible. Although often invisible, chronic pain is everywhere. More than one-quarter of Americans have pain lasting more than three months. With medical treatment and lost productivity costs of up to $635 billion annually in the United States, pain is expensive as well as debilitating. The fact that traditional Western and alternative medicine have yet to confirm either a cause or a solution doesn't help. Psychotherapist Nicole Sachs is determined to interrupt this bleak narrative with a cure rooted in evidence-based brain science and mind-body medicine. In her new book, 'Mind Your Body: A Revolutionary Program to Release Chronic Pain and Anxiety,' the author, podcaster and public speaker shares her method for eliminating not just chronic pain but also long Covid-19, migraines, irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue and many other conditions. Where medication, physical therapy, supplements, procedures and treatments have failed, her approach, using a targeted writing practice called JournalSpeak, offers a possible cure. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. CNN: What is mind-body medicine, and what role does it play in chronic pain? Nicole Sachs: Mind-body medicine is a paradigm that recognizes the influence of stored trauma and repressed emotions on physical health. My mentor, Dr. John Sarno, was a pioneering practitioner who challenged the Western assumption that pain or discomfort always correlates directly with the affected body part. His scientific work uncovered that, while real, some physical symptoms are not always tied to pathology in the body. Dr. Sarno called this condition Tension Myoneural Syndrome, or TMS, which is an umbrella term for the epidemic of chronic conditions that do not resolve by treating the symptomatic area of the body. Instead, chronic pain and other conditions can result from nervous system dysregulation that creates physical symptoms in response to stored trauma and an overflow of repressed emotions. CNN: How can emotional stress cause physical symptoms? Sachs: First, it helps to remember that all humans have unconscious processes that are essential to living, like circulating our blood, breathing or making our heart beat. In a sense, the unconscious nervous system signaling that causes chronic pain is equally reflexive. Beneath consciousness, each of us has an emotional reservoir that holds the extent of our grief, rage, terror, despair and shame. The extremity of these feelings is kept below the surface, under the cover of darkness, because feeling the pain of these emotions all the time would make it impossible to live our lives. Humans are a social species, and our need for connection is as imperative as food and water. If we were constantly aware of the depth of our emotional pain, we'd be too shut down to connect with others. So, our nervous system tries to keep that pain under wraps. But everyone reaches a point in life when this reservoir starts to bubble over. Too much stress, trauma or some devastating life event and all the emotions that have been stuffed down start to knock at the door of consciousness. That's when our nervous system steps in. CNN: Why would the nervous system intentionally cause pain? Sachs: Our nervous system has evolved to protect us against threats. Your brain perceives your repressed emotional world and stored trauma as predators, seeing them as far more dangerous problems than the physical manifestations of pain — because they're not easy to solve. And so, alarm bells go off. The nervous system switches into fight, flight, freeze or fawn mode. When your emotional 'reservoir' becomes overwhelmed, your brain sends pain signals as a protective strategy. If you are someone who struggles with back pain, for instance, that's likely your nervous system triggering symptoms to keep you safe — I call this 'safe in the un-safest way.' Back pain might trigger you to take a pill, get into bed and cancel your plans for the day. This restores to the brain a sense of control and familiarity. However unwanted consciously, illness and injury are protective. They require us to slow down and allow us to ask for help, draw boundaries, say no and stay home. And just as you don't have a choice about whether to pull your hand off a hot stove, you don't get to decide not to have back pain right now if your reservoir is overflowing. CNN: Does this mean the pain isn't real? Sachs: The pain is very real; it just originates from emotional rather than physical stressors. Here's the fascinating part — all pain signals get fired by the brain and nervous system, landing in different bodily systems and muscles. All pain is felt from the brain. So, when you burn your finger, the nerves in your finger tell the brain that the sensory environment has changed. Then the brain, in a flash, interprets the level of danger and sends pain signals back to the finger. Pain's No. 1 objective is to protect you. With TMS, the brain sends these same pain signals as a protective mechanism, even without physical injury. Today's brain imaging technology even reveals that whether someone is experiencing emotional heartbreak or just broke their ankle the same part of the brain lights up. CNN: What's the cure? Sachs: Treatment has three key components. The first part of my prescription is knowledge. I need to teach you about the brain science and provide enough human examples to help you believe and not dismiss that this is what's happening in your human body. The second component of treatment is JournalSpeak — a specific writing practice I developed to release emotions. The third is practicing patience and kindness for yourself — self-compassion is a verb! CNN: What is JournalSpeak, and how is it different from other forms of writing? Sachs: JournalSpeak is a 20-minute, unfiltered writing practice, informed by your understanding of the nervous-system science, where you express your most unreasonable, raw emotions. This practice is like putting a ladle into the reservoir and dumping it out systematically, one day at a time. Once the level drops below maximum capacity, the pain signals stop firing, because your nervous system no longer feels the urgency to protect you from conscious awareness. After the 20 minutes, you destroy the writing. It's about releasing, not analyzing. Like blowing your nose into a tissue, you don't need to look at it again. CNN: How could complaining on paper heal pain? Sachs: JournalSpeak is like a venting apparatus for a closed system. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it shifts from one form to another. The energy of grief and rage and shame and fear gets transformed into physical pain in the closed system of the human body. Writing the most unbridled, impolite, unreasonable, pathetic rant that gives voice to unseen, unheard parts of you opens a relief valve that transfers emotional pain onto the page. Once that energy is vented, the nervous system stops sending physical pain signals. CNN: Is this approach limited to pain? Sachs: Not at all. One person's fatigue is another's back pain, is another's migraine or irritable bowel, or long Covid, and so on. The theory at the center of this approach is that there is one genesis for all these symptoms. The same principles can apply to autoimmune conditions, digestive issues and other chronic symptoms. The underlying mechanism is always the same: the nervous system sending signals as a protective response. When people realize that the sensations we feel in our body, no matter what they are, are controlled by the brain and the nervous system, they can understand why it really doesn't matter how the symptoms are showing up. The central nervous system is the control room for everything in the human experience. CNN: Do scientific studies back this up? Sachs: More and more scientific literature documents remission of pain and other chronic symptoms through mind-body practices. Recently, a randomized controlled trial by Dr. Michael Donnino, a professor of medicine and emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, compared three treatment approaches for chronic back pain. The first group continued their existing treatment regimens, while the second took an eight-week mindfulness stress reduction course. Participants in the third group received a 12-week psychophysiological intervention based on Dr. Sarno's work where they explored their emotional history using mind-body techniques. This group reported significantly less pain than participants in the other groups. About six months later, nearly 64% of people from the mind-body group reported being pain-free. Donnino's findings from a similar study on long Covid showed that symptoms previously attributed to physical causes resolved with mind-body medicine. CNN: How can someone tell if their symptoms are TMS-related? Sachs: First, consult a doctor to ensure that medically treatable diagnoses are not the root cause of your pain. But if you've had multiple medical tests with no clear explanation, if your pain moves around, or if it seems triggered by stress, these are potential TMS indicators. The key is understanding that pain can be a messenger, not just a malfunction. Once you receive a clean bill of health or you're diagnosed with chronic symptoms deemed incurable, nervous system dysregulation is a likely cause, and it's time to consider my three-part treatment approach. CNN: Do I need to change my life to heal my symptoms? Sachs: The goal is to recognize and process your emotions, not necessarily remove every source of stress. You don't have to blow up your life, quit your job or put your kids up for adoption. You don't need to change your life; you just need to know how you feel about it. CNN: What's the first step toward mind-body healing? Sachs: Start with curiosity. Approach your body with compassion, listen to its signals and remember that healing is possible. The beauty of this approach is its fundamental message of hope: Your body is not broken, and you have the power to heal. It's about understanding the intricate connection between your emotions and physical experience, and learning to work with your nervous system, not against it. Your body is trying to protect you. By understanding this, you can start a profound healing journey. You have so much more power than you realize to affect your physical and emotional health.