logo
The solution for your chronic pain may be all in your head, expert says

The solution for your chronic pain may be all in your head, expert says

CNN11-04-2025

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Culture Shapes Our View of Wellbutrin for Anxiety
How Culture Shapes Our View of Wellbutrin for Anxiety

Time Business News

time34 minutes ago

  • Time Business News

How Culture Shapes Our View of Wellbutrin for Anxiety

In today's globalized world, the way we understand and interpret mental health treatments is deeply influenced by cultural beliefs, values, and norms. One such medication that has garnered attention in recent years is wellbutrin anxiety. Originally approved as an antidepressant and smoking cessation aid, it has also been used off-label for treating anxiety in specific cases. However, public and medical perceptions of using Wellbutrin for anxiety vary widely depending on cultural background. Understanding how culture shapes our view of this drug provides insight not just into Wellbutrin's reception, but into broader societal attitudes about mental health and pharmacological treatment. When it comes to treating ADHD, stimulant medications play a crucial role in improving focus and reducing impulsivity. Two Vyvanse vs adderall prescribed options are Vyvanse and Adderall, each with distinct characteristics. Vyvanse is a prodrug, meaning it's inactive until metabolized in the body, leading to a smoother and longer-lasting effect. In contrast, Adderall contains a mix of amphetamine salts that act more quickly but can have a shorter duration. Both medications target similar brain chemicals but differ in onset time and side effects. Choosing between Vyvanse vs Adderall often depends on individual response and lifestyle needs. Culture plays a critical role in shaping how individuals perceive mental health, diagnose emotional distress, and seek treatment. In Western societies, particularly in the United States, there is a growing acceptance of using medication for managing mental health conditions like depression and anxiety. The biomedical model dominates—mental health is largely seen as a result of neurochemical imbalances, treatable through pharmaceutical intervention. This belief system naturally influences the openness toward medications like Wellbutrin, even for off-label uses such as anxiety. In contrast, in many non-Western cultures, mental health is more likely to be seen through spiritual, communal, or holistic lenses. Psychological distress might be attributed to personal failure, spiritual imbalance, or societal disharmony. These cultural frameworks often result in stigmatization of psychiatric drugs or skepticism about their necessity. As a result, someone in a collectivist culture might be more hesitant to use Wellbutrin for anxiety, fearing social judgment or believing that non-pharmacological methods like meditation, herbal remedies, or community support are more acceptable. One of the major cultural factors that influences the use of Wellbutrin is stigma—both internal and societal. In many cultures, there is significant stigma attached to taking psychiatric medication, often rooted in a belief that mental illness indicates personal weakness or failure. Even in countries like the U.S., where psychiatric drug use is widespread, people often express reluctance or shame in discussing their medication openly. Wellbutrin's branding as a 'non-typical' antidepressant and its use in smoking cessation has somewhat reduced this stigma for some users. It doesn't carry the same weight as more commonly used SSRIs like Prozac or Zoloft. However, when used for anxiety—a condition often seen as less severe or 'less legitimate' than depression in some circles—users may face added pressure or disbelief. Cultural norms that promote stoicism, self-reliance, or silence around emotional distress can further discourage individuals from accepting Wellbutrin as a viable treatment for anxiety. How a medication is marketed also plays a substantial role in shaping cultural perceptions. In the United States, direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising is legal and widespread. Television ads often portray medications like Wellbutrin as life-changing tools, providing visual narratives of transformation—from despair to joy, from isolation to connection. This imagery feeds into a cultural narrative that medical solutions are the most efficient and desirable route to wellness. However, this is not the case globally. In countries where pharmaceutical advertising is restricted or banned, public knowledge of medications like Wellbutrin often comes from doctors or health professionals, not TV commercials or social media. As a result, cultural narratives about these drugs are more medically grounded and less emotionally driven. In such societies, Wellbutrin may be seen more clinically and less symbolically—as a neutral tool rather than a symbol of modern self-care or empowerment. Cultural differences in healthcare systems also affect the way Wellbutrin is prescribed and understood. In the United States, the healthcare model allows for a greater degree of patient choice and provider flexibility. Off-label use, such as prescribing Wellbutrin for anxiety, is relatively common. Physicians may be more willing to explore alternative applications of existing drugs, especially if patients advocate for them. In other countries, stricter regulations, standardized treatment protocols, and less patient involvement in treatment decisions can result in a more conservative approach. Doctors may hesitate to prescribe Wellbutrin for anxiety if it's not officially approved for that use, regardless of emerging evidence or individual cases. This cautious stance is not necessarily due to mistrust of the drug, but due to systemic differences in risk tolerance and adherence to evidence-based guidelines. How cultures define and handle emotions also deeply influences the acceptability of using medications like Wellbutrin for anxiety. In some Western cultures, expressing emotions openly and prioritizing emotional well-being is encouraged. Anxiety is increasingly seen as a legitimate health issue requiring treatment, and patients are encouraged to seek out solutions, whether therapeutic or pharmacological. In more reserved cultures, where emotional restraint and control are highly valued, anxiety might be normalized or downplayed. Instead of seeking treatment, individuals might be encouraged to 'tough it out' or turn to traditional healing practices. In these environments, suggesting a pharmaceutical solution like Wellbutrin may be met with resistance or disbelief—not necessarily because the drug is distrusted, but because the condition it treats isn't universally acknowledged in the same way. The rise of online health communities and social media platforms has begun to blur traditional cultural boundaries. People from different countries and backgrounds can now share their experiences with medications like Wellbutrin, creating a global dialogue. On platforms like Reddit, YouTube, and TikTok, individuals openly discuss the pros and cons of using Wellbutrin for anxiety. These discussions can demystify the drug for some, validate others' experiences, and challenge deeply ingrained cultural beliefs. Younger generations, especially digital natives, are more likely to seek health information online and adopt perspectives that differ from those of their parents or cultural predecessors. In some cases, this has led to increased openness about mental health and reduced stigma around medication use, even in cultures that historically resisted psychiatric intervention. As a result, cultural perceptions of Wellbutrin are gradually shifting, becoming more nuanced and inclusive. Wellbutrin's use for anxiety, while still considered off-label, offers a fascinating case study in how cultural beliefs shape medical treatment. From the stigma surrounding psychiatric medication to healthcare system practices and emotional expression norms, countless factors influence how this drug is perceived and utilized. While Western cultures may embrace Wellbutrin more readily as a modern solution to mental health struggles, non-Western societies often approach it with caution, shaped by different traditions, values, and healthcare infrastructures. As global conversations about mental health continue to evolve, it's essential to recognize that there is no single, universal view of medications like Wellbutrin. Each perspective is valid in its own cultural context. By understanding these cultural nuances, we can foster more inclusive, respectful, and informed approaches to mental health treatment across the world. TIME BUSINESS NEWS

RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. Read More: What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Read More: What's the Risk of Getting Long COVID in 2024? Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans. Contact us at letters@

Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean
Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean

Federal and state government officials are axing public health funding—and justifying the cuts with appeals to fiscal this slash-and-burn approach is enormously shortsighted. Every dollar 'saved' now will cost us far more—in both dollars and lives—when the next health emergency inevitably know the toll an infectious disease outbreak can take. We just lived through one. COVID-19 killed over 1 million Americans and cost our economy trillions. Government-funded initiatives—such as federally backed research into mRNA vaccines and 'field team' deployments to local outbreaks—saved us from an even worse those very systems are being torn apart. This year alone, over $1.8 billion in NIH research funding has been terminated. The CDC's Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, which sets safety standards for hospitals, was just eliminated. The new federal budget could cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Services by over a it's not just pandemic preparedness systems suffering from mass layoffs and budget cuts. Institutions designed to protect Americans from foodborne illnesses, antibiotic-resistant infections, and bioterrorism are being gutted as put, this is a catastrophic mistake—one that doesn't merely threaten our health and economy, but also our national officials have long warned that pandemics, bioterrorism, and emerging infections are critical threats to U.S. stability. The Defense Department reported to Congress earlier this year on how it continually works to monitor and prevent infectious disease outbreaks, given that 'a pandemic could potentially impact every component of the Department's ability to perform its mission.'The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology also warned about the growing threat posed by biowarfare in a recent report. Because America's biotech industry is falling behind China's, in part due to the government's dwindling support for research, we're increasingly vulnerable to bioweapon attacks from adversaries, the report United States spends billions to prepare for military threats we hope never materialize. Our leaders need to fund disease prevention efforts with the same urgency we give to tanks and missiles. As we learned from COVID, infectious diseases can cause more death and destruction than even the most powerful conventional also showed us that pandemic preparedness pays dividends. Countries that invested more in limiting disease risks, such as Iceland and New Zealand, experienced lower mortality rates. By contrast, America suffered because we had allowed our public health infrastructure to erode for cannot afford to repeat—or worse, deepen—that mistake. Policymakers can prevent that from happening by restoring funding for public health agencies and investing in resources, such as labs, vaccines, and rapid response teams, that serve as our first and last lines of public health funding may be politically expedient, but preventing infectious disease isn't a partisan issue. Pathogens don't check party affiliation, respect national borders, or stop at state have a solemn duty—both to current citizens and to future generations of Americans—to strengthen the public health institutions that keep us safe. It's time for our leaders to act like Dean is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of Vermont. The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This story was originally featured on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store