Keep up with the newest discussion about natural medicine and the health care revolution! Subscribe to our RSS feed. Want to know more about RSS feeds? Read about why you should use RSS, and how to do it!

Dear Ms. Marianne Williamson,

First and foremost, thank you for being a peaceful leader in times of chaos and confusion, your words are profound and carry a true message for all human beings. My attention was initially directed to your Miracle Matrix website via a man who called himself, John F., and he corrected me for a quote from your book, A Return to Love. Unfortunately, I misquoted your influential passages and cited them to Nelson Mandela instead. This blunder has since been corrected, but falls tangential to my primary reason for contacting you.

After following up with the Mandela speech, I continued to search your website, following through with a few suggestions and getting to know a little bit more about The Peace Alliance of which you are a member (president?). Wow. Your “conscious citizenship” journal entries help me to see that an influential and clear perspective is present in our legislative system, again, thank you for your continued efforts. As a human being, you’ve really focused your attention through all the right places, harnessing the power of communication through the internet and governmental actions. With that said, I pursue similar goals both through conscious living and purposeful and productive habits, yet my communal focus lies in the realm of medicine and health, searching for a truly integrative health care system.

In short, my chosen purpose for this lifetime: increase the awareness for a quality-based, effective, and benevolent health care system, as well as finding sustainable support systems for health care practitioners starting with graduate school and lasting to the end of their professional career. Currently, neither population base is adequately supported by the local communities or government on a wide scale. The “Universal Health Plan” touted by our politicians only offer part of the solution; a holistic way of approaching health care is in order, and is in fact underway at two internet locations: The Helfgottblog and The Archimedes Movement. Many community-based organizations have also touched my heart, one such compassionate attempt to reach Oprah Winfrey moves me to this day: the Operation Oprah Campaign implemented by the National College of Natural Medicine (NCNM) and the Helfgott Research Institute. It just goes to show that anyone can create change. The process of creating working interrelationships for medical communities remains optimistic and creative, pulling everyone together for a truly benevolent cause.

Your Ask for a Miracle page caught my attention, and I figured that it wouldn’t hurt to try. So here goes: the miracle that I seek is not for me, rather it’s for those out there that suffer needlessly, those that cannot afford health care, and those that are denied health rights based upon superficial qualities like geographic location, socio-economic status, or the color of their skin. Health is a basic human right, and I wish for everyone to have equal opportunity to experience and understand optimum health and happiness. I see unnecessary suffering on the streets of Portland on a daily basis, and my heart swells with compassion.

Perhaps you could inspire your audience to seek quality in their health care options, voice health concerns, ask for viable health solutions that seek the root cause for dis-ease, and encourage others to work locally in order to educate our populace about basic health through community organizations and schools. If more people become aware of what is possible, simply asking for balance in all aspects of life, the needless suffering may cease to exist; and we can all begin to work together as a global collective, supporting one another as we each experience the preciousness of life.

That’s my miracle request. It’s rather lofty, but the way I figure it, the internet is rather vast, filled with infinite potential… abundance abounds for those that dare to ask the difficult questions.

Humbly,

C. Biscuit

By Chip Halverson, M.Ed., ND2

Lately in the news you often hear or read about Indoor Air/Environmental Quality. You may see it abbreviated IEQ or IAQ. I prefer the former, as it is more inclusive of the many issues facing building occupants. The EPA has determined human exposure to pollutants is 2-5 times, and occasionally more than 100 times, more contaminated then outside air. Health experts extol the dangers of mold and toxic chemicals and the media often headlines the closure of “sick buildings or school”. You may wonder if this issue is really new in our nations schools and homes. Do these media stories describe new issues or an old problem? Is it really toxic mold and chemicals or just poor ventilation?

For over a decade I have been involved primarily as teacher, coach, union leader, activist, parent, administrator, lobbyist and now as a student working with schools both regionally and nationally in an attempt to educate all stakeholders on the importance of a healthy indoor environment. The past two years I have served on NCNM’s safety committee as the student government Safety Liaison. Not surprisingly my 4th grade son is the student rep for his schools Pesticide Free Playground.

For some time much of my energy was devoted to working with local school districts and teacher unions. In the early years much of our focus centered on what I now call, “the things we could see and smell” like mold and chemicals. Over the years I discovered the latter are certainly important, but often the main culprit was often unrecognized for a variety of reasons, as result, I have shifted much of my focus on educating people on “the things we can’t see or smell”, but nevertheless are just as concerning.

One important area of IEQ work often neglected is particulates because we often can’t see them and if we do they have become accepted or marginalized as just “common household” dust. Of course particulates vary, as do potential health problems. Of course all of this is dependent on the health of who is occupying the building or room. For example pollen or dander can create havoc on someone with allergies or asthma, but for many people they simply have no reaction on first contact. Mold is everywhere and for the most part benign, however even small amounts of mold can become problematic.

One particulate that is gaining attention and has become ubiquitous in school environments and in buildings with false ceilings is glass fiber particulates. The source of these glass fibers is often found in ceiling tiles or above the false ceiling in the form of insulation often used for attenuation of sound in the ductwork. I encourage you to become more familiar with the issues of glass fiber as you preview the many IEQ issues in the resources below.

Particulates/Glass Fiber Resources

Below are must-reads for schools with IEQ problems and/or districts considering new construction or remodeling projects. The information will not only make for healthier school environments but also will likely save thousands of tax dollars along with countless hours in the event of a problem. The IEQ culprit is often related to particulates and you will be able to go straight to solving the problem, instead of needless guessing in an attempt to figure out what to do first.

1. A highly recommended resource on particulates, specifically glass fiber is Russ Crutcher’s paper titled “Glass Fiber and Health Complaints”. You can print a free copy from his webpage by clicking on his publication link. You will also find many other useful pieces of information on IEQ issues relating to particulates, testing, analysis, etc. He references many other great resources in his paper, including the reference entitled “Toxicology of Nasal Irritants” by Dennis Shusterman, MD, MPH. This paper provides a full spectrum of irritant-related upper airway health effects.
2. The Fiberglass Information Network provides useful information about the issues with glass fiber particulates. Click on News and scroll to the bottom for links and to read about the research Allen Hedges, PhD. from Cornell University has done relating to glass fiber contamination and health issues. This is not a new IEQ issue, Hedges and colleagues have been researching and publishing on the issues of glass fiber for decades. This site is a great resource to help you understand the potential health effects of glass fiber, including issues involving glass fiber ceiling tiles and attenuating HVAC systems with fiberglass.
3. This site has additional information on particulates, including glass fiber.

Chip’s Top 6 sites for more information on IEQ

1. The EPA connects you to great resources on a variety of IEQ issues
2. IEQ resources from the National Education Association
3. Learn more about the national IEQ movement in schools
4. Learn more about issues with particulates, including testing and prevention
5. Learn more about Alan Hedge, PhD, research on glass fiber
6. Get a copy of the 3-Step School IAQ Program and free subscription to the IAQ in Northwest Schools Newsletter

You can check out the IEQ trivia question to give you a little more history of the issue!
Question: What year and who made these IEQ statements about schools?

“The effect of ventilation upon health of students is a subject of universal interest to parents and educators, and at present is receiving the marked attention of school authorities.”

“I visited several of the rooms, and found the air in all, offensive to smell, the odor being such as one would imagine old boots, dirty clothes, and perspiration would make if boiled down together.”

“Thorough ventilation has been neglected by many school officials on account of the increased expense it causes.”

“It is necessary for the proper ventilation of our school rooms that an adequate supply of fresh air should be admitted, which should be warmed before being admitted to the room, and which should be discharged as contaminated, after its expiration.”

“The ventilators ought to be arranged on the opposite sides of the rooms, in order to insure a current, and an abundant supply of air.”

Answer: Over 100 years ago by R.V. Pierce, M.D. a former member of the U.S. Congress

When’s the last time you checked your air filter? It might be time for a little spring cleaning!

In the well publicized surveys of CAM usage, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) released some interesting statistics. The percentage of people who use CAM is 36%. But when the use of prayer is included, the figure skyrockets to 62%. Such an obvious statistical variance begs the question of whether prayer should be considered CAM after all.

As a stanch follower of an undisclosed religion (ok, it’s Anglo-catholic) with a graduate degree in a non-health related field (ok, it’s Indo-Tibetan Buddhism), I am a person who would likely respond no to the question “Do you use CAM?” but might very well respond yes to the question “What if we sweetened the pot and included prayer?” I am an example of the statistic in question. As such, I would like to informally posit some thoughts about these results.

I say I might have responded yes to the question- do I pray for my own health or the health of others- because it feels right to say so. It has a certain truthiness. Of course I pray for the health of my loved ones. Hell, who doesn’t? But if pressed upon my beliefs, and I dare say the beliefs of most of the positive responders, I do not believe that prayer is CAM.

Prayer is neither a treatment against disease nor a practice to prevent disease, partially because with prayer there is no such intention. To define prayer as medicine is removing it from the sacred context that gives it meaning. From a religious perspective, meditation and prayer very well may have health benefits but they are more likely to be the secondary outcomes of relaxation, mindfulness and breathing techniques. No causal connection exists between the petitionary action of prayer and a physical result. As often as not, people’s prayers simply are not answered. It is a reality with which virtually all religion is comfortable. To the penitent, the point of prayer is the communion with the divine itself, not the possible health benefits. Everyone who prays understands this. We can not quantify where, how, or when a prayer causes a positive health outcome. Undoubtedly, prayer has health benefits and, of course, any religion would affirm that sometimes prayers are answered. But this does not make it medicine.

Prayer lives within a religious (or, I say begrudgingly, a spiritual) context. Truthfully, I am not advocating for any particular system but what I am advocating is that we leave prayer intact within those contexts. Redefining religion as your own personal health plan or attempting to isolate some variable of prayer for medical research will open up religion to exactly the sort of questions it was never meant to answer. Applying scientific method to prayer is patently absurd. It is not that religion and science do not have anything to say to each other. Lord knows they should talk more. But religion and medicine are attempting to accomplish very different goals. Physical and spiritual health are rarely at cross purposes but they are different sorts of endeavors entirely.

If CAM did decide to infringe on the intellectual property of religious studies departments (yeah, I said it!) and attempted to study prayer meaningfully, it would need to answer a library’s worth of preliminary questions before it could administer questions, monitor progress, or interpret results. Who is praying? To which God are they praying? Does denomination matter? How do we quantify the piety of the people praying? What is the dosage of prayer? Does temporal or geographic proximity matter? How do we even know if a prayer is answered, or when? How do we possibly account for coincidence? Is CAM willing to take the intellectual not to mention the political and social fall-out of attempting to establish religious ‘best practices’?

My advice? Back up slowly, CAM. Nice and easy.