Vaccinations

Methylmercury

The bad news:

Methylmercury is in Thimerosal, a preservative once used in most vaccines.

“Methylmercury is a neurotoxin. The toxicity of methylmercury was first recognized during the late 1950s and early 1960s when industrial discharge of mercury into Minimata Bay, Japan led to the widespread consumption of mercury-contaminated fish (Harada 1995). Epidemics of methylmercury poisoning also occurred in Iraq during the 1970s when seed grain treated with a methylmercury fungicide was accidentally used to make bread (Bakir et al. 1973). During these epidemics, fetuses were found to be more sensitive to the effects of methylmercury than adults. Maternal exposure to high levels of methylmercury resulted in infants exhibiting severe neurologic injury including a condition resembling cerebral palsy, while their mothers showed little or no symptoms. Sensory and motor neurologic dysfunction and developmental delays were observed among some children who were exposed in utero to lower levels of methylmercury.” – the FDA’s article on “Thimerosal in Vaccines”

The good news:

Thimerosal is not used in most vaccines since a few months ago. However, you should ALWAYS ASK, because apparently some vaccines still have it.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/thimerosal.htm

More bad news:

The only childhood vaccine in the US that contains thimerosal in “greater than trace amounts” is the influenza vaccine.

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm

The above link is the CDC’s tracking of quantities of thimerosal in different vaccines.

The MMR Vaccine

Several studies on Pubmed indicate a possible link between the Mumps, Measles, and Rubella vaccine to autism.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/thimerosal.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19756911?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Several studies on Pubmed contradict or disagree with the findings of the aforementioned studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19200293?ordinalpos=25&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19176580?ordinalpos=27&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The CDC denies any link between them, although this is not evidence to me personally, either way.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/thimerosal.htm

Effects of H1N1 2009 Vaccine on 240 Subjects

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19745216?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Positive. No deaths or anything. Obviously, no long term health effects could be noted.

The Polio Vaccine

In the 60s, cells used in the creation of the polio vaccines were accidentally infected with the SV40 virus – It causes tumors in rodents, and is found inside of some human cancer cells (brain, bone, etc). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F%28SICI%291097-4644%2820000201%2976%3A2%3C189%3A%3AAID-JCB3%3E3.0.CO%3B2-J

However, it doesn’t appear that the people injected with the contaminated vaccines have a higher risk of cancer, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776244, though it was only 40 years ago; too many recipients were too young to make a generalization.

Hannah’s Personal Conclusions

I typically don’t like vaccines; long-term studies are simply not performed, and anytime any doctor or nurse or other medical professional answers questions of toxicity, they invariably respond with “chances of death are incredibly low – lower than that of normally contracting the virus.” I take great issue with that; my concern is not over immediate problems, but eventual ones. Are there higher rates of some cancers, alzheimers, cellular or muscular degenerative diseases? Do those increased risks come from exposure at all to the virus, whether through viral contraction or through vaccination, or from additives in the vaccine?

Because of the lack of evidence, I hesitate to use drugs from companies that do not disclose all of their ingredients to me. Which includes basically all vaccines.

So there are a couple of factors to consider and weigh against each other:

If it is the virus itself that is dangerous to me or my child, is the likelihood of contracting the disease greater if I get the vaccine? With the vaccine, I have a 100% chance. Without the vaccine, do I have a lower risk of contracting that virus?

What are the risks if the disease is contracted? With something like the regular influenza, even a young child, if otherwise healthy, is not at a particularly high risk of major problems (what we’re really concerned about here is the infection spreading to the brain or something major like that). Getting a runny nose is not particularly worrisome, if that’s where it ends.

Does the vaccine lessen the risk of major problems, presumably because it’s a low dose?

For me, it’s very, very hard to not be affected by the mass concern over H1N1. However, just in attempting to have a sound, unbiased and unafraid perspective, I have to admit that the evidence does not indicate that H1N1 is any less treatable or any more frightening (in fact, considerably less dangerous, mortality-wise) than the regular flu. http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/.

Does this mean that I won’t get my son vaccinated this year? Yes, it does mean that. Does this mean that I won’t in the future? No. I may do it, but only when I evaluate the risk of contracting it regularly to be greater.

An Important Aside

Remember, folks, that God is in control. That may sound overly cliché or much like unto a bumper sticker J But it’s something that helps me sleep at night, knowing that I cannot possibly know what’s best for my son. And other people certainly cannot know what’s best for my son. Only God can. We cannot know everything. We’re only asked to do what’s wise, and submit to God. So, if God tells you one morning to stay home from work because you’re not feeling well, he may be preventing your son or daughter from getting a disease that they would have gotten from daycare if you hadn’t been home to watch them – there are literally infinite numbers of possibilities, and decisions that God leads you to make/foreknows have impacts on them. So be wise, weigh the options, and even if you make the “wrong” decision, God will honor your wisdom. If something happens, it isn’t your fault or my fault for not getting the vaccination – it was God’s will. Whine about that if you don’t believe in God, and tell me how I use religion as a crutch and I’m not an evolved thinker, but the evidence is on my side. *sticks out tongue*

Part 4: God is Outside of Time

It has been presented to me multiple times that libertarian free will is logically impossible on the following basis:

The Argument Against Libertarian Free Will
If I come to a fork in the road of life, and I have two possibilities of choice,
AND
If God knows beforehand the road which I will choose,
THEN
In the point at which God knows (let’s say, at the beginning of time), that means the choice has already been made – by the time I actually arrive at my forky destination, in order for God to truly have foreknowledge of the event, I cannot choose the possibility which God did not foresee.

If I were to choose OPTION B, in the scenario above, that would nullify God’s foreknowledge – he would have been wrong. Since it’s impossible for God to be wrong, I have to choose (I have no choice in the matter) OPTION A. God’s foreknowledge necessitates his predestination, in this view.

This particular argument never ceases to amaze me. It’s almost funny how impressed people are when they whip this bad boy out.

Scriptural Rebuttal
What it fails to recognize is that God is not inside of time. He is not subject to the same restrictions as we are. Yes, indeed, if God were one of us and He had foreknowledge, we’d be in a bit of a pickle on this one. But because God is not on the same grid as are we, inevitability is something He is not bound to.

Ecclesiastes 9:11 says

“I again saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift and the battle is not to the warriors and neither is bread to the wise nor wealth to the discerning nor favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all [implying that God is not like that]. Moreover, man does not know his time: like fish caught in a treacherous net and birds trapped in a snare…”

Daniel 2:21

“It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings…”

Luke 4:5

“And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.” – if the devil can do that, surely God can too…

Acts 1:7

“He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;”

Jude 1:25

“…to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.”

Isaiah 38:7-8

“This shall be the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that He has spoken [He added 15 years to Hezekiah’s life]: Behold, I will cause the shadow on the stairway, which has gone down with the sun on the stairway of Ahaz, to go back ten steps.” So the sun’s shadow went back ten steps on the stairway on which it had gone down.” (This story also recorded in 2 Kings 20.)

Joshua 10:12-14

“Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “O sun, stand still at Gibeon, and O moon in the valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There was no day like that before it or after it, when the Lord listened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.”

A More Basic Argument
A much more basic Biblical argument is that if God is self-limiting – that is to say, if no entity can limit God other than Himself, then that includes Time, and God cannot be bound by it.

Space-Time
At the risk of being morbidly incorrect, it also seems that if God created space-time, then that would imply that He created time itself, thereby implying that He is necessarily outside of it.

The Inherent Inconsistency
Furthermore, if we revisit our graph with a few replacements,

If God is inside of time, it means that any decision He makes is also predicated (or predestined by) His own foreknowledge, which is circular.

Part 3: Mercy

When I had my best friend (my brother, Micah) read over parts 1 and 2 of this series, his response to me was quite surprising. He said that my logic seemed consistent, and he might be forced to agree with me, but that it didn’t jive with his own personal experience of God – that God in his experience is not the kind of God who would punish someone for something they couldn’t help. This surprised me because Micah is the very last person on Earth to use an emotional, experiential argument as a rebuttal to a logical one. But actually, I believe he poses an excellent point – one that neatly ties up libertarian free will and demonstrates a possible reason for the sensation that Micah expressed. exp

While a morally-responsible-type understanding of the Scriptures includes us as punishable for sins we could not help but commit, the infinite mercy of God – equally inalienable as His justice – gave that none of us actually be punished for such sins, in this view. The sins for which we are punished are only willful and optional, because of the work of Christ, restoring us to a pre-Adam state.

This sheds light on the basic human sense of justice and injustice - If I picked up your hand to kill someone, whether or not you desired to do it, no court of law and I'd argue no mental healthy individual would punish the owner of the hand; rather, one would punish the mover of said hand. Not to say that human "common sense" in any way necessitates this conclusion, but when viewed in this light it does provide a reason we might experience such a notion. And personally, I do find it very interesting that God made our minds capable of understanding and considering the concept of libertarian free will. If it is non extant in reality, then what would the purpose be in the creation of a mind capable of its comprehension within the confines of science and nature? Again, not really a logical argument in favor of LFW, but the answers to that question are still interesting to consider.

Part 2: Moral Responsibility

I would say that in my own experience, this is the most misunderstood aspect of my particular view of libertarian free will.

As a rebuttal to a non-free-will perspective, many of my fellow free-willers often inquire, “How could God punish us, that is to say, how could God hold us morally responsible for actions that we could not help?” I would like to demonstrate here why I do not consider this a valuable or meaningful response to the opposing view, though there be many others, for I understand there to be moral responsibility regardless of freedom.

First, let’s assume that by “moral responsibility” we mean “God being just by punishing us”. So the question becomes, can God be just if He punishes us for things we did unintentionally? And this is a very good question.

Romans 5:13

“for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed [attributed or credited against someone] when there is no law.”

This passage seems to suggest that sin is not held against someone, or punishable, unless the knowledge of the alternative is present. However, I think further understanding of the context is in order before we make up our minds.

Romans 5:12-14

“12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”

These passages surrounding and including Romans 5:13 are often forgotten or unconsidered. Paul says that until the Law came – and I believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that he is referencing the Levitical law here – sin was in the world. Ok, we’re on board with that – sin was in the world pretty much always, since Adam. Then the tenses change. Continuing with verse 13,

“…but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

Paul is making a general statement, that sin is not punishable when a law is not present – he isn’t saying that before the Law came to Earth, no sin was punished. Quite the contrary: verse 14 says nevertheless – despite that fact! – death, singularly a punishment for sin, still occurred during the period in which the Levitical law had not yet come to Israel (the time from Adam until Moses).

If we stop here, we lose something incredibly valuable. So let’s not. The rest of verse 14 reads

“even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.”

What’s going on here? We’ll have to back up to understand.

1. Sin was in the world, even before the law came (vs. 13).
2. Sin is not punished, generally speaking, when there is no law (vs. 13).
3. Sin was punished, even before the law came (vs. 14).
4. People who did not sin the same way that Adam sinned were still punished (vs. 14).
5. Adam’s sin is different from the sin of people who are not under the Levitical Law (vs. 14).

Point 5 is the most important for this moment. Paul assumes it, yet how is Adam’s sin different from the sin of people who are under not under the Levitical Law? The next phrase helps to clarify:

“… Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”

Clearly, we’re referencing Jesus here. In my mind, Paul is saying that Adam sinned in a way that was somehow linked to him being a type of Christ. How does that work? The following verses go on to say how they were different: The fact that Adam sinned, and Christ did not. So what was their commonality?

I’m sure there is much discussion on this, and I’m no scholar. But my interpretation, and I think reasonably so, is that their commonality is that they did not have a sin nature.

God calls Jesus the offspring of a woman, not of a man, in Genesis 3:15. In John 3:6, Jesus Himself says,

“That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit,”

(this is why we must all be born again) and as Jesus was born of the Spirit (unlike everyone else), he was separate from “flesh”. Note that when people receive Christ, they go from being “children of men” to being “children of God” (John 1:12, Romans 9:8).

Romans 8:7-8 says

“the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.”– my emphasis.

Adam of course was not a child of man – a child of himself – He was equally without that nature that he would eventually bring upon the world.

The commonality between Christ and Adam is, it would seem anyway, that they were both in a place of libertarian free will; they were not constrained by the seed of Adam to a state of inability to please God, they had the choice to and the choice not to choose God.

So, back to our discussion. Let us modify our list of understandings:

1. Sin was in the world, even before the law came (Rom 5:13).
2. Sin is not punished, generally speaking, when there is no law (Rom 5:13).
3. Sin was punished, even before the law came (Rom 5:14).
4. People who did not sin the same way that Adam sinned were still punished (Rom 5:14).
5. Adam’s sin is different from the sin of people who not under the Levitical Law (Rom 5:14).
6. Adam sinned out of libertarian free will;
7. The people who sinned before the Law was introduced sinned out of compulsion.

Now that we have seen point 5 and its expansion (6&7), let’s reiterate points 2 and 3: Sin is not punished when there is no law, but the sin of even the people who were unable to do anything different (Rom 8:7-8) was still punished.

I think Paul is saying a few things here. Firstly, I think he’s making the implication that the people who came before the Levitical Law were under a law, and that was something that the followers of the Levitical Law needed to hear, which is one reason why he included verse 13 of Romans 5. Note the following passage from Romans 1, as well:

Romans 1:18-20

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." - emphasis mine.

Secondly, and being far more pertinent to our conversation, it looks as though Paul is pointing out that even people who are not in a state of libertarian free will are punishable for their sins – they’re punished for sins that they “couldn’t will to help,” so to speak.

Though the why is not as important to our discussion, I will hint at my thoughts; it seems to me that we in America, or possibly the world, have a somewhat distorted view of sin. Sin is not necessarily this thing that God set up as a line to cross, and when we choose it God says, “Bad Dog!” and we get spanked. Sin is quite simply falling short of perfection, doing something other than what God desires - whether it's our libertarian choice or not. God’s punishment is part of His justice; it is an unchanging (*and unchangeable) part of his character. In order to be internally consistent, imperfection is “punished” with not being with Him – eternal separation from Him. A consequence of us not being like God. Whether or not an individual is able to will to love God, the way God is designed/has designed Himself is absolutely permanent (thank God He’s not like us), and he in some sense cannot let imperfection slide. Though the inevitability of sin is inherited from Adam and whether or not we ourselves can chose to choose it, we can’t be with God.

Part 1: The Premise and The Conclusion - To Be Supported...

Every individual has the freedom and complete power to choose whether or not to follow God – which means that they could either not choose Him, or choose Him – the Libertarian view of Free Will.

This first series isn't particularly destined (hehe) to support this conclusion, but rather to show how some common arguments against it are groundless and to demonstrate other conclusions when it is held as a premise.

Ron Paul's Freedom Report

Every month we get Ron Paul's Freedom Report - his newsletter to update people on his current legislature and his opinions on upcoming issues, etc. Today, one of his articles covered Governor Perry's statements alluding to secession.
If you recall, the media and several of the general public were entirely up in arms, even calling for an impeachment due to treason.
I don't quite follow this. I definitely understand distaste for our fair Governor. In the 1990 election, he promised to reduce property taxes, but backed down after getting in office (and why he doesn't see it as renting land from the government is beyond me). Go read wikipedia to see more about this and his wonderful "aid" through the lottery (excuse me while I go mourn the memory of our freedom), and my personal favorite, his support of the (now vanquished, thank God) sodomy laws in Texas (GOOD GOSH MAN, are you insane?!) - the next time you and your spouse play a little fun "tie me to the bedpost", expect to get a rude intrusion from Governor Perry. The sodomy laws also included homosexuality; he wasn't just trying to strictly define marriage, he was trying to outlaw a particular event that ocurred in the home. Whether or not one agrees with the morality of homosexuality, it is not the purpose of the government to tell us what is right and wrong, and when we can and can't do things we want to do with a consenting adult. And if you bring up suicide, I'll fight back.
Anyway, I'm not Perry's biggest fan.
But it is complete ridiculousness to suggest that it is treason to secede - much less bloody talk about it! That's my favorite, actually - the fact that so many thought that it was treason to talk about secession. Goes to show how little people care about freedom of speech.
But the idea of secession is necessary, I argue. As does Ron Paul :) He brings up two excellent points: the first is our very nature as a country. Whether we like it or not, America is a government born of secession. We seceded from Britain because (and here's the kicker) they promised something that we didn't get. You do the math for today. His second point is equally poignant: If we have a contract with someone, and they don't hold up their end of the bargain, then the contract is broken and you are not bound to it any longer.
The argument should be, "Perry, why is it that you think the government has not held up their end of the deal to states?" Although, I feel as though anyone who didn't know the answer to that question probably hasn't thought it through very much.

delicious pairing i never would have considered

Our friends Philip (for his professional website, click here) and Julia - UT grads, aspiring actors, incredibly hard workers, and food-geniuses - have moved just minutes from our apartment. Last night we were chilling at their house, and Philip serves us a pre-dinner snack: Are you ready for this?

Granny smith apples drizzled with lime-honey.

Typing it now I'm drooling. It was so mind-blowingly delectable - the sour and tangy apple, the sharp lime, and the mediterranean sweetness of the honey... HEAVEN, pure heaven.

Will and I just made ourselves a dessert of it, but we realized we didn't have granny smiths, so we had to use the Fujis we did have. It was nice, but not nearly the exotically pleasant thing that Philip had made us. The granny smith-ed-ness of it all really made a difference.

Our new quest: to make an apple sorbet with either a topping of lime honey, or to make an apple-lime-honey-combination sorbet. Maybe ice cream, if that milky flavor goes with it. All thanks to our new Vita-mix :)

Seriously, go try this stuff. It's healthy in terms of how much good stuff there is in it for you, however as usual there's a ton of carbs and no fat. Many people consider honey to be a healthier carb for you than traditional table sugar, because there are trace amounts of good things in honey - but honey is higher in fructose than sugar and as such may be associated with obesity, insulin-resistance, cancer (by extrapolation from central obesity), and many other baddies according to many studies.

Interestingly, agave nectar is nearly 90% fructose, despite it's recent glamor. So, as with apparently all natural caloric sweeteners, there is some bad to be had with the good, and I'm not certain what outweighs what, so the message for now is extreme moderation.

Granny smith apples are surprisingly high in sugar for their tartness, at 13 g of sugar (add 3 grams of fiber, and you wind up with 16 g of total carbs).

Limes only contribute 2 carbs, but just two tablespoons of honey lends another 34 carbs, for a total of about 49 g of non-fiber carbs. And at a healthy, low amount of 60 carbs per meal, 49 for a snack is rather excessive.

Moral of the story: Get yourself and apple, drizzle it with lime and honey, and split with somebody you love. It's better that way anyway.

Oh and one quick note: Philip seved it to us with cheese, and it was delicious all stacked together.