The spiritual side of health from a solid foundation of creation teaching.
Fear over the coronavirus is gripping the nation and world, as within a short period of time life around the globe has drastically changed very suddenly. The main question facing everyone in the U.S. today is: How serious is this? Is the response the government is making right now consistent with the threat this virus presents? Some are proposing that anyone in the media who dares to question the official narrative should be silenced for the sake of "public health." Facebook, for example, took strong actions against Health Impact News by claiming we were publishing "fake news," mainly by publishing the views of Dr. Andrew W. Saul, Editor of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, who published news about successful intravenous Vitamin C therapy which had started in China. And yet this week, the New York Post reported that the same therapy had started at hospitals in New York City. With the Coronavirus situation affecting virtually every single person on the planet right now, suppressing alternative information that goes against the "mainstream" narrative is a very dangerous precedent, and is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment which protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is especially concerning when one of my colleagues in the alternative media, without even contacting me directly, publicly demands that we retract one of our articles authored by a medical doctor, simply because this person believes his view of the current situation is the only correct view. I do not pretend to be an expert on medical science, which is why Health Impact News publishes alternative views by medical doctors and other scientists who are experts in their field. During difficult days like the ones currently facing us, I believe the public has a right to read all sides of the issue and make up their own minds. Caution is certainly prudent, but fear? Among all this fear, where is faith in God? The opposite of fear is "faith." Have we lost our way as a nation? Does the phrase inscribed on our currency "In God we Trust" mean anything anymore? Faith in God does NOT mean we will not face difficult times. On the contrary, often those who are most faithful face the most difficult trials in life. Faith in God means we trust that there is a stronger power than ourselves controlling the affairs of humanity, and that if we trust in him, he will give us the strength to endure whatever trials come our way.
Women in Mexico were paid $1400 to be hyperstimulated so their ovaries released bountiful eggs instead of one during their cycle. They then underwent artificial insemination, resulting in early pregnancy with multiple embryos, which were then flushed out of their bodies for study. This “experiment” was very wrong on at least four fronts. First, it created human life for the purpose of experimenting upon it. Second, it paid women to have abortions (when all the embryos were not flushed). Third, it treated women as objects, merely as “a Petri dish,” to quote bioethicist Lorie Zoloth. Fourth, hyperstimulation can have serious side effects, even leading to occasional death. Add in the likelihood that the women were very poor, and you have a real exploitive circumstance.
Before Darwin, nearly everyone, in every corner of the world, believed in some type of ‘‘intelligent design,” and the majority still do. That is for good reasons. Since the publication of Origin of Species, science has discovered that living things are far more complex and clever than Darwin ever could have imagined. So how did it happen that the majority of our scientists “lost their minds” and are unable to see the design in living things that is so blindingly obvious to the layman?
An insidious kind of brainwashing goes on without your awareness. It continues surreptitiously every hour of the day and night. But not to worry; this brainwashing is intelligently designed, and it’s good for you. In fact, you couldn’t live without it!
Across the U.S., American families and friends will gather on the fourth Thursday of November to unwittingly flood their brains with dopamine and serotonin in a celebration of gratitude rooted in English traditions that date back to the Protestant Reformation. However, the neuromodulating effects of being grateful can profoundly change your life for the better when practiced on the daily, rather than once a year over a wishbone and your Auntie May’s favorite stuffing. While tradition is important in the human experience and a day set aside to give thanks and reflect on all our blessings is a noble occasion, practicing gratitude daily will lead to a happier, healthier you and even reshape your brain according to scientists, with the key being that you must really feel it for it to wield this powerful influence over your physiology and psychology. Gratitude can act as a natural antidepressant by increasing the neurotransmitters, dopamine and serotonin, and sending them hurtling down existing neuropathways as well as forming new neural circuitry. This effect is particularly strong when we ask ourselves what we are grateful for and are mindful of it. Choosing to practice gratitude has been shown in study after study to create new neurocircuitry through which dopamine can influence the reward center of the brain.
Remembering Law Professor Phillip E. Johnson (1940-2019): The Man Who “Lit the Match” for Intelligent Design
Law Professor Phillip Johnson passed away on November 2, 2019 at the age of 79. I became aware of Professor Johnson in 1991 with the publication of his book, Darwin on Trial. Johnson's book was highly controversial, and changed American culture. In the early 1990s when he wrote this book, it was career suicide for anyone in academia to take a position against Darwinian evolution, and most of the criticisms of Darwin were found in religious circles under the teaching of "Creationism." It took a law professor like Phillip Johnson, who was not part of the field of biology or other natural sciences, to write a scholarly critique of Darwin's theories without the threat of censorship, loss of funding, or losing tenure at a major U.S. University. As a law professor at the prestigious University of California Berkeley, his voice demanded to be heard, as he took a legal approach to examine the evidence of Darwin's theories. Many believe that his foundational book, Darwin on Trial, was the beginning of the modern day "Intelligent Design" movement. Intelligent Design separates itself from "Creationism" as it looks at the scientific evidence in the field of origins, and draws conclusions based on the scientific evidence, without relying on any religious teachings. It concludes that the science points to an intelligent design in nature, and leaves the question of "who" the designer is to religion.
In my new book, Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose, I argue that the synergistic action of diarrhea and the appendix provides a strong case for foresight and thus for intelligent design. Jerry Coyne, writing at Why Evolution Is True, has responded. For that I am grateful. See, “ID craziness: Diarrhea and the appendix are signs of intelligent design.” I wish, enthusiastically, to reply. The subject under discussion is so-called vestigial organs, specifically the appendix. For decades we were told that — due to evolution — our body includes organs that have lost their functions and are therefore in the process of being eliminated. Dr. Coyne adds that some of those condemned organs, by accidently finding other functions, may get lucky enough to escape extinction. This is possible, I agree. The “vestigial organs” are taken as strong evidence for evolution and against ID. After all, an intelligent designer would have no use for useless organs. With that I also agree. However, we must let the data speak. When we do, learning more about the physiology of our body, we find that “vestigial organs” have amazing functions after all.
A doctor in the UK is being investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC) because a complaint was made against him for praying with his patients. Dr. Richard Scott is a General Practitioner at Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate, Kent. Dr. Scott states that he only prays with about one out of every 40 patients, and that he always asks for their permission first. Of those he asks, about 90% accept, and the ones who do not, he respects their right to refuse. The complaint to the General Medical Council was allegedly not made by any of his patients, but by an "acquaintance" of one of his patients, who then worked with The National Secular Society (NSS) to lodge the complaint. The NSS allegedly wrote that a "highly vulnerable patient" was uneasy with the use of prayer during a consultation. NSS chief executive Stephen Evans reportedly confirmed that the complaint came from someone known to the patient rather than the patient themselves.
Here’s the story: The Canadian Charter (Constitution) guarantees “freedom of conscience and religion” — a stronger and more explicit protection of religious liberty than our First Amendment. After the Supreme Court created a right to euthanasia, Ontario passed a law requiring doctors to kill legally eligible patients who want to die or provide an “effective referral” if they have moral objections — i.e., procure a doctor known by the dissenter to be willing to euthanize patients. Catholic and other religious doctors sued to enforce their Charter liberties. Referring equals complicity, the doctors argued, and thus the law forces them to violate their religious beliefs and consciences. In one of the world’s most important “medical conscience” rulings, a trial judge admitted the doctors’ Charter rights were indeed infringed. But he ruled that a right (nowhere mentioned in the Charter) to “equal and equitable access” to legal and government-funded medical interventions trumped doctors’ freedom of religion. Now a Court of Appeals has affirmed, ruling that doctors must not only euthanize or refer, but also abort or refer, and provide any other controversial legal service that a patient might want or refer — their religious freedoms or moral consciences be damned.
Canadian doctors committed thousands of homicides in 2018. According to an interim report published by the government, in the first ten months of last year, doctors lethally injected 2,613 patients (with one assisted suicide) — and that doesn’t include the homicides committed by doctors in Quebec, Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut. The report says that about 1.12 percent of all Canadian deaths were caused by euthanasia, a number that is increasing every year. No wonder. Efforts are increasing to normalize lethal injection as a way of death — and soon we are likely to see the killable caste expanded in Canada to include children, people whose deaths are not “foreseeable,” those with dementia who asked to be killed in an advance directive, and perhaps, the mentally ill (as happens regularly in the Netherlands and Belgium). If 1.12 percent of our deaths in the U.S. were doctor-homicides, it would amount to nearly 30,000. These statistics are stark, but they don’t tell the whole story. Because these radical policies have only been in effect for a relatively short time, we don’t yet know the moral costs of allowing doctors to kill sick patients or assist their suicides.