The phrase “natural law” itself is capable of so many interpretations that anyone who advocates natural law must expend a great deal of effort explaining what he means.1 In his excellent essay Perspective on Natural Law, Gordon H. Clark argues […]
In the long list of things I have found that are detrimental to my health (see health category for some background), I have realized that EMF from cell phones and WiFi are up near the top. Treating it (through EMF detox and avoidance) has given me a great deal more energy. I sent the following list of resources to someone recently and thought some of you may be interested:
- Parts 1, 2, and 4 in this series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr9Z0WeGtDk&list=PLf41Jom1MpoZu_JqaQHOSDzr2ymamWY8m
- Part 2 is from a Washington State University professor emeritus who has done significant studies demonstrating the mechanism (voltage-gated calcium channels) by which EMF causes autism symptoms. Here is one of his studies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599
- EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses
- BioInitiative 2012 a comprehensive study by an international team of 29 doctors and scientists
- 700 Studies Showing Health Effects from Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation
- I certainly haven’t read all of this, but it’s a helpful table of contents categorizing scientific studies by health effect
- 136 Studies Showing Health Effects from WiFi Radio Frequency Radiation
- similar but focused on WiFi
- The insurance industry has begun officially excluding coverage for health effects related to EMFs
- WI-FRIED? a helpful television episode about it. Note: This episode got the entire series cancelled. There are tremendous politics involved.
- Autism One 2016 EMF Talks
- Peter Sullivan’s website and short Youtube videos are helpful
- Have you been duped by Crony Science? Some of the politics behind it
So we have removed WiFi from the house and I use my cell phone much, much less. I finally got a VOIP yesterday so I will be using my cell phone only when I am away from home and need to make a call now (what a novel idea).
Alan Maher’s grounding products (starting with the shoe inserts) have been shockingly helpful. I would encourage everyone to take steps away from EMF exposure, and if you have chronic health issues, it is very likely EMFs are a contributing factor.
An objection is often raised as to how God could enter into a covenant of works with fallen sinners. (Note: “a” covenant of works, not “the” covenant of works)
It is argued that a covenant that operates upon a principle of works (If you do this, then you will get this) must start from the basis of innocence. If someone is innocent, then they can earn a reward. However, if they are not innocent, if they have a guilt that must be paid, then they cannot earn anything until that guilt is paid. So a fallen sinner cannot enter into a covenant of works for any kind of reward (even temporal) until that guilt is paid (which they cannot do).
It is a strong argument on the face of it. However, the problem is that Scripture throws us a curve ball. Leviticus 18:5 says that the Mosaic Covenant, which is made with fallen sinners, operates upon the principle of “if you do this, then you will get this.” That principle is repeated throughout the Old Testament, particularly in Ezekiel when Israel is being prosecuted for their violation of the covenant. Bryan D. Estelle notes
Leviticus 18:5’s influence on Ezekiel is of paramount importance. The purpose of these echoic allusions in Ezekiel is to show that what Israel has failed to do, God will do… Leviticus 18 allusions are seen throughout the entire book of Ezekiel and not merely restricted (as often) to chapter 20 of Ezekiel where three citations of Lev 18:5 have frequently been noted… Israel’s failure to fulfill the stipulations is highlighted repeatedly in Ezekiel 1-24…
Paul also quotes Leviticus 18:5 twice in the NT. Both times he does so to demonstrate the antithesis between the law and faith (Rom 10:5, Gal 3:12).
Those who object that God could not make a covenant of works with fallen man usually argue that Lev 18:5 is not stating the terms of the Mosaic Covenant. They claim it is just a reference, or proclamation of the original Adamic Covenant and it is just reminding Israelites of it. It’s not stating the terms of the Mosaic Covenant, they argue, only declaring the original terms of the Adamic Covenant. However, not only is this an impossible reading of the text itself, it fails the systematic test as well. (See Guy Waters on Leviticus 18:5)
So, biblically speaking, Lev 18:5 proves that a covenant made with fallen sinners operates upon a works principle. So there must be a problem with the original objection. The problem is that not only are fallen sinners unable to earn anything, fallen sinners are unable to breathe the very air they breathe each day and eat the food they eat each day. They deserve only God’s wrath and death. Yet somehow they continue to eat and breathe and live. That is because of God’s long-suffering towards them. All mankind deserved immediate eternal punishment upon Adam’s breach of his covenant of works. But God delayed and preserved mankind. God is willing and able, while maintaining his justice, to give them gifts (Matt. 5:45) when they only deserve wrath – and to do so apart from union with Christ.
So then what is preventing him from choosing some of those fallen sinners and offering them gifts above and beyond the norm (rain and sun) upon the condition that they do something? There can be no objection of injustice anymore than there can be an objection of injustice on God’s part towards every fallen sinner.
“But,” they will object, “that would mean that there is some kind of grace involved, and therefore it cannot be a covenant of works!” Not so fast. WCF/LBCF 7.1 teach that even the original Covenant of Works was established through God’s “voluntary condescension.” Mankind owed obedience to God by nature without the expectation of any reward, yet God “graciously” condescended to reward that obedience with something. So offering man something that he does not deserve, on the condition of his obedience, is not inconsistent with a covenant of works. Note what Owen says:
The covenant of works had its promises, but they were all remunerative, respecting an antecedent obedience in us; (so were all those which were peculiar unto the covenant of Sinai). They were, indeed, also of grace, in that the reward did infinitely exceed the merit of our obedience; but yet they all supposed it, and the subject of them was formally reward only.
(Hebrews 8:6 commentary)
Finally, here is how John Erskine answers:
But, if this reasoning proves anything, will it not prove, that a God of spotless purity, can enter into a friendly treaty with men, whom yet, on account of their sins, he utterly abhors. And what if it does? Perhaps, the assertion, however shocking at first view, may, on a narrower scrutiny, be found innocent. We assert not any inward eternal friendship between God and the unconverted Jews. We only assert an external temporal covenant, which, though it secured their outward prosperity, gave them no claim to God’s special favour. Where then is the alleged absurdity? Will you say it is unworthy of God to maintain external communion with sinners, or to impart to them any blessings? What then would become of the bulk of mankind? Nay, what would become of the patience and longsuffering of God? Or is it absurd, that God should reward actions that flow from bad motives when we have an undoubted instance of his doing this in the case pf Jehu? Or is it absurd, that God would entail favours on bad men, in the way of promise or covenant? Have you forgot God’s promise to Jehu, that his children of the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel? Or have you forgot, what concerns you more, God’s covenant with mankind in general, no more to destroy the earth by a flood (2 Kings 10:30; Gen 9:12)?
Thus there is no valid systematic objection to God making “a” covenant of works with fallen sinners concerning temporal life and blessing in the land of Canaan.
[Note: there is a valid objection God making “the” covenant of works with fallen sinners concerning eternal life. See Republication, the Mosaic Covenant, and Eternal Life.]
Under the appellation of children the difference they [Anabaptists] observe is this, that the children of Abraham, under the old dispensation, were those who derived their origin from his seed, but that the appellation is now given to those who imitate his faith, and therefore that carnal infancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the covenant by circumcision, typified the spiritual children of the new covenant, who are regenerated by the word of God to immortal life. In these words we indeed discover a small spark of truth…
We certainly admit that the carnal seed of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual seed, which is ingrafted into him by faith (Gal. 4:28; Rom. 4:12).
Commenting on this, Peter Lillback notes “It is true that the offspring of Abraham’s flesh foreshadowed the future offspring of Abraham by faith.”
Our paedobaptist brothers simply do not recognize the implications of these admissions (for more like this, see here). If Abraham’s carnal seed were a type and shadow of his spiritual seed, which “held the place of the spiritual seed” for a time, then to determine the proper recipients of baptism by appeal to Abraham’s carnal seed is necessarily to return to types and shadows that have passed away at the coming of Christ.
- P1 Abraham’s carnal seed was a type/shadow of Abraham’s spiritual seed.
- P2 Abraham’s carnal seed received the sign of circumcision.
- C1 The sign of circumcision was given to the type/shadow of Abraham’s spiritual seed.
- P3 The sign of circumcision was given to the type/shadow of Abraham’s spiritual seed.
- P4 Types and shadows have passed away and become obsolete at the coming of Christ.
- C2 The sign of circumcision was given to a group that has passed away and become obsolete.
- P5 The sign of circumcision was given to a group that has passed away and become obsolete.
- P6 Baptism serves the same covenant function as circumcision, therefore its proper recipients are determined by the recipients of circumcision.
- C3 The proper recipients of baptism are determined by looking to what has passed away and become obsolete
The final conclusion is logically valid, but it is false because P6 is false.
I just updated the Church Membership: De Jure or De Facto? post with quotes from Ussher, the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith, a WTJ article, John Murray, and Doug Wilson. Give it a read.
In “From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism” W. Gary Crampton argues that the Westminster Confession is self-contradictory on the issue of infant baptism. He notes (among several arguments) that WCF 28.1 and WLC #165 contradict WCF 28.4 because infants are unable to “enter into an open and professed engagement.” “Water baptism symbolizes, not only the blessings of the gospel, but the saving response to the gospel by the party baptized (Acts 2:38; 8:36-37; Gal 3:27; 1 Pet 3:21; Heb 10:22-23).” He notes that William Cunningham and James Bannerman recognized this and taught that the baptism of adults has a different meaning than the baptism of infants, which contradicts Ephesians 4:5.
Over at Particular Voices, there is a fascinating, candid discussion of this problem recorded by George Gillespie in his notes from the Assembly.
In questions of medicine and health, just like in theology, there are a variety of opinions. However, unlike in theology, there still exists a “state church” of medicine. Anyone not in agreement with the state church of medicine is automatically considered a schismatic cult of medicine.
Most people default to trusting state medicine and will look upon others with great suspicion (and often contempt). You will often hear “alternative” medicine denounced as not being “evidence based.” But is that true? What exactly does that mean?
David: Well, one of the criticisms that I have gotten in the past has been, “Well, Perlmutter, you’re not practicing evidence-based medicine. What that means is, what I’m doing hasn’t been validated in peer-reviewed studies in a double-blinded way, using thousands of individuals, so that somebody can develop a proprietary drug that I would then prescribe. That’s what evidence-based medicine is all about. In this lifetime, I choose to look at the evidence of what happens to my patients. When I see a child who couldn’t speak or socially interact, and sat in the corner spinning circles, and would scream, suddenly have a videotape sent to me from his mother of this child practicing a book report about Benjamin Franklin, and that’s a true story. Because he underwent a fecal transplantation, and he has autism, that’s … There is not a double-blinded trial.
Although, interestingly enough, that is actually going on right now, at University of Arizona, doing fecal transplant study on kids with autism. The reason that child underwent fecal transplantation to reestablish a healthy microbiome is because of the numerous scientific publications demonstrating that kids with autism have a disturbed microbiome, because of the fabulous research by Dr. Derrick MacFabe at the University of Western Ontario, showing that the bacterial changes in the gut that are correlated with autism induce changes in the levels of what are called the short chain fatty acids. Higher levels of one short chain fatty acid, called propionic acid, that directly damages brain function. He’s actually injected rodents with propionic acid, and what do they do?
They go into a corner, and they spin around in circles, and they don’t sniff each other, they don’t socialize. I have that on my website; it’s on YouTube, for crying out loud. He is going to present his data at our upcoming microbiome conference. When a parent brings me their autistic child, and their family has been devastated by it, they don’t know what the future holds. They know pretty well that that child is going to grow up into an adult who requires full-time assistance. They say, “Dr. Perlmutter, we know there is no pill, but what’s your best guess?” I don’t guess based upon hunches, I’m guessing based upon this information that we have at hand, that researchers are looking at around the world, that I try to write books about, and I try to lecture about.
I say, “Here’s what we ought to do. We ought to change the diet, X, Y, and Z. We ought to consider aggressive probiotics; we might even consider probiotics enemas.” What a crazy idea, putting probiotics in the colon of a kid with autism. Why in the world would you do that? When that question is asked, I give an hour lecture, I show slides, I give people the peer-reviewed literature that documents the research going on that is supportive of these wacky ideas. Again, when people say, “Gee, this is stepping out, why don’t you just toe the line?” I’m not going to do it. I’m not going to look parents in the eye, and say, “Look, at this point in time we really don’t have a medication for your child, and that’s about as much time as I have. See you later.”
That just isn’t going to work for me.
Dave: One of the things that really made a difference to me, is I come from a family of engineers and scientists, evidence-based people. When you study actual evidence in the history of debate, and the Greeks, there’s actually 7 different kinds or 8 different kinds of ways of having evidence. To this day, there is actually no double-blind study, that jumping out of an airplane would kill you.
I would invite the evidence-based people to go ahead, and do that, to figure it out, because if you say evidence-based, and you only count one of the 7 kinds, what you’re doing is you’re suddenly insulting everyone else who said, “Well, here’s the evidence. When I smack myself in the face, it hurts; that’s evidence. It just is.” There is not a double-blinded study that says that that hurts, but it is evidence. We can just reject evidence-based people as close-minded, and unwilling to consider most forms of evidence, because it doesn’t fit with whatever dogma they believe. Those are religious people hiding as scientists.
In other words, you could compare these people to “proof-texters” who deny the use of inference in the study of theology and demand an explicit proof text for every doctrine.
Do theologians who draw inferences from the text in order to establish doctrine not explicit in the text reject “bible-based” doctrine? No.
Do practitioners who draw inferences from studies in order to establish treatments not explicit in the studies reject “evidence-based” medicine? No.
Consider the following as well:
As a practicing physician for more than 25 years, I can assure the reader that virtually all doctors fear being ridiculed by their colleagues more than anything else. This fear, more than any other factor that I can identify, appears to almost completely stifle independent medical thought. As Goethe once said: “We would rather admit our moral errors, mistakes and crimes than our scientific errors.” Certainly, a small handful of dishonorable physicians may realize that some unwelcome but legitimate medical breakthroughs could reduce their income, and they may oppose those breakthroughs for that reason. However, most physicians really care about and want to help their patients. The problem that remains is how to get physicians and the complete medical truth together. Forman (1981) analyzed this resistance to innovation by some scientists, especially those who are physicians and clinicians.
Although this book will address the incredible ability of vitamin C to effectively treat and cure many different viral diseases and effectively treat a wide array of other infectious diseases, the following true story about another long-standing effective therapy will probably best illustrate why additional attempts to get the truth out about vitamin C must be made. On Sunday, July 2, 2000, a made-for-TV movie aired during the primetime evening hours. Entitled . . . First Do No Harm, it starred Meryl Streep, one of the most acclaimed actresses of our day. It was a fictionalized story based on real events in the life of a mother (Streep) and her young child. The child developed epileptic seizures that proved to be progressively unresponsive to all of the prescription medicines that were used. Additionally, the child developed multiple side effects to the medications, with at least one being life-threatening. The child was finally offered brain surgery as a last resort, although not an option with much hope of long-term success. The child’s mother, not one to just accept fate but determined to mold it herself, threw herself into research at the medical library. She “discovered” a treatment called the “ketogenic diet,” which the literature said completely eliminated seizures in a significant percentage of patients unsuccessfully treated with multiple seizure drugs. Her neurologist had not even mentioned diet as a possible therapy, even though this treatment had been in the medical literature for about 75 years! When the mother mentioned trying the diet, the neurologist only ridiculed her, labeled the reports of success with the diet as “anecdotal,” and even threatened to use legal action to keep her from transferring her child to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore to try the diet and avoid surgery. As might now be expected, the diet worked dramatically, and the child rapidly became seizure-free and remained off of all medications.
The next day in the doctor’s lounge at one of the local hospitals in Colorado Springs, it was very apparent that the doctors as a group were indignant that their authority had been questioned by the movie, . . . First Do No Harm. When one of the younger doctors did assert that he should “look into” this ketogenic diet, the remainder of them rapidly built up a strong “group negativity” that welcomed only further negative comments about this treatment modality. Some of these real doctors’ comments actually closely paralleled the negative comments of the TV movie neurologist. The doctors also assaulted the reports of positive responses to the ketogenic diet as anecdotal, even though it was very obvious that most, if not all, of them had never even heard of the ketogenic diet before seeing or hearing of the movie. This was in spite of the fact that many of these positive responses to the diet had actually been published. One doctor even referred to the internet as just another “National Enquirer,” implying that lay people are too hopelessly ignorant to ever discover vital information on their own, and that they are easily deluded by anything they might read. Another older physician asserted that he would need a “full bibliography” of medical references before he would even give the ketogenic diet passing consideration. As a group, it was generally expressed and accepted that it was impossible that any significant therapy for unresponsive seizure disorders could possibly have eluded them in the course of their medical training. Rather than join in the conversation, i just listened, and then i left without commenting.
After I got home, it took all of about three minutes to get my computer online, access MEDLINE, and find 180 medical journal references on the “ketogenic diet.” MEDLINE is the database of the National Library of Medicine, containing over 11 million citations and author abstracts from more than 4,000 biomedical journals throughout the world, dating from 1966 to the present. (See the references cited at the end of this introduction for a small sampling of these ketogenic diet references.) in one of the more recent references in the April, 2000 issue of Pediatrics eleven studies on the ketogenic diet were reviewed. The authors concluded that the ketogenic diet completely stopped medically unresponsive seizures in a significant percentage of children. The diet also reduced seizure frequency by over 90% in an even greater percentage of children! Similar articles were found in the various neurology and epilepsy journals. Sadly, it would seem that many pediatricians and pediatric neurologists do not know what is in the most current issues of their primary and specialty journals. At the very least, it appears that what is read is rarely independently evaluated and weighed in the mind of the doctor reader. Invariably, new and “radical” information simply must already be accepted by the majority of a doctor’s medical peers to have any real chance of being utilized in patient care. Older, more “radical” information, ironically, seems to have even less chance of objective evaluation and practical application.
It is of further significance to note that there has always been a consistent push to use prescription drugs whenever possible for just about any medical condition. Modern epileptic drugs were not available when the ketogenic diet was first discovered. However, the proper application of the diet is demanding and requires much more of an investment in time and effort than needs to be taken in the writing of a prescription. When the anti-seizure drugs first came along a few years later, the ketogenic diet quickly fell into disfavor. This is especially unfortunate since epileptic drugs frequently have severe side effects compared to many other prescription drugs. Suffice it to say, however, that the ordinary physician rarely strays from what is contained in the primary textbooks, even if the current journals with which the physician should be familiar assert otherwise.
A word about one of the most common physician criticisms of a concept that does not mesh with traditional medical information needs to be mentioned here. When something is labeled as an “anecdote,” the person reporting the information is usually being told that he or she is incapable of accurately reporting the response of a patient to a treatment. In reality, the dictionary defines an anecdote as being a short narrative that is unpublished. The most esteemed journals of our day often contain what are called “case reports,” which are nothing more than brief summarizations of the response(s) of one or a handful of patients to a certain treatment. A case report is absolutely nothing more than an anecdotal report that managed to get published. However, the published case report is typically written by a health care professional, and the information is often given the validity of a much more “scientifically” prepared study or article. In the final analysis, however, a case report is an anecdote, and an anecdote is a case report. The only differences are the reporter and the reporter’s ability to be published. The lay person reporter or the non-mainstream medical doctor reporter will only endure ridicule and struggle to get published, while the mainstream doctor reporter will often get published and be awarded greater respect from the medical community for making a significant observation of a noteworthy clinical event. New, cutting-edge medical concepts from “non-sanctioned sources” frequently struggle just to see the light of day.
Levy MD JD, Thomas E. (2011-08-31). Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins:Curing the Incurable (Kindle Locations 202-263). Xlibris. Kindle Edition.
Finally, listen to this podcast Ep. 541 Just How Much Has Government Screwed Up Health Care? An ER Doctor Explains — and Tells Us How to Fix It