Saturday, April 28, 2018

Slutty Orthodox American Won't Apologize for Being Christian

There is no certainty in the American experiment that Christianity survives for much longer.  The righteous don't have an edge in living longer, being loved more, or finding health and happiness than any other type of person.  We, as Christians, already know that.  We have Ecclesiastes to thank for shocking us back to the reality that we will be dust in the wind at the end of our existence and nobody will really remember our names after a generation or two.  It may come to pass that Christianity ends this same way, and that would be unfortunate. 

After all, the ecstasy of Christ is redemption, forgiveness, justice, compassion, and love.  And, these are eternal virtues worth celebrating whether or not you are a Christian for the sake of loving a God you cannot see, touch or feel, except in some idea in your brain or a shiver up your spine. 

So, why am I so hungrily wanting my nation to reach out and find orthodox American Christianity as part of its core personality?  Why should I hope my type of faith flirts its skirt at non-believers and show a little leg once in a while to attract a broader audience.  After all, who would not want to know why the Master of love and forgiveness still matters to the American consciousness as ever lasting virtues?  But, we as Christians can give ourselves the voice to say we matter because we get it that we are dust-in-the-wind, and how we act as people matters. 

Christianity isn't just a cult following of God, where we prostrate ourselves during a Sunday service to ask for divine forgiveness for rules that have been evolving in society for millennia and that are naturally broken on a daily basis.  No, it is for the recognition that we all feel disjointed, fragmented, and under-valued.  The point of Christianity is that God exists as part of our community, and that we are made holy by reaching out to one another to recognize them for who they are to themselves and us.  The Samaritan at the well was unwelcome to a Jew, but sitting down with Jesus, a Jew, they became welcome for who they are: thirsty, normal, human and temporary. 

There is a promise in Christianity that we well be welcomed by God for eternity in a place called heaven.  Well, I don't know what heaven is or what "body" may await the chosen.  What I know is that eternity can exist for generations to come by their acceptance that they are the link in the chain of Christian faithful and that chain has been unbroken since Jesus was crucified on a hanging torture rack until death.  We cannot proclaim we are truly saved to this afterworld and truly selected by God as we ourselves have never even seen the Book of Life.  We simply imagine its existence so that our soul endures and is welcome be God and that we will forever be embraced by that divine love. 

What is wrong with this message?  We admit to not knowing fully if life eternal exists, other than by ancient witness texts.  We admit that we dream of the presence of a divine force that commands our attention forever and that we want to naturally be loved and embraced by this divine love always.  Is that dream not an eternal virtue that should be embraced? 

Christ endures in me.  The idea of a man taking on the crap of humanity and releasing all of us to live our lives unmolested by our internal and external conflicts by embracing the idea to love each other unconditionally is a worthy goal for any eternal virtue.  And, it helps me to recognize that to love others I need to love myself as a person worthy of love.  So, I can reach for the donut without guilt knowing it doesn't matter.  In the end, that donut will be forgotten and be dust soon enough.  God releases me of that guilt. And, just as importantly, Jesus gives me license to work on improving my health or the health of somebody else if I choose.  So, if I invent a cure for social anxiety, hey, good for me and everyone else.  Jesus embraces the eternal virtue of making the Ecclesiastical experience of our lives more comfortable.  Hey, drink a little water with a Samaritan and don't worry if they pick you up at the side of the road after you have been mugged!  Get over the fact that they look like a Somali, or a Ukrainian, or a North Korean.  We all carry around baggage that is hard to shed. 

It is hard for me as a contemporary American to reach into the past to carry forward ancient ideas of escapism without recognizing I have been flirting with that slutty orthodoxism of Christian faith for some time.  I shamelessly want that God of love in my life.  And, with no concern for this abstraction, I love sharing a passion for personal justice, social justice, compassion for all, and the desire that the basic rules of living still matter; i.e., stop killing each other, don't steal the chicken in another American's pot.  Grow your own chicken, damn it!  If you want some, all you have to do is ask to come over for dinner.  I would be glad to make a plate for you during your visit. 

I really am attracted to that slutty idea that God showed a little leg of scripture to entice me into a relationship between creator and the created.  Even if God is only nature, what harm is there in the mythology that we desire the relationship to how we arrived here as people?  And, what harm is there in that crazy idea that drinking with the wrong people can be a virtue at some point?

Jesus was born.  He exists in history as a figure of revolutionary thought that has eternal virtue.  And, if it is virtuous in America, it must be worthy of gathering the faithful together and share the experience at Church or each others homes.  Most Christians would not dare call out God for showing a little flirty skirt to attract the faithful to eternal devotion and worship of the ideal of God.  Oh well.  They wrap the idea of Christ in their own way and I am fine with that.  Be a Christian Samairitan with me.


Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Monday, May 29, 2017

A Slushy is not Food

The claim has been made by politicians that the poor are lazy, stupid and do not deserve to eat through public funds.  But, let's be precise about these claims from a classical conservative point of view.  What does it cost the public to feed people compared to not feeding people.   Is it better to feed the poor or not to feed the poor?  This question really gets down to the nub of fiscal responsibility, and makes no mention of the virtue of being poor, at all.

I, for one, do not have a point of view on poverty, except that people arrive there and rarely get out of poverty; and, if I could, I would wave my magic wand to move them upward and out of poverty.  Do I think this has merit?  I have no idea if there is merit in not being poor any more than I know if there is merit to being richer than sin itself.  All I want to know is if feeding people is cheaper than not feeding people from a public funding perspective.  So, let's look at costs and benefits and then after that matter has settled, look at which position may benefit the public as a whole.

Researchers have studied this, most often from the perspective that food insecurity leads to poor health outcomes. If you cannot foot the bill for food, you are very likely to develop chronic health problems.  Chronic being an ongoing and continuous condition, or, if you will, not an acute or short term problem.  But, newer research shows that having chronic health conditions also leads to the inability to buy food, destabilizing a poor persons status even further.

What problems occur from acute or chronic food deficits?  The range of problems are both acute and chronic.  Common problems are hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus and neural degeneration, which amounts to confusion, the inability to make effective decisions, and hypoxia due to acquired anemia.

So, in a way, poor people look stupid because the condition of poverty causes neural impairment.  If you were a mother in poverty with malnutrition, your child's neural development would be impaired chronically.  Neural function would be forever diminished as would neurotransmitter release.  Neonatal malnutrition causes people to be mentally impaired, or stupid.

What else might malnutrition cause?  We know that even relatively healthy and intelligent people develop stress related poor decision making ability.  When people are paid, people make better decisions than when they are poor.  As pay day is further away and money gets tight, the poor begin to make irrational decisions as stress overcomes normal decision making.  And, the decisions they need to make are almost impossible to decide between.  Should I eat or put gas into the car?  If they can't regularly get to work, they lose their job.  If they get to work mentally impaired from malnutrition, they may make poor decisions at the job and thereby loose their position.  They are damned either way.

So, are they responsible for these choices?  No.  How could they possibly choose between the proverbial rock and hard place and not increase their stress reaction?  Could they possibly be expected to perform like nutritionally competent people given the bodies reaction to malnutrition?

What are the costs over a lifetime of malnutrition?  Usually, poor people on Medicaid have at least two chronic health conditions.  About a third of those on Medicaid have 4 chronic health conditions.
The ten most costly chronic health conditions are most prevalent among the poor.  In other words, 29 million men and women on Medicaid have hypertension.  21 million have mental health issues.  Heart disease alone costs Medicaid $91 billion.  Treating acquired mental illness due to malnutrition cost an additional $61 billion dollars.  Just those two chronic conditions cost the nation $152 billion dollars.

The cost of the SNAP program, which feeds children and parents of poor families costs is a mere 75 billion dollars.  If we provided better SNAP benefits that reduced the incidence of heart disease and mental health conditions, would we not either decrease costs or paid relatively the same dollars for better health in the poor?  Given the numbers, if we fed pregnant poor women sufficiently for better neonatal health and fed those families enough to prevent the development of acquired mental health problems, wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that the cost of the $61 billion dollar Medicaid mental health costs would decline?  I think it would be fair to say that acquired mental health from malnutrition costs would substantially decline.

I could only find data associated with these conditions with costs to society.  I could not find studies that resolve the question as I posed.  Is it better to feed the poor or pay for the costs of being poor?
I can only assume that certain costs would decline, like those related to diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, mental health, cancer and the like.

So, if you know more about this subject and have information to share please email me at I would like to learn more and to share it on future posts on the subject.

Just know that I lied above.  I really do care about feeding the poor.  It is cheaper to feed the poor than to create a whole class of chronically malnourished people.  These people are my countrymen.  Our failure to treat them like brothers and sisters is beyond the pale.  We fed Nazi and Japanese soldiers 3 solid meals per day and we can't produce the political will to feed our own people for the bias of "stupidity" or "laziness".

Well, if you did not eat healthy foods or simply did not have access to healthy foods, you eventually develop anemia, which leads to hypoxia, which leads to neural impairment, and acute organ failure.  Put bluntly, starvation sucks big time.  And, the rich know this and don't care.  And, they have largely attempted to depress a whole class of Americans out of contempt.  There can only be two explanations for this contempt.  One, they just hate poor people.  Or, secondly, they don't know any better.  My hope is that there is a mix of the two.  At least I may sway the ignorant to greater enlightenment.

Right now, the United States has entered a period which could be known as the dark age.  People prefer ignorance than the truth.  And, this is hard to overcome.  I only know of one way to overcome ignorance and that is by vigilance.

Poverty is primarily a social construct that results in real diseases of the body and mind of the poor. It is preventable and only the more well off are responsible for the poor's condition.  We can afford to feed them and house them.  We just fail to try to sustain them.  We are told they are lazy and stupid.  The medical terms for these conditions are malaise and cognitive impairment, which do not have the same meaning as lazy or stupid.  The poor are cursed by malaise and neural impairment.  And, I am astonished that poverty is blamed on the poor, which is like calling the sick the cause of their own disease, and not a microbe, vector, or chemical assault.  We tend to concentrate the poor in small areas where they have to compete with other poor for jobs, governmental support, and even the barest of necessities, including food and lodging.

There is so much food on earth that we let rot more than 25 percent of all food grown.  As for housing, in Minnesota alone there is 2 homes for every one family available.  The rich have more homes than need.  The poor have no homes and great need.  Scarcity is not the issue.  The issue is one of desire.  The poor can be made healthy and whole from simply providing a stress free home over their heads and 3 squares a day.

What is wrong with this picture?  I hear the hate and contempt for the poor all the time as if they are the cause of their own poverty.  Give the poor food and find out what great people they can become in stress free life.  I would bet big that the poor would lift themselves out of poverty with a little bit more love and a lot less hate.

That idea of loving thy neighbor as thy self is as old as Jesus.  Just saying!  

Friday, January 30, 2015

A Critical Review of the Mumps, Measles and Rubella Vaccine Controversy about Autism

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a research paper in the medical journal The Lancet, which claimed a connection between taking the Mumps, Measles, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and later complications including Autism in a subpopulation of vaccinated children.  No other studies of the vaccine could find a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism. I will examine the essential facts to reveal if the controversy is settled within the scientific community and to reveal the origin of the controversy.  If this article is not clear, accurate and defensible from a rigorous scientific point of view, I will most certainly take it down and apologize to the public. As of now, I foresee no such problem arising.

Mumps, measles and rubella are childhood diseases that pose a significant health threat to young children whose immune systems have not developed prior immunity.  Mumps is an acute viral illness that is caused by the paramyxovirus.  The general course of the disease lasts between 2 and 10 days and includes symptoms of fever, muscle pain, lack of appetite, fatigue, and headache.  In epidemiological studies of mumps before the immunization era, hearing loss resulted in 4 percent of men who contracted the disease and was causative for 10 percent of all meningitis cases, at a rate of about 1 in 1000 cases of mumps.  The severity of meningitis may lead to hearing loss, brain damage and learning disabilities. 

Measles is another respiratory disease caused by the viral family of paramyxovirus.  Measles includes a rash, fever, loss of appetite, and affects the lymph glands.  Complications include ear inflammation, pneumonia, encephalitis, seizures and death.  Encephalitis complications are fairly rare at 2 cases per 100,000 cases of measles with the same additional complications as the mumps version of paramyxovirus infection. 

Rubella is a togaviral infection with low grade fever, fatigue, a mild rash, and mild respiratory infection, and commonly no symptoms at all occur.  Complications include arthritis in up to 70% of women who had contracted Rubella.  Encephalitis occurs in 1 in 3000 cases and has a significant mortality associated with this form in women.  In pregnant women, fetal development can be altered causing congenital defects.  Up to 85 percent of fetuses who contract the virus develop congenital defects.

The three viruses have significant public health affects warranting methods of public control of the disease.  But, is there a relationship between the MMR vaccination and Autism?  Has there been any scientific basis that properly addressed the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine and if Thimerosal, an antiseptic and antifungal agent used to preserve the vaccine is a causative agent in Autism in a subpopulation of recipients of the vaccine?

Any research should show a domain of thought that is consistently objective, be defensible, be cogent and accurate, and should not be meant to deceive or selfishly rationalize the MMR vaccine for personal vanity.  That is too often the case in many articles that vilify science is due to the vanity of the person who holds out against scientific rigor. The two main views in the public realm of the MMR is either pro benefit to public health with no causal affect to Autism or pro-causal to the Autism spectrum.

The Center for Disease Control states “the MMR vaccine is not responsible for recent increase in the number of children with Autism.”  “Because signs of Autism appear around the same time children receive the MMR vaccine, some parents may worry that the vaccine causes Autism.”  They mention several studies, both large scale and small, on Thimerosal that show no connection to Autism.  None of the studies involved the manufacture of Thimerosal and were funded independently.  The largest study was conducted by the Danish Ministry of Health tracking 300,000 MMR vaccinated children and found no statistical relationship to Autism.  The CDC made a substantial effort to show that there was no relationship to Autism and that the vaccine has a substantial affect in reducing or eliminating
widespread infection in the population.  I found no language supporting the use of use of Thimerosal as anything other than a safe antifungal and antiseptic agent.  The CDC point of view is defensible in that it uses a panel of physicians and researchers that have arrived at consensus to determine public health policy (I formed this opinion from prior work experience and study) and there was no indication that they deviated from their typically robust procedures for this article.  They specifically addressed the concerns about Autism by suggesting that the research reports were rigorous, replicated, and sufficient to address the public’s concern.  It did not appear that the article wanted to rationalize the pro vaccine point of view.

There has been widespread press against the MMR vaccination with Thimerosol. They always assert that Thimerosol is the causative agent of Autism.  A repeated claim revolves around the press being influenced by pharmaceutical companies and that there is an invisible force suppressing the truth about Thimerosol.  Yet, any brief look at Google search and thousands of copycat articles are prevalent.  Apparently the invisible hand trying to hide the claims against Thimerosol are everywhere.

The controversy began with former Dr. Andrew Wakefield conducted a very small study of 12 patients, whom he claimed had autism as a result of the MMR vaccine.  But, that paper published in the peer reviewed medical journal The Lancet was delisted at the request of 10 of the papers coauthors due to the studies lack of controls and its spurious linkage of 3 separate diseases as a single disease.  The study used a survey of parents to link autism to the MMR without examination or comparison to a control.  After the publication of the study, the British Medical Association requested Dr. Wakefield to reconduct his tests but with greater controls to see if his original findings could be replicated.  He refused to comply.  After an investigative report into his first study found that the data was fabricated, an investigation into the falsification of the data, Mr. Wakefield was stripped of his credentials after the longest investigational hearing in the practice of medicines history.   He was stripped of his credentials there can be no doubt that the only study linking Autism to the MMR vaccine is a fraud.  Wakefield was given time to conduct better research and he failed to adhere to rigorous controls.  The fact that Mr. Wakefield lost his credentials and after careful consideration his Lancet paper withdrawn due to falsification of the primary data, there can be no doubt that Mr. Wakefield has a major credibility problem and his point of view suspect in regard to the vaccine. 

There are claims that U.S. and Italian courts have ruled that the MMR is linked to Autism and that awards have been made based upon evidence.  These have been false claims with no corroborative evidence provided in those judicial and public opinions.  The most infamous case distortion involved Ryan Majobi.  By my own examination of that case, it was remanded to an omnibus case against the manufacture of Thimerosol.  the ruling was not to support a claim that Thimerosal caused Autism in Ryan, but that the court ruled that Ryan had suffered from encephalopathy, which everyone agrees can result from the inoculation.  The court record states, “Petitioner specifically asserted that Ryan “suffered a Vaccine Table injury, namely encephalopathy as a result of the MMR vaccine.” Found on December 19, 2003.  The disease was not in the MMR vaccine, but was contracted as a result of the needle puncture allowing encephalitis to emerge within the body of Ryan.  It is well known that this is a pathway to Autism, separate from the MMR. 

In fact, the case regarding Thimerosal was sent to a Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  This court appointed a master of the subject of medical research to review the facts regarding the science around the likelihood of Autism resulting from the preservative.  Ryan Mojabi became a sub petitioner in the Michelle Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services case under the jurisdiction of the Special Master appointed.  The Cedillo’s alleged the MMR caused Michelle to suffer various medical conditions, including Autism.  The Special Master denied the petition after reviewing the scientific literature presented at trial for the 12,000 litigants and the Federal Court of Appeals upheld his decision.  This refutes the assertion by the thousands of reports repeating the false claim that a U.S. court held in favor of Ryan Mojabi and linking the MMR to Autism. 

For those of you who may not be aware, a Special Masters is an appointed officer, who serve a quasi judicial role to assist the courts’ in complex cases that require expertise beyond the knowledge or ability of the court.  Special Masters can compel evidence to be provided, including of a scientific nature to be provided the master to review and to take expert testimony at the highest order. 
Finally, there are claims of an Italian court ruling against the safety of the MMR vaccine in a single case. 

The problem with this case is in the fact it does not alter scientific opinion.  Nor did it alter the immunization policy of Italy.  One such decision does not alter the substantial judicial opinion supporting MMR vaccination. According to the Italian National Health Service, MMR vaccinations are still required for infants in Italy of 13 -15 months of age. 

I conclude that immunization using Thimerosal is reliable as no reliable evidence could substantiate the claim that Thimerosal is a causative agent of Autism.  If substantive and reliable evidence could be produced against Thimerosal, I would have to rethink this opinion.  To date, no such evidence has been produced by any researcher outside of the defrocked Andrew Wakefield.


Commissioned in America Headline Animator