The Gift Of Sexual Freedom
Published February 14, 2009 | 
I was reading the blog of Edwin Leap, a physician who writes about medicine, family, and culture, and I found an opinion you don’t hear out there very often. It was based on an observation of a medical chart.
I was looking over a  chart not long ago and saw a combination of medicines that caught my eye. The young woman I was caring for was taking an oral contraceptive and an antidepressant. Nothing unusual, except that it occurs to me that I frequently see that combination, especially in high-school and college-aged single women.
I am the first to agree that correlation is not causation. However, that is not an excuse to stop the investigation altogether. Maybe one is not causing the other, but if a correlation exists, then let’s start digging into that. Let’s unpack the correlation and try and discover what is causing the depression, and consequently the need for the antidepressants. Edwin goes further and postulates on one such potential cause.
All women are designed to establish relationships and maintain them. They are also made to incorporate physical intimacy into the appropriate relationships, rather than have it as a stand-alone activity. So, when young women are expected to engage in sex without the security of a lasting relationship, without the hope of a lasting connection with their partner, they become uncomfortable. It violates their programming. Deep inside, in the place they allow very few to see, it breaks their hearts.
Broken hearts can cause depressed minds. And that, I suspect, is one of the major reasons that so many women are taking antidepressants along with their birth control pills. Here they are, young, thrilled by life, full of passion and anxious to share their minds, their spirits, even their bodies with someone whom they love. But once they do, that someone decides that it was fun for a while, but that it’s time to move on to the next person. Of course young women become depressed. Why shouldn’t they?
If these things are true, and I think they are, then it makes sense to me that the free gift of sexual freedom is depression.
You can read the full article here.
29 Responses to The Gift Of Sexual Freedom
Leave a Reply
We Support
Keep In Touch
wow…super interesting post. thanks for sharing.
Some consolation prize… (sarcasm intended)
I think the key comment in Edwin's article is the "maybe it's nothing" part. From his post, it's clear that he is not the primary physician for this girl, and he knows little about her emotional history other than her current medication regimen. It's absurd for him to draw such conclusions about her life based on this encounter, and it's equally ridiculous for you and your ilk to eat it up like some revelatory nugget of wisdom when it's *nothing* but an anecdote. At least Edwin mitigates his comments with the implication that it's conjecture based on his (admittedly valid and extensive) experience, but you guys suck up the edgy bits, plaster his name and title at the top, and call it news. Yawn.
Women are not designed, they're evolved. To say otherwise makes you ignorant of the facts that science has provided.
Women may have evolved that way, but they were not designed to be that way.
Chris…. Well, actually he said he frequently sees that combination, so it's not based on a single case. There's also a fair bit of research around to back up his claim if you're interested in digging deeper than an agenda.
Rob, at the risk of taking the bait, what makes you think that evolution and designed by God are mutually exclusive? I think you're extrapolating what science has provided well beyond it's legitimate scope.
Design requires a designer. Since supernatural things do not exist a designer does not exist.
If you question sciences current answers then you might as well claim the earth is flat because if you're not going to believe what they've proven with evolution you might as well not believe that they proved the Earth is round.
Science has always replaced knowledge that was thought to be had from the bible. And it will continue to do so until all bibles are in the mythology section of libraries.
1. I know you believe supernatural things do not exist, but what proof is there? I would argue that question is beyond the scope of science since science is the study of the natural world and, by definition, is incapable of commenting on the existence (or non-existence) of a supernatural world.
2. I disagree with the idea that science has disproved the Bible. Quite the opposite is true. Many discoveries of archeology have confirmed the historicity of the Bible when scholars had previously believed it to be untrue. It's also true that science began as the study of the world to better understand the mind of God. Modern science is build on the shoulders of Christian men seeking to better understand their God. I'm afraid that your idea that science and faith are incompatible is a fallacy that people like Richard Dawkins would like to perpetuate. Then again, he happens to believe life on earth was seeded by higher beings from outer space. Now THAT requires a leap of faith….and only postpones the question of how life began.
I don't think this blog post's use of "design" necessarily implied a designer. Both creationists and non-theistic folks can comfortably use "design" as a euphemism for "the way something seems to function." I can comfortably say that the flagellum was designed to propel a bacterium without meaning that God did it.
I take exception to the claim that "modern science is build on the shoulders of Christian men seeking to better understand their God." The emergence of the scientific method correlates strongly with the Enlightenment, a time when many of the great thinkers of the time were pretty strict deists and skeptical of contemporary Christian dogma. This was also at a time when the Catholic church still held considerable power as a version of the thought police, and it's likely that at least some of the key players in Europe were Christian by default in the name of their own safety (Galileo and Descartes for example). Also, much of the key mathematics used in modern science was developed by folks in the Islamic world. Of course some Christians made great contributions to science (and still do), but it's silly to assert that Christianity is a main reason for science's advancement.
And, really, *where* did Richard Dawkins say that he believed alien life forms seeded earth to create life here?
I'm not intending to hijack this blog post to argue god and the bible, since the claims within the post are enough to complain about on their own!
Anyone who doesn't believe in the basic concept of evolution is religious nut. Evolution is a fact. If you think a 2000 year old book is more accurate than modern science then you are delusional.
Your arguments are like saying that the people in the Titanic movie were real and so were their stories because we have proof that the Titanic existed. Just because a story is made up with real life surroundings doesn't make the story true or the people real. The same can be said for Saving Private Ryan. Fake stories wrapped around a real event. That's what the bible is, fake stories with the occasional real event or place.
http://brandnewatheist.com/2008/02/11/science-wil…
http://brandnewatheist.com/2008/04/21/building-up…
Sorry Rob, going to agree with Allan here. BTW, I AM a scientist. You need to dig a little deeper and understand your position better. Belief in God is, by statement, a belief. Saying there is no God is also a belief, not a fact. Since you can’t prove a negative (Basic scientific premise – look it up) your statement that “God is not real” is your belief. You have stated your beliefs quite clearly, and I won’t challenge them. They are your beliefs and you are entitled to them. What I will challenge is what you have stated as fact.
And to correct a couple of your points: your comparison of the Bible to the Titanic Movie is specious. I understand that what you were saying was that just because a couple of facts were true in the movie, the entire movie was true and this method is what others were doing with the Bible. Where this specifically breaks down with Bible is that rather than one or two facts being accurate, you have books and entire sections of the Bible having been verified by reputable scientists from many disciplines: Geology, Anthropology, Botany, Archeology, Physics, etc. Time Lines, Peoples, and events have been verified. Has every single detail and story been verified? Of course not, that’s never going to be possible. However, most scholars (Christian and Non-Christian) agree that the Bible is a pretty accurate representation of history. Not myth, history. Once again, Rob, FACT.
You can always find someone to dispute fact (the earth is round, oil is organic in nature, etc) and one of the purposes of science is to constantly question what we know and to test the facts and reach past what we know. Belief, and faith, remain steadfast. You entitled to yours and we Christians are entitled to ours.
Agenda? *I'm* not the one cherrypicking from an already cherrypicked data set. It's reprehensible to pass this kind of thing off as good advice with the implication that it's advocated by a medical doctor to back up its legitmacy. Maybe I don't see the same studies you do, because I don't often troll Christian fanboy sites looking for the same old sources. There are indeed some indications that depression is an occasional side effect, but there are also plenty of studies that show otherwise. There are also entire classes of psychiatric disorders for which hormone-based contraceptives are a standard treatment. If you can be bothered to use PubMed, you'll see that it's not cut and dried as you'd like to believe. My only "agenda" is to assert that anectodal claims aren't evidence, and to further claim that I think this post is doing a great disservice to the community it claims to serve. If a young woman is suffering from depression, the implication here is that her sexuality is a strong contributor to the problem. The reality is that life is complicated, perhaps particularly so for adolescents and young adults who are facing these troubling issues. To broad-brush paint young adults' sexuality as dangerous and ungodly is absurd and counterproductive. She needs family, friends, and physicians who will help her recognize the true contributors to her problem (which may or may not include sexuality) and not some cherrypicking punks who think she should be used as an example of what to avoid.
Could you please drop the hostility in favor of a civil conversation? I'm quite familiar with much of the literature and, as a Ph.D. scientist, know how to find referred journal articles. I don't think I'm the one cherrypicking. You seem to have not moved past the idea that he based his observation on a pattern he sees in his practice with a specific case as an example. It's not about the one girl!!!! And yes, she needs support around her to help her deal with those issues. No one is arguing that. No one is arguing that it can be more complicated, but there is evidence in research to support his general observation.
Ok, I agree with you on that. No more name calling or rampant hostility. I am sympathetic to the claimed goals of this site, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with this blog post and with the Christian worldview in general. And isn't everyone a Ph.D. scientist? It's what people do when they don't want a lab tech job out of school! But are you really familiar with this particular scientific literature? I'm not, but it's a fascinating topic, mostly because it's so susceptible to bias on either side. Can you identify an actual study whose aim was to confirm a causal link between oral contraceptives and depression, presumably in young adults? I'd be interested in seeing a reference, because I looked for a while and didn't find one. There is a lot of peripheral research out there, though, so I certainly could have missed something.
Anyway, it's not relevant even if Edwin Leap has seen 1000 girls with the same profile. It's a pattern that he sees, but that's still an anecdote, especially since he's so clearly in favor of the existence of such a pattern. If it's not a double-blinded experiment, he doesn't have a leg to stand on if asserting that oral contraceptives cause depression. There are just too many ways that his bias can leak into his diagnosis, despite his best attempts at remaining objective. It might be true, but there's no way to know. Yet. In Edwin's defense, though, he stopped short of insisting that such a link definitively exists, before he waxes poetic about the roles of young men and women in modern culture in what was surely intended to be an entertaining philosophical stream rather than actual medical advice.
I'm not arguing that there might not be a link between the two. And I'm certainly not arguing that it's absolutely healthy for young women to be sexually active at an early age. It's entirely plausible that oral contraceptives can lead to depression in some women, and it's also likely that lots of sexual activity at a young age can lead to various psychological issues. I'm just saying that I don't believe sufficient research exists to truly establish the causal link between contraceptives and depression, and, if so, it's irresponsible of dewde to selectively quote an article that is *already* biased in sympathetic favor of that link. Dewde's article was clearly intended to affirm this link, and in the process he's really doing a disservice to the people he claims to want to help. If the research doesn't exist (and if it does, please link to it) then Dewde's implication is a lie, no matter how much his worldview believes it to be true. "If these things are true, and I think they are…" This is little different from the anti-vaccination crowd for whom the lack of actual evidence is no obstacle to promoting their claims. If a single young woman reads this blog post and acts on this innuendo without seeking advice from her doctor, this site has undeniably harmed her.
On a different note, since he's handing out virtual medical advice, it's also not clear what dewde's preferred alternative to oral contraceptives would be. I'd argue that oral contraception significantly lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancy when compared to condom use or nothing at all. This benefit alone might outweigh the possible side effect of depression. It should, of course, be up to the woman and her doctor to decide whether this is true.
How embarrassing it must be for you to have barked this far up the wrong tree? Here's some virtual medical advice, take a chill pill bro. Then go back and read what I actually wrote.
Yeah, I don't get it! When I re-read your stuff, it seems much less inciting than it did before. Sorry for the misrepresentation! But I'm still interested in seeing whether this research has really been done. It seems like a physician who regularly sees such patients would be familiar with it and would have mentioned it if it actually did exist. Until then, null hypothesis ftw.
Interesting…I never perceived that the doctor was drawing a correlation between contraceptives and depression, but rather to convey a hypothesis of a possible correlation between sexual activity in young women and depression.
His statement is that "…broken hearts can cause depressed minds." Not that oral contraceptives can cause them.
It seems clear to me that Leap's intention is to share his personal opinion rather than make a scientific assertion, evidenced by his sharing of this information on his personal blog rather than a scientific medical journal. I apparently am not reading as deeply into this as others.
I admire your faith in science. I can't muster the faith to trust the human mind that far., I don't have a problem with evolution. I find it that there isn't really a conflict between evolution and faith. But pinning your religious perspective on evolution is a little short-sighted. The origin of life is an open question that lead atheist zealots to claim that life was seeded by aliens or that it arose on the back of crystals by some method that has absolutely no experimental support. Even if you can answer that, why does the universe even exist? Wouldn't the most logical state be nothingness? Even if you cling to the idea of the Big Bounce, you're still left with the question of why and how the forces and elements to generate the universe in the first place came into being. The question Dawkins likes to ask is where is the first cause for God? Well, where is the first cause for life? Even more fundamentally, where is the first cause for the existence of a universe that can be described by physical properties?
Aside from those issues, you haven't addressed morality. If there is no God and life is a random accident, how can there be right and wrong? Aren't there just the random activities and actions of life? If I decided to take your life, I can see why you might not like the idea, but I don't see where you could say it was objectively wrong. After all, I'm just reducing the competition for passing on my genes and preserving a greater proportion of the resources for my descendants and me. Isn't that the core of selection of the fittest? Why should I care about genocide in Darfur? It's only elimination of the weak. Why shouldn't I just walk into your house and take everything you own? After all, if I'm strong enough to pull it off, isn't that the essence of Darwinian evolution?
Unless and until you can provide those rational answers to those questions, you're living a life based on faith. I will continue to choose to worship the living God while you would seemingly worship the human intellect and the power of human reason. I suspect that I have no chance to change your mind and I've puzzled through the intellectual foundations of Darwinism and found it wanting, so you're not likely to change mine. Feel free to have the last word.
Yawn. This is standard bogus stuff, and really is a nice laundry list of logical fallacies. Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, so the fact that you even bring it up is a non sequitur. Then you say there's no evidence for life beginning on the surfaces of crystals, implying that your alternative of "God did it" is the logical consequence. That's a false dilemma. "Wouldn't the most logical state be nothingness?" Perhaps, but that's an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity. The morality crap is a red herring. You seem to want to say that evolution cannot be true, because morality doesn't fit into it. That's blatantly false, but your argument itself is an appeal to consequences of a belief. Your wish for morality to have meaning is wholly irrelevant to the truth of anything. Your "if I kill you today, how could you say it's wrong" argument is a straw man. Few people outside of creationist circles spew that stuff. Though there were movements to associate evolutionary theory to things like eugenics and other atrocities, the mainstream vocally denounces these as pseudoscientific, and they surely do not logically follow from evolution by natural selection. There's no evidence to suggest that non-Christians or atheists commit more crimes or are otherwise "worse" than Christians. Finally, your last paragraph is almost too absurd to even consider. Where's the "faith" in Rob's life? He's apparently trying to live an evidence-based life. That's pretty much the opposite of faith in every respect.
Well, actually what you've written is the standard tripe of the militant fundamentalist atheist crowd. If you (or Rob, since he apparently is in full agreement with your statements) want to live an evidence-based life, then actually answer the questions. Stating that evolution is true isn't enough. How does evolution preclude the existence of God? You use the straw man argument (since you so like that term) to say that since evolution is true God can't exist. I happen to believe that evolution is the mechanism God used. I'm still waiting for a rational response from either of you as to why evolution and faith are incompatible. So far, the silence is deafening….and telling.
While you may believe the morality "crap" is a red herring, it's entirely legitimate. I'm not saying that atheists are any more or less moral than anyone else. I'm asking you to explain the intellectual basis of human morality under a godless existence that is the product of random chance. You are, after all, seeking to live the "rational" life, right? I'd think if that were such a treasured principle you'd be able to articulate the reasons for your position. Again, you've used anger and false indignation to avoid giving an intelligent, rational response.
I don't quite know what to say about your misconception that science was borne of the Enlightenment other than it is just gross ignorance. Isaac Newton, Johann Keppler and the other founders of science lived more than a hundred years before the Enlightenment began. The Enlightenment was the forerunner of post-modern thought that believes there is no such thing as absolute truth or that it is unknowable and that truth is relative to time and situation. Philosophically, that's actually diametrically opposed to the scientific method.
As for the eugenics issue, the evidence is crystal clear that Hitler's ideas of eugenics stemmed directly from Darwinian thought. The radical "religious nut job" atheists like to employ their revisionist history to claim otherwise, but it doesn't change the truth. The pseudo-science in this case is clearly coming from those who wish to refute the role of Darwinism in one of the most ugly episodes in human history (not to mention the Darwinian influence on Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot).
You wrote "Where's the "faith" in Rob's life? He's apparently trying to live an evidence-based life. That's pretty much the opposite of faith in every respect."
For wanting to be the intellectual crowd, you guys seem to have a hard time comprehending some fairly simple questions. Why does the universe exist? How did it get here? Where did the physical forces to form and shape it come from? What is the basis of morality? How, exactly, is science completely incompatible with faith? If science and faith are incompatible, how do you explain the fact that 40% of scientists (including the director of the Human Genome Project) have a religious faith? Those are legitimate questions. If you can't provide a rational answer based on scientific evidence, then you are operating on faith. The bottom line is that Rob (and apparently you) believes that the universe was either eternally present for no apparent reason and by formed by no explicable mechanism or you believe that it materialized out of nothingness in the absence of a causal agent. Since you again have failed to produce evidence for a rational, plausible explanation based on the scientific method (since that's the central dogma of atheism), that takes faith. That's one of the problems with modern atheism. It doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit that it doesn't have answers for the very most basic questions. Even further, it lacks the intellectual honesty to admit that science is not even capable of providing those answers as science is very good at telling us how but generally poorly equipped to answer why. Additionally, to imply that I, by definition, don't live an "evidence-based life" is also rather arrogant and simple-minded. I have a great deal of evidence that informs my faith, though you'd rather stick your head in the sand and repeat atheist mantras rather than doing the hard intellectual work it takes to seriously evaluate things.
At the end of the day, you've again spewed a lot of emotional arguments, which you seem a bit prone to, but neither you nor Rob have answered any of the questions posed to you. I can only assume you don't have those answers. If you want to provide those answers, I'd be happy to continue the conversation. Otherwise, I don't really see the point of exposing myself to more of your harsh, emotional and angry diatribes.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Chris. My area of specialization is plant genetics. I've read some of the literature on depression and sexual issues, but by no means have an exhaustive command of the literature in this area. I guess I was thinking as a generalization that sexual activity that, from a Christian perspective, is outside of God's plan has consequences. From the articles I read, there appears to be a relationship between acting out and depression. However, I also think that acting out is a symptom, rather than a root cause. There's usually a deeper pain that the acting out is serving to medicate. I strongly believe the young woman in the story shouldn't get help to address the roots of her depression, as well as have the support of friends and family.
My motivation to read some of the research stemmed from my own struggle with sexual addiction and depression. Which came first? It's hard for me to determine. What I do know is that once the cycle is started, they feed each other. Through professional counseling and the support of my wife and some great friends, God has done quite a lot in my life. I've been able to identify some of the root issues especially those stemming from early in life. The most important part of that is that I've learned to more freely accept God's grace and love that bring healing and help me leave the destructive methods of dealing with negative emotions behind.
The following are among the studies that evaluate mental health status of heterosexual and homosexual men (the area where I've done the most reading). While gay advocates dismiss the results as being due to social stigma, there seems to be little/no difference whether conducted in a society that is very open to homosexuality or where homosexuality is more stigmatized.
Ellis, D; Collis, I; King, M (1995): Personality disorder and sexual risk taking among homosexually active and heterosexually active men attending a genito-urinary medicine clinic. J. Psychosom. Res. 39, 901-910.
Fergusson, D.M.; Horwood, L.J.; Beautrais, A.L. (1999): Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 56, 876- 880.
Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen,S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.
I would like to second everything Chris_F said. Well done.
You have some bizarro definition of science that even Scientists don't hold. As if a scientific conclusion is an absolute sort of thing. "If you question Science's current answers you may as well claim the earth is flat"? Come again? Even within the field of biology, on the subject of Darwinian evolution, discord and "questioning of current science" can be found (Why Darwin Was Wrong – http://tinyurl.com/d49sw2).
There is nothing bizarro about my understanding of science. Science is virtually absolute until new evidence is presented. PZ said people would misuse that article about Darwin and you proved him right.
My point was that the bible does not have accurate answers. Scientific answers will evolve with time, biblical answers are set in stone. How accurate can a set in stone answer be when new evidence is constantly being provided?
Absolute
–adjective
1.free from imperfection; complete; perfect.
LOL dude. Either Science is absolute (perfect and complete) or it is evolving. Not both. Am I right, or am I right? This is not a slight on Science. But it could be a slight on your ability to reason.
peace|dewde
Ditto on what dewde said. If science isn't set in stone and continues to evolve, are you saying that the earth may be flat, we just need new evidence. Or maybe that 2+2=5. We just haven't found the right evidence. Yes, I know that's absurd. That's the point.
You keep saying the Bible doesn't have accurate answers. I think you completely misunderstand the point. The Bible is NOT a scientific text book. If you're expecting it to lay out the origin of the big bang based on string theory, you're barking up the wrong tree. You seem to be a bit cognitively challenged as I have said numerous times in this thread that I don't see Biblical faith and science as being in conflict and asked you explain your position. So far, you've come back again and again with the same non-answer. At this point, I must conclude you don't have an answer.
The Bible is about God and his relationship with humanity. The answers it provides are to questions that science doesn't even know how to ask. Things like the meaning and purpose of life. Why we are here. Try to think a little less linearly for a moment.
Since you haven't been able or willing to provide the answers atheism has for those big questions, let me help you out.
Why does the universe exist? According to atheism it must be the product of some as yet unexplained cosmic event. Based on current scientific evidence, the probability associated with that event approaches 1 in infinity.
Why is there life? According to atheism, life is the product of some as yet scientifically unexplained event whereby self-replicating organic molecules spontaneously self-assembled out of an inorganic soup. The probability of that event approaches 1 in infinity. For those keeping score at home, the probability of the existence of a universe that contains life is about 1 in infinity squared.
Why are we (humans) here? We are a product of an evolutionary chain of events which, evaluated apriori, must by definition have any number of infinite possible outcomes. Therefore, the probability of the evolution of the human life form is about 1 in infinity. So now we're looking at 1 in infinity cubed.
What is the meaning and purpose of life? According to atheism, there is no meaning or purpose. We are here as the result of an extraordinarily improbable combination of events. We are born. we live. We die. We decompose. That's it. Our only chance at any semblance of immortality is through the passing on of our genes. If it's immortality we desire, we should have sex with anything that moves so as to increase the probability that some of our alleles will survive. For anyone willing to think through the entire process, the campaign slogan for atheism is "We have come to bring your hopelessness, purposelessness, meaninglessness, misery and depression." I can't explain why, even it it were true, anyone would desire to cling to such a notion, but I can see where that mindset might lead someone to troll an internet message board.
You guys are having fun attacking me aren't you?
I was merely trying to put science in terms you would understand. You know, dumb it down for the religious folk. It gets tiring hearing religious nuts claim that the bible isn't a science book but it everything else. It provides us morals and bla bla bla. Really? If it's such a good damn book then why couldn't it even get science right? I'll tell you why, because it was written by men who making it up as they went along. How do I know they were making it up, because God is not real. How do I know God is not real, because there has never been a single shred of evidence to prove any gods existence let alone the one you worship.
Science isn't in stone, but as of today it's accurate, tomorrow it will also be accurate, with new evidence it will change and also be accurate. The reason it's accurate is because it's the best answer we've got.
If you believe in god then you believe the bible. Don't pretend that the bible is right in one area and wrong in another to suit your needs. Or whatever it is your do to keep your belief alive.
Chris_F was correct, this is the same crap that all religious people will half an understanding in science say because they still have to justify their belief in the invisible mystery man.
GOD IS NOT REAL, you have based your thought and belief system on a foundation that is wrong. This makes your conclusions about science wrong if you still believe in supernatural things.
There is no meaning or purpose in life, there is no reason for our existence.
Yeah, you would never expect to go trolling and have it received less than warmly, I suppose. LOL
Thanks for dumbing it down for me. I was really having trouble understanding what you were saying (where’s the darn sarcasm emoticon). As long as you continue to show an inability to grasp the basic concepts and just shout your same position louder, I don’t really see much point in continuing the conversation. At least it was good to see you admit that you felt compelled to bring us the urgent, life-changing message of atheism that “life is meaningless.” That was progress.
Come back sometime when you can do more than channel the half-baked ideas of Richard Dawkins and we’ll talk. :>)
Seriously, I don’t have any hard feelings. I suspect you’re a pretty decent guy and that we could have a good conversation over a cup of coffee or a cold brew. Later dude.
OK, first of all I don't troll, your article was linked to by Dewde so you can blame him.
And secondly, yes we could probably have a decent conversation about something other than religion. We're not going to agree on religion.
No hard feelings. CYA
I liked your article and the information that are provided. There are thousands of recommendations out there that are both savvy and bad. If you have any more suggestions concerning natural health or simliar topics, that would be great. Keep up the quality writing!