Biblical Reflections on Modern Medicine
Vol. 5, No. 5 (29)
Contents:
Whom Will You Call Brother or Sister in Christ?
or
What Is Orthodoxy?
I sometimes wonder about God's methods in history and His
renewing of Christians' minds (i.e., Romans 12:2). To a large
extent, each of us has a narrow focus because of our time in history
and the culture in which we reside. For my own part, I am more
narrowly focused in the realm of health, medicine, and medical
ethics.
Thus, I observe that Christians today are an extremely diverse
group of people. Perhaps, this diversity has always been, but it
seems more so today. There are literally hundreds of denominations,
and churches that don't even call themselves denominations. Churches
split over minute points of belief. Individual Christians fight and
contend with each other (often vehemently) over similar minutia.
On health matters, various Christians espouse a myriad of health
schemes and "remedies" ranging from those whose approach is totally
spiritual to dozens of alternative methods (chiropractic,
homeopathy, vegetarian diets, colonic irrigation, etc., etc.) to
mainstream Western medicine. Many claim a Biblical basis for their
method.
Many will not fellowship with other Christians who don't
believe as they do on some health/medical matter. Recently, I
resigned from an editorial board because they would not let me try
to bring balance to the beliefs of their writers on health/medical
issues. These are testy waters indeed!
Yes, in all this, I wonder at God's plan and the Spirit's
mind-renewal process. In the final analysis, I must bow my knee and
my mind to His Sovereign control and plan for individuals and
history. Otherwise, I have begun to base truth on empirical
observation rather than presuppositional belief in Biblical truth.
Some Reflections
Still, I want to offer some reflections on this morass. First,
the cause is the sin of arrogance. It is the original sin, the
desire to be "like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). It is
the willingness to isolate one's thinking from a sound Biblical
understanding and orthodox faith. If you don't think that you commit
this sin, let me ask you these questions.
Have you studied church history, especially the beliefs of the
fathers of the faith who have hammered out an orthodox faith? Do you
understand the root causes of the Reformation in its break with
Roman Catholicism? Are you familiar with the writings of Calvin,
Luther, and other Reformed thinkers upon whose teachings
evangelicalism has been built?
Do you know the difference between evangelical and evangelism? Do
you know the philosophical difference between presuppositional and
evidential beliefs? Do you have some hermeneutic which guides your
study of the Bible?
Now, if you answered "No" to one or more of these questions, it
is not entirely your fault. In spite of a exponential growth of
available data in our time, we are perhaps the most ignorant
generation of history relative to systematic thinking. And, most
Christians are guilty.
Examine Christian schools. Is church history and the major
theologies of the church taught? Is a hermeneutic taught? Are the
major philosophers studied? Is systematic theology taught? I
envision Christians in high school debating and devastating students
in public schools with presuppositional and evidential arguments.
But, I know of nowhere where this debate is taking place.
No Creed But Christ
I hear, "No creed but Christ." "We don't need a theology. We have
the Bible." Even worse, "God guides my thinking and tells me what is
right and wrong."
You might ask at this point, "What is orthodox belief?"
Notice first that it is not spelled with a capital letter. It is not
Orthodox, that is, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy are those
teachings without which Christianity is no longer Christianity.
First, and foremost, is the Bible as inerrant and infallible
revelation from God. Second are basic teachings about the Trinity:
Three Persons, fully God yet distinct; about Christ's life,
substitutionary death, and second coming; and about salvation and
all men and women being saved or damned in eternity.
An orthodox belief can be traced throughout the history of the
church. For example, there is the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene
Creed. In the Reformation, there was the Westminster Confession of
Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism. In 1978, there was the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.
A Call for Brotherhood
Into this morass, I strive to develop and promote a medical
ethic. Medical ethics are at least one step removed from basic
orthodox beliefs. Yet, any ethic is always closely tied to a
theological belief. For example, abortion is tied to the belief that
individual human life does not begin at conception. When life
begins, however, is not a core belief to orthodoxy. A person does
not have to believe that human life begins at conception to join an
orthodox church.
Thus, historically and spiritually, health, medicine, and medical
ethics are secondary. Any separation among Christians based upon
medical issues is anathema to God's plan for His church
(Ephesians 4:1-6). From this basic tenet of the Christian faith, I
offer three points for reflection.
First, you should know what an orthodox faith is and therefore
join yourself to Christians of the past, present, and future.
Otherwise, you have the modern attitude that nobody really knew or
understood anything of importance until the latter 20th century.
You must know those tenets on which you cannot compromise without
giving away your faith. (P.S. There aren't that many -- perhaps
a dozen at most.)
Second, let us all learn some humility in our secondary beliefs.
James warns that not many should be teachers (3:1). Compromise or
tolerance of these secondary matters is not a compromise of faith. I
am not saying that opinions should not be argued. I do so regularly
on these pages. However, let's realize that they are secondary. And,
let us be cautious where we have not fully thought through an issue
(as I had not on anarchy and totalitarianism - see Letters).
Third, let us never argue secondary issues as a basis for
fellowship. Where we agree on orthodox beliefs, we are brother and
sister in Christ. If you believe in vegetarianism, that's OK. Just
don't be contentious about it. If you believe in colonic irrigation,
that's OK (I guess). Just don't ask me to participate! If you
believe in homeopathy, that's OK. Just realize that it's one
alternative among many.
If you believe in mainstream medicine, realize that it is a
secondary spiritual issue. Those who believe otherwise are not
"kooks." There is enough glass in your house to be careful about the
bricks that you throw. The Bible describes "us" against "them" --
the world vs. Christians.
That conflict is becoming more definitive and violent. We must be
certain about an orthodox faith to stand firm in this battle. We
must be cautious and humble about secondary issues. Separation and
isolation on these secondary issues is first and foremost a sin.
Beyond that, we weaken our fight about "principalities and powers."
I speak to you and to myself. Let us be clear on what we believe
with solid investigation and study. Let us discern orthodoxy from
secondary issues. And, let us not separate ourselves on these
secondary issues.
Bob's Banter
The Fourth Little Pig
All of us have grown up with the story of the three little pigs.
Today, a fourth little pig is added to the story.
Little pigs one, two, and three built their houses as we have all
heard. "The fourth pig, however, was more broad minded. 'There is
truth in all building traditions,' he chided his brothers. 'How
intolerant to suggest that there is only one way to construct a
house.'
"So, he used a little of each brother's material: bricks for his
roof, straw for his walls, and sticks for his windows and doors. The
resulting house was a bit shaky, without much of a view, but pig
number four was proud of his inclusiveness."
Thus, the wolf comes to the houses of little pigs one, two, and
three. His hyperventilation at house number three caused him to pass
out. "He awoke hungrier than ever. Then, he saw what the fourth pig
had built, and he smiled.
"'Little pig, little pig, let me come in,' said the wolf. 'Why
certainly,' said the fourth pig. 'Do you wish to enter into a
dialogue about the universals in our two value systems, and how we
might together forge a philosophy that encompasses all possible
modes of construction?'
"'Right,' said the wolf, licking his lips. The fourth little pig
opened the door, and that was when his house (universe) fell in on
him.
"'Mmm, pork chops,' said the wolf. And he hadn't had to huff and
puff at all!"
Adapted from Power for Living, June 12, 1994, p. 8.
Hilton's High Points
by Hilton Terrell, Ph.D., M.D.
On Straining at Gnats and Missing Redwood
Trees
There is not even a "strong suggestion" that power lines cause
cancer, yet we, the feds, and others are stalking the situation for
possible regula- tions.
By contrast, 6,538 Americans developed AIDS from blood
transfusions that they received before blood screening regulations
were instituted in March 1985. As early as January 1983, however,
"internal documents show that Red Cross officials acknowledged that
the disease could be transmitted through blood." (The State
[Columbia, South Carolina], May 15, 1994, A3)
The American Red Cross was a powerful group which was watching
out for its own interests when the hazard began to be known. If
twenty fully loaded U.S. commercial passenger airliners were to
crash, the death toll would be about the same as the 6,567 (minus
29) that they write about here and would rivet the front pages of
our newspapers for days. Yet, this story on the irresponsibility of
blood banks merits page 3.
If an airline marketing director was discovered to have written
before many of the crashes had occurred that "the available evidence
strongly suggests that the airplanes aren't safe," he would be
arrested and tried for criminal negligence.
It seems to me that the Red Cross has had a near lock on blood
for years. For years blood banks resisted autologous transfusions,
requiring calamity to make such transfusions routine for elective
surgery.
To me, this is not so much about AIDS as it is about reasons to
mistrust regulators, bureaucrats, and monopolists of all sorts.
The Soviets for years had an ironic saying, "Ve vill not believe
until has been officially denied." Perhaps we need a U.S. Version,
"Ve vill not mistrust until has been official reassurance."
On Comparison of Pink Elephants and
"Higher Powers"
I attended a three-day seminar last year on alcoholism, at which
the disease model was unquestioned and the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
approach was strongly commended. One of the seminar leaders is a
professing Christian who apparently was unaware of any conflicts
between Biblical Christianity and the doctrines of AA. In this
conference, I noted the following religious features of AA: A dogma
(chief feature being that the problem is a disease), rituals, an
appeal to a generic deity, an epiphany (for some), a
conversion-equivalent, an "answer" for guilt, a confessional (which
is repeated), and evangelism.
In stating these religious features, I found surprisingly little
objection to the comparison. The rub comes when a person believes
that this AA religion is the wrong generic religion and/or wishes to
be more specific. That it must remain generic is defended on the
basis that it "works" better that way, or that being specific is
somehow in itself wrong. Both of these objections are themselves
dependent upon their own religious presuppositions. The first
objection -- that it works -- presupposes ethics by pragmatism.
Beyond AA, per se alcoholism-as-disease is presented by
true believers in a dogmatic fashion (non-pejorative definition here
of "dogmatic"). The second objection -- that specific
doctrine is wrong -- is refuted by every specific Scripture as well
as by self-annihilation, since it specifies specificity as wrong.
"Wisdom is justified by her children."
On Drowning in One's Own Constructions - A
Fable
The drought had lasted for years. The expedition leader leads his
group up a rocky, hot dry stream bed. The situation is desperate.
Several have already died and been buried in rock cairns. The
briefing by the experts said that there was a spring at the head of
the ravine. The stronger are carrying the dehydrated. With skill,
exhortation, and enthusiasm the leader keeps his gaggle of gasping
people moving.
They pass a crank, living in a hut by the side of the ravine. He
tells them that they should turn around, that the water is in the
other direction, and that it is dangerous farther up. He is
obviously an idiot who has never been schooled by the experts. They
press on upward. Sure enough, they finally reach a gurgling spring
emanating from near the base of an odd-shaped flat hillside that
crosses the ravine they have been following. They fall on their
faces and slake their thirst in the spring, which seems to be
weakening by the minute. But, there is enough for now. They lie
exhausted among the rocks and against the grassy slope, looking up
at the steep ravine walls above them.
They return for a second drink. Now, there isn't enough. They dig
into the cavity from which the spring seeps, removing rocks, roots,
and clay. The flow is restored and grows stronger by the second. Too
much water! Abruptly the dam into which they have been digging
breaks, drowning them all, sweeping downstream, drowning the hermit,
too, and finally flooding the village at the mouth of the canyon.
Lake Behavior-as-Disease is finally dry.
Letters-to-Ed
A Breath of Fresh Air
Dear Brethren in Jesus Christ,
I am not a medical doctor. I am a minister emeritus now in the
Orthodox Christian Reformed Church. Your publication is a breath of
fresh air in the midst of an unbelieving world of medical
immorality. (I hope that you can read this note, since weakness and
unsteadiness make writing increasingly difficult.)
Keep up your good work, (Romans 14:7, 8).
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Douglas L. Neff
Lynden, WA
Ed's Note
I try to make this newsletter understandable to lay Christians,
while having enough "meat" for medical people. Such notes are
encouraging that I may be at least partially achieving that balance.
Further, Rev. Neff may be concerned about his handwriting being
legible, but it was quite legible -- especially compared to
physicians' penmanship (including my own).
The Christian Medical Student and the
State
Dear Dr. Payne:
I am a subscriber to your newsletter and a great fan of yours.
Your books and newsletters have helped me to grow in my
understanding of God's will in medical ethics.
I am writing to seek your counsel on my career goals, especially
the financing. I understand that medicine should be returned to the
free market and private charity, and that government takeover of
medicine has really messed things up and violates the Biblical
model. Given this, should I accept any government programs to fund
my medical education? If not, how do I afford the high cost of
medical school? Do you know of any private scholarships or loan
repayment programs for Christian physicians? Should I even accept
admission to a state school? I have heard of a rural medicine
program that pays for medical school plus a stipend. The community
(meaning the local government, I think) to which the physician goes
sponsors the education in most cases. What do you think of this?
Sincerely,
Michael H. Warren, Jr.
410 17th Street, Apartment 408B
Knoxville, TN 37916
Ed's Note
I know of no monies available for Christian physicians. If any
readers do, please write to Mr. Warren at the address above.
I see no reason not to accept admission to a state school. One
may be trained by the Philistines with the intent to defeat them
later.
I would caution about stipends from rural communities. Some
students discover (i.e., fed propaganda) during medical school that
they do not want to practice rural medicine. A Christian would be
bound by his word to carry out the contract.
Whether one should accept government loans for medical education
requires even more caution. "The borrower is servant to the lender"
(Proverbs 22:7). While the state is increasingly making the practice
of medicine morally difficult for Christians (and practically
difficult for all), being in debt to it increases expectation by
signed contract. One could find himself in legal jeopardy if the
state required that borrower to practice immorality.
Christians as
Non-compliant Patients!
Dear Ed,
After reading Dr. Terrell's article, "A Lament over the Medical
History'" from the May issue, I could only agree with the deplorable
state of our patients' history-giving abilities. The best example
that I can recall of a complaint, in this case expressed by an
electrical engineer, regarding physicians' history-taking abilities,
was his remark about how dumb doctors were because we had to ask our
patients what their symptoms were in the first place!
He thought that we should be able to tell what was wrong just by
looking at them! Our patients do have a lot of expectations of our
abilities, both in diagnosis and in treatment, and that's good.
Compliance would be so much worse than it presently is if they had
no faith in us. After all, we are the ones who have trained
ourselves to care for the health of our fellow human beings.
I, too, attempt to teach my patients to be responsible for
providing me with accurate and honest information about symptoms,
signs, remedies, and compliance. I try to provide them with
information about their illnesses, and some simple means by which to
treat them. But in this, the era of entitlements, we are placed in a
position, as Dr. Terrell states, of being responsible to a large
extent for the medical review: for its content, completeness, and
accuracy. The lawyers are watching us.
As I was pondering this, however, God brought to my attention
that HE has placed Himself in an analogous position in our lives
voluntarily. And not just in the lives of those who ride the fence
in their Christian walk. Yes, even to those who ignore Him
completely, turn their back on Him, and deride Him. In other words,
all of us are woefully non-compliant. We should be able to remember
all of our spiritual history and to recite it all to God in complete
honesty.
We should remember all the treatments, cleansings, and healings
he has already given us and repeat their use whenever we turn up
with a similar ailment. We need to recognize that God may tell us
that nothing further can be done for a specific problem - possibly
because we have yet to do whatever it was that He previously told us
or possibly because what we want to do will prove worse than
useless.
Then, there are the times when we don't even call the office to
ask for help when we are really sick. It's called denial. God has
chosen to be the ultimate physician and to put up with our
less-than-sterling compliance and communication.
I have struggled with my call now for a number of years. I gave
Jesus my life after I had already become a doctor. I realized that
God had called me for a purpose, but I was uncertain exactly what it
was. As the years have gone by, it has become clearer. God has
called us to show His love to all His people, regardless of color,
or age, or gender, or intelligence, or wealth; regardless of whether
or not they have given their lives to Him.
God has the capability to heal everyone, but our unbelief holds
back His hand much of the time (Matthew 17:19-21). But, in spite of
our feeble faith, His love was so great for us that He gave us the
understanding and abilities to treat ourselves, to help our fellow
man in his suffering condition.
How like man to trust ourselves as much as we do, ignoring or
forgetting the God who created our world and all of us, and Who
loved us enough to give His Son to redeem us from our sins.
God has called us to care for His sheep. As doctors, we are
trained to care for the physical (and much of the time, emotional)
needs of his flock. His Word states that we are to show His love to
those around us (1 John 4:7- 12). We may get frustrated or even
angry with some of these sheep, but we must love them. We must show
them God's love, because it's not our nature to love them.
When I come out of an exam room following an interview such as
Dr. Terrell described, I feel frustrated and angry too. It's even
worse when you begin to enter a room, look at the name on a chart,
and already know that that's how the interview is going to go. But,
I've found that by taking the whole armor of God on a daily basis, I
can manage to love even the unlovable, the uncooperative, the
ignorant, and the lost in a way that must be God's doing.
I'm doing it through Him. It sometimes takes longer to take a
history, and of course you can't always tell how accurate it is, but
if God's love shines through us and can touch the heart of one who
is lost or suffering, then in eternity isn't that more valuable that
just knowing whether the dose was 40mg or 80 mg of LasixTM (a
diuretic or "water pill")? Of course, it would be better to
accomplish both, but I'm afraid that, more often that we like to
admit, we get more information and show less of God's love.
In the hurried and complicated world of modern medicine, it gets
all to easy to fall into the rushed and bothered routine and forget
that we were called to minister to God's sheep. Let us remember that
the Good Shepherd calls us all sheep. We should educate and
train our patients to take more responsibility for their own health,
teach them to be more observant and to communicate better, and to be
compliant. But if they aren't, we are still called to love them. Our
commission is to try, by our testimony of God's love in our lives,
to lead them to a saving knowledge of Jesus.
I appreciate the Reflections. It is excellent food for
thought. Keep up the good work. I agree with much of what you print
each month, and it's good to realize that there are others out there
who are doing what I've been doing. That's especially so here in a
rural area. May God continue to bless you and lead you.
Sincerely yours in Jesus,
William C. Wright, M.D.
Globe, AZ
Ed's Note
I mostly focus on principles here. Dr. Wright's letter is
medicine for the personal/spiritual dimension of ourselves as health
professionals and as patients of the Great Physician.
Totalitarianism vs. Anarchy Challenged!
Dear Ed,
My skin crawls every time I think of your underlined statement,
"Totalitarian government is better than anarchy." (Reflections,
May 1993). This conclusion from the same man who has written that
Christianity is not about choosing the lesser of two evils! Hitler's
totalitarian regime lowered the official crime rate, but would you
really favor that over anarchy.
Was Stalin's totalitarian murder of millions any better than the
Rwandan massacres? Was the Khmer Rouge totalitarian murder of
hundreds of thousands of Cambodians any better than the Rwandan
massacres? Don't fall for the false dichotomy. You know the only
legitimate alternative to totalitarianism or anarchy -- Godliness!
You haven't abandoned your pursuit of Godliness in medicine, don't
abandon it in the arena of civil government.
We've come a long way down the wrong path when Christians abandon
Patrick Henry's view of "Give me Liberty or give me death" and
rather imply, "Give me liberty, or at least totalitarianism -
anything but anarchy!" The times are concerning but don't succumb to
your fears this way. Organize locally in neighborhoods, cities and
states to keep order when the federal government fails. I do find
some survivalism silly as you do -- too individualistic and
romanticized, but I never see totalitarianism as a viable
alternative.
I can't believe you really do either. Tell me it was just
rhetoric.
Enclosed is a newsletter which touches on some of these points. I
usually am spurred to write letters to editors only when riled. When
I agree I usually just read and renew. I generally find your
newsletter encouraging and enlightening, but "Totalitarian
government is better than anarchy" makes me retch to hear you say
it.
Yours in Christ,
Tom Farmer, M.D.
Pisgah Forest, NC
Ed's Note
I had intended to print this letter in the July newsletter, but
overlooked it. I ask Dr. Farmer's forgiveness.
Dr. Farmer raises an excellent point. "Totalitarianism is better
than anarchy" had been a truism to me, frequently hearing it within
the Christian community. (In fact, I heard it quoted on the radio by
Haddon Robinson today, 8/26/94.)
It had been a truism, that is, until Dr. Farmer confronted me as
forcefully as I have ever been confronted! Now, I'm not sure. Of
course Godliness is the best alternative, but that has rarely
existed as a cultural norm.
Totalitarianism, as Dr. Farmer points out, can be murderous on a
larger scale than anarchy. Further, in most totalitarian states,
justice is not possible either, because of the hierarchy of thugs
that extend down from the top.
The quote may be false because "anarchy" is wrongly used in the
quote. Anarchy never really exists (except possibly in Hell). The
lowest denominator of society is the family. Even in anarchy,
families provide and protect their own. Even individuals form bands
or gangs. Then, as Dr. Farmer has pointed out, some sort of localism
usually evolves. Families and individuals with something(s) in
common band together. Sooner or later, these smaller groups form
communities or small towns, and the movement continues towards a
larger and larger coalition.
Anyway, Dr. Farmer has caused me to re-think the whole issue. I
would be interested in other readers' thoughts who may have
considered this dichotomy more thoroughly. Listen for this truism
(you will hear it) -- and confront the speaker as to whether he has
really thought the issue through.
The Book Corner
Putting the Soul Back in Medicine: Reflections on Compassion
and Ethics, David Schiedermayer, M.D., Baker Book House, 1994,
192 pp. Reviewed by Ed Payne, M.D.
This book on medical ethics is typical of most Christians who
write on medical ethics today. In general, it is an eclectic blend
of pagan medical ethics, touchy-feely stories, and a few Bible
verses to make it "Christian."
For example, Dr. Schiedermayer states that "the unborn baby has
dignity" (p. 13) and "respect" (p. 43). "Dignity" is a word
coined by pagans to give some sort of status to humans. What's wrong
with "created in the image of God" (Genesis 1:26-27) and "a little
lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5)? Why not the protection of human
life by the execution of the one who would wrongly take human life
(Genesis 9:6)?
Dr. Schiedermayer states that "The concept of informed consent at
its deepest level -- mutual love and respect -- is in line with
Jesus' teachings." This sentence reveals his philosophical approach
to ethics: eclecticism. That is, we search medical writings to find
that which is "in line with Jesus' teachings" (crumbs from their
table) rather than having the Bible as the "only rule of faith and
practice" as God's revelation to man.
Dr. Schiedermayer's goal is noble -- to further a compassionate
approach in medical practice. There is little question that more
compassion is needed. However, he and too many other Christians do
not grasp that Biblical compassion has a responsible side, as well.
Paul said, "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat" (II
Thessalonians 3:10).
There is too much of the liberal approach (social do-goodism) in
these Christians. They do not grasp that the most good is
accomplished for the many by a comprehensive Biblical approach to
any area of life, including medicine.
Dr. Schiedermayer's book does not advance either Christian ethics
or compassion. Only a vigorous and balanced Biblical approach will
make those advances. One such book is Evangelical Ethics by
Dr. John Jefferson Davis (Presbyterian and Reformed). Buy it
instead.
AIDS: Issues and Answers
Vol. 8, No. 5 (54) September 1994
What Is One to Believe About AIDS?
Christians and conservatives believe one or more of the following
theories.
The Doomsday Theory. Liberals in general and homosexual
advocates in particular have pushed the idea that "everyone is at
risk for AIDS." Dr. William Campbell Douglass, Gene Antonio, Don
McAlvany, Dr. Shepherd Smith (Americans for a Sound AIDS Policy),
and others have believed that threat and proclaimed it in their
writings.
The Strecker Hypothesis. Using a computer model, Dr.
Theodore Strecker has theorized that the HIV (AIDS virus) was made
from two other viruses in U. S. Army labs at Fort Detrich, Maryland.
This virus was intentionally injected into humans in Africa, Haiti,
Brazil, the United States, and Southern Japan, as part a World
Health Organization plot in a virocidal attack upon the
non-Communist world.
The Duesberg Theory. Dr. Peter Duesberg and Brian Ellison
(see book review following), have argued that HIV (the AIDS virus)
is not the cause of AIDS. Instead, there are multiple other causes,
primarily legal and illegal toxic drugs.
The Fumento Non-heterosexual Epidemic. Michael Fumento has
argued with statistics that the prophesied HIV/AIDS epidemic among
heterosexuals in the United States will not occur. That is, HIV/AIDS
will not be rampant among people who limit themselves to
heterosexual activity. HIV/AIDS will stay primarily in homosexuals,
IV-drug abusers, and their heterosexual consorts.
The Payne-ful Truth. While I have believed that HIV/AIDS
would continue to spread, it would not be the huge numbers of the
"doomsdayers." I reject Strecker's hypothesis entirely. Duesberg and
Ellison make some good points, but I hold reservations (again, see
following). While I have not read Fumento's book in detail, what I
have read, I agree with.
What You Need to See
What I would like you most to see here are the contradictions in
these theories. More than one person must be wrong, yet
conservatives and Christians advocate one or more positions. Worse,
they allow no room for debate. It's their theory or none. When these
positions are argued so strongly, we are majoring on minors. (See
front page.)
I realize the difficulty of the average layman who doesn't have
access to the scientific literature or understand scientific
limitations. However, many of their leaders do. The HIV/AIDS
situation is only one of many controversies among Christians.
However, it offers a concrete example of conflicting facts. As we
seek God's truth on these situations, let us do so hand-in-hand and
with some humility that we are at least wrong on some issues
and severely wrong on some.
Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS
A Brief Book Review
This book is written by Bryan J. Ellison and Dr. Peter Duesberg
(published by Inside Story Communications, 190 El Cerrito Plaza,
Ste. 201, El Cerrito, CA 94530 - $21.95 including
shipping/handling). While I do not agree with some of their
positions, this book is a must read.
Its strength is an inside look at the personal and political
maneuvering that goes on behind the facade of modern "science." For
anyone who reads this book, it should put to rest forever the idea
of "pure" science. It is science by vote of committees, the strong
personality of one man or woman, or a political or social agenda,
rather than the general medical needs of the general
populace or prevalent diseases.
While I am not convinced that AIDS is caused by something other
than HIV, the authors do offer sufficient evidence to convince me to
add my name as a signatory to the following statement:
"It is widely believed by the general public that a
retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS.
Many biomedical scientists now question this hypothesis. We
propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for
and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable
independent group. We further propose that critical
epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken."
One example is revealing. In the early 1960s, an epidemic broke
out in Japan that came to be labeled SMON (Subacute Myelo-Optic
Neuropathy). After an early study suggested that the disease might
be caused by a virus, virtually any other etiology was ignored.
However, virtually nothing consistent could be found to substantiate
this theory.
One researcher, however, followed a theory that the epidemic was
caused by a drug, clioquinol. Even when he had overwhelming
evidence, the scientific establishment persisted in their viral
beliefs. However, the news was broadcast to the public in 1970 and
physicians stopped prescribing the drug. The epidemic virtually
disappeared over a 3-year period.
Is AIDS also a mis-diagnosis? I don't think so. However, there
are several troubling observations about HIV as a cause for AIDS.
For example, even in advanced AIDS, HIV exists in relatively minute
quantities for the degree of immunosuppression. While the body makes
antibodies against HIV that ought to suppress or kill it, the HIV
continues to grow and cause disease. The spectrum of disease
(Kaposi's sarcoma, Pneumocystis carinii, yeast infections,
etc.) differs considerably in different populations (homosexuals,
IV-drug abusers, hemophiliacs, Third World victims, etc.).
Serious inquiries into doubts raised by this book ought to be
investigated. Politics and social engineers have governed this
epidemic more than good science. (There is such a thing!) This book
is an important entry into this debate.
Briefs with Commentary
Cost of
Psychological Treatment in Health-Care Plan
"Because of lenient regulations regarding state and federal
Medic-
aid in Texas, hundreds of children were put into psychiatric
hospitals
during 1992 and 1993. The following figures (from the Texas
Department
of Health) reveal the sudden increase in the Medicaid-private
psychiat-
ric youth-care program and abrupt change as soon as the state
"tightened
its regulations."
From 4/92 - 8/92 342 patients $6,149,181
From 9/92 - 8/93 933,339 patients $69,460,334
During 9/93 1 patient $1,467
(Psychoheresy Newsletter, May-June 1994, p. 3.
Original source: Houston
Chronicle, November 21, 1993, pp. 1A, 18A.)
Commentary: From these numbers (in one state for children only!)
imagine the cost of "psychological" treatment under the Clintons'
health-care plan (or any health-care plan) that attempts
comprehensive treatment of such problems! Many insurance programs
are already in trouble because of their attempts to cover such
treatment.
Modern Medicine and the Culture
"Some may say that modern medicinal techniques have made the
quality of life so much better, even if the span of life is not much
longer. I suppose that depends on one's definition of quality. Bill
Bennett quantified the decline in American culture over the last 30
years. He discovered that "there has been a 560 percent increase in
violent crimes; a 410 percent increase in illegitimate births; a
quadrupling of divorce rates; a tripling of the percentage of
children living in single-parent homes; more than a 200 percent
increase in the teenage suicide rate; and a drop of almost 80 points
in SAT scores." This is improvement?
"Something is wrong here. We have been deceived. Plastic surgery,
steroids, psychotropic drugs, health foods, fitness clubs, and
assorted other techniques have not made us healthier. They have only
made us poorer. We have forgotten that God's wisdom outshines that
of man." (Randy Crenshaw, M.D., Tabletalk, Sept. 1994, pp.
12-13)
Commentary: I say again, as I have said many times. A great
hurdle for most Christians is their idolatry of medicine. It is
largely an unrecognized idolatry. It is manifested in their
willingness to spend great sums for treatments that promise little
hope of success, to want minimal deductibles in their medical
insurance policies, and to believe that psychiatry and psychology
(even as practiced by most professionals who are Christians) are not
contrary to the Word of God.
The Pensacola Murders: Where...
... Do You Stand?
On July 29, 1994, a former minister, Paul Hill, shot an abortion
doctor and his bodyguard in the head with a shotgun at close range.
Pro-life leaders rushed to condemn the murders and distance
themselves from Mr. Hill. The federal government rushed to send
federal marshals to Pensacola and other "threatened" abortion
clinics around the country.
Where do you stand? I am not yet sure where I stand.
The Bible never condones vigilantism, i.e., anyone or group other
than established government carrying out justice. John Calvin
condemned vigilantism, arguing instead that it was the duty of the
lower magistrates to challenge, even to overthrow higher magistrates
who were morally wrong.
However, what is the death count? There are two abortionists and
one bodyguard dead. One abortionist wounded. By contrast, there are
more than 30 million murdered unborn babies since 1973 in the United
States. Many conservative Christians have advocated taking the lives
of others for self-defense, just wars, and capital punishment. If
trespassing laws can be broken, as Operation Rescue has done, where
on the illegal spectrum does one stop before breaking the law
against murder?
We have to be careful here. Peter said, "We must obey God rather
than men" (Acts 5:29). But, we are also to be "in subjection to the
governing authorities" (Romans 13:1). And, don't forget that in
light of these contrasting Scriptures, our forefathers believe that
they acted Biblically in the American Revolution.
There is also the question of expediency. I have no doubt that
Paul Hill's actions have hurt the anti-abortion cause. Has he
sacrificed a short-term "fix" for a long-term solution?
What is needed is a comprehensive treatise on this subject. Such
would be timely, as abortion is only one of many issues for
Christians as our governments become increasingly murderous and
immoral. I am not going to address that issue now. Perhaps, we can
start a dialogue with some letters.
Let me hear from you. Does anyone out there
condone what Paul Hill did? Do you condemn what he did? Do you have
a position somewhere in between or even somewhere entirely
different?
|
