Biblical Reflections on Modern Medicine
Vol. 10, No. 5 (59)
Contents:
For a half-century, "officials"* have promoted the
mass vaccination of the world's population, primarily children. In
the United States, recommendations by non-legislative bodies, such
as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) and the
American Academy of Pediatrics, have been mandated into state laws
by willing legislators who are always ready to promote any action
that is for the "good of the children." (Wouldn't you like some laws
for the "good of the parents"? Better yet, reversal of such
legislation that meddles with the rights of parents!)
*(For those readers unfamiliar with my style, I
often place "officials" in quotes because they are either grossly
ignorant or they have hidden agendas -- power, money,
self-aggrandizement, etc. All these cancel any moral authority that
they have. Unfortunately, many have police power to enforce their
tainted opinion.)
As with any medication, vaccines have side effects,
allergies, and unintended effects. These range from slight redness
at the site of injection to low-grade fevers, paralysis, and death.
The milder reactions are more common, and the more severe reactions
are rare. Indeed, the latter are so rare that statistically they
cannot be distinguished from rare diseases in children that caused
the same effects. And, complicating the situation is the fact that
there is usually no definitive test to determine the cause. For the
most part, the American people have gladly accepted these
vaccinations. After all, as parents, they remembered the epidemics
of smallpox, diphtheria, polio, and other diseases that crippled and
killed by the thousands. They worried a little that their little
Johnny or Susie might have one of the rare and severe complications,
but that risk was far better than the risk of some epidemic disease.
A few Americans were more concerned. First, all the
hoopla about the success of vaccines had to do more with timing than
anything else. "Whooping cough, measles, and diphtheria were mostly
under control by the end of World War II, when vaccines began to
appear" (Leonard A. Sagan, Health of Nations: True Causes of
Sickness and Well-being [New York, Basic Books, 1987], p. 68).
Thus, most of the success attributed to vaccines was their
implementation at the time those diseases had already declined
dramatically. This decline, however, has been conveniently forgotten
(or covered up) to bolster the notion that vaccines dramatically
reduce and prevent disease.
Second, evidence began to accumulate that some
vaccines might have greater risks than those of the disease against
which the vaccine was supposed to protect. Indeed, for one vaccine
the evidence was clear in this regard. For the last two decades, the
live polio vaccine has been the only cause of polio in children in
the United States!
Supporting this belief was that the duration of
immunity for vaccines was unknown. Would the person be protected for
a few years only to contract a more severe form of the disease
later? Because vaccines were introduced shortly after they were
researched, all vaccines were mandated without long-term
evidence of their efficacy or continued immunity.
Third, statistics are based upon populations of
people (children). What about an individual? If he is paralyzed or
dies from an immunization, that is 100 percent for that individual.
The individual must be considered, as well as populations.
In spite of these concerns, the role of vaccinations
in American society became a juggernaut. Any critical voice just did
not have a chance of being heard in this maelstrom of support. But,
cracks began to appear.
In the late 1970s, the swine flu immunization
debacle occurred. The swine flu was predicted to sweep around the
world, killing and maiming like the black plagues of the Middle
Ages. A unprecedented massive and immediate inoculation of Americans
was carried out. The swine flu never appeared, but hundreds had
crippling diseases from the immunization itself. The question arose,
perhaps for the first time, "Is it possible that the good of
immunization could be outweighed by its unintended effects?"
But, while some thought immunizations ought to be
examined more closely, "officials'" stance on immunizations was
unfazed. They had even more immunizations for "the good of the
children": mumps, haemophilus, and hepatitis B. And, so the little
darlings did not have to be punctured too often, more and more
combinations of vaccines at once were devised. One count has some 33
vaccinations by the time children enter the first grade.
Parents and a few researchers were becoming more
concerned. Some childhood diseases (allergies and asthma, for
example) were becoming more common in children. Was there a link
between these immunizations and the increase of these diseases? A
principle of medicine learned early by medical students is that a
lot of a good thing (some treatment or drug) often causes more harm
than good. Perhaps, immunizations was becoming too much of a good
thing.
"Not to worry" said the "official" establishment.
The effects of every disease were more to be feared than the
unintended effects of the vaccines. We are promoting what is best
for the health of your child.
A
Change in Culture and Motivations
But society was evolving, and these changes could
not help but find their way into medical practice and preventive
medicine. Abortion, the kill-ing of unborn children, became national
law and common practice. Every state in the union allowed by law the
treatment of minor children for abortion, contraception, and
sexually transmitted diseases without parental notification or
permission. AIDS became the first politically protected disease
because time-proven principles of epidemic control for sexually
transmitted diseases were not employed.
Relative to immunizations, at least two
recommendations came from this cultural milieu. Hepatitis B was
epidemic. Something had to be done. Prevention by vaccine was
considered the best answer. So, several plans were implemented to
vaccinate adults and teenagers. But, the result was that only a
small percentage was immunized. Most were getting around the nets
designed to catch them. (More likely, they did not care.)
So, where are people, specifically children, almost
always predictably present? In the hospital when they are delivered!
And, there was a precedent: dousing the eyes with silver nitrate,
and later, erythromycin ointment to prevent gonococcal
conjunctivitis. Thus, laws were enacted to inoculate newborn babies
in the delivery room itself! The few babies who are delivered
at home can easily be tracked and immunized also.
(I know an instance in which a lawyer whose
expertise was constitutional law who was unable to prevent his own
child from being vaccinated in the delivery room!)
But, there is a powerful cultural agenda in the
hepatitis vaccine that has not been present in any previous vaccine:
not random exposure to epidemic disease, but the assumption that
every child will become sexually promiscuous, an IV-drug user, or a
health-care worker!
The second recommendation was Hib, vaccination
against Haemophilus influenzae B. HiB is a common bacteria of
upper respiratory infections in children. Sometimes, it spreads and
becomes a more serious life-threatening infection, as epiglotitis,
mastoiditis, or meningitis. Usually, a simple course of antibiotics
will cure the infections. However, in these more severe infections,
hospitalization and intensive care is needed. Thus, the reason for
the vaccine.
However, these severe infections are rare except in
those children who attend day care centers. So, vaccination is
mostly an attempt to prevent a complication of children being placed
where they ought not to be. Admittedly, making a cultural case
against HiB is more tentative than with hepatitis B, but it has
plausibility.
Even "Officials" Finally Break the Wall of Unity
Complications with three vaccines have caused them
to be suspended. 1) Hepatitis B has been found to have a mercury
content that is considered unsafe for infants. (See "Terrell's
Treatises" herein.) 2) Live polio vaccine has been stopped because
it has become the sole cause of polio, rather than the natural
disease itself. 3) Rotavirus vaccine has been linked to intestinal
obstruction in infants. This effect is likely from an incomplete
testing of the vaccine. This vaccine provides protection against a
cause of diarrhea in children.
Also, in 1998, the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System
(VAERS) received 11,000 reports of severe complications. This system
was implemented some years ago, as evidence mounted that vaccines
did have major complications, including death, and to relieve
manufacturers of liability from these effects.
So, immunizations are under scrutiny as they have
never been before. This close examination is good and past due.
Many questions need to be answered, and better research on vaccines
needs to be carried out.
Christians should remember that the state does have
a Biblical role in public health (Leviticus 13-15). However, that
authority can be corrupted, as can the state's other forms of
authority.
The best that can be hoped for is more freedom for
parents to decide what immunizations their children receive. While I
doubt that "officials" will ever go that far (they know better what
your child needs than you do), the opportunity to break down the
juggernaut of automatic acceptance and implementation of vaccines is
present like it has never been before. When the establishment admits
its own errors, their citadel is ripe for storming. Let us hope and
work toward greater freedom for parents to choose.
Hilton P. Terrell, Ph.D., M.D.
Some of those agencies which fancy themselves as
legitimate controllers of medical care have shot themselves in the
foot. Vaccination authorities decided some time ago that the
hepatitis B immunization series should begin in the newborn period,
despite very low risk of hepatitis B during the pediatric years and
uncertainty as to the residual protection when those infants enter
the years of increased risk from medical occupations, IV drug abuse,
and promiscuous sexual practices.
State educational agencies quickly added hepatitis B
to their long list of immunizations required for entry into day care
or school, coercing parents out of one more of their ever-shorter
list of decisional prerogatives. Other government agencies have long
fulminated against mercury in the environment, making the absurd
assumption that there is no threshold exposure beneath which the
element is safe.
Recently, an alert somebody noted that the
preservative in the vaccine for hepatitis B contains thimerosal, a
mercury compound (F.P. Reporter, August 1999, p. 1).
Calculating the mercury exposure per unit of body weight of
newborns, the absurdly low acceptable amounts were transgressed. The
vaccine might cause mercury toxicity! We are now told to wait until
the infant is two months old before beginning the three-shot series.
They are working on a mercury-free vaccine.
Now, this collision between two elements of central
control is only a fender-bender. We are assured, "...no known harm
has occurred...," and that is due to theoretical concerns. It is
interesting to stand by and listen to the investigators at the scene
of the collision. The U.S. Surgeon General says, "The risk of
devastating childhood diseases from failure to vaccinate far
outweighs the minimal, if any, risk of exposure to cumulative levels
of mercury in vaccines."
One is tempted to step out into the broken glass in
the street and ask these investigating officers, "Why cannot the
same reasoning be applied to other minimal risks? What can't I
legally omit putting erythromycin ointment on the eyelids of a
newborn baby whose chaste mother was screened during pregnancy for
sexually transmitted diseases? Why can't the industry down the road
legally discharge 3 milligrams of mercury into the sewage system
each day? Why can't I legally drop an aluminum pull tab from a soft
drink can into the Atlantic 9 miles offshore?"
Clearly, the keepers want to play by different rules
than they impose on the kept. (It is all about power and control,
not science or pseudoscience -- Ed.)
Seniors Join
Children as Means to Slavery
Boundless greed combines with mass approval of the
seizure of the property of others to propel our dying republic
further toward outright tyranny. The recurrent, bad ideas of
government payment for prescription drugs is again rolling like a
juggernaut through the crowds of citizens who worship the
all-powerful state.
One newspaper columnist, Howard Kleinberg,
extrapolates his own experience and that of his parents to the whole
population, not wanting to be hindered by a more representative
group, which produces very different figures (The [Columbia, SC]
State, August 2, 1999, p. A9). Since his parents had to cut
their pills in half due to costs, and since his private insurance is
picking up a $5752-per-year pharmacy cost, therefore, the government
should impale everyone's wallet to relieve his!
Let us step aside from the mob of
government-worshipers and examine just a few simple things which
bear adversely on his point.First, the effectiveness of his
expensive prescriptions needs to be challenged. He is taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug at over $3.00 a day. For a man in his
mid-sixties, the ability of the popular class of these drugs to add
life is measured in a few days, not even weeks. His diabetes pill
costs close to $5.00 per day. The best study on the effectiveness of
treatment for type 2 diabetes (the type treated by pills more often
than insulin), indicates an almost incalculably low effectiveness
for the dread complications of the disease, an effect which
diminishes even further as one approaches the end of the life span.
He says that his doctor reminds him that his
prescriptions are paid for by insurance. In other words, the doctor
admits that he is not constrained in his recommendations by cost.
Neither, apparently has the patient been economically motivated to
investigate the (lack of) value for the cost. Nevertheless, we
should expand this unrestrained system to cover a huge group of
people?
Next, the columnist argues that the drug prices are
"outrageous." Yes. Consider why they are so high. One reason Mr.
Kleinberg gives is that the companies spend money on "ballyhoo."
That is, I presume, advertising. That they do. Perhaps, it was
ballyhoo that misled his physician into thinking that a very
expensive diabetic pill is much better than a cheap one and that
treating elevated cholesterol in a man in his mid-60's has
sufficient net benefits to warrant $1000 per year in drug costs.
Some of the advertising is directed now at the
consumer. Perhaps, the columnist himself was persuaded to buy the
expensive antihistamine rather than a cheaper one through the
advertising. When the drugs are paid for by someone else, there is
no one in the loop motivated to examine value received for value
given. Mr. Kleinberg does not do it, his physician does not do it,
and his drug company does not do it. That leaves apparently only
great god government to rescue us all from ourselves.
Another reason for high prices, he says, is "rewards
they give doctors for prescribing them." He is right on the mark
here. Physicians foolishly believe that we are not unduly influenced
by the blandishments of drug companies. We are the purchasing agents
for our patients -- making decisions about what to purchase and from
whom, but not spending our own money. Physicians who accept drug
company freebies are behaving unethically.
Mr. Kleinberg believes that drug companies should
spend more of their advertising money for research. Actually, it is
probably the other way around. If they could not pull in billions by
advertising their wares, they would not have the money for research.
The real problem is why the research costs so much. Great god
government requires that the research be done just so. The drug
companies have an interest in keeping it so, since the vast expense
limits entry into the oligarchy of pharmaceutical manufacture. The
pharmaceutical industry thus accepts government rules, and in return
the government keeps the competition less numerous.
The largest single economic reason for our high drug
price is that the government has effectively granted a near monopoly
on the production of drugs. From monopolies eventually issue high
prices, poor quality, or shortages. We are in the "high-price"
phase. If Mr. Kleinberg's view prevails, we will enter a "shortage"
phase. The government, as major purchaser, will be in a powerful
position to reduce prices. From a monopoly, we will be on our way to
adding a monopsony.
If Mr. Kleinberg thinks that things are bad now, he
should wait until a monopoly has been joined by a single buyer. The
consumer/patient will be reduced to mendicant -- mere grass which
the elephants trample. On the other hand, he can find out now just
by visiting any nation that is burdened with a centrally controlled
economy. Cuba would be a good start.
Mr. Kleinberg's pitiful tale actually contains one
substantial answer to the problem of expensive drugs, which he
passes by all too quickly. When he discovered his parents rationing
their medicine doses, he paid for them himself. A son looks after
the needs of his parents. Is that not better than a government
looking after the demands of its peasants? Does not God's
constitution of the family require such behavior of sons and omit it
in His constitution on nations?
Does not our own Constitution forbid in its Tenth
Amendment what Mr. Kleinberg wants? Ultimately, such matters ought
not to be decided on pragmatic economic or medical grounds as
mentioned above, though these grounds usually are agreeable to right
principle. These matters are rather matters of principle which call
for revelation and reasoning from that revelation. We need to
think Biblically!
The following are a small sampling of the travails
of modern American medicine. Comment will follow. Some of these
articles and others can be found at <www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/amn_99/index.htm>.
"One in ten California HMO practices are predicted
to fail in 1999. The California Medical Association calls the
failures an 'epidemic' and hosts a conference to discuss solutions."
(American Medical News, September 20, 1999, pp. 1, 27)
"HMO liability could raise insurance costs for
physicians. Physician insurers warn of a 4% to 8% premium jump if
patients can sue plans. But the AMA says that prediction is off the
mark." (Ibid., pp. 5-6)
"Talk, little action on Medicare drug benefit.
Despite the clamor from several fronts, Congress may put off the
debate on prescription coverage." (Ibid.) See Terrell's
Treatises for discussion on this subject.
"Aetna wants to be glad it met ya. Aetna U.S. Health
care CEO Richard Huber and key medical directors met with the media
in an attempt to polish the company's tarnished image with
physicians." (American Medical News, September 13, 1999, pp.
1, 30)
"Columbia/HCA Healthcare cuts physician practices.
The for-profit chain's decision to divest itself of 900 doctors is
indicative of the potential financial pitfalls of integrated
delivery systems." (Ibid., pp. 11, 13)
Doctors not often practicing what clinical
guidelines preach. Unexplained variations in patient care persist, a
new study confirms. Some experts say a national commitment to
improve compliance with practice guidelines is lacking. (Ibid.,
pp. 8, 10)
"Work on privacy bill continues. Proponents of
federal legislation to protect the privacy of medical records still
hold out hope for passage this year, even though Congress's deadline
passed." (Ibid., pp. 5, 7)
"Still a few bugs in Medicare fraud detector.
Problems with Health Care Financing Administration's physician
enrollment process should be addressed before its (sic) used as a
fraud prevention tool, AMA leaders say." (Ibid., pp. 5, 7)
"Fee reduction suit still passes hurdle. A Federal
court last month upheld a lower court ruling allowing 10,000
California physicians to file a class action lawsuit against Blue
Cross of California for reducing fees without notification between
1993 and 1995." (Ibid, pp. 5)
"Florida doctors sue over late pay. The Florida
Physicians Assn. and one of its members have sued HIP Health Plan of
Florida Inc., alleging that the company was breaking state law by
forcing physicians to resubmit claims and wait months for
reimbursement." (Ibid.)
"Insurer alleges physician fraud. Prudential
Property & Casualty Insurance Co. has accused a New Jersey
neurologist of submitting bills totaling $780,000 for fraudulent or
improper diagnostic testing and treatment of automobile crash
victims." (Ibid.)
"More HMOs pull out of Medicare; who's at fault?
Health plans cite budget act's payment cuts, risk adjustment plan.
But federal officials and others blame plan's focus on profits." (American
Medical News, July 19, 1999, pp. 1, 30)
"Loud message in physician organizing vote. The
decision by AMA delegates last month to create a national labor
organization for physicians' was--excuse the expression--a striking
but not particularly surprising turn of events. It is a logical
result of what has happened over the past quarter century to
American medicine. (Ibid., p. 16)
"States scramble for ways to fund med ed. As
Medicare ratchets down graduate medical education payments, states
look for new aproaches (sic) to financially support residency
programs and medical schools." (American Medical News, April
26, 1999, pp. 1, 34)
Readers should note that most of these citations
came from only two issues of American Medical News. Yet, look
at the complexity. HMOs are failing and are being sued, increasing
their costs to patients. Medicare becomes even more entangled in a
legislative and bureaucratic morass. HMOs and physicians are at odds
with each other. Patients want privacy; governments want to know
everything about everyone.
Many, if not most of these issues, are involved in
court battles at both the state and national level. More legislation
is proposed at the local, state, and national levels to correct past
legislation. Patients, physicians, legislators, and HMOs are
demanding their "rights," both publicly and judicially.
Who is winning? Only lawyers, administrators, and
bureaucrats. Conflict creates and maintains their high salaries.
One estimate that is quite old is that only 28 cents
of each dollar allocated at the federal level actually gets to the
patient. Considering government and private wrangling and lawsuits,
that figure has to be far less at present.
Readers, take a step back. No, step a long way from
the fray. What do you see? Sinful human nature locked in a great
power struggle for what? Not the individual nor the universal
generic patient. No, the struggle is simply for personal greed and
power. And, who is hurt? The patient.
Not that the patient is without fault. He wants womb
to tomb health care that covers everything at little cost.
And, churches and Christians in ethics generally
have no more answers than the secularists.
Let me propose a simple solution. Over a five year
period, outlaw all HMOs and cancel all legislation relative to
health (medical) care (including the licensing of physicians). Five
years is enough to allow everyone to adjust, including
administrators, lawyers, and bureaucrats to find productive jobs. I
started to say one year, but that may be a little quick. I give this
guarantee. (I am loaded with billions to back it up--not!) Overall
health (medical) care to patients will not suffer. Medical costs
will drop like a rock.
Most importantly, physicians and patients will again
contract only with each other for medical care (and perhaps
unregulated insurance that offer truly catastrophic medical
insurance).
Well, my plan is just pie in the sky. But, you see
the picture from these few examples of medical conflict at many
levels. Under this system, health care can only get worse for
everyone (with the exceptions noted above). The system may yet bring
national health care, the worst possible scenario. No answers are in
sight, except a collapse of national and international banking or
the Y2K crisis. Those events are not very appealing, either.
I have reported in the past on several research
articles over the past 30 years that have shown that married couples
report a better sexual experience than those who are unmarried. For
the most part, if not entirely, this evidence has appeared in
sources that are generally hostile to "traditional" marriage. Now,
another prominent report demonstrates the same evidence.
In the February 10, 1999, issue of The Journal of
the American Medical Association, there appeared the article,
"Sexual Dysfunction in the United States" (pp. 537-544). This
research was designed to provide epidemiological data on the
"increasing demand for clinical services (for sexual dysfunction)
and the potential impact of these disorders on interpersonal
relationships and quality of life" (p. 537). "This report provides
the first population-based assessment of sexual dysfunction in the
half-century since Kinsey et al" (p. 544).Buried in this
lengthy report and complex tables is this statement. "Thus, married
women and men are clearly at lower risk of experiencing sexual
symptoms than their non-married counterparts." Other than the
statistics in the tables to back up this conclusion, there is no
other mention of marriage as a solution to "sexual dysfunction." The
focus of the discussion on other "risk factors," such as, emotional
or stress related problems and lower socioeconomic conditions.
This report is another glaring example of bias that
appears in good research. The statistics to support marriage as
sexually satisfying is there, but the researchers focus elsewhere
for solutions for this problem of "sexual dysfunction."
There is something else here that is of interest to
Christians and conservatives. Remember the not-so-subtle attempt of
the American Psychological Association to condone adult-child sex?
This article appeared before that report and strongly condemns (by
statistics and conclusion, not by direct statement) the APA's
pitiful attempt.
"For women, adult-child contact or forced sex,
both generally perpetrated by men, results in increased risk of
experiencing arousal disorders. These results support the view
that sexual traumas induce lasting psychosocial disturbances,
which ultimately affect sexual functioning. Similarly, men who
were touched sexually before puberty also are more likely to
experience all categories of sexual dysfunction" P. 544).
Again, good science is congruent with
Biblical truth. It is just that strong reporting biases obscure that
congruence.
Biopsychiatry is the attempt by physicians to modify
abnormal or unwanted thinking and behavior by physical means,
primarily drugs. David Powlison, writing in the Journal of Biblical
Counseling, describes three waves of this attempt over the past 130
years.
"The first wave lasted from after the Civil War
until about 1910. New neurological knowledge--e.g., localizing
certain brain functions because of the effects of head wounds
received in the war--was generalized into attempts to define
problems in living medically and so to treat life by medical means.
'Neurasthenia' or 'weak nerves' became the catch-all explanation for
commonplace anxiety, depression, aimless living, irritability, and
addiction to the vices. Various modes of strengthening nerves were
employed: rest, diet, walks in fresh country air, working on a farm,
avoiding stress, and drugs.
"From a somewhat different angle, Ivan Pavlov's
physiological psychology in the 1890s was a primitive attempt to
reduce human existence to a mosaic of neuro-electrical activity in
the cortex. His experiments also offered a crude demonstration that
behavior and glandular function could sometimes be manipulated.
Pavlov's mentor, Sechenov, had defined his materialist philosophy
with the following programmatic statement that the student took to
heart: 'The brain secretes thought.'
"That is an astonishing metaphor and demonstrates
the force and logic of the biologizing worldview. This first
biopsychological fad faded as its significant efficacies proved to
be limited or little more than common sense. Its failure to cure the
human condition became all too obvious and something more attractive
came along. Freudian psychology swept in, bringing the first
'talking cure' or psychotherapy, with behaviorism and behavioral
therapy following shortly thereafter.
"This first was has not completely disappeared,
however. One still occasionally meets an elderly person who mentions
that so-and-so suffers from 'weak nerves,' an echo of that 1880s
euphemism for the sins of anxiety and grumbling.
"The second biological wave, during the 1940s and
1950s, was constructed on the efficacy of three newly discovered
medical treatments for disturbed people: electro-convulsive therapy
(ECT) and lobotomy in the 1940s and the phenothiazine family of
drugs in the 1950s. By using shock (ECT) therapy, destroying brain
cells, or administering thought-stabilizing medication, doctors
could tinker with the body's electrical system, localized brain
functions, and chemistry.
"Mood, behavior, and thought processes were all
affected. But this biopsychiatric wave receded as vast hopes were
dashed by intractable realities. Some symptoms were alleviated, but
people were not really changed, and the side effects were dreadful.
With a rush of new psychotherapies and new psychotherapy profession
in the 1960s--family systems, reality therapy, group therapy,
etc.--biopsychiatry was buried from public view. "ECT and the
phenothiazines linger on, but no one attaches vast hopes to them
anymore. They are in the dreary, use-when-nothing-else-works part of
the psychiatric armamentarium.
"The third wave is now upon us. It glitters with the
same bright hopes as it predecessors, though of course it appears
much more sophisticated. (Similarly, phenothiazines seemed very
sophisticated in comparison with 'rest cure' and lobotomy.) Again,
the new knowledge is generated by striking new abilities to localize
brain functions: now MRIs teach us, not the sequelae of bullet
wounds. The new drugs don't have the disturbing and visible side
effects that used to leave patients dry-mouthed, rigid, and dopey.
"No one pushes an ice pick in through the eye socket
anymore and twists it around in the cerebral cortex (the way
lobotomies were done). The brain may not be a gland secreting
thought, but it is an electrochemical organ that produces thought,
emotion, and behavior. We now hear of genetic structures, brain
chemistry, and drugs designed to influence very specific
neurotransmitter sites and functions.
"Again, there is some real and fascinating knowledge
here. But it is the same kind of knowledge as the previous fads,
shaped and blown out of proportion by similar myths. The perennial
hope is that we will understand and cure what ails us by localizing
brain function, greasing the neuroelectrical system, and buoying up
our chemistry.
"Biopsychiatry will cure a few things, for which we
should praise the God of common grace. But in the long run, unwanted
and unforeseen side effects will combine with vast disillusionment.
The gains will never live up to the promises. And, the lives of
countless people, whose normal life problems are now being
medicated, will not be qualitatively changed and redirected. Only
intelligent repentance, living faith, and tangible obedience
turn the world upside down.
"In 1990s euphemisms, we say so-and-so 'has' ADD
(attention deficit disorder), or 'suffers from' clinical depression,
or 'is bipolar.' Without in any way minimizing the realities of
troubling behaviors, emotions, and thought processes to which such
labels are attached, we must say that such supposed diagnostic
entities have the same substantiality as 'weak nerves'....
"The (third) fad is currently in full force. The
Human Genome Project (which has a confessing Christian as its
highest officer) has some wonderfully savvy publicists on staff who
feed us all a stream of tantalizing knowledge bits charged with
fantastic implications.... accompanied by the appropriate
hand-wringing about ethical implications.
"I cannot argue with the bits of science cited, but
here is what history reminds us. When the gene mapping is complete,
when the folks on Prozac still cannot get along with their spouses,
when the fountain of youth still does not arrive in a bottle, when
money and achievement fail to satisfy, and when your clone grows up
to hate you, sinners will yet find Christ to be the one that they
need."
Ed's Note
Mr. Powlison would likely agree that these waves are
not precise, but they are helpful to understand the modern
development of biological psychiatry. It is perhaps the most
complete application of philosophical materialism today. It is also
a graphic example of the degrees to which mankind seeks answers to
sin apart from God, and the world's intelligentsia strives for
meaning in a universe limited only to atoms and molecules.
Excerpted from "Biological Psychiatry," by David
Powlison, in the Journal of Biblical Counseling, available
from Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation, 1803 East
Willow Grove Ave., Glenside, PA 19038. E-mail is <ccefmail@aol.com>
or website <www.ccef.org>. Used
with permission of the author and editor.
Vol. 13, No. 5 (84) September 1999
The Good, Bad,
and Ugly: An Update on AIDS
or
The Propaganda Continues
A summary report from a recent conference on
HIV/AIDS demonstrates some good news, medical hubris, and
continuing deceit about the transmission of HIV.
Readers have likely seen or heard several
advertisements intended to counsel the public about the risk of
AIDS. A central, if not foundational tenet, of this education has
been that "everyone is at risk of AIDS." Consistent with this tenet,
these ads feature multi-racial individuals of varying ages from
teens to older adults. Also, this tenet prompted the largest
propaganda campaign ever attempted by the federal government: an
educational pamphlet intended to educate and prevent AIDS.
Guess what? Everyone is not at risk for AIDS. Some
are considerably more at risk than others.
"Seventy percent of new infections are occurring
among men... 60% (of these) are due to male-to-male sexual
contact, 25% are due to injection drug use, and 15% are due to
heterosexual contact....
"Despite a national record low in cases of
syphilis and gonorrhea, the incidence of the two diseases is
rising among men who have sex with men in some areas of the
country....
"Optimism about antiretroviral therapies (see
below) is fueling a resurgence in sexually risky behaviors.
"Death and disease rates are highest among
African-Americans with rates almost 10 times higher than that of
whites and three times higher than that of Hispanics...
African-Americans now account for half of all new HIV
infections, despite constituting only 13% of the population.
"Over half of all new infections are occurring
among people under 25... half of these new cases are among
women... the vast majority is occurring sexually." (American
Medical News, September 20, 1999, pp. 24, 26)
Some "experts" lament their educational efforts. "If
we put the same sort of commitment and investment in prevention that
we've put in treatment, we'll get the same dramatic results," said
Helene Gayle, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB
Prevention. Excuse me, may I ask a question? "If gays account for
42% of new infections, African-Americans have 10x higher rates than
whites, and half of new infections are under age 25, why are not
these populations targeted for your "education," rather than
promoting that "everyone is at risk? Why not ads that focus on
young, African-American males who are gay?"
Of course, readers know the answer. Gays are to be
protected from their central role in this epidemic and devastating
disease. Early in the epidemic, AIDS was exclusive to homosexuals
who spread it to the IV-drug abusing community, since there was a
great deal of commonality to the two groups. From these two groups
came the "heterosexual" risk, which is really anyone who consorts
with those in these two groups.
AIDS "education" has actually been homosexual,
lesbian, and heterosexual propaganda. Only in rare instances has
limiting sexual activity to marriage been promoted.
So, the laments are lame, if not pathetic. You
cannot fight fire by fanning the flames. The political correctness
of HIV/AIDS continues, and by that stance, actually fans the flames
of the epidemic. The "empress" has no clothes when she claims that
education has failed. It has not been properly tried.
AIDS Treatments
Become Less Effective
"In the mid-1990s, the number of people who
developed and died from AIDS dropped dramatically, a development
attributed to new combination antiretroviral therapies. But,
that drop-off slowed considerably in 1998....
"The slowing declines in new cases and deaths
are likely the result of a number of factors, including
treatment failures caused by viral resistance, nonadherence to
therapeutic regimens, and 'having already reached most
individuals who know their (HIV) status and are susceptible to
treatment,' Dr. Gayle said." (Ibid.)
Commentary: I have reported on these effective
therapies, as well as predictions (by others, not myself) about
their limited efficacy (due to factors named above). This report
validates the actual occurrence of those predictions and that all is
not well (pun not intended) on the AIDS treatment front.
AZT
Efficacy in Pregnant Women with HIV Confirmed
"The bit of bright news amid the bleakness of
conference data had to do with progress made in reducing
pediatric AIDS. Due to widespread use of zidovudine (AZT) to
prevent perinatal transmission, perinatal cases declined from
912 cases in 1992 to 242 cases in 1998, a 74% drop.
"'We now believe that the actual elimination of
pediatric HIV might be within our grasp in the United States,'
Dr. Gayle said." (Ibid.)
Commentary: The ebb and flow of emotions relative to
HIV/AIDS has been interesting. In the late 1980s, there was
considerable hope placed on "education." That failed. Then, there
was excitement about the efficacy of the antiretroviral drugs. That
enthusiasm is waning. This efficacy of AZT in HIV-infected, pregnant
women seems to be real.
Yet, underneath this ebb and flow has been one
constancy that never gets its proper exposure and emphasis: the role
of homosexuals in this disease. Until homosexuals are rightly (dare
I say it?) blamed for this epidemic, then all other efforts will
only be piecemeal and, in some instances, actually increase the
number of infections.
Anger Can
Break Your Heart!
"Anger is the affective state most commonly
associated with myocardial ischemia (lack of oxygen to the heart
muscle) and life-threatening arrhythmias (irregular heart
beats). The scope of the problem is sizable--at least 36,000
(2.4% of 1.5 million) heart attacks are precipitated annually in
the United States by anger.... (Cardiology Clinics, May
1996, pp. 289-307)
Commentary: While this article is dated three years
ago, it was prompted by a reference elsewhere. Also, I wanted to
link this association with the review that I had of Dr. John Sarno (Reflections,
March 1999) who believes that anger has a strong association with
back pain.
Anger destroys. Acted upon, it damages or destroys
property and people. That result may also occur in the person
angered with a heart attack. Jesus linked anger with murder (Matthew
5:21-26).
All anger, however, is not bad and can be
constructive. Jesus directed that your anger cause you to work out
the problem with your brother (vs. 23-24). The Apostle Paul directed
that we not let the sun go down on our anger (Ephesians 4:26-27).
That is, do not let anger go undissipated by carrying it over from
day to day.
Anger is a huge health problem. It is a huge
societal problem. It can and should be a force for the good of all.
|
