A REPLY TO WORLD MAGAZINE'S MARVIN OLASKY
CONCERNING HIS LATEST COLUMNS ON VACCINATIONS
There are a few periodicals I look forward to getting each month. I like to glance thru Wing World (a magazine for GOLDWING RIDERS). My son and I always battle over the American Rifleman (the monthly publication of the NRA). And there's always the six or eight professional journals I get each month (I especially like PPM). But in all honesty, the magazine I probably look forward to the most (it comes every other week) is World --- a publication I have been reading regularly since the early 1990's --- and I always look forward to reading Marvin Olasky's articles.
Despite being an ardent atheist and Marxist in his younger years (he was actually a card-carrying member of the Communist Party of America), Olasky became a Christian in 1976; the same year he received his Ph.D in American Studies from the University of Michigan. Since then, he has worked as a professor at several universities, including King's College (of Dinesh D'Souza fame) as well as the University of Texas. He's authored over 20 books, including The Tragedy of American Compassion, which House Speaker Newt Gingrich handed out to all the Republican representatives in 1992. On top of everything else, he is an elder in his church. To be perfectly honest, I would love to spend a day or two hanging out with Dr. Olasky on the CURRENT RIVER and jawing with him about any number of topics. But...........
I have to take issue with the March, 21 copy of World, For the Sake of the Children. In it, Dr. Olasky writes not one, but two articles that could only be described as pro-vaccination. This after posting an online article just a few weeks ago (To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate? --- another extremely pro-vaccine article) written by fellow elders of his denomination (PCA). What gives? Why is Olasky so interested not so much in reporting both sides of this issue (his "Shot Selection" article pays lip-service), but in giving us his opinion? I cannot honestly answer that question, but today I'm going to provide some commentary on his articles --- particularly the Hornet's Nest.
If you have seen Ben Stein's movie EXPELLED, you are aware of the incredible bias against anyone and everyone who is not an evolutionist. The problem is so severe in academia that embracing either biblical creation or intelligent design is akin to signing your own pink slip ---- particularly if you are employed as a scientist in our nation's university system. It's the premise of the movie, and I promise you that things have not gotten better since it was released in 2008. But this is almost identical to what happens to scientists who would chase the vaccines-aren't-all-they've-been-touted-to-be rabbit.
Like evolution, vaccinations are one of our nation's scientific SACRED COWS. As a researcher, if you start raising red flags concerning vaccinations, you have just flushed your career (at least a mainstream career) down the proverbial toilet. Because no one is tackling this issue from an unbiased point of view, how on earth can we ever get real answers about the relationship between our national chronic health woes and our current vaccination schedule? If you read TUESDAY'S POST, you've seen how Big Pharma controls the facilities on university campuses where the research is done (they pay to build them). Furthermore, they are either directly or indirectly responsible for funding said research. And on top of all this, a peer-reviewed scientific journal revealed earlier this month that they actually have the chief regulatory agency whose job is to oversee and protect us from this sort of thing (the FDA), in their collective back pockets (HERE).
The next point Olasky brings up (government overreach) is one we would both robustly agree on as well --- that we live under an increasingly unrighteous government that is continually overstepping its Constitutional authority in almost every area of life. However, when it comes to shots, Olasky only believes the government is overreaching it's authority when it comes to mandating vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases because they, "are only contracted through sexual contact rather than those communicable by air or touch". Not that I really agree with the logic of his statement, but the bigger problem is that once you make any vaccine(s) completely mandatory (i.e "Forced Vaccinations"), where does it end? If you again look at Tuesday's post, you'll notice that there are dozens of vaccine for any number of different health problems currently in R&D, and this on top of the dozens that are already recommended.
If you really believe that Big Pharma is not drooling at the prospect of legislative mandates that would force the public to take their vaccines, you are sadly mistaken. When they look at you, they see a walking, talking, dollar sign. Like I said the other day, in their eyes you are nothing more than a commodity --- a point on a bar graph that represents their stock price. And the SICKER YOU ARE over the course of your lifetime, more money you are going to put in their pockets. Never forget that when it comes to the Pharmaceutical Industry, it's all about the money. And never forget that vaccination, while undoubtedly diminishing acute childhood disease, is a significant part of the reason we have astronomical amounts of chronic inflammatory degenerative diseases and autoimmune conditions here in America (HERE).
The third area Olasky is trying to show those who champion vaccination choice are wrong about is 'parental authority'. Once more, he and I would stand in agreement. Our current government has been working overtime for a very long time to subvert parental authority (who remember's Hilary's It Takes a Village.....?) But again, telling us that sometimes, "we can benefit from the advice of others as to the risks we should try to minimize," tells us nothing whatsoever about vaccination side effects or pesky little topics like the the "Hygiene Hypothesis" that make the benefits of mass vaccinations much less clear than many would have you believe (see the previous link). Furthermore, Olasky's third point sounded like a backdoor insinuation that those who choose not to vaccinate are not real (or at least not mature) Christians.
I've heard his arguments; I think they fall short. But let me give you the argument I feel that Dr. Olasky, along with so many others in his camp, are failing to deal with adequately.
When it comes to this issue of vaccines, people want to invoke "science" but ignore what's happening to people --- most particularly children. Tim Keller is my latest favorite pastor, and the other day my family was listening to the third part of one of his sermons called, A Better Resurrection. In it, he said that the latest edition of Newsweek (this was sometime in early 2010) had come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was actually raised from the dead. Knowing how secular the magazine is, you could have blown me over with a feather.
I did not read the article myself, but Keller said that the fact that hundreds, probably more like thousands, of Jews and Greeks saw the risen Christ in the forty days between His Resurrection and ascension to heaven, could not be explained by anything other than the fact that it really happened --- Christ really rose from the dead (something that most of the world will be celebrating one week from today). According to Keller, no other explanation for the founding of the 1st century Church --- a group that despite being martyred in ugly ways and massive numbers --- is satisfactory. How bad was it for the earliest Christians? The author of Hebrews (Keller was preaching on verses 34 through 40 of chapter 11 --- the "Faith Chapter") wrote that these earliest "Christians" were.......
"tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder [sawed in half / drawn and quartered], were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth."
Yet people still came to Christ in large numbers. However, despite this "evidence" that Keller believes to be overwhelming, not everyone has an inkling to buy in and follow Christ. I would argue that something similar is happening in the debate over vaccines.
No matter how many studies the scientific community trots out on vaccine safety, a significant segment of the public is not buying in. It's not rocket science to grasp why ---- it's because so much of the so-called "evidence" has been SOURED. In fact, I not only showed you on Tuesday, but in POST AFTER POST just how untrustworthy scientific evidence can really be --- especially when there are billions upon billions of dollars at stake. In far too many cases, "science" is whatever the corporation with the most money says it is. Unfortunately, many of those buying in to the the "scientifically proven" safety of vaccines, fail to see (or at least acknowledge) what's going on right in front of their own eyes. It's the evidence which, to steal a phrase from the venerable Josh McDowell, demands a verdict.
For nearly a quarter century, I've run a busy Chiropractic Clinic that treats people of all ages; from infants to the very elderly. In that time, I've seen lots of children with various stages of neurological damage (some severe), and heard story after story after story from parents telling me that their child was normal ---- until they had their shots. Although our nation's current focus of the vaccination-safety issue is set squarely on the broad shoulders of science, an increasing number of people are noticing that those massive shoulders are sagging under the weight of the children (many who are now adults) whose lives have been forever altered by the very thing that's supposed to be keeping them healthy in the first place ---- their shots.
Want to meet some of these children and their families? If you start looking around the internet at the incredible number of "VACCINE FREEDOM" sites, you can read their stories, see their pictures, and watch their videos. There are thousands upon thousands of them who just happened to come down with Autism, severe neurological injury, and / or learning disabilities, shortly after receiving their shots. The scientific community would have you believe it's all a fluke --- a random event --- blind chance --- a mere coincidence of timing. In fact, the last commenter on Olasky's article, which is also posted at TownHall dot com (Mike Beck), stated that, "I was pro vaccination until I saw both grandchildren I'm raising lose speaking ability and ability to pronounce words (they started slurring) right after getting their shots."
Sorry, but plain old "dumb luck" can't account for the fact that AUTISM and similar neurological problems are literally SKYROCKETING (the latest stats for Autism show 1 in 32). Call the evidence between vaccinations and a wide array of health problems "anecdotal" if you want, but there is way too much of it to ignore any longer. To Big Pharma this sort of "collateral damage" has nothing to do with vaccinations --- and if it were somehow shown to be, it's just an unfortunate necessity of taking care of "the herd".
The scientific community cannot explain what. They don't even want to talk about it. Most of it gets written off as coincidence, gold-digging, or "collateral damage" --- one of the unfortunate consequences of treating people not as individuals, but as part of "the he
Believe me when I tell you that there is nothing for me to gain either personally or professionally from writing a post like this. But I must follow not only my conscience, but my senses as well --- what I see and hear. When patient after patient tells me that their __________ (insert one here --- child, grandchild, niece, nephew, friend, etc, etc, etc) was completely normal until just after they received their shots, I have to wonder why. And when Dr. Olasky publishes three columns in three weeks extolling the virtues of vaccination, I have to wonder why as well.
I get it. Hotbutton topics boost web-traffic and sell magazines (last I saw he was pushing a million Facebook likes). But there has to be more to it than this. Why is Olasky trying so hard to convince his readers that they need to be up-to-date on their vaccinations? I'm also not sure how much real research (or "investigative" journalism) he has really done into the other side of this issue, but his arguments --- particularly the you're-not-a-good-parent / not-a-good-Christian unless you vaccinate --- remind me of pastor Douglas Wilson's recent foray into Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity (he argued that it DOESN'T EXIST). Brilliant individual, but way out of his league on that one (HERE). I would urge Olasky to remove himself from the fray if he can't do a better job of reporting both sides of the vaccination issue.