In my previous post I discussed the phenomenom of academic arrogance and their insistence that they alone have rights to determine what is or is not truth. In this post I am going to dig a bit deeper and be more specific in my analogy by comparing the reaction of the Apostle Paul and modern day "experts" to having their knowledge examined.
Ultimately all knowledge, and all truth comes from God - The Father, The Son/Jesus, and The Holy Spirit. Truth is far more than mere facts - and this is one reason why we must look to Him, and His word, the Bible. Truth begins and ends with The Lord.
The Bereans were a group of Jews who lived in the region of Macedonia during the first century. Luke records in Acts 17:11 that they were commended for examining the scriptures to verify if what the Apostle Paul said was accurate. The Apostle Paul had an academic pedigree to be proud of - he was a Pharisee (see Acts 22:3) yet after he met Jesus he considered his credentials (his racial heritage as a Jew, his Roman citizenship, his academic learning, etc) as dung, scat! In spite of his great learning he was not in the least threatened by a group of ordinary people verifying his claims.
And yet we now have both individuals and groups who claim to be exclusive holders of knowledge (truth) who cannot abide anyone who does not share their academic credentials daring to verify their truth claims. This is a secular form of gnosticism. They claim to have special, secret knowledge - and only those who have been initiated into this club, or group, can claim to have truth or disseminate it. If you do not have the "right" letters after your name you are not considered as having the "special knowledge". If you stray off the reservation (Jesus and Paul, among many others did this big time) after having obtained the "appropriate" knowledge you will be "made to care" as the cult-like groupthink of gnosticism is carefully policed. Dissent of any kind is not tolerated. You are not free to test these ideas or have your own thoughts.
I think one of the reasons the Apostle Paul was so unthreatened by anyone verifying what he taught is because he was so secure in the fact that it was true. Even if they reached different conclusions it was not going to change what he thought. He welcomed the challenge. His attitude also mirrored that of The Lord's - He designed this world for discovery. He welcomes questions - all questions! Quite the contrast compared to the earthly keepers of knowledge who will not tolerate questions of their views! I think The Lord never says "I told you so" when we discover some new aspect or element of truth - He rejoices when we "get it"!
What is noticably absent is any rancor in Paul's response - he did not demean them in any way (the exact opposite, actually) - there was no name calling, no belittling of any kind. In other words he did not troll them! This just isn't the case in anyone who challenges the vaccine orthodoxy! Patients are kicked out of pediatric practices, healthcare workers are fired, families are separated. Those who question vaccines are called horrible names and awful assumptions are made about their motivations ("WHAT! You want your baby, or mine, to DIE?!") - and these accusations are cast when there is an abundance of reports of disease outbreaks among populations that are vaccinated according to the "schedule".
Gnostic cults have their own holy writ - or they use God's word out of context. They are experts at proof-texting. The manipulation of science is a secular version of this. Post-normal science is the eisogesis of today. They come to the study with the outcome pre-determined ("vaccines are safe and effective") and obtain that outcome by any means necessary. In proper exegesis of a text (ie: scientific data) knowledge is drawn from it and conclusions are determined from what the data says, not what the researcher wants it to say. In the case of the #CDCwhistleblower this would mean the team would not break study protocol because the results did not provide the expected conclusion, and the team would not have destroyed evidence (data) that the conclusion was not what was expected (MMR is safe), etc.
Please be a "Berean" - be of "more noble character". Research vaccines. Draw your own conclusions based on what you learn by examining both published science and other peoples experiences with vaccines. Read the drug inserts. Learn the various components of vaccines, the ingredients, and what they do, why are they there, and what is the safety profile of each of these ingredients.
And do not limit this to vaccines - apply this to other domains and areas of your life as well.