The official SDA Church seems determined to be on the wrong side of the Covid-19/mandatory vaccination issue. On October 25th, the church issued another statement on Covid and the vaccines entitled, “Re-Affirming the SDA Church’s Response to Covid-19.”
I apologize in advance for the length of this rebuttal, but the statement itself was almost 2,100 words, longer than a typical Fulcrum7 article.
The prefatory statement reads:
“This document has been produced by the General Conference Administration, Biblical Research Institute, General Conference Health Ministries, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference Office of General Counsel, and Loma Linda University Health. It builds on the immunization statement voted in April 2015 and affirms both this latter statement, and the information on the COVID-19 vaccines shared on December 22, 2020.”
In other words, some folks at the GC headquarters got together to re-affirm their support for the official narrative (read: the Globalist/Leftist cabal’s narrative) and the attempt to force the jab on people who do not want it. They claim that the SDA Church supports these talking points, but, based upon feedback we will discuss and sample later, I doubt that support is widespread within the church.
The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest public health crisis in a hundred years. It has devastated populations around the world and severely affected physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, and relational health. In its wake isolation, recurrent surges, economic disruption, and death are all ongoing. We are confronted with mitigation measures such as masking, social (physical) distancing, handwashing, early detection, testing, and contact tracing that have become part of our daily lives.
The hundred years is a reference to the 1918-20 Influenza pandemic, which killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide, and 675,000 in the United States which, as a percentage of the population, was more than three times more deadly than the Covid pandemic, even given the most generous, uncritical tabulation of Covid deaths.
The severe affects on physical, spiritual, mental, emotional and relational health, and the isolation and economic disruption, are mostly due to ill-advised government mitigation efforts—usually in the form of unilateral executive decrees—which did nothing to slow the spread of the disease, but a great deal to hurt people, especially an American working class already under assault by the same ruling elites managing the pandemic response.
“In the midst of this time of crisis and disruption the Seventh-day Adventist Church is committed to the mission of lifting up Christ, His Word, His righteousness, and the proclamation of His Three Angels’ Messages to the world in preparing people, through the Holy Spirit’s power, for Jesus’ soon coming.”
Really? The SDA Church I observed during the pandemic was in hiding, not meeting in its buildings and raising no institutional objection to having its worship services closed by executive fiat. Quite frankly, SDA Church leaders did not, and do not, seem to think that worshipping together in person is important, even though that has always been the primary business of the official church.
A faith that cowers in the basement because of a virus with a 99.75% survival rate (99.997% for younger people) is not a faith that “is committed to the mission of lifting up Christ, His Word, His righteousness, and the proclamation of His Three Angels’ Messages to the world.” If we are clutching this life as tightly as an atheist who has no hope of a life beyond this one, no hope of eternity in a sinless paradise with God, then our faith is small and of little help, a message that came through loud and clear during the shutdowns, as witness the drop in conversions to the church.
“The health message is the right arm of the gospel and therefore a healthy lifestyle has been an important part of the beliefs of the Adventist Church since its early years and remains so. We are still committed to live, share, and promote healthy living as expressed by the wholistic Adventist health message entrusted to the Church. The Adventist health studies have confirmed the unequivocal benefits of increased longevity and quality of life through implementing such health practices. These include a balanced vegetarian diet, exercise, drinking adequate volumes of water, regular exercise, careful exposure to sunshine, fresh air, abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful substances, adequate rest and sleep, and importantly, trust in God. These practices enhance and maintain healthy immunity.”
All well and true, but we will see that the drafters who inserted this did so for the purpose of ignoring its implications, of honoring it in the breach.
“Beyond those benefits of healthy lifestyle principles and preventive public health practices, the Church affirms and recommends the responsible use of vaccines as an important public health measure, especially during a pandemic.”
This seems like an attempt to make “public health practices” part of the SDA health message. The Adventist health message, as articulated by Ellen White, does not speak to “public health practices” per se. Ellen White wrote about things that could be characterized as “public health practices”—e.g., unhealthy conditions in the cities, or how long dresses that brush the dirty streets and sidewalks were unhygienic, etc.—but her counsels were concerned with the health of individual Adventist believers; she counseled Adventists to leave the crowded urban tenements in favor of healthy homes in the country, to wear shorter skirts that did not drag the ground, etc.
As to the “responsible use of vaccines,” Ellen White had nothing to say about vaccines, nor is it part of the Adventist health message. I am aware of no official or quasi-official Adventist statement on vaccines pre-dating 2015.
“At the same time, the Church respects the rights of individuals’ freedom of choice for those who choose not to be vaccinated.”
Another throw-away line soon to be effectively repudiated.
“The current position of the Church on immunization and vaccines, including COVID-19, builds on the insights of the comprehensive health message Seventh-day Adventists have endorsed early on with ample support in Scripture and the writings of Ellen G. White that refer to the importance of disease prevention. As a denomination, we have advocated the synergy of a healthy lifestyle and responsible immunization for more than one hundred years.”
Again, this is a disingenuous attempt to move vaccination into the SDA Church’s “comprehensive health message” where it never-before resided. Ellen White did not advocate vaccination, nor even write about vaccination—she was certainly never given a vision or a divine message regarding vaccination—and as far as I am aware the church never had an official statement on vaccination until very recently.
“In the light of the global magnitude of the pandemic, the deaths, disability, and long-term COVID-19 effects that are emerging in all age groups, we encourage our members to consider responsible immunization and the promotion and facilitation of the development of what is commonly termed herd immunity (pre-existing community immunity of approximately 80 percent of the population or more as a result of previous infection and/or vaccination).”
The phrase “emerging in all age groups” is a troubling attempt to elide or fudge the fact that the threat from Covid is highly age stratified. It is less dangerous to the 18 and under demographic than normal seasonal influenza, and does not become substantially more dangerous than flu until the over 65 demographic is reached. The average age of Covid deaths in the United States in 78, which is also the life expectancy. The pattern of the average age of Covid deaths being equal to or higher than typical life expectancy in a given nation is seen throughout the developed world.
The use of the phrase “responsible immunization” implies that there is such a thing as irresponsible immunization, and I agree. Vaccinating anyone under 20 is simply wrong—that demographic is at virtually zero risk from Covid, but not zero risk from the vaccine. I’ve read several stories of teenagers suffering death and permanent cardio-vascular damage from the vaccines. It is also irresponsible to immunize someone who has recovered from Covid and has natural immunity, because the risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine is about four times higher with that group. Anyone under age 40 who is not obese and in good health should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of the vaccine, and probably err on the side of being cautious with an experimental vaccine that has no long term safety record.
I’m intrigued by the notion that Adventists are to promote the development of herd immunity, since Adventists do not comprise a significant enough percentage of the population of any nation on earth to have any affect on herd immunity. An Adventist believer, like everyone else, should decide whether to take the vaccine based upon what is best for his own health, not in order to pursue some notional public health goal such as herd immunity. (By the way, I congratulate the drafters for settling on 80% as the magic “herd immunity” percentage, a consensus that heretofore had eluded epidemiologists.)
“We are aware that vaccines may have side effects, and these can be severe in a small percentage of cases, including death in rare situations. No vaccine is 100 percent effective. Therefore, our decisions need to carefully take into consideration the risk of taking the vaccine compared to the risks of being infected with COVID-19.”
Safety and efficacy are two different issues. The issue of vaccine side-effects goes to safety; the statement “no vaccine is 100 percent effective” obviously goes to efficacy. The drafters seem not to understand that these are two separate issues. What the drafters seemed to want to say is that no vaccine is 100 percent safe, which is true, but never in human history have we tolerated vaccines with even a tiny fraction of the adverse events being reported in association with the Covid vaccines. So far, over 17,000 deaths have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States, as wells as hundreds of thousands of injuries and other adverse events.
But the assertion that we need to balance risks is correct. We do. Which means we need to know a lot more about the risks from the vaccine than we are being told by the mainstream media, almost all of which have joined a group called the Trusted News Initiative" (TNI), essentially agreeing to be propagandists in favor of the vaccines, and to suppress any bad news about the vaccines.
“The immunity conferred by both the natural infection and the vaccine are time limited and the administration of ‘booster’ doses may be needed. Acquiring a booster shot, upon recommendation from one's health care provider, may further promote personal and public health. The need for such a booster shot does not indicate the ‘failure’ of a vaccine but reflects the nature of antibody levels that may drop over time.”
In fact, the immunity conferred by natural infection is broader and much longer-lasting than vaccine immunity. The two should not be cavalierly compared as they are here. And no one should be promoting booster shots until we have a better idea of the long-term safety of the vaccines. The Covid vaccines have been with us less than one year; obviously we have no long-term safety data on them.
We are already hearing troubling reports that the vaccines may be suppressing natural immunity, such as killer T-cells which we need to fight cancer and other diseases. It is entirely possible, indeed probable, that any suppression or derangement of the non-Covid-specialized elements of the immune system will be exacerbated by each subsequent booster shot. And since it appears that vaccine-created antibodies are gone after about five months, we will need at least two booster shots a year.
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church respects each individual’s freedom of choice to make responsible decisions regarding their own health. Since our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit and we are Christ’s both by creation and redemption, we should personally seek God’s will about COVID-19 vaccinations. The decision whether to take the vaccine or not is not a matter of salvation, nor is it related, as some may suggest, to the mark of the beast. It is a matter of personal choice.”
Whether one is vaccinated or not most certainly can be a matter of salvation. As was pointed out by that impressive young basketballer, Jonathan Isaac, two Christians can come to two different conclusions about whether to take the vaccine, and both be under conviction. If we are under conviction, we had better follow our conviction, because we are judged based upon how we live up to the light we have been given. We must not violate a God-given conviction as to what is the right path.
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” James 4:17;
“But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Rom. 14:23.
As a line in one of my favorite plays has it:
Duke of Norfolk: Why can't you do as I did, and come with us, for fellowship?
Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?
The question of vaccine mandates is certainly related to the mark of the beast. The issue in Revelation 13 is whether you will go against your conscience and accept the mark in your hand, not out of faith or belief but as an accommodation to the ruling authorities. If you do, you are lost eternally. We had better begin now to practice resisting what is not done out of faith.
“In weighing the various options, we should also take into consideration that the benefits of vaccination extend beyond oneself and help to protect the local and global community at large.”
In fact, vaccination does nothing to protect other people. Vaccination is designed to protect, or help protect, the vaccinated person by stimulating that person’s immune system to produce anti-bodies, so that when the disease comes into that person’s body, the anti-bodies destroy it.
In some “sterilizing” vaccines, a vaccinated person cannot be infected and cannot pass the virus to others, but this is NOT true of any of the Covid vaccines. A fully Covid-vaccinated individual can still be infected and can still pass the virus to others. There are several reported cases of Covid outbreaks within a population consisting only of fully vaccinated persons.
It is not at all clear that a vaccinated person is less likely to spread Covid. A Lancet longitudinal study published October 29 found that the “secondary attack rate” among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was very similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% [95% CI 15–35] for vaccinated vs 23% [15–31] for unvaccinated. In other words, the unvaccinated were not more infectious—not more likely to spread Covid—than the vaccinated, even to people in their own households.
This being the scientific fact, there is no scientific basis for vaccine passports, a “green card” system, or any other method or system of discriminating against the unvaccinated. The decision of the unvaccinated to remain in that condition can affect only themselves. If what is claimed for the vaccine is true, the only enhanced risk of remaining unvaccinated is that if you do get Covid, you will have a greater chance of suffering a more serious bout with the disease.
But your chances of not contracting the disease are substantial, especially if you live in an uncrowded rural area. Even if you should happen to contract the virus, your odds of surviving the illness are over 99%, higher if you are younger, lower if you are older than about 80.
If the statement had ended here, it would have been bad enough, but unfortunately it goes on to mount a partisan defense of vaccine mandates, a highly controversial political position being taken by the current Democrat president and the powers and principalities allied with him:
“Countries and societies around the world have previously faced public health mandates in various forms. These have been put in place as a protection, recognizing that the health of the community is a major determinant of individual health and disease susceptibility. Public health practices have been mandated from the time of Moses and, probably, earlier. More recent examples of mandated public health practices include the banning of smoking on aircraft, and the use of safety belts as a general requirement for all motor vehicles. Over the past 120 years, mandated smallpox vaccination has been implemented in the United States general population and in countries around the world, resulting in a smallpox-free world at present. Numerous other infectious diseases have been brought under control by vaccinations and have also been subject to mandates (e.g. polio, measles, diphtheria). Seventh-day Adventist missionaries in the 1930s were instructed by the Church, as their employer, to receive the smallpox and typhoid immunizations. These requirements have been shared widely over the years in the Church’s official publications and acceptance of this requirement by Church members has been positive overall. The requirements for missionaries to be appropriately and responsibly vaccinated continue today. Ellen White did not comment on the issue of religious liberty in connection with vaccination mandates in her lifetime. She clearly understood the wholistic health message entrusted to the Church better than most.
Proponents of vaccine mandates consistently argue in generalities rather than dealing specifically with the these Covid vaccines. The issue here is not other vaccine mandates, or other public health requirements such as seat-belts or no-smoking areas.
Some do argue that any mandate is always wrong, that one does not need any factual context to condemn them. I disagree. The factual context is crucial. If the Covid vaccine were a "sterilizing vaccine" that prevented the vaccinated person from being infected or passing the virus to others, and there was no animal reservoir to protect the virus if it were driven out of the human population, then I would be in favor of mandatory vaccination. My understanding is that this was the case with smallpox; the vaccine was sterilizing, and taking it prevented you from getting infected or passing the infection on to others. Under those circumstances, mandating the smallpox vaccine was a very sound scientific decision, and it has resulted in a largely smallpox-free world.
But the facts are very different here. The Covid vaccines do not prevent infection, transmission, serious illness, hospitalization, or death. Again, the best that can be said for these vaccines is that they reduce the chances of serious illness or death should you become infected. This vaccine will never eradicate Covid (and the endless present and future variants of Covid), even if every person in the world were vaccinated. Moreover, as we discussed above, the best studies we have to date indicate that the vaccinated are not even less likely than the unvaccinated to spread the disease.
That being the case, there is no justification for mandatory vaccination. In fact, there is a scientific argument for husbanding the vaccine closely, administering it only to high-risk individuals, so as not to place selective pressure on the virus to mutate into something the vaccine cannot fight.
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not opposed to public safety and government health mandates. Submission to government authorities is a biblical principle unless it conflicts with obedience to God (Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-7). In many cases the Seventh-day Adventist Church has supported government mandates in support of health and safety issues. When it comes to COVID-19 vaccinations, we believe individuals have the right to state and defend their conviction whether to be vaccinated or not. Mandates usually allow exemptions for individual religious convictions or health conditions.
The prevaricating nature of this statement is shown by the fact that, over and over, the drafters have recourse to inapplicable examples and misleading generalities, rather than coming to grips with the facts of this particular vaccine mandate. Mandatory vaccination for Covid-19 is not appropriate for the reasons discussed above, and it is not appropriate for the SDA Church to endorse these very controversial vaccine mandates.
Submission to governing authorities is a biblical principle, but in the United States and other Western countries, citizens have a voice in how we are governed, and we are free to argue and agitate against any policy we believe is misguided. We practice constitutional self-government under law; arguably, the U.S. federal government lacks power to mandate vaccination, because the general police power—the power to regulate health, safety and morals—resides with the state governments, not the federal government, which is a government of limited, delegated powers.
“With widespread personal testing available, individuals may choose instead to submit to regular testing if required.”
This is a reiteration of Nick Miller’s repellent statement in a Lake Union Reporter editorial that those who do not submit to vaccination should be subjected to certain disabilities, including harassing and invasive testing until they consent to take the jab. I am disgusted to find this obnoxious statement in a statement issued by the General Conference.
The Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department of the General Conference (PARL) regards COVID-19 as a Public Health crisis and views connection with vaccines accordingly. PARL provides support and assistance for members who are standing for the religious teachings and doctrines of the Church, as expressed in its system of beliefs and policy statement (and also for other faith groups). We recognize that at times our members will have personal concerns and even conscientious convictions that go beyond the teachings and positions of the Church. In these cases, the Church’s religious liberty leaders will do what they can to provide support and counsel on a personal basis, not as a Church position, even at times assisting members in writing their own personal accommodation requests to employers and others. To avoid confusion, however, about the Church’s own positions, it will often be the case that in such circumstances the Church will not wish its support or advocacy for the member to be reflected in public correspondence or communications. It is important that the Church preserve its ability to speak to issues that are central to its system of beliefs and identity, and that its influence not be diluted by pursuing personal convictions and agendas that are not central to its Gospel and prophetic concerns.
It is important to note that this paragraph is coming only from PARL, the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department of the GC, not from the GC as a whole nor from BRI or the other entities associated with this statement. Clearly, PARL does not think there is any legitimate religious liberty or freedom of conscience issue with regard to the Covid vaccine mandates. But is their opinion valid?
What about the fact that the vaccines are made using aborted fetal cell tissue? The Review has published at least two articles acknowledging that aborted fetal stem cell lines were used in the development of these vaccines, but argued that, since the babies were aborted over 50 years ago, and they were not aborted for the purpose of conducting vaccine research then everything is okay. So if the baby was killed a long time ago, it is okay to experiment on its tissue?
More to the point, why are pharmaceutical companies still using aborted fetal tissue? It certainly is not necessary at this point, and they seem to be doing it just to antagonize those who are conscientiously pro-life. The issue of aborted fetal cells is by itself sufficient to raise ethical and conscientious concerns about these vaccines.
Second, when do health concerns become serious enough that they become matters of conscience? As noted previously, the VAERS reporting system has already tabulated over 17,000 deaths in association with the vaccine in the United States, as well as hundreds of thousands of non-fatal adverse events, many of them quite serious. This is many times more deaths than have ever been tolerated in the history of vaccination. There are also troubling reports that this vaccine distorts and alters the immune system, suppressing production of killer T-cells which are necessary to fight cancer and other diseases. And, again, we have no idea about long-term consequences because there have been no long-term studies. The vaccine was rushed to market in about 8 months, when vaccines typically take at least four years to develop and market. What if it turns out that about 10 to 15% of the population dies of a compromised immune system within 5 years of taking the jab?
The Hebrew worthies counted it not just an issue of health but one of spirituality when they asked to be excused from the food prepared in the king’s kitchen and instead be fed a simple diet of vegetables and grains. Daniel 1:6-21. There would most likely have been some meat from unclean animals in the king’s board, so Daniel and his friends conceived of this as a righteousness issue, which is why Daniel used the term “defile.” Today we well understand that there were compelling sanitary reasons for these laws, and that is why we still observe these commands; meat from unclean animals is dangerous for humans to consume.
Would PARL have told Daniel and his friends that, “it is important that the Church preserve its ability to speak to issues that are central to its system of beliefs and identity, and that its influence not be diluted by pursuing personal convictions and agendas that are not central to its Gospel and prophetic concerns”?
What if the government found that eating pork would cure Covid, and hence mandated that everyone eat pork? Would it be a question of freedom of conscience issue then? What if it wasn’t pork or any other unclean meat, but the government mandated that we all eat at least 5 ounces of meat or fish of our choice every day? What if the government mandated that we all drink a small glass of scotch every day to kill the germs that might be in our stomach? If the government had mandated any of these actions, PARL would be up in arms, and rightly so. And yet the immediate vaccine injuries and/or the damage this vaccine might ultimately do to our immune systems might be far worse for our health than eating pork, clean meat, or drinking a glass of scotch every day, or all of those combined.
I find it quite extraordinary that a statement that began with, “The health message is the right arm of the gospel and therefore a healthy lifestyle has been an important part of the beliefs of the Adventist Church since its early years and remains so” ends up brushing off well studied and firmly held convictions that this vaccine is dangerous and should be avoided as “not central” to the church’s “gospel and prophetic concerns.”
The Seventh-day Adventist Church, in consultation with the Health Ministries and Public Affairs and Religious Liberty departments of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, is convinced that the vaccination programs that are generally being carried out are important for the safety and health of our members and the larger community. Therefore, claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities.
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church . . . is convinced that the vaccination programs that are generally being carried out important for the safety and health of our members and the larger community.” Really? I’m not at all convinced, no one I know is convinced, and, judging from the feedback to this statement, many other Adventists are not convinced.
Here are some of the responses posted at ANN, the Adventist News Network:
Wyatt Allen writes:
My heart is saddened that certain leaders here have chosen to double down on the divisive and abusive language of former documents, ignoring completely the cry of tens of thousands of our people and the duty (and opportunity) to help millions beyond. Instead of recognizing legitimate and significant disagreement about the vaccine and its mandates we instead are discouraged from disagreeing with "the church" with implied threats.
* * *
I call upon my beloved church leaders to retract this and similar articles, as well as the current AdCom voted guidelines, and to return to a position of liberty of conscience, medical freedom, and informed consent. Let us be neutral on this controversial issue. Let us uphold the true health message of natural disease prevention and treatment without the use of dangerous drugs and ethically dubious concoctions. And finally, to consider the prophetic implications of supporting a worldwide initiative that is laying a great foundation for more coercion, more unjust mandates, and more religious oppression. We have a duty to stand for religious liberty now when it matters so that we have credibility later when we defend our duty to obey the Fourth Commandment.
Rhonda J. Reedy writes:
Sometimes I feel like I have been thrown under the bus by the church I have served my whole life. When church boards have to actually vote to allow freedom of conscience in their worship, there is something deadly wrong. Freedom of conscience ought to be a given in every Adventist church. Then there's the stance of assuming this inoculation program is the same as all vaccines of the past. The data links provided by the church are extremely one-sided. Promoting the jab should have no place in our denomination at all, and people ought to be encouraged to do their own research and not rely on government-approved sources. We are in a battle between good and evil. There are only two kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil. If you know the methods God uses, then the counterfeit is pretty apparent.
Ron Kimbrow writes:
Sorry but this is not the Church’s stand. The Church is the body of believers. The mistake the Pontiff of Rome has made was to take prerogatives that God never gave him. I feel the group that has defined what they say is the Church’s position has done the same as the Catholic hierarchy. They have no right to define the Church’s position on issues such as this. Even the vaccination form says this is a personal choice. The problem is that some of the entities affiliated with the church, such as Lima Linda, have adopted Satan’s tactic of coercion.
Josh writes:
What a missed opportunity to stand apart from the world. To be a light shining brightly to all nations. To stand for Christ and His authorship and sole authority over our bodies. To make the health message loud and clear. I'm ashamed of the leadership who put this statement together.
That was ANN. Now sample reaction from the most liberal/Leftist website in the SDA Church, Spectrum:
Lincoln Dunston writes:
To . . . compare the current vaccination program in the US and Australia to decades ago immunization programs is NOT an apples-to-apples comparison at so many different levels. Try apples to oranges!!
Sirje writes:
I have obediently had my shots, so don’t yell at me - but these vaccines are nothing like those that eradicated polio and smallpox. Those vaccines gave long term immunity. Natural immunity is totally ignored with covid. It really does look like this has nothing to do with immunity, but rather, following government mandates. Let’s see where that gets us.
Subsequent Sirje post:
As wonderful as science is, science is no less able to be manipulated than any other social construct. Funding, for example, determines what gets studied or developed. Science isn’t pure without outside management. Let’s take the vaccines that were developed in lightning speed - which were deemed “too fast” to be trusted, during the Trump administration; but a scientific miracle when Biden started disseminating it like the leaves of autumn. When asked a year ago if she would take the vaccine, our presumable VP said, “not if Trump told her to”. So, you see, it’s not all about science.
I know I’m swimming upstream with this, here but, I have to say, nothing is simply science, where the guys with the white coats have all the answers. At this stage, it depends on who promotes the science. There is much un-science that has taken over in this pandemic; and there are too many experts that don’t seem to agree. Pardon me if I’m a little skeptical.
George Davidovich writes:
[A] “real” honest approach would require that our medical “leaders” would truly research and acknowledge published peer-reviewed clinical and scientific information which has been made available for quite some time (at least one year) by the likes of Dr. Malone and Dr. McCullough (just to mention a couple of reliable sources), as well as the benefit of monoclonal [antibodies] and . . . treatment protocols with clinical track records from India, and South America (among others), which clearly shows that drugs such as Invermectin produce real benefits, both in prophylactic and recovery cases.
Not informing our membership is not only complete dereliction of leadership and duty, but also tantamount to playing the part of an accomplice to the reports of disinformation made by prestigious and respected clinical sources which speak to the real dangers of the vaccines to groups of people under 40 years old and to pregnant women. These reports also candidly describe the concerted effort of the US Federal Government, the FDA, CDC, WHO, etc., the global medical industry, and global public media to conceal the real risks, such as of 10’s of 1000’s of real deaths that have occurred.
William J. Baker writes:
10 years is one thing, but Fauci talks about COVID boosters every 6-9 months. The duration of COVID Vax immunity is so short that one must question its efficacy. Bye the way, natural immunity from a recovered case of COVID lasts a long time, and is effective against most Corona virus strains.
Subsequent Baker post:
Ethical question: I know that most Adventists are not concerned very much about elective abortion, but to many Christians it is a big deal. There are persistent rumors going around that many of the RNA vaccines were developed and possibly manufactured using laboratory tissue developed from aborted human tissue. Many anti-vaxxers are also anti-abortionists who object to the use of aborted human fetuses; kind of like many people object to using transplantable organs from executed prisoners.
I can see their point and I think I would be willing to give a religious exemption for that reason. Since Adventism (being mostly pro-choice) seems to be OK with elective abortion, I doubt the Church will ever give such an exemption. That stand will have to be made by the Catholic Church and other Christians who oppose elective abortion.
Robert T. Johnston writes:
[Y]ou need to risk-stratify the population before assessing risk-benefit. Prof. John Ioannidis of Stanford and conference organizer Manuel Schabus, who are pro-vaccine, recently said that the risk of vaccination vs. benefit is roughly a wash below Age 40; in children, risk outweighs benefit. He also spent significant time outlining the human cost of COVID reduction measures like lockdowns, school closures, etc. Prof. John P.A. Ioannidis talk on "COVID-19 epidemiology: risks, measures, and ending the pandemic" - YouTube
* * *
One more thing. On herd immunity, I believe a difference of current COVID vaccines vs. measles vaccines is that the latter offer sterilizing immunity while the former do not. That’s why there’s so much transmission from COVID vaccinated individuals. And why the Irish Times recently reported (Waterford city district has State’s highest rate of Covid-19 infections) that the city of Waterford had the highest vaccination rate in the country at a whopping 99.7% of adults fully vaccinated, yet had the highest infection rate, at 3 times the national average. I just don’t see a vaccination path to herd immunity if 99.7% doesn’t get you there. (You might argue that vaccinating kids will make the difference, but there are studies showing that child to adult transmission is not that high, and studies showing high rates of transmission between vaccinated adults, so I’m doubtful that even vaccinating everyone from 6 months to 99 years will result in herd immunity so long as the vaccine is as “leaky” as these are). I suspect that a high rate of natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals will provide the robust pool that will enable herd immunity to develop. That pool may include many vaccinated individuals who had breakthrough infections. Time will tell.
One Spectrum commenter even posted this video, in which Alex Berenson explains to Joe Rogan that in countries with high vaccination rates, most of those who die of Covid are fully vaccinated:
There clearly is no consensus within the SDA Church on the Covid vaccines. Hence, the statement that “the Seventh-day Adventist Church is convinced” is propaganda, a sort of phony “push poll” intended to convince people rather than tell the truth about who is already convinced or not.
Why, then, issue a divisive statement about something that the drafters of the statement regard as “not central to the church’s gospel and prophetic concerns”? (Because if the conviction not to take the jab is “not central to the church’s gospel and prophetic concerns,” the decision to take the jab is likewise “not central.”) Well, they have a theory that if we treat forced vaccination as a religious liberty concern, then we will, like the boy who cried wolf too often, lose all credibility and have none when it really counts (read: when they pass the Sunday laws):
This has generally been the position of the Church for the last century, since the modern vaccine program was developed. If we use our religious liberty resources in such personal decision advocacy efforts, we believe that we will weaken our religious liberty stance in the eyes of the government and the public. Such efforts would make it less likely that these arguments will be heard and appreciated when they are used for matters of worship and religious practice. We understand that some of our members view things differently, and we respect those convictions. They may at times have rights that can be pursued under the law, and we will point them towards materials and resources for doing so but cannot directly undertake this personal effort for them.
Yet again, comparisons to past vaccines and vaccination programs are misleading. There has never been a vaccine like this in the history of the world, starting with the new mRNA technology of re-programing your body’s cells to make the Covid-19 spike protein so that your immune system will develop an (essentially autoimmune) response to it. There has never been a vaccine program that tolerated this many deaths and serious injuries, and there has never been an attempt to mandate a non-sterilizing vaccine, i.e., a vaccine that does not prevent the vaccinated person from becoming infected, nor from spreading the virus, nor from serious illness, nor from death, and could never eradicate the disease even if everyone in the world were vaccinated.
But let’s return to the “boy who cried wolf” theory. Why are no examples cited? Because the reality is just the opposite: religious groups who consistently profess and maintain conscientious boundaries separating them from the larger culture are respected by that culture, and win more easily with each new dissent. The most prominently non-conformist group is the Amish, who have consistently maintained many reservations about the larger culture, from being non-combatants to not driving automobiles to abstaining from higher education. Many of them don’t inoculate their children. When their cases get litigated, the judges are likely to say, “well, they’re Amish, what did you expect?” In other words, everyone knows that the Amish are not like the “English,” and you know what? That’s okay. The lesson we can take from the Amish and other similar non-conforming groups is that we protect our right to conscientious objection to the edicts of the larger culture by asserting those rights early and often.
Another reason why the “boy who cried wolf” analogy is absurd is that the global elites who are pushing vaccine mandates hate Christians and Christianity with a satanic intensity that is of longstanding and does not depend upon, or respond to, the defiance or submission of any Christian denomination. Likewise, those pushing a Sunday law near the end of the time will not care one whit whether Sabbath-keepers complied with some long-ago vaccine mandate; that notion is ridiculous in light of even the most rudimentary understanding of the Adventist end-times scenario.
The drafters end with an appeal to Christian charity within the church:
What will really count during this pandemic and beyond is how we treat each other, particularly within the Church but also within our wider communities. Anger, stigmatization, or vilification should not reside within the body of Christ. We need to relate to each other with respect, love, and compassion.
That being the case, why try to browbeat everyone into submission on the vaccine issue? I am glad that the drafters are sensitive to “anger, stigmatization, or vilification,” but surely they must know that it is the pro-vaccine forces who are stigmatizing and vilifying the “vaccine hesitant” (which is a stigmatizing term). Joe Biden has gone so far as to say that social media platforms that fail to censor and delete every scintilla of vaccine-related information that does not toe the party line are “killing people.”
Instead of focusing on our individual convictions, we should draw more closely together in relationship with Christ and with each other. We should practice encouraging one another and bringing hope to the people of the world as we share God’s important Three Angels’ Messages and the anticipation of Christ’s soon return. We should work on becoming more active in our churches and not create divisions within the wider Church body. As Adventists we are to be an example to others, keeping in mind that the universe is watching.
This is astonishingly patronizing, condescending language: “You guys should just try to help your local pastors and leave complicated issues like vaccine mandates to us geniuses at PARL.” Again, division is created not by people consulting their consciences and trying to make a careful decision about vaccination, but by the Silver Spring “deep state” issuing pointless, unnecessary and divisive statements.
It is important to care for one another, taking others into account in our practices. This includes the prevention of the spread of deadly disease and, in considering the vaccine or not, having love for one another and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Stop implying that taking the vaccine will stop the spread of the disease! That is a lie. The vaccines do NOT stop the spread of the disease. Again, there are several instances of Covid outbreaks in fully vaccinated populations. Covid is going to run its course, is running its course, and will continue to run its course. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Masks will not, social distancing will not, economically ruinous shutdowns will not, and this dangerous and ineffective experimental “vaccine” will not.
Then, together, we may move forward in faith, “bearing with one another in love” and heeding Heaven’s counsel: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:2, 3). Christ calls us to not be afraid and to place our assurance in Him as nothing can separate us from His love (Romans 8:31-39). “The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; He will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.” (Deuteronomy 31:8; also John 16:33) Let us put our hope in Jesus and be encouraged in Him for He has overcome the world!
By all means, put your hope in Jesus, not in these vaccines.
I have much more to say on this topic, so there might be a part 2.