A student of science should be taught the things I …

/ 1 min ago March 22, 2023

Comment on LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department by Sean Pitman.

A student of science should be taught the things I have tried to articulate many times on this site.

1] Science is about understanding the natural world by natural cause. It says nothing about the supernatural or religion which are not at all based on naturalism.

Science is not limited to discoveries about what mindless natural mechanisms can do. Science can also discover the activities of intelligent agents at play in our world and in our universe. Otherwise, various sciences such as forensics, anthropology, and even SETI would be impossible.

This common appeal to “naturalism” is usually used to rule out an possibility of detecting the activity of God. Such a view is nonsensical given that any God worth His salt would be able to act in a detectable manner – just as detectable as anything an anthropologist or forensic scientist, or even a SETI scientist, would describe as a true artefact of design. The hundreds of discovered fundamental properties of the universe itself are so extremely fine tuned against each other as to strongly suggest purpose and planning behind its design. The very same thing is true of all living things.

2] Science is about testing hyothesis by experimental observation. If you cant construct an experiment it is not within the domain of science.

Exactly! So, where is your experimental support, or even your mathematical support, for the creative potential of random mutations and function-based selection (natural selection) at various levels of functional complexity? You like to propose analogies to “life enzymes” and suggest that RM/NS might not be the only mechanism in play, but where is your evidence? your experimental observation?

It seems to me that you appeal to ignorance with hope that something that is yet unknown will be discovered to prop up your position with some viable mindless naturalistic mechanism. How is this hope for something as yet undiscovered “scientific”?

3] Science is about documenting the experiment and the results in peer reviewed literature. This is the canonical repository of scientific knowledge. It is not all of human knowledge. It is simply a part of human knowledge; generated by a method accepted by its practitioners. It is not a philosophy or a world view and can be and is performed by people of any and all religious and political views. It is open to all but as a participant you are expected to have the decency to acknowledge the existing knowledge as produced in good faith and a basic platform from which to proceed.

As we’ve previously discussed, this platform is not open to all of good faith, but is limited to those who blindly accept the popular philosophical paradigm of mainstream science – i.e., mindless naturalistic explanations for ultimate origins of everything. If you do not subscribe to this paradigm, if you wish to promote the hypothesis of intelligent design to explain anything within a living thing, you simply will not be published in mainstream literature.

Beyond this, good science can be and has been done without publication in mainstream literature. There have been many excellent scientists, as we’ve already discussed, who practiced scientific methodologies largely on their own. You argue that this is the exception and not the rule. Well, the exceptions prove that it can be done and that scientific investigation and good understanding simply is not dependent upon peer review or popular acclaim or approval.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department

Im sorry Sean but your whole critique seems to be based on a specious argument on your part.

I said that Science is based on methodological naturalism which means

1] Natural law explanations and not the miraculous are the provenance of science.

Is human-level design “miraculous”? or outside of “natural law”?

Where am I arguing for the “miraculous” any more than a SETI scientist would be arguing for the miraculous when arguing that a certain type of radio signal or granite rock is a true artefact of intelligent design?

2] If you cannot couch the question in terms of an hypothesis with testable natural mechanism it is not science.

I agree. The hypothesis is that only an intelligent designer of some kind (doesn’t have to be a supernatural designer) produced the object or phenomenon in question. That’s it. This hypothesis is testable and potentially falsifiable. All one has to do to effectively falsify this hypothesis is show a mindless natural mechanism producing something similar.

3] Science is circumscribed and limited. There are many questions outside of science and natural mechanism.

Such as? Upon what rational basis does one choose to believe someone or some book who claims to have superhuman powers or origins? This seems to me to be an empirical question that requires empirical evidence and rational arguments. This isn’t a subjective question regarding the meaning of life or if you enjoy vanilla ice cream…

4] Natural mechanism has been successful in understanding the natural world and only the natural world and is likely to be so in the future.

Is a highly symmetrical polished granite cube not within the natural world? Is it not a clear artefact of intelligent design? Is this conclusion not supported by methodological naturalism? Is this conclusion therefore somehow outside of the realm of science?

This you construe to be an argument for a God of the Gap. To sustain that argument however you have to

1] first redefine science and natural mechanism as God an extremely idiosyncratic definition of God but necessary if you are to attribute to me a invocation of God as an explanation for any gaps

Your “god” of the gaps is not a personal god, but mindless nature. You plug in this mindless god into any gap where it is not yet known how any mindless natural process could have done the job. Yet, you argue that some future discovery will explain this current gap in knowledge with a demonstration of how mindless nature actually does it. That is your version of the GoG argument.

The ID-only hypothesis, on the other hand, is not a GoG argument since it is testable and potentially falsifiable. This is not true of your position. Your position is not testable or potentially falsifiable. That is why it can be used to explain anything and everything without any fear of being proved wrong. That is why your argument explains nothing and is not a scientific position.

2] claim that I am arguing that everything that is unknown is within the domain of science or “my God”

No. That’s not my claim at all. What I said is that your argue for a mindless mechanism to explain any and all phenomena even though you don’t currently have such a mechanism in hand. You propose that some future discovery will supply this missing information. This argument of yours is equivalent to a non-testable non-falsifiable GoG argument. It is just that the “god” part of the equation that you’re appealing to here is some kind of mindless natural mechanism – i.e., Nature Herself.

This requires you to attribute to me philosophical naturalism, which you have ,dishonestly I believe, done. Completely ignoring that I have repeatedly and consistently said that natural mechanism is concerned with process in the natural world and nothing more.

What you’ve said is that there is no empirical evidence or rational argument to support the existence of a God or God-like being… that everything within the empirical world, everything, can be explained by mindless naturalistic mechanisms. That notion rationally leads most who take on this position toward philosophical naturalism. Many people simply do not consider fideism as a viable option (but perhaps these are simply too “right brained” to understand).

You have redefined the accepted definition of science to claim I am using it as a universal explanation and redefined science as all possible knowledge and now suggest to George that Intelligent design is right by default unless someone else can prove it wrong.

I never said that ID was “right by default”. The opposite is true. I would assume a mindless mechanism by default when approaching a new phenomenon. However, I would not assume this position once I discovered that the phenomenon in question clear goes well beyond what any known mindless mechanism can explain. If a phenomenon is clearly beyond any known mindless natural mechanism and is within the realm of what known intelligent agents can produce, then the most rational scientific conclusion is that the phenomenon in question is a true artefact of intelligent design.

This is exactly the same argument used by forensic scientists, anthropologists, and even SETI scientists. It would also be your argument if our highly symmetrical granite cube happened to be discovered on an alien planet like Mars.

In comparison, you’re the one claiming that mindless mechanisms of nature are “right be default” – even though you wouldn’t make this claim for a highly symmetrical polished granite cube. You’re simply being inconsistent. And, your position is not testable or potentially falsifiable (i.e., a GoG argument).

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
The GoG argument is one that invokes an explanation that is not tested or testable to explain a given phenomenon. My hypothesis of intelligent design is testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. All one has to do is demonstrate a non-intelligent natural mechanism to explain the phenomenon and my hypothesis is neatly falsified. This is not true of Paul’s position where he argues for some future discovery to explain the phenomenon. That position is not testable or falsifiable. It is therefore a true GoG argument…

See the difference?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
No. Mindless naturalistic mechanisms can and do explain many things – like the degenerative changes that result in disease and death over time…

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Dr. John Campbell: mRNA Vaccines Cause Lethal Encephalitis?

Two brains, locked in on the official narrative. Please look outside of the box. Jesus walked and talked and cared for people outside the box. Follow your leader who warned about deceptions by big pharma and big business as the beast the harlot church rides — Revelation 18:23
“… all nations were deceived by your sorcery (pharmakeia)!
https://revelationscriptures.com/revelation-18-23-babylons-pahamakeia/

You do realize that Ellen White herself promoted various medications and medical therapies of her day that she considered to be helpful in various situations? – to include the use of what was generally regarded as a “poison”, quinine, to prevent malarial infections for missionaries who worked in malaria-infested regions of the world? She wrote, “If quinine will save a life, use quinine.” (Link) She also supported the vaccination of her son William, both as a child and as an adult (despite William having had an adverse reaction to vaccination as a child) (Link). She supported blood transfusion when necessary, despite their risks (Link). And, she even supported using radiation therapy when appropriate, despite its risks (Link). Beyond this, she recognized the advantages of anesthesia during surgery and the use of medicines to relieve the intense pain and suffering of the injured or sick (Link).

Regarding Revelation 18:23, in particular, the term “pharmakeia” is best translated as “sorcery” here. There is no intended advice at all against modern medicine in this passage. What, are you suggesting that medications like antibiotics to treat bacterial infections or insulin to treat diabetes are evil “sorceries”? Again, such arguments only make the Christians who say such things look sensational and irrational – which puts the Gospel Message itself into a bad light for those who are considering following Christ. (Link, Link)

Jesus reached out asking to “let us reason together.”
“A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out” (Matthew 12:20).
There is a spirit in the SDA Church that is breaking reeds and putting out wicks.
Not an example of who we say is our leader.

Again, the delegates simply were not so uninformed as you and Pastor Vine are claiming here. They had already heard enough reasons and arguments regarding vaccines to make an intelligent informed decision on this particular topic…

Wilson/ADCOM/Hart disowns members who dare want to “let us reason together” about the Vaccine Statement. Attorney Zirkle’s request stomped by Wilsons command to delegates to vote NO, and by a mal-functioning electronic voting system that would not even register the seconds to Zirkle’s motion. Request to check the electronic voting system was rejected by GC. Not something Jesus would reject.

As already discussed, this isn’t true. Elder Wilson simply doesn’t have the power to command the delegates to do anything. And Zirkle’s motion did in fact receive “seconds” since the internet connection issue was fixed. The electronic voting system simply wasn’t an issue at this GC session as it had been back at the 2015 GC session. You’re simply repeating claims here that aren’t true.

You say without compassion:
Really? Why then haven’t the sudden death rates for adults or young healthy athletes increased since the mRNA vaccines became available?

Why are you accusing me of having no compassion when I simply point out the fact that the actual sudden death rate for adults and young healthy athletes has not increased since the mRNA vaccines became available? – that the rate of these tragic events has not changed? – that, despite these events being true tragedies that are horrible indeed, they are are not being cause by the mRNA vaccines?

You say the vaccine is a risk-benefit decision. I say that each “risk” dying or harmed is a human person, not a throw-away statistic. Where is the informed consent, and information on vaccine adverse affects within the vaccine medicine box? Do you have a copy of what information about the vaccine is provided to patients and doctors?

Everything you do is a risk/reward decision. Even drinking pure clean water can kill you, since water can be toxic if taken into the body beyond its level of toxicity. And, the risks of the mRNA vaccines are well known and have been well-publicized. It’s just that, for most people, the risks of getting infected by the COVID-19 virus was much much greater than getting vaccinated ahead of time.

Article:
Athlete deaths are 1700% higher since Covid 19 vaccine began.

Study finds Athlete Deaths are 1700% higher than expected since Covid-19 Vaccination began

Book: Sudden Deaths in 2020-2021
Children’s Defense Fund, Edward Dowd, Robert Kennedy

Names of athletes who died after vaccine began:
https://airtable.com/shrbaT4x8LG8EbvVG/tbl7xKsSUIOPAa7Mx

Tucker Carlson interview:
https://dailyclout.io/excess-mortality-goes-mainstream-in-earth-shattering-ed-dowd-tucker-carlson-interview/

This is all based on false or misleading information, some of which has been completely fabricated (Link). You’re taking lies for truth and truth for lies here. I’m really sorry that you’ve been do deceived, but that’s the reality of the situation. The voices that you’ve chosen to listen to are, in fact, not telling you the actual truth. And, just a little bit of even-hand investigation would demonstrate this to the candid observer. The claim that young healthy athletes have started dying at much higher rates since the mRNA vaccines became available just isn’t true. This conspiracy theory is flat out wrong, without any basis in actual generally-available empirical data. Here’s a little history behind this particular conspiracy theory:

Ben Swann, who has spread misinformation about the pandemic since 2020, posted on Facebook on Jan. 3 an old video promoting the unsupported theory that there’s a recent surge in athlete deaths. The same day, conservative commentator Liz Wheeler and Dr. Simone Gold — who has peddled dubious cures for COVID-19, anti-vaccination messages and politicized medical misinformation — posted similar claims… Both Wheeler and Gold cited a letter to the editor published in the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology that was co-authored by Dr. Peter McCullough, another prominent purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation. Although its publication may give the letter a veneer of legitimacy, the letter did not include any original research, as suggested by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson. Rather, it relied upon an arbitrary list of athlete deaths maintained on an anonymous website that we wrote about shortly after it appeared online in late 2021.

As we explained before, the list includes students, professionals, amateurs, coaches and retirees. It includes people who died by suicide, car crash and drug overdose. The list does not — in nearly all cases — include the vaccination status of the deceased, let alone prove any causal relationship between vaccines and the deaths. In fact, as we’ve previously reported, some of the deaths initially listed happened before the vaccines had even become available to the age category for the person listed.

Wheeler and Gold, though, each shared an image that highlighted a portion of the letter comparing the number of deaths listed on the anonymous website with the number of sudden cardiac deaths among athletes that had appeared in academic literature over a 38-year period as compiled in a 2006 paper. The two figures reflect different criteria. One number is very broad and includes anyone with a passing relationship to sports who died for any reason since 2021, while the other is conspicuously narrow and includes only the deaths of athletes that were analyzed in English-language academic research papers.

Although the comparison they make is meaningless, Wheeler and Gold leave the false impression that there’s been a surge in deaths and further the baseless narrative that there’s been an increase in athlete injuries and deaths since the COVID-19 vaccines became available.

But the surge is fiction. It doesn’t exist.

“There is no uptick in sudden cardiac arrest or death in athletes due to COVID-19 or from COVID vaccinations. This is total misinformation,” Dr. Jonathan Drezner told us in an emailed statement. Drezner is the director of the UW Medicine Center for Sports Cardiology at the University of Washington, editor in chief of the British Journal of Sports Medicine, and a team physician for the Seattle Seahawks, the OL Reign soccer team and the University of Washington Huskies.

More than 2,000 children and adolescents in the U.S. die from sudden cardiac arrest every year, according to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and two-thirds of the deaths “occur during exercise or activity.” Among young athletes, sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death, according to CHOP.

Drezner said his center monitors “all cases and all causes” of sudden cardiac arrest or death in athletes by working with the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “[T]here is no change,” he said.

The National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research catalogs injuries for high school and college athletes, and its most recent report covers the 2020-21 school year. It shows that 21 athletes died while playing their sport that year.

COVID-19 vaccines were available to everyone 16 and over in the U.S. by April 2021, so the overlap between the period covered by the report and the period in which vaccines were widely available to young people was relatively small. We reached out to the center to find out if the data collected for the 2021-2022 school year has indicated any increase in deaths.

The center’s director, Dr. Kristen Kucera, told us that so far, “the numbers are the same and it’s actually fewer than we captured in 2018-19.”

For context, the center reported 19 deaths in 2019-20, 25 deaths in 2018-19 and 21 deaths in 2017-18.

Similarly, Dr. Robert Cantu, the center’s medical director, told us in an emailed statement that he’s seen no increase in athlete deaths and called the claims “misinformation.”

“The statistics don’t bear out that there’s been an increase in events among athletes,” Dr. Curt Daniels, professor of cardiovascular medicine and director of the sports cardiology program at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, told us in a phone interview.

The field of sports cardiologists who oversee the health of athletes is relatively small, Daniels said. “We talk and communicate all the time,” he said, and none of his colleagues has flagged a rise in sudden cardiac arrest.

“There’s been no increase,” he said.

Also, Daniels noted, there’s a high vaccination rate among athletes in part because many organizations require vaccination to participate. He noted that a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines is heart inflammation, or myocarditis, which has primarily affected young men between 12 and 24 years old after a second dose, as we’ve explained before. The risk is highest for males ages 16 to 17, at 106 cases per million doses after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Those cases have appeared to resolve faster and have better clinical outcomes when compared with the more common cases of myocarditis caused by viral infection, including from the virus that causes COVID-19. Despite that, anti-vaccine campaigners have distorted the rare vaccine side effect as being more common than it is, using that misrepresentation in claims about increases in athlete deaths.

For those who develop myocarditis, stressing the heart with intense physical activity could create an arrhythmia resulting in a cardiac event, Daniels said.

“And, in fact,” Daniels said, “we have not seen an increase in events.”

So, he said, if the vaccines were causing an increase in sudden deaths, “we would be seeing it here and we’re not.” (Link)

Yet, you don’t accept any data that is contrary to your position. Why not? Upon what basis do you believe the claims of known conspiracy theorists over the observation of the vast majority of experts in this particular field of study? I mean, how credible are those that you’re referencing here?

Tucker Carlson, in particular, admits that he lies on his program for entertainment purposes (Link, Link). Robert Kennedy consistently makes completely false and outrageous claims and promotes innumerable conspiracy theories – most of which are completely ludicrous. Drs. Peter McCullough and Robert Malone aren’t much better, spouting off endless tin-hat just-so conspiracy theories and misinformation about COVID-19 and the mRNA viruses. Yet, these are the types of people that you are citing to support your positions here? Can’t you do any better than this?

I know you will say that all the above are non-worthy opinions compared to the experts’ opinions in the above article. Every opinion that differs is immediately discarded.

It’s not that these differing opinions haven’t been very carefully and thouroughly considered. It’s just that they’ve all turned out to be wrong. The actual data that is currently in hand very clearly falsifies the claims that you’ve been forwarding – all of them. How then, do you explain away what seems to be the very strong weight evidence that I’ve provided to you that appears to effectively falsify your positions here?

Dealing with narcissists who think they are empathic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SCLRtTAGHE

Again, you accuse me of narcissism and lack of empathy with great confidence – without actually knowing me or my true heart or motivations. What makes you so confident that I care not about reducing serious injuries or saving lives? How could you possibly think yourself clear to make such God-like accusations? Are such moral judgments and accusations really Christlike? I mean, even though I think that what you’re promoting is actually hurting people and putting their very lives at risk, I don’t accuse you of evil motives. I think that you honestly and sincerely believe what you believe – that you are honestly trying to help people. Why can’t you offer me the same benefit of the doubt here? – at least with regard to my own motivations and personal morality?

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
Again, it wasn’t Ted Wilson nor the members of ADCOM who voted down Zirkle’s motion – nor did they force or unduly coerce the vote of the delegates in Session. Also, it isn’t true that the vaccine issue hadn’t been adequately discussed for the benefit of the delegates – or that the delegates didn’t have already enough information to make an informed decision. I’d say that they were much more informed on this topic than Pastor Vine gives them credit for.

Now, I’ve very sorry you feel like you do and I can understand your honest confusion since what you’re hearing from anti-vax conspiracy theorists is truly scary stuff. However, the voices that you’re referencing truly are misleading you – telling you things that simply aren’t true. Your latest example of this, from Dr. James L. Marcum, is no better than Dr. Peter McCullough. He makes many claims that are simply false or misleading. Now, Dr. Marcum certainly comes across as very caring and kind, and I’m sure that he is. The only problem here is that he’s wrong – flat out wrong in what he’s telling you. And, this has resulted, no doubt, in a great many long-term injuries and deaths that could have been avoided. Kindness and sincerity isn’t enough here. True kindness will take the time to carefully investigate the actual weight of currently available scientific evidence and present it in an honest even-handed manner. That’s not what Drs. McCullough and Marcum have been doing – not at all.

In short, when your health and life are on the line, would you rather have a doctor with a wonderful bedside manner who isn’t giving you the best available information, or a doctor who may not be as smooth or delicate with his/her words, but who is actually giving you the best available information?

You see, I’m not trying to be mean or harsh here. I’m just truly trying to save lives and prevent long-term injuries. That’s what I’m trying to do. And, I’m sure you’re trying to do the same thing, and I appreciate that. It’s just that you don’t have good scientific evidence to back up your position…

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
You’re mistaken. No one has lost his/her job because of the GC statement who wouldn’t have lost his/her job anyway – regardless of what the GC had said or didn’t say regarding vaccines and vaccine mandates. That’s just not how the legal system works with regard to religious liberty issues. Check with an actual religious liberty attorney if you don’t agree with me. Or, consider this Memorandum from the US Attorney General:

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one’s beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith. (Link)

Again, note the statement here that religious liberty rights are supported and protected on an individual basis regardless of if one is or is not a member of a church or part of a particular religious faith.

Dr. John Campbell: mRNA Vaccines Cause Lethal Encephalitis?
Really? Why then haven’t the sudden death rates for adults or young healthy athletes increased since the mRNA vaccines became available?

“There is no uptick in sudden cardiac arrest or death in athletes due to COVID-19 or from COVID vaccinations. This is total misinformation,” Dr. Jonathan Drezner told us in an emailed statement. Drezner is the director of the UW Medicine Center for Sports Cardiology at the University of Washington, editor in chief of the British Journal of Sports Medicine, and a team physician for the Seattle Seahawks, the OL Reign soccer team and the University of Washington Huskies.

The National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research catalogs injuries for high school and college athletes… The center’s director, Dr. Kristen Kucera, told us that so far, “the numbers are the same and it’s actually fewer than we captured in 2018-19.”

For context, the center reported 19 deaths in 2019-20, 25 deaths in 2018-19 and 21 deaths in 2017-18.

Similarly, Dr. Robert Cantu, the center’s medical director, told us in an emailed statement that he’s seen no increase in athlete deaths and called the claims “misinformation.”

“The statistics don’t bear out that there’s been an increase in events among athletes,” Dr. Curt Daniels, professor of cardiovascular medicine and director of the sports cardiology program at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, told us in a phone interview. (Spencer, January 2023)

In fact, when you look at “all cause mortality rates”, you will see that those who are vaccinated actually have a lower all-cause mortality rate compared to those who are not vaccinated. And, this is true here in the United States and all around the world. It simply isn’t true that vaccines increase death rates of any kind. The mRNA vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented many millions more hospitalizations and long-term injuries.

A moderate-sized cohort study of 21,222 nursing home residents compared all-cause mortality between COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees and unvaccinated residents and found that vaccinees had lower all-cause mortality after adjusting for some confounders.[15] A longitudinal study compared mortality rates over time among vaccinated patients in the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system with no history of COVID-19 and found no evidence of excess mortality associated with receipt of mRNA vaccines.[16] Preliminary results in a large cohort study showed that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non-COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated comparators after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and study site,[17] suggesting possible effects of unmeasured confounders and healthy vaccinee effects (i.e., vaccinated persons tend to be healthier than unvaccinated persons).[18], [19]. (Link)


Source: Our World in Data

Even within the United States, those states and counties with higher vaccination rates had a lower all-cause mortality rate compared to those states and counties with lower vaccination rates:

The US continued to experience significantly higher COVID-19 and excess all-cause mortality compared with peer countries during 2021 and early 2022, a difference accounting for 150 000 to 470 000 deaths. This difference was muted in the 10 states with highest vaccination coverage; remaining gaps may be explained by greater vaccination uptake in peer countries, better vaccination targeting to older age groups, and differences in health and social infrastructure. (Link)

Deaths more than 80% lower in communities with high vaccination coverage. A large US study published by The BMJ (Link) found that fewer people died from covid-19 in better vaccinated communities. The findings, based on data across 2,558 counties in 48 US states, show that counties with high vaccine coverage had a more than 80% reduction in death rates compared with largely unvaccinated counties. (Link)

See also the excellent review of this by Dr. Roger Seheult:

Also, where are the “lies about these vaccines and their origins”? What are you talking about here? It seems to me that you’re simply repeating what you’ve read or heard from conspircy theoriests without actually checking to see if such claims are truly valid.

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
As noted in my article, religious liberty is not based on corporate, but individual convictions. It really doesn’t matter what the Church’s position on vaccines or any other topic might be. That’s irrelevant. All that matters are the religious convictions of the individual.

The SDA Church is only giving recommendations to its members regarding vaccines and what it feels are the best use of religious liberty claims. The SDA Church is not dictating what church members may or may not believe or do regarding this topic. Again, one may or may not agree with the advice of the SDA Church here. That’s entirely up to the individual. Legally, it makes absolutely no difference since employers have no legal basis against the religious liberty claims of an employee based on what the Church says or doesn’t say.

Beyond this, there has been much discussion on this issue, with a motion for further discussion. It’s just that the GC delegates clearly thought that further discussion was pointless on this topic, voting instead to effectively endorse the previous statements of the SDA Church regarding vaccines and the recommended appropriate use of religious exemption claims…

Related posts