Pastor Conrad Vine, who previously came out strongly against the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for statements supportive of vaccines (even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic: Link), continues his attack.
Pastor Vine recently spoke at the Northern Maine Campmeeting, giving a series of talks.
Here is the video of his “Broken Bride 3 – The Regime Church” Presentation:
Here are a few key arguments forwarded by Vine that I would like to address:
Table of Contents
- 1 Vaccines against COVID-19 had catastrophic side effects:
- 2 Diverting Financial Support from the Church:
- 3 Vine’s Demands of the Church:
- 4 Regarding Government Vaccine Mandates:
- 5 Pastor Vine Banned by the Michigan Conference:
Vaccines against COVID-19 had catastrophic side effects:
“The COVID-19 vaccines use dangerous and untested technology and have had catastrophic side-effects worldwide, including surging cancer rates, turbo cancers, strokes, heart attacks, sudden-death syndrome, increasing excess death rates among working-age adults. One by one, they are being banned in country after country due to their catastrophic side-effects.”
The vaccines saved millions of lives:
Pastor Vine’s claims regarding the dangers of the mRNA vaccines are false. The truth is that the vaccines against COVID-19, particularly the mRNA vaccines, were truly miraculous in their development and efficacy, saving millions of lives and preventing a great many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries worldwide. It is estimated that vaccines against COVID-19 saved almost 20 million lives within just the first year of their use, equating to a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (Link). And yes, they were successfully tested in appropriate animal and human trials before being released for use by the general public. The mRNA vaccines were tested in double-blinded placebo-controlled animal studies as well as with human volunteers (70,000 of them). During these double-blinded trials, six people died. Four of these six who died were given the placebo (normal saline injection), not the actual vaccine. This death rate was well within the background death rate for the population at large. And, since the mRNA vaccines have been given to millions of people there hasn’t been an increased death rate in any population or demographic over the usual or expected death rates. In fact, of those who experienced serious COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and death during the pandemic, more than 95% were unvaccinated, prompting some to refer to this pandemic as a “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated” (Link).
There has also been no surge in cancer rates or the scarier sounding “turbo cancers“, strokes, sudden death syndrome, or an increase in death rates among working-age adults (Link). None of that is true regarding the mRNA vaccines.
More on “Turbo Cancer”:
As a relevant aside, Dr. David Gorski (surgical oncologist, molecular biologist, cancer biologist, and professor of surgery at Wayne State University) has written several interesting articles on the sensational claims for “Turbo Cancer” being caused by the mRNA vaccines: Link, Link, Link
“In the case of the antivax claim that vaccines cause cancer, the new COVID vaccine-related twist is that the new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines don’t just cause something as mundane as your run-of-the-mill cancers of the sort that, taken together, are the second leading cause of death after cardiovascular disease. Oh, no. They’re too awful to cause just run-of-the-mill average cancers. They’re such super-powerful magical carcinogens that they cause “turbo cancers” described by antivaxxers as cancers that develop and grow so rapidly as to be essentially untreatable or cancers….
The forms of evidence used generally consist of anecdotes and a claim that there has been a huge increase in excess mortality from cancer since the vaccines rolled out. First, let’s look at typical anecdotes, which started with pathologists like Ryan Cole and Ute Kruege claiming that they were observing a huge increase in the number of cancers they’ve been seeing, an increase that neither has apparently seen fit to publish in the scientific literature and that other pathologists do not appear to be reporting, other than on Rumble or on antivax conspiracy sites…
Unsurprisingly, “turbo cancer” isn’t a thing. Oncologists don’t recognize it as a phenomenon, nor do cancer biologists, and if you search for it on PubMed, you won’t find a reference to it. Basically, it’s a clever term coined by antivaxxers to scare you into thinking that COVID-19 vaccines will give you cancer, or at least greatly increase your risk of developing cancer. The “evidence” marshaled to support the concept consists of the usual misinformation techniques used by antivaxxers: citing anecdotes, wild speculation about biological mechanisms without a firm basis in biology, and conflating correlation with causation, no matter how much one must squint to see it…
My own review of the “Turbo Cancer” claim can be found here: Link
See also this excellent review: Link
Ironically, the mRNA vaccine technology, rather than causing cancer, is now being used to combat cancer. “Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.” (Link)
Post-vaccine myocarditis – A real but lesser risk:
Note, however, that there is an increased risk of clinical and subclinical myocarditis in young men who were vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines (Link), which suggests caution regarding the use of mRNA boosters in healthy young men (ages 12-24). In context, consider also that getting infected by COVID-19 also increases one’s risk of clinical myocarditis to a much greater degree. One study showed that those infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus, while this risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (Link). Similarly, another study showed that the risk of myocarditis was more than seven-fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine (Link). A large Israeli study showed a risk of myocarditis following a COVID-19 infection at 11.0 events per 100,000 persons while the risk of myocarditis following mRNA vaccination was 2.7 events per 100,000 persons. It is also relevant to note that the relative severity of myocarditis was much less following mRNA vaccination compared to myocarditis that followed COVID-19 infection. “Adjusted analysis showed that the postvaccination myocarditis group had a 92% lower mortality risk” (Link).
It is also interesting to note that mRNA vaccination “was substantially protective against adverse events such as anemia, acute kidney injury, intracranial hemorrhage, and lymphopenia” (Link). Clearly, overall, the serious risks of COVID-19 infection far outweighed the risks of vaccination. Here is a list of the relative risks of mRNA vaccination vs. COVID-19 infection:
Now, there is a different risk profile for young men between the ages of 12 – 24, in particular. That is, myocarditis was more common for this particular demographic following mRNA vaccination compared to following a natural COVID-19 infection. One study found that, for men under the age of 40, there were 16 excess cases of myocarditis per million individuals after infection compared with 97 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine (less so for Pfizer since the dosage was 1/3 of that of the Moderna vaccine). However, the severity of the myocarditis was much less following vaccination vs. a COVID-19 infection (see diagram below). The pattern is fairly clear. Post-vaccine myocarditis has better outcomes than conventional myocarditis, and post-infection myocarditis has similar outcomes to conventional myocarditis.
What’s going on here?
“So, what’s going on here? It’s not entirely clear. Logic would say that because both the vaccine and the virus cause myocarditis, there must be something common to both that is responsible. And the two things common to both are the mRNA code and the spike protein that results from it. Given what we see in this study, with post-infection myocarditis being worse, it lends credence to the hypothesis that the spike protein, perhaps via molecular mimicry, is instigating an inflammatory response against heart muscle cells. It’s just that, with the vaccine, the spike protein dose is self-limited. The COVID virus itself, though, comes with an entire package of proteins to produce more spike protein than what you would get inoculated with.” – Perry Wilson, With COVID, Not All Myocarditis Is Created Equal, Medscape, August 26, 2024 (Link)
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator.
Vaccinated had reduced transmission rates:
It was originally established that those vaccinated against the first main COVID-19 variant, the Alpha variant (December 2020), were, in fact, less likely to spread the virus to others. This was thought to be due to a reduced viral load within the respiratory tract of vaccinated people who were subsequently infected. In fact, even before the vaccines became generally available to humans, animal testing on rhesus macaques (published July & October of 2020) showed that, “COVID-19 vaccination prevented or limited viral replication in the upper and lower respiratory tracts”, giving very promising early scientific data that the vaccines against COVID-19 would result in reduced viral transmissibility in humans as well, once released to the general public (Link). And, this did, in fact, turn out to be the case. Consider, for example, a paper published by Martinez et al., (September 2, 2021), which showed a much lower risk of viral transmission (Alpha Variant) for vaccinated people as compared to unvaccinated people (Link). And, there were many more supporting scientific studies like this, saying basically the same thing (Link).
Of course, next came the Delta Variant, which had higher viral loads within the vaccinated (as well as the unvaccinated), but showed less transmissibility compared to those who were not vaccinated (Link). Still, this reduction in transmissibility was fairly significant, despite up to 1000x the viral load compared to the earlier Alpha Variant. During an initial infection with the Delta Variant, when people were most likely to be contagious, the Delta Variant seemed to replicate in amounts that were perhaps 1,000 times as much as those seen in people infected with other variants, defeating immune defenses in the nose and throat for many people. However, this increase in viral load wasn’t just present in those who were vaccinated, but in the unvaccinated as well. And, this is exactly what studies showed at the time (Riemersma, et. al., July 31, 2021). In fact, studies showed that those who were not vaccinated carried a higher viral load compared to those who were vaccinated. Does this, then, mean that vaccinated people were able to transmit the Delta Variant to other people? Yes, but less often and for a lesser amount of time compared to those who are unvaccinated – since the vaccine still resulted in a reduced number of infections – as well as the amount of time that an infected person was infectious.
This was backed up by another paper that showed that vaccines not only produced fairly good protection from getting sick with the Delta Variant, but also helped an infected person clear the viral load much faster (Cia, et. al., July 31, 2021).
Consider the results of the “REACT-1 Study” (August 2021) where the researchers found that “fully vaccinated people in this testing round had between around 50% to 60% reduced risk of infection [Delta Variant], including asymptomatic infection, compared to unvaccinated people. In addition, double vaccinated people were less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive after coming into contact with someone who had COVID-19 (3.84% vs 7.23%)” (Link). “Fully vaccinated people who were infected with the virus tended to have less severe illness than unvaccinated people and seemed to have smaller amounts of virus in samples, the researchers added, meaning they may be less likely to pass it on if they are infected” (Link).
Even for populations where people live together in very close spaces, such as in a prison, for example, being vaccinated was shown to be associated with lower rates of transmission. Prisoners infected with the much more infectious Omicron variant (as compared to the prior Alpha and Delta variants) were shown to be less likely to spread the virus to others if they have been vaccinated or if they had had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection – according to a study in US prisons (Link).
Conspiracy theorists like Dr. Peter McCullough:
So, where did Vine get all of his mistaken ideas regarding the mRNA vaccines and COVID-19? Well, almost certainly from well-known and very vocal and charismatic conspiracy theorists, like Dr. Peter McCullough for example, who has consistently promoted all of the very same falsified claims that Pastor Vine has been preaching all over the place (Link). After all, during the height of the pandemic, McCullough was invited to speak at one of our own churches, the Village Church in Michigan, by Pastor Ron Kelly (Link).
Such invitations gave McCullough a wide audience and increased credibility within our own congregations, scaring many at-risk people to the point of refusing to get vaccinated during the height of the pandemic, resulting in needless hospitalizations, long-term injuries, and even the deaths of many who would otherwise still be with us today. Yet, Pastor Kelly is himself still parroting the false and misleading claims of Dr. McCullough about the mRNA vaccines from the pulpit (8/31/24; Link). Dr. McCullough has simply had an oversized influence among many in the SDA Church and has caused serious harm.
AstraZeneca, J&J, and Blood Clots:
So, while the mRNA vaccines do have side effects, as do all medical treatments, their risks were minimal overall compared to their benefits during the pandemic. One vaccine that has been “banned” from use in various countries is the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is known to cause a rare but serious increase in blood clots and strokes (2 to 3 cases per 100,000). The risks for blood clots and strokes from the actual COVID-19 infection was much higher. “Research shows that blood clot risk can remain elevated for nearly a year after getting COVID-19. The risk is highest within the first week after a COVID-19 diagnosis and for those hospitalized with the illness” (Link). Still, the AstraZeneca vaccine was banned in various countries, not because the risks outweighed the benefits, but because better vaccine options were available – such as the mRNA vaccines which had/have even less risk. The same could be said for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine – which was also found to be associated with thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (reduced platelets and increase blood clotting). On April 15th, 2021, Dr. Vinay Prasad argued that, given the presence of alternatives (Pfizer and Moderna), that it was “game-over” for J&J in women less than 50 years old and that the US should halt its use (Link).
Unvaccinated had higher rates of long-term injury, hospitalization, and death:
The fact is that those who were not vaccinated during the pandemic suffered far greater adverse outcomes compared to those who were vaccinated, to include higher death rates, hospitalization rates, and long-term injuries and adverse outcomes (Link). Pastor Vine is completely misinformed here and is using these false claims to attack the leadership of the SDA Church in very unfair and hurtful ways.
Diverting Financial Support from the Church:
After this, Pastor Vine goes so far as to suggest that SDA members divert their financial support of the church. Vine says that, “Adventism today faces a potential split along two lines:
- “Adventists who reject the GC ADCOM’s assumed authority over their consciences, who hold true to Scripture and our Fundamental Beliefs and thus reject the onrush of cultural Marxism in SDA institutions, and among SDA leaders, professors and pastors.
- “Adventists who accept the GC ADCOM’s assumed authority over their individual consciences, and are either afraid to contend for the faith passed on to us, or actually support the abandonment of Scripture in favor of cultural Marxism.”
He added that,
“It appears to many members today that our hierarchy exists primarily for the financial benefit of the hierarchy and its functionaries through the preservation of federal income streams to our institutions—and the concerns and consciences of members are no longer of concern to our senior administrators.”
Options for Faithful Adventists:
So, according to Pastor Vine, there are a number of options for Bible-faithful Adventists:
-
- Do nothing, and have our livelihoods, careers, jobs, homes, businesses and bodies sacrificed by our leaders once again to preserve their institutions, incomes and status.
- “If the GC supports future mandates over the consciences of members, establish a para-church movement within Adventism.” Establishing a “para-church movement”, could be performed by the laity who would organize their tithes so that they are returned to a new lay-led non-profit, which then channels those tithes and offerings each year to Bible-faithful SDA Missions, Conferences and Unions that avoid “cultural Marxism”. This option is easy to accomplish in the modern era, and allows faithful SDAs to direct their tithes to the 10-40 mission window while simultaneously cutting off funding to woke, post-biblical NAD Conferences, Unions and leaders…
- Form an underground SDA movement, a loose coalition of faithful house-groups, with bi-vocational elders leading each group, which is where we will be anyway after the MOB is imposed.
- Pastor Vine specifically noted that the conferences “that go woke will go broke, very simple.”
Establish a Para-Church Movement:
The suggestion that SDA members “establish a para-church movement” where tithes and offerings are directed according to personal preferences is basically a suggestion to destroy and recreate the SDA Church according to those who happen to agree with Vine on his particular pet topics. He’s basically telling the church leadership that if they don’t do what he says, or what the group that he represents says, he’s perfectly fine with the destruction of the current church government and the setting up a new organization. Clearly, this advice to his followers is not God-directed or biblically based. It sounds more like the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16:1–40). As Mrs. White points out:
Advice of Ellen White:
Tithes and Offerings:
“Some have been dissatisfied and have said, ‘I will no longer pay my tithe for I have no confidence in the way things are managed at the heart of the work.’ But will you rob God because you think the management of the work is not right? Make your complaint. . . Send in your petitions for things to be adjusted and set in order; but do not withdraw from the work of God, and prove unfaithful, because others are not doing right.” (Ellen White, Testimonies, Vol.9, pp.249)
“If the Conference business is not managed according to the order of the Lord, that is the sin of the erring ones. The Lord will not hold you responsible for it, if you do what you can to correct the evil. But do not commit sin yourselves by withholding from God His own property.” (Ellen White: The Early Elmshaven Years, 1900-1905, pp. 395, 396)
“You ask if I will accept tithe from you and use it in the cause of God where most needed. In reply, I will say that I shall not refuse to do this, but at the same time, I will tell you that there is a better way. It is better to put confidence in the ministers of the conference where you live and in the officers of the church where you worship. Draw nigh to your brethren. Love them with a true heart fervently, and encourage them to bear their responsibilities faithfully in the fear of God. ‘Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity’” [1 Timothy 4:12]. (Ellen White, Letter 96, 1911, Published in The Early Elmshaven Years, p. 397)
But what about the fact that Mrs. White herself redirected her own tithe on occasion? Does this not set a precedent for others to do the same when they see fit?
Mrs. White made these points about her practice:
1. She was directly instructed by God to help certain destitute black and white Adventist ministers.
2. She was instructed by God that she should first notify the conference officials of the need, and urge them to help. If and when they defaulted, she was to move in directly with immediate aid.
3. The situation was unique, and she emphasized this by such expressions as “my special work” and “special cases.”
4. Mrs. White did not want this special project to be taken as an example or precedent, since God had specifically instructed her alone to do it.
5. The money was “not withheld from the Lord’s treasury” in that these tithes were given to Adventist Church ministers—either currently employed by the Southern Missionary Society (and thus bearers of General Conference ministerial credentials or retired and holding the “honorary” credentials that retired SDA ministers on the retirement plan today hold.
6. She pointedly remarked, “I would not advise that any one should make a practice of gathering up tithe money.”
Of those who today justify their acceptance and/or solicitation of tithe from fellow SDA church members, we might well inquire:
1. Did God directly appoint them to the work of gathering up, or accepting these tithes?
2. Does the situation that prompted her emergency program at the turn of the century exist today (or is it nullified by church and state pensions for retired workers)?
3. If the situation is the same today as in 1905, did they first contact the conference officials (as was Mrs. White’s consistent practice), before going ahead on their own to rectify the situation?
4. Are they spending the tithe monies they collect for the same purpose as did Ellen White—primarily retired Adventist ministers on the doorstep of poverty?
5. Are the funds they collect going to a recognized agency of the SDA Church organization and/or to needy retired workers who were in the employ of the church prior to retirement?
Ellen G. White Estate (Link)
Deluded efforts to break up the church will come to nought:
“God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing this thing, another that. Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust. The third angel is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading this people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead.” – Ellen White, 1T, p. 207
“I know that the Lord loves His church. It is not to be disorganized or broken up into independent atoms. There is not the least consistency in this; there is not the least evidence that such a thing will be. Those who shall heed this false message and try to leaven others will be deceived and prepared to receive advanced delusions, and they will come to nought.” – Ellen White, SM, p. 268
“The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out—the chaff separated from the precious wheat.” – Ellen White, BC, 7:911
Vine’s solution to avoid the destruction of the church is as follows:
Vine’s Demands of the Church:
However, we are stronger as a SDA movement and more effective in reaching the unreached when we work together. Therefore, I am appealing to the GC leadership once again to do the right thing, to take responsibility for your profound mistakes during the pandemic, to start the process of reconciliation, trust-building and healing that we as a worldwide Body desperately need, and to do the following:
-
- At the 2024 Annual Council, rescind and apologize for the 2021 Reaffirmation Statement immediately, allowing the healing process to begin across the Adventist world.
- Establish a Fund to compensate those Adventists who have lost their livelihoods as a result of such illegitimate Statements or who have suffered physical harm from the side-effects of the vaccines they were forced to take because of the 2021 Reaffirmation Statement.
- Publicly affirm that because members and employees may be vaccinated or not as the Holy Spirit impresses them through their conscience, the GC will henceforth defend the good conscience decisions of all Adventists vis a vis any and all vaccination mandates.
- Rehire wherever possible on previous terms and conditions those denominational employees who were fired for living in accordance with the convictions of the Holy Spirit.
- Add to the agenda of the GC 2025 Session the question of divesting all institutions that receive US Federal funding from the SDA Church since the Federal government will end up enforcing the Mark of the Beast mentioned in Revelation 13. In this connection, Vine mentions Medicare and Medicaid payments to Adventist healthcare institutions as funds that should no longer be accepted.
How modern medicine works:
Clearly, Pastor Vine doesn’t seem to understand a number of issues here, particularly how medical care works in this country. If SDA hospitals were to refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid, for example, their ability to provide the highest level cutting-edge medical care to the most vulnerable in this country would effectively end. How is that remotely reasonable from a basic Christian perspective? Also, if the SDA Church were to officially deny the effectiveness of vaccines worldwide, that would remove the church and its hospitals from supporting and providing one of the greatest and most miraculous gifts of modern medicine. Would Pastor Vine also wish to do away with the use of antibiotics as well? What kind of medical expertise does he think he has? Or is this all somehow based on his misunderstanding of Divine Revelation?
As a relevant note, consider that Pastor Vine’s own organization, AFM, accepted $250,000 during the pandemic in government PPP funds. Is it not hypocritical then to complain about LLU and other SDA institutions that did similar things and hang them on the Revelation 13 church/state issue?
Retract the “Reaffirmation Statement”:
The “Reaffirmation Statement” of the SDA Church that Vine wants to be rescinded basically reaffirms a statement in support of immunizations that was voted back in April of 2015 – well before the COVID-19 pandemic. The Reaffirmation Statement “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.” (Link) Before the pandemic, the 2015 statement hadn’t created very many waves, not even with Pastor Vine. Then in early 2022, Vine suddenly had a serious problem with this 2015 statement, arguing that it, along with the GC’s Reaffirmation of this original statement (October of 2021), should be retracted. Yet, there really isn’t anything new in the reaffirmation statement as compared to the original 2015 statement regarding the Church’s position on vaccines or modern medicine as part of the Church’s efforts to effectively spread the Gospel Message to the world. It is supportive of both modern medical science as well as personal religious liberties.
Religious Liberty Support:
Beyond this, neither one of these statements forced anyone to take a vaccine beyond what the civil government requires for various forms of employment within a given state. The General Conference religious liberty lawyers always were and are, in fact, willing to help individuals write their own letters in support of their own personal convictions regarding vaccines and other issues where the SDA Church, as an organization, may not agree with the convictions of various members within the Church. Pastor Vine’s position, on the other hand, seems completely unworkable when it comes to real-world applications – being more akin to arguments for total anarchy rather than those consistent with living within a workable civil or even church governmental system. Sure, vaccines may have side effects, but those who’ve experienced such side effects, and who would like to seek compensation, can do so through government agencies that have already been established for such a purpose – i.e., The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Link). Beyond this, numerous vaccines are required by various state civil government laws in order for one to attend various schools or to hold various occupations within that state. None of these state laws have anything to do with the position of the Church on vaccines. Yet, Pastor Vine fails to address any of these state-sponsored vaccine mandates beyond the COVID-19 vaccines – which seems more than just a bit inconsistent.
Religious Liberty Based on Individual, not Corporate, Convictions:
Consider also that religious liberty is not based on corporate, but individual convictions – at least in the United States. It really doesn’t matter, in the USA anyway, 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.
No one has lost his/her job in the USA, because of the GC statement who wouldn’t have lost his/her job anyway – regardless of what the 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 in the United States. 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)
See also this commentary on Vine’s misunderstanding of this particular point by Tom de Bruin in his 2022 article:
He mentions quite a few people who did not get a religious exemption, attributing the failure to the Adventists Church’s official support of vaccination. This is peculiar, as official support is not an expectation in the law. Religious exemption laws take personal belief into account, not corporate belief. How else would thousands of Catholics be getting religious exemptions when the official stance of both the Vatican and the American bishops is that vaccines are morally acceptable? This is not to deny that some dodgy employers would reject an exemption for personal belief. Yet Vine’s insistence that the General Conference should “apologize to and to make restitution to every Adventist who has lost their job” simply does not make sense.
Tom De Bruin, Responding to Conrad Vine’s “Appeal to Adventist Nobility”, Spectrum, February 1, 2022. (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.
Also true in Canada:
The same appears to be true in Canada as well (at least on paper):
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Sincerity of belief is a question of fact. To establish sincerity, an individual must show that they sincerely believe that a certain belief or practice is required by their religion. The religious belief must be asserted in good faith and must not be fictitious, capricious or an artifice. In assessing the sincerity of the belief, a court will take into account, inter alia, the credibility of the testimony of the person asserting the particular belief and the consistency of the belief with that person’s other current religious practices (Multani, supra at paragraph 35; Amselem, supra at paragraphs 52-53). It is the sincerity of the belief at the time of the interference, not its strength or absolute consistency over time, that is relevant at this stage of the analysis (R. v. N.S., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726 at paragraph 13).
The Court does not want to engage in theological debates when examining the practice or belief in question. The practice or belief in question need not be required by official religious dogma nor need it be in conformity with the position of religious officials. Freedom of religion extends beyond obligatory doctrine to voluntary expressions of faith and is not restricted to major and recognizable religions (Amselem, supra at paragraphs 46-50, 53, and 56). A protected religious practice need not be part of an established belief system or even a belief shared by others. An individual need only demonstrate a sincere belief that the practice is of religious significance to the individual (Little v. R., 2009 NBCA 53, leave to appeal dismissed, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 417 at paragraph 7). It is not appropriate to adduce expert evidence showing sincerity or lack thereof (Amselem, supra at paragraph 54).
https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html
The Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsRegarding Government Vaccine Mandates:
I was never personally a fan of the vaccine mandates put out by the US government (or other governments around the world) since they seemed to me to be largely counterproductive and provide little benefit regarding limiting the spread of the virus after the Omicron variant came out. As Dr. Prasad points out here (Link), the mRNA vaccines were so good as far as personal protection was concerned, that limiting the spread of COVID-19, once the vaccines became available, was kind of a moot point.
That being said, once the government mandates were in place, I also didn’t see it as appropriate to claim religious liberty as a reason for refusing to get vaccinated – since there is nothing in the Bible that would prevent one from obeying a government mandate along these lines (Link). People often cite the case of Daniel and his three friends refusing the king’s meat as a Biblical basis for refusing to comply with vaccine mandates. The problem here is that the vaccines themselves were not unhealthy or unreasonable during a pandemic and their use was not recognized as a form of idol worship. Also, Daniel’s proposed 10-day test would not have had the same results with respect to the mRNA vaccines, but would have shown benefits for the significant majority of people.
As Ellen White put it:
“In cases where we are brought before the courts, we are to give up our rights, unless it brings us in collision with God. It is not our rights we are pleading for, but God’s right to our service.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases 5:69 – 1895)
Pastor Vine Banned by the Michigan Conference:
It seems as though the Michigan Conference sees this latest attack of Pastor Vine against the leadership of the SDA Church as a step too far, and has now banned Pastor Vine from speaking at any of its churches. In a 3 September letter, conference president, Jim Micheff, wrote:
During a camp meeting in Maine from August 13-17, Conrad Vine, president of Adventist Frontier Missions, delivered messages that raise significant concerns and undermine the unity and integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We strongly disagree with the views expressed by Conrad Vine, including, but not limited to, his statements regarding the remnant church and leadership, the establishment of a parachurch organization, and the redirection of tithe. We find his assertions to be inconsistent with the clear teachings found in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy… Although we have been addressing this ongoing concern with him, his sentiments have evolved further in a public manner. As we continue to work through these issues, he will not be permitted access to the pulpits of our Michigan Conference churches. (Full Letter)
The need for such a step by the Michigan Conference is very unfortunate. Certainly, it will be used by those who support the work of Pastor Vine to paint him as a martyr. At this point, however, Pastor Vine has already promoted deep divisions within the SDA Church in a very public manner. So, I personally remain very conflicted here. It just seems as though the Devil has such an easy time of it when it comes to causing deep divisions among us, to the point of calls for undermining or even splitting the church and creating a “para-church”. Yet, we all know, based on the Divine prophecies that have been given to us, that this is all just the tip of the iceberg. Now is the time to focus only on Jesus and the promotion of His Gospel Message and the Kingdom of God.
_________________
Dr. Sean Pitman is a pathologist, with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology, currently working in N. California.
From a FB discussion (9/1/24):
Dr. MS wrote:
I’ve followed Dr. Vinay Prasad during the height of the pandemic and have seen dozens of his videos (particularly the ones he did with ZdoggMD – i.e., Dr. Zubin Damania) and have read a number of his papers as well. I personally find him to be highly intelligent, rational, and convincing in his understanding and approach to COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines. That being said, I’m pretty sure that he strongly disagrees with most of your positions on COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines. So, I’m quite surprised that you would actually cite him as a credible authority on this topic.
Sure, myocarditis in younger men is a known risk factor for the mRNA vaccines (known since February of 2021, but not dealt with properly in the US) and the question of cumulative effects of boosters over longer periods of time is a very good and reasonable question to ask and actually deal with in a more rational manner based on the difference in the risk/reward ratio for this particular demographic (here’s another good Prasad video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8N6WxwvdTs). There’s also the issue of natural immunity that wasn’t rationally taken into account in the US.
My personal thought is that getting yearly boosters for young men is not worth the cumulative risk at this point. The risk/reward ratio just isn’t clearly convincing for them. As Dr. Prasad points out, this isn’t a “one size fits all” situation when it comes to dealing with COVID-19. Different types of people, particularly different age groups, are in different risk categories and the risk/benefit ratios are not the same for these categories. So, I think the video you link here to Dr. Prasad’s commentary on this particular point is quite valid and very good and important to deal with going forward.
The problem, of course, is that conspiracy theorists, like Dr. Peter McCullough for a classic example, take a true risk factor like this and true mistakes that were and are being made regarding the use of mRNA vaccines (as noted above), and then argue that the baby be thrown out with the bathwater – that the mRNA vaccines were and are horrible and have caused far more injuries and deaths than they prevented. This is absolute nonsense, of course, since the vaccines clearly saved millions of lives and prevented far far more hospitalizations and long-term injuries during the height of the pandemic – according to those like Dr. Prasad himself. Still, you agree with those like Dr. Prasad where it seems to suit you, when he points out real risk factors and failures in the use of the mRNA vaccines, but disagree with him on pretty much everything else when it comes to all the very clear benefits of the mRNA vaccines for millions around the world – despite the weight of empirical evidence that he presents.
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDr. MS wrote:
_______________
Again, we agree that subclinical myocarditis in young men (2-3%, or ~100 fold higher than clinically apparent myocarditis in young men) seems to have greater risks than benefits in this particular demographic at this point in time. Unfortunately, that’s where our agreement seems to end. You go on to deviate from Dr. Prasad, and others who seem to be more even handed on this topic, on the apparent weight of available empirical evidence regarding the benefits of the mRNA vaccines and the millions of lives that were saved, not to the mention the millions more who were saved from hospitalizations and long-term injury. You focus on a very limited subset where something was done wrong and ignore all the rest where the mRNA vaccines were a miraculous benefit to millions worldwide.
You say that there is a lack of evidence that the mRNA vaccines reduce “all-cause mortality”. Yet, the data is overwhelming that the vaccines dramatically reduced hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 in particular – especially for the elderly and immunocompromised. Dr. Prasad is himself very strong on this particular point.
Yet, you claim that there is a lack of evidence that the “all-cause mortality” rate was, in particular, reduced by the mRNA vaccines. Yet, even here there is good evidence that those who were vaccinated experienced a reduced all-cause mortality as well as COVID-specific mortality. Studies comparing mortality rates in populations with high vaccination coverage to those with lower levels of vaccination have consistently found reduced all-cause mortality rates in the more highly vaccinated groups, even after adjusting for factors such as age, sex, socioeconomic status, and pre-existing health conditions. This suggests a significant protective effect of vaccination on overall mortality (Palinkas & Sandor, 2022). Another example is a 2023 population-based study in Australia which showed that, “COVID-19 vaccination was also found to be effective against all-cause mortality, likely from both direct effects and the impact on other outcomes.”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00246-8/fulltext
You even claim that I’m a “hypocrite” here because I don’t recommend that everyone get all of the booster shots recommended by the CDC (I’ve had a total of 4 Pfizer shots now). How am I being hypocritical by recognizing different risk categories for different age groups or those with different states of health or exposure or levels of natural immunity? Even Paul Offit, a prominent vaccine advocate and the director of vaccine communication at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the Atlantic that he advised his own 20-something son not to get boosted. Several nations, even, have banned or discouraged the use of Moderna in young men. Others advise two doses spaced further apart, and some have held off on a second dose entirely for younger age groups. And I’m the hypocrite here?
As Dr. Prasad notes, “It is perfectly valid to question the wisdom of boosters, at least in young people, though I do think they are beneficial for older and more vulnerable people.”
https://unherd.com/2022/01/we-need-to-talk-about-the-vaccines/
You go on to claim that the vaccines cause neurologic damage, autoimmune conditions, and impair cancer surveillance mechanisms. The reduced cancer surveillance claim seems to have no valid evidence in support as far as I can tell. Dr. Prasad comments on this very same claim forwarded by Dr. Malone noting, “To date, I have seen no evidence to support any of these claims, and I believe it is a mistake to raise them. First, they are irresponsible — Malone’s rhetoric verges on fear-mongering — and second, they distract from his legitimate points on myocarditis in young men.”
https://unherd.com/2022/01/we-need-to-talk-about-the-vaccines/
As far as neurologic and autoimmune conditions resulting from the mRNA vaccines, research studies regarding this claim seem to conclude that there is a similar incidence rate between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. So, there really isn’t good support for this claim either. However, various studies have shown an increased risk for autoimmune conditions following a COVID-19 infection. My own partner, a very fit man in his early 50s, experienced autoimmune neuropathy from getting COVID-19 before the vaccines became available. It caused his body and health to rapidly decline so that he was forced to retire, in constant chronic pain, just 2 years later.
As far as your claim that the vaccines don’t reduce transmission rates, that’s also mistaken. They reduce both viral load and transmission rates. There are numerous papers along these lines.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00248-1/fulltext
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41109-9
Sure, one might argue that if the vaccine doesn’t completely eliminate the risk of transmission, then there’s really no point since everyone is going to get exposed eventually. While this is true, during the height of the pandemic, reducing the transmission rate was important because hospitals were being overwhelmed, in many areas, by the sick.
Beyond this, I never said that the unvaxxed are responsible for other people’s deaths. What I said is that those who convinced others, especially the elderly, not to get vaccinated, are responsible for other people’s deaths – regardless of their sincerity.
Sure, the vaccines have reduced efficacy regarding infection rates over time (although the reduction in hospitalization and death rates remains robust for much longer). So yes, boosters are required and are actually beneficial for those at higher risk.
As far as why I cite Dr. Peter McCullough as being a conspiracy theorist, I’ve often reviewed his claims and reasons why so many claims of his are false or deceptive… and conspiratorial in nature. Sure, he does occasionally make a valid point, but his valid points are poisoned by his forwarding of so many false and even conspiratorial ideas.
https://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-mccullough-at-the-village-seventh-day-adventist-church/
https://www.educatetruth.com/featured/scott-ritsema-dr-lela-lewis-pastor-wyatt-allen-an-dr-peter-mccullough-on-covid-19-vaccines/#Dr-Peter-McCullough
Even Dr. Vinay Prasad cites McCullough and Malone as forwarding false, unsupported, and alarmist ideas.
“Both speakers made accurate and useful points on Rogan’s podcast — as well as unsupported, speculative, alarmist, and false ones. The correct way to deal with incorrect ideas in biomedicine, if they rise to a level of prominence that warrants rebuttal, is to rebut them.”
“McCullough states that early in the pandemic, there was no focus on sick patients, while Malone speculates that hospitals don’t want early treatments because they profit when people are hospitalised and claims that “probably half a million excess deaths” have happened in the United States through the intentional blockade of early treatments. These are entirely false and insulting allegations, and Malone’s in particular are flat-out conspiratorial. Academic hospitals attempted all sorts of disparate treatment protocols in the hopes of helping sick patients.”
“The problem was not that there was no appetite for early treatment. The problem was that when the randomised trial data came in, they suggested the drugs favored by Malone and McCullough were ineffective. A pooled analysis of all such studies by Axfors and colleagues suggests patients treated with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine had increased risk of death.”
“Rogan, Malone and McCullough are wrong to claim that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are known to be secretly effective, but they are correct that these drugs have been unfairly demonised. The truth is that they are neither particularly dangerous nor effective.”
https://unherd.com/2022/01/we-need-to-talk-about-the-vaccines/
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentThank you, Sean. I read it and your reply to the doc. I have also read Vine. (And am twice Moderna, and thrice Cov-19). As a lover of science, I can say assuredly that a common person wishing to take a side would have no option but to pick his propaganda source. You or Vine? McC or Lowe? I don’t mean that you are wrong on the science. I only mean that most people would believe whichever side they read more recently because they still don’t understand mRNA, for example. So what I hope is that the spiritual part of the issue comes to the front. Then study will be productive. Pray for the work in parts of the world where sharing involves some risk.
Eugene W Prewitt(Quote)
View CommentCertainly you are correct in concluding that it is very hard for the average person to know what “sources” of information regarding medical science to trust. Obviously, this can be extremely confusing for those honestly seeking to know the truth. Yet, over time, a careful examination of the weight of evidence that is currently available should be able to convince the candid mind as to the right path here.
For us a Christians, certainly the spiritual battle is most important and my prayers are with all those who are choosing to take a stand on God’s side as they are empowered to present the Gospel Message of hope to a dying world during these final days…
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentWell Sean I am pleased to see that you keep trying to use observational science and rational discourse to convince us about the value of covid vaccines. I know you have changed a few minds. I think you also provide examples of how paying attention to the data modifies our views. I also admire you for attempting to communicate on Fulcrum7. Most people, including pastors, have not been trained to evaluate data, to understand odds ratios, or perhaps even percentage differences. The concept of comparison groups is not well understood. You do a great job of trying to do this. But, those opposed to vaccinations are taking on cult like characteristics. Nothing will convince them. They will not listen the weight of evidence but are willing to believe a pastor with no training in what he is talking about. Please keep trying, there is always hope that the fog of deception will lift!
Duane McBride(Quote)
View CommentThank you Duane. I’ve always very much appreciated your thoughts and support over the years.
Even if it may seem fruitless at the time, we are all called to do what we can to help those around us within our sphere of influence, to plant the seeds, and then leave the process of actually convicting the mind of truth to the Holy Spirit.
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentI believe the Michigan Conference is doing more harm then good by what they have done and especially calling Dr. Peter McCullough a Conspiracy theorist. I am thankful for people who will speak out and share what is going on. I agree with Dr. Ron Kelly, Dr. Peter McCullough, and Conrad Vine.
Connie Kent(Quote)
View CommentYou’re not the only one by any means, but those you are following (who are each in turn essentially following lead of Dr. McCullough) are telling you many things that just aren’t true. These untruths have ended up causing significant physical harm to many people… to include many long-term injuries and needless deaths. There’s good reason why the vast majority of medical scientists and doctors don’t agree with McCullough – and it’s not because they’re being paid off by “Big Pharma”. It’s because the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is opposed to what McCullough has been saying.
I’ve seen it myself, with my own eyes – and so has my brother-in-law, pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult who runs a large ICU in S. Cal. We’ve seen ICUs overflowing, beyond max capacity, with the very sick and the dying during the height of the pandemic – the vast majority of whom were unvaccinated. Roger’s face and hands are the last things that many saw and felt on this Earth. It was very personal for us. We were actually direct eye witnesses. And, we’re not alone. This very same situation was happening all around the world during the pandemic.
Beyond this, the argument that one should “follow the money” to see that Big Pharma is just telling a bunch of lies about the mRNA vaccines is nonsense. I mean, McCullough has himself made millions of dollars since the beginning of the pandemic pandering to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers – by selling rather expensive “remedies” via “The Wellness Company”, selling Substack memberships, and charging for giving talks and more than 1 million followers on his social media platforms (Link).
Now, I’m not saying that he’s insincere or anything like that, but it’s not like he’s not also profiting quite a bit financially as well… not just “Big Pharma”. Certainly, the pandemic didn’t hurt McCullough financially at all. On the other hand, the medical scientists and doctors who are actually doing the research, who invented and developed the mRNA vaccines, and have collected the scientific data which we have today, did not make big money by any means for what they did. I certainly haven’t made a dime for my promotion of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. I simply wanted to prevent as many injuries and save as many lives as possible. That’s all.
Now, if you think that I’m clearly wrong in any particular detail regarding what I wrote in my article above, by all means, do share it with me so that I can make the appropriate correction(s). Otherwise, upon what basis do you choose to side with Dr. McCullough, and his disciples, while rejecting so many honest and hard working doctors and scientists who seem to have clearly falsified McCullough’s key claims? Do you just like how he looks? the sound of his voice? or the fact that he supports what you want or wish to believe? – without the need to carefully consider the other side of the story?
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentHere’s an interesting video clip of Dr. Peter McCullough explaining why he believes the mRNA vaccines cause “Turbo Cancer”.
https://x.com/MmisterNobody/status/1803982453565968439
In this clip he cites three mechanisms, describing these three mechanisms as a “multi-hit hypothesis”. These three proposed mechanisms are as follows:
Now, these particular claims have been investigated in detail by cancer biologists. It turns out that none of these mechanisms or potential “hits” to the genetics of human beings is a valid concern… for the following reasons.
DNA repair mechanisms impaired by mRNA:
This is a very strange argument since DNA is contained within the nucleus of a cell and is decoded by various protein-based machines to produce mRNA. This mRNA is then transported through the nuclear membrane into the cytoplasm of the cell where it is again decoded by protein machines to produce various other proteins – in the cytoplasm. The mRNA used in vaccines works the very same way, except it never enters the nucleus of the cell. It stays in the cytoplasm where it is decoded to produce a modified and stabilized version of the COVID-19 viral spike protein. So, since the mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell, it cannot be said, then that this mRNA impairs DNA repair mechanisms. That just doesn’t happen – not even in theory.
The mRNA vaccines contain SV40 fragments:
Dr. Robert Malone, who played a role in developing the messenger RNA, or mRNA, technology used in the vaccine, testified that the shot includes a DNA sequence called Simian Virus 40, or SV40. The truth is that tiny non-functional fragments of SV40’s DNA sequence are used as “starting material” in producing the vaccine. Then, even these starting DNA sequences are broken down and removed as part of the manufacturing process. The only thing even theoretically left in the final product are “trace amounts” of very tiny fragments of the SV40 DNA sequence. In other words, no intact or infectious elements of the SV40 virus end up in the human body and the rare minute fragments that happen to get into a cell are rapidly broken down by the cell and do not enter the nucleus or affect a person’s DNA. As Dr. Paul Offit (director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia) points out, “It’s very hard for a DNA fragment to enter a cell, specifically its nucleus, where the DNA resides. Your cytoplasm doesn’t like DNA and has a variety of mechanisms to rid itself of DNA. In addition, for that fragment of DNA to be integrated into your DNA, you also have to have enzymes that disrupt the DNA and allow you to insert that fragment. That’s what gene therapy is all about, and that’s what makes gene therapy so hard to do.” (Link)
In short, there’s not even a theoretical cancer risk here and no real world increases in cancer linked to the mRNA vaccines has been identified. Really, if anyone is concerned here, far far greater amounts of viral genetic material enter the human body and human cells throughout the body via a natural COVID-19 infection as compared to a localized mRNA vaccination in one’s shoulder.
The mRNA suppresses p53:
The claim is based on a paper written by Wafik El-Deiry (Link), an eminent oncologist and cancer biologist the director at Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University (a big name in p53 research for 30 years) and another paper written by Singh and Singh (June 30, 2020)
So, first off, what did El-Deiry say in his paper? Well, it turns out that he was actually writing about infection by COVID-19 and the effects of infection on human cells. In his paper he argued that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, produced in humans cells during infection, mediates host cell infection and cell-cell fusion that causes stabilization of tumor suppressor p53 protein.
This is very interesting since one would naturally think that the stabilization of a tumor suppressor, like the “guardian of the genome” p53, would result in a suppression of tumor production, not an enhancement of tumor development. El-Deiry seems to be saying is that the spike protein activates p53, not deactivates it – which would be protective against cancer formation. It is also interesting to note that the cell lines used for his investigation were cancer cell lines themselves: human lung cancer cells H460, breast cancer cells MCF7, colorectal cancer cells HCT116 (p53 wild-type or p53-null), and sarcoma cells U2OS with p53-knockout (U2OS-P53KO). El-Deiry goes on to specifically note that, “We have not evaluated normal cells such as airway, muscle, immune, brain or intestinal cells.” So, what did El-Deiry think his study actually showed that was relevant to the possibility of cancer enhancement. Well, in the presence of the viral spike protein, there was decreased expression of p21, which induces cell cycle arrest, in response to p53. So, the suggestion was made that this interference could result in an increased cancer risk for those who already had cancer – since it would make the cancer cells more resistant to chemotherapy treatment.
So, in short, all this paper shows is that, in cell culture, using cancer cell lines, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 infection might interfere with some forms of p53 tumor suppression activity specifically dealing with those with pre-existing cancer undergoing chemotherapy. What this really means is that an actual COVID-19 infection carries with it a far far greater risk compared to an mRNA vaccination when it comes to actually causing an increased risk of developing cancer to begin with. Consider, for instance, that an actual COVID-19 infection results in elevated levels of chemokines that could also contribute to cancer development, such as increases in chemokines CCL2, CCL4, CXCL8, CXCL9 and CXCL10 that have been found in those infected with COVID-19. These chemokines are known to participate in oncogenesis, the promotion of tumor cell expansion, cancer stem cell proliferation, metastasis, angiogenesis, induction of epithelial-mesenchymal transition, the attraction of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and recruitment of fibroblast (Jafarzadeh et al., 2022). In comparison, the very short-lived vaccine mRNA sequences would have minimal effect – even in theory. Beyond this, no increase in cancer rates for the vaccinated have been identified. It just hasn’t and isn’t happening.
It is also interesting to note that, on his own LinkedIn account, Dr. El Deiry wrote: “Complete loss or mutation of p53 doesn’t cause cancer immediately either in mice or humans…. I will be very clear that this is not anti-vaxx rhetoric and is not intended to discourage anyone from taking a COVID vaccine or booster as recommended by their physician or other health care provider. The COVID vaccine has saved millions of lives and is strongly recommended for the elderly and those with comorbid medical illnesses including patients with cancer.”
But, what about the Singh/Singh 2020 paper that McCullough specifically cites in the video clip linked above? McCullough specifically says that it is the S2 subunit from the mRNA vaccine produced spike protein, not the spike protein for a COVID-19 infection, that interacts with p53 and BRCA-1/2. However, in the actual paper, Singh/Singh counter McCullough’s claim, explaining that, regarding a COVID-19 infection in particular, “We found p53, BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 interact with heptic repeat-2 region of S2 subunit through C- terminal domain.” After all, “the inactive S protein exists as a single peptide, but is activated by cleavage into S1 and S2 by cellular proteases during infection (specifically by “furin in the Golgi apparatus”).” (Link) Nothing was said of the mRNA vaccines in this paper. Also, no direct causal ties with cancer or cancer progression (for this interaction between the S2 protein subunit and p53/BRCA-1/2) was demonstrated in this paper either. The best that can be concluded here is that, if anything, an infection with COVID-19 would be far far more risky compared to an mRNA vaccination with regard to this particular proposed mechanism.
As a relevant aside, there have also been cases where a patient with metastatic carcinoma experienced dramatic tumor regression following mRNA vaccination against COVID-19. (Link)
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentThank you for another detailed response. I especially liked your treatment of the risks of the vaccines relative to COVID-19 for young men.
Allow me to point out the the legal environment relative to civil liberties is different in countries like Canada—where I am located—than in the United States, and in Canada the reaffirmation statement was used against Adventists who attempted to claim conscientious exemption from the vaccines. I suspect that the same may have been the case for other countries.
David Hamstra(Quote)
View CommentThat is interesting, and actually concerning to me that the situation in Canada regarding religious liberty is so dependent upon the church organization rather than on individual conscience.
I did come across something that suggests a more individualistic approach in Canada when it comes to religious liberty issues. What do you make of this?
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentIt seems that the law student you cite is saying that an individual choice approach to religious liberty in Canada limits the imposition of blue laws. I agree with that.
However, to claim a religious exemptions, the human rights tribunal in the province where I live (Alberta) have ruled that an individual must provide “objective evidence, and that merely stating ones personal convictions is subjective. Here’s how that played out (FYI, CNRL is a large oil and gas company):
“In Haahr v Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, 2024 AHRC 26, the complainant applied for an exemption from the Policy and provided a personal statement explaining his belief and that he would follow his “personal conscientious convictions.” Notwithstanding requests from CNRL, at no time did the complainant supply objective confirmation from a religious authority that vaccination was prohibited. Based on the complainant’s failure to comply with the Policy requirements, he was suspended without pay.
“In Sheppard v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2024 AHRC 37, the complainant requested an exemption from the Policy and submitted a vaccine exemption form, a letter from a Reverend, and a document containing the complainant’s reasons for making the request for an exemption. CNRL ultimately denied the exemption application on the basis that the request was based on personal conviction and not on an objective tenet of faith, and it eventually suspended the complainant without pay due to non-compliance with the Policy.
“In Scott v Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, 2024 AHRC 42, the complainant requested an exemption from the Policy and provided a letter from his lawyer in support, which stated that “As a Christian, Mr. Scott sincerely holds to religious beliefs that preclude him from taking the COVID vaccines.” The letter further detailed the complainant’s beliefs. Beyond that, the complainant did not submit written confirmation from any religious authority. Subsequently, CNRL suspended the complainant from work without pay for Policy non-compliance.
“In Ducharme v Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., 2024 AHRC 44, the complainant requested an exemption from the Policy, and in support provided a letter from Christ’s Forgiveness Ministries signed by its General Overseer and a personal statement. Following receipt of the application, CNRL suspended the complainant without pay for failure to comply with the Policy.
“In all four decisions, the Tribunal upheld the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s original decisions to dismiss the respective complaints.”
…
“For there to be discrimination on the ground of ‘religious beliefs’ in Alberta, a complainant must establish that the complainant’s belief has an objective foundation that links it to a ‘tenet of a religious faith’ or that ‘it is a fundamental or important part of expressing that faith.’ Establishing the foregoing requires appropriate evidence beyond merely providing a personal statement, a letter from a religious centre, and/or a letter from a lawyer. The evidence must show that, by an objective standard, the mandate is prohibited by the complainant’s faith.”
https://www.mross.com/what-we-think/article/the-evidence-required-to-establish-when-the-protected-ground-of-religious-beliefs-is-engaged
I understand that the situation is similar elsewhere in Canada, although I am most familiar with the situation in Alberta.
David Hamstra(Quote)
View CommentWow! I had no idea.
However, this does seem to be inconsistent with the following on Canadian Law regarding Religious Liberty (from the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms):
So, given the above, are there any examples were someone actually was able to present so-called “objective” evidence in the form of a “tenet of religious faith”, which actually achieved success? where such an individual would not have been fired? I mean, let’s just say, for argument sake, that the Catholic Church had a fundamental tenet of faith which opposed vaccinations. Would this really have made a difference in Alberta for members of the Catholic Church? Would these people have been allowed to keep their jobs while all other vaccine objectors lost theirs? – despite the statements above suggesting that personal religious belief and liberties are not dependent upon that of an established belief system?
It’s not that I’m opposed to mandated civil laws in an effort to maintain public safety/health. For example, various kinds of jobs require one to be follow various personal health regulations – like working in the hospital or performing surgeries while masking and wearing sterile gloves and taking various vaccinations. There are also quarantine laws that are quite reasonable in various situations/settings. That being said, great efforts should be made to support personal religious/moral convictions as long as such support does not significantly interfere with the liberty and/or safety of others.
Any suggestions on any potential improvement of the wording of the SDA position on vaccines or other modern medical therapies and/or religious liberty statements?
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment(The comment system is not letting me lodge a reply to your recent comment, so I am replying to my most recent one instead.)
I’m not a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, but I do know that at the end of the day the law is what the courts interpret it to be, they interpret it depending on circumstances, and they don’t always agree.
In these cases, as the article explained, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (AHRT) is at odds with the most recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision that addressed the question of whether to test the bona fides of a religious exemption claim against objective evidence. (And it turns out that, on bit of digging, the AHRT was following the lead of the equivalent BC tribunal on this point.) But we’ve also seen the SCC reverse its interpretations of religious liberty to accommodate changing LGBTQ2S social norms (compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Western_University_v_British_Columbia_College_of_Teachers and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Western_University#Supreme_Court_of_Canada_Decisions). So who knows if the SCC would stand by it’s earlier decision in the pandemic environment. The better part of valor for religious liberty was probably not to roll the dice on that one.
So, at the end of the day, the law is what the last court you are willing or able to appeal to says it is.
Could the church have drafted a statement that better protected conscience assertions by its members? I don’t think so. Not without being dishonest about it’s actual position of vaccines. My Adventist historian friends tell me that the church adopted a strict non-combatancy position during the Civil War to protect members from the draft, even though Adventists were joining the Union Army, to protect the consciences of those who did not believe they could take human life. But the church is too large and widespead and the media environment is too transparent for us to get away with that today.
David Hamstra(Quote)
View CommentYeah, I think you’re right…
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRegarding Mandates:
I was never personally a fan of the vaccine mandates put out by the US government (or other governments around the world) since they seemed to me to be largely counterproductive and provide little benefit regarding limiting the spread of the virus after the Omicron variant came out. As Dr. Prasad points out here (Link), the mRNA vaccines were so good as far as personal protection was concerned, that limiting the spread of COVID-19, once the vaccines became available, was kind of a moot point.
That being said, once the government mandates were in place, I also didn’t see it as appropriate to claim religious liberty as a reason for refusing to get vaccinated – since there is nothing in the Bible that would prevent one from obeying a government mandate along these lines (Link). People often cite the case of Daniel and his three friends refusing the king’s meat as a Biblical basis for refusing to comply with vaccine mandates. The problem here is that the vaccines themselves were not unhealthy or unreasonable during a pandemic and their use was not recognized as a form of idol worship. Also, Daniel’s proposed 10-day test would not have had the same results with respect to the mRNA vaccines, but would have shown benefits for the significant majority of people.
As Ellen White put it:
“In cases where we are brought before the courts, we are to give up our rights, unless it brings us in collision with God. It is not our rights we are pleading for, but God’s right to our service.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases 5:69 – 1895)
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentHi Justin,
Thank you for your note. I do appreciate your concerns and your convictions. It can be very confusing to sort out so many different voices saying so many different things regarding what to think and what do to keep oneself as healthy as possible.
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. After all, would it be wise to suggest 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.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/covid-19-and-vaccines-update/#comment-85605
Consider also 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.” (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine) 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) (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine). She supported blood transfusion when necessary, despite their risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2§ion=all&pagenumber=303). And, she even supported using radiation therapy when appropriate, despite its risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2§ion=all&pagenumber=303). 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 (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2§ion=all&pagenumber=286&QUERY=before+major+surgery&resultId=1&isLastResult=1).
I hope this helps you at least understand why I take the position that I take. I mean, I’m a pathologist with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology and have studied COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines in great detail. Beyond this, I’ve seen the results myself, with my own eyes – and so has my brother-in-law, pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult who runs a large ICU in S. Cal. We’ve seen ICUs overflowing, beyond max capacity, with the very sick and the dying during the height of the pandemic – the vast majority of whom were unvaccinated. Roger’s face and hands are the last things that many saw and felt on this Earth. It was very personal for us. We were actually direct eyewitnesses. And, we’re not alone. This very same situation was happening all around the world during the pandemic. Truly, the mRNA vaccines saved millions of lives and prevented many many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries.
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRespectfully, I share the recent published article below! The field of science is marching on delving into the secrets of God’s creation and dangerously trying to improve upon it. Satan is standing over the shoulders of these scientists directing them to create mechanisms ultimately supporting people to, “do as thou wilt.” There is no need for self restraint which God’s Word clearly calls us to. Eat, drink, dress, and be merry, knowing good and evil, for tomorrow you will not die. Disaster awaits! God will stand up very soon with the pronouncement, “This far and no further!”
I believe God gave me a body with the perfect mechanisms in place to fight disease without participating in something that has the potential to create a pathway for life long chronic conditions which extremely complicate life. The use of whole foods, herbs, water and light therapies provide much better outcomes to prevent and treat severe illness! God will protect His children!
Comes JDG, Pijlman GP, Hick TAH. Rise of the RNA machines – self-amplification in mRNA vaccine design. Trends Biotechnol. 2023 Nov;41(11):1417-1429. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2023.05.007. Epub 2023 Jun 14. PMID: 37328401; PMCID: PMC10266560.
Carol Daul(Quote)
View CommentIf the human immune system were the “perfect mechanism” that God originally designed it to be, you’d be right. However, after ~6000 years of sin and decay, the human immune system is no longer what God originally designed it to be – as evidenced by the great many, even among healthy vegan SDAs, who died during the pandemic. Water and light therapies are great and are helpful as layers of protection, but for many, especially those over the age of 65, whey were not enough. The mRNA vaccines were very effective in providing an additional much needed layer of protection during the pandemic. Now, I’ve very glad that you did not get sick enough to require hospitalization and that you avoided long-term injuries and death during the pandemic, but many many others were not so fortunate.
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment