Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Obviously, I’m not talking about women who don’t understand how IUDs and hormonal birth control work. I’m talking about women who do understand. And, according to your cited reference, the majority of women who have such knowledge would not stop using such forms of birth control. Given your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception, such fully-informed women would most certainly be guilty of pre-meditated first-degree murder – before God. Again, morally speaking, it doesn’t matter at all what a human government may or may not say or do. Human governments don’t determine true morality. What really matters is what God thinks. Are such fully-informed women murderers before God? The same as a woman who kills her baby at full term? – just before it would otherwise be born naturally? That’s my question here. I could not make the accusation of murder against a woman using hormonal birth control or IUDs because there really is no unambiguous Scriptural support for your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception – as far as I’m able to tell. That’s the bottom line here.

As far as your argument that the word Gabriel used for John the Baptist before he was born was the same as for a baby that had been born (supporting the equal moral value of the unborn), the Greek that Gabriel used here was: βρέφος. Notice, however, that Gabriel did not use this particular word until John was already six months old (Luke 1:36-41). So, again, as previously discussed with you, I fail to see how Gabriel is defining John as a full human being from the moment of conception here.

After all, an early embryo can split in two, or three or four or five embryos – ending in identical offspring. Yet, although genetically identical, each baby produced in this manner is a unique person. Twins may have identical genetics and indistinguishable bodies, yet they are uniquely different people before God. When did the unique identify of each of these identical twins or triplets, etc., begin? Clearly, not at the moment of conception. You see, the creation of unique genetics isn’t the same thing as the creation of a unique soul or individual person.

You say that I’m unable to provide Scriptural evidence for the dichotomy between the moral value of a person and “its nature”. Well, where is your definitive Scriptural evidence in support for a single cell or small clump of a few cells being fully human? As a relevant aside, where does the Scripture talk about “brain death”? Yet, we do not consider it “murder” or even “manslaughter” to “pull the plug” or harvest the organs of someone who is definitively brain dead – even if the rest of the body is still alive. Why is that do you think? Obviously, because there is no “false dichotomy” here even though Scripture doesn’t specifically address such a situation. The same could very reasonable be true of the human embryo as well. There simply is no definitive Scripture otherwise as far as I can tell.

As far as the LXX, Masoretic, and DSS all “agreeing”, with you I presume, regarding Exodus 21:22-25, well, I just don’t see it that way – and neither do many others, to include many well known historians and Christian leaders and thinkers. There has been a widespread and nuanced theological debate about the beginning of life in the history of Christianity. The idea that personhood begins at the moment of conception is far from a universally agreed upon matter of historical Christian doctrine. When viewed in the long history of the Christian tradition, it is the minority position. In any case, Exodus 21:22-25 does read differently in the LXX and none of the translations seem to definitively support your position. Ancient Jewish scholars certainly didn’t take your perspective. Since the death of a person would be murder or manslaughter, and carry a different penalty, most rabbinic sources deduce from these verses that a fetus has a different status. The Babylonian Talmud states that: “The embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” So, I’m afraid that the “weight of evidence” is not clearly on your side here – at least not as best as I am able to tell. Certainly nothing in the New Testament definitively clears up this question in your favor.

The other names your mention present no more convincing arguments than you present – as far as I can tell. They may be less abrasive in their approach (certainly Nic is a very kind and tenderhearted man), but the basic arguments used are very similar to those forwarded by Andrew – just not convincing to me despite my honest efforts to carefully consider them as best as I am able.

Now, it is interesting to me that you actually argue that my position on abortion, “my own definition”, is clear enough to indict those who have committed late-term abortions of murder. If so, I fail to understand your argument that I’ve said and done “nothing” here to make my position clear to the church. The leadership of the SDA Church is well aware of my position.

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew’s response (Link):
____________

Please notice that by Dr. Pitman’s own argument his very own Adventist Church supports the murder of the unborn (see @25:01) yet notice in his response that he completely ignores this. The Adventist Church, to which Pitman belongs, supports the violent torture and murder of boys and girls in utero yet Pitman spends his time criticizing……Prolife Andrew. To use an analogy, if you belonged to a church that supports rape or slavery why would you then complain about another church member who opposes this? Pitman complains that Andrew is “needlessly abrasive in his tone” but, to further the analogy, at least Andrew doesn’t support rape or slavery! Apparently, an abrasive tone is worth more criticism than supporting or practicing murder. My video is vindicated.

A few additional points:

1.
Pitman does everyone a favor by openly proving the point. He says “Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” RESPONSE: As was explicitly stated in the video @15:29 onwards it was stated “government to make illegal the manufacture sale and use of chemicals that are used to kill or do kill other human beings Dr Pitman however completely ignores this.” And how does Pitman respond? By doing exactly that, ignoring this fact. Andrew’s opinion is irrelevant to the premise of the argument which Pitman ignores: The government can protect the right to life. It can charge people with crimes for destroying an innocent life. The degree of the crime and one’s culpability is determined by the government, not by Andrew. Pitman, again, just ignores the argument. (See also the video @56:29 onwards).

2.
In his response under the video Pitman says “It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face.” This is another falsehood because Pitman is confusing (1) birth control pills that prevent implantation with (2) injecting poison into supermarket foods. The big difference between the two is knowledge. In the former most women have no idea how contraceptives work. The vast majority of women who take contraceptives do so ignorant of how they work while, in Pitman’s example, injecting poison relies upon knowledge. Most women do not know how contraceptives work and if they did know it would change their behavior. For example, in 2010 a journal for obstetrics and gynecology reported that 45% of the women said that they would not consider using a birth control method that had post-fertilization effects, and 48% of women said that if they found out they were using a method that had post-fertilization effects, they would stop using that method. Lopez-del Burgo C, Lopez-de Fez CM, Osorio A, Guzmán JL, de Irala J. Spanish women’s attitudes towards post-fertilization effects of birth control methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Jul;151(1):56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.03.012. Epub 2010 Apr 13. PMID: 20392555. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20392555/

3.
Pitman says “despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails.” RESPONSE: This is both false and absurd as Gabriel is describing a physical situation wherein the nature of the unborn is defined with the exact same Greek words for born sons. Pitman assumes a false dichotomy between “moral value” of the unborn and its nature but he is unable to provide any scriptural evidence for such a dichotomy.

4.
Pitman says “Taken together, all of the translations of this passage [Exodus 21:22-23] leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.” This is false because as was explicitly stated in the video, the Masoretic, LXX, and DSS all agree. The weight of the evidence is against Pitman here. And as was noted above, Pitman is here assuming a dichotomy for which he has no evidence. Furthermore, as was noted explicitly in the video @49:13, Pitman is committing a category error by comparing unintentional vs. intentional. Despite this being addressed explicitly Pitman ignores this as well. (This is the same Pitman @54:16 who criticizes others for rejecting the weight of evidence).

5.
Arguably, one of the biggest falsehoods is when Pitman complains that Prolife Andrew is “often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful.” This is false because Prolife Andrew’s videos began in 2017. There have been many prolife voices within Adventism especially since the late 1980s and early 1990s. Pitman complains about Andrew’s tone but doesn’t make such accusations against those who for decades preceded Andrew because he can’t. Nic Samojluk, Doug Yowell, Teresa Beem, Dr. Martin Weber, George Gainer, George Lawson, Dr. Richard Fredericks, etc. were all well known and continue to be outspoken about the Adventist Church’s support for murder. As was mentioned in the video @34:50 Pitman also ignores the arguments of Drs. Robert George and Christopher Tollefson who are some of the most highly respected, articulate voices concerning the ethics of (embryonic) abortion. For these people Pitman can’t make accusations of “abrasive tone” so he simply continues his trend of just ignoring them. This tactic was explicitly noted @58:56 and Pitman just again vindicates the accuracy of the video.

Pitman belongs to a church that has, by his own definition, officially and publicly supported the violent murder of helpless, little children for over fifty years.

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew Michell (AKA: ProLife Andrew) has put out a lengthy video in response to my article on abortion.

His YouTube Channel can be found here: Link
And his Facebook page here: Link
And his page on X here: Link

While I commend Andrew’s passion to protect the lives of the unborn, I find his argument that full human life begins at the moment of conception unconvicting – at least inconclusive. I mean, if the full moral value of human life truly begins at the moment of conception, as Andrew, the Catholic Church, and many Protestants believe, then all women who use various forms of birth control that block embryologic development (after fertilization) are forms of premeditated murder (to include IUDs and various birth control medications).

• Progestin-only pills (mini-pill): These pills thicken cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg, and thin the lining of the uterus, making it less hospitable for implantation.
• Combined oral contraceptives (the pill), patch, vaginal ring, and injections: These methods prevent ovulation, meaning no egg is released for fertilization, and also thicken cervical mucus and thin the uterine lining.
• Contraceptive implant (Nexplanon): This small rod inserted under the skin releases progestin, reducing pregnancy by reducing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and thinning the uterine lining reducing implantation.
• Hormonal IUD: These IUDs release progestin, which changes the cervix and uterus to prevent sperm from reaching an egg and also makes it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant.
• Copper IUD: This IUD uses copper to prevent pregnancy by creating an environment that is unfavorable for sperm and fertilization, and also disrupts the lining of the uterus, making implantation less likely.
• Emergency contraception: Some emergency contraceptive pills, like Plan B, can prevent implantation if taken soon after unprotected sex.

So, are women who use such birth control methods truly guilty of murder? – as Andrew’s position would indicate?

While it is true that the genetics of a person are set at conception, what about the moral worth of a person? You see, science cannot address this question. So, where can one turn to find out the answer? Well, as Christians, the Bible should be our first and primary source to search for answers to moral questions. And, I applaud Andrew for trying to do this. In support of the concept that full human life begins at the moment of conception Andrew cites various Biblical passages. Here are examples of Bible passages that Andrew finds most convincing in this regard:

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” – Psalms 51:5

“Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” – Luke 1:36-37

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” – Psalms 139:13

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” – Jeremiah 1:5

For Andrew, these and other similar passages are conclusive evidence of the full value of humanity starting at the moment of conception. However, many honest Christians just don’t see it this way. Andrew cannot understand how anyone could honestly disagree with him after hearing out his arguments, but I for one am honestly not convinced. And, it’s not because I don’t want to know the truth as God wishes me to know it. It’s because I don’t see anywhere in these passages that Andrew cites where God makes the idea clear that the full value of humanity begins at the moment of conception.

Add to this the passage in Exodus 21:22-25 (discussed in some detail in my article above) that seems to support the conclusion that there is a spectrum as to the moral value of human life during embryological/fetal development. Certainly the writers of the LXX (3rd to 1st century B.C.) supported this conclusion hundred years before the Masoretic Text was written (7th to 10th centuries A.D.). And, while it is true that the Samaritan Pentateuch overlapped the production of the LXX, it is not true that the language of the Samaritan Pentateuch, regarding this passage in Exodus, is definitively unambiguous – certainly not unambiguous enough to discount the LXX translation of this passage. Taken together, all of the translations of this passage leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.

But what about the passages that Andrew cites? Don’t these passages clearly demonstrate God’s Design of the embryo from the very moment of conception? And, if so, is anyone at liberty to destroy or even hinder what God is forming? Well, look at the passage from Jeremiah 1:5 where God explains that he knew of the future existence of Jeremiah before he was even conceived. This passage simply speaks to the foreknowledge of God rather than to the moral value of a human embryo or a single fertilized cell. It really doesn’t answer the question as to if a deliberate ending of an an early pregnancy, such as after a few days of fertilization, is truly considered “murder” in the site of God. Also, despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the Angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails. But what about David claiming that he was “sinful from the moment of conception”? Well, it’s hard for me to definitively argue that this is clearly more than poetic license. After all, Jesus Himself noted that unless a person consciously knows the truth, and deliberately choses to do otherwise, there is no sin (John 9:41; John 15:22; James 4:17). How then can a single cell, or a small cluster of cells that is unable to think or act, be guilty of sin? – beyond the fact that we are conceived and born in a state of moral separation from God? Again, I fail to see such arguments as conclusive support for Andrew’s position that women who use the various forms of birth control described above are guilty of murder. Not even the founders of the SDA Church said anything about full humanity being instantly realized at the moment of conception. Yes, they were opposed to abortion (Link). However, modern birth control methods had yet to be invented. Would they really be opposed to such birth control methods? We cannot know, for sure, but I doubt it. Certainly there is no clear or definitive guidance regarding this particular question from the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, or the Founders of the SDA Church.

And, that’s my main concern here. At what point would I be willing to accuse a woman of being a murderer? – worthy of arrest and execution for deliberately taking the life of another human being? I just do not see the clear Biblical support, or support from any other inspired authority, for making such a charge when it comes to a single cell or a tiny ball-shaped cluster of cells. Sure, once the body of the baby is formed, and certainly once the brain of the baby is functional, things become much more clear in my own mind regarding the moral value of the baby as a full human being with all of the moral God-given rights thereof. It’s just that I honestly see no solid basis for accusing a woman of murder for blocking or terminating a pregnancy very early on following conception when the pregnancy consists only of a single cell or a small cluster of cells.

What is also most interesting is that, in his review of my article, Andrew gets a bit upset with me saying that I’m the one using “inflammatory language” such as “first-degree cold-blooded murder”. Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” (57:00) for women who use birth control that prevents embryonic implantation or who otherwise deliberately abort their babies. I’m actually really surprised by this particular argument since, if one truly views a full human life as beginning at the moment of conception, how can one argue that the deliberate termination of such a life is anything other than a deliberate pre-meditated murder? I mean, it’s almost as if Andrew doesn’t really believe what he’s saying regarding the full value of human life beginning at conception. He does discuss birth control pills or IUDs (starting around the 17-minute mark) that block the implantation of the embryo, thus aborting it, but claims that the mother’s lack of knowledge as to exactly when this happens means that she isn’t really guilty of premeditated murder. Really? It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face. And, contrary to Andrew’s claims, this has nothing at all to do with the government proving or doing anything. It has nothing to do with human governments at all. It has to do with the morality of a woman deliberately doing something that she knows will likely end pregnancy shortly after conception. If this act really is the taking of full human life, it is premeditated murder before God. There’s just no other term to use if full human life really does begin at the moment of conception.

Another relevant issue involves the use of IUDs and birth control pills to regulate hormonal issues that many women suffer. Andrew suggests that condom use would overcome such issues. However, even if condoms are always and correctly used with every act of intercourse, they have around a 3% failure rate (Link, Link) with some studies showing a failure rate of condoms of up to 16% per year (Link). In other words, even if a condom is being used by the husband every single time he has sex with his wife, at best there is still around a 3% chance of impregnating his wife within a given year. If she is also on hormonal birth control, that means that there is a ~3% chance of killing a real human being if full human life truly begins at conception. How is this a viable solution given the reality of Andrew’s position? Basically, what married couples would be left with is the Catholic concept of not having vaginal sex unless they are actually trying to get pregnant. Just because not every such effort would be successful, as Andrew points out in his video, is completely irrelevant to the required motive that would be necessary before couples could engage in sex without guilt – without the possibility of committing murder. In other worlds, no sexually active woman could ever take advantage of the benefits of hormonal birth control without the guilt of murder on her conscience – even if her husband always uses a condom (which is also less fun by the way).

Andrew also claims that I have done “nothing” to combat abortion, not even late-term abortion (i.e., an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week) – despite the fact that I’ve written this particular article calling late term abortion murder in no uncertain terms – and having directly prevented such an abortion when it was in my power to do so as a medical officer in the US Army (something that not even Andrew has been able to do). In fact, several church leaders have contacted me due to their favorable impression of my article on abortion, including religious liberty lawyers. Portions have even been included in religious liberty literature regarding this topic. The religious liberty lawyer for northern and central California conferences, Stephen Allred, included much of my article in the appendix of his book, “Do Justice: The Case for Biblical Social Justice” (Link). And no, he is no relation to the notorious abortion doctor Edward C. Allred, who outright murdered a great many late-term babies.

I guess Andrew feels that this doesn’t go nearly far enough. It’s just that I honestly don’t see his position as entirely accurate or conclusive or his approach to this topic as being more positive than negative. For me, Andrew’s position is without clear Biblical support regarding the claim that full humanity begins at conception and is inconsistent, as noted above, in that he argues for a lesser charge than “murder” for women who deliberately abort very early in pregnancy. He is often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful – at least not for me personally. It ends up harming the positive impact that one could have on an important topic, which is probably the reason that Andrew is largely ignored by the leadership of the SDA Church. Now, I understand that he believes that this issue is clearly black and white, to the point that no one his his/her right mind could honestly question his position. Perhaps, however, there are a few, like me, who just don’t have the same mental capacity to grasp what Andrew sees so clearly?

Now, I do appreciate the seriousness and righteousness of Andrew’s effort to save lives. While I may disagree with or fail to understand his arguments or his methods/approach, I do see his motives as being very good indeed! I have no problem with his sincerity or his passion to save lives. The attempt to save lives is a noble effort. However, the process, the method used, is also important. I mean, consider that Jesus, who was trying to save souls as well as lives, was much more patient and tactful in his approach – a pattern that would serve us all well to emulate as we deal with others who don’t see things in quite the same way. Yes, I know that Jesus did rarely call out exceptional cases with very harsh language. However, generally speaking, such methods should be avoided if at all possible – especially when dealing with fellow Christians who are sincere and who are actually trying to learn and to do what it right.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
God gave rational empirical “scientific” evidence to believe Noah’s message.

Many of the amazing discoveries of medical science in our day, to include the gift of vaccines and an understanding as to how the human immune system actually works, are not opposed to the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White did not opposed the use of vaccines). They are amazing gifts from God that should not be ignored or disregarded.

In this same line, Barbara O’Neill has made numerous false and misleading claims regarding various medical therapies – particularly regarding the treatment of serious conditions like cancer. She does get some things right, but the things she gets wrong significantly overshadow the things she gets right and have significant hurt people. For example, she wraps people who have cancer (which she falsely claims is caused by fungal infections, promoted by antiobiotics and other pharmaceuticals – Link) in towels soaked in baking soda as a means to treat their cancers when such treatments do not help cancer patients in the least. (Link). Yet, she she makes a lot of money peddling these and other such worthless “therapies” to the gullible. She speaks with great confidence and assurance about things that she doesn’t remotely understand since she has no medical training. It’s not the GC or Church leadership or physicians like me making money off of “Big Pharma”. Rather, it’s the snake-oil salesmen like Peter McCullough and Barbara O’Neill, and others like them, who are making quite a lot of money selling their worthless natural remedies and conspiracy theories to their worldwide audiences. Consider that her Misty Mountain Health Retreat near Kempsey charged clients as much as $2,450 per person for a one-week stay and $8,800 for two people for two weeks. She also sells numerous books and travels around giving paid conferences and seminars. Let’s just say that she makes a very good living doing what she does (Link).

It’s not like I’m opposed to natural remedies that actually work, of course. I’m just opposed to those who promote “natural remedies” just because they’re supposedly “natural” when they don’t actually do what they’re claimed to do by those who have no understanding of medical science who make money selling their “remedies” to the gullible and the desperate. If you want to see some natural remedies promoted by someone who actually does known what he’s talking about, look up the YouTube videos put out by the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
While recommending the vaccines, the vaccine statements clearly left the decision to vaccinate, or not, to the individual. They had nothing to do with government funding (yet another conspiracy theory). These statements were issued in an honest effort to save lives, not to make money. The “medical minds” at the BoT Symposium generally support anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists like Peter McCullough who are known for promoting misleading or downright false claims regarding the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
Pastor E.L. has also written (FB Post) an excellent explanation in defense of the affirmation statement and our denomination’s position on vaccines.

“The assumedly troublesome wording commonly highlighted concerning this issue is a misreading of intent in context, without trying to understand the sense in which it can be understood as harmonious with the rest of the statement which strongly affirms individual conscience. A charitable reading first attempts to understand what someone says in a sense that is harmonious, rather than immediately assuming they intend to contradict themselves.

The trajectory of the context in the Reaffirmation Statement suggests that when it asserts, “Claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities,” this is likely because the church has not established a doctrinal position on vaccines that would require uniform adherence among its members. If it had, such a stance would then necessitate the church to defend it as a matter of religious liberty.

The issue of vaccination is multifaceted, and adopting a definitive for or against position within church doctrine would infringe on the rights of those who hold opposing views. Instead, the document consistently emphasizes that this is a matter of individual conscience and underscores the church’s support for such personal discernment. Accordingly, it states: “We recognize that at times our members will have personal concerns and even conscientious convictions that go beyond the teachings and positions of the Church. In these cases, the Church’s religious liberty leaders will do what they can to provide support and counsel on a personal basis, not as a Church position, even at times assisting members in writing their own personal accommodation requests to employers and others.”

In essence, while the church has not elevated this issue to a doctrinal level requiring institutional defense, it remains committed to supporting individual religious convictions to the greatest extent possible. Personal convictions are respected and defended, even though the church as a whole has not taken—and could not reasonably be expected to take—a uniform doctrinal position on the matter.

To draw an analogy, Seventh-day Adventists could not argue that wearing head coverings in the workplace is a religious liberty issue because it is not a doctrinal requirement within the SDA faith, even though it is mentioned in the Bible. Instead, they could only frame it as a matter of personal conviction if they interpret the biblical instruction as still applicable today. While individual SDAs who support head coverings may personally view it as a religious liberty concern, the distinction lies in the fact that religious liberty claims are typically based on doctrines that a religion universally requires of all its adherents.

In contrast, Muslims can assert that head coverings are a doctrinal religious liberty matter because it is a doctrinally mandated practice within Islam. This highlights the difference between personal convictions and doctrines that are formally upheld by a religious institution when speaking of “religious liberty.”

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
Pastor Wyatt Allen (one of the founders of the Liberty & Health Alliance) wrote in a FB Comment:

Two things your article lacks are compassion and understanding. The first would lead to the second. Should I have more time tomorrow, I’ll try to be more specific and why I make this claim. Though anybody reading it would see the lack of compassion. I think the lack of understanding essentially boils down to misrepresenting what we’re saying. COVID and the mandates might be passed. But unless we learn from our mistakes during this time (do you say the church made no mistakes?) we will be unprepared to help in the next crisis. And when we are unprepared to help in a meaningful way, it really does hurt people. Actual people. As a minister of the gospel, I have seen the tears, I have heard the pleas, I have witnessed the freedom being ripped away. We can theorize and write articles all day long about Liberty. But until we actually stand up for it, all that comes across is coldness.

My response:

You seem to suggest that I’m opposed to religious liberty and that I don’t care for those who suffered. How can you know this? I mean, I am a strong supporter of religious liberty and have experienced personal serious attacks on my own religious convictions. While in the army I was brought up for court martial twice for refusing orders to work on Sabbath in ways that I thought were opposed to God’s commands regarding the Sabbath. I was threatened with jail time, the loss of my career, and financial damages. So, you see, I’m very much aware of how it feels to be personally threated for my own religious convictions. I also understand why someone who is opposed to vaccines would blame the Church for a lack of support during the vaccine mandates.

It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that I think that such efforts to blame the Church and the Vaccine Statements are misdirected since these Vaccine Statements repeatedly and specifically support individual choice in this matter. Recommendations regarding medical interventions, like vaccines, do not undermine personal religious liberties or the Church’s support for such liberties. The claims of the Liberty & Health Alliance to the contrary simply do not make sense to me. Even if the Church had no vaccine statements at all, I fail to see how this would have helped anyone during the vaccine mandates.

________

Additional responses to other comments from Wyatt on FB:

Wyatt Allen: You’re also asking Charles Downing (not sure of his medical background) to explain to me that the “so-called vaccines” have too many adverse reactions. You see, right there you’re showing your hand. The reason why you’re so passionate against the Vaccine Statements of the Church is because you truly believe them to be harmful and evil. While I sympathize with why you feel this way, consider that I feel the very same way for the opposite reasons. I saw ICUs filled with the very sick and the dying during the pandemic, the significant majority of whom were the unvaccinated. Several of my own workers who refused to get vaccinated ended up in the ICU and two suffered permanent injuries so severe that they can no longer work full time. Many more from my own church and community ended up in the ICU for the same reason. More than a dozen of my own family friends died because they didn’t get vaccinated. My brother-in-law, the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult saw many many more die while holding their hands in his ICU in S. Cal – even some who were young and vegan and otherwise healthy. So, yes, we are both very passionate about this topic. It’s one of the reasons why I try to force myself to be as objective as possible when I talk about this topic.

The reason why I disagree with you and Charles here is because I think you have a misunderstanding of the risk/benefit ratio for the mRNA vaccines and vaccines in general. You don’t understand the nature of VAERS (which is maintained by the NIH and the CDC by the way) since you don’t seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. The VAERS database is used to sort out this difference. The claim of Charles that the spike protein produced in response to the mRNA vaccines sends the human immune system into “overdrive” and “taxes” and “weakens” it is false. This isn’t how the human immune system works. The spike proteins are broken down into small pieces called “antigens”, which are then presented to T- and B-cells so as to educate them to know what to attack in the future. This process happens every day and does not tax or weaken the immune system in the least. I mean, consider that a C19 infection would produce far far more spike proteins throughout the entire body for a much longer period of time. The mRNA vaccines, in comparison, are self-limited and are largely localized. Charles’ claim that the vaccines have produced a 40% spike in cancer rates and “turbo cancers” is also a false claim based on the claims of conspiracy theorists. I’m an anatomic and clinical pathologist with a subspecialty in blood disorders. I diagnose cancers every day. That’s what I do. I can tell you that there has been no increase in cancers associated with the mRNA vaccines. Beyond this, there is no mechanism by which the mRNA vaccines could produce such a spike in cancer rates. As far as Charles’ claim that the vaccines were not “thoroughly studied”, this is also a false statement. The mRNA vaccines went through all of the standard steps for vaccine testing and approval – to include double-blinded placebo-controlled animal and human trials with great success. There were no increased deaths, much less “25 deaths”, and the “adverse reactions” were minor and not beyond the expected rate in the 70,000 human volunteers. Also, the mRNA technology itself is not new, but has been studied now for over 30 years. It’s just that all of the necessary technological information came together at just the right time for the mRNA vaccines to make it to the general public soon after the pandemic hit. That’s just the nature and usefulness of the mRNA technology which Charles doesn’t seem to understand.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories

_____________

Wyatt Allen: I’m not sure what important question(s) of yours I failed to answer? Please do point these out to me again so that I won’t inadvertently skip over something that is important to you.

Regarding your current question, of course I make mistakes all the time. In my job as a pathologist I try to be extremely careful to limit my mistakes, but mistakes do happen since we are all human and subject to error. I often wish I had a “redo” button available to me so that I could go back in time and fix some of my mistakes.

I know that you believe that your argument (regarding all vaccines I think) is based on the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy – and I respect that even though I don’t agree with you here. However, you are promoting your anti-vaccine position since you have presented numerous arguments against vaccines. I think these arguments are based on mistaken concepts and ideas, but, again, this is the reason for personal and religious liberty as long as these liberties don’t interfere with those of another.

I also understand that you want to plead for those who cannot effectively plead for themselves. I’m trying to do the same thing. I think that the misinformation presented by you and many others (particularly those like Dr. Peter McCulough) have caused untold injuries and deaths to many who would have been saved by being vaccinated. I also have no doubt there were those who misused the Vaccine Statements of the Church regarding mandates. While this shouldn’t have happened, again, I fail to understand how this is the fault of the Church? The Church has published many statements that have been misused. The same is true of many of the statements and claims found in the Bible itself. Is this the fault of the Bible? Should the Bible be rewritten because some of its language is confusing and difficult to properly understand by the many who have misinterpreted and misused it?

You keep repeating that the Vaccine Statements “exalt peer-reviewed scientific literature to the level of the Bible” – and that if I don’t see it this way that I should read them again. I’ve read them dozens of times and I still don’t see how you could possibly make this amazing, even shocking, claim. None of the leaders of the SDA Church would ever think to suggest such an idea – verbally or in writing. Certainly, no Christian physician or scientist would promote such a concept either. So, where are you getting this idea? The Vaccine Statements themselves make no such claim – not even close.

_______________

Wyatt Allen: The claim that the Vaccine Statements elevate peer-review literature equal to the Bible simply isn’t true. This claim is particularly shocking to me. I’m not sure how anyone could interpret these statements in this way? These statements are not statements of Fundamental Beliefs or doctrinal statements at all. They are simply general *recommendations*, not decrees or anything like that, regarding advances in medical science. That’s it. They specifically note that they are not to be considered doctrinal or in any way binding regarding the conscience of the individual – that the final decision is and should be with the individual regarding such issues.
Yes, words do matter, but in this case, I fail to see how your claims regarding the Church’s Vaccine Statements are valid or helpful moving forward since I fail to see how these Statements undermine individual religious liberty.

________________

Weston Greenwood: One can do both you know. I also advocate for both. I strongly believe the mRNA vaccines were a miraculous gift from God that saved millions of lives and prevented many many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries. At the same time, I’m also a strong supporter of personal and religious liberty – particularly for those who disagree with me. In the same way, the Vaccine Statements promote the benefits of vaccination while, at the same time, noting that one is perfectly free to disagree – and that this decision should take precedence.

________________

Weston Greenwood: The Church did bring this to a vote via the delegates at the last GC Session. It’s just that this vote went against you.

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action

Again, if an employer bases his/her decision to mandate vaccination on the Church’s Vaccine Statements, then that employer is misusing these statements – which isn’t the fault of the Church.

And yes, just because the Church does not stand in the way of someone who wants to get vaccinated, and even encourages this, doesn’t mean that it, therefore, stands in the way of someone who doesn’t want to get vaccinated. Claiming otherwise makes no sense to me.

________________

Wyatt Allen: You’re essentially saying that, “Any outsider who reads the ADCOM statement will see it as binding”.

If someone does read it that way, they aren’t reading it correctly because that’s not what it says. It says that while the SDA Church, as an organization, is not inherently opposed to vaccines and recognizes their usefulness, it remains with the individual and individual conscience as to the final decision to get or not to get vaccinated – that it is not an issue of morality, is not a matter of salvation, and is therefore not doctrinal. That’s what it says. Those who read it otherwise for the purposes of enforcing mandates based on such Statements are clearly misusing them. And, obviously, such misuses are not the fault of the Church.

Also, contrary to your claim, the Church has not elevated peer-reviewed literature published in scientific journals to the level of Scripture. That’s a completely false and completely unfair claim – particularly directed at medical professionals like me who recognize the usefulness of vaccines while, at the same time, recognizing the final authority of the Bible in all questions of faith. It’s just that I don’t see where the Bible speaks against vaccines anywhere in its pages. The same is true for the Spirit of Prophecy.

---

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
I think that there can be a reasonable combination of the best of modern medicine as well as the best of healthful living and natural remedies such as exercise, sunlight, vitamin D, “forest bathing”, good sleep, vegan or at least a vegetarian diet, etc…

---