Action is required, not just words. At the same time we …

Comment on GYC Q&A addresses universities who hire and protect evolutionists by Bob Pickle.

Action is required, not just words.

At the same time we can praise the Lord that the General Conference is not a papacy which asserts control over every entity in the church. We don’t want that and can’t have that. The fewer you have in control the more easily, it seems, that Satan can get the whole movement off track by deceiving just those few.

Still, there is much that the brethren above can do even if they have limited control.

I seem to recall that when Uriah Smith allowed an article to be published in the Review about the law in Galatians being the ceremonial law, long after 1888, and thus resurrecting an old, dead controversy, leaders were in an uproar and threatened to cut ties with the Review. I seem to remember that particular threatening coming from Iowa. Can you imagine that kind of reaction today?

It used to be that our tithe-paid ministers were primarily evangelists. Evangelists tend to develop certain traits. They tell it like it is. They confront issues. They call people to decision, now. Otherwise, they don’t have results.

So how would a leader molded by years of front-line, pioneering evangelistic work deal with the current crisis?

But we’ve departed from using our ministers primarily in this way, a departure Ellen White counseled against. Nowadays our tithe-paid ministers serve sort of as head elders of our churches. And in doing this they have to quite naturally operate a bit differently. They have to keep people working together, not clawing at one another.

Of course, evangelists need to do that too among the church members aiding the effort, but the proportion of time spent on keeping people happy would be much less than a minister assigned to pastor a church in the way that elders used to do.

So, I think that today, because of the shift in the way we use our tithe-paid ministers, we have a greater tendency to develop leaders who are more tempted to be politicians than in the olden days. And succumbing to such temptations is not what we need at a time like this.

Bob Pickle Also Commented

GYC Q&A addresses universities who hire and protect evolutionists

JohnB: Was Larry Garaty the president of AUC as well, or was that another Garaty?

That was the same Larry Geraty.


GYC Q&A addresses universities who hire and protect evolutionists

David Read: So Mark Finley and Cliff Goldstein can fantasize all they want to about these people having intellectual integrity, and resigning, but it is not going to happen.

Good point, David. However, dealing with the problem does require words as well as actions. And such rhetoric is extremely helpful in getting people’s attention and letting them know that the teachers involved lack intellectual integrity.

David Read: It took years of maneuvering and conspiring, under the guiding hand of Larry Geraty, to accomplish this, and you can be certain that they won’t just walk away.

Perhaps Larry Geraty could respond to your statement. I heard years ago from a denominational worker either that Larry did not believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis had actually happened, or that Larry believed that life had been on earth for millions of years, or both. There were two statements made by two different church workers at two different times, and one named Geraty and the other referred to a college president, as I recall it.

I wondered afterwards if that really was true why Larry was president of one of our colleges. His involvement with Spectrum certainly did nothing to dispel the possibility.

So it would be really helpful if Larry Geraty could come on here and make it crystal clear that he does believe that God created the world in 6 days about 6000 years ago, just like the Bible says, and that he does believe that God destroyed the world by a worldwide flood about 4350 years ago, just like the Bible says. And that he did not knowingly put professors in the LSU science department who he knew to be infidels.


GYC Q&A addresses universities who hire and protect evolutionists
I posted the above after reading the above comments and before watching the video. Interesting how the evangelist Mark Finley had an easier time coming down firm than maybe some of the others regarding evolution.

I think that students who are taught evolution as fact in an Adventist school could and perhaps should seek a refund. Doing so would get attention.


Recent Comments by Bob Pickle

Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
“While the procedures were sloppy in this particular company, they do not appear to have significantly affected the overall integrity of the data.”

How do we know? a) How do we know that no other contractors were as sloppy? b) How do we know that “the overall integrity of the data” wasn’t “significantly affected”?

“Another reason I say this is because billions of people around the globe have now been fully vaccinated, giving researchers plenty of real-world data that clearly shows the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.”

Then why use randomized double-blinded trials at all if safety and efficacy can be clearly shown by just doling the real thing out to everyone?

Understand my question? The “real-world data” isn’t coming from something that is randomized and double blinded, and thus can never speak to the question of safety and efficacy like a randomized double-blinded trial can.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Sean, this article from the BMJ, authored by a double-vaccinated writer, is of interest: “Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial” at https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

The whistleblower was a clinical trial auditor, with a 20-year career in research. Her concerns about the conducting of the Pfizer trials weren’t addressed, the article states. It explains how the FDA doesn’t handle oversight issues in a timely manner, and gives examples. And all that calls into question the integrity of the Pfizer clinical trial data.

I found “How Fauci Fooled America” at https://www.newsweek.com/how-fauci-fooled-america-opinion-1643839 by professors from Harvard and Stanford also of interest. The observations made good sense.

I’m glad you aren’t in favor of vaccine mandates.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Since you did not respond to my principal concern, I think it fairly reasonable to conclude that Jack Lawrence’s statement about the effect of withdrawing the Egyptian study from meta-analyses is at best of questionable accuracy, and at worst a prevarication, since you are unable to show how the withdrawal of that Egyptian study significantly impacts the particular meta-analysis I provided a link to.

And thus, there may really be a conspiracy out there, even if Ivermectin is not an effective treatment.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Could you explain that? Above you said, “I have taken a look. And, I find no reason to conclude that this is not the case – as have numerous scientists who have also reviewed this study.” That can only mean that you already know what part of the study I’m overlooking. Why would you want to keep that a secret?

“… this isn’t something that interests me ….”

Certainly that can’t mean that you have no interest in making sure your links only go to credible sources.

The two links you gave to show that it doesn’t matter whether Jack Lawrence’s story is on the up and up or not:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 is only about mild illness, and even admits “larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.” Thus, this study doesn’t refute the entire meta-analysis I linked to, even if this study’s results are reproducible.

https://rethinkingclinicaltrials.org/news/august-6-2021-early-treatment-of-covid-19-with-repurposed-therapies-the-together-adaptive-platform-trial-edward-mills-phd-frcp/ contains no data regarding Ivermectin. But I did find a news article claiming that the results about Ivermectin have not been published or peer reviewed yet.

Any explanation as to why double-blinded RCT’s in Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, presumably Iraq, and Spain would yield different results than the one from Columbia that you linked to? Each of those are listed in the meta-analysis regarding mild illness. (I said presumably Iraq because the meta-analysis called it an RCT, but didn’t include the words double-blinded.)

Perhaps part of the issue is what the Ivermectin was combined with. Comparing Ivermectin with Ivermectin + something else does not prove that Ivermectin isn’t helpful if one of those regimens is less effective than the other.

The news article about the Together Trial decried conspiracy theories. I think a good way to refute conspiracy theories is to show that there aren’t any, by proving that Jack Lawrence is legit. Otherwise, if he’s only a pseudonym, or employed or paid by a drug company, that’s not going to help squelch conspiracy theories.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Sean, could you please address my question? I didn’t see where you answered it above.

The quote from Jack’s article at https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/ :

“After excluding the data from the Elgazzar study, he found that the effect for ivermectin drops significantly with no discernible effect on severe disease.”

Is that really true?

Here’s a meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

How does removing the Elgazzar study from this particular meta-analysis change the conclusion? I’ve looked at the various tables, and I just don’t get how Jack could make that statement, or how the person he’s citing could have made that conclusion.

If you think I’m misreading the meta-analysis, please cite or quote the relevant text or table, and explain what I’m overlooking.

I’m not looking for “I don’t see a problem.” I’m looking for, “Look at table X. If you remove the Elgazzar study from that table, the end result is that patients with Y disease receive no benefit at all.”

Above, you cited additional studies rather than addressing the truthfulness of Jack Lawrence’s statement as it pertains to removing the Elgazzar study from the meta-analysis I provided a link to. Those are two different issues.

Whether Jack Lawrence’s key contention is correct or not is essentially irrelevant to my question about his credibility. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t like the idea of taking Ivermectin, but whether one should take it or not is not my concern here.

If a masters student in London, whose hobby is to attack a conservative American Youtuber and who just happens to notice plagiarism in the intro of an Egyptian medical study, is so careless or ignorant as to not see that a claim about a meta-analysis is bogus, then something is dread wrong, and we aren’t being told what is really going on.

Why do I say that? Because the presumed level of astuteness that would lead to the detection of plagiarism would prevent the repeating of a bogus claim about a meta-analysis.

Perhaps the problem is that the meta-analysis I provided the link to wasn’t the same one reanalyzed by the person Lawrence cited. Still, due diligence would require that Lawrence make sure that the claim he’s repeating about meta-analyses is actually sound in the light of other meta-analyses, such as the one I linked to on the NIH website from April 2021.