This past Friday (2/21/25), Dr. Ben Carson, one of the most recognizable members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was interviewed, along with Pastor Ron Kelley, by Dr. Lela Lewis from the Liberty and Health Alliance in an effort to add pressure to the leadership of the SDA Church to remove and apologize for the two Vaccine Statements put out by the General Conference (April 15, 2015 & October 25, 2021) – in addition to their appeal for signatures to support this cause listed on their website: “Appeal for Action, Unity and Healing Among Seventh-day Adventists” (just over 9000 have signed so far).

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Carson’s Arguments:

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin:

Dr. Carson starts off by claiming that mRNA vaccines should not have been authorized by the FDA (via “emergency use”) since other viable options to effectively combat COVID-19 infections were already known – such as the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the antiparasite drug ivermectin.

Hydroxychloroquine and West Africa:

“Look at a place like the western coast of Africa where they had 94% less occurrence of COVID than the rest of the world and you have to ask yourself why is that? That’s because they take antimalarials like hydroxychloroquine. But there was no curiosity. Why are they not getting this disease?”

The problem with this claim is that it was investigated. Many of us were hopeful early in the pandemic that HCQ might be helpful as a zine ionophore.  I personally wrote an article early on during the pandemic and pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult put out a video suggesting that HCQ be investigated as a potential treatment for COVID-19 infections (Link). The problem is that after extensive scientific investigations, it was discovered HCQ had no significant benefits against COVID-19 infections and was not related to the reduced symptoms along the west coast of Africa. So, our initial hopes for HCQ didn’t turn out to be supported by the weight of scientific evidence – unfortunately.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, some African countries, including those in Western Africa like Senegal and Cameroon, adopted HCQ as part of their treatment protocols, often influenced by initial reports from other regions (such as a small French study by Didier Raoult – subsequently retracted on 12/17/24 for “major scientific flaws and may have breached ethics regulations”) suggesting potential benefits. Observational claims from countries such as Senegal reported low death rates or reports from Djibouti where the use of HCQ alongside antibiotics suggested a possible correlation with better outcomes. For instance, Senegal continued HCQ use despite WHO warnings, with officials citing “encouraging” results, and Cameroon integrated it into state protocols. However, these claims were not backed by rigorous, peer-reviewed clinical trials specific to Western Africa.

Globally, the scientific consensus shifted against HCQ’s efficacy for COVID-19 because of a good number of large-scale scientific studies. The WHO’s Solidarity Trial and the RECOVERY Trial in the UK, found no significant benefit for hydroxychloroquine in reducing mortality or viral load among hospitalized patients, and some noted potential risks like cardiac arrhythmias. Other good studies found similar non-beneficial results (Spivak, Gilmar Reis). Several other trials that were claimed to show positive results had serious methodological flaws (Link, Link).

And, it’s not as though HCQ has no potential side effects. The Therapeutic Goods Administration or TGA-approved drug information fact sheet describes several undesirable HCQ interactions with other drugs as well as several toxic effects of variable frequency: blurring of vision (common, > 1/100 patients), irreversible retinopathy (uncommon), and cardiomyopathy (rare). Retinal examination is advised every 3-6 months in patients taking HCQ, a hidden cost. Other reported but rare effects are liver toxicity, hypoglycemia in diabetics, reactivation of hepatitis B infection, and arrhythmias (Link).

So, what was it that actually caused the relatively low COVID-19 mortality in West Africa? – if not for the use of HCQ as Dr. Carson claims? Well, there are several factors to consider here such as the existence of a significantly younger average population in this region of the world, prior exposure to related pathogens, and underreporting of illnesses and deaths due to limited health systems in this region.

Ivermectin and Southern India:

“Same thing in Southern India with ivermectin.”

Again, there simply is no good scientific evidence from large-scale, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that specifically demonstrates that ivermectin effectively suppresses COVID-19 – in Eastern India or anywhere else.

In Eastern India, in particular, a notable study was conducted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Patna, Bihar—a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in 2021 (Link). This trial enrolled adult patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and administered ivermectin (12 mg on days 1 and 2) to the intervention group, while the control group received a placebo. The results showed only a marginal benefit in terms of successful hospital discharge (shorter by about one day on average), but no significant differences in other outcomes like symptom resolution, viral clearance, or mortality. The study concluded that ivermectin’s inclusion in treatment regimens “could not be said with certainty” to provide clear benefits, highlighting its limited impact in this context.

Beyond this trial, broader claims about ivermectin’s use in India, including Eastern regions, often stem from observational or anecdotal reports rather than controlled studies. For instance, during India’s second wave in 2021, some states—like Uttar Pradesh, which borders Eastern India—promoted ivermectin as part of prophylaxis and treatment protocols. A retrospective study from Uttar Pradesh suggested a reduction in cases among healthcare workers taking ivermectin prophylactically (odds ratio 0.27), but this was not specific to Eastern India and was not a randomized trial, making it prone to confounding factors like lockdown measures or natural disease trends. Eastern Indian states like Bihar and Odisha also saw ivermectin prescribed widely during the pandemic, often driven by national guidelines from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in April 2021, which listed it as an optional treatment for mild cases. However, these guidelines were later revised in September 2021 to drop ivermectin due to insufficient evidence of efficacy.

On September 26, 2021, The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Task Force on Covid-19 dropped the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from their revised guidelines for the treatment of the infection. This decision was taken after experts found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.

“HCQ may be considered for removal from the guideline, with a recommendation to use with caution only in clinical trial settings (since there is some genuine uncertainty regarding the possible benefit for severe cases and in low dose),” – said the document titled “considerations for exclusion of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine from the clinical guidance for management of adult Covid-19 patients”. (Link)

Globally, systematic reviews and meta-analyses (e.g., Cochrane, 2022) have found no consistent, high-quality evidence supporting ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment or prevention. The Eastern India trial aligns with this, showing no robust suppression effect. Claims of ivermectin’s success in India often circulate in non-scientific narratives, but epidemiological data suggests declines in cases (e.g., post-May 2021) were more likely tied to factors like vaccination rollout, natural immunity, or public health measures rather than ivermectin use.

The VAERS Database:

“The VAERS data on adverse reactions to the vaccine, the amount of complications and death from the covid vaccine, far exceeded anything previously – even with all the other things put together. Were people told that? Of course not.”

Dr. Carson is promoting a common misconception about the VAERS database – a misunderstanding as to the difference between causation and correlation.  The VAERS database was created and is maintained by the CDC and the FDA.  Despite its inherent messy nature, it was and is used to detect adverse reactions to vaccines and other medications and medical interventions that are above the expected background rate.  This means that anything and everything that happens to a person following vaccination can be reported to VAERS and is publically available – regardless of if there was any causal relationship (hence the “messy” and difficult-to-interpret nature of the VAERS database).  Still, VAERS does have its beneficial uses. For example, the VAERS database was used to detect some rare adverse effects causally related to the vaccines – such as post-vaccine Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and myopericarditis in young men following the second dose of the mRNA vaccines (Link). Consider also that GBS and myopericarditis are more common and generally more severe following a COVID-19 infection.

Consider, for example, that the risk of developing GBS after COVID-19 is estimated to be around 1 in 1000 cases while the risk of GBS following mRNA vaccination is 0.69 cases per million doses (Link, Link). The same is true for myopericarditis in young men. Those infected by COVID-19 had a significantly higher rate of severe myopericarditis requiring hospitalization and ending in death compared to the vaccinated (Link). And, one could significantly reduce one’s rate of post-vaccine myopericarditis by extending the time between vaccine doses.

What is important to remember here, contrary to Dr. Carson’s claim, is that the VAERS database did not show an increase in other serious side effects. The vaccinated were not filling up hospitals with the dead and the dying during the pandemic nor have the dire long-term predictions of antivaxxers taken place. Rather, the mRNA vaccines ended up saving millions of lives worldwide (Link). The unvaccinated were far more likely to get seriously ill and die (Link).  There was also no detectable increase in cancer rates or “turbo cancers” as some have claimed (Link). The vaccinated have not experienced an increase in the all-cause death rate compared to the unvaccinated. In fact, during the pandemic, just the opposite was true (Link).

The only way to know whether a vaccine causes a problem is to determine whether the problem occurs more frequently in those who are vaccinated than in those who aren’t. VAERS doesn’t provide that kind of information. But other federal programs, like the Vaccine Safety DataLink (VSD), do. The VSD program evaluates serious side effects in people who are vaccinated and compares them in real time to people who aren’t vaccinated. Most of the claims made in VAERS disappear under closer scrutiny by the VSD. – Labels Matter: VAERS, January 8, 2024 (Dr. Paul Offit)

Here is a relevant discussion about the origin and nature of VAERS by Dr. Paul Allan Offit – an American pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases, vaccines, immunology, and virology:

 

Mutations Weakened the Virus:

“The other thing to keep in mind is the virus mutated. At the first iteration of that virus, it was very virulent, particularly because no one had seen it. No one had immunity to it and it was quite deadly at that point. The alarm that was sounded was appropriate. But, over the course of time, several iterations later, it became much less virulent – to the point where the vaccine was probably more dangerous than the virus.”

The original Alpha and Delta variants were quite virulent – so much so that tens of thousands of Americans were dying every week (not to mention the many many more who were flooding hospitals around the country with severe illness). Next came the Omicron variant, which spread more easily, but seemed to be a bit less virulent.  However, it was still associated with a similar mortality rate (Link).  And the mRNA vaccine was still able to significantly reduce the hospitalization and mortality rates.  The claim that these vaccines were a “greater risk” at this point in time simply isn’t true.  The reality of the situation is that the unvaccinated were still requiring hospital ICU care and were dying at far greater rates compared to the vaccinated.  Dr. Carson didn’t see this because he wasn’t working in an ICU at the time.  My brother-in-law, the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult, saw this firsthand in the large ICU that he oversees in southern California.  I also personally witnessed this firsthand where I live in northern California – as did frontline medical providers all around the world.

“Today… the virus is no worse than the common cold.”

The current weekly death rate from COVID-19 is 736 (Link).  While not great, it is, in fact, less than the death rate attributed to the “common cold” or “flu” virus this season.

“For the week ending on Jan. 25, nearly 1.7% of all deaths nationwide were attributed to the flu, compared to roughly 1.5% being the result of COVID-19, according to CDC data. Rates of influenza hospitalizations are more than three times higher than COVID-19 hospitalizations amid this season’s record wave of flu infections.” (Link)

Yet again, however, the death rates for those who are vaccinated are significantly less than those who are not. Dr. Carson fails to recognize this reality.

Mandates not a part of American Culture:

Dr. Carson goes on to point out that “mandates are not a part of American culture”.

While I might agree that the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, in particular, were counterproductive in their general application during the pandemic, it isn’t true that vaccines aren’t commonly mandated in the United States. Vaccine mandates are, in fact, very common in this country. Most school systems in this country require numerous vaccines.  Various jobs, particularly related to healthcare work, also require numerous vaccines.

Yet Dr. Carson suggests that such vaccine mandates could give rise to religious mandates – such as requiring one to attend church or what day to attend church.  I’m sorry, but public health mandates, to include such things as speed limits on our roadways, the wearing of seat belts, non-smoking areas, and anything else that might affect the freedoms and liberties of those around us, are what governments are supposed to do – as ordained by God (Romans 13:4).  Governments are all about setting up civil mandates that are actually enforced by civil penalties.  And we, as Christians, are called to obey these government mandates as long as they do not directly counter a command of God Himself.

Vaccines in the Military:

Dr. Carson goes on the praise the Trump Administration for “restoring the positions the pay for the military people who refused to get the vaccine.”

I personally see this as a problem.  When one signs up for the military, one relinquishes numerous personal liberties. Many vaccines have long been required by the military – long before COVID-19.  Why should a soldier be able to pick and choose here?

When I was in the army I received dozens of vaccines – to include five vaccines for anthrax when I was stationed in S. Korea that were of questionable efficacy against weaponized anthrax. Yet, I had no problem with this since there is nothing in the Bible that would remotely suggest that one could refuse vaccines, in the military, for religious liberty reasons.

This is in light of the fact that I was brought up for Court Martial, twice, for refusing to work on Sabbath in ways that I thought went against a direct command of God. The same cannot be said for refusing vaccines – at least not for the vast majority of soldiers. Allowing soldiers to determine such things for themselves, against orders, would end up undermining overall morale and the authority of the chain of command and reduce the fighting ability of our military. I mean, consider that it is far more risky to be ordered into the front lines during combat, as either a combatant or a medic, where a request for “exception” because of the risk involved for “religious” or any other reason would be flatly rejected by the commanding officer – for obvious reasons. Soldiers must be instantly willing to obey commands that put their own personal lives in serious jeopardy for the sake of the cause.

Closing Thoughts:

Dr. Carson has done many great things during his lifetime. His 1990 book, “Gifted Hands”, about growing up the son of a single mother who could not read or write yet found a way to inspire him to appreciate education and excel to the point of becoming a world-renowned neurosurgeon, has inspired millions worldwide – including me. His run for president of the United States also inspired many – particularly minorities. So, it is with deep regret that I feel compelled to write against the misinformation that Dr. Carson is currently promoting regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccines.

While I agree that the vaccine mandates were counterproductive during the pandemic, I cannot understand or support Dr. Carson’s arguments against the mRNA vaccines that arrived at just the right time to save millions of lives – as a miraculous gift of God.  The opposition of a minority of scientists and medical providers, like Carson, is a mystery to me given the significant weight of very good scientific evidence that is currently in hand.  It seems to me that those like Dr. Carson, who see things differently, have been unduly influenced by popular conspiracy theories and other sources of misinformation that have been widely promoted, but lack a rational basis in the weight of good empirical data.

And, it wouldn’t be the first time that Dr. Carson has drifted wide of the mark outside of his area of expertise as a neurosurgeon – such as the time in 1998 when he unfortunately publically claimed that, “Joseph built the pyramids in order to store grain. And all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves” (Link). Then, in the early 2000s, Dr. Carson also, unfortunately, promoted the shady dietary supplement company Mannatech when it was marketing its products as cures for all kinds of serious diseases – including autism, Down Syndrome, cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and even HIV/AIDS. Dr. Carson even suggested that it helped to cure his own prostate cancer noting, “Within about three weeks my symptoms went away, and I was really quite amazed.” (Link, Link, Link).  It all just goes to show that even someone who is absolutely brilliant in one area of medicine or science can go completely off base when outside of their area of expertise.

In any case, it would be a significant step backward for the SDA Church, as an organization, to deny or remain silent regarding the many amazing advances in medical science. These include vaccines against numerous diseases that have long plagued humanity – diseases that are now almost non-existent, thanks to vaccines, to the point that almost no one remembers their severity. I worry that arguments and attitudes similar to Dr. Carson’s will end up taking us backward in the fight against disease.  And, it’s already happening.  Consider, for example, the recent measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico that is disproportionately affecting the unvaccinated to a significant degree. This outbreak is the clear result of reduced vaccination rates following the significant increase in vaccine misinformation that flooded social media and has been promoted by leaders like Dr. Carson since the pandemic – being applied to vaccines in general (Link, Link).

Blue Zone People:

This isn’t a denial of our own unique health message or the promotion of good natural remedies and healful living in general.  After all, Seventh-day Adventists are the longest-lived ethnically diverse “Blue Zone” people in the world because of what God has taught us about healful living.

On average, “Adventist men live 7.3 years longer and Adventist women live 4.4 years longer than other Californians” (Link). Sure, there are other “Blue Zones” of long-lived peoples, but these groups are all genetically related.  SDAs are ethnically diverse and yet are still part of the longest-lived Blue Zone people of the world. Therefore, as a healthcare leader, it is the duty of the medical arm of the Church to provide and promote the best health and medical options and information available at all times. This is particularly important during a pandemic when people are desperately searching for answers.

While healthful living is always the best place to start, there are times when the human body needs something extra, something beyond even healthful living, in this fallen world. The human immune system is not what it was when Adam and Eve were new from the Creator’s hand.

Ellen White lost two sons to infections that would have been easily curable by modern antibiotics. Henry died of pneumonia at the age of 16. John Herbert died at the age of just three months from erysipelas (a bacterial skin infection). She would not have opposed the use of life-saving antibiotics if they had been available in her day. After all, when she was told that missionaries were suffering and dying from malaria because they were refusing to use quinine (because she had written against the general use of quinine), she wrote to them, “If quinine will save a life, use quinine” (Link).

Smallpox was also a scourge in her day, so much so that she did not oppose the use of vaccines as an aid to help the human immune system better fight against smallpox infections.  Even though she did have a bad experience when vaccinating her children when they were young, she did not oppose her adult son, William, when he and his associates were vaccinated for smallpox – and was likely vaccinated against smallpox herself (Link).

So, is it not then the duty of the SDA Church to do what Ellen White did? – to broadcast to all that, “If vaccines will save a life, use vaccines”?  After all, the scientific evidence that vaccines can and do save lives is overwhelming. They help to educate the human immune system without one having to first experience the risk of a serious infection. Sure, as with quinine and all other medical therapies, there are always risks.  However, the risks of not taking vaccines, particularly during a pandemic, are much higher.  It’s all a matter of how one balances risks versus benefits – which Ellen White understood very well in her own day.  It is not a lack of faith or confidence in God to take advantage of all of the gifts of scientific knowledge, advancement, and light that He has given to humanity.

Healthful Living and Useful Natural Remedies:

Yes, the promotion of healthful living and natural remedies is also important and very helpful.  The well-known SDA pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult, for example, put out a large number of videos on YouTube and on his MedCram website (viewed by millions around the world) promoting a large number of helpful natural remedies during the pandemic, to include the use of hot/cold fomentations, sunlight and infrared light, forest bathing, diet and exercise, sleep, vitamin D, zinc, etc. Here are a few talks that he gave on the beneficial effects of sunlight alone: Link, Link, Link, Link, Link.  It’s just that he also promoted the benefits of the mRNA vaccines in the fight against COVID-19 infections – particularly for the elderly and immunocompromised (Link). He simply promoted everything that would reduce risk and provide the greatest chance, for most people, of avoiding hospitalization, long-term injury, and death.

Note again, however, that even though it is the duty of a medical provider to share the best of the medical knowledge that is available, it is not his or her duty to compel or otherwise force compliance with such medical advice.  Personal liberties should be maintained so long as they do not interfere with the health and safety of others in society.  Such, then, were the essential duties of the Church – particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s just that removing the Church’s Vaccine Statements would also undermine the duty that the Church has been given as a source of the best and most balanced health and medical advice in the world.