While in Roosevelt, New York, August 3, 1861, different churches …

Comment on Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’ by Bob Pickle.

While in Roosevelt, New York, August 3, 1861, different churches and families were presented before me. The different influences that have been exerted, and their discouraging results, were shown me. Satan has used as agents individuals professing to believe a part of present truth, while they were warring against a part. Such he can use more successfully than those who are at war with all our faith. His artful manner of bringing in error through partial believers in the truth, has deceived many, and distracted and scattered their faith. This is the cause of the divisions in northern Wisconsin. Some receive a part of the message, and reject another portion. Some accept the Sabbath and reject the third angel’s message; yet because they have received the Sabbath they claim the fellowship of those who believe all the present truth. Then they labor to bring others into the same dark position with themselves. They are not responsible to anyone. They have an independent faith of their own. Such are allowed to have influence, when no place should be given to them, notwithstanding their pretensions to honesty.

Erv has had decades to come into line. According to the above counsel from the Lord, “no place” should have been given him regardless of his pretensions. And it is far past time that place cease to be given him.

Bob Pickle Also Commented

Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Sean, antagonistic remarks?

I wrote Erv on March 10, 2009:

I found your piece to be a little puzzling:

http://www.atoday.com/fundamentalist-creationist-gets-lukewarm-student-reception-la-sierra-university

If Sean Pitman was promoting the biblical Adventist belief that God created the world in 6 literal days, what is wrong with that? The way you wrote this piece, it comes across as if you do not believe that yourself.

Bob

He responded:

Bob:

My report/commentary was about student reactions to the speech not my opinions about the subject matter of the speech. My perception of the efforts of La Sierra University (LSU) faculty and administration is that they are seeking to educate students who “will not be mere reflectors of other men’s thoughts.” It seems to me that LSU is doing an excellent job of educating independent thinkers.

Thank you for expressing your thoughts on this piece.

ET

His response seemed less than forthright. I replied:

You wrote in your commentary:

As an institution functioning within the Christian tradition, as expected, most students approach their understanding of the contemporary world from a theistic perspective and thus hold the view that God is responsible for the ultimate origin of the natural world. In this sense, all Christians are “creationists” and thus, also in this sense, it would be expected that Adventist Christians would adhere to that view as well.

In popular contemporary discussions, the word “creationism” has acquired a connotation that has severely narrowed its meaning to describe a belief that the world and/or all of its life forms were created in the relatively recent past (less than 6000-10,000 years) in seven literal, 24-hour days and that there has been a even more recently, a world-wide Flood. This more restrictive understanding of creationism has been adopted by some fundamentalist-oriented Protestant denominations and the fundamentalist wings of others.

These paragraphs do not describe student reactions, but rather are written in a way that gives the impression that this is your view of things. But you did not mention that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is one of those “fundamentalist-oriented Protestant denominations.” And:

Although some highly conservative elements made a concerted attempt to add fundamentalist language to the official fundamental Adventist statement of belief, these efforts were not successful and the official summary of belief continues only to quote the Biblical expression used in Genesis to describe the origin of the world.

This statement gives the impression that you personally adamantly oppose the idea that God created the world in six days 6000-10,000 years ago, and that there was a worldwide flood since then. It says nothing about LSU students feeling this way.

The way the commentary is written it appears that LSU faculty are educating students to be mere reflectors of the thoughts of infidels. Both 1SP and 3SG have a chapter entitled “Disguised Infidelity” which identifies the idea that the days of creation aren’t literal as being that very thing. If it is true that LSU faculty are teaching such things, that is pretty serious, as well as false science.

Bob


Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
I forgot to give the reference for the above quote. It was from 1T 326.


Recent Comments by Bob Pickle

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.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Take a look at the study for yourself, and see if you can substantiate the claim that, “After excluding the data from the Elgazzar study, he found that the effect for ivermectin drops significantly with no discernible effect on severe disease.”


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
You mention above that Jack Lawrence wasn’t the only one that called into question that study. That’s what I would expect if something is going on that isn’t quite above board.

Here’s a 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.”

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

Can you make any sense out of this? How does removing the Elgazzar study 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.