Comment on Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’ by Sean Pitman.
Professor Kent wrote (Adventist Today blog):
Dr. Pitman is not just attacking theistic evolutionists in the Church. He is declaring unfit anyone who disagrees with HIS personal opinion that the “weight” of scientific evidence favors the SDA interpretation of origins. My SDA biologist close friend and colleague, who knows many of the biologists at various institutions in the Church, assures me that the majority are faithful YEC/YLC believers but do not, for a minute, believe the “weight” of evidence favors the Church’s position.
This is like saying that, “We know that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for a spherical Earth, but we still support the Flat-Earth position because of ‘faith’ in our Good Book which says that the Earth is flat. Therefore, we are going to keep teaching that the Flat-Earth position is scientifically untenable while continuing to urge our students to believe in a flat Earth anyway based on faith in the Good Book for which there really is no reasonable empirical evidence. How do we know that the overwhelming scientific evidence is wrong and that our Good Book is right? Again, we simply have faith that is not open to testing or potential falsification by mere empirical observations.”
Who can argue with that? It’s a conversation stopper if you ask me. It’s the very same line my LDS friends use when I ask them why they believe in the Book of Mormon as superior to the Bible or all other lines of empirical evidence. They always respond with, “Because the Holy Spirit has given me a ‘burning deep within” and the Holy Spirit wouldn’t lie to me. I therefore have faith that the Book of Mormon is correct despite any empirical evidence or other argument you may have.”
Again, if this is the basis of your faith, fine and good. However, there are many, probably the vast majority, of thinking students for whom such a position of faith against what they are being taught is the clear if not overwhelming weight of scientific evidence just won’t cut it. Rational minds need something more than otherwise empirically blind statements of faith.
As already noted, the Bible itself often refers to empirical evidence as the basis of the faith of those who expressed great faith. Let me ask you, did the disciples of Jesus have more or less faith before or after the empirically observed resurrection of Jesus?
Is it not true then that faith may be increased or decreased by the perceived weight empirical evidence? Think about it…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
One more thing Erv. I’d also be interested in your response to the following comments from Dr. John Baumgardner regarding your 2007 paper:
Finally, Bertsche seeks to dismiss the 14C we measured in diamonds also as contamination. He cites a 2007 paper by Taylor and Southon. The paper describes the techniques the authors recently applied to measure 14C levels in natural diamond. As part of the background of their paper, Taylor and Southon list six potential sources of contamination for samples analyzed in AMS laboratories. At the very top of their list is â€œ1 Pseudo 14C-free sample: 14C is present in carboniferous material that should not contain 14C because of its geological age.â€ By placing this item first, they acknowledge what has long been known by AMS radiocarbon specialists: namely, that the vast majority of samples that ought to be completely 14C-free because of their geological context display 14C levels far beyond what can be accounted for by sources attributable to laboratory procedures or equipment design.
Indeed, they implicitly acknowledge this in the first paragraph of their introduction by mentioning 14C ages of 47.9 ka for a marble sample and 52.1 ka for a Pliocene wood sample, both far beyond the AMS 100,000-year detection limit they mention in their first sentence. It is astonishing that these authors never attribute this discrepancy to any one of the six possible explanations they list later in the article. In fact, they are completely silent as to just what the correct explanation might be. This silence is all the more noteworthy since the 14C level in the marble sample is 546 times the detection limit of their AMS system.
The main point of their paper is that by using diamonds and mounting them directly in the sample holder, they are able to exclude items 2 through 5 in their list of six potential sources of contamination. These items are 2 Combustion/acidification background, 3 Graphitization background, 4 Transfer (to the sample holder) background, and 5 Storage background. The last item in their list, 6 Instrument background, involves a â€œ14C signal registering in the detector circuitry when 14C-ion [is] not present.â€ This item is routinely and reliably tested by running the system with no sample in the aluminum sample holder. This test is the basis for the value of the ultimate AMS detection limit, about 0.0005 pMC, corresponding to about 100,000 14C years. Therefore, by process of elimination, what these authors are measuring and reporting is their item (1), namely, 14C intrinsic to the diamonds! This is precisely what we claim for diamond samples we measured using the same technique.
Taylor and Southon report results from eight individual natural diamonds and from six separate fragments cut from a single diamond. The 14C values ranged from 0.005 to 0.021 pMC for the eight individual diamonds and 0.015 to 0.018 pMC for the six fragments, with typical uncertainties of Â±0.001-0.002 pMC. Note that a value of 0.015 exceeds the AMS system background value by a factor of 30.
I certainly grant that one needs almost to be an AMS insider to be aware how routine it is to measure the sixth item in Taylor and Southonâ€™s list, instrument background, and hence to realize that the 14C values they report represent intrinsic 14C in the diamonds themselves and not instrument background. It is therefore understandable why Bertsche comes away with an incorrect conclusion after reading their paper. This illustrates again, however, that he is not the expert in 14C dating that he makes himself out to be.
What about the RATE diamond measurements? Bertsche alludes to the fact that the RATE team also tested diamond by placing diamonds directly into the AMS sample holder. Our tests were done in 2006 after the RATE book was published in 2005. We obtained results quite similar to those reported by Taylor and Southon in 2007. Our ten diamond samples displayed 14C values between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC. Certainly these 14C levels are much smaller than what we obtained for our coal samples; so, caution is obviously advisable in their interpretation. Nevertheless, unless one has a philosophical bias against such a possibility, the most plausible explanation, astonishing as it may be to some, is that natural diamond contains measurable and reproducible levels of intrinsic 14C.
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Dr. Ervin Taylor on Radiocarbon and AMS Technology
I really don’t know why you’re getting all excited about my comments regarding radiocarbon dating and AMS technology? I understand that AMS technology has various problems of contamination. I also understand that these problems can be understood and even controlled to a reasonable degree using careful techniques. Given these techniques, it seems to me like my original points and observations still stand – i.e., that most samples of coal, oil, and non-fossilized remains of fossils contain levels of 14C that are in fact above the level of that can reasonably be attributed to the AMS technology itself. In other words, there is real 14C in most of these particular types of specimens – even if it is given that there is no 14C in diamonds (I never personally understood, even from a creationist position, why there should be much 14C in diamonds to begin with).
As an aside, did you not find it curious that your analysis (using your own AMS machine) of multiple cuts of a single diamond produced a very narrow range of apparent ages? apparent 14C ages ranging between 69-70 kyrs? Yet, the range you measured, in the very same machine, between different diamonds was 68-80 kyrs? Why the significant difference in apparent age between different diamonds if all the 14C was the result of “contamination” due to “instrument background” and other such sources of potential contamination associated with the AMS machine and methodology? – i.e., not the result of any intrinsic 14C? One would think that if there was no intrinsic 14C at all in any of the diamonds analyzed that all should have essentially the same apparent age within the same range of error according to the background produced by the machine itself… or am I way off base here?
After all, didn’t you and Dr. Southon actually addressed this phenomenon in your 2007 paper – on the Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds ?
“Our measurements have confirmed our hypothesis that diamonds represent a much “cleaner” surface with respect to adhesion of carbon-containing molecules from the ion source that contribute to trace memory or sample “cross talk” effect. At this time, it is not clear to us what factors might be involved in the greater variability in the apparent 14C concentrations exhibited in individual diamonds as opposed to splits from a single natural diamond. Possible factors suggested to us are greater variability in the orientation of the crystal facies and microfractures in individual diamonds.”
Perhaps I’m showing my ignorance here, but I’m not sure what variability in the orientation of crystal facies or microfractures would have to do with producing an increased variability in apparent 14C age of the diamond? – given that the diamond did not in fact have any 14C to begin with? But, at least you and Southon admit to the reality of this curious observation given your hypothesis of a complete lack of 14C in all diamonds analyzed.
In any case, regardless of if diamonds do or do not have trace amounts of 14C, the issue remains on how to explain the presence of real 14C in most samples of coal and oil and other organic remains of fossils? It seems like we are back to square one with the usual counter argument being “in situ contamination”…
As noted by Dr. Paul Giem in his 2001 Origins paper, Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, the common argument of 14C production by Uranium within or near the coal sample releasing neutrons over time is not reasonable given the degree of 14C “contamination”. The amount of original radioactive material would have been prohibitive. And, perhaps the most striking problem, as noted by Dr. Giem, is:
“If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample [given that nitrogen-14 captures neutrons 110,000 times more effectively than does carbon-13], radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data.”
Therefore, the levels of 14C “contamination” that are generally observed could not reasonably be explained by in situ production of 14C – right? So, where does this leave us? with your argument for in situ contamination by modern 14C of course…
There seems to be at least some validity to this argument, but how does one explain the nearly universal nature of this in situ contamination? As Dr. Giem notes, “It is difficult to imagine a natural process contaminating wood, whale bone, petroleum and coal, all roughly to the same extent. It is especially difficult to imagine all parts of a coal seam being contaminated equally.”
Of course, there are still a few mysteries for the creationist side of this particular line of evidence as well. For example, why do some forms of anthracite exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon above the background level of the AMS technology?
So, there remain questions on this particular issue for both sides. Yet, it seems to me, at least for now, that the weight of evidence seems to favor the creationist position when it comes to radiocarbon dating – to include the use of AMS technology. However, any further comments and education from someone of your expertise in this area would be most welcome.
More from Richard M. Davidson, Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures: Toward an Understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics
The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Adventists also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.
Does anyone here disagree with one of the leading SDA theologians, representing the Adventist Biblical Research Institute, on these points? You can read more here: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/interp%20scripture%20davidson.pdf
There is a difference between being able to interpret what the Scriptures are saying vs. being able to determine if the Bible is or is not really the “Word of God”. Coming up with a correct interpretation of a text, of what the authors were trying to say, is not the same thing as a demonstration of the Divine origin fo the text. Such a demonstration needs additional evidence beyond the text itself in order to be able to rationally pick the Bible over all other competing texts/options as the true Word of God.
Please, for Christâ€™s sake, do NOT base your beliefs in God and His word based on what the fossils say!
Or on any other empirical evidence for that matter- right? Why take on the potential for possibly being wrong? Why take on any risk?
Well, upon what then do you base your choice of the Bible over other self-proclaimed mouthpieces for God?
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
COVID-19 and Vaccines – Update
I hesitate to respond to your latest E-mail (since I’ve already responded extensively to ____ on this topic). I must say, however, that both of you are sharing a great deal of misinformation. For example, you claim that the mRNA vaccines done in animal trials were a failure. While it is true that prior research on mRNA vaccines, starting some decades ago, did have trouble overcoming an effect called, “antibody-dependent enhancement” (ADE), this problem was actually overcome for the mRNA vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Link). These modern mRNA vaccines underwent double-blinded placebo-controlled trials in both humans and animals with great success. There simply were no ADE problems – or any other high-risk problem. In fact, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 proved themselves to be far more effective than anticipated, and very safe – far far safer than exposing one’s self to the actual SARS-CoV-2 viral infection.
Yet, you cite the VAERS database as listing a host of vaccine injuries (co-managed by CDC and FDA by the way). Why is it, do you think, that the CDC and FDA make public the VAERS database? – if they are truly out to injure people with vaccines? You would think that, if these government organizations are truly evil, that they would want to hide this information – right? The problem with VAERS is that many people who promote conspiracy theories don’t understand how it works or its real purpose. Anyone can post pretty much anything to the VAERS database without any demonstration of a causal relationship between their symptoms and the vaccine they took – or anything else. So, what’s the point of VAERS? Well, it’s used to detect unusual patterns in large populations that should be investigated further (Link).
As far as the mRNA vaccines being “experimental”, that’s also not true. These vaccines have been studied for over 30 years now. Sure, they weren’t rolled out for general public use until a few months ago, but this doesn’t make them “experimental” in nature. They underwent extensive human and animal trials with great success. Over 70,000 human volunteers participated in these trials. And, since they have been rolled out to the general public, their success, and their safety, have been even further supported after observing hundreds of millions of vaccines given. As far as the FDA only issuing an “emergency use authorization” rather than full approval of the mRNA vaccines, this is because of the 6-month rule where a vaccine or medication must be observed during a trial period for at least 6 months before being considered for full approval. This is because the odds that something new or unexpected will be discovered beyond the six months of observation during trials are extremely low (given our extensive past experience with vaccines). Of course, now that these 6 months of observation have been met, Pfizer is planning on filing for full FDA approval by the end of this month (May 2021).
But what about the risk of blood clots that have been discovered? First off, this risk is quite rare and is associated with the DNA vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines. So, if one has the option, I would favor the mRNA vaccines over the DNA vaccines (Link).
By comparison, the smallpox vaccine that William White took, with his mother’s full knowledge and support by the way, along with his associates, was far far more risky. In fact, the smallpox vaccine is probably the riskiest vaccine ever made. In her day, about 1 person for every 1000 people vaccinated for smallpox for the first time experienced serious reactions/complications. Even by 1969 studies showed that out of every one million people vaccinated at least one will die due to vaccine complications. It is for this reason that:
“Scientists call it [the smallpox vaccine] the most dangerous vaccine known to man.” (David Kohn, The Most Dangerous Vaccine, CBS News, 2002)
Yet, she still approved of her own son William getting the smallpox vaccine even though he had been injured by a vaccine as a child. Why? Because, the risk of getting infected by smallpox was much much higher than the risk of the smallpox vaccine – even for those following the Health Message given to Mrs. White. Clearly, then, Mrs. White was not at all opposed to vaccines since she had her own children vaccinated and even supported them getting vaccinated as adults – despite having experienced a bad outcome with vaccines. Given all of this, I believe D. E. Robinson, the personal secretary for Mrs. White for 13 years, when he said that she was also vaccinated for smallpox at one point – and encouraged her own staff to be vaccinated as well. The common response that Robinson either lied or couldn’t remember the facts correctly (Link) seems like a desperate argument given all of the information we have of Mrs. White supporting the best of modern medical care and treatments of her day. She even supported the use of quinine to treat malaria (Link) and 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 (Link). She recommended blood transfusions when needed, despite the risks involved (Link) – and even had radiation therapy to resolve a skin lesion on her face (Link).
You yourself say that “there may be a place for a drug in an emergency situation”. Well, what do you call this pandemic we’re in if not an emergency situation? The conspiratorial claim that this pandemic is nothing but another “flu season” is nonsense. Well over 500k people died in this country alone within just one year because of this pandemic. The situation is the same worldwide. India is really suffering right now with many thousands dying every day of COVID-19. And, even for those who don’t die, up to 1/3 will develop long-term injuries called “Long-Hauler’s Syndrome”. This is true even for children (Link). Your own brother-in-law, Dr. Roger Seheult, has personally seen dozens and dozens of people die from this – the MICUs where he works packed with very sick people. I’ve seen it myself. People suffocate to death and their blood turns to jello. It isn’t an easy way to go. I’ve seen my local MICU filled with COVID-19 patients on ventilators. Over a dozen friends of my own family have died from this. This pandemic just isn’t “another flu season”. It just isn’t. I’d say that if there ever was an emergency situation, this is it! And, for those who say, “Well, I’m healthy and my personal risk from this pandemic is very low.” – what about your risk of transmitting the virus to someone else who isn’t as resistant as you may be? Are you Ok with the possibility of contributing to the injury or death of someone else? – when you had the opportunity to significantly reduce your own risk of being able to transmit this virus to others? For me, this played a big part in my own decision to get the mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 as soon as it was available to me. I considered it to be my Christian responsibility to my neighbors…
As far as citing Revelation 18:23 where the Greek word “pharmakia” is used, the best translation of this word is “sorcery”. It has nothing to do with the use of modern medicine. What, are you opposed to the judicial use of antibiotics for those who have a serious bacterial infection? – or the use of insulin for those suffering from Type I diabetes? As Ellen White once said regarding such things, “We are expected to do the best we can” (Link). Interpreting the Bible in the way that you’re suggesting here only makes Christianity appear sensational and irrational. This sort of thing simply doesn’t present the Gospel Message in an attractive light. Therefore, I strongly advise you to steer clear of such sensational conspiracy theories. Their promotion simply doesn’t help to effectively expand the Kingdom of Heaven.
All the best to you and yours,
COVID-19 and Vaccines – Update
“The Bible was inspired by God…. This isn’t so with the current antigovernment and anti-Vaxx conspiracy theories.” – Sean Pitman
AB: “Brother Revelation 18:23 mentions the pharmakeia that Babylon would employ to deceive the world at the end of time. The Bible and history are symbiotically linked. Prophecy is constantly pointing us to look at history for the fulfillment of its symbols.”
I think you make very shaky Biblical interpretations that aren’t what you claim them to be – certainly not with regard to some worldwide government conspiracy behind the COVID-19 pandemic. You’re making medical claims that are opposed to the significant weight of empirical evidence that we have in hand. Again, why ignore the significant increase in the all-cause death rate, starting in March of 2020, for almost every country around the world? – accusing governmental and even medical providers of collectively and consistently falsifying data? In reality, the evidence in hand isn’t just politically motivated here. It’s coming in from all over the place. Do you also not believe that India is having a huge problem right now with COVID-19? – with many thousands dying daily from this pandemic? Is that also some political conspiracy?
I’m sorry, but you’re being deceived here and it is harming your credibility when you promote such weak anti-government conspiracy theories. Don’t try to bring on the Time of Trouble before it’s actually here…
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. What, are you suggesting 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.
COVID-19 and Vaccines – Update
Responding to a review:
AB: I reviewed the presentation in detail and I don’t feel like what you shared levels with evidence. please allow me to share some evidence. I don’t have the degree that you have but I feel that what I’m going to share with you is very plain for anyone medical degreed or not to understand. Five case examples follow below.
1. First, I have a friend who works in a hospital emergency room locally. Her daughter is also a nurse who is dedicated to a whole ward for Covid. They are constantly being pressured to diagnose persons upon death as having died from Covid, when it is actually cancer or a stroke or in one case related to a bicycle accident. Additionally, the news reports that the hospital morgue is overflowing, yet my friend’s daughter tells us that the morgue has only two compartments. so an exaggeration is taking place at least locally here in New Mexico. I don’t believe that what is being reported is accurate to the true death toll for Covid. Covid’s mortality rate is akin to the flu not the plague.
Nurses don’t determine the “causes of death” for a person who dies in the hospital. That’s just not their job. And, while most morgues in smaller towns and cities aren’t “overflowing” with the dead, this doesn’t mean that the COVID-19 pandemic is “akin to the flu”. It just isn’t. The primary reason why I know this is illustrated in “Slide 3” of my presentation above – that is the overall all-cause death rate (Link). It’s way way higher than previous years, with a sudden increase beginning in March of 2020, in this country, when COVID-19 first came here. This isn’t a result of doctors overdiagnosing COVID since it is an all-cause death rate. What is killing hundreds of thousands of extra people? – if not for COVID-19? In fact, so many more people have died, and are dying, that the official number of COVID-19 deaths is actually a significant underestimate of the true death toll.
2. Here is a CDC publication from early April 2020. notice statements like this:
“Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to COVID-19 increased from 4.0% during week 13 to 6.9% during week 14. The percentage of deaths due to pneumonia (excluding COVID-19 or influenza) decreased from 7.5% during week 13 to 7.2% during week 14.” Interesting pneumonia decreased as Covid suddenly increased. Others are listed as decreasing as compared to Covid as well. It is not conclusive but it raises a big question mark. Isn’t it peculiar that several ailments listed here have decreased at a similar rate that Covid has suddenly increased in diagnosis?
Here is that report: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/pdf/covidview-04-10-2020.pdf
This is a report of a single week during the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States. A lot more is known about COVID-19 now and the overall death rate that has resulted is markedly higher than can be explained by the flu or all-cause pneumonia or anything else. Again, this was/is a real pandemic and it is a serious pandemic. It simply isn’t “just another flu season” as various conspiracy websites are claiming.
3. Sean, as a third example, here is Dr Fauci in late March of last year. Covid had already been taking its toll for several months and yet Fauci described it in terms of nothing more severe than the flu.
“If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”
Here is the source:
This was during the supposed “war zone” time period. but he must not have shared the correct narrative because he had to suddenly change that story shortly thereafter even though Covid was still only taking flu-level casualties.
Dr. Fauci made this particular statement in March of 2020 – before the true nature of the COVID-19 had a chance to reveal itself. And, he was wrong. Unfortunately, COVID-19 hasn’t been “just another flu season” – as Fauci himself realized soon thereafter.
Sure, while the overall death rate has been around 1% (not the 10% or 30+% associated with SARS or MERS, thank God), a 1% overall fatality rate is still way higher than a normal flu season and the death rates are exponentially higher for older people and those with pre-existing medical conditions (also mentioned in my talk – Slide 4)
4. Also this — According to the WHO, influenza deaths per year were upwards of 650K in Nov 2019. This is higher than the number that you present for Covid in your PowerPoint presentation. Why weren’t political powers trying to quarantine the world from the flu? that’s a much higher death toll than Covid and it qualifies as a pandemic. why wait until Trump’s presidency?
Here is my source: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal)
The 650k deaths from the flu for the 2019-2020 flu season is a worldwide death toll. The numbers I presented in my talk, on the other hand, were only for the United States alone. The death toll for the flu in the US for the 2019-2020 flu season was ~22k (Slide 3). Compare this to the death toll for COVID-19 for a single year of well over 500k in the US alone (and likely over 700k based on the all-cause death rate increase in this country alone).
5. Here is another piece of info that I found interesting — during the height of the “war zone” for hospitals in late March and April of last year, I did some research around the actual count of entered Covid patients in New York City. check this out:
An averaged five Covid deaths per hospital during the reported war zone time frame in New York. That’s right. Sources:
FIRST SOURCE: NY state Department of Health
FACT: 214 hospitals in New York state (Link).
SECOND SOURCE: NY Times, 3/29
FACT: 1,000 COVID-19 deaths in New York state.
This is why people like Todd Starnes and others have camera footage, showing cameras set up outside of the biggest hospitals in New York’s burroughs day after day and there are few or no ambulance is coming or going. Although the news reports they are dealing with “war zone” patient levels.
Different hospitals saw different levels of COVID-19 patients – even in NY. Regardless, the fact is that many people in NY, and throughout our country, have been killed by COVID-19. There have been over 2.1 million cases in NY alone with 53,200 deaths due to COVID-19 (Link) – which is, again, an underestimate, not an exaggeration, of the true death rate.
The data from these case examples I’m sharing with you — they follow a pattern. The pattern construes data, downplays one virus (influenza), magnifies another virus (coronavirus strain), and attaches the cause to a political party. It has been hyped up as a way to mask the population and create a topic that a conspiracy group (a bona fide conspiracy group, I make no apologies) can use to rally the world behind them. It is the early building blocks of the Babylon we read about in Revelation chapter 18.
And even if my Babylon-related conclusion is not correct (The evidence I shared as well as some of Ellen White’s statements lead me to believe I am correct), the data and the response to Covid has been hyped up. That concerns me, because it has led to a system of control and misconstruing of evidence that should never happen in a free country.
I’m interested to hear your thoughts on any of these five points or others that I have shared. and thanks for taking a moment to consider what I have shared.
I appreciate your thoughts and your concern, but the points you’ve presented seem to me to be mistaken on a number of levels. Sometimes the data itself isn’t understood (as in the mistaken comparison of a worldwide death rate to the US death rate for a given flu season). The fact remains, however, that the overall death all-cause death rate is much much higher than historical averages for any kind of flu season. This just isn’t another flu season – it just isn’t. And, we haven’t even started talking about the long-term side effects and health damage caused by COVID-19 on up to 1/3 of people who get infected but who don’t die – even young otherwise healthy people. Again, this doesn’t happen during a normal flu season.
I’ve personally seen people die from COVID-19. Over a dozen family friends of mine have been killed by COVID-19 so far – in just one year. My brother-in-law, Dr. Roger Seheult, is a pulmonologist in S. California. He has seen dozens of people die in his hospital every week for month after month. None of this happens during a normal flu season and the way people die of COVID-19 just isn’t an easy way to go. The vessels in their lungs get clotted off and they basically suffocate to death.
Anyway, I advise you to avoid getting your information from conspiracy-based websites. They’re just lying to you or are giving you only part of the story that is a significant distortion from the reality of the situation we’re in. Sure, the “Time of Trouble” is coming, but this isn’t it. And, when it does come, it won’t be some kind of government conspiracy. It will be out in the open for all to clearly see. So, steer clear of anti-government conspiracy theories. They will only end up hurting your credibility when it comes to spreading the actual Gospel Message to the world as we’ve been commissioned to do as Christians.
Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
If you understood how these vaccines actually work, you would understand that they are part of helping to preserve life and health – part of ending all the death and suffering that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is causing on this planet.
Not all science is bad. Most of the discoveries of science are actually good – especially when it can be tested and observed in real-time. True scientific knowledge and medical advancements are a gift of God to ease the pain of humanity in this fallen world…
Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I don’t know when Novavax will be approved? Here’s the latest on their clinical trials: Link