Adventist Church Releases New Vaccine Statement

 

On October 25, the Adventist Church released a new statement about its stance on vaccines, and more broadly, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Written by multiple departments and church-affiliated entities—ranging from General Conference Administration to the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department to Loma Linda University Health—the statement is decidedly pro-vaccine, though it also makes clear that the Church sees the ultimate decision on vaccination as up to the individual.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/11483
2 Likes

To hypothocise and compare the current vaccination programme in the US and Australia to decades ago immunisation programmes is NOT an apples to apples comparison at so many different levels. Try apples to oranges!!

5 Likes

I have obediently had my shots, so don’t yell at me - but these vaccines are nothing like those that eradicated polio and smallpox. Those vaccines gave long term immunity. Natural immunity is totally ignored with covid. It really does look like this has nothing to do with immunity, but rather, following government mandates. Let’s see where that gets us.

9 Likes

I believe we are suppose to get tdp boosters every 10 years or so. It really depends on the disease.

4 Likes

Sure, and then there are the flu shots that change every year. Fair enough. But, to demand covid shots for those who have just had covid; with the threat of losing jobs and military positions makes no sense. Maybe we do need a shot every year like the flu shot, but not every three to six months since the last one. Something doesn’t compute.

4 Likes

I do not enter the discussion “toxine” - “Symptoms” - “immunity”. Simply my whole family - me, my wife, two sons, two grandsons are vaccinated. Simply only two in my local church opposed the vaccination. Simply I myself have made the experience of SDA opposing vaccination generally (“one of OUR standards !”, late smallpox - vaccination at the age of ten for a trtavel to the US - horrible , of one going into the mission field in Cameroon , at the age of 22 - the more horrible ! I share the experience of Gerald
Winslow.
And of course : CORONA was and is a new challenge and in this it seems quite ridiculous to bring the argument of the shortness of time into the discussion.

Having worked on Psychoimmunology , Immue Status, Life Events and infectuous diseases - and carcinomas - - for 15 years in the seventies - I find it simply not a sign of resposibility when now, inour very situation the vaccination is opposed from the pulpit and on the street, the one pleasing listeners, the other stimulatig riots. .

7 Likes

Alex, a “real” honest approach would require that our medical “leaders” would truly research and acknowledge published peer-reviewed clinical and scientific information which has been made available for quite some time (at least one year) by the the likes of Dr. Malone and Dr. McCullough (just to mention a couple of reliable sources), as well as the benefit of monoclonal and other natural health treatment protocols with clinical track records from India, and South America (among others), which clearly shows that drugs such as Invermectin produce real benefits, both in profilactic and recovery cases.

Not informing our membership is not only complete dereliction of leadership and duty, but also tantamount to playing the part of an acccomplice to the reports of disinformation made by prestigious and respected clinical sources which speak to the real dangers of the vaccines to groups of people under 40 years old and to pregnant women. These reports also candidly describe the concerted effort of the US Federal Government, the FDA, CDC, WHO, ETc., the global medical industry, and global public media to conceal the real risks, such as of 10’s of 1000’s of real deaths that have occurred.

Lastly, why is this information when posted here as I did, then removed by the webeds of this forum without a valid explanantion, even after repeated inquiries by multiple readers? Can we call this “an honest approach” or just just deceptive lip service?

3 Likes

Sorry Bryan but if you believe what you posted here you are seriously blinded - do some non-political reading for a change (i.e. follow the science). I would post some good information here but chances are the webeds will delete it as they already have.

3 Likes

I had read the 1984 quote and gave you + for that; but then I found the political subversion that comes before that and I take it back.

2 Likes

That’s hilarious. Who’s calling black conservatives “white supremacists”? Doing away with gender - calling mothers “birthing parents”? Something new every day - the new woke vocabulary.

3 Likes

Wow! So many of the posts to this article are full of misinformation and mistrust of good science. I don’t even know where to begin. I certainly am not interested in arguing with most of the current posters, as they appear to be impervious to the current scientific and public health consensus, which is that the vaccines are as safe as any vaccine and they work as well if not better than most. There is essentially zero serious risk with the vaccines, contrary to what several posters seem to claim.

I do want to set one thing straight, nevertheless. Most scientists and public health experts are only interested in what good science says and are in no way interested in leading people astray and duping them into getting vaccines that don’t work. This whole idea that scientists are all in cahoots with one another to subvert people’s freedoms and control the population is just plain ludicrous.

I am a scientist, and I know the science of SARS-CoV-2. What 95%+ of the scientists are saying is true. That a small minority of scientists don’t accept the consensus is always the case, and that small group of scientists is generally wrong. Same goes for the data on the efficacy of masks. The public health consensus is that they work. Of course you can find some who contest this, but they are the minority again. Same goes for the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The vast majority of the scientists and public health experts are in complete agreement that the best scenario is for all to be vaccinated. Again, there is a small minority opposed, but so what.

If we listened to the small minority of scientists on any health issue, we would be saying that smoking is good for you and AIDs is caused by certain behaviors, not a virus. I mean you can find a few scientists who will disagree with almost anything, no matter how well documented in the scientific literature.

Enough already, folks. The vaccine works and we all need to get vaccinated. End of story, and I am no longer interested in debating it. Just get vaccinated, or at least shut up and quit dissuading others from being vaccinated. If you don’t care to be vaccinated fine, but stop spreading disinformation.

18 Likes

Bryan,
I accept that you are a scientist because you said you are, but frankly your 95% and 5% conclusions without at least some verifiable data sounds anything but scientific. I can provide verifiable expert information from a Stamford Univ. Research Fellow who is a PHD and MD who has been publishing articles on immunology for 20 years for example, that there is no data available on the efficacy of masks. but since you expressed you are not interested I wont.
If you arent willing to discuss these things I can accept that too, but then why post your opinions on a public discussion forum? We are here to exchange reasonable ideas, your attitude of shutup already and vaccinate is precisely what the problem is. Dont be surprised. If it doesnt work. It is not working for Biden either.

2 Likes

Exactly why I am not interested, since essentially all you have posted so far has not been reasonable, which leaves nothing to discuss. The article on which this discussion is based is very reasonable, by comparison.

5 Likes

Distrust of vaccinations is simply a manifestation of the broader problem we are now facing in our country. The internet and electronic media have fostered thousands of pieces of misinformation that have helped create this distrust. Certainly some political figures have piled on with much disinformation. You might ask yourself why some platforms have disallowed some of these same politicians from spreading their miss-information. They have even admitted that they knew of the dangers of this virus but didn’t want to tell us, or follow any mitigating procedures to stop it’s spread. Distrust in institutions in general is rampant. If anyone has, knowingly, passed along misinformation that has aggravated this situation, you have contributed to the nearly 800,000 death in this country. Distrust in our medical establishment, distrust in our law enforcement, distrust in our election process, distrust in our intelligence agencies, distrust in our education system, distrust in our religious institutions, and even distrust in our constitution have all fanned the flames of rebellion toward any authority that attempts to “force” us to do anything, regardless of whether it was in the public interest or not. Many have focused on decisions being solely their own prerogative. This would be reasonable if not being vaccinated effected none but themselves. Refusal to be vaccinated, follow procedures such as protective masks and distancing isn’t just your decision to make. The rest of us have a reasonable expectation to be safe as well and your “human rights” stop when your breath passes into someone else’s nostrils and causes them to become sick or even die. Your choices actually could be a life and death decision, not only for yourself but those you could infect. I would propose that this is could be considered selfishness.

I would propose that the immunology department of Loma Linda University along with input from the medical ethics department publish a fact delineating piece on what is actually real and what is not with regard to all of the misinformation that is floating around on the internet. I would suggest that prior to compiling this piece, it would be entered into with prayer and self reflection on it’s authenticity. I know this would not solve anything for many on this site, but it would give those with rational minds a platform to confront misinformation.

I am elated to know that our denomination will not provide religious exemptions for those wishing to avoid vaccination with any of the three vaccines available.

7 Likes

That is what some of us are asking for instead of lip service

And here is a perfect example of misinformation. This is missing context, and you fail to cite your source. I assume it is from VAERS. If so, these are totally unvetted numbers. Anyone can claim a death due to the vaccine or any other adverse effect, and until such reports are verified they are little better than tips on a tip line, which as anyone knows are mostly rumor and conjecture. It is completely irresponsible to throw data like this out and claim it means anything at all. This ought to be deleted by the admin as misinformation of the worst sort.

14 Likes

It is a lot more information we have seen from you Bryan, you can start with the Great Barrington Declaration from scientitists

Older gen have diminishing natural immunity though, where vax can save a life. Forcing it on under 50 age group is asinine, especially when it comes to children.

1 Like

The VAERS data base is made up of every incident of either reaction or death and it is over a span of time, usually a couple of months after the injection. And it includes any reported symptom including a cold, a hangnail, or even athletes foot. And all the deaths for the nearly 250 million people injected in that time period including car accidents, struck by lightning, hart attacks etc…You have to compare this with actuarials of the same number of people over the same period of time prior to the covid pandemic and you will find that the number of deaths reported is essentially the same. So these statistics are not worth the toilet tissue they were smeared on.

3 Likes

Exactly. Anyone who just lifts numbers from VAERS simply does not understand the process of confirming an actual adverse event with the vaccine. Just because someone dies within a few days of being vaccinated, does not mean the vaccine was the cause. So far, all of the deaths investigated have been due to other causes. To date, after over 400,000,000 doses of the vaccine administered, there have been only three deaths that “might” be linked to the the J & J vaccine. That’s it! So, statistically, the number of deaths is essentially zero. That is a rate of 0.007 deaths per million doses. In 2019 there were 160 choking deaths per million people in the US, and I have not heard anyone suggest we stop eating food, as a good portion of those deaths are due to choking on food.

Even if the number of deaths in VAERS were the actual number of deaths due to the vaccine, that would come out to 41.6 deaths per million doses, which although not great, would mean the vaccine is much safer than getting the virus. The average number of drowning deaths per year from 2015-2019 was 123 per million people. Maybe we should outlaw all water activities, given how dangerous such activities are.

I only compare the other statistics to show the relative scale. Few of us go around worrying about dying from choking or drowning, and both of those things are more likely to happen than dying from a vaccine, even if we take the obviously inaccurate data from VAERS.

Sources:

9 Likes