Well, there are two kinds of integrity. The first is the one who makes a statement and then defends it as “true” no matter what. Doesn’t matter if has been demonstrably false in reality. Rationalizations are invented as to why the statement is true.
So, if you read EGW apologetics, do they ever admit where she was wrong? Was she ever wrong? Should we understand where she was wrong or possibly wrong and put footnotes in her texts or should those text be sterilized again and again to make her always correct?
See that’s where the actual integrity comes to play. It seeks to recognize the wrong, admit it and move on with the right that’s left.