Regarding Immunization: “Is Science Alone ‘Our’ Guide?”

By PEARL

[A] Challenge

The recently published article, Asking the question: Is “Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature” a basis for the SDA health message?, which considers the General Conference Administrative Committee statement on immunization published in 2015 and questions its content, specifically: “The Adventist health emphasis is based on biblical revelation [1], the inspired writing of E.G. White [2] (co-founder of the Church), and on peer-reviewed scientific literature [3].” This seems to have triggered a response, namely the article Is Science Alone Our Guide?

I wish to challenge the authors of this article to write one more article, but this time requesting a more focused response, titled: Regarding Immunization, Is Science Alone ‘Our’ Guide? Why is such a focused response required? Because the 2015 statement itself makes it blatantly clear that, on the issue of immunization, it is guided by science alone.

Do you seek proof of this charge? Just read the next sentence in the statement: “As such, we encourage responsible immunization/vaccination, and have no religious or faith-based reason not to encourage our adherents to responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunization programs.”

Notice the double negative. A double negative is evidence of poor writing. So why did GC ADCOM phrase this encouragement so poorly? Any good editor would encourage the author to change the double negative into a positive. But consider how such a positive statement would read?

“… and have a religious or faith-based reason to encourage our adherents to responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunization programs.”

But GC ADCOM cannot say that. If they had a religious or faith-based reason to encourage, they certainly would have included it here, but they did not. Notice that there is not a single reference to a Bible verse or an EGW quote anywhere in this statement.

Since the Bible and EGW are both silent on immunization, the church also cannot say “and have a religious or faith-based reason not to encourage our adherents to responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunization programs.” And that is why, despite immunization as a medical therapy being around for more than a century, the church has respected the silence of the inspired sources on this topic.

For some unknown reason, in 2015, GC ADCOM felt compelled to produce a statement. However, there was a problem; the only basis for such a statement was peer-reviewed science. So how do the usurpers of the voice of the church endorse a medical therapy without any religious basis for it?

By doing two things: (i) claim science is now a basis of the health message of the church, and then (ii) avoid emphasizing that the encouragement of medical therapy derives solely from this new and illegitimate source.

How is this achieved? All in a single statement, first by asserting peer-reviewed scientific literature as a basis of the health message and then implying that the Bible and EGW must discourage a therapy that is encouraged by science, otherwise this therapy must be encouraged by GC ADCOM. More on this later.

But for those of you who may not fully understand this polemic, let us briefly recap the first article and then analyze the response article.

[B] Revision & Questions

Revision of Is “Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature” a basis for the SDA health message?:

The 1^st and 18^th fundamental beliefs support the inclusion of the Bible [1] and the writings of E.G. White [2] as bases for the Adventist health emphasis. Peer-reviewed scientific literature [3], however, is not present in the 28 Fundamentals at all. When the GC leadership were challenged to justify this statement claiming peer-reviewed scientific literature is a source of the Adventist health emphasis, a single EGW quote was provided, namely: “Rightly understood, science and the written word agree, each sheds light on the other”, SpTEd 56.2. This quote may, to a casual observer, pass as potential justification, but a more careful and diligent reader will notice 3 critical points:

1. The Bible is the standard: When read in context (the full paragraph is provided below¹), then the primacy of the Bible is apparent, “Yet the study of the sciences is not to be neglected. Books must be used for this purpose: but they should be in harmony with the Bible, for that is the standard.” SpTEd 56.2. According to EGW, science is not a basis alongside the Bible; science is to be tested using the Bible as the standard.
2. Both sources must discuss the same topic: For science to be tested by the Bible, the implied precondition is that both the Bible and science must discuss the same subject matter.
3. Both sources must agree: From the EGW quote provided in the attempted justification, the final condition is also apparent: “Rightly understood, science and the written word agree, each sheds light on the other”, SpTEd 56.2 Given that the Bible is the standard, EGW is saying that the burden is upon science to agree with the Bible; the Bible does not need to explain itself to science, since the Bible is the standard. It may be, that when science agrees with the Bible, then science may add to the information conveyed by the Bible.

It is important to note, such a potential contribution by science in terms of adding to our understanding of a particular topic is not recognized anywhere in the 28 fundamentals as informing SDA beliefs.

Therefore, despite the attempted justification, it is still not clear how such a limited contribution from the minority of science – this is the science that is tested against the Bible and found to agree with the Bible – has translated into the blanket adoption of peer-reviewed scientific literature as a supposed basis of the Adventist health emphasis by GC ADCOM.

Questions on ‘Peer-review’ and the 28 Fundamentals

Note the definition of ‘peer-review’ as per Merriam-Webster: “a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field”. Here are a few questions requiring answers:

1. Where does the definition of ‘peer-review’ include the testing of the proposal being researched against the standard, which is the Bible? If this is not part of the process, then how does GC leadership justify the giant leap from the EGW-endorsed ‘science which is tested against the Bible’ (which is still not a basis for our beliefs, and therefore also not a basis of our health message) to ‘science which is tested against experts’ which is utterly without any semblance of support in the Bible, the writings of EGW or the 28 Fundamentals?
2. If GC leadership is saying that the SDA health message, which is found in the 22^nd Fundamental, guiding Christian behavior, is based on peer-reviewed science, then it is not apparent in the current published content of Fundamental 22, and it contradicts the introduction to the 28 Fundamentals, which states: “UPHOLDING THE PROTESTANT CONVICTION OF SOLA SCRIPTURA (“BIBLE ONLY”), THESE 28 FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS DESCRIBE HOW SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS INTERPRET SCRIPTURE FOR DAILY APPLICATION.”
3. If the GC leadership is implying that the SDA health emphasis is no longer a fundamental belief, but now guided by a present scientific consensus opinion, then shouldn’t the GC leadership follow due process and have the GC delegates convene and vote on it in a duly constituted session and then take the health message out of the 22^nd fundamental?

Ponder these questions, as we proceed with analyzing the published response.

[C] Analysis of  Is Science Alone Our Guide?

1. The Authors

Before we start reading the article, let us first take note of the two authors:

• PETER N. LANDLESS, the director of the GC Health Ministries Department (HMD)
• ZENO L. CHARLES-MARCEL, a member of the team at HMD

Both are doctors. The casual observer might consider these two as suitably qualified to address the matter. Sadly, they are not.

The challenge regarding the conflict that exists between the 2015 immunization statement published as an alleged ‘official statement’ of the SDA church and the 28 Fundamental beliefs of the SDA church is to be answered by church leadership, not by the HMD.

Drs. Landless and Charles-Marcel are being used as pawns by GC ADCOM in an attempt to extinguish the flames of protest and the voices of those objecting to this statement, voices that are being heard louder and more widespread as more members fully grasp, in horror, what an aberration this statement is.

2. The ‘reassurance’

And how does HMD go about their task? This is also very informative. The article starts with the intended reassurance: “The Adventist health message has most certainly not been replaced by health science.” Now again, to the casual observer this sounds wonderfully reassuring. But to the informed reader, this is a very obvious and deliberate attempt at deception, which can only lead to the sincerity and integrity of the authors being questioned.

3. The actual question

The charge against the 2015 statement was whether GC ADCOM could justify the inclusion of peer-reviewed science [3] in its claim that the SDA health emphasis is based on the Bible [1], the writings of EGW [2] and on peer-reviewed scientific literature [3], especially considering the conflict of such a claim with the 28 Fundamentals, which only recognize [1] and [2]. We will call this the ‘and-science’ belief. You don’t agree that this is a belief? Keep reading!

4. The deceptive question

The question of whether GC ADCOM or the HMD have replaced the SDA health message with health science was never asked. Such an absurd question would only be asked if GC ADCOM produced an even more obviously absurd statement which reads as follows: “the SDA health emphasis is based on peer-reviewed scientific literature [3] only”. We will call this the ‘science-alone’ belief.

Displacing the Bible by science would be easy to spot, but what GC ADCOM has attempted is less overt, more insidious, and more calculated, not to displace but to equate. And as we have already discussed, this attempt to add a basis to the SDA health emphasis cannot be justified and is in conflict with the 28 Fundamentals. So why did HMD misunderstand the question?

5. The straw man

They didn’t. HMD deliberately engaged in the straw man fallacy, which is the refutation of an argument seemingly similar but very different from the one under discussion. The deliberate invocation of the straw man is obvious from the extreme hyperbole “Is Science Alone Our Guide?”, and their offered answer to this is quite simple, and can be paraphrased as, ‘No silly, we have the Bible and EGW also. See, there is nothing to be concerned about’. HMD considers it a successful refutation of ‘science-alone’, by reassuring that ‘and-science’ is their accepted belief.

And with that, the deception is complete. HMD confirms that it views the inclusion of science alongside the Bible and EGW as entirely acceptable (“peer-reviewed, evidence-based health science has been included as an additional guide together with biblical and Spirit of Prophecy principles, not in place of”). However, as proven previously, such an assertion of ‘and-science’ alongside the Bible and EGW cannot be justified by the fundamentals, the beliefs guiding the church.

The straw man does not only hide the true issue, it is also successful in shifting the Overton window. Where sincere SDA members would have vigorously challenged any assertion of ‘and-science’, the exaggeration of ‘science-alone’, and then the comforting response that HMD practices ‘and-science’ may leave many initially stunned SDA members with a false sense of relief.

6. The Confirmation of the GC Working Policy Belief of ‘And-Science’

HMD’s commentary on the quote from the GC working policy is extremely deceptive. HMD makes the claim that “General Conference Working Policy affirms Scripture as foundational to our church’s health ministry and practice, stating that ‘practices without a firm evidence-base and not based on the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy should be discouraged.’”

They claim in the commentary that scripture is foundational, and then supply a quote from the GC working policy as evidence of this claim. However, does the quoted text affirm Scripture as foundational? Let’s review the quote again: “practices without a firm evidence-base and not based on the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy should be discouraged.” This statement can be described by the below grid.

Evidence-base	Bible/EGW Writings
	Not based on	Based on*
Without	Discouraged	Encouraged
With	Encouraged^	Encouraged

*The 28 Fundamentals support practices encouraged in the Bible or the writings of EGW, whether contemporary science deems them evidence-based or not does not make any difference.

GC Working Policy, however, has slyly added practices with a firm evidence-base, specifically even if they are not based on the Bible or the writings of EGW. This is ‘and-science’ belief. HMD is confirming that the GC Policy has adopted ‘and-science’ as its belief. It is also from this source that the entirety of the immunization statement is drawn.

But also note that the GC Working Policy quote states that “practices without a firm evidence-base and not based on the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy should be discouraged.” It only mentions which practices should be discouraged, yet GC ADCOM has encouraged immunization. Thus, GC ADCOM’s 2015 immunization statement is in violation of their own GC Working policy!

7. But wait, there’s more!

Pay careful attention to what is left (un)mentioned in the article:

“Documenting and sharing experiences, including adverse events and failures, leads to withdrawal of unsafe or dangerous approaches, safer practice, better outcomes, and quality of life for all. Ongoing research and review have proved the many benefits of devices, surgeries, interventions, and medications, which save lives and even enhance longevity. Artificial heart valves, replacement insulin, pacemakers, corrective surgery for congenital heart disease, implantable lenses for cataracts, joint replacements, cancer treatments, and supplemental fluoride to prevent tooth decay are just a few examples.

• Did you notice it? How can GC ADCOM encourage immunization, and yet immunization is not included in this list of medical wonders provided by HMD? Perhaps because of the mention of adverse events? Acknowledgement of adverse events in regards to immunization would be a good start, but there is no such acknowledgment in the 2015 statement. Also notice that the Bible does not have to correct its previous stance based on adverse outcomes, that is why the Bible is our basis for belief, the rest is all additional commentary that may add to understanding.
• Have you noticed the medical wonders mentioned here, for which we as SDA church members can each exercise our liberty in deciding whether to be subjected to the treatment? Now ask yourself: how many of these medical wonders did GC ADCOM produce a statement encouraging the widespread use of? Where are the GC ADCOM statements encouraging: artificial heart valves, insulin, pacemakers, corrective surgery for congenital heart disease, implantable lenses for cataracts, joint replacements, cancer treatments, and supplemental fluoride?
• Isn’t it obvious that it is not the place of the church (and certainly not the place of GC ADCOM usurping the voice of the church) to go around recommending medical treatments? The church should (as it had done all the years up to 2015) speak through the fundamentals based on the Bible, and then let each individual apply their own understanding when deciding on the treatments for their personal medical needs.

8. The manipulation

The Seventh-day Adventist Church celebrates the blessing of the Adventist health style God has given us through His Word, amplified by His modern-day prophet, Ellen White, and confirmed by health science. How sad that many members are loath to embrace this grace-filled and effective blueprint for wholeness, despite our inevitable brokenness, as we await and proclaim His soon coming. May He “help our unbelief” (see Mark 9:24).

HMD effortlessly mixes the Bible, EGW and science into a confused amalgamation that, according to them, can only lead to blessed health. And then for any apologist who wishes to excuse the 2015 statement on the ground that it is not a belief, even though it is published under the heading “Beliefs” on www.adventist.org;

The high priests of ‘and-science’ from HMD, with all confidence in their sacred text, namely GC working policy, deriving from their (possibly willful) misapplied and misunderstood EGW quote, betray their understanding that this is a matter of belief, with their closing appeal: May He “help our unbelief”. Interesting again is the use of the negative. HMD won’t be as obvious as to state that SDA members must believe ‘and-science’, so they say those who don’t agree with ‘and-science’ are lacking belief.

9. The Conclusion

It may be that HMD is so deep down into the gutter of peer-reviewed medical science that they do not even realize that they have left the guardrails of the 28 Fundamentals and are pursuing an ‘and-science’ belief. One can understand that doctors are not theologians, and therefore may have less appreciation for the 28 Fundamentals than would be required of a representative intending to speak on behalf of a global church.

The true failure here is not HMD; it is the rest of the silent (ignorant, cowardly, or corrupted) GC leadership who have allowed HMD to capture the church through the Trojan horse of the health department; who slept, stood by, facilitated, and enabled it. How do they justify the ‘and-science’ belief spelled out in the GC working policy in conflict with the 28 Fundamentals? How do they justify the 2015 statement with its apparent and obvious conflict with the 28 Fundamentals?

To these brethren, I wish to urge the following for consideration: “If God abhors one sin above another of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God.” EGW Testimonies for the Church Vol. 3, p. 280.3

My prayer is that our Heavenly Father may deliver us from evil. Amen.

“Yet the study of the sciences is not to be neglected. Books must be used for this purpose: but they should be in harmony with the Bible, for that is the standard. Books of this character should take the place of many of those now in the hands of students. God is the author of science. Scientific research opens to the mind vast fields of thought and information, enabling us to see God in his created works. Ignorance may try to support scepticism by appeals to science; but instead of doing this, science contributes fresh evidences of the wisdom and power of God. Rightly understood, science and the written word agree, and each sheds light on the other. Together they lead us to God, by teaching us something of the wise and beneficent laws through which he works.” (SpTEd 56.2, Special Testimonies on Education, EGW).

About: PEARL is the acronym for the Platform Encouraging Autonomy and Religious Liberty. You can reach them at the following email: sdapearl@yahoo.com