Operation Whitecoat

[John317]

Correction & apology to John 317 and LifeHisCost

The real principle at stake is liberty of conscience.

Do we tolerate those who question the authority of church or government?

Yes.

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

Or do we automatically stand with the authority and brand the dissenters as rebels, heretics, spies?

No. I don't automatically do any of those things.

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

Only a few years ago George W. Bush remarked: "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" This left no other option, no freedom of conscience.

I don't agree, although I can understand how you might conceive of it this way. It just means that if you go against the war on terrorism, you have to face the consequences. Bush wasn't saying that people didn't have a right to oppose the government's actions. He was basically saying, "Make you your mind whether you are for the terrorists or for those fighting the terrorists."

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

It's a coercion of thought, of ideology. Those who refuse to follow are given the rack - the Inquisition all over again.

Is our mind conditioned to follow God or follow man?

If an individual honestly believes that an activity or law of the government is wrong and that it is opposed to God's expressed will, they should follow God.

But we can't make up the minds of other people for them. In the situation such as the Whitecoat operation, it isn't up to others to determine what other SDAs should have done. Doing so, it seems to me, would itself be a "coercion of thought" and a kind of rack.

[teresaq]

Only a few years ago George W. Bush remarked: "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" This left no other option, no freedom of conscience.

[Gordon1]

Thanks Pam & Jeannie,

A large program spanning two decades is hard to monitor, some experiments were classified. Collateral damage often falls through the cracks because it doesn't fit the comfort zone, so never reported. Victims of experimental damage are often disabled.

These are generalizations, but apply to other government experiments such as those conducted by psychiatrist Ewen Cameron at Mcgill University on behalf of the CIA. The MK Ultra program. Thousands of patients, many unwitting. Decades later some victims realized their condition and successfully sued the Canadian government. Note that Cameron was President of the World Psychiatric Association, and the American & Canadian Associations too. What better 'qualifications' could one seek?

Dr. Ewen Cameron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron

In the Sleep Room: The Story of CIA Brainwashing Experiments in Canada was also made into a film.

It's a very ugly business. Much is undisclosed.

What's relevant here - these orgs all have the same modus operandi.

[John317]

I fail to see how developing biological weapons is non-combatant. You're still killing people indirectly.

I used to hear the same argument against being a medic. It was claimed that a medic was really killing people indirectly by giving medical aid to combatant who would go on to kill the enemy. It's a false argument but that didn't keep people from using it.

Question: Was Christ responsible morally for the sins and wickedness that people did after He healed them? Is He responsible now for the evil that men do, who live only because He makes their heart beat, even while they're killing? And Christ does this when He knows ahead of time that those people are going to murder and rape.

If a government's developing a biolgical weapon means that a potential enemy does not use its biological weapons, isn't that government protecting its citizens? Therefore, the simple fact that someone helps a govenment develop biological weapons doesn't necessarily mean that he has done something immoral or wrong. These are complex issues and that's why the decisions individuals make in regard to them should be left up to the individuals' conscience. That's why we can't tell people whether they ought or ought not to be a soldier or a policeman. God didn't make us other men's conscience.

[Tom Wetmore]

Let's examine all of the random fly specks on the wall, connect those dots to make up a picture... I am sure those flys were designing that very picture when they did their thing...

You are weaving a completely unwarranted conspiracy theory out of random disconnected ideas, events and wild-eyed speculation and suspicion.

[Gordon1]

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

"In October 1954 then Surgeon General George Armstrong sent a letter to Theodore R. Flaiz, secretary of the General Conference Medical Department, in which he noted that Lieutenant Colonel W.D. Tigertt, commanding officer of the medical unit at Fort Detrick, had been invited "to present to representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Conference a request for their assistance in the conduct of a study of the highest importance to our nation's health. Only through the use of volunteers can the necessary information be obtained." Spectrum, summer 1970, p. 60.

What do you make of this paragraph? Do you conclude from this that the SDA church was complicit in deceiving SDAs into helping the American government do evil or immoral things?

Hi John,

The Spectrum article indicates the church was approached and cooperated, paving the way for recruits. I believe conscription (the draft) or Selective Service was in effect during Project Whitecoat. The article is 15 pages long and I've not time to enter it all now. I'm sure it's available at Loma Linda, maybe online.

It's not flattering and raises numerous red flags. I believe the SDA Church has an obligation to be open, transparent and diligently concerned for the individual rights of man. Long before she genuflects to the State.

The earlier Review & Herald article is obsequious at best. It came in response to national media breaking the story. Bad smell.

There's a reason God warned against sacrificing our children to Molech and this case fits. Could we picture Moses leading his people to be guinea pigs for abominable (unclean) experiments? Or Mary and Joseph sending their boys to Fort Detrick? Would put quite a wrinkle in the Desire of Ages story.

We have an obligation to test everything by God's Word and to warn others of danger.

[John317]

The Spectrum article indicates the church was approached and cooperated, paving the way for recruits. I believe some form of conscription or (the draft) was in effect during Project Whitecoat.

Sure, there was draft from 1948 until 1973. I was drafted myself during that time.

I would favor the draft today provided the policy allowed qualified people to enter the service as a CO and not train or carry a weapon. But militarily there's no need for the draft. A country must have a military and police force. Those are the brutal facts of life.

[Amelia]

Wow, I just though the info was interesting. Never ment to open a can of worms. Sorry folks.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I fail to see how developing biological weapons is non-combatant. You're still killing people indirectly.

I used to hear the same argument against being a medic. It was claimed that a medic was really killing people indirectly by giving medical aid to combatant who would go on to kill the enemy. It's a false argument but that didn't keep people from using it.

Question: Was Christ responsible morally for the sins and wickedness that people did after He healed them? Is He responsible now for the evil that men do, who live only because He makes their heart beat, even while they're killing? And Christ does this when He knows ahead of time that those people are going to murder and rape.

If a government's developing a biolgical weapon means that a potential enemy does not use its biological weapons, isn't that government protecting its citizens? Therefore, the simple fact that someone helps a govenment develop biological weapons doesn't necessarily mean that he has done something immoral or wrong. These are complex issues and that's why the decisions individuals make in regard to them should be left up to the individuals' conscience. That's why we can't tell people whether they ought or ought not to be a soldier or a policeman. God didn't make us other men's conscience.

Very good points John.

[phkrause]

Let's examine all of the random fly specks on the wall, connect those dots to make up a picture... I am sure those flys were designing that very picture when they did their thing...

You are weaving a completely unwarranted conspiracy theory out of random disconnected ideas, events and wild-eyed speculation and suspicion.

I agree

[LifeHiscost]

But we can't make up the minds of other people for them. In the situation such as the Whitecoat operation, it isn't up to others to determine what other SDAs should have done. Doing so, it seems to me, would itself be a "coercion of thought" and a kind of rack.

TU

The right to have ideas contrary or even repugnant to popular beliefs can only be lawfully prohibited under the righteous ideals of the King of the universe, which means only the possible harm of others against their will can preclude that freedom. We might be highly indignant at another's choices but we have no freedom to arbitrarily deny those choices.

Even God Himself permitted that which He knew was going to bring harm to the one's who wished a king other than the King of glory, as well as succeeding generations, yet He did the best He could to bless the one's who thus wrongly chose individual independence.

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

If a government's developing a biolgical weapon means that a potential enemy does not use its biological weapons, isn't that government protecting its citizens? Therefore, the simple fact that someone helps a govenment develop biological weapons doesn't necessarily mean that he has done something immoral or wrong. These are complex issues and that's why the decisions individuals make in regard to them should be left up to the individuals' conscience. That's why we can't tell people whether they ought or ought not to be a soldier or a policeman. God didn't make us other men's conscience.

TU TU

The same philosophy is repeated and places false blame when we advance the idea that anything we do that is helpful to the individual who drinks themself into drunkenness, makes us an enabler. If that is true without mitigation, then our Father is the greatest enabler in the universe.

God Blesses!

[John317]

The same philosophy is repeated and places false blame when we advance the idea that anything we do that is helpful to the individual who drinks themself into drunkenness, makes us an enabler. If that is true without mitigation, then our Father is the greatest enabler in the universe.

God Blesses!

Exactly. I think it proves that God doesn't judge by man's standards but by the motives and intentions of the heart.

1 Peter 4:8

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.

Matthew 5:44

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

James 5:20

let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Proverbs 10:12

Hatred stirs up strife,

but love covers all offenses.

[John317]

Wow, I just though the info was interesting. Never ment to open a can of worms. Sorry folks.

Yes, that was interesting info, and thanks for posting it. One just never can know these days what topics will stir up controversy-- but apparently just about anything can do it. However, the controversy here is between friends who usually agree.

[Gordon1]

I hope those critical of the Spectrum article will take time to read it.

Obviously the GC put young men in harm's way. Anyone familiar with World War 1 knew chances of death or permanent injury in such experiments was very real.

The church was ready to take this great risk using the lives of innocent SDA youth. It's impossible to claim there was low risk, for even one of the army officials stated that a particular agent (I believe nerve gas) was tested to the point of mortality. See article.

[Gordon1]

Spectrum magazine, summer 1970.

Project Whitecoat:

http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive01-05/2-3turner.pdf

[John317]

Thanks for posting it and I'll read it for sure.

[LifeHiscost]

The church was ready to take this great risk using the lives of innocent SDA youth. It's impossible to claim there was low risk, for even one of the army officials stated that a particular agent (I believe nerve gas) was tested to the point of mortality. See article.

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...."John 8:7 KJV

"....they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,)..."1 Kings 8:46 KJV Emph theirs' LHC

"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."Ecclesiastes 7:20 KJV

And if you happen to be a preacher, this is what is thought of your profession, though in this convoluted world it is for the salvation of souls.

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."1 Cor 1:20 KJV

" For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. "1 Corinthians 1:19 KJV

" Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" Rom 2:4 NKJV

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

Let's examine all of the random fly specks on the wall, connect those dots to make up a picture... I am sure those flys were designing that very picture when they did their thing...

You are weaving a completely unwarranted conspiracy theory out of random disconnected ideas, events and wild-eyed speculation and suspicion.

One can forget that the appearance of evil is not unfounded as the enemy of souls finds it not difficult to lead fallen man's

works intended for good, into devices to destroy God's handiwork.

"But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive."Genesis 50:20 NKJV

God Blesses!

[teresaq]

I'm sure that they were not bad people, but I fail to see how developing biological weapons is non-combatant. You're still killing people indirectly.

i see your point, sivartm as quite valid. what exactly does non-combatant mean?

[LifeHiscost]

Obviously the GC put young men in harm's way. Anyone familiar with World War 1 knew chances of death or permanent injury in such experiments was very real.

The same could be said of the King of the universe. He knew that the creation of Lucifer would eventually lead to the destruction of multitudes of millions. Yet for the sake of freedom of choice, obviously seen as better than salvation by rote, He was the first cause of a freethinking creation, which led to the first cause of a rebellious individual, and so on, ad infinitum. Yet we know God to be faultless.

Then can we not see the GC doing the best they knew how, while placing in the hands of others the freedom to choose for themselves, some choosing poorly but none-the-less, still having freedom to choose, without laying blame on their predecessors for the soup they ended up in.

"Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. "

2 Timothy 3:12 NLT

And yet Jesus still leads us to live godly lives, without divulging unto us what we could very well suffer under that choice.

It is true it is not hidden from us there may be dire consequences to our willingness to serve Him. And I believe the GC hid nothing from those SDAs, definitely not the same as the coercion by deception practiced by those who place the dollar above the safety of the consumer and the hiding of information for the sake of the bottom line.

"“Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell. "Matthew 10:27 NLT

God blesses!

[SivartM]

: one that does not engage in combat: as a : a member (as a chaplain) of the armed forces whose duties do not include fighting b : civilian

Non-combatant is a military and legal term describing civilians not engaged in combat. It also includes (Geneva Conventions Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2) persons, such as medical personnel and military chaplains (who are regular soldiers but are protected because of their function) and soldiers who are hors de combat.

Thanks! Maybe "non-violent" is a better word. I just don't see the difference between going and shooting someone and creating a weapon for the purpose of killing them. Unless Adventists only had qualms about guns, or something.

[Gordon1]

God granted Adam & Eve full disclosure. They knew the consequences of experimenting with the tree. Not for an instant did the Father or Son cooperate with Satan to lead Adam and Eve into harm's way.

The GC were complicit with government - the trials had unknown consequences. Who can be sure they received no favour in return for supplying over 1500 healthy young subjects to "the only program at Fort Detrick that involves experiments on humans." ? (Spectrum p. 56)

Indeed, this was a coup for military research - where else could they obtain such ideal specimens, beyond the reach of public scrutiny?

God sent His Son to rescue man. The GC delivered men to unknown danger.

[phkrause]

Ever heard of the draft! The church delivered no one to the army. Blaming someone for all of your dislikes seems to be a real issue in your belief system. Voluntary...voluntary...voluntary. The church is not responsible for our personal choices, never has been and never will be. Some would like for it to be responsible, but then only if it agrees with their position.

WC was much more than just finding or developing methods that could be used in a war. SDA's like to site church stance of being anti armed forces, war or whatever but forget all about the wars of aggression in the OT. Ah, yes, but, we say, God directly led in those wars and besides they were all evil people that God had already given a choice too.

We have this raging battle about getting back to our beginning in this country, a nation being led by God, etc, but those same SDA's who believe God is in control, deny themselves the need to support their country in its wars or any other war.

Freedom has not God choose the winners and losers then, than so has it been the rest of history!

Deception? Who is deceiving whom?

Excellent post CoAspen, I'm in total agreement with you.