My Personal Stand on the Growing Bile Against the Ministry of Repentance of Repentance and Holiness

By John Raynaid

I am not a member of the Ministry of Repentance and Holiness, nor have I have ever been affiliated with it in any way. However, the growing and often heated conversations surrounding this church and the medical verification of reported healings stirred a deep sense of curiosity and concern in me. As claims and counterclaims flooded public platforms, I found myself increasingly uneasy with how quickly conclusions were being drawn either in full acceptance or outright dismissal without careful engagement with the facts. The seriousness of the claims being discussed, particularly those involving medically complex conditions such as HIV/AIDS, compelled me to step beyond hearsay and take responsibility for my own understanding.
In recent times, public debate has intensified around the medics affiliated with the Ministry of Repentance and Holiness, especially concerning their role in verifying reported healings. These include claims of recovery from severe and life-altering medical conditions, some of which were previously confirmed through clinical diagnosis. Many critics have branded these claims as false, exaggerated, or medically impossible, raising questions about the credibility of the professionals involved and the authenticity of the testing methods used.
What emerged during my research is that the medical teams involved are not untrained individuals acting outside professional boundaries. They are qualified practitioners operating within recognized medical and ethical frameworks. Documentation and testimonies indicate that verification of these cases followed rigorous medical procedures, including repeated testing over extended periods. Institutions such as NASCOP (National AIDS and STI Control Programme) and KMPDU (Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists Union) were cited as part of the verification process, alongside advanced diagnostic techniques such as DNA PCR testing.
DNA PCR is widely regarded as one of the most sensitive and reliable tools for detecting viral material at the molecular level. Its use minimizes the likelihood of false results and is standard practice in confirming viral suppression or clearance. In the reported cases, individuals who had previously tested positive were subjected to multiple independent tests, with results consistently confirming the absence of detectable virus. This approach aligns with established medical protocols for validating extraordinary clinical outcomes.
It is also worth noting that the medical professionals involved have publicly stood by their findings, fully aware of the legal, ethical, and professional implications. Medical practitioners are bound by strict regulatory standards, and deliberate falsification of results would attract severe consequences. Their willingness to present documentation and subject their findings to scrutiny suggests confidence grounded in evidence rather than mere belief.
In conclusion, while skepticism is both necessary and healthy, dismissing these cases outright without engaging the presented medical evidence is intellectually premature. The professionals involved are trained experts who followed recognized procedures and produced results based on testing and retesting. Regardless of one’s religious position, the medical evidence put forward warrants objective, informed consideration rather than blanket rejection.