Take a look at the study for yourself, and see …

Comment on Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories by Bob.

Take a look at the study for yourself, and see if you can substantiate the claim that, “After excluding the data from the Elgazzar study, he found that the effect for ivermectin drops significantly with no discernible effect on severe disease.”

Bob Also Commented

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Since you did not respond to my principal concern, I think it fairly reasonable to conclude that Jack Lawrence’s statement about the effect of withdrawing the Egyptian study from meta-analyses is at best of questionable accuracy, and at worst a prevarication, since you are unable to show how the withdrawal of that Egyptian study significantly impacts the particular meta-analysis I provided a link to.

And thus, there may really be a conspiracy out there, even if Ivermectin is not an effective treatment.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Could you explain that? Above you said, “I have taken a look. And, I find no reason to conclude that this is not the case – as have numerous scientists who have also reviewed this study.” That can only mean that you already know what part of the study I’m overlooking. Why would you want to keep that a secret?

“… this isn’t something that interests me ….”

Certainly that can’t mean that you have no interest in making sure your links only go to credible sources.

The two links you gave to show that it doesn’t matter whether Jack Lawrence’s story is on the up and up or not:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 is only about mild illness, and even admits “larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.” Thus, this study doesn’t refute the entire meta-analysis I linked to, even if this study’s results are reproducible.

https://rethinkingclinicaltrials.org/news/august-6-2021-early-treatment-of-covid-19-with-repurposed-therapies-the-together-adaptive-platform-trial-edward-mills-phd-frcp/ contains no data regarding Ivermectin. But I did find a news article claiming that the results about Ivermectin have not been published or peer reviewed yet.

Any explanation as to why double-blinded RCT’s in Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, presumably Iraq, and Spain would yield different results than the one from Columbia that you linked to? Each of those are listed in the meta-analysis regarding mild illness. (I said presumably Iraq because the meta-analysis called it an RCT, but didn’t include the words double-blinded.)

Perhaps part of the issue is what the Ivermectin was combined with. Comparing Ivermectin with Ivermectin + something else does not prove that Ivermectin isn’t helpful if one of those regimens is less effective than the other.

The news article about the Together Trial decried conspiracy theories. I think a good way to refute conspiracy theories is to show that there aren’t any, by proving that Jack Lawrence is legit. Otherwise, if he’s only a pseudonym, or employed or paid by a drug company, that’s not going to help squelch conspiracy theories.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Sean, could you please address my question? I didn’t see where you answered it above.

The quote from Jack’s article at https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/ :

“After excluding the data from the Elgazzar study, he found that the effect for ivermectin drops significantly with no discernible effect on severe disease.”

Is that really true?

Here’s a meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

How does removing the Elgazzar study from this particular meta-analysis change the conclusion? I’ve looked at the various tables, and I just don’t get how Jack could make that statement, or how the person he’s citing could have made that conclusion.

If you think I’m misreading the meta-analysis, please cite or quote the relevant text or table, and explain what I’m overlooking.

I’m not looking for “I don’t see a problem.” I’m looking for, “Look at table X. If you remove the Elgazzar study from that table, the end result is that patients with Y disease receive no benefit at all.”

Above, you cited additional studies rather than addressing the truthfulness of Jack Lawrence’s statement as it pertains to removing the Elgazzar study from the meta-analysis I provided a link to. Those are two different issues.

Whether Jack Lawrence’s key contention is correct or not is essentially irrelevant to my question about his credibility. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t like the idea of taking Ivermectin, but whether one should take it or not is not my concern here.

If a masters student in London, whose hobby is to attack a conservative American Youtuber and who just happens to notice plagiarism in the intro of an Egyptian medical study, is so careless or ignorant as to not see that a claim about a meta-analysis is bogus, then something is dread wrong, and we aren’t being told what is really going on.

Why do I say that? Because the presumed level of astuteness that would lead to the detection of plagiarism would prevent the repeating of a bogus claim about a meta-analysis.

Perhaps the problem is that the meta-analysis I provided the link to wasn’t the same one reanalyzed by the person Lawrence cited. Still, due diligence would require that Lawrence make sure that the claim he’s repeating about meta-analyses is actually sound in the light of other meta-analyses, such as the one I linked to on the NIH website from April 2021.


Recent Comments by Bob

Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
Think it at all possible that clinicians, plural, located somewhere, at some point in time prior to the interview, did indeed tell Dr. Risch that? It doesn’t seem to me that aggregate data at the CDC can be used to prove that no clinicians told him such a thing.

One obvious problem is that averages for the whole country can’t necessarily tell us what specific locations have experienced, but it does give us an idea of what the probability ought to be.

If no clinicians really did tell him such a thing, and he really did make that statement, then there ought to be consequences.

Is there anything that hinders reporting break-through infections? Another question might be whether there is less testing of vaccinated people than unvaccinated people, and whether that results in under-reporting break-through asymptomatic cases.


Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
Sean, you write above, “However, this doesn’t prove or even suggest a correlation with the vaccines.”

Isn’t that going too far? I agree that, from a scientific standpoint, this doesn’t prove a correlation. But to say that the numbers don’t even suggest a correlation seems to go too far. It’s like an evolutionist trying to claim that there is no evidence for creation.

According to the WSJ article “Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?” posted at https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-11624381749 or https://oltnews.com/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-the-wall-street-journal and written by a Yale professor of epidemiology and a UCLA professor of medicine, concerns arising from the VAERS data isn’t just about the #’s of thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, deep vein thrombosis, and death happening within days of getting a covid-19 vaccine. For example, “Vaers records 321 cases of myocarditis within five days of vaccination, dropping to almost zero in 10 days.”

Certainly that does suggest a correlation, for the numbers to be that high within 5 days and that low in 10 days. Proven? No. Suggest? Most certainly.

Really, your discussion needs to deal with this issue. Certainly people die every day. But if numbers for those four specific adverse events rise soon after a vaccination and then drop, those facts must be addressed. Why the drop?

As far as folks surrendering their civil and religious liberties go, I still think it is unethical for any entity, including a hospital, to coerce employees or others to receive an unapproved medical treatment, a treatment not yet approved by the FDA. Sure, the FDA might soon approve one of the vaccines, but none of them have been approved yet, based on what I could find yesterday at the FDA’s website.

About signing a statement that says one is receiving it voluntarily after coercion and shaming, I just don’t think such a statement is going to work in the court of God. Sure, it happens all the time on earth. A car dealer or whoever makes all kinds of claims, and then you sign a statement that says you understand that nothing of what you were told is binding. But it’s not honest.


The Arguments of Adventists Opposed to Vaccines
1. Any idea when the FDA might approve one of the covid vaccines?

2. Any idea when health authorities might gain confidence that immunity from the illness or a vaccine might last longer than 90 days, or whatever current research is showing now?


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, you above state: “… a lack of a specific statement in the GC’s Working Policy that explicitly forbids the ordination of women as pastors. As far as I’m aware, such a statement simply doesn’t exist.”

Try BA 60 10 which states: “The world Church supports nondiscrimination in employment practices and policies and upholds the principle that both men and women, without regard to race and color, shall be given full and equal opportunity within the Church to develop the knowledge and skills needed for the building up of the Church. Positions of service and responsibility (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*) on all levels of church activity shall be open to all on the basis of the individual’s qualifications.”

The footnote makes clear that the exception regarding ordination to the gospel ministry is one of gender, not race or color.

Also, B 10 22: “All organizations and institutions throughout the world will recognize the authority of the General Conference Session as the highest authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church under God.” Here we have part of the Working Policy saying that there is no higher authority under God in the Adventist Church than the sessions that voted down WO in 1990, 1995, and 2015.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, in your update you write:

Sean Pitman:
“On the other hand, it also seem clear that on the issue of ordination, in particular, that the “final authority” has been given to the Union level of governance within the church (not to the level of the General Conference) to act as a buffer against too much centralized power within the church. …

“In any case, since honest confusion remains between many honest and sincere members as well as leaders of the church, ….

There certainly is honest confusion regarding this, but I can’t see how everyone is honestly confused.

1. Local churches decide who will be members and who will not, but local churches do not have the authority to make tests of fellowship. Thus the criteria for membership is decided by the world church, while that criteria is applied to individual cases by the local church.

Similarly, though unions decide who will be ordained, they don’t unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination.

2. If unions could unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, there would have been no reason to bring the matter to the GC Sessions of 1990 and 1995. Particularly in 1995, it seems clear that church leaders understood that without GC division authorization, unions could not approve women for ordination, and that without GC Session authorization, GC divisions could not so authorize.

3. The first I remember hearing that unions could act on their own was after Dan Jackson’s open letter of, I think, Jan. 2012. Maybe we can find this idea being promulgated prior to that date in left-wing journals, but maybe not. Since there certainly has been discussion in some circles about getting rid of unions, it seems difficult to have simultaneous promotion of the idea that we need unions so that women can be ordained.

How it comes across to me is that some want their way no matter what, and are grasping at anything they can to justify their position. For those some, I don’t think the label “honest confusion” fits. Now if they can come up with some sort of historical documentation that local churches can unilaterally determine the criteria for church membership, or that unions can unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, OK. But I have yet to see any such documentation.