Javier G.: I’m not about to listen to the recordings. Even though …

Comment on LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued by Bob Pickle.

Javier G.:
I’m not about to listen to the recordings.

Even though Kaatz, Beach, and Bradley have asked you to? They filed a lawsuit, and lawsuits are generally public affairs. Thus, it sounds to me as if these three want anyone interested to listen to them.

Now perhaps they want you to wait until after discovery is completed. Or perhaps they hope to settle before then so that everything can be super secret and hush hush.

But really, if they wanted to ensure that the recordings don’t get listened to by more and more people, they should never have sued.

Bob Pickle Also Commented

LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued

Professor Kent: No kidding. And that’s why the argument isn’t whether God can restore a long-dead human to life, as you and Bob Pickle tried to make it. The reality is that Scripture makes many claims that are NOT backed up by empirical evidence and naturalistic science, and therefore one must make a choice as to whether they believe GOD or SCIENCE.

I still think you are twisting the issues. If you had said, “GOD or SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED,” then maybe you would have been correct.

And the argument as you originally framed it was whether God could resurrect a decomposed corpse. You said that science and all available evidence showed that the resurrection of Christ and Lazarus was impossible. You never said you were only talking about Caiaphas or Herod or Pilate or Tiberias resurrecting Jesus or Lazarus. Anyone who read what you wrote would conclude that you were referring to God resurrecting them, not people.

And thus your statement was indeed false. But you don’t appear to want to admit it.


LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued

Professor Kent: SHOW US YOUR SCIENCE–YOUR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE–THAT A HUMAN CAN BE RESURRECTED AFTER SEVERAL DAYS OF DEATH.

Why are you shifting the discussion? Is this bait and switch?

You previously said that “science and all available evidence” showed that the resurrection of Jesus and the Lazarus was impossible. You now are narrowing the discussion to only physical, scientific evidence. Why the switch?

Perhaps after you acknowledge that you misspoke, that there is evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Lazarus, we can proceed to narrow the scope of the discussion. But for you to narrow the discussion before doing that would be disingenuous.

In the legal realm, the fact that something is missing is itself evidence. The body is missing, and I know of no one that disputes the fact that the body was missing 3 days after death. The only quibble I know of is regarding why the body is missing.

That’s but one example of many that could be presented of evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Another would be the Psalm you refer to which predicted that Christ would be resurrected.

As far as the resurrection in general goes, what Stephen said in Acts 7:5 is pretty powerful. “And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him.” Abraham will have to be resurrected in order for God’s promise of giving him the land to be fulfilled.

And so there is lots of evidence to support the idea of a resurrection, even though an infidel might reject all such evidence, partly to protect his religious beliefs, and partly because he rejects underlying presuppositions.

But I remind you of what I said before, that no laboratory experiments have ever demonstrated that God cannot resurrect a decomposed corpse. And that is a principal issue.


LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued

Professor Kent: At the GC Convention in Atlanta last year, Dr. Ben Clausen of the GRI spoke, along with his peers, of some of the limitations of science. One report that stirred the passions among faith bashers was this: “In conclusion he [Clausen] urged us to place our faith in the Bible because there is not enough support from science.”

Enough support from science for what?

Was he saying that the weight of scientific evidence is against the biblical account of creation? If so, then his statement was false, in my opinion.

Was he saying that there is not enough support from science to answer every last question some critic may bring up? If so, then his statement was true.


Recent Comments by Bob Pickle

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.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
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.”


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
You mention above that Jack Lawrence wasn’t the only one that called into question that study. That’s what I would expect if something is going on that isn’t quite above board.

Here’s a 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.”

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

Can you make any sense out of this? How does removing the Elgazzar study 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.