John MacArthur: There is No Pandemic

Just now at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, John MacArthur told his congregation,

In truth, 6% of the deaths that have occurred can be directly attributable to COVID, 94% cannot. Of the 160,000 people that have died, 9,210 actually died from COVID.

There is no pandemic.

Watch:

MacArthur cited a recent CDC report on causes of COVID-19 deaths (Here is the CDC report in question). It provides the comorbid conditions for the vast majority of deaths triggered by COVID-19. COVID-19 and something else contributed to most deaths. What MacArthur seems to be unaware of is that most of those people would be alive today if they had not contracted COVID-19.

What is embarrassing for MacArthur is that this has been known for months. The CDC has released reports before showing the underlying health conditions of deaths and hospitalized patients.  Yet, in ominous tones, MacArthur makes it appear he is revealing some previously concealed truth. While his scary announcement may serve his persecution narrative, it also makes his congregation and followers more vulnerable to the virus.

Although he started out saying he isn’t an expert, he quickly made an erroneous judgment about the data and declared no pandemic to exist despite the reality all around. John MacArthur knows when the experts don’t.

UPDATE: I learned after I posted that QAnon supporters have been talking up this CDC report and Donald Trump retweeted one of them this morning. As I mentioned, the controversy over causes of death and underlying conditions is not a new one. The CDC has been reporting on underlying conditions for months and most deaths are due to multiple causes (e.g. in May, the percent of deaths with COVID-19 alone as a listed cause of death was 7%). That MacArthur touted the report as some kind of revelation makes me wonder where he gets his news and information.

The possible source for this misinterpretation of the CDC data is one of MacArthur’s attorneys in his legal battle to continue worship services indoors – Jenna Ellis. She tweeted a misleading post from far right blog Gateway Pundit on the CDC report very early this morning.

MacArthur attributed his false information to Satan:

It’s clear to us the fabrication of numbers because they’re including people who had two or three comorbidities, we know all of that. We know there are reasons for this that have nothing to do with the virus. There’s another virus loose in the world and that’s the virus of deception and the one who’s behind the virus of deception is the arch deceiver, Satan himself. And it’s not a surprise to me that in the midst of all this deception, the great effort that is going on is to shut down churches that preach the Gospel. So this is not a political speech, by the way. But it does not surprise me that they want to shut down those who preach the Gospel because the architects of this level of deception are not a part of the Kingdom of Heaven. They’re a part of the kingdom of darkness.

Here is a great summary of the facts from the CDC’s weekly report of death data.

I wrote more about this here and was quoted on this story at Religion News Service.

For all of the posts on LA County v. Grace Community Church, click here. 

For my ongoing tally of churches who are associated with COVID-19 outbreaks, click here. 

137 thoughts on “John MacArthur: There is No Pandemic”

  2. Earlier, he had also whined about so many “acquaintances” abandoning him. I checked and pretty much his whole group of supporters from before are all behind him in this conspiracy nonsense. But he has also picked up support from the despicable televandalist lobby, so there’s that.

  3. Johnny Mac’s been caught out lying from the pulpit…..

    I suppose his sins are fine because his shit doesn’t stink.

    1. Maybe you should explain what you think that huge bump in the red line represents, because it certainly doesn’t confirm anything MacArthur is saying.

      1. Maybe look at the dates. The CDC reports we have been below pandemic levels since July 2nd.

          2. this link says nothing about “pandemic levels”. That is what I’m curious about. How are they defining a pandemic level and where are they claiming to be below those levels?

          3. Notice where it says “Seasonal Baseline”?… we returned to the seasonal baseline in July.

          4. No, that isn’t correct. It returned to the “epidemic threshold” in July not the “seasonal baseline”, but that is where the data ends so you can’t really say what happened after hitting the “epidemic threshold.”

            The CDC defines an “epidemic threshold” as:

            An increase of 1.645 standard deviations above the seasonal baseline of P&I deaths is considered the “epidemic threshold,” i.e., the point at which the observed proportion of deaths is significantly higher than would be expected at that time of the year in the absence of substantial influenza, and now COVID-related mortality.

            which is not the same thing as a pandemic. Nor could you use going below the epidemic threshold as a way of claiming the “epidemice is over” simply because the chart doesn’t work that way.

          5. The chart shows quite clearly that mortality from Influenza, Pneumonia and Covid COMBINED are very TYPICAL of what we see this time of year every year. To pretend that we are seeing mortality wildly above the norm just isnt supported by the CDC data.

          6. No, that giant red spike shows otherwise. If you look at the chart again you see that between weeks 20-50 for both 2018 and 2019, the mortality is BELOW the epidemic threshold. However, not the case for 2020, it never makes it below the epidemic threshold. that is not “typical”.

          11. There are some spurious figures in that graph…

            compare this straight off the cdc site.

            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/past-reports/08212020.html#mortality

            No where does that red spike go anywhere near the epidemic threshhold. Your graph has it at 6% whereas it didn’t get below 10. I’d say your graph has been doctored. Also your ‘YOU ARE HERE’ arrow is at the top of a new spike.

            Why do Christians lie a lot?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c3f9b0d45faa0cc1ffe2b3ad36483edf3002523d6150949defa271ed02f27d18.gif

          12. There are some spurious figures in that graph…

            compare this straight off the cdc site.

            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/past-reports/08212020.html#mortality

            No where does that red spike go anywhere near the epidemic threshhold. Your graph has it at 6% whereas it didn’t get below 10. I’d say your graph has been doctored. Also your ‘YOU ARE HERE’ arrow is at the top of a new spike.

            Why do Christians lie a lot?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c3f9b0d45faa0cc1ffe2b3ad36483edf3002523d6150949defa271ed02f27d18.gif

          13. lying = showing a CDC graph and giving the CDC link??

            Search for “nchs mortality reporting system covid-19 graphic” and the graphic I used is the first one to show in the search. Not doctored, just a straight copy and paste.

            But if it makes you feel better about yourself to accuse of lying and doctoring graphs, go right ahead, I guess.

          14. Where else have you dishonestly posted this graph or grabbed it from?

            I suppose if you had any decency you would go to where you grabbed it from and where you’ve posted it to and admit your ‘mistake’.

          15. You only care about people before they’re born hey Eric.

            Thats why you worship the current moron in Chief and you have to lie to defend him.

            You don’t have a shred of honesty nor decency do you?

            It’s not Trump’s fault that he’s destroying the USA.

            It’s people like you who sold themselves out and willingly followed his lies and deceit.

          16. Such religious, fundamentalist fervor, yet so little actual knowledge. You know nothing about me other than I posted a CDC graph & link. You accuse me of lying and deceit but go on to make wild accusations and unfounded assumptions yourself. I think your response here more than proves my point and its clearly impossible to have anything approaching a dialogue in good faith. I’ll bow out here, Good day!

          17. More lies, Eric.

            You can’t even lie straight in bed.

            Is that what your cult teaches? That lying is a virtue.

            You’re right there’s no point in having a dialogue with someone who is so driven by warped ideology they post lies and when found out, double down on them.

            Is that what you teach your family?

            I bet your big on calling others to repentance but when it comes to you, well your shit don’t stink. Like your mate Johnny Mac.

          18. And I bet that you believe all the exaggerations that Biden, Pelosi, and co. are making such as that pretty much anybody can get COVID, so we can totally shut down the economy and all of us get a big fat paycheck from the government. I smell laziness

          19. Bahahaha 180 000 dead. I knew this would happen because of how stupid Americans are. Remember when dead Americans meant something. Now it means nothing to the Trump cult.

            Nice try at trying to defend Eric’s lies though. That’s what you’ve been reduced to.

          20. But why should 349000000 people who are healthy who are still alive pay the price by losing jobs and having their livelihood destroyed? Everyday people die from all kinds of diseases, besides COVID, but Democrat politicians make this virus a special case to shutdown the economy. Why?

          21. Bahahaha it’s the democrats fault.

            Fun fact – this virus is a GLOBAL pandemic. Only the idiotic USA divides it into Democrat v Republican. Even Far Right countries like Hungary have gone into lockdown.

            Other countries went into lockdown, eradicated the disease and are now fine economically because they took it seriously. Like New Zealand.

            Your country was ruled by a liar who is more interested in playing politics than saving people. In fact he even hindered his own government’s response so he could blame the pandemic on democrat governors and mayors.

            The foul creature is far more interested in getting reelected than in the American people. He fiddles while the US burns.

            The economic damage would be even worse if the pandemic was left to go untreated like Brazil and Serbia found out and are now in economic freefall with spiralling deathrates. They treated it like a joke. Not so funny now – huh?

            Reap what you sow.

          22. I am in no way minimizing the seriousness of coronavirus. It is a deadly disease, no bones about it.
            But I am not so sure if stricter lockdown measures and various social distancing restrictions that US Democratic politicians are advocating for are worth their while in the long run, considering the recent CDC report. The report itself is controversial and subject to debate, of course.

          24. I am talking about the most recent report, the one that was shown here.

            You know, limiting the number of people at social gatherings to the very minimum, setting up curfews, closing down businesses like hair salons, etc.

          25. Those aren’t “proposals” but measures that have already been in place for months now. Again, they were not suggested by “democratic politicians” but by medical professionals (including some at the CDC) and they were implemented by both democrat and republican governors.

            I see nothing in the CDC report to suggest the measures were not necessary. Perhaps to can paste those parts you believe do show that.

          26. The report talks about combridities, or other preexisting conditions, like respiratory problems, that contributed to 171000 deaths, as opposed to 9000 to the virus only. If we to assume that the report numbers are accurate, then we can come to conclusion that considering US 350 million population, very rare amount of healthy people can die from this virus, and if this is the case, then, why would it be necessary to restrict our economy and social life, which also have financial and mental side effects ? Other factors play a role in studying which areas of the country are more susceptible to COVID, urban vs. rural, which age groups. These issues need to be examined in order to determine whether we are handling this situation in everybody’s best interest.

          27. “very rare amount of healthy people can die from the virus”

            A few things wrong with this.

            1) death isn’t the only adverse outcome from getting covid-19. Even if it doesn’t kill you it can cause other severe consequences including lung, heart and brain damage.

            2) the percentage of the population that isn’t “healthy” (i.e. susceptible to severe consequences) has estimated to be anywhere from 10 – 40% (although I suspect the 40% is due to failing to account for people w/ multiple risk factors).

            3) Even healthy people can indirectly experience health issue due to covid-19. Ex. because hospitals are filled to capacity and have to send cases to hospitals further away (delays of which could complicate treatments as well).

            Many people (esp. those that are younger) may have some of these risk factors and not even realize it, until it is too late.

            “why would it be necessary to restrict our economy and social life, which also have financial and mental side effects ?”

            Because covid-19 is new and potentially fatal disease which the only preventative measures is social distancing. Many things are still being learned about it, including what proper treatments should be. Dealing with financial and mental health issues associated with social distancing measures ARE things that are much better understood. If Trump was actually a competent leader, the lockdowns (and their consequences) likely would not have been as long or as severe. Instead, he turned the issue into an “Us vs Them” mentality making the situation far worse than it had to be.

          28. Yes. The latest figures I checked (with my MD) are: Of those infected, 40% are asymptomatic (spreaders), 20% are hospitalized, and the other 40% are symptomatic (which includes mildly symptomatic to very ill, many probably just not able or willing to be hospitalized). So my own estimation is of those infected, at least 30% become *very ill.* That’s a gigantic risk for the unenlightened to take with other people’s families.

          29. Yes. The latest figures I checked (with my MD) are: Of those infected, 40% are asymptomatic (spreaders), 20% are hospitalized, and the other 40% are symptomatic (which includes mildly symptomatic to very ill, many probably just not able or willing to be hospitalized). So my own estimation is of those infected, at least 30% become *very ill.* That’s a gigantic risk for the unenlightened to take with other people’s families.

          30. Depends if you want you or your family to live.

            There’s nothing controversial about it. We know what this virus is like. It’s highly contagious. I have no idea why someone would find social distancing controversial or political.

            Thankfully my country and most others saw beyond the Left/Right divide and had leaders who listened to its own medical experts and worked with even their opposition parties and did what was best for the country and its citizens as opposed to the US.

            It’s not just democrats advocating it btw. It’s everyone outside the US.

            Btw it might not kill you.

            It can also leave you with irreparable lung and cardio damage and major organ failure and be told you’re cured.

          31. I said the current CDC report is controversial. I see that people are interpreting it differently. I don’t oppose economic and social restrictions per se, but I am questioning how they are being implemented. Just curious, where do you live?

          33. Well, your country is a perfect example of how left-leaning politicians are using draconian measures restricting people’s liberties all in the name of eradicating COVID, especially in the state of Victoria:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8quxetI8wxY

            I would also characterize your Labor v. Liberal Coalition rivalry as Aussie Democrat vs. Republican riff in the US, especially on the virus issues. Scott Morrison was selected to be your Prime Minister because of his strong support for Donald Trump, fyi.

            The part on combrities, ie preexisting conditions. By watching how fiercely you and Gary were arguing about them, tells me how controversial it is.

          34. Bahahaha

            Republicans are nothing like the liberal party.

            They are more like our racist One Nation Party.

            Oh yeah I live in a labor state with next to nil covid cases.

            Well done for showing you know sfa about Australian politics.

          35. Because if nothing were done, likely a much higher percentage of those 3.5M would not be healthy. Possibly not even be alive.

            Further, it was not just democratic politicians. Republican governors also instituted lockdowns, ON THE ADVICE OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS .

            Your feeble attempts to blame this all on the democrats isn’t going to work, anymore than it will work for Trump. the reason the US is in the mess it is in right now is because Trump (not the democrats) ignored or obfuscated the seriousness of the problem for far too long, ineptly tried to deal with it when he could no longer ignore it, and divided the country for his own political gain rather than try to bring it together to deal with a serious problem.

          36. Because if nothing were done, likely a much higher percentage of those 3.5M would not be healthy. Possibly not even be alive.

            Further, it was not just democratic politicians. Republican governors also instituted lockdowns, ON THE ADVICE OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS .

            Your feeble attempts to blame this all on the democrats isn’t going to work, anymore than it will work for Trump. the reason the US is in the mess it is in right now is because Trump (not the democrats) ignored or obfuscated the seriousness of the problem for far too long, ineptly tried to deal with it when he could no longer ignore it, and divided the country for his own political gain rather than try to bring it together to deal with a serious problem.

          37. why do you think it is an “exaggeration” to say anyone can get COVID? While there MAY (and likely are) some people who are naturally immune to it, I know of no data to suggest how large a population that might be. Do you have any?

            No one advocated for shutting down the economy. What the medical experts said was people needed to be isolated to slow the spread of this disease. Had the Trump admin taken the threat seriously back in Jan/Feb, then maybe it could have worked with congress and the states to come up with solutions to mitigate the economic impact of the lockdowns.

          39. It’s still spurious if you compare his and the current one and why would you ignore the figures for August.

          40. To be fair, if you just went to the CDC site and search “NCHS Mortality Surveillance Data” under covid-19, the july graph is the latest that shows up in that search. Searching with an external search engine (google, bing etc) will get you the latest graphs.

            however, when getting graphs like these (including the one you posted) one should always take the “tail end” as imprecise at best as it might not have all the data.

          41. Especially with this caveat on the CDC website:

            “Weekly mortality surveillance data include a combination of machine coded and manually coded causes of death collected from death certificates. Percentages of deaths due to PIC are higher among manually coded records than more rapidly available machine coded records. Due to the additional time needed for manual coding, the initially reported PIC percentages may be lower than percentages calculated from final data.”

            Deaths due to COVID-19 have to be manually coded. So the underlined part of the quote CANNOT be ignored.

          42. I found the new one in under 60 seconds based on August’s data. .

            I look forward to him updating his graph.

          43. Bones, insults don’t get you very far. This information is very important and people could die due to Marcarthur’s explanation. Let’s not muddy the waters with insults. This is a public health emergency

          44. In this climate, facts will get you nowhere.

            You can bet Eric won’t admit he’s wrong or that he’s outright lying. He’ll already be on to his next piece of misinformation to defend the moron-in-chief. That’s the hypocrisy of conservative Christians. Very quick to point out others sins.

            You are dealing with cultists embracing every conspiracy theory they can get their hands on.

            They make up their own facts and information.

            They need to be called out for what they are.

          45. right, never makes it below the “epidemic threshold” and with the updated information (in the graph provided by Bones) you see the levels never actually even makes it as low as the graph you provided indicates.

            and with that latest graph, do you now see how it is not “typical”?

          46. That’s not the same graph as the one above. There aren’t as many spikes and the you are here poiint goes down much farther. Even if that was the right graph it would be right on the epidemic threshold – which is still statically speaking, very high, perhaps the 90th percentile, as 2 standard deviations is at the 95th percentile. So the 90th instead of the 99th, maybe, not really a bit difference. Besides do any of you remember any flu epidemics in the summer? Unusual to have one.

          51. Another thing that is clearly posted on the CDC website:

            “Weekly mortality surveillance data include a combination of machine coded and manually coded causes of death collected from death certificates. Percentages of deaths due to PIC are higher among manually coded records than more rapidly available machine coded records. Due to the additional time needed for manual coding, the initially reported PIC percentages may be lower than percentages calculated from final data.”

            Deaths due to COVID-19 have to be manually coded. So the underlined part of the quote CANNOT be ignored.

          53. Another thing that is clearly posted on the CDC website:

            “Weekly mortality surveillance data include a combination of machine coded and manually coded causes of death collected from death certificates. Percentages of deaths due to PIC are higher among manually coded records than more rapidly available machine coded records. Due to the additional time needed for manual coding, the initially reported PIC percentages may be lower than percentages calculated from final data.”

            Deaths due to COVID-19 have to be manually coded. So the underlined part of the quote CANNOT be ignored.

          54. It appears what your graph says is that 1 in four deaths is due to Covid right now. Seasonal flu is around 1 in 15, at least that’s what I am seeing from that graph. Instead it is 1 in four right now. Quite a bit different than what MacArthur is saying as far as I can tell. If that’s not what you are seeing please let me know.

    5. I found the answer to why the answer is greater than it was initally, from CDC website: “Weekly mortality surveillance data include a combination of machine
      coded and manually coded causes of death collected from death
      certificates. Percentages of deaths due to PIC are higher among manually
      coded records than more rapidly available machine coded records. Due to
      the additional time needed for manual coding, the initially reported
      PIC percentages may be lower than percentages calculated from final
      data.”

  5. the other point people often miss about the covid related deaths, is that A LOT of them were missed (esp. in Feb/Mar/Apr) because there wasn’t adequate testing to determine if the decedent had covid-19 or not.

  6. the other point people often miss about the covid related deaths, is that A LOT of them were missed (esp. in Feb/Mar/Apr) because there wasn’t adequate testing to determine if the decedent had covid-19 or not.

  7. So, based on CDC report we can learn that COVID is likely to affect and even fasten deaths of people with preexisting bad health conditions. Still, it should be considered a health risk, but it raises the question whether all the restrictions on the economy and travel are worth it, overall.

    1. It’s probably worth taking into account that the pre-existing conditions that are associated with greater mortality from COVID-19 aren’t rare, but represent a signifiant % of the US population.

      The pre-existing conditions also tend to be heavily correlated to socio-economic class. healthier people likely have jobs where they are able to work from home, whereas the typical ‘essential worker’ is more likely to have them.

    2. Also, just because you’re young and healthy doesn’t mean you get through unscathed. A significant percentage of cases can drag on for months with recurring debilitating symptoms, even after they start testing negative. This virus is *not* just another flu, and should be treated with all due caution.

      1. It’s called “The Long Tail” — long-term chronic aftereffects of COVID. Probably from vascular inflammation and resultant blood-clotting — thrombosis, mini-strokes, damage to most all organs and circulation.

    3. When being over 60, and especially over 80 is a comorbidity with Covid-19, then yes, the restrictions are absolutely worth it.

      Tens of millions of Americans are seriously overweight, have diabetes, heart disease, or COPD. These are all preexisting conditions that puts people at risk from dying from Covid-19. Going for herd immunity, which is what you’re essentially suggesting, would cost at least 2 million American lives.

  8. Just heads up for anyone who is interested. I shared this post over at Reddit in the Reformed subreddit.

    https://old.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/ijjuiv/john_macarthur_there_is_no_pandemic/

    The reformed subreddit has, in recent years, banned content from two sources: Pulpit and Pen, and Reformation Charlotte. The reason being that those two websites engage in seriously ungodly conduct and the spreading of lies and slander.

    As a result of MacArthur’s “there is no pandemic” statement, there are now serious discussions about banning him from the subreddit. This would not mean banning articles about him (so this article wouldn’t get banned), but banning anything written by him. This would include any link to GTY or GCC footage, and anything he wrote on the internet or available on the internet.

    Like me, there are a lot of Reformed christians who are deeply disenchanted with MacArthur. We have his books and we saw him as an erudite, judicious preacher and scholar who taught the Bible well – in the 20th century. Yet his decisions in the 21st century have come under scrutiny. About 15 years ago he wrote against Christians who drank alcohol, and derided them as people trying to be fashionable for Jesus and being… get this… legalists. Why legalists? Because apparently, according to MacArthur, these pro-alcohol pastors were arguing that Christians MUST drink alcohol. Of course this was completely false and was, in truth, a slander of their position.

    After spending time discussing Covid and Grace Church with Phil Johnson at his Pyromaniacs blog, I’ve come to the conclusion that the elders at Grace, including MacArthur, have decided that the Covid pandemic is no more serious than a regular flu, and that efforts by government to restrict large gatherings of people are designed to harm the church. This means that they see their actions as bravely obeying God’s word in a time of persecution and lies spread by enemies of the Gospel. In reality, they are themselves deceived by lies, and are making decisions that will harm, or even kill, some of their own people.

    1. I think MacArthur should be banned. He jumped the shark years ago when he said the only good Reformed Christians are the ones who are premillenial dispys like him. And Phil Johnson is nothing more than MacArthur’s attack dog / mini-me. I haven’t paid attention to him in over 10 years. Maybe you should ask Phil Johnson if he has recently sent any letters to his pedophile buddy Tom Chantry

      1. Once again, More-Calvinist-than-Calvin Utter Predestination plus Rapture Ready Dispy sounds like the WORST possible combination. Christians For Nuclear War ODed on steroids.

  9. I just tried to show these folks some info about the excess deaths with Covid and how these pre-existing conditions look to be often brought on by Covid (such as pneumonia)- I guess I’ll have to stop. They even said I didn’t have common sense. They expect me to believe that with 19000 cases of Covid in LA in 2 weeks NONE happened to anyone at that church. Crazy

    1. It’s called Divine Protection for His Faithful (guess who?).
      Or Sacred Testosterone.
      Or Utterly Correct Theology.

    2. Cases determined by what? The antibody test just means you have had any coronavirus in the last 12-18 months, which might well have been the common cold. That is from the CDC’s own website. And the PCR test was said by its own inventor that it should NOT be used to test for cases during a pandemic. Even the NYTimes had an article on the 28th or 29th of August admitting as such. It is not at all impossible that the entire thing is a massive deception.

          1. That is twitter, not the CDC. As Trump has shown time and time again, twitter is not a reliable source of information.

          3. No I don’t believe that screen shot is from the cdc. Here is a cdc page that says almost everything in that “screen shot” except it doesn’t say anything about “the common cold.”

            As I said, twitter is not the CDC and it is generally not a reliable source for information.

            btw, still waiting for your source that claims:

            “1 billion (flu) infections per year”

          4. You do realize they change the site often, right? I saw it myself when it was live. If you don’t believe me, I will use the wayback machine and find it for you.

            Here is the 1 billion infections per year: just google ‘how many flu infections per year’, it’s the first info popup (comes from the NIH): “Approximately 9% of the world’s population is affected annually, with up to 1 billion infections, 3 to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000 to 500,000 deaths each year.”

          5. So what? Far less people were infected by the Spanish Flu, yet it killed around 50 million people.

            It’s about how fatal the disease is.

            Infuenza kills 0.1% of people who get the flu. The Spanish Flu killed 2.5% of people who contracted it.
            Covid 19 killed 14% of people infected in Italy and the rate is even higher among the elderly.

            It is 4 times more lethal than the worst pandemic last century.

          6. “You do realize they change the site often, right?”

            yes I do, still no proof that the CDC said that. By all means use the wayback machine to find the link. While your at it, assuming it was there in the past, why do you think they took it out?

            For the 1 billion quote I’m guessing you got that from here:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278149/#b3-ptj3610659

            Note this was published in 2011. the world population then was ~7billion people. 9% is 630 Million. To get to 1 billion, that would be over 14% a much rarer occurrence. However, from the nih site, it does state that the flu can reach pandemic levels and appears to do so on a 10-40 year cycle.

            Major changes in the surface antigens hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) occur sporadically (in 10- to 40-year increments), leading to pandemic disease with increased morbidity and mortality rates.

          7. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/92670/cdc_92670_DS1.pdf?&usg=AOvVaw1qln_7CzkIoW3pvUULLZ0t

            Here ya go! Right from the CDC website, and exactly as depicted by the Twitter link. Re: “why do you think they took it out?” , why would you bother asking for sources if would justify the claim even if you knew it was in the source? Wouldn’t that be wasting someone’s time?

            Regarding your quibbling with the world population numbers: let’s not forget the original assertion by Jeff I was responding to, which was “six million infections sure sounds like a pandemic to me”. I have shown that to be absurd, was asked for sources, and I provided.

            Having provided all the sources requested, I will repeat my original argument, which you now have to dispute on the basis of logic and not missing source information:

            “Cases determined by what? The antibody test just means you have had any coronavirus in the last 12-18 months, which might well have been the common cold. That is from the CDC’s own website. And the PCR test was said by its own inventor that it should NOT be used to test for cases during a pandemic. Even the NYTimes had an article on the 28th or 29th of August admitting as such. It is not at all impossible that the entire thing is a massive deception.”

          8. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/92670/cdc_92670_DS1.pdf?&usg=AOvVaw1qln_7CzkIoW3pvUULLZ0t

            Here ya go! Right from the CDC website, and exactly as depicted by the Twitter link. Re: “why do you think they took it out?” , why would you bother asking for sources if would justify the claim even if you knew it was in the source? Wouldn’t that be wasting someone’s time?

            Regarding your quibbling with the world population numbers: let’s not forget the original assertion by Jeff I was responding to, which was “six million infections sure sounds like a pandemic to me”. I have shown that to be absurd, was asked for sources, and I provided.

            Having provided all the sources requested, I will repeat my original argument, which you now have to dispute on the basis of logic and not missing source information:

            “Cases determined by what? The antibody test just means you have had any coronavirus in the last 12-18 months, which might well have been the common cold. That is from the CDC’s own website. And the PCR test was said by its own inventor that it should NOT be used to test for cases during a pandemic. Even the NYTimes had an article on the 28th or 29th of August admitting as such. It is not at all impossible that the entire thing is a massive deception.”

          9. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/92670/cdc_92670_DS1.pdf?&usg=AOvVaw1qln_7CzkIoW3pvUULLZ0t

            Here ya go! Right from the CDC website, and exactly as depicted by the Twitter link. Re: “why do you think they took it out?” , why would you bother asking for sources if would justify the claim even if you knew it was in the source? Wouldn’t that be wasting someone’s time? Rather, I suspect it is classic “shifting of the goalposts”.

            Regarding your quibbling with the world population numbers: let’s not forget the original assertion by Jeff I was responding to, which was “six million infections sure sounds like a pandemic to me”. I have shown that to be absurd, was asked for sources, and I provided.

            Having provided all the sources requested, I will repeat my original argument, which you now have to dispute on the basis of logic and not missing source information:

            “Cases determined by what? The antibody test just means you have had any coronavirus in the last 12-18 months, which might well have been the common cold. That is from the CDC’s own website. And the PCR test was said by its own inventor that it should NOT be used to test for cases during a pandemic. Even the NYTimes had an article on the 28th or 29th of August admitting as such. It is not at all impossible that the entire thing is a massive deception.”

          10. I didn’t know it was in the source until you provided the 2nd link.

            “The antibody test just means you have had any coronavirus in the last 12-18 months, which might well have been the common cold.”

            What percentage of the antibody tests are false positives? Of those, what percentage false positives are because someone had a cold? You seem to be implying a high percentage, do you have anything to back that up?

            Perhaps that is the reason the CDC took out the common cold reference on the web page and replaced it with “Note: Other coronaviruses cannot produce a positive result on a viral test for SARS-CoV-2.” because too many people like you were misrepresenting the statement to claim it is all a “massive deception”.

            the 6M infections figure is for the US, not the world, the last worldwide numbers I saw were about 27M.

          11. “I didn’t know it was in the source until you provided the 2nd link.” In that case, pardon me for making the insuation that you wasted my time.

            “Note: Other coronaviruses cannot produce a positive result on a viral test for SARS-CoV-2.”: I assume that is referring to the PCR test- otherwise are we to believe they would alter the website to say the exact opposite of what it said previously? Even theoretically to dispel a myth, such an about face would be inexcusable, and far beyond merely removing this or that “misleading” sentence. And if they are indeed referring to the PCR test, it has no bearing on our debate in its present state, as I have already shown that the PCR’s inadequacies are quite uncontroversial.

            “You seem to be implying a high percentage, do you have anything to back that up?”. This isn’t an issue of false positive rates. The test is not capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies *by design*, so technically there is no such thing as a false positive rate with regard to the “wrong” coronavirus. Now, the rate of misdiagnosis due to the bad test is obviously dependent on the rate of people who had a cold in the past.

            “..because too many people like you were misrepresenting the statement to claim it is all a “massive deception”: I never claimed that (though I believe it)- I claimed that it’s not impossible. If one is coldly rational and not dismissing the possibility out of hand merely because it seems implausible or makes us upset, you would have to agree. It is not merely possible but fairly straightforward to do, if the tests produce massive false positives and you can cultivate through media control a high degree of public confidence in them and the overall narrative.

          12. Yes, the change was talking about the viral test, not the antibody test. that is clear, but they replaced the line about the common cold with it, Why do YOU think they did that?

            “The test is not capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies *by design*,”

            where do you get that it was “by design” (in the sense that it was not intended to test for covid-19 antibodies)?

            yes, it is a false postive. From the CDC Using Antibody Tests for COVID-19

            If someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but does not really have those specific antibodies, the result is a false positive.

            so I’ll ask again, do you have any evidence to back up your implication that the antibody tests had a high percentage of false positives?

            “By “misrepresenting”, you mean “using”.”

            No, I meant what I said. You were misrepresenting the statement to imply that the antibody tests couldn’t distinguish between covid-19 and the common cold.

            “if the tests produce massive false positives”

            do you have evidence of “massive false positives”?

          13. “Why do YOU think they did that?” To stop people from losing confidence in the media reports of positive tests.

            “where do you get that it was “by design” (in the sense that it was not intended to test for covid-19 antibodies)?” I think you didn’t understand my point. You asked me to find a source for the rate of false positives. There are no false positives, i.e. falsely indicating SARS-CoV-2 – there are just positives for coronavirus, and negatives for coronavirus.

            Per your link: “If someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but does not really
            have those specific antibodies, the result is a false positive” Clearly, this is simply intended to mean “if someone tests positive for any coronavirus antibodies…”, since we know that the test is incapable of determining which strain of coronavirus the antibodies are from. It is presumably written in such a way for the layperson who doesn’t know that.

            “You were misrepresenting the statement to
            imply that the antibody tests couldn’t distinguish between covid-19 and
            the common cold.” Obviously the difference between misrepresenting and using is a matter of opinion, specifically the opinion about the claim itself. You are prematurely and unwisely using the word “misrepresenting”, before the argument has been concluded, which I personally would never do, since there’s always a chance my opponent may convince me I was wrong, in which case I would then have to apologize for my accusation.

            “do you have evidence of “massive false positives”?” In a hypothetical postulate such as the one I made, wherein I am claiming the possibility of something based upon that postulate, it is sufficient to show that A=true renders B=true a possibility. It would be bizarre to ask for evidence that A actually *is* true, since it is immaterial to the logical relationship. Furthermore, doesn’t the fact that the antibody test produces a positive result for any coronavirus already by definition demonstrate that there *must* be many, many “false” positives? I mean, there’s a reason they call it the *common* cold. It’s quite common. I understand there is a trendy compulsion to demand “sources” and “evidence” for every little thing one doesn’t agree with on the internet, but you actually must determine whether that demand makes logical sense. In my opinion, you are hiding a weakness in your ability to reason for yourself behind such demands, with all due respect.

            I repeat my original hypothetical argument:
            “Cases determined by what? The antibody test just means you have had any coronavirus in the last 12-18 months, which might well have been the common cold. That is from the CDC’s own website. And the PCR test was said by its own inventor that it should NOT be used to test for cases during a pandemic. Even the NYTimes had an article on the 28th or 29th of August admitting as such. It is not at all impossible that the entire thing is a massive deception.”

          14. “There are no false positives, i.e. falsely indicating SARS-CoV-2”

            According to the CDC (in the link I provided) there are. If you have evidence they are wrong, then present it. Otherwise the only thing that is false here are your claims about the anti-body tests.

            “since we know that the test is incapable of determining which strain of coronavirus the antibodies are from”

            Again, you claim this but have provided no proof of that claim. From the link I gave (emphasis added):

            “If someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ”

            Not, “coronavirus antibodies” in general as you keep claiming (again without evidence) but specifically SARS-CoV-2 (covid-19) antibodies.

            Further it is not A single test, various labs have developed different tests, with varying degrees of accuracy. One of the things the CDC (and/or FDA) does is to evaluate the accuracy of the different tests. Tests that get refined over time to improve their reliability.

            “You are prematurely and unwisely using the word “misrepresenting””

            You have repeatedly made several false or misleading claims, which I have pointed out, I don’t think it is “premature” to claim you are misrepresenting the facts.

            “It would be bizarre to ask for evidence that A actually *is* true, since it is immaterial to the logical relationship”

            Unless you are simply trying to imply “A is true” without evidence and then claim “I never said A was true” when challenged on it. which is exactly what you are doing here. Further you didn’t give this implication statement until AFTER I specifically ask you for evidence about the accuracy of antibody tests (i.e. the truth value of A in this example).

            “doesn’t the fact that the antibody test produces a positive result for any coronavirus”

            Except this isn’t “a fact” it is a claim you keep making over and over and have yet to provide any evidence of, even though I have asked you several times for your evidence.

            You’ll find that the tricks that are able to fool Trump supporters aren’t going to work here.

          15. 1. “According to the CDC (in the link I provided) there are”- This right here indicates that you didn’t read what I wrote or, possibly, didn’t understand it. I will simply repost what I wrote, so you can re-read it: “Clearly, this is simply intended to mean ‘if someone tests positive for any coronavirus antibodies…’, since we know that the test is incapable of determining which strain of coronavirus the antibodies are from. It is presumably written in such a way for the layperson who doesn’t know that.”

            2.”Again, you claim this but have provided no proof of that claim. From the link I gave (emphasis added):” It is not even controversial that antibody tests are not strain-specific. (Porbably never will be possible, either.) Regarding the verbiage in the link you sent, refer back to #1.

            3. “..it is not A single test, various labs have developed different tests, with varying degrees of accuracy.” – Assuming you’re talking about antibody tests, the varying degrees of accuracy refer to the superior or inferior false positive/negative rate, NOT that more accurate tests can determine the genome (and thus strain) of the coronavirus that triggered the antibody creation by your body. Again, you do realize that antibody tests not being strain specific is as close a thing to “common knowledge” in the field as one can get, right?

            4. “I don’t think it is “premature” to claim you are misrepresenting the facts” – It is increasingly being demonstrated that it was premature.

            5. “…and then claim “I never said A was true” when challenged on it. which is exactly what you are doing here.” – Uh, no. My stance consistently has been that A=true is *not impossible*. I go even further in stating that it’s actually *likely*. I never state that A is true (though I believe it is), so your demand for evidence that it’s true makes no sense.

            6. “you didn’t give this implication statement until AFTER I specifically ask you for evidence about the accuracy of antibody tests” – You demand elaboration, and then paint it as evasion!

            7. “Except this isn’t “a fact” it is a claim you keep making over and over and have yet to provide any evidence of, even though I have asked you several times for your evidence.” – Refer to #2 and #3. This is like demanding evidence that motors don’t run on chocolate syrup. And the reason I keep having to claim “over and over” is because you keep failing to understand over and over.

            8. “You’ll find that the tricks that are able to fool Trump supporters aren’t going to work here.” – Aha, maybe this explains your bizarre refusal to concede even singular, isolated points. You have been thinking this whole time to yourself “I can’t let a Trump supporter win” (maybe sub-consciously). I am not a Trump supporter. For your own sake, you should not let the Trump and the politics surrounding him get under your skin.

          16. “since we know that the test is incapable of determining which strain of coronavirus”

            I don’t know that, nor do I believe this claim and you have yet to prove it.

            “It is not even controversial that antibody tests are not strain-specific.”

            No it isn’t controversial, it is a false statement. One you keep making. Until you can provide actual evidence that the antibody test that the CDC claims are for covid-19 antibodies (as opposed to corona viruses in general) I will keep pointing out it is a false claim.

  10. FWIW, I seriously doubt MacArthur is reading QAnon stuff — rather that he heard someone tell him via a note they read on Facebook or Twitter and didn’t bother to read any further.

    I won’t blame him for getting tripped up on an internet rumor, we’ve all been there. That said, this is a guy who crabs about everyone else who does a bad job (in his view) of interpreting the Bible. You have thousands of people listening to you every week — it’s on you to do better than some rando retweeting.

    Imagine if Bill Johnson or Joel Osteen was pulling these stunts…

  11. MacArthur’s comments illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) of how “cause of death” is attributed in a certificate of death.

    A death record is designed to allow the certifying physician to record multiple causes of death for a decedent and to arrange them so that the causal or etiological relationship of the medical conditions that finally lead to the death are recorded. The cause of death that initiated all other causes or conditions, as recorded by the physician, is the underlying cause of death for most deaths.

    See more here

  12. Maybe this outfit should be rebranded “GraVe Community Church”?

    And relocated to Death Valley?

    1. It would really be a shame if John MacArthur got COVID-19 and died (like Herman Cain). It would mean I could nominate him for a Darwin Award.

      1. Doesn’t he already have children? You can get a Darwin Award only if you have stupidly caused your own death before you reproduce. Maybe an Honorable Mention?

        1. See my other post from the Darwin Awards website regarding eligibility of nominees who have had children.

  13. If someone is in hospital for a very serious, perhaps fatal disease, and you go in and shoot him, killing him, the “MacArthur defense” would not get you anywhere. For rather obvious reasons. This is on the same level of logic as asking someone who criticizes the police “Why do you hate America?”

    In fact, there are many COVID-19 deaths that have not been counted. In New York City, between March and June, there were about 25,100 “excess deaths”. This figure comes from examining the number of deaths that occurred outside of a hospital setting in 2019 and comparing that number to the number for 2020. A 25,100 difference from one year to the next is a pretty high number, and the virus is the best explanation for the lion’s share of it.

    Plus, six million infections sure sounds like a pandemic to me. MacArthur is making a claim like many I’ve seen, based on a childish and simplistic form of reasoning. It’s inexcusable, because this isn’t some guy at the end of the bar mouthing off: He has a following that will believe he knows what he’s talking about. And he doesn’t.

    For more on excess mortality as a measure of the frequency of a disease, see: https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/03/measuring-excess-mortality-gives-clearer-picture-pandemics-true-burden/

    1. “six million infections sure sounds like a pandemic to me”
      The common flu has up to 1 BILLION infections per year. Is that a pandemic?

        1. Here is the 1 billion infections per year: just google ‘how many flu
          infections per year’, it’s the first info popup (comes from the NIH):
          “Approximately 9% of the world’s population is affected annually, with
          up to 1 billion infections, 3 to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000 to
          500,000 deaths each year.”

        2. Here is the 1 billion infections per year: just google ‘how many flu
          infections per year’, it’s the first info popup (comes from the NIH):
          “Approximately 9% of the world’s population is affected annually, with
          up to 1 billion infections, 3 to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000 to
          500,000 deaths each year.”

  14. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/30/politics/twitter-coronavirus-deaths-false-claim-qanon-trump/index.html
    The article has a very good breakdown of the misinterpreted stats that seem to have begun with a Twitter post. Who knows where MacArthur heard it, but so much of this misinformation finds itself to Facebook and some of the “iffy” sources (things like The Daily Caller).
    My question for MacArthur: do you know how many of your parishioners probably have underlying conditions? Do you really want to preach those memorial services?

  15. John MacArthur’s self-serving gospel has so many applications. Here’s just one variation of MacArthur’s theology in action:

    “In truth, no deaths that occurred at Golgatha can be directly attributed to crucifixion.

    Jesus wasn’t crucified.”

  17. My God! John MacArthur is repeating the president, who was repeating QAnon garbage, word for word. Has he really fallen down that rabbit hole? I thought he at least had brains, and a sort of integrity, however badly he was using them. Apparently not. I am deeply sorry for his congregation.

    1. Don’t feel sorry for believers living forever in Heaven as it is written in the Bible. Feel sorry for unrepentant sinners bowing to the sword at his neck, with a voice in his ear saying,”convert or die”?Hey Einstein, enjoy sharia on earth these last days before the lake of fire becomes your forever home. “Our people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”!

    2. About ten years ago John MacArthur gave a sermon on climate change based on a Michael Crichton speech from 2003, which I could only find on WayBack Machine (so maybe Michael got wiser before his death and changed his views, but I don’t know). MacArthur has since repeated versions of the same sermon, mocking climate science. So this doesn’t surprise me. What does surprise me is that an academic can remain unenlightened for decades.

        1. John MacArthur completed a Master’s degree in 1963 and later served as president of Master’s University until he was recently forced to step down due to patterns of misconduct while his institution remains on probation. So he’s an “academic” in opposition to actual academic and scholarly inquiry.

          To underscore what janet pesenti wrote, why would a pastor invest time to mock climate science by attacking a fiction writer (though Crichton was a non-practicing M.D.)? MacArthur despises scholarly inquiry, whether it’s science, theology, or the craft of writing medical fiction and sci-fi.

          1. I doubt that MacArthur was attacking Crichton — late in his life Crichton gained notoriety as a climate change denier.
            Sounds to me like MacArthur was showing his contempt for scholarship by taking his view on climate change from a fiction writer rather than from actual climate scientists.

        3. Correction: I was referring to MacArthur who has been President of two teaching institutions,

Comments are closed.