Interesting that this thread seems to be back on a civil track. Your skepticism of the validity of ballistic gelatin is understandable. However, there does not appear to be a validated alternative. It's not perfect, and I think authors like Fackler and Wolberg understood that; but it's all we have to work with. You can't shoot animals for ballistic testing purposes without raising a stink and you certainly can't shoot people. The Wolberg paper did nothing but show that the AVERAGE penetration was about the same in tissue and gelatin, and he freely acknowledged that there was a lot more variability in tissue.
The thing that's important about the work of Fackler and the rest is their focus on what is testable and repeatable based on physiologic facts.
Courtney may be able to demonstrate that Ballistic pressure waves can cause brain injury but there is a wealth of data that shows that it is not a reliable or repeatable phenomenon. I'd be willing to accept that injury can occur in this manner and that it is more likely to occur with a more energetic round, etc., but I don't think anyone could ever create a pistol or rifle round that is guaranteed to stop as a result.
In short, BPW may exist but you can't count on it because it's effects are unpredictable.
The Audacity of Nope