Dr. Dan Stock’s Testimony before the Mt. Vernon School Board

On August 6th, a school board in Mt. Vernon Indiana heard some interesting testimony regarding COVID-19 and vaccines from Dr. Dan Stock, a McCordsville resident and family medicine physician (Link). Since our own boys are headed back to school shortly, it’s no wonder that many have sent me this video asking me my opinion on Stock’s presentation.

Facemasks ineffective:

Dr. Stock starts off by claiming that the COVID-19 virus is far too small for masks to even slow them down.

Now, while it may seem difficult to see how facemasks in a grade school setting would provide very much benefit, children being children and all, the latest data appears to support the conclusion that masks in schools do in fact reduce the transmission rates of COVID-19.

In some places where schools have been open for a while now, such as Georgia and Hawaii, public health experts notice what happens when schools follow the science: classes go on without disruption as long staff and students wear masks.

Jacqueline Howard, CNN, August 12, 2021

Also, Dr. Stock is not technically correct when he says that masks cannot work because the virus is so small that they would fly right through any mask one might wear. SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus ~0.1 μm in diameter. The length of rod- or filament-shaped viruses can measure to as long as 1 μm. (Link). In comparison, reusable surgical-type masks have pore diameters ranging from 20 to 100 µm, whereas N95 masks have pore diameters ranging from 10 to 65 µm (Link). So, it would seem reasonable that using masks to stop the COVID-19 virus would be about as reasonable as using a chicken-wire fence to stop mosquitoes.

The problem with this particular argument is that respiratory viruses, COVID-19 in particular, are not transmitted in infectious doses via individual viruses flying independently through the air. Rather, they are transmitted within respiratory droplets and aerosols, sometimes in large numbers within these droplets, and are then inhaled into the nasopharynx and respiratory passages of others in the vicinity.  It is for this reason that face-masks (surgical types and even many cloth types) do reduce the number of infected respiratory droplets that are given off by an infected person, and even reduce the number of these infected droplets that are inhaled by someone wearing a mask (although reduction of transmission appears to be the prime benefit for mask-wearing in public places). Also, the nano fabrics of face masks such as surgical and N95 masks, will be given an electrostatic charge to enhance the small particle capture ability (Link).

No one is saying that masks are perfect – not even N95 masks block all aerosols that may contain viruses. What is being said is that masks reduce, but do not completely eliminate, the spread of respiratory droplets and aerosols – thereby reducing, but not eliminating, the number of viruses transmitted from one mask-wearing person to another mask-wearing person within a given span of time. Masks also reduce the forward speed of airflow and therefore the speed of the aerosols leaving the mouth/nose of a person. You can’t even blow out a candle at 2 inches with a surgical mask on.

Multi-layer cloth masks block release of exhaled respiratory particles into the environment, along with the microorganisms these particles carry. Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger) but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns; which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured. Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets, with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control. (CDC, May 7, 2021)

.

Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission. (Asadi, et. al., September 24, 2020)

N95 masks are designed to remove more than 95% of all particles that are at least 0.3 microns (µm) in diameter. In fact, measurements of the particle filtration efficiency of N95 masks show that they are capable of filtering ≈99.8% of particles with a diameter of ≈0.1 μm (Rengasamy et al., 2017).

Again, while certainly not perfect, not by a long shot, masks are better than nothing. Of course, now that we have the mRNA vaccines, these vaccines are far more effective compared to masks – make no mistake about it!

So, while it may be tempting to conclude that masks in a grade school setting probably have limited practical value for numerous reasons, the reasons given by Dr. Stock here aren’t technically correct and the actual observations of masks in action do seem to have actual real-world benefits – even in the grade-school setting.

Dr. Anthony Kaveh, August 24, 2020

Animals reservoirs:

Animals reservoirs are a problem for the flu virus and other such respiratory viruses. However, I’m not aware of a significant animal reservoir for COVID-19. It’s a real and serious possibility, however, since SARS-CoV-2 has been transmitted to various animals and there have been cases of animal to human transmission (Link).

Antibody-Dependent Viral Enhancement:

Dr. Stock is seriously mistaken, however, about antibody-dependent viral enhancement. The mRNA vaccines were specifically designed to avoid this particular problem.

There is a very real concern for antibody-dependent enhancement (or ADE) when developing any new vaccine – where the vaccine can result in the production of antibodies that make an infection worse rather than effectively fight against it. This concern was front and center for the development of the vaccines against COVID-19 as well – that the ADE problem could be overcome.  And, the ADE problem was overcome for the vaccines against COVID-19 (Link).

The protein sequences produced by the mRNA vaccines work just like any other standard vaccine when to comes to educating the adaptive immune system. And, the animal studies that were performed were just as successful and safe as they were in humans. Of the 70,000 human volunteers for the mRNA vaccine trials, there were six deaths during the trial period. Four of these six people who died were given the saline injection placebo. And, since the mRNA vaccines have been given to millions of people there hasn’t been an increased death rate in any population or demographic over the usual or expected death rates. In fact, of those who are currently experiencing serious COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and death, more than 95% are unvaccinated (within a particular age category), prompting some to refer to this as a “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated” (Link).
.
Now, to be fair, studies done 30 years ago, did show some problems for various vaccines regarding ADE. For example, a study done in 1990 with cats immunized with a vaccine expressing the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) S protein on a recombinant pox virus vector died earlier than control animals when challenged with FIPV. Of course, this was, in fact, due to what is known as “antibody-dependent enhancement” (ADE) where the immune response ends up making a subsequent viral infection worse, not better.
.
Vennema, H. et al. Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vaccinia virus immunization. J. Virol. 64, 1407–1409 (1990).
.
This situation is well-known (also called, “vaccine-associated disease enhancement” or VADE). The first respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines also had a similar problem. Among the 20 infants who received the FI-RSV vaccine, 16 required hospitalization, including two who subsequently died, whereas only one of the 21 participants in the control group was hospitalized (Link).
.
However, over time, a series of very fortunate discoveries allowed scientists to stabilize the target proteins produced by the mRNA vaccines so that they would produce a good immune response via “neutralizing antibodies” while also avoiding the problem of ADE – resulting in a vaccine that is very effective as well as very safe. Again, the subsequent human and animal studies on these modern mRNA vaccines against COVID-19, in particular, showed them to be highly effective and very safe – without having any VADE problems at all.

For more details regarding the backstory to the development of safe and effective mRNA vaccines, see: Link.
.
See also the very interesting article about ADE by Dr. Derek Lowe: Antibody-Dependent Enhancement and the Coronavirus Vaccines, February 12, 2021:  Link
.
In any case, given the great deal of evidence that we currently have in hand, it seems as though getting the vaccine is far better than getting the actual COVID-19 infection.
.

More vaccinated rather than unvaccinated people getting infected:

But what about Dr. Stock’s claims regarding the evidence that even those who are vaccinated still get infected by COVID-19? – particularly the delta variant?  As an example of this, consider a series of large public events that occurred over several days in Cape Cod, Massachusetts (from July 3–17). This “event” or “series of events” if you prefer, resulted in 469 people being infected with Covid-19 (as initially reported by the CDC). Of this number, 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated persons! Most cases occurred in males (85%) with a median age was 40 years. Five were hospitalized and no deaths were reported. One hospitalized patient (age range = 50–59 years) was not vaccinated and had multiple underlying medical conditions. Four additional fully vaccinated patients (aged 20–70 years) were also hospitalized, two of whom had underlying medical conditions. Initial genomic sequencing of specimens from 133 patients identified the Delta Variant in 119 (89%) cases and the Delta AY.3 sublineage in one (1%) case (Link).

That sounds like a problem until one realizes that 72% of the population in Massachusetts has received at least one vaccine dose, and, overall, 4,389,137 people or 63% of Massachusetts’s population has been fully vaccinated. Of those 75 years of age and older, the rate of full vaccination is 81.7% and for those 50-74 years of age, the rate of full vaccination in this state is over 80%. And, the vaccine rate is even high for those who are in their 20s, 30s, and 40s in this region (Link). Only the children have a low rate of vaccination because the vaccines are not available to children yet. And, those attending these large events were supposed to be vaccinated.

Clearly, then, as in the UK, the significant majority of those older than 30 years of age have been fully vaccinated. So, it only stands to reason that the majority of infections, and even deaths (particularly in the UK), would be among those who have been vaccinated since the effectiveness of the vaccines is not 100%. It’s very good, but not 100%. When it comes to the original type of COVID-19, vaccines not only provide significant protection against hospitalization and death, but also significantly reduce the transmission rate of the virus to others.

What is different, then, about this Massachusetts data, is that the delta variant seems to have a much higher infection rate, even among those who have been vaccinated, as compared to the original COVID-19 virus of 2020. Just watch the video of well-known and well-respected pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult where he explains that the only group of people that has a decreased risk of severe infection requiring hospitalization and/or death from the Delta Variant is not the unvaccinated group, or even the partially vaccinated group, but the fully vaccinated group (within a particular age category): Link

Again, when it comes to the severity of illness and deaths, all of the data worldwide, the UK data included, strongly supports the conclusion that the unvaccinated, within a particular age category, are at a far far higher risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 infections (particularly the delta variant now) as compared to those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 – via the mRNA vaccines in particular. More than 99% of those who are dying of COVID-19 right now, within a particular age category, are the unvaccinated – in this country and around the world (LinkLink). The unvaccinated also have a much higher hospitalization rate.

Sure, the Delta Variant of COVID-19 has reduced the ability of the current mRNA vaccines to make someone resistant to infection. However, recent research still shows relatively substantial protection for those who are fully vaccinated relative to those who are not vaccinated. Consider, for example, the results of the Imperial-led REACT-1 study based on swab tests taken by almost 100,000 people in England between 24 June and 12 July, 2021 – specifically dealing with the Delta Variant of COVID-19 (Link):

“Fully vaccinated people… had around a 50% to 60% reduced risk of infection, including asymptomatic infection, compared to unvaccinated people. In addition, double vaccinated people were less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive after coming into contact with someone who had COVID-19 (3.84% vs 7.23%)… The study’s… results also suggest that fully vaccinated people may be less likely than unvaccinated people to pass the virus on to others, due to having a smaller viral load on average and therefore likely shedding less virus.”

This is on top of the dramatically reduced risks of hospitalization and death for those who are fully vaccinated (more than 95% of those who are being hospitalized and/or dying of COVID-19 right now, within a given age range, are unvaccinated).

Key Facts from the REACT Study:

  • Three times as many unvaccinated people tested positive for Covid-19 than those who had been fully vaccinated, the REACT study found, with all positive samples analyzed indicating an infection with the delta Covid-19 variant.
  • Once other factors are taken into account, the study, which is based on data from over 98,000 swab tests taken between June 24 and July 12 and has not yet been peer reviewed, indicates full vaccination halves the risk of catching Covid-19 caused by the delta variant.
  • Fully vaccinated people who were infected with the virus tended to have less severe illness than unvaccinated people and seemed to have smaller amounts of virus in samples, the researchers added, meaning they may be less likely to pass it on if they are infected.
  • Professor Paul Elliott, director of the research program running the study, said the findings confirm “previous data showing that both doses of a vaccine offer good protection against getting infected,” but show there “is still a risk of infection among the fully vaccinated.”
  • The researchers estimated that two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine are 49% effective at preventing infection with the delta variant, in line with recent data from Israel and much lower than previous estimates.
  • “Development of vaccines against delta may be warranted” given the reduced effectiveness of current vaccines against the strain, the researchers wrote, warning that even high levels of vaccination may be unable to stop it spreading in the fall.

Robert Hart, Forbes.com, August 4, 2021

So, not only is it very advantageous to a particular person to get fully vaccinated against COVID-19, even when it comes to the current “variants of interest”, such as the Delta Variant, in particular, it also appears to be helpful in reducing the transmission of COVID-19 and it’s current variants. I’d call that very “effective” – and so would the vast majority of doctors and medical scientists. Of course, if your definition of “effective” is absolute perfection, well, you’ll be waiting a while for sure. Until then, I would strongly advise you and everyone else who has access to get fully vaccinated as soon as possible.

Vitamin D:

Also, while I’m a big fan of vitamin D, it’s just not enough to deal effectively with a virus as infectious as the Delta Variant of COVID-19.  Sure, various studies have shown that those who are deficient in Vitamin D can gain substantial advantages when it comes to resisting various viral infections if they start improving their Vitamin D levels. If everyone in this country had adequate levels of Vitamin D on board (> 50 ng/mL), then perhaps the overall death rate would have been reduced by more than half – no exaggeration since most people are Vitamin D deficient.  However, compared to the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines (more than 95% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths, and an 8 fold reduction in infection rates, and therefore transmissibility), this isn’t remotely good enough.

 

Ivermectin:

As far as Ivermectin is concerned, also promoted by Dr. Stock, I really wished it worked, but multiple studies have not been able to demonstrate more than modest benefits against COVID-19 – so far. (Link, Link)

Those previously infected gain nothing from vaccines:

Stock’s claim that those who have previously recovered from a COVID-19 infection get no additional benefit now that they’ve gained natural immunity, from vaccines, actually seems to be supported by the most resent scientific research coming out of Israel.

Earlier lab-based studies seemed to show a relative reduction in natural immunity vs. vaccine-based immunity after the arrival of the Delta Variant (Planas, et. al., June 29, 2021 and Liu, et. al., June 16, 2021).  The problem with these studies, however, is that they were lab-based studies that were only looking at levels of “neutralizing antibodies” – without regard to other potentially protective features of the human immune system. However, surprisingly, a subsequent paper, based on a large number of actual people with natural immunity vs. vaccine-derived immunity, showed the opposite results – that natural immunity was actually superior to vaccine-derived immunity.
This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Notably, individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant. (Gazit, et. al., August 25, 2021)
.
Sivan Gazit is a physician and researcher, deputy managing director of KSM Research and Innovation Center at Maccabi Healthcare Services.
.
In a review of this paper, published by the journal Science (August 26, 2021) Meredith Wadman writes:
The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.
The study demonstrates the power of the human immune system, but infectious disease experts emphasized that this vaccine and others for COVID-19 nonetheless remain highly protective against severe disease and death. And they caution that intentional infection among unvaccinated people would be extremely risky. “What we don’t want people to say is: ‘All right, I should go out and get infected, I should have an infection party.'” says Michel Nussenzweig, an immunologist at Rockefeller University who researches the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and was not involved in the study. “Because somebody could die.”
.
.
In this line, there’s another recent paper where the authors conclude that “getting a third dose” of the mRNA vaccines would only increase the quantity, but not the quality, of antibodies – without improving the ability of the antibodies to neutralize new variants (Cho, et. al., July 29, 2021).  The authors specifically argue that:
“These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.”
.
Of course, this only makes sense given what is currently known.  Given all of the data that is currently in hand, it is very reasonable to conclude that those who have pre-existing natural immunity, due to a previous infection by COVID-19, would end up with superior neutralizing advantages against variants if they were to receive a vaccine against COVID-19.  The combination of natural immunity plus a vaccine, such as one of the mRNA vaccines, would end up producing a better and wider range of immunity compared to the immunity of those who are vaccinated, but have no additional “natural immunity”. In fact, this conclusion is supported by the findings published by Planas et. al. in Nature. and is also suggested by the large Israeli Gazit study.
.
In short, those with natural immunity have superior activity against the delta variant (as compared to those who were only fully vaccinated, but were never infected by the live virus) and gain even more superior immunity once they get even one dose of a vaccine.
.
The problem, of course, is the risk associated with the natural COVID-19 infection.  The risk of infection is far far higher than the risk of the vaccine – which is, of course, the whole point of vaccines.  The whole purpose of vaccines is to gain a useful level of immunity without having the body experience the natural infection and all the risks associated with it.  After all, the risks associated with the vaccine, and there are a few, are very rare relative to the risks associated with the natural infection.
Still, the finding that naturally-derived immunity is very effective against the Delta Variant of COVID-19 is a very hopeful discovery.  It explains the rather sudden decline in the Delta Variant in India and in the UK following dramatically increased case numbers starting in March of 2021, but then dropping back down to pre-Delta levels by the end of June.  Since the Delta Variant hit India (and the UK) before it hit here in the US, these particular observations are very hopeful for us – suggesting that our own surge will also be relatively short-lived and that “herd immunity” may still be within grasp within the near future.  My main concern here, however, is “at what cost”?  What does it cost us to gain “natural immunity”?  I’m afraid that the cost paid in the very large number of injuries, hospitalizations, and lives lost to gain natural immunity isn’t remotely worth it compared to what could have been achieved via vaccinations.
 

More than 96% of Doctors are Fully Vaccinated:

According to a recent AMA survey (June 11, 2021) more than 96% of doctors in this country are now fully vaccinated with another 2% soon to be fully vaccinated – for a total of 98%.

“Practicing physicians across the country are leading by example, with an amazing uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD. “Physicians and clinicians are uniquely positioned to listen to and validate patient concerns, and one of the most powerful anecdotes a physician can offer is that they themselves have been vaccinated. You can take it from your doctor: the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. With COVID-19 vaccines readily available and approved for all people 12 years old and up, we urge you to get vaccinated—take the single most important step you can to protect yourself, your family, and end the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Link)

Highest level of Vaccine Hesitancy among those with a Ph.D.:

In contrast, however, is the increased vaccine hesitancy among those with Ph.Ds. It might sound surprising, but, apparently, the two groups with the highest levels of those with vaccine hesitancy are those with only a high school level of education, or less – and those with a Ph.D. (Link)

Overall, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy declined by about one-third from January through May (of 2021), according to a study in the preprint server medRxiv posted July 23. The study is not yet peer-reviewed. Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh evaluated the responses of more than 5 million U.S. adults who completed an online survey about COVID-19 vaccination and answered questions about education, race, and other personal details. (Link)  Here’s a summary of those findings:
I’ve always wondered about Ph.Ds…  😉
.
Perhaps it’s because they just don’t see the effects of the pandemic upfront and personal? like medical doctors see them?  Maybe it’s just that they don’t generally get to look into the eyes of those who are dying or who are losing their loved ones to this pandemic as much as medical doctors? Or, maybe it’s because they know something that medical doctors just don’t know? – like not to be as trusting of published scientific research studies?  I really have no idea?
It is possible, however, that the quality of the survey data may be less than ideal since it was a “Facebook Survey”. From page 4 of the paper:
.
    56 This analysis used the COVID Trends and Impact Survey (CTIS), created by the Delphi Group at
    57 Carnegie Mellon University  (CMU) and conducted  in collaboration with Facebook Data for
    58 Good. Survey sampling is described  in  the eMethods.  Survey weights accounting for the
    59 sampling design and non-response are post-stratified to match the US general population by
    60 age, gender, and state. The study design ensures CMU researchers do not see usernames or
    61 profile  information and Facebook does not see survey microdata. Link

Another concept to remember here is that a Ph.D. can be in “molecular biology just as much as it can be in comparative linguistics.”  In other words, just because one has a Ph.D. in something doesn’t mean that this increases a person’s ability to understand the medical science involved with viruses or vaccines.

Review by Dr. Zubin Damania:

Delta Variant: Top 10 COVID Questions and How to Prepare:

Dr. Sean Pitman:

_____________

Dr. Sean Pitman is a pathologist, with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology, currently working in N. California.

Please follow and like us:
37

29 thoughts on “Dr. Dan Stock’s Testimony before the Mt. Vernon School Board

  1. Your rationale, related to mask is false. If you stated that no mask prevented 100% droplet nuclei you would be correct. Please refer to Most penetrating particle size filtration. This is how we have BSL 3 and 4 laboratories. Not arguing with you, and don’t mind helping you. Your gonna get nabbed using your rationale.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • Of course, masks aren’t 100% effective – nothing is. I’m not sure why you thought I was making the suggestion of perfection here? However, if the correct masks are worn and used properly, they are useful in reducing the viral load leaving an infected person and also reduce the viral load entering a non-infected person – over a given span of time. Of course, in comparison, the mRNA vaccines are much more effective.

        (Quote)

      View Comment
      2
        • Great video by Dr. Byram Bridle. Of course, he’s not the first one to demonstrate respiratory aerosols making it through surgical masks. The problem here is that Bridle is not quantifying how many particles have been blocked by the mask. You see, no one is saying that masks are perfect – not even N95 masks block all aerosols that may contain viruses. What is being said is that masks reduce, but do not completely eliminate, the spread of respiratory droplets and aerosols – thereby reducing, but not eliminating, the number of viruses transmitted from one mask-wearing person to another mask-wearing person within a given span of time. Masks also reduce the speed of airflow and therefore the speed of the aerosols leaving the mouth/nose of a person. You can’t even blow out a candle at 2 inches with a surgical mask on.

          Multi-layer cloth masks block release of exhaled respiratory particles into the environment, along with the microorganisms these particles carry. Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger) but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns; which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured. Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets, with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control. (Link)

          Again, while certainly not perfect, not by a long shot, masks are better than nothing. Of course, now that we have the mRNA vaccines, these vaccines are far more effective compared to masks – make no mistake about it!

          Beyond this, Bridle has also made other significant mistakes in his arguments against the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19.

          “Bridle is suggesting that a study that noted minuscule quantities of spike protein in blood after first dose represent a health hazard,” David Fisman, an epidemiology professor at the University of Toronto, said in an email. “That is poppycock: biologically implausible and not data-based.” (Link)

            (Quote)

          View Comment
          2
  2. I can tell you have received a proper indoctrination at La Sierra. You may have rejected their false ideas about origins, but their ideas about mainstream medicine has still taken you captive.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    1
    • I never attended La Sierra University…

      In any case, how is it helpful to tell me that I’m basically “out to lunch” without explaining how I’m out to lunch?

      Look, I’m a huge fan of the Adventist Health Message. It’s a wonderful way to improve one’s overall health and one’s immune system. However, it’s just not enough, sometimes, to effectively fight off all types of infections – especially as a person gets older. Even Ellen White, through whom we were given the Adventist Health Message, promoted the use of the smallpox vaccine for her son, her staff, and even took it herself during an outbreak in her day. She promoted the use of quinine to fight against malaria where malaria was prevalent. She promoted the use of blood transfusions to save lives and even underwent radiation therapy to treat a skin lesion on her face.

      The fact is that I’ve had around a dozen family friends die from COVID-19 – Adventist friends who were living according to the Adventist Health Message. I’ve even had a number of very healthy young vegan Adventist friends (all less than 50 years old) end up in MICU for weeks at a time with blood clots throughout their bodies, some ending up with permanent damage to their bodies. They almost died despite their extremely healthy lifestyle. Overall, about 30% of people infected with COVID-19 end up with some kind of long-term injury. In comparison, the odds are strong that the mRNA vaccines would have prevented all of these tragedies that were suffered by my friends.

      Have you been to a hospital MICU lately? Have you seen people dying of COVID-19 despite the heroic efforts of the nurses and doctors trying to save them? It’s not an easy way to go…

      What, then, do you have in mind that would work better? – that would work better than a combination of the Adventist Health Message working together with the mRNA vaccines to present the best possible chance for a person to defeat COVID-19 and reduce its spread to others?

        (Quote)

      View Comment
      2
  3. Define effective.

    Are the vaccines effective in preventing deaths? I would agree that they largely do…even if one does not believe in the manner in which deaths have been counted.

    Effective in preventing someone from spreading the virus? Nope. Experts on both sides have admitted as much. This is very much like Marek’s disease vaccines and much less like polio vaccines. No rebuttal I’ve seen wants to take on the flaws of this vaccine.

    Effective in returning to normal life with no mask? Absolutely not. Vaccinated people still are being told to wear masks…even though you say they are at less risk of symptoms, death and hospitalization (which I generally agree with)…none of that matters at all because they are still spreaders.

    So unless you use a very narrow definition of effective…I would respectfully disagree.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • Sure, the Delta Variant of COVID-19 has reduced the ability of the current mRNA vaccines to make someone resistant to infection. However, recent research doesn’t appear to support your conclusions:

      According to the results from the Imperial-led REACT-1 study based on swab tests taken by almost 100,000 people in England between 24 June and 12 July, specifically dealing with the Delta Variant of COVID-19 (Link).

      “Fully vaccinated people… had around a 50% to 60% reduced risk of infection, including asymptomatic infection, compared to unvaccinated people. In addition, double vaccinated people were less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive after coming into contact with someone who had COVID-19 (3.84% vs 7.23%)… The study’s… results also suggest that fully vaccinated people may be less likely than unvaccinated people to pass the virus on to others, due to having a smaller viral load on average and therefore likely shedding less virus.”

      This is on top of the dramatically reduced risks of hospitalization and death for those who are fully vaccinated (more than 95% of those who are being hospitalized and/or dying of COVID-19 right now, within a given age range, are unvaccinated).

      So, not only is it very advantageous to a particular person to get fully vaccinated against COVID-19, even when it comes to the current “variants of interest”, such as the Delta Variant, in particular, it also appears to be helpful in reducing the transmission of COVID-19 and it’s current variants. I’d call that very “effective” – and so would the vast majority of doctors and medical scientists. Of course, if your definition of “effective” is absolute perfection, well, you’ll be waiting a while for sure. Until then, I would strongly advise you and everyone else who has access to get fully vaccinated as soon as possible.

      As an aside, you seem to question the reported death rates and how COVID-19 deaths are counted. If anything, however, the COVID deaths in this country have been underreported. How can I possibly say this? Because, the overall “all-cause” death rate in this country spiked back in March of 2020 way way above background levels. What on Earth caused such a spike in the all-cause death rate at this time? – a spike in deaths that goes well beyond what has been directly attributed to COVID-19? If not for the COVID-19 pandemic, what else has killed off more than 600,000 people so far in this country alone (3.9 million worldwide)? – beyond what would usually be expected? (Link)

        (Quote)

      View Comment
      1
      • You implied that I doubted covid deaths…I didn’t, I doubted the methodology that was being used to count them, ie a guy dying from a motorcycle crash and the cause of death being reported as Covid….such things should be called out in your profession, no?

        I’m also not expecting ‘a perfect’ vaccine. Likewise, I would say my natural immunity is effective, having had covid…and being that absolute perfection is mutually agreed as unreasonable, I’m often confused at the inconsistency of messaging when it comes to lowering risk that ultimately leads to moving the goal posts to eliminating it to zero. Slow the spread anyone? Two weeks to flatten the curve? All that is out the window now apparently.

        It’s more than disingenuous of you to add up all of the covid deaths since the beginning of this in an attempt to make your point (over 600,000). People are catching on to this. If we applied that same methodology to the flu…it would dwarf covid. Sticking to seasonal numbers will still make your point without overly exaggerating and putting your credibility on the line, besides it’s the only way to apply apples to apples.

        That being said, according to the CDC, COVID-19 was reported as the underlying cause of death or a contributing cause of death for an estimated 377,883 (11.3%) of deaths, with a reported excess death for the year of 15.9%. Comparing historical years of mortality, it’s not unusual for the difference to be +/- 4% so the 11.3% is probably pretty close…Im sure the over counting offsets the undercounting. Perhaps we can attribute the additional 4% difference to deaths of despair due to the lockdowns?

        https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm

        The chart you used is much more deceiving than the one on the CDCs page above due to the scale on the right of yours starting at 50,000, effectively cutting off the massive area below it attributed to ‘expected’ deaths which distorts the overall perspective. We have all come to expect this deception in this post covid world…but I wanted to point it out as it’s part of the reason there is a credibility decline in your professional field, be it intentional or not…there is observably a problem.

        The battle of my study is better than your study has lost its effect as well and again is part of the consistency problem within the health science field pitting experts against experts where each of them attempt to gain ground by tearing the other down…it only adds to the decline of the credibility of the overall profession. Despite the one study you found, one that I would wager a coke that it will be less accurate a month from now as history seems to show with these studies…I would ask why the top Israeli Health Official said vaccinated account for 85-90% of all new hospitalizations and why the Chief Scientific Advisor to the U.K. government attested during a press conference (in mid-July…the same time as your study) that 40% of those being hospitalized with COVID-19 were “fully vaccinated”?? We haven’t even peaked with Delta here in the US, so to make any premature assertions before the data is in would be the common mistake we have seen the entire last 18 months with the CDC.

        People know when we are no longer comparing apples to apples. Science requires congruency and standardization. It demands consistency. There has been absolutely no consistency in anything coming from the CDC or our government or our so called experts, and certainly not the media, although many health professionals have become apologists for them…which just makes it worse…for the health professionals. Without acknowledging these inconsistencies, the decline in credibility only escalates faster. There is no consistency in how we count deaths, how we test for positives (cycle thresholds), how we count cases, how or when we use percentages to show or hide perspective, who the rules apply to and whether they are social justice gatherings or Thanksgiving gatherings, whether they are presidential birthday parties or sick illegal immigrants coming across the border…and that lack of consistency is what is ruining the credibility of science.

        You can’t blame people for the skepticism when the profession is destroying themselves from within with lack of consistency and standardization. That inconsistency by the way, seemingly is only coming from one side. I would say, in general, you’re all doing it to yourselves and its high time to get your crap together as a profession because I don’t think science or doctors or health care professionals in general will be able to recover their credibility for years if not decades with all the finger pointing happening within.

        Because the fact is, you all now fall into the untrusted category. You’ve done it to yourselves. You now have to earn back that trust and its going to be an uphill climb. You certainly aren’t going to change any minds unless health experts stick to the facts, don’t over state them, stop over exaggerating, stop dismissing unknowns, acknowledge the grey, admit when they don’t know, admit where experts disagree, admit that its complicated, admit when they are over simplifying something, admit when they are being overly cautious, admit that not everyone will share the same risk management or risk tolerance measures, admit that what happens in a lab is not always what happens in real life and for gods sake stop shaming others for not sharing the same opinion. Every doctor and scientists is individually pounding their chest in righteous pride and by doing so the entire profession suffers.

        I honestly don’t think it’s possible for the profession to gain back it’s credibility. All the best to you in that venture, I’m rooting for you because what it will absolutely lead to is mandated public health measures by our government due to mistrust of health professionals. I don’t think we are far from it, but I hope we can turn it around.

          (Quote)

        View Comment
  4. No one is actually asking the vital questions!

    1. Why are peoples bodies succumbing to respiratory illnesses in the first place?
    2. why has the people behind the invention of the “pharmaceutical industry” cornered the market on “public health”?
    3. why is it legal to sterilize man’s genome?
    4. what happens to the trusts in our name once we are dead to this world?
    5. who is profiting in other words “who is cashing in” from the deaths as a result of this mass genocide “medical murder”?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • 1. Why are peoples bodies succumbing to respiratory illnesses in the first place?

      It’s not just a respiratory illness. The SARS-CoV-2 virus attacks the lining of blood vessels, causing blood clots to develop throughout the body, resulting in damage to all the major organs – to include the lungs, heart, kidney, and brain.

      2. why has the people behind the invention of the “pharmaceutical industry” cornered the market on “public health”?

      I’m not sure what you’re asking here? Multiple companies tried to come up with effective treatments. It just turns out that the mRNA vaccines produce by Pfizer and Modern were far more effective than anticipated. If you call that “cornering the market”, fine. I call it miraculous work that was based on decades of previous scientific research.

      3. why is it legal to sterilize man’s genome?

      What? No one is being “sterilized” by the vaccines.

      4. what happens to the trusts in our name once we are dead to this world?

      Depends upon what you wrote in your will…

      5. who is profiting in other words “who is cashing in” from the deaths as a result of this mass genocide “medical murder”?

      There is no “medical murder”. The vaccines are saving many lives…

        (Quote)

      View Comment
    • Bitchute.com is a conspiracy theory website, full of outlandish nonsense and completely off base when it comes to claims that the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are killing many people. That’s all based on a misinterpretation of the VAERS database – as mentioned in my article above. Sure, there are risks to the mRNA vaccines, including the risk of death. However, these risks are extremely rare when it comes to showing increases above background levels. The risk of death, in particular, is similar to the risk of getting struck by lightning. Compare this to the much much MUCH higher risks of getting infected by the live COVID-19 virus – when it comes to every single type of risk you can think of.

        (Quote)

      View Comment
      • Calling something a conspiracy theory website is a convenient way to sidestep the facts. The risk of death to children under 17 with Covid is also extremely rare…but that doesn’t keep the CDC and the media and others in perpetuating fear in the public. If you are going to defend extremely rare deaths…at least do it consistently. This is the problem that I pointed out to you earlier…the health science community has zero consistency.

          (Quote)

        View Comment
        • How does this at all address my comment that the live COVID-19 infection has a much higher risk, within a given age category, as compared to the mRNA vaccines? Sure, while the risk of death for those under the age of 17 is quite rare, the risk of injury, even long-term injury, is not so rare – and is even more common with the Delta Variant. The media, and even the CDC on occasion, might have overdone it at times, as usual, but this by no means removes the weight of empirical evidence in support of both the seriousness of this COVID-19 pandemic and the amazing effectiveness and relative safety of the mRNA vaccines.

            (Quote)

          View Comment
      • The point being is that the same logic you are using to dismiss that low number of vaccine deaths is the same logic others tried to use when saying the risk of death to children under 17 was rare. Thats the point…that’s the inconsistency of logic. If its rare…then its rare…move on. When you defend one rarity while dismissing another using the same logic…that’s called inconsistent logic.

        Splitting hairs over which is more rare and justifying why it’s been okay to fear monger unlikely deaths in children erodes credibility. That’s the point. Especially when then trying to use the same tactic as the media…which is to expand and broaden the scope from risk of death…to ‘risk of injury, risk of long-term injury’. And then to go further in that expansion to try to include the Delta variant? All accounts show that while Delta is more contagious than the first round of Covid (not as contagious as Chickenpox as the CDC got caught lying about)…it is far less deadly and is a much less severe a strain of virus. Why continue to make something out of nothing?

        You have made a number of misleading conclusions based on data that you thought or think is complete. When the CDC stopped tracking ‘breakthrough’ cases in May for anything other than severe cases…it made any analysis with respect to breakthrough infections…occurring as a percent of vaccinated individuals…meaningless. They stopped tracking it. The reports coming out of Israel, UK and other Eastern countries on ‘breakthrough’ cases is more likely the truth vs the incomplete data the CDC has gathered. The one consistent thing that the CDC and health science professionals continue to do…is to consistently make confident proclamations with incomplete data that later just shows they had no idea what they were really talking about. Every day and month proves this more valid. Every day and every month…credibility of the profession tanks.

        Lastly, by the VAERS data itself…how do you explain the 3,400% increase in deaths by the Covid Vaccines? Are we suppose to ignore that its 34x higher than last year? Empirically…that is definitely not ‘as safe’ as all of our other vaccines. Do you see the problem with the messaging compared to the data? It would be prudent to also point out that we are only 3/4 the way through the year with that data. As of today VAERS showed 12,532 deaths compared to just 366 for the entire last year…with the average being around 150 deaths. Extrapolating current data for the year…makes it like 111x higher or over 11,000% more than average.

        https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality

        It is inconceivable how the predominant strain in the US right now is the less deadly Delta variant and we have professionals that are still fear mongering that our kids are going to die and should be bubble wrapped. The fact that so-called experts are then arguing over the risks of this compared to that…which are separated by hundredths in terms of decimal places of fractional percentages…and by all accounts are statistically insignificant…is absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

          (Quote)

        View Comment
        • I have no idea what you’re talking about? The data we have in hand, from all around the world, regarding vaccine-related deaths strongly supports the conclusion vaccine-related deaths are extremely rare. Your argument regarding an increased in deaths reported to VAERS was also used by Dr. McCullough in support of his conclusion that the vaccines are more dangerous than getting infected by COVID-19 at this point. However, that leap of logic isn’t the most rational of leaps. I discuss this in some detail here: Link

          And the fact that childhood COVID-19 deaths are also quite rare is also true, but has nothing to do with vaccine-related deaths.

          Also, I fail to see how the fact that the CDC hasn’t been tracking breakthrough cases has anything to do with tracking COVID-19 related deaths or determining vaccine-related deaths?

            (Quote)

          View Comment
          1
        • Now we are are getting somewhere.

          Thank you for finally conceding that childhood covid deaths are rare…thus the fear-mongering of such for the last year was just that. Although the CDC, media and government health experts continue to say otherwise…you at least have conceded rare is in fact rare and for the time being appear to disagree with the CDC. I am happy to see that…kind of the overall big picture point Dr Dan Stock was making as well though btw…not sure you can see it, but it is.

          And thank you for finally conceding that the CDC hasn’t been tracking breakthrough cases…thus making that data incomplete and renders any analysis related to the effectiveness of the vaccines (including your comments above on them) bunk at best. Something the CDC, media and government health experts also continue to spout off with great confidence….but you and Dr Dan Stock seem to finally agree on that as well.

          You say you don’t know what I am talking about, but perhaps its because you’re focusing in too close on the topic…rather than seeing the larger points I’m setting up to make.

          Take a step back…I could care less of the vaccine-related deaths, I’m using it to illustrate the inconsistency in the logic that has been used elsewhere.

          Here is your statement from the link you provided above: “The fact of the matter is that even if I were to simply wave my hand over the foreheads of a population the size of the United States that nearly 8,000 people would die that very same day. So, it only stands to reason that, out of the 178 million Americans who have currently received at least one dose of a vaccine against COVID-19 (54%) that many tens of thousands of people would have died, for various reasons, within three days of being vaccinated.”

          What you are basically saying is that our country has a lot of people…and a lot of people die everyday for various reasons, so to conflate that all of these people died from the vaccine simply isn’t fair to say…because many of them probably died as a result of something else, it was just happenstance that they had been vaccinated not necessarily their cause of death. I think that fairly sums up your point here, wouldn’t you agree?

          Would it surprise you if I said…I agree with you!?

          So why aren’t Covid deaths treated with the same logic? This has certainly been a criticism of the reported numbers. Where were health professionals support when others tried to use the same logic? Why is the same logic that was shunned a year ago attempting to make that case…now being embraced to defend vaccines? There within lies more inconsistency. Do you see it?

          The CDC and others don’t take into account “random chance” when counting covid deaths…but when dealing with the same “law of large numbers”…suddenly health professionals are all about factoring that in for the defense of vaccine safety. Well isn’t that just convenient. You accuse these Doctors of fear-mongering vaccine safety and misinformation for not taking this into account…and yet the same faulty methods and logic has been used in counting Covid deaths, suspected covid deaths, suspected Covid deaths without any test…and deaths that occurred naturally days, weeks, months after recovery from Covid. The hypocrisy of this should be glaringly obvious Dr. Sean.

          And we have yet to even touch the subject of these PCR tests…thats a whole other issue. Unprecedentedly high cycle thresholds being used for PCR tests. A Ct of 40?! A recent study (Source: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/11/e921/5912603) shows exactly the concern that many health science experts have been criticizing…and only now has the CDC started to listen to. Comparing PCR results to cultures, the accuracy of the PCR test to accurately predict a positive at Ct=25 was shown to be just 70%. So already, all of our data is at risk of being off by at least 30%. Deaths…cases…all of it. Considerably lower.

          Above Ct=30 accuracy fell to 20% and above Ct=35 accuracy was below 3%. And yet the CDC guidance was to ramp it up to 40 cycles. This is exactly what experts have been trying to signal, but has been absent of media coverage, if not altogether censored.

          And yet we’ve been testing people at cycle thresholds well above 30 and 35, so you do the math on how accurate we really think our data is.

          Previous to the pandemic the norm was Ct between 25-30. Interestingly that the CDC has quietly capped the Ct for vaccinated people getting tested at 28. That;s a heck of a lot below a Ct of 40. Not only that, but 3 times revised guidance in late 2020 (as the vaccines were getting ready to be released) to cull the number of positives, by saying that the clinical observation should match the PCR…if it doesn’t…another test should be taken and emphasized that the PCR should ONLY BE USED AS AN AID. Yet for almost a year it was our primary mechanism of counting Covid this whole time…and at a Ct of 40 no less. Surely you are aware of all of this, right?

          There is only one affect that this could possibly have if you went back and applied this new standard of measurement (Ct=28) to all previous cases and deaths counted…even after accounting for “law of large numbers” and subtracting out “random chances”….all of a sudden this fear mongering looks a lot less necessary overall. Much, much lower numbers of deaths and of cases attributed to Covid for sure…a much more survivable virus overall.

          For many people accusing folks like Dr Stock of spreading misinformation…of whom I’d venture to guess 70% of the country never saw or heard of…I’m inclined to think that it’s all a distraction to pick apart petty disagreements of medical nuance vs the plethora of the more damaging misinformation that has spread from our own CDC of whom the entire country and world is listening to and has unfortunately been parroted by health experts out of a blind over-abundance of trust. The gap continues to widen between their messaging and the current data, but even more telling is what is happening with their quiet reversal of testing policies and means of measurement. Some may think the CDC are all a part of a greater conspiracy, but I’m more inclined to think it’s just pure incompetence.

            (Quote)

          View Comment
        • You wrote:

          Now we are getting somewhere.

          Thank you for finally conceding that childhood covid deaths are rare…thus the fear-mongering of such for the last year was just that. Although the CDC, media and government health experts continue to say otherwise…you at least have conceded rare is in fact rare and for the time being appear to disagree with the CDC.

          I’ve always said that childhood COVID deaths are rare – as has the CDC, the mainstream media, and government health experts. There simply is no disagreement on this point. Where you came up with this claim of yours, I have no idea?

          For example, here’s a comment from CDC article from January 2021 noting that the COVID-19 death rate in children is very rare:

          “Among cases reviewed, data were available for 41.9%, 8.9%, and 49.1% of cases for hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths, respectively. Among children, adolescents, and young adults with available data for these outcomes, 30,229 (2.5%) were hospitalized, 1,973 (0.8%) required ICU admission, and 654 (<0.1%) died."

          So, I have no idea where you are getting your notions or accusations of “incompetence”? While I may not always agree with the conclusions of the CDC, FDA, or other government health agencies, they are by no means nearly as guilty of incompetence as you make them out to be. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to have a clue what you’re talking about here.

          As far as the “logic” of your other claims, well, they’re pretty much all in the same boat as far as I can tell…

            (Quote)

          View Comment
          1
        • “One thing just I want to note with the children is: I think we fall into this flawed thinking of saying that only 400 of these 600,000 deaths from COVID-19 have been in children. Children are not supposed to die, so 400 is a HUGE amount,” said the director of the CDC.

          https://www.yahoo.com/news/children-not-supposed-die-cdc-213203164.html?guccounter=1

          Trying to brush off the fear mongering campaign conducted by the CDC, the media and health experts as if there is ‘no disagreement’ is to ignore the absolute reality that every American has observed on the television for the last 18 months.

          I guess smart people can have low emotional intelligence, unable to accurately perceive the world around them and to use that information to guide their thinking, but wow…no disagreement? Fascinating. I’m beginning to honestly think that you really can’t pick up on this stuff. I sincerely don’t think you’re being disingenuous at all either. I think you really only see the numbers and not the tone of the delivery. If that’s the case, then congratulations for being tone deaf to the fear campaign…I maybe beginning to see the disconnect with some of our health science experts.

          I understand your unwillingness to discuss the flawed CDC PCR testing and the walking back of their testing policies, etc…it’s pretty indefensible given the black hole of refuting evidence available to a busy guy like yourself. I would ignore it as well if I were you…not much out there on Goolge to cut and paste from.

          All the best to you Dr Sean.

            (Quote)

          View Comment
        • Oh please. You’re just being ridiculous at this point. Why waste my time like this?

          The comment of the CDC director that 400 of 600,000 total deaths due to COVID-19 (0.06%) were children dying of COVID-19 – is an accurate comment! Hello! Sure, it is rare for a child to die of COVID-19, but it’s not like it never happens. It does happen! And, every single time it happens, it’s a tragedy.

          Now, does this mean that it’s a clear-cut decision to vaccinate children under 12? No. That’s not a clear-cut decision given this information alone. One must determine his/her own risk/reward ratio here. For me, personally, I’m leaning toward vaccinating my own 12- and 10-year-old boys because of the long-term effects for many more children who get infected by COVID-19 but don’t die.

          Anyway, if anyone is exaggerating and “flying off the handle” here, I’m sorry, but it’s you… not the CDC.

            (Quote)

          View Comment
          1
        • So when the CDC says that “400 is a HUGE amount” you seriously don’t think the word HUGE is just a bit overstated? Exaggerated even? It’s so obvious an example and yet you can’t even bring yourself to admit it…that is hilarious! I mean, you’ve calculated the percent yourself at 0.06%? Its extremely low…yet the CDC Director says its HUGE…in an article with the most click-baity headline ever “Children are not supposed to Die”…and yet you can’t make the connection why people accuse the CDC, the media and health science experts of fear mongering??

          I’m speechless.

            (Quote)

          View Comment
          1
        • When someone tells you what the actual numbers are, it doesn’t matter one lick what adjectives they use to describe those numbers. There’s just no deception going on here – unless you’re an absolute idiot. The very same number might mean different emotional things to different people. So, for you to say that the CDC is “exaggerating” things for the purpose of “fear-mongering” is absolute nonsense. They gave you the actual numbers man. You can decide for yourself if a childhood death rate of 0.06% is “huge” or not. For me, the death of even one child is “huge” – particularly if that child happened to be my child.

          Anyway, if this is the best you’ve got, please, you’re wasting my time.

            (Quote)

          View Comment
          1
  5. Pingback: Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends | Educate Truth

  6. Pingback: Common Questions Regarding COVID-19 and the mRNA Vaccines | Educate Truth

  7. I feel it is most unfair for Dr. Peter McCullough to frighten people like me. I am an 83 years old vegan who walks 5 miles a day, drinks lots of water, and still works since I have my own business, I am fully vaccinated. I am a polio survivor.

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply