Prof. Kent wrote (Spectrum Blog): Sean, Your analogy to Catholocism fails on …

Comment on Schneider talks about La Sierra by Sean Pitman, M.D..

Prof. Kent wrote (Spectrum Blog):


Your analogy to Catholocism fails on another obvious front. To believe that a Church which does not fire–and even shelters–pedophilic priests (who have broken both God’s law and U.S. law) would readily fire an employee who merely questions the virginity of Mary totally stretches credulity.

Oh really? Check out the following report of just such a situation where a priest was in fact let go for just such infractions:…

You see, pedophile-priests aren’t public in their attack on the standards of the Catholic Church. If they were, the Church would no doubt have not shielded them as it did (to its own shame). Those who publicly teach directly contrary to the Catholic Church’s stated ideals and fundamentals are let go if they cannot be convinced to change their course.

I’m afraid that your myopic zeal toward persecuting theistic evolutionists within the Church, including those both real and imagined, has blinded you to the point you have lost touch with reality. I think you need a soul conversion much like Saul, who regained his sight only when he conceded he had been pursuing his own mission rather than the Lord’s.

Posted by: Professor Kent (not verified) | 12 April 2010 at 7:10

Interesting that you think yourself clear to judge the state of my very soul before God. Getting kinda personal aren’t you? – judging morality and motive?

You do realize that this issue isn’t a moral issue? – right? What one does or does not believe regarding the doctrine of creation isn’t going to save anyone or get anyone lost. It just isn’t a moral issue. It is an issue of Church government and order, however. It is also a basis of a solid hope in a bright literal future. You just don’t seem to understand what you’re attacking. Someday you will, but it would be far better for you now if you understood it now.

Regardless though, if you think you’re right, and those supporting you’re perspective think they are so clearly in the right, why not advertise it with pride? Why not present the clear rights of LSU science professors and other paid representatives of the Church and all other organizations to say and do whatever they please on the dime of their employers? LSU should be proud of its “academic freedom” – and advertise this freedom in a very clear and decided manner so that no one will have any doubt as to what LSU stands for. LSU should make it very clear to parents what its teachers stand for and promote, as the gospel truth, in their classrooms. Why even try to hide what’s going on if it is so right and so beneficial? Why all these efforts to sequester information and put students on academic probation for presenting what is really taking place in LSU classrooms?

Who is on the attack here? LSU’s professors can attack the pillars of the SDA faith for decades and put students on academic probation who are attempting to defend that faith… and LSU is somehow the “victim” of attack when someone simply points out what LSU is doing in public? – and asks for increased transparency? Please…

Sean Pitman

Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented

Schneider talks about La Sierra
@Geanna Dane:

Sean, you might want too check out Professor Kent’s replies at Spectrum.  

Prof. Kent seems to me to want his cake and eat it too. He claims that he understands and believes in the need for clearly established internal order and government within the Church. Yet, Prof. Kent seems to get very upset every time anyone suggests that the Church actually back up what it says it stands for on a fundamental basis. I don’t know about you, but I see that sort of thing as being inconsistent… At least I don’t have any good idea as to where Kent would draw the line… aside from with the issue of women’s ordination that is. Anything beyond this is unclear as far as I can tell…

Sean Pitman

Schneider talks about La Sierra
Intolerance of Intolerance?

If there’s one thing I can’t tolerate it’s intolerance.

Sean, the story you shared (…) provided a rather extreme case that hardly evolved around a single fundamental catholic belief. Questioning the virginity of Mary appeared to be a rather small issue. I seriously doubt your claims.

Posted by: Professor Kent (not verified) | 13 April 2010 at 12:22

Everyone is intolerant at some point – hopefully. Even God kicked Lucifer out of Heaven when he rebelled against the order and government of Heaven and tried to take over. What about civil crimes? Are you tolerant of child rapists living in your neighborhood? – or would you throw them in prison?

Oh, but you’re not talking about civil crimes. You’re talking about tolerance for religious ideas – right? And, I agree. Civil society should be tolerant of a very wide range of religious ideas and practices – as long as those ideas and practices do not counter civil law (like laws against child molesters, etc).

No religious society should ever be allowed to enforce their particular religious views and observances on civil society at large – period. However, it is perfectly fine, and even necessary, for a religious organization to be able to only hire those individuals who actually represent the goals and ideals of that particular organization. It would be silly to expect that all organizations would go no farther than basic civil law in what they stood for within society at large. Otherwise, there’d be no point in having different church organizations since there would be no differences.

As far as your notion that the Catholic Church would never fire a representative for publicly undermining the stated ideals and goals of the Church, you’re quite mistaken. Although “Father Kennedy” was not fired for just one infraction (few people who strongly oppose any church organization are only opposed to just one issue), all the infractions listed were doctrinal differences of opinion.

“Father Kennedy, of St Mary’s in South Brisbane, allows women to preach, blesses gay couples, denies the Virgin birth and claims the Church is dysfunctional.”…

Many who frequent this particular forum would be fully in support of all of Kennedy’s opinions here – and therefore would clearly not be employed by the Catholic Church. Go figure…

Yet, if the Catholic Church did not stand for anything unique, if it hired those who did not support these same unique beliefs, what would be the point of having a “Catholic” perspective? The term “Catholic” would be meaningless after a while if nothing unique was really represented by the term “Catholic”.

The same thing is true of the SDA Church. If the term “SDA” really doesn’t mean anything unique from anything else, what’s the point in having an “SDA” church? The term would soon be meaningless as far as giving anyone any sort of idea as to what sets the SDA Church apart from any other group of people…

What you’re arguing for is a lack of identity – eventual irrelevance that is not distinguishable from what already exists in civil society at large. You are actually the one who is intolerant of any organization that doesn’t agree with you and your view of what all should believe and stand for within their own organizations…

Sean Pitman

Schneider talks about La Sierra
Self-Contradictory Postmodernism

Yes, I’d say the spirit of Rome like the Pharisees before them is alive and well in the church. However, like both groups before you, historic Adventism refuses to see that it is THEY and not progressive SDAism that harbors the spirit.

Posted by: Darrell (not verified) | 12 April 2010 at 8:04


You have to know that you are being just as judgmental against those who disagree with you as is anyone in this forum. You just said that certain people disagreeing with you harbor the spirit of Romanish suppression, persecution, and Phariseism. Is this not a judgment on your part? – suggesting your willingness to suppress what you consider to be evil from your perspective?

You see, you can’t get away from making judgments if you have any sort of opinion on any topic. You are making judgments on who is right and who is wrong and what kind of government should be in place within the Church.

Hopefully, however, we will all refrain from making moral judgments as to the motives of one another as this type of judgment is the prerogative of God alone.

Also, we should not think to appeal to the Church to take on civil authority. All should be free to leave any Church or religious organization at will, free of any civil repercussions or moral recriminations regarding these particular points of doctrinal disagreement. It always turns out badly, always, when any church thinks to take on the powers of civil government. God does not appeal to the force of civil power to convert, but to the force of the appeal itself and the drawing of the Holy Spirit upon the heart.

This is not to say, however, that God does not expect the Church to establish internal government and order. God is a God of order and expects his Church to display internal government and order over those who think to freely take on the name of His organization. Remember, Heaven is a place of order. Even Lucifer and his angels were kindly asked to leave Heaven (more like forced out) when they openly rebelled against the order and government of Heaven and tried to take over…

Sean Pitman

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.

Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?

As promised, I took a look at Sangers Sequencing and I found a 43 page PDF from the FDA who is complicit in the scam–it’s simply the entirety of the PCR test they all are using…

You don’t know the first thing about PCR or genetic sequencing. Did you even watch the video about Sanger Sequencing that I recommended?

Why would I need to study science for years to be able to break down all of these 43 pages of information, and critically analyze it?

Because, you don’t know the first thing about these scientific tests, not even the basics. Yet you feel yourself free to make claims about them that are absolutely false. You even claim that you’re guided by the Holy Spirit when you make these false claims – which is a very dangerous thing to do. You’re treading on holy ground with your presumptuous claims.

John_16:13 However, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

This doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit gives you knowledge about things that you are unwilling to seriously study or investigate or that He will guide you when you are unwilling and too arrogant to change when errors are revealed to you. You’re simply wrong with your understanding of PCR and how it is used. You don’t understand the first thing about genetic sequencing, and you’re even wrong about Mrs. White and her own use and recommendation of vaccines for others. Almost nothing you’ve said is true. Yet, you claim to be guided directly by God in this nonsense of yours? Please…

There’s simply no point in discussing these things further with you. It’s just no longer useful to me.

Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?

Wow, I got this from you on this first day that I looked at your information on Dr. Wakefield–I had never heard of BrandNewTube until I saw this video. Watch out what you link to–now according to you, I’m into “conspiracy theories” because I got BrandNewTube from you.

I cited the Wakefield video as an example of a conspiracy theorist with ideas and claims that simply aren’t credible, even outlandishly wrong, given what we actually know about mRNA vaccines. And, this same website hosts many other conspiratorial videos as well. Christians should strive to avoid being associated with such conspiracies.

Then you proceed to shoot down the PCR inventor’s own testimony about his own test because he was into astrology. So what. Has Satan ever had any part into you? or me? Absolutely–and you dare to speak nonsense and garbage about someone who is dead and cannot defend themselves? Wow, Sean, how far will you go to defend your false science?

Showing that someone is “into” a whole lot of non-credible beliefs and conspiracies plays into that person’s overall credibility – especially given the very relevant nonsense claims of Mullis regarding HIV/AIDS. This is something to consider when someone is cited as an “authority” or “expert” to support this or that sensational claim that supposedly falsifies the vast majority of scientists and medical experts on a particular topic.

Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re wrong in your claim. In fact, your claim that PCR cannot, by itself, prove the existence of a new virus is absolutely true! I agree with you here! However, what you don’t understand is that, as I’ve explained in some detail already, PCR wasn’t used, by itself, to demonstrate the existence or genetic makeup of the COVID-19 virus. The genetic sequencing that was done to initially detect the COVID-19 virus and its genetic makeup is quite involved and very interesting (and goes well beyond PCR) – if you care to actually learn something. I recommend starting the “Sanger Sequencing” (watch the short video explaining it that I posted in my comment above).

Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?

I ask myself, is it reasonable? Can I analyze it properly? What real evidence is there? And last but not least–what does the Holy Spirit reveal to me?

John_16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of himself; but whatever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come (AKJV).

This tells me that “all truth” means exactly that, and not just Bible truth, or religious truth. This is why I know positively that this pandemic is a hoax–based upon the PCR test that cannot detect any virus–I’ve seen and heard the real science, and the motives behind it–Satan is at the root of it all. Of course he’s the author of real pandemics and epidemics too.

So, the Holy Spirit informs you regarding the “truth” of your medical opinions? That’s kind of a conversation stopper now isn’t it? Who can argue with someone who is informed directly by God?

In any case, as I’ve explained to you before, the process of detecting a new type of virus and determining its genetics isn’t based on PCR alone. It’s a more complex and interesting process. It was originally discovered by biochemist Fred Sanger (i.e., “Sanger Sequencing” – described in my comment above) and has been modified and improved since then with subsequent “generations” of genetic sequencing techniques. So, why not try to learn something about how it’s really done instead of repeating the same false claims?

Same with all vaccines, what a scam that is! Far too many injuries and deaths have been reported in the VAERS system over the years, and that my friend, is not any conspiracy theory. Even the Federal Vaccine Court is a joke–some cases like mine never even make it there–dropped by attorneys for money reasons–not a smoking gun or serious enough for them to make the fees they want.

VAERS takes all reports of anything that happens post-vaccine – regardless of any proof as to the actual cause of the event. It simply isn’t what the anti-vaxxers make it out to be. Sure, “since 1988, when the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) began, more than 16,000 claims have been considered and a whopping $3.18 billion have been awarded to families alleging some kind of harm from vaccines. That sounds awfully damning, and in this case, unlike in so many other cases, the anti-vaccine crowd isn’t just making stuff up. The numbers are real and the federal government is the first to admit it. But the anti-vaxxers are utterly wrong in their interpretation of what the numbers mean. And in fact, the numbers prove that vaccines are as safe as the medical community says they are. Understanding why that’s so means going beyond the tired alarmism and looking at the facts.”

The purpose of the court is to reckon with the reality that while vaccines are every bit as safe and life-saving as health authorities say they are, no drug or medical procedure is entirely without risks. Since many millions of children get vaccinated every year, even a few bad outcomes could subject the drug-makers to a storm of liability suits. Some claims might be legitimate, but far more could be frivolous or even fraudulent. Either way, the endless litigation could drive up the costs of vaccines… In 80% of all cases brought since 2006, the parties settle, meaning that the petitioner recovers an award with no determination being made about whether the vaccine even caused the claimed harm.

Even without blame being established, the billions the government has handed over in payouts since the VICP was created does seem to suggest that a whole lot of people are being harmed. But that is not the case. From 2006 to 2014, approximately 2.5 billion doses of vaccines were administered in the U.S. In that time, a total of just 2,976 claims were adjudicated by the special masters and only 1,876 of those received compensation. Divide that number by the vaccine dose total and you get less than a one in a million risk of harm. Going all the way back to 1988—before the flu vaccine became part of the recommended schedule of vaccines—a total of 16,038 claims have been adjudicated and 4,150 have been compensated, bringing the total payouts up to the $3.18 billion figure.
(Kluger, 2015).

The article continues to explain why the claims of the anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists here are just out to lunch. While vaccines aren’t entirely risk free, they are a whole lot less risky compared to the diseases that they provide immunity against.

Lots of studies suggest or show how harmful vaccines are.

Actually, the very clear weight of good scientific studies that are available to us strongly supports the conclusion that vaccines are very safe and very effective. It simply isn’t true that there are a significant number of good scientific studies showing that vaccines are actually more harmful than they are beneficial. That conclusion simply isn’t supported by the empirical evidence that we have in hand – not even close.

The info below is backed by scientific studies–a day old baby is assaulted by a Hep B vaccine when it’s just coming alive and drawing it’s first breaths–many are vaccinated a short time later and die suddenly in their cribs, or beds–SIDS deaths. The vaccine industry makes money and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s depopulation plan claims another innocent victim–not conspiracy theory.

Since I’m a parent, I can tell you that SIDS is a real concern for most parents. And, if SIDS were related to vaccinations, I certainly would want to know about it. However, since I have performed autopsies on SIDS infants, the evidence is that SIDS is related to suffocation, with petechial hemorrhages on the surfaces of the lungs (as one sees in cases of known suffocation). Still, there was some initial concern about SIDS and vaccines, but after extensive study of this question, it is now known that there is no relationship between vaccines and SIDS. For example:

The ABC news program 20/20 aired a story in 1999 claiming that the hepatitis B vaccine caused sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The story included a picture of a 1-month-old girl who died of SIDS only 16 hours after receiving the second dose of hepatitis B vaccine.

At the time of introduction of the hepatitis B vaccine for routine use in all infants, about 5,000 children died every year from SIDS. Within 10 years of the introduction of the hepatitis B vaccine the use of the vaccine increased to about 90 percent of all infants and the incidence of SIDS in that group decreased dramatically to about 1,600 cases each year.

The cause of the decrease in SIDS cases was the introduction of the “Back to Sleep” program by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

However, since immunizations are given to about 90 percent of children less than 1 year of age, and about 1,600 cases of SIDS occur every year, it would be expected, statistically, that every year about 50 cases of SIDS will occur within 24 hours of receipt of a vaccine. However, because the incidence of SIDS is the same in children who do or do not receive vaccines, we know that SIDS is not caused by vaccines.

As for Dr. Wakefield the courageous CDC whistleblower–has my thanks for what he did–we need more doctors like him that denies the moneyed, evil influences of Big Pharma putting his own career in jeopardy because he really cares about others.

He might care about others, but he deliberately falsified data in his 1998 Lancet paper (BMJ, 2011). See also: Hayden, 2011.

As for the 2 doctors you just linked to on youtube that promote the pandemic lies–I can find and link to just as many doctors who know and reveal the truth of this hoax.

I’m sorry, but the vast majority of scientists and medical doctors disagree with you here – especially those who see and treat the many who are dying of COVID every day in this country. Dr. Roger Seheult personally sees dozens of people die of COVID-19 on a weekly basis. You just don’t understand because you haven’t seen it. Contrary to your very confidently claims that these people are dying of something else, that’s just nonsense coming from someone who is far more arrogant than anything else – without any first-hand knowledge or experience. The vascular damage and thrombosis associated with those who die of COVID-19 is distinct. It’s unlike anything else.

The British doctor recommended 20,000 IU’s daily of vitamin D3–a bit high, I would say–I use 3— 5 thousand daily as recommended by Walt Cross, SDA Medical Missionary in Tennessee. It appears that too high a dose daily will negatively increase calcium in the body.

Watch the video again. Dr. Campbell did not recommend 20,000 IU’s of Vitamin D per day. Rather he said that he personally takes just 2,000 IUs of Vitamin D supplements per day – while Dr. Seheult takes about 4,000 units/day. Beyond this, it is very unlikely that anyone will experience significantly increased calcium blood levels if taking 10,000 units/day or less of Vitmain D.

He also said, “I’m happy with the vaccines.” Right, I hope they live through the vaccines that are useless and not needed. Too much propaganda for me–I prefer real doctors and not clones of the corrupted medical system.

Again, the doctors you’re listening to are in the extreme minority and generally aren’t directly involved in taking care of COVID-19 patients. Dr. Seheult is a pulmonologist who deals with these COVID-19 patients on a daily basis. He’s also a conservative Seventh-day Adventist who is doing his very best to help his patients physically, mentally, and spiritually. And you think you know better? Oh, I forget, the Holy Spirit tells you, so there’s really no point in further discussion because the Holy Spirit certainly hasn’t told me what He’s told you. You forget that you’re supposed to “test the spirits”. And, so far, almost everything that you’ve said regarding COVID-19 and vaccines is false and misleading. I’m sorry, but that’s not coming from the Holy Spirit my friend…

Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?
Not everyone is completely entrenched. Many are still open to honestly considering the best available empirical evidence…

Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?

Sean, I will concede that I confused previous vaccines that did have cancer cells and fetal tissue with the new Covid vaccines that don’t. I had read copious amounts of literature and pasted into my documents without being careful enough. However, it still does not change my mind about anything concerning vaccines. The mRNA and PEG is cause enough for alarm.

Well, at least your honest enough to admit this much – and that’s more than most are willing to do. So, that’s in your favor. However, it also goes to show that a lot of the anti-vaxx conspiracy websites do exactly what you did. They make assumptions without checking them and even throw in false or misleading statements that are known to be inaccurate. That’s the reason why they have proven themselves to be consistently unreliable when it comes to researching these questions.

This is what someone else, a secretary said about Mrs. White that to me contradicts her other statements about drugs–who knows maybe she (Robinson) was bribed to put this in here. I just don’t accept it. EGW taught the 8 laws of health and temperance as the best prevention for disease–not drugs. Which is what ALL SDA physicians should be doing.

Dores E. Robinson (1879-1957) was Ellen White’s secretary for over 13 years. He was a highly respected and valued assistant and who had married E. G. White’s granddaughter, Ella. It’s a real stretch, then, to suggest that he was deliberately lying about her taking the smallpox vaccine. After all, even Mrs. White’s own son William C. White confirmed that the smallpox vaccine was taken, by him and his associates, with Ellen White’s consent.

There were serious movements even back then of anti-vaxxers who complained of all vaccines causing disease, injuries and deaths.

Yes, and Mrs. White was well aware of the dangers of vaccines – dangers which were much greater in her day than in our day. Yet, she did take the smallpox vaccine and recommended it to others as well because the benefits outweighed the risks.

“Drug medication, as it is generally practiced, is a curse. Educate away from drugs. Use them less and less, and depend more upon hygienic agencies; then nature will respond to God’s physicians—pure air, pure water, proper exercise, a clear conscience. Those who persist in the use of tea, coffee, and flesh meats will feel the need of drugs, but many might recover without one grain of medicine if they would obey the laws of health. Drugs need seldom be used.” 153 {CCh 105.4}

The vast majority of the “drugs” early in Mrs. White’s career were dangerous and to be avoided. that is why Ellen White condemned “drugs that poison the blood and endanger life.” She wrote in 1888, “Drug medication, as it is generally practiced, is a curse.” On the other hand, in a letter to personnel at St. Helena Sanitarium, she said that drugs may not be as dangerous if “wisely administered.” She recognized that there are times and circumstances when it is justifiable and indeed necessary to employ medications, even those known to be poisonous, although she condemned the indiscriminate, careless use of drugs. This is substantiated by a note from the compilers of Selected Messages, Book 2, commenting on Mrs. White’s approval of surgery:

“Before major surgery, the entire body is saturated with a powerful and, in a sense, harmful drug [the anesthetic], to the point of complete unconsciousness and to complete insensibility. By the same token, after surgical procedures, the physician may find it necessary to administer [pain killers] that almost certainly include drugs to give relief and prevent the patient from lapsing, from sheer pain, into a state of surgical shock and, in some instances, possible death.”

It is apparent from these statements that Mrs. White’s attitude reflected a great deal of common sense. It would seem unreasonable to assume that her warnings against poisonous drugs could be an indictment against all drugs for all time. Most of the drugs in use during her time are recognized today as poisons: arsenic, strychnine, opium, heroin, calomel, prussic acid, lunar caustic, antimony, and mercury. She said of these drugs, “We can with safety discard the concoctions which man has used in the past.” Commenting on this, the compilers of Selected Messages, Book 2, noted in 1958, “It is an interesting fact that as a result of twentieth century medical research, physicians have largely discarded most of the medications in common use at the time referred to in this statement.” “Mrs. White nowhere states, in discussing such simple medications, that other and more effective medications might not later be found.

It is clear that Ellen White favored the use of all the means provided by God to heal the sick. When medications are beneficial and are appropriate, they may be used. When surgery is called for, it should be performed. She wrote in 1905: “It is not a denial of faith to use such remedies as God has provided to alleviate pain and to aid nature in her work of restoration…. God has put it in our power to obtain a knowledge of the laws of life. This knowledge has been placed within our reach for use. We should employ every facility for the restoration of health, taking every advantage possible, working in harmony with natural laws.”

Ellen White herself used tea as a medicine (though not as a beverage). She recognized that blood transfusions could save life. She had radiation therapy — X ray treatments at Loma Linda for a skin problem. She was vaccinated for smallpox and urged her helpers to be vaccinated also (attested by her personal secretary and by her son). She once advised a missionary to Australia that if quinine was the best thing available to fight malaria, it should be used. When the missionary asked, “Would I have sinned to give the boy quinine when I knew of no other way to check malaria and when the prospect was that he would die without it?” she replied, “No, we are expected to do the best we can.”

See also: Link

As for Kary Mullis, I heard from his own mouth (Brand New Tube) that the PCR test cannot detect any virus, in a video–not only that, I’ve also heard from a great many doctors about the real science of the PCR test, which is exactly as I say. Too many things just add up to the truth, and I need not be medically trained to know what I’m saying is true. You’re the one with the real problem, being medically trained and teaching false science about vaccines–yes, you were taught this in Med school–but please, think for yourself!

First off, the website “” is filled with conspiracy theory videos. It simply isn’t a reliable place to get your information.

Beyond this, Kary Mullis, while brilliant on the one hand for coming up with the idea of PCR, wasn’t so brilliant in some other areas of his thinking. For instance, he was a believer in astrology. He also subscribed to various conspiracy theories such as his most famous denial of an association between the HIV virus and AIDS. According to journalist Coby McDonald, Mullis’ HIV skepticism influenced Thabo Mbeki’s denialist policymaking throughout his tenure as president of South Africa from 1999 to 2008, contributing to as many as 330,000 unnecessary deaths. (Kary died in 2019, so he never said anything about COVID-19).

So, this just goes to prove that coming up with a brilliant idea, even one that fundamentally improves medical science, doesn’t mean that every idea that follows is going to be brilliant or even sane.

But, back to PCR testing. PCR simply amplifies a specific genetic sequence to get enough of it so that it can then be tested and identified via other means. The original sequencing of a newly discovered viral genome, however, requires more than just PCR. For more details, which you’re really going to have to study much more carefully to understand, see: Link

Here’s a short video on how “next generation sequencing” is done. The illustration here is how to sequence a particular strand of DNA (as opposed to RNA), but the basic idea is the same for DNA and RNA sequencing.

Of course, once the RNA target sequence is known, very specific PCR primers can be used (Link). And, if these PCR primers are successful in amplifying a genetic sequence, this can be used to “detect” the presence of a particular viral infection without further testing. However, this type of testing is not conclusive. Conclusive testing via viral genomic sequencing has also been done for COVID-19. This is how various strains of the virus are also detected where portions of the RNA viral sequence have been mutated and changed over time.

It’s clear what the PCR inventor says about his test. It finds molecules and fragments of infections in one’s body–say from a cold/flu years ago, and the higher the cycle thresholds are, the more molecules it can find and the more false/positives there are for the Covid-19 hoax. This is done on purpose to create a fakedemic that fools just about everyone at least for a time.

Again, you’re not understanding what PCR does. It increases the number of specific genetic sequences, which are then analyzed and sequenced to make the determination of what type of viral sequences they are. PCR isn’t enough by itself (at least not initially). It’s just a simple genetic tool to make more of something so that it can be more easily tested. That’s it. Now, after the viral sequence is actually determined (using more than just PCR) very specific “primers” can be used to detect, quite accurately, the presence of a very specific type of viral infection within a given sample (such as a nasopharyngeal swab).

Were I to get a cold/flu/Covid-19 and a zinc lozenge doesn’t work to eradicate it, I would use H202 nebulization therapy at home myself–no doctor or Big Pharma needed–only hydrogen peroxide and a nebulizer. Guess why it’s not used in hospitals and clinics? because there’s no money in it for doctors or the drug industry. But it works 100% of the time. Just 2-4 times a day, for 15 minutes, and in 2-3 days the virus is gone–no side effects. Doctor developed and doctor tested 30 years ago–check it out:

This therapy has been recommended by anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists such as Joseph Mercola and Thomas Levy. However, H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) is corrosive and too much exposure can cause local tissue damage depending upon how much is used. Also, inhalation can cause lung damage such as interstitial lung disease (Link). So, this type of therapy is not without its risks. Also, by the time a person has COVID-19 symptoms, it’s kinda too late to use this “therapy” since the virus has already invaded one’s tissues.

Even in the article that you reference, Dr. Shallenberger said that his nebulized H2O2 therapy “cured” his wife from the flu in “three days”! Three days? How is that all that impressive given that the symptoms associated with infection by a flu virus usually last between “3-7 days” for most people? (Link). Dr. Shallenberger still says that these results are amazing, even more amazing that his previously recommended IV hydrogen peroxide therapy. In contrast, scientific studies on IV hydrogen peroxide therapy haven’t shown any reduction in bacteria sepsis (Link). Also, neither IV or nebulized hydrogen peroxide has ever been studied in a clinical trial. There’s just no good scientific evidence that it works, only a bunch of personal testimonies on the internet. This wouldn’t be a problem if there were no risks involved, but there are risks, sometimes serious risks, without any proven benefits.

Still, at very low doses for short periods of time, it probably wouldn’t harm most people who want to try nebulizing it. However, this would by no means remove the need or benefits of the mRNA vaccines as far as stopping this COVID-19 pandemic. I mean, are you going to get even the healthy people to use nebulized hydrogen peroxide on a daily basis in order to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus that you don’t believe actually exists? Again, we’re not talking about a 3-day flu here. This current pandemic is far far deadlier than the flu…

Sean, one day that will surely come, you will see that you’ve been wrong about everything we’ve discussed, and you may face a negative judgment from the throne of Jesus Christ for misleading others.

Again, your problem is that you think you have more medical understanding and knowledge than you really have – by a long shot. Sure, the best of modern science isn’t near 100% perfection, but you are going backward my friend, not forward.