Sean, I will concede that I confused previous vaccines that …

Comment on Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful? by Sean Pitman.

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.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?

1. I assume some defective mRNA strands and lipid layers can be generated during the myriad of involved complex chemical processes. Do we understand percentage of defective nanoparticles / mRNA strands? Does process include QA that somehow reduces or eliminates potentially harmful defects. What is risk of defective mRNA strands that could encode for harmful proteins? Any other associated risks here that I am not addressing?

Given that the mRNA sequences in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are synthetically produced, I would say that there are very few defective mRNA sequences. And, when it comes to producing proteins based on these few defective sequences, the additional risk from such defective sequences for the human body would be, effectively, zero. In fact, a few slight variations in the protein sequence for the spike protein would only result in slight variations in the immune system response. And, producing such slight variations are already part of how our human immune system is programmed to work – automatically producing slight variations in the antibodies produced against a particular type of foreign antigen, for example.

2. How much independent review occurred with these vaccines? Is the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety the only body that reviewed. Do scientiests get hands-on and eyes-on access to the actual chemical processes to verify what is happening (in vitro and in vivo), or are they just provided with white papers and reports for review?

A great many scientists were involved in the production and review of the mRNA vaccines. These vaccines, how they work, and their effects on human biochemistry are very well known by a great many scientists who work in this field of immunochemistry. There are no fundamental secrets here.

3. Some papers and FAQs claim the generated viral “spike protein” is presented on the cell surface. Some of your dialogue here seems to indicate that this is not the case. Which is it? How is it presented? Is it presented in a variety of ways?

Here are a few diagrams that illustrate what’s happening within different cells of the body where the mRNA sequences are decoded and presented:

Mechanism of action of mRNA vaccines. 1. The mRNA is in vitro transcribed (IVT) from a DNA template in a cell-free system. 2. IVT mRNA is subsequently transfected into dendritic cells (DCs) via (3) endocytosis. 4. Entrapped mRNA undergoes endosomal escape and is released into the cytosol. 5. Using the translational machinery of host cells (ribosomes), the mRNA is translated into antigenic proteins. The translated antigenic protein undergoes post-translational modification and can act in the cell where it is generated. 6. Alternatively, the protein is secreted from the host cell. 7. Antigen protein is degraded by the proteasome in the cytoplasm. The generated antigenic peptide epitopes are transported into the endoplasmic reticulum and loaded onto major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules (MHC I). 8. The loaded MHC I-peptide epitope complexes are presented on the surface of cells, eventually leading to the induction of antigen-specific CD8 + T cell responses after T-cell receptor recognition and appropriate co-stimulation. 9. Exogenous proteins are taken up DCs. 10. They are degraded in endosomes and presented via the MHC II pathway. Moreover, to obtain cognate T-cell help in antigen-presenting cells, the protein should be routed through the MHC II pathway. 11. The generated antigenic peptide epitopes are subsequently loaded onto MHC II molecules. 12. The loaded MHC II-peptide epitope complexes are presented on the surface of cells, leading to the induction of the antigen-specific CD4 + T cell responses. Exogenous antigens can also be processed and loaded onto MHC class I molecules via a mechanism known as cross-presentation. (Link)

Now, The mRNA-1273-encoded prefusion stabilizes the S protein (Moderna Vaccine) consists of the SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein with a transmembrane anchor and an intact S1–S2 cleavage site. The presence of the transmembrane anchor would seem to enable some of the spike proteins to remain attached to the surface of the cell that produced them, such as a muscle cell, but would still be recognized as “foreign” by the immune system. (Link)

See also: Link

Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?
The following commentary by organic chemist Derek Lowe is also helpful in understanding this question (December 4, 2020):

Bob Wachter of UCSF had a very good thread on Twitter about vaccine rollouts the other day, and one of the good points he made was this one. We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Specifically, if you take 10 million people and just wave your hand back and forth over their upper arms, in the next two months you would expect to see about 4,000 heart attacks. About 4,000 strokes. Over 9,000 new diagnoses of cancer. And about 14,000 of that ten million will die, out of usual all-causes mortality. No one would notice. That’s how many people die and get sick anyway.

But if you took those ten million people and gave them a new vaccine instead, there’s a real danger that those heart attacks, cancer diagnoses, and deaths will be attributed to the vaccine. I mean, if you reach a large enough population, you are literally going to have cases where someone gets the vaccine and drops dead the next day (just as they would have if they *didn’t* get the vaccine). It could prove difficult to convince that person’s friends and relatives of that lack of connection, though. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the most powerful fallacies of human logic, and we’re not going to get rid of it any time soon. Especially when it comes to vaccines. The best we can do, I think, is to try to get the word out in advance. Let people know that such things are going to happen, because people get sick and die constantly in this world. The key will be whether they are getting sick or dying at a noticeably higher rate once they have been vaccinated.

No such safety signals have appeared for the first vaccines to roll out (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech). In fact, we should be seeing the exact opposite effects on mortality and morbidity as more and more people get vaccinated. The excess-death figures so far in the coronavirus pandemic have been appalling (well over 300,000 in the US), and I certainly think mass vaccination is the most powerful method we have to knock that back down to normal.

That’s going to be harder to do, though, if we get screaming headlines about people falling over due to heart attacks after getting their vaccine shots. Be braced.

Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?
I know that various European countries, including the Netherlands, Denmark, and Spain, have reported outbreaks of COVID-19 in mink pelt farms – leading to the culling of more than a million animals. From laboratory experiments, it’s also clear that ferrets (a relative of the mink) are also readily infected with the “novel coronavirus”. Aside from this, however, I’m not aware of any “issues” with animal experiments regarding COVID-19 in particular. However, in 2008 there was an interesting experiment involving ferrets that were given the flu vaccine against the H1N1 virus – who then became sicker once exposed to the live virus as compared to those ferrets that weren’t vaccinated. The reason for the effect was unclear, and Skowronski, the lead author, urged other research groups to take up the question.

“Skowronski likened the mechanism to what happens with dengue viruses. People who have been infected with one subtype of dengue don’t develop immunity to the other three. In fact, they are more at risk of developing a life-threatening form of dengue if they are infected with one of the other strains.”

Skowronski called the second theory the infection block hypothesis. Having a bout of the flu gives the infected person antibodies that may be able, for a time, to fend off other strains; flu shots only protect against the strains they contain. So under this theory, people who didn’t have flu in 2008 because they got a flu shot may have been less well armed against the pandemic virus.”

While interesting, such an effect has not been identified in the animal or human trials for the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. Also, subsequently updated flu vaccines to the H1N1 strain haven’t had this problem either (Link).

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
Yeah, well, it might help to actually understand the primary data one is looking at before one makes up his/her mind… which Dr. McCullough clearly doesn’t understand – particularly when it comes to the meaning of the VAERS data.

Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
If you’re going to just present one side of an issue, just do that. Don’t bother citing your “academic” credentials and history of “always” trying to present a balanced perspective. And, don’t complain about others, like the mainstream media, doing the very same thing that you’re doing – presenting only one side of an issue.

Beyond this minor point, have you nothing of real substance or interest to say about the actual primary claims being made? about all the scientific data that appears to strongly counter the sensational claims that Dr. McCullough’s presented in this video?

Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
Then don’t complain about others doing exactly what you’re doing…

Anyway, the real issue with the video is that the main claims are almost all completely false and those that are true are presented in a very misleading manner – which has the potential to harm or even kill people. That’s the real problem.

Now, I know that you’re a registered nurse and lifestyle director of the Eden Valley Institute of Wellness in Loveland, Colorado. And, that’s great! I would suggest to you, however, that excellent health would also help someone do very well with the mRNA vaccines. But why not just rely on excellent health alone? Doesn’t the Adventist Health Message completely negate the need for vaccines? Well, no, it doesn’t. I know of several very healthy vegans who have been seriously sicked by COVID-19 with some having sustained permanent and progressive injuries – and some have even died. So, I would suggest to do both – to follow the Health Message as carefully as possible and to take the mRNA vaccines. This will provide the greatest level of protection possible to our Adventist brothers and sisters. It’s certainly what Mrs. White advocated in her own day when smallpox was killing many people. She certainly wasn’t opposed to the smallpox vaccine and supported her own son William White getting vaccinated, along with his staff and associates (Link). And, her own secretary (D. E. Robinson) wrote that Mrs. White was also vaccinated for smallpox (Link).

Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
That’s just it. Scott didn’t claim to “be providing a neutral platform”. He just complained about others not doing so, and then didn’t do so himself. He said that,

“I believe that everybody needs to hear both sides. My background in academics was in history, I was a history teacher. I got into ministry later in life… but I come from that academic background of dialogue and inquiry. And, as a history teacher, whenever I notice that maybe one side was getting a little more play and imbalance, and the other side had some valid and interesting things to bring to the table, whether I agreed with them or not, I would always want to give air to that other side – to let people think and evaluate for themselves and grant people that they are capable, that they are individuals with a mind, and can evaluate the evidence for themselves.”

Yet, immediately after saying all this about being all even-handed with presenting a topic, he immediately says that in this particular video, he’s “Looking forward to hearing another side of this discussion” – without actually evenhandedly presenting and/or discussing both sides for his audience to “evaluate the evidence for themselves”.

Again, I don’t mind if someone wants to present one particular side of a discussion. However, when someone states, upfront, that they are an “academic” who is all into presenting data on both sides of an issue so that people can make up their own minds, it comes across as a bit non-academic when only one side is then presented without any time given for anyone on the other side to address and give their own take on the claims being made.

COVID-19 and Vaccines – Update
As I’ve asked others, why do you think that the overall “all-cause” death rate in the United States, and around the world, suddenly spiked in March of 2020 if this pandemic we’re in is really no big deal? – if the death rates have been so exaggerated as you claim? 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)

I’m sorry, but Dr. McCullough is basing his position off of a false interpretation of the VAERS data (maintained by the FDA and CDC by the way) and false interpretations of a few other papers as well, which he evidently doesn’t understand.