Define effective. Are the vaccines effective in preventing deaths? I …

Comment on Dr. Dan Stock’s Testimony before the Mt. Vernon School Board by Peter.

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.

Peter Also Commented

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

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

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.

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