Bitchute.com is a conspiracy theory website, full of outlandish nonsense …

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

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.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

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


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


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


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
I’m just saying is that if you think that what you say on blog sites like this one doesn’t really affect people, especially when you present yourself as an MD, you’re mistaken. I know that people have been influenced against taking the mRNA vaccines by what you’ve said here in this forum. You’re not simply being neutral in what you’ve posted. You do, in fact, come across as being opposed to the mRNA vaccines – also noting that you didn’t get vaccinated yourself and chose to get infected by the live COVID-19 virus without pre-established vaccine-based immunity. You’ve also come across as being strongly against any response by me to the articles that you’ve referenced where I point out how these papers really do not actually undermine the efficacy and/or the relative safety of the mRNA vaccines. Clearly, you don’t come across as being neutral on the topic.

And, such comments have an effect on people – they really do. While that upsets me, again, it’s more important to me to allow for those who disagree with me to also post their comments rather than to only allow what I personally think is true to be posted.

Beyond this, no one is twisting your arm to post our comments here. You can post or not post as you wish. That’s entirely up to you. But, don’t expect that I won’t push back when you post comments that I think will increase the risk of those who read what you have to say…


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
The difference between us is that I see people in the ICU, as does my brother-in-law Dr. Roger Seheult (a pulmonologist in S. Cal.). You might see the occasional person die from COVID-19, but those who work ICUs in larger medical centers see far too many people die from COVID-19 – to include young people (not just those in nursing homes). You might offer the vaccine to those whom you see, but if you present arguments to them like the ones you’ve presented here, such advice most certainly does result in increased injuries and even death. For me, that’s a big deal. You might call it “weird and overly dramatic” if you want, but for me the effort to save lives and reduce injuries is neither “weird” nor “overly dramatic”. I mean, that’s why I do what I do…

Now, you say, “The discussions that I have on blogs like this are my personal thoughts and concerns. They don’t reflect the way that I actually practice primary care medicine on a daily basis.”

That would be great if this were a private conversation, but it isn’t. It is a public conversation and your words have an impact on the hundreds who read this blog every day. I mean, in a very real sense, especially given that you include your title “MD” with your name, and often point out that you are a medical doctor when you post to this blog, you are, in fact, practicing medicine when you post public comments like you do. You cannot simply say, “I don’t actually follow my own advice that I post in blogs when I practice primary care medicine on a daily basis.” Your influence simply isn’t limited to what you do face-to-face with patients in your clinic. Your influence also extends to what you say and do in front of people outside of your daily medical practice.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Well, I’m glad you go at least this far… although I still think that the kinds of arguments you present here really do put people’s lives and health at increased risk. I know you don’t agree, but that’s how I see things from my own perspective.

Now, I’m fine with you, and those who think like you, having the ability to freely share your opinions – despite how mistaken and damaging I personally think these opinions may be. That’s just the nature of living in a free society – which I think is far more important than restricting the freedom of speech.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Yes, I’ve been reviewing these particular evolutionary arguments for over 20 years myself: Link, Link

Again, however, when it comes to active retrotransposons in normal human cells, naturally, the expression of LINE sequences is repressed in most cell types. Its RNA is mainly heritable during early embryogenesis because of its enrichment and high retrotransposition activity in early embryos (Grow et al., 2015). That’s why the Swedish research team used a tumor cell line where LINE-1 sequences where more strongly expressed.

On the other hand, it does seem to be true that cells infected by live SARS-COV-2 viruses do show enhancement of expression of retrotransposons:

In our study, we analyzed publicly available transcriptome data of human cells infected with coronavirus MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2, and observed enhanced expression of TEs including several retrotransposons, as well as inflammation, immunity, and apoptosis related genes. We further noticed potential fusion of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with retrotransposon transcripts especially LINEs and SINEs… One of the major mechanisms for LINE-1 silencing is DNA methylation, and we examined expression of genes encoding DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) and Ten-eleven translocation (TET) enzymes mediating active DNA demethylation. We observed that Tet genes were generally upregulated after coronavirus infection (Figure 2D), and upregulated DNA demethylation activity may lead to demethylation of retrotransposon promoters. This result supports that increased retrotransposon expression was caused by genome-wide DNA demethylation. We obtained similar results in MERS-CoV/SARS-CoV infected MRC5 cells which are noncancerous human lung fibroblast cells (Figures 2A–D)… SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes upregulation of TET gene expression (Figure 2D). Similarly, SARS-CoV-2 was identified to have the capability of infecting human intestinal organoids (Figure 2E) and increased retrotransposon expression can also be observed post infection in a time-dependent manner (Figure 2F)…

Coronaviruses are RNA viruses and are not supposed to integrate into host genome by themselves. However, it was reported that several RNA viruses have capacity to recombine with retrotransposons to invade host genome (Geuking et al., 2009)… This demonstrates high efficiency of LINE family especially LINE-1 in forming chimeric transcript with SARS-CoV-2 RNA. LINE-1 is autonomous retrotransposon with retrotransposition activity, and RNA-RNA ligation mediated by endogenous RNA ligase RtcB was previously reported for LINE-1 to carry other types of RNA for host genomic invasion (Moldovan et al., 2019), so similar mechanisms may apply for SARS-CoV-2 transcripts. Further examination of human genome from SARS-CoV-2 infected human cells or biopsies will be particularly important to identity existence of integration of coronavirus RNA into human genome.
(Link)

So, you see, if anything, infection by live SARS-COV-2 viruses puts a person at higher risk of cellular genetic modification compared to the mRNA vaccines. This only adds to the reasons to get vaccinated against COVID-19 rather than to gain “natural immunity” the hard way – i.e., via a live SARS-COV-2 infection. Yet again, the risks are simply far higher here for the natural infection vs. vaccination.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
I think everyone’s knowledge of retrotransposons is limited when it comes to how they might possibly pose any kind of real risk for the use of mRNA technology – for vaccines or any other use. If you think otherwise, by all means, do share with me how retrotransposons reasonably create such a risk? This paper from Sweden that you’ve most recently forwarded certainly does no such thing.

As far as what kind of “weight of evidence” it would take to change your mind about mRNA vaccines, you say that you don’t require “absolute knowledge”, but it certainly seems as though you’re raising the bar far far higher than is reasonable – to the point of preferring to get sick with a COVID-19 infection, putting yourself at a far higher risk of long-term injury and even death, rather than take an mRNA vaccine. Given the evidence that is currently in hand, I find that position to be rationally untenable – especially when it comes to trying to convince others to do the same thing during a time when those who are getting very sick and dying, still thousands every day, are almost all unvaccinated.

Now, I’m glad that you personally survived, but spreading misinformation like this has cost and is still costing many lives. I have a problem with that and I do not at all apologize for my strong recommendation that pretty much everyone who has access to the mRNA vaccines get vaccinated against COVID-19.