The hospitalization/death rate is far less for the vaccinated vs. …

Comment on Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories by Sean Pitman.

The hospitalization/death rate is far less for the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated (Link). Note, in this line, that those states with the lowest vaccination rates have the highest death rates per capita:

As far as natural immunity gain via a prior COVID-19 infection, it can actually be superior to the immunity gained via full vaccination. However, natural immunity is less predictable. Up to a third of people who were previously infected by COVID-19 don’t develop antibodies against it (Link). However, if one can demonstrate an adequate level of antibodies against COVID-19 it seems reasonable to me that such people should be considered to have adequate immunity.

As far as the immunity generated by vaccination, the type of immunity generated would not be so effective at preventing a mucosal nasopharyngeal infection since the types of antibodies produced (IgG and IgM) would preferentially be blood-based rather than tissue-based (IgA) type of immunity (Link). Because of this, naturally derived immunity might have an additional advantage in this regard as well.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Fetal cell lines, originally produced decades ago, were used in the testing of the mRNA vaccines – as they were in the testing of Tylenol, Motrin, Robitussin, Aspirin, Sudafed, Tums, Lidocaine, and a host of other modern medications that most people use on a semiregular basis (Link).


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
I see no evidence that the published ingredient lists for the mRNA vaccines are not transparent and factual. There just is no credible evidence for “graphene” in these vaccines and fetal cell lines simply aren’t necessary to produce these types of vaccines.


Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been studied via large RCTs with regard to early treatment and haven’t shown any detectable benefit. The meta-analysis studies were based on numerous low-quality and even a few fraudulent studies that really don’t show good support for any real benefit in light of the larger RCTs.

As far as using vitamins, like vitamin D for instance, you have to have already built up a useful level of vitamin D over the long-term before getting infected by COVID-19 in order to show an advantage. Sure, those with high-normal vitamin D levels do have a survival advantage over those who are vitamin D deficient, given vitamin D in the acute setting after a person is already sick has minimal benefits.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
That’s true. So, the question is if these limitations are substantial enough to reasonably overcome the conclusions of the authors. The fact remains that your own personal experience doesn’t seem to be the same as those published in papers like this one where there are actual reinfections for those who have previously had COVID-19. Several friends of mine have been reinfected and a cousin of mine has been reinfected three times…


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Exactly…


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
There’s “peer review” and then there’s peer review.

Beall remained critical of MDPI after removing the publisher from his list of predatory open access publishing companies. In December 2015 he wrote that, “It is clear that MDPI sees peer review as merely a perfunctory step that publishers have to endure before publishing papers and accepting money from the authors” and that “it’s clear that MDPI’s peer review is managed by clueless clerical staff in China.”

Beall, Jeffrey (17 December 2015). “Instead of a Peer Review, Reviewer Sends Warning to Authors”. Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016.

In July 2021, an article titled “Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)” was published in the academic journal Research Evaluation, written by María Ángeles Oviedo-García. Oviedo-García argued that MDPI used self-citation practices known as “citation cartels” to increase the apparent Impact Factor of MDPI journals, and that MDPI journals bear a number of hallmarks of predatory publishing. MDPI also released a public comment on the article on August 19th, 2021, claiming the article was predicated on the notion that MDPI was a predatory publisher, and that the article misrepresents MDPI business practice. In that comment, MDPI did confirm that its journals had some of the highest self-citation rates amongst academic publishers. The article in Research Evaluation later received an editorial “Expression of Concern,” and as of November 25th 2021, an investigation is ongoing.

Regardless of all of this, the main point that the authors of this paper make is not substantiated by their research. T-cells and B-cells simply are not affected by the mRNA vaccines to any significant degree. So, their arguments really are mute here. That’s the bottom line. You still have no mechanism behind your claims that the mRNA vaccines are more dangerous than they are beneficial or more risky than getting a live COVID-19 infection.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Don’t you also disagree, by definition, with anything that doesn’t agree with your views? Come on now. If I agreed, then there would be no disagreement. The real question is, who has the greater weight of evidence? Again, where is your evidence? Where is your mechanism that makes any sense?


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
The spike protein that is produced by the mRNA vaccines has an anchoring portion, a “transmembrane domain” that keeps it embedded in the membrane of the muscle cell that produced it.

“The end product in host cells expressing these mRNA vaccines is a surface-exposed, membrane-anchored, glycosylated, and trimerized Spike protein resembling the 3-D structure of the native viral Spike protein, to the extent that it interacts with its cognate receptor, hACE2.” (Link)