First off, Dr. John Barthelow Classen (as discussed in the …

Comment on Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends by Sean Pitman.

First off, Dr. John Barthelow Classen (as discussed in the comment just above yours with Inge Anderson), while being an immunologist, is also a well-known anti-vaxx conspiracy theorist. He has a long history of claiming that other vaccines also cause “more harm than good” (Link). He also wrote an article (February 8, 2021) arguing that mRNA vaccines can produce “prion disease” – which is sheer nonsense. Many of his other anti-vaxx conspiratorial papers can be found on his website (Link).

Also, the papers that he publishes, that he claims are “peer-reviewed”, although supposedly in different journals (such as the journal of “Microbiology & Infectious Disease” or the journal of “Trends in Internal Medicine”) show exactly the same format – strongly suggesting that he is, in effect, self-publishing these papers while claiming that they are “peer-reviewed” – by using what is known as a “predatory journal”. And, surprise surprise, it turns out that the actual publisher of these papers, Scivision Publishers, is included in Beall’s list of publishers of predatory journals.

“Predatory publishing (also write-only publishing or deceptive publishing) is an exploitative academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy, and without providing editorial and publishing services that legitimate academic journals provide, whether open access or not.” (Link)

In any case, if you actually read through the paper that you reference, claiming “more harm than good”, that claim simply isn’t supported at all. It all depends upon what one defines as “severe”. Regardless, when it comes to actual hospitalizations and deaths, for the Phase 3 clinical trials of the mRNA vaccines, there is no evidence to counter the conclusion that the mRNA vaccines ended up being highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 compared to the placebo arms of these trials.

In short, this guy just isn’t credible and his arguments make no sense given the data that we have in hand. There simply isn’t anything in the mRNA vaccines that would make them remotely comparable to the risks associated with the actual viral infection itself. The actual “spike protein” produced by the mRNA vaccines is modified to make it much less biologically active (i.e., frozen in the “pre-confirmation state) and almost all of it remains local at the site of injection. In comparison, the live COVID-19 infection also makes spike proteins that are much more biologically active and the live virus goes everywhere throughout the body involving and disrupting pretty much every organ system you have. Where then is the mechanism whereby the vaccine could be more harmful than the disease? There just isn’t such a mechanism. It just doesn’t exist. So, the mRNA vaccines are not only amazingly effective at preventing severe COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and death, they also are far far FAR safer than getting infected by COVID-19 – when it comes to every single risk factor one can name.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends
The dosage doesn’t matter much within this range (and the TOGETHER Trial used a dose of 400 μg/kg/day). There is also no evidence for “synergism” between ivermectin and other drugs used in McCullough’s early-treatment protocol (or other such protocols such as the MATH+, I-MASK+ and I-RECOVER Protocols) – despite him making this very same argument (Link).

The problem, as mentioned in my article, “You can’t just throw together drugs that don’t work at all by themselves and expect that they will suddenly work if used in combination – Dr. Vincent Iannelli explains (Link). There just is no scientific evidence or any kind of mechanism for this when it comes to efforts to save ivermectin as providing some kind of benefit against COVID-19.

See also a recent review of the Cochrane Review of ivermectin: Link

Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends
Yes, I generally agree with Dr. Damania (Dr Zdogg) and have watched many of his videos. He’s a good place to start researching a topic if he has actually made a video about it.

Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends
Actually, since the Egyptian data comprised so much of the basis for Dr. Kory’s meta-analysis paper, removing this data from his analysis actually removes the useful predictive value of his analysis beyond random chance – as previously explained.

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

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)