Comment on Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership by Sean Pitman.

Dr. MS wrote:

Sean D. Pitman. A subclinical myocarditis risk of 2-3% isn’t worth the risk for a healthy adult, and quite frankly, given the lack of evidence that the vaccine actually has reduced all cause mortality, probably for most adults. It is not a rare side effect. And studies of post myocarditis patients cardiac mri with late gadolinium enhancement show that the damage is largely still there six months out. I have personally had several patients develop mysterious new onset cardiac arrhythmias and depressed cardiac function. Some were athletic and young. I had a 20 year old who was a basketball player in high school, good enough to be looked at by college basketball recruiters who after his third Moderna could not only no longer play, he would have to lie down after walking carrying his books to his dorm room.

And you are quite the hypocrite. Talking about picking and choosing voices when it’s convenient for you — the CDC says you should have gotten 8 mRNA vaccines by now. Why don’t you follow their expert recommendations since they have factored in all Americans’ risks and potential benefits from the shots and recommend that everyone should get their boosters?

These vaccines can cause neurologic damage as well, and autoimmune conditions of various kinds. There is evidence that they impair cancer surveillance mechanisms in the body. Again I can post the studies. I have two patients who had to retire early due to mysterious uncontrollable shaking spells following the shots. They were more or less healthy right up until that time.

There is no credible evidence of reduced all cause mortality. When I’m able to do so I will show you the pitiable attempt by Hungarian researchers to show that all cause mortality was reduced by the vaccines. If you look at their raw data graphed it is apparent that the survival curves for both Pfizer and Moderna take a nosedive conveniently immediately after their data analysis point in time.

You are quite frankly the conspiracy theorist given what we know about the shots, that they don’t reduce transmission, to say that people who didn’t get vaxxed are responsible for other people’s deaths. That is just pure ignorance. There is quite a body of evidence that the vaccines have negative efficacy over time, which is why they recommend boosters. Meaning that your risk of Covid goes up over time if you’ve been vaxxed. I would have to find the large Cleveland clinic study but there are others.

You keep saying McCullough is a conspiracy theorist. Cite something that he has said that is an untrue undemonstrable conspiracy theory. I’m not saying there aren’t such things. Just saying you make these accusations — you need solid evidence.

In fact, I would like for you to debate him on-line. Would you and perhaps Roger be willing to do this? I could probably get him to participate.

_______________

Again, we agree that subclinical myocarditis in young men (2-3%, or ~100 fold higher than clinically apparent myocarditis in young men) seems to have greater risks than benefits in this particular demographic at this point in time. Unfortunately, that’s where our agreement seems to end. You go on to deviate from Dr. Prasad, and others who seem to be more even handed on this topic, on the apparent weight of available empirical evidence regarding the benefits of the mRNA vaccines and the millions of lives that were saved, not to the mention the millions more who were saved from hospitalizations and long-term injury. You focus on a very limited subset where something was done wrong and ignore all the rest where the mRNA vaccines were a miraculous benefit to millions worldwide.

You say that there is a lack of evidence that the mRNA vaccines reduce “all-cause mortality”. Yet, the data is overwhelming that the vaccines dramatically reduced hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 in particular – especially for the elderly and immunocompromised. Dr. Prasad is himself very strong on this particular point.

Yet, you claim that there is a lack of evidence that the “all-cause mortality” rate was, in particular, reduced by the mRNA vaccines. Yet, even here there is good evidence that those who were vaccinated experienced a reduced all-cause mortality as well as COVID-specific mortality. Studies comparing mortality rates in populations with high vaccination coverage to those with lower levels of vaccination have consistently found reduced all-cause mortality rates in the more highly vaccinated groups, even after adjusting for factors such as age, sex, socioeconomic status, and pre-existing health conditions. This suggests a significant protective effect of vaccination on overall mortality (Palinkas & Sandor, 2022). Another example is a 2023 population-based study in Australia which showed that, “COVID-19 vaccination was also found to be effective against all-cause mortality, likely from both direct effects and the impact on other outcomes.”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00246-8/fulltext

You even claim that I’m a “hypocrite” here because I don’t recommend that everyone get all of the booster shots recommended by the CDC (I’ve had a total of 4 Pfizer shots now). How am I being hypocritical by recognizing different risk categories for different age groups or those with different states of health or exposure or levels of natural immunity? Even Paul Offit, a prominent vaccine advocate and the director of vaccine communication at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the Atlantic that he advised his own 20-something son not to get boosted. Several nations, even, have banned or discouraged the use of Moderna in young men. Others advise two doses spaced further apart, and some have held off on a second dose entirely for younger age groups. And I’m the hypocrite here?

As Dr. Prasad notes, “It is perfectly valid to question the wisdom of boosters, at least in young people, though I do think they are beneficial for older and more vulnerable people.”

https://unherd.com/2022/01/we-need-to-talk-about-the-vaccines/

You go on to claim that the vaccines cause neurologic damage, autoimmune conditions, and impair cancer surveillance mechanisms. The reduced cancer surveillance claim seems to have no valid evidence in support as far as I can tell. Dr. Prasad comments on this very same claim forwarded by Dr. Malone noting, “To date, I have seen no evidence to support any of these claims, and I believe it is a mistake to raise them. First, they are irresponsible — Malone’s rhetoric verges on fear-mongering — and second, they distract from his legitimate points on myocarditis in young men.”

https://unherd.com/2022/01/we-need-to-talk-about-the-vaccines/

As far as neurologic and autoimmune conditions resulting from the mRNA vaccines, research studies regarding this claim seem to conclude that there is a similar incidence rate between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. So, there really isn’t good support for this claim either. However, various studies have shown an increased risk for autoimmune conditions following a COVID-19 infection. My own partner, a very fit man in his early 50s, experienced autoimmune neuropathy from getting COVID-19 before the vaccines became available. It caused his body and health to rapidly decline so that he was forced to retire, in constant chronic pain, just 2 years later.

As far as your claim that the vaccines don’t reduce transmission rates, that’s also mistaken. They reduce both viral load and transmission rates. There are numerous papers along these lines.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00248-1/fulltext

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41109-9

Sure, one might argue that if the vaccine doesn’t completely eliminate the risk of transmission, then there’s really no point since everyone is going to get exposed eventually. While this is true, during the height of the pandemic, reducing the transmission rate was important because hospitals were being overwhelmed, in many areas, by the sick.

Beyond this, I never said that the unvaxxed are responsible for other people’s deaths. What I said is that those who convinced others, especially the elderly, not to get vaccinated, are responsible for other people’s deaths – regardless of their sincerity.

Sure, the vaccines have reduced efficacy regarding infection rates over time (although the reduction in hospitalization and death rates remains robust for much longer). So yes, boosters are required and are actually beneficial for those at higher risk.

As far as why I cite Dr. Peter McCullough as being a conspiracy theorist, I’ve often reviewed his claims and reasons why so many claims of his are false or deceptive… and conspiratorial in nature. Sure, he does occasionally make a valid point, but his valid points are poisoned by his forwarding of so many false and even conspiratorial ideas.

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories

Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines

Even Dr. Vinay Prasad cites McCullough and Malone as forwarding false, unsupported, and alarmist ideas.

“Both speakers made accurate and useful points on Rogan’s podcast — as well as unsupported, speculative, alarmist, and false ones. The correct way to deal with incorrect ideas in biomedicine, if they rise to a level of prominence that warrants rebuttal, is to rebut them.”

“McCullough states that early in the pandemic, there was no focus on sick patients, while Malone speculates that hospitals don’t want early treatments because they profit when people are hospitalised and claims that “probably half a million excess deaths” have happened in the United States through the intentional blockade of early treatments. These are entirely false and insulting allegations, and Malone’s in particular are flat-out conspiratorial. Academic hospitals attempted all sorts of disparate treatment protocols in the hopes of helping sick patients.”

“The problem was not that there was no appetite for early treatment. The problem was that when the randomised trial data came in, they suggested the drugs favored by Malone and McCullough were ineffective. A pooled analysis of all such studies by Axfors and colleagues suggests patients treated with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine had increased risk of death.”

“Rogan, Malone and McCullough are wrong to claim that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are known to be secretly effective, but they are correct that these drugs have been unfairly demonised. The truth is that they are neither particularly dangerous nor effective.”

https://unherd.com/2022/01/we-need-to-talk-about-the-vaccines/

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman