This video is being spread by some people I know who are into anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, and while it has some claims that are technically true, there are also quite a lot of canards and the omission of information that is misleading. Because it's a charismatic guy in a sharable 6-minute clip, and because the video was removed from youtube (making him a martyr in the eyes of some) I think a forum like Metabunk could be helpful to break out what exactly his points are.
INTRODUCTION: I am a functional family medicine physician, that means I am specially trained in immunology and inflammation regulation, and everything recommended by the CDC and State Board of Health is actually contrary to all of the rules of science.
I don't want to dwell on credentials, because general practitioners are typically credible sources. However, the hyperbole he is using to frame the qualified professionals set off an immediate red flag for me. Virologists who have been following the macro trends of the virus day to day for almost two years now likely have a little bit of a different perspective than a family doctor in a rural area who later says he only treated 15 patients with mild symptoms and no hospitalizations.
CLAIM: Things you should know about coronavirus: they are spread by aerosol particles which are small enough to go through every mask.
This is true, but a canard. It is true that in theory the particles are small enough to go through a mask, however in practice masks are very effective at dramatically decreasing the spread of the virus. The important measurement is the relative effectiveness is that two people wearing masks will not infect or get infected. Masks have been shown to reduce the spread of the virus outside of the mask, the distance the particles would travel, and if the non-infected person was wearing a mask, it is yet another barrier to entry for the particles.
I tried to find the studies that he is referencing about how masks still allow the virus to leak out, and I think this is one of them. But if you actually look at the data in the study tells a story that masks are actually quite effective at mitigating the spread of the droplets:
And Metabunk has a good thread on this too, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/info-face-mask-test-links.11318/
CLAIM: The natural history of all respiratory viruses is that they circulate all year long, waiting for the immune system to get sick through the winter or become deranged, as has happened recently with these vaccines, and then they cause symptomatic disease because they can not be filtered out.
This is a very strange way to put this, and he goes on to contradict himself later. The common cold is a good example of a coronavirus which both circulates year-round but also exhibits a seasonal pattern in temperate climates. most colds happen in winter/spring. However different climates (such as tropical/subtropical regions), the times of year are different.
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.567184/full#B3Epidemiologic studies of common cold HCoVs suggest that they exhibit a seasonal pattern. In a temperate climate, HCoV infections are primarily detected in winter and spring, with low-level circulation throughout the year (3).
On the other hand, tropical/subtropical regions display year-round circulation of HCoVs but with increased activity during certain months. A study conducted in China during 2008–2009 reported that HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 infections, in hospitalized children with acute respiratory infections, showed increased activity during summer, fall, and winter (37).
COVID-19 is a novel virus, and as such it's behavior isn't necessarily going to line up with every other illness, however last year we did had summer outbreaks pre-vaccine, particularly in Arizona, Texas, and California. This summer, Florida and Tennessee have been particularly hard hit. Even if we don't have a deep understanding of how the virus responds to weather patterns, it's wrong to say that coronaviruses "wait for the winter" (though, this winter could still be far worse for infections).
I don't understand the second half of his statement that about vaccines "deranging the immune system."
CLAIM: They cannot be filtered out and they have animal reservoirs, this is a very important point, no one can make this virus go away. .. you're trying to do something that has already been tried and can't be done.
Again, this is a bit of a canard, because while we don't expect all coronaviruses to go away forever due to this vaccine, the point of the vaccine is that we will neutralize COVID-19 specifically, whether that means lowering the chance of spread or so that people don't experience the worst effects of the disease. There will always be a possibility of new zoonotic viruses, we could even have COVID-22 next year, but without vaccine intervention, it will take a lot more human suffering for us to reach herd immunity for this current disease, COVID-19.
CLAIM: Ask yourself why we're doing this for something we didn't do for the common cold, influenza, or respiratory syncytial virus
COVID-19, a novel virus, was the 3rd leading cause of death in 2020, Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s1/ If someone doesn't believe that, they should ask themselves what to attribute the excess mortality to. Here's an example from the united states:
We estimated that 766,611 deaths attributable to COVID-19 occurred in the United States from March 8, 2020—May 29, 2021. Of these, 184,477 (24%) deaths were not documented on death certificates. Eighty-two percent of unrecognized deaths were among persons aged ≥65 years; the proportion of unrecognized deaths were 0•24–0•31 times lower among those 0–17 years relative to all other age groups. More COVID-19–attributable deaths were not captured during the early months of the pandemic (March–May 2020) and during increases in SARS-CoV-2 activity (July 2020, November 2020—February 2021).
CLAIM: Why is a vaccine that is supposedly so effective having a breakout in the middle of the summer, when respiratory syndromes don't do that. And to help you understand that, you need to know the condition that is known as antibody mediated viral enhancement. That is a condition done when vaccines work wrong, as they did in every coronavirus study done in animals on coronaviruses after the SARS outbreak and the respiratory syncytial virus. And that is why you're seeing an outbreak right now.
If anyone has more information about this, please respond! My immediate reaction is, what is the proof that antibody mediated viral enhancement is happening? I understand that it's a possibility, and that it may have even happened with other viruses and other vaccines, but
CLAIM: 75% of people who had COVID-19 positive cases in Barnstable, MA were fully vaccinated <applause>, therefore there is no reason for treating any person vaccinated any differently than any person unvaccinated.
The Barnstable County, Massachusetts (home of Cape Cod and Provincetown) has a vaccination rate of 84% (eligible ages 12+) with at least one dose, and 76% are fully vaccinated as of July 27 2021. https://www.mass.gov/doc/weekly-covid-19-vaccination-report-july-29-2021/download This is one of the most vaccinated counties in the country, and the odds are still better that someone who is vaccinated is less likely to catch the virus in this county.
EDIT: While we don't know the exact numbers of people from out of the area who got infected, were those numbers to be consistent with the county vaccination rates, it means the proportion of people who caught the virus with the vaccine could still end up being significantly lower than the people who caught the virus without the vaccine. For example a pool of 100,000 people with potential exposure, 86k vaccinated, 24k unvaccinated. If 400 were infected, 300 from the vaccination pool and 100 from unvaccinated pool, that would come out to be 1 in 286 people from the vaccination group and 1 in 240 from the non-vaccinated group, so you would still statistically be better off getting vaccinated, even if the total number of vaccinated people being infected is higher.
Of course, this is just an example with simple numbers of how a statistic like Dr. Stock mentioned can be misleading. In reality this stuff is a huge challenge to contact trace and people's exposure and risk is not equal.
CLAIM: In 2014, there was an outbreak of Mumps in the NHL, the only people who came down with symptoms were the people who were unvaccinated or unknown vaccine status. Sounds like a great argument for vaccines. But the question you should ask yourself, the people who came down with symptomatic disease had no contact with an unvaccinated or unknown vaccine status individual. Where did they get the disease? The answer was, the vaccinated individuals. No vaccine prevents you from getting infection. You get infected, you shed pathogen. This is especially true of viral respiratory pathogens, you just don't get symptomatic from it. You will be chasing this the remainder of your life until you recognize the Center for Disease Control and Indiana State Board of Health are giving you very bad scientific guidance.
Once again, vaccines are successful based upon how much they prevent the debilitating effects of a disease. It is true that people who are vaccinated for mumps can still carry the disease and be asymptomatic. But it doesn't matter in any practical sense if mumps is being passed around and everyone is vaccinated with no symptoms.
I think what this guy is suggesting is that some hockey players who got vaccinated some 20 years ago, and has been carrying the disease and infecting people with it ever since. Additionally he is saying that the infected players did rigorous contact tracing and never had contact with another person who was unvaccinated, therefore someone else's vaccine from 20 years ago is what caused the illness. This is a big stretch of logic. If anyone knows more about this story, I'd be very interested in learning more, because from what I can tell this claim came out of the blue.
CLAIM: By the way, the other thing that would be necessary if a vaccine restriction were to be considered would be if there is no other treatment available. I can tell you having treated over fifteen COVID-19 patients that between active loading with vitamin D, Ivermectin, and Zinc, there has not been a single person who has come anywhere near the hospital. We already have studies that show that if you achieve a 25 hydroxy vitamin D level greater than 25 [he said 55, but I think he meant 25], your risk of COVID-19 death will drop down to one quarter of the population average of the united states.
It is true that vitamin D deficiency does lead to worse outcomes. This is a problem because in the USA, roughly 42% of Americans are Vitamin D deficient, particularly older people, people of color, and overweight people. Vitamin D deficiency is also linked to cardiovascular disease and cancer, which are major comorbidities for COVID, so naturally this correlates to higher vitamin D deficiency being a cause for concern.
However, Vitamin D and Zinc are not a miracle cure, Ivermectin may be promising but similar to Hydroxychloroquine last year, it hasn't really been studied yet. At this point we have more data about the vaccines than we do about ivermectin, and it shows that the vaccines are safe and effective.
CLAIM: People who have recovered from COVID-19 infection gain no benefit from vaccination at all. No reduction in symptoms, no reduction in hospitalization, and suffer 2-4x the number of side effects if they are subsequently vaccinated.
EDIT: Dierdre added some helpful information rebutting this this claim below in this thread
Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated.
The lack of a significant association with partial versus full vaccination should be interpreted with caution given the small numbers of partially vaccinated persons included in the analysis (6.9% of case-patients and 7.9% of controls), which limited statistical power. The lower odds of reinfection among the partially vaccinated group compared with the unvaccinated group is suggestive of a protective effect and consistent with findings from previous studies indicating higher titers after the first mRNA vaccine dose in persons who were previously infected (7,8).