Dr. Dan Stock Argues Against Vaccines at Mt. Vernon, IN School Board Meeting

Arugula

Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwlWwy-PrGo


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:

droplets.PNG

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327717/

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.

Epidemiologic 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).
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.567184/full#B3

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).

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00011-9/fulltext

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

Article:
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).
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
however in practice masks are very effective at dramatically decreasing the spread of the virus.
just for the record i read 3 articles in the last 2 days where bigwig doctors are saying to start using a n95 for delta because cloth masks are a joke.


The Barnstable County, Massachusetts (home of Cape Cod) 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.

Also keep in mind that this means the proportion of people who caught the virus with the vaccine are significantly lower than the people who caught the virus without the vaccine. Here is a visual way to explaining this concept:
I'm not sure you can use full country data to argue against Provincetown July 4th celebrations and tea parties. For one, Thousands of visitors went to Provincetown, so you cant really use the towns 84% coverage, As we dont know vax status of them all.

But regarding Dr. Stock's claim, there are "limitations" to the CDC Provincetown data that might be significant.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and Zinc are not a miracle cure
i was just watching a 'what to do if you have covid' vid, and that doctor said do not take more than 40mg of zinc a day. But vit D is relatively safe. He didnt mention taking Ivermectin at all.

I bring all this up because people NEED to contact a physician for Ivermectin etc, but not to overdose on zinc.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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.

I don't know where he is getting this from, and I'm not aware of any studies about reinfection among infected, then vaccinated. It seems early to draw strong conclusions about that either way, maybe after this current wave we will learn more.

Article:
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).
 
Last edited:

Arugula

Member
I'm not sure you can use full country data to argue against Provincetown July 4th celebrations and tea parties. For one, Thousands of visitors went to Provincetown, so you cant really use the towns 84% coverage, As we dont know vax status of them all.

But regarding Dr. Stock's claim, there are "limitations" to the CDC Provincetown data that might be significant.

That's fair! I agree with you. My point regarding Provincetown is just that, even if a majority of people in an infected pool are vaccinated, if you have an overwhelming majority of vaccinated people in the community, then you can still be statistically less likely to get infected after taking the vaccine.


I bring all this up because people NEED to contact a physician for Ivermectin etc, but not to overdose on zinc.

Absolutely agreed
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I don't understand the second half of his statement that about vaccines "deranging the immune system."

I read that as a reference to the common woo-based healthcare belief that because the immune system is natural, and natural=good, that anything that "unnaturally" impacts it is bad -- vaccines, because they are not naturally secreted by trees or something, and because they make changes to the immune system, must damage the immune system. It is often phrased something like "your natural immune system is the best, but vaccines mean that your immune system does not get the exercise it naturally would get in coping with diseases, and gets weak and flabby and can't cope with anything any more."

With apologies for tone if that comes across snarky -- this is the re-written version to remove 90% of the naturally occurring snark in what I wrote prior to posting.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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." Dan Stock


Article:
Among the 1,500 patients in the study, he said, Ivermectin showed "no effect whatsoever" on the trial's outcome goals — whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization.

"In our specific trial," he said, "we do not see the treatment benefit that a lot of the advocates believe should have been" seen.

The study's results on Ivermectin haven't been formally published or peer-reviewed. Earlier peer-reviewed results from the Together Trial related to the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, which had been touted as a miracle treatment for COVID by then-President Trump, were published in April; they showed no significant therapeutic effect on the virus.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
I can tell you having treated over fifteen COVID-19 patients
Fifteen isn't a lot, and leaves the data set very vulnerable to bias. 0/15 is good if the patients are mostly over 50, but unimpressive if they're mostly under 30. If the patients are resistant to mainstream medicine (which may or may not be a fair assumption, but they have sought out a non-mainstream treatment in this case) they might not go to a hospital when an average patient would, but would not give in until they got worse, which they might not.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
derrick06 Claim: "Your birth certificate is worth millions" Conspiracy Theories 49
Svartbjørn Debunked: Orlando Roller Coaster Fatalities [Stock Fake Photo, Swedish Coaster] General Discussion 7
D Claim: Videos of people exhaling vape smoke through a mask, demonstrate masks as useless against a virus.. Coronavirus COVID-19 42
Mick West Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and AE911Truth File Lawsuit Against FBI 9/11 59
MikeG Massive Deployment of American Tanks Against Russia Conspiracy Theories 14
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
TEEJ Bellingcat Analysis of Satellite Imagery Used In Russian Claims Against Ukraine Flight MH17 104
Gabriel Incertis Claim: MOREGELLON'S Is Patent US 6245531 And It Is Not A Disease Health and Quackery 6
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Jay Reynolds Conspiracy Theories hamper fight against Ebola Conspiracy Theories 25
Critical Thinker Hoax: Madagascar Pranks March Against Monsanto Conspiracy Theories 12
Grieves The 'Cop' mentality: when police conspire against the public good General Discussion 17
Joe Newman FBI docs re planned sniper attacks against Occupy leaders? Conspiracy Theories 1
Billzilla Petition at Avaaz against 'chemtrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 1
David Fraser Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 340
Soulfly 30 count indictment against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev returned by grand jury. Boston Marathon Bombings 0
Critical Thinker Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign Conspiracy Theories 308
Mick West Debunked: Kaiser Permanente Warns Against Consuming Genetically Modified Foods General Discussion 6
Spongebob Against Chemtrails - activism Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Mick West Advocating violence against "Chemtrail" planes, pilots, scientists, and debunkers Contrails and Chemtrails 1762
Jay Reynolds The Watchtower's Incredible Crusade Against Aluminum Health and Quackery 2
SR1419 How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed- Health and Quackery 9
Related Articles






















Related Articles

Top