patrick.net

BoomAndBustCycle says

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressing-dr-daniel-stock-claims?fbclid=IwAR1MqADX7a-ZgGQLgyWZ3uAwe4fk5HsA1s98iUE9eq8KyzhS3VQ0wAVZgBU

A very long read in this link… but it’s a good counter argument to all the half-baked ideas spewed on.

I'm went through the pain of reading it:

First several paragraphs are devoted to an ad hominem attack, and then appeal to authority. Two of the most basic logic fallacies:

A surprisingly large number of people have sent me a video that is inundated with disinformation about COVID-19 and its reach seems considerable so I have deemed it significant enough to address. In the video, one Dr. Dan Stock from Indiana at a school board meeting opines at length about all the things we’re supposedly doing wrong with COVID-19 (by the way, the FSMB has now stated that spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination may put medical licenses at risk, though state medical boards have final say it seems; rest assured I will be examining the rules in Indiana quite closely). The speech is little more than a verbal gish gallop: a tactic used by science denialists usually over written forums wherein they post a bunch of links that they claim to support their points but in reality most of the citations are unsupportive or even unrelated to their claim- but this serves the appearance of evidence (this is a famous example). He is doing this verbally- he is making a series of incorrect arguments (that are self-contradictory) and essentially seeking to overwhelm opposition with the volume of arguments he makes. The thing is, as I’ll discuss, he discredits himself very early on, so you don’t have to subject yourself to listening to his nonsense because I did it for you.

To begin, the speaker describes himself as a “functional family medicine physician,” which per him “means [he] is specially trained in immunology and inflammation regulation.” Firstly, this isn’t even how most sources define functional medicine. The Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine defines functional medicine as

a personalized, systems-oriented model that empowers patients and practitioners to achieve the highest expression of health by working in collaboration to address the underlying causes of disease.

This definition, admittedly, is completely meaningless because the foundation of literally all medicine is built on understanding the pathophysiology of conditions and addressing their underlying cause whenever that is possible (which unfortunately isn’t always feasible) and the implication that other clinician specialties do not do this is on its face pretty offensive. It also tells you nothing about the actual scope of a functional medicine physician’s expertise as far as the ailments they address or which aspects of the human body they specialize in. Perhaps most importantly though, it is not what Stock describes, which most closely seems to describe an allergist/immunologist (which he is not). The title of “functional medicine physician” is usually a red flag for quackery, and he’s already misrepresented his own expertise, so this isn’t off to a great start. An explanation of the problems with functional medicine generally may be found here. Also functional medicine is not a specialty recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties nor the American Medical Association.

Then he claims that masks block viral transmission. They don't, not at least the ones we're being asked to wear. If you sneeze or are even perhaps talking, the mask my catch larger droplets, but not what you'd be exhaling in just breathing.

Next he claims that coronaviruses and all respiratory viruses are spread by aerosol particles which are small enough to go through your mask, which is a misleading in several ways. Aerosols refer specifically to very small droplets which in general can linger in the air for prolonged periods of time (and they are blocked by masks). While there is evidence that during certain medical procedures like intubation, SARS-CoV-2 can become aerosolized, most contact tracing studies do find that prolonged close contact with individuals is needed for transmission to occur (but obviously there are exceptions). There is definitely a role for aerosol transmission in COVID-19 but precisely how much is not well-defined. He then argues that masks don’t work because viruses are small enough to pass through them. The problem with this reasoning is viruses do not travel as individual viral particles- they are inside the aerosols and droplets. That’s what the masks block. The IDSA has graciously compiled the multitudinous, surfeit evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of masking here which anyone is free to peruse at their leisure.

This is statement is false. Vitamin D deficiency isn't rare but ironically he's also saying that a vitamin D deficiency does make you more susceptible to sickness in general. He also uses weasel words like "there is no evidence that vitamin D alone is protective from COVID-19" - yes, vitamin D ALONE doesn't protect you from a disease.

He then states that all respiratory viruses wait for the “immune system to get sick in the winter” which is baseless. The seasonality of respiratory viruses is a complex matter dependent on many factors, many of which have nothing to do directly with immunity. For instance, when it’s cold, people gather indoors for prolonged periods close together in poorly ventilated spaces. Humidity is lower which also affects virus transmission as it allows aerosols to remain suspended for longer and mucociliary clearance may be impaired. Additionally, not all respiratory viruses peak in the winter. Vitamin D levels in the winter may also play a role but it’s probably not that important in higher income nations because true vitamin D deficiency is relatively rare. I discussed vitamin D at length here. He goes back to this point several times but there’s still no evidence for the value of vitamin D as therapy or prevention in COVID-19. Having adequate vitamin D levels is critical for optimization of one’s health, absolutely, but there is no evidence that vitamin D alone is protective from COVID-19 (and in fact there are Mendelian randomization studies suggesting in fact that vitamin D does not affect risk for COVID-19 as well as a randomized controlled trial).

This doesn't comport with my observation. Can you think of a celebrity or a politician (also a sort of celebrity) that has died of this disease? We have numerous reports of broadcasters and of athletes that have died shortly after having the vaccine. Hank Aaron being a very famous one.

Stock then makes a meaningless and unfalsifiable remark that sounds scary by saying that the vaccines make your immune system become “deranged.” He provides no evidence or reference for this most extraordinary claim even though the burden of proof lies with him for making it. This comment is vague and meaningless and he does not clarify what constitutes immunological derangement. What specific pathologies are the vaccines causing indicative of immunological derangement? We have near real-time safety data on them and the risks (which are themselves exceptionally rare) are: anaphylaxis 2.5-4.7 per million doses, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) with the JJJ vaccine at 3 per million doses, Guillain-Barre syndrome at 7.8 per million doses of JJJ, and the rare cases of myocarditis whose rate is hard to define generally but goes up to ~7 per 100,000 second doses of the vaccine in younger males and is far lower for everyone else. COVID-19 patients on the other hand may have substantial immunological challenges. They develop functional autoantibodies that worsen disease and people who recover from COVID regularly have new autoimmune diseases, including diabetes. Some evidence demonstrates prolonged disruption of normal peripheral immune system function following COVID-19 in some patients. I discussed the differences in disease-acquired immunity and vaccine-acquired immunity here for those seeking additional details.

WTF is a transmissible vaccine? Anyhow, here he states that sars-cov2-19 cannot be eradicated while claiming the Flu vaccine is useful which, at best, is about 33% effective.

Stock then says something about filtering out the virus but the context is no longer masks or any nonpharmaceutical interventions so I’m not sure what he’s talking about and also says the virus can’t ever go away because it has animal reservoirs (zoonotic virus). This is not the whole truth. Certainly, barring a universal coronavirus vaccine that can be given to animals and ideally one that is itself transmissible, SARS-CoV-2 is not a viable candidate for eradication because it has animal reservoirs that can keep introducing it into the population. This does not mean that vaccination cannot alleviate the public health burden of COVID-19. It does it every year for flu, which is another zoonotic disease.

And at this point, I got sick of reading it.

I'm no expert in medicine, but this guy sure says a lot, without saying much. That's a red flag for bullshit and argument by authority. But it doesn't matter. If you believe him, follow his advice which I assume is "take the vaccine".

Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence.
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/#aerosols

Risks associated with face masks
Wearing masks for a prolonged period of time may not be harmless, as the following evidence shows:

1)The WHO warns of various “side effects” such as difficulty breathing and skin rashes.

2)Tests conducted by the University Hospital of Leipzig in Germany have shown that face masks significantly reduce the resilience and performance of healthy adults.

3)A German psychological study with about 1000 participants found “severe psychosocial consequences” due to the introduction of mandatory face masks in Germany.

4)The Hamburg Environmental Institute warned of the inhalation of chlorine compounds in polyester masks as well as problems in connection with face mask disposal.

5)The European rapid alert system RAPEX has already recalled 70 mask models because they did not meet EU quality standards and could lead to “serious risks”.

6)A study by the University of Muenster in Germany found that on N95 (FFP2) masks, Sars-CoV-2 may remain infectious for several days, thus increasing the risk of self-contamination.

7)In China, several children who had to wear a mask during gym classes fainted and died; the autopsies found a sudden cardiac arrest as the probable cause of death. In the US, a car driver wearing an N95 (FFP2) mask fainted and crashed due to CO2 intoxication.
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/#aerosols

Conclusion
Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/do-masks-work-review-evidence

In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless - whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone—or actually counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.

Onvacation says

RAPEX

Nice name.