Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dan Stock on treating & preventing sars-cov-2
95 views
Skip to first unread message
David Ford
Dec 4, 2021, 10:58:16 AM12/4/21
to
Texas COVID-19 Summit: Dr. Dan Stock
on treating and preventing coronavirus infection, lightly-edited transcript
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/texas-covid-19-summit-dr-dan-stock-039-vaccines-treatment-and-covid-19-039_K9oHINagY8ZtUZa.html
Thank you everybody, but you've already paid me the greatest compliment by asking me to come to Texas to speak besides someone like Peter McCullough and Ryan Cole and Bryan Ardis. So this is a little overwhelming for a functional family medicine doctor from Indiana, but I'm going to try and put out some understanding of how a functional doctor looks at theoretically, and then specifically what you can do to prevent and treat covid19, other than the stuff you've been given right now.
So the first thing I'd like everybody to know is something I learned in medical school that's kind of different about covid19. If you look at rubella, 95% of people I was told-- if you're getting infected with rubella, 95% of people will get symptoms. So in the equation of disease, where disease equals pathogenicity of the bug versus the quality of the immune system, the big variable there is the pathogen isn't it. Only 5% of people have a good enough immune system that they can get infected with rubella and get through it without symptoms. But what I learned after I got out of medical school and started doing more research was, if you look at influenza in the common cold, it's actually 70% of people who get infected have no symptoms. And that's right. And then I found it's the same number for covid19. So what does that tell you? Is the big difference when 70% of people who get the infection have no symptoms... and 30% of them do have symptoms, is the problem the pathogen, is that where you're going to get the most traction say with a vaccine, or Remdesivir which aims at viral replication? Or you're more likely to get it with something that tackles the whole problem of inflammation and the malfunction of your immune system? So I don't want anybody get the idea that it's one or the other, all right. A lot of people in functional medicine think that, 'Gosh, if it had a patent on it at one time or has one now it's bad.' And I'm a boring biochemistry guy but I like to get down to, 'Hey, what's the biochemical difference between that 70% who gets infected and doesn't even know they have it (I'm one of those by the way), and that 30% who got infected and didn't have a very good time with it?
So you should know what we call functional nutritional repletion assays, which is where we take some cells out of a human being and we say, 'Hey, if I give you some more of this or some more of that, will you grow faster when I give you a grow signal?' All right, and by doing these things we can actually identify nutrient things that tell us that, 'Hey, if we were to give you more of this, if you had more of this to begin with, you would actually have your cells grow faster.' And do you know what we do those assays on? We do this on the lymphocytes-- the immune system cells that actually are probably the primary thing in fighting a virus. So this isn't just theoretical. You should know that we've actually done studies. First of all, in these studies where we took some of your immune system cells and say, 'Hey, when we give you the signal that you've just got an infection around you and you need to respond, hey you respond better if I give you some of this,' but then also then did placebo-controlled randomized blinded trials in many of these things in human beings and showed, 'Wow, you know it does reduce the duration and degree of symptoms.' So think about-- when you start thinking about we're going to prevent and treat a disease, that what we're going to do is make the immune system like that 30% more like the immune system of the 70%.
So what kind of things do we have data on that do this? And I'd like to kind of start with the stuff we have the most shaky data on. All right.
SELENIUM
My favorite of those is selenium, which for my patients in prevention-- and one of the things I would like to tell you-- I got pilloried by one of these fact-testing things because I made the brag that I treated 15 patients with covid19, it's not 15 people. It's like, 'You're right, I don't have the experience that Peter McCullough does, right. But that's 15 people, 10 of whom were actually not my patients until they got sick with covid19. The other five were five of my 200 patients who didn't come down with symptoms.' So that's five out of 200 people who, because we were doing some things before covid19 got to them, ended up more like that lucky 70%.
So the first of those things is selenium, 200 to 400 micrograms a day, and for adults who are much bigger I lean more towards the 400 a day. You should know that selenium is actually not just used to make thyroid hormone, but so that your cells use it right, and it's also used by your immune system cells so that your T cells develop into the Th1 or Th2 correctly, so they go to become cytotoxic T cells immature, so that not your killer cells develop.
So that's the first thing that I would have in all of my patients prophylactically.
I do want people to know we don't have any data that says this works if you use it acutely in a patient. I do it for my patients acutely, but I don't want to get down 'Dan Stock says there's a placebo-controlled randomized blinded trial of selenium for that' because there isn't.
By the way-- and everything we're going to talk about today, understand that the sooner you get this under control, the better it does. The immune system has got a positive feedback system when it gets stimulated to a point it actually gets into a positive feedback loop. About a week into it where it's no longer-- you don't even need the virus anymore: your immune system and your inflammatory regulatory mechanisms are so broken, they'll go out of control and hurt you even if you don't have virus anymore.
And so that's what we're trying to make sure we can do. Selenium isn't something that you probably get a lot of benefit using very early, but 200-400 micrograms a day is something that my patients who have very little problem with symptomatic covid19 are all doing.
ZINC
And then let's move up a step to something like zinc. So zinc has got so many things that it does with the immune system and even against viruses-- it does both parts of that equation, that I can't possibly go through all of those with you guys right now. But I think what I want people to understand about zinc is that zinc has been proven to be useful both in the acute setting, and I can tell you it works in the long term setting. The doses are a little different between those things. Studies I've seen-- placebo-controlled randomized blinded trials of zinc-- about 30 to 50% effective not only at reducing the duration and degree of symptoms but the duration and degree of viral shed, which is better than I see with _any_ vaccine product on the market right now. So the protocol that I use for my patients if they come in is-- if they come in and say, 'Doc, I've not been taking any zinc at all,' it's 50 milligrams twice a day. Most of my patients are taking at least 25 milligrams a day chronically if they don't have acute symptoms.
The key thing I want people to understand about zinc is how to test in the functional world that says, 'Hey, your zinc is good enough,' and in my book that's with what's called a zinc taste latency test. We actually have a beautifully done study that says we can predict your response to zinc supplementation. If we have you take a 2% zinc sulfate solution-- you guys can google and buy that online-- and you take five milliliters or one teaspoon of that, you throw it in your mouth and you count how many seconds it takes for you to taste something besides water. If your zinc level is adequate, you'll usually get a bitter metallic-- some people find it sweet-- but what matters is that you taste something besides water in five seconds or less. And if that happens then you actually will have very little benefit from extra zinc. So I will routinely tell my patients, 'Start 50 milligrams twice a day, and in five days do a test.' All right. And if you're not at that point yet, stay on 50 milligrams twice a day and five days later do a test, and then you can slowly start bringing down the dose of that until you've got yourself so it's five seconds or less of zinc. And many people when they start off with large doses can drop their dose of that and get things down lower. Zinc. We talked about the cost of Ivermectin versus doing vaccines, like, the cost of zinc to do this is extremely low.
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE
I like to step that up a notch when somebody comes in and they've not been taking zinc and they have acute symptoms, with hydroxychloroquine. That's hydroxychloroquine. One of the most wonderful things it does is actually make-- moves zinc-- zinc move into the cell. Most of the zinc in your bloodstream when you start taking it will be on the outside of the cell where it doesn't do a lot of good, but you can move whatever zinc you have into the cell very quickly with hydroxychloroquine. So I'll do approximately 400 milligrams twice a day for the first day, and then 200 milligrams twice a day after that for five to seven days until I see symptoms getting better. That's the other thing I would do in somebody who's getting both acute treatment. I don't use hydroxychloroquine prophylactically very much-- although I guess you could-- I understand they do it quite frequently in Africa-- I think there's other things I prefer to use for prophylaxis than that.
[After Governor Cuomo restricted access to HCQ in NY state, Zelenko researched and found out that quercetin does the same thing as HCQ: assist zinc getting into cells, whereupon zinc does its anti-viral actions. -d]
IODINE
One of the other things I would recommend people consider using is iodine. Interestingly, when your body gets inflamed the body actually tries to turn you into a state of hypothyroidism called tissue thyroid resistance. It's doing that on purpose because intracellular pathogens like viruses and bacteria like to actually use your own cells' machinery to reproduce. We're kind of trying to slow that down a little bit, but interestingly your immune system cells can make their own thyroid hormone as long as they have adequate iodine because they don't want to slow their metabolism down. Your thyroid gland tends to be an iodine hog, and so it's a good idea if you're low on iodine-- once you've made sure somebody has adequate zinc and adequate selenium-- and I do want to stress to people that I never have any patient in my practice add in larger doses of iodine until I know they have adequate zinc and selenium function, because high doses of iodine without those things can actually cause a thyroid gland injury. But then I'll read the-- yeah, that's right; so you heard me say that first. All right. This is why I want you to-- don't do this: go home and do this on your own, guys. Please find a physician who's trained in this. But after you've got sufficient zinc and selenium, then I'll have somebody start on iodine six and a quarter milligrams of an iodine iodide combination. So that's another thing that you can do for prophylaxis. I understand from Dr. Brownstein this actually can be used acutely. I don't have any experience using it acutely. The risk of the thyroid is a long-term use of iodine problem so I'm not going to contradict Dr. Brownstein. He knows much more about iodine function than I do, but it's one of the things that you can use prophylactically that works very well and is why that large percentage of my population never gets symptoms from covid19.
IRON
Another thing that I think people need to know about is iron sufficiency, and unfortunately many doctors have not been taught to test for iron in a very good way. They were taught the way I was in medical school, which is to measure a level of something called a ferritin level. The problem with ferritin is that just inflammation by itself drives ferritin up, iron deficiency drives ferritin down. And so if you see somebody who's chronically inflamed they can many times have a good looking ferritin level despite having a very low amount of iron. And I am one of those people by the way who has recovered from a bad inflammatory disease at a very good ferritin level and a very bad iron sufficiency. This data by the way has been-- actually been replicated in people with congestive heart failure, people with anemia of chronic disease, and people with chronic renal failure, that shows us that ferritin is not a very good measurement of iron. Please forgive your physicians: it's not that they don't care, this is what they were taught to do, but even in the modern literature in those areas they talk about a better way to measure this.
One of the better ways is something called a soluble transferrin receptor blood test. That can be done by itself. It's better than ferritin alone, but if you take that soluble transferrin receptor and you divide it by the log to the base 10 of ferritin you get something called an iron index. And that's actually our best single test that's been shown to predict not only that you will have low iron or good iron on your bone marrow bibes [?]-- because the studies were actually backed up that way-- but actually was able to predict who would get better if you gave them iron. If someone is low on iron and I'm trying to make it so they won't end up with symptomatic covid19, it is important to know that iron is best taken on an empty stomach every _other_ day-- not daily. And that data also-- we have randomized blinded trials to show. The reason for that is, many people when they're inflamed, they actually turn on a system that blocks iron absorption because your immune system is trying to keep iron away from the cooties so they can't use it. But the problem with that is, if you run that system longterm then every time you take a dose of iron and that system will turn off iron absorption for the next 36 hours. So if you dump it in every day you absorb iron on the first day, and nothing for every day after that. That's right. For many people who have a lot of inflammation, you simply can't get iron to go in-- that mechanism of blocking iron absorption simply won't work, and so we give people infusions of IV iron preparations. I've had them myself. They're actually a lot of the difference that make people feel better. And you can predict that with that iron index test.
There's another test I like to do with that called a transferrin saturation, because there's a few people the iron index misses that'll tell you they're good when they're not. And a transferrin saturation of 35% or higher will usually tell you that you're not going to benefit from iron. Again not data that I have seen which is randomized blinded trials of iron with covid-- with covid19-- but I have seen that we have data that says it makes immune system cells function better, and that inflammatory mechanisms regulate better, when you have sufficient iron going into a problem like that. Now iron is an acute treatment, I would tell everybody, I don't think we have much data with. And because iron doesn't go up quick no matter what you do, I'm not really sure I'd give somebody an iron infusion, especially if you don't have things like zinc and selenium right. Iron can cause the same kind of problems that iodine can. But know that it's something that you can have your doctor check that will make it so you are less likely to get into problems if your immune system and your inflammatory mechanism have to go fight a cootie.
STEROIDS
Then let's move up to some stuff in acute treatment which we actually have very very good data on covid19 for, with enormous effect and very low side effects.
My next favorite guy after that I should mention inhaled steroids for anybody who's acutely symptomatic, and oral steroids as well. And again, as we've seen with monoclonal antibodies, steroids work better when used early in the process rather than late-- only about 30% effective as I recall once you're in the ICU-- but am I right Pete with that number?-- but around 50 to 70% effective to use them early on in this.
IVERMECTIN
And after that Ivermectin. God, why do we even have to talk about this. One of the things-- the problem with trying to use the nutraceutical approach to getting your immune system working right is, it's a slow moving therapy. So when your functional doctor tells you, 'Oh my God, never use anything that I have to have a prescription for,' guys that's not realistic. If I shoot you in the middle of your chest you're going to need surgery, we're not going to get out of this all right. So we're going to have to do some unnatural things, and among those things Ivermectin is a wonderful chemical. I can tell you for most of my patients within 36 hours, symptoms are down 50% if I choose the right dose. And in fact I even dose it in my patients that way, telling them, 'I'm going to start you on this dose because I think that's what you need. If you haven't had a 50% reduction of symptoms in 36 hours call me and we'll double it.' The only way I've found to injure anybody with Ivermectin is to load it into a gun and shoot it at them. [audience laughter] I have to tell you ladies and gentlemen, the thing is, as horrible as the positive harm from these vaccines is, what I'm watching is a Tuskegee experiment going on in the United States where we deny people things that are very safe and very effective and this is-- this is very difficult to watch as a doctor. [gets emotional]
Studies I've read with Ivermectin-- and these are placebo-controlled randomized blinded trials of Ivermectin in acute therapy-- used both early _and_ late, because Ivermectin is not just something that makes virus so it can't bind to the spike protein receptor, it's actually something that changes that inflammatory over-response that's going on in covid19. And I think everybody here if you don't know already, you should know that what kills you in covid19 is not all of the cells in your body becoming infected with virus rupturing open and dying. What you die from is an uncoordinated inflammatory response that tells every cell to go into something called cell danger response where it quits doing its job right. That's right, you don't die because virus is filling up all your cells and killing them. Your own inflammatory regulation system is what's destroying your body. And Ivermectin actually has been shown that it actually interferes with those out-of-control inflammatory processes, and does this with side effects that I can't distinguish from placebo. So I routinely use this in patients no matter what time they come in to me. Prophylactically, I've actually seen a study done in covid19 nurses in the covid19 ward where they were randomized to either placebo or Ivermectin to use once a week-- twice a week for the first week and once a week thereafter-- that was _100%_ effective at preventing symptomatic covid19. And this is a well--
I know you only get so stupid for free. One-- I believe it's 24 milligrams in that study if I recall right. My starting dose for my patients is usually 24 to 48 milligrams depending upon their severity and how many other things I have taken care of for them beforehand. I've seen doses up to 96 milligrams used in trials. But I would tell some, you can only get so stupid for free. When you see something that's that cheap and that effective, that well studied... being sidelined, banned-- and I have on my phone the recording from a CVS pharmacist refusing to fill an Ivermectin prescription for a patient that she had filled three weeks before for the very same patient and admitting that it was a CVS corporate policy that made it so that she couldn't fill that. And I know Ryan Cole has one as well because I've listened to it-- I'm seeing him shake his head back there, yeah I see. But ladies and gentlemen, make-- let me make this even worse for you, because I have to tell you when you're a functional family medicine doctor, well my calling card is I'm a paste-eating geek I-- you know, I wonder whether or not I could bore Peter McCullough in a lecture or not. That's because I really am that boring. And when you see chemistry lining up in a way like I see it line up with covid19, it gets you really sad.
VITAMIN D
And let's talk about Vitamin D. So first thing everybody here in the room needs to know is, Vitamin D is not a vitamin. All right. You don't get it from food [not even cod liver oil?]. Almost everything in your body is being made by your skin when you're exposed to sunlight unless you're taking a supplement. It really doesn't even function like a vitamin. It is what we call an autocoid pro-hormone. Your liver takes Vitamin D and converts it to the active form which is called 25 hydroxy Vitamin D or calcifidiol, and that active form is actually taken up by cells and used to regulate multiple processes including inflammation control and regulation, and the development of immune system cells in their proper maturation into the right type of cell at the right time. Very early on-- well, I should take you back even to 2008 where we had data that showed in placebo controlled randomized blinded trials in influenza, that we could reduce the risk of symptoms, the duration of symptoms, degree of symptoms, and even the duration of degree of influenza shedding with Vitamin D by itself, 30 to 70% in those trials depending how you looked at it. Now I got to tell you, nobody has an expertometer, but if I was working at the NIH, in the CDC, and I had somebody come rolling in with this new virus that was respiratorily-transmitted, the first thing I'd want to do is say, 'Wow, Vitamin D is dirt cheap. It already prevents influenza'-- by the way, we have that data for the common cold as well-- I would say, 'The first thing I want to do is start doing this with people in covid19.'
It wasn't paid for by NIH or CDC, but there were trials done very early on with covid19 with Vitamin D that showed that it reduced the duration and degree of symptoms, the duration and degree of viral shed, by actually making those things change. Very early on we had data that if you made a plot of your risk of death versus your 25 hydroxy Vitamin D blood level, that as your 25 hydroxy Vitamin D level went higher from 0 to 55, your risk of death started off dropping linearly until it got to around 45 and around 45, started to drop off and it leveled off at a level of 55 or greater. And at that point you had one quarter the risk of dying from covid19 if your level was 55 or greater. Now statistically that strongly suggests that 75% of dying from covid19 is simply having inadequate 25 hydroxy Vitamin D blood levels. Yeah. And guys, that's data from I think June of 2020 that we had that data.
So there's a problem with Vitamin D, and that is when you get really inflamed, your liver actually starts to lose some of the ability to convert Vitamin D to that active form, all right, and in fact some of the most sad studies I've seen done with Vitamin D, one of them funded indirectly by your NIH-- who by the way when it wants to fund a really bad study, it launders it through a group of other companies who then give it to the final person who's going to do the horrible research-- but they'll take research into somebody who's already severely ill and in the intensive care unit and give them Vitamin D versus placebo, usually dosing it in a bizarre dose schedule of one huge dose once and then never again repeated, to say that it doesn't work, and to realize that when you're that inflamed it's probably not going to work. All right, it'll have some effect but if your liver is already in trouble you're not going to turn it to the active form. So if I was an expert, I would really like to have-- send somebody to do a study where you say, 'Hey, what we're going to do is take a group of people with covid19, divide them in half, and either give them dummy pills or the active form 25 hydroxy Vitamin D, bypass the liver.'
Your CDC and NIH didn't do that, but a hospital in Spain did. As a matter of fact, they took a group of people who were not already hospitalized with covid19, they were already on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin-- and that matters because if you're already trying to cure people with one other treatment, it makes the second treatment so it doesn't look as good as it really would be if you used it alone. And so they took a group of 76 people with covid19, randomly divided them up, and 26 of them got placebo and 50 of them got 25 hydroxy Vitamin D in a dose of 532 micrograms on day one, half the dose on day three, another half the dose on day seven, and every week thereafter. It reduced the risk of progression to the intensive care unit by 90%. [audience: wow] That's right.
And that ladies and gentlemen was so highly statistically significant that it actually had enough statistical power that they could ask the question, 'Wow, did Vitamin D work better on people who were thin versus obese, or normal blood pressure versus high blood pressure, or old versus young, diabetic or normal blood sugar?' And they were able to do that analysis, come back and say, 'It worked _equally well_ in all of those settings.' It even had an effect on death that was not statistically significant, but there were two deaths out of 26 in placebo and 0 out of 50 in the 25 hydroxy Vitamin D group. Yeah. So now you understand when somebody comes into my practice and say, 'Doc, I feel good,' well everybody gets on whatever dose of Vitamin D it takes to get your level lace greater than 55. I prefer in the 70s, and I'll tell you why I prefer in the 70s is, Vitamin D is consumed by the cell as it's running its regulatory mechanisms, so if you start off at 54.5 you may be able to start getting that level to drop as you get more inflamed. That dose is typically between 5,000 and 10,000 International Units a day. But if you come in to me and you're acutely inflamed, 'Gee doc, I've got covid19 today and I haven't been taking anything before I walked in,' it's routine medical practice I was taught in medical school, 50,000 International Units a day for three straight days, and then 5-7,000 a day after that.
Now since that time ladies and gentlemen, when we finally had data on 25 hydroxy Vitamin D come out, and I have to tell you the first thing I did after this study came out, I got online and found a chemical company that would sell it to my compounding pharmacist, and called up my compounding pharmacist to say, 'How quickly can you make this up? It looks like the price which you can buy it is, you can get that treatment regimen for people for probably in the neighborhood of around $10 for the entire two weeks of treatment.' And my compounding pharmacist told me, 'Dan, the FDA has already sent us a note that if we compound up something without a USP monograph we'll get a $50,000 fine and lose our license.' And the reason it doesn't have a USP monograph is several years ago your FDA actually licensed a patent for 25 hydroxy Vitamin D in a controlled release form called Rayaldee for secondary hyperparathyroidism so it can't have a USP monograph, I'm told by my pharmacist friend. So you can still get Rayaldee to treat acutely with this it's very expensive. But it's now actually sold online and some of your pharmacies carry a product called "d.velop" v-e-l-o-p which is 10 micrograms of 25 hydroxy Vitamin D that you don't have to even have a working liver to make this work. And I routinely start my patients off on 54 of those on day one, 27 on day 3 and day 7 and every 7 days thereafter, checking levels to see if your level goes up greater than 55 or 70 after that.
All of these things work better if they're started earlier on in treatment. And ladies and gentlemen, the idea from the FDA that you should go home and wait a week or 10 days until you need a ventilator when the inflammatory regulatory mechanisms have already gone out of control and we're trying to cram it back-- the genie back into the bottle, is the most disastrous advice you could be given. We have safe effective treatment for this-- prescription and non-prescription-- that are available. And if I could leave you with anything in the prevention of this, start early. Find a doctor who will if you can't do it on your own. It's better than sitting at home doing nothing.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
on treating and preventing coronavirus infection, lightly-edited transcript
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/texas-covid-19-summit-dr-dan-stock-039-vaccines-treatment-and-covid-19-039_K9oHINagY8ZtUZa.html
Thank you everybody, but you've already paid me the greatest compliment by asking me to come to Texas to speak besides someone like Peter McCullough and Ryan Cole and Bryan Ardis. So this is a little overwhelming for a functional family medicine doctor from Indiana, but I'm going to try and put out some understanding of how a functional doctor looks at theoretically, and then specifically what you can do to prevent and treat covid19, other than the stuff you've been given right now.
So the first thing I'd like everybody to know is something I learned in medical school that's kind of different about covid19. If you look at rubella, 95% of people I was told-- if you're getting infected with rubella, 95% of people will get symptoms. So in the equation of disease, where disease equals pathogenicity of the bug versus the quality of the immune system, the big variable there is the pathogen isn't it. Only 5% of people have a good enough immune system that they can get infected with rubella and get through it without symptoms. But what I learned after I got out of medical school and started doing more research was, if you look at influenza in the common cold, it's actually 70% of people who get infected have no symptoms. And that's right. And then I found it's the same number for covid19. So what does that tell you? Is the big difference when 70% of people who get the infection have no symptoms... and 30% of them do have symptoms, is the problem the pathogen, is that where you're going to get the most traction say with a vaccine, or Remdesivir which aims at viral replication? Or you're more likely to get it with something that tackles the whole problem of inflammation and the malfunction of your immune system? So I don't want anybody get the idea that it's one or the other, all right. A lot of people in functional medicine think that, 'Gosh, if it had a patent on it at one time or has one now it's bad.' And I'm a boring biochemistry guy but I like to get down to, 'Hey, what's the biochemical difference between that 70% who gets infected and doesn't even know they have it (I'm one of those by the way), and that 30% who got infected and didn't have a very good time with it?
So you should know what we call functional nutritional repletion assays, which is where we take some cells out of a human being and we say, 'Hey, if I give you some more of this or some more of that, will you grow faster when I give you a grow signal?' All right, and by doing these things we can actually identify nutrient things that tell us that, 'Hey, if we were to give you more of this, if you had more of this to begin with, you would actually have your cells grow faster.' And do you know what we do those assays on? We do this on the lymphocytes-- the immune system cells that actually are probably the primary thing in fighting a virus. So this isn't just theoretical. You should know that we've actually done studies. First of all, in these studies where we took some of your immune system cells and say, 'Hey, when we give you the signal that you've just got an infection around you and you need to respond, hey you respond better if I give you some of this,' but then also then did placebo-controlled randomized blinded trials in many of these things in human beings and showed, 'Wow, you know it does reduce the duration and degree of symptoms.' So think about-- when you start thinking about we're going to prevent and treat a disease, that what we're going to do is make the immune system like that 30% more like the immune system of the 70%.
So what kind of things do we have data on that do this? And I'd like to kind of start with the stuff we have the most shaky data on. All right.
SELENIUM
My favorite of those is selenium, which for my patients in prevention-- and one of the things I would like to tell you-- I got pilloried by one of these fact-testing things because I made the brag that I treated 15 patients with covid19, it's not 15 people. It's like, 'You're right, I don't have the experience that Peter McCullough does, right. But that's 15 people, 10 of whom were actually not my patients until they got sick with covid19. The other five were five of my 200 patients who didn't come down with symptoms.' So that's five out of 200 people who, because we were doing some things before covid19 got to them, ended up more like that lucky 70%.
So the first of those things is selenium, 200 to 400 micrograms a day, and for adults who are much bigger I lean more towards the 400 a day. You should know that selenium is actually not just used to make thyroid hormone, but so that your cells use it right, and it's also used by your immune system cells so that your T cells develop into the Th1 or Th2 correctly, so they go to become cytotoxic T cells immature, so that not your killer cells develop.
So that's the first thing that I would have in all of my patients prophylactically.
I do want people to know we don't have any data that says this works if you use it acutely in a patient. I do it for my patients acutely, but I don't want to get down 'Dan Stock says there's a placebo-controlled randomized blinded trial of selenium for that' because there isn't.
By the way-- and everything we're going to talk about today, understand that the sooner you get this under control, the better it does. The immune system has got a positive feedback system when it gets stimulated to a point it actually gets into a positive feedback loop. About a week into it where it's no longer-- you don't even need the virus anymore: your immune system and your inflammatory regulatory mechanisms are so broken, they'll go out of control and hurt you even if you don't have virus anymore.
And so that's what we're trying to make sure we can do. Selenium isn't something that you probably get a lot of benefit using very early, but 200-400 micrograms a day is something that my patients who have very little problem with symptomatic covid19 are all doing.
ZINC
And then let's move up a step to something like zinc. So zinc has got so many things that it does with the immune system and even against viruses-- it does both parts of that equation, that I can't possibly go through all of those with you guys right now. But I think what I want people to understand about zinc is that zinc has been proven to be useful both in the acute setting, and I can tell you it works in the long term setting. The doses are a little different between those things. Studies I've seen-- placebo-controlled randomized blinded trials of zinc-- about 30 to 50% effective not only at reducing the duration and degree of symptoms but the duration and degree of viral shed, which is better than I see with _any_ vaccine product on the market right now. So the protocol that I use for my patients if they come in is-- if they come in and say, 'Doc, I've not been taking any zinc at all,' it's 50 milligrams twice a day. Most of my patients are taking at least 25 milligrams a day chronically if they don't have acute symptoms.
The key thing I want people to understand about zinc is how to test in the functional world that says, 'Hey, your zinc is good enough,' and in my book that's with what's called a zinc taste latency test. We actually have a beautifully done study that says we can predict your response to zinc supplementation. If we have you take a 2% zinc sulfate solution-- you guys can google and buy that online-- and you take five milliliters or one teaspoon of that, you throw it in your mouth and you count how many seconds it takes for you to taste something besides water. If your zinc level is adequate, you'll usually get a bitter metallic-- some people find it sweet-- but what matters is that you taste something besides water in five seconds or less. And if that happens then you actually will have very little benefit from extra zinc. So I will routinely tell my patients, 'Start 50 milligrams twice a day, and in five days do a test.' All right. And if you're not at that point yet, stay on 50 milligrams twice a day and five days later do a test, and then you can slowly start bringing down the dose of that until you've got yourself so it's five seconds or less of zinc. And many people when they start off with large doses can drop their dose of that and get things down lower. Zinc. We talked about the cost of Ivermectin versus doing vaccines, like, the cost of zinc to do this is extremely low.
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE
I like to step that up a notch when somebody comes in and they've not been taking zinc and they have acute symptoms, with hydroxychloroquine. That's hydroxychloroquine. One of the most wonderful things it does is actually make-- moves zinc-- zinc move into the cell. Most of the zinc in your bloodstream when you start taking it will be on the outside of the cell where it doesn't do a lot of good, but you can move whatever zinc you have into the cell very quickly with hydroxychloroquine. So I'll do approximately 400 milligrams twice a day for the first day, and then 200 milligrams twice a day after that for five to seven days until I see symptoms getting better. That's the other thing I would do in somebody who's getting both acute treatment. I don't use hydroxychloroquine prophylactically very much-- although I guess you could-- I understand they do it quite frequently in Africa-- I think there's other things I prefer to use for prophylaxis than that.
[After Governor Cuomo restricted access to HCQ in NY state, Zelenko researched and found out that quercetin does the same thing as HCQ: assist zinc getting into cells, whereupon zinc does its anti-viral actions. -d]
IODINE
One of the other things I would recommend people consider using is iodine. Interestingly, when your body gets inflamed the body actually tries to turn you into a state of hypothyroidism called tissue thyroid resistance. It's doing that on purpose because intracellular pathogens like viruses and bacteria like to actually use your own cells' machinery to reproduce. We're kind of trying to slow that down a little bit, but interestingly your immune system cells can make their own thyroid hormone as long as they have adequate iodine because they don't want to slow their metabolism down. Your thyroid gland tends to be an iodine hog, and so it's a good idea if you're low on iodine-- once you've made sure somebody has adequate zinc and adequate selenium-- and I do want to stress to people that I never have any patient in my practice add in larger doses of iodine until I know they have adequate zinc and selenium function, because high doses of iodine without those things can actually cause a thyroid gland injury. But then I'll read the-- yeah, that's right; so you heard me say that first. All right. This is why I want you to-- don't do this: go home and do this on your own, guys. Please find a physician who's trained in this. But after you've got sufficient zinc and selenium, then I'll have somebody start on iodine six and a quarter milligrams of an iodine iodide combination. So that's another thing that you can do for prophylaxis. I understand from Dr. Brownstein this actually can be used acutely. I don't have any experience using it acutely. The risk of the thyroid is a long-term use of iodine problem so I'm not going to contradict Dr. Brownstein. He knows much more about iodine function than I do, but it's one of the things that you can use prophylactically that works very well and is why that large percentage of my population never gets symptoms from covid19.
IRON
Another thing that I think people need to know about is iron sufficiency, and unfortunately many doctors have not been taught to test for iron in a very good way. They were taught the way I was in medical school, which is to measure a level of something called a ferritin level. The problem with ferritin is that just inflammation by itself drives ferritin up, iron deficiency drives ferritin down. And so if you see somebody who's chronically inflamed they can many times have a good looking ferritin level despite having a very low amount of iron. And I am one of those people by the way who has recovered from a bad inflammatory disease at a very good ferritin level and a very bad iron sufficiency. This data by the way has been-- actually been replicated in people with congestive heart failure, people with anemia of chronic disease, and people with chronic renal failure, that shows us that ferritin is not a very good measurement of iron. Please forgive your physicians: it's not that they don't care, this is what they were taught to do, but even in the modern literature in those areas they talk about a better way to measure this.
One of the better ways is something called a soluble transferrin receptor blood test. That can be done by itself. It's better than ferritin alone, but if you take that soluble transferrin receptor and you divide it by the log to the base 10 of ferritin you get something called an iron index. And that's actually our best single test that's been shown to predict not only that you will have low iron or good iron on your bone marrow bibes [?]-- because the studies were actually backed up that way-- but actually was able to predict who would get better if you gave them iron. If someone is low on iron and I'm trying to make it so they won't end up with symptomatic covid19, it is important to know that iron is best taken on an empty stomach every _other_ day-- not daily. And that data also-- we have randomized blinded trials to show. The reason for that is, many people when they're inflamed, they actually turn on a system that blocks iron absorption because your immune system is trying to keep iron away from the cooties so they can't use it. But the problem with that is, if you run that system longterm then every time you take a dose of iron and that system will turn off iron absorption for the next 36 hours. So if you dump it in every day you absorb iron on the first day, and nothing for every day after that. That's right. For many people who have a lot of inflammation, you simply can't get iron to go in-- that mechanism of blocking iron absorption simply won't work, and so we give people infusions of IV iron preparations. I've had them myself. They're actually a lot of the difference that make people feel better. And you can predict that with that iron index test.
There's another test I like to do with that called a transferrin saturation, because there's a few people the iron index misses that'll tell you they're good when they're not. And a transferrin saturation of 35% or higher will usually tell you that you're not going to benefit from iron. Again not data that I have seen which is randomized blinded trials of iron with covid-- with covid19-- but I have seen that we have data that says it makes immune system cells function better, and that inflammatory mechanisms regulate better, when you have sufficient iron going into a problem like that. Now iron is an acute treatment, I would tell everybody, I don't think we have much data with. And because iron doesn't go up quick no matter what you do, I'm not really sure I'd give somebody an iron infusion, especially if you don't have things like zinc and selenium right. Iron can cause the same kind of problems that iodine can. But know that it's something that you can have your doctor check that will make it so you are less likely to get into problems if your immune system and your inflammatory mechanism have to go fight a cootie.
STEROIDS
Then let's move up to some stuff in acute treatment which we actually have very very good data on covid19 for, with enormous effect and very low side effects.
My next favorite guy after that I should mention inhaled steroids for anybody who's acutely symptomatic, and oral steroids as well. And again, as we've seen with monoclonal antibodies, steroids work better when used early in the process rather than late-- only about 30% effective as I recall once you're in the ICU-- but am I right Pete with that number?-- but around 50 to 70% effective to use them early on in this.
IVERMECTIN
And after that Ivermectin. God, why do we even have to talk about this. One of the things-- the problem with trying to use the nutraceutical approach to getting your immune system working right is, it's a slow moving therapy. So when your functional doctor tells you, 'Oh my God, never use anything that I have to have a prescription for,' guys that's not realistic. If I shoot you in the middle of your chest you're going to need surgery, we're not going to get out of this all right. So we're going to have to do some unnatural things, and among those things Ivermectin is a wonderful chemical. I can tell you for most of my patients within 36 hours, symptoms are down 50% if I choose the right dose. And in fact I even dose it in my patients that way, telling them, 'I'm going to start you on this dose because I think that's what you need. If you haven't had a 50% reduction of symptoms in 36 hours call me and we'll double it.' The only way I've found to injure anybody with Ivermectin is to load it into a gun and shoot it at them. [audience laughter] I have to tell you ladies and gentlemen, the thing is, as horrible as the positive harm from these vaccines is, what I'm watching is a Tuskegee experiment going on in the United States where we deny people things that are very safe and very effective and this is-- this is very difficult to watch as a doctor. [gets emotional]
Studies I've read with Ivermectin-- and these are placebo-controlled randomized blinded trials of Ivermectin in acute therapy-- used both early _and_ late, because Ivermectin is not just something that makes virus so it can't bind to the spike protein receptor, it's actually something that changes that inflammatory over-response that's going on in covid19. And I think everybody here if you don't know already, you should know that what kills you in covid19 is not all of the cells in your body becoming infected with virus rupturing open and dying. What you die from is an uncoordinated inflammatory response that tells every cell to go into something called cell danger response where it quits doing its job right. That's right, you don't die because virus is filling up all your cells and killing them. Your own inflammatory regulation system is what's destroying your body. And Ivermectin actually has been shown that it actually interferes with those out-of-control inflammatory processes, and does this with side effects that I can't distinguish from placebo. So I routinely use this in patients no matter what time they come in to me. Prophylactically, I've actually seen a study done in covid19 nurses in the covid19 ward where they were randomized to either placebo or Ivermectin to use once a week-- twice a week for the first week and once a week thereafter-- that was _100%_ effective at preventing symptomatic covid19. And this is a well--
I know you only get so stupid for free. One-- I believe it's 24 milligrams in that study if I recall right. My starting dose for my patients is usually 24 to 48 milligrams depending upon their severity and how many other things I have taken care of for them beforehand. I've seen doses up to 96 milligrams used in trials. But I would tell some, you can only get so stupid for free. When you see something that's that cheap and that effective, that well studied... being sidelined, banned-- and I have on my phone the recording from a CVS pharmacist refusing to fill an Ivermectin prescription for a patient that she had filled three weeks before for the very same patient and admitting that it was a CVS corporate policy that made it so that she couldn't fill that. And I know Ryan Cole has one as well because I've listened to it-- I'm seeing him shake his head back there, yeah I see. But ladies and gentlemen, make-- let me make this even worse for you, because I have to tell you when you're a functional family medicine doctor, well my calling card is I'm a paste-eating geek I-- you know, I wonder whether or not I could bore Peter McCullough in a lecture or not. That's because I really am that boring. And when you see chemistry lining up in a way like I see it line up with covid19, it gets you really sad.
VITAMIN D
And let's talk about Vitamin D. So first thing everybody here in the room needs to know is, Vitamin D is not a vitamin. All right. You don't get it from food [not even cod liver oil?]. Almost everything in your body is being made by your skin when you're exposed to sunlight unless you're taking a supplement. It really doesn't even function like a vitamin. It is what we call an autocoid pro-hormone. Your liver takes Vitamin D and converts it to the active form which is called 25 hydroxy Vitamin D or calcifidiol, and that active form is actually taken up by cells and used to regulate multiple processes including inflammation control and regulation, and the development of immune system cells in their proper maturation into the right type of cell at the right time. Very early on-- well, I should take you back even to 2008 where we had data that showed in placebo controlled randomized blinded trials in influenza, that we could reduce the risk of symptoms, the duration of symptoms, degree of symptoms, and even the duration of degree of influenza shedding with Vitamin D by itself, 30 to 70% in those trials depending how you looked at it. Now I got to tell you, nobody has an expertometer, but if I was working at the NIH, in the CDC, and I had somebody come rolling in with this new virus that was respiratorily-transmitted, the first thing I'd want to do is say, 'Wow, Vitamin D is dirt cheap. It already prevents influenza'-- by the way, we have that data for the common cold as well-- I would say, 'The first thing I want to do is start doing this with people in covid19.'
It wasn't paid for by NIH or CDC, but there were trials done very early on with covid19 with Vitamin D that showed that it reduced the duration and degree of symptoms, the duration and degree of viral shed, by actually making those things change. Very early on we had data that if you made a plot of your risk of death versus your 25 hydroxy Vitamin D blood level, that as your 25 hydroxy Vitamin D level went higher from 0 to 55, your risk of death started off dropping linearly until it got to around 45 and around 45, started to drop off and it leveled off at a level of 55 or greater. And at that point you had one quarter the risk of dying from covid19 if your level was 55 or greater. Now statistically that strongly suggests that 75% of dying from covid19 is simply having inadequate 25 hydroxy Vitamin D blood levels. Yeah. And guys, that's data from I think June of 2020 that we had that data.
So there's a problem with Vitamin D, and that is when you get really inflamed, your liver actually starts to lose some of the ability to convert Vitamin D to that active form, all right, and in fact some of the most sad studies I've seen done with Vitamin D, one of them funded indirectly by your NIH-- who by the way when it wants to fund a really bad study, it launders it through a group of other companies who then give it to the final person who's going to do the horrible research-- but they'll take research into somebody who's already severely ill and in the intensive care unit and give them Vitamin D versus placebo, usually dosing it in a bizarre dose schedule of one huge dose once and then never again repeated, to say that it doesn't work, and to realize that when you're that inflamed it's probably not going to work. All right, it'll have some effect but if your liver is already in trouble you're not going to turn it to the active form. So if I was an expert, I would really like to have-- send somebody to do a study where you say, 'Hey, what we're going to do is take a group of people with covid19, divide them in half, and either give them dummy pills or the active form 25 hydroxy Vitamin D, bypass the liver.'
Your CDC and NIH didn't do that, but a hospital in Spain did. As a matter of fact, they took a group of people who were not already hospitalized with covid19, they were already on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin-- and that matters because if you're already trying to cure people with one other treatment, it makes the second treatment so it doesn't look as good as it really would be if you used it alone. And so they took a group of 76 people with covid19, randomly divided them up, and 26 of them got placebo and 50 of them got 25 hydroxy Vitamin D in a dose of 532 micrograms on day one, half the dose on day three, another half the dose on day seven, and every week thereafter. It reduced the risk of progression to the intensive care unit by 90%. [audience: wow] That's right.
And that ladies and gentlemen was so highly statistically significant that it actually had enough statistical power that they could ask the question, 'Wow, did Vitamin D work better on people who were thin versus obese, or normal blood pressure versus high blood pressure, or old versus young, diabetic or normal blood sugar?' And they were able to do that analysis, come back and say, 'It worked _equally well_ in all of those settings.' It even had an effect on death that was not statistically significant, but there were two deaths out of 26 in placebo and 0 out of 50 in the 25 hydroxy Vitamin D group. Yeah. So now you understand when somebody comes into my practice and say, 'Doc, I feel good,' well everybody gets on whatever dose of Vitamin D it takes to get your level lace greater than 55. I prefer in the 70s, and I'll tell you why I prefer in the 70s is, Vitamin D is consumed by the cell as it's running its regulatory mechanisms, so if you start off at 54.5 you may be able to start getting that level to drop as you get more inflamed. That dose is typically between 5,000 and 10,000 International Units a day. But if you come in to me and you're acutely inflamed, 'Gee doc, I've got covid19 today and I haven't been taking anything before I walked in,' it's routine medical practice I was taught in medical school, 50,000 International Units a day for three straight days, and then 5-7,000 a day after that.
Now since that time ladies and gentlemen, when we finally had data on 25 hydroxy Vitamin D come out, and I have to tell you the first thing I did after this study came out, I got online and found a chemical company that would sell it to my compounding pharmacist, and called up my compounding pharmacist to say, 'How quickly can you make this up? It looks like the price which you can buy it is, you can get that treatment regimen for people for probably in the neighborhood of around $10 for the entire two weeks of treatment.' And my compounding pharmacist told me, 'Dan, the FDA has already sent us a note that if we compound up something without a USP monograph we'll get a $50,000 fine and lose our license.' And the reason it doesn't have a USP monograph is several years ago your FDA actually licensed a patent for 25 hydroxy Vitamin D in a controlled release form called Rayaldee for secondary hyperparathyroidism so it can't have a USP monograph, I'm told by my pharmacist friend. So you can still get Rayaldee to treat acutely with this it's very expensive. But it's now actually sold online and some of your pharmacies carry a product called "d.velop" v-e-l-o-p which is 10 micrograms of 25 hydroxy Vitamin D that you don't have to even have a working liver to make this work. And I routinely start my patients off on 54 of those on day one, 27 on day 3 and day 7 and every 7 days thereafter, checking levels to see if your level goes up greater than 55 or 70 after that.
All of these things work better if they're started earlier on in treatment. And ladies and gentlemen, the idea from the FDA that you should go home and wait a week or 10 days until you need a ventilator when the inflammatory regulatory mechanisms have already gone out of control and we're trying to cram it back-- the genie back into the bottle, is the most disastrous advice you could be given. We have safe effective treatment for this-- prescription and non-prescription-- that are available. And if I could leave you with anything in the prevention of this, start early. Find a doctor who will if you can't do it on your own. It's better than sitting at home doing nothing.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
David Ford
Dec 4, 2021, 12:37:15 PM12/4/21
to
Dr. Dan Stock: CDC is giving bad guidance; antibody mediated viral enhancement; nature of viral respiratory pathogens; is treatment for Covid19
Dr Dan Stock Specialist in Immunology & Inflammation says CDC & NIH is ignoring Science - Aug 7, 2021 - lightly edited transcript
https://rumble.com/vkwcb4-dr-dan-stock-specialist-in-immunology-and-inflammation-says-cdc-and-nih-is-.html
about him and his talk:
Dr. Daniel Stock Speaks Truth to Power on How the CDC/NIH Gets it Wrong on COVID - Aug 10, 2021
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2021/08/10/dr-daniel-stock-speaks-truth-to-power-on-how-the-cdc-nih-gets-it-wrong-on-covid-n423866
Guilty as charged. Dr. Dan Stock.... To address your comment, gee, it's hard to believe we're 18 months into this and still having a problem. And I would suggest the reason we still have a problem is because we're doing things that are not useful, and we're getting our sources of information from the Indiana State Board of Health and the CDC, who actually don't bother to read science before they do this. I'm actually a functional family medicine physician. That means I am specially trained in immunology and inflammation regulation, and everything being recommended by the CDC and the state board of health is actually contrary to all the rules of science.
So, things you should know about coronavirus and all other respiratory viruses: they are spread by aerosol particles which are small enough to go through every mask. By the way, the literature that supports all of that is in a flash drive that we've presented to you-- it's been given to the secretary. As a matter of fact, it quotes at least three studies that were sponsored by the NIH to that exact fact, even though the CDC and the NIH have chosen to avoid-- to ignore-- the very science that they paid to have done.
That is why you keep struggling with this, is because you cannot make these viruses go away. 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 cannot be filtered out, and they have animal reservoirs-- and this is a very important point-- no one can make this virus go away. The CDC has managed to convince everybody that we can handle this like we did smallpox where we could make the virus go away. Smallpox had no animal reservoirs. The only thing that it learned to infect was humans. That's why we were able to make that virus go away. That will not happen with this any more than it will with influenza, the common cold, respiratory syncytial virus, adenoviral respiratory syndromes, or anything else that has animal reservoirs. So the reason you can't do this is because you're trying to do something which has already been tried and can't be done.
Equally important is that vaccination changes none of this, especially with this vaccine. And I would hope this board would start asking itself, before it considers taking the advice of the CDC, the NIH, and the state board of health, why we are doing things about this that we didn't do for the common cold, influenza, or respiratory syncytial virus, and then ask yourself, 'Why is a vaccine that is supposedly so effective having a breakout in the middle of the summer when respiratory viral syndromes don't do that?'
And to help you understand that, you need to know the condition that is called 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 done in respiratory syncytial virus-- where a vaccine used in a vulnerable individual done the wrong way-- which cannot be done right for a respiratory virus which has a very low pathogenicity rate-- causes the immune system to actually fight the virus wrong and let the virus become _worse_ than it would with native infection. And that is why you're seeing an outbreak right now. In fact, in that flash drive you're going to have coming to you and in the emails with six extra [files] will be a study showing that 75 percent of people who had Covid19 positive symptom cases in the Barnstable, Massachusetts outbreak were _fully_ vaccinated. Therefore there is no reason for treating any person vaccinated any differently than any person unvaccinated.
You should also know that _no_ vaccine-- even the ones I support and would give to myself and my children-- _ever_ stops infection. In 2014 there was an outbreak of mumps in the National Hockey League. The only people who came down with symptoms were the people who were unvaccinated or unknown vaccine status. Boy, that sounds like a great argument for vaccines, but a question that you should ask yourself, knowing that half of 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?' And the answer was, from 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.
So you cannot stop spread, you cannot make these numbers that you've planned on get better by doing any of the things you're doing, because that is the nature of viral respiratory pathogens, and you can't prevent it with a vaccine because they don't do the very thing you're wanting them to do. And you will be chasing this the remainder of your life until you recognize that the Center for Disease Control and the Indiana State Board of Health are giving you _very bad_ scientific guidance, and instead read the articles that are going to come on the email and are on this flash drive and listen to the people in this audience here tonight who actually have recognized the advice they are getting from the CDC and the NIH is counter-factual. And that's why you're still fighting this with this vaccine that supposedly was going to make all of this go away, but it suddenly managed to make an outbreak of Covid19 develop in the middle of the summer when Vitamin D levels are at their highest.
By the way, the other thing that would be necessary: any vaccine restriction is to be considered as if there were no other treatment available. And I can tell you having treated over 15 Covid19 patients, that between active loading with Vitamin D, Ivermectin, and zinc, that there is not a single person who has come anywhere near the hospital. And we already have studies that show that if you achieve a 25 hydroxy Vitamin D level greater than 55, your risk of Covid19 death will drop down to through one quarter of the population average for the United States. And there are active treatment trials included on that flash drive that show the same is true. So if you were going to discriminate based upon vaccine, you should also discriminate based upon 25 hydroxy Vitamin D level, zinc taste test response, and probably previous infection, since there are also studies on that flash drive that show that people who have recovered from Covid19 infection actually get _no benefit_ from vaccination at all-- no reduction in symptoms, no reduction in hospitalization-- and suffer two to four times the rate of side effects if they are subsequently vaccinated.
Therefore the policies that you are basing on are totally counter-factual. I don't blame this board for that because I know you aren't scientists and you've thought it was reasonable to listen to the CDC, NIH, and the Indiana State Board of Health, but I would encourage that instead you listen to the people out here in this audience and read what's on that data drive. And if anybody here in this board has any questions about anything on that, I will happily come back and sit with you individually if you would like, to explain the science behind this. And if you're worried about being sued by somebody because you don't follow the guidance of the CDC and the NIH, I will tell you you have a free pro bono expert testimony at your disposal: I will testify in defensive discourse turning down all these recommendations for free at any time in any court.
Thank you.
Dr Dan Stock Specialist in Immunology & Inflammation says CDC & NIH is ignoring Science - Aug 7, 2021 - lightly edited transcript
https://rumble.com/vkwcb4-dr-dan-stock-specialist-in-immunology-and-inflammation-says-cdc-and-nih-is-.html
about him and his talk:
Dr. Daniel Stock Speaks Truth to Power on How the CDC/NIH Gets it Wrong on COVID - Aug 10, 2021
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2021/08/10/dr-daniel-stock-speaks-truth-to-power-on-how-the-cdc-nih-gets-it-wrong-on-covid-n423866
Guilty as charged. Dr. Dan Stock.... To address your comment, gee, it's hard to believe we're 18 months into this and still having a problem. And I would suggest the reason we still have a problem is because we're doing things that are not useful, and we're getting our sources of information from the Indiana State Board of Health and the CDC, who actually don't bother to read science before they do this. I'm actually a functional family medicine physician. That means I am specially trained in immunology and inflammation regulation, and everything being recommended by the CDC and the state board of health is actually contrary to all the rules of science.
So, things you should know about coronavirus and all other respiratory viruses: they are spread by aerosol particles which are small enough to go through every mask. By the way, the literature that supports all of that is in a flash drive that we've presented to you-- it's been given to the secretary. As a matter of fact, it quotes at least three studies that were sponsored by the NIH to that exact fact, even though the CDC and the NIH have chosen to avoid-- to ignore-- the very science that they paid to have done.
That is why you keep struggling with this, is because you cannot make these viruses go away. 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 cannot be filtered out, and they have animal reservoirs-- and this is a very important point-- no one can make this virus go away. The CDC has managed to convince everybody that we can handle this like we did smallpox where we could make the virus go away. Smallpox had no animal reservoirs. The only thing that it learned to infect was humans. That's why we were able to make that virus go away. That will not happen with this any more than it will with influenza, the common cold, respiratory syncytial virus, adenoviral respiratory syndromes, or anything else that has animal reservoirs. So the reason you can't do this is because you're trying to do something which has already been tried and can't be done.
Equally important is that vaccination changes none of this, especially with this vaccine. And I would hope this board would start asking itself, before it considers taking the advice of the CDC, the NIH, and the state board of health, why we are doing things about this that we didn't do for the common cold, influenza, or respiratory syncytial virus, and then ask yourself, 'Why is a vaccine that is supposedly so effective having a breakout in the middle of the summer when respiratory viral syndromes don't do that?'
And to help you understand that, you need to know the condition that is called 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 done in respiratory syncytial virus-- where a vaccine used in a vulnerable individual done the wrong way-- which cannot be done right for a respiratory virus which has a very low pathogenicity rate-- causes the immune system to actually fight the virus wrong and let the virus become _worse_ than it would with native infection. And that is why you're seeing an outbreak right now. In fact, in that flash drive you're going to have coming to you and in the emails with six extra [files] will be a study showing that 75 percent of people who had Covid19 positive symptom cases in the Barnstable, Massachusetts outbreak were _fully_ vaccinated. Therefore there is no reason for treating any person vaccinated any differently than any person unvaccinated.
You should also know that _no_ vaccine-- even the ones I support and would give to myself and my children-- _ever_ stops infection. In 2014 there was an outbreak of mumps in the National Hockey League. The only people who came down with symptoms were the people who were unvaccinated or unknown vaccine status. Boy, that sounds like a great argument for vaccines, but a question that you should ask yourself, knowing that half of 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?' And the answer was, from 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.
So you cannot stop spread, you cannot make these numbers that you've planned on get better by doing any of the things you're doing, because that is the nature of viral respiratory pathogens, and you can't prevent it with a vaccine because they don't do the very thing you're wanting them to do. And you will be chasing this the remainder of your life until you recognize that the Center for Disease Control and the Indiana State Board of Health are giving you _very bad_ scientific guidance, and instead read the articles that are going to come on the email and are on this flash drive and listen to the people in this audience here tonight who actually have recognized the advice they are getting from the CDC and the NIH is counter-factual. And that's why you're still fighting this with this vaccine that supposedly was going to make all of this go away, but it suddenly managed to make an outbreak of Covid19 develop in the middle of the summer when Vitamin D levels are at their highest.
By the way, the other thing that would be necessary: any vaccine restriction is to be considered as if there were no other treatment available. And I can tell you having treated over 15 Covid19 patients, that between active loading with Vitamin D, Ivermectin, and zinc, that there is not a single person who has come anywhere near the hospital. And we already have studies that show that if you achieve a 25 hydroxy Vitamin D level greater than 55, your risk of Covid19 death will drop down to through one quarter of the population average for the United States. And there are active treatment trials included on that flash drive that show the same is true. So if you were going to discriminate based upon vaccine, you should also discriminate based upon 25 hydroxy Vitamin D level, zinc taste test response, and probably previous infection, since there are also studies on that flash drive that show that people who have recovered from Covid19 infection actually get _no benefit_ from vaccination at all-- no reduction in symptoms, no reduction in hospitalization-- and suffer two to four times the rate of side effects if they are subsequently vaccinated.
Therefore the policies that you are basing on are totally counter-factual. I don't blame this board for that because I know you aren't scientists and you've thought it was reasonable to listen to the CDC, NIH, and the Indiana State Board of Health, but I would encourage that instead you listen to the people out here in this audience and read what's on that data drive. And if anybody here in this board has any questions about anything on that, I will happily come back and sit with you individually if you would like, to explain the science behind this. And if you're worried about being sued by somebody because you don't follow the guidance of the CDC and the NIH, I will tell you you have a free pro bono expert testimony at your disposal: I will testify in defensive discourse turning down all these recommendations for free at any time in any court.
Thank you.
0 new messages