Virologist Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, Ph.D: ‘We Are Going to Pay Huge Price’ for COVID Mass Vaccination Campaign

EMF does not buy into the fear hysteria of COVID-19,
nor agree with the agenda of mandatory mRNA vaccinations.
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2807
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand

Virologist Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, Ph.D: ‘We Are Going to Pay Huge Price’ for COVID Mass Vaccination Campaign

Unread post by David McCarthy » Tue Mar 16, 2021 7:16 am

Virologist Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, Ph.D: ‘We Are Going to Pay Huge Price’ for COVID Mass Vaccination Campaign
In an open letter to WHO and in a follow-up video interview,
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, says that by vaccinating everyone with a vaccine that doesn’t prevent transmission, we are destroying people’s immune systems, and setting the stage for a global health disaster.
By Children's Health Defense Team

Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, Ph.D., has nothing against vaccines. In fact, the independent virologist formerly worked for Gavi,
The Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Bossche says the COVID vaccines approved so far have been developed by “just brilliant” people and he has no criticism of them But, as he tells Dr. Phillip McMillan in an interview, “please use the right vaccine at the right place. And don’t use it in the heat of a pandemic on millions of millions of people.”
Bossche says that a mass vaccination campaign in the middle of a pandemic, with vaccines that don’t prevent transmission, is disastrous at an individual — and at a global — level:
“We are going to pay a huge price for this. And I’m becoming emotional because I’m thinking of my children, of the younger generation. I mean, it’s just impossible what we are doing. We don’t understand the pandemic.”
In an open letter to the World Health Organization (WHO), Bossche wrote that “we are currently turning vaccinees into asymptomatic carriers shedding infectious variants.”
Bossche hasn’t heard back from WHO, which concerns him.
“It is about humanity … I mean, it’s about your children. It’s your family. It’s my family. It’s everyone. Right. And it’s simply for me, I put everything at stake because I’ve done my homework. And this is simply a moral obligation. A moral obligation.”

Read the interview transcript:
McMillan: I think the first thing that we have to clarify is that we have to explain you are someone who is in the vaccine development business, so to speak. What has that background been like?
Bossche: Well, I have a background essentially in, as far as vaccines are concerned, in industry as well as in the non-for-profit sector. So I have been working with Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI [The Vaccine Alliance] especially concentrating on vaccines for global health.
And I’ve also been working with several different companies, vaccine companies developing of course essentially prophylactic vaccines and my main focus of interest has always been, in fact, the design of vaccines. So the concept, how can we educate the immune system in ways that are to some extent more efficient than we do right now with our conventional vaccines.
McMillan: Right. And so any effect, this is the area of work you’ve been in. You develop vaccines, you are as well working with the Ebola vaccine as well. One of the really, really dangerous viruses we have out there in the world. How does that work? Is it, is that easy to do?
Bossche: Well, I was not, let me be very clear. I was a coordinator of the Ebola program at GAVI. So we were interacting with several different vaccine companies that were developing Ebola vaccines, because it was important for GAVI to make the right choice, the right vaccine in order for this vaccine to be rolled out in the Western African countries that had this severe Ebola crisis back a number of years ago. So that was not a, let’s say operational practical work.
This was more a role of coordination, but of course was also a role of assessing what would be the impact of using some of these vaccines in larger populations and in an area where an epidemic really is going on because that’s a very particular and peculiar situation.
McMillan: Yes. And so in effect, we’ve had so much success over the past hundred years with some very big breakthroughs with vaccines, smallpox, you know, measles, mumps, rubella, polio. But we have struggled with other vaccines. Without going into the details, because this is very difficult to get across, but is there a difference with how viruses operate that make some easier to get a vaccine for?
Bossche: Well, I think we have a, Philip. Essentially, we need to distinguish, of course, between what we call acute self-limiting diseases. These are diseases that naturally come to an end in a sense that ultimately the individual will eliminate the pathogen. Of course, some people may die. Of course, let’s be very clear. Those who survive will ultimately eliminate the pathogen.
That is the vast majority of the vaccines we have been developing so far. The, you know, I don’t need to tell you that with other viruses where we clearly see that they spread in a completely different way. They spread, for example, from cell to cell, they tend to be more intracellular.
They tend to develop chronic infections where it’s not self-limiting, it’s not acute self-limiting, it’s chronic. It is much more difficult. And the reason primarily is that most of the vaccines we are developing are still antibody-based vaccines.
So we need these antibodies in the blood, or we need these antibodies to translate to the mucosa, for example, in order to capture the pathogen and to neutralize it. So some of the other work, I mean, they have a very insidious strategy in the sense that they hide in cells, that they can already at the mucosal barrier penetrate, you know, immediately into cells. And then the cells may migrate, for example, to the lymph nodes.
So they are shielded from the antibodies and that makes it very, very difficult because we know that we can catch them to some extent in the blood, but what they do all the time is that they insert mutation and they escape, they fully escape to our antibody responses.
So that makes it way more difficult. It’s also the reason why also against cancer, et cetera, we have not been extremely successful with vaccines as I would say, stand alone therapy.
McMillan: Yeah, absolutely. Yes. So it, it brings us into where we are with regards to COVID-19. Now, if we have 20/20 vision at the moment, when we look back at the pandemic and where we started from, and I’ve always said that at the time, when the pandemic started, when it got from China and Italy into Europe, into the UK. I thought that the only way that we could manage this is to lock down and to prevent the spread of this apparently, this very dangerous virus. We do have to stand back and to see whether or not those decisions were correct. But as we said, that hindsight is 20/20. What would you say now, as we look back at the decisions we made then, were we about on the right track? Did we make any mistakes?
Bossche: Well, frankly speaking, from the very beginning, and I mean, there are many people who can witness this or testify this. I always said that it was a bad idea to do lockdowns that would also affect the younger people.
That we would prevent younger people from having contact, from being exposed. Because remember, the big difference back then was, of course, that we had a viral strain, COVID strain, that was circulating, dominant strain, and that was not as highly infectious as those that we are seeing right now.
Of course, when a new virus gets into a population, it immediately gets to the folks that have, you know, weak immunity. And we know, we know these people, this is to a large majority, of course, elderly people, people that have underlying diseases or are otherwise immune suppressed, et cetera.
And of course, I mean, it was certainly the right thing to do, to protect these people, and for them also to isolate, but we have to distinguish, frankly speaking, and that is what we have not been doing, between those people that have strong innate immunity. I mean, it’s not a, you cannot see when you see a person, you don’t know this, but we know that young people have quite decent innate immune response and therefore they are naturally protected and even more, I mean, if they get in contact with coronavirus, it will boost their natural immunity.
So therefore from the very beginning, I disapproved, you know, the fact that schools got to close and universities and that youngsters were prevented even from having contact with each other. That situation is of course completely different.
If you look at vulnerable people, the virus, this comes to the population, there is no, you know, humoral immunity. There is no immunity at all. In fact, so nobody has been in contact.
So the youngsters, they can rely on good innate immunity. Elderly people, I mean, the innate immunity is waning. It gets increasingly replaced by antigen-specific, by specific immunity as people get older.
So these people very, very clearly needed to be protected, but it has taken a lot of time before we understood, in fact, how exactly the immune response and the virus were interacting.
So there’s been a lot of confusion. A lot of mistakes made. Mistakes, I mean, retrospectively. And that has also led to, you know, bad control right from the beginning. I would say.
McMillan: With that in mind and where we are now, as countries across the world have been drifting towards the Christmas period, there’s still a rise in cases. Countries had to try and lock down, mask mandates and so on, but we all had the hope that vaccines would come and break the cycle. This is where clearly now from your expertise, you seem to have a different thought about how we should have been thinking about vaccines then, and even now, what is your perspective?
Bossche: Well, my perspective was, and still is, that if you go to war, you better make sure that you have the right weapon and the weapon in itself can be an excellent weapon. And that is what I’m saying really about the current vaccines.
I mean, just brilliant people who have been making these vaccines in no time and with regulatory approval and everything. So the weapon in itself is excellent.
Question is, is this the right weapon for the kind of war that is going on right now? And there my answer is definitely no, because these are prophylactic vaccines and prophylactic vaccines should typically not be administered to people who are exposed to high infectious pressure.
So don’t forget we are administering these vaccines in the heat of a pandemic. So in other words while we are preparing our weapon, we are fully attacked by the virus. The virus is everywhere. So that is a very different scenario from using such vaccines in a setting where the vaccine is barely or not exposed to the virus.
And I’m saying this, because if you have a high infectious pressure, it’s so easy for the virus to jump from one person to the other.
So if your immune response, however, is just mounting, as we see right now with the number of people who get their first dose, they get the first dose, the antibodies are not fully mature, the titers are maybe not very high. So their immune response is suboptimal, but they are in the midst of this war while they are mounting an immune response, they’re fully attacked by the virus and every single time. I mean, this is textbook knowledge.
Every single time you have an immune response that is suboptimal in the presence of an infection, in the presence of a virus, that infected person, you are at risk for immune escape.
So that means that the virus can escape the immune response. And that is why I’m saying that these vaccines, I mean, in their own right, are, of course, excellent. But to use them in the midst of a pandemic and do mass vaccination, because then you provide within a very short period of time, the population with high antibody titers – so the virus comes under enormous pressure.
I mean, that wouldn’t matter if you can eradicate a virus, if you can prevent infection, but these vaccines don’t prevent infection.
They protect against disease because we are just, unfortunately, we look no further than the end of our nose in the sense that hospitalization, that’s all what counts, you know, getting people away from the hospital.
But in the meantime, we are not realizing that we give all the time during this pandemic, by our interventions, the opportunity to escape to the immune, to the immune system.
And that is of course, a very, very, very dangerous thing. Especially, if we realize that these guys, they only need 10 hours to replicate.
So if you think that by making new vaccines, a new vaccine against the new infectious strains, we going to catch up, it’s impossible to catch up. I mean, virus is not going to wait until we have those vaccines ready. I mean, this thing continues.
And as I was saying, the thing is, I mean, if you do this in the midst of a pandemic, that is an enormous problem.
These vaccines are excellent, but they are not made for administration to millions of people in the midst, in the heat of a pandemic. So that is my thoughts.
McMillan: Is this equivalent then, because you’ve mentioned this in your paper, is this equivalent to using either a partial dose of antibiotics in anti-microbial or in a bacterial infection where you then produce super bugs. Is this the kind of example that you’re alluding to?
Bossche: Well, that is a very good parallel. It’s also the parallel I’m using actually in the paper. We just post it on LinkedIn [bad choice, LinkedIn has been deplatforming and censoring scientists and doctors more than any other platform] which, you know, should be so open for everybody [wrong, they outsource to low paid “fact checkers” who aggressively censor according to left media news narratives].
I mean, it’s pure science because as you were pointing out, the thing is the rule is it’s very simple. I mean, same with antibiotics. Either the antibiotics do not match very well with the bug. That’s not good. That’s why we are making antibiograms, you know, to first identify which is the germ. And then we choose the antibiotics. We need to have a very good match. Otherwise there could be resistance.
So when I compare this to the current situation, do we have a good match with our antibodies? No, at this point in time, we don’t have a good match anymore because we have this kind of like almost heterologous variants.
So that differs from the original strain. So the match isn’t very good anymore. And hence we see people are still protected, but they are already shedding the virus. So that is one thing.
The other thing is the quantity, of course. You tell people, you know, you take your antibiotics according to the prescription, please don’t as soon as you feel well, that doesn’t mean that you can stop the antibiotics. Same here.
And I get just one example. If you give people just like one dose, I mean, they are in the process of mounting their antibodies. The antibodies still need to fully mature, et cetera. So this is a suboptimal situation. We are putting them in a suboptimal situation with regard to their immune protection. And on the other end, they are in the midst of the war. They are fully attacked by all, you know, by all these kinds of a highly infectious variants.
So, I mean, it’s very clear that this is driving immune escape and will ultimately drive resistance to the vaccines.
So my point is, yes, Philip, it’s very similar. There is one difference. The virus needs living cells. I mean, if you’re driving immune escape, but the guy has no chance to jump on somebody else, who cares?
This situation is now different because we are in the midst of a war, there is a high infectious pressure. So the likelihood that an immune escape immediately finds another living cell, that means another host is very, very high. It’s per definition. It’s the definition almost of a pandemic.
McMillan: So it raises a simple question that somebody has put in front of us here, which is, it’s perfectly common sense. What do we do?
Bossche: That question is very easy. I mean, we need to do a better job when we are confronted with situations that seem very dramatic. Like, you know, an epidemic. Our generation has not, you know, been living in times where there are epidemics or pandemics.
And so we immediately take action and jump on the beast with the tools we have instead of analyzing what is really going on. And one thing that I thought was extremely interesting was, and it’s something that was not really understood. We know that the number of people or asymptomatically infected, so they are infected, but they don’t develop severe symptoms. Of course they can have some mild symptoms of respiratory disease, whatever.
So the question is what exactly happens with those folks that they can eliminate the virus, they eliminate the virus, they don’t transmit it.
They will shed it for like a week or so. And then they eliminate this, or you could say, yeah, of course we know that antibodies eliminate … Oh, wait a minute. The antibodies come later, you have first the search of, you know, shedding of the virus.
And it’s only afterwards that you see, you know, a moderate and short-lived raise of antibodies. So the antibodies can not be responsible for elimination of the virus. So what is responsible for elimination of the virus? Luckily enough, we have a number of brilliant scientists, independent, brilliant scientists that have now increasingly been showing. And there is increasing evidence that what in fact is happening is that NK cells are taking care of virus.
So NK cells that the virus gets into, into these epithelial cells and starts to replicate, but NK cells get activated and they will kill, they will kill the cell, you know, in which the virus tries to replicate.
So I was saying that the virus needs to rely on a living cell. So you kill that cell. It’s gone, it’s all over. So we have the solution in the pathogenesis because some people eliminate it.
McMillan: Absolutely. I just wanted to clarify, because when you said NK cells, somebody may not quite know what you mean. So you mean non killer cells. So it’s a specific group of …
Bossche: Natural killer cells …
McMillan: Sorry. It’s natural killer cells, a special group of white blood cells that go and take out the viral infected cell. So, yes, you’re right. Because I have seen from a clinical perspective, very old patients who you would expect to be overwhelmed by the virus and they have a few symptoms and then they’re okay. So they, the body does manage to get rid of it in some cases.
And so it raises the point that I’ve always been saying is that we haven’t spent enough time understanding how the virus impacts the body and understanding how the pandemic then will impact the world. We’ve spent all of our time just going for solutions. Has that been a mistake?
Bossche: Of course, this has been the, you know, the most important mistake, I think. I’m not sure many people and I, I was part of them. So in all modesty, I was part of them. Not sure whether many people understand how a natural pandemic develops and why we have this first wave. We have the second wave. And we have this third wave.
And, I mean, these waves of disease and mortality and morbidity, they shift from one population to another. So I’m saying, for example, the second wave, this was typically also the case with influenza, World War I, when basically more soldiers, young people died in the trenches of influenza than from from injuries or whatever. So firstly, elderly, I mean, weak immune system, et cetera. Then it gets to the wave of morbidity and mortality to the younger people.
And then it gets back to people who have antibodies. So we have to understand this first, Oh, how does this come? Why all of a sudden does this wave of morbidity and mortality shift, for example, why are the three waves? How do we explain this? And also, how does it come that some people are naturally protected and others are not? What are these mechanisms, what are these molecular mechanisms?
Because if you make vaccines and all these things, at the end of the day, this is going to interact at the molecular level. And we have not been understanding this. I would just explain it. We don’t understand our weapon because we don’t understand that prophylactic vaccines should not be used in the midst of an epidemic. And we don’t understand exactly what the virus is, do we. So we go to a war and we don’t know our enemy. We don’t understand the strategy of our enemy. And we don’t know how our weapon works. I mean, how is that going to go? We have a fundamental problem to begin with.
McMillan: I understand, and I completely accept that, but at the same time, I am still thinking that if the governments don’t respond in some way, because they have to be seen to be doing something. They seem to be in a lose-lose situation. If they don’t do anything, they’re going to be criticized. And if they do do something, they’re going to be criticized. Is that a fair statement to make?
Bossche: I don’t think so. What was this, oath of, what’s the name of the guy? Hippocrates. You know the rule?
McMillan: The first. Do no harm.
Bossche: Okay. Well, I mean, it wouldn’t matter if you start vaccinating people and even if it doesn’t work. Problem is that we induce a long lived antibody response. And as a matter of fact, we know, I mean, that is not my knowledge. It’s all published.
Problem is that we fail to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Fact is that these long lived antibodies, which have high specificity, of course, for the virus. They out-compete our natural antibodies because they’re natural antibodies, they have a very broad spectrum, but they have low affinity. Right?
And so by doing this, even if your antibodies don’t work anymore, because there is resistance or, you know, that the strains are too different from the original strain, we still, these antibodies, specific antibodies will still continue to out-compete your natural antibodies. And that is a huge problem because I was saying just a few minutes ago, these natural antibodies, they provide you with broad protection.
This protection is, yes, it is variant nonspecific. Doesn’t matter what variant you get. It doesn’t even matter what type of coronavirus is coming in. They will protect you. Unless, of course, you suppress this level of innate immunity, or it is, for example, out-competed by long lived specific antibodies. And so it’s not like, okay, you know, you missed it. Okay, let’s try again. No, you did some harm. I mean, this is different from drugs.
Immunizing somebody is installing a new software on your computer. Don’t forget. I mean, these antibodies, they will be recalled every single time you’re encountering a coronavirus, right? I mean, you cannot just erase this. So this is very serious. This is very serious.
McMillan: So this is an important point because when I was looking at some of the research around the challenges that they faced with the initial SARS, called the first epidemic, and they tried to develop the vaccines. One of the things they found, certainly when they tested it on the ferrets, was that when they expose them to a coronavirus again, they got a very severe response to it. Is this what you’re saying? That we’re putting ourselves in a position where we can then have much more severe disease even to viruses that should normally be quite benign?
Bossche: Well, you know, you see all my passion and my conviction, but I mean, I’ve been the last to criticize the vaccines in terms of, would they, in some regard, could they, in some regard be unsafe because, you know, you would have even this exacerbation of disease due to antibodies that doesn’t match very well with the coronavirus they’re exposed to et cetera.
I know there is reports on this, and there is a lot of serious thoughts about this. But I think what we are talking about right now, the epidemic or the pandemic problem of having a population that is at no point during the pandemic and to large extent, due to our intervention, has not a strong immune response. I mean, this is already serious enough. This is more concerning than one or the other adverse events that could maybe elicited, I’m not downplaying it, but that could maybe be elicited because people have antibodies that do no longer match very well with the strain they were or with the strain they are exposed to.
And therefore, you know, they build a complex, they don’t neutralize the virus, they build a complex and this complex could maybe even enhance viral entry into susceptible cells and hence lead to exacerbation of disease.
I mean, this may be possible, but the problem I’m talking about is a global problem. It’s not an individual getting an adverse event. It’s a global problem of, you know, making this virus increasingly infectious because we live it all the time, a chance and opportunity to escape an immune system and to drive this.
So to wake this up, you know, up to a level where the virus is so infectious, that we can even no longer control it, because I mean, these highly infectious strains, some people think, Oh, the virus is going to calm down and it will insert a number of mutations, you know, just to be gentle and kind with us. That’s not going to happen. I mean, this highly infectious range remains.
It is not going to be spontaneous mutations that all of a sudden would become, would make this virus again harmless because such a virus would have a competitive disadvantage, could not be dominant anymore, so that’s not going to happen. So we’re talking about a very, very, very serious problem here.
McMillan: So I’ve seen the question many times and quite frankly, I get asked the questions. We’re coming to a point where people are going to have to take these vaccines. That looks as though it’s the reality. Either in the context of work or in the context of travel. Based on what you’re saying, they’re in a lose-lose situation. What does this mean?
Bossche: Well, what does this mean? It’s very clear. It’s very clear what this is going to mean.
So let’s consider the consequences of this both at a population level and at an individual level, because I would well understand if for the population is maybe not the best thing to do, but you know, on an individual level, it’s still okay. Yeah. Then it’s not an easy, that’s not an easy question.
But as a matter of fact, it’s exactly the opposite. Well, it’s not the opposite. It is detrimental both on a population level, as on an individual level. And I’m telling you why. I think the population level I explained to you, we are increasingly facing highly infectious strains that already right now, we cannot control because basically what we are doing is that we are turning — when we vaccinate somebody, we are turning this person in a potential asymptomatic carrier that is shedding the virus.
But at an individual level, I just told you that if you have these antibodies and at some point, and I’m sure this, people can challenge me on this, but, you know, reality will prove it.
Bossche: I think we are very close to vaccine resistance right now. And it’s not for nothing that already people start developing, you know, new vaccines against the strains, et cetera.
But what I was saying is that, okay, if you miss the shoot, okay, you could say nothing has happened. No. You are at the same time losing the most precious part of your immune system that you could ever imagine.
And that is your innate immune system, because the innate antibodies, the natural antibodies, the secretary IGMs will be out-competed by these antigen-specific antibodies for binding to the virus. And that will be long lived. That is a long lived suppression.
And you lose every protection against any viral variant or coronavirus variant, et cetera. So this means that you are left just with no single immune response with your, you know, it’s none, your immunity has become nil.
It’s all gone. The antibodies don’t work anymore. And your your innate immunity has been completely bypassed and this while highly infectious strains are circulating.
So, I mean, if that isn’t clear enough, I really don’t get it. And people please do read my, you know, what I posted because it’s science, it’s pure science, pure science. And as everybody knows, I’m a highly passionate vaccine guy, right?
And I’ve no criticism on the vaccines, but please use the right vaccine at the right place. And don’t use it in the heat of a pandemic on millions of millions of people.
We are going to pay a huge price for this. And I’m becoming emotional because I’m thinking of my children, of the younger generation. I mean, it’s just impossible what we are doing. We don’t understand the pandemic.
We have been turning it into an artificial pandemic.
Who can explain where all of a sudden, all these highly infectious strains come from? Nobody can explain this.
I can explain it. But we have not been seeing this during previous pandemics, during natural pandemics. We have not been seeing it. Because at every single time, the immunity was low enough so that the virus didn’t need to escape. So back at the end of the pandemic, when things calmed down and it was herd immunity, it was still the same virus circulating.
What we are now doing is that we are really chasing this virus and it becomes all, you know, increasingly infectious. And I mean, this is just a situation that is completely, completely completely out of control.
So it’s also, we are now getting plenty of asymptomatic shedders. People who shed the virus because if they are vaccinated or they have even antibodies from previous disease, they can no longer control these highly infectious variants.
So how does that come? Does anybody still understand the curves? I see all these top scientists looking at this curve, at its waves. Like somebody else is looking at the currency rates at the stock market.
All they can say is, Oh, it goes up, it’s stabilizing. It may go down, may go up, et cetera. I mean, that is not science. They don’t have any clue.
They don’t even know whether the curve is gonna go up exponentially or whether it’s gonna go down or whatever. They’re completely lost. And that is extremely scary. That has been the point where I said, okay, guy, you have to analyze. You have to, but you know, these people are not listening. That is the problem.
McMillan: So you are, in effect, putting your reputation on the line because you feel so passionately about this because I guarantee you that no government, no health system is going to want to hear what you are saying. You are, in effect, almost giving fuel to the fire for an anti-vaxxer who doesn’t want the vaccine.
Bossche: No, no, well, no. Because I’ve clearly also addressed some emails from anti-vaxxers. I mean, I’m not interested, but I’m clearly telling them that at this point, it’s so irrelevant, you know, whether you’re a pro vaxxer or an anti-vaxxer, et cetera, it is about the science. It’s about humanity, right?
I mean, let’s not lose our time now with criticizing people or, I mean, anti-vaxxer, okay. If you’re not an anti-vaxxer, you could be a stalker.
You could be, you know, we like to stigmatize because if you stigmatize people, you don’t need to bother about them anymore.
Oh, this guy’s an anti-vaxxer. Okay. I mean, he’s out of the scope. Oh, he’s a stalker. He’s out of the scope. I mean, that is a discussion that is completely irrelevant at this point.
It is about humanity. And of course I’m passionate. Of course, I mean, it’s about your children. It’s your family. It’s my family. It’s everyone. Right. And it’s simply for me, I put everything at stake because I’ve done my homework. And this is simply a moral obligation. A moral obligation.
McMillan: Wow. Wow. I mean, there’s very little one can say, as I said, when you position that you are in the business of developing vaccines and helping societies protect against infections through the use of vaccines, and in this circumstance, you are saying, hold it, we’re doing the wrong thing here. It’s very difficult to not listen to that. That’s the truth.
Bossche: Well, the answer is very easy. I mean, this is human behavior. If you’re, you know, having panic, we do something and we try to make ourselves believe that it is the right thing to do, until there is complete chaos and there is a complete disaster.
And then people say, well, you know, I mean, politicians will probably say, you know, we have been advised by the scientists and scientists, you know, will maybe point to somebody else, but this is now a situation.
I’m asking every single scientist to scrutinize, to look what I’m writing, to do the science and to study exactly the, I call these the immune pathogenesis of the disease. And because I like people to do their homework.
And if the science is wrong, you know, if I’m proven wrong, I will admit it, but I can tell you, I’m not putting my career, my reputation at stake.
I would not do this when I would not be 200% convinced. And it’s not about me, not about me at all. It’s about humanity. People don’t understand what is currently going on. And we have an obligation to explain this.
And I posted my paper on LinkedIn and I invite all independent scientists please to look at it because this can be easily understood by microbiologists, immunologists, geneticists, you know, plenty of biochemists, etc., etc., all the biologists, all these people who have elementary knowledge, it’s not rocket science, elementary knowledge of biology should be able to understand this.
And I mean, I can only appeal to these people, you know, to stand up as independent scientists and to voice their opinion.
McMillan: Yes, yes, yes. I mean, that was a long point that somebody put on about the innate immune response, the false overreacting of the innate immune response, leading to detrimental effects in other coronaviruses. So I think you’ve expressed this so well, Geert. I think that just hearing your explanation, the passion, the focus on the science, I think that that’s as much as you can do. I think that I don’t even want to say any more because I don’t want to lose that passion that you have just expressed.
How much you are doing in terms of trying to see if you can make a difference with regards to the impact that we are having in this pandemic. You know, we really, really appreciate that, Geert. We really, really appreciate that. I hope enough people share this, and listen to it, certainly because I’m connected with a lot of scientists. Please connect to Geert, take a look at his paper and see what you think. And as you said, let’s make decisions based on science. That’s the best that we can do at this point.
Wonderful. Just stay on the line there. We’re just going to close off now, Geert. So thank you again very, very much, Geert. And I hope maybe we can speak again in the near future to expand a little bit further on what you have said.
Bossche: Thanks, Philip, for having me on.

Virologist: ‘We Are Going to Pay Huge Price’ for COVID Mass Vaccination Campaign • Children's Health Defense ... ccination/

But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....

User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2807
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand

Analysis: What Vanden Bossche Got Right — and Wrong — About Mass Vaccination By Rob Verkerk Ph.D.

Unread post by David McCarthy » Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:52 am

Analysis: What Vanden Bossche Got Right — and Wrong — About Mass Vaccination

Robert Verkerk, Ph.D., of Alliance for Natural Health International, weighs in on the recent debate sparked by Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., concerning immune escape and mass vaccination during a pandemic.
Rob Verkerk Ph.D.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Defender is committed to providing a space for scientific debate. This piece is an analysis on the recent debate (this piece + this piece) sparked by Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., concerning immune escape and mass vaccination during a pandemic.
“Given the huge amount of immune escape that will be provoked by mass vaccination campaigns and flanking containment measures, it is difficult to imagine how human interventions would not cause the COVID-19 pandemic to turn into an incredible disaster for global and individual health.”
— Geert Vanden Bossche, D.V.M., Ph.D.
When someone who appears to have devoted most of their career to developing and helping roll out vaccines globally decides to blow the whistle on the current global mass vaccination program, only an incautious person would choose to ignore it. That’s of course just what the mainstream media has done so far — an indicator of just how incautious this communication vehicle has become.
This is actually an important consideration because it is the scientific community and those responsible for deciding how we should respond who really need to engage with Dr. Vanden Bossche and his arguments. Owing to the ‘my way or the highway’ approach taken by the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the UK Department of Health and others means Dr. Vanden Bossche has been forced to release his views via LinkedIn and fringe media. That makes it very difficult or impossible to have proper scientific discourse on matters that affect all of us, and the future of humankind.
Notwithstanding, since Dr. Vanden Bossche’s revelations were released into the alternative media a few days ago, we’ve had numerous requests for a response as many try to grapple with his claims and arguments. This article aims to provide a rational response using data available at the time of writing.
What is Dr. Vanden Bossche claiming?
You can read the 12-page document linked to Dr Vanden Bossche’s LinkedIn profile here. The document was most recently updated on the day of writing this article (March 17).
You can see/hear the interview (42 minutes) with Dr. Philip McMillan below:
Watch Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s urgent message to the WHO (2 minutes):
Watch an in-depth interview (1 hour 48 minutes) by Matt Wong from Discernable:
Dr. Vanden Bossche makes many points, so I’ve tried to distill some of the most important:
Prevention and containment measures coupled with vaccinating such a large proportion of the population in a manner that doesn’t guarantee elimination of the virus, encourages selective viral ‘immune escape’ where viruses continue to be shed from those who are infected because neutralizing antibodies have failed to prevent replication and elimination of the virus.
The evolutionary selection pressure on the virus will, through ‘immune escape,’ create ever more virulent strains of the virus that have a competitive advantage over other variants and will increasingly have the potential to break through the antibody defences provided by the adaptive immune system, so inducing ‘vaccine resistance.’ Because the current vaccines attempt to train only the adaptive immune system that is highly specific to particular strains, vaccine makers will all the time find themselves on the backfoot as new mutant strains outsmart the vaccines.
The only possibility of eradicating these more virulent strains is via particular white blood cells (lymphocytes) in the innate immune system, namely natural killer (NK) cells. This Vanden Bossche evidences from knowledge that those who are asymptomatic (e.g. most children) are able to eliminate infection at a very early stage of infection through the enhanced function of the innate (‘first response’) immune system at the mucosal surfaces of the airways. Vanden Bossche argues nearly all of the deactivation of viruses occurs through the action of NK cells that are polyspecific by nature, because they eliminate the cells infected with the virus so affecting all variants or mutants of the virus.
The worst of the pandemic is still to come. Bossche argues we are now experiencing the calm before the storm. Vanden Bossche predicts the next wave of infection will be dramatic — far worse than anything we’ve seen to-date. This is because there will be more mutants to which the adaptive immune system provides little resistance, and this will come at the expense of decreased innate immune effectiveness. While he mentions that NK cell-based vaccines, which he claims to have been researching for the last decade or so but about which he also says he has no commercial interest, are the ultimate solution, he believes it is likely too late to escape the storm.
Dr. Vanden Bossche points to a lack of evidence that the existing global, mass vaccination program that has been mounted while there is still significant infection around, is unprecedented and there is no scientific evidence that this will work. He stresses that historic vaccination programs have always emphasized the importance of vaccinating populations prophylactically in the absence of infection pressure.
He also argues that if different types of vaccine were used that provided sterilizing immunity i.e., that prevented immune escape and killed all viruses in those vaccinated, the situation would be entirely different. It just so happens, his specialization is in the development of natural killer cell vaccines that provide sterilizing immunity. He argues there is now evidence that NK cells can acquire memory and this could allow the manufacture of NK cell-based vaccines that are much simpler than the current antigen-type that rely on the training of the adaptive, not innate, immune system. In fact, he goes as far as saying that this is the only scientifically rational way forward now — to use the NK cell vaccines that target the more virulent strains. Almost in the same breath, he conceded, “… that while there is a proof of concept, there is [are] no clinical data.”
From the horse’s mouth
In his Discernable interview with Matt, Dr. Vanden Bossche looks coy when asked about NK cell-based vaccines, stressing that he has “no commercial interest whatsoever …”
In fact, Dr. Vanden Bossche’s commentary in this interview is so illuminating, I’ve included some extracts from the Matt Wong interview below:
“Let’s forget about egos, let’s forget about money. There is only one single thing at stake right now and that is the survival of our human race, frankly speaking. But I must say I have been working for a number of years on NK cell-based vaccines and it’s not like I’m making a big noise because I’d like to draw attention to my technology … it’s thanks to my insights on how NK cells work, how they play a critical role in eliminating the virus in asymptomatically infected people and I have succeeded in unravelling what the strategy is for this virus.
“We will most likely see that despite increasing vaccination coverage, we see dramatic things happening. The more you put the virus under pressure, the more it is fighting to make people ill … severe disease is the most profitable way for the virus to ensure its propagation and perpetuation, because then people shed for a long time and they then shed a lot of virus.
“It is the first time in the history of mankind that we are intervening in such a massive way in a pandemic that has never ever occurred before. Now there is at least somebody who stands up and provides scientific evidence and gives a very, very serious warning and it’s probably also unprecedented and I think I’m basically already too late.
“… Either we outsmart the virus — we are not doing that with current vaccines. Or we accept we go through a natural pandemic where we will have casualties …”
The vaccines we have now are efficacious on an individual level while we don’t have resistance. It will attack first of all people with weak innate immunity. Those who have very strong innate immunity might have mild symptoms or be totally asymptomatic.
Subscribe to The Defender - It’s Free!
Top of Form
Due diligence on a whistleblower
In doing our best to use a balanced and methodical approach to evaluate both scientific aspects of health and dissenting views by whistleblowers, we look particularly at 4 criteria:
The messenger. Who is the ‘whistleblower’? Is the person credible and does his or her background give the person the competence to make valid comments in the area?
Motivation. What might be the motivation for whistleblowing? Does the person have anything to gain, whether personal or financial, from blowing the whistle? Also is a ‘real’ whistle really being blown, or the outburst the musings of ‘controlled opposition,’ ‘astroturfing’ or some other device designed to deceive or manipulate the public?
Vested interests. Does the messenger, or associated organisations or businesses, have anything to gain by encouraging the dissemination of the whistleblower’s message far and wide?
Scientific credibility of arguments. How does the science the whistleblower is using stack up against the available body of evidence in the particular area of controversy?
Let me give you a birds-eye-view on the results of our analysis on the above.
About the messenger
Geert vanden Bossche appears to have qualified as a vet in 1983 from the University of Ghent in Belgium and also has a Ph.D., although it’s unclear if this was also awarded by the same university, or not. His publication record, like a lot of industrial scientists, is thin on the ground given who he claims to want to persuade. There are just eight references to his work in PubMed. Three of these, published in 1988, likely relate to his Ph.D. thesis and involve a case report of cachexia syndrome in a donkey mare. The other five, all published between 1994 – 5, relate to his work at the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany, four of them being specifically on enteroviruses, none of them on vaccines.
His LinkedIn profile states he is a: “Creative thinker, innovator, entrepreneur and problem solver always open to new consultancy or career opportunities in the field of Vaccines, Life Sciences and/or Global Health to deliver solutions to unmet medical needs … I am particularly interested in engaging with international companies or organizations in the private or public sector or which are involved in public-private partnerships targeted at translational medicine programs, preferably in the field of Vaccine Innovation…”
Dr. Vanden Bossche would definitely have a motive to be heard, although he’s at pains to mention this isn’t his goal. Based on his interviews, he’s spent much of the last 10 years focusing on an entirely novel approach to vaccination based on natural killer (NK) cell-based vaccines that ‘train’ the innate immune system to respond in a polyspecific manner (e.g., to different variants or epitopes of different viruses).
This is in complete contrast with the current mainstay of vaccine development, which uses highly specific antigen-based vaccines that train the B cells and in turn T cells to target specific variants of viral pathogens. Albeit often using novel platforms (e.g., mRNA, non-replicating viral vector).
In his interviews, he’s quick to point out that his motivation to speak out has nothing to do with his interest in NK cell-based vaccine technology. But he does say it is this interest that has permitted him unique insights to the challenges we now face. Almost in contradiction to this seemingly unvested position, he also upholds that this new approach, using NK cell-based vaccines, is the only chance for humanity. That’s despite his admission that there are no clinical data to support the approach.
To this point, he compares his interest in NK cell-based vaccines with mRNA vaccines, the development of which was massively expedited by huge investment in Operation Warp Speed and other programs around the world. It is not inconceivable that he thinks he should get a slice of the cake, even though he doesn’t want to be seen to be asking for one?
Vested interests
Is Dr. Vanden Bossche a ‘lone ranger’ — or is there an organization, company or group of companies behind him? We’ve found no information that points one way or another, but he certainly gives the impression he is operating on his own, as an independent consultant, although it would be foolhardy to rule out the possibility that there wasn’t a biotechnology company interested in the technology somewhere in the background.
His claims, as they currently stand, may benefit others, including the vaccine companies currently making COVID vaccines or they might work against them. Much of that will depend on the outcomes over the coming weeks and months. If there is no major resurgence of infection and the current mutants ‘wither on the vine’, doing little damage in terms of mortality and morbidity in the process, his exclamations may well be interpreted retrospectively as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist. If, on the other hand, there is a significant wave of infection — and in particular — if severe infection or disease, or transmission, is witnessed in those who have been already vaccinated, he might be honored as a prophet.
For me, it is the sheer, unashamed certainty of his pronouncements that give me cause for concern given that so much uncertainty abounds. But perhaps he’s the type who always chooses to play ‘rouge et noire’ in a game of roulette?
Scientific credibility of arguments
Dr. Vanden Bossche’s evolutionary perspective on how viruses have the potential to outsmart vaccines is refreshing. In this vein, there are a number of points he makes that are unassailable:
The scientific basis for the global implementation of containment and hygiene measures coupled with mass vaccination, have not been validated, except indirectly by computer models, many of which have also been found to often conflict with one another, or be erroneous or flawed.
The selection pressure on a human virus will never have been as great as it will be assuming the planned target of over 70% coverage globally for the current crop of COVID vaccines is achieved. No scientific references for this are required — it’s never happened before.
While many vaccinologists tend to downplay the potential or commonality of ‘vaccine escape’ (shedding), it definitely does occur and can produce more virulent variants.
Good examples are in the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine program in the USA, Hep B vaccination in Africa and most obvious of them all, influenza A, the latter being universally recognized, as a DNA virus, to be much more prone to mutation than RNA viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses. There is also a question mark over whether measles vaccination is driving vaccine escape and hence failure. However, vaccine escape appears from current available evidence to be the exception rather than the rule.
Natural killer (NK) cells in the innate immune system deliver a rapid, polyspecific response by targeting infected cells, while most viral vaccines (including COVID vaccines) target the B cell (humoral) and T cell (cell-mediated) sides of the adaptive immune system that are slower to respond, allowing greater opportunity for viral replication compared with effective innate responses from the lining (mucosa) of our airways.
If resistant variants of SARS-CoV-2 were to become the dominant circulating forms of the virus, there is no doubt, anything that helped enhance the function of NK cells would help everyone. But, as many of you already know, Dr. Vanden Bossche’s as-yet undeveloped vaccines aren’t the only way of modulating NK cell activity. Exquisitely modulated NK cell activity is the mark of a super-healthy immune system, something we’ll touch on below.
OK — so we’ve touched on the less controversial points. What about those that are more tenuous? In my view, some of the other arguments made by Dr. Vanden Bossche appear to be more theoretical than evidence-based. That doesn’t mean they should be dismissed, given that evidence is in such short supply and COVID-19 pathophysiology is still very much a work in progress. We’re now faced with not only needing to learn more about the interaction of the virus and the human species in the absence of vaccines, we also need to learn about this virus-host interaction with varying degrees of vaccination coverage as well as considering the response to different mutant strains (and undoubtedly new ones that have yet to arise). It’s a truly moving feast in a sea of uncertainty.
Let’s now look at some of the areas where Dr. Vanden Bossche might be pushing the envelope:
To be so sure that vaccine or immune escape will drive increasingly more virulent variants of the virus is a big leap. To posit this as a possibility more than a near certainty might seem more plausible. Even more so, devoting effort to the identification of markers of immune or vaccine escape, rather than making the overt claim that the current variants (that are not greatly more virulent, although are definitely more transmissible than earlier circulating epitopes) are direct proof of this.
One of the emerging reasons for transmission or severe disease could be related to ineffective vaccination, rather than vaccine escape, caused by batch quality issues. This problem, in relation to the Pfizer vaccine, has been publicized in The BMJ courtesy of leaked documents.
To argue that NK cells are the only cellular means of eliminating the virus is an over-simplification, given there is ample evidence that there are other aspects of the innate immune system, such as the role of macrophages and dendritic cells, as well as the activation of the adaptive immune system that have been demonstrated to work together akin to an orchestra in the management of infection in humans, as well as in the co-evolution of host-viral interactions. Let’s not forget that viruses aren’t, most of the time, the bad guys. They’ve been a dominant driver of our species’ evolution since time immemorial and despite the fact that some cause disease, they are overwhelmingly helpful in the long-run despite their tendency to share their genetic material with their host and infiltrate our genome.
Dr. Vanden Bossche, with his focus on NK cells, over-simplifies the complexity of the immune response that is unique both to different individuals and pathogen variants. He does not appear to adequately recognize the unclear nature of human/SARS-CoV-2 virus interactions in different population groups.
Vaccine resistance is the exception rather than the rule and has been found in a minority of vaccines targeting human pathogens (just 12). However, as Vanden Bossche argues, the circumstances are unique and one or more of the three predisposing factors for vaccine resistance are likely to be met in the case of COVID-19 and the associated mass vaccination strategy. This suggests that Vanden Bossche’s concerns are scientifically legitimate and are worthy of tight monitoring.
Experimental NK cell-based vaccines are far from the only way of enhancing the cytotoxic function of NK cells. Ironically — and much more well demonstrated — are dietary and lifestyle-mediated approaches to enhance innate immune function as part of a prevention strategy. Vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, beta-glucans and exercise are just some nutrients that have been found to act as immune modulators enhancing NK cell function.
NK cell-based vaccines are not currently on ‘the list’ of next-generation COVID-19 vaccine platforms. They should therefore be regarded as more experimental than mRNA, non-replicating viral vector or protein subunit vaccines that have been in development at least for a few years, their development being massively accelerated by the current pandemic. It may be unrealistic to consider that NK cell-based vaccines could be developed quick enough to make a difference to the shape of the pandemic — although Dr. Vanden Bossche argues the development would be a lot quicker than for the current crop of frontrunner vaccines because such vaccines are considerably simpler.
Feeding anti-vax sentiments using pro-vax arguments
Vaccine resistance is already targeted as a weak point by the establishment. Speaking of prophets, I need to mention, albeit belatedly, Heidi Larson, Professor of Anthropology, Risk and Decision Science at the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the UK’s London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, also the founder and Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, and author of the book “Stuck: How Vaccine Rumors Start ― and Why They Don’t Go Away” (2020, Oxford University Press). The book was completed just before the pandemic broke yet it anticipated a time when vaccine confidence was more central to public health strategy than most could have imagined. As they say: it’s all about timing. Dr. Larson has now found her moment, as well as many admirers.
One of them is political scientist J. Stephen Morrison, Ph.D., senior vice president and director of the Global Health Policy Center, in Washington DC. Check out what he had to say about Dr. Larson’s assertions, including about vaccine resistance:
“Vaccine resistance fits perfectly into populist agendas,” Larson notes. Especially in moments of heightened political anxiety and stress, “digital wildfires” can ignite, unforeseen, disrupting immunization campaigns and spreading emotional contagion across “global highways.” Social media “swarms” then leapfrog media platforms and continents, rapidly imposing a toll on the health of millions. “When populism and polarization drive a wedge into the heart of democracy, and vaccine decisions are politicized, immunity suffers.”
Geert Vanden Bossche doesn’t mention any prophylactic alternatives to vaccines. His central argument is around ‘immune escape’ risks that may arise as a result of current antigen-based vaccine strategies, lockdowns and social isolation. He is thus feeding the flames of vaccine hesitancy in relation to the current crop of antigen-based vaccines. Ironically, he makes the subsidiary point that another type of vaccine may resolve the crisis.
Concluding remarks
For those grasping at scientific arguments to underpin their distrust of the mass vaccination program, Geert Vanden Bossche, may have provided an imperfect but nonetheless useful articulation of the problem. For me, his assertions are overly emphatic and insufficiently evidence-based given the uncertainty and complexity of the science involved.
It’s a tough ask to try to predict what might happen as a result of Dr. Vanden Bossche’s outpourings. If I was a betting man, I’d say very little. Why? Just like with the Lockdown Skeptics or the Great Barrington scientists, the latter now supported by over 750,000 citizens, nearly 14,000 medical and public health scientists and almost 42,000 medical practitioners, ‘the system‘ really knows how to prevent the bomb going off. It’s called doing nothing — simply not engaging.
With a propagandist media, a heavily censored social media, and near-police states in operation, there’s never been a better time to ignore dissenters.
As I alluded to earlier, if we see a dramatic ‘third wave’ later in 2021 and that includes a significant number of vaccinated individuals, Geert Vanden Bossche may well be vindicated.
Will the WHO and ‘the establishment’ rush to him to deliver his NK cell-based vaccines to save the world? Probably not.
Might he get funding to work with biotech companies to further explore the potential of NK cell-based vaccines? My view is he might have a lesser, not a greater, chance of being invited into the fold after being perceived as a prostitute to the skeptics of the mainstream narrative.
Has he justified his arguments with enough plausible science? No, in my view. Is there a chance that some of his assertions will be proven right? Yes, again in my view (as I’ve argued above).
I want to finish by saying I have the greatest respect for any scientist who wears his scientific views and emotions on his sleeve. Geert Vanden Bossche clearly has passion. It is a travesty of the currently dominant scientific narrative that Vanden Bossche can’t open the doors of the WHO or the Gates Foundation, both of which he’s worked with previously, and have an in-depth discussion about his concerns.
Chances are there is some kind of back story. Possibly one that wouldn’t work in Dr. Vanden Bossche’s favor if it was accessible in the public domain. But, equally, it could also be linked to ideological differences. Could the mainstream vaccine establishment’s disinterest in NK cell-based vaccines be down to the fact that they would be akin to a magic bullet? Being polyspecific, you wouldn’t need to have lots of different vaccines.
In fact, if they didn’t like the idea of polyspecific NK cell-based vaccines, Vanden Bossche would find himself in much the same place as those of us who promote the importance of natural therapies, nutrients or lifestyle modifications to help modulate immune systems.
All things the patent-hungry, ‘business with disease’ system doesn’t consider to be part of a viable or profitable business model.
Originally published by Alliance for Natural Health International.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

Analysis: What Vanden Bossche Got Right — and Wrong — About Mass Vaccination • Children's Health Defense ... b43ba0eded

Discussion on THD.

Lady Sane • 9 hours ago
Alright. Enough of this....
There is zero reason to give any special credence for Dr Bossche, as his entire history is one of working directly with GAVI under controversial Ebola program . GAVI is Gate's foundation and NOTHING this person presents in his 'opposition' piece goes against the larger goals of that program as it SELLS unnecessary vaccinations for the very survival of our species. How very DRAMATIC: . Let's take a look at his claims:
"If we, human beings, are commited to perpetuatng our species, we have no choice lef but to eradicate
these highly infectous viral variants"
May I ask what viral variants? How are they determining infection with viral variants? There is NO test that differentiates between variant infections of the virus and the test they do use is deemed USELESS by peer review. While we keep getting reports of deadly variants, death rates and infection rates are plummeting because the WHO finally recommended inclusion of its Cycle Threshold number in the reports and the cases that do get reported have no merit for public trust do to testing with PCR, antigen, and antibody kits that are NOT suited for the purpose and are CREATING the case numbers. For the love of god, you are ALL talking around yourself, admitting one thing and then expecting us not to see how it correlates to the other. Frei outed the nonsense of the variants here:
Right now, as the Defender, Del Bigtree, and many news sources have reported (both alternative and mainstream) is that the testing has resulted in MASS false positive cases due to CT rates over-amplifying the virus. And, by majority, that means NEARLY ALL OF them, on one error alone. Plus, peer review has found their core diagnostic test useless for detecting the virus for which it is employed:
Studies that adjusted for this factor found up to NINETY percent of cases false positive This was featured in the New York Times of all places, we have Fauci admitting publicly on July 16, 2020 the rates that the settings that the CDC, FDA, and WHO recommended were set would result in the detection of 'dead nucleotides period (dead, non-infectious material). it is a mark of how deep corruption has seeped into our core oversight structures that public health officials can OPENLY admit they are testing in a way that will produce majority inaccurate results, and watch near entire alternative 'watch dogs' bend over backwards and twist into pretzels trying to pretend that the CORE credibility of all this data isn't completely corrupted and worthless due to this ONE error alone. NONE of the research that employed faulty measuring systems that were employed to measure the single most important factor in the research (presence of Sars CoV2)) is worth the paper it is written on. For the love of God, just stop.
Watch Fauci admit this - then watch him untruthfully answer the commentator when asked if the Cycle threshold rates is provided to the follow up provider:
Date: 7 December 2020
WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 1
Purpose of this notice: To ensure users of certain nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies are aware of certain aspects of the instructions for use (IFU) for all products.
Description of the problem: WHO has received user feedback on an elevated risk for false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR reagents on open systems.
As with any diagnostic procedure, the positive and negative predictive values for the product in a given testing population are important to note. As the positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 decreases, the positive predictive value also decreases. This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as positivity rate decreases, irrespective of the assay specificity. Therefore, healthcare providers are encouraged to take into consideration testing results along with clinical signs and symptoms, confirmed status of any contacts, etc.
Not ONE of these test results is a valid indicator for the presence of Sars CoV2. The CDC ADMITS in its OWN testing guideline that a positive test does NOT mean that there is an infection present:
Here is a document that all you illustrious scientists might want to read
• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the
causative agent for clinical symptoms.
There is NO asymptomatic transmission of a virus. None. The rates of false positives when corrected for cycle threshold error MATCH the numbers of individuals with a positive test result showing CRYSTAL CLEAR that it is the TESTING that manufacturers the cases and the others very well may be caused by another factor as these tests are NON SPECIFIC as outed in the CDC guidelines and the Corman Drosten review paper. We don't need vaccines to eradicate bogus test results, we need the end of faulty test implemented on a wide scale. Fuellmich is leading an international investigation on this and many smaller lawsuits the world over on this fact. It is way way way past tipping point to break through to full public awareness.
Many people who read the Defender are technical people, we have gone to school and even those of us with lowly Bachelors degrees (or no degree whatsoever) understand the basics of foundation of credible research and how to analyze a research paper to see if it meets the minimum standard for inclusion in scientific and public policy recommendations.
The reporting is becoming so incongruous, it literally makes no sense
There is ZERO need for the vaccines and these vaccines THREATEN human fertility as documented by one of the very very few individuals with a history of integrity, Wolfgang Wodarg:
"Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1 (see Gallaher, B., “Response to nCoV2019 Against Backdrop of Endogenous Retroviruses” - against-backdrop-of-endogenous-retroviruses/396), which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile. To my knowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential) fertility-specific risks caused by antibodies is included. According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer
Many health professionals understand all this - and it is WAY past tipping point for trying to contain this nonsensical story with more nonsensical medical jargon talking points. I would suggest those in power see the writing on the wall and END these programs.
just CALL it off already. The power structure that is implementing it is imploding itself, and the people are going to be massively harmed. No on is going to win here. Just STOP.
Full explanation of the testing issues HERE:
There is no mass outbreak right now. We are NOT in the mdist of a pandemic so claims that mass vaccination due to cases makes no sense.

MarkTwain2020 Lady Sane • 5 hours ago • edited
Alright. Enough of this....
I completely disagree. We need more debate, not less. Ironically, I learned quite a bit about this debate from your post, which you begin with a non-starter as though it's too exhausting to contemplate a fresh opinion. The author brings up a good point that Bossche is presenting somewhat fresh arguments which may result in shaking free an overly confident pro-vax population from it's frozen propagandized stance.

Lady Sane MarkTwain2020 • 4 hours ago
This isn't debate. This is controlled opposition infighting over which Dr Strangelove drug should be implemented. This isn't a 'fresh' opinion. The fact that this Doctor is purporting that vaccines are needed for the human race to survive a virus that has a 99.98 percent survival rate. He is pushing NK cells and he is no whistleblower. The vaccines are COMPLETELY unnecessary. This doctor isn't talking about pulling the vaccine, he is talking about how we need NK ones instead. Its frankly grotesque. We do NOT need vaccines. There is no current pandemic. The tests are driving the case and have been for months. And, we are watching the 'experts' rewrite the dictionary to create new definitions of immunity and place vaccines as central as if the human race can not survive without their intervention. Oh, yes. Bill Gate's Ebola coordinator is ever so concerned we get the RIGHT drug in our system (the one that he is working on). I am all for 'debate' . This is NOT debate. This is getting bizarre with the in fighting over how to divvy up the money for tests or the best vaccine. The top level has lost their frigging minds. I am going to go meditate for light and love for the President of Tanzania. He is now reported dead and there is a big push to get Tanzania onboard with the Covid-19 on the forced vaccination bus.

Gerard_Kane Lady Sane • 7 hours ago
So-ooo, they cannot prove covid exists, and we cannot prove it doesn’t exist. But it sure seems to me that some new disease vector is out there... 25,000 dead in 6 weeks in NYC... extra hospitals in the park and on the Hudson River set up... all ventilators in use... medical personnel in attendance dying also. What was that? What about all the dead ministers, many of them in their 40s and 50s who died? What happened in South Dakota after the biker event? What in LA county a few months ago?
As Lt. Columbo would say: “something doesn’t add up.” And /or “I’m just trying to tie up some loose ends.” Well, I’ll bet most of us who are clear enough on our opposition to vaccinations, are not so clear on so-called covids-19 itself. My guesses so far tell me that there is some new virus out there as of 2/20, that no one knows much about it, that it’s not nearly as deadly as broadcast, but that it’s something you don’t exactly want to contact either--no one knows how one’s body will react to it, or what damage or chronic illness it might leave one with--the damn percentages (either side’s) don’t mean much when it’s you and we already are a country loaded up with chronic illness cases. AMEN

health4all Gerard_Kane • 4 hours ago
"all ventilators in use..." you say?
When I read the studies from China in early 2020 showing that 97% of the people on ventilators died, my first call was to our local EMTs who said in every call for breathing difficulty they ventilate first assess second. So my first action in this alleged pandemic was to get my POLST (PA state) forms filled out, signed by the local doctor, and put up on my refrigerator. I do not want to be ventilated under any circumstance. The week of December 15 2019 (after spending Saturday after Thanksgiving in Frederick Maryland where for no reason CDC shut down Ft Detrick was shut down since August,) I had some illness that caused headache, cough, mucus to dry into cookie dough, made you feel like you're never catching your breath, and takes away smell and taste. For several weeks I thought I would never enjoy food tastes and smells again. My husband had the same thing December 31st. We are clear where it came from. Not China! All the dissembling, lies and immediate accusations of "conspiracy theory" showed Central Deceit Control in high gear. NO public health input. NO Debate. Continual repetition of Rank Deception to this day. Pusher-men's 100m doses of what?!?

Sentinel Gerard_Kane • 4 hours ago
I believe there are several vectors for the symptoms lumped under COVID. According to Zach Bush, New York had dangerous cyanide levels in their smog particulates at the time of the deaths. Remember the doctors who famously said, I think we're treating the wrong disease? Dr. Sidell, I believe. He went on to describe cyanide poisoning as altitude sickness, blue face. One thing the lock downs did do was reduce cyanide levels. Zach Bush found correlation between high cyanide smogged out areas like El Paso, TX, for example, and high numbers of "COVID' deaths.
Glyphosate toxicity is ridiculous. Some people are stuffed to the gills with it, and it can produce similar symptoms, according to Zach Bush.
5g has been witnessed in labs to separate the ferritin from the hemoglobin in the blood. That would strangle oxygen transport to and from the cells leading to organ failure.
At the time of the Wuhan outbreak it was reported they had just turned on a newly installed set of 5g towers.
So there are many possibilities that may have contributed to the illusion of a pandemic. And that's not even counting the activation of otherwise dormant retroviruses, or active retroviral activity which may be behind most chronic diseases known today.

guest • 10 hours ago • edited
We are now experiencing the battle of the experts. Unless we ourselves have training and advanced knowledge in this particular science, we are going to have to decide on what is the most plausible. Considering that mRNA vaccines are a whole new species I don't believe anyone can predict anything. What we can do is look back at what occurred in previous prophylactic vaccine campaigns. Polio,Smallpox, Measles have generated a number of mutations that have had adverse affects on the health of our children and adults. Whether the medical establishment believes that the increase in autoimmune diseases, cancers, asthma, diabetes, SIDS etc are attributed to the rabid vaccine campaigns is irrelevant because profits blind them to reality. Even Dr's who have had a child damaged by a vaccine will deny the reality such as Dr.Peter Hortez.
I think one of the most honest Dr's around in regards to vaccine science is Dr Andrew Wakefield. I remember him saying in a talk that the body's immune system is activated when the virus enter the body via the nasopharyngeal route because that will initiate an immune response, Th1. The immune sytem develops a memory for th virus and is able to fight it off if it encounters it again. Vaccines, injections, initiate a Th2 response which “it drives the infection deeper into the interior and causes us to harbor it chronically.” So, if this is how immunity is developed and in the mRNA vaccine there is NO virus-what is being driven deep into the interior of the body? Considering the info that all of the makers of these vaccines have cherry picked the info they want to release to the public and other independent researchers-this is a nightmare waiting to happen.
So I think that every expert that jumps on this has forgotten the basic of so called vaccine science. Vaccines do not create immunity. There was a time when scientist were focused on making vaccines that mimic the Th1 immune response but no more. They can throw anything together, get it approved and inject it into millions of people with impunity. This is what happens when money, no oversight and no liability enters the picture.

Lady Sane guest • 6 hours ago
Yep. They don't provide immunity, they offer no benefit, its a mass Dr Strangelove experiment and the b.s. being shoveled is getting REAL deep

el Gallinazo • 6 hours ago
Lots of theocratic BS, angels dancing on the head of a pin among the "experts" who have, for the most part, deliberately got it all wrong from the beginning in order to lock down the planet and destroy the middle class. So let's make it real simple.
1) Bossche is right that the vaccines will destroy the effectiveness of the immune systems of the vaccinated as they were designed to do. The hundreds of millions of casualties will be blamed on the deviants - I mean variants.
2) Bossche is totally wrong that the viruses which escape from the vaccinated will endanger the unvaccinated. If anything, they will be less dangerous, perhaps even innocuous. These viruses will be specialists in killing the vaccinated. That is why everyone must be vaccinated.
Isn't that simple? They can put those vaccines where the CCP puts their swabs.

Lady Sane el Gallinazo • 4 hours ago

Eaglesees • 5 hours ago • edited
I have no expertise but only needed common sense to know that experimental, un-trialed, laboratory products given worldwide with no consideration for individual health conditions, and ignorant of short and long term effects, is criminal. It was/is also criminal to shut down society because of the virus excuse. I and billions of others who aren't yet mind-numbed zombies, are angry, economically damaged, and ready to revolt.
Whether a virus will escape. or one's natural immunity will be harmed, I know not, but I know that I am going to escape from ever playing along with the insanity. Real time scientists' debates were non-existent before the vaccines appeared and not allowed or censored after they appeared.
I have my Covid kit from That's the group of doctors who tried to join the Covid conversation and were cancelled. In the end, theirs may be the only advice worth following.

Marco Collins Eaglesees • 3 hours ago
You got that 100% right. I will NOT allow myself to injected with any experimental jab. I don't get sick, never had a flu shot, very strong immune system, spend over $300 per month on supplement to supplement my immune system. Why the hell would I take this toxic experimental garbage? for a "flu" where over 99% of the population recover fully.

Dani • 6 hours ago
Something's not quite right about this guy ... I'm hearing that it's nothing more than an astroturfing campaign.

Chelsea Yorkshire • 5 hours ago • edited
Let's cut to the chase and LOOK at the rest of NON Western nations:
LOOK at Cuba - vaccines totally controlled by the government. Done. Few talk about Covid.
LOOK at Russia- further reduced restrictions. Sputnik V has been very effective. The Russian population has moved on.
LOOK at China/parts of Asia - they've moved on, too.
Only the Western Nations with their multi-billionaires/Big Pharma, Big Medical Institutions & Journals, Western Media who broadcast this nonsense 24/7.
Wake up Americans & Europeans.
This Bossche person is a sham and totally under the thumb of.....Gates/Big Pharma/Big Medical Institutions, ETC, ETC. End of subject matter. We're sick of this.

hanky2 • 5 hours ago
Does this mean that I can hug granny if she took the shot? Can I get in the car with her? He said that the vaccinated ones will be the Typhoid Marys this time (I thought they were for previous things like Flu, Measles, and Shingles anyway).
Either way, they will work their hardest to pin the blame of the next hellscape, tangible or imaginary, on us, who don't jump to every one of their ridiculous commands and narratives. All we can do is try to mitigate the pogrom against us. Thank You Mr. Bigtree, Corbett, Frontline Drs. et al.

Dell • 10 hours ago
The doc is probably trying to make a buck (aren't they all?), but he must know what is going on in the vaccine community. I was convinced to resist a long time ago. My son (age 46) says I only listen to "anti-vaxxers". We'll see.

SugarLoaf Dell • 9 hours ago
My son (age 46) says I only listen to "anti-vaxxers"
Thing is they are the only ones telling the truth.

MarkTwain2020 • 3 hours ago
Was waiting with baited breath to watch Bigtree's show today, which comes out on Thursdays. He thanks his audience for "spreading the important news" about Bossche's theory, and then pivots to a story about going to Mars. That's it. Nothing about the debate. Nothing about a "catastrophic bloodbath" that he mentioned in the last episode. It's as thought nothing happened, and as though hundreds or thousands of us aren't wondering if we were tricked. Is this just an ego problem? Perhaps it's too strong to address the elephant in the room: Is Bigtree part of a controlled opposition? As he was the loudest megaphone of the Bossche interview, imo he should have devoted all, or most of, his show to this topic today.

faustinaagatha • 3 hours ago
I also do not understand how he can say populists are more of a threat to democracy than technocrats.

John Stone Mod faustinaagatha • 2 hours ago
I have written about Morrison

jonese • 4 hours ago
Excellent summary Dr. Verkerk - thanks. My question - do the mRNA and DNA vaccines that cause spike protein expression and a subsequent and specific adaptive immune system response limit our overall immune response. Other non-spike proteins that tend to be conserved among all corona viruses can also provoke an immune response through antigen presentation through MHC1 and MHC2. By focusing the vaccine induced immune response towards the most variable region of SARS CoV2 - the spike proteins - won't this cause a less diverse immune response and make immune escape more likely?

holisticpoet • 4 hours ago
The proof in the pudding will be to keep track of everyone you know who got vaccinated. When the pandemic gets worse and multitudes of people start dying, see how many of those who are dying were vaccinated and how many were not vaccinated. I suspect the vast majority of those who die will be those who were vaccinated as this vaccine is already known to weaken natural immune systems. This may be the only way to prove that the vaccine is a population control device made purposely to reduce the population.

health4all holisticpoet • 3 hours ago
The truth about which vaccine each took and what the outcome is over months and years would be science -- necessary for public health policy and individual health choice-making -- not proprietary for Pharma-corps. to hide!

Ektor • 2 hours ago
Thanks Mr. Verkerk. I ask myself why I would ever need to be vaccinated and especially with some unproven potion that wants to scramble my RNA/DNA? I haven't had any vaccinations in over 40 years and am relatively healthy at age 71. My immune system seems to be working just fine and I feel like I do not want pharma trying to adjust it to their specifications of which I will NEVER trust in any event.
I will take supplements and eat a better diet as my first defense against disease. I am not in the slightest convinced that SARS CoV-2 has yet to be firmly, positively and unequivocally identified. I think the current gene altering potions use an algorithm to attempt to estimate what the virus might be. So where is the accuracy and truth in that? And according to the vaccine makers themselves, they say that these vaccines will not prevent any deaths nor will they prevent the transmission of any disease..what? Then why would I need it?
Further, these previous trial methods used the resulting data and computed the RRD, or relative risk reduction of the vaccines and of course the data was mulched to fit the desired efficacy of 95%. That is what the FDA allows, the RRD method. I believe the true measure of a vaccine's efficacy is determined by using the ARR, or absolute risk reduction calculation. This provides an efficacy of less than 2% for Cov-2 vaccines and gene therapies. I believe that most flu vaccines would have similar efficacies of 2% but that would be seen as not to much of an impetus to sell or force people to get vaccinated.
I don't know what to think of this doctor and/or if he has some ulterior motive. These days, the actors are impervious to telling the truth and the media doesn't know the word truth even exists. In any gene therapies for me even if some monstrous virus invades the planet. The only thing that might stop it is our native immune systems and a good dose of nutrients and maybe even some L-lysine that seems to work against Covid.

Sentinel • 4 hours ago
I think Mr. Vanden Bossche is afraid for his family, and his beliefs about immunology are misguided by his passion for vaccine development. He's seeking a paradigm shift in vaccine design from antibody production to targeting innate immunity, which I believe is even more dangerous than what current and previous vaccine developments have produced. We should have learned by now the moral of the story is our God given innate immunity is far superior than man can ever imagine, merely requiring clean food the way God made it and according the 7 year sabbatical God requires for the land. Sustainable farming.
As Zach Bush pointed out, the only reason we have to turn to supplements is because of our brilliant idea to dam up lakes. Before dams, we had flood plains where millions of minerals washed back over the crop lands supplying food with all the vitamins and minerals needed.

MarkTwain2020 • 5 hours ago
Excellent article. I especially love the Controlled Opposition link. Just one point, why are we analyzing him from a distance as though he's an asteroid? He does live on earth, yes? This is probably the biggest red flag: He must know that venues like the Defender are the main sources of vaccine why didn't he contact them, or Coleman, or Tenpenny, or Bigtree, or Frei directly? Why are we forced to tease out information about him?
Geert vanden Bossche appears to have qualified as a vet in 1983 from the University of Ghent in Belgium and also has a Ph.D., although it’s unclear if this was also awarded by the same university, or not.

faustinaagatha • 3 hours ago
Under the subsection above "Scientific Credibility of Arguments", second paragraph: Influenza A is an RNA virus not a DNA virus. It "escapes" because the genome can combine with that of other influenza viruses and make new ones. I've read that cat and mouse coronaviruses can do the same thing.

Noel • 3 hours ago • edited
I'm not sure if this addresses the claim that the new "specific" antibodies produced by the vaccine will effectively thwart and interfere with the natural "non-specific" antibodies. Is there any evidence to support this idea? And if the specific antibodies do indeed take over, would that mean that a person could defend themselves against certain strains of COVID, yet would become susceptible to all other pathogens?
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....

Post Reply

Return to “Covid 19 Pandemic - mRNA Vaccine Safety - Lockdowns”