Our only hope of surviving vaccine-induced variants on the horizon is to honour, and keep building a healthy, responsive, robust innate immune system. This interview explains why and how
This transcription/interpretation/summary is offered as a companion to an interview conducted by Highwire podcaster, Del Bigtree, with vaccinologist, Dr Vanden Bossche.
Its aim is to provide text for those serious about understanding the pandemic. It provides clearly navigable sections, subsections and definitions for intelligent search, skimming, dipping into, reading and research, a timeline for cross referencing, a medium that enables copy and paste and, most importantly, hopefully, incentive to draw readers to watch the full interview and to share with their loved ones.
To help navigate, here are the main sections:
- 00:00: Who is Vanden Bossche, and what brought him to this point?
- 13:38: Understanding one’s natural immune system
- 26:04: Why mass vaccination in the midst of a pandemic is a colossal blunder
- 31:40: The counter logic: we’ll vaccinate ourselves out of this pandemic
- 46:37: Research backs the Vanden Bossche hypothesis
- 54:18: Natural versus vaccinal immunity
- 01:03:39: Mass vaccination is causing a catastrophe of an order of magnitude completely unprecedented
- Addendum: According to the science, no single C-19 vaccine mandate can be justified, on the contrary!
Please note that as this report contains interpretive elements there is a possibility that I might have misrepresented Vanden Bosscheand/or Bigtree. If it happens please forgive me as the instance in question would have been in good faith.
All images are screen captures from the video.
Geert Vanden Bossche has a background in veterinary medicine, is a certified expert in microbiology and infectious diseases, has a PhD in virology, and a longstanding career in human vaccinology. You can access his website here.
You can watch the entire video by clicking the frame below
Alternatively, watch on Rumble by clicking here
Who is Vanden Bossche, and what brought him to this point?
00:00 Del Bigtree introduces Geert Vanden Bossche: Hello Geert in Brussels, Belgium, and me in Austin, Texas. I wanted to put out a video that feels very intimate, because we’re going to get very intimate in this conversation. I’ve done several shows tracking what you have done over the last almost half a year. One such instance was in March of this year, when you put out a video from your own social media page warning the WHO (World Health Organisation) that there was a real problem with their approach towards the SARS Corona virus. I want to play it for the viewers:
Text of the soundtrack:
My dear colleagues at the WHO, my name is Geert Vanden Bossche. My background is veterinary medicine. I am a certified expert in microbiology and infectious diseases. I have a PhD in virology, and have a longstanding career in human vaccinology.
I’m urging you to immediately open the scientific debate on how human interventions in the Covid-19 pandemic are currently driving viral immune escape. I’m urging you to invite me for a scientific hearing open to the public and to the scientists all over the world on this very topic. Ignoring or denying the impact of stringent infection prevention measures combined with mass vaccination using prophylactic vaccines is a colossal blunder.
Please do listen to my cry of distress, and let’s first and foremost, deliberate on a scientifically justified strategy to mitigate the tsunami of morbidity and lethality that is now threatening us. And let’s, meanwhile, devise a strategy to eradicate the steadily emerging highly infectious variants. On behalf of humanity, I sincerely thank you for considering my call.
Read Vanden Bossche’s open written submission here
03:04: Bigtree wants viewers to appreciate that Vanden Bossche’s deep concerns, understandings, and outspokenness are grounded in practice, honed by research and guided by integrity; hence his line of questioning: I want to start with your background. What is it about your experiences that are giving a different perspective from what we’re hearing for other world-renowned scientists?
03:21: translational medicine is a myth: It has more to do with what I decided 10 to 12 years ago when I decided I would take a completely different approach to science, using it as a tool to solve real-world problems rather than an end in itself. At the time I had been worked in both academia and in industry and had started thinking of these two different worlds that both start with the letter ‘p’: the world of the publications – which is what counts in academia, and the world of products – which is what counts in industry. And in-between everybody talks about translational medicine.
My background is veterinary medicine, which is very broad and diversified; I specialised in virology, vaccinology and immunology in industry and zoonosis, (note: definitions for underlined words have been provided at the end of the paragraph in question; credit, unless otherwise indicated, is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)) and which I taught at university, and evolutionary biology – all of which have to do with the interactions between a pathogen and the host’s immune system. (Zoonosis: disease which can be transmitted to humans from animals | pathogen: a bacterium, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease | immune system: organs and processes of the body that provide resistance to infection and toxins: the thymus, bone marrow, and lymph nodes.)
05:29: academia pays no attention to the population effect: you need to draw from multiple fields of study in order to understand the evolutionary capacity of a pathogen when it is put under widespread immune pressure. This process is called the population effect, which doesn’t feature at all in clinical studies. (Put under widespread immune pressure: the host’s immune response puts pressure on a pathogen to mutate in order to overcome thereby escape this response (my interpretation gleaned from this paper)).
05:47: industry is industry & academia is academia, and ne’er the twain shall meet: I was so fed up that we put many products in the pipeline in industry without understanding their interaction and how they work. I was so fed up in academia in that all that counts is to be published. We need to connect both spheres because otherwise we find ourselves exactly in our current situation where we release products without understanding what’s going on, without understanding the pandemic. You know my point. I’m 200% convinced this is going to lead to a catastrophe.
06:22: Bigtree probes: why put your career in jeopardy? you’ve worked for Gavi (The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations) on the Ebola vaccine programme, and with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Now obviously you didn’t start out to put your career in jeopardy. You must have reached out to your peers at the WHO, at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, at Gavi. How did you reach out, and what was the response?
06:52: “Geert you’re right but nobody’s going to listen to you because you go against the mainstream”: I reached out at least three times to all the global health authorities, public health authorities, CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention), NIH (National Institutes of Health), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO. I maybe got one or two anonymous responses including one of the world’s if not the world’s most famous vaccinologist (Vanden Bossche didn’t want to divulge his or her name) who told me: “Geert you’re right. These vaccines are just going to breed variants but nobody is going to listen to you because you go against the mainstream.”
Imagine! Imagine! It is just – I have no words for this. I have no words for this.
07:50: were you surprised? were you surprised when you got no response? Was this the first time you reached out to these people?
07:48: déjà vu (the Ebola story in West Africa was the same): no I was not surprised. Ebola. It was the same. But that was small scale, the countries in West Africa.
I helped coordinate the Ebola programme, part of which was the vaccines, but not just the vaccines, also the number of measures needing to be taken to control the Ebola crisis in collaboration with WHO, and Unicef (United Nations Children’s Fund) and the CDC by strengthening health measures, etc. So it was collaboration between all these international health authorities. But since I came from the vaccine field I was particularly interested in the vaccines that would be deployed.
08:57: Bigtree focuses the discussion: but what was that issue, when it came to evaluating the effectiveness of the vaccine and the safety of the vaccine?
09:03: in North Africa they administered an often inflammatory-inducing vaccine for a lethal inflammatory virus, but only started measuring the effect of the vaccine after 10 days: basically it came down to the naïve interpretation of those who were conducting the study, where the incubation period of Ebola is approximately 10 days, and their decision to postpone clinical observations until after (the virus’s) incubation period had expired, but then, inexplicably, in addition to the index case, also to vaccinate contacts, instead of using them as the control group – the end-point of the study being, to establish vaccine efficacy so many days after administering the vaccination. (Incubation period: the period between exposure to an infection and the appearance of the first symptoms | index case: the first identified case in a group of related cases of a particular communicable or heritable disease | control group: a group acting as a control in an experiment; especially a group of people participating in a study or trial who, typically without their knowledge, serve as a control by not being given the treatment being tested.)
But the vaccine that were administering was a live vector which, everybody knows, and I come from the (indistinct) field (09:47), is very-very strong in inducing inflammatory cytokines And if you study the pathogenesis of Ebola you will learn that people often also die from a huge inflammatory cytokine storm. (Inflammatory: relating to or causing inflammation of a part of the body | cytokines: any of a number of substances, such as interferon, interleukin, and growth factors, which are secreted by certain cells of the immune system and have an effect on other cells | pathogenesis: the manner of development of a disease.)
So what do you think happens? Almost none of them made it till day 10, before they started the observation.
10:50: flabbergasted, Bigtree makes sure he understands Geert completely: let me get this straight. They know the incubation of Ebola to be about 10 days so they identify and vaccinate the index case, they then also identify and vaccinate everybody who had come in contact with the original person (i.e. they ring vaccinate the index case).
But they then decide: ‘let’s ignore any data for the first 10 days because we know that if an event is going to happen within those first 10 days we don’t want it to contaminate the final result’. But now what you’re saying is they administered an inflammatory vaccine to people who were potentially incubating a highly inflammatory disease. That’s what we know. They’re haemorrhaging, they have issues, you are then creating a perfect storm with these two things (vaccine on top of the disease) coming together, where, obviously – if someone’s already had a haemorrhagic disease of huge cytokines also driven by the vaccine – then those people are going to die. So did you ask to see any data, because obviously there were deaths happening that weren’t making it into the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of this product? Did you reach out to the WHO to say, can I see the data before the 10 days?
12:04: research concluded that the Ebola vaccine was 100% efficient. I immediately knew something was very wrong: The question was very-very simple: we just wanted to have the case fatality rate of the whole period from the very beginning – as of day zero from the vaccination – so we could compare the case fatality rates of the vaccinees with that of the placebo. (Case fatality rate: the proportion of cases of a disease or condition that are fatal within a specified period of time | placebo: a substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs.)
I was working with Gavi at the time, and asked that question of the WHO. We never got the results. We were told they were confidential.
And then I remember I was on vacation and my boss sent me this paper in the Lancet (Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine in preventing Ebola virus disease: final results from the Guinea ring vaccination, open-label, cluster-randomised trial (Ebola Ça Suffit!)) (see below), which reported vaccine efficacy as 100%
I immediately knew something was very wrong.
But of course Ebola was small scale, only in West Africa. But I’m sharing this to demonstrate that now isn’t the first time that I’m taking a deep dive into such things. And it’s because I cannot stand, firstly, that the science is being violated and, secondly – that this is more than about freedom, conspiracy theories or side effect, although side-effects are important – what we’re now dealing with is a global health drama that affects every single human being.
Understanding one’s natural immune system
13:38: what if there had been no vaccine and matters had simply run their course: we would have had a pandemic; a natural pandemic which – because this is not a childhood disease – would primarily or almost exclusively have affected the vulnerable: the elderly who have an aging immune system, or people with underlying diseases, or are otherwise immune suppressed.
The only way to calm down a pandemic is through cutting down transmission and the only way to cut down transmission is through herd immunity. (Herd immunity: resistance to the spread of an infectious disease within a population that is based on pre-existing immunity of a high proportion of individuals as a result of previous infection or vaccination.)
So we would have had a couple of waves. Some people would have died depending on what would have been the possibilities of treatments for the vulnerable; while at no stage would younger people have developed asymptomatic infection (15:19). Then, of course, you have in-between people who would not have sufficient innate immunity to be protected against the disease. Those people would have got the disease, recovered and then acquired a long-lived immunity from the disease. (Asymptomatic: only see the antigen for a few days so your immune system is not truly primed (Vanden Bossche).)
The virus would not have been eradicated within one year but would most likely have been under control due, to a large extent, to the innate immunity that all youngsters and people in good health have.
16:02: innate antibodies: comprise our pre-existing antibodies pre-primed at birth to act as our first line of defence. Innate antibodies are found in every vertebrate species (frogs, birds, fish, mammals, reptiles), which tells us how important they are from an evolutionary standpoint but have been completely neglected when it comes to our understanding of the virus and its spread. We are talking antibodies that protect all young children and people in good health from disease, which then tells us that SARS-CoV-2 is not a childhood disease. (Antibodies: a blood protein produced in response to and counteracting a specific antigen. Antibodies combine chemically with substances which the body recognizes as alien, such as bacteria, viruses, and foreign substances in the blood.)
17:41 naturally acquired antibodies: comprise antibodies generated when coming into contact with an antigen. The cells that generate these innate antibodies we call B1 cells. B1 cells are different from B cells that generate naturally acquired antibodies (18:14) or antigen-specific antibodies, and which have a high affinity for a specific antigen, are long-lived and acquired when we talk about exposure to SARS and other infections and diseases. Once you have acquired and then recovered from the disease they have long longevity. And even if they disappear they generate immunological memory so can be recalled very rapidly, because as soon as the body is re-exposed to the virus or sees the antigen again, within no time, because they are memory cells, will again start to produce naturally acquired antibodies that will then protect them. (Antigen: a toxin or other foreign substance which induces an immune response in the body, especially the production of antibodies.)
21:25 cellular immunity explained: here we’re talking, for instance, T-cells (acquired immunity). But the innate system also includes the natural cellular component, for example the natural K-cells (natural killer cells). So it’s even more complex. For instance we have effectors (antibodies or cells) that go about neutralising the virus or germ or killing the virus-infected cells. If the virus is too powerful to be killed or neutralised by your antibodies (innate or acquired) the effector cells can still bind to the virus thereby facilitate the entry of that virus into antigen-presenting cells which then cut the virus into bits so that different pieces can be properly presented to the T or K-cells, which means both compartments can work together (antibody part and cellular part) to neutralise a free-floating virus or a virus inside the cell, which is what killer cells do, they kill virus-infected cells. (Antigen-presenting cells: any cell that assists in the production of immune responses by presenting antigen; especially any of several types of cell with monocytic lineage that present antigen in association with class II MHC molecules, to helper T lymphocytes.)
23:06: difference between prevention of infection and prevention of disease: once the virus is inside and destroying the cell you’re then predisposes to the disease. But if you then have killer cells that can kill those virus-infected cells, they will enable you to recover from the disease; whereas if you have functional antibodies which can readily neutralise the virus as it enters you can prevent the infection of the cell in the first place.
(See also 02:01:26 under the section headed ‘Reaching for a fuller understanding of the innate immune system’. Additionally you are referred to the addendum to this post of slides made available by Vanden Bossche for sharing: ‘According to the science, no single C-19 vaccine mandate can be justified, on the contrary!’. Thirdly there’s an excellent 20-minute video on Vanden Bossche’s website: The only fight you should have, is the fight for your health which will provide further explication while simultaneously underpinning how important one’s natural innate immune system is for survival against Covid.)
Why mass vaccination in the midst of a pandemic is a colossal blunder
26:04: why the vaccine rollout will prove a disaster: I’m just going to repeat this because this is literally what I said at the very-very beginning and will lead to the explanation to your question: never ever use vaccines that do not induce sterilizing immunity to do mass vaccination in the midst of a pandemic. (Sterilize: make (something) free from bacteria or other living microorganisms | immunity: the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin by the action of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells (OED) and, combined as a concept: kills the virus (my sense))
Normally if you get infected there’s a viral load due to the infection and then almost after you have transmitted the virus – very often it’s like this – the antibodies start to bounce. Consequently the peak of the virus is reached after the viral replication has already taken place. So the antibodies you generate can no longer put this new virus or variant under immune pressure. It’s already gone, almost, by the time these antibodies mount. (Bounce: unsure what is meant here, possibly, become active | viral replication: the process by which genetic material or a living organism gives rise to a copy of itself | mount: organize and initiate (a campaign or other course of action))
So if you are vaccinating people during a pandemic, it means that the antibodies are mounting while they can be confronted with the new virus. There you start to put immune pressure on the virus. So the combination of massive vaccination programmes across the entire population in the midst of a pandemic can only lead to natural selection of the fittest – and because many people are in a similar situation – the variant that can overcome the pressure will, of course, be enriched in the population and ultimately become the dominant variant. (Natural selection of the fittest: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as be the main process that brings about evolution, compared with ‘survival of the fittest’: the continued existence of organisms which are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution. )
There are many studies that confirm this hypothesis of mine. For instance, this paper from Canada: Canada’s COVID-19 status: Delta variant sparking ‘increased disease activity’, provinces need to be careful about reopening, top officials say where they introduced mass vaccination, and in August they had 50% of the Delta variant circulating, one month later the virus was 100% Delta.
So we have never ever been saying that these more infectious variants were generated by vaccines or mass vaccination. No, they were already circulating. They existed already. But within a short timeframe, what mass vaccination has done is generate an excellent breeding ground for these more infectious variants, so now their propagation has exploded. This explosion is therefore directly attributable to mass vaccination.
29:10: Bigtree’s killer-whale/shark analogy: I have an analogy that I want to run by you. It’s not that it’s mutating, as in growing arms and legs and things like that, it’s that you’re just selecting a variant that’s already there but it wasn’t the popular one, it wasn’t the dominant variant. The dominant was the more mild form of the illness. So in my analogy imagine you’re a scuba diver and you’re going swimming in the ocean and there are killer whales in the ocean. Now the killer whales we know rarely attack human beings but on an odd rare occasion they’ve been known to be hungry and decided to attack a human being. There are also sharks in the ocean. Sharks we know love to attack human beings and do it all the time. They’re much more dangerous to human beings. But killer whales out-compete sharks. They can eat a shark so you don’t usually find sharks and killer whales in the same water. But if the scuba diver decides: I’m afraid of the killer whales and that rare risk that I could be killed by them, and wipes them out, what you’re doing is taking away that environment where they’re outcompeting the shark. Now the sharks come in because there are no killer whales around and now the sharks become much more dangerous to the scuba driver. They’re the more dangerous variant. Now all we have left is sharks and now all of us are in danger of getting in the water. Is that it, sort of?
30:45: Vanden Bossche strengthens Bigtree’s metaphor: that analogy would be stronger if the weapon the scuba diver is using can only take out killer whales. The weapon doesn’t work for the sharks. It only works for the killer whales. That weapon is the immune system of course. The sharks can resist, the killer whales cannot resist.
The counter logic: we’ll vaccinate ourselves out of this pandemic
31:40: Bigtree wanting to play devil’s advocate, first checks whether Vanden Bossche knows Dr Paul Offit: I want to play a clip by a guy named ZDogg who does an internet talk show and he interviewed a very famous doctor here, Dr Paul Offit. I guess he’s a virologist. He’s invented vaccines or made vaccines. I’m not sure if you’ve ever come in contact with Paul Offit.
32:00: Vanden Bossche confirms Offit is a world-renowned vaccinologist: he’s very well-known because he’s one the editors of the most famous vaccine book (Plotkin’s vaccines) together with Stan Plotkin and Walt Orenstein. You cannot not know him.
32:17: Bigtree plays the clip of ZDoggMD (Dr Zubin Damania) interviewing Offit: OK, so he’s a big deal. He’s your equal peer. He’s asked about your theory on pressuring the virus and making it deadly, and this whole thing you’ve been worried about, and this is what he had to say in this interview:
Text of the soundtrack:
[Zubin] So there’s a guy, Geert Vanden Bossche. Have you heard about this guy? Yeah, so apparently, a virologist in Europe, his premise, and you can maybe explain it better than me is that, oh, by vaccinating during a pandemic, we’re putting pressure on the virus to emerge – vaccine escape variants – and that we’ve primed our immune system. Therefore, follow-up vaccines won’t be very effective. Something along those lines to paraphrase. Am I paraphrasing that right? And what do you think about this? ‘Cause it has a grip on the public, this idea.
[Paul] With what evidence? I mean, you have for example, you have measles. We’ve had a measles vaccine since the early 1960s. Measles is like this virus, a single stranded RNA virus,. Measles, like this virus, does mutate, nonetheless, despite 60 years of measles vaccine, we have not seen strains generated that resist immunity from vaccination. I mean, flu is different, flu mutates on a daily basis. I mean, that virus is a moving target. This virus also mutates but much slower than, say, influenza does, we’ll see. I mean, the notion that you’re creating, you’ve created a population, either from natural infection or immunization that is likely to have several years of protection. That’s a good thing. And although this virus may mutate to the point that it escapes recognition by current immunity from vaccination immunization, then you come up with a second generation vaccine. That’s what you do. I don’t think that’s gonna happen actually. I think that the virus has probably seen already about 12,000 mutations on this virus already. I mean, and I think you may get to the point, if they’re resisting all immunity, meaning, it’s as if you never got the vaccine, you’d never gotten actually taken. I think that’s probably a lethal mutation.
[Zubin] Yeah, so in other words, you’re running the runway out on the virus’s ability to change itself.
[Paul] Lethal to the virus, not lethal to us.
[Zubin] That’s right, lethal to the virus, right. And so, within that parameter, then I think, again, it’s another compelling reason to just go and get vaccinated now.
34:43: Bigtree challenges Vanden Bossche: “Offit says you’re wrong”: he says just like measles this is a single strand virus, that we’ll achieve immunity the same way we do with measles, he says the flu mutates faster, every day, he said, but the Corona virus is not as fast. I find it ironic that in the end he says it’s mutated 12,000 times, that would mean there are 12,000 variants or something, which, to a lay person, sounds like a lot but I don’t know. But what do you reckon? In the end, he says, we’re going to have immunity for several years and should there be a another variant all we’ll have to do is make a new vaccine to deal with that new variant and we’re good to go. That seems to be the thinking of almost every scientist working for governments around the world. Where do you differ from that perspective?
34:42: Vanden Bosch provides a long list of reasons why current measures in place to combat SARS-CoV-2 are unprecedented and that render Offit’s offence void: Have you ever seen mass vaccination across all age groups against measles? We vaccinate children against measles. Why? It’s because measles is a childhood disease. And remember about the innate antibodies. Measles is one of the most infectious viruses we know that immediately breaks through the innate immunity, so if you don’t come with a vaccine you cannot stop this thing. Second, what I also said, never ever vaccinate with vaccines that do not block transmission during a pandemic of a highly mutable virus. Measles is not a highly mutable virus. It can be an (indistinct) virus but not highly mutable. Influenza is. Were you to attempt mass vaccinations against flu with vaccines that cannot block transmission you’ll end up with exactly the same situation. We’re not comparing the same things. What’s happening now with respect to Covid is dissimilar to the flu. We have herd immunity with flu so from time to time immunity weakens, followed by a breakthrough but, guess what, as soon as flu starts to spread it encounters young people who have very good innate immunity who will block and eliminate the virus or encounter people who were previously ill and who have mounted long-lived broad spectrum antibodies against the flu. Now is completely different. We have never done mass vaccination of measles across all age groups. (Mutable: liable to change. )
38:20: the vaccination rule: you only vaccinate vulnerable people, for instance, children against measles, and the elderly against SARS-Cov-2. Had we followed the current regime back in the 60s with measles, we would most likely have encountered the self-same problem. The other difference (between measles and SARS) is that the measles vaccine is a live vaccine (live, as in an attenuated or weakened form of the germ that causes the disease) which strongly stimulates innate immunity and that can therefore induce sterilizing immunity. This doesn’t mean you can eradicate measles – we had the same with polio which was also a live-attenuated vaccine which failed to eradicate the polio virus, as you can still have transmission by asymptomatic people. But we will be able to control polio much more easily. Why, because you’ll have a lot more immune stimulation that sterilizes with a live vaccine; whereas the current crop of vaccines for Covid with antibodies cannot control the infection and the transmission, whereas innate immunity can. This is why innate immunity is so super-efficient. So had we a live virus (instead of mRNA) our vaccines would have been a lot more efficient.
42:20: in summary:
- SARS-CoV-2, generally speaking, is a highly mutable virus whereas the measles virus is less mutable
- the vaccines are different: live, for measles, which induces a strong immune response that mostly neutralizes the virus vs a largely non-sterilizing mRNA, as newer more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants are discovered
- measles targeted the vulnerable whereas our current vaccine rollout is across the board thus causing immune pressure and new variants
43:15: yes, but by then they’ll come up with a new vaccine, Bigtree counters: Geert, Paul Offit says it doesn’t really matter if you’re right or not because even if we have selected for a variant and at some point that variant becomes the dominant strain, at that point we’ll come up with a new vaccine that handles the future variant, end of problem. Why is that an issue? That seems to be what the FDA and everybody is counting on. We’ve seen the studies that say this variant is getting problematic: Oxford researcher confident Covid vaccines can be adapted to protect against future virus strains & Future Delta variant mutations seem to elude vaccine antibodies and consequently we may need a new vaccine. Why are you worried that’s not going to happen? That is clearly what they say is going to happen. So why won’t that save us?
43:55: again, I’m always repeating: do not mass vaccinate with non-sterilizing vaccines during a pandemic: what Paul Offit is alluding to is the influenza strategy. And again, I’m always repeating: do not vaccinate with non-sterilizing vaccines during a pandemic, as you are loading your gun while on the battlefield, while already being attacked. If you do this before you get attacked there’s no problem because after infection the antibodies speak, so you’re not putting the virus under pressure. But now you’re vaccinating people without giving them quarantine until they have full-fledged antibodies, you don’t tell them: stay at home for at least six weeks because you need your first shot, you need your second and it’s going to take a full six weeks before you have full-fledged antibodies. These people go out and the next day or week they can get reattacked by the virus. Why? First of all it’s a pandemic. Second, we are now dealing with a new pandemic. This is a pandemic of a highly infectious variant. This is a pandemic of the Delta. Again, the conditions are not fulfilled, as in comparing apples with oranges.
Research backs the Vanden Bossche hypothesis
46:37: what if one day there’s a pathogen no vaccine can stop: you would like to see us stop this mass vaccination campaign because it’s causing the pressure you’re talking about, and Paul Offit’s approach with mass vaccination is going to create a variant that each time we then vaccinate we’re going to create a more and more infectious problem. Is the fear that one day there’ll be a pathogen that no vaccine can stop? Is that basically the concern?
47:01: research clearly points to a future of vaccine-resistant pathogens: when I read peer-reviewed journals from molecular epidemiologists, right, I mean they’re simply predicting this, and I cannot understand, it’s like I’m telling these things, but if you don’t mind, I can give you citations. Peer-reviewed papers from Harvard Medical School, the Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, MIT, etc., for instance: Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 protein
There are statements like:
When nABs (neutralising antibodies) are broadly present in the population, population-level selection for antibody-evading, infection-competent viral mutants may result in a rapid resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 infections
This is what we’re seeing right now: a resurgence of the infections globally and therefore an increase in in-effectivity. Further:
Evidence from multiple experimental studies […] suggests that specific single mutants may be able to evade spike-targeting vaccinal immunity in many individuals and rapidly lead to a spread of vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV-2.
One variant that can escape convalescent plasma neutralization is already circulating in South Africa and could experience greater positive selection pressure once vaccines are deployed widely.
Finally, the overall size of the pandemic in terms of numbers of active infections will play a significant role in whether the virus can be brought under control with nAb prophylactics or vaccines. The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the population increases substantially as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission that exerts specific pressure on other proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., high-efficiency filtration, masking, ultraviolet air purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune escape.
In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the build-up of large standing populations of virus, greatly increasing the risk of immune escape.
There are other publication – I don’t want to take too much of your time – where it is very-very clear that I’m not the only one. I’m probably the only one who dares to speak up but world class molecular epidemiologists are very well aware and were warning us at the beginning, for instance this one published 25 July 2021: The emergence and ongoing convergent evolution of N501Y lineages coincides with a major global shift in the SARS-CoV-2 selection landscape [J] 50:28 which finds that:
The emergence and rapid rise in prevalence of three independent SARS-CoV-2 “501Y lineages”, B.1.1.7, B.1.351 and P.1., (i.e. alpha, beta, gamma) in the last three months of 2020 prompted renewed concerns about the evolutionary capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to adapt to both rising populations immunity, and public health interventions such as vaccines and social distancing. as a consequence., all have gained epidemiological and immunological properties that will likely complicate the control of Covid-19. 50:49.
As a consequence all have gained epidemiological and immunological properties that will likely complicate the control of Covid-19.
So this is not new. People know. People have seen even before we started the mass vaccination where the virus was most likely under heavy infectious pressure already because it was present in highly populated areas, for example, South Africa or Brazil. But this pressure was directed against the spike protein, and it’s been shown that the many mutations in the S-protein have been driven by immune selection pressure exerted by the population. Now guess what. We are now coming with a vaccine the target of which is the spike protein, and the spike protein is the target of the infectiousness. Consequently I’m exerting immune pressure on top of the pressure that existed before the mass vaccination; I’m therefore exerting pressure on the infectiousness of the virus. That is what S is doing, namely, making the virus infectious. So then, if that is the case, I would expect an explosion of more infectious viruses, and that is exactly what we are seeing.
52:29: Bigtree is gobsmacked: why doesn’t Paul Offit (the WHO etc.) know this?
52:35: with due respect, world-renowned experts are now making big-big mistakes because they’re not doing their homework, or because they cannot draw from all these different fields – so they have no right to speak: I don’t know. I’m under the impression that sometimes – this is my personal impression – the establishment (experts in particular disciplines) thinks, well, we have made it. I’ve made my reputation, my career, and based just on my knowledge, I’m going to draw conclusions. If you are tackling a very complex problem like a pandemic and you intervene with preventative measures like vaccines then you can afford to leave stones unturned, then, for sure, this is a recipe to make big-big mistakes. But with due respect, world-renowned professors are now making big-big mistakes because they’re not doing their homework, or because they cannot draw from all these different fields: immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, and if there’s one field that is missing because you think you are a virologist and not an immunologist and think you can explain this from the viewpoint of virology only then you have no right to speak.
Natural versus vaccinal immunity
54:18: how far can we trust natural immunity as opposed to vaccinal: you concede in earlier exchanges that people with natural immunity are being re-infected, even though studies out of Israel are showing there is long-lived, robust protection from natural immunity, vide: A 1 to 1000 SARS-CoV-2 reinfection proportion in members of a healthcare provider in Israel: a preliminary report
This study demonstrates that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity
Natural immunity is clearly far better than vaccinated immunity, yet you have been pretty vocal about your concern about reinfection. So what are you saying that’s different from what we’re seeing in the studies from Israel, saying it’s less than 1%, virtually non-existent, this reinfection problem? Are they the same problem? Explain it to me.
55:58: we need to distinguish between symptomatic and asymptomatic infections: let me correct that impression. I am most certainly not against naturally-acquired immunity. But there are two things. First of all, the reason people get re-infected is because after asymptomatic infection you develop short-lived antibodies. Remember the study in Brazil, Brazil city/might have reached herd immunity and, guess what, a few months thereafter they had the second huge wave. The problem is that many must have developed asymptomatic infection which would have lasted a few weeks versus those who contracted the disease and developed the long-lasting antigen-specific antibodies with memory and who were of course protected. Therefore we need to distinguish between symptomatic (long-lived) versus asymptomatic (only see the antigen for a few days so your immune system is not truly primed) infections.
58:25: diving deeper: we understand the problem with the vaccine, referencing: CDC: Covid vaccines won’t stop the transmission; fully vaccinated can still get, spread Delta strain, namely, it doesn’t stop the infection, it doesn’t stop the transmission, it doesn’t neutralise the virus and therefore just creates pressure allowing it to be a breeding ground and so, in some circumstances – as this vaccine is pressuring – and we’ve created this unnatural world, we really want as many people not to come in contact with it or, at least, to be asymptomatic so they still have this innate immunity in place. Are we in a situation where innate immunity is preferential compared to the naturally acquired immunity?
01:01:26: innate immunity should be understood as broader than purely pre-existing immunity and less specific than our acquired immunity: well certainly for this type of disease, which is not a childhood disease and typically the innate immunity is more than sufficient, in fact, the acquired immunity is only very important where you have a situation where the innate immunity is not sufficient.
I wanted to make a small correction to what you’re saying: the vaccinal antibodies can also neutralise, the problem is that their neutralising capacity is limited because the S-protein in the vaccine is different from the protein in the circulating strain, whereas the innate antibodies from a natural infection provide an immediate update because you get infected by the most relevant variant that is circulating and, secondarily, your innate antibodies prime in a much more efficient way to encompass the diversity of variants which your immune system will recognise. It’s therefore a more immediate, relevant and comprehensive ‘update’ than induced in vaccinal antibodies.
01:02:54: I don’t want to make things complicated but it is somewhere between the purely pre-existing protection that has no memories and broadly-protective and cross-protective, and the one that is acquired, which is very specific and has memory. You have something in-between. All this is documented. These are like innate antibodies that have already some kind of maturation – not really memory – that are a little bit narrower in what they recognise. And people who keep in good shape, have this kind of innate, trained immunity.
Mass vaccination is causing a catastrophe of an order of magnitude completely unprecedented
01:03:39: immunity of the healthy unvaccinated will very shortly outpace that of the vaccinated: I tell you, everybody can write this down: the immunity of the unvaccinated will become better and better thanks to training; as they’re continuously confronted with the virus.
This you will see and you can already see in the graphs published by Public Health England, Case rates by vaccination status for weeks 33-36 vs weeks 38-41 | Public Health England where the
efficacy or the number of diseased people remains more or less the same among the vaccinees but in the non-vaccinated you start seeing the number of infected people beginning to slow down. This is because their immunity, whether trained or preexisting, is a sterilizing immunity which strengthens over time with further exposure to the virus thus strengthening the immune system. And if there are fewer infections among the unvaccinated then, of course, you’ll get fewer disease cases, and you’ll see the number of disease cases in the unvaccinated dropping – and this applies also to the children – you will see, even though we continue the mass vaccination, trained innate immunity (in children and adults) bringing down the infection rate.
So guess what? These experts who don’t understand anything about the evolutionary dynamics of the pandemics are saying, yes we have low disease cases for the kids but we need to vaccinate them because they are having a tremendous impact on transmission, refer: CDC recommends paediatric Covid-19 vaccine for children 5 to 11 years. Of course they do, but as these young people hone their innate immunity they’ll out-compete children with short-lived (vacinal) antibodies
This you will see demonstrated in the publication of Public Health England where, in the left panel, in the first three columns (under 39)
you see the effect of the vaccine on infection, where there are fewer vaccinees infected than non-vaccinated. Under the age of 30 or 40, even, the vaccine has a dramatic effect on the reduction of transmission. But let’s wait for one month as the innate immunity of the unvaccinated gets trained by the circulating virus, and then look at the graph in the right pane:
Now in the age group 30-39 it’s the unvaccinated that are experiencing fewer infections, 18-29 it’s more or less the same, whereas in the very young there’s little advantage in not being vaccinated. But this is only because their immune systems are new to the world and, therefore, with little exposure to antigens, so yes, it appears on the surface that there’s a major advantages by being vaccinated. But wait, I tell you, track this in a month or so, and in the 18 age-group you’ll find it’ll be in the favour of the unvaccinated thanks to their trained innate immunity with its sterilizing advantage and also, over time, the very young.
01:07:52: vaccinating young people is going to cause a major disaster: if we are going to vaccinate these young people we are going to rob them of their sterilizing immune capacity, which then means we can completely forget about herd immunity. Can you imagine the medium to long-term consequences of suppressing humankind’s innate immunity on a permanent basis, because this is exactly what we’ll be doing if we immunize young children? Secondly, we will be creating a breeding ground for the most infectious strains thereby speeding up resistance to any vaccines in the pipeline. Thirdly, when the day comes – which will be sooner than later – when the latest variant outflanks the vaccine (i.e. the arrival of a vaccine-resistant variant), the innate antibodies of the vaccinated will be completely suppressed, and their acquired antibodies through vaccination, worthless. Can you imagine what that will mean for individual health and population health? This is just going to be a major disaster.
1:09:11: FDA’s authorisation of vaccines for children: Bigtree plays a short clip from the FDA meeting that authorised vaccines for young children (FDA: Vaccines and related biological products advisory committee October 26, 2021), of one of the committee members, Dr Eric Rubin, concluding:
We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is, unless you start giving it. Yea, that’s just the way it goes. (see the screen capture below)
01:09:48: the current vaccination policy’s devastating endpoint: You can talk about many-many things. You can of course talk about all the side-effects, and what they’re now saying, yea, we’re using human beings – even children – as experimental animals. But the one thing we can guarantee is that the safety impact of driving this virus into resistance, thereby depriving children of both their innate immunity and their vaccinal protection, and irrevocably preventing the population from ever generating herd immunity will be of an order of magnitude way beyond the side-effects we’re now talking about.
So what we are causing is that instead of the population exerting selection pressure on the virus, we are going to allow this virus to exert selection pressure on the innate immunity of the host. So that means only people who will still have their innate immunity intact have a chance to survive.
01:11:21: what is your worst-case scenario? if you game this out on a population level what are we looking at?
01:11:44: mass vaccination is causing a catastrophe of an order of magnitude completely unprecedented: I cannot talk about numbers but what is clear is that the order of magnitude will be something completely unprecedented because, again, and this is the logic of the science: what we will obtain, if we do this, if we continue the mass vaccination, if we continue to boost, if we don’t do anything about infection pressure, we immunize all the children, I mean, if that is not going to be a catastrophe you can put me in gaol. I’m very serious about this. If any expert would dare to say this: ‘if I’m wrong with the vaccination of the children you can put me in gaol’. Nobody! I do this because I’m convinced. I’ve done my homework. I’ve turned this thing upside down from all sides. It is like pieces of a puzzle, a very complex puzzle that can only match in one single way. If it scientifically makes sense, and you see all the data, and the data comes together exactly. Of course I cannot say January or February when, for instance, it’ll explode in Israel. But I know it is going to explode. I know it’s going to be very fast. I think before the end of the year, even. But I cannot tell when, for sure. We are giving the virus the opportunity to do a natural selection among the human race: those who have innate immunity versus those who have not. None left, because of what I’ve explained.
I know this is very strong. You know me in the meantime. I’m not into sensation. It cannot be that we vaccinate the children. It’s impossible. That is our last hope. It’s our last hope.
Below is a copy and paste of slides Vanden Boscche distributed, inter alia, in support of Maria Hubmer-Mogg a Medical Doctor from Graz in Austria who initiated the We show our faces (#wirzeigenunsergesicht) protest against pandemic measures in Austria. Watch Hubmer-Mogg’s moving address to the crowd of protesters (mostly, I believe) of parents by clicking here.
According to the science, no single C-19 vaccine mandate can be justified, on the contrary!
Author: G. Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD | DO COPY – DO DISTRIBUTE – Nov. 2021
There is no greater impotence in all the world like knowing you are right and that the wave of the world is wrong, yet the wave crashes upon youNorman Mailer
Innate immunity: nature’s most precious gift to a child
- innate immunity is present at birth and protects children from a multitude of different diseases, including viral diseases such as Coronavirus (incl. all SC-2 variants), Influenza virus and some other respiratory viruses
- innate immunity is generally acknowledged to be our ‘first line’ of immune defense
- innate immunity has an antibody (Ab) component (‘innate’ Abs) and a cellular component (‘natural killer’ cells) that can prevent or abrogate infection, respectively. In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, innate immunity enables sterilizing immunity and is, therefore, a key pilar of herd immunity.
- as innate immunity is ‘innate’, it can operate immediately upon attack by a pathogen and does not need to ‘mature’ before full-fledged protection can be provided
- because innate immunity broadly protects from a broad and diversified spectrum of respiratory viral diseases (e.g., CoVs, Flu, RSV), SARS CoV-2 (SC-2) is typically NOT a childhood disease.
- with aging, natural titers of innate Abs wane and may, therefore, result in enhanced susceptibility of older age groups to SC-2 (full text: ‘The immune system of children: The key to understanding SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility’
So why does innate immunity not protect against all (viral) diseases?
- some receptors on host target cells readily outcompete innate Abs for binding to the virus (e.g., viruses causing chronic diseases)
- some viruses are highly infectious and easily break through the host’s innate immune defense (e.g., measles). Such viruses (or bacteria) typically cause childhood ‘diseases’
- that’s why we need vaccines to fight chronic diseases (unfortunately, we don’t have these vaccines yet) and childhood diseases!
But why then do some of our children get C-19 disease?
- children (and youngsters) who typically got asymptomatic infection at the beginning of the pandemic are now increasingly seeing their innate immune Abs suppressed by short-lived, nonfunctional spike (S)-specific Abs which they acquired as a result from previous asymptomatic exposure
- repetitive exposure to highly infectious variants (e.g., Delta variant) leads to mild to moderate suppression of CoV recognition by their innate Abs (I will explain this more in detail)
- the dominance of highly infectious Delta variant cannot be explained by any phenomenon other than mass vaccination across multiple age groups
- luckily enough, healthy children are endowed with high titers of functional innate Abs and hence, capable of competing with the low affinity, S-specific Abs they acquired as a result of previous asymptomatic infection
- it is true that because of high infection rates, children may now develop mild or sometimes even moderate disease. However, provided they were in good health and have no underlying disease, it’s highly unlikely for them to develop severe disease
- individuals who recover from C-19 disease develop life-long immunity towards SC-2 and contribute to herd immunity
- children at risk must, of course, receive early multidrug treatment (P. McCullough et al.)
What happens with innate immunity when children grow up?
- there is now unambiguous evidence that innate immunity can be ‘trained’ upon re-exposure to the same or similar pathogens. Immune cells producing protective innate Abs can acquire memory such as to ‘remember’ the virus and bind to virus particles with higher affinity ‘trained’ innate Abs will be more effective at neutralizing SC-2 while still able to recognize a multitude of different CoVs (including their variants)
- thanks to innate immune training, unvaccinated healthy subjects (including children) will improve their protection from SC-2 (and other CoVs). Their trained innate Abs will better resist competition from low affinity, S-specific Abs acquired upon previous infection
Why is C-19 vaccination of children an unforgivable sin?
- whereas S-specific Abs acquired upon asymptomatic infection exert a rather weak suppression of innate Abs, vaccinal Abs exert strong suppression of these Abs
- due to high infection rates (Delta variant!), these vaccinal Abs are now continuously boosted and relevant innate Abs are, therefore, constantly suppressed
- because of sustained suppression by vaccinal Abs, kids may no longer be naturally protected against a number of childhood infections that do not usually result in disease. As innate Abs are also protective of ‘self’, their prolonged suppression is highly likely to raise the incidence of autoimmune diseases
- vaccinating children against SC-2 deprives them from their capacity to sterilize this virus as well as a number of other viruses that do not usually cause harm to children
- in the meantime, unvaccinated children may get mild or moderate disease.
- the resulting training of their innate immune system or acquisition of natural S-specific Abs (that outperform vaccinal Abs!) will provide them with sustained protective innate or acquired immunity, respectively
Vaccination does not improve your protection against severe disease or hospitalization
- innate immunity in healthy unvaccinated individuals (i.e., w/o underlying disease) prevents or abrogates SC-2 infection and, therefore, protects against disease (and hence, hospitalization!): as the vast majority of unvaccinated healthy individuals are protected against mild or moderate disease, they are much less likely to contract severe disease!
- however, some healthy unvaccinated individuals (including some youngsters and children) may develop moderate disease as a result of sustained anti-S Ab titers. As they recover, they develop broadly functional, naturally acquired Abs that protect them against a diversified spectrum of variants
- given the small subset of hospitalized unvaccinated individuals and recent resumption of precautionary measures, fewer and fewer ‘vulnerable’ unvaccinated people will land in the hospital whereas the opposite will apply to vaccinees, due to the steadily increasing resistance of the virus to neutralizing Abs and continuing mass vaccination (boosters!)
- the single best approach to protecting yourself and your children is to take excellent care of your health. Mild disease equals life-long protection (provided you don’t get any C-19 vaccine and you stay in good health). If nevertheless the virus breaks through your innate immunity, don’t worry as you are beyond unlikely to contract severe disease. Once recovered, you should stay exposed to the virus (variants!) such as to ensure a regular update of your naturally acquired Abs
- unvaccinated people with underlying diseases should adhere to infection prevention measures (avoid contact with super spreaders) and should have access to early treatment. They should not get jabbed!
- there is no reason for fear! Stress and fear will only weaken your innate immunity. That’s what modern Neuroscience is telling us
- nor is there any reason for discrimination, besides discrimination against current insane measures that are anything but based on sound scientific grounds
Credibility? Time for DYOR
- all my predictions were/ are based on science and nothing but science
- the vast majority of these predictions materialized or on the verge of becoming reality
- no single expert or Public Health (PH) official dares to openly debate me or to engage in a scientific discussion about the single most ignored aspect of this pandemic, i.e., the critical role of innate immunity and how it gets corrupted by the current vaccines
- none of the scientists who are currently revealing the truth are having any conflict of interest
- all of the above should be serious food for thought to those who still believe that what politicians and PH authorities tell them is in the best interest of people’s individual health and that of society at large
Hendrik Mentz (who is responsible for this transcription/interpretation/summary) lives off grid with his goats, chickens, cats, aging bullmastiff, and his thoughts. If what is presented here and elsewhere resonates please subscribe below (if viewing on your phone) or top left via your laptop.