A

A source of news and information for those brave enough to face facts.

Home

Search ICH

 

 Print Friendly and PDF

Question Everything!

  Purpose and Intent of this website:

Note from Tom

Because of my lack of qualifications and knowledge regarding Covid-19, I have  provided very few articles on this topic. To offer information that others may base life changing decisions on is a responsibility I do not wish to carry. This video and transcript with Mr.Vanden Bossche is worth your time in my opinion. I have also provide a link to a rebuttal to this article, read this piece by Rosemary Frei. Rosemary has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary.

Make up your own mind.

Peace and Joy

Tom

Mass Vaccination in a Pandemic - Benefits versus Risks:

Interview with Geert Vanden Bossche PhD

Video and Transcript

Virologist: ĎWe Are Going to Pay Huge Priceí for COVID Mass Vaccination Campaign

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche [PhD, says that by vaccinating everyone with a vaccine that doesnít prevent transmission, we are destroying peopleís immune systems, and setting the stage for a global health disaster.

Posted March 17, 2020 - Video Uploaded March 06, 2021


Geert Vanden Bossche, is an internationally recognised vaccine developer having worked as the head of the Vaccine Development Office at the German Centre for Infection Research.

No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Get Our Free Newsletter
Don't let an Algorithm choose what you read!

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 Iíve 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 youíve 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, letís 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 thatís a very particular and peculiar situation.

McMillan: Yes. And so in effect, weíve 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, letís 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 donít 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 itís not self-limiting, itís not acute self-limiting, itís 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. Itís 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 Iíve 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, itís not a, you cannot see when you see a person, you donít 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 thereís 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, thereís 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 Iím 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 donít 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 Iím saying this, because if you have a high infectious pressure, itís 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, theyíre 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 Iím 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 Ė so the virus comes under enormous pressure.

I mean, that wouldnít matter if you can eradicate a virus, if you can prevent infection, but these vaccines donít 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, thatís 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, itís 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 youíve 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 youíre alluding to?

Bossche: Well, that is a very good parallel. Itís also the parallel Iím 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 ďfact checkersĒ who aggressively censor according to left media news narratives].

I mean, itís pure science because as you were pointing out, the thing is the rule is itís very simple. I mean, same with antibiotics. Either the antibiotics do not match very well with the bug. Thatís not good. Thatís 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 donít 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 isnít 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 donít as soon as you feel well, that doesnít 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, itís very clear that this is driving immune escape and will ultimately drive resistance to the vaccines.

So my point is, yes, Philip, itís very similar. There is one difference. The virus needs living cells. I mean, if youíre 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. Itís per definition. Itís the definition almost of a pandemic.

McMillan: So it raises a simple question that somebody has put in front of us here, which is, itís 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 itís something that was not really understood. We know that the number of people or asymptomatically infected, so they are infected, but they donít 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 donít 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 Ö Oh, wait a minute. The antibodies come later, you have first the search of, you know, shedding of the virus.

And itís 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. Itís gone, itís 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 itís a specific group of Ö

Bossche: Natural killer cells Ö

McMillan: Sorry. Itís natural killer cells, a special group of white blood cells that go and take out the viral infected cell. So, yes, youíre 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 theyíre okay. So they, the body does manage to get rid of it in some cases.

And so it raises the point that Iíve always been saying is that we havenít spent enough time understanding how the virus impacts the body and understanding how the pandemic then will impact the world. Weíve 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. Iím 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 Iím 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 donít understand our weapon because we donít understand that prophylactic vaccines should not be used in the midst of an epidemic. And we donít understand exactly what the virus is, do we. So we go to a war and we donít know our enemy. We donít understand the strategy of our enemy. And we donít 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 donít 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 donít do anything, theyíre going to be criticized. And if they do do something, theyíre going to be criticized. Is that a fair statement to make?

Bossche: I donít think so. What was this, oath of, whatís the name of the guy? Hippocrates. You know the rule?

McMillan: The first. Do no harm.

Bossche: Okay. Well, I mean, it wouldnít matter if you start vaccinating people and even if it doesnít 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. Itís all published.

No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Get Our Free Newsletter
Don't let an Algorithm choose what you read!

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 theyíre natural antibodies, they have a very broad spectrum, but they have low affinity. Right?

And so by doing this, even if your antibodies donít 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. Doesnít matter what variant you get. It doesnít 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 itís not like, okay, you know, you missed it. Okay, letís try again. No, you did some harm. I mean, this is different from drugs.

Immunizing somebody is installing a new software on your computer. Donít forget. I mean, these antibodies, they will be recalled every single time youíre 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 youíre saying? That weíre 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, Iíve 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 doesnít match very well with the coronavirus theyíre 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, Iím 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 donít 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 Iím talking about is a global problem. Itís not an individual getting an adverse event. Itís 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. Thatís 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 thatís not going to happen. So weíre talking about a very, very, very serious problem here.

McMillan: So Iíve seen the question many times and quite frankly, I get asked the questions. Weíre coming to a point where people are going to have to take these vaccines. That looks as though itís the reality. Either in the context of work or in the context of travel. Based on what youíre saying, theyíre in a lose-lose situation. What does this mean?

Bossche: Well, what does this mean? Itís very clear. Itís very clear what this is going to mean.

So letís 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, itís still okay. Yeah. Then itís not an easy, thatís not an easy question.

But as a matter of fact, itís exactly the opposite. Well, itís not the opposite. It is detrimental both on a population level, as on an individual level. And Iím 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 ó 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 Iím 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 itís 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, itís none, your immunity has become nil.

Itís all gone. The antibodies donít work anymore. And your your innate immunity has been completely bypassed and this while highly infectious strains are circulating.

So, I mean, if that isnít clear enough, I really donít get it. And people please do read my, you know, what I posted because itís science, itís pure science, pure science. And as everybody knows, Iím a highly passionate vaccine guy, right?

And Iíve no criticism on the vaccines, but please use the right vaccine at the right place. And donít 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 Iím becoming emotional because Iím thinking of my children, of the younger generation. I mean, itís just impossible what we are doing. We donít 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 didnít 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 itís 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, itís stabilizing. It may go down, may go up, et cetera. I mean, that is not science. They donít have any clue.

They donít even know whether the curve is gonna go up exponentially or whether itís gonna go down or whatever. Theyíre 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 doesnít want the vaccine.

Bossche: No, no, well, no. Because Iíve clearly also addressed some emails from anti-vaxxers. I mean, Iím not interested, but Iím clearly telling them that at this point, itís so irrelevant, you know, whether youíre a pro vaxxer or an anti-vaxxer, et cetera, it is about the science. Itís about humanity, right?

I mean, letís not lose our time now with criticizing people or, I mean, anti-vaxxer, okay. If youíre not an anti-vaxxer, you could be a stalker.

You could be, you know, we like to stigmatize because if you stigmatize people, you donít need to bother about them anymore.

Oh, this guyís an anti-vaxxer. Okay. I mean, heís out of the scope. Oh, heís a stalker. Heís out of the scope. I mean, that is a discussion that is completely irrelevant at this point.

It is about humanity. And of course Iím passionate. Of course, I mean, itís about your children. Itís your family. Itís my family. Itís everyone. Right. And itís simply for me, I put everything at stake because Iíve done my homework. And this is simply a moral obligation. A moral obligation.

McMillan: Wow. Wow. I mean, thereís 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, weíre doing the wrong thing here. Itís very difficult to not listen to that. Thatís the truth.

Bossche: Well, the answer is very easy. I mean, this is human behavior. If youíre, 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.

Iím asking every single scientist to scrutinize, to look what Iím 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 Iím proven wrong, I will admit it, but I can tell you, Iím not putting my career, my reputation at stake.

I would not do this when I would not be 200% convinced. And itís not about me, not about me at all. Itís about humanity. People donít 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, itís 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 youíve expressed this so well, Geert. I think that just hearing your explanation, the passion, the focus on the science, I think that thatís as much as you can do. I think that I donít even want to say any more because I donít 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 Iím 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, letís make decisions based on science. Thatís the best that we can do at this point.

Wonderful. Just stay on the line there. Weíre 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.

- "Source"  -

Registration is necessary to post comments. We ask only that you do not use obscene or offensive language. Please be respectful of others.

See also

The science behind the catastrophic consequences of thoughtless human interventonin the Covid-19 pandemic Ė Geert Vanden Bossche (DVM, PhD, March 13 2021)

More on Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVM

   

           Search Information Clearing House

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click Here To Support Information Clearing House

Your support has kept ICH free on the Web since 2002.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Privacy Statement