By Rob Verkerk PhD; founder, executive & scientific director, ANH-Intl
It was a week ago that we released my interview with Dr Geert Vanden Bossche on our brand new Speaking Naturally channel. It’s caused something of a stir in some circles. Mainly among those of us who don’t see vaccines as a panacea or at least the sole exit strategy to exit lockdowns, social distancing and other elements of the surrealism that has swept the world since the genome of a virus causing pneumonia-like symptoms in China was sequenced last January. The silence from those who are overseeing or administering the global mass vaccination program has been deafening.
Some of the scientific concerns around Dr Geert Vanden Bossche’s arguments appear to be the result of linguistic interpretations. Others challenge Geert’s speculative concerns linked to immune escape through the application of selection pressure from vaccines that could create ever more vaccine resistant, and potentially dangerous, virus variants.
For the uninitiated, 'immune escape' is a term used to describe when the host (in this case humans) is no longer able to recognise and counter (eliminate or sterilise) a pathogen (in this case, a relevant variant or mutant of SARS-CoV-2). 'Selection pressure', on the other hand, is a term used to describe the process (gene-environment interactions) that helps an organism or pathogen to evolve in ways that make it better adapted (i.e. more able to survive and propagate) to its changing environment. Antibiotic (antimicrobial) resistance is a good example of selection pressure caused by overuse of antibiotic drugs, which has selected for more and more bacterial strains that can detoxify or tolerate commonly used antibiotic drugs.
Dr Vanden Bossche has sounded an alarm bell against the potential consequences of the largest uncontrolled experiment ever conducted
- Following on from his interview with Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Rob Verkerk PhD seeks to put context around Dr Vanden Bossche’s concerns
- Regardless of their standpoint all views should be heard and debated due to the amount of scientific uncertainty that exists
- We should not be trying to destroy the reputations of individuals who disagree with mainstream views and choose to speak out
- This is a highly complex and dynamic situation exacerbated by lockdowns
- Mutations of the virus are being found across the globe along with the beginnings of virus
- Dr Paul Bieniasz’s research group at the Rockefeller University has shown some mutations are resistant to antibodies produced against the original strain of the virus
Let’s be reasonable, not polarised
I’m not an immunologist, virologist or an epidemiologist. But I do have three science degrees in ecology with a PhD and postdoctoral research (Imperial College London) in the area of multitrophic interactions in agroecosystems. I’ve therefore been long fascinated by interactions between hosts, herbivores, carnivores and pathogens. I’ve also been looking closely at the science around covid-19 since the outset and have been a critic of health authority and government handling of it from the outset (see ANH-Intl covid zone).
I’m writing this update on the Vanden Bossche controversy because I’m concerned it is has the potential to unnecessarily divide people who share many common views and values, while differing in others. Alongside generating mutant variants of SARS-CoV-2, one of the haunting consequences of lockdowns has been their ability to polarise communities. I believe passionately that we need to be more tolerant of those with whom we share significant areas of our respective covid-19 Venn diagrams.
“Alongside generating mutant variants of SARS-CoV-2, one of the haunting consequences of lockdowns has been their ability to polarise communities. I believe passionately that we need to be more tolerant of those with whom we share significant areas of our respective covid-19 Venn diagrams.”- Rob Verkerk PhD
Don’t expect that you'll find unanimous agreement with many people given the amount of scientific uncertainty that abounds on so many of the scientific, medical, social, political and economic issues surrounding covid-19 and the way it’s been, and is being handled. We must have forums to be able to discuss scientific matters and we must be ever careful to not destroy the reputation of individuals who potentially can be important catalysts for change.
The host-pathogen tango
The reality is that – as ever – the relationship between a pathogen and its host is not a simple one. It is not only highly complex, it is also dynamic. It’s a tango that involves both players who don’t like dancing to the same music. While lockdowns might increase the time it takes to achieve herd immunity, the mainstream scientific view accepted by governments with little evidential basis has been that lockdowns will also reduce opportunities for transmission chains being established. Lockdowns, curfews, social isolation and the like were meant to be temporary stand-ins until vaccines were ready.
There are two fundamental problems with this approach. First, people don’t stop transmitting viruses among each other even in lockdowns and more opportunities for mutation are created, including among the most vulnerable people that allow for the greatest level of viral replication. This explains the generation of at least 16 mutant lineages in South Africa. Secondly now that the vaccines have come, they don’t stop transmission of all SARS-CoV-2 strains, especially those that are resistant to antigen-specific antibodies that they are designed to induce.
More than that, if you apply a very strong selection pressure because you have a highly infectious virus that has lots of opportunities to express its inborn error code (mutations) – or you vaccinate millions or even billions of people with a highly specific antigen constructed around the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, you are inducing massive selection pressure – like never before in human history. That is one of Geert Vanden Bossche’s concerns, one he has a right to have and express.
We also know (e.g. Ho et al 2021) that the UK variant B.1.1.7 that originated in the UK and B.1.351 from South Africa have extensive mutations in the main (receptor-binding domain, RBD) region of the spike protein that binds to the ACE2 receptors in human tissues. Not only that, neutralising antibodies that have been created in response to exposure to wild virus or the vaccines (developed to match the original Wuhan strain) don’t neutralise the virus effectively.
Vanden Bossche’s red flags
The story continues to evolve and unfold because the relationship between the virus and its host does as well. What we’re now beginning to see is the same mutations in the spike protein cropping up in different parts of the world. For example, the UK variant (B.1.1.7), the Brazilian variant (P1/B.1.1.28) and the South African variant (B.1.351) all share common mutations such as E484K and N5011Y. These were Geert’s red flags.
It suggests that different virus strains have found the same way of outsmarting the highly specific vaccine and in the process, these new virus strains are becoming more transmissible including among younger people. That creates ever greater opportunies for mutation. The show goes on. And potentially never stops. Especially if you keep interspersing your strategy with lockdowns and related measures.
But don’t trust me on this – I’m just an ecologist. Some of the most thorough work in this area is being conducted by Dr Paul Bieniasz’s group at the Rockefeller University, the same university with which Dr Knut Wittkowski (see our separate interview) was associated for many years. The group has shown clearly that new mutant variants such as E484K and Q493R are resistant to antibodies produced by the original Wuhan strain on which the existing clutch of vaccines were based.
OK – so Bieniasz’s group has gone down the road of developing engineered monoclonal antibodies as a solution to get around the problem of immune escape both from wild infection or antigen-specific vaccines. In fact, they’re moving forward with trials for commercialisation of monoclonal antibody therapies that could be delivered as injection.
>>> See research on SARS-CoV-2 by Paul Bieniasz's group via PubMed
Find out more about the research of Dr Bieniasz around 37 minutes into the following video:
What our species is currently enduring is the largest uncontrolled experiment ever conducted. Not only are highly-specific vaccines being applied in a manner that is considerably different from any previous vaccines. The frontrunner Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are also most definitely experimental (Phase 3 trials results are incomplete), and they rely on lipid encapsulation delivery systems that have never been used at any significant scale to get synthetic codes into our muscle cells. We also have no good idea of how effectively our T cells will be corralled into our armoury of immune defence. Or how vaccine-induced immunity compares with naturally-acquired immunity (let’s not forget the SARS and MERS epidemics never had the same opportunity for mutation).
Geert Vanden Bossche has rung an alarm bell – that many, it seems, don’t want to hear. To ignore the wider concern he expresses around the selection pressure that will create immune escape and antibody resistant strains would be foolhardy – and would be inconsistent with the known science.
>>> Watch the interview with Dr Geert Vanden Bossche
>>> Visit ANH-Intl's covidzone.org for 12 months of covid-related reporting and analysis
your voice counts
01 April 2021 at 3:53 am
Many people are skeptical of Geert Vanden Bossche because of his work with the Gates Foundation and GAVI. They may have good reason. On the surface what Geert Vanden Bossche is saying makes sense scientifically however what are the longer term implications? While he is asking the WHO and Governments to stop vaccination because of immune escape he also references the new NK cell vaccine technology that are being advanced as a new panacea. Geert Vanden Bossche is asking for a halt to vaccination on the grounds of stopping immune escape. Is it possible that this immune escape theory will push the WHO and Governments around the world into a corner and rather than stop vaccination - they will mandate vaccination all at once (its for our common good they will say - its to stop immune escape). If the whole population is vaccinated all at once this will, theoretically, mitigate immune escape....It may also be mandated that the rmna vaccines be followed up later with NK cell vaccines which super charge NK cells - this could trigger huge problems as the immune system will be hyper primed from the 2-3 does of mrna vaccines.....This could lead to an absolute apocalypse! Purhaps Geert Vanden Bossche is just putting forward a theory into the public consciousness thus the WHO and Governments will act on this theory but in the opposite direction....the WHO and Governments around the world are not going to fall on their sword and stop vaccination....so only the reverse of this scenario is a possible outcome.
01 April 2021 at 2:32 pm
Now is where Presence embraces empirical evidence, but Rob, you are using now as part of a PR leveraging presentation.
For those who have uncovered lack of substance in the virus narrative, in all its obfuscating complex of self-referencing conceits, NOW is the time to stop using it as a basis for authoritative identity. This includes a merely reactive assertion of anti-virus narrative investment.
'United against', is never the unified field and purpose of wholeness, but is a phishing ruse by which to enter a frame of division and deceit or self-illusion.
Unite in seeking and uncovering truth that shows us we are free.
The potential for the mRNA 'vaccines' for catastrophic collapse is independent of Bossche's industry promoted narrative framing of its own toxic legacy as the basis for its own saving 'solution'. That is how the fear protects itself from disclosure to the awareness of a Unifying Field or Reintegrative Purpose that we call healing - or the undoing of the false frame to the release of the trapped mind to realign its true 'Terrain'.
So why and how indeed may we be toxifying ourselves, each other an our living Biosphere in our masking agenda of attempts to 'solve problems'?
Please do ask!
But if fear porn is your loving concern - consider yourself an addict.
Where you go to or give your attention and energy for connection, meaning and a sense of love and life is up to you. It is not dictated and determined by fear, unless of course you insist!
But if you cant yet walk out of a dead end, at least bring that much self-honesty to an awareness you do not create, but are the expression of.
Official madness - recalls an old microsoft joke:
Q:How many MS engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, Bill declares darkness to be the new standard.
If the investment in darkness can install its OS into your bodymind, it will.
This is a classic bad cop/good cop ruse.
You WANT to suck on what 'good cop' offers you after 'bad cop' terrorised you.
You think you are sharing valuable or even vital information as if its hidden payload is inconsequential, like all that small print in a sales contract or Trade Deal (sic).
But perhaps someone has to fill your role in this, and so why not you?
In a larger reality, a self-betrayal may prime a deeper self honesty against temptations to take the bait.
The WHO and its gov assets or stakeholder partners do what the global banking sector dictates.
If they want a narrative to pull back a parameter of their live experimentation on fellow beings, they will insert it and use it because at root they are funding or choking what they seek to grow as their cell culture.
The currency of thought be which we give and receive is corrupted by its persistent usage.
The intent is to possess and control thought as a privately owned state managed tool, asset or disposable.
Perhaps they see this as 'unifying' under Monopolar power 'restored'?
Perhaps they don't really 'see' anything but through a mindset in vengeance for life set in lack and fear of pain and loss and so (we) attack our own projections and suffer the result as if from an alien will, or some pathological invisible representation.
Whatever the sickness. Aligning truly is the context for healing to be welcomed instead of locked down distanced from and masked over.
01 April 2021 at 4:46 pm
The discussion about viruses and vaccinations is futile. These are the facts: A virus is neither contagious nor infectious. It is also not alive. A virus is host-specific, i.e. it cannot be transmitted from one person to another. Even if it were contagious the new host would not accept the transmitted virus. Viruses are benign. They represent the last and most powerful line of defence of our immune system, i.e. they take over after fungi and bacteria have failed to cope. They represent genetic expressions tasked with the performance of genomic changes as a result of environmental stresses caused by air pollution in the widest sense(chemicals, toxins, glyphosate, crop sprays, disinfectants, sanitizers, radiation etc. as well as "normal" air pollution). Under certain circumstances they can bind with this air pollution, which can cause problems for individuals with compromised immune systems. Most of the serious adverse symptoms are caused by a carbon particulate called PM 2.5, which contains cyanide, which in turn tends to cause hypoxia. In these cases (when sufferers tend to turn blue) hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonite or drugs for cyanide poisoning (which are 100% effective) should be administered (Please note in this context that the virus is not the culprit but the air pollution. This fact is being overlooked worldwide). There is no need for anything else apart from plenty of fresh air and interhuman contact, which ensures that as many people as possible receive the genomic changes within as short a period as possible.
The question of variants or new strains is irrelevant as each one of these represents a genetic expression and as such does not present any problems for the human immune system (What is amusing, however, is the fact that the coronavirus has never been identified - it was invented by computer sequencing - and, therefore, the identification of a variant of something that does not exist amounts to a miracle).
Obviously, there is no need for any form of vaccination, the idea of which, in any case, is an enormous misconception based on the absurd and dangerous "findings"of the plagiarist and fraudster Louis Pasteur ca. 150 years ago. It is a fact that every single vaccination is harmful though the public has been brainwashed to believe the exact opposite.
The above is based on the insights of Dr. Zach Bush, a man of phenomal brilliance, who analysed the origin and nature of the so-called pandemic at the very outset and who has been proved correct in every singly aspect. If his views had been adopted worldwide at the time there would have been no pandemic and a minimal number of deaths of people with comorbidities. Nobody would have died of the coronavirus as such. I would recommend to the readers of this newsletter to visit Dr. Bush's website and absorb the details of a recent webcast, which explains the whole situation.
02 April 2021 at 2:52 am
Thank you Rob, for staying on this. There are so many doctors and scientists with concerns. As you say, it matters not so much about the specific agreement of concern, but that we join in the concern and desire to change the course of history. The WHO and friends have taken us in the wrong direction and a very dangerous direction. As with any action, it takes the masses to make change. And the greater the mass, the more difficulty there is in censoring or punishing those that speak out.
05 April 2021 at 3:28 pm
I suggest a visit to this comprehensive rebuttal of the related open letter be read, as there are so many fundamental immunological errors, that the proposal needs to be looked at from a far more skeptical position. https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressing-geert-vanden-bossches-claims
Allowing the narrative in the letter to be unchallenged by a comprehensive understanding of the immune system and related responses to vaccines is not a balanced or responsible position.
Rob Verkerk PhD https://www.anhinternational.org
06 April 2021 at 4:17 pm
Hi Mike - the narrative in Vanden Bossche's open letter was not unchallenged. I wrote a piece that kept an open door to Vanden Bossche's theories in the first instance - https://www.anhinternational.org/news/anh-intl-feature-geert-vanden-bossche-conspiracy-theorist-conspirator-or-prophet/. I then followed up with a long teleconference with him, then interviewed him (https://www.anhinternational.org/news/speaking-naturally-with-dr-geert-vanden-bossche/). I then followed up with the above piece that aimed to communicate what I thought were the main elements of Vanden Bossche's various theories that might be considered most plausible or evidence-based in what is inevitably a climate of great uncertainty. Here I have drawn heavily on the work of Bieniasz's group at The Rockefeller University and Howard Hughes Institute - who can hardly be viewed as alternative scientific voices. I am intrigued that you've made no comment on their work - and clearly the scientists in this group know a thing or two about immunology. Instead you've used a piece by Edward Nirenberg to dismiss Vanden Bossche (are you also dismissing Bieniasz et al?) who appears to be a die-hard skeptic who is clearly associated (see skepticalraptor.com) with skeptics who hold very negative views of functional medicine, the discipline with which you have been long associated. I do believe a true skeptical position is very valuable to scientific inquiry, but I don't think that Edward Nirenberg gets close to addressing the scientific issues that are the subject of this article. When the truth is subjective, it is surely not possible for any of us to argue we have found the truth. Equally, it is also often difficult to argue that a theory is entirely false or based on faulty premises when some of those premises are supported by evidence. My view is that as concerned scientists who are trying to make sense of a huge diversity of, and often, conflicting, information, we should try to highlight the bits that 'meet in the middle' (if you like, of the Venn diagram of views which abound). Again, in my humble view, that is a responsible position - and I recognise you feel differently. Those differences in views are OK - especially in a world in which there is so much pressure to try to see things from such a unilateral perspective.
01 May 2021 at 12:35 am
Given the number of labs around the world, including the CDC, who have stated that they have been unable to isolate the Covid virus, how can anyone claim there are variants?
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences