Anti-lockdown scientists challenge theories of Geert Vanden Bossche, though vaccine ‘global catastrophe’ not ruled out
April 1, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Earlier this month a renowned virologist, and former senior officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation drew significant attention when he joined the voices of many experts around the world calling for an immediate end to the worldwide COVID-19 experimental vaccination campaign, though he proposed a novel grave danger, and an additional “vaccine” solution.
Geert Vanden Bossche, who once worked as a senior program manager for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) and has been considered one of the most highly ranked and talented vaccine creators in the world, issued an open letter and video warning of a “global catastrophe without equal” due to experimental COVID-19 vaccination programs.
In his dramatic letter, he wrote that these “prophylactic vaccines are completely inappropriate, and even highly dangerous, when used in mass vaccination campaigns during a viral pandemic.” He continued, saying that “it is difficult to understand how current human interventions will prevent circulating variants from turning into a wild monster” across the globe.
In April of last year, YouTube censored two doctors from Bakersfield, California, who spoke out against lockdowns explaining that such isolation harms the immune system of healthy people making them more susceptible to the virus.
Vanden Bossche takes this reality much further proposing that lockdowns are a dangerous contributing factor to a possible “wipe out [of] large parts of our human population.”
According to his theory, suppression of innate immunity in everyone including the young via lockdowns, along with a massive experimental vaccination campaign—which neither eradicates nor prevents transmission of the virus—will lead to “immune escape.”
This concept proposes that vaccinated people will continue to be infected with and shed the virus, which due to the “pressure” exerted by experimental COVID-19 vaccines, will accumulate large numbers of mutations, in turn creating variants which are far more virulent and can no longer be controlled by the vaccines.
In addition, Vanden Bossche hypothesizes that the vaccinated themselves will be susceptible to these dangerous variants since the specific antibodies these millions of people have acquired to combat the original COVID-19 virus will compete with and weaken their natural immunity, while providing no protection against these new highly infectious mutant variants.
Therefore, joining his voice with the tens-of-thousands of censored medical experts and millions of citizens across the globe who have been speaking out against the catastrophic, counterproductive policies imposed on healthy populations under the pretense of COVID-19 “public health” concerns, Vanden Bossche observed that “One could only think of very few other strategies to achieve the same level of efficiency in turning a relatively harmless virus into a bioweapon of mass destruction.”
Yet his analysis of this “vaccine” disaster did not come without a proposed solution. The former close collaborator of Bill Gates wrote, “Paradoxically, the only intervention that could offer a perspective to end this pandemic (other than to let it run its disastrous course) is ... VACCINATION.” [Vanden Bossche’s emphasis]
Vanden Bossche proposed that a new vaccine could be used to induce natural killer (NK) cells to “recognize and kill Coronaviruses at large (including their variants) at an early stage of infection.” And, indeed, such a strategy he posits “is going to be the only type of human intervention left to halt the dangerous spread of highly infectious Covid-19 variants.”
Finally, he concludes, very dramatically, “If we, human beings, are committed to perpetuating our species, we have no choice left but to eradicate these highly infectious viral variants. This will, indeed, require large vaccination campaigns.”
Suspicions and debate arise among experimental COVID-19 vaccine opponents
Individuals and organizations who have been fighting continuously for the last year against the disasters of draconian government interventions in response to the COVID-19 virus, including lockdowns and the “warp speed” “vaccines,” immediately took notice of Vanden Bossche’s statements.
Popular Highwire host Del Bigtree prominently featured the Vanden Bossche letter and video on his March 11 program, classifying it as “one of the most important stories I have perhaps covered in my entire career in medical journalism.”
And Dr. Vernon Coleman provided a stirring, lucid, and brief explanation of the Vanden Bossche theory and its ramifications on March 13, concluding, “If we don’t stop this vaccination program now then it is no exaggeration to say that the very future of mankind is at risk.”
But other experimental COVID-19 vaccine opponents were sharply critical of Vaden Bossche’s theory.
According to Frei, the Vanden Bossche thesis is based upon “unproven hypotheses” similar to, and building upon, “the overall Covid deception” that employs “high-profile modeling-papers,” such as that from the discredited Neil Ferguson whose work early last year inflamed fears justifying disastrous lockdowns across the world.
In addition to fully rejecting his thesis, Frei proposes several factors which indicate that the credibility of Vanden Bossche — with his past Gates and GAVI connections — should be considered highly suspect as well.
His dramatic rhetoric in his initial release — “racing against the clock” to write his “agonizing letter”— indicates for Frei an intention to “propagandize rather than to let objective evidence speak of itself.”
Vanden Bossche also speaks with great adulation for the so-called “brilliant” scientists who designed the current vaccines without mentioning “a word about the massive adverse-event rate and very scant efficacy profile of the vaccines that were created by these ‘brilliant scientists’,” Frei wrote.
More central to Frei’s critique of Vanden Bossche’s theory of “rapidly spreading, highly infectious variants,” is her insistence that, despite some illegitimate attempts, there remains “no proof” that normally-developed mutations from the virus “are highly infectious or will be any time soon.” She further points out that Vanden Bossche did not provide “any direct non-theoretical evidence” that “immune escape” was happening, and asserts that his entire proposal is “on very shaky ground.”
Frei finally takes issue with the whole notion of Vanden Bossche’s proposal for “large vaccination” programs, and suggests that his sudden emergence may well be part of a “drug-company astroturf campaign” serving to initiate a “pivot” in a new direction toward even more vaccination.
Further Responses: ‘no robust scientific evidence’
While Bigtree and Coleman issued their own strong responses to Frei, perhaps more in terms of form and strategy than scientific substance, her overall thesis was affirmed by some eminent experts, including the former Pfizer vice president and chief science officer Dr. Michael Yeadon, PANDA member Marc Giradot, and leading German epidemiologist Dr. Knut Wittkowski.
In an article published March 11, Yeadon and Giradot confirm that “To date, no robust scientific evidence proves that any of the variants identified are more transmissible or deadly than the original.”
Indeed, established “knowledge of viral mutation shows they usually evolve to become less deadly and more transmissible,” and current evidence shows that “these mutations have caused changes in less than 0.3% of the entire virus sequence. All variants are therefore currently 99.7% similar to the original Wuhan viral sequence,” they wrote.
Naturally, this means that “[p]rior immunity gained from the original SARS-CoV-2 should work perfectly well against any new ‘mutant variant’, given the 99.7% sequence similarity.”
Wittkowski, who refers to elements of Vanden Bossche’s theory as “nonsense,” argues that, “[t]he new ‘COVID strains’ are not so much more infectious that young people need to be afraid of them. Maybe a few more become (mostly) asymptomatically infected. That’s it.”
Amid his many corrections of Vanden Bossche’s text, Wittkowski also clarified the author’s credentials showing he is “a PhD and DVM (veterinarian physician) not an MD (Medical Doctor),” and that “[h]e is not ‘board certified’ in human virology or microbiology,” and not so much a “research expert” as a “research coordinator.”
Support for Vanden Bossche, challenged
However, in the same forum, Vanden Bossche enjoys the support of fellow vaccine developer Dr. Byram Bridle who is an Associate Professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.
Referring to the Belgian veterinary physician as “a respected scientist,” Bridle agreed “there is a high probability of our vaccine rollouts driving the emergence of dangerous variants.”
In his rationale, Bridle compared the necessity of patients fighting off a bacterial infection using antibiotics to experimental vaccines building resistance to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As in the former case one must complete their antibiotic regimen to avoid the possibility of “dangerous antibiotic-resistant variants” developing, so too in the latter situation, recipients of a (two-injection) vaccine must, according to him, complete both shots in a timely manner to avoid similar resistant viral variants from emerging.
He asserts that this is not happening in many places, and that there is “clear evidence” that such dangerous variants are developing. Bridle states: “the Novavax, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca vaccines have all performed much poorer against the South African variant; AstraZeneca’s provides very little protection against it.”
In response to his presentation, Frei told LifeSiteNews that “Bridle makes a false equivalence between the development of antibiotic resistance and of viral resistance; in fact, viral escape from immunity is a vanishingly unlikely scenario.”
“He also claims immune evasion already is occurring, by stating that several vaccines are not performing well against the South African variant,” Frei continued. “Yet all the statistics available to the public on vaccine effectiveness – including on how well or poorly they're performing against the variants – are probably highly inaccurate. That's because, among other things, those data are not being made available to objective third parties for verification.”
Pathogenic priming and ‘massive-scale depopulation’
While Vanden Bossche’s critics may disagree with his diagnosis of how a “wipe out [of] large parts of our human population” may come about, along with his proposed solution of more vaccinations, many have grave concerns that such an outcome is a very real possibility due to different factors.
Last December, Yeadon and colleague Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed a petition with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) calling for the immediate suspension of all COVID-19 vaccine studies due to significant safety concerns.
One such concern is the possibility of a reaction called pathogenic priming, or Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), where the “formation of so-called ‘non-neutralizing antibodies’ can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, ‘wild’ virus after vaccination.” Past experiments on cats using this technology revealed that all of them “that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.”
Their petition reads that ADE “is a common problem with Dengue Virus, Ebola Virus, HIV, RSV, and the family of coronaviruses. In fact, this problem of ADE is a major reason why many previous vaccine trials for other coronaviruses failed.”
An American Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) white paper explains that “ADE is especially tricky because it is a delayed reaction. Initially all seems well. The person seems to have a great immune response but then [this vulnerability brought about by the vaccine] becomes deadly when the person is exposed to the virus in the wild.”
“The vaccine amplifies the infection rather than preventing damage,” AFLDS continues. “It may only be seen after months or years of use in populations around the world.”
One recent example includes a vaccine produced to fight the Dengue fever, which resulted in deaths of 600 children in the Philippines due to ADE, and the filing of criminal charges against the decision-makers in 2019.
Considering the drive of authorities to administer “vaccines” to as many people in the population as possible, Yeadon concluded in an interview with AFLDS last week, “I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.”
“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the world’s population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it,” he continued.
“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation,” Yeadon warned.
Anti-lockdown doctors warn that adverse ADE reactions may well soar in the near-future
AFLDS further warned that ADE reactions, which can certainly be fatal, “are difficult to prove,” as they are often interpreted as infection with “a worse virus,” or, perhaps, a more dangerous variant.
In a January presentation about the experimental COVID-19 vaccines, Irish biomedical doctor and expert in immunology Dr. Dolores Cahill stated that due to the high potential for ADE occurring, those considering reception of these “vaccines” should understand that for the rest of their lives they will have a “much higher risk of death” due to the vaccination.
If there are significant deaths due to ADE in the weeks, months and years following vaccination campaigns, Cahill is concerned they will be classified as resulting from COVID-19 when in fact they may well be the result of the vaccination.
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has given similar warnings predicting widespread illness and fatality from ADE following these injections. She believes there will be an influx in people having difficulty breathing, or coughing blood. Those patients, Dr. Tenpenny predicts, will then be declared as having a “mutant virus” (i.e. “dangerous variant”) which could be used to push a narrative that more vaccinations are needed, when “what these people are actually experiencing is the antibody created by the [original] vaccine.”
In addressing Geert Vanden Bossche, Yeadon said his theories are “highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants.’ I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.”
“Here we have a situation where millions of people have already done this so-called ‘vaccine,’ so presumably we are well on our way to having more mutant strains which will then presumably lead to more lockdowns and more vaccines to protect us from all of these deadly mutant strains and these so-called, ‘gain of function’ mutants which, frankly, don’t exist.”
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.