Geert Vanden Bossche PhD
- Thread starter Xopher89
- Start date
It is quite likely that new variants are being created by the vaccine (and by the non-vaccine-RNA jab?) yet we still have the immune system (such as T-cells) do we not? Are not all variants typically very close to the original virus, and so we would already have T-cells that recognize the variants and be able to effectively combat it? I don't hear Luc Montagnier saying the variants will be deadly or more dangerous, he is only talking about their creation. So much smoke and mirrors, divide and conquer, splitting hairs and splitting families, created confusion.
Well, well, well! I found an article on this on RAIR in which you can find the link to a longer version of the interview (w/o subtitles):
Interestingly, a recent article from the UK seems to support the above; there was a rise in vaccination uptake in the under-50s in Bolton, and, in turn, an outbreak of the 'Indian variant':
Death rate in England is lowest since records began 20 years ago
Although there are localised hotspots in which the Indian variant is spreading, it is not leading to rising case numbers overall, according to King's data, which tends to be a more up-to-date measure of the state of the pandemic than other figures.
Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King's College, said the team was monitoring the variant closely, but there was nothing to suggest that the NHS was in danger of being overrun or that the lockdown release would need to be postponed.
"So far, we see only localised outbreaks or hotspots," he said. "Not only in Bedford and Bolton, which we saw a week ago, but our data shows Newport in Wales, Glasgow and neighbouring areas like East Dunbartonshire or Lanarkshire in Scotland, Aberdeen, Leeds and neighbouring authorities like Kirklees and Wakefield too.
[...]
Latest data show Bolton has seen a big increase in vaccination rates in the under-50s, with 29.5 per cent now having a jab compared to 29.3 in England - an increase of 4.5 per cent. Public Health England's weekly surveillance report shows 71.8 per cent of people in England now have antibodies to Covid, either through vaccination or a prior infection.
Death rate in England is lowest since records began 20 years ago
The proportion of people dying in England fell in April to its lowest level since records began, figures from the Office for National Statistics show. Just 851.2 people per 100,000 died last month - the lowest figure since the ONS started...www.sott.net
As an aside, i just noticed the last part which would probably mean that, as others have been predicting, at 71.8% the UK has basically reached levels of herd immunity - or at least, they would have were it not for the vaccination campaigns?
I'm curious, and I'd appreciate it, if some of our French members could: (1) check if the English translation of the shorter clip is correct (2) inform if Montagnier says anything additional that might be interesting in the longer version (11min, only in French).
I'm thinking of making subtitles to the shorter clip.
Persephone
Jedi Master
Concerning the English translation I would say yes, it's quite correct.
About the 2nd point I cannot acces the longer version (I get the message "video append of 1988020b failed for segment #0 in playlist 1-stream_1.m3u8")
I will try later...
This is a vague transcript - not verbatim, but a bit shortened.
cholas
Dagobah Resident
Old news by now perhaps but wanted to make the connection (if not done so already) between the "fact-checkers", The Poynter Institute and the B&M Gates Foundation. (page 3 of this thread)
No conflict of interest here.....
www.poynter.org
www.gatesfoundation.org
No conflict of interest here.....
CoronaVirusFacts Alliance
Led by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at the Poynter Institute, the #CoronaVirusFacts / #DatosCoronaVirus Alliance unites more than 100 fact-checkers around the world in publishing, sharing and translating facts surrounding the novel coronavirus.
www.poynter.org
Committed Grants | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
This database includes grant commitments made by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and previous foundations of the Gates family (William H. Gates Foundation, Gates Library Foundation, and Gates Learning Foundation) from 1994 onward.
Wow, thanks! And thanks also to @Persephone for confirming the translation. The longer version is even more interesting! I hope that someone will do English subs to that one. I would do it myself, based on nicklebleu's transcript, but I'm so lousy at French that I couldn't place the lines with correct time stamps.
ADDED: Well, on second thought, maybe I could manage to place the lines correctly, we'll see...
and
Yeadon makes effort to factor up the arguments over T-cells vs. antibodies (vocally), wherein Montagnier stays the course on antibodies. The former argues that antibodies are indeed relevant to bacterial infections, and much less so for viral (within the cell delivery system). The former clams a variant is something like 97% the same as the original (like SARS is 80% the same as Covid). The latter claims the statistics on illness following vaccines; yes, no doubt there, with attribution made to variants. One might say that after a year of masks, self-isolation, coupled with other toxins and then the so called vaccines, it is bound to have an effect across the human age spectrum on a scale outside the original age target of covid itself (+80's with comorbidity).
I don't know the half of it when it comes to T-cells, and it seems not many scientists do either, however antibodies is well studied and a central message in news debate reminders.
There is this on T-cells and covid:
snip:
Here is how Yeadon puts it.
Michael Yeadon - Planet Lockdown - Full Interview
Interview with Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer, where he worked for 16 years. He outlines his position on the pandemic, the vaccine, the issue of variants, boosters and the loss of our civil liberties. It is…
www.bitchute.com
Another question could be, are these (or will these) vaccines playing a role in 'over-activating' T-cell response in otherwise healthy individuals (putting aside the question of antibodies), hence needing to look at variants as cause rather than a rapidly changing internal biology triggered by vaccines?
Persephone
Jedi Master
Thanks nicklebleu for the transcript. I could acces the video only later and what caught my attention was this point :
"Especially RNA viruses have a high potential for variation. The RNA double-helix is very stable, and infectious, it is resistant to RNase. RNA is more rigid than DNA, it has less water molecules, it is denser."
Montagnier says that because of their more rigid and stable structure ARN molecules are resistant to Rnase (Ribonuclease), which means resistant to their degradation.
Reading about Rnase I found also that "active RNA degradation systems are the first defense against RNA viruses and provide the underlying machinery for more advanced cellular immune strategies such as RNAi" (inhibtion of transcription).
This leads to think that RNA vaccines are more harmful than DNA vaccines ("The mRNA will replicate. Maybe it replicates after the vaccine, maybe later. But we cannot prevent double-stranded RNA to be in the cell in a very stable form," says Montagnier) and that in the face of this resistance of RNA (the one which induces the production of the spike protein in our case), the virus finds strategies for variation and thus becomes also more resistant.
It is interesting what Montagnier says about the corona virus strategy :
"The variants move progressively towards Fibonacci sequence in the ratio between Adenin-Uracil vs. Guanin-Cytosin. Why? Because the genetic code degenerates. Because an amino acid can be coded by different nucleotid bases. The code changes, but the product, the protein, remains the same. Pfizer engineers have tweaked the RNA to hold it as long as possible in the organism. For that it needs to be enriched in Guanin-Cytosin, as this is stronger than Adenin-Uracil. So all the variants have Fibonacci numbers, but the vaccines don’t."
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
GVB responded to Yeadon... You can read the response on his website here
www.geertvandenbossche.org
Not going to lie, the science gets complicated here, certainly above my level to fully comprehend. It's nice to see GVB respond though and it's nice to see that he has what looks like a cohesive rebuttal. This makes it appear like he knows what he's talking about to the lay person.
Some excerpts I've chosen
Okay so it looks like he's saying that Yeadon is failing to make a distinction between infection and clinical disease and the immunity required for both is different?
This next bit he is describing that he means the variants will still lead to infection and that these variants will become better at infecting...
Definition of terminology as I understand them as it's a bit heavy on science here
S-directed -- I think when he says this he means antigen specific i.e. the ability of the virus to infect.
S-specific Abs. --- antibodies specific to the antigen
Cytolytic MHC cl I-restricted T cell -- think these are the things that Yeadon hinges his arguments on. The things that stop clinical disease, not necessarily infection.
To me it sounds like he is saying T-cells won't stop you from being infected so Yeadon is wrong on that front. Argument seems to make sense to my lay mind.
So far so good. Moving on...
So having established that infection will happen from the variants, he says these will therefore increase the infection rate (by virtue of the variants being trained to be more infectious). He then says that previously asymptomatic infected people run a risk of being infected by one of these new variants at a time when their specific ABs are suboptimal (i.e. at a time when the antigen specific antibodies they received from their previous infection won't be strong enough to stop the new infection from taking place). Here I think is where his theory comes in as his theory is that by virtue of having this antigen specific antibodies ones innate immunity will be suppressed. That means that these reinfected asymptomatic people will be unable to clear the virus and so will get clinically ill? Okay, so a jump has been made here as now the T cells that Yeadon talks about are useless? Can anyone explain?
So increased infections will happen with new variants as the variants are essentially being taught to be better at infecting. I get that. Previously infected people, especially those who have asymptomatic infections can get reinfected. Okay, but I haven't seen real world proof. These people's previously acquired antigen specific antibodies won't be good enough and in fact will suppress their innate immunity. Okay! So these means these people will now become clinically sick. I don't get it here, what about the T cells that Yeadon was talking about? The same T cells where GVB said this earlier in the paragraph
So why is there no clinical protection any more? Have these "CTLs" gone to sleep? Heeeeeeelp.
At the end of the day what does it matter if you are infected but you are protected against clinical illness and your body eventually clears the infection? Yeeeeelp!
Second and last reply to M. Yeadon
Michael Yeadon’s rhetoric that mass vaccination campaigns do not have the potential to promote circulation of more infectious immune escape variants and that more infectious variants are not problematic are not based on sound immunological grounds at all. This will be my second but last reply to...
Not going to lie, the science gets complicated here, certainly above my level to fully comprehend. It's nice to see GVB respond though and it's nice to see that he has what looks like a cohesive rebuttal. This makes it appear like he knows what he's talking about to the lay person.
Some excerpts I've chosen
Okay so it looks like he's saying that Yeadon is failing to make a distinction between infection and clinical disease and the immunity required for both is different?
This next bit he is describing that he means the variants will still lead to infection and that these variants will become better at infecting...
Definition of terminology as I understand them as it's a bit heavy on science here
S-directed -- I think when he says this he means antigen specific i.e. the ability of the virus to infect.
S-specific Abs. --- antibodies specific to the antigen
Cytolytic MHC cl I-restricted T cell -- think these are the things that Yeadon hinges his arguments on. The things that stop clinical disease, not necessarily infection.
To me it sounds like he is saying T-cells won't stop you from being infected so Yeadon is wrong on that front. Argument seems to make sense to my lay mind.
So far so good. Moving on...
So having established that infection will happen from the variants, he says these will therefore increase the infection rate (by virtue of the variants being trained to be more infectious). He then says that previously asymptomatic infected people run a risk of being infected by one of these new variants at a time when their specific ABs are suboptimal (i.e. at a time when the antigen specific antibodies they received from their previous infection won't be strong enough to stop the new infection from taking place). Here I think is where his theory comes in as his theory is that by virtue of having this antigen specific antibodies ones innate immunity will be suppressed. That means that these reinfected asymptomatic people will be unable to clear the virus and so will get clinically ill? Okay, so a jump has been made here as now the T cells that Yeadon talks about are useless? Can anyone explain?
So increased infections will happen with new variants as the variants are essentially being taught to be better at infecting. I get that. Previously infected people, especially those who have asymptomatic infections can get reinfected. Okay, but I haven't seen real world proof. These people's previously acquired antigen specific antibodies won't be good enough and in fact will suppress their innate immunity. Okay! So these means these people will now become clinically sick. I don't get it here, what about the T cells that Yeadon was talking about? The same T cells where GVB said this earlier in the paragraph
So why is there no clinical protection any more? Have these "CTLs" gone to sleep? Heeeeeeelp.
At the end of the day what does it matter if you are infected but you are protected against clinical illness and your body eventually clears the infection? Yeeeeelp!
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
I think I answered my question above as to what happens to those T cells above.
Looks like GVB is saying asymptomatic people may not be sufficiently primed in terms of their B memory cells.
Question 3 in the FAQ..
According to GVB, asymptomatic infected people cleared the infection through NK cells which are part of the innate immunity. These NK cells have no memory.
Okay, so asymptomatic people will have antigen specific abs which suppress innate immunity i.e. including the NK cells.
So this means next time round the infection will progress until they become clinically ill?
Question: are we seeing real life examples of previously asymptomatically infected people becoming reinfected and testing positive for covid?
As far as I know, people who have been previously infected either asymptomatically or not are not being reinfected again, at least not to anywhere near a high number? So clearly even asymptomatic people have some form of protection that is persisting and I'm assuming holding strong against new emerging variants? Not yet seeing anything yet in the real world to suggest GVB is correct about previously asymptomatic people being in danger from new variants.
Looks like GVB is saying asymptomatic people may not be sufficiently primed in terms of their B memory cells.
Question 3 in the FAQ..
According to GVB, asymptomatic infected people cleared the infection through NK cells which are part of the innate immunity. These NK cells have no memory.
Okay, so asymptomatic people will have antigen specific abs which suppress innate immunity i.e. including the NK cells.
So this means next time round the infection will progress until they become clinically ill?
Question: are we seeing real life examples of previously asymptomatically infected people becoming reinfected and testing positive for covid?
As far as I know, people who have been previously infected either asymptomatically or not are not being reinfected again, at least not to anywhere near a high number? So clearly even asymptomatic people have some form of protection that is persisting and I'm assuming holding strong against new emerging variants? Not yet seeing anything yet in the real world to suggest GVB is correct about previously asymptomatic people being in danger from new variants.
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
Coming back to this and tracking Geert's predictions. So it looks like the UK is experiencing a significant jump in cases which is in line with his predictions. The variant in question (the Delta variant) appears to be more fit at infecting but it's not resulting in bad clinical outcomes. So on this latter bit, it appears Geert's prediction is yet to materialise.
Ultimately, his prediction is that a variant will emerge that will be capable of evading the vaccine, infecting efficiently and conferring worse clinical outcomes owing to the fact the majority will have diminished innate immunity following previous vaccinations or having been infected without being sufficiently primed.
Countries of interest still remain the UK and Israel in terms of observation.
VACCINE EXPERT WARNS OF COVID VACCINATION CATASTROPHE Geert Vanden Bossche in a new (11/18/21) Interview with Del Bigtree discussing further the concerns of continuing to mass vaccinate the population. A little over an hour... Hour and 17mins. A good watch with clarification on innate immunity and Naturally acquired immunity. Main message Do Not give jabs to kids it will destroy their ability to fight the variants and possibly create a catastrophic depopulation event.