Interesting viewpoints. I don't remember him specifically saying that we need to make a "NK cell vaccine." That seems to be Rosemary Frei's perspective of his Trojan horse maneuver to halt the current mRNA shots and promote a NK cell vaccine. If my memory serves I thought he was mentioning how we have natural innate immunity thru our NK cells. I didn't interpret that to mean he was promoting a new vaccine that he is going to develop. I may be wrong in understanding what was said in the McMilan interview. Perhaps he said that in another interview. I also think the push from Bigtree and Coleman to share the video far and wide was because of the shared perspective of these vaccines that are not necessary and can cause harm thru possible ADE anitbody dependent enhancement which is a known concern in the past animal trials. So if there is another possible danger besides ADE then you would think it would add to your cause of trying to lessen or prevent harm by warning people of probable or possible dangers.
Geert Vanden Bossche PhD
- Thread starter Xopher89
- Start date
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
He mentions the NK vaccines here
He's got people running round in circles now... Loads of debunking videos on YouTube now. Clearly struck a nerve by opening his mouth...
Part of the lesson I think is to discern for ourselves what is true. Critically thinking and not letting our emotions get the best of us. I know I felt the need to share cause of some inner savior like program. I let fear of the harm that may come to those thinking about getting vaccinated and those that have already been vaccinated to push me into worrying and wanting to help others to at least see the info but with the hopes it will change their mind. When ultimately it is each individuals soul journey or purpose and life choice to seek or not to seek info and to chose to act or not to act based on the info provided.
Thanks for the clarification. I read Rosemary Frei's rebuttal... clue number 7 talks about him saying he thinks we need a NK cell based vaccine in the letter he put out on Linkdin (sp)
Call me crazy but it can explain why Israel, UK and USA are rushing to vaccinate their population. They want a situation where all those not vaccinated die including the whole developing world? What sort of twisted strategy is this
I don't think that this is a very realistic scenario - the vaccinated would be as susceptible to a genetically shifted virus as the unvaccinated. In fact the unvaccinated might stand a better chance due to the fact that they haven’t hammered their immune system with an artificial vaccine.
The other thing that I find interesting is that the two main exponents of the ‘immune escape’ scenario are vaccine developers. And one is gunning for another vaccine that is in the pipeline.
It could very well be that ‘immune escape’ will become a problem further down the track, but my hunch is that it either won’t be catastrophic, or there will be other elements at play to make it so.
There are a lot of different ways the vaccine can ‘backfire’ (as in being harmful to the general population), some that we even don’t know about, as the ‘wizard’s apprentices’ in their bio labs don’t exactly understand what they are doing.
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
Lets look at the situation of Marek's disease
This article is from 2015
Leaky Vaccines Enhance Spread of Deadlier Chicken Viruses
Over the past fifty years, Marek’s disease—an illness of fowl—has become fouler. Marek’s is caused by a highly contagious virus, related to those that cause herpes in humans. It spreads through the dust of contaminated chicken coops, and caused both paralysis and cancer. In the 1970s, new...
CREDIT: LANCE CHEUNG, USDA
- SCIENCE
- NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE
Leaky Vaccines Enhance Spread of Deadlier Chicken Viruses
BYED YONG
PUBLISHED JULY 27, 2015
7 MIN READ
Over the past fifty years, Marek’s disease—an illness of fowl—has become fouler. Marek’s is caused by a highly contagious virus, related to those that cause herpes in humans. It spreads through the dust of contaminated chicken coops, and caused both paralysis and cancer. In the 1970s, new vaccines brought the disease the under control. But Marek’s didn’t go gently into that good night. Within ten years, it started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages.
Okay - so the covid vaccine is a leaky vaccine too i.e. it doesn't stop the infection, it's meant to dampen the expression of the disease. The vaccinated can still transmit the virus onwards.
Hmm, interesting, right? So here's a warning about leaky vaccines in humans which weren't really a thing back in 2015. But these new generation vaccines were going to be leaky....
CREDIT: LANCE CHEUNG, USDA
- SCIENCE
- NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE
Leaky Vaccines Enhance Spread of Deadlier Chicken Viruses
BYED YONG
PUBLISHED JULY 27, 2015
7 MIN READ
Over the past fifty years, Marek’s disease—an illness of fowl—has become fouler. Marek’s is caused by a highly contagious virus, related to those that cause herpes in humans. It spreads through the dust of contaminated chicken coops, and caused both paralysis and cancer. In the 1970s, new vaccines brought the disease the under control. But Marek’s didn’t go gently into that good night. Within ten years, it started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages.
Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunised flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble.
This problem, where vaccination fosters the evolution of more virulent disease, does not apply to most human vaccines. Those against mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are “perfect:” They protect against disease and stop people from transmitting the respective viruses. “You don’t get onward evolution,” says Read. “These vaccines are very successful, highly effective, and very safe. They have been a tremendous success story and will continue to be so.”
He is more concerned about the next generation of vaccines that are being developed against diseases like HIV and malaria. People don’t naturally develop life-long immunity to these conditions after being infected, as they would against, say, mumps or measles. This makes vaccine development a tricky business, and it means that the resulting vaccines will probably leak to some extent. “This isn’t an argument against developing those vaccines, but it is an argument for ensuring that we carefully check for transmission,” says Read.
“The candidate Ebola vaccines are also foremost in my mind,” he adds. “Some of the monkey trials suggest that they may be perfect, but we need to be very confident that they don’t leak. If they do, and some vaccinated individuals are capable of passing on Ebola, that might lead to the evolution of very dangerous pathogens.”
He is also concerned about animal vaccines, which are often leaky. These include vaccines against Newcastle disease in poultry, Brucella in livestock, and especially bird flu. When bird flu outbreaks hit American and European farms, the birds are culled. But in Southeast Asia, they’re often vaccinated, “and those vaccines are leaky,” says Read. “It creates an analogous situation to Marek’s.” The birds might survive more lethal forms of the virus, which they could then spread to each other—and potentially to people.
Read first proposed the “imperfect vaccine hypothesis” back in 2001, on purely theoretical grounds. It proved controversial, not least because he had neither experimental evidence nor case studies to support the idea. Then, a colleague told him that the hypothesis might explain the increasing virulence of Marek’s disease. “I wrote the name down, misspelled it, and couldn’t find anything in the literature!” Read says. He only heard about the condition again when he was asked to speak at a Marek’s conference. There, someone put him in touch with Marek’s expert Venugopal Nair from the Pirbright Institute.
The duo infected vaccinated and unvaccinated chicks with five different strains of Marek’s virus, of varying virulence. They found that when unvaccinated birds are infected with mild strains, they shed plenty of viruses into their surroundings. If they contract the most lethal strains, they die before this can happen, and their infections stop with them. In the vaccinated chicks, this pattern flips. The milder strains are suppressed but the lethal ones, which the birds can now withstand, flood into the environment at a thousand times their usual numbers.
Read and Nair also found that the “lethal” strains could spread from one vaccinated individual to another, and that unvaccinated chickens were at greatest risk of disease and death if they were housed with vaccinated ones.
All of this is consistent with the imperfect vaccine hypothesis. It doesn’t prove that imperfect vaccines drove the evolution of today’s extra-virulent strains, “and we may never know for sure why those evolved in the first place,” Read writes.
It's indeed a weird situation where it was the unvaccinated chickens that were in danger when housed with the vaccinated chickens!!! Very weird but this is what happened, it's real.
Alarm bells should be ringing!
Okay, so they don't know if more virulent strains of this Marek's disease evolved due to the leaky vaccines but it sounds like they know the vaccinated chickens were able to transmit these to unvaccinated chickens thereby killing them. They raise some alarms about the long term consequences of using leaky vaccines in human populations due to this.
UK column thinks this is the diabolical plan. That they want to introduce a strain the future that the vaccinated can withstand but that can kill the unvaccinated. This will then enable control because a) everyone will need to get vaccinated otherwise they run a huge risk of dying if housed with a vaccinated person like these unvaccinated chickens when housed with vaccinated chicken b) they control the vaccines and can decide who gets and doesn't get them. All these equal power.
I suspect the UK Column hold this hypothesis because it doesn't make sense why Israel and UK are rushing to vaccinate their whole population... Where's the logical sense unless these crazy people are trying to create this weird situation in the human population?
If this situation can play out in chickens, can it play out in humans? What would your diabolical scientist in the employ of the PTB think? Hmmmm....
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
But of course we know the vaccines aren't safe to those vaccinated... All the adverse effects and ADE... We're only 3 months into the vaccination campaign and things look bad, really bad. So the end result is the vaccinated won't fair much better if indeed the plan is for them to be carriers of more lethal strains.
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
Plus wait, Geerts information flips the thing that happened with chickens on its head.
Geert says the vaccines will drive vaccine resistance and immune escape. He says the narrow immunity conveyed by the vaccine won't be strong enough to withstand a strain that has achieved vaccine resistance and immune escape. So in Geerts view, the unvaccinated stand a better chance of survival once the new more virulent strains emerge.
Hmmm.... I wonder if we have any real life examples where Geerts theory has played out in reality. We for sure have a real life example of the opposite scenario with the chickens and Marek's disease! There's a puzzle here...
Geert says the vaccines will drive vaccine resistance and immune escape. He says the narrow immunity conveyed by the vaccine won't be strong enough to withstand a strain that has achieved vaccine resistance and immune escape. So in Geerts view, the unvaccinated stand a better chance of survival once the new more virulent strains emerge.
Hmmm.... I wonder if we have any real life examples where Geerts theory has played out in reality. We for sure have a real life example of the opposite scenario with the chickens and Marek's disease! There's a puzzle here...
Seems to me, and I could be very wrong, that all of this about how those who are being vaccinated will infect and kill those who aren't vaccinated could be seen as another way to frighten people into getting the vaccine so they won't be killed by those who have it. You know, controlled opposition.
zak
The Living Force
The practice of knowledge, and networking, still allows us to sort out the good from the bad, at least to mitigate it, and to choose despite the madness going on, to avoid running back and forth across the backyard, like a headless chicken pissing blood, every time we cry fox.
The chickens didn't have the opportunity to have Gaby and Keyhole to help boost their immune systems before, during and after, and also that their karmic and simple understandings were shorter and more direct.
I realize that this is both a hilarious and horrific post...
Hilarific...or horrious...
It's up to you!
The chickens didn't have the opportunity to have Gaby and Keyhole to help boost their immune systems before, during and after, and also that their karmic and simple understandings were shorter and more direct.
I realize that this is both a hilarious and horrific post...
Hilarific...or horrious...
It's up to you!
FWIW, another rebuttal from a Dr. Robert Verkerk, Ph.D. 
childrenshealthdefense.org
Analysis: What Vanden Bossche Got Right — and Wrong — About Mass Vaccination
Robert Verkerk, Ph.D., of Alliance for Natural Health International, weighs in on the recent debate sparked by Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., concerning immune escape and mass vaccination during a pandemic.
childrenshealthdefense.org
I don’t think the answer to whether there is immune escape due to the vaccines is black and white. What we know about the human body’s physiological mechanisms is a mere tiny proportion of what goes on. I feel Geert vanden Bosschen is simply putting the pieces together logically with what he knows and understands. Likely it is an incomplete understanding.
This is science, a theory is formulated and then we test or observe to see if the theory holds in respect to a positivist reality.
The information he presents serves the function of casting serious doubt over the value of mRNA vaccination schemes. He doesn’t have to be completely correct to be relevant.
This is science, a theory is formulated and then we test or observe to see if the theory holds in respect to a positivist reality.
The information he presents serves the function of casting serious doubt over the value of mRNA vaccination schemes. He doesn’t have to be completely correct to be relevant.
Benjamin
The Living Force
I posted the original Geert interview up on my FB page and was expecting it to be 'independently fact checked'. I was right! It was:
The link that was provided led me here:
leadstories.com
This article was written Mar 17, 2021 by Dana Ford:
In the article she "checked in with several experts to test Vanden Bossche's claims about accelerated development of variants." She then quotes Dr. Otto Yang, "a professor of medicine in the infectious diseases division at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles", from a Mar. 17, 2021 editorial in USA Today titled, "Forget about the frenzy over COVID-19 variants, viral evolution is normal" (emphasis mine):
She then goes on to quote from a video by Dr. Zubin Damania "an internist and clinical professor of medicine at University of Nevada Las Vegas who produces popular science videos as "ZDoggMD.""
Damania's introduction in the Mar. 16, 2021 video starts like this (could he murder Geert's name any more?):
These are the two points Dana Ford quotes that shows Geert was wrong:
@ 6:12:
She then finally quotes Fauci in a C-Span recording from Feb 1, 2021:
The spin on this is crazy! Dana Ford has based her entire fact check article on Dr. Otto Yang's critique of Geert's interview, "The central premise of this author is that escape of viruses will produce more lethal variants," and has eliminated everything else I wonder if she understood the interview or even watched the whole thing (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt). As I understand the Geert Vanden Bossche interview, "lethal variants" is not the "central premise". I'm not even sure if it could be called a 'sideshow'.
The link that was provided led me here:
Fact Check: Mass Vaccination Amid The COVID-19 Pandemic Does NOT Create An 'Irrepressible Monster' | Lead Stories
Does mass vaccination amid the COVID-19 pandemic create an "irrepressible monster" of disease? No, that's not true: Vaccines represent one...
leadstories.com
This article was written Mar 17, 2021 by Dana Ford:
In the article she "checked in with several experts to test Vanden Bossche's claims about accelerated development of variants." She then quotes Dr. Otto Yang, "a professor of medicine in the infectious diseases division at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles", from a Mar. 17, 2021 editorial in USA Today titled, "Forget about the frenzy over COVID-19 variants, viral evolution is normal" (emphasis mine):
She then goes on to quote from a video by Dr. Zubin Damania "an internist and clinical professor of medicine at University of Nevada Las Vegas who produces popular science videos as "ZDoggMD.""
Damania's introduction in the Mar. 16, 2021 video starts like this (could he murder Geert's name any more?):
These are the two points Dana Ford quotes that shows Geert was wrong:
@ 6:12:
and @ 10:36:
She then finally quotes Fauci in a C-Span recording from Feb 1, 2021:
The spin on this is crazy! Dana Ford has based her entire fact check article on Dr. Otto Yang's critique of Geert's interview, "The central premise of this author is that escape of viruses will produce more lethal variants," and has eliminated everything else I wonder if she understood the interview or even watched the whole thing (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt). As I understand the Geert Vanden Bossche interview, "lethal variants" is not the "central premise". I'm not even sure if it could be called a 'sideshow'.
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
The one thing I like about Geert is how he has everyone freaked out, from both camps - the anti vax and the pro vax camp.
- The anti vax camp is freaked out because the situation he portrays is one where unvaccinated people still face an unacceptable level of biological danger
- The pro vax is freaked out because the situation he portrays is one where the vaccinated are definitely doomed.
In a weird way, Geert has united the 2 sides in their criticism of him.
Neither side intrinsically is comfortable with loss of control of the outcome... The pro vax want comfort in the certainty that by being vaccinated, they are safe. The anti vax want certainty that by not being vaccinated, they are safe. What about if neither side is safe regardless of what they do or don't do?
In any case, no one faces the central premise in his thesis... That if he is correct, it will be known in only a couple of weeks and / or months.
If anything, the reaction to Geert points to the uncertainty that is now central to the situation we face. Neither side really knows what will happen but both are heavily invested on pre determined outcomes.
- The anti vax camp is freaked out because the situation he portrays is one where unvaccinated people still face an unacceptable level of biological danger
- The pro vax is freaked out because the situation he portrays is one where the vaccinated are definitely doomed.
In a weird way, Geert has united the 2 sides in their criticism of him.
Neither side intrinsically is comfortable with loss of control of the outcome... The pro vax want comfort in the certainty that by being vaccinated, they are safe. The anti vax want certainty that by not being vaccinated, they are safe. What about if neither side is safe regardless of what they do or don't do?
In any case, no one faces the central premise in his thesis... That if he is correct, it will be known in only a couple of weeks and / or months.
If anything, the reaction to Geert points to the uncertainty that is now central to the situation we face. Neither side really knows what will happen but both are heavily invested on pre determined outcomes.
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
He did another interview last night
My summary
My summary
- I think he's legit in as far as he believes what he is saying. He seems to be really putting himself out there and understands the aggression he's getting back from certain quarters.
- He doesn't think the world will organise soon enough to stop the disaster. I think he finds this frustrating and has resigned himself to the inevitable.
- Solutions wise, he doesn't really have a clear road map but he emphasises a few things: stop mass vaccinations, release young people but provide them with a means to test for antigen specific antibodies as can be a danger signal, still contain the situation with the old and vulnerable, get the right experts together to understand the situation... remove the commercial considerations from this process i.e. the profit motive.
- He still kinda believes in vaccines as a solution but this is getting weak now. He just doesn't think that there's a vaccine that can achieve sterilising immunity.
- He thinks health passports are a joke with no scientific underpinning. All political BS.
- He's a firm believer in medical choice and informed consent and is clearly worried by what's going on.