Many of us are now becoming increasingly confused by the wealth of messages and news they are continuously receiving on the evolution of this pandemic and on how to react.
The level of contradiction has sometimes grown to an extent that even the veracity of scientific research and publications has been questioned. If you have been following the science sections of several popular mainstream media or alternative news outlets over the last few months, you will recognize that views and interpretations on mass vaccination campaigns, and all the flanking measures that derive from it, have now turned this initiative into a highly controversial topic. One of the reasons is that the evolution of this pandemic, which is basically a complex interplay between the infectious pressure exerted by the viral population and the immune pressure exerted by the human population, has now become profoundly perturbed by human intervention. Hence, to gain a good understanding of the current situation, and especially of where it is now leading to, one needs to be able to draw from different disciplines. There is no single publication, no single review, no single brilliant mind that has the analysis, let alone the solution, at hand. It’s all about collecting pieces of a complex puzzle and putting them together. If you have only a few pieces, some of which don’t even have to match, you can easily come up with several proposals on how the final image of the puzzle would look like. However, the more pieces you collect, and especially the more they also match each other, the narrower the number of options and the more one will be able to fine-tune predictions on how this final image will look like. If one truly takes the effort of taking a deep dive in the different disciplines that color this pandemic to first find the most critical pieces and to then complement those with additional matching pieces, it is possible to make fairly accurate predictions on how the pandemic is going to evolve. This doesn’t even require to collect every single molecular detail. When it comes to solving complex problems, I’ve always been much inspired by the following statement from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes:
‘When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’.
I am telling you this in order for you to understand the following guidance when it comes to gaining a truthful understanding of the debacle that currently unfolds and to be able to navigate your way through the stormy and troubled waters the pandemic is currently sailing. My guidance primarily pertains to learning how to screen and filter opinions and interpretations related to current global health interventions in this pandemic and the overall impact thereof on global health (and by extension on animal health).
Questionnaire for fact checkers (excerpt from email I sent to XXX , dated 14.04.2021):
> - What's your name?
> - Who's paying/ financing you?
> - What are your credentials and background? Same Q to your 'experts':
> - Who are they? What is their background (especially re: evolutionary biology, immunology, virology and vaccinology COMBINED)? And what are their arguments?
> - Did you check whether your experts are having a conflict of interest (shares/ stock options in the pharmaceutical companies producing current vaccines) or whether they are otherwise affiliated with any other private or public stakeholders of the mass vaccination campaign?>
> If you think your 'experts' merit some credibility, why then don't you set up an open, scientific debate rather than to merely serve as Mr. postman? Unless your 'experts' are willing to publicly declare that current mass human interventions in this pandemic are going to generate herd immunity and control all viral variants so that we can soon turn back to our normal lives, you should be cautious granting them any credibility.
> I've done a proper home-work and have not made any scientifically uninformed statements (you may want to educate yourself a bit on my website). I know too well that if what I am saying would ultimately prove to be incorrect, I will be under even more severe attack and pay a huge price. But how about yourself? Can we agree that that you and your company should be put out of business in case your Fact Check conclusions prove to be 'deadly' wrong? If you don't agree, I recommend you to re-do your homework properly as ultimately and inevitably, the truth about all this will come out.
> I assume you agree that this email exchange can be posted on the web. But maybe you wish to add a comment first?
Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development.
Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness.
Back in 2015, Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. He is at present primarily serving as a Biotech / Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines.