I am responding here to the request from several followers to comment on the NIH's new initiative called 'Generation Gold Standard' (https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-nih-announces-generation-gold-standard.html). For two decades, there has been a lot of talk about universal vaccines, while in reality, this concept is a contradiction in terms. Our current vaccines are almost all based on inducing strong adaptive, antigen-specific immunity and therefore cannot possibly acquire universal efficacy. Even when combining different antigens in the hope of addressing the variability of certain viruses, this does not imply universal efficacy. The number of antigens that can be combined is limited, and moreover, immunological competition between the different antigens in different individuals must be taken into account. Despite countless attempts and millions of dollars spent, no research institution has succeeded in developing a universal vaccine based on stimulating adaptive immunity against specific antigens, whether for influenza, HIV, or any other virus that uses variants to escape the immune system. Yet, vaccinologists apparently refuse to learn that the fight against immune escape through adaptive immunity is futile, and our only, albeit legitimate, hope lies in stimulating cell-mediated innate immunity.
For the past ten years, I have focused on this innovative concept to develop true universal vaccines. Attempts to collaborate with the vaccine industry always ended in failure because universal vaccines based on stimulating innate immunity are obviously commercially unattractive and also contradict the basic principles of a vaccine, which, by definition, must be antigen-specific and induce immunological memory. The idea that repeated exposure to infectious agents could lead to epigenetic reprogramming of immune cells and thus induce another form of immunological memory through some sort of 'training effect' is met with deaf ears among vaccinologists. When, in desperation, I reached out to academic institutions for collaboration, there was indeed greater interest, but this was only until my opposition to the COVID-19 vaccination program undermined my credibility with these institutions, and all collaborations were promptly terminated. My stance against the mass vaccination program, combined with relentless criticism of my person and work, has prevented me from making any notable progress with my innovative vaccine concept over the past five years. Hence, I had planned to simply publicize the provisional intellectual property -which has already been filed multiple times- online so that anyone who might be interested could learn about this innovative immunization concept. However, according to many voices, I would be better off dedicating my time and energy to encouraging the new health policy makers at HHS to bring about a true paradigm shift in vaccinology: a shift from stimulating adaptive immunity to activating and training innate (cell-mediated) immunity. Therefore, I briefly introduce the Coimeva universal vaccine platform in the pdf document attached. Those who may preemptively accuse me of opposing mass vaccination and promoting my own invention for commercial gain, shouldn't even bother making such venomous remarks. First of all, Coimeva has unfortunately not succeeded in filing a patent for its technology. Furthermore, all collaboration has been on hold for several years due to the reasons mentioned above. If this does not silence the slanderous tongues, let it be remembered that I have always stated that my only ambition is to introduce this innovative and promising approach into the increasingly struggling vaccine space, not to enrich myself financially. For quite some time now, I’ve been measuring wealth by different standards.
In summary, my hesitant initiative is simply intended to draw attention to this entirely new approach to immunization—one that aligns much more closely with the logic of any defense against an enemy: namely, that you must first reinforce your frontline defenses before deploying special forces, rather than the other way around.
I’ve no idea what the outcome of this initiative will be. Let’s patiently wait and see whether anyone within the new HHS system has the courage to turn words into action and give this new path a chance.
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.
Email: info@voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org
.svg){kind=small}
