Addressing Geert Vanden Bossche’s Claims
Written By Edward Nirenberg
The short version: Geert Vanden Bossche has recently published a letter in which he argues that the vaccination campaign against COVID-19 is going to precipitate a public health disaster because the vaccines will select for viral variants that can escape their protection and drive them towards higher virulence. His claims are speculative, he offers no evidence to support his arguments, and makes several comments which are blatantly incorrect. The core of his argument relies on the assumption that COVID-19 vaccines do not have a significant effect on transmission. This has been repeatedly confirmed to be false in multiple studies. Furthermore, even if his assumptions about the effects of the vaccine on transmission are true, his conclusions are incorrect based on established precedent from Marek’s disease, a viral illness of birds with a vaccine that does not strongly affect transmission- but it still shows meaningful public health benefits in the populations of chickens where it is used. The vaccines will absolutely be critical to ending the pandemic, and fortunately the modular nature of the technology allows for rapid reformulation and adjustment as necessary (and thus far, though precautions are being taken with novel variants to produce vaccines specific to their set of problematic mutations, there isn’t significant enough evidence to suggest that total reformulation of the vaccines is needed), but no issues raised in this letter warrant a re-evaluation of our current COVID-19 vaccination policy.
(more at the link)
https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressing-geert-vanden-bossches-claims
>> The vaccines will absolutely be critical to ending the pandemic
An opinion.
Natural resistance and attrition of the vulnerable may prevail.
Unlike scientists on stage in our country that non-critical thinking people blindly follow, Geert has welcomed and encouraged push back. He may well be willing to sit on a panel with the author of that article to bounce thoughts off of. The arena of ideas is good - especially when suggesting people take a new treatment with no five to 10 year safety studies.
That rebuttal is pretty weak, when you dig into it. It reads like standard bureaucratic ass-covering.
What a giant surprise, eh?
Anyone who pushes for a vaccine for a virus with a 98% recovery rate has no standing. They are pushing for some other reason
I do believe that's wrong. Even the CDC says the vaxxed can transmit.
His own link to his own blog, on YOUR article says the following:
1) I'm Edward Nirenberg, aspiring physician.
2) Note: Nothing on this site should be treated as medical advice. All medical inquiries should be answered by a qualified professional familiar with the patient in question’s specific medical history and nothing on this site is an appropriate substitute.
3) Your article is from March 15 according to your own site.
This is July.
You lose.