Jim Jordan proves Dr Fauci lied about Gain of Function research at the Wuhan lab that American tax dollars paid for! If you still believe that Dr Fauci or Dr FauXci, as many people call him, if you still believe he is telling the truth EVER and that he’s not trying to cover his ass, then watch the video, the transcript is right below. Then after you’re done, type Dr Fauci in the search box on the right and read the other articles that expose his hypocrisy. Fauci’s NIH Gave Tens of Millions in Grants to Chinese Labs
Dr Fauci Gives Speech Before President trump took Office
You’ll learn how he had a hand in the spread of HIV, you’ll learn that he knew, before President Trump started his first term, that there would be a pandemic (SARS-Cov-2), how would he know that? If he was a Seer maybe, he’s not. He’s just another Marxist from New York, trying to destroy The United States, along with his comrades, Andrew Cuomo, Chris Cuomo, Bill de Blasio, Letitia James and all the other politicians that blindly follow these criminals.
Dr Fauci Is Worse Than A Tick – He Is Sucking The Life Blood Out Of The United States!
Jim Jordan Transcript Proving Dr Fauci Lied
Friday January 31st, 2020 at 10: 32 p.m. Dr Fauci gets an email from Christian Anderson, Christian Anderson’s, a British researcher, who’s received numerous grants from NIH. Two really important sentences are in that email, two sentences that get Dr Fauci’s attention. The first is this:
“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome, so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features look engineered.”
Christian Anderson
Again, this is January 31st, 2020. Second sentence:
“Eddie [Holmes], Bob [Garry], Mike [Ferguson] and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
Christian Anderson
Email arrives 10:32 to Dr Fauci on January 31st, 2020, two hours later, two hours later at 12:29 in the morning, Dr Fauci sends an email to his top deputy, Mr Hugh Auchincloss. The guy has worked for Fauci for 15 years, part of his inner circle. Sends it, subject line says: “IMPORTANT”, in all capital letters. He attaches a paper on gain of function research written, by Dr Baric and Dr Shi. Dr Shi of course, is the so-called bat lady, bat woman, the lady who does research in the Wuhan China lab.
This email, Dr Fauci says again, to his top deputy:
“It is essential that we speak. this A.M., keep your cell phone on, read this paper, you will have tasks to do today, that must be done.”
Dr Fauci
Notice the intensity, notice the focus. I mean this is “the house is on fire” email here. Now, two hours after that, at 2:48 in the morning, Dr Fauci’s busy this morning, 12:29 that email he sent to Dr Auchincloss, his top deputy two hours later at 2:48 in the morning, he sends another email, this one to Robert Kadlec assistant HHS secretary, Trump appointee, not part of his inner circle, and he attaches a different article to this email. One that says:
“The virus came from an animal that downplays any lab leak theory”. Now again, notice the tone of this one: “Bob this just came out today, gives a balanced view.
Best,
Tony”
I mean totally different from the previous. This is one like: “Oh, if you get a chance read this, gives a balanced view.” So the tone is different, but also that sentence gives a balanced view. It’s not true either. That’s just not accurate.
This article downplays, as I said, the lab leak theory, “emphasizes evolutionary cause to the virus”. What happens next? What happens next? Later that same morning, later that same morning, at 11:47 a.m, Dr Fauci’s deputy gets back to him. I just want to read you this whole email.
“The paper you sent me”, the one he sent him that was written by the neurologist from Wuhan China and Dr Baric, “The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause, but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH.”
Mr Hugh Auchincloss
Not sure what that means, since Emily, someone else who works for Dr Fauci, is sure that no Coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework, which, of course, is the oversight body, that’s supposed to approve any grant dollars going for gain of function research.
No Coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework, final sentence:
“She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.”
Mr Hugh Auchincloss
She will try to determine if our fingerprints are on any of this. All these emails happen in 13 hours, so 13 hours after Dr Fauci gets the initial email from Christian Anderson saying,
“looks like this virus is engineered not consistent with evolutionary theory.”
Christian Anderson
Dr Fauci knows some important facts.
Dr Fauci knows there is a lethal virus on the loose that started in Wuhan China.
He knows the American taxpayers have funded gain of function research in Wuhan, China.
He knows that the research grant didn’t go through the required oversight board.
He knows the virus quote, “looks engineered” and quote “not consistent with evolutionary theory” and finally
Dr Fauci knows he may have ties to this work in China.
His fingerprints in fact may be on this. So what does Dr Fauci do next. after he says, Oh whatever, what does he do next? He organizes a conference call for later that same day, I mean this is the busiest 24 hours I think I’ve ever, he organizes a conference call, 12 people on the call, Dr Fauci and 11 virologists from around the world. Virologists who’ve gotten millions of American tax dollars over the past several years.
Here Are Those Virologists
Bob Garry
Christian Drosten
Tony Fauci
Mike Ferguson
Ron Fouchier
Eddie Holmes
Marion Koopmans
Stefan Pöhlmann
Andrew Rambaut
Paul Schreier
Patrick Valance
Now look at this list. Here’s a list of people, there’s only two Americans on the list, Tony Fauci and one other, most of them from around the world, as I said. I think the first thing you notice is who’s not on the call, who’s not on the list, is Dr Kadlec on the list? The guy he sent the email to at three in the morning. Is Dr Redfield, the head of CDC?
Dr Jarrar, who’s with us today, assistant secretary at HHS at the time? Dr Burks, the lady who’s, soon to be COVID response coordinator? In fact, there’s no one from the government on the call except Tony Fauci, Tony Fauci and 11 other individuals who got a bunch of American tax dollars over the years. What happened on the conference call? The short answer is we don’t know? We don’t know what they talked about. I mean, I think, we’ve got a good idea, we don’t know for sure, but we do know what happened four days later.
Four days later, February 4th, 2020, Christian Anderson, the guy who started it all, who said “the virus looks engineered”. Christian Anderson said this four days later, the crack, the quote:
“The crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. That is demonstrably false.”
Christian Anderson
What? In four days this guy went from “this looks engineered” to now, “that’s demonstrably false”, four days he went from “this, isn’t consistent with evolutionary theory.” Now we know it’s totally evolutionary? But it gets even better, it gets even better.
Mr Anderson and three of the other people on this call write an article a few weeks later. That says“COVID is not a laboratory construct”, and while they’re writing that article there’s an email from March 6th, where Mr Anderson offers to let Dr Fauci edit the article before it’s published and here’s the kicker, here’s the kicker:
When the article is published, Dr Fauci cites it at a White House press conference when he is asked by a reporter about the origin of the virus, cites the very article he put in motion on the conference call and he was allowed to edit, at the White House, where he’s supposed to be giving the American people the truth, he references an article that he manufactured.
Now, maybe I’m wrong about all this, maybe it didn’t work out this way. I think I’m right. Maybe it didn’t work out this way, but it would have been nice, Mr chairman, if Dr Fauci would come today and answer our questions, he could have come here and defended himself, but he didn’t have the courage to do it.
And you know who else wouldn’t come, remember that email about the P3 framework? We invited Dr Hassell to come too, he’s the individual who chairs that oversight board. We invited him to come today too, and he wouldn’t come. They, I, I’m convinced these guys knew right from the get-go what the truth was and they misled the American people.
Oh here’s, the other thing. You know that conference call, that conference call? We got the emails regarding the conference call from February 2nd. All these guys, all these guys were emailing back and forth, they were on that conference call. Here’s what we got on the foyer request: here’s all their emails! Every single thing is redacted.
Every single thing is redacted about what took place in that conference call, because I’m convinced it was at that conference call where they said we got to cover our tracks and again maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m wrong, but Dr Fauci could have been sitting right there and answering our questions and he wouldn’t come today. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr Jordan, and let the record reflect that Dr Fauci was invited Friday afternoon. He declined
Peace, Love & Blessings To All, Especially To Dr Fauci And All His Cohorts!!!
Also, how does it come that some people are naturally protected and others are not? What are these mechanisms? What are these molecular mechanisms?
Dr Geert Vanden Bossche Interviewed By Dr Philip McMillan Full Interview & Transcript
Dr Geert Vanden Bossche Interviewed By Dr Philip McMillan
Dr. Philip McMillan – Hello and good evening to everyone, well, afternoon, depending on where you are in the world today. We have a really, really important topic and I have the pleasure of having with me, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche from Belgium, the difference is that Geert is truly an international vaccine developer and he’s here to share some very important and unique perspectives on where we are now in terms of the covid pandemic.
Philip: So pleasure to have you here with me Geert. How are you?
Geert: I’m fine thanks for having me, Philip.
Philip: Wonderful, wonderful, listen. I mean, I think the first thing that we have to clarify is that we have to explain, you are someone who is in the vaccine, development business, so to speak. What has that background been like?
Geert: Well, I have a background essentially in as far as vaccines are concerned in industry, as well as in the non-for-profit sector. So I have been working with the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, GAVI, especially concentrating on vaccines for global health, and I’ve also been working with several different companies – vaccine companies, developing of course, essentially prophylactic vaccines.
My main focus of interest has always been in fact the design of Vaccines so the the concept: how can we educate the immune system in ways that are to some extent more efficient than we do right now, with our conventional vaccines.
Philip: Right and so In effect, this is the area of work you’ve been in you develop vaccines. You are as well working with the Ebola vaccine as well, one of the really really dangerous viruses we have out there in the world. How? How does that work is it? Is that easy to do?
Geert: Well, I was not uh.. let me very clear, I was a coordinator of the Ebola program at GAVI, so we were interacting with several different vaccine companies that were developing Ebola vaccines because it was important for GAVI to make the right choice the right vaccine in order uh, you know for this vaccine to be rolled out in the uh western African uh countries that had this severe Ebola crisis back a number of years ago.
So that was not uh, let’s say operational, practical work, this was more a role of coordination, but, of course, was also a role of assessing what would be the impact of using some of these vaccines in larger populations and in an area where uh an epidemic is is really is, is going on because that’s a very Particular and peculiar situation.
Philip: Yes, and so in fact, we’ve had so much success over the past 100 years with some very big breakthroughs with vaccines, smallpox, you know, measles, mumps, rubella, um, polio, um, but we’ve struggled with other vaccines. It It’s it without going into the details, because this is very difficult to get across, but is there a difference with how viruses operate, that makes some easier to get a vaccine for?
Geert: Well, I think we have Philip, essentially, we need to distinguish, of course, be between what we call acute self-limiting diseases. These are diseases that naturally uh come to an end, in a sense that ultimately, the individual will eliminate the pathogen, of course, some people may die, of course, let’s be very clear.
Those who survive will ultimately eliminate the pathogen that is the vast majority of the vaccines we have been developing so far uh, you know, I Don’t need to tell you that with other viruses, where uh we, we clearly see that they spread in a completely different way. They spread, for example, from cell to cell. They tend to be more intracellular.
They tend to develop chronic infections where It’s uh, It’s not self-limiting, It’s not acute self-limiting, it’s chronic, it is much more difficult, and that is the the reason primarily is that um most of the vaccines we are developing are still antibody based vaccines. So we need these antibodies in the blood or we need these antibodies to translate to the mucosa, for example, in order to capture the pathogen and to neutralize it.
So some of the other bugs I mean they have a very insidious strategy in a sense that they hide in cells that they can already add a mucosal barrier penetrate you know, immediately into cells, and then the cells uh may migrate, for example, to the, to the, the lymph nodes, so they are shielded from the antibodies, and that makes it very, very difficult because we know that we can catch them to some extent in the blood, but what they do all the time is that they insert mutation and they escape they fully escape. To our antibody uh responses, so that makes it uh way more difficult.
It’s also the the model is the reason why also against cancer etc. We have not been extremely successful with vaccines, as I would say, stand-alone uh yeah.
Philip: Absolutely yes! So it brings us into where we are, with regards to covid-19. Now, if we, we have 20 20 vision at the moment when we look back at the pandemic and where we started from, and I’ve always said that at the time when the pandemic started, when it got from China into Italy to Europe into the UK, I thought that the only way that we could manage this is to lock down and to prevent the spread of this apart, this very dangerous virus.
We do have to stand back and see whether or not those decisions were correct, but, as we said that hindsight is 2020. What would you say now, as we look back at the decisions we made then, were we about on the right track? Did we make any mistakes?
Geert: Well, frankly, speaking from the very beginning – and I mean there are many people who can witness this or testify it is, I always said that it was a bad idea to do lock-downs that would also affect the younger people. That we would prevent younger people from having contact from being exposed, because remember the big difference back then was, of course, that we had a viral strain covid strain that was circulating dominant strain, and that was not highly infectious as those that we are seeing right now.
Of course, when a new virus gets into a population, it immediately gets to the folks that, have you know, weak immunity, and we know we know these people, this is to a large majority, of course, elderly people, people uh that have underlying diseases or are otherwise immune, suppressed, etc.
And, of course I mean it was certainly the right thing to do to protect these people and for them also to isolate. But we have to distinguish frankly, and that is what we we have not been doing – between those people that have strong innate immunity, I mean It’s not uh, you cannot see when you see a person, you Don’t know this, but we know that young people have quite decent innate immune response and therefore they are naturally protected and even more I mean if they get in contact with corona virus, it will Boost their natural immunity.
So therefore, from the very beginning – I don’t I was – I disapproved. You know the fact that schools got too close and and universities and that youngsters were preventing even from having contact with each other. That situation is, of course, completely different. If you look at vulnerable people, the viruses comes in the population, there is no no immunity, there is no immunity at all.
In fact, so nobody has been in contact, so the youngsters they can rely on good innate immunity, elderly people I mean the the innate immunity is waning. It gets increasingly replaced by antigen specific by specific immunity as people get older, so these people very, very clearly needed to be protected, but it has taken a lot of time before we understood in fact how we, how exactly the immune response and the virus were interacting.
So there has been a lot of confusion, a lot of mistakes made about mistakes, I mean retrospectively um and, and that has also led to um, you know bad control right from the beginning, uh. I would say…
Philip: So with that in mind and where we are now, as we uh as countries across the world have been drifting towards the Christmas period, there is still a rise in cases, countries had to try and lock down mass mandates and so on, but we all had the hope that vaccines would come and break the cycle. This is where clearly, now from your expertise, you seem to have a different thought about how we should have been thinking about vaccines, then, and even now, what is your perspective?
Geert: Well, my perspective was, and still is, that, if you, if you go to war, you better make sure that you have the right weapon and the weapon in itself can be an excellent weapon, and that is what I’m saying really about the current vaccines. I mean It’s just brilliant people who have been making these vaccines in no time and with regulatory approval and everything.
So the weapon in itself is excellent. Question is: is this the right weapon for the kind of war that is going on right now? And there, my answer is definitely no. Because these are prophylactic vaccines and prophylactic vaccines should typically not be administered to people who are exposed to high infectious pressure.
So Don’t forget, we are administering these vaccines in the heat of a pandemic, so in other words, while we are preparing our weapon, we are fully attacked by the virus, the virus is everywhere. So that is a very different scenario from using such vaccines in, in a setting where the vaccine is barely or not exposed to the virus.
And I’m saying this because if you have high infectious pressure, It’s so easy for the virus to jump from one person to the other. So if your immune response, however, is just mounting, as we see right now with the number of people who get their first dose together, first, those the antibodies are not fully mature, titer are maybe not very high, so their immune response is sub-optimal, but they are in the midst of this war while they are mounting an immune response.
They are fully attacked by by the virus and every single time I mean this is textbook knowledge every single time, you have an immune response that is sub-optimal in the presence of an infection in the presence of a virus that infects that person you are at risk for immune escape.
So that means that the virus can escape to the immune response, and that is why I’m saying that these vaccines – I mean in their own right are, of course, excellent, but to use them in the midst or in the midst of a pandemic and do mass vaccination, because then, you provide within a very short period of time the population with high antibody titers, so the virus comes under enormous pressure.
I mean that that wouldn’t matter, if you can eradicate the fire, if you can prevent infection, but these vaccines don’t prevent infection, they protect against disease. Because we are just, unfortunately, we look no further than the end of our nose in the sense that hospitalization, that’s all what counts.
You know getting people away from the hospital, but in the meantime we are not realizing that we give all the time during this pandemic by our interventions the opportunity who escaped immune to the immune system and and – and that is of course, uh a very, very, very Dangerous thing, especially if we realize that these guys they only need 10 hours to replicate.
So if you think that by making new vaccines a new new vaccine against the the new infectious strains, we are going to catch up, It’s impossible to catch up, I mean virus is not going to wait till we have those vaccines ready. I mean this thing continues and, as I was saying, the thing is I mean if, if you do this in the midst of a pandemic, that is, that is an enormous problem. These vaccines are excellent, but they are not made for administration to millions of people in the midst in the heat of a pandemic. So that is my fault.
Philip: Is this equivalent? Then? Because you mentioned this in your paper, it is equivalent to using either a partial dose of antibiotics in an antimicrobial or in a bacterial infection, where you then produce super-bugs. Is this the kind of example that you’re alluding to well?
Geert: That is a very good parallel. It’s also the parallel I’m using actually in the paper we just posted on Linkedin, which you know should be so open for everybody. I mean It’s pure science, because, as you were pointing out Philip, the thing is the rule is is very simple. I mean same with antibiotics either the antibiotics do not match very well with the bug. That’s not good! That’s why we are making antibiograms.
You know to first identify which, which is this germ, and then we choose the antibiotics. We we need to have a very good match, otherwise there could be resistance. So when I compare this to the current situation, do we have a good match with our antibodies? No, at this point in time we don’t have a good match anymore, because we have this kind of like almost heterologous variants, so that differs from the original strain. So the match isn’t very good anymore and hence we see people are still protected, but they are already shedding the virus.
So that is one thing. The other thing is the quantity. Of course you tell people, you know you take your antibiotics according to the prescription. Please Don’t uh as soon as you feel well that doesn’t mean that that you, you can stop the antibiotics same here, and I give just one example. If you know give people just like one dose, I mean they are in the process of mounting their antibodies.
The antibodies still need to fill the mature, etc. So this is a sub-optimal situation. We are putting them in a sub-optimal situation with regard to their um immune protection and, on the other hand, they are in the midst of the war. They are fully attacked by all you know by all these kinds of highly infectious variants, so I mean It’s It’s very clear that this is driving immune escape and will ultimately drive resistance uh to to the vaccines.
So my point is yes Philip, It’s very similar. There is one difference, the virus needs living cells, I mean if you’re driving immune escape, but the guy has no chance to jump on somebody else who cares? This situation is no different because we are in the midst of a war. We, there is a high infectious pressure, so the likelihood that an immune escape immediately finds another living cell, that means another host is very, very high. It’s per definition It’s the definition almost of a pandemic.
Philip: Yeah, So it raises a simple question that somebody has put in in front of us here, which is It’s perfectly common sense? What do we do?
Geert: That question is very easy. I mean we need, we need to to do a better job when we are confronted with situations that seem very dramatic. Like you know an epidemic, our generation has not, you know, been living in times where there are epidemics or pandemics, and so we immediately take action and and jump on the beast with the tools we have instead of analyzing, what is really going on.
One thing that uh I thought was extremely interesting was and it’s something that was not really understood, we know that the number of people are asymptomatically infected, so they are infected, but they don’t develop severe symptoms.
Of course, they can have some mild symptoms of respiratory disease whatever. So the question is what exactly happens with those folks that they can eliminate the virus? They eliminate the virus, they, they don’t transmit it, they will, they will shed it for like a week or so, and then they eliminate this.
You could say yeah. Of course, we know that antibodies eliminate, oh wait a minute, the antibodies come later. You have first, the search of you know shedding of the virus, and It’s only afterwards that you see you know a moderate and short-lived race of antibodies, so the antibodies cannot be responsible for elimination of the virus.
So what is responsible for elimination of the virus? Luckily enough, we have a number of brilliant scientists, independent brilliant scientists that have now increasingly been showing, and there is increasing evidence that what in fact is happening is that NK cells are taking care of virus, so so so NK cells that the virus gets into into these epithelial cells and starts to replicate, but NK cells get activated and they will kill, they will kill the cell.
You know in which the the virus right so to replicate. So I was saying that the virus needs to rely on a living cell, so you kill that cell It’s gone It’s all over. So while we are in pollution, we have this solution in in the pathogenesis, because some people eliminate it.
Philip: Absolutely. I just wanted to clarify, because when you said NK cells, somebody may not quite know what you mean, so you mean Non-Killer cells. So It’s a specific group of whites,
Philip: Natural Killer cells, sorry, yes, Natural Killer cells, a special group of white blood cells that go and take out the virally infected cells. Yes, um! Yes, so yes, you’re right is that, because I have seen from a clinical perspective, very old patients who you would expect to be overwhelmed by the virus and they have a few symptoms and then they’re okay.
So they the body, does manage to get rid of it, in some cases – and so it raises the point that I’ve always been saying is that we haven’t spent enough time understanding how the virus impacts the body and understanding how the pandemic then will impact the world we’ve spent all of our time, just going for solutions, has that been a mistake?
Geert: Of course this has been the you know, the the most the most important mistake. I think I’m not sure many people – and I was part of them so in in all modesty I was part of them, not sure whether many people understand how a natural pandemic develops and why we have this first wave, we have the second wave and we have this third wave and – and I mean these waves of disease and mortality and morbidity, they shift from one population to another.
So I’m saying, for example, the second wave. This was typically also the the case with influenza World War 1, when uh, basically more soldiers, young people, uh, you know, died in the trenches of influenza than than you know from from injuries or whatever.
So first, the elderly, I mean weak immune system, etc. Then it gets to the, the wave of morbidity and mortality to, to the other people, and then it gets back to people who have uh, you know have antibodies. So we, we, we have to understand this first. How does this come? Why, all of a sudden is this, this wave of morbidity and mortality shift for example?
Why are the three waves? How do we, how do we explain this?Also, how does it come that some people are naturally protected and others are not? What are these mechanisms? What are these molecular mechanisms?
Because if you make vaccines and all this thing at the end of the day, this is going to interact at a molecular level, and we have not been understanding this. I was just explaining. We Don’t understand our weapon because we don’t understand that prophylactic vaccines should not be used in the midst of an epidemic.
We don’t understand exactly what the virus is doing. So we go to a war and we don’t know our enemy. We don’t understand the strategy of our enemy and we don’t know how our weapon works. I mean, how is, how is that going to go? We have a fundamental problem to begin with.
Philip: I understand, and I completely accept that, but at the same time I am still thinking that if the governments don’t respond in some way because they have to be seen to be doing something um what they seem to be in a lose-lose situation, if they don’t do anything, they’re going to be criticized and if they do do something they’re going to be criticized, Is that a fair statement to make?
Geert: I don’t think so? What was this odd of uh? What’s the name of the guy Hippocrates, you know the first do no harm okay. Well, I mean it wouldn’t matter. If you, if you start vaccinating people, and even it doesn’t work problem, is that we induce a long-lived, antibody response and, as a matter of fact, we know I mean that is not my knowledge. It’s all published problem is that we we failed to put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Fact is that these long-lived antibodies, which have high specificity, of course for the for for the virus they out, compete our natural antibodies because their natural antibodies, they have a very broad spectrum, but they have low affinity right and so by doing this, even if your antibodies don’t work anymore, because there is resistance, or you know that the strains are too different from the original strain.
We still this antibody specific antibody will still continue to out compete your natural antibodies, and that is a huge problem, because I was saying just a few minutes ago, these natural antibodies, they provide you with broad protection.
This protection is yes, it is variant, non-specific, doesn’t matter what variant you get. It doesn’t even matter what type of corona virus is coming in. They will protect you unless, of course, you suppress this level of innate immunity or it is, for example, out-competed by uh long-lived specific antibodies, and so It’s not like, okay, you know you you, you missed it uh…
Okay, let’s try again! No you did some harm. I mean this is different from drugs immunizing somebody is installing a new software on your computer. Don’t forget, I mean these antibodies, they will be recalled every single time. You are encountering a corona virus right. I mean you cannot just erase this, so this is very serious. This is very serious.
Philip: So this is an important point, because when I was looking at some of the research around the challenges that they faced with the initial Sars, the first epidemic and they tried to develop the vaccines one of the things they found, certainly when they tested it on the ferrets was that when they exposed them to a corona virus again, they got a very severe response to it. Is this what you’re saying that we are putting ourselves in a position where we can then have much more severe disease even to viruses that should normally be quite benign?
Geert: Well, you know you, you see all my passion and my conviction, but I mean I’ve been the last to criticize the vaccines uh in terms of, would they in some regard? Could they in some regard be unsafe? Because you know you would have even this exacerbation of disease uh due to antibodies that doesn’t match uh very well with the corona virus they’re exposed to etc.
I know there is three reports on this and there is a lot of uh, you know serious thoughts about this. But um, I think what we are talking about right now, the really the, the, the epidemic or the pandemic problem of having a population that is at no point during the pandemic and to large extent, due to our intervention, has not a strong immune response. I mean this is already serious enough.
This is, this is more concerning than one or the other adverse event that could maybe elicit it uh, I’m not done playing it, but that could maybe be elicited, because people have antibodies that do no longer match very well with the strain they were or with the strain they are exposed to and therefore you know they build a complex, they don’t neutralize the virus, they build the complex and this complex could maybe even enhance viral entry into susceptible cells and hence little exacerbation of disease.
I mean this may be possible, but the problem I’m talking about is a global, a global problem. It’s not an individual, getting an adverse event. It’s a global problem of you know making this virus increasingly infectious, because we leave it all the time, a chance, an opportunity to escape the immune system and to drive this so to whip this up, you know up to a level where the virus is so infectious that we can even no longer control it.
Because I mean these highly infectious strains people some people think. Oh, the virus is going to calm down and it will insert a number of mutations. You know just to be gentle and and kind with us. That’s not going to happen. I mean this highly infectious training remain.
It is not going to be spontaneous mutations that all of a, of a sudden, uh, would become, you know, would, would make these fighters again harmless. Because such a virus would have a competitive disadvantage, could no longer, could not be dominant anymore. So That’s not going to happen, so we’re talking about a very, very, very serious problem here.
Philip: So it I’ve seen the question many times and quite frankly, I get asked the questions. Um we’re coming to a point where people are going to have to take these vaccines. That looks as though It’s the reality, either in the context of work or in the context of travel based on what you’re saying they’re in a lose-lose situation. What does what does this mean?
Geert: Well, what does this mean is very clear. It’s very clear what this is going to mean, so, let’s consider the consequences of this boat at the population level and at an individual level. Because I would well understand if it for the population is maybe not the best thing to do. But you know on an individual level, It’s still okay, yeah. Then It’s not an easy. That’s not an easy question, but as a matter of fact, it’s exactly the opposite.
Well, It’s not the opposite. It is detrimental both on a population level as on an individual level, and I’m telling you why I think the population level I explained you, we are increasingly facing highly infectious strains that already right now we cannot control, because, basically, what we are doing is that we are turning when we vaccinate somebody, we are turning this person into a potential asymptomatic carrier that is shedding the virus.
But at an individual level, I just told you that if you have these antibodies and at some point and I’m sure these will people can challenge me on this, but you know reality will prove it.
I think we are very close to vaccine resistance right now and It’s not for nothing that already people start developing. You know new vaccines against strains, etc. But what I was saying is that, okay, if you miss the shoot, okay, you could say nothing has happened. No, you are at the same time losing the most precious part of your immune system that you could ever imagine of, and that is your innate immune system.
Because the innate antibodies, the natural antibodies, the secretory IGM’s, will be out competed by this antigen-specific antibodies for binding to the virus, and that will be long-lived. That is a long-life suppression and you lose every protection against any viral variant or, or corona virus variant, etc. So this means that you’re left just with no, no single immune response with you, you’re, you know you, it’s known, your immunity has become null, it’s it’s all done.
The antibodies Don’t work anymore and your your innate immunity has been completely bypassed. And, and this, and this while highly infectious strains are circulating. So I mean, if that isn’t clear enough, I really don’t get it and people, please do read my, my, you know what I posted, because it’s science, it’s pure science, pure science and and as everybody knows, I’m a highly passionate vaccine guy right and – and I have no criticism on the vaccines. But please use the right vaccine at the right place and Don’t use it in the heat of a pandemic on millions of millions of people.
We are going to pay a huge price for this and I’m becoming emotional, because I’m thinking of my children of the younger generation, I mean It’s, It’s just impossible, what we are doing, we don’t understand the pandemic.
We have been, we have been turning it in an artificial pandemic who can explain who can explain where, all of a sudden, all this highly infectious strain come from, nobody can explain this. I can explain it, but we have not been seeing this during previous pandemics during natural pandemics.
We have not been seen it because at every single time there was the immunity was low enough so that the virus didn’t need to escape so back at the end of the pandemic. When things calmed down – and it was herd immunity – it was still the same virus recirculating.
What we are now doing is that we are really chasing this virus and it becomes all you know increasingly infectious, and I mean this is just a situation that is completely completely uh completely out of control. So It’s also we, we, we are now getting plenty of asymptomatic shedders.
You know people who the virus, because if they are vaccinated or they have even antibodies from previous disease, they can no longer control these highly infectious variants. So how does that come? Does anybody still understand the curves? I see all these top scientists looking at these curves at these waves, like somebody else, is looking at the currency rates at the stock market. All they can say is, oh, it goes up, It’s It’s stabilizing, it may go down, may go up, etc.
I mean that is not science, they don’t have any glue, they don’t even know whether the curve is going to go up exponentially or whether it’s going to go down or whatever. They’re completely lost, and that is extremely scary. That has been the point where I said, Okay, guys, you have, you have to analyze you have to, but you know these people are not listening, that is the problem.
Philip: So you are, in effect, putting your reputation on the line, because you feel so passionately about this, because I guarantee you that no government, no um no health system is going to want to hear what you are saying. You are, in effect um, almost giving fuel to the fire for an anti-vaxxer who doesn’t want the vaccine.
Geert: No, no, well, no, no, not yet, but because I, i’ve clearly also um addressed uh some emails from anti-vaxxers. I mean I’m not interested, but I’m clearly uh telling them that um you know it at this point at this point, it’s so irrelevant, you know whether you’re a pro-vaxxer or an anti-vaxxer, etc. It is about the science, it’s about, it’s about humanity right, I mean, let’s, let’s not lose our time now with you know, criticizing people or or you know, I mean anti-vaxxer,
Okay, if you’re not an anti-vaxxer, you could be a stalker, you could be, you know we like to stigmatize, because if you stigmatize people, you don’t need to bother about them anymore. Oh this guy’s, an anti-vaxxer. Okay, I mean he’s out of of the scope. Oh he’s a stalker he’s out of the scope.
I mean that what is a discussion that is completely irrelevant at this point, it is about humanity and, of course, I’m passionate. Of course I mean It’s about, It’s about your children, It’s your family, It’s my family, It’s everyone right, and It’s simply for me. I put everything at stake because I’ve done my homework right and this is simply a moral obligation, a moral obligation right.
Philip: Wow wow I mean I, I there’s very little one can say, as I said when you position, that you are in the business of developing vaccines and helping societies protect against infections through the use of vaccines, and in this circumstance you are saying hold it we’re doing the wrong thing here. It’s very difficult to not listen to that, that’s the, that’s the truth.
Geert: Well, the answer is very easy. I mean this is human behavior, you know? We, if we have, if we are, you know having panic, we do something and we try to make ourselves believe that it is the right thing to do till, you know, there is complete chaos and there is a complete disaster and then people say well, you know I mean yeah, politicians will probably say, you know, we have been advised by the scientists and scientists.
You know will maybe point to somebody else, but this is now a situation. I’m asking every single scientist to scrutinize to look what I’m writing to do, to do the the science and to study exactly the, I call this the immune pathogenesis of the disease and because you know, I mean. I like, I like people to do to do their homework, and if the science is wrong, you know, if I’m proven wrong, I will admit it.
But I can tell you I’m not putting my career, my reputation at stake, I would not do this, whether when I would not be 200%, you know, convinced – and It’s not about me not about me at all. It’s about humanity.
People Don’t understand what is currently going on and we have an obligation to explain this and I posted my paper on Linkedin and I invite all independent scientists please to look at it, because this can be easily understood by microbiologists immunologists geneticists. You know plenty of you know, biochemists, etc, etc. All the biologists all these people who have elementary knowledge, It’s not rocket science, elementary knowledge of biology, should be able to understand this, and I mean I can only appeal to these people. You know to stand up as independent scientists and to voice you know their opinion.
Philip: Yes, yes, yes, I mean that was a long point that somebody put on about the innate immune response. Um uh over the falls over reacting of the innate immune response, leading to detrimental effects on other in other corona viruses. So I,I think, you’ve expressed this so well Geert. Is that um?
I think that just hearing your explanation, the passion, the focus on the science – I think that That’s as much as you can do, I think that umI Don’t even want to say anymore, because I don’t want to lose that passion that you have just expressed. How much you are doing in terms of trying to see if you can make a difference with regards to the impact that we are having in this pandemic?
You know we really really appreciate that Geert. We really really appreciate that. I hope enough people um shares this listens to it, certainly because I’m connected with a lot of scientists, please um connect with Geert, take a look at his paper and um and see what you think and, as you said, let’s make decisions based on science. That’s the best that we can do at this point. Wonderful just stay on the line there we’re just going to close off now Geert.
So, thank you again very very much Geert and I hope maybe we can speak again in the near future to expand a little bit further on what you have said.
Geert: Thanks Philip for having me on.
Philip: Wonderful.
FauXci Tick
My Opinion of Dr Fauci has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Dr Geert Vanden Bossche or Dr Philip McMillan, I’m simply expressing what doctors who still adhere to their Hippocratic Oaths still sound like.
Dr Geert Vanden Bosshe Is To Dr Fauci, What A Giant Is To A Tick
Pretty Incredible! Dr Geert Vanden Bossche is an EXPERT, the kind that Dr. FauXci wishes he was. Dr. Geert Vanden Bosshe is to Dr. FauXci, what a GIANT is to a blood sucking Fauci tick.
