Could spike protein in Moderna, Pfizer vaccines cause blood clots, brain inflammation, and heart attacks?Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the FDA in December that mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways not assessed in safety trials.
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.
In summary, the concerns center around the notion that a combination of lockdowns and extreme selection pressure on the virus induced by the intense global mass vaccination program might diminish the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the short-term, but ultimately, will induce the creation of more mutants of concern.This is the result of what Vanden Bossche calls ‘immune escape’ (i.e. incomplete sterilization of the virus by the human immune system, even following vaccine administration). This will in turn trigger vaccine companies to further refine vaccines that will add, not reduce, the selection pressure, so producing ever more transmissible and potentially deadly variants.The selection pressure will cause greater convergence in mutations that affect the critical spike protein of the virus that is responsible for breaking through the mucosal surfaces of our airways, the route used by the virus to enter the human body. The virus will effectively outsmart the highly specific antigen-based vaccines that are being used and tweaked, dependent on the circulating variants. All of this could lead to a hockey stick-like increase in serious and potentially lethal cases — in effect, an out-of-control pandemic.Not only that, it will be Western nations with high proportions of metabolically diseased, overweight or obese individuals with compromised immune systems that will be hit hardest.
[~1:06]My viewpoint has not changed at all. Stop, please, stop immediately this mass vaccination campaign!Second, based on the science that, I think, makes a lot of sense, we know that our young and HEALTHY people--could even be people seventy five years old, in perfect health--they do have good innate immunity. That has been clearly proven during the first wave. We haven't seen any kids or people in good health, even elderly people, doing exercise and not having overweight or diseases, these people didn't get ill. So, this is clearly--and there's more of evidence of this--that is thanks to their innate immunity. So, innate immunity is unbelievably precious. It is so precious, we need to conserve this. [His concern is that the vaccines will compromise "innate" immunity.]My point is, because it is the only way I can explain why people who are protected during the first wave--don't develop symptoms--all of a sudden during the second wave become ill. What we're seeing right now in hospitals are younger people--and I thought they were protected in the first wave! Why all of a sudden would they become vulnerable? The only explanation for me that makes sense is the competition with the antigen specific antibodies--the surge they have, the short lived surge [produced by the vaccines], but if during that period [of the surge] they become infected, reinfected, their innate immunity is suppressed, and that likelihood that that happens increases when you have an increasing amount of highly infectious [variants?] that are circulated.If that is really true, which I think it is, then in order to preserve this precious innate immunity that, by the way, is functional against ALL the variants, even if we have still 250 other variants coming up it's functional against all coronavirus. If we want to preserve this, we need to avoid suppression of the innate immunity by antigen specific antibodies [through the vaccines]. And this is the short lived surge I'm talking about, so I'm advocating for--I know it's available in US--a ... simple diagnosis fingerprint test. People could simply monitor whether they have antibodies. If they have antibodies, they know that after 4-6 weeks those antibodies will disappear ... these people can go out. I mean, they have the full fledged innate immunity, AND by going out they can TRAIN this immunity. Because remember--innate immunity has no immunological memory--it needs to be trained. So this would free up all of our youngsters and old people in good health who could monitor themselves. ... I think it's really worthwhile investigating into this.The third thing that goes with this, is for God's sake this is a unique opportunity for governments and political leaders to call up to their people to take good care of their health--their lifestyle. ... Stay healthy food, exercise. I would love to see the statistics of people who got Covid disease and did regular exercise and had no overweight, for example. These are only two criteria, there is many more. And we know ... the correlation between good health and innate immunity is very strong correlation.The fourth thing is we need to protect those people who can no longer rely on this innate immunity, especially given the fact that we have an increasing amount of new variants of course. And these are the people, I think it's sad to say, who have been naturally infected and have the specific antibodies but also more and more people who got vaccinated. We need to protect these people. That is absolutely important because we see already right now that antibodies become less and less functional against those new variants and my fear is that within the next days or weeks we will have full resistance even [of the virus against the vaccines]. When that happens, dysfunctional [?] antibodies, people can throw them in the bin. They're completely useless. It's even worse, they suppress their innate immunity. So they have nothing to rely upon, and that would be extremely sad.The good news is ... there is incredible progress with regard to early treatment of Covid. I mean, there are folks, they have been published in peer reviewed journals, who have kind of, ya, you could call it a cocktail of different medication, all of them are approved, safe, et cetera, that people can take and have been proven to reduce hospitalization and severe disease by 85%. Can you imagine? When I hear this, when I see this published, I think it should be by law, any medical doctor who diagnoses Covid 19 disease--or infection, even--should not let the patient go home and just say, ya, you know, you should just isolate and go in quarantine and wait and see. It should be law that these people are automatically provided with a first aid package.[1:12:39]
I just want to differentiate two terms we’ve been hearing a lot about during this pandemic:
- One is anti-vaxxers. And usually when that term is used, it’s often referring to people who tend to hold an extremely negative view of all vaccines, regardless of what the scientific data has to say about them.
- But I want to highlight that vaccine hesitancy is very, very different. And a lot of people who have the vaccine hesitancy are being made to feel very bad these days, right? It’s as though if they were simply educated enough about vaccines, then they would have no problem with these COVID-19 vaccines. But that’s not the case. That’s not the definition, certainly that I use. These are individuals instead who are unsure of their commitment to taking a vaccine. And it’s usually because of outstanding questions. So in other words, the onus is not on the individual. It’s not that the individual simply needs to be educated. We have, there’s lots of people who are very deep thinkers about this, doing their own research about the COVID-19 vaccines and coming up with very legitimate questions.
We’re in a unique situation with these vaccines. There are questions that are unanswered now that were never unanswered at this point for previous vaccines.
There was no way that we would reasonably have good, well-vetted COVID-19 vaccines available now and available within a year from the beginning of the pandemic.
But this is because these COVID-19 vaccines have reached the public rollout phase by, and I’ll say it in quotes, “cutting corners”. And by cutting corners, I’m not implying that people were skipping key steps, although honestly, there could be some potential questions around that.
BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:15:18
But what I mean by this is when we were asked to comment previously on how long it takes these vaccines to be developed, that was based on the understanding that the roll out would follow the typical timeline, which is that companies would complete phase three clinical trials, and then they would conduct the analysis.
So in this case, none of us were expecting, I don’t think, that the vaccines would be rolled out very early on in the phase three clinical trials. So the phase three trials are not done. So in essence, what this means is the public rollout right now is an extension of the phase three clinical trial.
BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:16:04
So those being vaccinated now are, whether they realize it or not, part of the phase three experiment, the part of a vaccination experiment and the companies have openly acknowledged this in their reports to the regulatory agencies, because, for example, there’s a minimum period of time for which they have to track things like the safety of the vaccine.
According to Bridle, the results of the experiment won't be known for at least two years. Reread that.
BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:17:02
Okay. So this is important to keep in mind. So as a consequence, these have been approved in a remarkable time, but that alone has raised some legitimate questions that are unique to these coronavirus vaccines.
And also I want to highlight that the nature of the virus itself – and I’ll get into this in a little bit – and as well, some very perplexing decisions about the rollout are raising additional questions that I would consider quite legitimate.
And what I mean by that is after somebody has been vaccinated, there are hundreds, probably thousands of other variables that occur in their day-to-day life that could have contributed to the problem. So it’s very difficult. So the only way we can really determine if it’s related to the vaccine often is just is with a large body of data that allows you to generate a very strong correlation. Okay.
But what I think what’s obvious here regardless is if these vaccines over time were to accrue a track record of causing too many severe, overly severe unpredicted side effects, this could potentially be cause for withdrawal of a vaccine.
So this was the confirmation wasn’t done. And this was only revealed in a summary report that was issued later by the United States food and drug administration, their health regulatory agency.
Now it’s interesting as a re-analysis with these new data taken into account was actually performed by the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. Now just called the BMJ. Alright. I do want to point out this is a non peer reviewed opinion letter. Okay.
But their new estimate taking into account that these unconfirmed cases actually predicts that the effectiveness could be as low as 19 to 29%, which is a remarkable difference.
But again, I want to highlight this can neither be confirmed or refuted until raw data are released to the scientific community. However, I was intrigued by this because this, this letter was published in mid January and the FDA held their meeting December 10th in 2020.
One final thing. I am very concerned about the emergence of SARS coronavirus two variants. Very concerned about this in the context of the vaccines.
Several of these have been identified. ...
... And this is to be expected. This is not unusual. We know the coronaviruses do this. Just so that you understand a little bit of the virology here, coronaviruses are designed to copy their genetic material in a way that inherently induces random mutations.
BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:41:40
I’m a researcher. I focused my career on developing ways to maximize the probability of an outcome occurring. Usually I’m trying to maximize the potential for a vaccine to treat cancers or prevent infectious diseases.
But if you were to ask me as a scientist, how would I design an experiment that would maximize our chance of generating a highly immuno evasive variant of the SARS coronavirus two?
My answer would be essentially the exact way we’re rolling out these vaccines, precisely the way they’re rolling out these vaccines.
... There are three key things that I would want in my experimental design if I wanted to maximize the chance of generating a variant that can evade all of our current COVID-19 vaccines.
First of all, I would want the vaccine to be rolled out very slowly. Secondly, I would want that vaccine to be distributed in a piecemeal fashion. So just vaccinating a few people over here and a few people over there, disperse through the populations.
The next thing he gets into is very similar to Vanden Bossche. You have the "reservoir population" reinfecting the vaccinated population. But, whereas the reservoir population won't be at terrible risk--we already know that this virus is NOT a risk except to a small portion of the population--vaccinated people may end up being at high risk. The more you vax, the worse it could end up, as Vanden Bossche maintains. And this concern becomes acute if, as Vanden Bossche argues, the mutations will not really be so random, due to human generated pressures. And Bridle goes on to argue, similarly, that the narrow focus on the spike protein could end up being extremely problematic--meaning, dangerous.
BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:43:47
All the while these people that have been vaccinated are surrounded by people who are not immune. And therefore conserve is what we call a reservoir population. This means this is the population in which the virus can spread.
All the time, the virus is going to be randomly generating these mutations. And that virus then is these people come into relatively close contact with the vaccinated individuals.
These random mutants can probe their potential to infect these vaccinated individuals.
And if they haven’t randomly acquired a mutation, it allows them to, infect that individual, then there’s going to be no infection, but they’re still going to circulate in that population of non-immune people. And it’s probably just a matter of time before there is a random mutation that does allow them to infect those individuals. And those viruses will be very problematic because they will have evaded the vaccine induced immunity.
BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:44:41
Now, the third thing that I would do to ensure that that this could be maximized, this opportunity for the virus, a problematic variant to emerge, is I would make sure that the vaccine that I was using was conferring very narrowly focused immunity.
A previous speaker actually talked about this, right? When we naturally get infected, our immune system will respond to multiple components of the virus. But honestly, and you know I’m involved with the SARS coronavirus two vaccine development.
We have been short-sighted generally speaking as the scientific community. We knew these viruses from the get-go could mutate, but we decided to focus primarily on the spike protein, a single component.
Now, the reason why is, again, as I said, the spike protein is what allows the virus to get into our cells.
So the idea is if you could generate antibodies against the spike protein, and then it can’t bind to our cells and we can’t get infected.
But if you think about it, it’s much easier for a virus to fundamentally alter one protein in its structure. It’s going to be far more difficult for that virus to alter multiple components of its structure and maintain fitness.
And so that’s the other thing. So we’re talking narrowly focused immunity. So we are only asking this virus to change one protein in order to be able to evade these vaccines.
BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:46:43
But if the rest of the world has these variants circulating, all those vaccinated individuals are gonna be susceptible to these variants that don’t care about that spike protein specific immunity anymore.
And and you may, as a population, have wanted much more broad immunity that’s conferred by natural natural acquisition of immunity, meaning you acquire the infection and clear it. So I’m very concerned about this.
And you might say, you know, is this, you know, am I completely wrong? No, we have evidence of this already. ...
BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:47:43
And so, arguably, it’s just a matter of time before we will have variants that can bypass this narrow immunity conferred by all of these vaccines. I hope I’m wrong, but I really don’t think that I am.
... most people that have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 have indeed acquired natural immunity. ...
It can protect them from reinfection, ... natural immunity is very broad.
So if a new variant infects, chances are that the immunity you have is going to blunt that infection, whereas if you have that narrowly focused immunity conferred by the vaccine, and this variant has evaded that spike protein specific immunity, those people are going to be at much greater risk of more severe disease than those who acquire the new variant, but have this broad acting natural immunity.
And there’s even evidence, interestingly, that those with preexisting immunity against other coronaviruses, including the SARS coronavirus one from 17 years ago, and even from some of the cold causing coronaviruses, can cross protect some people.
So this is the sweet evidence that natural immunity can be pretty good. I actually kind of laugh when I see these publications coming out, because this is kind of immunology 101 that I teach all my students. This is what our immune systems are designed to do.
I honestly believe it’s just a matter of time before a variant will emerge, that can bypass the immunity conferred by the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and others that we may come up with because they’re too narrowly focused.
So if that happens, there’s two potential solutions. You could simply go back and swap in the new spike protein from the new variant, but that’s not going to solve the long-term problem. Because then another variant will emerge. That will probably evade that one.
So to me, a better solution is we should have done this from the get-go, because again, we knew about this viral biology, right?
So arguably we should have been incorporating multiple targets into the vaccines, because again, it’s very difficult for a virus to make substantial changes to multiple proteins and still maintain its fitness.