The Covid-19 mass vaccination program violated all principles of Science and the Hippocratic Oath....
For the pdf, click here
As a scientist with over 30 years of professional experience in virology, immunology, and vaccines, I prioritize truth and directness in my approach.
I would therefore like to express my concerns regarding the infection-prevention measures and mass vaccination program recommended by the WHO during this pandemic, which I believe lack scientific rationale and should be considered a significant blunder in the history of medicine, public health, and vaccine science.
The WHO ignored the limitations of their recommendations for preventing transmission of a virus that can easily spread in the absence of symptoms. While measures like lockdowns, social distancing, and mask-wearing may initially have saved lives, they have hindered the population from developing herd immunity, leading to the highly problematic propagation of more infectious variants. Instead, PH authorities should have focused on protecting vulnerable individuals from exposure to a high viral load, for instance by avoiding concentrations in nursing homes or improving hygienic conditions in areas with poor sanitation.
While the mass vaccination program initially did save lives, it did not prevent viral transmission as the antibodies (Abs) induced by the C-19 vaccines could not protect from viral infection and shedding. As the mass vaccination campaigns were conducted in the midst of a pandemic, they predictably led to the selection of more infectious immune escape variants that managed to overcome the suboptimal vaccine-induced immunity and therefore spectacularly increased in prevalence. These variants are now posing a global health threat.
In contrast to natural infection, the C-19 vaccines do not activate killing of virus-infected cells by innate immune cells. As a result, vaccinated subjects could solely rely on vaccine-induced anti-spike antibodies for protection. Although the C-19 vaccines largely protect from severe C- 19 disease, they do not prevent viral infection and transmission, allowing the virus to escape from the vaccine-induced antibodies and cause vaccine breakthrough infections (VBTIs). Since the advent of Omicron, these VBTIs have now triggered a self-fueling cascade of viral immune escape and turned a natural pandemic into an ever-evolving immune escape pandemic, instead of driving the virus into endemicity.
Nevertheless, influential scientific experts who even published that the virus could escape from the immune pressure exerted by vaccine-induced Abs relentlessly supported the concept of conducting mass vaccination campaigns during the pandemic.
Although molecular epidemiologists have unambiguously shown that the selected mutations converge to specific spike protein domains that are under population-level immune pressure, none of them is willing to attribute this immune pressure to the C-19 vaccines targeting the very spike protein.
Although the hospitalization and mortality rates are now much lower than those observed during the pre-Omicron era, more infectious variants continue to spread. This is prompting concerns about the emergence of immune escape variants with enhanced virulence that could compromise protection against severe C-19 disease. Are we witnessing a kind of silence before the storm? And why has the WHO been urging countries across the globe to prepare for new surges or for a new pandemic with an even deadlier potential?
Because the virus continuously escaped from the immune response induced in highly vaccinated populations, there was a need for WHO and national PH agencies to change definitions of vaccine, immunity, herd immunity and ‘being vaccinated’, all of this to make vaccinated people believe that the C-19 vaccines were still highly efficacious amid the presence of immune escape variants. For much too long, PH experts have willfully ignored that natural immunity in the unvaccinated can acquire sterilizing capacity and that the unvaccinated are therefore not a breeding ground for more infectious immune escape variants.
In conclusion, large-scale infection-prevention measures and mass vaccination campaigns, as recommended by the WHO, cannot effectively control pandemics caused by acute, self-limiting viral infections like corona or influenza virus. Instead, they prevent the population from developing herd immunity and perpetuate the pandemic. This situation should be considered a dangerous gain-of-function experiment, impacting humanity.
While it is not for me to decide whether the WHO's recommendations constitute a crime against humanity, I am deeply concerned about the scientific integrity of these recommendations. They are an insult to independent scientists, who have been advocating for an open and scientifically-driven dialogue but have instead been unduly silenced, ridiculed, or even censored. The reckless implementation of WHO’s recommendations by national health authorities and lawmakers and propagandized by the mainstream media and scientifically illiterate factcheckers has been a slap in the face of all citizens who’ve been coerced into taking the risky jab.
Geert, you say: "While the mass vaccination program initially did save lives..."
Upon what evidence do you base this statement?
There should not have been a vaccination program, full stop.
I stand by my BMJ rapid response, published on 25 March 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089/rr-6
Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2
Dear Editor
If children, young adults and others can mount their own effective immune response to SARS-CoV2, is it ethical to impede their ability to access natural immunity by interfering with the natural progression of the virus?
According to the WHO, "Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults."[1]
Is the focus on future fast-tracked vaccine products blocking full consideration of the opportunity for natural herd immunity? Who is Neil Ferguson to say "The only exit strategy [in the] long term for this is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allows us to control transmission".[2]
In regards to young people's and others' right to natural immunity, it's also vital to consider the startling admission by Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, during the recent WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, i.e. "...We've shifted the human population...to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity...We're in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations".[3]
This is a very alarming statement by Professor Larson, particularly with the prospect of other epidemics emerging in the future. We have to learn to deal with epidemics and illnesses as they emerge, it's not feasible to vaccinate the global population against every threat.
In a recent article raising concern about making decisions about this pandemic without reliable data, John Ioannidis notes that "School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease".[4] The UK's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, raised the prospect of developing natural herd immunity[5], but this idea was subsequently howled down by Matt Hancock, the UK secretary of state for health and social care[6], and others such as Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology and infection, as reported by the Science Media Centre.[7]
Again, is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for natural immunity, and to plan to make them dependent on vaccine-induce immunity, to in effect make them dependent on the vaccine industry?
This is even more serious to consider in light of emerging vaccine product failures, e.g. pertussis and mumps.
The international community must be assured that independent and objective thinkers are carefully considering the way ahead on this matter.
References:
1. WHO Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19) - Should I worry about COVID-19. 9 March 2020.
2. Elisabeth Mahase. Covid-19: UK starts social distancing after new model points to 260 000 potential deaths. BMJ2020;368:m1089
3. Heidi Larson. Vaccine safety in the next decade. Why we need new modes of trust building? WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, 2-3 December 2019.
4. John P.A. Ioannidis. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. STAT, 17 March 2020.
5. Coronavirus: 60% of UK population need to become infected so country can build 'herd immunity', government's chief scientist says. Independent, 13 March 2020.
6. The UK backs away from "herd immunity" coronavirus proposal amid blowback. Vox, 15 March 2020.
7. Expert comments about herd immunity. Science Media Centre, 13 March 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
25 March 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Adelaide, Australia
You, sir, have had the courage of a lion in the way that you’ve tried to put the welfare of humanity above all else. And, no doubt, at great cost to yourself, professionally. History will see you as one of the heroes 👏