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.


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

Expand full comment

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 👏

Expand full comment

Thank you Geert - if there were no professionals like yourself who prioritise truth above their own welfare then we would all be lost. I applaud you.

Expand full comment

I also am unhappy with the statement that these products “initially saved lives”. How do we know? As they are not actual vaccines, but do introduce spike protein sequences into the body it seems that they trigger an inflammatory response. Antibodies may be generated as a defence, but this is not saving lives from Covid, merely a defence against the chemical insult from the “vaccine”, and its pathogenic contents.

Am I missing something?

Expand full comment

Had repurposed drugs not been suppressed there would have been no pandemic and no need for the unsafe and ineffective, or rather dangerous, injections. Definitely a crime against humanity.

Expand full comment

However many deaths from SARS-CoV-2 infection the mRNA inoculations might have prevented (if any), they have been overwhelmed by the deaths, as well as the pain and the suffering, these same inoculations have caused and continue to cause.

Trading life for life is neither good healthcare, good science, nor good policy. It is peddling flesh, nothing more.

Expand full comment

The four main pillars of medical ethics include non-malfeasance , beneficence , justice , and autonomy which includes informed consent . ( thanks to Alex Vasquez three doctorates) Seems the vaccine makers , propagators have missed the boat .

Expand full comment

The WHO needs to be held accountable for this atrocity. Governments from around the world, The WHO, UN and WEF have their agenda!

Humanity needs people like Dr Geert Vanden Bossche. 🙌🏻

Expand full comment

If only the Love of Money and Power were not so desired by those who have been granted the power to make such decisions you speak of Dr. Bossche

Expand full comment

> 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).

I have a question on this one. The Pfizer study itself used the Relative Risk Reduction when evaluating the COVID-19 vaccines, which a doctor commented is useless for a vaccine, when Absolute Risk Reduction should have been used. The ARR for the Pfizer vaccine showed hospital reductions of at most, 1%. Now add in 100+ studies about the bad side effects of the vaccine, the vaccine isn't worth it. I have studies on request. Start here: 300+ studies, gov't data, lab reports, and doctor statements showing the COVID-19 vaccine is still too risky at this point. https://wordsalad.info/tag-vaccinebadstudy.html

How do you support your comment "the C-19 vaccines largely protect from severe C- 19 disease"? I try to look at both sides of the issue but I've never seen fact-based science to support the quoted phrase. What we did see were claims by gov't officials whose college degrees were in gov't management, not any medical science, and not a single one provided any study to support their claim.

Expand full comment

WHO recommendations described as reckless, an insult & lacking scientific integrity sounds like crimes against humanity to me...

Expand full comment

It is vert important Geert that you continue to point out the blunders and mistakes (or whatever) that WHO etc. made concerning the rollout of these Shots. Good for you for doing so once again!

However, your article could have been an advert for these so called ''vaccines'. Why? Because you point out the lives that they saved in the beginning, without providing the smallest bit of evidence to support that claim!

For a start and you know better than anyone....that these were not vaccines to begin with, but experimental gene therapy mRNA concoctions (aside from the Spike Protein) that apparently include DNA fragments and other very undesirable dangerous matter, wrapped-up in their lipid nano particle packaging.

Why did you not highlight this most important point? Instead you kept referring to them as 'Vaccines' as if of themselves they were not so dangerous and actually saved lives as you put it. There is truth, half truth and not the whole truth and sadly, what you wrote here was unfortunately, not the whole truth!

Seeing as how you are a highly accomplished veterinarian Geert and have worked with producing vaccines in the past, you know that there are no completely safe vaccines to start with! So, why are you sticking to announcing that these ''vaccines'' have been beneficial and saved lives and you say this without pointing out the truth about them- i.e. the reverse of that statement, that they have done more harm than good vis-a-vis their Risk / Benefit already and God only knows the damage they may do in the future. !

I would also be very interested in knowing what you think of the plans now in-full-swing to roll-out these same type of mRNA inoculations for animal livestock and therefore into the food chain and more than likely into us?

Expand full comment
Jul 15·edited Jul 15

Non-malficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all students in healthcare are taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world.

Expand full comment

So sad it has come so far.

Expand full comment

Indeed Dr Bossche Primum non nocere


Expand full comment

What has happened to truth and common sense?

Expand full comment