GVB … the scientific debates stopped with Covid , even with my medical colleagues. Matter of fact, tried yesterday with a radiation oncologist . Her work has almost doubled . I asked her why ?….. her crappy answer …. Nobody went to the doctor during Covid there is a delay of care . …. Blooming idiots . You try to explain to some … you hit a brick wall. It’s futile . 🫠🫠🫥🫥
My answer to any doc who said that would be “Do you think Price Charles and Princess’s Kate didnt get regular checkups during covid”?? What a joke our health professionals are. Cowards really….
look at this! prostate cancer preparedness:The trials of yet undisclosed mRNA cancer immunotherapies in adjuvant or metastatic settings will run until 2030. Around one-third of BioNTech’s wholly owned mRNA vaccine candidates are already in UK trials, all using a fixed combination of mRNA-encoded tumor-associated antigens. These include BNT111 for advanced melanoma, BNT112 for prostate cancer and BNT113 for head and neck and other cancers. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-023-01693-z
they knew it coming. That's a problem! they knew that COVID-19 vaccines would cause these 3 types of cancers the most! they started preparing the product for the damage they did! nobody predicts the future! unless talking to God and prophecies, or you made it happen!
hahahaha I KNEW IT!! they were GROOMING for this the entire season 2021 explaining how cancer patients did not have regular checkups!! You must admit they are playing it smart! or the average person is very stupid.
Why didn't people see their physicians during the "troubles"? Because they were not receiving visitors? or they deserted their clients? Her comment is galling.
It goes without saying. Including every person who posts comments here or makes a movie or takes part in a public discussion.
The fact that we feel compelled to make a note like yours (disclaimer: not a personal reference) shows how far we have departed from the basic respectful sharing opinions and views with other people. It is as if we are approaching a moment in “evolution” when we feel obliged to precede every single sentence with “In my opinion,…” lest others get offended.
The original issue is that the argument of the number of publications as a marker of anything is out of place. In common language: it is a stupid argument, because it does not prove anything and goes to nowhere.
The second question is, who will use such arguments? Those who have even fewer articles published than Geert? Or those who can feel their false “power” because they have more references? Is it really about credibility supported by the number of publications? Or about showing that “I am better than you”? Or about showing that “You should not speak out - but why? - simply because”?
Or… is it about defending the peer-reviewed publication system which is extremely unreliable and outdated? The very basis of peer review is a fiction. Who can review your work? Only a person who knows more than you on the particular subject. As you are writing about (example) an ultra-narrow niche which is being explored by 3 persons in the world, and all of them are on your team… Nobody is qualified to review your work. But it has to be published. So lower-rank people are hired and review something which is beyond their understanding.
Technically, they can review your methods, procedures, following the established routines. Nothing substantive. But this scope of review, anyone can do this. Any reader can do this. Whoever reads scientific papers, is a qualified peer reviewer, sort of. So, why the façade? To appear more “serious”? After deliberately fake papers were admitted and published? After a Japanese researcher faked his whole publishing career?
Peer review is a song of the past. Now, with AI being used indiscriminately, you (the reader) have to assume that 100% of all published scientific papers are false.
The only way to save the science would be to allow only those papers which have been reproduced by separate, independent teams with the specific angle to debunk the original study, in a true scientific way. But this would immediately reduce the number of actual publications to about 3-4% of the current mass production…
Haven’t scientists, and by that term I mean real scientists, always argued their case, and then opened up the dialogue for feedback. The argument is back and healthy. What’s not so healthy is the groupthink, the career building , the denigration. I am full of admiration for all those doing real science and bringing it to our attention. Geert, Kevin McKernan , philip burkhaults, spring to mind, amongst many others.
I guess it is unavoidable. In any area of life, including chefs or lawn mowing specialists/operators/experts.
This is why I suggest that all medical treatment, jobs, activities and business should be separated from money. You won’t get a single unit of currency for your work. But you will get a flat-rate monthly compensation, equal for all doctors, nurses, cleaning personnel, researchers, publishers, etc. PLUS a special position in life as a token of respect.
Team work, “it’s not me, everybody contributed to this success” - just like we make it a worthwhile goal for new recruits.
What I am really saying is that there is no substitute for good will, for authentic desire to find the truth, which includes (of course!) lively dissent and argument, but does not include viciousness, careerism, bullying, etc., often expressed with or through debunkery.
So that we know what we are talking about (Webster):
debunk = expose the sham or falseness of / sham = trick that deludes (hoax) or cheap falseness (hypocrisy)
In the context of the C19 preparation: since there is no reliable officially pronounced mechanism of operation, there is nothing to debunk.
The manufacturer deliberately avoids the disclosure of this mechanism - which a being with conscience would (hopefully) do seeing millions people dying or being harmed by his/her product.
Imagine that you have designed a revolutionary safety belt for vehicles. It is quickly approved and declared to mandatorily replace all former designs. 8 billion of your safety belts are distributed and, strangely enough, accident reports start to flood the Vehicle Accident Emergency Report System. You were rewarded with the largest amount ever paid to any private business in history of mankind even before you started work on your invention (a true mystery, luckily enough, no one is interested in this thread), so you may not be worried. But you were curious. You reviewed your design and found how your invention kills innocent people. Your conscience is clear - you immediately go to the authorities and simultaneously publish the details of your invention in all social media so that every user could take precautions right away. Any normal person would do this.
Not this one. This designer and manufacturer wanted 70 years to bury his secrets.
But accident reports flow in non stop. So we are not debunking anything. We - all scientists and all medical professionals all over the world (except the secret inner circle who control the genocide of the mankind) - we have no idea what is going on. The best we can do is to reverse engineer this poison, the most vicious and most evil ever designed.
Geert is doing his part of the work. He provides some leads. Maybe he is wrong, maybe he is right. We should pray that some humane scientists of his kind will take his or any other leads, connect the dots, and stop this downfall.
Instead, dozens of doctors, journalists and common people write and make podcasts about what they know is the only “truth”, and everything else is wrong. As a species, we have completely lost the sense of survival. Money, fame, being “right” or any other ego trips help this genocide to continue.
Just a thought I had one day when I realized that Substack authors have written more about the covidgate than all Harry Potters volumes combined…
I disagree, I think Dr. VB’s post is very relevant to the situation. He’s been saying for years that we are in an emergency where making his point through the journal process would be just too slow, but the narrow minded continue to criticize him and refuse to respond to his points because he hasn’t followed that route - even though he has laid out his reasoning in a somewhat lengthy book. So I think this post is very relevant to the situation, to the tragedy, by which most people won’t be prepared for what is coming, if his expectation turns out to be correct.
It may be, because it indicates the mind behind the accusation. The subject matter is secondary. A member of the academia undermining another professional based on a conventional factor should raise an alarm throughout the scientific community. Because it is not science, it is pure politics, in the worst edition.
> there are plenty of other subjects to cover.
Thankfully, anyone can start his/her Substack.
> people, i think, follow geert to get…
Could be. But this is the responsibility of the reader. I am glad that Geert takes detours to other subjects - it both gives a broader perspective and reminds us that there is more to life than viruses. Like horses, surfing, family life.
I take it as a sign of a person who pursues the road to be a complete human being, seeing more than his/her field of expertise.
I recently read a very good paper, appropriately peer reviewed, then accepted for publication, published, then, after a backlash, retracted by the publisher. Titled :Covid 19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. The authors were M Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Russ Wolfinger, Jessica Rose, Kris Denhaerynck, Steve Kirsch, Peter A. McCullough:
Peer reviewed holds little value now. Certainly, amongst all the dubious processes involved in being published these days, the example of this particular “Peer Reviewed” paper, being retracted by the publisher, puts the nail in the coffin, in my opinion. As is repeated often these days, we are all entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. In the case of the paper I referred to here, it is a document of collated scientific facts and factual information. It was retracted because telling the truth these days is verboten. Unfortunately this makes all other “Peer Reviewed” papers particularly in that magazine, suspect. I’d rather follow Geert’s well described, well thought out, scientific analysis, step by step, with him, building trust in the man, in the scientist, in the science, because he is consistent and thorough and very exacting. His credentials, proven as they are, carry the most value so far as I am concerned. And it doesn’t matter who I am, because, I am “everyman”, the object for whom his analysis is the most urgent and the most critical in order to save lives.
In my over 30 years of medical practice I have come to see that many scientists, doctors and the medical industrial complex love to torture the truth to death but in the end rarely come to a concensus of what the truth is. They love to have intellectual debates adnauseum for the sake of massaging their egos (highly fragile I may add) desparately trying to protect their (perceived) microcosm of “expertise”. In the end, humanity is not well-served and the reductionistic, disease-model paradigm is emboldened to continue to profit off of the suffering of unsuspecting and less informed patients…which fundamentally goes against the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath.
Geert’s work is a threat to this paradigm. The scientific day of reckoning is upon us and the experts’ house of cards will soon come crashing down once and for all.
Spijtig genoeg gaat Al het geld naar die mensen, die woorddienst bewijzen aan hun geldschieters, en niet naar de wetenschappers, die daadwerkelijk onderzoek verrichten, gelijk in welke richting het resultaat gaat.
It's interesting that Rintrah disagrees somewhat with Geert's doomsday scenario and time-line with a forecast that more serotypes will emerge instead (at least that is my interpretation of his post). The end result, I think, still proves Geert correct in terms of the number of deaths this virus will take before herd immunity is established, but shifts the timeline and, I think, the 24 hour death prediction.
It would be fascinating to get Geert's take on Rintrah's work.
Actually, Rintrah doesn't exclude Dr. Geert scenario. In one of his articles he explains how Dr.Geert scenario could happened. I read almost all of his articles so far, that's how I know. But he also hopes, like many of us that this scenario will not become reality.
Yes I have read a lot of his work also which is why his deviation from a June crisis was a bit surprising, however his hypothesis makes sense (ie. More serotypes being created). That's why I'm interested in Geert's interpretation of Rintrah's post.
Now I could be misinterpreting what he said, but my interpretation of Rintrah's post is that he believes serotypes will be made for the Australian and North American versions that currently dominate. For that to happen, it would mean these two virus types must be completely invisible to antibodies so they can spread cell to cell instead, hiding from antibodies. I believe Rintrah said these two variants haven't fully evolved into being able to do so (serotype) but they aren't far off.
That would delay Geert's conclusion, and would extend the death rate from a quick occurrence to one more prolonged, although the result in the end is the same (massive loss of life for double+ jabbed people). Perhaps if my interpretation is wrong, somebody can help me out as I'm not super literate when it comes to the immune system.
I criticized Geert in the past for being inconsistent, and now I have to do the same for Rintrah. In one of his other posts not too long ago, he mentions how the virus can obtain complete immune evasion by changing just a few of its proteins to become hypermutated and how perilously close we are to this. This argument was in line with what Geert is preaching. Now Rintrah seems to be seriously discounting this possibility and arguing instead for the virus to make deletions to it's N-Terminal in acquiring complete evasion.
"So neutralization of viral particles now depends on antibodies binding to the N-Terminal Domain. There are different ways to escape these antibodies. It’s possible through deletions in the three immunogenic loops, roughly corresponding to these amino acids: 14-26 (N1), 141-156 (N3) and 246-260 (N5).
But there are other ways to achieve it too. Proteins consist of long chains of amino acids. Cysteine is one of those amino acids, it helps determine the shape of the overall protein, because two cysteine amino acids in different places in the protein will be attracted to each other and form a bridge. This means that if either of those cysteine amino acids is changed by mutation to some other amino acid, the shape of a whole protein can change as a result."
Thanks for the additional info. Like you, I was surprised also at, what appears to be, a divergence from his original hypothesis. I do not know half of what I need to understand, clearly, so much appreciate your comments.
"divergence from original hypothesis" is generally GOOD and usually indicates intellectual maturation and development toward a state of less-wrongness.
Thanks for the input. I wasn't making a judgement one way or the other. As I professed, my lack of knowledge (but eagerness to learn) of the immune system functions puts me at a distinct disadvantage. Alot of what I've learned has been through Rintrah, so just when I'm starting to understand Geert's concerns, he introduces a whole new theory to me now with serotypes...lol. (It's like telling me this is the road to the destination and halfway there, they insert a detour you weren't expecting).
Rintrah says, “What seems far more likely to me unfortunately, is that we’re gradually going to see different serotypes emerge: XBB lineages and BA.2.86 lineages, along with lineages based on whatever else is still out there. Those lineages will undergo deletions in the immunogenic loops of the N-Terminal Domain, facilitated by the rare insertions they tend to develop in the NTD. These deletions will increase fusogenicity and thereby increase the intrinsic virulence of the virus. That ultimately results in a virus that behaves more like the original SARS.”
emperors new clothes! is the right story for this new product, in the meantime, old Nobel prize winners have been proclaimed as crazy (french guy for HIV)! and their products as poisonous (ivermectin)!
Criticism is easy. Contribution takes thought. Both have their place. Jesus told us we would be ridiculed and criticized. Dr. G is simply over the target so it makes sense someone is throwing rocks.
What good is 'peer review' in an echo chamber? I think there's way too much emphasis on peer review to the point where good old fashioned life experience and accumulated knowledge is ignored.
Thank you Geert. I personally, as a layperson, began to question our scientific community in the late '70s when the proliferation of prescribed medicine began to take over from the thoughtful discussion of lifestyle such as diet and exercise. Then in 1999 -2000 I read with interest the comments and subsequent resignations of Jerome Kassirer and Marcia Angell from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJOM) on the subjugation of the NEJOM to the Massachusetts Medical Society for the purposes of branding and marketing healthcare services and products in the name of NEJOM and the concern for peer reviewed scientific papers created from pharmaceutical funding such that Angell stated " It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine ".
It is on the basis of this history that I choose to question the efficacy of the Covid vaccine and not to vaccinate. Since then I have discovered you, Geert, and read with interest your conclusions, because I have no scientific ability to understand your research. My point is that due diligence and common sense can go along way to navigating this problematic issue.
I would like to see a live debate between you, Geert, and the professor who criticized you. The professor could publish an article afterwards how he “out-scienced” you and increase his publication count by one. Should be enough of a motivation, since the number of publications is the most important thing, right?
But unfortunately these people are not dumb enough and know they have no chance debating you. So they only criticize you and then never respond to anything afterwards. I see a pattern here, there were so many who did this to you.
Thank you Geert for staying strong! Btw, love your book!
GVB … the scientific debates stopped with Covid , even with my medical colleagues. Matter of fact, tried yesterday with a radiation oncologist . Her work has almost doubled . I asked her why ?….. her crappy answer …. Nobody went to the doctor during Covid there is a delay of care . …. Blooming idiots . You try to explain to some … you hit a brick wall. It’s futile . 🫠🫠🫥🫥
My answer to any doc who said that would be “Do you think Price Charles and Princess’s Kate didnt get regular checkups during covid”?? What a joke our health professionals are. Cowards really….
ditto re Sarah Ferguson !
look at this! prostate cancer preparedness:The trials of yet undisclosed mRNA cancer immunotherapies in adjuvant or metastatic settings will run until 2030. Around one-third of BioNTech’s wholly owned mRNA vaccine candidates are already in UK trials, all using a fixed combination of mRNA-encoded tumor-associated antigens. These include BNT111 for advanced melanoma, BNT112 for prostate cancer and BNT113 for head and neck and other cancers. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-023-01693-z
Oo, oo, where do I sign up? :)
they knew it coming. That's a problem! they knew that COVID-19 vaccines would cause these 3 types of cancers the most! they started preparing the product for the damage they did! nobody predicts the future! unless talking to God and prophecies, or you made it happen!
hahahaha I KNEW IT!! they were GROOMING for this the entire season 2021 explaining how cancer patients did not have regular checkups!! You must admit they are playing it smart! or the average person is very stupid.
Why didn't people see their physicians during the "troubles"? Because they were not receiving visitors? or they deserted their clients? Her comment is galling.
Yes galling
Shocking answer by the oncologist 😓
Not shocking. The papers have been suggesting a rise in cancers for a while, and are suggesting more cases because of covid and lockdowns.
Here's an example.
"It is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic and public health responses had some impact on the diagnoses and outcomes of cancer in Alberta. "
from - "Article Exploring the Future of Cancer Impact in Alberta: Projections and Trends 2020–2040"
At least she didn't blame it on "climate change" or the male patriarchy!
she probably can't get this song out of her head https://youtu.be/3_iQZiVD_zA
you went too far in the history, this one is better, esp for women! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMxX-QOV9tI
😁
boy how many good songs are there ..." Spreading Faster than Bacteria"...its actually a virus :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc
No love of humanity left , sadly .
I have erased you-tub from my genome..
Imo, we all should.
Yep Fast Eddy … root of all evil…
1. Thimothy 6,10
Cognitive biases are not a thing of our imagination, or are they?
> I haven't published enough in peer-reviewed journals!
Great, you can always argue that you didn’t want to compromise your credibility by feeding automated journals and reviewers.
Evidence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, by John Ioannidis, 2005).
It goes without saying. Including every person who posts comments here or makes a movie or takes part in a public discussion.
The fact that we feel compelled to make a note like yours (disclaimer: not a personal reference) shows how far we have departed from the basic respectful sharing opinions and views with other people. It is as if we are approaching a moment in “evolution” when we feel obliged to precede every single sentence with “In my opinion,…” lest others get offended.
The original issue is that the argument of the number of publications as a marker of anything is out of place. In common language: it is a stupid argument, because it does not prove anything and goes to nowhere.
The second question is, who will use such arguments? Those who have even fewer articles published than Geert? Or those who can feel their false “power” because they have more references? Is it really about credibility supported by the number of publications? Or about showing that “I am better than you”? Or about showing that “You should not speak out - but why? - simply because”?
Or… is it about defending the peer-reviewed publication system which is extremely unreliable and outdated? The very basis of peer review is a fiction. Who can review your work? Only a person who knows more than you on the particular subject. As you are writing about (example) an ultra-narrow niche which is being explored by 3 persons in the world, and all of them are on your team… Nobody is qualified to review your work. But it has to be published. So lower-rank people are hired and review something which is beyond their understanding.
Technically, they can review your methods, procedures, following the established routines. Nothing substantive. But this scope of review, anyone can do this. Any reader can do this. Whoever reads scientific papers, is a qualified peer reviewer, sort of. So, why the façade? To appear more “serious”? After deliberately fake papers were admitted and published? After a Japanese researcher faked his whole publishing career?
Peer review is a song of the past. Now, with AI being used indiscriminately, you (the reader) have to assume that 100% of all published scientific papers are false.
The only way to save the science would be to allow only those papers which have been reproduced by separate, independent teams with the specific angle to debunk the original study, in a true scientific way. But this would immediately reduce the number of actual publications to about 3-4% of the current mass production…
Haven’t scientists, and by that term I mean real scientists, always argued their case, and then opened up the dialogue for feedback. The argument is back and healthy. What’s not so healthy is the groupthink, the career building , the denigration. I am full of admiration for all those doing real science and bringing it to our attention. Geert, Kevin McKernan , philip burkhaults, spring to mind, amongst many others.
I guess it is unavoidable. In any area of life, including chefs or lawn mowing specialists/operators/experts.
This is why I suggest that all medical treatment, jobs, activities and business should be separated from money. You won’t get a single unit of currency for your work. But you will get a flat-rate monthly compensation, equal for all doctors, nurses, cleaning personnel, researchers, publishers, etc. PLUS a special position in life as a token of respect.
Team work, “it’s not me, everybody contributed to this success” - just like we make it a worthwhile goal for new recruits.
Problem there is that it privileges, to an extreme degree, debunkery. And debunkery is not valid critique. Eebunkery itself is part of the problem.
*Eebunkery = DEbunkery of course, lol
What I am really saying is that there is no substitute for good will, for authentic desire to find the truth, which includes (of course!) lively dissent and argument, but does not include viciousness, careerism, bullying, etc., often expressed with or through debunkery.
So that we know what we are talking about (Webster):
debunk = expose the sham or falseness of / sham = trick that deludes (hoax) or cheap falseness (hypocrisy)
In the context of the C19 preparation: since there is no reliable officially pronounced mechanism of operation, there is nothing to debunk.
The manufacturer deliberately avoids the disclosure of this mechanism - which a being with conscience would (hopefully) do seeing millions people dying or being harmed by his/her product.
Imagine that you have designed a revolutionary safety belt for vehicles. It is quickly approved and declared to mandatorily replace all former designs. 8 billion of your safety belts are distributed and, strangely enough, accident reports start to flood the Vehicle Accident Emergency Report System. You were rewarded with the largest amount ever paid to any private business in history of mankind even before you started work on your invention (a true mystery, luckily enough, no one is interested in this thread), so you may not be worried. But you were curious. You reviewed your design and found how your invention kills innocent people. Your conscience is clear - you immediately go to the authorities and simultaneously publish the details of your invention in all social media so that every user could take precautions right away. Any normal person would do this.
Not this one. This designer and manufacturer wanted 70 years to bury his secrets.
But accident reports flow in non stop. So we are not debunking anything. We - all scientists and all medical professionals all over the world (except the secret inner circle who control the genocide of the mankind) - we have no idea what is going on. The best we can do is to reverse engineer this poison, the most vicious and most evil ever designed.
Geert is doing his part of the work. He provides some leads. Maybe he is wrong, maybe he is right. We should pray that some humane scientists of his kind will take his or any other leads, connect the dots, and stop this downfall.
Instead, dozens of doctors, journalists and common people write and make podcasts about what they know is the only “truth”, and everything else is wrong. As a species, we have completely lost the sense of survival. Money, fame, being “right” or any other ego trips help this genocide to continue.
Just a thought I had one day when I realized that Substack authors have written more about the covidgate than all Harry Potters volumes combined…
(A paraphrase of your post :-))
I disagree, I think Dr. VB’s post is very relevant to the situation. He’s been saying for years that we are in an emergency where making his point through the journal process would be just too slow, but the narrow minded continue to criticize him and refuse to respond to his points because he hasn’t followed that route - even though he has laid out his reasoning in a somewhat lengthy book. So I think this post is very relevant to the situation, to the tragedy, by which most people won’t be prepared for what is coming, if his expectation turns out to be correct.
> i do not see the point of this blog
This is a question to Geert, I guess.
> is that an issue?
It may be, because it indicates the mind behind the accusation. The subject matter is secondary. A member of the academia undermining another professional based on a conventional factor should raise an alarm throughout the scientific community. Because it is not science, it is pure politics, in the worst edition.
> there are plenty of other subjects to cover.
Thankfully, anyone can start his/her Substack.
> people, i think, follow geert to get…
Could be. But this is the responsibility of the reader. I am glad that Geert takes detours to other subjects - it both gives a broader perspective and reminds us that there is more to life than viruses. Like horses, surfing, family life.
I take it as a sign of a person who pursues the road to be a complete human being, seeing more than his/her field of expertise.
It may even be a made-up story. So what? It certainly represents an attitude which is to be found everywhere.
Why are you asking questions, are you a scientist?
Why do you want a higher salary, do you know what it takes to run a company?
Why do you criticize my apartment, have you ever had one for which you would be responsible and not your mother?
In a seemingly fleeting comment, we all can find an image reflected which is quite familiar to us. Our discussing it empowers everybody. I hope so.
Everyone can have their opinion, but their own opinion is not a reliable argument to discredit someone as that professor does.
I recently read a very good paper, appropriately peer reviewed, then accepted for publication, published, then, after a backlash, retracted by the publisher. Titled :Covid 19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. The authors were M Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Russ Wolfinger, Jessica Rose, Kris Denhaerynck, Steve Kirsch, Peter A. McCullough:
https://www.cureus.com/articles/203052-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-lessons-learned-from-the-registrational-trials-and-global-vaccination-campaign#!/authors
Peer reviewed holds little value now. Certainly, amongst all the dubious processes involved in being published these days, the example of this particular “Peer Reviewed” paper, being retracted by the publisher, puts the nail in the coffin, in my opinion. As is repeated often these days, we are all entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. In the case of the paper I referred to here, it is a document of collated scientific facts and factual information. It was retracted because telling the truth these days is verboten. Unfortunately this makes all other “Peer Reviewed” papers particularly in that magazine, suspect. I’d rather follow Geert’s well described, well thought out, scientific analysis, step by step, with him, building trust in the man, in the scientist, in the science, because he is consistent and thorough and very exacting. His credentials, proven as they are, carry the most value so far as I am concerned. And it doesn’t matter who I am, because, I am “everyman”, the object for whom his analysis is the most urgent and the most critical in order to save lives.
Exactly. GVB … throw the ego away … causes stress
In my over 30 years of medical practice I have come to see that many scientists, doctors and the medical industrial complex love to torture the truth to death but in the end rarely come to a concensus of what the truth is. They love to have intellectual debates adnauseum for the sake of massaging their egos (highly fragile I may add) desparately trying to protect their (perceived) microcosm of “expertise”. In the end, humanity is not well-served and the reductionistic, disease-model paradigm is emboldened to continue to profit off of the suffering of unsuspecting and less informed patients…which fundamentally goes against the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath.
Geert’s work is a threat to this paradigm. The scientific day of reckoning is upon us and the experts’ house of cards will soon come crashing down once and for all.
Peer review sure mattered for the lab-leak suppression effort.
Academia is a circle-jerk of "you cite me, I'll cite you". Its a wonder anything novel ever appears anymore.
There's no room for exploring ideas that deviate from the mainstream (read: approved) narrative. Even to the end of the human species.
.
They Get What They Want
For Following Along.
They Get Absolved Of Responsibility.
.
Spijtig genoeg gaat Al het geld naar die mensen, die woorddienst bewijzen aan hun geldschieters, en niet naar de wetenschappers, die daadwerkelijk onderzoek verrichten, gelijk in welke richting het resultaat gaat.
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche!
Please read this insightful blog post by this brilliant guy.
https://www.rintrah.nl/hey-look-serotypes/
It's interesting that Rintrah disagrees somewhat with Geert's doomsday scenario and time-line with a forecast that more serotypes will emerge instead (at least that is my interpretation of his post). The end result, I think, still proves Geert correct in terms of the number of deaths this virus will take before herd immunity is established, but shifts the timeline and, I think, the 24 hour death prediction.
It would be fascinating to get Geert's take on Rintrah's work.
Actually, Rintrah doesn't exclude Dr. Geert scenario. In one of his articles he explains how Dr.Geert scenario could happened. I read almost all of his articles so far, that's how I know. But he also hopes, like many of us that this scenario will not become reality.
Yes I have read a lot of his work also which is why his deviation from a June crisis was a bit surprising, however his hypothesis makes sense (ie. More serotypes being created). That's why I'm interested in Geert's interpretation of Rintrah's post.
Whats the deviation? Is he saying that there wont be any HIVICRON by June or there wont be any at all?
Now I could be misinterpreting what he said, but my interpretation of Rintrah's post is that he believes serotypes will be made for the Australian and North American versions that currently dominate. For that to happen, it would mean these two virus types must be completely invisible to antibodies so they can spread cell to cell instead, hiding from antibodies. I believe Rintrah said these two variants haven't fully evolved into being able to do so (serotype) but they aren't far off.
That would delay Geert's conclusion, and would extend the death rate from a quick occurrence to one more prolonged, although the result in the end is the same (massive loss of life for double+ jabbed people). Perhaps if my interpretation is wrong, somebody can help me out as I'm not super literate when it comes to the immune system.
I criticized Geert in the past for being inconsistent, and now I have to do the same for Rintrah. In one of his other posts not too long ago, he mentions how the virus can obtain complete immune evasion by changing just a few of its proteins to become hypermutated and how perilously close we are to this. This argument was in line with what Geert is preaching. Now Rintrah seems to be seriously discounting this possibility and arguing instead for the virus to make deletions to it's N-Terminal in acquiring complete evasion.
"So neutralization of viral particles now depends on antibodies binding to the N-Terminal Domain. There are different ways to escape these antibodies. It’s possible through deletions in the three immunogenic loops, roughly corresponding to these amino acids: 14-26 (N1), 141-156 (N3) and 246-260 (N5).
But there are other ways to achieve it too. Proteins consist of long chains of amino acids. Cysteine is one of those amino acids, it helps determine the shape of the overall protein, because two cysteine amino acids in different places in the protein will be attracted to each other and form a bridge. This means that if either of those cysteine amino acids is changed by mutation to some other amino acid, the shape of a whole protein can change as a result."
https://www.rintrah.nl/complete-antibody-evasion-is-easy-to-evolve/
Thanks for the additional info. Like you, I was surprised also at, what appears to be, a divergence from his original hypothesis. I do not know half of what I need to understand, clearly, so much appreciate your comments.
"divergence from original hypothesis" is generally GOOD and usually indicates intellectual maturation and development toward a state of less-wrongness.
Thanks for the input. I wasn't making a judgement one way or the other. As I professed, my lack of knowledge (but eagerness to learn) of the immune system functions puts me at a distinct disadvantage. Alot of what I've learned has been through Rintrah, so just when I'm starting to understand Geert's concerns, he introduces a whole new theory to me now with serotypes...lol. (It's like telling me this is the road to the destination and halfway there, they insert a detour you weren't expecting).
I highly recommend Dr. Geert this article too. I would love to see both of them collaborating. They would make a dream team.
A nuanced debate between the two would be fascinating, and might open the eyes of other doctors and researchers to the possibilities
What is he suggesting?
Rintrah says, “What seems far more likely to me unfortunately, is that we’re gradually going to see different serotypes emerge: XBB lineages and BA.2.86 lineages, along with lineages based on whatever else is still out there. Those lineages will undergo deletions in the immunogenic loops of the N-Terminal Domain, facilitated by the rare insertions they tend to develop in the NTD. These deletions will increase fusogenicity and thereby increase the intrinsic virulence of the virus. That ultimately results in a virus that behaves more like the original SARS.”
emperors new clothes! is the right story for this new product, in the meantime, old Nobel prize winners have been proclaimed as crazy (french guy for HIV)! and their products as poisonous (ivermectin)!
Criticism is easy. Contribution takes thought. Both have their place. Jesus told us we would be ridiculed and criticized. Dr. G is simply over the target so it makes sense someone is throwing rocks.
What good is 'peer review' in an echo chamber? I think there's way too much emphasis on peer review to the point where good old fashioned life experience and accumulated knowledge is ignored.
Peer review was long ago aptly referred to as pal reviewed.
Thank you Geert. I personally, as a layperson, began to question our scientific community in the late '70s when the proliferation of prescribed medicine began to take over from the thoughtful discussion of lifestyle such as diet and exercise. Then in 1999 -2000 I read with interest the comments and subsequent resignations of Jerome Kassirer and Marcia Angell from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJOM) on the subjugation of the NEJOM to the Massachusetts Medical Society for the purposes of branding and marketing healthcare services and products in the name of NEJOM and the concern for peer reviewed scientific papers created from pharmaceutical funding such that Angell stated " It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine ".
It is on the basis of this history that I choose to question the efficacy of the Covid vaccine and not to vaccinate. Since then I have discovered you, Geert, and read with interest your conclusions, because I have no scientific ability to understand your research. My point is that due diligence and common sense can go along way to navigating this problematic issue.
Remember Pfizer invested / bought our oncology drug companies…. Connect the dots .
Pride goeth before the fall.
I would like to see a live debate between you, Geert, and the professor who criticized you. The professor could publish an article afterwards how he “out-scienced” you and increase his publication count by one. Should be enough of a motivation, since the number of publications is the most important thing, right?
But unfortunately these people are not dumb enough and know they have no chance debating you. So they only criticize you and then never respond to anything afterwards. I see a pattern here, there were so many who did this to you.
Thank you Geert for staying strong! Btw, love your book!
Money and greed destroy everything.
Prove me wrong.
And psychopathy. Most of our leaders are psychopaths.