"Why did the case rate in young unvaccinated age groups substantially decrease with increasing age while exactly the opposite effect was observed within the same age groups that were vaccinated, thereby resulting in a spectacular age-mediated decrease in vaccine efficacy (VE) in these younger age group?"
I take it to mean the immune response generated by the leaky vaccine is not only worse than the natural immune response, at least for those who are young, but that permanent damage is resulting to the immune systems of the young that will result in much more disease, hospitalization, and death than if the virus would have been allowed to infect young vaccinated and create a superior lifelong immune response. Therefore, forced vaccination of the young is actually causing far more harm than good, especially in the long-term.
This is really important. I’m hoping someone can provide a simpler, plain-language summary conclusion of this post. The utility of this would be to (quickly) make the point(s) and thereby entice those that can understand the ramifications of the observations described here to dig deeper.
Hi TFish. Phoneys use fancy words to impress others with their nonexistent intelligence. Dr. Vanden Bosch uses scientifically accurate vocabulary because he's the genuine article. This leaves us lesser mortals in the dust. We could take the effort and time to research the meaning of the words, but not everyone possesses the time and inclination to do this, so I agree with your post. If a "plain-language summary" is not forthcoming, I will suggest that given the seriousness of what we face, that time spent seeking to thoroughly comprehend Dr. Vanden Bosche's writing is time well spent.
I would certainly agree. I am very taken by Dr. Vanden Bosch’s conviction and expertise. It’s the reason why I’ve been following Dr. Vanden Bosch’s posts and interviews. And it is certainly important to strive to deepen our individual understanding; however, given that this is a crisis that needs widespread attention, paired with the absolute necessity to communicate with accuracy, a more accessible introduction would be invaluable.
I took a stab at the effort to distill, without distorting—but I’m sure this may not be quite right. What do you think?
[T cells can only mediate prevention of disease or recovery provided they can do away with infection. In order for antigen specific T cells to prevent disease, they need to be primed (memory) and have the cytolitic capacity. There is no evidence showing that natural CoV infection, or any of the C-19 vaccines, induces antigen specific cytolytic T memory cells; therefore, we cannot reasonably speculate that CoV-specific T memory cells prevent disease.
Immune protection to the CoV (and likely against flu as well) is primarily provided by an innate immune system response: effector lymphocytes, such as innate antibody-secreting B cells and natural killer cells, targeting virus-infected host cells. SARS-COV2 reactive T and B cells, such as may be induced by vaccination, are not responsible for early or late stage control of infection and are not capable of preventing or terminating Covid-19 disease.]
Ok, my brain tells me this was written in my native language but that’s as far as I could get. Stratospherically over my head but it’s more like “yeah, what HE said”. Go Geert!
Beautiful essay. Thank you Dr. Vanden Bossche. Dr. Eric Berne, 'What do you say after you say hello?, 1972' pp 407-408 cautions against Procrustean and Unicorn errors in sociology and psychology. Thanks again for exposing this so clearly.
Thank you! I thought I was getting a leg up reading all these studies. But I'm increasingly concerned that I cannot trust the conclusions at all. Fortunately I have heroes like you helping me learn so I can be a better critical thinker. I'm pretty good with the statistics games they play, but when they misinterpret the science, I depend on minds and courage like yours.
If immunologists are still under the impression that T-cell cross reactivity with SARS-COV-2 is automatically protective across the board vs pathogenic by host's antigenic imprinting then they should go ahead and explain why Pfizer's trial in kids ages 2-4 failed to elicit the "neutralizing" antibodies (the equivalent of stock market pump and dump for vaccine regulators) but was able to in children aged 6months to 2 years.
If I use Prof. Vanden Bossche's insights about innate immune training and effectors being the primary modulators of infection and severity across the board:
I can see that kids born just before the pandemic have adequate NK cell/Innate immune training to deal with SARS-COV-2 like pathogens. Their older siblings do as well but the exposure is far too acute due to higher interaction density with peers who have vaccinal adaptive immune response with high enough shedding that they can't secrete innate immune cells fast enough to prevent infection.
This doesn't explain why 6months to 2 years (everyone born after the pandemic started) elicit an adaptive immune response to vaccine. So we can use an additional assumption -
The inherited antibodies from vaccinated or exposed mothers is being recalled upon vaccination.
If those assumptions are true - This would imply that 2-4 age group are the last set of people on earth who do not have a specific immune response to SARS-COV-2 likely because they never had a productive Coronavirus infection of any kind in their life yet. Their immune response is intact. And perhaps, COVID-19 is primarily a kind of antibody dependent enhancement of previous coronavirus infections that vaccines make worse for those who have the wrong MHC.
A way to test this hypothesis would be to see the relative incidence of infection in children who were born to mothers who were vaccinated versus those who were not.
It would be intriguing if we find that children who were born with inherited antibodies from mother's vaccination or infection or both (in either order) had a different susceptibility profile including selection for variants. That is - we should find that children of mothers who had no infection or vaccination are less likely to be infected and if infected, have equal likelihood of infection to any variant vs the antibody evading variant in others.
If I understand correctly, in a natural pandemic (ie no vaccine) the downwards trend of the case curve is caused by people's innate immune system short lived antibodies? Causing temporary herd immunity.
I think you also said that the vaccinated innate immune system is compromised from the vaccine.
With Omicron, in highly vaccinated regions, the viral spread won't be stopped till herd immunity is reached?
Dear Geert, may I again thank you for all your work you do.
In light of the new variant being identified deltacron, a recombinant virus, omicron and delta. How would the immune system treat this especially vaccinees. Would it be treated as a new virus? Or would they have issues re antigenic sin. Would this raise the issue of ADE. As vaccine free, I assume that my immune system would treat it as it has with other variants. Thank you
Totally on the mark. Thank you once again Geert. I am a good friend of Kate Petrich in Seattle. While Kate is super busy with work, I follow your postings and pass them along. I had a serious case of Covid before they were testing for it in February 2020. Had all 11 symptoms now recognized by the CDC plus a few more. After the 3 months I needed to recover from loss of taste and smell plus fatigue, I was and have been good to go with NO ILLNESS of any kind since then. My work, since fall of 2020, keeps me interacting with the public and yet, I remain free of any covid. Today is January 21, 2022 and still good. I volunteered giving my Covid plasma until March 2021 and to stay in the program had to always have HIGH ANTIBODIES which I did. Since then, I periodically get a pcr test randomly every few months and it is always negative. It goes without saying that I will, in this situation, not get vaccinated as I do not believe that I need to as I have innate, acquired immunity due to serious infection- no hospitalization cause was so early just before the pandemic was made known. Luckily, all my friends who saw me through the illness, totally support me in this position. A few of them have had "break-through" infections post vaccination. A partial solution at best in my opinion.
I understand that Singapore did a study which showed that immunity to the original SARS infection was still present 17 years later. Why are those who have had SARS Cov -2 not developing a similar lifelong immunity? Many governments, such as Singapore, are only admitting that they have immunity for about 180 days and basing the view entirely on the antibodies being present as they are immediately post infection. What is the difference in the long term immunity of the two viruses?
Love it when you blow them out of the water! Didn't understand a word but still enjoyed the read.
From this in the post:
"Why did the case rate in young unvaccinated age groups substantially decrease with increasing age while exactly the opposite effect was observed within the same age groups that were vaccinated, thereby resulting in a spectacular age-mediated decrease in vaccine efficacy (VE) in these younger age group?"
I take it to mean the immune response generated by the leaky vaccine is not only worse than the natural immune response, at least for those who are young, but that permanent damage is resulting to the immune systems of the young that will result in much more disease, hospitalization, and death than if the virus would have been allowed to infect young vaccinated and create a superior lifelong immune response. Therefore, forced vaccination of the young is actually causing far more harm than good, especially in the long-term.
This is really important. I’m hoping someone can provide a simpler, plain-language summary conclusion of this post. The utility of this would be to (quickly) make the point(s) and thereby entice those that can understand the ramifications of the observations described here to dig deeper.
Can such a statement be written?
Hi TFish. Phoneys use fancy words to impress others with their nonexistent intelligence. Dr. Vanden Bosch uses scientifically accurate vocabulary because he's the genuine article. This leaves us lesser mortals in the dust. We could take the effort and time to research the meaning of the words, but not everyone possesses the time and inclination to do this, so I agree with your post. If a "plain-language summary" is not forthcoming, I will suggest that given the seriousness of what we face, that time spent seeking to thoroughly comprehend Dr. Vanden Bosche's writing is time well spent.
I would certainly agree. I am very taken by Dr. Vanden Bosch’s conviction and expertise. It’s the reason why I’ve been following Dr. Vanden Bosch’s posts and interviews. And it is certainly important to strive to deepen our individual understanding; however, given that this is a crisis that needs widespread attention, paired with the absolute necessity to communicate with accuracy, a more accessible introduction would be invaluable.
Oscar Wilde : “The truth is rarely pure, and never simple”.
I took a stab at the effort to distill, without distorting—but I’m sure this may not be quite right. What do you think?
[T cells can only mediate prevention of disease or recovery provided they can do away with infection. In order for antigen specific T cells to prevent disease, they need to be primed (memory) and have the cytolitic capacity. There is no evidence showing that natural CoV infection, or any of the C-19 vaccines, induces antigen specific cytolytic T memory cells; therefore, we cannot reasonably speculate that CoV-specific T memory cells prevent disease.
Immune protection to the CoV (and likely against flu as well) is primarily provided by an innate immune system response: effector lymphocytes, such as innate antibody-secreting B cells and natural killer cells, targeting virus-infected host cells. SARS-COV2 reactive T and B cells, such as may be induced by vaccination, are not responsible for early or late stage control of infection and are not capable of preventing or terminating Covid-19 disease.]
Yes, I share the same reservations, not being an immunologist. Thanks for taking a look.
Ok, my brain tells me this was written in my native language but that’s as far as I could get. Stratospherically over my head but it’s more like “yeah, what HE said”. Go Geert!
Beautiful essay. Thank you Dr. Vanden Bossche. Dr. Eric Berne, 'What do you say after you say hello?, 1972' pp 407-408 cautions against Procrustean and Unicorn errors in sociology and psychology. Thanks again for exposing this so clearly.
Thank you! I thought I was getting a leg up reading all these studies. But I'm increasingly concerned that I cannot trust the conclusions at all. Fortunately I have heroes like you helping me learn so I can be a better critical thinker. I'm pretty good with the statistics games they play, but when they misinterpret the science, I depend on minds and courage like yours.
If immunologists are still under the impression that T-cell cross reactivity with SARS-COV-2 is automatically protective across the board vs pathogenic by host's antigenic imprinting then they should go ahead and explain why Pfizer's trial in kids ages 2-4 failed to elicit the "neutralizing" antibodies (the equivalent of stock market pump and dump for vaccine regulators) but was able to in children aged 6months to 2 years.
If I use Prof. Vanden Bossche's insights about innate immune training and effectors being the primary modulators of infection and severity across the board:
I can see that kids born just before the pandemic have adequate NK cell/Innate immune training to deal with SARS-COV-2 like pathogens. Their older siblings do as well but the exposure is far too acute due to higher interaction density with peers who have vaccinal adaptive immune response with high enough shedding that they can't secrete innate immune cells fast enough to prevent infection.
This doesn't explain why 6months to 2 years (everyone born after the pandemic started) elicit an adaptive immune response to vaccine. So we can use an additional assumption -
The inherited antibodies from vaccinated or exposed mothers is being recalled upon vaccination.
If those assumptions are true - This would imply that 2-4 age group are the last set of people on earth who do not have a specific immune response to SARS-COV-2 likely because they never had a productive Coronavirus infection of any kind in their life yet. Their immune response is intact. And perhaps, COVID-19 is primarily a kind of antibody dependent enhancement of previous coronavirus infections that vaccines make worse for those who have the wrong MHC.
A way to test this hypothesis would be to see the relative incidence of infection in children who were born to mothers who were vaccinated versus those who were not.
It would be intriguing if we find that children who were born with inherited antibodies from mother's vaccination or infection or both (in either order) had a different susceptibility profile including selection for variants. That is - we should find that children of mothers who had no infection or vaccination are less likely to be infected and if infected, have equal likelihood of infection to any variant vs the antibody evading variant in others.
If I understand correctly, in a natural pandemic (ie no vaccine) the downwards trend of the case curve is caused by people's innate immune system short lived antibodies? Causing temporary herd immunity.
I think you also said that the vaccinated innate immune system is compromised from the vaccine.
With Omicron, in highly vaccinated regions, the viral spread won't be stopped till herd immunity is reached?
Dear Geert, may I again thank you for all your work you do.
In light of the new variant being identified deltacron, a recombinant virus, omicron and delta. How would the immune system treat this especially vaccinees. Would it be treated as a new virus? Or would they have issues re antigenic sin. Would this raise the issue of ADE. As vaccine free, I assume that my immune system would treat it as it has with other variants. Thank you
This actually substantiates you sir:: https://t.me/PeterMcCulloughMD/963 Video on the Omish in America who took on Covid.
Totally on the mark. Thank you once again Geert. I am a good friend of Kate Petrich in Seattle. While Kate is super busy with work, I follow your postings and pass them along. I had a serious case of Covid before they were testing for it in February 2020. Had all 11 symptoms now recognized by the CDC plus a few more. After the 3 months I needed to recover from loss of taste and smell plus fatigue, I was and have been good to go with NO ILLNESS of any kind since then. My work, since fall of 2020, keeps me interacting with the public and yet, I remain free of any covid. Today is January 21, 2022 and still good. I volunteered giving my Covid plasma until March 2021 and to stay in the program had to always have HIGH ANTIBODIES which I did. Since then, I periodically get a pcr test randomly every few months and it is always negative. It goes without saying that I will, in this situation, not get vaccinated as I do not believe that I need to as I have innate, acquired immunity due to serious infection- no hospitalization cause was so early just before the pandemic was made known. Luckily, all my friends who saw me through the illness, totally support me in this position. A few of them have had "break-through" infections post vaccination. A partial solution at best in my opinion.
I understand that Singapore did a study which showed that immunity to the original SARS infection was still present 17 years later. Why are those who have had SARS Cov -2 not developing a similar lifelong immunity? Many governments, such as Singapore, are only admitting that they have immunity for about 180 days and basing the view entirely on the antibodies being present as they are immediately post infection. What is the difference in the long term immunity of the two viruses?
I am so so grateful for your knowledge and your leadership in sharing this vital information. You really are a brilliant and wonderful doctor
I don’t understand the processes Geert describes , but I understand sloppy workmanship and disingenuity
The research is propaganda for the ‘educated’ classes.