As social media has grown in importance and become a go-to source for information, there have been persistent calls from lawmakers and regulators for owners and managers to be responsible for tagging the misinformation that has often been spread on their platforms and moderating it.  Does this ask exceed our abilities to monitor and engage and corral dangerous deniers?

Long before one of the world’s wealthiest people slapped down $44B to buy Twitter, the public was in the grip of a misinformation pandemic. Whether on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit or any of several platforms, communication and public discourse have been partisan, ideologically informed and slanted.  During the pandemic, when this “Tower of Babel” was combined with inaccurate, non-authoritative and often conflicting pronouncements from those in authority, the public’s trust in elected officials, health authorities, drug companies and public institutions was broadly undermined.  By the time Elon Musk got to Twitter, in terms of trust, the horse had long fled the stable.

During the COVID-era, social media discourse has already enabled our nation to self-divide into tribes.  Whatever Musk’s intentions are, we are already in the midst of a perfect storm of “trust deregulation.”

TRUST TAKES YEARS TO EARN – IT’S LOST IN A MOMENT

Trust in institutions, it turns out, is short-lived and can be fragile.

Despite the great success of COVID vaccines, which are medical miracles, public health officials’ overstatement of their benefits contributed to reduced trust. Designed to protect and guard against viral transmission, vaccines were not all they were promised to be. Their protection turns out to be individual, not societal, and they guard against disease severity, like the flu shot, but not transmission.

As variants come onto the stage, we are encouraged to get another booster shot.  But the variant that now reigns supreme has no vaccine. It’s the “I don’t give a damn” adaptation. When the scientific story changed, it became hard to maintain confidence in the system.

Public health officials aren’t alone; there is a documented, dramatic trust decline in government and science, in addition to public health. Institutional trust diminishes as anxiety resulting from emotional (and social) isolation rises. Many blame social media for ratcheting that anxiety, as it’s often difficult to differentiate fact from fiction. But while Twitter is accountable for much chaos, it’s not responsible for the drop in consumer confidence in institutions.

Trust is personal, earned through consistent action over time. How institutions and companies — embodied by their CEOs, marketers, and communicators — engage transparently and honestly defines the quality of relationships and earns them trust.

While trust must be carefully earned, it can more easily be squandered. Public health institutions proved this.

The CDC needed to improve when it came to consumer mobilization. Masks work. Social distancing was effective. Vaccines and booster shots reduce disease severity. But are people continuing to wear masks, take precautions or get boosted? The Centers for Disease Control failed to establish itself as the go-to source for information and direction, and no longer enjoys the level of public trust it once did.

THE ERA OF VERIFY, THEN TRUST

And that takes us back to Twitter. While many point the finger at Twitter and other social platforms like Facebook as primary culprits in the mess we face, the causes of the current distrust go deeper. Poor communication and indecisive action from those in authority, a willingness to exploit crises for political and personal gain, coupled with news networks and media platforms that long ago moved from reporting facts to reflecting the tribal beliefs of their audiences’ ideological alignment contribute mightily to the loss of objective truth and the normalization of passing misinformation.

If quashing misinformation is to have any positive impact, consumers need to have a well-regarded, apolitical home base they can trust, which does not currently exist. How can Twitter alone be held accountable without this beacon of accuracy being seen as a go-to source?

Whether we advertise or not on this platform, there are right now 450 million monthly active users on Twitter!  Most do not register what Elon Musk says or represents.  If the billionaire throws his hands up and shuts off the lights, who wins the final round of this debate?

Many pundits sound Twitter’s death knell. Some are couching it as retribution for being a home for misinformation – or worse, hate.  But, if Twitter – with its global town square positive aspects still intact — collapses, does anyone win?

Without a trusted, objective source, it becomes critically important for consumers of information to adopt a more skeptical mindset to review information carefully to determine its value and truth.  And that means verifying the accuracy of information before sharing our trust.

MOVING FORWARD TO BUILD TRUST

Platforms like Twitter have a responsibility to their users, including protecting them from fiction that could lead to dangerous decisions regarding their health. Whether Elon Musk can be appealed to or not to reverse this decision to step back on quashing misinformation, regulators, corporate leaders and communicators must be reminded that creating and maintaining trust with the public is a micro-building community activity that happens house-by-house, person-to-person, and eye-to-eye.

We must recognize that Twitter is a microcosm reflecting people’s diversity, beliefs, and opinions. If Twitter fails, the plurality of opinion it has revealed over time doesn’t go away.  To build trust with that broad, diverse crowd of users, communicators need to make their cases with facts, convincingly, with authority and evidence, over and over.  It isn’t going to be simple to navigate these chaotic waters, but when it comes to combatting misinformation, we are all in the same boat.

The post Twitter’s Decision to Stand-down on COVID Misinformation Highlights a New Symptom — “Trust Deregulation” appeared first on Medika Life.

Here is an interview with a lawyer named Reiner Fuellmich showing what a full-blown hyperventilating fact-free attack looks like (please note: despite the introduction, the main body of the interview is all in English)

Going through his arguments is like shoveling the Augean Stables. But I’m no Hercules so I’ll focus on a very small but critical part of his argument, where Fuellmich tries to cast doubt on the polymerase chain reaction or PCR test. This is key because PCR is used to diagnose and track the COVID-19 disease and the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes it.

What is Fuellmich saying?

Thanks to Robert Turner, we have a transcript of Fuellmich’s statements from that interview complaining about the PCR test:

[4:15] It [the PCR test] cannot be relied upon as it cannot distinguish between live and dead matter, meaning whatever tests positive to could very well be the fragments or remnants of your body’s own immune system’s fight against the common flu or the cold and it cannot tell whether a virus, and you need a whole virus, not just a fragment, whether a virus has entered your cells and is replicating because that’s the only way for you to become contagious.

[5:38]…you have to put this into a machine and then magnify it. This is called cycles of amplification, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and everyone agrees in the meantime that anything beyond 24 is unscientific. Apart from the fact, these tests cannot tell you anything about infection because they can’t distinguish between live and dead matter, but, if, if you go beyond 24 cycles, if you go for example to 34 cycles of application then you end up with at least 97% false positives, that’s what Mike Yeadon, former vice president of Pfizer told us.

Here I’ll focus on quickly laying down the facts to correct Fuellmich’s claims, and show where he is misleading people.

If you are interested in more in-depth primers on PCR, I have a couple posts here and here that I wrote for a friend who joined me in the lab doing biological research (including lots of PCRs).

Let’s break down Fuellmich’s comments piece by piece.

…It [the PCR test] cannot be relied upon as it cannot distinguish between live and dead matter…

Fuellmich tries to dismiss a test while displaying ignorance of what it does. First, a PCR test does not distinguish between living and dead. Second, being alive or dead has nothing to do with diagnosing COVID-19.

A PCR, or polymerase chain reaction, detects the presence of a defined genetic sequence by specifically amplifying it. That is the entire purpose of a PCR.

That genetic sequence can be encoded in DNA or RNA. In humans, our genetic information is permanently encoded in DNA, and transiently encoded in RNA. In some viruses like the one causing COVID-19, the genetic information is permanently encoded in RNA.

To detect RNA, such as that within the SARS-CoV-2 virus, an additional step transforms the RNA to DNA. This step is abbreviated RT (for reverse transcription). So, the test to detect COVID-19 is actually called an RT-PCR test.

The goal of PCR is to amplify, and therefore detect, specific genetic information encoded in either DNA or RNA.

PCR can, for example, detect the presence of a genetic sequence in tissue from a live person and one who has been dead for hundreds or even thousands of years. So, living and dead are irrelevant to the argument of PCR’s effectiveness.

Furthermore, being alive or dead has nothing to do with diagnosing COVID-19. The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 does not even qualify as a living organism in many people’s opinions.

…whatever tests positive to could very well be the fragments or remnants of your body’s own immune system’s fight against the common flu or the cold…

Fuellmich displays complete ignorance of testing and biology in this statement. The RT-PCR test amplifies virus-specific genetic information. The RT-PCR test does not have anything to do with the patient’s immune system. The RT-PCR test does not detect anything specific to the patient at all.

Furthermore, testing has shown the RT-PCR test is so specific that it can distinguish the SARS-CoV-2 virus from other viruses including other coronaviruses.

The “common flu” is caused by several influenza viruses which are very different from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Genetically and biologically, influenza and coronaviruses are very distinct classes and species. There is no possibility for the RT-PCR test to confuse the two.

The cold is caused by several human viruses including rhinovirus, several coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and others. Some of these belong to at least the same class of virus as the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, the cold and COVID-19 viruses are all very different species. The RT-PCR test will not confuse any of them with SARS-CoV-2.

There are a couple recent coronaviruses which are much closer genetically to SARS-CoV-2, but testing has shown that the RT-PCR tests are able to distinguish between them. The one most closely related to the current pandemic virus is SARS-CoV, and one a little more distantly related is called MERS-CoV.

…it [PCR] cannot tell whether a virus, and you need a whole virus, not just a fragment, whether a virus has entered your cells and is replicating because that’s the only way for you to become contagious…

This statement is partially true, but is irrelevant to the logic and process of diagnosis, and irrelevant to the logic and process of public health.

The part of Fuellmich’s statement which is true is that the RT-PCR cannot distinguish between an intact virus, and free-floating viral RNA (perhaps what he calls “fragments”).

A clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 includes RT-PCR data as an important factor, but also uses clinical (symptoms) and exposure (who contacted whom) information as well. A clinical diagnosis requires multiple sources of information to increase confidence because treatments carry risks.

Public health does not try to make clinical diagnoses, but requires just enough data to suggest the spread of a virus. A positive RT-PCR result, whether the virus is intact or not, suggests that a transmission event (spreading from one person to another) has occurred. This spreading must be stopped quickly, and health officials must limit contact even before they have full clinical data.

…you have to put this into a machine and then magnify it. This is called cycles of amplification, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and everyone agrees in the meantime that anything beyond 24 is unscientific…

Again, a small part of this statement is true. During the RT-PCR test for COVID-19, the patient sample is put into what we call a thermal cycler, a machine which automatically heats and cools the sample according to a program in order to amplify (or make many copies of) a specific DNA sequence.

The detectability of the genetic sequence depends on how much DNA is there to begin with. If there is a lot of genetic material in the original sample, fewer cycles are required to detect its presence. If very small amounts of genetic material are present in the sample, more cycles are required. There is nothing about the magic number of 24 as being “unscientific”. The mere statement itself is unscientific, as it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the RT-PCR test.

RT-PCR tests routinely go into 40 or 50 cycles to amplify very small amounts of genetic material. Here is a graph of a typical RT-PCR to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, showing specifically that higher cycle numbers detect smaller amounts of RNA.

… if you go for example to 34 cycles of application then you end up with at least 97% false positives, that’s what Mike Yeadon, former vice president of Pfizer told us…

Again, there is a tiny kernel of truth in this statement, but which is highly distorted. In the RT-PCR test, the genetic sequence is detected when DNA is amplified enough for a fluorescent signal to be detected. The number of cycles required to obtain a detectable signal is called the Ct, or cycle threshold number. A very high Ct number is associated with false positives. However, the number Fuellmich gives, 24 and 34, are ludicrously low and incorrect.

Here is one of many papers which explains the Ct value, and some typical values of cutoffs for acceptable values:https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https%3A//www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/main/2020/09/cycle-threshold-values-sars-cov2-pcr.pdf%3Fla%3Den&embedded=true

This paper suggests a Ct cutoff of 40. Far higher than 24 cycles or 34 cycles Fuellmich cites as being “unscientific”.

There are many causes of false positive RT-PCR results, of which the RT-PCR’s Ct is only one:

Causes of False Positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Results

Contamination during

• Sampling (eg, an infected worker or surfaces; aerosolization of virus during collection)
• Extraction (eg, aerosolization in containment hood)
• PCR amplification
• Production of Lab Reagents (eg, manufacturers of the positive control may have contaminated other reagents produced in the same facility; contamination of other consumables)
• Contamination of the equipment by high viral titer specimens (eg, sample carryover)
• Cross-reaction with other viruses (eg, other coronaviruses)
• Sample mix-ups
• Software problems
• Data entry or transmission errors
• Miscommunicating results
• Variations in parameters around the LOD and definition of an indeterminate result
• Assuming that an indeterminate result is a positive
• Non-specific reactions

LOD, limit of detection; RT-PCR, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction.

(Table by Braunstein et al, 2021)

Conclusion

Fuellmich is engaging in a poorly-informed and dangerous campaign against public health measures such as vaccination, testing, and distancing. Even a cursory examination of RT-PCR shows how ignorant Fuellmich is of the process and capabilities of this important test.

Editors Note: For a complete dissection of Fuellmich’s Fiction, refer to this article

The post Getting the Story Straight on PCR… appeared first on Medika Life.

We’ll kick off with the simple stuff and then move onto the more complex topics. There a lot of my often sad and questionable humor interspersed in this article. It isn’t there to make light of the situation, rather see it as an attempt to stave off the madness of having to repeatedly write these articles in the first place. We all need to lighten up a little and learn to think critically for ourselves and let’s be honest, some of this is side-splittingly funny. For the purposes of this article, the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid is shortened to CoV-2. This is how you contract a virus.

A final thought on the context before you dive in. ALL the responses below are based on our personal exposure and experiences to and with the pandemic over the last 14 months. We have personal contact with medical professionals engaged in the field with research and critical patient care. Our concern is for the patient’s safety and wellbeing and where doubt exists on something, we are candid about it.

On the much-maligned subject of PCR testing

This tends to always feel like people clutching at straws. Also, the lack of understanding among the public regarding this topic is staggering. It allows for their manipulation by less than honorable agents.

1. PCR testing doesn’t prove you have Covid

Fact: Wow, astonishing. That’s actually correct and aside from stating the obvious we’re not sure why this statement has been latched onto. PCR testing is a screening tool used to look for genetic material that belongs to the virus. You can have this material and be either asymptomatic (no Covid) or you may have just have caught the virus and be on the fence (you may or may not develop Covid) or you may be recovering from Covid or possibly successfully have beaten the virus thanks to your immune system. So to recap, PCR is not to detect Covid. That’s just a silly statement as we all know Covid is a disease that’s caused by a coronavirus.

2. PCR tests don’t work properly

Fallacy: They do. Here’s an article that will explain exactly how well they work and what they’re really good at doing. Detecting genetic material. Detractors point to a statement by Kerry Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test shortly before his death where he was quoted as saying the tests aren’t good for detecting disease. Again, this is factual but completely misinterpreted and corrupted by Covid doubters. The tests should be used to screen for viruses and other materials that can cause or lead to disease. Exactly the way we use PCR to screen for the CoV-2 virus to confirm someone has Covid rather than a bad case of influenza. The tests also provide invaluable information about the spread of a virus in the general population. We can assess how dangerous, how viral, and how deadly a virus is from data collected from testing. Without this data, we’re guessing.

3. PCR tests are unreliable

Fallacy: They are very accurate, more so than many other screening tools and it’s why we use them. It is possible to mess up the results by contaminating samples or not following the manufacturer’s instructions for individual tests but this is human error and statistically insignificant in large samples or at the scale we’re dealing with now. Again, refer to this article.

4. Why are we testing healthy people? It’s a waste of time and money

Fallacy. A great question spoiled by a flawed conclusion based on a lack of proper public-facing education. Here’s why we test extensively. Write it down, memorize it, tell a friend. We need the data to protect the public. It’s that simple. Unless we can figure out how quickly a virus is spreading through a population, how many people are becoming ill, and how many are dying we can’t protect ourselves.

This data shows the infectiousness of a virus, how transmissible it is, how dangerous, and who it is affecting. It also means we can with reasonable accuracy suggest how deadly the virus is and whether you need to buy Twinkies and hide under your bed, or if you can mask up and move about in relative safety. Rapid and widespread testing is critical to understanding, managing, and containing viral outbreaks. If the pandemic has shown us anything about managing global viral outbreaks it is about how important the availability of accurate data is in managing unknowns. Testing provides this. So the next time someone tries to trash testing, you can explain this to them.

There is another benefit to testing that isn’t discussed in much detail but is of more importance. Research. Millions of samples help to turn up data that we may otherwise miss. Volume helps to establish patterns that researchers can look into or exploit for developing treatments. It can also alert us to new potential risks from a virus as it evolves. Without broad sampling, research is seriously hampered, and along with it, our understanding of what we are dealing with. HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are perfect examples of what large data sets can allow researchers to accomplish.

Masks Ahoy

This is my pet hate. Where to start on this one. There is so much rubbish that circulates about the futility of wearing a mask, the health risks if you wear a mask and the issues of personal freedom. Let’s deal with the most obvious and hopefully, somewhere along the line, the penny will drop if it hasn’t already. I apologize in advance for the tone in some of the answers, but seriously??? I’ll try and keep this portion brief.

1. Why should I wear a mask. There is no reason.

Fallacy: There are a million reasons. Here’s possibly the simplest explanation of all when it comes to this topic. When you sneeze, do you cover your nose and mouth with your hand and turn away from people? Simple yes or no answer. If you answered no then you’re probably one of the idiots wandering about without a mask. Yes, I know I shouldn’t, but your inability to comprehend basic hygiene is probably a combination of ignorance, arrogance, and inbreeding. This simple gesture designed to contain the sneeze is an acknowledgment that the fluids you’re about to spray around liberally from your nasal passages carry the potential for disease and death. We’ve been doing this out of respect and concern for our fellow citizens for centuries.

The simple gesture of turning away and raising your hand is one of the most telling things about you. Indirectly, you’re saying to the people around you, “I care about you bro, so I ain’t sharing”.

The mask does more to protect others than it does to protect you. Fact. It’s that hand, permanently in front of your nose and mouth to catch coughs and sneezes. If everyone wears one, then they also serve to protect you. They aren’t foolproof but they have a huge impact on the virus’s ability to become airborne and spread itself.

I always see doctors and nurses as the perfect proof of this. Many have been engaged with Covid patients for over a year. Although there have been a lot of positive cases of Covid, many medical professionals have not contracted the virus, despite it being so infectious. The reason. Masks and hygiene. The two go hand in hand.

2. N95 masks can’t stop the virus particles

True: but then we aren’t asking them to do this, are we? The virus is insanely small, small enough to pass through a normal N95 mask. However, on their own, CoV-2 particles are stranded. No legs, no wings, and no cellphone to order a Grab. They need to latch onto something to move around and airborne particles of moisture sprayed out of your mouth or nose offer the perfect ride. Luckily the N95 can cope with these small droplets and can easily capture them, preventing their passenger access to your gaping mouth or inhaling nostril. It isn’t perfect I’ll admit, but it is 100% more effective than no mask.

As the mask can trap the virus in these particles it is advisable to change your mask quite frequently and never reuse an N95 or similar type of material mask unless you have access to a sterilization unit. Washing can also compromise the mask’s fibers.

Don’t take off your mask and stuff it in your pocket. Immediately dispose of it on removal and wash your hands. Again, seriously, this is basic hygiene 101.

3. Masks being mandated infringe on my civil liberties

Fallacy: If you have so little concern for your fellow citizens that you refuse to place a small cloth square over your face when you’re in public, for the duration of the pandemic, then really, there’s nowhere to go with this other than to say if you do enjoy any civil liberties, they’re hugely underserved and definitely not as a result of any actions you’ve taken. Seat belts are mandated and in some states so are crash helmets. Are you also protesting these and while we’re at it, what about the requirement to wear clothes in public? Ridiculous, and clearly an infringement on your right to expose yourself.

Wearing a mask, seatbelt, or crash helmet is for your protection more than anything else. There is no real evidence to suggest the mask poses any hazard to your health, so like the crash helmet and the seatbelt, use them. Yes, they’re hot, yes they’re uncomfortable, and yes, they fog up your glasses, but they work. Science says so and data supports it.

4. Medical masks are dangerous and cause CO2 intoxication or oxygen deficiency

Fallacy: Considering the people and groups propagating this nonsense, perhaps we should print a disclaimer on the masks. Dangerous if consumed! You should not wear a mask while exercising, performing demanding physical labor, or engaging in carnal acts (unless of course, you paid extra for the mask). That’s simply common sense. Your oxygen demands increase exponentially and you need unrestricted access to air. This claim is also easily disproven by observing medical staff in an operating theater. You don’t see them collapsing or gasping for air, do you, despite attending procedures that last for hours. Clearly, under normal conditions, masks are uncomfortable but very safe.

The mystery of the missing virus

This is my all-time favorite. The depth of ignorance required to make the statement below is staggering.

We haven’t isolated the CoV2 virus yet

Fallacy: People spreading this gem claim that we only have a computer-based model of the virus and haven’t managed to actually isolate the real virus. This will come as very upsetting news to Wan Beom Park and his colleagues, who clearly thought they managed to do it back in February of 2020. Sorry Wan, but your paper entitled Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Koreamust obviously be a mistake. Our public ‘experts’ say so.

I won’t bore you with an extensive list of the other laboratories that have isolated the virus, but rather pose a few simple questions to this group of non-believers to hopefully allow them to self-implode in a puff of logic-induced smoke.

Question one. You are aware, are you not, that the CoV-2 virus can be ordered by laboratories for the purposes of evaluation and experimentation? What do you think the CDC has been shipping to laboratories for over a year now? Two weeks after receiving their first sample of the virus in January of 2020, the CDC was able, over a period of two weeks, to generate enough SARS-CoV-2 (grown in cell culture) to distribute to medical and scientific researchers. You can read about their isolation of the CoV2 virus here.

Second question. How would be able to produce a vaccine that uses part of the virus’s RNA coding to simulate the spike protein on the virus, unless you had the actual virus to analyze? Hmmm? Guesses tend not to work too well in the field of molecular biology.

Third and final question. Accusing the world of intentionally releasing the virus on an unwitting public and then claiming we don’t actually have it are two opinions that are directly at odds with each other. You cannot have it both ways, can you? Decide which line of bullshit you want to pursue and stick to that, you cannot have both.

Covid-19 is caused by a bacterial infection

Fallacy: It’s easy to understand how folk can get this one mixed up. The CoV-2 virus is what causes the disease we call Covid-19. The disease is a result of the virus attacking our system, in particular, our lungs and other vital organs. Bacteria can then play a role as secondary infections may occur in the lungs and elsewhere, These can be treated with antibiotics as the infections are bacterial, but the antibiotics don’t impact the CoV-2 virus. Viruses are immune to antibiotics, which only work on bacterial infections. Certain viruses can be treated with very specific antiviral drugs that have been designed to target specific attributes in a chosen virus. HIV retrovirals are an excellent example.

On the topic of thermal scanners

You know the feeling right, every shop you stop at scans you. The entrance to the mall scans you and even your hairdresser scans you. There is no escape from handheld, wall-mounted, or checkout-style temp scanners and I am actually surprised no one has suggested yet we’re going to get tumors on our foreheads from all the scanning. Watch this space.

1. Scanners cannot pick up a CoV-2 infection

Yes and no. It’s a little bit of both here. While it’s true that the scanners cannot directly detect the virus, it is also true they can detect subtle changes in body temperature which may indicate an infection you are not aware of. That infection isn’t just an indicator of a viral infection though. It’s a warning sign that your body is engaged in a battle with something and that you should consider getting your butt to a doctor. Our bodies operate within a very limited temperature range, 36.5°C to 37°C, and these scanners are pretty good at picking up even a degree difference.

It’s worth mentioning that not having an elevated temperature shouldn’t be seen as an all-clear for a possible CoV-2 infection. Elevated temperature is not always present during an active infection, particularly in asymptomatic individuals. The scanning protocol is a temporary inconvenience for your protection. Get scanned and enjoy your shopping. Soon, scanners too will be a distant memory.

On the delicate topic of vaccines

This is probably the hot potato at the moment. It’s current and everyone is talking about the covid vaccines. One day they’re all declared safe, the next day it’s a maybe, Astra Zenica might cause clots, Johnson & Johnson may have issues, the mRNA vaccines will turn you into mutants, China’s vaccine may only be 3% effective and the list goes on. We’re going to work on the following assumptions here and then address the typical doubts individually.

• The FDA has issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) approval for three vaccines in the US. Pfizer/Biotech. Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. This means that all three vaccines have passed the safety requirements for Stage 3 trials. They cannot be fully approved yet as they haven’t proven themselves over a period of time, a requirement for final approval that takes anywhere from 3–5 years with most vaccines to ensure complete public safety.
• Short term we know they’re safe and that’s why they’ve been approved for EUA use. We don’t have the time now to hang about and wait out the three to five years while people are dying and these vaccines have the potential to stop that. Ergo, we are vaccinating now with EUA vaccines. Totally logical, given almost no short-term risk.
• We cannot engage at this point in speculation with regards to possible long-term consequences. This is an unknown, for everyone. What we do however know is that saving a life now and dealing with any (we hope there are none) subsequent consequences later, is a no-brainer. We are going to vaccinate and have been doing exactly this since December of 2020.

1. The mRNA vaccines are going to change my DNA

Fallacy. The basic answer is that in almost all cases RNA viruses, and that’s what the mRNA vaccine is based on, a viral RNA segment from the CoV-2 virus – the spike protein on the outside of the virus, to be completely accurate – cannot access our DNA. The process involved here is hugely complex and difficult to understand. I’ve just address new research on this topic and you can find the full article here. It includes an expansive but hopefully simple enough explanation of the processes at play and the rules regulating traffic from our DNA to RNA.

While it is true that some retroviruses can enter our DNA, retroviruses are a limited family of viruses that includes the HIV virus. The coronavirus is an RNA virus and incapable of a similar feat under normal conditions. The RNA used by the mRNA vaccines is synthetic and replicates a portion of the natural virus’s RNA. This teaches our cells to be prepared and on the lookout for the real thing and the reason they’ve chosen the spike protein is that this is how the CoV-2 virus gains access to our cells.

2. I got vaccinated. Party time.

Fallacy: No, no, and no. Being vaccinated doesn’t mean you cannot transmit the virus to others (act as a vector). It also doesn’t mean you’re out of the woods. Not immediately. It takes between ten and fourteen days to develop those immune cells you’ll need to stave off serious illness. Get sick in between, and you’re in for a rough ride. One of my BeingWell colleagues came down with Covid two days after being vaccinated. Contact tracing proved an exposure the morning of vaccination. What followed was nearly three weeks of hell for him as he fought off Covid and the effects of the virus. He now struggles with Long Covid symptoms.

We also don’t have conclusive evidence yet that you aren’t still a vector for variants. You may be able to spread these variants, even after you’ve developed your vaccine immunity and these may even make you ill, despite the vaccination. This is a fluid situation and vaccine formulations will change over time to address these variants and offer broader protection, but keep in mind, the virus continually mutates. It never loses this ability. So in short, keep your mask on, keep social distancing and act as though you haven’t been vaccinated. At least for now and let’s do our best to flatten curves that are once again going up in the wrong direction.

3. Natural immunity is far better, I’ll take my chances with the virus

50/50: This needs to be qualified. If you’re perfectly healthy, then this is your choice. It may be that naturally acquired immunity through exposure to the virus will produce a more resilient immune response than a medically introduced virus via a vaccine, but the inverse may also be true. We don’t have enough data yet to make a convincing case for either claim. That aside, there are a few things to consider here. I’ll list them below and you can make your own choice.

• If you suffer from anything on this list then you want to get the vaccine ASAP. People with various risk factors for developing serious Covid need to be vaccinated.
• The vaccines prevent you from developing serious Covid, in fact, some are almost 100% effective at this. That’s a guaranteed get-out-of-jail card if you’re obese, diabetic, or suffer from one or more of the conditions highlighted in the referred article.
• Covid can and does kill children on occasion and perfectly healthy young and middle-aged (30 to 40-year-old) adults with no apparent underlying health conditions. To see the effects of the B.1.1.7 variant on a closed community, follow this link.
• Although the science is still out on this, there may be benefits to being vaccinated after you’ve had a natural infection. We’ll get back to you on this as we’re looking at current and emerging research. The current data seems to suggest double the bang for your buck if you opt for the vaccine on top of your naturally acquired immunity.

The Crazies

Suggestions so ridiculous you’re tempted to ignore them, but that would be a mistake. For every crazy idea out there, there are thousands of eager fingers and phones, just waiting to amplify the madness. The more obscure, the more outrageous, the better.

1. 5G will give you Covid

Fallacy: This is one of those ideas that have no basis in science or common sense. You understand surely that 5G uses a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that allows it to transmit data very effectively through a network of repeating stations. Data is not a physical thing. I can assure you of the following. 5G is not capable of teleportation. The virus is a physical particle, too small for us to see, but still subject to gravity and all the other wonderful forces that control physical objects on planet Earth. Sneeze it out and will gradually descend to the floor.

We haven’t figured out yet how to teleport physical objects from one location and place them in another location, let alone target your nostril. 5G isn’t capable of using its intangible medium to move a physical virus into your schnoz. Sorry, just ain’t happening, not by any crazy mechanism you try and dream up. To be infected with CoV-2, you need the actual physical virus and this needs to enter your body through either your mouth or nose. Lastly, have you wondered how it is that countries without 5G also mysteriously seem to have the virus spreading?

2. Bleach, ethanol, methanol, and other crazy home concoctions will protect you against covid

Fallacy: Until I saw reports on CNN of people that had actually consumed bleach, encouraged by then-incumbent President (term used loosely) Trump, I would have bet my last dollar that no one in the world would actually follow idiotic advice like this. I’ve come to learn over the last year that there are levels of stupid I couldn’t have imagined, ranging from errant quacks to people who have no idea of how to look after themselves and rely (very unfortunately) on the opinions of charlatans and con artists.

Let’s clear this up once and for all. There are no defenses against CoV-2. NONE!! The only way you can guarantee evading the virus is to lock yourself up in a sterile vacuum, clearly not a practical long-term solution. Vaccines only prevent us from developing serious disease (Covid) from the Cov-2 virus. Even as amazing as these tools are, they cannot stop a virus from entering our bodies.

There is no drug or treatment, product, drain cleaner, pesticide, bleach, or alcohol on the planet that can stop your body from being infected. If you cross paths with the virus it can infect you. Garlic, colloidal silver, and pepper may ward off the Cowens and your wife but won’t stop the CoV-2 virus. Gargling with salt and snorting spotted Panamanian anteater urine¹ harvested under a full moon won’t stop it either, even if you order today for the free bottle of desiccated lizard testicle extract. Nothing! Got the idea yet? You’re being conned, wasting your money, and in many cases, actually putting your health at risk.

The best way to help yourself out is to ensure your immune system is in tip-top shape and practice a few common-sense habits to help it stay that way.

• Try and eat a well-balanced and healthy diet, get regular exercise, stay happy and ensure you’re smiling and laughing. Depression and anxiety prey heavily on your immune system. Watch a comedy on the telly and stop stressing.
• Obesity is a huge contributor to serious Covid, try and reduce your weight if at all possible. Even losing five to ten pounds can make a huge difference to your general health. Again the best route is a proper diet and exercise. If you’re restricted try Yoga or Taichi via Youtube. Be patient and stick to it. There are no quick fixes and companies that offer you any are the same people who’ll sell you the bleach.
• Vitamins are for the most part an equally large waste of money and I’m including Vitamin C in this. You may as well flush your cash down the toilet as this is where most vitamins end up. We think Zinc and Vitamin D may be efficacious, but make sure you keep to the recommended dosages and buy a regular product from a well know and reputable brand. More, in medicine, is usually dangerous, not better, Vitamins are no exception. Your doctor will be happy to discuss any vitamin supplementation you may require. Rather spend the cash you waste on vitamins and supplements on buying fresh food, if you can get it. Bake, boil, steam, BBQ, air fry, and avoid frying or cooking in oil.

3. COVID-19 doesn’t actually exist

Fallacy. Do I really have to do this? Yes, thanks to individuals like David Icke (from the moon is hollow fame, no really, Google it) and InfoWars’ Alex Jones we do have to. The story goes like this. COVID-19 doesn’t actually exist but is a plot by the globalist elite to take away our freedoms. Anti-lockdown protests across several states in the US have been fuelled by Icke and Jones’s idiotic rhetoric and because believers increasingly refuse to observe social distancing measures, they are directly helping to spread the epidemic further in their localities. In case you haven’t made the connection, these are the same individuals refusing to wear masks.

There is only one way to reply to this. When, once, in the history of humanity, have we all been able to work in unison? Every country pursuing the same agenda? Go on, have a think, I’ll wait. When you’re done you might also spare a thought for the nearly 3 million who’ve died from a nonexistent disease. which brings us on nicely to the next craziness.

4. COVID death rates are inflated

Fallacy: The one individual, most notably responsible for getting this misinformation ball rolling is Dr. Annie Bukacek. Her speech, in April of 2020 warning that COVID death certificates are being manipulated has been viewed more than a million times on YouTube. Bukacek appears in a white lab coat and with a stethoscope around her neck, making her look like an authoritative medical source. Dig a little deeper, however, as Rolling Stone magazine did, and it turns out she’s a far-right anti-vaccination and anti-abortion activist, previously noted for bringing tiny plastic fetuses into the Montana state legislature.

Her insistence that COVID death rates are inflated has, of course, no basis in fact. More likely the current death toll is a serious under-count. To further clarify the issue, the Centers for Disease Control has published information about excess deaths associated with COVID-19.

If anything, it is in a country’s interest, particularly for its government and appointed leaders, to try and underreport deaths. Again, think logically. Want to be seen as the hero who controlled the Covid outbreak or the loser who let it get away with spiraling deaths? Good luck getting re-elected. Mexico is an excellent example, having recently acknowledged under-reporting nearly 120 000 Covid-19 deaths.

5. The virus was made in a laboratory in Wuhan

Fallacy: Most of this has to do with the anti-Chinese sentiment that was encouraged under a Trump-led Republican government. When your President resorts to petty tactics like calling CoV-2 “the China virus” it doesn’t take long for other clowns to sign up for the circus. In fairness, China tried to blame the virus on visiting American troops, probably in response to American tactics.

Politics aside, let’s look at the science. The SARS virus (SARS-CoV) and the subsequent MERS virus are both known to have animal reservoirs, notably Himalayan palm civetsin the case of SARS and dromedary camels (one hump please) for MERS. SARS-CoV-like viruses have been isolated from several bat species, predominately horseshoe bats (genus Rhinolophus). These viruses are zoonotic (animal to human origins) and there is no reason to assume SARS-CoV-2 is any different. It shares the majority of its genome with the SARS and MERS viruses. It is a coronavirus and its origins will, in time, be discovered. For now, this issue simply serves as a distraction from more important issues.

As an aside, lack of general knowledge can seriously impact our understanding of things. Almost every season’s new influenza strains emerge first in Asia and spread to the West. This historical process follows global seasonal weather patterns and actually affords the west an opportunity to rush out the current season’s influenza vaccines. Asia provides us with a heads up for what’s coming and, if anything, we should be grateful for the window they afford us, rather than trying to assign racially-based blame on countries that are in many ways more functional than the US.

6. The vaccines are inserting tracking devices into our bodies.

True: You can check this by walking naked in front of a monitor or flat-screen television with the frequency set to 1200Mhtz. You’ll notice the sudden interference on the screen every time you pass in front of the television. You can increase the acidity of your body to activate the nanotech. Drinking a glass of water diluted with a spoon of vinegar will help achieve full particle activation and we advise wearing rubber-soled shoes. Full instructions can be found here.

Okay, we (or rather I) have had my fun. This is in fact complete and utter rubbish. We aren’t even close to possessing this kind of tech and while we can place medical devices inside a person for examination purposes these devices have a limited lifespan of a few hours at best and are not individually identifying. Also, what is the point to being able to track everyone unless you can identify who is who? That would mean individualized tech for each person. Sorry, but you’ve got an extremely overinflated idea of your value to big brother. Get a grip.

Footnotes

1. No Spotted Panamanian Anteaters were harmed during the completion of this article.

The post Debunking Common Coronavirus and Covid Misconceptions, Myths, Lies, and Fairytales appeared first on Medika Life.

tweet-jack: (verb) — the appropriation of a tweet for the purposes of subverting and/or politicizing the content for your own agenda or purpose.

Every day there’s a new angle, human baby cells used in vaccines, new world order plans for global control, mass sterilization, the list is as endless as it is crazy. Buried in between all the madness lie a few key issues that do warrant serious attention and deserve answers from the scientific community. These issues stand no chance of being taken seriously, for the simple fact they’ve been adopted and integrated into the Crazy Covid Circus of conspiracies and misinformation.

The media fuels a lot of this misdirection, focusing people’s attention on completely irrelevant topics, like, for instance, the origins of the virus. Here’s an open question to all the people dedicating their existence to figuring out whether Dracula’s cousin or an errant laboratory technician caused the outbreak. How is the pursuit of this Holy Grail remotely relevant to treating and containing the covid pandemic? Serious question.

There will be time enough after the pandemic, yes, it will pass, to analyze and evaluate evidence to isolate the coronavirus’s origins. At this point, knowing where the virus came from doesn’t affect our ability to treat it, it doesn’t help us combat the spread, and most definitely won’t make it any less dangerous. Ergo, a complete and utter waste of time, that serves only to distract from more important issues. Therefore, your pointless pursuits are condoned and even encouraged.

The conspiracy circus serves a very real purpose in the world of science, politics, and large pharma. It is tolerated and managed, with a very clear purpose. To deflect away attention from real issues and real questions that no one within the established power bases wants to be asked. By allowing and subtly encouraging the inclusion of valid scientific issues with other wild and hopelessly unsubstantiated claims, these topics become tainted.

So tainted, that no industry professional will risk raising them, for fear of being instantly adopted by the covid crazies. These groups of pandemic extremists seek nothing more than validation by scientific or medical voices, and they actively ‘help themselves to such endorsement. The favored path follows the route of social media appropriation.

There is a simple strategy they have perfected that I refer to as tweet-jacking. It plays to the strengths of algorithms designed to reward engagement and works as follows. Find a tweet by a respected member of any health-related industry, comment and agree with the statement made, and then add on your little tail. The bit about 5G towers or mass sterilization. Don’t worry about the original content or context, the link can be tenuous, that’s not what matters. Like, retweet and settle back.

Within minutes the rest of your questionable crew will descend on the unfortunate tweet, dragging it into your chop shop and stripping it of all value and any significance to the serious world of science. For example, a well-intentioned tweet questioning data from a drug trial can turn into a buzzing hornet’s nest of deceit, deception, and mind control experiments. Anyone with more than two days of experience on social media, particularly limiting platforms like Twitter, knows full well that once your tweet has been jacked, your goose is cooked.

Don’t respond and whatever you do, don’t argue. In fact, at this point, deleting the tweet is probably your best course of action, even if Eric Topol has responded to it.

Allowing the tweet-jack strategy to persist on social media platforms is the most spectacularly effective means of censoring dissenting voices with legitimate questions. Don’t stop them, actually amplify them, but make sure it the circus that gets involved. Merely asking a legitimate question in effect, immediately invalidates it. It is devious, it is clever and it is incredibly hard to navigate around. The problem now extends to almost every avenue of publication. Nowhere is out of bounds and this simply makes this isolating mechanism all the more appealing to those who wish to silence legitimate concerns.

Here then, is a newsflash for covid conspiracy theorists, for covidiots, or whatever other monikers you prefer. Big Pharma, politicians, and big business love you. You’ve rapidly become their best friend in the information wars being waged. People far brighter than you, that are paid far more money than you, and with a list of spin degrees far longer than your inflated sense of self-importance, love you. You’re being used to obfuscate real issues that no one wants to answer, and, best of all, you’re doing it for free. LOVE, LOVE, LOVE!

It wouldn’t surprise me if much of what you dream up actually isn’t dreamt up by you at all, but rather by corporate spin doctors, paid to ensure your machine remains well oiled with a steady flow of increasingly crazy misinformation. You’ve done a spectacular job so far, well above and beyond what anyone could have expected. You’ve managed to completely ruin any credible discussion on topics like HCQ and Ivermectin. playing right into the hands of your masters and it’s cost lives in the process.

Real issues like the harvesting of your DNA via PCR tests have passed right over your heads as you obsess about the test itself. Stupid, pointless questions centered around crazy theories. Here’s what you need to know about PCR testing and if you’re too lazy to read it, the truth is this simple. The tests exist, they work to identify genetic material from the virus itself, and while they are not perfect, they are a damn side better than anything else we can come up with.

Where your real concern should lie is what all the ‘nefarious’ government agencies (as you so fondly refer to them) are doing with your DNA or genetic material after the test. Sadly, you haven’t stopped long enough to actually think through much of anything, so right under your noses, half of America has now shared its DNA with the government. By the time the pandemic passes, very few Americans will not have their DNA profile embedded somewhere on a database.

See how it works? Obfuscation, magic, and mirrors, and it’s almost as sad as it is tragically amusing to watch. It’s like a video game. How many crazies can you load on the covid bus? You are without a doubt, the single greatest impediment to rational and questioning discourse our planet has ever encountered and you’ve cost lives, thousands of them, with your actions. The fact you’re actually working for the very people you think you’re undermining simply makes you the ironic punchline to the joke of the decade.

Take the covid vaccine. According to you, it’s everything from a radio tracker, amplified by 5G towers to a global sterilization tool grown in embryonic cells. Even in your deluded state, you must be able to acknowledge that the vaccine obviously cannot be all of these things, can it? So, if some of your crew are wrong about their suspicions, why not you? Why not possibly all of you? And yet again, your obsession with the vaccine’s content has glazed over the real issue. The question of choice and free will. A choice that is not at the expense of another person’s health or wellbeing and balances freedoms against the needs of society.

Carry on with your craziness and continue to impede or prevent serious discussion on these important issues. It’s what your bosses are paying you for. Oh right, my bad, I keep forgetting you’re actually doing it for free.

The post Mastering The Art of Tweet-Jacking During a Pandemic appeared first on Medika Life.

World renown vaccine specialist, Geert Vanden Bossche, gave a groundbreaking interview this week risking his reputation and his career by bravely speaking out against administration of #Covid19 vaccines. In what may be one of the most important stories ever covered by The Highwire, the vaccine developer shared his extreme concerns about these vaccines in particular and why we may be on track to creating a global immunity catastrophe.

We aren’t going to bother linking to the “brave, reputation-risking” Vanden Bossche article. If you want to waste your time reading it, you can always find it on his 12-day old Twitter account, if it hasn’t been suspended by now, or on one of the many channels promoting anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theories, just scroll down to A for Alien-Abductions and Anti-Vaxxers.

Vanden Bossche has gone to great lengths to explain to us in his opening statement that he is definitely not anti-vaccine. No sir, not in a month of Sundays. Not little old me. Our response? Thou doth protest too much. Here’s an exert of just how much he in fact protests.

I am all but an antivaxxer. As a scientist I do not usually appeal to any platform of this kind to make a stand on vaccine-related topics. As a dedicated virologist and vaccine expert I only make an exception when health authorities allow vaccines to be administered in ways that threaten public health, most certainly when scientific evidence is being ignored. The present extremely critical situation forces me to spread this emergency call. As the unprecedented extent of human intervention in the Covid-19- pandemic is now at risk of resulting in a global catastrophe without equal, this call cannot sound loudly and strongly enough.

As stated, I am not against vaccination. On the contrary, I can assure you that each of the current vaccines have been designed, developed and manufactured by brilliant and competent scientists. However, this type of prophylactic vaccines are completely inappropriate, and even highly dangerous, when used in mass vaccination campaigns during a viral pandemic. Vaccinologists, scientists and clinicians are blinded by the positive short-term effects in individual patents, but don’t seem to bother about the disastrous consequences for global health. Unless I am scientifically proven wrong, it is difficult to understand how current human interventions will prevent circulating variants from turning into a wild monster.

Racing against the clock, I am completing my scientfic manuscript, the publication of which is, unfortunately, likely to come too late given the ever increasing threat from rapidly spreading, highly infectious variants. This is why I decided to already post a summary of my findings as well as my keynote speech at the recent Vaccine Summit in Ohio on LinkedIn. Last Monday, I provided international health organizations, including the WHO, with my analysis of the current pandemic as based on scientifically informed insights in the immune biology of Covid-19.

Sadly for Vanden Bossche, this is an all too familiar tactic employed by almost every single critic of the covid vaccine and laughably, even some anti-vaxxers. In fact, his whole concept looks and sounds suspiciously plagiarized. Perhaps Dr.Hooman Noorchashm might consider legal action if he doesn’t have his hands too full right now.

Take these points raised by David Gorski on his blog, in an article that thoroughly eviscerates our European “expert”.

Like Dr. Noorchashm, Dr. Vanden Bossche has not published his concerns in the scientific literature. Like Dr. Noorchashm, Dr. Vanden Bossche bases his concerns not on data, but theoretical “basic science” concerns about immunology. Like Dr. Noorchashm, Dr. Vanden Bossche has sounded his “warning” to various health authorities. Like Dr. Noorchashm, Dr. Vanden Bossche has taken to social media to air his concerns, and his message has been enthusiastically embraced by anti-vaxxers:

Vanden Bossche has published a scant amount of work, and tellingly he chooses predatory publishers like Longdom, owner of the Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination. It’s a dubious publication at best and is listed as predatory on Beals List. Longdom Publishing enjoys no credibility as a medical publisher, and articles are not peer-reviewed or exposed to scrutiny. 

Why not choose recognized and peer-reviewed journals to publish into? Well, if the work you’re publishing is dubious, not based on evidence but rather wild conjecture you’ve formulated in your own mind and not scientifically tested in the real world, well then Predatory publications are the way to go, followed by the hugely reliable, science-based platform of social media and the anti-vaxxer vlog circuit.

Here is an open question to Vanden Bossche. If you’re so eager not to be perceived as an anti-vaxxer why have you climbed into bed with them, why do you align yourself with people like Bigtree, Wakefield, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jnr, who actively seek to undermine the science of vaccines? I’m really interested to know? Are they simply using you and you’re too stupid to see it or was their bus the only one that stopped to pick you up? I suspect the latter.

I’ve decided to opt for a different approach on this article and will, instead of trying to disassemble the fictional ramblings of Vanden Bossche, allow others, more knowledgable in the field, to step into the breach. Many experts (real ones) have already taken the article to pieces, explaining in scientific (real science) terms why Vanden Bossche is deluded. 

There another reason for this approach. Vanden Bossche bases his claims on well-established and accepted vaccine science. He is intimately familiar with his topic and if you wish to understand exactly why his statements and warnings are completely fanciful, you will need a far more detailed explanation than we are able to provide here. Fortunately, very qualified individuals have stepped forward and provided exact and specific deconstructions of his fanciful theories. Here then, in no particular order

Dr. Zubin Damania provides a fantastic video with a simplified explanation of why Vanden Bossche is wrong. If you’re not that technically inclined, this video will provide a far clearer understanding than the articles listed below which focus on the specifics of vaccines.

Geert Vanden Bossche is to COVID-19 vaccines as Andrew Wakefield is to MMR

An essential read by respectfulinsolence.com, well written and referenced, for those looking to understand the more technical flaws in Vanden Bossche’s theories. The article also highlights how Vanden Bossche has borrowed and plagiarized his concepts from well-known anti-vaxxers and other vaccine skeptics.

Addressing Geert Vanden Bossche’s Claims

A detailed deconstruction offered by Edward Nirenberg. Orac describes this article fittingly as Nirenberg’s demolition of Vanden Bossche’s nonsense about “innate immunity,”. Definitely for the more technically minded, the arguments posed by Nirenberg conclusively bury Vanden Bossche.

Who is Geert Vanden Bossche?

Still think Vanden Bossche is a renowned vaccine expert? This article will expose him for who he really is. Discover the real Vanden Bossche in this article on Vaxopedia by Vincent Iannelli, MD. If you were wondering why you’d never heard about Vanden Bossche before today, this article will put you dead to rights.

The final word

Is Vanden Bossche merely deluded, or simply misguided in his interpretation of vaccine science. His level of education and experience in the field tend to suggest another agenda, as does his regurgitation of existing vaccine rhetoric, notably those offered by Andrew Wakefield and Hooman Noorchashm. He is rebranding their narratives for his own agenda, but what is that agenda?

Wakefield, if you didn’t know, is the disgraced and disavowed author of a retracted, fraudulent paper on MMR vaccines, supposedly linking autism to the MMR vaccine. Despite the best efforts of many, Wakefield continues to seek the spotlight and frequently pens misleading drivel. He has become one of the roach poster-boys for anti-vaxxers.

On the topic of grift, let’s turn to another article that seeks to expose Vanden Bossche’s not-so-hidden agenda.

In an article published in the Defender, Rosemary Frei, MSc, outlines what she says are “a few of the dozens of clues” suggesting that Bossche’s argument “is a continuation of the overall COVID deception.” There be gold in them thar hills!

There’s abundant evidence that Vanden Bossche has a not-so-hidden agenda. For example, just before the three-minute mark in the video interview of Vanden Bossche by McMillan, Vanden Bossche indicates he’s a long-time vaccine developer. He adds he’s now focusing on vaccines that “educate the immune system in ways that are to some extent more efficient than we do right now with our conventional vaccines.” Clearly he’s got significant conflicts of interest. Therefore he has zero credibility when it comes to advising the public or anyone else about how to avoid negative effects of mass vaccination.

We’ll accord the honors of the closing paragraph to David Gorski, who echoes our sentiments on Vanden Bossche.

You know what? I think that grifters recognize fellow grifters, and Frei recognized that Dr. Vanden Bossche is stoking fear of existing COVID-19 vaccines to produce a sales rationale for his own NK-based vaccine, just as Andrew Wakefield stoked fear of the MMR in order to support his own measles vaccine. Grifters of a feather, and all that, and, of course, grifters gonna grift. Always.

UPDATE: May 8, 2021, We’ve added a new piece on Geert Vanden Bossche’s disinformation campaign. You can read the article here

The post Fact-Checking Geert Vanden Bossche. Cashing in on Covid Misinformation appeared first on Medika Life.