Before you begin...

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

What Happened: The idea of vaccine certificates, or vaccine “passports” have been a common theme throughout this pandemic, and they are already being implemented. Not long ago Denmark began requiring people to use a new COVID certificate to enter certain businesses or face fines, one of the first European countries to do so. A “green pass” is also required in Israel for citizens to enter into certain spaces.

What’s being rolled out in several countries seems to be a good indicator of what is most likely to come in others, and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently stated that the Canadian government is still looking “very carefully” at the prospect of vaccine passports, which would require proof of vaccination in order to be eligible for travel.

As was the case pre-pandemic, certificates of vaccination are a part of international travel to certain regions and are naturally to be expected when it comes to this pandemic and the coronavirus. How we actually roll that out in alignment with partners and allies around the world, it’s something that we’re working on right now. – PM Trudeau.

His comments come after the European Union signaled that fully vaccinated U.S. citizens will be able to travel to EU countries this summer, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have rolled out a series of guidelines around international travel for fully vaccinated Americans.

It seems that these passports would be required for people who want to travel outside of Canada, as well as those who wish to enter the country, but again, we don’t completely know what will happen yet.

New Ipsos polling for the World Economic Forum reveals broad support across 28 countries for vaccine passports. In Canada,  according to Ipsos, six in ten Canadians, compared to a global average of 54%, say that only people who have been vaccinated should be allowed to travel, attend sporting events, use public transit and other activities that involve larger groups of people. 39% of Canadians feel that limiting activities only to those who have been vaccinated is unfair.

A majority of Canadians expect vaccine passports to be widely used in Canada by the end of the year, with six in ten (61%) who agree (26% strongly/35% somewhat). Canada is slightly under the global average (66%) for agreement on near-term national use – India (81%) and Peru (81%) are most likely to think their countries will be using vaccine passports widely before the end of 2021, while residents of Russia (32%), Poland (45%), and 2021 Olympics host Japan (43%) are significantly less likely to agree. In the United States, a slim majority (56%) agree vaccination passports are likely to become the norm this year.

Why This Is Important: There are multiple polls that slighter differ, no matter how you cut it, almost 40% of people disagreeing is a huge number. And on a global scale it looks like we are bound to see a split between people who agree and people who disagree, and this includes many doctors and scientists in the field, for various reasons. There are those who believe the vaccine is and will be safe and effective for everyone, and that it will do a great job at stopping the transmission of the virus. There are also those who believe the opposite, that the vaccine is not safe and effective for everyone and its ability to stop the transmission of the virus is weak, and not yet known. There are even those who believe the vaccine will be responsible for the spread of more infectious variants.

There are also questions about how long immunity will last for in those who have been vaccinated, and whether or not they will require booster shots due to waning immunity. This seems to be a high probability, even within the mainstream. Questions have also been asked about variants of the virus, and whether or not current vaccines will be able to protect against those as well. If not, will more vaccines be developed for these variants, and will booster shots also be required for them?

It’s also important to mention that there is a wealth of data and information showing that previous infection to COVID-19, the variants, as well as previous coronaviruses that have been circling the globe for decades can provide a protection that goes beyond the vaccine. Why should these people be required to obtain a vaccine passport?

It’s not a cut and dry issue and there is much to discuss. The morality and ethics of vaccine passports, and taking away other rights and freedoms of people in order to coerce them into vaccinating doesn’t sit well with many.

Should governments have the authority to implement such measures when there isn’t really a consensus among doctors, scientists and most importantly, the citizenry? Should they be able to have this much power? Are there conflicts of interests and other agendas at play behind the idea of vaccine passports, and the further digitization of of this type of surveillance technology?

What can we do about a world that continually enforces what can be seen as authoritarian measures on the population? How can we get everybody to see that it’s ok to disagree with each other, and that the forced measures rather than recommendations may be harmful to everybody in the long run? How can we collectively change the way we think about these issues so we are not constantly on one side of another? Is there a way we can all co-exist while respecting everybody’s rights and freedoms?

Why are narratives that oppose what we are told from government as well as mainstream media never really discussed and in many cases, ignored or deemed a “conspiracy”? Why do we fail as a society to have conversations with and understand people with an opposing point of view?

Many things to think about, it’s time to become an active engager in this reality as sitting back may no longer be an option. Hopefully those who oppose these measures will receive equal and fair attention as those who support it. It’s unsettling that governments are able to roll out measures that continually go against the will of so many people.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Before you begin...

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

What Happened: A large meta analysis recently published in the Journal Environmental Research and Public Health titled, “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?” looked at 65 studies pertaining to prolonged mask wearing to examine whether or not there may be any health consequences.

Prolonged mask wearing is a new phenomenon, it’s something we’ve never really seen en masse before. Today, mask mandates are spread across the globe in multiple countries, mostly if you’re inside a public space, like a school, bank or business for example. For workers who are not working from home, masks are still worn throughout the day in many countries around the world. Since the beginning of the pandemic a number of scientists and researchers have published papers in medical/scientific journals creating cause for concern around this practice. Many even became quite active on social media expressing their concerns with mandatory mask measures as it pertains to human health.

This in turn sparked mass ridicule from organizations like the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) and other government health authorities who claimed, and continue to, that prolonged mask wearing is completely safe and there’s nothing to worry about. But is that really true? How do we know? Are there any side effects?

One of the challenges in answering the question of do ‘masks work to stop COVID spread’ is that the “yes” narrative is given so much attention, while the “no” narrative is ridicule, ignored, and in many cases deemed a “conspiracy theory.” Later in this piece I will get more into the discussion of whether masks work to stop the spread of COVID, but first let’s explore what this meta analysis says about the side effects of long term mask wearing.

According to the authors:

Up until now, there has been no comprehensive investigation as to the adverse health effects masks can cause. The aim was to find, test, evaluate and compile scientifically proven related side effects of wearing masks. For a quantitative evaluation, 44 mostly experimental studies were referenced, and for a substantive evaluation, 65 publications were found. The literature revealed relevant adverse effects of masks in numerous disciplines.

In the paper the authors provide a wealth of data and evidence for psychological and physiological deterioration that are quite consistent, statistically significant, and measurable throughout multiple studies when it comes to extended mask use. They believe that “extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.”

So where is the evidence? It’s outlined quite well in the paper. If you’d like to get a full scope of the health harms that can result from extended periods of mask wearing, I suggest you go through it. This article simply provides a brief summary, so it’s important to refer to the study.

The researchers discovered and confirmed that “relevant, undesired medical, organ, and organ system-related phenomena by wearing masks occur in multiple fields of internal medicine.” These fields are neurology, psychology, psychiatry, gynecology, dermatology, ENT medicine, dentistry, sports medicine, sociology, microbiology, epidemiology, pediatrics and environmental medicine.

They then go through each of these fields and explain what they found. There are clear, statistically significant, and concerning findings, especially when it comes to respiratory physiology.

For example, when it comes to the pediatric section, they explain:

Children are particularly vulnerable and may be more likely to receive inappropriate treatment or additional harm…Special attention must be paid to the respiration of children, which represents a critical and vulnerable physiological variable due to higher oxygen demand, increased hypoxia susceptibility of the CNS, lower respiratory reserve, smaller airways with a stronger increase in resistance when the lumen is narrowed. The diving reflex caused by stimulating the nose and upper lip can cause respiratory arrest to bradycardia in the event of oxygen deficiency.

In an experimental British research study, the masks frequently led to feelings of heat (p <0001) and breathing problems (p < 0.03) in 100 school children between 8 and 11 years of age especially during physical exertion, which is why the protective equipment was taken off by 24% of the children during physical activity.

Scientists from Singapore were able to demonstrate in their Ib study published in the renowned journal “nature” that 106 children aged between 7 and 14 years who wore FFP2 masks for only 5 min showed an increase in the inspiratory and expiratory CO2 levels, indicating disturbed respiratory physiology. However, a disturbed respiratory physiology in children can have long-term disease-relevant consequences. Slightly elevated CO2 levels are known to increase heart rate, blood pressure, headache, fatigue and concentration disorders.

It is also important to emphasize the possible effects of masks in neurological diseases, as described earlier. Both masks and face shields caused fear in 46% of children (37 out of 80) in a scientific study. If children are given the choice of whether the doctor examining them should wear a mask they reject this in 49% of the cases. Along with their parents, the children prefer the practitioner to wear a face visor.

A recent observational study of tens of thousands of mask-wearing children in Germany helped the investigators objectify complains of headaches (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), joylessness (49%), learning difficulties (38%) and fatigue in 27 % of the 25, 930 children evaluated. Of the children observed, 25% had new onset anxiety and even nightmares. In children, the threat of scenarios generated by the environment are further maintained via masks, in some cases, even further intensified, and in this way, existing stress is intensified.

This can in turn lead to an increase in psychosomatic and stress-related illnesses. For example, according to an evaluation, 60% of mask wearers showed stress levels of the highest grade 10 on a scale of 1 to a maximum of 10. Less than 10% of the mask wearers surveyed had a stress level lower than 8 out of a possible 10.

As children are considered a special group, the WHO also issued a separate guideline on the use of masks in children in the community in August 2020, explicitly advising policy maker and national authorities, given the limited evidence, that the benefits of mask use in children must be weighed up against the potential harms associated with mask use. This includes feasibility and discomfort, as well as social and communication concerns.

According to experts, masks block the foundations of human communication and the exchange of emotions and not only hinder learning but deprive children of the positive effects of smiling, laughing and and emotional mimicry. The effectiveness of masks in children as a viral protection is controversial, and there is a lack of evidence for their widespread use in children; this is also addressed in more detail by the scientists of the German University of Bremen in their thesis paper 2.0 and 3.0.

Keep in mind that pediatrics is one of twelve areas where they found significant concerns. I suggest you refer to the study to go through the others.

This data is quite eye opening and really makes you wonder how well thought out these mandates are, and what long term consequences they could have. With nobody really paying attention to these concerns, if there are consequences of extended periods of mask wearing, will the connection between the masks and the consequences ever be made? Again, this may be difficult due to the ridiculing of any evidence, opinion, and discussion around this, which is why we have chosen to cover these topics.

As the researchers state:

Long-term disease-relevant consequences of masks are to be expected. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis, including coronary heart disease (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases.

For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences . Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide and small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates.

For changes that do not exceed normal values, but are persistently recurring, such as an increase in blood carbon dioxide, an increase in heart rate or an increase in respiratory rate , which have been documented while wearing a mask, a long-term generation of high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis and coronary heart disease and of neurological diseases is scientifically obvious. This pathogenetic damage principle with a chronic low-dose exposure with long-term effect, which leads to disease or disease-relevant conditions, has already been extensively studied and described in many areas of environmental medicine . Extended mask-wearing would have the potential, according to the facts and correlations we have found, to cause a chronic sympathetic stress response induced by blood gas modifications and controlled by brain centers. This in turn induces and triggers immune suppression and metabolic syndrome with cardiovascular and neurological diseases.

In summary, the authors feel that the typical conditions that have been documented include increase in breathing resistance, blood carbon dioxide, decrease in blood oxygen saturation, increase in heart rate, blood pressure, decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity, increase in respiratory rate, shortness of breath and difficulty breathing, headache, dizziness, decreased ability to concentrate and think and more. All these and more can lead to serious health outcomes.

Why This Is Important: This is important because long term mask wearing is being mandated and the health consequences may be great. Questioning this helps us ask whether or not our government and health authorities are doing their due diligence when it comes to protecting our health. Furthermore, the idea that masks help to stop the transmission of COVID is a heavily debated topic, suggesting that ignoring this data could be extra costly.

The researchers of this particular meta-analysis outline a significant amount of evidence that calls into question the ability for facemasks to protect somebody from COVID, as well as stop the spread of the virus. There is no shortage of peer-reviewed medical literature showing that masks are not effective, while on the other hand there is research that claims they work. The only difference is that research that shows they are effective is usually what’s presented by mainstream media and mass culture, while the research showing they are not effective is ignored.

Below is a brief explanation from the researchers. Overall, they show that the evidence for the effectiveness of masks to stop the spread and transmission of COVID is weak, and that the perceived effectiveness is mostly a psychological belief:

In a laboratory experiment, it was demonstrated that both surgical masks and N95 masks have deficits in protection against SARS-COV-2 and influenza using virus-free aerosols. In this study, the FFP2-equivalent N95 mask performed significantly better in protection that the surgical mask, but neither mask type established reliable, hypothesis-generated protection against corona and influenza viruses. Both mask types could be penetrated unhindered by aerosol particles with a diameter of 0.08 to 0.2 μm. Both the SARS-CoV-2 pathogens with a size of 0.06 to 0.14 μm and the influenza viruses with 0.08 to 0.12 μm are unfortunately well below the mask pore sizes.

In a meta-analysis of evidence level Ia commissioned by the WHO, no effect of masks in the context of influenza virus pandemic prevention could be demonstrated. In 14 randomized controlled trials, no reduction in the transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza infections was shown. Due to the similar size and distribution pathways of the virus species (influenza and Corona, see above), the data can also be transferred to SARS-CoV-2. Nevertheless, a combination of occasional mask-wearing with adequate hand-washing caused a slight reduction in infections for influenza in one study. However, since no separation of hand hygiene and masks was achieved in this study, the protective effect can rather be attributed to hand hygiene in view of the aforementioned data.

A recently published large prospective Danish comparative study comparing mask wearers and non-mask wearers in terms of their infection rates with SARS-CoV2 could not demonstrate any statistically significant differences between the groups.

There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.

One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.

But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.

Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Before you begin...

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Is it possible that COVID vaccines could somehow lead to to the spread of more infectious variants? According to the current consensus, because each of the COVID vaccines in circulation contain a single gene from the virus that causes COVID-19, and the gene instructs our cells to make the protein with no other proteins from the virus being made, no. The whole virus particles are never present, and as a result, people who are vaccinated cannot shed or spread the virus to other people. But can we say this for certain? A new hypothesis from vaccine expert Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, we must consider this may be happening.

In India right now, there is widescale spread of new variants and a sharp rise in cases. This comes after nearly 120,000,000 people have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, while 23,000,000 have received two shots. Their vaccine campaign began months ago, and the recent exponential explosion is creating headlines all around the globe.

If you take a look at the graph below, India has experienced more than 300,000 cases a day for multiple days now. India’s vaccination campaign began in January. The uptick in cases, along with a variant strain is correlated with an increased vaccination rate.

Correlation doesn’t mean causation, but it’s correlation that leads to further inquiry. One could also argue that 120,000,000 shots does not even represent 10 percent of India’s total population, and the rise of cases could be due to the fact that not enough people have been vaccinated yet. There are several factors that could have lead to this sharp spike, some scientists have argued that isolation measures, like lockdowns, simply create more infectious waves due to the fact that these strategies prevent natural herd immunity from taking place, as well as weaken our immune systems due to lack of exposure to various pathogens. Again, this in itself is also heavily debated among scientists.

Furthermore, if the vaccine was connected to the spread, why wouldn’t we be seeing the same type of thing in the United States for example, where vaccinations have correlated with a drop in cases? Again, there are many questions to ask, and things usually become more clear in the long term than they do in the short term. In Canada, one could make the same argument as India with regards to the emergence of new strains. Right now, there’s a lot that we don’t know.

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche is one of many vaccine experts, scientists and doctors from around the globe that are voicing their concerns about the current COVID-19 vaccine. His current positions are more theory than evidence based, but we should still listen. Who is he?

Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development. Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI, with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness. Back in 2015, Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. He is at present primarily serving as a Biotech/ Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines.

Bossche penned a letter to the World Health Organization (WHO), stating the following:

I am all but an anti vaxxer. 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 patients, 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.

You can read the letter in its entirety, as well as a more in depth explanation a few weeks after he wrote the letter, also addressing the many criticisms against him, here.

He brings up the topic of viral immune escape, which, based on my understanding of his explanation, is when our immune system starts to defend against a virus, threatening its replication potential and ability to transmit to others. As a result of this, the virus itself will do what it has to do so that it can no longer be recognized by our immune systems, meaning it is trying to develop other ways to survive. If it develops in ways it cannot be recognized, it cannot be attacked by our immune system and is therefore able to escape immunity. This is called “viral immune escape.” It’s no secret that viruses have ‘studied’ immunology over millions of years of coevolution with their hosts. During this ongoing education they have developed countless mechanisms to escape from the host’s immune system.

A study published in the International Journal of Experimental Pathology explains,

These viruses persist, usually at low levels, and the biology of their persistence represents one set of linked evolutionary strategies. These are DNA-based pathogens, with large genomes by viral standards, containing hundreds of genes. Their major weapons could be described as ‘camouflage’ and ‘sabotage’, possession of highly evolved molecules, which are encoded with the incoming virus and which have evolved to disrupt conventional host defence mechanisms. The other mechanism employed by these invaders is targeting sites for replication in regions of the body perhaps less readily accessible to host defence.

In contrast, there are multiple viruses with RNA-based genomes, often much smaller, which also manage to set up persistent infection, and survive within hosts in the face of ongoing immune responses. The strategies used by this group of organisms, which have much less ‘technology’ at their disposal, are quite different. Unlike their more stable DNA counterparts, the mutability of these RNA genomes allows this group, potentially, to evolve within their host, and to set up ‘high level’ persistence. The principle strategies employed here could be described as ‘speed’ and ‘shape-change’.

Bossche explains his reasoning more in-depth, with all of his scientific reasoning in his recent work found on his website. For a full explanation and more specific details/science, I suggest you check that out to get the full explanation.

According to Matt Ferrari, an epidemiologist at Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics in University Park, Vaccines will almost inevitably create new evolutionary pressures that produce variants. (source)

Bossche Has Received A Lot of Criticism 

In this day in age, if you question vaccines in almost any way, you’re going to be made an example of. These days, legitimate concerns are never really addressed within the mainstream media, which is a shame because it’s not only anti science but also potentially misinforms the public.

It’s also important to note that while Bossche is calling for a stop of mass vaccination with current COVID vaccines and is instead leaning towards the use of a future NK vaccine he claims to be developing. This might represent a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, the scientific community will have to consider his concerns.

Viral immunologist, Professor at the University of Guelph, and vaccine expert Dr. Bryan Bridle, has explained several concerns regarding the rollout of COVID vaccines. He makes it clear that “there’s lots of people who are very deep thinkers about this, doing their own research about the COVID-19 vaccines and coming up with very legitimate questions.”

Unfortunately, these concerns are almost always met with ridicule. For example, an article published by Jonathan Jarry for McGill University calls the claims by Bossche “complete nonsense.”

This is complete nonsense. I reached out to Dr. Paul Offit, a paediatrician specialized in vaccines and immunology and the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, to get his thoughts on whether antibiotic resistance and vaccine-associated immune escape are indeed comparable. “In a sense it is, but he misses the main point,” Dr. Offit told me. A vaccine shows your body an inert part of the virus so that it can make neutralizing antibodies against it. If the body ends up making low levels of these antibodies, i.e. not enough to swiftly kill the virus when you catch it, this could allow the virus to stick around in your body for a little bit and make copies of itself. Some of these copies may by chance have the right kinds of errors in their genetic code to become variants of concern, although the mutation rate of this coronavirus is quite low.

“But if you have a vaccine that results in high levels of neutralizing antibodies, that’s not a way to create variants,” he continued. To use an analogy, if a gaggle of invaders is coming but you have only managed to round up a few soldiers, be prepared for a long siege during which the enemy might learn a thing or two about your defences and adapt. But if you have a full and overpowering army at your command, the invaders won’t stick around for long. So the question becomes: do the COVID-19 vaccines give us low or high levels of neutralizing antibodies?

I’m not sure if I agree with the statement, “the mutation rate of this coronavirus is quite low” especially given the fact that we are seeing more variants arise. Offit also claims that that if you have a vaccine that results in high levels of neutralizing antibodies, it’s not a way to create variants. But According to Bossche:

Viruses, in contrast to the majority of bacteria, must rely on living host cells to replicate. This is why the occurrence of ‘escape mutants’ isn’t too worrisome as long as the likelihood for these variants to rapidly find another host is quite remote. However, that’s not particularly the case during a viral pandemic! During a pandemic, the virus is spreading all over the globe with many subjects shedding and transmitting the virus (even including asymptomatic ‘carriers’). The higher the viral load, the higher the likelihood for the virus to bump into subjects who haven’t been infected yet or who were infected but didn’t develop symptoms. Unless they are sufficiently protected by their innate immune defense (through natural Abs), they will catch Covid-19 disease as they cannot rely on other, i.e., acquired Abs.

AFT Fact Check makes their opinion clear that what Bossche is sharing is false information:

Gary McLean, a professor of molecular immunology at London Metropolitan University, told AFP that rather than creating a “monster” as Vanden Bossche suggests, mutations in the spike protein may hinder the spread of the virus.

Mutations are relatively subtle in spike and cannot go so far as suggested otherwise they will no longer resemble spike,” he said, adding “the virus will lose its way of infecting cells if spike continues to mutate and the virus will die out.”

Additionally, variants of the virus emerged prior to the widespread availability of vaccines.

Again, Bossche has answered most criticisms to his claims in his paper on his website. A recently posted video by Bossche gives a summary of his conclusions, where he stated it will probably be his final commentary on the issue.

The Takeaway: Why does mainstream media fail to have open conversations about “controversial” topics like vaccines? Why is information and evidence raising legitimate concerns about vaccines labelled as “anti-vaccine conspiracy theories?” Why are these concerns never really addressed properly or acknowledged within the mainstream? Why are concerns about vaccines always labelled as “fake news?”

For an average person, we make decisions based on the information we receive from analysts and experts, but what happens if we are not getting all of the information? Are we properly informed? Can we make wise decisions? At the end of the day does it even matter who is right or wrong? Should we not be more concerned with just converging on honest and transparent truth? How does censorship of ideas help us arrive at truth?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.