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 COVID-19 vaccine. 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.

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.

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?

Around mid October 2020, an alleged email from a member of a committee group in Canada was apparently leaked to the public. Firstly, there is no evidence this email is real, but it has been shared and talked about by a lot of people as if it were real. Some online fact checkers have debunked the piece as fake, however, the discussion I wish to have here is a bit different, and I will get to it by the end of this piece.

In the alleged email we hear a warning from an supposed member of an ‘LPC Strategic Committee,’ a group that we can’t find proof actually exists just yet, which doesn’t mean it couldn’t exist, just that there is no evidence of it. Nonetheless, the email outlined an intense plan for Canada’s COVID-19 response that the Trudeau government was allegedly working on.

Let’s dive into the claims made in the piece back in October and see if any are even accurate. Remember, there is no evidence up to this point that this piece is real, and I will get to the implications of that a bit later.

Claim: Phase in secondary lock down restrictions on a rolling basis, starting with major metropolitan areas first and expanding outward. Expected by November 2020.

This wasn’t necessarily a tough one to predict. Most big cities experienced harsher restrictions in Canada, eventually spreading outwards to more rural areas.

This happened.

Claim: Rush the acquisition of (or construction of) isolation facilities across every province and territory. Expected by December 2020.

There has been some discussion of construction for isolation centers in Ontario. Toronto and Peel region were funded to establish a few small isolation centers for voluntary use. Governments around Canada have also been using hotels at the expense of the citizen for temporary isolation after travel. COVID positive individuals isolate at home currently.

Partly happened, nothing large scale however.

Claim: Daily new cases of COVID-19 will surge beyond capacity of testing, including increases in COVID related deaths following the same growth curves. Expected by end of November 2020.

This did not happen. Cases did slowly rise up to Jan 2021, a lockdown ensued in various provinces that appeared to drop cases. Then cases rose again leading up to April, but not outside the testing capacity.

Didn’t happen.

Claim: Complete and total secondary lock down (much stricter than the first and second rolling phase restrictions). Expected by end of December 2020 – early January 2021

We did have a lockdown in some areas of Canada in January, but it was less strict than previous lockdowns. A later lockdown occurred in late March but did not have as strict measures as the first lockdown. What’s sort of accurate is the timing of lockdown.

Sort of happened but less intense.

Claim: Reform and expansion of the unemployment program to be transitioned into the universal basic income program. Expected by Q1 2021.

This did not happen it seems. Most financial support for businesses and people under COVID have tapered off as time went on. Some businesses can apply for help but many are still struggling. Some governments have announced more funding for businesses, but no change in the EI program from what I found.

Didn’t happen.

Claim: Projected COVID-19 mutation and/or co-infection with secondary virus (referred to as COVID-21) leading to a third wave with much higher mortality rate and higher rate of infection. Expected by February 2021.

One could argue that this claim is the most accurate. While global discussion of variants began In January, by mid Feb 2021 we saw a huge conversation begin around variants in Canada, and it’s when tracking of these variants began. Thus far, the general message is that these variants are more infectious and more deadly. Now the question of “much higher mortality rate”: what does this mean to different people? Thus far, the reports are claiming that some variants have a 60% greater death rate, but given the death rate is so small with COVID to begin with, this still isn’t a big number. So this one depends on how you want to see it.

Still we have no mention of ‘COVID-21’, but perhaps the variants are similar to ‘COVID-21.’ I also want to mention in this moment, variants on viruses are common. They happen all the time, and I mention this because if this were a hoax email, the writer could have easily predicted the onset of variants.

This happened.

Claim: Daily new cases of COVID-21 hospitalizations and COVID-19 and COVID-21 related deaths will exceed medical care facilities capacity. Expected Q1 – Q2 2021.

From what I understand in Canada as a whole, this has not been happening. But some hospitals in Ontario have transferred patients to prepare for what they feel is a big coming wave of patients. That said, hospitals are not yet at capacity and people are not being turned away with serious COVID cases.

Ontario has discussed its ICU Protocol for deciding what to do if care had to be turned away. We are technically still in Q2 so this one is a bit on the table still.

We can note that many elective surgeries have been cancelled, and that arguably people have not been able to go to hospital to get certain treatments, but since this claim is not specific enough with regards to what would be turned away, we can only assume it’s referring to COVID, and thus far capacity has not been met.

Again, we are still not hearing of COVID-21 and would have to assume it’s variants.

Partially happened.

Claim: Enhanced lockdown restrictions (referred to as Third Lock Down) will be implemented. Full travel restrictions will be imposed (including inter-province and inter-city). Expected Q2 2021.

We have seen an increased lockdown known as third lockdown in some provinces. The lockdowns are still not quite as intense as the first, but Ontario did try a ‘stop and ask”‘ program where police were given the power to stop people in their cars to find out if their travel was essential. This did not go over well and police rejected the order.

Suggestions have been made by government to stop non-essential interprovincial travel. However, inter city travel is not halted.

Since we are still in Q2, we can’t say this may not happen, but so far this one looks to be partly true.

Claim: Transitioning of individuals into the universal basic income program. Expected mid Q2 2021.

Thus far the IMF still hasn’t mentioned anything of this nature. We shall see in 2 months. The IMF is claiming Western economies are recovering faster than expected, why push out that message if the sentiment is to move towards UBI? But then again, the World Economic Outlook also stated:

“Income inequality is likely to increase significantly because of the pandemic,” […] Close to 95 million more people are estimated to have fallen below the threshold of extreme poverty in 2020 compared with pre-pandemic projections.”

The IMF does seem to project that debt relief will be needed until 2022. Of course this could increase.

All in all, time will tell, but so far this looks unlikely.

Claim: Projected supply chain breakdowns, inventory shortages, large economic instability. Expected late Q2 2021.

Again, we’ll have to wait and see, but looking unlikely based on current time and strength of inventory.

Claim: Deployment of military personnel into major metropolitan areas as well as all major roadways to establish travel checkpoints. Restrict travel and movement. Provide logistical support to the area. Expected by Q3 2021.

I couldn’t find any murmurs of this sort of thing just yet, but Q3 represents summer in Canada. Claims have been made that by Summer things will be better thanks to lockdowns and vaccines, but the again who knows? Governments said the first closure was supposed to solve the problem to begin with. It would have been hard for them to know what was going on at that time which is fair, but it certainly does feel like most of what we’ve gotten from government is a lack of transparency and optics.

Things would have to escalate fast for this to be here in just a few months.

Other Claims

In the alleged email, there were also some interesting claims brought up about how his story would unfold over time. Let’s examine them.

“Along with that provided road map the Strategic Planning committee was asked to design an effective way of transitioning Canadians to meet an unprecedented economic endeavor. One that would change the face of Canada and forever alter the lives of Canadians. What we were told was that in order to offset what was essentially an economic collapse on a international scale, that the federal government was going to offer Canadians a total debt relief. This is how it works: the federal government will offer to eliminate all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc) which all funding will be provided to Canada by the IMF under what will become known as the World Debt Reset program.”

This similar sounding idea has been discussed in the World Economic Forum’s plan called ‘The Great Reset’ (TGR). TGR has been around for longer than this email, therefore it’s reasonable to theorize that if this email were fake the writer could have easily looked to TGR to get their ideas. However, if it were real, it would align somewhat closely to a plan many people are discussing as the only viable recovery to our global economic challenges. That said, and as mentioned above, the IMF is sending a message that Western economies are actually doing better than expected right now. They have not planned any major debt reset programs that could fire off in the next few months. The ‘World Debt Reset Program’ doesn’t appear to exist, however it does sound similar to what is presented in The Great Reset.

Is individual inequality enough to push people into accepting TGR if the overall economy seems to be OK? That’s a tough one, you decide.

The IMF, back in April 2020, did begin a grant-based debt relief program for 86 member countries who were deeply burdened by debt. This can be extended up to 2022. Note, this relief happened prior to this email being written, and the debt relief covers the countries for only a short period of relief. Some countries are receiving greater amounts of help than others.

Back to the claims in the email:

“In exchange for acceptance of this total debt forgiveness the individual would forfeit ownership of any and all property and assets forever. The individual would also have to agree to partake in the COVID-19 and COVID-21 vaccination schedule, which would provide the individual with unrestricted travel and unrestricted living even under a full lock down (through the use of photo identification referred to as Canada’s HealthPass) .”

COVID-21 still doesn’t exist in the public eye, but perhaps it’s the variants? Will we see vaccines for each variant? Thus far not much is known about how successful the current vaccines are with variants. Some early results show they work, others suggest maybe not. We shall see. This is important because if this claim were accurate, this point is something to consider. Vaccine passes have certainly been in discussion quite a bit around the world, but not much has been presented in Canada yet. Thus far, Prime Minister Trudeau has stated the following about vaccine proof with the US:

“We will continue to work with our partners in the United States and internationally to ensure that this is done properly,[…] We have already seen the importance of proof of vaccination for international travel … in a pre-pandemic period in recent years. It will surely be important, but the details of what we are going to do about it, we are still fine-tuning.”

Seems like it’s being considered according to what has been said to the public.

In other areas of the world, people have to show proof of negative COVID test or vaccination in order to do certain things like enter non essential shops or travel. So this isn’t too far fetched of an idea.

Back to the claims in the email:

Committee members asked who would become the owner of the forfeited property and assets in that scenario and what would happen to lenders or financial institutions, we were simply told “the World Debt Reset program will handle all of the details”. Several committee members also questioned what would happen to individuals if they refused to participate in the World Debt Reset program, or the HealthPass, or the vaccination schedule, and the answer we got was very troubling. Essentially we were told it was our duty to make sure we came up with a plan to ensure that would never happen. We were told it was in the individuals best interest to participate. When several committee members pushed relentlessly to get an answer we were told that those who refused would first live under the lock down restrictions indefinitely. And that over a short period of time as more Canadians transitioned into the debt forgiveness program, the ones who refused to participate would be deemed a public safety risk and would be relocated into isolation facilities. Once in those facilities they would be given two options, participate in the debt forgiveness program and be released, or stay indefinitely in the isolation facility under the classification of a serious public health risk and have all their assets seized.

This one is obviously troubling if it is real. But we’d have to ask some key questions, have facilities been built yet? If not, what might be used as facilities to pull this off? Hotels? How many facilities would be needed? Existing facility plans only account for perhaps hundreds of people, there would need to be many more for this to be pulled off unless existing structures like hotels are used.

The next question is, would police enforce this if force was needed? Since police in Ontario backed away from Doug Ford’s ‘stop and ask’ program, might they walk away from this too? If the military got involved, would they walk away from this also?

One thing I’ve also seen is that many people assume that police and military will ALWAYS follow orders. But they are people too, with families, and in many cases they are asking questions. If things got this extreme, what choices would they make? I don’t know the answer, but perhaps you can pose the question to a police friend you have and see what they say. Of course, just because some won’t follow orders, there may be some that do. If this scenario were real, would ‘some’ following orders be enough? It’s hard to say. But let me reiterate, other than The Great Reset, there’s no evidence that these claims are accurate.

Further, it’s important to note that The Great Reset does discuss the idea of owning nothing if the plan were to be pushed through. What exactly does it mean to own nothing? It’s tough to say as TGR has not yet made all of that clear. My understanding up to this point, which I will admit requires a bit more research still, is that we don’t know who would ‘own’ private property within The Great Reset if citizens like you and me don’t. This is a HUGE question. While I can envision a world where we recognize nobody truly owns anything, I am not comfortable with billionaires and global financial elite coming up with a plan we all must follow.

In the context of this alleged email, could COVID be used as a means to forcibly take your property from you? Perhaps. I don’t think this would be something happening in the next year or two, therefore I feel this email seems to be pushing the timeline ahead a bit quick, but then again, you never know.

Back to the claims in the email:

“So as you can imagine after hearing all of this it turned into quite the heated discussion and escalated beyond anything I’ve ever witnessed before. In the end it was implied by the PMO that the whole agenda will move forward no matter who agrees with it or not. That it won’t just be Canada but in fact all nations will have similar roadmaps and agendas. That we need to take advantage of the situations before us to promote change on a grander scale for the betterment of everyone. The members who were opposed and ones who brought up key issues that would arise from such a thing were completely ignored. Our opinions and concerns were ignored. We were simply told to just do it.

All I know is that I don’t like it and I think its going to place Canadians into a dark future.”

Indeed the Great Reset does say all nations will be involved, again, making me feel as though the foundation for this email really aligns with TGR but doesn’t make it real per se, it just means someone could have looked at TGR to develop this story, which as you can tell is not all that precise.

Other Considerations

For me, as someone who has worked in journalism for a long time, I don’t find this email to be credible and I’d say it’s likely not real if you had to ask me to make a choice. It has many hallmarks of an internet hoax but I can’t say that for sure. One of the key things to take away from this is if you’re honest about the information that has been out there, anyone could have written this. Nothing new or unknown has happened in the predictions.

That said, in a true journalistic sense, I hold a level of uncertainty about my position that it’s fake. This amount of uncertainty allows me to be open to the story and narrative as it unfolds. It also lets me imagine how I might choose to be vigilant in my choices should something like this be true – after all, if it is true, we’d have to take action as citizens.

For me, the predictions made in here are partly accurate but also not that tough to predict. The timing was impressive on a couple occasions, but on others it reveals why I think this isn’t real. For the world to go from “hey there is a virus let’s lockdown” to a total takeover of everyone’s property and you can’t participate in society unless you’re vaxxed all within a span of about a year is just not realistic. I’m not saying impossible, I’m saying that if the government’s plan was to pull off this type of takeover, they’d do it much more slowly like they have done everything else. After all, the frog boils when the heat very slowly and gradually heats up right?

If such a plan was laid out, is it really to be expected that only a single person would speak out about this? I’m not looking to bring about doubt here but more so asking a serious question.

We have to think critically about this as the stakes are high – very high. Most of what we all expected was going to happen throughout COVID, which this letter does outline to some extent, is happening, and it’s something that does not benefit the masses, only an elite few. For this reason, we need to be looking at what’s happening during this pandemic seriously.

If this letter is not real the stakes remain high because people claim things like this to be true in their presentation of ‘proof’ of conspiracy. Because it’s so easy to poke holes in the email, it becomes an easy way for mainstream conversation to point to ‘crazy conspiracy theorists’ being unhinged instead of addressing the real and evidence based concerns people have about where we’re headed in what honestly looks like a technocractic authoritarian takeover.

There are many odd and fishy things to explore with COVID that have great evidence to back them up, and this is why it’s so important we don’t muddy the waters.

As I’ve discussed before in an essay I wrote about the need to have more serious conversations about conspiracy, there is a downside to sharing pieces of information like this in the wrong context. If you share this as a passive “hey, what do you think of this, we know it may be totally fake, but what are your thoughts?” That’s one thing. But to share it, like I saw so many times, even from big names like Dr Buttar, as if it’s a proven accurate piece of information, you have to expect two things. 1. You’re going to lose A LOT of people who can clearly see this is not proof of anything. And 2, it opens the door for ‘authoritative voices’ to crush a culture of inquiry outside of mainstream conversation.

In the simplest way to look at it, if you needed a strong piece of evidence to open up other people’s minds about the fishy nature of the government response to COVID, is this really a strong piece of evidence?

What I’m saying here is, some conspiracy is simply a hypothesis, we can’t verify if they are even a little bit true, but others have a great deal of evidence that turn them into a meaningful theory worthy of further discussion. In the case of the hypothesis type, we HAVE to admit to a level of uncertainty and see how that changes our approach to conversations. You might find that sharing stuff like this only hinders opening people up to conversation.

All in all, a few details of what was shared in this alleged leaked email seem to be accurate, some easy to predict, others that are actually somewhat impressive, but many details aren’t, and the timeline seems way too hasty.

That isn’t to say things couldn’t change, but for me, this is a mysterious and playful exploration, not something to be used as hard evidence.

The Bigger Question

In the end though, what world do you truly want to create? What do you want our collective society to look like? We can continue to wait and see how this plan plays out, but perhaps it’s time for us to truly start asking ourselves what we want for our world. We might say we want our rights back, but is that all you truly want? Perhaps this can be an opportunity for humans to look within and imagine a new world that we can transition to and actively create – after all, powerful ‘elite’ people in the world are using COVID for that, maybe we should do that at a grassroots level as well.

What Happened: Dr. Ozlem Tureci, co-founder and CMO of BioNTech, the company that developed a COVID vaccine with Pfizer told CNBC that she expects people will need a third shot of its two-dose COVID-19 vaccine because the immunity given from the previous two shots will wane. She also said that she expects people will need to be vaccinated against the coronavirus every single year, similar to the seasonal flu. She states that “scientists expect vaccine induced immunity to decrease over time.” No specific information was given on the length of the immunity the vaccines already provide, if any, and given the fact that she is suggesting that people will need a third shot, as well as a shot every year, it’s safe to assume that the answer is not as long as people had hoped.

According to her, this waning of immunity is also seen in the natural immune response against COVID-19, meaning that those who have been infected with the virus can also be re-infected and are not protected. This is why she believes that they are expecting to see the same response with the vaccines.

Why This Is Important: Her claim that natural infection does not provide lasting immunity is, however, a debated topic among experts in the field. For example,  Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard medical professor, epidemiologist and vaccine expert alongside Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, (two founding members of The Great Barrington Declaration) a physician and professor at Stanford Medical school claim that those who have already been infected are immune.

There are multiple studies hinting to the point these doctors are  making, that those who have been infected with COVID-19 have immunity, and may have immunity for decades. There are studies that suggest infection to prior coronaviruses, which prior to COVID-19 circled the globe infecting hundreds of millions of people every single year, can also provide protection from COVID-19. Keep in mind, the estimated number of people infected is, like other viruses, highly likely to be much more than the numbers we have seen from testing.

According to a new study for example authored by scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.” This is just one of many examples.

Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine physician based in the United States explains that vaccines aren’t required if one has acquired antibodies from infection, which, according to him, are much more effective than the vaccine.

I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better then a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know.

Viral immunologist, Professor at the University of Guelph, and vaccine expert Dr. Bryan Bridle, explains several concerns regarding the rollout of COVID vaccines. He explains that he’d rather acquire immunity through natural infection, and that natural immunity acquired by an ever-growing number of people means fewer people require vaccination to reach herd immunity. As a bonus, natural immunity also equates to broader immunity; these people should be less susceptible to re-infection if an immuno-evasive SARS-CoV-2 variant emerges, according to Bridle.

In his how words,

Acquisition of natural immunity, which targets multiple components of the virus, may reduce the risk of re-infection not only with covid-19, but also with variants that can bypass spike protein-specific (vaccine) immunity…It’s just a matter of time before we will have variants that can bypass this narrow immunity conferred by all of these vaccines….Natural immunity is very broad…And we know now there’s lots of published reports that this is protective.

So if a new variant infects, chances are that the immunity you have is going to blunt that infection, where as if you have that narrowly focused immunity conferred by the vaccine, and this variant has evaded that spike protein specific immunity, those people are going to be at much greater risk of more severe disease than those who acquire the new variant, but have this broad acting natural immunity.

And there’s even evidence, interestingly, that those with preexisting immunity against other coronaviruses, including the SARS coronavirus one from 17 years ago, and even from some of the cold causing coronaviruses, can cross protect some people.

So this is the sweet evidence that natural immunity can be pretty good. I actually kind of laugh when I see these publications coming out, because this is kind of immunology 101 that I teach all my students. This is what our immune systems are designed to do. (Sources linked within this article)

Why So Much Censorship?

Science is a place for open discussion, debate, and the presentation of information in an equal manner. When it comes to all things COVID, it’s no secret that “science is being suppressed for political and financial gain” and that it has “unleashed state corruption on a grand scale”, according to Dr. Kamran Abbasi, among many others.(source)

The issue here, again, with all things COVID is that one narrative is being presented within the mainstream media. When it comes to any information, evidence, data, science and/or opinion that calls into question the information or actions taken by governments around the world, it’s heavily censored, unacknowledged, and if it does gain some sort of traction it is usually then heavily ridiculed and labelled a conspiracy theory.

The media has been very reluctant to report reliable scientific and public health information about the pandemic. Instead they have broadcast unverified information such as the model predictions from Imperial College, they have spread unwarranted fear that undermine people’s trust in public health and they have promoted naïve and inefficient counter measures. – Kulldorff (source)

This is concerning because a large majority of people rely on mainstream media, television and newspapers for information. These are the only sources where they receive their information from and, are as a result, completely unaware of other important pieces of information. Mainstream media does not address this other information and when they do they, they ridicule it without actually addressing the information and evidence being presented.

Vinay Prasad MD MPH, an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco is another one of many experts in the field during this pandemic who has been criticizing Facebook fact-checkers.

He recently published an article in MEDPAGE TODAY titled titled “Facebook: A Worthy Judge of of Medical Info?” It’s a follow up to one he wrote back in November when he expressed,

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)

How are people supposed to talk to each other if their perception of the pandemic is given to them by unreliable sources with massive conflicts of interests? Why is there a digital authoritarian Orwellian fact checker patrolling the internet trying to control  information and tell people what is, and what isn’t?

The Takeaway: We’ve said it time and time again, throughout history, especially recent history, mainstream media has failed to have appropriate conversations about “controversial” topics. Governments, along with big media can make the minority look like the majority, and the majority look like the minority. They have such a large stranglehold on the perception of the population with regards to various major topics, and completely push a narrative that seems to suit the interests of a select few. This in turn makes it difficult for people to have conversations with each other and understand one another’s perspective.

This pandemic has, however, served as a great catalyst for more and more people to question the world we live in, and why we are living the way that we do when our potential is so much greater. It’s quite clear that so many people are divided on all things COVID, and things aren’t as black and white as big media and government make them out to be. When things aren’t clear, and so many people are divided on what should be done, should the government simply be making recommendations instead of mandating measures that restrict the rights and freedoms of people? Lockdowns and stay at home orders are a great example, as they have had catastrophic results and may have already killed more people than COVID. Should we give governments so much power to the point where they can make such decisions?

Related CE Article: The Top Four Reasons Why Many People, Doctors & Scientists Refuse To Take The COVID Vaccine