Your Family Member Sent You an Anti-Vax Video! Read This

Recently, I had a family member send me this little video: 

Essentially, it features Geert Vanden Bossche, the veterinarian and ex-vaccine researcher that the anti-vax movement upholds as their "scientific source", claiming that mass mRNA vaccination will be catastrophic for the entire population. I understand if you don't feel like watching a 45-minute interview, but feel free to do so if you want to more comprehensively understand his position. 

I want to share my reply to my family member's email, so that anyone reading this may find it useful to have in their arsenal. Although the sources may not matter to those on the receiving end of these responses, I've only included sources that are from medical journals: 

~

Thanks for the video - it's interesting. It's good to listen to people who have opinions that may stray from the norm, cause it can help you cover your bases. Having said that, in my opinion, Geert Vanden Bossche is simply a fringe voice in this matter. Before going on, there are a couple medical truths to get out of the way: An mRNA vaccine works in conjunction with our natural immune system. I've included a peer-reviewed medical journal on how they work, but essentially, the first dose comes in and shows a picture of what the virus looks like to your antibodies. The antibodies learn what they're looking for, so that the second dose can introduce that substance and your antibodies fight it. There is no step in which our antibodies are prompted to work in ways that they are not supposed to. Since Covid-19 is a new strain of Coronavirus, our antibodies struggle to fight it efficiently without help. (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389).

Contrary to Bossche's claims, Vaccines greatly decrease asymptomatic replication and viral replication plummets even more: You are binding antibodies that you’ve made from the vaccination to the spike protein and you’re preventing the virus from entering cells. There is no room for ulterior motives or bias in this regard, because it is simple biology. However, he is absolutely right when he says that if you partially vaccinate a population or an individual, then you allow for partial viral replication in that person, so you get more viral replication in the population. His claims in this regard only serve to disprove his overall argument of halting vaccination: Variants of this virus emerge in the absence of mass vaccination, therefore, we are only going to see mass control of spread and illness *if* as many people as possible get vaccinated. The other option is herd immunity - which is simply not a sustainable path in a social structure such as the US. Maybe in areas that are smaller, more tribal, and more biologically homogenous, but not in the US, where biodiversity makes herd immunity take an extremely long time, with high levels of human collateral. This is why something like an mRNA vaccine is so crucial, as it makes our immune systems more unified and allows us to reach that threshold of ‘herd immunity’ much, much faster. Bossche's posing of mRNA vaccines and natural T helper cell immunity as being in conflict with each other is simply false. These vaccines promote T helper cells. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236739/).

Then there's the issue of having to wear masks after vaccination. Would I be in favor of allowing people to show proof of vaccination and then being exempt from these restrictions? Maybe. It would definitely be nice. But you have to understand that the reasoning for this is that we are much more sure that the vaccine stops you from getting sick and dying than we are about its effectiveness *in terms of asymptomatic replication* - Yes, we know it greatly reduces it, but if a large percentage of the population goes unvaccinated, they are entirely unprotected. They may still be able to receive the virus from someone, vaccinated or not, get sick, and/or breed new variations. This again goes back to why getting as many people as possible vaccinated is so important. If we can ensure we will not get symptoms, we can reach a sort of 'herd immunity' where asymptomatic replication/spreading simply doesn't really matter. 

As far as the effectiveness of substances such as Hydroxychloroquine, there is not nearly enough tangible evidence to suggest this is a viable option when stacked against a vaccine. This is no different from the countless times we hear about a potential vaccine for some disease that has shown promising trials in, let's say, a group of 200 people. It may have performed very well, even flawlessly, but there are risks that are far higher than the vaccine we have now. You will virtually find no doctors that suggest Hydroxychloroquine beyond "compassionate use" - this means the patient is already in critical condition, you aren't guaranteed to benefit, the risks of the drug are highly volatile, and your doctor may not agree with your choice to receive it. (https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30445-9/pdf)

Next, Bossche's claims do not hold much weight when stacked against research. He claimed mass vaccination in the elderly would lead to "monster variants". An Israel Health Ministry study of more than a million people found high levels of vaccine effectiveness (the study is below). There was no evidence that high vaccination rates led to new variants, as predicted by Vanden Bossche. Simply put, the best way to curb mutation is controlling replication, and the best way to control replication is to vaccinate. (https://perma.cc/3UM4-2NRQ).

The context surrounding Bossche's claims also puts his objectivity into question. He is being bolstered by the main players behind the anti vaxx movement - Namely Sherri Tenpenny, Del Bigtree, and the Robert F. Kennedy foundation. Beyond that, he is in the midst of pushing his own "Natural Killer vaccine", which has no published evidence it exists, is virtually impossible to find any information on, and again, is false in its painting of an mRNA vaccine as "unnatural". His education as a veterinarian also puts the relevancy of his expertise into question - despite his involvement in vaccine research and the Gates Foundation, he has not published any piece of scientific material since the 90s. In my opinion, Bossche is little more than someone for the anti vaxx movement to bolster as their example for how science is in line with their points. The fact that Bossche himself claims not to be anti vaxx is actually essential in this role, as it signals to outsiders that he is of sound practice.

This circles back to what I said in the beginning and points to something larger. Bossche's claims, which are often very grand and coupled with visions of widespread doom and mass population decimation, are fringe and specifically designed to instill fear into the person listening. He fits into the role of, "Mad scientist who is the sole beacon of truth in a system which wants to suppress him at every turn", which makes people feel as though they are pulling back the curtain by listening to him. Of course, there is tons of fear that exists in the mass hysteria of the mainstream media, which I (and you) find gross. I am personally no fan of our current administration and skepticism is obviously healthy when approaching things we are told, and I have zero interest in advocating for this vaccine as a sort of validation of our administration. However, there is a difference between hearing a person out and putting them on the same level as the overwhelming majority of the scientific and medical community. Elevating the fringe to that degree is dangerous, and an inherent reason as to why the internet is such a double-edged sword. All it takes is a few hours in a Youtube rabbit hole, and a person can find video essays reinforcing exactly what they want to hear - along with a comment section that is stoking the fire with various blanket claims of doom or calls to action. I'm not saying this in regard to only you or anything like that - I think it happens to everyone and is a built-in risk of the internet.

Bossche claims that, until the medical community can disprove his claims, all vaccinations should be halted. This is not at all how argument or debate works - the person making the claim bears the burden of proof, and until he provides that proof, there is no expected action from scientists, platforms, or individuals to take what he is saying seriously. He also claims that this is a "harmless virus" - Again, I have zero reason to believe this claim. While it is true that hospitals may get more money by listing Covid as a reason for treatment, it makes sense: it takes substantially more resources to treat coronavirus patients. More PPE, more staff, more equipment. They have to shut down entire rooms for hours after every positive or suspected patient goes for imaging before they can even clean it and prep for the next scan. This creates a backlog of patients just sitting around consuming resources and time. (https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00980).

Beyond that, claiming that Covid is harmless means approaching the idea of virtually every member of the established medical and scientific community as being in cahoots, or acting in bad faith on a global scale. I see no reason to believe this is the case, and I believe it falls into the realm of conspiracy.

But still, I'm really glad I watched the video and I think it's good to listen to every angle. I appreciate you sharing it and reading my response to it.

~

Thanks for reading! Stay safe and have a wonderful day :)