I am posting this important discussion a second time, with a transcription of part of the discussion.
I have concentrated on Dr. Shankara Chetty’s contribution because he has a unique ability to distill Geert vanden Bossche’s ideas and make them comprehensible to the average punter while Geert’s message, while being essential is extremely dense to the layman.
At the time this was recorded there seemed to have been some censorship of Geert’s book, but when I checked it seems to be available on Amazon.
Out of time constraints I have left out Geert’s comments. It’s in the video.
“I think the audience really needs to understand that we’re not talking about an individual immune response, we’re talking about a population-based immune response. So we’re looking at the entire population and the level of immunity, and how this virus will influence that immune response, and how the virus will respond to that immune response.
And now we went ahead, without understanding the immunology around the disease itself. We went ahead and impacted on the immune response of the entire population. And that’s going to throw a whole curveball into the dynamics of how this pandemic evolves.
So I think this work is vitally important. And it’s vitally important for people to realize that the vaccine might have given us a very short term individual benefit in preventing severe illness.
But on a population scale, it’s created the scenario where an explosion can take place.
And that is where the problem lies.
So we’re dealing with a population based immunity when we talk about Geert’s work.”
I think Philip, the people that made the decisions in the pandemic have to be held responsible for those decisions.
That’s the reason they get the top money and hold the top jobs, and they there to protect society. So at the end of the day, even if mistakes were made, I think those people that made the mistakes need to go back and be willing to ask the people that gave them advice as to where that advice came from. So yeah, we got politicians making scientific choices.
Unfortunately, that’s the way the pandemic was run.
So they took advice from different quarters We had experts around the world giving them advice, but those experts need to be held accountable. It seems that we abandoned all the science we’ve generated over the past 100 years, when we looked at this pandemic.
So we can’t say that there was a different view to it or a different approach to it. It was a completely unscientific approach that didn’t gel with what we’ve learned over the past 100 years about vaccinology and virology. And so I think they need to be held to account to at least explain why those poor decisions were made.
Neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies
I think, Philip, when you get a a natural infection, you have your first line of defense, which is your mucus, mucus surfaces in your body, and they have the ability to take care of a virus, they stimulate your cell based innate immune system. This doesn’t need antibodies, it phagocytosis cells that are infected with the virus.
So the majority of your virus in a natural infection gets taken care of by your immune innate immunity.
The little bit that gets through stimulates an adaptive response. Now, when you produce these neutralising antibodies, they are generally short-lived, so that they can deal with that particular variant of the virus, and then they disappear. So when you get another strain of the virus, your immunity is still able to adapt to that new strain, because the neutralsing antibodies that you made for the previous strain have waned. And so you have an open sheet to rewrite an antibody response to a new virus.
Whereas with the vaccine, you are bypassing the innate immune system because it’s an injectable vaccine.
You’re going directly to stimulating a humoral response, which directly takes you to an antibody response.
Now that antibody response is very specific for spike protein. It doesn’t cover everything. And so when you have a change in that variant, straightaway, those antibodies don’t address that variant and as well, because those antibodies being very specific or long-lived. When you get another variant, you’re not training your immune system. Your immune system is stuck on that previous antibody. And so you can’t train it to adapt to a new variant.
And that is where the problem starts to arise.
I think Philip, the first thing that they needed to get right, if they were hoping to get herd immunity was to develop a vaccine that creates neutralising antibodies, I think within a month of the first vaccination in South Africa, and it doesn’t stop infection and transmission, and herd immunity was out the window right at that point. So yeah, we might have, we might have developed a vaccine hoping to get to herd immunity. But we do understand the methodology in doing that. And as soon as we realise that the vaccine doesn’t stop infection and transmission, it means it’s not doesn’t have neutralizing antibody capacity, we should have abandoned that plan, of trying to achieve herd immunity. And so we should have looked at the vaccine and rather used it to protect those at risk. But the attempt to get to herd immunity with a non-neutralising antibody vaccine is nonsensical, absolutely nonsensical, and you create more problems and it puts off
He is talking to a slide presented by Geert
I think Philip, we’re going to see See what IgG for. When it when it attaches to the virus itself, it suppresses the other immune cells from from from addressing the virus itself as I put some tolerance.
So we’re going to see prolonged infections, where the immune system is not stimulated by the virus itself. And so you’re gonna see persistent viral infection with Coronavirus, simply because you’re not stimulating an immune response from it from the slide that you showed, the antibody response is not necessarily a productive antibody response.
So they haven’t in that slide looked at whether we’re dealing with neutralising antibodies or non neutralising antibodies,.You can see from the slide that as the age group goes up, there’s more antibody production. And I think that’s a lack of training of the innate immune system. And so So I think in future we’re going to get a lot of more persistent Coronavirus, infections. Our body’s not going to take care of it in the way it should.
Phillip, I think, as you know, if we left this to nature, we would have been at that point, the virus becoming endemic, and we would have had a good robust immune response, population-based. But what we have here is the vaccine has damaged the way we respond to the virus itself.
Now, when you’re aware, I think what Geert is alluding to you develop non-neutralising antibodies, poly reactive non neutralisng antibodies that prevent you getting severe illness, right? But they they’re non-neutralising. So, what happens is when you got these non-neutralising antibodies at this point in the pandemic we’ve seen the decrease of severe illness in the vaccinated.
And of course, with Omicron, we’ve got a milder, more contagious strain.
So that all ties in – we’re seeing, we’re seeing a far less pathogenic variant but the people that are vaccinated are developing these poly-reactive non-neutralising antibodies.
Now, what that does is it’s putting pressure on the virus itself.
Now, a virus can either become more effective and spread more rapidly or it can become more virulent. Now, these non neutralising antibodies are not really putting any pressure on its ability to spread, so the contagiousness will reach its peak, but for the virus to continue spreading, because these non-neutralising antibodies are preventing severe illness and death, the virus will mutate into a more virulent strain to overcome that.
And so there’s a risk that we’re going to see a far more virulent virus variant in the future, which means that it’s going to cause far more severe illness. And we’ll see far more vigilant fear variants, which would have never happened if we had neutralizing antibodies from a natural immune response.
I think the following is absolutely critical. You have those who think it is one thing and those who think it is the other.
Dr. Chetty makes a critical point here.
Q: Yeah, I’m gonna make an important point here, as I’m listening to this, as my research has always been about autoimmunity and the fact that severe disease is more of an autoimmune response to the viral spike protein. One of the interesting things we’re seeing, and this is where I think the whole overlap of everything ties in, is that even though we’re not seeing severe disease, across highly-vaccinated countries, we are seeing rising excess mortality. So people are not dying of the severe COVID-19. But they’re still dying of various other conditions. And this is where I pull in Shankara from his clinical observation, what do you think is causing that?
I think there’s a twofold problem here, Philip. We’ve got the problems with immune immune issues, and that would cause an increase in COVID deaths. But we’ve seen an increase in excess deaths, excluding COVID.
And I think that relates more to the pathogenicity of spike protein, rather than any immune or inappropriate immune response. So we know that spike protein does have some pathogenicity. We’ve discussed the GP-120, prions – its ability to influence P- 53, and the braca (?), 1 and 2 genes in the nucleus. So these are the effects of that FERC, ts effect on coagulation. We know that spike proteins expressed expressed as a membrane protein. So just by its just by its biodistribution and expression in cells around the body, we’re going to see a wide diversity of autoimmune reactions, because the immunity is going to want to go and address those foreign proteins now in the cell membrane of certain tissues in the body.
And so we got the double-edged sword, we’ve got one dealing with the vaccines and the immune problems that it causes and allowing for more severe infections. And we’ve got on the other end, the pathogenicity of spike protein on its own, and by the vaccine, making this toxic protein in the body, you’re seeing the long term biologic effects of spike protein.
And we need to come to terms with those those two differences.
What needs to be done? Geet says we are at 10 minutes past midnight
I think Philip, we’re going to see a lot of morbidity and mortality that we can’t explain which would go with going forward. We’ve got look to to get his right to stop or negate the problem. We need to stop the offense, which is the vaccines immediately – that is just compounding it every day. That’s that’s the first thing we need to do.
I think the second thing we need to do is to be very vigilant about viral infections and use antivirals, liberally, because that’s the only thing in the vaccinated that’s going to suppress viral transmission. And by doing that, you will prevent the mutation in the virus, or the mutations towards more virulent strains.
So we need to start a campaign of looking at antivirals, even if they simple antivirus like ACQ, But we give it liberally to every patient with the suspicion of a viral infection to limit the spread of that viral infection.
The unvaccinated are pretty safe.
But the threat posed to the unvaccinated comes from the vaccinated fostering a far more virulent variant that the unvaccinated don’t have immunity to.
But I’m sure we can train our immunity. So we got to look at how to negate the virus. That’s not even taking into consideration the side effects of the vaccine that we see.
So hopefully, if we stop what we’re doing completely and address the problems in the virus, hopefully nature will allow our immunity to reset and regrow and we put the past behind us. But hopefully we haven’t done too much of damage to that.
I think Philip for for everyone, normal vaccinations, we know the problems with that, we need to find a way to detox from the persistent spike protein production, we need to make sure immunities are at their best. So the natural ways- vitamin D, exercise, sunlight, to make sure that we peak health. I think that’s about all we can do to try and negate what has already transpired. It’s almost like having a war where the shots are fired, but we’re waiting for the victims to fall. There’s a delayed reaction here. And so all of us are trying to do our best to predict and plan for what’s to come.
I just wanted to add something to that. I think that the population of the world doesn’t understand that when you’re dealing with population dynamics, even the slightest adjustments have profound changes. It’s like running a game reserve and having all these species in there, making sure you have the genetic diversity, and making sure they all survive and thrive. And Nature has a way of balancing that. Now, when you look at what we’ve done so far, we’ve increased the deaths, we’ve decreased fertility And just those two, even a percentage on both ends, can lead to the extinction of humanity as we know it.
That’s how profound these influences impact on society. So what has transpired so far it is vitally important for people to understand the impact of what it can have on us as humanity, and to take a step back and stop and look at it.
And trust nature in its ability to restore homeostasis and balance to this and not keep interfering with it when we don’t know what you’re doing