-5

Geert Vanden Bossche, who at one point advocated some form of "universal vaccines", has said that the Covid-19 vaccine makes your body create antibodies to fight only covid, rather than the broad spectrum antibodies it normally does, so by being vaccinated you are essentially becoming immune-compromised with regards to every other infectious disease.

I think we are very close to vaccine resistance right now. And it’s not for nothing that already people start developing, you know, new vaccines against the strains, et cetera.

But what I was saying is that, okay, if you miss the shoot, okay, you could say nothing has happened. No. You are at the same time losing the most precious part of your immune system that you could ever imagine.

And that is your innate immune system, because the innate antibodies, the natural antibodies, the secretary IGMs will be out-competed by these antigen-specific antibodies for binding to the virus. And that will be long lived. That is a long lived suppression.

And you lose every protection against any viral variant or coronavirus variant, et cetera. So this means that you are left just with no single immune response with your, you know, it’s none, your immunity has become nill.

It’s all gone. The antibodies don’t work anymore. And your your innate immunity has been completely bypassed and this while highly infectious strains are circulating.

Is this true?

As evidence of some notability: his theory has been taken up by some NGOs in Malayesia.

Also, he actually posted a somewhat different (toned down?) theory than the crude one above in a talk with slides; in the latter one he still claims natural IgMs are superior to any vaccine protection though because (he says) it's the natural antibodies which actually clear the virus. And he also/still says that (rather than causing complete immune failure) vaccines that create specific antibodies suppress this native immune system badly enough so that escaping/mutated virus variants can propagate.

Is this (perhaps less outlandish) theory more likely to be true?

Fizz
  • 57,051
  • 18
  • 175
  • 291
Ryan_L
  • 885
  • 5
  • 11
  • 2
    Perhaps that can be answered on a biology site. The interviewee has a very callous approach: "those who do not die gain immunity" and "preventing hospitals from overflowing is short-sighted" (my paraphrasing). – Weather Vane Mar 12 '21 at 18:12
  • 7
    It's not clear that this is really a notable claim. My search for "Geert Vanden Bossche" only came up with *comments on news articles* linking to the source you link to, and their own LinkedIn page. So...someone is maybe trying to make it notable, but it's all just word salad, and there's no way of verifying their LinkedIn information. Actually, on the link you give, they explain themselves that they weren't *really* working on vaccines for GAVI, but a "role of coordination", whatever that means. – Bryan Krause Mar 12 '21 at 19:17
  • 1
    Also I don't think a question like this would do very well at Biology.SE. Answering it effectively requires an entire tutorial on the immune system, because there is nothing comprehensible in it at all to work from. Better to say "Uh, no, so here's how things really work" - and those tutorial questions are not on-topic. – Bryan Krause Mar 12 '21 at 19:19
  • 2
    [He does have his name on about 15 papers](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?cmd=search&term=Vandenbossche%20GM%5Bau%5D&dispmax=50&page=2), but nothing since the 90s. I have found references to him presenting at many conferences. I'm inclined to believe his career references. I question his means of "publishing" this "paper". – Schwern Mar 12 '21 at 20:21
  • 5
    What broad spectrum antibodies is he talking about??? – Loren Pechtel Mar 13 '21 at 01:56
  • Following some of the links, it seems the actual claim is somewhat more nuanced than this quote implies. The argument seems to be that *the specific type of vaccines being rolled out* (no mention is made of which, so presumably all of them) cause antibodies to strongly target a very specific virus, reducing the samples from which other immune mechanisms can learn; and that this increases the risk of mutations going undetected by those mechanisms, and spreading asymptomatically. It is not that vaccines in general or Covid vaccines in particular, suppress the entire immune system. – IMSoP Mar 13 '21 at 13:30
  • As others do, it also questions the effectiveness of the lockdown/immunisation strategy, proposing that it would have been better to protect the most vulnerable and encourage natural herd immunity by exposure to the virus, not isolation. – Weather Vane Mar 13 '21 at 15:15
  • I'm DV this for "a vaccine researcher who worked on Ebola". When the question itself has questionable, Skeptics-worthy statements (outside of the quote), that's usually the right thing to do. – Fizz Mar 13 '21 at 23:25
  • In some parts of that drivel he's probably talking about the ["original antigenic sin"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin). It's a perennial/potential issue with any vaccine or immunity gained naturally for that matter. It has been raised wrt. to Covid-19 as well, somewhat more cogently e.g. in a [Med. Hyp. writeup](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7204740/) and also on https://msphere.asm.org/content/6/2/e00056-21. But if you take it as a show stopper, we would not be administering any vaccines for anything. – Fizz Mar 14 '21 at 00:16
  • As more popsci [account of that](https://theconversation.com/immune-interference-why-even-updated-vaccines-could-struggle-to-keep-up-with-emerging-coronavirus-strains-156465), written by an immunologist. Note that it basically comes to the opposite conclusion, that your naturally acquired antibodies may be worse (less neutralizing) than those of the vaccine. This whole discussion doesn't even get to the fact we also have memory T-cells (not just memory B-cells), which don't produce any anti-bodies but still offer long term protection against viral infections. And vaccines train that too. – Fizz Mar 14 '21 at 00:42
  • As for the rest of the claims... there's massive confusion between [natural antibodies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6384419/), which exist, but *don't* protect you against any viruses worth mentioning and "broad spectrum antibodies" which also do exist, but *are* actually specific to antigens. It just happens that related viruses from the same family have the same or similar proteins in some parts; see e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2349-y – Fizz Mar 14 '21 at 01:04
  • Also we know how to make some of those broad spectrum antibodies https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6531/823.long and there have even been vaccine designs that try to elicit them, e.g. cross-MERS-SARS-Covid vaccines, but these are not yet approved. It's not clear if he's somehow shilling for those. – Fizz Mar 14 '21 at 01:05
  • See also https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00340-4 on the last topic. Anyhow, Bossche (who hasn't published any research in immunology or vaccinology) probably talked with some colleagues at Gavi who do understand these things, and got some vague idea, but his rendering of the whole matter is seriously deficient. I'm not sure if he really believes current vaccines should not be used or he simply got baited in that interview not knowing what the interviewer was really angling. – Fizz Mar 14 '21 at 01:14
  • Also note from the last article that there is usually a trade-off between potency and broadness of antibodies, e.g. "Similarly to SARS-CoV-2, flu has spike proteins on its surface. Broadly neutralizing antibodies have been identified that target the head (top) and stem of haemagglutinin, one of the spike proteins. Antibodies against the stem are very broad but not so potent; clinical studies using these to treat flu have been disappointing. Antibodies to the head are less broad but more potent." So it's not a simple matter to just go for the broad ones. – Fizz Mar 14 '21 at 01:23
  • When you get a lot of anti-bodies but of low potency... you usually end up dead https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420316858#abs0015 – Fizz Mar 14 '21 at 01:27
  • I was actually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but after watching the (thankfully brief) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUlDeCRDLnU he seems to be a complete anti-vaxxer. I hope Gavi fires him if he actually works there. According to some reddit discussions here might not even work there. https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/m33li0/geert_vanden_bossche_phd_dvm_urgent_call_to_who/ – Fizz Mar 15 '21 at 00:14
  • @BryanKrause: this is definitely notable now, at least in Malaysia. https://focusmalaysia.my/opinion/experts-sound-the-alarm-about-risks-of-mass-vaccination/ Also note that he posted a somewhat more coherent expose of his theory in a talk with slides https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shg0VWkz0VM&t=865s, so it's a bit more clear what he is saying (that is wrong). – Fizz Mar 15 '21 at 04:04
  • Okay, so it's notable but it's garbage. Should we move it to biology.se where someone might answer it more empirically or do they have better things to do? – Shadur Mar 15 '21 at 11:52
  • @Fizz Is a "scientific hearing" even a thing? – Schwern Mar 15 '21 at 19:11
  • He has a vaxopedia article as well know https://vaxopedia.org/2021/03/14/who-is-geert-vanden-bossche/ In there one can find a link the slides he used in that youtube talk https://mcusercontent.com/92561d6dedb66a43fe9a6548f/files/ee29efbe-ffaf-4289-8782-d323642a0072/concern_about_using_current_Covid_19_vaccines_for_mass_vaccination_in_the_midst_of_a_pandemic_Geert_Vanden_Bossche.pdf Not that that helps too much, because most of the "huh" is in the audio segment. – Fizz Mar 15 '21 at 19:46
  • @Shadur: we can be certain of that since Natural News picked it up :D https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-03-15-top-vaccine-scientist-warns-the-world-halt-all-covid-19-vaccinations.html – Fizz Mar 15 '21 at 19:57

1 Answers1

14

Some quick searches shows the author appears to be a legitimate scientist with published papers (however, none about vaccines), a speaker in the field of vaccines, and on the advisory board of Vaccines Summit-2021 (those are both conferences listed by the CDC). He's not a quack.

But the "paper" in question is just an open letter. It's five pages of speculation with no studies and no citations and no review.

He presented a better case at Vaccine Summit Ohio 2021, Why should current Covid-19 vaccines not be used for mass vaccination during a pandemic? slide deck. At this point the best which can be said is he has is an untested hypothesis. Which is fine, that's part of the process, but it does not warrant his public antics.

The doctor wants everyone to drop everything and listen to him, and they did at Vaccine Summit Ohio 2021! Yet he continues to side step the scientific process and make public pronouncements with little support. It remains to be seen if experts weigh in; his public antics are whipping up anti-vaxxers and it's difficult to sift through it all.

Possibly the most damning part of his statements is describing COVID-19 as "quite harmless".

I know, of course, that current mass vaccination campaigns enjoy vigorous and world-wide support from a multitude of different parties/ stakeholders. However, unless I am proven wrong, this cannot be an excuse for ignoring that mankind may currently be transforming a quite harmless virus into an uncontrollable monster. I’ve never been that serious about a statement I made.”

As of this writing, COVID has killed over 2.6 million people. By comparison influenza kills between 250,000 - 650,000 on an average year. Spun positively, he's trying to warn the world of an even bigger outbreak. Spun negatively, he's another "natural herd immunity" advocate callous to the casualties.

I did find one detailed response, Addressing Geert Vanden Bossche’s Claims by Edward Nirenberg.

The short version: ...His claims are speculative, he offers no evidence to support his arguments, and makes several comments which are blatantly incorrect. The core of his argument relies on the assumption that COVID-19 vaccines do not have a significant effect on transmission. This has been repeatedly confirmed to be false in multiple studies... The vaccines will absolutely be critical to ending the pandemic, and fortunately the modular nature of the technology allows for rapid reformulation and adjustment as necessary (and thus far, though precautions are being taken with novel variants to produce vaccines specific to their set of problematic mutations, there isn’t significant enough evidence to suggest that total reformulation of the vaccines is needed), but no issues raised in this letter warrant a re-evaluation of our current COVID-19 vaccination policy.

He goes on in detail with references. I'm not qualified to evaluate his response. Edward says he is not a public health expert, but it's the most detailed response I've yet seen.

Firstly, I am not a public health expert, nor an expert on COVID-19, pandemics generally, virology, infectious disease, or medicine.

I have a BSc in Biochemistry and I did a lot of coursework in immunology at a fairly high level and some labwork and journal clubs therein too.

See Also

Schwern
  • 17,034
  • 7
  • 63
  • 66
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/120848/discussion-on-answer-by-schwern-does-the-covid-19-vaccine-create-anti-bodies-tha). – Oddthinking Mar 14 '21 at 13:04