Fact checking Geert Vanden Bossche. What is still true 1 year later?

A reader asked me to shine my light on a Belgian fact check of gezondheidenwetenschap.be. Now reviews are much more work than writing something down yourself and the fact check is already a year old so actually not really worth it anymore, not current, unnecessary, mustard after the meal.

While reading, I decided to consider the article of 19 April 2021 as still relevant. After all, it has turned out that there is no progressive insight in various medical sciences. Before anything changes, the curricula (yes, I know that is called 'curricula') at the medical faculties will first have to be adjusted. After graduation, the ladies and gentlemen doctors prefer not to take in new, let alone deviating information, that much is clear. Their backpack has been filled with the bull and their own practice must be recouped or expanded or a board position is in the offing. Other priorities.

On the other hand, it arouses curiosity to take a look at what was claimed in the fact checks on corona critics a year ago. It says something about the credibility of fact checks in general. If I were to do something like that today with a piece by Maarten Keulemans, it would still be 'welles nietes'. Especially with an older fact check, there are points that were debatable at the time, where the dust has now settled or science has even settled. Who was right?

Furthermore, it concerns a fact check on Geert van de Bossche.

A lot of attention was paid to him on virusvaria.nl because he assumed that the virus would mutate more and more virulently. More contagious, OK, but deadlier? His original warning that a part of humanity could be wiped out never convinced me. If it worked that way, humanity would have disappeared from the planet much earlier, I thought. Now that I read this fact check, I hardly see that aspect. That makes it easier to write a straightforward debunk.

If you are only interested in the latest developments, here the latest report van Vanden Bossche, in which he continues to warn of high mortality among vaccinated people because their immune system will fall short against more deadly variants. And here's a recent fact check, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.

1: The introduction of the fact check

Misapplication of science

The 'misapplication' will be explained later in the article. That there is not always evidence (later called 'peer-reviewed studies') is not surprising. A lot is unknown and that leaves room for hypotheses. Certainly from experts, warnings based on hypotheses should be taken seriously until they are falsified. It is therefore just as valid to say "there is no falsification by which this is excluded" as "there is no evidence that this indeed works that way".

After all, no proof of a hypothesis is anything other than proof that the hypothesis is not correct.

Vaccines can now be adapted quickly

The "rapid adaptation of a vaccine", it is now hoped for half a year and then comes the roll-out. Then the flu season is already over and certainly the mutant in question. So that's not nearly fast enough to keep up with the mutations.

2: "SARS-Cov-2 mutates relatively slowly"

Vanden Bossche's fear of rapid mutations would be unfounded.

Now, scientific articles and journalism speak of a fairly rapid mutation (fairly high mutation rate). Some examples below.

In 2020, it was still rated as "sluggish" in an article in Nature, which also states "if a mutation could have helped the virus spread faster, it probably would have happened sooner". We have seen from Omikron that such a mutation can arise much later and even from another strand.

In the same article in Nature: "At a time when almost everyone on the planet is susceptible, there is probably little evolutionary pressure on the virus to spread better, so even potentially beneficial mutations may not thrive."

This means that at a time when a large proportion of people are vaccinated, high evolutionary pressure arises that allows more contagious mutations to thrive better... but I'm getting ahead of myself. The debunkings of the fact check are there for the taking. Before anyone says "yes, afterwards!": That Nature article is from September 2020. The fact-checkers could have read it six months earlier.

"The rate of mutation in SARS-CoV-2 [...] is similar to the mutation rate of other common RNA viruses, such as flu and other common coronaviruses that cause cold-like symptoms" says Katie Kistler, a postdoctoral researcher who studies viral evolution at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. (scitechdaily.com)

And then we have Suman Das, professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center: "The changes we see in SARS-CoV-2 are also driven in part by the rapid development of vaccines and treatments designed to stop it. Compared to the early days of the pandemic, there is now much more selection pressure on the virus to escape the pharmaceutical measures to defeat it." (livescience.com) This underlines an important point made by Vanden Bossche.

More recently: "RNA viruses evolve quickly" is a heading from another scientific article that appeared today. SciTechDaily thinks it does mutate quickly: "The SARS-CoV virus mutates fast". No scientific source? Wait until you see the references of the fact check.

Enough about Vanden Bossche being wrong about rapid mutation. It will be clear why I stopped doing thorough fact checks: it's easier to write down credible kul than to prove that it's kul. How much evidence do you need to provide to disprove a haphazard claim? After all, one swallow does not make a summer. I will keep the other topics short.

"The vaccine developers were prepared for 'immune escape'"

"It has been decided to use thevaccines based on the complete 'spike protein'instead of on a small fragment of it", write the fact-checkers. That should make immune escape, becoming resistant to mutations, more difficult.

Are there vaccines that rely on just a small fragment of the spike protein? Am I looking for the wrong way or has this been sucked out of the thumb? It seems as if things are being mixed up. The bottom line is that the spike protein is just one part of the packaging of the whole virus. An immune system remembers the entire virus pattern, not just a part of it. The problem is that if the virus remains virtually intact but with a largely mutated spike, the immune system will not recognize the virus based on the vaccination. (Speaking of misapplying valid science). It is now general knowledge, I thought. But yes, that's what I thought a year ago. I can provide sources for this but they don't either so I save myself the trouble. I will come back to the references they put at the bottom of the article later.

"The emerging variants already existed before the vaccination campaign"

It seems as if the fact-checker means this as a counterargument, but she does not understand that this indicates that variants only really become viable and flare up after a vaccination campaign. This observation Confirms precisely the concept of Vanden Bossche.

"Vanden Bossche wants to stop vaccinating"

"For him, the solution to these possible problems is clear: stop vaccinating!" Now I think I've heard him plead for 'pause vaccination until we understand more' of this new intravenous therapy – because it turns out not to be a vaccine in the normal sense of the word, if only because of its short efficacy. Not every injection is a vaccine.

Also nice is that the fact-checker says: “A modified version of the vaccines could be available in a few months' time..” So that was a year ago. Where are those refined versions? But then again, she didn't have a source either. She shouted because the boss had said so. Whether there was a nice double spread ad promised somewhere or because she was thinking about her career, I don't know.

"No contagiousness after vaccination"

"However, there aremore and more data available that the vaccines do indeed offer protection against infectionand make sure youmuch less contagiousare"

We knew then that wasn't true. And for those who didn't find strong evidence at the time, at least we now know better. The first weeks after vaccination you are more susceptible to the virus. The months after that you are slightly less contagious and soon you are just as contagious as before. (Or on average even sicker, there are also data on that.) It is also true that with fewer symptoms, thanks to the vaccines, it is easier to walk around contagiously. In addition: you are vaccinated, so you can not have the disease at all! So it must be something else... This false security has undoubtedly also led to many infections.

No mention of the source either, nor do they.

"Vaccination does not weaken the immune system"

This is a tricky subject. It has long been called by vaccine critics and has never actually been properly researched. Research is also discouraged and those who raise it are dismissed as anti-vaxxer. There are indeed examples of vaccinations that reduced total mortality and there were also those that increased total mortality despite being effective against the disease to be combated. This was evident in Africa where more risk is taken because of the high need. It is actually rather empty-headed to lump 'effects of vaccinations' together as if every injection has the same effect on everyone. One vaccination is not the other, especially in a semi-experimental setting like this. And one patient is not the other.

"Lockdowns do not weaken immune system"

"The food we eat and our drinking water is far from sterile.Our immune system is still sufficiently trained.”

My goodness say... Need I say more? Even our rivm could think that we could expect a flu wave because our immune systems skipped the updates of two flu seasons. Training your immune system against respiratory viruses with tap water and food... Does no one check such a text?

"NK vaccine"

Vanden Bossche designs vaccines. His skill is used against him. There is no direct competition with this Covid injection therapy, rather with the traditional vaccines. However, not a bad word from Vanden Bossche about that. Again, an empty, strange comment. At first I thought she was a doctor of medical science but it is another Dorien Baetens, general practitioner in training. She's probably doing her best too.

Conclusion

Also this fact check of Health and science like most fact-checks from reuters, MSM and Big Tech, is an accumulation of ill-founded haphazard claims, based on half-baked facts and expert opinions. They accuse a pro-vax vaccine developer with a lot of knowledge and experience, who is genuinely concerned, of not using peer-reviewed sources while they do not do so themselves to debunk his hypotheses. The point is precisely that this knowledge has not yet been established, and a scientific debate must take place about it. In addition, part of his explanation appears to be scientifically substantiated, as can also be deduced from statements by other independent experts and various studies, which I cited in 'Introduction'.

Final Verdict: Utter Bullshit.

The references used by the fact checker

At the bottom of the piece are 6 references that should form the basis of the missteps discussed above. From previous fact checks, I know that references are often worthless pieces and sometimes show the opposite of what is claimed in the main article. I suspect that the fact-checkers themselves often don't even read them, they blindly take them from each other. In these references, you often come across the same phrases, such as those of "Our drinking water and our food is not sterile, so our immune systems are always well trained."

I quickly go through these pieces (you never know, maybe there is something in them that makes sense) and give a number of quotes below to be able to estimate the scientific content and to what extent they actually undermine vanden Bossche's hypothesis.

(2) "The core of his argument rests on the assumption that COVID-19 vaccines have no significant effect on transmission. This has been repeatedly confirmed as incorrect in multiple studies."
That must have been cherry picking. It soon became clear that even vaccinated people can infect each other. "Significant" does not mean "Meaningful". It has been significantly demonstrated that face masks offer 10% protection. So you become infected after 11 minutes instead of after 10 minutes. Significantly demonstrated? Sure. Significant? Say it yourself.

(2) "The vaccines will be absolutely crucial to ending the pandemic", including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
Yeah right, we know them.

(3) The main arguments of this article (3) boil down to the fact that Vanden Bosschebij evokes the author's memories of people who were "also wrong". He then elaborates on this. It is incomprehensible that Dorien Baetens, author of the fact check, turns to such 'evidence'. Evidence by framing. That arouses my interest. Just Googling. I see a Doctor of Medical Genetics at Ghent University and redacteur at EOS Wetenschap. That seemed like a good candidate to me – but a reader pointed out to me that it was written by Dorien Baetens, general practitioner in training. Anyway, then again...

(3) "A recent review article suggests that immune escape by variants of SARS-CoV-2 is a possibility, but one that has not yet been definitively observed or demonstrated."
Yes, so? Surely you can think about that when half the world is vaccinated? And if you know about it, name the possible consequences? (As mentioned, vanden Bossche's doomsday scenarios didn't appeal to me either)

(4) "It seems that vaccines can drastically shorten the transmission chain and also reduce the amount of virus that can be transmitted in these cases. Dr. Bossche's idea that the coronavirus will just stay from person to person moving and that vaccines will only prevent serious diseases is contradicted by the data that is piling up." No, this data indicates that transmission is not completely stopped. They diminish maybe, that's what it says! These are 'leaky vaccines'. Moreover, something is denied that has now been accepted as fact.

(4) "we can easily reformulate our vaccines to adapt them to new variants of concern."
We've seen that with Omikron... Another nonsensical lockdown.

(5) "There is increasingly clear evidence that current COVID-19 vaccines reduce transmission, as well as the amount of viral material available for excretion, even in asymptomatic cases. There is evidence that they achieve this effect even against the variant strains of SARS-CoV-2."
What evidence? There is reference there to a study that confirms that a fresh vaccination increases the risk of infection [of the Wuhan variant] Reduces. That was therefore not conclusive definitive scientific evidence about stopping transmission, not even about action against variants. Apart from the fact that all this has now been disproved by the facts.

(5) "mRNA vaccines can be easily modified to induce the development of antibodies that are specifically programmed to deal with all the new variants that are emerging."
They all talk to each other. It's just not true. Maybe someday, but not now. Science fiction as a fact check – congratulations.

(5) "The underlying misconception," Omer explained, "is that a natural infection is better than a vaccine."
This too needs no further explanation. Natural immunity is stronger but you run a small risk of serious illness. But a vaccine also makes some people sick, even if it is usually only rillerig or a few days of pain in the arm. Sometimes worse. Almost everyone also withstood Covid without any problems. And we're not talking about the latest insights into covid mortality versus vaccination mortality among 50-year-olds.

(6) "Preliminary evidence indicates that COVID-19 vaccines are very likely to reduce viral transmission, at least to some extent."
In April 2021, some people knew very little, as it turns out. If they didn't already know such a thing, how could a fact-checker firmly claim that other effects can't happen? "very likely to decrease, at least to some extent" And with that you think you can bring Vanden Bossche down?

(7) "You are barely contagious after corona vaccination"
This is an internal reference to another article on the same site. Unfortunately, the text is no longer there: "archived". For the enthusiast you can read here via wayback machine. In September they felt wetness: "This article is being updated" and somewhere after that they left 😉 it for good (thanks for the link Daniel)

I haven't come across that promised "misapplication of science" anymore.

• (1) Open letter from Geert Vanden Bossche to the WHO:https://37b32f5a-6ed9-4d6d-b3e1-5ec648ad9ed9.filesusr.com/ugd/28d8fe_266039aeb27a4465988c37adec9cd1dc.pdf
• (2) Nirenberg E. Addressing Geert Vanden Bossche’s claims. Deplatform Disease, March 15, 2021. Beschikbaar op:https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressing-geert-vanden-bossches-claims
• (3) Orac. Geert Vanden Bossche is to COVID-19 vaccines as Andrew Wakefield is to MMR. Respectful Insolence, March 17, 2021. Beschikbaar op:https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/03/17/geert-vanden-bossche-is-to-covid-19-vaccines-as-andrew-wa…
• (4) Jarry J. The doomsday prophecy of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche. McGill Office for Science and Society, March 24, 2021. Beschikbaar op:https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geer…
• (5) Kasprak A. Geert Vanden Bossche stokes fear of COVID-19 vaccines to promote his own flawed solution. Snopes, March 26, 2021. Beschikbaar op:https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/03/26/geert-vanden-bossche/
• (6)https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-are-critical-for-controlling-the-pandemic-v...
• (7)https://www.gezondheidenwetenschap.be/gezondheid-in-de-media/na-coronavaccinatie-ben-je-nog-weinig-b...