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 April 19, 2021 as still topical. After all, it has become apparent that there is no progressive insight in various medical sciences. Before anything changes, the teaching programs (yes, I know that's called 'curricula') at the medical faculties will first have to be adjusted. After graduation, the ladies and gentlemen doctors prefer not to take in any new, let alone deviating, information, that much is clear. Their backpack has been filled with the diploma and their own practice must be recouped or expanded or a management position is on the horizon. Other priorities.

On the other hand, it arouses curiosity to see 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 'well nothing'. Especially with an older fact check, there are points that were questionable at the time, but the dust has now settled somewhat or the 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.

1: The introduction of the fact check

Misapplication of science

Het 'verkeerd toepassen' zullen we later in het artikel nog wel uitgelegd krijgen. Dat er niet altijd bewijs is (men noemt later 'peer-reviewed studies') is niet verwonderlijk. Er is veel onbekend en dat laat ruimte voor hypotheses. Zeker van deskundigen moeten waarschuwingen op basis van hypotheses serieus worden genomen totdat ze gefalsifieerd zijn. Het is dan ook net zo geldig om te zeggen "er is geen falsificatie waardoor dit is uitgesloten" als "er is geen bewijs dat dit inderdaad zo werkt".

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

Vaccines can now be adapted quickly

Het "snel aanpassen van een vaccin", daarbij wordt nu gehoopt op een half jaar en dan komt de uitrol nog. Dan is het griepseizoen alweer voorbij en zeker de betreffende mutant. Dat is dus bij lange na niet snel genoeg om de mutaties bij te houden.

2: "SARS-Cov-2 muteert relatief langzaam"

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 werd het nog beoordeeld als "sluggish" in een artikel in Nature, waar ook in staat "als een mutatie het virus had kunnen helpen om zich sneller te verspreiden, was dat waarschijnlijk wel eerder gebeurd". We have seen from Omikron that such a mutation can arise much later and even from a different strand.

In the same article in Nature: "In een tijd waarin bijna iedereen op de planeet vatbaar is, is er waarschijnlijk weinig evolutionaire druk op het virus om zich beter te verspreiden, dus zelfs potentieel gunstige mutaties zullen misschien niet gedijen."

Dat betekent dus dat in een tijd waarin een groot deel van de mensen gevaccineerd is, hoge evolutionaire druk ontstaat waardoor besmettelijkere mutaties beter gedijen... maar ik loop op de zaken vooruit. De ontkrachtingen van de factcheck liggen voor het oprapen. Voordat iemand zegt "ja, achteraf!": Dat Nature article is from September 2020. The fact-checkers could have read it six months earlier.

"De snelheid van mutatie in SARS-CoV-2 [...] is \vergelijkbaar met de mutatiesnelheid van andere veel voorkomende RNA-virussen, zoals griep en andere veel voorkomende coronavirussen die verkoudheidsachtige symptomen veroorzaken" 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: "de veranderingen die we zien in SARS-CoV-2 worden ook driven in part by the rapid development of vaccines en behandelingen die zijn ontworpen om het te stoppen. Vergeleken met de begindagen van de pandemie, is er nu veel meer selectiedruk op het virus om te ontsnappen aan de farmaceutische maatregelen om het te verslaan" (livescience.com) This underlines an important point made by Vanden Bossche.

Meer recent: "RNA viruses evolve quickly" is een kopje uit een ander wetenschappelijk artikel dat vandaag verscheen. SciTechDaily vindt het wel degelijk snel muteren: "The SARS-CoV virus mutates fast". Geen wetenschappelijke bron? Wacht tot je zometeen de referenties van de factcheck ziet.

The SARS-CoV-2 Virus Mutates Fast: The Science You Need to Understand About Coronavirus Variants and COVID-19 Vaccines

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.

"De vaccinontwikkelaars waren bedacht op 'immune escape'"

"Er is voor gekozen om devaccines based on the complete 'spike protein'in plaats van op een klein fragment ervan", 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.

"De opgekomen varianten bestonden al voor de vaccinatiecampagne"

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 wil stoppen met vaccineren"

"Voor hem is de oplossing voor deze mogelijke problemen duidelijk: stop het vaccineren!" Now I think I heard him argue for 'pausing vaccinations until we understand more' about 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 duration of 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.

"Geen besmettelijkheid na vaccinatie"

"Er zijn echtermore and more data available that the vaccines do indeed offer protection against infectionand make sure youmuch less contagiousbent"

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

No mention of the source either, nor do they.

"Vaccinatie verzwakt het immuunsysteem niet"

This is a tricky subject. It has been said by vaccine critics for some time and has never actually been properly investigated. Research is also discouraged and anyone who raises this issue is dismissed as an anti-vaxxer. There are indeed examples of vaccinations that reduced all-cause mortality and there were also examples that increased total mortality despite being effective against the disease being combated. This became apparent in Africa where more risks are taken due to the great need. It is actually quite empty-headed to tar 'effects of vaccinations' with the same brush, as if every injection has the same effect on everyone. One vaccination is not the same as the other, especially in a semi-experimental setting like this. And one patient is not the same as the other.

"Lockdowns verzwakken immuunsysteem niet"

"Het voedsel dat we eten en ons drinkwater is verre van steriel.Our immune system is still sufficiently trained."

My goodness... Need I say more? Even our RIVM could think that we could expect a flu wave because our immune systems have 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-vaccin"

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 is, just like most fact checks from Reuters, MSM and Big Tech, an accumulation of poorly substantiated 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 themselves do not do so to debunk his hypotheses. The point is that this knowledge has not yet been established, and a scientific debate needs to take place about it. In addition, part of his explanation appears to be scientifically substantiated, as can also be concluded 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

Onderaan het stukje staan 6 referenties die de onderbouwing zouden moeten vormen van de hierboven besproken misslagen. Van eerdere factchecks weet ik dat referenties vaak waardeloze stukken zijn en soms het tegendeel aantonen van wat er in het hoofdartikel wordt beweerd. Ik vermoed dat de factcheckers ze zelf vaak niet eens lezen, ze nemen ze blindelings van elkaar over. In deze referenties kom je trouwens vaak dezelfde frases tegen, zoals die van "Ons drinkwater en ons voedsel is niet steriel, dus onze immuunsystemen worden altijd goed getraind."

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) "De kern van zijn betoog berust op de veronderstelling dat COVID-19-vaccins geen significant effect hebben op de overdracht. Dit is herhaaldelijk bevestigd als onjuist in meerdere onderzoeken."
Dat moet dan cherrypicking zijn geweest. Al snel was duidelijk dat zelfs gevaccineerden elkaar kunnen besmetten. "Significant" wil trouwens niet zeggen "Betekenisvol". Het is significant aangetoond dat 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) "De vaccins zullen absoluut cruciaal zijn om de pandemie te beëindigen".
Yeah right, we know them.

(3) De voornaamste argumenten van dit artikel (3) komen neer op het feit dat Vanden Bosschebij de auteur herinneringen oproept aan mensen die "ook ongelijk hadden". Hij gaat daar dan uitgebreid op in. Het is onbegrijpelijk dat Dorien Baetens, auteur van de factcheck, zich wendt tot zulk 'bewijsmateriaal'. Evidence by framing. Dat wekt dan wel weer mijn interesse. Even Googlen. Ik zie een doctor in de Medische Genetica aan de UGent en 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. But anyway...

(3) "Een recent overzichtsartikel suggereert dat immuunontsnapping door varianten van SARS-CoV-2 een mogelijkheid is, maar een die nog niet definitief is waargenomen of aangetoond"
Yeah, so? Surely you can think about that if half the world is vaccinated? And if you understand it, identify the possible consequences? (As I said, Vanden Bossche's doomsday scenarios did not appeal to me either)

(4) "Het lijkt erop dat vaccins de transmissieketen drastisch kunnen verkorten en ook de hoeveelheid virus die in deze gevallen kan worden overgedragen, kunnen verminderen. Dr. Bossche's idee dat het coronavirus zich gewoon van persoon tot persoon zal blijven verplaatsen en dat vaccins alleen ernstige ziekten zullen voorkomen, wordt tegengesproken door de gegevens die zich opstapelen." No, this data indicates that transmission is not completely stopped. They diminish maybe, that's what it says! So these are 'leaky vaccines'. Moreover, something is being denied that has now been accepted as fact.

(4) "we kunnen onze vaccins eenvoudig herformuleren om ze aan te passen aan nieuwe zorgwekkende varianten."
We saw that with Omikron... Another nonsensical lockdown.

(5) "Er is steeds duidelijker bewijs dat de huidige COVID-19-vaccins de overdracht verminderen, evenals de hoeveelheid viraal materiaal dat beschikbaar is voor uitscheiding, zelfs in asymptomatische gevallen. Er is bewijs dat ze dit effect zelfs bereiken tegen de variantstammen van 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-vaccins kunnen gemakkelijk worden aangepast om de ontwikkeling van antilichamen te induceren die specifiek zijn geprogrammeerd om te gaan met alle nieuwe varianten die opduiken."
They all echo each other. It's just not true. Maybe someday, but not now. Science fiction as a fact check - congratulations.

(5) "'De onderliggende misvatting', legde Omer uit, 'is dat een natuurlijke infectie beter is dan een vaccin'."
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) "Voorlopig bewijs geeft aan dat COVID-19-vaccins zeer waarschijnlijk de virale overdracht verminderen, althans tot op zekere hoogte."
In april 2021 wisten sommigen dus nog maar weinig, dat blijkt maar weer. Als ze zoiets al niet wisten, hoe kon een factchecker dan stellig beweren dat andere effecten niet kunnen plaatsvinden? "zeer waarschijnlijk verminderen, althans tot op zekere hoogte" And with that you think you can bring Vanden Bossche down?

(7) "Je bent amper nog besmettelijk na coronavaccinatie"
Dit is een interne verwijzing naar een ander artikel op dezelfde site. De tekst is er helaas niet meer: "gearchiveerd". Voor de liefhebber hier te lezen via wayback machine. In september voelden ze nattigheid: "Dit artikel wordt bijgewerkt" en ergens daarna hebben ze het maar definitief laten zitten 😉 (dank voor de link Daniel)

Ik ben dat beloofde "verkeerd toepassen van de wetenschap" niet meer tegengekomen.

• (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...