Response to allegations by the academic smear campaign*

PDF Download

* The original letter with these allegations sent to all members of the House Health and Equal OpportunityCommittee can be found at the end of this document.

‍

Herewith, I respond to the ad hominem attack and smear campaign by a number of Belgian academics whose apparent sole objective is to discredit my professional experience and scientific insights in the field of immunology, vaccinology and virology.

First of all I note, this is yet another attempt by a number of academics to assert themselves by mercilessly ignoring any knowledge, expertise and scientific understanding that is not based on the only standard they know and maintain, i.e., publications in peer-reviewed journals. They thereby endorse for themselves a certificate in short-sightedness. These Belgian academics apparently still havenot understood that publications alone do not solve complex health problems. After all, where are the publications of these largely taxpayer-funded conspirators who have made a concrete contribution to solving societal health problems? In other words, what contribution do they make to society in exchange for the funds they use to satisfy their scientific ambition? They bear witness to a totally entrenched mentality that continues to believe in inductive science. They generate data and draw theoretical conclusions based on it that only very rarely translate into a solution useful to society.

Some 12 years ago I decided to change track because I had come to realize that deductive science, rather than inductive science, was a more efficient way of tackling complex problems. I try to solve complex problems by starting from fundamental truths derived from the various disciplines involved in a complex problem (e.g. understanding pathogenesis, designing universal immune interventions instead of pathogen-specific or personalized immunization; analyzing interactions between pathogens and the immune system to predict the evolution of a pandemic). On this basis, I build a hypothesis of scientific plausibility. I test by verifying the compatibility of the different puzzle pieces from the various subfields using my own knowledge/experience and various writings. In other words, publications are not a goal in themselves for me (as they certainly are for these academics); I only use themas an instrument to fit the puzzle pieces together in a scientifically responsible manner. While that strategy does not produce academic publications, it does allow for the holistic examination of issues and, more importantly, insights into complex challenges, including public health challenges. It also allows inventions to be made and new and critical insights to be gained, even in fields that - like vaccinology par excellence - are still subject to dogma and rigid paradigms.

In this way, one is apparently catalogued as a dissident and disrespected by the followers in academia. This same way, I was the one who was criticized at the time as a projectmanager in the vaccine industry for opposing the further development of a vaccine against genital herpes (HSV-2) which I knew would only protect against the symptoms but not against the transmission of the virus, with all its consequences. The man to whom I was reporting at the time and, until recently, leading the 'operation Warp Speed', then moved me to the R&D department, where for years I was responsible for specialized research on adjuvants (and yes, in passing but not unimportant:publishing research results was obviously out of the question in that context). However, the company decided to continue developing the vaccine until, many years later (I had already left the company by then), I was told by former colleagues that new studies had failed and for exactly the reason I had stated at the time.

This same way of working led me to single-handedly expose one of the biggest blunders in the history of vaccinology during the Ebola crisis in West Africa (2014-2016) (the curious can read the report by following this hyperlink : https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/616004c52e87ed08692f5692/61f65c43db047c9050ffe014_Critical_analysis_Ebola_vaccine_trial_GVB.pdf).

Again, I was declared a dissident but the scandal was small enough to be covered up. Then cameCovid-19. I already felt well prepared. Yet I did 2 more months of day and night research before sending my call for debate to WHO. So, in my passion for vaccines, I am not at a loss for ideas when it comes to identifying clear contraindications to their use.

Meanwhile, while I can conclude from sympathetic emails received from former colleagues (including some prominent vaccinologists) that in those circles fellow scientists in the field do take my warning sand predictions seriously, I have to watch with dismay as narrow-minded academics in universities organize themselves to attempt character assassinations. The content of the insights I have made known is apparently not even important here. Or perhaps they exceed their cap? Apparently, none of them has ever heard of 'immune escape', let alone - now more than 10 years after the first publications- they have already heard of the existence of innate antibodies, the 2 major pillars on which my insights into the pandemic are based.

In other words, what is their contribution to the analysis of the pandemic, where are their predictions and insights and above all ... where are their publications in peer-reviewed papers on this pandemic? Where is their international experience in the various fields?Who among them has had any experience at all in vaccinating against acute viral infections during a pandemic? I respect their choice to join the race for more and more publications but this does not mean that I have been putting my brain to sleep on the beach in Ostend.

During my career, I gained international scientific and vaccine-related experience in 6 different countries, repeatedly gave keynote lectures at international vaccine conferences (at which I never met many of their people) and did pioneering work in the industry in the field of biophysical analysis of new, adjuvanted vaccines. Based on my multifaceted scientific background, I obtained a permanent work and residence permit in the U.S. in 2008 on the basis of 'extraordinary abilities and achievements' and I have letters of recommendation from scientists and vaccinologists with a CV that this procession of academics has not even been able to match (available from my last employer). The same recognition applies to scientists and experts who did make the effort to understand my scientific analysis and who have a curriculum that these academics would not even dream of in their wildest imagination (e.g., Peter Mc Cullough, Paul Elias Alexander, Pierre Kory, Robert Malone, Jessica Rose,Robert Verkerk, Bret Weinstein, Byram Bridle etc).
In other words, how low can these hypocritical pharisees fall to make a cowardly, collective attack on my personal dignity and scientific education, while they keep themselves safe and protected by their agencies in an ivory tower? None of them has ever received an invitation to work for GAVI, let alone the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or any such prestigious body. If that were the case, they would certainly hang up their academic titles immediately and leave in a hurry. Or would this clique of poor Belgian academics make such a fool of themselves that they would think that the vaccine industry can afford to hire scientifically unqualified people in such specialized positions? Writing publications is at rifle compared to the demands there. Furthermore, I don't think you can find two academics in that herd who have ever given keynotes at world vaccine congresses, as I did, on a regular basis. In addition, how credible are their allegations when one considers that several of these academics apparently did regularly appreciate my scientific input in the past, in often hour-long exchanges?
This ill-equipped mafia apparently thinks that they can acquire a monopoly in the field of science on the basis of their academic status and, as such, can serve as a reference for the information that is shared with the population. And this while virtually none of them have made themselves heard during this pandemic. They are hopelessly behind on the developments and data that are coming to the surface in the meantime, whereby especially - as was always the case in the past - the US is leading. They are hopelessly drowning in their own egos and ideas and no longer even manage to peek over the wall of their prison. As long as their scientific image remains untouched and the funds for their research continue to flow, they show no sign of any critical evaluation of this large-scale vaccine experiment. It shows an immense lack of social responsibility and respect for the population who are constantly confronted with the narrative without understanding what the possible consequences of such a massive intervention is on their health and that of their fellow humans, including their own children. My understanding does not allow for that to happen; therefore, this is the only reason I am responding. I myself am miles above these underhanded allegations. When I myself respond to findings of a fellow scientist, I do so on the substance and not by ad hominem attacks.It is especially strange, by the way, for a bunch of academics, who only want to attribute the predicate"scientific" to themselves, to flout one of the basic rules of scientific thought. It is always about the content of what someone says, not the person who says it. Ad hominem attacks are fallacies, basic fallacies that is, that go against every form of logical thinking that I consider a real scientist to have.None of these fellows has been willing to enter into debate, not with me, and not with other academics who have a slightly broader view. It takes more courage to enter into a debate with us than to write an underhanded letter to the committee with content of a falsified and clearly unresearched argument about my integrity, with the sole purpose of trying to influence the committee during the hearing.

Again: I ask those from the herd, who at least have experience in relevant subfields (i.e. both immunology and virology and vaccinology) to enter into debate with us instead of hiding behind the iron-sided and one-tone academic curtain. In this way they can also make their point of view, their insights and solutions clear to the general public and ascertain that scientific insights into complex problems are perhaps even more the privilege of those who, among other things, read many publications rather than those whose only goal is to profile themselves personally with as many publications as possible. If their science is so convincing then it is hard to understand why, they themselves, do not even bother to express their opinion in the interest of public health via the mainstream media, of which - unlike us - they have no censorship to fear. Or perhaps they just blindly and uninspiringly agree with the narrative that is meanwhile bravely being spread by a handful of experts? Answering dozens of questions from the population every day, refuting the destructive criticism of well-paid and very one-sided fact checkers and sharing holistic analyses and predictions via uncensored and officially recognized media (such as TrialSite News) requires a bit more critical thinking than watching chronic wave movements and swallowing predictions and expectations of which even these academics know in advance that they will have to be revised again and again. All this is supposedly due to the fact that «science evolves». In reality, it is about the fact that our experts lacking sight and therefore hardly perform better than the weatherman or the stock market speculator.Nonetheless, I respect every industrious branch of our community, including universities. However, this respect does cease when a gang of runaway scientists spit from their ivory tower sin high defiance of those who, without a conflict of interest but with integrity, take up the cause of the health of those who, among other things, are overly one-sidedly informed by the laxity and self-willed attitude of our «scholars».
I dare with all confidence to stick my neck out and take full responsibility for my opposition to mass vaccination with insufficiently effective vaccines in the midst of a pandemic of a highly mutable virus.Do any of these gutless academics who eagerly signed this "petition" know of even a single publication that would somewhat suggest that vaccination under such circumstances could contain a pandemic or is there a single one among them who feels prepared to be held personally liable for the consequences of this experiment? Perhaps, because of those whose names are listed here for posterity, it would have been wiser to reflect on this before joining the ranks of the mire brigade of the media and relegating me to a mindless phantom.
My credibility is based on years of training in the various sub-areas that concern this pandemic and is reflected in the predictions I make. On what does the credibility of these incentivized academics rest? They are far outside this event, shielding themselves from any kind of prediction and therefore have nothing to fear. However, such positions are no longer tenable for society when, even in times of a generally accepted definition of 'global health emergency of international concern', they do not assume any social responsibility but instead steer the debate towards blind polarization by downright humiliating those who do feel responsible.

‍Conclusion: One cannot ignore my deep knowledge of virology, immunology and vaccinology. It is precisely because of this extensive knowledge that I was recruited at the time by the most prestigious vaccine companies and international health organizations. The mudslingers of our media and now also of our universities may try to discredit me with any kind of vicious ad hominem attacks, but my knowledge and scientific insights can only be questioned with difficulty. They can certainly not be questioned by politicians who are completely illiterate in this matter and only play the role of lettercarriers who neatly arrange the exchange between experts with opposing views. Nor can they be questioned by a riled-up horde of academics who would rather excel in underhandedness than go to the trouble of taking part in such a forum. In this way, the exchange remains hidden from the majority of citizens and devoid of any interaction. It is precisely with this interaction and the conclusions resulting from an open scientific debate that the citizen benefits.Any citizen with a modicum of common sense will hopefully gradually understand that such a mentality raises huge questions and is outdated.

The accumulation in a parliamentary dossier of a series of questions followed by a series of answers does not help when the minds are closed. After all, the mind is like a parachute; it only works when it is opened. Nevertheless, I shall in all conscience carry out this task, if only to plant critical seeds in a few minds.

I therefore call upon the public to continue to claim the right to such debate.

Only in an open and honest scientific debate between independent experts within a multidisciplinary framework can the limits of mass vaccination and the sense or nonsense of continuing this experiment be credibly examined and made clear to the population. Any politicization of this debate as well as any form of discrimination between population groups will only stand in the way of a humane solution to the current crisis.

‍

Original letter sent to members of the HouseHealth and Equal Opportunity Committee

January 27, 2022

‍

‍To the members of the House Health Committee, regarding scientific expertise

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are concerned about the appointment and hearing of Mr. Geert Vanden Bossche by theHealth and Equal Opportunity Committee on mandatory vaccination on Wednesday, 26/1/2022. Mr.Vanden Bossche is being heard under the affiliation of 'Voice for Science and Solidarity', an obscure independent organization composed of two members, one of whom is Mr. Vanden Bossche, who presents himself as a doctor of science, a specialist in virology with professional experience in the development of vaccines. It is therefore obvious that the parliamentarians will hear Mr Vanden Bossche for his scientific expertise on the subject of vaccination.

Our concern stems from the following obvious fact: the status of scientific expert cannot be acquired by simple self-proclamation, especially if this status justifies the submission of an opinion to the highest legislative body of a democratic state. Of course, a parliament can hear opinions based on reasoning other than science. But parliamentarians and their voters cannot befooled when these opinions are dishonestly presented as scientific expertise. Mr. Vanden Bossche is not a peer-reviewed scientific expert. The international scientific community has effective, shared, consensual and objective tools to evaluate the scientific activities and impacts of any person who presents himself as actively involved in biomedical and health sciences. The curriculum vitae of Mr. Vanden Bossche (annex) does not indicate any significant or assessable academic, biotechnological or pharmaceutical scientific contribution in the field of human medicine, vaccines, immunology, virology, or public health. The almost total absence of recent publications (< 5 years) listed in PubMed attests to this. These two parameters are sufficient to invalidate his status as an expert. Informed scientists in immunology, virology or vaccines, instantly detect the scientific ineptitude of his written or filmed statements, strewn with untruths, disseminated exclusively on social media or the web pages of his organization, and obviously not benefiting from any critical peer review. Unfortunately, such assessments are not within the reach of non-experts, which explains the echo Mr. Vanden Bossche finds on certain media platforms.

We use this caricatured example to recommend that you clarify publicly in what capacity each person interviewed delivers an opinion. If this quality is that of a scientific expert, we propose that the status of expert be systematically validated by at least two of the following six bodiesFonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS), Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO) and the Royal Academies of Medicine (ARMB and KAGB) or Science (ARS and KVAB) of Belgium. The evaluation by these authorities of a synthetic curriculum vitae (2 pages max) and the objective measurement of the recent scientific activity (<5 years) of any expert candidate will notrequire more than a few days, and would contribute to protect our democracy from the worrying drifts of the generation, propagation and amplification of untruths.

Thank you, Madam, Sir, for your attention to this recommendation.

Fabienne Andris (ULB), Kevin Ariën (ITG Antwerp), Georges Casimir (ULB), Pierre Coulie (UCLouvain), Eric Cox(UGent), Kai Dallmeier (KULeuven), Nicolas Dauby (ULB), Jean-Michel Dogné (UNamur), Laure Dumoutier(UCLouvain), Dirk Elewaut (UGent), Jean-Michel Foidart (ULg), Laurent Gillet (ULg), Olivier Gilliaux (CHUCharleroi), Jean-Christophe Goffard (ULB), Stanislas Goriely (ULB), Cyril Gueydan (ULB), Filomeen Haerynck(UGent), Niels Hellings (UHasselt), Piet Hoebeke (UGent), Véronique Kruys (ULB), Bart Lambrecht (UGent),Oberdan Leo (ULB), Geert Leroux-Roels(UGent), Catherine Linard (UNamur), Sophie Lucas (UCLouvain), ArnauldMarchant (ULB), Geert Meyfroidt (KULeuven), Isabelle Meyts (UZLeuven), Thomas Michiels (UCLouvain), MurielMoser (ULB), Michel Moutschen (ULg), Eric Muraille (ULB), Benoit Muylkens (UNamur), Guillaume Oldenhove(ULB), Ghislain Opdenakker (KULeuven), Jean-Christophe Renauld (UCLouvain), Niko Speybroeck (UCLouvain),Jan Tavernier (UGent), Nicolas van Baren (UCLouvain), Benoit van den Eynde (UCLouvain), Pierre van der Bruggen(UCLouvain), Marianne van der Sande (ITG Antwerpen), Jutte van der Werff ten Bosch (UZ Brussel), Laurence VanMelderen (ULB), Dimitri Vander Linden (UCLouvain), Luc Vanhamme (ULB)

The signatories are members of the Belgian medical and biomedical scientific community and areactive in research or clinical work in immunology, virology, infectious diseases, pediatrics,epidemiology or public health.