Rob Rennebohm high level discussion with Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche (I am part of it) & I wish to share & expand it a bit for Rob's input is seminal & critical at this time (see his stack)

The content here I think is critical to share to help further unravel the madness we have been living and the many questions that still about about this fraud COVID pandemic...

I have personally found a way to reconcile Yeadon, Couey, Geert, and Rob’s core theories, with my very own. I have found that in various experts, you can find nuggets and sage information to inform your own thinking. They may even be in discord e.g. may have distinct views on the immunology or virology, yet I find it so very fascinating and I find each can inform us in massive ways. They do inform me and I function as a novice. Fundamentally, at the end of the day, IMO, they seek the same thing which is the saving of lives, helping humanity. I think somewhere in there we can come to some unifying theory in time. But boy have we not benefitted for these giants!!

This is my way of making sense of the madness we have lived! And madness it was. And still is! From the fraud pandemic and virus (pathogen origin, lab leak, wet mark origin insanity etc.) all the way to the fraud COVID gene injection (mRNA and DNA platforms). All the while people were killed due to lockdown lunatic policies and all COVID policies (and collateral damage) by some of the most inept, incompetent, IMO malfeasant health experts at CDC, NIH, FDA, PHAC, SAGE etc. Across the globe. These experts revealed to us a depth of intellectual laziness, academic sloppiness on the real science, averse to it, and essentially that they did not understand basic immunology and virology, did not read the data and science, did not understand it and did not ‘get’ it. A sheer depth of cognitive dissonance. They were incentivized to disregard the science and act in ways that were criminally negligent. And they must be investigated thoroughly for their policies killed people! And people are still being killed due to their policies. Recognizing here that these giants like GVB and Rob etc. bring massive expertise and I do not pretend to be more expertized than them. I actually consider myself a student of Vanden Bossche in terms of the immunology knowledge he shares.

I am grateful to them all.

I have found COVID has revealed that medical science today and doctors (shockingly) lack the understanding of basic immunology and virology and we need the expertise of voices like GVB and Rob Rennebohm.

Firstly, I have added to the strong scholarship of Rob Rennebohm’s expertise and I bold (darkened and bolded and italicized) my addition. This to allow for no confusion as to Rob’s positions and his words versus my additions. Rob’s words (non-bolded) are so well articulated and on their own provide a schooling of sorts.

Furthermore, information on Geert’s new book can also be found on his/their websites:

Title of Geert’s book: The Inescapable Immune Escape Pandemic

The reader can also find the scholarship of Geert and Rob at to ensure that there positions are clear:

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/authors/geert-vanden-bossche

For example, click on the following links to companion articles:

Pediatricians, Internationally, Please Call for an Immediate Halt to the Global Campaign to Vaccinate Children Against COVID

Open Letter to Parents Regarding COVID Vaccination—Part III: Questions to Ask Your Physician

Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians—Part IV: The Harmful Immunologic Consequences of Vaccinating Children Against COVID

Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians—Part V: Let us Forget neither the Art nor the Science of Medicine

I have found these 2 experts to be exceptional and they have not been mainstreamed as they should have been and I have tried lots to do this to ensure their messages get across as they have done more than most to educate the world on the respective immunology and virology and vaccinology.

My thoughts:

No one is wrong IMO. I particularly seek to give varied voices as much opportunity to add to the discussion and do not agree with any form of censoring. I especially like Couey’s work with Yeadon’s which provokes much thought. I think Yeadon is fascinating and aggressive. Geert if you listen to him IMO, does not discount the harmful effects of the gene injection directly and IMO he is not interested in time lines and where it was released from and who made it; while recognizing the harmful effects, he is more focused on the nightmare of what the sub-optimal vaccine induced immune pressure (vaccinal antibodies) can do to the pathogen (antigen) in circulation and what it has done, and what it could do. The nightmare that could evolve.

Our argument has been simple in that either vaccine is reduced or virus is reduced (stopped). The ‘pressure’ from one of them has and had to be reduced. IMO this was common sense and Geert informed this well.

I give Rob Rennebohm huge praise for his clarity and we must support his work. I add and refine where necessary yet his work is stellar:

Again, my words are bolded and italicized, start here:

I begin by saying again, IMO, this was never ever a pandemic & we did not need to shut society or schools down, we needed no COVID gene injection not even for the high risk (none for any child, no healthy child, none) and every single aspect of this, from virus’s nature (pathogen or what ever we were exposed to), timelines of release, origins, to lockdowns, to fraud mRNA technology (DNA) LNP based gene injection platforms…every single aspect was a lie, 100%, all of it, need for lockdowns and school closures, fraud PCR, asymptomatic transmission, masks, all of it. Many people have died due to the lockdown lunacy. I am closer to Yeadon today and Couey than anyone else as to what happened and when I focus on GVB, I focus more on the COVID vaccine itself and what has transpired and largely on how the vaccine and its roll out has impacted the evolution of the virus. GVB is really talking on a massive scale as to the implications to humanity and I find his scholarship sage. IMO key to his argument has been the devastation of vaccinating into the teeth of a pandemic with massive ongoing virus infectious pressure and what that does to the population immune pressure and what the immune pressure does to the virus, from an adaptation point of view.

I think all of it was a fraud, there is nothing about COVID, nothing, that was true. IMO. And the sad reality is that in the rush to cash in, many even in the Freedom Movement failed the populace. It became about them and their image and careers and money and not about the public and saving lives. Sadly.

Key points Rob highlighted that I am 100% behind and I flesh out and expand a bit:

i)There are many unfortunate unknowns, primarily because of the extremely sloppy science practiced by the promoters of the prevailing COVID-19 narrative and the mass vaccination campaign. 

ii)The lies about asymptomatic spread, lies about inferior natural immunity, lies about recurrent infection pre-omicron era, lies about equal risk of severe outcome (10 year old and 85 year old) if exposed etc. etc.

iii)Their gross misuse of the COVID-19 PCR test (using a CT cut-off of 40, even 45, and not adequately proving that the PCR tests are truly specific for SC-2) and their extremely sloppy clinical definitions of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths has made it very difficult to know how truly ubiquitous the SC-2 virus has been, both at the beginning of the pandemic and since.  Their sloppy testing and sloppy definitions may have resulted in a considerable over-estimation of how much SC-2 has truly been circulating (in the beginning and since).  

iv) The sloppy and secretive way in which the mRNA vaccines have been produced has resulted in great unknowns about the quality, uniformity, and immunogenicity of these vaccines.  Apparently, there has been great variability from one batch to the next.  It has been difficult to know how many people have truly developed significant vaccinal immunity.  And this means it is difficult to know how many "vaccinated" people might have been so poorly vaccinated that they were able to develop considerable natural immunity when subsequently exposed to SC-2.  Furthermore, it is unclear how many vaccinated people had developed robust natural immunity prior to their vaccination.  The promoters of the mass vaccination campaign did not bother to study these issues.

v)Knowing the true ubiquity of SC-2 and the true prevalence of substantial vaccinal immunity are important, of course, because the combination of great viral ubiquity and a high percentage of the population with substantial vaccinal immunity is what results in the great amount of abnormal population level immune pressure that Geert has been worried about.  If the amount of circulating virus has not been great, and if a high percentage of "vaccinated" people have not developed significant vaccinal immunity, then the immune pressure on the virus (and the pressure of the virus on the immune system) will have been less. 

vi) Geert Vanden Bossche’s (GVB) initial predictions assumed that, despite all of the inexcusable sloppiness mentioned above, the SC-2 virus would, indeed, become ubiquitous, and the mass vaccination campaign would, indeed, results in a great amount of sub-optimal ‘mounting’ immune pressure on the virus (antigen), with the expected vaccine-induced disturbances in the interplay between the virus and the immune system; that we greatly underestimated the capacity of the virus to evolve and adapt to the sub-optimal pressure placed on it, as we vaccinated into the teeth of a pandemic with massive ongoing infectious pressure; it is the interplay between virus and the host immune response (in this case sub-optimal population level immune response and the bi-directional pressure exerted by either; we have virus pressing down on the population to infect while the population is mounting an immune response that is immature, sub-optimal, and undeveloped, not fully mature); the result could have only been Darwinian natural selective pressure with the emergence of more infectious variants, and potentially a more virulent one. Did the makers of the vaccine, did the CDC, did the FDA and NIH experts not know this? This is basic immunology 101. IMO it is as if they designed the gene injection vaccine response to fail.

Vaccinating in a manner whereby you do not allow the induced vaccinal antibodies to achieve its maximal binding affinity or full affinity (vaccinated persons immediately exposed to circulating virus whereby the antibodies cannot at that point neutralize), yet placing the induced vaccinal antibodies into juxtaposition with the virus which leads to sub-optimal binding to the antigen yet failure to neutralize/sterilize the virus. The result is viral immune escape, original antigenic sin (immune fixation, immune priming) etc.

vii)GVB’s concerns and predictions have been validated by the actual phenomena that have been observed, so far.  Despite the sloppiness mentioned above, several observed phenomena suggest that SC-2 has, indeed, been ubiquitous and that a high percentage of "vaccinated" people have, indeed, developed vaccinal immunity that has placed SC-2 under great immune pressure at the population level.  For example, the succession of variants that were able to escape the vaccinal neutralizing antibodies; in particular the vast array of Omicron immune escape variants; the frequency of vaccinal breakthrough infections; the partial (but fragile) protection against severe disease that many vaccinated people appeared to develop; and the huge and continuing number of people with vaccine injury (suggesting ongoing production of immunogenic spike protein in large numbers of people), including abnormal susceptibility to non-SC-2 infections and the development of turbo malignancies ---all of these phenomena support Geert's concern that SC-2 became ubiquitous, and the mass vaccination campaign has, indeed, resulted in worrisome immune pressure on the virus (and viral pressure on the immune system). 

viii)It seems likely that this viral ubiquity and the associated vaccinal immune response to it will continue at a sufficient pace and level to drive the eventual emergence of a highly virulent variant.

ix)Breakthrough infections and booster vaccine doses will likely result in continuation of sufficient PNNAbs, at a population level, to drive this emergence. However, as Geert suggests, if the viral ubiquity sufficiently wanes and/or PNNAb levels fall below a certain level (at a population level), then the immune pressure could fall to a level that ceases to drive emergence of a virulent variant. However, as stated earlier, continued breakthrough infections, continued vaccination, and continued vaccine injuries (suggesting ongoing production of immunogenic spike protein in large numbers of people)—-all serve as observed evidence that ubiquity and PNNAb levels are not likely to wane to the point that emergence of a virulent variant will not occur.  (One wonders, too, about the extent to which unvaccinated people have, nevertheless, have been passively exposed to mRNA SC-2 spike protein without realizing it---hopefully, this is a non-factor.) 

x)It is a shame that GVB has had to do all of his analysis without the benefit of quality data---thanks to the sloppiness, dishonesty, and secretiveness of the promoters of the prevailing narrative. The accuracy of GVB’s predictions, so far, is all that more remarkable, considering the poor quality of data that have been available to him.  

xi)GVB’s prediction that a highly virulent SC-2 variant will eventually emerge will likely prove to be correct.  It seems less likely that the ubiquity of SC-2 has been far less than assumed and/or will substantially wane in the near future; and it seems less likely that the extent of vaccinal immunity, at the population level, has been far less than assumed and/or will substantially wane in the near future.  But, these "simmered down" scenarios are conceivable.