I read his paper and watched one of his videos.

His claims are:

1. Asymptomatic people are superspreaders
2. Asymptomatic people are asymptomatic because they are clearing the virus with innate immunity (Natural Killer cells and "secondary IgM" antibodies according to him-- I think he means IgA).
3. Adapative immunity from vaccine-induced antibodies suppresses innate immunity.
4. Therefore vaccinating people enhances replication, shedding and immune escape.
5. We can expect wave after wave of death and destruction because of this.

No references are given anywhere for any of these claims, which are all pretty extraordinary.

There is lots evidence against 1. As for 2 and 3, usually innate immunity is actually associated more with symptoms. There are some papers showing that immunity using cytotoxic T-cells (perhaps with a memory of similar viruses) suppress innate immunity. But this is a good thing.

Those memory "cytotoxic" (which just means cell-killing-- they kill infected cells directly) cells hang out near your lungs etc. clone themselves and zap anything they recognize and let you get on with your life. This is all good.

He doesn't seem to have heard of T-cells (and also thinks the vaccines only give you antibodies) and frankly seems a bit muddled.

So will vaccines encourage immune escape? There are two things going on here. On the one hand you are preloading the immune system with antibodies so it knows what to escape. That helps the virus.

But on the other hand, people are getting better quicker and spreading less (almost certainly even if this hasn't been proved-- it's just hard to prove). So fewer actual copies of the virus get made on the way to herd immunity (which we kind of have anyway so all this is pretty academic but let's stay with the argument).

Which of these forces wins? I suspect the latter. But I don't think escape from antibodies is a huge deal anyway. If you have some level of immunity, especially T-cell immunity, from either the vaccine or a natural infection, you will get reinfected eventually, but more mildly, and will update your immune memory.

So he's really just fear-mongering. It's hard to take his claims seriously when he doesn't present any references or evidence to back them up.

I should clarify:

"Innate Immunity" means immunity that's generic and just kills anything that looks dodgy without having been specifically adapted to this or that virus or pathogen. Natural Killer cells do that (they work on more of a "whitelist" system) as do IgA antibodies. This subsystem is also important for turning on the "adaptive" immune system.

"Adaptive Immunity" is when your body learns how to kill a particular pathogen very efficiently. Antibodies belong to this system and so do T-cells. Some T-cells help you make antibodies (they're actually made by B-cells, but they talk to the T-cells). Others kill infected cells directly. They remember stuff so when you see it or something similar again you usually get off to a better start.

Vaccines give you adaptive immunity. A natural infection starts with innate and then usually proceeds to adaptive if necessary.

What I still don't understand - and I might have mis-heard something, is that GVDB seemed to say that for an individual recipient the 'vaccines' are fine and useful. On a populationlevel though, the unintended outcome is very likely to be making the virus mutate into something worse (as described).

I'm struggling to reconcile the view that the vaccine is 'ok' for the individual while at the same time seriously undermining their immune system - particularly worrying for the effects on the young.

He is no anti-vaxxer. He’s in favour of all vaccinations, but NOT in the midst of a pandemic with the very thing you’re trying to vaccinate against going through the process of attenuating whilst becoming more infectious. Because it has the effect of turning the globe into a giant lab, where a virus will strengthen when it should be weakening, BUT becoming more deadly because our interventions are assisting it in that.

I read his paper and watched one of his videos.

His claims are:

1. Asymptomatic people are superspreaders
2. Asymptomatic people are asymptomatic because they are clearing the virus with innate immunity (Natural Killer cells and "secondary IgM" antibodies according to him-- I think he means IgA).
3. Adapative immunity from vaccine-induced antibodies suppresses innate immunity.
4. Therefore vaccinating people enhances replication, shedding and immune escape.
5. We can expect wave after wave of death and destruction because of this.

No references are given anywhere for any of these claims, which are all pretty extraordinary.

There is lots evidence against 1. As for 2 and 3, usually innate immunity is actually associated more with symptoms. There are some papers showing that immunity using cytotoxic T-cells (perhaps with a memory of similar viruses) suppress innate immunity. But this is a good thing.

Those memory "cytotoxic" (which just means cell-killing-- they kill infected cells directly) cells hang out near your lungs etc. clone themselves and zap anything they recognize and let you get on with your life. This is all good.

He doesn't seem to have heard of T-cells (and also thinks the vaccines only give you antibodies) and frankly seems a bit muddled.

So will vaccines encourage immune escape? There are two things going on here. On the one hand you are preloading the immune system with antibodies so it knows what to escape. That helps the virus.

But on the other hand, people are getting better quicker and spreading less (almost certainly even if this hasn't been proved-- it's just hard to prove). So fewer actual copies of the virus get made on the way to herd immunity (which we kind of have anyway so all this is pretty academic but let's stay with the argument).

Which of these forces wins? I suspect the latter. But I don't think escape from antibodies is a huge deal anyway. If you have some level of immunity, especially T-cell immunity, from either the vaccine or a natural infection, you will get reinfected eventually, but more mildly, and will update your immune memory.

So he's really just fear-mongering. It's hard to take his claims seriously when he doesn't present any references or evidence to back them up.

Do you have a copy of his paper? I didn’t think it had been released. Because I’m also finding the lack of references very irritating. And that letter is a call to action. Not actually a research paper. And if he’s saying we’re reaching a critical mass of people being vaccinated, I for one would like to see how he’s arrived at that conclusion. The most suspicious aspect of this is the ignoring of it by the WHO etc (if he has sent it to the scientists who are nominally in charge). I know they have a penchant for ignoring the cheap, effective interventions and prefer to gamble on expensive ineffectual stuff. But if he is correct and we have to act to STOP doing something, we could do with knowing.

I would also like to understand how his differs from the flu vaccine. Because as far as I can see what he describing is what happens every year with the flu. Don’t we always see a die off shortly after flu vaccination? Admittedly maybe not on the scale of COVID-19, but who knows if those figures are correct anyway?

Please do share the link to his paper. I can’t find it.

Here is a fairly typical paper from 2012 on the serious problems found with the previous round of traditional vaccines for SARs CoV 1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/

This is the key quote about something that was seen on several occasions with these vacines.
That lung disease exhibited the characteristics of a Th2-type immunopathology with eosinophils in the lung sections suggesting hypersensitivity that was reminiscent of the descriptions of the Th2-type immunopathologic reaction in young children given an inactivated RSV vaccine and subsequently infected with naturally-occurring RSV [32]–[33]. Most of these children experienced severe disease with infection that led to a high frequency of hospitalizations; two children died from the infection [33], [40], [41]. The conclusion from that experience was clear; RSV lung disease was enhanced by the prior vaccination. Subsequent studies in animal models that are thought to mimic the human experience indicate RSV inactivated vaccine induces an increased CD4+ T lymphocyte response, primarily of Th2 cells and the occurrence of immune complex depositions in lung tissues

In short, some of the vaccine trials showed initial responses that were just like a previous very serious problem with a RSV vaccine. The vaccine actually greatly enhanced the severity of the infections caught after vacintion.

There is some discussion of the subject in this paper in 2009. A survey paper on SARs vaccines that pretty much described the state of research up to 2020.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7105754/

As for the subject of asymptomatic shedding the research for other viral respiratory infections like Influenza is confused to say the least. In the same way there seems to be no real pattern to shedding loads of those with full clinical symptoms (a range of about 5 orders of magnitude) the pattern with super-spreaders is the same. People with very mild clinical symptoms, far milder than would make them a clinical case, were almost as likely to be super-spreaders as those with exceptionally strong upper respiratory symptoms. The person with a slight sniffle and running a bit of a temperature was almost as likely to be a super-spreader as someone with a permanent coughing fit to

The super-spreading effect is very important in low prevalence respiratory infections as that seems to be the main seed for local cluster outbreaks. Such as in hospitals, health facilities and care homes. Which as SARs CoV 2 seems to be mainly a Hospital Acquired Pneumonia it is reasonable to assume that essentially asymptomatic carriers (very mild non-specific symptoms) could be one of the main modes of spread. Given that the mild symptoms of an active SARs infection are the same as influenza and the common cold. Including the dry cough and the loss of smell / taste.