What is the Current State of the COVID Pandemic?

Part 2

Will a More Virulent SARS-CoV-2 Variant Emerge?

If So, Will it Necessarily be Catastrophically More Virulent? Are there Reasons for Hope?

What Can We Do at this Point?

 

Rob Rennebohm, MD

Nov 25, 2022

Note to Reader:

Before reading this article (What is the Current State of the Pandemic? Part 2), please consider reading the original article (What is the Current State of the Pandemic? What Can/Should We Do at this Point?) [1]. Here is the link to the original article: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/what-is-the-current-status-of-the-covid-situation/

Part 2 extends the comprehensive discussion provided in the original article. Part 2 builds on information provided in the original article and is best understood if the reader has already read the original article.

In Part 2 the following three key questions are addressed:

• Is it really true that a more virulent SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2) variant will inevitably emerge? Isn’t it usually “in the best interests of the virus” to gradually become less virulent?
• Is it possible that when/if the upcoming surge appears it will not be as catastrophic as Dr. Vanden Bossche fears it could be? Are there reasons for hope?
• What can we do when/if a more virulent, more threatening variant arrives?

Introduction:

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has repeatedly explained that it is dangerous and unwise to try to end an active, ongoing pandemic like the COVID pandemic by implementing a mass vaccination campaign (across all age groups) that uses a vaccine that is unable to prevent infection or transmission of the virus and does not produce sterilizing immunity in the vaccinee [2-10, 11-14]. Within a couple of months after implementation of the worldwide COVID mass vaccination campaign, Dr. Vanden Bossche warned of the consequences of such a campaign:

In great scientific detail, he explained that such a mass vaccination campaign would, predictably, result in a prolonged series of dominant SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2) variants, each becoming more infectious than its predecessors [2, 3]; and would result, eventually, in the inevitable emergence of a dominant SC-2 variant that is more virulent than all predecessors. These consequences would be due to the predictable natural selection of viral variants that are able to “escape” the immune pressures placed on the virus at a population level by the mass vaccination campaign.

Not only did Dr. Vanden Bossche appropriately predict these consequences of the mass vaccination campaign, but his predictions have also turned out to be accurate. Dominant SC-2 variants have become increasingly infectious [15-21]; the most recent variants have been shown to be more virulent in vitro [22, 23]; and, in keeping with basic principles of virology and evolutionary biology, it is highly likely that new variants will soon become more virulent in vivo, probably within the next few months. As Dr. Vanden Bossche predicted, and as the promoters of the COVID mass vaccination campaign should have known, the vaccination campaign has prolonged the pandemic and made it more dangerous. Dr. Vanden Bossche’s greatest concern is that a dominant variant will soon emerge that could be catastrophically more virulent (i.e., overwhelm our immune capacities and, potentially, cause severe disease) than all predecessors and could result in enormous numbers of hospitalizations and deaths.

 

Is it really true that a more virulent SC-2 variant will inevitably emerge? Isn’t it usually “in the best interests of the virus” to gradually become less virulent?

Many scientists and physicians have doubted the accuracy of Dr. Vanden Bossche’s prediction that a considerably more virulent variant will inevitably emerge. The typical argument voiced against his prediction is that the natural course of viral pandemics is that the virus “gradually becomes less virulent and eventually becomes endemic” in the population, at a manageable level of threat. According to this argument (which, for teaching purposes, anthropomorphizes the virus, as if it has a brain and a strategy), “it is in the best interest of the virus” to “infect (and propagate within) the host but not kill the host”—for if it kills all of its hosts there will be no hosts within which to propagate, and the virus will die out. According to this argument, “it is in the best interest of the virus” for the virus to not evolve to become more virulent. Instead, “a relatively peaceful coexistence” with it hosts evolves and this permits optimal ongoing propagation and survival of the virus. According to this argument, it is in the best interest of the virus to infect the upper respiratory tract but not infect the lower respiratory tract (the lungs) so severely that the patient dies.

On the surface, the above argument appears to make sense. There is some truth to the above argument, but this argument primarily applies to a viral pandemic that unfolds in a more or less natural fashion—i.e., without major inappropriate intervention by humans. In a naturally unfolding pandemic the virus usually does gradually become less threatening (not necessarily less virulent, intrinsically, but less threatening). But the main reason a naturally unfolding pandemic subsides and comes to an end is not because the virus evolves to become intrinsically less virulent, but rather because of herd immunity. The pandemic gradually becomes less threatening and ends because an increasing and eventually critical percentage of the population develops sterilizing immunity, which makes it increasingly difficult for the virus to find new hosts.

The above argument, which has frequently been voiced against Dr. Vanden Bossche’s prediction, does not adequately take into consideration that the COVID pandemic has not been unfolding in a natural fashion. It has not been allowed to follow a natural course. Instead, an inappropriate intervention (the mass vaccination campaign) has markedly altered the natural course of the pandemic. The mass vaccination campaign has placed tremendous immune pressure on the virus, at a population level, and this immune pressure has created an abnormal situation in which variants that are able to “escape” those immune pressures are going to become dominant, due to natural selection of variants that have a “competitive advantage” (“the fittest”).

First, the immune pressure resulted in evolution and natural selection of variants that were best able to overcome the vaccinal neutralizing antibodies—resulting in more infectious variants[15-21]. And now, the immune pressure is resulting in the evolution and natural selection of variants that are best able to overcome the “virulence-inhibiting” effects of the vaccine-induced non-neutralizing antibodies [24-26]—resulting in more virulent variants [22, 23]. This was predictable and should have been anticipated. Darwin, were he alive today, would surely agree that Dr. Vanden Bossche has appropriately applied the theories of evolution, “natural selection,” and “survival of the fittest” that Darwin developed more than 160 years ago and that have stood the test of time.

The argument against Dr. Vanden Bossche’s prediction also does not adequately take into consideration that a virus can become more virulent without necessarily becoming so virulent that it kills so many people that “the increased virulence is not in the best interest of the virus.” For example, if the SC-2 virus evolves to overcome the virulence-inhibiting effect of the vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies, the virus will be better able to infect the lower respiratory tract. This may cause more severe disease and potential death in a minority of people—primarily in the elderly and those with worrisome co-morbidities—but may cause only more misery, more coughing, and more spread of virus, but not more death, in the vast majority of the population. Accordingly, such evolution of a more virulent variant would be “in the best interest of that variant.” That variant would be able to propagate more easily and to a greater extent than any of its predecessors.

Dr. Vanden Bossche’s prediction (that evolution of a more virulent variant is inevitable during a continued COVID mass vaccination campaign) has also been doubted because “the mildness of the Omicron variants, compared to previous variants, suggests that the virus is evolving in a benign direction, not in a more virulent direction.” However, this criticism of Dr. Vanden Bossche’s prediction is based on misinterpretations of why the Omicron variants have, so far, seemed less virulent than predecessors. Omicron variants have seemed to be less virulent primarily because the vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies have, for the time being, been providing a “virulence-inhibiting” effect on the virus [24-26]. Normally, when a respiratory virus infects the upper respiratory tract, dendritic cells absorb the virus and inevitably carry the virus down to the lower respiratory tract, where the virus escapes and infects cells in the lower respiratory tract. Vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies inhibit this process and, thereby, protect against severe lower respiratory tract disease [24-26]. However, in keeping with basic principles of evolutionary biology, it is only a matter of time before a viral variant emerges (and becomes dominant) that is able to overcome this “virulence inhibiting” effect of the vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies. When that occurs, this temporary beneficial effect of vaccination will vanish and the true virulence of the new variant(s) will become apparent. There are other complex ways in which COVID vaccination is providing some temporary protection—giving the illusion of a more benign evolution of the virus—but these ways, too, will prove to be unsustainable and are detrimental in the final analysis (at both an individual and population level).

For the above reasons, the argument that evolution of increased virulence “is not in the best interest of the virus” and, therefore, “does not usually happen” is not a scientifically sound argument against Dr. Vanden Bossche’s scientifically appropriate concerns. Dr. Vanden Bossche’s predictions and concerns are based on an extraordinarily deep and experienced appreciation of the complexity of the immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, and glycosylation biology involved in the COVID situation.

Is it possible that the upcoming surge will not be as catastrophic as Dr. Vanden Bossche fears it could be? Are there good reasons for hope?

Although it is very possible that an upcoming COVID surge will be as devastating as Dr. Vanden Bossche fears it could be, there are several reasons for hope that the surge might not be catastrophic:

Protection provided by development of natural immunity against SC-2 prior to being vaccinated: Naturally acquired immunity against COVID is vastly superior to COVID vaccinal immunity. During the first 9-12 months of the pandemic, before the COVID vaccines were rolled out (the roll-out occurred in December 2020), it is possible that many people contracted SC-2 (including asymptomatic infection) and developed considerable naturally acquired immunity to it. If so, such people, despite subsequently becoming vaccinated, will be better off (because they have at least some naturally acquired immunity, particularly innate immunity) than people who had no exposure and/or developed no natural immunity prior to vaccination.

Unfortunately, the promoters of the mass vaccination campaign did not develop adequate testing to determine the extent to which people, prior to vaccination, had already acquired natural immunity against COVID. Adequate testing for this requires more than testing for antibodies (e.g., more than testing for antibodies against spike protein and nucleocapsid protein). Extensive T cell testing and testing of NK cell competency against SC-2 would also be extremely valuable. A comprehensive profile of the extent to which a given person had already developed naturally acquired immunity against COVID, prior to being vaccinated, could have been developed and would have been extremely helpful, but has not been available and is still unavailable.

So we do not know how many people who have been vaccinated already had good naturally acquired immunity prior to their vaccination. If a considerable percentage of vaccinated people did, in fact, already have good naturally acquired immunity prior to vaccination, then those people will be better off than those who had not developed good naturally acquired immunity prior to vaccination. Unfortunately, we do not know how large this percentage is. If it is quite large, then the upcoming surge might be less catastrophic than anticipated, at least for those who had developed naturally acquired immunity prior to their vaccination. It may be wishful thinking, however, that this is a large percentage. It is a shame that this percentage is unknown and that it is not currently possible for individuals to find out if they are among such a percentage.

Some vaccinated people may not have mounted a significant immune response to the vaccination: As Dr. Vanden Bossche has repeatedly explained, vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies increase the vaccinee’s susceptibility to infection with SC-2 (via antibody-dependent enhancement of infection) [24, 27-29] and sideline the vaccinee’s innate immune system.[2-10] Both of these effects are detrimental to the vaccinee. To date, vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies have been providing some protection against severe disease and death, but, as already mentioned, this benefit is fragile and will soon vanish—because, once an SC-2 variant emerges that is capable of overcoming the “virulence inhibiting” effect of the vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies, the vaccinal antibodies will have only the above-mentioned negative effects to offer. Furthermore, once a person has been vaccinated, they will again produce the ineffective and harmful vaccinal antibodies every time they are “boosted” or become infected with the natural SC-2 virus. Moreover, it should be realized that vaccination is irreversible—one cannot become unvaccinated or de-vaccinated.

Given the above unfortunate consequence of COVID vaccination (i.e., the net detrimental effects of the vaccinal antibodies in the long term), one hope would be that a significant percentage of vaccinated people failed to mount a significant immune response to the vaccine—i.e., they did not experience a “take” of the vaccine, for one of several conceivable reasons. For example, people on immunosuppressive medications may not be able to mount a usual response. The immune system of some healthy people may be relatively hyporesponsive to the COVID vaccines. [Note: There has been some evidence that certain “batches” or “lot numbers” of the vaccine were more or less immunogenic than other batches/lot numbers—perhaps due to manufacturing glitches and/or inadequate refrigeration. People who received injections from batches/lots with little or no immunogenicity might have an immune status (regarding COVID) that is similar to or even the same as that of the “unvaccinated,” despite being “vaccinated.”] Unfortunately, the percentage of people who did not experience a good “take” of the vaccine is unknown.

Two doses, without subsequent booster doses, may be less detrimental than multiple booster doses: It is also possible that, when a more virulent variant appears, people who received only the initial two vaccine doses (or just one in the case of the J & J vaccine), and no subsequent “booster” doses, will be much better off than people who have received one or more booster doses.  Because of the already mentioned net detrimental effects of the COVID vaccines, the people who will be in the worst position will be those who have had more than one booster dose and, on top of that, have taken the new bivalent vaccine (which will not provide net benefit and will only make matters worse, at both an individual and a population level).

The more virulent variant may prove to be only mild-moderately more virulent (intrinsically), rather than catastrophically more virulent: If/when a more virulent variant appears and becomes dominant, it is possible that it will be only moderately more virulent (intrinsically), rather than catastrophically more virulent. In other words, such a variant might cause substantially more disease in the lower respiratory tract (compared to current and past Omicron variants), such that it causes more hospitalizations (particularly in the elderly and those with co-morbidities), but not cause such severe disease that deaths catastrophically increase. In other words, if/when a more virulent variant appears and becomes dominant, much depends on whether that variant (or variants) is only mild-moderately more virulent (intrinsically) or extremely-catastrophically more virulent, or somewhere in-between. A reasonable hope is that the new more virulent variant(s) will be only moderately more virulent, at most. But we certainly cannot and should not count on this hope.

The human immune system may be more ingenious than anticipated: Another hope would be that the human immune system possesses even more genius than we have dared imagine and will somehow figure out a way to protect all of us, even the fully vaccinated and repeatedly boosted, despite the mess that the vaccines have created. That is, the immune system might creatively figure out a way to overcome the net harmful effects of the vaccines. (There may be a spiritual component to this hope.)

The more virulent virus might be more treatable than anticipated, if optimal treatment is promptly provided [30-32]: Finally, even if a new variant proves to be extremely virulent, it is possible that such a virulent variant might be much more treatable than we have imagined—if optimal treatment is promptly provided, which is a big “if.” We need to realize that, to date, and particularly during the first year of the pandemic, COVID has not been optimally treated, at least not universally. For the most part, optimal early treatment of the acute viral phase has not been provided (at least in the USA), nor has prompt and optimal treatment of the hyperimmune phase. Remember, a virus can be “more virulent” not simply because of its intrinsic virulence. It will also be “more virulent” (more threatening) if there is failure to provide optimal care. In other words, extrinsic factors (including a dysfunctional and/or mis-educated health care system), in addition to intrinsic factors, can result in a virus being “more virulent.”

It cannot be emphasized enough that an intrinsically more virulent variant may be more or less threatening, depending on how well it is treated. It is possible that thoughtful, informed, compassionate, anticipatory care that provides prompt, timely, appropriately aggressive treatment might render a variant that has intrinsic potential to be catastrophically virulent to be a much less severe (and quite manageable) threat to the vast majority of people. Likewise, it is possible that a variant that is intrinsically only moderately virulent might become catastrophically virulent if clinical care is non-anticipatory, mis-informed, dispassionate, unthoughtful, uncaring, delayed, and inadequately aggressive.

If/when a person becomes ill with a highly virulent SC-2 variant, it would be ideal for that patient to have immediate access to a physician who: fully appreciates the bi-phasic nature of COVID; practices anticipatory, proactive medicine; is fully prepared and willing to consider prompt initiation of safe, effective, affordable anti-viral therapies; is fully prepared and willing to consider arranging for careful, anticipatory monitoring with timely serial outpatient lab studies and home pulse oximetry; is fully prepared to promptly recognize whether a patient is developing a hyperimmune reaction; is fully prepared to consider prompt prescription of outpatient prednisone (at appropriate dosage) and other appropriate therapies if a hyperimmune reaction does evolve; and has compassionately reassured the patient long before the patient became ill that they (the physician) will be immediately and fully available to help them through their illness, if/when they (the patient) develop COVID. That anticipatory planning and reassurance can be therapeutic in and of itself, by proactively minimizing anxiety and panic that would otherwise tend to occur when the person does become ill with COVID.

It is reasonable to hope that with excellent clinical care (i.e., clinical care with the characteristics outlined above) even an extremely virulent variant might be successfully managed in the vast majority of cases (with only the very elderly and already ill people being at great risk).

People living in countries where the vast majority of physicians are fully prepared and fully willing to compassionately and collaboratively provide excellent anticipatory care — will likely have the greatest chance to do well. People living in countries or communities where the vast majority of physicians have not done sufficient homework; do not fully appreciate the biphasic nature of COVID; are reluctant (even refuse) to offer safe, affordable anti-viral therapies; are resistant to ordering outpatient lab monitoring; do not practice anticipatory medicine; are not promptly available; do not demonstrate a compassionate and collaborative approach to the patient; do not promptly recognize and react to danger signals; and are not fully prepared and willing to consider prompt and timely prescription of outpatient prednisone when indicated—will likely be at a considerable disadvantage.

In my opinion, all people in all countries deserve to have immediate and affordable access to physicians who have done their homework, compassionately practice an anticipatory approach, and are readily available to help their patients throughout their illness. So, another hope is that if patients can receive optimal care, then even a very virulent variant might be successfully treated.

All of the hopes mentioned above might represent wishful thinking. However, these hopes are not inappropriate and are certainly worth rooting for and preparing for.

Personally, I am hopeful. There is a limit to how accurate scientific predictions can be–even the most thoughtful, rational, and scientifically-sound predictions. Nevertheless, we must not count on these hopes—we must prepare for the worst. We must take Dr. Vanden Bossche’s concerns very seriously. He is an extraordinarily gifted, thoughtful, and experienced immunologist-virologist-vaccinologist-evolutionary biologist. He has not made these predictions lightly. He has made them out of deep concern for Humanity. He is appropriately worried.

The need for physicians and nurses to call for a halt to the COVID mass vaccination campaign:

In addition to our earlier discussion of the detrimental effects of the COVID mass vaccination campaign (a discussion which primarily focused on consequences at the population level), we would be remiss if we did not also mention the many adverse effects of the COVID vaccines that occur at the individual level—myocarditis/pericarditis, blood clots, and severe neurological complications, just to name a few [11, 33, 34]. The recent article by Mörz [33] is particularly alarming and should prompt even the most enthusiastic promoters of the COVID mass vaccination campaign to question the accuracy of their public statements that the vaccines are “safe” [33, 34]. The COVID vaccines do not come close to being acceptably safe. This lack of safety, at an individual level, is, by itself, sufficient reason to call for a halt to the COVID vaccination campaign—particularly when added to the lack of safety at the population level (which, appropriately, has been Dr. Vanden Bossche’s biggest concern).

It is my opinion that all physicians, world-wide, who have heretofore promoted or otherwise acquiesced to vaccinating people against COVID, should consider an immediate halt to their further administration of COVID vaccines [11-14]. In my opinion, they should speak up, unite, and publicly insist that their health care establishments and complicit governments immediately stop the COVID mass vaccination campaign. As a way to apologize for its leading role in the promotion of COVID vaccination of innocent infants, toddlers, and older children, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) could take the lead in this world-wide physician condemnation of the COVID vaccination campaign. If the leadership of the AAP is unwilling to take this lead, then all pediatricians in the US (and/or elsewhere in the world) could unite and publicly insist that the AAP, CDC, NIH, and WHO stop the COVID global mass vaccination campaign. Failure to stop the COVID mass vaccination campaign will permit continuation of the greatest mistake in medical history and its catastrophic assault on Humanity.

What can we do when/if a more virulent, more threatening variant arrives?

There are several proactive, protective actions that we can take—individually and collectively:

• Thorough, accurate, honest, scientifically sound, understandable, and demystifying patient education about COVID can be provided to the Public—particularly regarding COVID vaccination and the concerns mentioned in this article [1-14, 34-36]. To date adequate education has not been provided by the promoters of the prevailing narrative and its mass vaccination campaign—but this can be corrected.
• The Public can be helped to understand that the problem we are currently facing—the continuing appearance of a succession of new dominant SC-2 variants that have become increasingly infectious and will likely soon become worrisomely virulent, especially for the vaccinated—is profoundly serious. They must realize that this problem has been created by the misguided, scientifically unsound mass COVID vaccination campaign, not by the lack of vaccination. That mass vaccination campaign must, therefore, be stopped, including the new “updated bi-valent vaccines.”
• The adverse effects that the COVID mass vaccination campaign has had on the evolutionary biology of the SC-2 virus (the predominance of more infectious and potentially more lethal variants) is the major reason and is sufficient reason, all by itself, for immediately shutting down the entire vaccination campaign. On top of that reason are the many adverse effects the vaccines have had on individuals—abnormal clotting, myocarditis/pericarditis, neurologic disease, etc. Those side effects, on individuals, are also sufficient reason, by themselves, for immediately shutting down the vaccination campaign.
• We must now shift to preparing for an emphasis on anti-viral therapy, using anti-viral agents with the best-known benefit/risk ratio [31-32].
• For those who become infected, early (and accurate) outpatient diagnosis (with disclosure of PCR Ct values [35] and verification of COVID by genomic sequencing in selected instances) and early (timely) outpatient treatment with safe, effective, widely accessible, and affordable anti-viral therapies [31, 32] may help prevent escalation of disease. Such anti-viral therapies have been used with apparent success by many physicians throughout the world [31-32]. (Paxlovid and Molnupiravir do not fulfill criteria for being widely accessible and affordable and, unfortunately, their safety and efficacy are not entirely clear.)
• In addition to promptly starting early outpatient anti-viral treatment, prompt initiation of careful monitoring can be immensely helpful—to document whether the patient is following a reassuring clinical course or is heading into a worrisome hyperimmune phase. It is helpful to follow: serial COVID PCR Ct values to document the extent to which the initial viral load is reassuringly decreasing, or not; serial CBC, blood chemistries, CRP, ESR, serum ferritin, d-Dimers to document the extent to which the patient is or is not developing a hyperimmune reaction and/or hypercoagulable state; and use of a home pulse oximeter to document the extent to which the patient is developing a drop in O2 saturation due to worrisome lung disease.
• For those who develop a hyperimmune/hyperinflammatory reaction (usually during the second and third weeks of illness, but possibly much sooner with new more virulent variants), prompt and appropriately aggressive immunosuppression (with, for example, appropriate use of corticosteroid and anti-cytokine therapies) and appropriate use of other therapies may be critically important [30].
• When a highly infectious and highly virulent variant appears, particularly in highly vaccinated communities/countries/populations, it may be necessary to treat virtually everyone prophylactically, or at least those who become infected, with prompt safe, effective, widely accessible, affordable anti-viral therapy (at appropriate doses), perhaps for several weeks, in an effort to thoroughly reduce the viral infectious pressure in these populations/communities and to interrupt the vicious cycle of high infectious pressure causing enhanced immune pressure on the viral life cycle and, hence, driving immune escape.
• Good exercise, good nutrition (including immune-supporting nutraceuticals [31]), fresh air, sunshine, and good emotional health (including reduction of COVID-related mystery, confusion, anxiety, and cognitive dissonance) will help optimize people’s immune systems, particularly their innate immune systems. The angst of confusion, mystery, and frustration is counter-therapeutic. De-mystification and “having a specific proactive plan,” in advance of becoming infected, are therapeutic.
• When the highly infectious and highly virulent variant appears, particularly in highly vaccinated communities/countries/populations, it may be necessary to consider moving elderly folks (particularly those who are most vulnerable) out of nursing homes/retirement homes into single family dwellings, to the extent possible/practical—-or to designated small COVID facilities that are properly staffed and protected.
• It is important for physicians, health care officials, politicians, and citizens to appreciate the great complexity of the COVID situation. Simplistic understandings that are not rooted in a deep appreciation of the complexities of immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, and glycosylation biology are potentially dangerous and should be avoided. For example, the simplistic and misleading statement that the vaccines are “exceedingly safe and extremely effective; get vaccinated! It’s your social responsibility; do it for others, if not for yourself; our patience is growing thin!” is scientifically incorrect, dangerous, divisive, and abusive. These simplistic and incorrect directives need to stop.
• It is critically important that the scientists and physicians who have been responsible for the prevailing COVID narrative and its policies engage in respectful, healthy scientific dialogue with those scientists and physicians who have challenged the prevailing narrative and its policies. To date there has been very little such dialogue, despite pleas by Dr. Vanden Bossche and others for such dialogue. This must change. More than one narrative must be allowed. That is a fundamental principle of science. The demonization and persecution of those who have responsibly challenged the prevailing narrative must stop. If Dr. Vanden Bossche is wrong in his understandings and concerns, this needs to be established through thorough thoughtful scientific dialogue. If the promoters of the prevailing COVID narrative have been wrong, especially regarding their COVID vaccination campaign, this needs to be established through thorough extensive scientific dialogue.
• I would like to again emphasize that I would much prefer that the issues discussed in this article be addressed by a representative international panel of physicians and scientists with exemplary expertise in immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, glycosylation biology, and epidemiology who would engage in respectful, scientific, video-archived dialogue about these questions. Physicians, including me, need and deserve that help. Citizens and physicians could then view and listen to that dialogue and decide whose explanations make the most sense and whose recommendations seem wisest.
• Unfortunately, the vast majority of physicians (at least in the USA) have either supported the prevailing COVID narrative and obediently executed its policies or, if they have disagreed with the prevailing narrative and its mass vaccination campaign, they have remained silent (often out of fear of reprisal if they challenge the prevailing narrative). It is imperative, now, for physicians to do their homework and speak up—for the sake of science, medicine, their patients, and Humanity. To facilitate that homework, I have created an educational website: www.notesfromthesocialclinic.org
• In addition to promoting respectful, healthy, scientific dialogue among health care professionals, we must also promote such dialogue among citizens. We must promote dialogue and demystifying education that will elevate understanding of the complexity of the COVID situation, create consensus, bring people together, and unite people in positive, constructive efforts to do what is needed to preserve lives and end this pandemic.
• It is important that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” not be pitted against each other. This has never been a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” nor is it helpful to view it as a “pandemic of the vaccinated.” It is a pandemic that has been prolonged and made worse by a misguided mass vaccination campaign. Vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens should kindly and sensitively work together to correct the many mistakes that have been made in the management of this pandemic.
• Finally, it should be realized that it is unlikely that the White House COVID Task Force, the CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO, the medical establishment, pharmaceutical companies, and the conventional media (CNN, e.g.) will honestly acknowledge and correct the mistakes they have made. More likely, they will espouse a new narrative (like the new false narrative mentioned in my original article on the current state of the pandemic [1]) and try to avoid accountability. Correction of these mistakes, therefore, will likely depend on the careful homework and thoughtful advocacy and altruism of ordinary citizens (both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated).
• If citizens, particularly mothers and pediatricians, unite to properly educate the Public and open the eyes and minds of unaware promoters of the COVID mass vaccination campaign, then Humanity, particularly our children and grandchildren, will have a chance for a good outcome, despite the damage the mass vaccination campaign has done to the immune ecosystem and to individuals.

Note 1: For a more complete, expanded discussion of the issues raised in this article (Part 2), please see the original article [1]: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/what-is-the-current-status-of-the-covid-situation/

Note 2: The painting at the beginning of this article is “the Towman” by Honore Daumier (1856). It depicts the almost unbearable and unfair burdens placed on the shoulders of the working class people of France at the time—burdens created by those who were responsible for the “mean arrangements of man.”

To me Daumier’s painting reminds us not just of the unfair and hugely difficult burdens that have been placed on so many of the world’s people today—unfair burdens associated with the COVID pandemic, the global financial crisis, and the world’s many wars (including the threat of nuclear war)—but, just as important, the painting reminds us of the enormous inner strength of human beings to overcome those burdens.

Daumier had great faith in the inner strength of Humanity, and so do I. Humanity is currently under assault on many fronts. But Humanity has the inner strength to overcome those assaults and replace the current “mean arrangements” created by the few with new social arrangements that radiate with Social Beauty and benefit all.

Note 3: The other artwork is by Kathe Kollwitz (1867-1945), who, like Daumier, appreciated the severity of the enormous problems facing Humanity. But, also like Daumier, she believed in the enormous inner strength of Humanity—particularly the strength of women. She believed that if Humanity recognizes the nature and root cause of the assaults against it, and if Humanity protects itself from those assaults and draws on its inner strength and wisdom to replace those “mean arrangements” with kind arrangements, then the best capacities of Humanity can prevail (as shown in the last two drawings).

Both Daumier and Kollwitz inspire us to believe in and use the individual and collective inner strength of Humanity to overcome the formidable threats and burdens created by the “mean arrangements of man.” We must “dig down deep” and draw on that inner strength, individually and collectively, to overcome the enormous challenges that have been created by the way the COVID pandemic has been managed to date.

REFERENCES:

1. Rennebohm. What is the Current Status of the COVID Pandemic? What Can/Should We Do at this Point? (the original article) https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/what-is-the-current-status-of-the-covid-situation/
2. Vanden Bossche. Predictions on the Evolution of the COVID 19 Pandemic (Dr. Vanden Bossche): https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/predictions-gvb-on-evolution-c-19-pandemic
3. Vanden Bossche. Immuno-epidemiologic ramifications of the C-19 mass vaccination experiment: Individual and global health consequences. https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/immuno-epidemiologic-ramifications-of-the-c-19-mass-vaccination-experiment-individual-and-global-health-consequences.-1935ddcf
4. Vanden Bossche. The Immunologic Rationale Against C-19 Vaccination of Children. https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/the-immunological-rationale-against-c-19-vaccination-of-children
5. Vanden Bossche, Rennebohm. Intra-pandemic vaccination of toddlers with non-replicating antibody-based vaccines targeted at ASLVI[1]– or ASLVD[2]-enabling glycosylated viruses prevents education of innate immune effector cells (NK cells).) https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/intra-pandemic-vaccination-of-toddlers-with-non-replicating-antibody-based-vaccines-targeted-at-aslvi1-or-aslvd2-enabling-glycosylated-viruses-pr-66e8b959
6. Vanden Bossche, Rennebohm. Pediatricians, Internationally, Please Call for a Halt to the COVID Vaccination of Children. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/616004c52e87ed08692f5692/62e3848eb74bef65d5e602ac_COVID%20ANALYSIS%20%23111%20A%20CALL%20FOR%20A%20HALT_NO_link.pdf
7. Vanden Bossche. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) does NOT justify (at all!) their vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/616004c52e87ed08692f5692/62f0dea7d640657cfed14432_MIS-C%2Bfinal.pdf
8. Vanden Bossche. Vaccination of vulnerable groups against monkeypox virus (MPV) in a highly C-19 vaccinated population will drive adaptive evolution of MPV and ignite multi-country epidemics in poorly C-19 vaccinated countries. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/616004c52e87ed08692f5692/62eccc023d3801059474162d_MPV%2Barticle.docx%2Bfinal(2).pdf
9. Vanden Bossche. Novel bivalent C-19 vaccines: What does common immunological sense predict in regard to their impact on the C-19 pandemic? https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/616004c52e87ed08692f5692/62ffa87af4dbe242b8425f6c_What%2Bto%2Bexpect%2Bfrom%2Bthe%2Bbivalent%2BC-19%2Bvaccines.pdf
10. Dr. Vanden Bossche’s website: www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org
11. Rennebohm. An Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians Regarding COVID Vaccination. This is the original Open Letter. It provides 1078 references: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/an-open-letter-to-parents-and-pediatricians-2/
12. Rennebohm, Vanden Bossche. Open Letter—Part II: A Review and Update https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/open-letter-to-parents-and-pediatricians-part-ii-a-review-and-update/
13. Rennebohm. Open Letter to Parents Regarding COVID Vaccination—Part III: Questions to Ask Your Physician—One Pediatrician’s Responses https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/section-1-note-to-reader-table-of-contents/
14. Rennebohm, McMillan: Video-interview regarding the initial Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDRVq9NKrJQ&t=981s
15. Van Egeren D, Novokhodko A, Stoddard M, et al. Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. PLoS One. 2021;16(4):e0250780. Published 2021 Apr 28. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250780
16. Graves CJ, Ros VID, Stevenson B, Sniegowski PD, Brisson D. Natural selection promotes antigenic evolvability. PLoS Pathog. 2013; 9: e1003766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003766 PMID: 24244173
17. Thomson EC, Rosen LE, Shepherd JG, Spreafico R, Filipe A da S, Wojcechowskyj JA, et al. Circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike N439K variants maintain fitness while evading antibody-mediated immunity. Cell. 2021; 184: 1171–1187.e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.037 PMID: 33621484
18. Korber B, Fischer WM, Gnanakaran S, Yoon H, Theiler J, Abfalterer W, et al. Tracking Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G Increases Infectivity of the COVID-19 Virus. Cell. 2020; 182: 812–827.e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043 PMID: 32697968
19. Plante JA, Liu Y, Liu J, Xia H, Johnson BA, Lokugamage KG, et al. Spike mutation D614G alters SARSCoV-2 fitness. Nature. 2020; 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2895-3 PMID: 33106671
20. Weisblum Y, et al. Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants. Elife. 2020 Oct 28;9:e61312. doi: 10.7554/eLife.61312.PMID: 33112236 
21. Sui J, et al. Effects of human anti-spike protein receptor binding domain antibodies on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus neutralization escape and fitness. J Virol. 2014 Dec;88(23):13769-80. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02232-14. Epub 2014 Sep 17.PMID: 25231316
22. Kimura, et al. Virological characteristics of the novel SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants 2 including BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.26.493539v1.full.pdf
23. Uraki, et al. Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2.75 clinical isolates. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.26.505450v1
24. Yahi N, Chahinian H, Fantini J. Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination? J Infect. 2021 Nov;83(5):607-635. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.08.010. Epub 2021 Aug 9. PMID: 34384810; PMCID: PMC8351274. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384810/)
25. Perez-Zsolt D, et al. SARS-CoV-2 interaction with Siglec-1 mediates trans-infection by dendritic cells. Cellular & Molecular Immunology 18:2676–2678; 2021. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-021-00794- 6.pdf
26. Meng, B., Abdullahi, A., Ferreira, I.A.T.M. et al. Altered TMPRSS2 usage by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron impacts infectivity and fusogenicity. Nature 603, 706–714 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04474-x https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.17.473248v2).
27. Liu et al. An infectivity-enhancing site on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by antibodies. Cell 184, 3452–3466; 2021. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421006620)
28. Peacock TP, et al. The SARS-CoV-2 variant, Omicron, shows rapid replication in human primary nasal epithelial cultures and efficiently uses the endosomal route of entry. January 3, 2022. (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.31.474653v1)
29. Gadanec LK, McSweeney KR, Qaradakhi T, Ali B, Zulli A, Apostolopoulos V. Can SARS-CoV-2 Virus Use Multiple Receptors to Enter Host Cells?. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(3):992. Published 2021 Jan 20. doi:10.3390/ijms22030992 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7863934/#B233-ijms-22-00992)
30. Rennebohm. Treatment of Severe COVID-19—Long Version. https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/treatment-of-severe-covid-19-illness-long-version/
31. FLCCC Treatment Protocols: https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/
32. Stone JC, et al. Changes in SpO2 on Room Air for 34 Severe COVID-19 Patients after Ivermectin-Based Combination Treatment: 62% Normalization within 24 Hours. Biologics 2022, 2, 196-210. https://doi.org/10.3390/biologics2030015
33. Mörz M. A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1651. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651
34. Rennebohm. A Summary (for the General Public) and Commentary Regarding the Case Report Published by Dr. Michael Mörz. https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/a-summary-for-the-general-public-and-commentary-regarding-the-publication-by-dr-michael-morz/
35. Rennebohm. The Importance of knowing the Ct value at which COVID PCR Tests are Positive. https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/the-importance-of-knowing-the-ct-value-at-which-covid-pcr-tests-are-positive-long-version/
36. Nemunaitis J, et al., 2022. Pros and Cons for COVID-19 Vaccination and Boost of Young Adults in Light of Recent Literature, Medical Research Archives, 10(8): https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/2943/193546242

FURTHER READING:

For further reading click on the following links:

What is the Current Status of the COVID Situation?

How Would Three of Canada’s Greatest Historical Figures Respond to the COVID Situation, If They were Alive today?

A Template for Exempting and Protecting Children from COVID Vaccination

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

An Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians—Part I

Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians—Part II: A Review and Update

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

Robert Rennebohm, MD

Email: rmrennebohm@gmail.com

Website: www.notesfromthesocialclinic.org