There are errors in judgement, then there is dogged, willful stupidity, and then there is pastor Rick Wiles. He totally takes the cake. Wiles used to take to the pulpit and beg his parishioners at the Flowing Streams Church in Florida not to be “used” to carry out a “global genocide.” This is pure QAnon madness, that there are nano bots in the vaccine and they will take over your mind, Michelle Bachmann on steroids, basically. Now they’re all getting sick and on Saturday Wiles was admitted to the hospital. Newsweek:

“I am not going to be vaccinated,” he said. “I’m going to be one of the survivors. I’m going to survive the genocide.

He added, “You and I are witnessing the first global mass murder and it’s being led by Satan’s team on the planet. You must survive it. Do not be vaccinated.”

Then this week, TruNews, in a post to its official Gab account, noted that there was a COVID-19 outbreak at Wiles’ church and asked for prayers.

“Flowing Streams is experiencing a sudden cluster of flu and Covid among some employees and their relatives. Rick Wiles made the decision tonight to close the offices and studios until a TBA date next week,” the Gab post explained. “Our team needs to tend to sick family members. Please pray for your TruNews team.”

You can’t even describe the irony in his last comments about “how a lot of stupid people will die.” Yes, and it looks like you could be one of them, Pastor Wiles.

Disinformation kills as surely as any virus. A lot of people, including this pastor, may end up either dead or with organ problems the rest of their lives from contracting a virus that they didn’t need to have gotten at all. Maybe we should call this virus “QVID-19?”

And the further irony is that this guy decided that he would make some coin from politicizing the coronavirus, but what good is it going to do him if he’s not around to spend it? Or, if his parishioners aren’t around to contribute? There are going to be some angry families in his flock when they figure out that they’ve been duped.

The people who suffered in the last pandemic of this scale, the Spanish Flu of 1918, knew what they were fighting. They didn’t have one set of newspapers telling them what the flu was all about and another set telling them the flu didn’t exist.




Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. WE have known from the first #vaccine shots .. that they WORK To Prevent #Vaccinated from ever Catching or Giving #COVID19.
    THAT MEANS Only the #UnVaccinated can Give it and Catch it and have been the ones doing that since #Vaccines LICENSED. Remember ALL @Walmart have #WalkIn Free #Vaccine for ALL AMERICANS over 12 ( but they don’t ask children’s age..)

    Take off your masks #Vaccinated
    ONLY #UnVaccinated need the safety precautions.. FROM EACH OTHER.

    Have fun this #MilitaryMEMORIALDay and Remember those Lost from #COVID.. especially #FirstResponders and #HealthCare and #Emergency personnel… who helped and saved so many..
    NO, ABSOLUTELY NO PRAYERS to #MassMurderer #RickWiles of #FlowingStreams of MONEY TO HIM ‘AntiCHRISTIAN’ ‘Church’.. in fact condemnation from ALL WHO LOST FRIENDS AND FAMILY from COVID.

    • You are obviously, and sadly, misinformed! From 3,000 reinfections in one month in Massachusetts to the 5,000+ reinfections in the Seychelles, Dr. Bossche’s fears that the “vaccinated” among us are spreading variants are becoming increasingly probable … in which case the pastor’s best bet is NOT to be among the “vaccinated” caregivers in hospitals, but at home under early treatment with protocols of Ivermectin and/or Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc and Azitromycin.

      • Not sure where you’re getting your “reinfection numbers,” especially for the Seychelles. Bloomberg Businessweek states that, as of May 13, only a third of all active cases–roughly 900–were from people who’d been fully vaccinated (last I checked, 900 was a lot less than 5000+). But the Seychelles is also using the generally less effective vaccines that were not made via the mRNA forms. There’s also the fact that the Seychelles has been dealing with the “South African” variant (since early February) AND the country “opened up for business” WITHOUT requiring tourists to undergo quarantine or isolation though the government there has denied that there’s been any connection between the “opening up” and the tourism increase and the current spat of reinfections. Did you happen to read any of that in whatever propaganda outlet you’re taking as truth?

        • Before I answer that … and destroy your proposition in the process … I have to ask: what is your source fir the infirmation on the Seychelles? You didn’t post a link …

          • You get to ask for links when you have a pattern of providing reputable links without prompting for your own assertions. Else it s just sounds like you are deflecting. the original assertions about Sechelles were yours so it your responsibility to provide the links first.

      • Hasn’t been happening. The reinfection rate for vaccinated people is at most 1 in 1000, and those cases are milder.
        The “treatments” you’re pushing doesn’t work, either. That was proved LAST year.

      • Apart from the fact that you rarely have correct information, there is also the matter of what yoiur favorite propganda sources would be saying if the vaccines had been distributed during the Trump administration. Until Biden’s election, you guys were lauding the vaccines as one of Trump’s accomplishments. You guys are as fickle as the wind, blowing whichever way your partisan propaganda tells you to blow.

        • Oh, they still say we MUST give the former guy credit for the vaccines. Then they turn around and tell their qbots not to get the vaccines. They don’t have a single clue.

        • Correction: Joe Biden was not “elected”! When Zuckerberg of Fakebook shells out $500 Million in anbovert way to influence elections in 6 Democrat swing states, there is no “election”, only “selection” … in some languages called a bloodless coup!

          But a coup nevertheless!

          BTW, Republicans are not slave-sheep-followers like Democrats. We freely criticize other Republicans!

          • When it comes to Zuckerberg you really ought to get your information from sources other than folks like the Kraken lawyer Powell or a dude (Rudy) that leaks dirty transmission fluid from his head. I will however admit that there are Republicans (including you) who criticize other Republicans – as in going scorched earth on fellow Republicans who DARE to resist fighting to be front of the line to lick the shit residue from Trump’s asshole after he takes a dump!

          • BTW, Republicans criticize other Republicans for not being slave-sheep-followers, even to the point of removing them from leadership positions while at the same time refusing to rein in the most hyperbolic Republican slave-sheep followers like Greene, etc.

            And Biden was legitimately elected. Period. If the Trump coup had been successful, Trump would be the illegitimate leader.

        • If I show you 10 testimonials from board-certified doctors practicing TODAY about the phenomenal rates of success they have had with Hydroxychloroquine, woukd you be say loudly: ” Geez, I’m dumb!”

  2. Maybe he will get a tour of the ICU, & the feel of a ventilator. Wonder if he wants these ‘fake’ scientists & doctors to save his sorry evil ass? Sure he does, the lying hypocritical evil son of bitch. Hey preacher, if I were you, I would get on my knees & pray there is no God. Otherwise u are fucked.

  3. So we KNOW now that the injections were not “vaccines”, and that an entire industry was used to promote the lie that they were. In fact, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were used:

    “… As those Indian States using Ivermectin continue to diverge in cases and deaths from those states that forbid it, the natural experiment illustrates the power of Ivermectin decisively.

    Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 – a decline of 84%. 

    Delhi and Uttar Pradesh followed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) guidance published April 20, 2021, which called for dosing of .2 mg per kg of Ivermectin per body weight for three days. This amounts to 15 mg per day for a 150-pound person or 18 mg per day for a 200-pound individual….”

    • Bull. Shit. India hasn’t vaccinated a lot of people. They don’t have enough supplies for hospitals. And you’re pushing ineffective treatments based on lies.

        • Heh, heh, true enough. However, when they do provide links I often find that when you drill down to the original source, it is pretty accurate, but when they get down with their decontextualized juxatapositioning, their information sends a different messagfe than what the origninal source intended. When I was commenting on the Federalist, it amazed me that accurate links were in the articles, but the readership was uninterested in clicking on those links while doing their “research.” They simply took the Federalist propaganda and ran with it, sometime even reproducing the same links without ever having read the links. Then I would point out that their links do not say what the Federalist told them they said.

        • We have links now, and as expected, they are all notorious right-wing propaganda sites. Not a reputable source among them. except possibly the virologist/vet’s linkedin page.

          • Just to show that you are not a blind and gullible follower, Dana, tell us who your sources are, and which sites you believe are “credible”.

          • I look for primary sources. If I go to any “news” site, I follow the links to primary sources. Often even your stupid propaganda sites will include links to primary sources, but they know their readership doesn’t read the links, or else the readers would know that the site is misrepresenting the primary source. I gave you an example. Your propaganda site wanted to incite alarm over Covid vaccine failure rates, but if you read carefullly you find out without even leaving your stupid propaganda site that the Covid vaccine falure rates are effectively zero.But what did you do? Just like the vast majority of their readers, you swallowed the propaganda, and worse, breathlessly spread the propaganda. QED, you have objectively and unequivocally shown yourself to be the blind and gullible follower.

  4. Dr. Harvey Risch, Yale epidemiologist, reports that clinicians are now telling him that more than 60% of their new cases are those who have been previously “vaccinated”! The CDC has responded to this terrible news by deciding that they will NO LONGER count “breakthrough cases” in their analyses, but ONLY recognize them when they “are hospitalized or die”!
    Can the CDC fool all of the people all of the time? Can Fauci? This is the stuff Dr. Jisef Mengele of Nazi fame excelled in …


        “CDC has stopped counting every ‘breakthrough’ Covid infection in fully vaccinated people: Experts warn agency’s new method of only collecting data on patients who are hospitalized or die could miss patterns in who gets sick after their shots”

        (Note: the CDC’s own VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] only admits to representing 1% of such events at any one occasion )

        • Oh good, a link. Daily mail? That is a well-known propaganda mouthpiece. You’ll have to do better than confirm to everyone that you do not know how to do research. You need to read past the headline and clickbait first paragraph. Then you find out we are talking about a maximum of 9 thousandths of 1%, a number statistically equal to zero. If you are really conducting research, the obvious question to ask is what are the vaccine failure rates for other vaccines? For example, the measles vaccine failure rate is less than 0.2%, a far cry from 0.009%.

          60% of effectively zero is still effectively zero, not even close to Mengele adjacent. Should we collect ALL the data? Yes, of course. But only a propaganda outlet would make what is effectively zero sound scary.

          This is why you guys have no credibility.

          • Way to deliberately miss the point. You have lost the argument big time. You have shown that you have no ability to even ask the right questions. If you allow your propaganda to alarm you over Covid’s 0.009% vaccine failure rate, you could get a grip by remembering the the measles vaccine failure rate is 0.2%, more than 20 times greater than the Covid vaccine failure rate. The Covid vaccine is so effective that the variance from 100% is effectively zero. You really need to step away from the propaganda.

          • You should probably stop while you are behind. From the bullet points in your propaganda site.

            So far, 9,245 of at least 95 million Americans fully vaccinated against COVID-19 – 0.009% – later tested positive for the virus.

            “Vaccine failure” means the contraction of a disease in spite of being vaccinated against it, in other words, testing positive after being fully vaccinated.

            ALL vaccines have various failure rates.

            You really need to improve your reading comprehension skills. At the very least, you need to recognize the limitations of your reading comprehension skills and approach your favorite propaganda sites with a good deal of skepticism.


            “… So far, 9,245 of at least 95 million Americans fully vaccinated against COVID-19 – 0.009% – later tested positive for the virus….”

            Help me here, because a quick search of the NIH site you quoted above has no mention of it (I may be missing something)

            So help me here …

          • I was quoting from YOUR Daily Mail link. I even told you where I got it “your propaganda site.” You are in a whole. Best to stop digging. Then I continued by explaining what the term “vaccine failure” rate means because Daily Mail used the definition for the term “later tested positive for the virus” instead of the term itself.

      • So, be aware that I never assume anything, and again iffer you the following chtonological facts:

        The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) issued new guidance on the treatment of Mild: Moderate and Severe cases of COVID-19 on April 20, 2021

        Ivermectin is now officially recommended nationwide: (Moderator’s Note: This drug is NOT recommended for treatment of Covid in the United States – NIH link to follow. It should also be noted that since April 20, 2021 Covid has raged out of control in India. Links to a privately held – started by two medical professionals in Inida – site in India have been removed from the original comment because as already noted there are no internationally recognized agencies or journals that require peer review prior to publishing medical efficacy studies that indicate the drug Ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid. Another link – to a far-right Libertarian FINANCIAL blog plugging this drug as possibly being “the new Penicillin” has also been removed. Further attempts to post misleading or false information via links to dubious sources can and likely will cause this or anyone else to get banned. As promised, the U.S. National Institutes of Health link regarding the drug Ivermectin is: )

        • So you advise against assumptions and then proceed to demonstrate the accuracy of my assumption, so much so that the moderator had to remove your links in order to prevent you from spreading possibly dangerous disinformation.

          • Was the moderator being fair?
            He merely … like all liberals and progressives … engaged in blather and name-calling (the ad hominem approach) without saying exactly what the scientific deficiency was.
            “Nut job”
            “Right wing”
            “Conspiracy theory”
            “Peer review”

            He covered all the bases … and demonstrated his own inadequacy in the process.

            So I’ve asked him to share with us WHICH sites, publications and articles he believes are credible.

          • Tossing shit at the wall are we? The moderator comment doesn’t include the words Trump, Nut job or Conspiracy theory. It does say one of the links you provided was to a Libertarian financial site known for far right views. As for the term peer review – (cue Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now) “The Horror…) you say that like it’s a dirty, offensive thing. Peer Review is a SCIENTIFIC concept that goes bask for way the fuck longer than any of us have been on this earth. What do you find sooooooo offensive about the notion of others with expertise in the same area looking at the methodology used to draw a conclusion, especially a scientific one and when possible recreate the experiment to see if similar results are achieved? THAT dude is Peer Review. This or that person here or there (or a small group) coming up with theories well outside the mainstream of consensus should expect to have their conclusions examined and even criticized if data doesn’t back them up. People who rush to tout “breakthroughs” without allowing others to examine their work, much less circulate it for proper Peer Review usually tend to wind up being exposed as seekers of fame and/or fortune. The problem sometimes is that their misleading or flat-out bullshit theories can do a helluva lot of damage up to and including people losing their lives.

            You ask for credible information on what I gather you think is a miracle drug. There’s a link to the fucking NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH which in case you didn’t know played a role somewhere along the way in the development and approval of the vast majority of standard medical treatments so many of us including YOU have benefited from. I put a helluva lot more trust in the NIH which after all is a government agency with people drawing government salaries (the vast majority of which are far less than they could earn in the private sector but some people, like the “suckers and losers” Trump branded those of us who served in the military are actually believe in service) than I do in a site like one in a link to that financial publication you slipped in elsewhere.

          • You may want to sit down, Dennis!


            Here’s your proof:


            Published: 22 August 2005:

            “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread”

            Martin J Vincent, Eric Bergeron, […]Stuart T Nichol
            Virology Journal volume 2, Article number: 69 (2005)

            963k Accesses
            847 Citations
            32636 Altmetric

            So why did the FDA, the NIH and the CDC hurriedly seek to claim that chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine had no effect against the 7 members of the coronavirus family?


            Here’s an extract of that 2005 study:

            “… Conclusion: Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds….”

            …. Chloroquine has been widely used to treat human diseases, such as malaria, amoebiosis, HIV, and autoimmune diseases, without significant detrimental side effects [15]….”

            The good news was reiterated on March 16 (2020), when a new academic study by a group of researchers, in consultation with Stanford University School of Medicine, UAB School of Medicine, and National Academy of Sciences researchers, found that over the counter anti-malaria pills Chloroquine may be highly effective at treating coronavirus COVID-19. Chloroquine works by enabling the body’s cells better to absorb zinc, which is key in preventing viral RNA transcription – and disrupting the often fatal cytokine storm.

            However, the good news was short lived after FDA came out saying chloroquine has not yet been approved to treat coronavirus patients until sufficient data about the safety and effectiveness of chloroquine is available.


          • I both read the link you provided and also checked and found that the journal you cited does actually publish peer reviewed work and from what I can see is a legitimate source of information on viral research. Having said that let me return to the first half of that sentence.

            You are taking me back more decades than I care to admit, and I will also admit my own higher education but in a different field so I have to work at it to go into “academic mode” and decipher (as much as a lay person in a given specialization can) the terminology. Still, while much of the discussion gets granular the broader conclusions are reasonably clear. – Clhoroquine showed effective in cell cultures to inhibit growth of the first SARS Covid virus. (For those who don’t know, coronaviruses are quite common – the common cold is even a coronavirus – but few are of major concern like both the first and second SARS coronaviruses or MERS) It should be noted the study results from 2005 (and while I didn’t look I’ll take you at your word that the results have been replicated many times – I have more to say about that later) but I want to emphasize two points you gloss over. 1) The study you cite ONLY addresses use of Chloroquine in cell cultures – basically tissue grown and placed in Petri dishes. 2) The study notes there is a clear prophylactic effect from treating the cell cultures before the introduction of the virus (in this case SARS-Covid1) and afterwards. And (this is important because it indicates potential) for up to five hours after introduction of the virus.

            I kept bumping back on the five hours part. That (as I indicated) suggests potential, but why was there NO mention of, much less discussion of longer intervals for intervention? Given that the publication is a respectable one I’m not suggesting that the authors of the study were trying to pull a fast one. They were from what I can see publishing some basic research exploring the possibility that using Chloroquine “off brand” in the treatment of a SARS Covid virus was worth additional study. This type of thing is common. Someone has an idea, tests it on a limited basis and it shows promise so they write it up and have others check their work and then submit it to a more rigorous peer review process including getting published in a reputable Journal. Sadly, countless (and I use that word for a reason) show initial promise but when things move from the test tube or petri dish to say animal (i.e. testing in rhesus monkeys as a precursor to limited human trials) don’t pan out.

            SIXTEEN years ago some researchers had an idea and tested it and with good justification published an article that said “Hey – this is worth additional study and more advanced research.” That is a good thing as I think any reasonable person would agree. But, and this is the big “but” there’s a big difference between what happens in test tubes or petri dishes and in animals, including and especially primates and human beings sit at the top of the evolutionary scale of primates as the most complex ones.

            And here’s the kicker (I said I’d get back to this) – remember that part about Chloroquine being markedly effective five hours after the virus had been introduced into a tissue culture? Well, as you surely know people that catch SARS Covid2 or what we know as Covid-19 (the nineteen is for the year it was discovered) incubates in the human body for days, typically about a week before a person with a bad case becomes symptomatic! That’s a long, long time for a viral load to build up to very high levels, and as with any infection the more of the bacterium or virus that’s present in the human body the tougher it is to treat it with any drug.

            The study from 2005 that you cite as your “gotcha” is no “gotcha” at all. It’s simply a piece of basic research saying a common and relatively inexpensive drug might, MIGHT have promise with treating a SARS level coronavirus. It was, as so often happens a case of one set of researchers who do lots of basic exploratory stuff providing justification for those who deal with the complexities of testing such things in the process that leads to human trials try a particular drug. Sort of a “Hey, you folks that do animal testing ought to take the next step with this and here’s why. IF those folks still found promise (or not) they would then recommend (or not) going through the protocols for human testing. But, as we know from experience with many diseases even things that look promising in early stage human trials more often than not don’t pan out.

            That brings me to more recent review of Chloroquine, or more precisely the more tolerable Hydroxychloroquine you appear to suggest was stifled by the NIH/Dr. Fauci. I too can provide sources. Sources which are two things the one you cited it not. which are 1) Current (not sixteen years old) and 2) directly “on point.”


            NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine | National Institutes of Health (NIH)

            You have your sources and I have mine. But my sources hold up to scrutiny when applied directly to the issue at hand.

          • I actuall read ALL of your response, Dennis, but, before I answer definitively, I need to ask you to offer a comment on the OTHER part of my previous comment … copied below:

            “… The good news was reiterated on March 16 (2020), when a new academic study by a group of researchers, in consultation with Stanford University School of Medicine, UAB School of Medicine, and National Academy of Sciences researchers, found that over the counter anti-malaria pills Chloroquine may be highly effective at treating coronavirus COVID-19.

            Chloroquine works by enabling the body’s cells better to absorb zinc, which is key in preventing viral RNA transcription – and disrupting the often fatal cytokine storm.

            However, the good news was short lived after FDA came out saying chloroquine has not yet been approved to treat coronavirus patients until sufficient data about the safety and effectiveness of chloroquine is available….”

            Will you agree that what is being described here … IF TRUE … represents criminally negligent conduct on the part of the FDA (especially if they CANNOT show any sane basis for rejecting the findings of the Stanford/UAB/NAS researchers?

          • You have provided no link for the the quoted part of your comment. You may be referring to this link (see image): The link is dead having been removed probably because it was fake as your own favorite Daily Mail (of all places) reported.

            Besides, Denis is not obligated to respond to each and every bogus claim you make. “IF TRUE”? Heh, heh. Another favorite technique of propagandists is to make a bogus claim, qualify it with “if true” and then proceed as if it were true to get agreement with the false conclusion in the independent clause. Yours is a text-book case. “Will you agree that what is being described here … IF TRUE … represents criminally negligent conduct on the part of the FDA”

            The FDA is also not obligated to answer a bogus paper. The sane basis for rejecting it is that it was bogus from the get-go.

          • Here is the moderator’s comment in full again:

            This drug is NOT recommended for treatment of Covid in the United States – NIH link to follow. It should also be noted that since April 20, 2021 Covid has raged out of control in India. Links to a privately held – started by two medical professionals in Inida – site in India have been removed from the original comment because as already noted there are no internationally recognized agencies or journals that require peer review prior to publishing medical efficacy studies that indicate the drug Ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid. Another link – to a far-right Libertarian FINANCIAL blog plugging this drug as possibly being “the new Penicillin” has also been removed. Further attempts to post misleading or false information via links to dubious sources can and likely will cause this or anyone else to get banned. As promised, the U.S. National Institutes of Health link regarding the drug Ivermectin is: )

            Nowhere are the terms “Nut job” “Right wing” “Conspiracy theory” “Peer review” “Trump” found. In fact, as of this writing, the first mention of three of those terms among these comments was by YOU. The other two terms, “Trump” and “peer review”, are neutral. Gotta wonder how those terms could possibly trigger you.

  5. Dr. Hoff in Canada … summarizing the proposition by Drs. Yaedon and Wodarg, stares the obvious: What we may be witnessing here is “a vaccination to end all pregnancies”.
    The astonishing resemblance of the fervor of Dr. Fauci to inject as many children as possible (even though their non-jab survival rate is 99.99%) is reminiscent of Nazi hellhound and butcher Dr. Josef Mengele!

  6. Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche rauses the real possibility that it is the “vaccinated” among us that will be individually “generating” the variants that will inform the next “pandemic” … because the “vaccine” generates a specific antibody that is ineffective against variants (natural antibodies are effective against ALL variants). Consider that the island nation of Seychelles, one of the most “vaccinated” places on earth, is now experiencing a surge of reinfections on those previously “jabbed” that boggles the mind!

      • When i DO “disappear” from this discussion, please be confident that it was because the moderators did what all good Democrats and Biden-soupdrinkers do … blocked or shadow-banned me!

        • No, if you disappear it will be due to your repeated citing of misleading information and dubious “experts.” Call me old fashioned but when it comes to important medical stuff I like to get my information from well-established and credible agencies and medical publications that have long, LONG track records of being excellent sources of information, and interestingly enough aren’t start-ups that rake in cash hand over fist by catering to conspiracy nuts.

          • So, on cue, the “moderator” with the power to “ban” anyone surfaces. Well, Dennis, let’s test if you are fair or just want to insulate your followers from the truth. WHICH agencies and publications with LONG track records are you referring to?

    • The difference between you coming to this site with your BS and me going to a Q site is that you’re not going to get death threats here. Please just go away.

    • Um, you do realize that Dr Vanden Bossche is a VETERINARIAN, right?

      Seriously. You’re willing to take medical advice for HUMANS from a guy who specializes in ANIMALS?

      That’s all we need to know about you.

        • Where ignorance is bliss, the obvious is often overlooked:

          “… Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development. Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness. Back in 2015, Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. He is at present primarily serving as a Biotech/ Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines….”
          ( )

          • You mean you are not interested in the potential or actual mechanism by which the new mRNA “vaccines” accommodate the destruction of our innate immune system?

          • So again you demonstrate you are here in bad faith. Anyone interested in understanding mRNA will seek their information from reputable sites, not your notorious propaganda sites. With that nonsensical comment, you have now forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to your intentions.

            If your propaganda sites were correct, it would reflect very badly on the Trump administration and his trumpeted Operation Warp Speed. It would imply that the Trump administration deliberately put millions of Americans in harm’s way for the sake of political points. Your stupid propaganda sites would not be spreading this disinformation if the Trump administration were distributing the vaccines they took so much credit for developing.

            Here is a comprehensive overview published before it became a political football.
            A recent article addressing the very question.

            A potential safety concern of m1Ψ mRNA vaccination is the possibility of generalized immune suppression caused by long-lasting tolerogenic effects on the dendritic cells that take up RNA lipoplexes. To address this, Sahin and colleagues showed that prior treatment with m1Ψ mRNA did not prevent dendritic cells from upregulating activation markers and producing interferon-α when subsequently challenged with uridine mRNA in vivo, suggesting that the dendritic cells remain fully functional after m1Ψ internalization. Moreover, treatment with MOG m1Ψ mRNA did not hamper the development of T cell immunity to model antigens delivered by uridine mRNA vaccination. Thus, dendritic cells exposed to m1Ψ mRNA are not refractory to activation, indicating that the anti-inflammatory effect of m1Ψ mRNA vaccination is remarkably specific.


            When DNA vaccines initially entered into human clinical trials, concern was raised about the theoretical possibility of them causing autoimmunity or that the DNA would integrate into the genome. …. the risk of integration remains, at this point, extremely unlikely for mRNA, even from a theoretical standpoint, nor is it any longer a significant concern for plasmid DNA.



          • I have just begun to read your “better rebuttal” to Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche and am immediately struck by its simplistic … of not disingenuous … reliance on innuendo and verbiage rather than supporting evidence!

            First, the dismissive accusation that Dr. Bosschr didn’t appear to know that the COVID-19 virus appeared to have a lower mutation rate than the influenza virus is itself completely dismissed by the Lancet:

            “… SARS-CoV-2 is non-segmented, and its mutation rate is lower than that of other RNA viruses. However, results from a 2020 preprint (yet to be peer-reviewed) examining convalescent plasma for other human coronaviruses, such as human coronavirus 229E, suggest that, similar to influenza, mutations to human coronavirus 229E with time might render individuals less able to neutralise new strains….”

            THIS WAS A YEAR AGO …

            Funny how there’s never a quick peer-review when you need to show that any of the pro-mrna arguments are questionable!

            There’s more …

          • As do you! Have you noticed the condescending manner in which you and Dennis speak?
            To be fair, all liberals and prigressives speK that way … if only to hide their cluelessness on key issues!

          • Sorry you feel condescended to. Five years of dealing with the objectively demonstrable nonsense you guys spread, after a while it gets exasperating. Also your projection is stunning. Anybody who soaks up propaganda like a sponge as you do cannot help but be clueless. You should consider yourself fortunate that Denis and I assume a modicum of good faith on your part, and engage with you as if we assume you are open to actual facts.

          • You should consider yourself fortunate that I am willing to invest the time and energy to correct the gargantual misconceptions in both your minds. NOTE that I AM reading everything you send to me … which is why I can say with certainity that the material you are consuming on your own is leading you hopelessly astray!

          • We have objectively demonstrated using reputable links that you are spreading disinformation, therefore we can say with certainty that the propaganda you are consuming has already led you hopeless astray. You are the one harboring gargantuan misconceptions.

  7. Troll infestation.

    Wiles is now in the hospital and on oxygen. Pray that he and his congregation see the light and get vaccinated.

  8. There are going to be some angry families in his flock when they figure out that they’ve been duped.” I sort of doubt that. People who follow people like Wiles have a way of rationalising bad outcomes so that they can maintain the delusion that they’re right.

  9. Just when you thought that this criminal conduct by the Biden administration couldn’t get any worse given the earnings about the inherent danger of the “shots”

    “… In order to encourage American workers to get vaccinated, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has suspended the legal requirement for employers to report work-related injuries resulting from vaccinations aimed at combating the CCP virus that causes the disease COVID-19.

    This suspension of the law by OSHA does not change the fact that employers may be held liable under workers’ compensation laws or under civil personal injury laws, according to the nonprofit group Liberty Counsel….”

    ( )

    • My gosh, as expected by everyone, you haven’t linked to a single reputable source. No wonder you are so misinformed. “The CCP virus?” Good grief, way to destroy your credibility with the first paragraph. “Liberty Counsel?” Good grief again. The article is a propaganda piece based on Liberty Counsel speculations with no real facts. If I were OSHA, I wouldn’t give the Epoch times the time of day either.

          • Dana, do you realize that you offer (to this discussion at least) no evidence that you have read, or are reading, the evidence supplied by others? Now THAT is intellectual cowardice!

          • Do you realize that I have offered plenty of evidence that I have read and are reading evidence supplied by a variety of sources? However, your propaganda sites do not count as evidence supplied by others. They are not evidence at all but merely specious speculation. Your comment is yet another bad faith response from you. There is zero intellectual courage in relying upon not6orious propaganda.sites that have been shown to time and again misrepresent primary sources.

            Primary sources ask and answer the question about integration of mRNA into the genome. Propaganda sites turn the mere asking of the question into a full-blown speculative freakout that mRNA destroys the innate immune system with zero evidence that there is any factual basis to the assertion.

  10. Well, he was right about stupid people dying . I’m no genius, but I got both my shots. Guess I’m not as stupid as I thought.

  11. No one should take the Pfizer “vaccine” just yet!

    Dr. J. Bart Classen has written the definitive indictment (just three pages long) against the Pfizer “vaccine”. “Covid19 RMA-based Vaccines And The Risk Of Prion Disease” in the Journal “Microbiology And Infectious Diseases” ( )

    Every rebuttal to his warning has been based on verbal insult and character assassination, NOT a corresponding scientific assessment.

    So the EU ditches AstraZeneca … and chooses Pfizer (which Dr J. Bart Classen (3 pages above) has offered comes with the clear risk of Prion (transmittable neurological) disease.

    (Prions are misfolded proteins with the ability to transmit their misfolded shape onto normal variants of the same protein. They characterize several fatal and transmissible neurodegenerative diseases in people and many other animals. It is not known what causes the normal protein to misfold, but the abnormal three-dimensional structure is suspected of conferring infectious properties, collapsing nearby protein molecules into the same shape)

    • “The definitive indictment?” Enough of this. Please. Some of your comments offer opinions contrary to what the typical participant in this site believe or say, and some like this contain what at best is widely regarded by people with scientific backgrounds and well-established credibility via work with widely known and well-regarded institutions as as dubious if not downright wrong. As for your current flavor of the day, Dr. Classen let’s take a look at his background here:

      Note that he graduated from medical school in 1988, and instead of going on to practice medicine got an MBA in 1992. (?) Even though by then he had to be well into his 20s (pushing 30 by the time of his MBA) it seems he couldn’t decide what he wanted to be when he grew up. Makes me wonder if he was more interested in riches than in the healing arts) because he didn’t bother getting licensed as an M.D. (passing the standard boards all physicians have to pass) until 1997 after publishing a controversial paper via a controversial organization established back in the early 1980s to fight vaccinations in general. Could it be he only took (at least he passed) his basic medical boards to lend “credibility” to stuff he wanted to publish? I found plenty more on the guy, but rather than rely on the large body of U.S. publications (regular and medical) that dispute this guy and his theories much less what I’m pretty sure you’d regard as “deep state” American fact checkers I decided to go abroad to what many would consider one of the most widely regarded worldwide journalistic resources that did an examination of Dr. Classen and this most recent claim and Reuter’s fact check on him nailed him to the wall, citing numerous resources. When asked to comment Dr. Classen pooh-poohed the notion of mere journalists fact checking him even though they pointed out all the actual scientists with well established expertise at well-regarded institutions that disputed his work. Here’s the link to Reuters:

      So what do we have here? A guy who went to medical school and then instead of completing internship and residency requirements to learn a medical specialty or at least go back to school and obtained advanced (post Master’s) education and training in microbiology, virology, epidemiology, biochemistry etc. instead turned to business and got an MBA from an Ivy League school which was no easy get. An MBA even at a state institution is a tough haul and at Columbia had to have taken up most of his time for two to three years. He publishes in a decidedly “Off Broadway” journal that was known for gadfly work as far as the scientific community in general was concerned so he went ahead and got his medical license and it’s hard to believe he wouldn’t have put in the time to study for his medical license except to try and enhance his credibility. That’s not necessarily a bad thing but given what took place before and since it’s hard not to be cynical. In the end it’s not at all unreasonable (when looking at the subsequent twenty years and his latest missive) citing his own work as proof of his expertise that supercedes everyone else’s to think this guy’s agenda is suspect.

      Perhaps you assume no one will take the time to look up not just many of the people/links you provide but dig deeper on who and what they are and how they are viewed in the overall scientific community. I have more than once taken the time. I’m not only not impressed with your “GOTCHA lib-ruls” crap but increasingly tired of it. Offer contrary opinions here if you wish, but when it comes to citing “experts” like this latest one or articles from publications with nice sounding names or organizations that are upon scrutiny scientific outliers that provide not just misinformation but potentially dangerous to people’s health this is your last warning. The only reason the link was left in your comment is so that anyone who wants to check it out and then do what I did can look at other links and see for themselves that you are trying to blow smoke up people’s asses while claiming it’s sunshine and rainbows – as you’ve done multiple times before.

      Criticize people and/or the views expressed here but knock off the attempts to slip in the kind of misinformation (if not outright lies) you keep pushing. I’m sure I’m not the only person who has taken the time to look into the sources you provide and had a “WTF is this guy trying to pull?” reaction. Be credible in the citing of your experts or sources or be gone. And, if it takes banning you have fun whining to your pals on other sites about the “mean liberals” for not being the pushovers or that part of the female anatomy your hero Trump feels it’s his “right as a celebrity” to grab.

      • At least two of us have read his links. Most people simply do not have the time to write a detailed rebuttal of each and every one. You have already given him plenty of detailed rebuttal. After people have checked a number of links and found them specious, it is completely reasonable to conclude that he relies only on disreputable sources. It appears he wants to waste everybody’s time with a gish gallop of disinformation. At first, he wanted to spread the garbage using decontectualized linkless quotes. Pressed for links, as predicted they turned out to be mostly notorious propaganda sites. When his propaganda sites were rejected, he apparently clicked through to find the “primary sources” his propaganda sites use to make their hay, and sure enough his “primary sources” do not stand up to scrutiny. When someone rejects yet another spurious source with a short dismissive comment, he complains about condescension or responds in bad faith that you must be uninterested in learning about the topic, or that you must be an intellectual coward for rejecting his “evidence.” He is not here in good faith. As you pointed out, if he is banned, it will not be because we are mean liberals (and I am not even a liberal), but because he cannot be allowed to hijack this site to use as a vehicle to spread demonstrably false and sometime even dangerous disinformation.

        • At least two of us. I’d imagine there are others who done at least some independent checking and realized what Roger has been trying to pull but it takes a lot of time to look at not only all the stuff he cites but the context and/or check out the forums where some of his links come from. And it takes still more time to craft a response, which to be fair I think he has actually read and taken time of his own to react to. Mainly by starting to cite legitimate work out of context. I for one am done with the guy. Like we all should be I am willing to accept his posting on this site, but not if he’s going to use it to try and sell disinformation, and (as I now think about it has probably already done) go on conservative sites with a “Even this LIBERAL blog takes note of this so it MUST be true.” If he keeps it up and gets banned the only question in my mind is whether it should be publicly stated he’s banned or just banned. I see pluses and minuses to either approach. I also don’t hold out much hope that if he continues to hang around he will behave and stop slinging b.s. I’d like to be wrong about that. Hearing opposing views and even engaging is a good thing, but there sometimes comes a point where you have to accept the other person isn’t debating in good faith and disengage. I for one think Roger has reached the point where he either shapes up or ships out and if he refuses to shape up and won’t ship out on his own then he should be kicked out. I gather you agree and I’ll bet regulars here do too.

          • As far as I can tell, he popped in on this story and has not commented in any other stories. If he were somewhat of a regular I could understand announcing and explaining the reason for the ban (if it comes to that). But because he appears to be a one-off who seems to have already abandoned his arguments in these threads, there is no reason to do anything now. If he comes back a second time and starts spreading the disinformation again, I would not give him a second warning. I would remove the offending link or portion of comment accompanied by a moderator note, and also quietly ban him.

            He may not come back. It appears his entire purpose was to spread disinformation. Sometimes he does not even know what his own links say. For example, at one point he linked to a Daily Mail story about the Covid vaccine failure rate. I pointed out his own Daily Mail link says the Covid vaccine failure rate is only 0.009%. He asked me where I got that that rate. I told him and even quoted it from Daily Mail. He asked me again because he said he could not find it in my NIH link (about measles, not Covid). So I told him yet again (only this time with some exasperation).

            I do not think he used to dealing with people who read widely and well.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here