France: 900 intellectuals demand that Parliament make public its debates on the side effects of the vaccine

Author : Sheikh Dieng | Editor : Anty | June 30, 2022 at 09:30 AM

“On May 24, the Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices held a public hearing to conclude its work ' on the side effects of vaccines against Covid-19 and the functioning of the French pharmacovigilance system'. And its report was made public on June 9. Behind the apparent publicity of the debates, the Office has in fact made certain interventions relating to the side effects of vaccines against covid-19 invisible.

Already, by publicly hearing only three 'critical voices' against eleven vaccine supporters, the Office indicated a certain bias in the very organization of its work, during which 9 people out of the 49 interviewed offered a different analysis of the discourse that has flooded the media since the beginning of mass vaccination (' vaccination is safe, it protects vaccinated people and also protects others, it's 95% sure, etc' ).

But above all, even though its regulations authorized it to make them public, the Office chose to conduct its work in the form of private hearings, a very questionable format when it comes to a major issue affecting the health of all the French. Thus, the hearings that took place from March to May 2022 will never be made public. Why ? Would some auditions get in the way? Wouldn't the public be able to hear them? To understand them? No explanation is provided by the Office.

Three people whose hearings were thus made almost secret (Ms. Christine Cotton, biostatistician, Ms. Emmanuelle Darles and Mr. Vincent Pavan, teacher-researchers from the universities of Poitiers and Marseille) nevertheless asked to be able to share their work during the public hearing on May 24. Wasted effort. Although they went to the Senate on the very day of the hearing, they found the doors closed. The interpellation summons that they had issued to the President of the Office, Mr. Cédric Villani, will however mark a date and it will no longer be possible for the members of the Office to claim that they 'did not know'.

However, what these people had to say is essential for the impartial information of the public, without which one cannot speak of ' free and informed consent' to vaccination.

Their work reveals some particularly alarming elements.

They first show significant methodological problems in the clinical trials that led to the Emergency Authorization as early as December 2020. Thus, the shortcomings and biases of the phase 3 clinical trial of the Pfizer vaccine make its conclusions unreliable. from the point of view of good clinical practice, distorting the assessment of the benefit/risk ratio.

They then note the opacity of public data on vaccines which are open neither to the public nor to researchers, an unprecedented fact in the history of French pharmacovigilance. In particular, the method of imputability of adverse effects used by the Regional Pharmacovigilance Centers (CRPV) does not allow complete data to be obtained. It should also be borne in mind that only between 1% and 10% of adverse effects are usually reported in pharmacovigilance databases.

Finally, alarming mortality figures emerge from European pharmacovigilance databases (EMA), which to date report around 30,000 deaths in Europe that may be linked to the vaccine. In addition, these databases report a 1,788% increase in menstrual cycle disorders, a 732% increase in stroke and as much blindness within a few months of vaccination as over 30 cumulative years for all vaccines combined, more than 60% of these serious adverse reactions occurring on the day of vaccination.

This is why we, academics, researchers, health professionals and legal professionals solemnly ask the Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices to make public all the hearings carried out during the work of the Office on ' the side effects of vaccines against Covid-19 and the functioning of the French pharmacovigilance system' , by video and written transcription. It is both a right and a duty in a democracy to provide citizens and their elected officials with all available information, and not just the part that suits the government.”