" There's no real clinical trials on the effectiveness of vaccines "
Interview by Pryska Ducoeurjoly for Neo Health n ° 89, 30 April 2019
Medical practitioner, international expert in cardiology and nutrition and researcher at CNRS (epidemiology and physiology), Michel de Lorgeril distinguished himself for his work on the Mediterranean diet (Study of Lyon) and prevention of cardiovascular disease. Since Then 2005, he became known as a whistleblower on cholesterol medications, statins (Néo Santé n ° 51 December 2015 and n ° September 15 2012). He co-founded the International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine (the Aimsib[1]). He is now interested in vaccinology, with a collection of works whose aim is to describe the state of our scientific and medical knowledge on vaccination. The first two books have been released recently (link to the collection).
The finding is overwhelming about vaccine safety.
For this ITW I relied on the first two books :
Delivered 1. General introduction to vaccine medicine. 2018
Books 2. Scientific analysis of vaccine toxicity. 2018
Gold Cart Edition. The rest of this collection was released in 2019 and 2020 and analyzes vaccines on a case-by-case basis.
Why this series of books on vaccinology?
Michel de Lorgeril. It's a general medicine problem. All physicians are potentially interested in this question! However, the level of knowledge is very low since there is no real vaccine course in the medical studies, at least not at a satisfactory scientific level. You have of course approaches in certain specialties but the level education of doctors remains poor.
As a researcher, I worked a lot on the immune system in the context of my research (and publications) on the heart transplant. Immunology is a complex subject, who stays bad known to practitioners. The publication of these new literature on immunization is there to facilitate access to families and their doctors to scientific knowledge.
For the little story, I was skeptical for a long time as epidemiologist and physiologist at CNRS, but without committing, and then he there were different cases including that of H1N1. Finally I met Michel Georget (passed away this year), in as part of a conference. Interested by his words, I read his books on the vaccination. I immediately checked and understood the extent of the problem with the efficacy and toxicity of vaccines. I could not deal with this subject in one book.
The media keep brandishing studies showing the efficacy and safety of vaccines ... The latest, on the vaccine against papillomavirus, by the Cochrane collaboration (2018), and about the MMR, by another team sponsored by the Danish Ministry of Health (2019). What do you think of these studies ?
They are bad science prototypes. This study on MMR is not a clinical trial. It is typically a fake news from very annoyed because MMR is a problem. A serious scientist cannot be based on epidemiological observation studies with multiple biases, who do not provide anything solid allowing healthcare professionals to take decisions.
There are basic principles, required from the authorities health, when we introduce a new product to the market. Vaccines are health products. Their effectiveness should be tested according to the methods generally accepted which, even if they are not perfect, are absolutely required. Only randomized double-blind clinical studies can demonstrate against placebo that it is effective or not. Gold on vaccines you have none of that!
As for the meta-analysis of the Cochrane collaboration in which one you refer, it was at the heart of a serious internal conflict in a context of loss of independence. This renowned institution was until then free from conflicts of interest. This is no longer the case. His latest meta-analysis on the papillomavirus is to be forgotten because the copy was dictated by its new private sponsors.
Why is the vaccine dossier so controversial from one scientific point of view ?
The controversy is mostly ideological, precisely because of a scientific deficit. To test a health product, we have to do clinical tests. For this, we need a population at risk. Gold for diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, polio for example, you no longer have sick. You cannot do clinical trials. Thus, for the majority vaccines, you cannot answer the question of efficiency. This is very different from other drugs, for example against heart attack (who do all the same 150 000 deaths per year in France) where you can recruit a population at risk and test the drug.
There are, however, existing pathologies, as the seasonal flu, that could be the subject of a clinical trial. It is curious that the health authorities do not require them and that the industry does not not produce them in order to cut short all controversy. The explanation is obvious: they know that these tests would be either negative or little exciting and these results would be counterproductive for the business vaccines. Alors, we don't do anything with stupid pretexts. Science is absent from vaccine medicine!
There are therefore no real clinical trials on the effectiveness of vaccines? It doesn't seem believable…
This is due to the history of vaccines and diseases. When the first modern vaccines were introduced in the second half of the XXth century, scientific medicine had not yet reached a level of sufficient maturity to impose its methodologies, in particular the clinical trial with draw and double blind. Of course we have scientific data old (but weak), based on the concept of epidemiological concordance. But this does not apply to vaccines given to a two month old baby. Which is catastrophic, is that we ultimately know nothing about the effect of vaccination for infants with fragile immunity and nervous system immature.
The least of things would be to respect the wishes of families not to take risks with their babies. We inject all the same at two months of age six vaccines in one syringe plus one syringe anti-pneumococcus containing multiple antigens, no more reinjections at 4 months and 11 months plus reminders to 6 years and 11 years.
A baby can't complain. It can present typical symptoms of a sick baby, but pharmacovigilance will not be alerted by the pediatrician. As for the prescription of paracetamol with the vaccination, almost systematic prescription, she simply hides the side effects. Worse, several groups of American pediatricians have warned about the possible role paracetamol in the current autism epidemic.
Besides the problem of evaluating the effectiveness of vaccines, what to think of their harmlessness? How is it scientifically guarantee?
Scientifically test the safety of a vaccine or adjuvant [i.e. demonstrate a causal relationship between a vaccine and an adverse reaction from a clinical trial], is not possible on human, even less in babies for ethical reasons. It's forbidden not the Huriet law of 1988. To conduct a human experiment, it is necessary necessarily that people can benefit from it. We can obviously test adjuvants on rats, but extrapolating the results to two-month-old babies is medically and scientifically stupid.
Another difficulty, the majority of people have been exposed to adjuvants and vaccine antigens. It therefore became impossible to put demonstrate the harmfulness of one of them by taking a sample of the general population who would be totally unscathed ... Finding no vaccinated absolute to compare them with vaccinated, it's difficult to see impossible because they are few, especially in a context of obligation vaccine. For example, to demonstrate the role of vaccines on the appalling autism epidemic that overwhelms highly vaccinated populations, it is necessary compare a population of vaccinated with unvaccinated who received no suspicious substances, among which we count (by simplifying) Mercury, aluminum and antigens in the measles vaccine, without count paracetamol.
Over the past two decades, the number of babies not having received any of these suspicious products is very low and it is possible that these babies did not receive these products for medical reasons. Said other, you do not have a control group! So it is almost impossible to scientifically test the "vaccine / Autism" hypothesis. I wrote almost because of totally free populations likely to serve as a control population exist. For example, the Amish in the USA where vaccination is very low always practiced; and the autism epidemic is almost absent in this population.
Can we at least identify the adverse effects of long-term vaccines?
Medical science is incapable of it. We have to confine to epidemiology observation. But it's a weak science to establish a causal link. If in addition the people responsible for alerting have no interest in doing so, this is say industrialists and vaccinators, the scientist is completely destitute.
Nevertheless, a strong match, a relationship temporal and biological plausibility can make it possible to have a set convincing elements.
You are basically telling us that vaccine science is a colossus with feet of clay…
Nowadays, none of 11 compulsory vaccines on 1st January 2018 has not been tested under acceptable technical conditions according to procedures required today. We are outside the principles fundamentals of modern medicine.
Yet, health authorities seem very safe of them!
According to some vaccine experts, the effectiveness of vaccines would not be debatable and would be based on clinical studies of course old, but technically acceptable. This is a questionable point of view. An objective analysis of the results of old studies leaves one perplexed. serious scientist. The best, these studies do not allow to conclude anything on the effectiveness of vaccines.
According to WHO, the effectiveness of vaccines would be "a little" demonstrated using so-called observational epidemiological data. Now it is precisely to escape the vagaries of chance and the weaknesses of the epidemiology of observation that clinical trials have been imposed. Rely on a simple concordance to confirm the effectiveness of a treatment is an obvious regression, especially to legitimize campaigns of mass vaccination in babies ...
The public health code requires doctors to constantly updated knowledge. We cannot defend a practice medical under the pretext that it has been practiced since 50 or 100 years.
We find that there is no real placebo in lab studies. Why?
Good medical science dictates that we do real placebo-controlled studies when a product is launched on the market. For a reason unknown, vaccinology escapes this obligation. His placebos are aluminum compounds or another vaccine.
But by looking well, we can find some studies against real placebo. It is very rare and I have only found one well-conducted study comparing vaccine syringes with and without adjuvant. This study[2]has been carried out in China during the H1N1 influenza epidemic in 2009 on a significant sample (12 691 participants),with drawing lots and in double blind. It is evident that the presence of aluminum in the syringe considerably increases the frequency of adverse effects, what Chinese researchers are keeping Moreover, to underline ... These studies are certainly not definitive, but their conditions are almost perfect.
This Chinese study would therefore provide proof of the harmfulness of aluminum?
We must analyze the tables, like i did in my Book 2 on vaccine toxicity. Le placebo (no antigen, not aluminum) is 15.8% of adverse reactions (all confused). What happens in groups receiving antigen with or without adjuvant? The frequency of adverse effects rises to 40.9% with the highest dose of antigens (30μg) against 26.6% without alu at a comparable dose of antigen. For the smallest dose of antigen (7,5μg), side effects are 27.9% with alu against 10,3 % without aluminum, therefore a tripling of the incidence of complications. The precautionary principle should prevail.
Are the vaccinated healthier than the unvaccinated ?
We return to the previous question on "vaccine and autism ". We would need a control group identical to the vaccinated group and obtained by drawing lots. Scientists in developed countries cannot produce such studies for ethical or "loss of luck" reasons. He must therefore resign himself to consulting the registers retroactively to compare vaccinated with unvaccinated children. What has become almost impossible because everyone is vaccinated. It is quite different in Africa.
WHO-funded immunization programs, Unicef or foundations have been in place since the second half of the 20th century century especially. Whole villages are well vaccinated while in same areas, villages very similar to others, are not. This opportunity to compare the state of health of populations, especially childish, was put to good use by teams commissioned by WHO. Thus, a prestigious Danish team released 5 teacher-led articles yet very favorable to multiple vaccinations in Africa. Peter Aaby reports catastrophic results concerning the effect of DTP – Pertussis vaccination. Infant mortality is two to 10 times higher (according to studies) in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. It is all the more surprising that the group of vaccinated had a better nutritional status ! These data clearly indicate that this vaccine is potentially toxic, at least with this type of population.
As mentioned by the authors, their results don't can be randomly assigned, because their work began in 1981 and several successive studies have been carried out. The title of the latest study 2018 « Evidence of increase in mortality after the introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine to children aged 6-35 months in Guinea-Bissau : a time for reflection »[3] leave little doubt. Despite the persistence of negative results, the vaccination programs are still not interrupted today ...
"Anti-vaccines are criminal", titled most recently L’Express[4] under the pen of Laurent Alexandre, surgeon and founder of doctissimo.fr. Is this really the case?
There is a painful media hubbub. A lot of supposed experts, due to a hospital title, of a position administrative or academic, turn out to be very few experts. All of this is very ideological, absolutely not scientific.
Those who cry out for fake news are often the first purveyors of poison. A l’heure actuelle, the pro / anti-vaccine debate is very off-center, with a crude aggressiveness of institutions and provaccinalists against the supposed anti-vaccines that raise legitimate questions and remain, mostly, very careful.
Can vaccines make certain diseases worse? ?
C’est possible, but this would not necessarily be due to adjuvants, rather to vaccine antigens. As I discovered over the writing my books, the toxicity of vaccines is far, very far, to sum up to the sole question of adjuvants!
The concept of antibody facilitators and partial immunity (immunity against only one of the viruses from the same family) is a fundamental discovery. Known as Halstead's theory name, she could explain why vaccination may increase the risk of disease or its severity rather than the other way around.
In the case of papillomavirus, it is not impossible that after initial exposure to a certain virus(with antibody production facilitators),subsequent exposure to another papillomavirus can inflame the cancerous pathology of the cervix. If this mechanism were verified,the papillomavirus vaccine could be the equivalent of a first exposure(a primary infection with production of facilitating antibodies). Therefore the exhibition natural subsequent to another papillomavirus could cause cancer or increase the likelihood of invasive cancer. The observational data unveiled by the latest book by oncologists Nicole and Gérard Delépine[5] shows an increase in invasive uterine cancers in vaccinees ... Precautionary principle should prevail; but the laws of business decide other.
Another disease that may be aggravated by vaccination is dengue, where primary infection also plays an important role[6]. The alert came from the Philippines in 2017 during a vaccination campaign. The Philippine state suspects that the deaths of fourteen people are linked to the injection of Dengvaxia. He sued Sanofi in 2018.
I also wonder about the flu shot. We have observed malignant influenza, sometimes fatal, in vaccinated subjects. The influenza vaccination could have caused the production of antibodies facilitators responsible for the severity of influenza in those vaccinated ? Unfortunately, nothing is being done to clarify this issue.
The unvaccinated are considered vectors of diseases and blasted for it. They would not be "altruistic". What to think of the moral injunction to the vaccine injection?
Claiming that vaccination is "altruistic" because it prevents the circulation of viruses is a simplistic shortcut wrong. Tetanus vaccine is not not altruistic! Tetanus vaccination relies on production antibodies directed against the toxin secreted by the bacteria and not against the bacteria itself. These antibodies have no effect on the circulation of bacteria whose reservoirs are soil contaminated by droppings animal.
The diphtheria vaccine is also directed against toxin and not against the pathogen whose survival is in no way impaired by the vaccine. We can therefore be vaccinated and disseminate. As for the vaccine against polio, currently given as an injection, he is not altruistic either; unlike the oral vaccine which was discontinued. Brief, contrary to the claims of incompetent authorities, the majority of compulsory vaccines since January 2018 is not an altruistic vaccination which could protect the unvaccinated.
When we study the so-called vaccines on a case-by-case basis altruistic, against rubella[7] for example, we realize that this argument is rather fragile: he can be preferable for young women to acquire natural immunity in childhood, by contact with the wild virus rather than by vaccination MMR, because this immunity is more solid and lasting to guarantee the health of their future baby.
If this notion of altruistic vaccines justified really the obligations, why make “selfish” vaccines compulsory? This translates to again the irrationality of the current vaccination policy.
What do you think of the vaccination obligation put in place in January 2018 in France for 11 vaccines?
All systematic and compulsory medicine is a archaic medicine in 2019. Advocates for optimal immunization coverage seem to believe that a 95% vaccinated population is protected from 95%. This reasoning is completely wrong. The system response immune system is very variable from one subject to another. In addition we attend here and there to an upsurge in infectious diseases in highly vaccinated. The best example currently of this vaccination bankruptcy is that of whooping cough. Pertussis outbreaks have been observed in populations vaccinated at 95 or 98%.
Forcing medication by force on the healthy, me
seems to go against medical ethics and patients' rights.
Especially if the obligations are accompanied by a package of measures difficult
acceptable, like depriving families of social services (crèches, schools,
allocations…) for which they contribute. From this state violence is born a
resistance that will only increase as everyone understands it
the scope.
[1] aimsib.org. This structure organizes the 8 juin 2019 a day of work on vaccine medicine.
[2] Safety and immunogenicity of 2009 pandemic infl uenza A H1N1 vaccines in China: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Xiao-Feng Liang et al. The Lancet, May 2010.
[3] Frontier in Public Health, March 2018.
[4] Anti-vaccines are criminal, the 19/03/2019.
[5] Vaccine hysteria, Gardasil vaccine and Cancer : a paradox, Beasts, 2018. See Neo Santé Avril 2019.
[6] Pathogenesis of Dengue: Dawn of a New Era, Halstead SB, F1000Res. 2015
[7] Rubella is a disease usually benign which mainly affects children but which can cause severe birth defects when women are infected early in life their pregnancy.
Related Articles
Keywords: scientific data, efficiency, interview, Michel de Lorgeril, security, vaccines