Interview conducted for the magazine Neo Santé N ° 113 July August 2021
Covid-19 / "The vaccine solution is not appropriate"
Cardiologist, epidemiologist and researcher at CNRS, Michel de Lorgeril distinguished himself for his work on the diet Mediterranean and the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. In 2005, he has alerted to the dangers of cholesterol medications[i]. He is also the author of a collection of books on immunization where it exposes the scientific flaws of each of the common vaccines[ii]. In his latest book, "Vaccines in the age of covid-19" (Editions Kiwi), it offers a critical analysis of the new vaccinology who awaits us. Maintenance.
Interview by Pryska Ducoeurjoly
After your works from the Vaccines and Society collection, your new book questions the future of the vaccination. Can we still debate this subject?
This makes for a long time it is practically forbidden to be critical about the vaccination. It has become a taboo subject. We must distinguish the problematic of vaccination in general and that of experimental vaccines on the coronavirus. On vaccination in general, it can only be "good ". If there is an effort to listen to the skeptics, it is not to take in consider their arguments, which are necessarily null and void, corn only to convince them that they are wrong. To this is added the very distinct media landscape configuration, with media conventional funded by the State or by shareholders who have a foothold in the pharmaceutical industry. A monolithic discourse emerges, not all scientist. At the opposite, unconventional media bring another point of view but they also lack scientific rigor. These media no aligned also have the defect of banishing the word of those who do not think like them. Brief, each camp on its positions and reject the opposing camp qualified as "unscientific". This deaf dialogue is akin to a real war of religion which could well degenerate into social conflict, especially in a context of compulsory vaccination, already under tension since the eleven mandatory infant vaccines.
Exactly, about mandatory infant vaccines, at the time no one really raised against this radical and liberticidal decision. Is it really scientifically based?
As a matter of fact, the compulsory vaccination law of 2017-2018 was not born out of necessity medical. This constitutes an authoritarian drift. Failure to convince skeptics and reluctant, the French government passed this law obliging families with babies born on or after January 1 2018 their to undergo eleven vaccines. No exemption, exception or contraindication is admissible. Failure to present a duly completed vaccination record, the families are deprived of social rights essential to life daily, in particular access to day care centers, nurseries and schools. We will find an extraordinary dossier on the vaccination obligation in the issue 105 (December 2018) of the ADSP (News and issues in public health), review quarterly by the High Council for Public Health. I say "extraordinary" both the content of the text, reflection of the ideology that drives public authorities and the health and political elites, is grueling mediocrity for a scientist who made the effort to analyze the issue of vaccines. Almost each paragraph states unverified biases, and above all no scientists, which can only discourage the best goodwill inclined to open and objective discussions. These peremptory affirmations undoubtedly reflect the need to leave no doubt as to the legitimacy of these obligations. I remain perplexed. Who are these authors ? Through who are they mandated ? In the name of what identifiable scientific expertise is do they allow such rough approximations ? Are they really also acculturated as their text suggests ? How to hope, facing so many prejudices, convince a skeptic ?
You make a critical analysis of the clinical trials that allowed the authorization marketing of coronavirus vaccines. "Only amateurs can believe in the miracle of 90% efficiency ", you say ... This figure is therefore an intox?
90 % effectiveness in medicine, it does not exist. This figure put forward by laboratories is that of relative risk, and not absolute risk, the only one who matter in real life. The notion of absolute or relative risk is difficult to explain to the general public but this way of calculating, advantageous for laboratories, can only abuse amateurs[iii]. Important things to remember from clinical trials, is that they weren't designed to demonstrate effective. If you take the study Moderna clinic, the authors write that it will be enough for them to record 151 COVID-19 cases in the cohort with a difference of 60 % between the two groups for checking their efficacy hypothesis. Donc, it will have been enough to 151 identified cases - finally, 196 cases will be included in the analysis - among more 30 000 subjects randomized between 27 July and 23 October 2020 (with an average follow-up of 64 days) to come to the conclusion that the vaccine is effective at 94 % … This is ridiculous since thousands of patients were recruited for a two-year follow-up plan, but have not been followed only two months. The studies were closed as soon as there was "Enough" covid events. Laboratories argue on the premature stopping of studies saying that it is not "ethical" to leave people on placebo because that would represent a loss of luck ... It is fallacious.
Design studies is more commercial than scientific in your opinion. What do the health authorities?
The simple reading studies by a real scientist allows you to understand that you are not not in science, but in business. Which is very astonishing, it's here feigned naivety of the health authorities who pretend everything is perfect while they know very well that this is far from the case. All the investigators, whatever the levels of intervention, are employees industrialists. These people owe complete loyalty to their " boss ", since their salaries, bonuses or careers depend on it. Hard to do more in terms of conflicts of interest and possible consequences result. The main problem, however, is obviously the connivance of the health authorities who turn a blind eye. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) says she assesses everything, national health authorities are entrenched behind his opinions. But the EMA checks what the manufacturers want it communicate. She is not entitled to raw data. More, we have no idea of what is really happening on the ground (collection of data, regular medical…) because there is no independent external control. Clinical cases do not are not described correctly. Brief, we don't know what we're talking about. He is hard to imagine that none of the many experts who populate our bureaucracies were not aware of the distressing weaknesses of these studies.
Yet, those authorities tell us the vaccine can save lives and prevent dissemination of the virus, that's why you need to be vaccinated to protect yourself And the others.
Again, the only certainty is that we do not know ! In the absence of death due to COVID-19 in the BioNTech-Pfizer study - at least over the short period of published surveillance -, it is difficult to understand why the media and health officials claim that Pfizer's Comirnaty vaccine may save lives. It is also difficult to understand why it is so hoped that the spread of the virus could be slowed down by this vaccine. It is very hypothetical, even random!
In two articles, very moderate in their form, Dr Peter Doshi (university of Maryland to Baltimore) summarizes the methodological issues raised by the study Pfizer. According to him, the two main questions posed by vaccines anti-COVID are whether they reduce the risk of severe or fatal forms and if they prevent the transmission of the virus. The Pfizer trial does not allow answer these two questions. The same goes for the Moderna trial.
For the moment, the pandemic is regressing, as already last year but then in the absence of any vaccine. We are told that, this year, it is thanks to vaccination, but it is very hypothetical. As a matter of fact, nobody knows what's going to happen the fall in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated. What will the virus ? This is the real question.
From weaknesses in his studies, according to you, the primary hypothesis is missing. Enough to is it?
When we conduct a scientific study, what you really have to overcome is the effect chance and the placebo effect. This is why we have established Double blind "randomized controlled trials"[1] and against placebo. This type of test (only solid way to assess the effectiveness of a health product) could have been achieved with the coronavirus vaccines. For that, it would have been necessary to establish a primary hypothesis, which is one of the techniques available to control multiple biases. In brief, we do not launch an experience saying to ourselves "we'll see what happens" but always with a starting hypothesis, in order to control chance. For example, I test the hypothesis that this drug will reduce such risk, such percentage, over a particular period, with a given population, thanks to a determined sample, during a clearly established study time. And there, chance can no longer (or almost more) surprise us. At the end, you answer yes or no. But in this case, no efficacy hypothesis is clearly formulated. There is not even a double blind and we swim in full conflicts of interest. Or, in the absence of demonstrated effectiveness, he is not ethics of putting vaccinees at risk of adverse reactions. I could to prove, in my books Collection Vaccines and Society, that the vaccine industry has managed to overcome good science criteria for obtaining marketing authorizations Marlet. It enjoys exceptional status. In the case of vaccines experimental against the coronavirus, the freedom of industrialists goes beyond anything that we saw previously !
For the Astra Zeneca vaccine, you mention at least one randomized study versus double blind driving in South Africa. What is she saying?
The study produced for Astra Zeneca is a bit special since it these are four different studies brought together in one. This database reconstituted is not a double blind trial, according to the definition conventional. In three of the four trials, the control group is not a real one witness, since volunteers in this group do not receive a placebo, corn a meningococcal vaccine known to be neurologically toxic (described in the delivered 5 from the collection "Vaccines & Society "). In the fourth trial (in South Africa), witnesses are given a syringe of serum physiological. This South African clinical trial appears to be the only one to date which has been driven double blind by taking (apparently) precautions necessary so that the vaccinated do not understand whether they are receiving the vaccine or the placebo. More, the sample is large : plus de 2 000 volunteers. South African investigators find that two doses of vaccine are ineffective : there is no difference between the vaccinated group and the control group. This negative result of the South African test casts a serious doubts about all other COVID vaccines. He is curious, even pitiful, that health authorities and academic experts act as if this publication did not exist.
How to Are we calling for randomized studies against double blind and placebo? for old drugs repositioned against covid, style hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, but not for vaccines?
It's in contradictory effect. I do not wish to enter into the debate on these drugs because in my opinion we do not yet have sufficient studies to slice. But it is clear that the same experts qualify crooks those who defend this type of early treatment but see nothing to criticize the studies conducted by manufacturers on vaccines. It is hard to know if this is bad faith, incompetence or conflict of interest. Most academic experts don't know what they're talking about because they have never really conducted a clinical trial. But they are considered useful for the cause of research. Today, we can not no longer have a career without the slightest conflict of interest.
The high-society health authority now recommends vaccination of pregnant women and soon children. Everyone must go there. As you say it is necessary to "vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate ... "
It's about for the moment of recommendations. I don't think we can make obligatory 4 four vaccines currently on the market because they are experimental vaccines. They were provisionally authorized provided that the studies have been completed. But everything is stopped. We don't see how the authorization could be renewed. At least in theory ... Because the authorities sanitary facilities do what they want. In my opinion, what will be played now, it is especially the arrival of other vaccines. In the next step, we go see the real vaccine manufacturers come back who have had their preferred market by newcomers in this niche. You have noticed as GSK, Merck, Sanofi and Mylan, les 4 four main, are totally absent? They were overtaken by start-ups from the genetic manipulation who have been able to find agreements with good partners placed to capture the anti-covid vaccination market.
You talk about postmodern vaccination with RNA and DNA vaccines. We would not be that at the start of this revolution which includes GMOs, self-replicating RNA or of trans RNA ... Have we entered the era of the sorcerer's apprentice ?
We were already but discreetly. Now it's official ... You now have all kinds of start-ups that tinker with immune system substances. Modern, Bio N’tech that's it. These manufacturers were already manipulating RNAs messenger, not to fight against pathogens, but for example for attack cancer cells by stimulating the immune system, for that he himself does the cleaning. You should know that the pharmaceutical industry conventional is decadent. It's been ten years since his future is moving towards "immunotherapy", by relying on genetic engineering and virus DIY. In my next book on cancer vaccines [Delivered 8 de la Vaccines Collection & SOCIETY ; publication at the mid-June 2020], I differentiate between real vaccines intended for stimulate our immune system against an infectious agent, and others products that stimulate the immune system in a very specific way for that the immune system attacks a person's own cells, like cancer cells. There are even researchers who want to propose a cholesterol vaccine. We call it vaccine therapy but there is no infectious agents in there. And it is very dangerous. We cannot accept that for people who are very seriously ill with little hope of survival. You cannot put young and healthy people at risk of trigger autoimmune diseases like diabetes, multiple sclerosis, ulcerative colitis, all kinds of diseases that poison the existence of people.
Up to present there were ethical limits to the commercialization of this kind of products. But the emergency context due to COVID accelerated the arrival on the market for these messenger RNA technologies or those containing live viruses GMO. The techniques were already ready for use, only one was missing opportunity.
Which is really the difference between Pfizer, Modern and Astra Zeneca? In the two cases aren't we turned into a protein factory viral spike?
For the messenger RNA vaccines, like Pfizer and Moderna, this injected mRNA is captured by cells (we don't know which ones ... but I think they are immune system cells). It is then our cells that produce the Spike protein and releases it, if the mRNA has not been destroyed before. RNAs do not are not true antigens, unlike proteins usually used in conventional vaccines. Rather than producing the antigen in a factory and at great expense, the trick is to have it made by the vaccinated himself by providing him with the model to copy in RNA form. With the Astra Zeneca adenovirus vaccine, it's the cobbled together virus (a GMO therefore) who produces and expresses the Spike protein and releases it in the vaccinee. Those techniques are the culmination of thirty years of research[iv].
The Spike protein be released into the environment by vaccinees and thus transmit a form of contamination ?
Some studies show that the Spike protein can be found in the circulation blood. In my opinion, she does not stay there long in the face of a system strong immune. It is a typical foreign body that is normally destroyed quickly, especially if it is the result of genetic manipulation.
Is there a risk of integration of the viral genetic code into our genome despite the reassuring words from laboratories and health authorities? This risk is mentioned by several researchers.
The manufacturers say that RNA cannot fit into the genome of our cells. It is true that, normally, messenger RNAs are destroyed very quickly after doing their job. Cependant, some scientists fear that viral RNA can be retranscribed into DNA and therefore be perpetuated in the genome of some of our cells. We have many demonstrations that there are, in human organisms, enzyme systems[in] capable of transforming RNA into DNA. But no one has seen RNA yet messenger injected into a muscle be transcribed into DNA nor this new DNA be integrated into our genome.
Let's evoke a little bit about the short and long term side effects of these vaccines against coronavirus. Are they more common than with common vaccines?
On the base laboratory studies, with all the weaknesses mentioned, we can conclude that about 30 % of vaccinees have - despite taking paracetamol - rather poorly tolerated the Pfizer vaccine, which is considerable. If we can hope that the majority of those vaccinated will recover without sequelae, no one can predict how many of them will develop immune pathology deferred with a variable delay.
In the field, the number of adverse reaction reports exceeds anything we have seen until now. These statements even blocked the agency's software European medicinal product last May. The software was not enough dimensioned… But it's still hard to know what's going on Actually. The people, warned of risks, have made more statements than usually. The majority of physicians themselves felt compelled to report these effects, what they don't do with common vaccines, especially those of infant.
The pharmacovigilance seems to seek to minimize side effects.
The minimization is inevitable. We have seen this problem with thrombosis. The first reaction was to say that this does not exist. But the alert is coming from the vaccinators themselves. What is described relates to thrombosis atypical that you never see in medicine. When they happen all of a sudden blow in large numbers and only in vaccinated, it's hard to deny. Corn this is the tip of the iceberg. Other thromboses, most common in medicine, occurred and were not attributed to vaccines. The data begins to go out but we do not know how it will be interpreted. Because the covid as the vaccine may increase the risk of thrombosis, as well as comorbidities. It will take a thorough analysis to unravel all of this.
Is covid-19 really natural ?
It's a crucial dispute! Covid-19 is for some the result of laboratory DIY for the fight against AIDS, this is what argues Prof. Luc Montagnier who signs the preface of the book. I do not know personally, but the hypothesis that this virus was the result of manipulations experimental studies appear much more credible today than the hypothesis of zoonosis[we], because for the moment we still have not found the intermediate host with passes this common virus from bats to humans. If there is escape had, it is not necessarily a P4 lab, because coronaviruses can be tinkered with in P2 or P3 labs where there is not the same level of security.
According to you, the coronavirus crisis is the tip of the iceberg and others health crises are coming (Lyme, Dengue…). Can the solution be vaccine?
In 2015, we wrote The new Mediterranean diet, to protect his health and that of the planet[vii]. It goes together. Food production methods - seeds and pesticides, glyphosate and Monsanto, for short - and the way many of us consume them also have an impact on our health (our immune system) and, Thus, on the severity of COVID-19. Others epidemics could also return periodically due to deregulation of the microbiota of our environments (deforestation, migrations, loss of biodiversity, etc.).
Since
several years already, we were expecting a disaster, natural or
possibly bioterrorist. It is no coincidence that the US military today
massively revaccinates against smallpox. She knows monkey pox is
there and that it has already passed to humans. It's finally a coronavirus
who unmasked himself. But next to the monkey pox virus, a coronavirus is nice. We must prefer
natural immunity to vaccine immunity much less effective. The
variants / mutants will not stop changing, because our environments
microbiological will not stop changing. The solution
technical-commercial vaccine type is therefore not appropriate ; except for
vaccine manufacturers.
[1] In
evidence-based medicine, these tests are considered to be
some of the best ways (en anglais “gold standard”) devalue
the beneficial and harmful effects of therapeutic approaches.
[i] Neo Health n ° 51 December 2015 and n ° 15 September 2012.
[ii] Collection Vaccines and Society, Editions Le Chariot d’Or. See our interview "La science is absent from vaccine medicine ! », Neo Health n ° 89 May 2019.
[iii] here is an explanation from the book, about the Moderna study: " He there was 90 cases of COVID-19 in a placebo group of 15 000 people, according to authors, therefore a frequency of 0,006. There have been 5 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccinated group of 15 000 people, or a frequency of 0,00033. So there is a reduction in the absolute risk of 0,00567 (0,006 less 0,00033) or of 0,56 %, if we want to express this reduction as a percentage. It has nothing to do with the 94 % posted by investigators, but this is the reality, that is to say absolute risk reduction.
[iv] Verbeke R. et al., « Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development », Nano Today, 2019 ; 28:100766.
[in] Reverse transcriptase.
[we] A zoonosis is an infectious or parasitic disease transmissible from an animal vertebrate (dog, cow, chicken, pig…) to the man.
[vii] Earth Alive.
Related Articles
Keywords: coronavirus, covid19, clinical studies, Michel de Lorgeril, pharmacovigilance, placebo, vaccines
Exciting ! Thank you !