Debates in the House on mandatory vaccination and choice of experts: a travesty of democracy!

In a context where omicron dominates contaminations, where this variant is even less lethal than its predecessors (the omicron variant is 100 times less dangerous than H1N1⁽¹⁾), where it no longer saturates intensive care units⁽²⁾ and where it seems to largely escape the immunity conferred by the current vaccines, it is not at all clear what the relevance and basis of the debate on mandatory vaccination that is being prepared in Parliament might be. Certainly, one can feel the government’s will to force the population and in particular the minority that refuses vaccination, but the rationality of this will seems totally non-existent.

This minority, which still represents one tenth of the population⁽³⁾ or one million people, to which must be added all those who were vaccinated under social, family or professional pressure, have more rational reasons to refuse vaccination than the mainstream media would like to admit. Indeed, many high-level experts from different disciplines have expressed profound divergences with the official positions on the basis of verifiable facts and rational, scientific, ethical and legal arguments. Regardless of what the media says, there is no scientific consensus on the efficacy, safety and benefit-risk balance of current vaccines. Nor is there an ethical consensus on the appropriateness of mandatory vaccination. A truly democratic debate requires that experts who are critical of compulsory vaccination and/or the vaccine pass receive an audience in Parliament that is equivalent (in terms of speaking time) to that of experts who are a priori in favor of these projects. The list of experts provisionally constituted to date does not guarantee this democratic requirement.

Indeed, the choice of experts selected to be heard by the members of the House of Commons does not reflect in a balanced way the diversity of scientific positions on vaccination, and even less the duality (favourable or unfavourable) of the positions on compulsory vaccination and/or the vaccine pass. We’re not even close. Not only were most of the names proposed by the citizens’ associations that contest the relevance of compulsory vaccination and the vaccine pass not retained, but most of the experts retained have already spoken out in the past in favor of vaccination, compulsory vaccination and/or the vaccine pass. Finally, the independence of some of the selected experts is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The debate is therefore biased and has only the appearance of a democratic debate. Of the 32 experts selected, only one or two officially spoke out against compulsory vaccination and/or the vaccine passport, and no citizens’ association critical of these projects, such as CovidRationnel for example, although it is made up of Belgian university professors, is represented. Among the many other possible experts who have repeatedly expressed their views on the subject and whose applications have been rejected, even though they are more than a match for the successful candidates, let us mention: Christian Perronne, Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier, Alexandra Henrion-Caude, epidemiologist Martin Zizi, virologist and former rector Bernard Rentier, microbiologist Kaarle Parikka, Aryan Afzalian (for the scientific aspect), philosopher Jean-Michel Longneaux (for the ethical aspect), professor and former rector Yves Poullet or the Lawyers for Democracy collective (for the legal aspect), etc.

This debate is not a debate at all…

Heidi Larson : Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, pro-vaccination anthropologist : Peter Piot and Heidi Larson, virologists: « The coronavirus will stay with us for a long time » | L’Echo (lecho.be)

Marius Gilbert : rather in favor of compulsory vaccination (and in any case of vaccination), despite some oratory precautions: Marius Gilbert, behind the tears (rtbf.be)

3.Emmanuel André : in favor of mandatory vaccination: Emmanuel André: « Making vaccination mandatory is a public health necessity » — Le Soir

4.wouter Arrazola De Onate

5.Virginie Pirard (Advisory Committee on Bioethics): this body is not unfavourable to compulsory vaccination « under certain conditions »; Opinion n° 80 — compulsory vaccination in times of pandemic | FPS Public Health (belgium.be)

6.a member of the IFDH (Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights): this organization is in favor of compulsory vaccination: read-the-opinion-on-compulsory-vaccination.pdf (institutfederaldroitshumains.be)

7.a member of the Superior Council of Health: this organization is in favor of the vaccination obligation: Opinion 9671 — Compulsory vaccination for health personnel | FPS Public Health (belgium.be)

8.Maarten Vansteenkiste (psychologist) : in favor of compulsory vaccination: Belgian psychologists are in favor of compulsory vaccination: « We are at a turning point » — La Libre

9.Tom Goffin (President of the Federal Commission for Patients’ Rights) : : this organization is in favor of mandatory vaccination : 20211220_cfddp_avis_vaccination_obligatoire.pdf (belgique.be)

10.Vincent Yzerbit (psychologist): in favor of compulsory vaccination: %22Une%,%20selon%(rtbf.be)

11.Vanessa De Greef (vice-president of the League of Human Rights): this organization is not unfavorable to compulsory vaccination « in the respect of the law » : Compulsory Vaccination, Covid Safe Ticket and Human Rights | IFDH (institutfederaldroitshumains.be)

12.Els Keytsman (Unia) : this organization is not unfavorable to mandatory vaccination « for certain categories of populations » (caregivers, vulnerable people): Mandatory vaccination should be « the last resort, limited in time and coupled with other measures », according to Unia — La Libre

13.Leila Belkhir (infectiologist): in favor of vaccination; believes that the debate on mandatory vaccination should be scientific and not political (whereas a legal constraint is a strictly political issue!): Obligation20vaccinaleC2A0%A0:%20LeC3AFla20Belkhir20learns20on20Twitter20his20participation20in20the20hearing20of20the%20Chamber (rtbf.be)

14.Johan Neyts (virologist): working on a vaccine against covid : Johan Neyts (virologist): « This virus will continue to cause problems for a long time » — Economic Policy — Trends (levif.be)

15.Tijl De Bie (data scientist): Tijl De Bie (@TijlDeBie) / Twitter

16.Mathias Dewatripont (economist): Gems member, pro-vaccination: Covid-19 vaccination campaign to guide European economic recovery | Euronews

17.Hendrik Vuye (constitutionalist)

18.Luc Herry (president of Absym): this organization is in favor of mandatory vaccination from 6 years: Absym wants a mandatory vaccination from 6 years: « young people are the most contaminated » — Health — LeVif

19.Carla Nagels (criminologist): not opposed to the vaccination obligation: Let’s stop stigmatizing the non-vaccinated — La Libre

20.Herman Goossens (microbiologist): in favor of adult vaccination : Microbiologist Herman Goossens explains what bothers him about the vaccination of children aged 5 to 12 | Coronavirus in Belgium | 7sur7.be

21.Geert Molenberghs (biostatistician) : in favour of vaccination : Covid: Geert Molenberghs believes there will be a 4th dose of vaccine (Brussels) (lavenir.net)

24.Geert Vanden Bossche (virologist): against mass vaccination: Home | Voice for Science and Solidarity

(…)

We investigate about the few remaining experts… The list will be updated. 

A Grappe-Kairos collaboration