External contribution

Open letter in response to the article in the « Soir » of 3-11-2022.

Below is the open letter in response to the article of the « Soir » of 3-11-2022, written by twelve citizen collectives united in the name of objectivity and the precautionary principle.

The article written by Anne-Sophie Leurquin and Arthur Sente and published by the newspaper « Le Soir » on 3-11-2022 is surprising because of its imprecision, its omissions and its partiality(1).

First of all, from a strictly legal point of view, the above-mentioned journalists should have informed themselves
more about the exact content of the subpoena, either with Dr. S. or the Aviq, or
with the complainant or her lawyer. In this way, they would have found that the complainant — in addition to the law of August 22, 2002 on the rights of the patient — also invokes the law of May 7, 2004 on the
experiments on the human being, which effectively provides in its art. 6 §1er that the
Patient consent must be given in writing(2). This law is applicable to the case in point since, on the one hand, the inoculated vaccines are only in phase 3 (known as « experimental » and have only a provisional marketing authorization) and, on the other hand, a vaccine must be considered as a medicine by virtue of article 1 — 1° of the law of 25–3‑1964 on medicines.

Similarly, the Code of Medical Ethics — also cited in the quotation — requires in its article 45 the written consent of the patient participating in a human experiment. Moreover, when the above-mentioned journalists point out that the vaccination centers do not ask for written consent either, they are in fact only further demonstrating the fault of the Aviq in its organization of the vaccination campaign.

Secondly, when talking about the management of the « pandemic emergency », Ms Leurquin and Mr Sente give a singular summary: according to them, the time needed (7 to 10 years) to obtain a definitive marketing authorization was too long in view of the need to « urgently protect the most vulnerable and to ensure continuity of care in overcrowded hospitals ». In March 2020, the official instructions were to send patients home by simply taking paracetamol, thus encouraging the development of the disease, and it was necessary to hospitalize a large number of patients who could have been treated easily. Therefore, to speak of overcrowded hospitals as a fatality is misleading. In addition, in November 2021, scientists from Ghent University published a study indicating that people who became seriously ill with Covid-19 have one thing in common, namely a dietary deficiency:  » Almost all patients who eventually became seriously ill or even died in hospital had a severe deficiency of selenium and zinc in their blood on admission « (3). It must be noted that no general prevention measures have been promoted by the public authorities (and in particular the Aviq whose mission it is!) to make the « most vulnerable » people more resistant. Strengthening natural immunity is considered by a broad scientific consensus to be the best way to prevent the spread of viral diseases. It should also be remembered that the initial two doses of these vaccines were supposed to be 95% « effective », but the latest independent studies show that vaccinated people develop more severe forms of the disease than unvaccinated people, even in people over 85. September 2022 figures from the French government’s DREES (Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques) clearly indicate that triple vaccination puts people at greater risk of severe forms of Covid and death than unvaccinated people!(4) Obviously, journalists are misinformed.

According to them, this accelerated marketing has guaranteed « scrupulously the same level of safety and continuing to closely scrutinize the possible side effects », insisting moreover by qualifying them as « very rare ». Let’s remember that the clinical trials were conducted by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, that they did not evaluate the effects of repeated doses or even mixing different vaccines, that the accelerated marketing could not take into account long-term adverse effects, and that the vaccines are distributed to billions of people. The official record of serious side effects (hospitalization, life-threatening or death) reported in Belgium was 2,750 cases as of January 24, 2022(5)and according to European pharmacovigilance data, in a population that does not die from Covid, 800,000 adverse reactions have been reported, including 26,000 deaths(6).

Rather than questioning the deep reasons for this complaint, Le Soir prefers to transcribe the writings that Dr. S. published on a specialized medical platform (MediQuality), an article entitled: « The solitude of a general practitioner dragged before the courts by conspiracy theorists ». The title sets the tone, the author does not address health, nor adverse effects, but takes refuge behind the « scientific and governmental recommendations » that she has « scrupulously (and with conviction) » applied. She is the « simple executor » of the vaccination, the victim of a « bewildering misadventure ». 

Dr. S. goes so far as to question the credibility of her former patient, as well as the credibility of the doctors (qualified, experienced and attentive to their patients) who treated her (these words are reproduced in full in the article in Le Soir): « The complainant managed to find pseudo-doctors who wrote pseudo-attestations asserting pseudo-links between her condition and my Big Pharma syringe. The complainant managed to find pseudo-doctors who wrote pseudo-attestations asserting pseudo-links between her condition and my Big Pharma syringe » she ironizes. « The secrecy of the instruction(7) does not allow me to quote them, but you will have guessed that we find all the druids of the antivax and conspiracy spheres of French-speaking Belgium, some of them fired from some hospitals for the same reasons. « . However, from a medical point of view, if her patient was in perfect health before the injection (which she should know better than anyone else), how else can we explain the pathologies (serious neurological disorders) from which she suffers today? It is important to know that the proof of the causal link by excluding any other possible cause is now admitted by the jurisprudence of the French Council of State (decision of 29–9‑2021), precisely in the matter of adverse effects following a vaccination. The real victim in this story is the complainant.

Dr. S. appropriates the caricatured expressions « anti-vax and conspiracy theorists » to make an amalgam with a person who, duly vaccinated, asks that his disability and his suffering be recognized. The mere fact that she has to go to court demonstrates her difficulty in being heard. The denial of suffering is a denial of humanity. The term « conspiracy theorist » is used indiscriminately with the sole aim of discrediting the authors of a discourse critical of the government’s doxa on the management of the pandemic, but without refuting their arguments(8).

To return to the above-mentioned « Soir » article, it should be noted that the wording of the last paragraph of this article suggests to uninformed readers (which is undoubtedly the majority of the newspaper’s readership) that the action brought against Dr. S. is indeed the work of the « anti-vaccine community », and that it is indeed « pseudo-doctors who have written pseudo-attestations ». Indeed, in the absence of any critical commentary or distancing from Dr. S’s assertions, there is no reason to believe that they are questionable. More specifically, did Ms. Leurquin and Mr. Sente inquire about the « anti-vaccine community », did they ask the complainant or her lawyer to be able to verify who these « pseudo-doctors » were, or to be able to consult the « pseudo-attestations »? And if this was impossible, why didn’t they have any reservations about the terms used? It appears, therefore, that these journalists have failed in their duty to provide complete and objective information (including verification of the truthfulness of the information) as guaranteed by the Code of Journalistic Ethics and the Declaration of Duties and Rights of Journalists.

The role of journalists is not to discredit but to inform.

The citizen collectives ALPHA Citizens, Zone Libre, Les Belges se réveillent, Réinfo Covid, Covi Soins, Med4Health, Responsible Rebels, Revivance, Résistance et Libertés, Grappe, Liège Décroissance, Santé et Démocratie(9).

Notes et références
  1. Article du Soir du 3 Novembre 2022
  2. Prendre connaissance du texte exact de la loi 2004 (comme de tout autre texte législatif d’ailleurs) est à la portée de
    n’importe qui en consultant par exemple le portail du droit belge : http://www.droitbelge.be/codes.asp ou encore le site
    du Ministère de la Justice : https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/doc/rech_f.htm . Si ces journalistes avaient pris la peine de
    consulter ce texte, ils auraient appris qu’au moins deux des conditions prévues à l’art. 5 pour entreprendre une
    expérimentation ne sont pas remplies : il existe des alternatives, et la balance bénéfice-risques doit être constamment
  3. Article de « 7 sur 7 » du 11 Octobre 2021
  4. Article sur les données de la DREES du 8 octobre 2022
  5. https://covidrationnel.be/2022/02/18/pharmacovigilance-et-balance-benefices-risques/
  6. Selon les données européennes, 800 000 effets indésirables ont été́ signalés et 26.000 décès. Chez les 12–17 ans, on enre-
    gistre 15.000 effets graves déclarés, et chez les 5–11 ans 1.700 effets graves déclarés. Toutes classes d’âges confondues,
    c’est un effet grave tous les 100 vaccinés et 1 décès tous les 3.000 vaccinés. Selon les données américaines, 99 % des signa-
    lements d’effets indésirables en 2021 et 2022 concernent les « vaccins Covid ». Il y a 1 myocardite toutes les 1.000 injec-
    tions, une hospitalisation toutes les 1 000 injections et un décès toutes les 5.000 injections. Et il est statistiquement prouvé
    qu’au mieux 10 % des effets indésirables remonte jusqu’aux agences de recensement. Pour plus d’informations sur les ef-
    fets indésirables : http://etincelles.be; les chiffres du VAERS sont minorés d’un facteur 20:
    93% des patients autopsiés sont bien morts du vaccin: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/bhakdiburkhardt-pathology-
    results; comment on vérifie le nombre de décès dus aux vaccins covid en Amérique: https://ste-
    vekirsch.substack.com/p/how-to-verify-for-yourself-that-over; une revue australienne liste les effets secondaires:
    https://opastpublishers.com/open-access/covid-19-vaccines-an-australian-review.pdf; une revue documentée des effets
    secondaires et morts du vaccin: https://swprs.org/covid-vaccine-adverse-events/
  7. Il s’agit en l’espèce d’une citation devant le Tribunal de Première Instance et non d’une plainte pénale : parler de « secret
    de l’instruction » est donc inexact (il n’y a aucune instruction judiciaire en cours !) et sert de paravent à la docteure S. pour
    se dispenser abusivement de citer le nom des médecins concernés.
  8. Un complot est un projet concerté secrètement afin de nuire à quelqu’un ou à une institution. Le terme « complotiste » est
    inapproprié dans la mesure où il sous-entend l’existence d’un complot qui n’existe pas : le discours officiel est connu de
    tous et se réfère à divers arguments scientifiques présentés comme la seule vérité, lesquels sont effectivement contestés
    par de nombreux scientifiques de très haut niveau ainsi que par de nombreux médecins de terrain. A cet égard, il faut
    souligner que ni la presse écrite ni la télévision dits « mainstream » n’ont jamais organisé de débat contradictoire pour
    confronter les thèses en présence, et n’ont même jamais approché les tenants des thèses discordantes du discours officiel
    pour en connaître le contenu.
  9. Ces collectifs citoyens se sont unis pour sortir de la pensée unique omniprésente depuis le début de cette crise, où tout débat public a été écarté sans égard pour le
    principe de précaution qui devrait prévaloir. Ils ont pour intention d’informer les citoyens sur les données qui ne sont pas publiées par les grands médias, et d’interpeller ces
    derniers pour ramener des débats dignes de ce nom dans la sphère publique.

Espace membre

Member area