Some questions about experts and ethics…

Illustré par :

Philippe Debongnie

Since the beginning of the COVID crisis, politicians, experts and guests in the media have emphasized the central role of scientific expertise in the management of the pandemic: indeed, it is on the basis of this expertise, expressed through the discourse of experts and advisors, that the « difficult » political decisions have been taken. Expertise can therefore have an important impact on our future in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms, social and economic well-being, but also in terms of public health management and individual health. But is there a specific scientific ethic, a Code that — like the Code of Medical Ethics and the Hippocratic Oath — would guide and mark out the operation of this expert advice process? The answer is yes: this text is publicly available in both national languages on the FNRS/FWO websites(1).

It is therefore important to review the respect (or not) of these ethical principles during this consulting process and to analyze the consequences of the decisions made in order to, if necessary, adjust the paradigm and the knowledge from which the decisions were elaborated concerning 1) restrictions, 2) the limitation of our fundamental rights, 3) the fight against SARS-CoV‑2.

Let’s remember, as a first paving stone in the pond, that SARS2 is a zoonosis and that trying to control the dispersion of such a virus in the population can be considered as a scientific nonsense: it was indeed impossible! Is there a veterinarian (or environmental microbiologist) on the plane?(2).

Throughout the crisis, scientific research on SARS2/COVID has been accumulating: numerous publications in peer-reviewed medical or technical journals have shown results that were contrary to the political decisions made… This was the case, for example, on the issue of schools and PCR testing, to which we will return. Worse, some previous knowledge, from world-renowned researchers, published several decades ago has been « forgotten », or considered obsolete, or… ? Some scientists who tried to explain the crisis and inform the public were either threatened, excluded from the debates, or attacked… Rentier (former Rector of the ULG) and the 930,500 signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration in the USA… Even general practitioners around the world have had primary care taken away from them — the primary care for which they were best placed — not to mention bans on prescribing drugs that could have saved many patients…(3)

This is very interesting… As it seems obvious that there has been a crisis within the crisis, and that time has ceased to be counted in seconds and is now counted in deaths, it is more than time to finally ask ourselves some questions at the risk of angering some people. 

Scientific knowledge, old or recent, should have allowed us to advance, to better identify SARS-CoV‑2, not to make an identity card, but to avoid deaths! That was the main issue! The goal was health, not viral population genetics! 

IS CONSULTING EXPERTISE THE SAME AS RESEARCH? 

No, of course not! Scientific expertise should be based on scientific consensus and the resulting measures should have been debated, in Belgium as in any democratic country. But these socio-constructivist debates would have generated, among some experts or politicians, distrust towards those who did not go in their direction, these  » conspiracy theorists « ,  » alarmists « ,  » optimists « and even, the ultimate insult,  » reassurance « As if reassurance is not part of good medical practice. Reassurance does not mean minimizing risks; reassurance means transparency and proportion, two requirements that seem to have been largely forgotten. Reassurance is empathy, not conspiracy. Reassurance has nothing to do with a denial of science: it is to integrate science and humanism. 

We wrote this text with four hands. As a citizen, as a mother and as a former President of the Ethics Committee, we sometimes asked ourselves serious questions:  » Are we in a playground?  » or  » Are we dealing with scientists who have forgotten the very essence of their profession, the investigative process? « . We gave them the benefit of the doubt! 

Our experts could easily inform themselves, confirm, but also invalidate their working hypotheses… and, above all, they had the duty to argue their choices by sharing their knowledge(4). It is distressing to note that most white cards and external interventions in the press almost always included precise references, while the doxas of the decision-makers used the argument of authority without ever justifying themselves. We can and must start the inventory… 

It seems useful to start this reflection from the Code of Ethics for Scientists as we can read it on the FNRS or FWO websites… Rest assured, the same texts exist in almost all countries, so what is written here goes far beyond our small borders. 

For the record, during a phone call with the FNRS, I had two successive interlocutors to answer this simple question:  » Is the code of ethics for scientific research in Belgium, which can be found on your site, still up to date, can it be used as a reference, or has there been a rider attached somewhere since the beginning of the pandemic? ». A simple question, you may say, which only required a quick and short answer! But no! I was transferred to another department from my first contact, only to find myself back in the same scenario: questioning about the why and wherefore of my approach, a sort of interrogation. Strange… My question was trivial: I was just asking them if what was on their site was up to date, nothing more. 

BUT LET’S GET TO THE FACTS… 

If we look at the video of this notorious Belgian professor who was making the rounds of decision makers between 2016 and 2018 explaining that managing a pandemic is also about « selling » it(5), there is something to be said for it. We can understand the need for communication, but can we understand the need for  » muzzle and control the press The need to exacerbate the H1N1 statistics to create the « H1N1 flu ». fear that allows you to better manage (sic) », to push flu vaccines ». by making people believe in a possible shortage « … ? This raises very serious questions which seem to us to touch the very heart of ethical standards(6).

We can understand that experts tried to explain the danger, but when scientists called for their expertise tried to make political communication when a decision did not suit them and then occupied the social networks, were they in their role?(7) Or when they blackmailed the politicians by blaming them for the deaths if they were not listened to(8)If they were to use pure disinformation, was it still expertise? 

Or when another professor-expert said around the table and in the press:  » If it were up to me, everyone would be inside for a year and we wouldn’t talk about it anymore! » (9)? And when the same person declared, during an interview, that  » individual freedom stops today » (10), that he also allowed himself to attack the Belgian citizen(11) or to « tackle » the politician permanently as if it was a game(12)? And this, while offering no scientific or medical evidence to support these various public interventions, as evidence to the contrary began to be published in the scientific literature since April-May 2020. Should we question ourselves? The answer is yes. Are we exaggerating when we report what the press says? The answer is no, especially when other members of the expert group(13), the person himself(14), and a politician(15), confirmed these surprising attitudes. 

When the attempt was made to close the schools, when the scientific literature from several countries had shown that contamination occurred within the family bubbles and not within the schools where the health risks were extremely low, when even a press article explained in a correct and documented manner that the danger was low and that it had been exaggerated, was it normal for a « notorious » microbiologist to boast about a study that was « very timely » and that was relayed by the media in an attempt to justify the position of the Minister(16) ?

Is it normal that a major editorial, published in the British Medical Journal in November 2020, one of the most respected professional journals on the planet, was totally ignored by scientists, doctors and even the press? It must be admitted that the title was disturbing: Covid-19: politicisation, « corruption, » and suppression of science » ! Of course not! None of this is normal. Moreover, this is in flagrant contradiction with any scientific deontology or ethics, which also apply to expert and advisory work(17).

DUTY OF CARE 

Point 5 of the Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium talks about the duty of rigor. We quote:  » In communications or media presentations, the researcher presents his or her research results in a truthful and understandable manner. It avoids raising unjustified fears or hopes (sic) ». So « selling fear » as a management tool was directly contrary to the Code. So inflating statistics to help « pass » decisions that may or may not be painful was against the Code. So writing reports that went against peer-reviewed scientific publications to justify a possible political decision or attacking a political decision after an agreement of an expert committee were acts perfectly contrary to the Code. Could we talk about blackmailing the « dead »? I leave you the choice of words to qualify such acts! This is reminiscent of the intervention of the Belgian Minister of Health who dared to speak of the necessity of psychological shock to control the population!(18). And what about health and medicine in all this? 

The Code also refers to the duty of impartiality. We quote again:  » In case of disagreements with the scientific positions of other researchers, they will be discussed only with the help of scientific arguments (sic) ». Therefore, the blackmail of mortality figures and political arguments by a group of councillors were completely contrary to the Code. In addition to the Code, there was the law: these exchanges between experts and politicians had already been denounced by certain jurists, such as Professor Nicolas Thirion of the ULG, who had drawn attention to the destruction of our rule of law(19). Vincent Laborderie made the link with the deficient expertise(20). And in a more or less near future, a question will arise, that of the double responsibility: chaotic crisis management in disregard of laws and standards.

When Professor Lieven Annemans, a member of the NSC/GEES, was attacked in the media to the extent that he had to leave the group to protect his reputation and family, wasn’t that against the Code?(21) His crime? Have talked about proportion in the proposed measures to avoid collateral damage(22).

An insight into the ethical dysfunction was inadvertently provided by Dr. C. Nieuwenhuys, the General Secretary of the Social Services Federation(23). She revealed in an interview that she had been invited to the work of the group of experts, because their quota of men was exceeded and especially because she was not an  » activist » (sic!). She said  » quite quickly, I realized that in the group of experts, my sensitivity to social and human issues was shared » . Before adding the words:  » The Prime Minister did not anticipate the place that the political sensitivities of each expert could take… But there is no such thing as neutrality. When we see all the media exposure of the different experts of the GEES, we can see that everyone has opinions on the measures to be taken or taken by the government « . Were the personal political sensitivities of the experts consistent with the ethical requirements of the Code? We can doubt it, because science and scientific expertise cannot submit to an ideology because that would be equivalent to the death of knowledge quite simply! Wasn’t it the responsibility of scientists to remain neutral and impartial?

When masks were imposed on the entire population — against all evidence — and the Minister of Health was forced to change her mind, was that still being impartial? His initial opinion that masks may be effective in wet contamination, but ineffective in dry aerosol contamination was and remains the scientific consensus(24) — and it is difficult to explain why a white card signed by nearly 60 professors, among them pulmonologists who mentioned this precise fact, was not listened to(25). Their precise quote is,  » Outside of spaces where physical distancing cannot be respected, there is strictly no point in wearing a mask(26). »

Two masks are better than one! Some of our experts became dressmakers for the occasion. What about the psychological and cognitive disorders in children, the fear of citizens and the division of society into  » good obedient citizens » and  » selfish criminals » ? Is it not the nature of authoritarian excesses to establish or impose symbols that remind us of their power at every moment? Where was the objective scientific debate about this? What about impartiality? 

The Code also refers to the duty of care. We quote:  » The faults and omissions committed, as well as the damage to third parties resulting from them, must be assumed and repaired to the maximum (sic) ». Some excerpts from the aforementioned carte blanche are edifying. An example of what was not done:  » The future management of the crisis must be scientifically based, rational and proportionate » . Out of caution?  » Then, the measures were extended, and it now seems that it is necessary to avoid at all costs to
to be infected by a virus whose dangerousness does not exceed that of the seasonal flu that we experience every year in the « quasi » general indifference.
« Prudence or arbitrary decisions based on no objective data?  » However, no objective data on the benefit of whole population containment have been provided to date. » 

The lack of caution was evident on the issue of masks and social distancing in preschools and elementary schools(27). The lack of caution was evident in relation to collateral damage such as bulimia, anorexia, alcoholism which were published before the summer of 2020. The Code of Ethics mentions that there is a duty of reparation. 

Philippe Debongnie
Philippe Debongnie

WHO WILL PAY? 

Belgium has 32,051 victims (at the time of writing). For the fact that between 30% and 60% of them (at least) arrived at the hospital already infected with bacterial colonizations(28) — in broncho-pneumonia or pneumonia -, which shows that they had not received antibiotic treatment in time, who will pay? For Sciensano’s paracetamol- and corticosteroid-based guidelines, primarily incentivizing phone contact and testing, who will pay? Does the fact that these were recommendations and not direct orders absolve their authors of any responsibility? This does not hold water, when we know that the INAMI reimbursements are controlled, and that de facto doctors do not really have a choice. The press has reported that some of them have been attacked, because they were supposedly  » reassuring » . And for the collateral damage associated with lockdowns, attested to by some medical data — again peer-reviewed(29) — by some independent reports that have measured the economic impacts and additional mortality(30), and even by some experts who — as in Canada — have
excused in the press(31), who will pay?

RISK OR PERFORMANCE OF CARE? 

Was it prudent, in 2021, after more than a year of crisis, to continue to cling to numbers that did not reflect risk, but rather the performance of care (the famous CFR that made the daily headlines) and, in addition, to reject the data that actually measured the real risk if one were to catch the virus (IFR or Infection Fatality Rate(32)). With, again in addition, attacks against the few scientists who risked their reputation, or even more, by reporting these famous values (published nearly 60 times) of 0.2% mortality in the elderly and 0.05% mortality in the under 70s(33). You read that right… these numbers were lower than the seasonal flu numbers! Does this demonstrate any scientific prudence, any open-mindedness, or is it not rather the evidence of a major scientific and societal irresponsibility? 

Some will argue that we didn’t know, that we did what we could and that we discovered new things every day… Isn’t there a big problem when all the evidence showed and still shows exactly the opposite? 

VACCINATION AND PASSPORT 

What to think when the same people have imposed mass vaccination with experimental products without informed consent and, to do so, have added a vaccine passport, once again a measure of social division(34). When GEES experts proposed to politicians to make passports very expensive for so-called non-essential travel? Is the price to be paid in order to avoid these kinds of journeys within the purview of scientific advice or expertise, or are they even further removed from their role and the ethics that go with it?(35). Does money stop a virus from circulating? And when the same people issued opinions about telecommuting, was it relevant and scientific to  » worry » about companies’  » compliance  » with this requirement? Or was it a new way of putting pressure on beleaguered small and medium-sized enterprises by making them feel guilty and leaving them no choice? The question remains open(36).

It is understandable that mistakes made in good faith cannot result in heavy financial penalties, but when good faith is absent, when the advice goes against even basic science and ethics, what then? The question deserves and should be asked. Not to do so would be to expose oneself to the total destruction of the rule of law and of any norm of good conduct. 

There seems to have been a deliberate sidelining of scientists, an unwillingness to correct the faulty statistical patterns of mortality in society, and a willingness to choose an « all-vaccine » policy — at the expense of a policy of care — when many scientists had recommended that there should be more than one solution, which, given the mutation rates of these viruses, was once again a false solution. 

Shouldn’t we ask ourselves why what is taught in medical schools and found in old medical books seems to have been completely ignored by our experts, be they Belgian or others? 

Could we credibly talk about « new facts » when mentioning bacterial colonizations, antibiotics, IFR and CFR rates, the irrelevance of PCR test results or « all-vaccine » against viruses whose specialty is to play with immunity? All this was known and published for ages! 

So we ask ourselves, parodying the jurist Romain Caton: Quousque tandem, experti abutere patientam nostram ? In other words, it seems not only more than time to correct the situation (if only for the future), but also to confront the experts with their multiple ethical and professional failures that seem difficult to justify… 

Laurence Van Ooteghem, Prof. dr. Martin Zizi, 

Laurence Van Ooteghem, psychoeducator, specialized in the management and impact of stress, and consultant in health education. 

Prof dr. Martin Zizi, former Chairman of the Ethics Committee and of the Commission for Medical Ethics within the Belgian Department of Defense, former Scientific Director and Head of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Division, researcher in molecular biology and biophysics. He was an advisor/expert for the Belgian authorities at the EU and the UN. 

Notes et références
  1. Code d’éthique de la recherche scientifique en Belgique (FNRS) et Ethische code van het wetenschappelijk onderzoek in België (FWO).
  2. Il y en a au moins un. À aucun moment le mot « zoonose » ne fut prononcé. Étonnant, non? Comme dirait feu Pierre Desproges.
  3. Covid-19: traiter les gens rapidement avec la première ligne médicale est la seule sortie cohérente à cette crise. La Libre Belgique, 04.02.2021.
  4. Lettre ouverte à nos responsables politiques : Il est urgent de revoir totalement la gestion de la crise Covid-19. La Libre Belgique, 27.08.2020. Carte Blanche du Prof. Latterre.
  5. Cette vidéo – pour le moins choquante fut mise en ligne sur ce site, et également reprise par de nombreux médias. https://vimeo.com/320913130 ou Une ancienne vidéo de Marc Van Ranst refait surface où il explique comment influencer la population: « Si vous faites cela, ils ne chercheront pas des voix alternatives ». Dernière Heure, 11.02.2021.
  6. La presse rapporta les propos suivants du prof. Erika Vlieghe, la présidente perpétuelle des différentes moutures des comités d’experts (CELEVAL, CNS, GEES):Erika Vlieghe n’exclut pas la démission «si la communication politique continue comme ça». Le Soir, 24.07.2020. Erika Vlieghe ne participera plus au CNS. 7 sur 7, 24.07.2020.
  7. Les politiques font profil bas devant les experts : «Si ça foire, ce sera de leur faute ». La Libre Belgique, 20.08.2020.
  8. Ceci fut démenti par les autorités des régions. Erika Vlieghe à la commission Covid: «Les Régions ont refusé un comité interfédéral sur les maisons de repos». Le Soir, 18.09.2020.
  9. Cette phrase fut bel et bien prononcée de manière bruyante lors de discussions initiales très animées au JT de 13h à la RTBF du 21/10/2020. https:// inforjeunes.eu/2020/10/21/covid19-et-libertes-individuelles/
  10. Une phrase pour le moins peu scientifique – pur argument d’autorité : « Chacun doit se rendre compte que personne n’avait envie de cette situation, on aurait peut-être pu l’éviter. On n’a plus le choix. La liberté individuelle, de nouveau, s’arrête aujourd’hui. Coronavirus en Belgique: “On va droit dans le mur, le confinement est la seule option qu’il nous reste” », prévient Emmanuel André. RTBF, 21.10.2020.
  11. De même, lors de la fameuse seconde vague, c’était la faute au citoyen qui n’obéissait pas : « Si on ne tape pas un bon coup maintenant et si les citoyens n’adoptent pas une attitude rigoureuse, on va rester dans des eaux dangereuses pour très longtemps. On a laissé aller le virus trop loin, on n’a plus le choix ! ». Coronavirus: très alarmiste, Emmanuel André appelle à un confinement. Le Soir, 21.10.2020.
  12. Une autre citation du même expert qui ne cite aucune source, alors qu’au même moment des publications scientifiques mettaient en évidence les dommages directs et collatéraux des premiers lock-downs. « Si on avait su prendre les bonnes décisions au bon moment en Belgique. Si on n’avait pas cherché des excuses pour toujours retarder la décision et prendre des demi-mesures. On aurait eu moins de décès et moins de personnes hospitalisées. Et on aurait eu un confinement plus court ». Emmanuel André tacle à nouveau les politiques: «Si on avait su prendre les bonnes décisions au bon moment ». La Dernière Heure, 26.11.2020. et Coronavirus: Emmanuel André, critique au sujet de la gestion de la crise, parle d’une «erreur extrêmement importante ». La Dernière Heure, 20.11.2020.
  13. Comme un autre expert le dit lui-même (Prof Y. Van Laethem), il adopte une posture «moins jusqu’au-boutiste qu’Emmanuel André, Marius Gilbert et Yves Coppieters». Il est donc clair et du domaine public qu’au sein du collège des experts, certaines attitudes sont qualifiables de « jusqu’au-boutisme ». Est-ce compatible avec l’éthique scientifique de l’expertise ? Les experts santé, ignorés par les politiques?. Moustique, 23.10.2020.
  14. Emmanuel André implore le gouvernement d’agir: «Faites-le pour éviter de voir mourir des patients dans les couloirs des hôpitaux ». La Dernière Heure, 30.10.2020.
  15. Nouveau clash: l’expert Emmanuel André ne se fait pas que des amis en politique. Business AM, 24.06.2020.
  16. Pour les écoles – hormis les avis « paniqués » en provenance de la KULeuven ou de l’UA –, au même moment sortaient des articles peer-reviewed qui démontraient que les infections se passent au sein des bulles familiales et non dans les classes. Un article publié dans Le Soir en fait correctement part. Coronavirus: l’école ne joue pas un rôle majeur dans les transmissions… jusqu’ici. Le Soir, 25.01.2021. Comment alors expliquer cet autre article avec son titre racoleur, publié deux jours après l’annonce du Ministre de la Santé Vandenbroucke de son intention de fermer les écoles ? On est en droit de se poser la question d’une coïncidence ou d’un rapport « scientifique » sur commande ? Le rapport remis par Herman Goossens sur les écoles fait part d’une découverte remarquable: ce sont les élèves âgés entre 5 et 12 ans qui sont le plus souvent contaminés. La Libre Belgique, 28.01.2021.
  17. Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science BMJ 2020; 371m4425.
  18. Sortie du Ministre de la Santé belge sur « l’électrochoc » pour la population : Les propos de Frank Vandenbroucke font très mal. Trends Le Vif, 30.11.2020.
  19. Prof. N. Thirion – qui fut un des premiers à alerter l’opinion sur les dérives. Pourquoi l’arrêté ministériel Covid est illégal. La Libre Belgique, 06.08.2020.
  20. Article de Vincent Laborderie – qui décrit fort bien la confusion des rôles. Le journaliste, le savant et le politique. Belga Politica, 31.07.2020.
  21. Lieven Annemans (Professeur à l’UGent)présenté comme un « health economist », ce qui pourrait mettre en doute ses compétences face à d’autres, s’était fait attaquer à plusieurs reprises dans la presse par des collègues
du groupe d’experts. “All virologists are warning unanimously that things are moving in the wrong direction, as the number of new cases has gone up 75% in one week, and our Rnumber is 1.4. A health economist vehemently denies that there are currently more cases, and thinks we need to relax. Good luck!” Covid19 measures: tensions among Belgium’s coronavirus experts. The Brussels Times, 18.09.2020.
  22. Lieven Annemans a dû se défendre contre des accusations de “déni de science”, de “rassuriste”, uniquement parce qu’il demanda un équilibre entre les risques et les mesures, il tenta d’éclairer la réalité des chiffres donnés partout, et le peu d’utilité des tests PCR qui ne signifient en rien une infection. Voir son post sur Twitter :“How should we best deal with the virus at this stage? A. with a culture of fear, drama, misleading figures, disproportionate measures? B. with vigilance, serenity, correct numbers, balanced measures? I would have preferred B,” he posted.
  23. Céline Nieuwenhuys – membre du groupe d’experts qui révèla dans une interview candide les “sensibilités” politiques des experts: “Est-ce que j’ai eu peur de ne pas être écoutée, d’être en quelque sorte un OVNI ? Évidemment. Mais, assez rapidement, nous nous sommes rendu compte que dans le groupe d’experts, ma sensibilité aux questions sociales et humaines était partagée. Je n’étais pas la seule à me préoccuper de la population de manière globale et plus spécifiquement des publics fragilisés”. La crise sociale ? Pour les politiques, ce n’est pas urgent !. Le Guide Social, 15.06.2020.
  24. La Ministre de la Santé belge, entre février 2020 et l’été, avait été fort claire et reflétait par cette interview le consensus scientifique en accord avec les recommandations de l’OMS. Consensus qui vola en éclats de manière inexplicable, et cette page du site de l’OMS fut même modifiée. Il serait intéressant d’en demander une copie via The Internet Archives (une fondation de droit public qui stocke l’Internet sur … l’Internet). Maggie De Block sur le port du masque: «Cela n’a pas de sens scientifiquement». Le Soir, 05.04.2020.
  25. Cette Carte blanche qui donnait treize références scientifiques contrôlables et était signée par plus de 60 scientifiques ou professeurs d’université fut ignorée. Elle révèle directement ou indirectement les graves manquements éthiques des experts. Lettre ouverte à nos responsables politiques : Il est urgent de revoir totalement la gestion de la crise Covid-19. La Libre Belgique. 27.08.2020.
  26. Un autre article sur le même sujet. Des extraits de cet article mettaient en évidence de graves manquements au Code éthique de la part des experts. Professeur Pierre-François Laterre, médecin aux soins intensifs en désaccord avec la gestion de la crise du coronavirus. La Libre Belgique, 01.09.2020.
  27. Article de vulgarisation qui mentionnait de manière simple certaines évidences scientifiques solides du développement chez les enfants de troubles induits à plusieurs niveaux. Le port du masque peut-il nuire au développement des enfants ? CNews, 24.08.2020.
  28. Ce point est CRUCIAL : entre 30 et 80% des personnes infectées par COVID étaient colonisées par des bactéries avant d’être admises à l’hôpital. Ceci est la cause majeure de mortalité par SARS2, et personne au niveau des décideurs ou des experts ne semble avoir voulu l’admettre. Ici, deux études peer-reviewed, mais il en existe de nombreuses autres concernant d’autres endroits/pays. Des données identiques existent pour la Belgique. Le premier: 27% de colonisations bactériennes (France) Contou, D., Claudinon, A., Pajot, O. et al. Bacterial and viral co-infections in patients with severe SARS-CoV‑2 pneumonia admitted to a French ICU. Ann. Intensive Care 10, 119 (2020). Le deuxième: entre 58% et 80% de colonisations bactériennes (Italie) Intra J, Sarto C, Beck E, Tiberti N, Leoni V, Brambilla P. Bacterial and fungal colonization of the respiratory tract in COVID-19 patients should not be neglected. Am J Infect Control. 2020 Sep;48(9):1130–1131.
  29. Bodilsen J, Nielsen PB, Søgaard M, Dalager-Pedersen M, Speiser LOZ, Yndigegn T, Nielsen H, Larsen TB, Skjøth F. Hospital admission and mortality rates for non-covid diseases in Denmark during covid-19 pandemic: nationwide population based cohort study. BMJ. 2021 May 24;373:n1135.
  30. Autour de 700.000 décès non Covid en plus par an pour les 15 prochaines années, en conséquence directe des lockdowns, Bianchi F, Bianchi G & Song D (2020) The long-term impact of the covid-19 unemployment shock on life expectancy and mortality rates. Working Paper 28304.
  31. Cet expert reconnaît assez humblement les erreurs commises : Canadian expert’s research finds lockdown harms are 10 times greater than benefits. Toronto Sun, 09.01.2021.
  32. Le taux de létalité (CFR) relie la mortalité d’une cause à l’incidence ou à la prévalence de cette maladie, alors que le infection fatality ratio (IFR) est le risque de décès par infection et est l’un des paramètres épidémiologiques les plus importants.
  33. Revue globale des diverses mesures du taux de mortalité réel du
SARS2 –Ioannidis JPA. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Jan 1 ; 99(1):19–33F.
  34. Le fameux passeport vaccinal qui — heureusement — faisait débat. Covid-19 : un «passeport vaccinal» en Belgique ? Les réponses aux questions que vous vous posez. RTBF, 30.12.2020.
  35. Ceci — qui a été une décision purement politique — semblait être une demande du ministère de la Santé. Est-ce que le prix d’un passeport relève d’une compétence scientifique ? Un permis de voyager “très cher” : l’injuste et étonnante idée que les experts Covid ont soufflée à la classe politique belge. La Dernière Heure, 19/02/2021.
  36. La régulation du télétravail ou son follow-up est-il du ressort de l’expertise scientifique? Les experts du GEMS préoccupés par la diminution du respect du télétravail: « Nous devons donc prendre des mesures supplémentaires ». La Libre Belgique, 19.02.2021.
Powered By MemberPress WooCommerce Plus Integration

Espace membre

Member area