Dernière mise à jour : 17 août 2021
On the subject of vaccination, the public authorities - be they political or media influence - sing the same tune, to the point of tipping over into ideological propaganda. The newspaper Le Temps has not hesitated to take a clear side in its headline, leaving aside its role as an informant and becoming an influencer. The biggest newspaper editors in the country, as well as the national television channel are trying to answer the questions of the skeptics by interviewing the same "experts" since the beginning of the crisis. In the meantime, pharmaceutical companies are inflating the prices of their vaccines and leaks of contracts signed between the different countries and these entities give, once again, support to those who are still labeled as conspiracists.
"Buyer acknowledges that the vaccine and materials relating to the vaccine, and its components and constituent materials, are under rapid development due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after the vaccine is provided to Buyer under this Agreement. Buyer further acknowledges that the efficacy and long-term effects of the vaccine are not yet known and that there may be adverse effects of the vaccine that are not currently known."
This is an excerpt from the contract signed between Pfizer and Brazil (the Buyer), which was leaked on the internet. This clause also appears in the documents signed with Albania, as well as with the European Commission, which L'Impertinent has obtained. It reduces Pfizer's legal responsibility in case of side effects or even death, since the buyers acknowledge that they accept to buy a product whose safety is not assured by the seller. In addition, the signatory nations formally commit to take charge of the defense costs of the pharmaceutical company in case of a complaint. After the leak of these documents on Twitter, through a whistleblower specializing in web security named Ehden Biber, the social network suspended its account. These contracts have a confidentiality clause valid for ten years.
The question of the responsibility of Pharma in case of a glitch was raised earlier this year. Le Monde's Décodeurs stated, based on information provided by the European Commission: "It recalls that the contracts are concluded in accordance with EU rules, which "require that the responsibility always lies with the company": if a product is defective, it is the laboratory that is responsible. The french TV channel LCI, among others, had published an article reaching the same conclusion.
However, here is what we read in the contract signed between Pfizer and the EU, under the indemnification clause: "The Commission, on behalf of the participating Member States, declares that the use of the vaccines produced under this JPA will be carried out under epidemic conditions requiring such use and that the administration of the vaccines will therefore be carried out under the sole responsibility of the participating Member States. Accordingly, each Participating Contractor, licensor, and sublicensee, and the managing officers, employees, and other agents and representatives of each of them (collectively, the "Indemnified Persons") shall be indemnified against all liabilities incurred, settlements pursuant to Section I.12.6, and reasonable out-of-pocket direct legal expenses incurred in defending third party claims (including reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses) relating to injuries, damages, and losses as defined in Section I.12.2."
How much does it cost?
These contracts cannot be broken, even if an effective treatment is discovered. This may explain why countries are not rushing to approve ivermectin, for example. It could also explain why it is difficult for governments to reverse course, given the money paid to pharmaceutical companies.
The European Union paid between 13.50 euros (for 1-100 million doses) and 17.50 euros (for 100-200 million doses) for Pfizer vaccine. Moderna charged 19.05 euros per dose. The EU's bill with Astrazeneca is 870 million euros, of which 336 million paid by the Commission and 534 million paid by the member states, the various contracts state.
Time for debunking
While most of the decisions taken to counteract this pandemic have been made in the name of the precautionary principle, this principle does not seem to apply to vaccination. For our authorities, it seems logical to vaccinate healthy young people with a product whose danger is unknown (according to its manufacturers), in order to save elderly people who have exceeded their life expectancy.
Since the media are now part of the vaccination campaign in Switzerland, official experts are regularly invited to calm the concerns of skeptics. Their arguments, presented to Aurélie Toninato for La Tribune de Genève, were submitted to a Swiss research doctor who has published in the most prestigious scientific journals, in collaboration with the Geneva anthropologist Jean-Dominique Michel, in order to debunk the debunkers.
(The specialist in question had a run-in with his cantonal doctor and did not want his name published for fear of having his license revoked)
1. "Developing a vaccine in such a short period of time: the tests must have been botched."
Alix Miauton, clinical director of tropical medicine, travel and vaccinations at Unisanté (the University Center for General Medicine and Public Health in Lausanne), explains that the process of developing a vaccine is "extremely well defined and regulated. It is true that vaccine development usually takes longer, but the financial and human resources allocated have been enormous and unprecedented." In addition to this scientific process, there is the independent control of each country: in Switzerland it is Swissmedic that decides whether or not to authorize a vaccine. For the time being, Swissmedic has refused to approve Astra Zeneca's serum as a precautionary measure.
Answer: Yes, the vaccine has been developed and put on the market much more quickly than usual and very short studies cannot answer either the efficacy in a few months or the risks of side effects in a few months. The so-called "conditional" approval received is proof of this.
Explanation: The enormous "financial and human resources allocated" cannot replace the time needed to observe the side effects, nor the effectiveness of a vaccine.
Proof of this is that after barely six months, the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine has drastically decreased in all countries with high vaccination rates (Israel, Malta, Iceland, England, etc.).
It should also be noted that very old people, pregnant women, children, people with serious diseases, form groups that were ALL excluded from the studies. The published results, as far as we can trust them, only apply to the specific groups studied.
This long list of exclusions can be found HERE. So in the words of the Pfizer Risk Management Plan itself, regarding long-term safety: "there are no known risks with a potentially late onset... active surveillance studies are planned to follow long-term safety in people who received the vaccine for two years after the second dose."
2. "We only have one year of hindsight. How can we say that the vaccine does not have deleterious effects in the long term?"
"The real question is rather: in the field of vaccination, how much hindsight do we need to establish that a vaccine is safe?" answers Alessandro Diana, infectiologist at the Grangettes clinic and expert for the Infovac platform. We don't have years of hindsight, but we do have one year and hundreds of millions of people vaccinated. We have been able to show that the side effects are benign in the vast majority of cases." These most common effects - fever, fatigue, among others - are found with other vaccines, notes Giuseppe Pantaleo, director of the immunology and allergy department at CHUV. "It's a reaction associated with the stimulation of the immune system. With the Covid vaccine, the reaction is stronger because the strength of the stimulation is stronger." What about the risk of developing conditions over the long term? For Alessandro Diana, the most likely risk would be to develop an autoimmune disease, the result of a malfunctioning immune system. "The induced antibodies could interact with other components of our body. This has already been seen in the development of vaccines against meningitis. But these reactions occur within four to six weeks, when the immune system is most activated. The biological plausibility of developing an autoimmune disease over the long term is extremely low."
Answer: Thousands of publications demonstrate that one must be very humble in biology and medicine. The risk of long-term side effects is well described in the literature. No one can take responsibility for guaranteeing their absence, unless they are culpably negligent.
Explanation: Swissmedic has approved some vaccines but mentions in the Moderna approval, for example, reservations whilst not telling the public about autoimmune risks by specifying "long pre-symptomatic phase".
(Source: Swissmedic letter of January 12, 2021, decision on MA approval for Moderna vaccine).
The PFIZER, PUBLIC SUMMARY OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN COMIRNATY (COVID-19 mRNA VACCINE), mentions risks of aggravated illness.
Extract from Pfizer document of 2.9.2021
Available here: https://compendium.ch/news/22633
Table 3. Potential significant risk: vaccine-associated amplified disease (VAED), including vaccine-associated amplified respiratory disease (VAERD)
VAED is considered a potential risk because it has not been observed in human studies with this or other Covid-19 vaccines under investigation. It has also not been observed in vaccine studies in animal models of SARS-CoV-2.
However, in some vaccine studies in animal models as well as in some laboratory studies in animal cells infected with two other related coronaviruses (SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV), abnormalities in immune responses or cellular responses indicative of VAED have been observed. For this reason, VAED is considered a potential risk. In the past, there have been other examples of particular respiratory viruses where VAED has been observed. For example, some children who received an inactivated vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (another type of virus) showed signs of more severe illness when they were subsequently infected with respiratory syncytial virus.
VAED is thought to be due to several mechanisms: the immune response is not fully protective and actually causes an inflammatory reaction in the body due to the type of immune response with specific types of T cells, or the body does not produce enough strong antibodies to prevent infection of cells by SARS-CoV-2 or produces weak antibodies that actually bind to the virus and help it enter cells more easily, thus worsening signs of the disease.
Reported side effects:
Switzerland, in 7 months: 2.19x more adverse events for Covid vaccines than for all other vaccines combined from 2011 to 2019.