The AFP muddies the waters
After “Ceci n’est pas un complot”[1] in 2021, director Bernard Crutzen released his second documentary on the Covid crisis in June 2022: “La loi, la liberté”[2]. While his first film caused a great deal of ink to flow in the media at the time, his second film seems not to have attracted much criticism. A deliberate wish by the media to ignore dissenting voices, or a lack of contestable facts in the documentary? Be that as it may, the AFP decided to “fact-check” Prof. Christophe de Brouwer’s contribution regarding a negative efficacy of Covid vaccines[3].
BAM! Detox*, which had already flagged the problem[4], analyses the AFP’s arguments point by point.
Numerous approximations?
The AFP is referring here to an article published in February 2021 in L’Echo[5]. That article questioned certain claims made in “Ceci n’est pas un complot”. Yet many of the claims disputed by L’Écho have turned out to be accurate.
Bernard Crutzen had criticised the lockdowns for their harmful effects on whole sections of society, which is now supported by numerous international studies[6].
He accused the health authorities of having neglected all the alternative options and of having bet solely on the vaccine to eradicate the epidemic. Yet we now know that the vaccine does not prevent transmission[7].
In his film, the director also denounced exaggerated figures. Since then, Sciensano has admitted that nearly 50% of hospitalised people labelled “Covid” are not admitted for Covid but have simply tested positive for Covid.
Source: covid-19 bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire - (3 juin 2022) - page 24
Bernard Crutzen had also addressed the problem of conflicts of interest. The subject is now on the agenda, since the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is investigating the EU’s purchase of Covid vaccines[8].
PCR tests have now been abandoned in favour of antigen tests, recognised as giving a more reliable estimate of the risk of contagion[9].
Statistician?
A curious way of presenting a man who is a medical doctor and doctor of public health sciences (PhD), honorary professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles at the School of Public Health, and who was also director of a research centre and head of study programmes, as well as president (dean) of the School of Public Health[10]…
Source: 3 minutes avec Christophe de Brouwer, extraites de "La loi, la liberté"
Anti-vaccine?
By using the term “anti-vaccine”, Mr Melot obviously lacks nuance. Prof. de Brouwer is not against vaccines in general. He has in fact written on the subject in the past (“Revaccination against hepatitis B virus”[11], …). He rather seems opposed to the generalised vaccination strategy for Covid. He believes, like a growing number of experts, that the strategy should focus on people at risk.
Does this mean that Prof. de Brouwer is “clearly anti-vaccine”?
Not proof?
These tables do indeed not represent vaccine efficacy as it can be read in cohort studies, in which the people analysed are generally matched according to common characteristics (age, sex, location, ethnicity, etc.).
In these clinical studies, the vaccination status of the people is known in advance, and people are selected according to these characteristics and according to what the authors are seeking to demonstrate.
In Sciensano’s tables, we find all the people who correspond to an “event” (infection, hospitalisation, ICU admission, etc.).
For example, there is no difference between a first or a second (or even more) infection. Nor do we know whether a person has been double-boosted or not. Furthermore, the different groups are not always homogeneous; one can, for example, hypothesise that people at risk were more frequently vaccinated. This is why Sciensano speaks of “unadjusted” Relative Risk Reduction (RRR).
Are these tables meaningless?
Certainly not. They show, in real life, the situation as it is experienced by the populations concerned.
If Sciensano took the trouble to publish this famous RRR by calculating ratios between different groups with different vaccination statuses, it is because it corresponds to a certain reality.
The heart of the problem lies rather in the evolution of the figures, which, over time, are no longer really to the advantage of the vaccinated population groups, and which people are quick to discredit.
Not comparable?
Yet this is exactly what Sciensano does. If the AFP interviewed Joris Van Loenhout of Sciensano, it could have asked him why the public health institute compares vaccinated with unvaccinated people by calculating a ratio between the two in order to make a table of it…
Source: covid-19 bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire - (25 mars 2022) - page 24
Different behaviour?
Yet when one reads this same document[12], it shows that there were no major differences in testing frequencies for the under-65s, whereas we do notice major differences in incidence in these age groups as well (<65 years).
Source: covid-19 bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire - (25 mars 2022) - page 24
And as regards hospitalisations and admissions to intensive care units, this testing-frequency argument no longer really holds, since every patient is systematically tested.
Absolute figures or incidences?
The argument here is beside the point, since the figures discussed are incidences per 100,000 inhabitants of the same group and therefore do take into account the proportion of vaccinated/unvaccinated people in the population.
“Not detectable”
The arguments developed here are not relevant, or are incomplete. One can clearly see that the mention “not detectable” corresponds almost every time to the negative values of the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) calculation carried out by Sciensano. So when the figures used by Sciensano give a result favourable to vaccination, it is valid, but when the same figures are used and give unflattering results, it is “not detectable”...
In the table below, also taken from the report of 25 March 2022, the figures in red represent the results of the calculations that Sciensano did not publish.
BAM! News - The reality “not detectable” by Sciensano
One-way fact-checking
It is one or the other:
- Either Sciensano’s calculations describe, even imperfectly, a certain reality, and Sciensano should have published them without systematically hiding the results unfavourable to the vaccinated population. In that case, why has no traditional media outlet or press agency such as the AFP been offended by this?
- Or Sciensano’s calculations have no relevance. In that case, why has no traditional media outlet or press agency such as the AFP pointed this out?
Sciensano’s bias
To conclude, and as Covidrationnel points out[13]: “This raises methodological questions and highlights a legitimate questioning of vaccine efficacy: could vaccinated people today be more exposed to certain risks (of infection, hospitalisation,...) than others, or is this situation only apparent, merely an effect of biases linked to inaccuracies or even unknowns in the data collected and processed over the past year?
To justify its use of the concept of “non-detectable” risk, Sciensano nevertheless makes the choice, scientifically and ethically unsatisfactory, of building its public communication on the second hypothesis, nowhere stating that this is only a preferred option, as long as it has not been rigorously verified. Indeed, it is scientifically impossible to settle the question raised without carrying out in-depth studies which, to our knowledge, have not yet been commissioned.”
By BAM!-Detox
[3] Les chiffres de l’Institut de santé publique belge ne démontrent pas une "efficacité négative" des vaccins contre le Covid-19 | Factuel
[4] BAM! News - The reality “not detectable” by Sciensano
[5] Ceci n’est pas un complot, mais ceci prend des libertés avec les faits | L’Echo
[6] Synthèse des connaissances sur l’impact d’une crise sanitaire ou économique sur les comportements suicidaires
[7] BAM! News - La vaccination ne réduit pas la transmission ! (in French)
[8] Le parquet européen enquête sur l’achat de vaccins anti-Covid par l’UE
[10] De Brouwer Christophe - Brussels Studies Institute
[11] Revaccination against hepatitis B virus | De Brouwer, CH; Lecomte, A; Gilks, W.R; Coursaget, P | download
[12] GUIDANCE ON INTERPRETATION OF THE COVID-19 VACCINE IMPACT ON INFECTIONS IN THE SCIENSANO WEEKLY REPORT
[13] Une efficacité vaccinale non détectable ?
* BAM! Detox brings together university professors, doctors, people working in the pharmaceutical and medical field and independent journalists. BAM! Detox aims to analyse and verify the information circulated in the media and on social networks.
Photo source:
Screenshot by BAM!