Open letter from Dr Résimont to the Medical Council

Our colleague Dr Cécile Andri has been summoned before you on various pretexts, all of which arose following her statements concerning the side effects of the anti-Covid “vaccines”.

We nevertheless assume that you have already been informed that this new experimental vaccine has shown serious side effects far more frequently than any other authorised treatment.

In case certain evidence of the serious and frequent bodily harm and thousands of deaths caused by these experimental injections has perhaps not yet been fully brought to your attention, we are sending you in the annexes scientific information essential to your full understanding of the situation.

You will surely agree that it is not defensible to rely solely on the marketing communications issued by the producers (merchants) of these “vaccines”, nor on so-called scientific publications suffering from serious bias, being sponsored by the very companies that are getting rich from selling these new experimental products.

As doctors (general practitioners or specialists), my many colleagues and I are indeed observing in our vaccinated patients:

• a very sharp increase in infections: Covid infections within 2 to 3 weeks of the injection, viral reactivations (shingles, EBV, viral encephalitis) due to impaired
  immunity.
• numerous cardiovascular complications: myocarditis, heart attacks, strokes, sudden deafness, central retinal artery thrombosis..., and even cases of heart attacks in
  children (which never happened before vaccination)
• neurological complications: cases of Guillain-Barré (**), Alzheimer’s in middle-aged people, re-emergence of prion diseases and devastating cancer relapses (at a level we had never observed before the vaccination campaign)
• a sharp increase in tumours of the haematopoietic lineages, notably the case of our colleague Michel Goldman. We invite you to read the report “Rapid progression of Angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma following BNT152b2 mRNA vaccine Booster Shot: a case report” that he wrote with our colleagues Drs Bron, Cogan, S. Goldman..., whom I worked alongside during my years of medical practice at Bordet and Erasme. This publication is public and describes the credentials of the contributors and of the victim. It should be noted that this “victim colleague” used to advocate on TV sets the “vaccination” of everyone, whatever their age or Covid serology (so he advocated post-illness vaccination...), whatever comorbidities were or were not present.
• chronic fatigue syndromes that are particularly acute and long-lasting, justifying long periods of incapacity for work, with some victims even ending up in wheelchairs, sometimes at a very young age. One of my young patients, aged 12, ended up in a wheelchair very shortly after his 2nd injection of the Covid vaccine (it was chance, he was told, as so many other victims have been).

Dr Cécile Andri also spoke about these side effects in an interview during a demonstration against compulsory vaccination for healthcare staff on 21 August 2021.

I am surprised that anyone could reproach her for testifying to the damage she observes in her patients. In such a context of numerous serious side effects, is it not the duty of every doctor to inform the population of the risks it runs and to urge caution? Are the precautionary principle and the duty to inform patients not enshrined in Law?

The official discourse claiming that the vaccine is supposedly “safe and effective” has, however, been widely shown not to match reality.

More and more of my colleagues and I fail to understand your relentlessness in prosecuting all the doctors who have, quite legitimately, spoken out about the serious and frequent side effects they observed in their patients very shortly after vaccination.

Not only is our colleague, Dr Cécile Andri (and the other doctors who say the same thing), merely relaying what she observes in her surgery. But in addition, these observations are confirmed by dozens of studies published in the most prestigious medical journals such as the British Medical Journal, the Lancet... by the greatest medical authors and epidemiologists.

Scientific references confirm that this gene therapy trial for vaccine purposes is not only ineffective, but leads to a great many side effects at cardiovascular, neurological and oncological level, etc. and, moreover, that in certain classes of the population it produces negative efficacy, that is to say that mortality is increased among the “vaccinated”, particularly among the under-60s.

Two countries (Taiwan and Australia) are already reporting a higher number of deaths following the vaccine than from the disease itself. And in the last few days, Great Britain and Israel have been added to them.
You will find these studies annexed to this letter.

Far from being a doctor opposed to the general principle of vaccination, I have always promoted any vaccine that meets the following criteria:

• vaccines that prevent people from contracting the disease because they are immunogenic
• vaccines that prevent transmission
• vaccines that have neither serious side effects nor deaths, all the more so in age groups in which there were no deaths from the disease itself (example: children and teenagers)
• vaccines whose protection lasts for years, or even longer

As for the anti-Covid “vaccines”, none of these criteria is met.
Having to inject a substance every 3 months (***) certainly does not allow it to be called a vaccine. It is at most a medicine of doubtful efficacy and safety, whose experimental phase is proving a manifest failure. This phase 3 trial for vaccine purposes should therefore be stopped immediately and permanently.
Moreover, with rapid periodic reinjection, this substance must be classified as a chronic treatment, and the legislation on vaccines no longer applies to it.

I would ask you kindly to take note of the sources annexed to this letter, in order to understand the full legitimacy of the statements made by our colleague Dr Cécile Andri and by other doctors who have already had to answer to the Medical Council for similar statements.

In view of these scientific studies, a doctor who did not warn his patient about this large-scale medical experiment – more than 12 billion doses injected (remember that we are still in phase 3 until 2023-24) – would be failing in his duty to advise his patient and toact in accordance with the precautionary principle. He would be failing his Hippocratic oath and the fundamental principle “Primum non nocere”, “First, do no harm”.

In view of the current state of science, it seems to me indisputable that a doctor who, at present, did not warn his patients about this manifestly dangerous therapeutic trial (*) should be sanctioned.
Would that not be the truly positive role the Council could play in this area?

Should your role not be to ensure that our colleagues respect principles of caution? Should you not recall the principle of the benefit/risk balance, according to whichan experimental and manifestly toxic product should never be injected into a young adult or a child when they have no risk of dying from Covid?

Many of us believe that the Council should advise against continuing this medical experiment on adults without comorbidities who take vitamin D, zinc and DHEA, all the more so if they have already had Covid and, as a result, their risk of dying from Covid is practically non-existent.

Should the Council not remind people that toxic substances are not given – unknown ones, what is more (as a reminder, the composition of these experimental products called vaccines has still not been disclosed) – to pregnant women?
Even paracetamol has now been shown to be toxic if taken during pregnancy.
How can the Council allow pregnant women to be used as guinea pigs?

Should you not point out the obvious fact that one does not vaccinate against a disease a patient who has just had that disease and who, as a result, already has a very high level of antibodies? Are you certain that overstimulating their immune system carries no autoimmune risk? In this case, we are over-vaccinating against the original Wuhan strain, which has not been in circulation for 2 years (risk: ADE reaction): we are doing more harm than good by diverting the immune system from the current variants.

Would anyone have imagined, even 3 years ago, that it would be possible to force the entire population to be guinea pigs in a medical experiment that is not yet over and still in phase 3?

Is it not revealing that, even though 90% of the population is “vaccinated”, there have never been as many Covid cases as there are now and that the most affected countries are the most “vaccinated”?!

It is in the most vaccinated countries that mortality “from unknown causes” has risen most and that “death from unknown causes” has become the leading cause of death since this year...

As you have noted, these “vaccines” were placed on the market solely on the basis of studies carried out or sponsored by the vaccine producers (merchants) themselves... We are moving from phase 2 to phase 3 across the whole population, which in practice amounts to a forced and illegal placing on the market; the medium- and long-term side effects are neither properly studied nor taken into account:

• no medium/long-term oncological study,
• no study on the emergence of autoimmune diseases,
• no study of genetic modifications brought about
• no study concerning the teratogenicity of this new therapy

The media and the experts who speak there and advise our ministers suffer from serious conflicts of interest (also working for the industry) and content themselves, without any further
analysis, with blissfully repeating the industry’s figures:

• 95-96% claimed efficacy of the vaccine, before they came onto the market,
• these figures were revised downwards to 70%, then to 50% claimed efficacy
• and then 25-30% claimed efficacy against severe forms
• “does not prevent the disease but prevents dying from it” (whereasin reality it is the Omicron variants that are much less deadly, including among the unvaccinated).
• “does not protect in the age group under 60, but only elderly people with comorbidities”
• and today, even this last claim is being called into question according to the latest studies...

How could doctors be reproached for reporting these truths?
Is scientific debate not vital to the safety of the population and to the progress of Science?
Is citizen debate not at the heart of democracy and of our fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

Can the Medical Council deny scientific evidence, censor, threaten and sanction doctors who testify to what they observe in their surgeries? Can the Medical Council trample on the precautionary principle and freedom of expression?
Is the Medical Council above the Constitution, and does it bear no criminal liability following this censorship, this excessive vaccine propaganda and the endangering of the lives of others caused by this dogmatic and deceitful communication, which manifestly constitutes deception, blackmail andabuse of power?

Do you intend to continue to persecute all the doctors who treat their Covid patients with treatments other than the incongruous protocol that had been imposed as the official protocol (the 3 ‘D’s: “Dafalgan, Dyspnoea, Death”)?
Yet managing Covid is simple and greatly reduces the risk of complications, provided that doctors are allowed to treat early.

As a doctor who respects the Hippocratic Oath, like many of my colleagues, I also advise each of my patients to exercise the greatest caution before choosing to be a guinea pig for an experimental gene therapy for vaccine purposes in phase 3.
Do you intend to summon us all because we dare to respect the obligation to inform patients and the precautionary principle, which are nevertheless enshrined in Law?

Do you not think it would have been appropriate for the Medical Council, whether national or provincial, to send a letter to each of its members offering its most abject apologies for having pushed them to get “vaccinated”, for having ordered them to promote this experimental vaccine to their patients without reservation (not at risk of severe forms of Covid), some of whom will be left with lifelong after-effects following vaccination or who have died from it or who simply believed the official discourse that the vaccine would supposedly confer immunity and protect them and those around them, and who feel they have been abused and deceived?

Instead, rather than keeping a low profile, you continue to persecute doctors who have done nothing but their job, conscientiously and professionally – doctors who listen to and examine their patients, who read the scientific literature and who take into account publications reporting that this “vaccine” is very ineffective and causes far more damage and deaths than all the other vaccines marketed to date put together.

Does the Medical Council have full knowledge of the composition (still secret to this day, it seems) of these experimental injections? From a medical and scientific point of view, is it not essential to know the full composition of a product claimed to be a medicine?

These injections do not stop the spread of the virus, do not confer immunity and have not proven their safety at all – quite the contrary. The precautionary principle does not consist in having to prove that a product is dangerous, but on the contrary in having to prove that it is not dangerous before selling it and injecting it massively into a healthy population.

Only respect for the precautionary principle can ensure the effective implementation of the “primum non nocere”, which is the foundation of all medical ethics. “Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul.”

Yours faithfully, Mr President, with my respectful regards.

Doctor Stéphane Résimont

(*) I naturally have the greatest respect for the principles of clinical trials in pharmacology, having myself been a penniless student who, in my 3rd, 4th and 5th years of medical school, took part on several occasions as a volunteer guinea pig and had to fill in a large number of documents to give my informed consent.
But it seems vital to me (and this falls within the criminal sphere) that phase 3 clinical trials be monitored with a placebo versus active substance comparison, with follow-up of the volunteer guinea pigs, who must, in full legality, have been informed beforehand of the risks and informed that this is an ongoing medical experiment.
Does the Medical Council respect these legal obligations in the way it communicates with doctors in this context?

In the case of this gigantic mass trial on all categories of the population, what follow-up is being carried out?
My vaccinated patients have told me that they have not been followed up in any way by the Authorities to find out whether they had suffered side effects. None.
Should the Medical Council and the other medical authorities not be alarmed by this and call for an immediate halt to this mass medical experiment, which is manifestly dangerous and unmonitored.
On the contrary, the Medical Council has chosen to pursue a veritable “witch hunt” against frontline doctors who dare to speak out about the side effects, damage and deaths caused by this illegally conducted experiment. Should your criminal liability for deception, harassment, censorship of scientific debate and endangering the lives of others not concern you more?

(**) A disease I know “a little” about, having written an article in the Revue Médicale de Bruxelles as early as my 6th and 7th years of medical school.

(***) And according to an annexed study: no more than one month of relative protection in adolescents.

Ed. note: The letter is dated 7 September 2022.

Ed. note: Update: Open letter from Dr Résimont of 28 October 2022.