Open letter in response to the article in “Le Soir” of 3-11-2022
- (copy of the article at the end of the letter)
The article written by Anne-Sophie Leurquin and Arthur Sente and published by the newspaper “Le Soir” on 3-11-2022 is surprising in its imprecision, its omissions and its bias [1].
First of all, from a strictly legal point of view, the aforementioned journalists should have found out more about the exact content of the summons, either from Dr S. or from the Aviq, or from the plaintiff or her lawyer. Had they done so, they would have found that the plaintiff – in addition to the law of 22 August 2002 on patients' rights – also invokes the law of 7 May 2004 on experiments on human beings, which does indeed provide in its Art. 6 §1 that the patient's consent must be given in writing [2]. This law does indeed apply to the case in point since, on the one hand, the vaccines administered are only in phase 3 (known as “experimental” and holding only a provisional marketing authorisation), and on the other hand, a vaccine must be considered a medicine under Art. 1 – 1° of the law of 25-3-1964 on medicines.
Similarly, the Code of Medical Ethics – also invoked in the summons – requires in its Article 45 the written consent of a patient taking part in a human experiment. Moreover, when the aforementioned journalists point out that vaccination centres do not ask for written consent either, they are in reality only further demonstrating the fault committed by the Aviq in its organisation of the vaccination campaign.
Next, when speaking of the management of the “pandemic emergency”, Ms Leurquin and Mr Sente give a singular summary of it: according to them, the time needed (7 to 10 years) to obtain a definitive marketing authorisation was too long in view of the need to “urgently protect the most vulnerable and ensure continuity of care in overloaded hospitals”. In March 2020, the official instructions were to send patients home simply taking paracetamol, thereby encouraging the development of the disease, and it therefore became necessary to hospitalise en masse patients who could easily have been treated. Consequently, speaking of overloaded hospitals as though it were inevitable is fallacious. Moreover, 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 nutritional deficiency: “Almost all the patients who ended up becoming seriously ill or even dying in hospital had a severe selenium and zinc deficiency in their blood on admission” [3]. It must be noted that no general prevention measure was promoted by the public authorities (and in particular the Aviq, even though this is its mission!) 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. Let us also recall that the first two doses of these vaccines were supposed to have an “effectiveness” of 95%, but that the latest independent studies show that vaccinated people develop more severe forms than unvaccinated people, and this even among people over 85. The September 2022 figures from the DREES(Directorate for Research, Studies, Evaluation and Statistics)of the French Government clearly indicate thattriple vaccination exposes people more to severe forms of Covid and to deaththan unvaccinated people! [4]. Clearly, the journalists are poorly informed.
According to them, this accelerated marketing authorisation “scrupulously guaranteed the same level of safety while continuing to monitor possible side effects closely”, insisting moreover on describing these as “very rare”. Let us recall that the clinical trials were carried out by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, that they did not assess the effects of repeated doses or even of mixing different vaccines, that the accelerated marketing authorisation could not take long-term adverse effects into account, and that the vaccines are being distributed to billions of people. The official record of serious side effects (leading to hospitalisation, life-threatening situations or death) reported in Belgium stood at 2,750 cases as of 24 January 2022 [5], and according to European pharmacovigilance data, in a population that is not dying of Covid, 800,000 adverse effects have been reported, including 26,000 deaths [6].
Rather than asking about the underlying reasons for this complaint, Le Soir prefers to transcribe the writings that Dr S. published on a specialised medical platform (MediQuality), an opinion piece entitled: “La solitude d’une généraliste trainée devant les tribunaux par des complotistes”. The title sets the tone; the author does not address health, nor adverse effects, but hides behind the “scientific and governmental recommendations” that she “scrupulously (and with conviction)” applied. It is she, a “mere executor” of the vaccination, who is the victim of an “astounding 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 (remarks reproduced in full in the Le Soir article):“The plaintiff managed to find pseudo-doctors who wrote pseudo-certificates asserting pseudo-links between her condition and my Big Pharma syringe” she says ironically. “The secrecy of the investigation [7] does not allow me to name them, but you will have guessed that they include all the druids of the antivax and conspiracy spheres of French-speaking Belgium, some of them fired from a few hospitals for the same reasons.”. Yet, from a medical point of view, if her patient was in perfect health before the injection (which she should know better than anyone), how else can the pathologies (serious neurological disorders) she suffers from today be explained? It should be noted that proof of a causal link by exclusion of any other possible cause is now accepted by the case law of the French Conseil d'Etat (judgment of 29-9-2021), precisely in the matter of adverse effects following vaccination. The real victim in this story is indeed the plaintiff.
Dr S. appropriates the caricatural expressions “antivax and conspiracy theorists” to lump them together with a person who, duly vaccinated, is asking for her disability and suffering to be recognised. The mere fact of having to go to court demonstrates how hard it is for her to be heard. Denial of suffering is a denial of humanity. The expression “conspiracy theorist” is used indiscriminately for the sole purpose of discrediting those who voice criticism of the government doxa on the management of the pandemic, without however refuting their arguments [8].
To return to the aforementioned article in “Le Soir”, it should be noted that the wording of the last paragraph of this article leads uninformed readers (probably the majority of the newspaper's readership) to think that the action brought against Dr S. is indeed the work of the “anti-vaccine circles”, and that it is indeed “pseudo-doctors who wrote pseudo-certificates”. Indeed, in the absence of any critical comment or distancing from Dr S.'s assertions, there is nothing to suggest that they should be treated with caution. More precisely, did Ms Leurquin and Mr Sente enquire as to what these “anti-vaccine circles” were, did they ask the plaintiff or her lawyer to be able to check who these “pseudo-doctors” were, or to be able to consult the “pseudo-certificates”? And if this had proved impossible, why did they express no reservations about the terms used? It therefore appears that these journalists seem to have failed in their duty to provide complete and objective information (including verification of the truthfulness of the information) guaranteed by the Code of Journalistic Ethics and the Declaration of the Duties and Rights of Journalists.
The role of journalists is not to discredit but to inform.
The citizens' 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 (*)
[1] Le Soir article of 3 November 2022, or read the copy below:
[2] Anyone can read the exact text of the 2004 law (like any other legislative text, for that matter) by consulting, for example, the Belgian law portal: http://www.droitbelge.be/codes.asp or the website of the Ministry of Justice: https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/doc/rech_f.htm. Had these journalists taken the trouble to consult this text, they would have learned that at least two of the conditions laid down in Art. 5 for undertaking an experiment are not met: alternatives exist, and the benefit-risk balance must be constantly monitored.
[3] “7 sur 7” article of 11 October 2021
[4] Article on the DREES data of 8 October 2022
[5] https://covidrationnel.be/2022/02/18/pharmacovigilance-et-balance-benefices-risques/
[6] According to European data, 800,000 adverse effects have been reported and 26,000 deaths. Among 12-17-year-olds, 15,000 serious effects have been reported, and among 5-11-year-olds 1,700 serious effects. Across all age groups, that is one serious effect for every 100 vaccinated people and 1 death for every 3,000 vaccinated people. According to American data, 99% of adverse event reports in 2021 and 2022 concern the “Covid vaccines”. There is 1 myocarditis for every 1,000 injections, one hospitalisation for every 1,000 injections and one death for every 5,000 injections. And it is statistically proven that at best 10% of adverse effects reach the recording agencies. For more information on adverse effects: http://etincelles.be; the VAERS figures are understated by afactor of 20: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355581860_COVID_vaccination_and_age-stratified_all-cause_mortality_risk; 93% of the autopsied patients did indeed die from the vaccine: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/bhakdiburkhardt-pathology-results; how to verify the number of deaths due to covid vaccines in America: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/how-to-verify-for-yourself-that-over; an Australian review lists the side effects: https://opastpublishers.com/open-access/covid-19-vaccines-an-australian-review.pdf; a documented review of the vaccine's side effects and deaths: https://swprs.org/covid-vaccine-adverse-events/
[7] In this case, it is a summons before the Court of First Instance and not a criminal complaint: speaking of “secrecy of the investigation” is therefore inaccurate (there is no judicial investigation under way!) and serves as a screen for Dr S. to wrongly excuse herself from naming the doctors concerned.
[8] A conspiracy is a plan concerted secretly in order to harm someone or an institution. The term “conspiracy theorist” is inappropriate insofar as it implies the existence of a conspiracy that does not exist: the official discourse is known to all and refers to various scientific arguments presented as the only truth, which are indeed contested by many top-level scientists as well as by many doctors in the field. In this respect, it should be stressed that neither the so-called “mainstream” written press nor television has ever organised an adversarial debate to compare the theses at stake, and has never even approached the proponents of theses dissenting from the official discourse to learn what they contain.
(*) These citizens' collectives have joined forces to break out of the single way of thinking that has been omnipresent since the beginning of this crisis, in which all public debate has been brushed aside without regard for the precautionary principle that should prevail. They intend to inform citizens about data that are not published by the mainstream media, and to challenge the latter to bring debates worthy of the name back into the public sphere.
Link to the letter:
Open letter in response to the article in “Le Soir” of 3-11-2022
The opinions expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent those of BAM!
Photo source: Screenshot
