Right of reply: the lack of transparency and debate endangers science and public health

To begin this right of reply, let us recall this sentence by Henri Poincaré, well known to the signatories of the Carte Blanche: “Thought must never submit, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to anything whatsoever, except to the facts themselves, because for it, to submit would be to cease to be.”

We also find on the ULB website^[2] that “Free inquiry, which is the basis of the scientific method, is also a principle to which one subscribes through commitment... The free inquirer therefore undertakes to bring his words and deeds into line with what he holds to be true. He has the courage to speak his truth and to defend it.”

Yet the Carte Blanche to which we are responding here perfectly illustrates the dogmatic drift of a scientific and media system. It is precisely this drift that Poincaré denounces, and it is precisely what led to the creation of BAM!.

To begin with, our eminent professors attempt an argument that smells of mothballs: Trump allegedly bears responsibility for 40% of Covid deaths in the United States because of his statements, implying that freedom of expression killed more than 166,000 Americans (all Republicans, probably). To back up these accusations, an article in the Lancet^[3]… dating from February 2021… Since then, Biden has done no better, with a much more vaccinated population and 463,000 Covid deaths against 413,000 under Trump^[4]. The most plausible hypothesis is therefore that the virus does not have an eye for precision and does not care about the President of the United States… and frankly neither do we.

BAM!

Next, BAM! is labelled a “purveyor of alternative truths”, relaying videos by Prof. Gala, Dr Sacré or the Doctothon on children.

BAM! has never claimed to hold the truth. On the contrary, we start from the principle that no one holds it. We regularly denounce^[5] those who claim to hold it when that is inaccurate (“the vaccine makes it possible to control infections”, “we will get our old life back at 70% vaccination”, etc.) or when they do not know (“Covid vaccines are safe and effective in the long term”).

BAM! is a citizen media outlet whose mission is to inform, to debate and to give a voice to people who have a different view of the crisis. As for Prof. Gala, he has also been interviewed by RTBF^[6] and RTL-TVI^[7]. Generally speaking, with the exception of articles written by its journalists, the views expressed on BAM! are solely those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BAM!

Moreover, we have on several occasions invited one of the signatories of the Carte Blanche to which we are responding here.

BAM! also represents a significant number of citizens who do not, or no longer, find themselves on the chessboard of the traditional media, which no longer play their role as a counter-power, essential though it is in a democracy. No one can deny that the government and the media have done nothing but instil fear and spread one-sided information with the aim, laudable in their eyes, of strengthening the population's support for the decisions taken at the CODECO meetings. In doing so, all information that might call into question the soundness of the decisions has been carefully discredited, censored or relegated to the background. Managing a crisis through fear and disinformation is neither reasonable nor effective in the long term.

We believe that in a democracy it is important to give a voice to citizens or experts from different backgrounds, particularly on subjects that have a major influence on their lives and their future – and that of their children.

How can adherents of Free Inquiry dispute that one may express a doubt or prompt reflection among citizens who are, after all, supposed to choose freely?

While BAM! is a collective bringing together citizens with different opinions, we are all fervent defenders of freedom of expression, the rule of law and free and informed choice, all enshrined in the Belgian Constitution and laws as well as in all democratic international legislation. Notions that many politicians, journalists and professors seem to have forgotten for nearly two years.

Besides, some at BAM! are not opposed in principle to the anti-Covid vaccine but envisage a management in which the vaccine is one of the means and not the pillar of health policy. This is, moreover, an opinion shared by a growing number of experts[8].

Holding the people who have a different opinion or make a different choice responsible for divisions in the population is absolutely unjustified. These same people are the target of lies, discrimination and stigmatisation, including from the government and certain experts^[9].

Finally, stigmatising “the violence of demonstrations against health policies” is naïve at best. In Belgium, the victims of the rioters are in reality the demonstrators and their demands. Let us not be fooled: this violence is exploited both by the government to discredit the demonstrators and by the protesters to denounce the brutality of the repression.

Prof. Patrick Meyer

Since the authors of the Carte Blanche reproach BAM! for having relayed the remarks of Prof. Patrick Meyer, let us set the record straight. He has always spoken in his own name and did not claim that the vaccine was responsible for excess mortality. He only said that, on the basis of predictive models, he detected a correlation between excess mortality and vaccination, and therefore asked for access to the anonymised raw data on deaths and vaccinations, in order to dispel doubts about excess mortality and its causes, where appropriate. He is not the only one, moreover, since Prof. Doshi makes the same request in the BMJ^[10].

We will not dwell on the dubious conflations used against Prof. Meyer, calling him a populist. They are totally inappropriate in an academic-level debate. We simply note that none of the thirty signatories managed to argue on the substance. If the aim is to dispel doubt, these thirty professors should, like Prof. Meyer, demand access to the raw data on deaths and vaccinations.

In fact, Prof. Meyer is above all criticised for “influencing the ongoing debates on mandatory vaccination”… even though a debate is open in Parliament and experts from many disciplines are expressing their opinion on the subject in all the media!

And when Prof. Meyer says in the BAM! interview^[11] that he is “not certain that, with 100% vaccinated, we would still be in a democracy”, he is expressing the scientific impossibility of verifying the benefit/risk balance of vaccination (and hence its justification) if the entire population were vaccinated.

Scientific consensus

There is no such thing as “one science”, but rather “a scientific approach”. It has a few characteristics common to all disciplines. It consists, on the basis of observations, in formulating theoretical hypotheses and then trying to validate them through experiment (or rigorous extended observation, in some disciplines). Consequently, no plausible hypothesis can be ruled out as long as it has not been invalidated by experiment (or observation).

Scientific consensus on a question takes a long time to form. Ideally it requires a meta-analysis of all the analyses carried out on a subject, as well as an adversarial debate between proponents of different theories to validate new observations, accept new concepts and manage to forge a common position (until the consensus is called into question by new evidence)^[12].

It is therefore essential to consider all hypotheses, to debate them and to verify them. Scientific consensus does not consist in bringing together people who share the same opinion while silencing those who do not.

Is freedom of expression dangerous for society?

“Freedom of opinion is a farce if information about the facts is not guaranteed and if it is not the facts themselves that are the subject of debate.” - Hannah Arendt

The Carte Blanche claims that the dissemination of contradictory information endangers the population.

Do we need a single party so that there is no more dissent and the population supports the government's decisions?

Should Parliament be abolished to avoid pointless verbiage that could confuse the population?

Let us be honest: unverified or false information has been spread, including by ministers, experts and the so-called “of record” press. That one should be faced with an unprecedented situation and get things wrong is understandable, but preventing criticism is not acceptable. Criticism is a condition of the proper functioning of a democratic society, and for good reasons. First, it makes it possible to avoid repeating the same mistakes and ensures the constructive development of society. Second, and contrary to what the signatories of the Carte Blanche seem to say, it is essential to fostering the population's support in the long term and to preserving the authority of the State.

We are modest enough to think that we do not hold the truth. But we believe that contradiction, exchange and debate are essential in order to make progress and understand one another.

We therefore invite the eminent professors who took the time to sign the Carte Blanche in Le Vif to come and share their point of view at BAM.

Hughes Belin and Marc-Henri Wouters for BAM!

Link to the letter:
click here

^[1] https://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/

^[2] https://actus.ulb.be/fr/presse/kit-media/le-principe-du-libre-examen

^[3] https://www.thelancet.com/

^[4] https://ourworldindata.org/

^[5] https://bam.news/bam-detox/

^[6] https://www.rtbf.be/article/

^[7] https://www.rtl.be/

^[8] https://fb.watch/9YYZ7WQT8S/

^[9] https://bam.news/

^[10] https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102

^[11] https://bam.news/videos/interview-de-patrick-meyer-professeur-a-l-uliege/

^[12] https://covidrationnel.be/2021/07/18/quand-la-science-devoyee-nuit-a-la-sante/

Photo source:
BAM! screenshot

Quotations from English-language sources are translated back here from the French.