Dr Colignon: acquitted on the substance
Initially suspended for two years, Dr Alain Colignon has been acquitted on the substance but sanctioned on the form. Denouncing an attack on medical freedom of expression, he intends to take the case to the Court of Cassation. Beyond his own case, he is challenging the Medical Council on its practices and calling for far-reaching reform.
A sanction overturned on a procedural flaw
Dr Alain Colignon had been sentenced to a two-year suspension by the Hainaut Provincial Council for remarks deemed contrary to medical dignity. That decision was, however, overturned because of a procedural flaw: the composition of the bench was irregular. Referred to by Benoît Dejemeppe, president of the National Council, the Court of Cassation ordered a new appeal before the same body, but differently composed. The latter reduced the sanction to two months, considering that the doctor’s remarks fell within freedom of expression on matters of general interest, while reproaching him for their virulence. Dr Colignon contests this decision, which he considers contradictory, and is announcing an appeal to the Court of Cassation.
A favourable appeal, but contested
The Appeal Council has delivered its ruling: the suspension has been reduced to two months. In its reasoning, the Council judiciously distinguishes two levels: substance and form. On the substance, it recognises that the criticisms made by Dr Colignon of the handling of the pandemic, in particular regarding treatments, fall within freedom of expression on matters of general interest. On the form, however, the Council considers that the tone used, deemed insulting and personally directed at several colleagues and members of the Council, constitutes an ethical offence.
Considering that form cannot be separated from substance without restricting freedom of expression itself, Dr Colignon has announced his intention to appeal to the Court of Cassation against this new decision. It remains uncertain at this stage whether Benoît Dejemeppe, for his part, will decide to appeal to the Court of Cassation against this decision.
|
|
Click here to read the appeal decision (in French)
Criticism of the Council’s governance
This move is part of a wider fight, which he sets out in an open letter addressed on 27 May 2025 to Benoît Dejemeppe. In it he denounces the Council’s persistent refusal to open a debate on the ethics of the decisions taken during the pandemic, and on the ties of interest between certain Belgian medical experts and the pharmaceutical industry. He mentions in particular the case of Dr Nicolas Dauby, whom he accuses of having played a key role in the official strategy while being linked to institutions partly funded by private laboratories. Two investigative articles published by BAM! shed light on these accusations: one, entitled “Un expert indépendant ?” (An independent expert?)[1], traces the links between the Institute for Medical Immunology (where Dr Dauby works), the ULB, GSK and the Gates Foundation. The other, “Le Dr Colignon dépose plainte contre le Dr Dauby” (Dr Colignon files a complaint against Dr Dauby)[2], reports on the filing of an official complaint, still under review.
In his letter, Colignon also refers to two scientific publications he considers central to understanding his positions: one published in 2020 by Dr Dauby himself in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents[3], the other in 2022 by Valère Lounnas, in the American university journal ScholarWorks[4]. According to him, these studies show that certain early treatments were wrongly dismissed, to the detriment of patients.
|
|
Beyond the disciplinary debate, Dr Colignon is therefore calling for a far-reaching reform of the Medical Council, which he accuses of conflicts of interest, lack of transparency and institutional compromise. He argues for a Council refocused on its primary mission: guaranteeing medicine faithful to its essential ethical principles, sheltered from outside influence and serving the interests of patients.
Marcan for BAM!
[1] BAM! News - Un expert indépendant ? (in French)
[2] Le Dr Colignon dépose plainte contre le Dr Dauby (in French)
[3] Low‑dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID‑19: a nationwide observational study of 8075 participants - ScienceDirect
[4] An Independent Analysis of a Retrospective Cohort of 30,423 Covid‑19 P vid‑19 Patients T atients Treated at IHU‑Mediterr eated at IHU‑Mediterranean in Marseille, anean in Marseille, France: P ance: Part 2, a Real‑lif t 2, a Real‑life Assessment of Co e Assessment of Covid‑19 V vid‑19 Vaccination accination Efficacy
