Open letter to the presidents of the councils of the Order and to all my fellow clinicians
Marsac on 01/10/2021
Dear colleague,
I am a doctor, retired for 5 years and with 45 years of particularly eclectic clinical experience: university hospital medicine, internal medicine, general medicine (in Belgium) and cardiology (in France). Since my retirement, I had only followed the Covid 19 epidemic from a distance until, a few months ago, following the advice of the political and health “authorities”, I received the second injection of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. Since then, I have been suffering from diffuse muscular pains and sweating on exertion, which make me feel 10 years older. These disabling side effects, as well as the obvious emergence, in my close circle, of other side effects that are by no means benign, and a growing distrust of the constraints imposed by these “authorities”, have prompted me to try to shed some light on my situation. And if I am writing this letter, it is because I have been appalled by what I have discovered.
Logically, I first looked for objective scientific and medical data on this new disease, but I intentionally included the discourse of these proven clinical colleagues or scientists of undisputed competence whom the same “authorities” and most of the media have qualified – since the pandemic – as “conspirators”. The reason is that history has very often taught us that the “conspiracists” vilified for a time by the “authorities” in place turn out, a few years later, to be heroes, “resisters” to the power in place and saviours of our humanity and its deepest values. We applaud those who resisted the Nazi authorities as well as those who fight for the defence of these same values in Afghanistan, Russia or China, noting that these “conspiracists” are always in the minority to begin with. Truth and virtue require courage and rarely rhyme with the majority discourse of the powers that be.
I was lucky enough to discover, at the beginning of my investigation, a video published last June by an internationally renowned American doctor, Dr Richard Fleming . In four hours of lecture, he paints a picture of the “underbelly” of this epidemic that makes me shudder with horror, both as a science enthusiast and an old clinician. His speech convinces me because he bases his remarks exclusively on objective, verifiable and indisputable facts (from documents published by institutions that are “authorities” in their field). I am also particularly sensitive to what he has to say because his training and experience are very similar to mine (clinician in internal medicine and cardiology and researcher for 53 years). His record of achievements is prestigious: 500 scientific publications and a theory of cardiovascular disease that is now included in the classic cardiology textbooks. As for his investigation – thorough and competent – it shows all the signs of great scientific and moral rigour. As the conclusions he draws from his investigation are diametrically opposed to what the so-called “authorities” present to us, it seems to me that, according to their criteria, his discourse should be qualified as “conspiracy”.
The scientist and clinician in me is thus faced with a moral dilemma. If I were still practising, should I blindly trust the constraints imposed by the ‘authorities’ or, on the contrary, listen to my ‘innermost conviction’ – that his words are well-founded – and thus enter into ‘resistance’? Fortunately, I no longer practice medicine, which gives me a freedom of expression that clinicians in office no longer have, since those who do not submit to the rules imposed by the said “authorities” are threatened with losing their authorisation to practice.This “moral” problem is in fact extremely serious and rests, in my opinion, on the question of the legitimacy (and limits) of this “authority” that certain political, scientific and health institutions today attribute to themselves in the name of the idea that they have of the public good and their function in the health of citizens. The function of politicians is to manage the organisation of society in the best possible way, the function of science is to present objective data to decision-makers and the function of health institutions is to organise the health network and the information of doctors in the best possible way. So far, all these institutions are widely publicised by most media.
None of these institutions, however, has the right to replace clinical doctors in the decisions they make, in good conscience, in the singular dialogue that links them (through trust) to their patients. This is a specific function of the medical profession. Even a medical association does not have the right to intervene in a coercive manner on the freedom of conscience of the physician. It would thus seriously contravene the very principles it is supposed to defend: those of the Hippocratic oath (which sacralises the value of the individual and of the one-to-one dialogue) and the fundamental principle of “primum non nocere”. It is particularly regrettable to note that, in this pandemic, the first people concerned by the respect of these principles – general practitioners – have been totally sidelined from the decision-making process in favour of specialists, who are certainly specialists but inevitably less concerned than the latter by the human dimension of the problem.
The constraints imposed today by these “authorities” on the diagnostic and therapeutic freedom of doctors are incompatible with the sacred values of their profession, values to which they all swore loyalty at the beginning of their careers. In view of the turn of events in this pandemic, I have come to believe that the Hippocratic oath, which binds all clinicians – but does not bind any institution – constitutes the last bastion of the defence of fundamental human values in the face of the manipulative and media power of the political, economic and even scientific worlds. After all the scandals (contaminated blood, H1N1, Mediator, Vioxx etc.) that have shaken these honourable institutions, one would have to be very naive to still believe in the absolute purity of their motives.
These institutions, like our entire society, have virtually made science sacred. However, forty years of deep reflection on the relationship between science and medicine have made me clearly understand that this mode of knowledge is, by principle (of objectivity, causality and reductionism) blind to the subjective dimension of reality. This means that Science applied unilaterally to medicine is blind to the reality of the subject. It can only see in the human organism an object devoid of any ‘depth’. It is this “selective blindness” of Science that explains its inability – admitted by all honest researchers – to define life and consciousness.
Scientocracy” is in fact the philosophy that has so far inspired the decision-making logic of the health and political “authorities” but this philosophy suffers from an intrinsic “inhumanity”. It is therefore the role, it seems to me, of real clinicians to give the subject and the individual a central place in the face of the objective but exclusively statistical arguments of the health and political authorities.
Dr Fleming’s remarkable video has the disadvantage of being four hours long and of often going into technical details that are only really relevant to insiders. It seems to me, however, that his message should be known to all clinicians who are confidently embroiled (by natural “submission to authority”) in a global enterprise that has broken all the safety locks put in place for decades by our democratic institutions: The Nuremberg Code (1946), the International Convention on Human Experimentation (1966), the Helsinki Declaration on Research Ethics (1964), the Biological Weapons Convention (1975) and – which should be of interest to the members of the medical profession – the Code of Ethics of the American Medical Association.
Today I am really angry and I know my anger is just. The “authorities” I relied on have misled and continue to mislead (through negligence or compromise, I don’t know) my peers about (1) the reliability of the work of pre-marketing clinical trials, (2) the efficacy of vaccines and, most seriously, (3) their toxicity. However, personally, what most violently offended my “soul” as a researcher and doctor was (4) the deliberate concealment by scientific and political “authorities” of the origin, not “natural” but “chimeric” (artificial), of the virus responsible for the pandemic.
1- Reliability of preliminary studies: The FDA and the ANSM granted the drug manufacturers authorisation for the emergency procedure (EUA) despite the fact that one of its imperative conditions, the non-existence of therapeutic alternatives, was not respected. This allowed them to shorten the duration of the trials from 10 years to 11 months. Moreover, the authorities responsible for verifying the trials (FDA, ANSM) – entirely controlled by these industrialists – did not do their job properly in reading critically the statistics of the results published. A more careful reading (denounced by Fleming and other experts) would have shown them a reality that today even the “authorities” accept, namely that the vaccine does not protect against the risk of reinfection or contagion, nor (obviously) against infection by the inevitable variants.
2- Vaccine efficacy: A critical reading of the clinical trials conducted before marketing shows that the efficacy (close to 90% according to the industry) was in fact evaluated on the basis of a parameter – the “relative risk” – which has no clinical significance, whereas expressed on the basis of the clinically relevant parameter generally used (the “absolute risk”), this efficacy is closer to 1%. The “manipulation” of the figures (and of the statistical incompetence of citizens and doctors) is blatant but unacceptable. Moreover, a careful reading of the results presented by the companies shows that, for example, the effectiveness of the vaccines is not statistically significant in subjects over 70 years of age, who are the primary beneficiaries of the vaccine. If I had known this, I would never have been vaccinated.
As for the post-marketing studies, if you look for them, you will find overwhelming evidence of numerous infections and hospitalizations for Covid 19 in duly vaccinated patients.
3- The critical study of the potential toxicity of vaccines is even more frightening. The “benefit/risk ratio” put forward by the companies is a gross manipulation of statistics. Competent officials would never have allowed it to be put on the market under normal circumstances. Now that millions of people have been vaccinated, it is obvious. The US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) lists over 4,000 deaths and 17,200 severe side effects as of May 2021. In France, the ANMS counted 900 deaths and 8,700 cases of serious side effects for the Pfizer vaccine alone in July 2021. As a reminder, the swine flu epidemic in the USA in 1976 (a famous health scandal) was stopped when 25 deaths were recorded after a similar advertising campaign orchestrated by the political and health “authorities” had led 46 million Americans to be vaccinated.
The public health statistician (the ultimate authority of the ‘scientocracy’) will weigh these figures against the (supposed) number of ‘lives saved’ by the vaccine. In the eyes of any doctor living in a relationship of trust with his patient (the basis of the Hippocratic oath), this calculation is unacceptable because by prescribing or administering a drug that can cause death or serious disability to his patient, he is in no way excusable since, if he knows the statistical risk of the vaccine he is proposing, he is ethically obliged to give this information to his patient and to obtain his “free and informed” consent. By making the vaccine compulsory, the health and political “authorities” are openly flouting these fundamental principles of medicine in the name of statistics on the (potential) incidence and mortality (less than 0.1%) of a “natural” viral disease (see point 4).
Dying of Covid is certainly a tragedy for the relatives, but this death is “natural” (insofar as one believes the Covid virus to be natural). On the other hand, to die because of a vaccine that the doctor was forced to administer or the patient to accept against his will, his duly informed conscience or his intimate conviction is quite simply a sacrilege, an unacceptable attack on fundamental (sacred) human values. It is here that I personally decide to enter into resistance and to give reason to all those anonymous citizens and carers, more and more numerous, who, based on their deep intuition (intimate conviction), oppose the authorities’ directives. The attitude of these political and health authorities is today unacceptable from the point of view of medical ethics. By dispossessing doctors of their specific function, they are in fact complicit in what some call a “crime against humanity”.
4- The “natural” character of the Covid 19 virus. All these “revelations” generate deep anger in me, but the ones in this video that personally frightened me the most are scientific, not medical. They concern the spike protein, the major player in this pandemic and the target of the vaccines. I was unaware, before reading this video, that this protein (the “spines” of the virus) common to all coronaviruses is, in the case of SARS-Cov 2, a pure “chimera”, i.e. the result of genetic manipulation carried out patiently for 20 years in virology laboratories largely financed by the Department of Defense (!!!) of the USA (Ralph Baric’s laboratory) and then “improved” by Chinese virologists in the Wuhan institute (Shi Zhengli’s laboratory). These studies on the ‘gain of function’ of viruses aim to ‘improve’ the virulence of the virus for the human race and its ability to penetrate the brain. It is therefore undoubtedly a biological weapon. These virus tinkerers have in fact ‘inserted’ into the spike protein of the bat coronavirus (H4U4), which is completely harmless to humans, fragments of the AIDS virus (insert of 590 amino acids) and of that of hepatitis C as well as a short “insert” called PRRA made up of 4 amino acids (coded by 12 nucleotides) absent from all the other natural strains of coronavirus and impossible to attribute to natural mutations since it would be necessary for the mutation of 12 successive nucleotides of the genome to appear simultaneously. Moreover, by deforming the protein, these three inserts have created a so-called “prion” domain at its end, similar to the mad cow agent. In fact, this type of disease (spongiform encephalopathy) can be experimentally induced in genetically modified (so-called “humanised”) mice after infection with SARS-Cov-2. SARS-Cov-2 is therefore, in my opinion, unquestionably an artificial virus – a “chimera” – whose creation has “bypassed” all natural selection processes. All the governments involved in the development of this chimera (the USA, China and also France, which co-founded the Wuhan Institute) have been quick to pass this virus off as a zoonosis (the famous pangolin) or the result of (natural) mutations. But a chimera is not a (natural) mutant, and I have the feeling that everything is being done “somewhere” to ensure that this embarrassing truth – which is crucial to the conspiracy theory – is kept quiet.
5- On compulsory and generalised vaccination. We, as clinical doctors, must realise that the current vaccines against this biotechnological “monster” force our own cells to synthesise millions of copies of this chimeric protein imagined and created from scratch by irresponsible scientists. The simple precautionary principle should push us to redouble our vigilance with regard to this doubly atypical vaccine (messenger RNA technology/lipidic nanoparticles and artificial spike antigen), but general practitioners, the witnesses most concerned with the individual health of their patients and the most reliable source of possible side effects, have been left out of the decision-making centres managed by the political, health and scientific authorities. With a year and a half of hindsight, we now have statistics on mortality, lethality and the benefit-risk ratio of the various vaccines marketed. We have a duty to analyse them objectively and, personally, they frighten me.
While the risk of dying is almost zero for a “natural” Covid between the ages of 0 and 14, it is non-zero for vaccine administration. Yet this fact alone does not prevent the authorities from making vaccination compulsory for all children.
In the 15-44 age group, the benefit-risk ratio is approximately equal to 1 (the maximum admissible threshold), but if this same ratio is evaluated in subjects without “comorbidity” (i.e. the majority of this population), it climbs to 3 (1.5 to 4.4), which means that it is three times more toxic than effective. A parent or patient duly informed of these figures would most certainly refuse the vaccine. Since no one has the right to claim parental or personal responsibility in such a situation, the “authorities” have swept aside this right and manipulated the information in the name of “herd immunity” which we now know will never be achieved by vaccines since they do not protect against reinfections, contagiousness or variants.
It seems to me that it is high time to open our eyes to the realities that the “authorities” involved in a one-sided policy cannot face without losing face. We now have sufficient distance from this new disease. Can the medical profession – and in particular general practitioners, who are the first responsible actors in a pandemic – and the professional associations, the only official bulwark of medical ethics, continue to “submit to an authority” that has deprived us of what makes our profession so ethically valuable, its “human density”? As my colleague Richard Fleming repeatedly reminds us: “What if those who claim to cure the problem (the political and scientific ‘authorities’ and the biotechnology industry) are also those who created it? “If, after having watched Dr Fleming’s video in its entirety and, if possible, that of Christine Cotton or Dr de Lorgeril (two French specialists in the critical reading of statistics in clinical studies) you continue, dear colleagues, to place your trust in the discourse of the “authorities”, I am very much afraid that you will not be able to re-establish – when the truth is finally established – the confidence of the population in a medicine that it will, quite rightly, judge very harshly.
Everyone knows that the pandemic has created a wave of deaths in a few months (nothing like the Spanish flu or the plague), an unprecedented shake-up of the world economy, but also a few happy people, the nine new billionaires of the vaccine and biological testing industry. For example, the boss of the firm Moderna – who does not publicly hide his dream of creating a preventive medicine based on the manipulation (‘hacking’, he even says) of the genome, the most precious treasure of every living organism that Nature has taken several billion years to select. When I learn that his personal earnings in 2020 ($4.3 billion) were tax-free (a gift from the state of Delaware), and placed in tax havens (a gift from Switzerland, where his company is headquartered), I find it hard to believe in the purity of the humanitarian objectives of this kind of industry. It is a long time since Dr Sabin, the inventor of the polio vaccine, donated his patent to the children of humanity.
The only way, it seems to me, dear colleagues – and my exhortation is also addressed to all caregivers, parents and young people – to resist the power of these giants is, I think, to enter massively into “resistance” and to unite the growing number of voices of those who guess – without often being able to demonstrate – that something fundamental to man is rotting in our capitalist and hyperliberal society. As a human being, a doctor, a father and a grandfather concerned about the future of future generations, it seems to me that this is a noble “civic duty”.
Very confraternally,
Jean Stevens, 82140 Saint Antonin (France)
PS: At the time of sending this letter I learn of the courageous resignation from the Order of Physicians of a doctor in Montpellier to whom his “health authorities” had refused to allow him to publish (very worrying) results concerning serious side effects in 83 EPHADs. He underlines in passing the worrying increase in side effects of the Pfizer vaccine (+ 160% in two months)
