Recent publications have highlighted the unusual potential of hepatitis B vaccines to produce markers of auto-immunity such as anti-phospholipids antibodies. Combined with an impressive body of convergent data, these papers contribute to the biological basis for how hepatitis B vaccines, with a high degree of certainty, can induce autoimmune reactions, some of them quite severe.
(NB. This paper was rejected by Clin Dev Immunol in 2005, with the haste normally expected as far as the toxicity of hepatitis B vaccines is concerned...)
The following correspondence was rejected in 2005 by the British Medical Journal. Having regard to the persistent stubborness of regulatory bodies not to see evidence of toxicity before new drugs are registered, it is still of relevance...
On June 4, 2011, I was asked by Mr. P. X. to perform an assessment on his case, after he developed a variety of acute and chronic symptoms following his immunization against hepatitis B. To perform this assessment, I received by fax a 10-page summary of his medical history.
Regarding my professional qualification, I have worked since 1982 in the field of drug monitoring and pharmacoepidemiology, with a special focus on the assessment of causality. Regarding hepatitis B vaccines, in France and abroad, I was requested as a medical expert witness to perform several dozens of assessments further to injuries ascribed by the plaintiffs to these vaccines. In addition, I was commissioned by the French Court (Paris) in charge of the criminal inquiry on the national campaign of vaccination which was launched in 1994. Overall, I spent thousands of hours on the hepatitis B vaccination issue, and had the opportunity of examining a number of confidential documents related to the registration or post-marketing surveillance processes. Although and regrettably, much of this documentation is embargoed as secret by Court order according to French law (as there is no Freedom of Information Act in France), in a number of instances it permitted indirect cross-checking with public data.
In Dec., 2010, I have been interviewed by a British journalist on the new flu vaccination campaign.
This paper was published on 03 Nov, 2010, by the British Medical Journal, as a rapid response to a News (27 Sept, 2010) on the influence of hormones on the incidence of breast cancer
An expert workshop organised in European Parliament (Brussels), by Michèle Rivasi and Corinne Lepage.
Although evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been introduced 15-20 years ago as a new paradigm in order to root medical practice more deeply into scientific rationality, poor understanding of its principles often leads to a regrettable mistake: in the quest for “the best available evidence”, emphasis should be on “available” and not on “the best”.
Having missed this crucial point, most health professionals stand now their grounds in a naïve, but damaging contempt for every data which does not complies with the so-called “gold-standard” of prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
By comparison to the parliamentary committees dealing with the management of the H1N1 flu and whose pitiful ministrations we can appreciate on a daily basis, the commission of inquiry demanded by 210 Members of the European Parliament alone aimed from the outset for a regulatory technical audit of the European Medicines Agency, the agency which authorized the new vaccines. It is only such a commission which could have allowed us, for example, to understand how a mass vaccination campaign could have been authorized at the end of a botched development of a few weeks, based on evidence of questionable reliability and which resulted in particular in seven totally unexplained deaths.
This alone would have allowed the documentation of the state to which pharmaceutical evaluation procedures have been insidiously perverted by the European Authorities since the directive EEC/65/65. This alone would have allowed, in an exemplary way, a startling light to be shed on the predatory influence lobbies exert on political authorities. We understand why European Parliament officials might have conspired to abort this project: they had seen it coming perfectly well – and they knew it could be terrible…
Clearly, as early as on 28 April, 2009, it was already possible to claim publicly that swine flu was an unfounded alarm...