Vaccines are not without risk, here’s why

Forced and massively administered vaccines to the population are neither completely harmless nor really effective. Also, their long-term side effects are unknown. Explanations with Jean-Marc Sabatier, research director at the CNRS and doctor in Cellular Biology and Microbiology, affiliated with the Institute of Neuro Physiopathology (INP), at the University of Aix-Marseille.

Jean-Marc Sabatier (DR)

After 18 months of compulsory vaccination, the Minister of Health, Olivier Véran, invokes the “vaccine fatigue of the French” as a reason for not imposing the 4ᵉ dose. Can the Covid-19 vaccination be dangerous?

Jean-Marc Sabatier– To answer, you have to know how it works. The SARS-CoV-2 virus attacks our body and induces Covid-19 diseases. To protect ourselves and defend our body, we must teach our immune system to neutralize the virus through vaccination. In order to teach our organism to defend itself before being infected by the virus, it is necessary to present it with components of the virus, namely one or more of its viral proteins. For this purpose, one or more viral antigens are injected, or the body produces (one or more of) these antigens. The majority of current vaccines target the body’s production of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (the viral surface protein that recognizes the ACE2 receptor in target cells) using mRNA vaccines (Pfizer vaccines -BioNtech or Moderna) or viral vector vaccines expressing this protein (AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines). Novavax’s upcoming “Nuvaxovid” vaccine is based directly on the recombinant spike protein. In reality, these vaccine spike proteins are slightly modified from the viral spike protein. In the case of Chinese vaccines (Sinovac and Sinopharm), the entire viral particle is injected and its infectivity is neutralized by prior chemical treatment. The purpose of these vaccines is to stimulate the immune response to recognize and neutralize SARS-CoV-2.

That’s the theory. But in reality, do vaccines fulfill their mission?

J.-M. S. – The vaccines used must meet two criteria: they must be effective against the virus and harmless to our body. To date, it is clear that vaccinated people can become infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants and transmit the virus to other people. So there is a big problem of efficiency.
Also, these first-generation vaccines (based on the spike protein of the Wuhan virus, which is a viral strain that has not been circulating for around 18 months) are not without side effects – more or less serious – in vaccinated people. This means that these vaccines are not always harmless to different people, which is also a major problem, because the vaccine safety that should be a requirement for any vaccine does not exist.

Thus, vaccines against Covid have side effects. What are they ?

J.-MS – Among the so-called “immediate” side effects of vaccination are myocarditis, pericarditis, thromboses, thrombocytopenia, menstrual disorders and many others. There is also a strong fear of “late” side effects (which can take months or years to appear), such as autoimmune diseases, cancers and neurological pathologies. For all these reasons, I do not recommend compulsory and massive vaccination of populations (especially the youngest) against SARS-CoV-2 with the current pseudo-vaccines.

What would you recommend: medication?

J.-MS – For my part, it is clear that the objective pursued by the majority of countries in the world is the vaccination of all against SARS-CoV-2. This mass vaccination is unreasonable and often comes at the expense of potential alternative treatments, such as vitamin D, ivermectin and others. Personally, I think that the mass vaccination of populations does not have a purely health objective. It should be noted that major pharmaceutical companies have recently offered anti-Covid-19 treatments, including Pfizer with “Paxlovid” (a combination of a 3CL protease inhibitor and ritonavir), and Merck with “Molnupiravir” (an analogue nucleoside).

What about natural immunity, especially with the Omicron variant which is less dangerous than the previous ones?

J.-MS – I think the Omicron variant and its BA.2 sub-variant are a great opportunity to end a pandemic that has been going on for two years now sooner. Indeed, the characteristics of this variant are favorable to us, because it is extremely contagious – up to half a million people infected per day in France – but very little malicious / virulent, with a very low lethality (3.2 times lower than the Delta variant, according to a recent study in the UK) which itself has approximately 4 times less lethality than the historical strain of the Wuhan virus.
The successive appearance of the Delta then Omicron variants follows a virological logic, with the appearance of increasingly infectious but less lethal variants of SARS-CoV-2. Thanks to the natural immunity acquired after infection by Omicron (or even Delta), in addition to vaccination, one should go from a pandemic (an epidemic which crosses the borders of countries and can extend over a continent, a hemisphere or worldwide) to endemic (the usual persistence of an infectious and contagious disease in a given region). The disease is then permanent or latent and affects a large part of the population. We speak of endemic when the presence of the disease is known, reported, but this does not mean that the disease is developing or spreading.
A very rapid spread of Omicron in the various countries of the world seems desirable at this stage, since the appearance of a highly infectious and more virulent/lethal variant of SARS-CoV-2 than Omicron cannot be excluded, especially with the strong viral selection pressure exerted by vaccination and mass recalls.

Why then, in your opinion, do scientists on television sets and Scientific Council bodies insist on compulsory vaccination?

J.-MS – I think the Scientific Council is doing what it can in a particularly difficult context. In my opinion, this advice does not have a free hand and must be forced to align itself with the government health policy (also pursued by many countries) which is excessive vaccination for all. In view of the sometimes irrational decisions taken, I cannot imagine that the members of this council really decide on French health policy.
As for the doctors and “specialists” who appear on television, they are often the same people invited; they are all very favorable to mass vaccination and multiple boosters. Those who have a different opinion and/or who have doubts about the merits of non-selective vaccination of the population are generally not invited. Thus, the speeches in the media all go in the same direction and are in favor of vaccination, which is regrettable.
I would like to specify that I personally have no conflict of interest with pharmaceutical laboratories or other lobbies. My speech is free.

Vaccines: immediate and long-term dangers of the 3rd dose

Comments are closed.