ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19


Abstract and Figures

Background The COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the control of science by industry. In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal. Therefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations, whose goals are: 1/financial; 2/to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health. Methods Pharmaceutical industry techniques for manipulating science and COVID-19 reporting were reviewed. Several sources of official documents were used: PubMed; National Institutes of Health resources; pharmaceutical companies; policy documents; national newspapers and news agencies; and books by prominent professionals (scientific and legal). A few studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals; however, they have been conducted by reputable scientists in their respective fields. Results Since the beginning of COVID-19, we can list the following methods of information manipulation which have been used: falsified clinical trials and inaccessible data; fake or conflict-of-interest studies; concealment of vaccines’ short-term side effects and total lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccination; doubtful composition of vaccines; inadequate testing methods; governments and international organizations under conflicts of interest; bribed physicians; the denigration of renowned scientists; the banning of all alternative effective treatments; unscientific and liberticidal social methods; government use of behavior modification and social engineering techniques to impose confinements, masks, and vaccine acceptance; scientific censorship by the media. Conclusion By supporting and selecting only the one side of science information while suppressing alternative viewpoints, and with obvious conflicts of interest revealed by this study, governments and the media constantly disinform the public. Consequently, the unscientifically validated vaccination laws, originating from industry-controlled medical science, led to the adoption of social measures for the supposed protection of the public but which became serious threats to the health and freedoms of the population.
Content may be subject to copyright.
 
is is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others
to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
©2022 Published by Scientic Scholar on behalf of Surgical Neurology International
Review Article
e pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health.
Further proof with COVID-19
Fabien Deruelle
Independent Researcher, Ronchin, France.
E-mail: *Fabien Deruelle-
*Corresponding author:
Fabien Deruelle,
PhD, Independent Researcher,
Ronchin, France.
Received : 23April 2022
Accepted : 15September 2022
Published : 21 October 2022
Quick Response Code:
Background: e COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the
control of science by industry. In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical
industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation
of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal.
erefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations,
whose goals are: 1/nancial; 2/to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health.
Methods: Pharmaceutical industry techniques for manipulating science and COVID-19 reporting were reviewed.
Several sources of ocial documents were used: PubMed; National Institutes of Health resources; pharmaceutical
Surgical Neurology International
Editor-in-Chief: Nancy E. Epstein, MD, Clinical Professor of Neurological Surgery, School of
Medicine, State U. of NY at Stony Brook.
SNI: Socio-Economics, Politics, and Medicine
James I. Ausman, MD, PhD
University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA Open Access
Editor’s Note:
SNI is devoted to publishing the truth. SNI has no characteristics by which it judges papers except by fact-
supported information. e COVID-19 pandemic is one that is marked by conicting and confusing information
for the public. e only solution to this problem scientically is to hear all sides of the issue, so that a reasonable
decision can be made. Instead, we nd and learn that practice was not and is not being done. Is the virus a lethal as
is described with high death rates? Should everyone be vaccinated and receive booster including small children and
babies? Should people wear masks and socially isolate? Are the vaccines safe to use or do they have complications,
notable of which are their respiratory, blood clotting, and neurological eects? Why is the public not being
told about them? Are their deeper self-serving interests among the pharmaceutical companies, the Media, and
governments to limit what the public knows? What is the truth? Fabien Deruelle, a French scientist, who is an
independent thinker, saw some disturbing factors involved in the COVID-19 reporting. Aer spending 8months
researching and writing on his own to learn that the controversies surrounding COVID-19, he concluded that there
was a huge amount of misinformation being told and spread, intentionally. e science was being corrupted by
bureaucratic, governmental, pharmaceutical company, Media, and political forces so that the truth was not being
told. e following is his review of the literature on the COVID-19 controversies. Hence, this independent scientist
has discovered known facts which have been suppressed and are emerging in SNI pages and now, elsewhere around
the world. His independent observations are what makes his report special. If you want to see my interview with
him about his experience with the COVID-19 controversy, click here: You decide.
James I. Ausman, MD, PhD
Emeritus Editor-in-Chief; CEO, SNI™ and SNI Digital™ Publications
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
 
e historian of science R. Proctor introduced a term that
represents the study of ignorance, also encompassing the
cultural production of ignorance: agnotology. According
to Proctor: “We believe that we live in an increasingly
informed world, but it is also a world in which ignorance,
even unprecedented ignorance, is gaining ground. ere
is a sociology of ignorance, a politics of ignorance; it has a
history, a geography, and above all, powerful origins and
allies. e manufacture of ignorance has played an important
role in the success of many industries; because ignorance is
the enables others to have power over the people.[74]
In the early 1950s, to avoid nancial collapse due to scientic
evidence showing a link between tobacco and lung cancer,
the tobacco industry decided to control the science by
creating a major scientic controversy. e tobacco industry
developed the strategy of scientic uncertainty. e link
between industry and science was the foundation of the
public relations architecture. It was crucial for the industry to
inuence the media, public opinion, politics, regulation, and
the law. e creation of scientic doubt allowed companies
to attribute the risks imposed by their product to individuals
rather than the companies themselves. Later, other industries,
such as the pharmaceutical industries, would follow the
tobacco industry’s roadmap.[20]
In 2005, a House of Commons report in the UnitedKingdom
detailed the control and consequences of the pharmaceutical
lobby: “people have been taking ineective and harmful
medicines for centuries… e industry is hugely inuential,
aecting every aspect of the medical world, including
prescribers, patients, academics, the media, and even
the institutions designed to regulate it. Its inuence in
Parliament is extensive… Approximately 90% of clinical drug
trials and 70% of trials reported in major medical journals
are conducted or commissioned by the pharmaceutical
i n d u s t r y .” [86]
e following paper will document in detail how the author
reached these conclusions. “As the pharmaceutical industry does
most of the research, inevitably the industry not only has a major
eect on what gets researched, but also how it is researched and
how results are interpreted and reported.[86] Conicts of interest,
nancial, political, and legal corruption are commonplace
in the pharmaceutical industry.[1,4,77,94] is lobby is regularly
responsible for health scandals, to the point that there is even
an epidemic of harmful drug side eects, largely hidden.[106]
ese companies could not act without the media intermediary,
responsible for spreading and the proselytizing of a polluted
science. e COVID-19 period has shown a very high level of
scientic censorship, causing many people diculties to access
relevant health information.[33] Moreover, the pharmaceutical
industries are known for their propaganda in favor of the disease.
Pharmaceutical industries are known to provide inaccurate and
misleading promotional information about their medicines, but
also inaccurate information on diseases and disease risks, which
can lead to unnecessary medication and induce side eects
caused by these medicines.[105]
As shocking as this information may seem, similar to
tactics used by criminal organizations, the pharmaceutical
industry pays for its inuence (bribes) of doctors, academics,
journals, professional and patient organizations, university
departments, journalists, regulators, and politicians by
distributing money or rewards to them in exchange for
their approval the company position. e progressive
corruption of science by the pharmaceutical industries has
become so great that it threatens the health of millions of
people every year and results in the deaths of thousands.
e pharmaceutical industries are, therefore, guilty of
organized crime, which should be recognized as a crime
against humanity.[77,145] In the nal analysis, the fundamental
objective of pharmaceutical companies is not to protect the
health of the population, but, rst, to ensure a return on
investment for their shareholders.[17] “ese shareholders
cannot be held personally responsible for the wrongs or torts
companies; policy documents; national newspapers and news agencies; and books by prominent professionals (scientic and legal). Afew studies have
not been published in peer-reviewed journals; however, they have been conducted by reputable scientists in their respective elds.
Results: Since the beginning of COVID-19, we can list the following methods of information manipulation which have been used: falsied clinical
trials and inaccessible data; fake or conict-of-interest studies; concealment of vaccines’ short-term side eects and total lack of knowledge of the long-
term eects of COVID-19 vaccination; doubtful composition of vaccines; inadequate testing methods; governments and international organizations
under conicts of interest; bribed physicians; the denigration of renowned scientists; the banning of all alternative eective treatments; unscientic and
liberticidal social methods; government use of behavior modication and social engineering techniques to impose connements, masks, and vaccine
acceptance; scientic censorship by the media.
Conclusion: By supporting and selecting only the one side of science information while suppressing alternative viewpoints, and with obvious conicts
of interest revealed by this study, governments and the media constantly disinform the public. Consequently, the unscientically validated vaccination
laws, originating from industry-controlled medical science, led to the adoption of social measures for the supposed protection of the public but which
became serious threats to the health and freedoms of the population.
Keywords: Behavior modication, Conicts of interest, COVID-19, Scientic censorship, Side eects, Vaccination
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
 
of the corporation. Only the corporation itself is liable, that
is, a “legal person” without any concrete existence.[17]
e purpose of this article is to:
1. Expose the basic techniques used by the pharmaceutical
industry to manipulate science
2. Specically on during the COVID-19 period:
• Describe the main pharmaceutical companies
involved during COVID-19
• Analyze physiological data from vaccination and
social measures to determine if known health
guidelines are justied
• Study the conicts of interest and relationships of
the pharmaceutical industry with governments,
international organizations, and media.
Editors of medical science journals know the situation
In 2004, Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, said that
medical journals had become information laundering
operations for the pharmaceutical industry.[146] In 2004, the
editors of PLoS Medicine stated that they will not be “part
of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the
pharmaceutical industry.” In 2005, Marcia Angell, former
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM),
criticized the industry for becoming primarily a marketing
machine and coopting any institution that might stand in
its way. In 2005, according to Richard Smith, former editor
of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), medical journals
are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical
companies.[146] According to Richard Horton, much of the
scientic literature, perhaps half, is simply wrong.[84]
e biggest conicts of interest for journals arise from “reprints”
which are bought in large numbers by pharmaceutical
companies and then given to their representatives to sell
their drugs.[144] In 2019, Peter C. Gotzsche establishes that
the preferred journals of the pharmaceutical industry are
the NEJM and the Lancet. Pharmaceutical companies can
threaten to withdraw an article if the peer review is too tough
(chap 6).[77] Moreover, some journals are nancially supported
by pharmaceutical companies through the companies that
publish the journals (chap 6).[77]
Scientic publications
Until the 1980s, clinical trials for pharmaceutical industries
were conducted in medical schools and university hospitals.
However, this was too time-consuming and did not allow
the companies to have total control over the progress
and especially the results of the studies.[4] us, contract
research organizations (CROs) were created, as commercial
companies that manage the clinical studies of pharmaceutical
companies. CROs set up networks of physicians who work
under their supervision and are paid to administer the drugs
studied to patients and then collect their eects.[4]
Roughly, 70–75% of the industry’s expenditures on clinical
trials go to CROs.[143] Most clinical trials sponsored by
pharmaceutical companies are designed, organized,
audited, analyzed, and written by the companies and their
subcontractors. en, the published articles are largely creations
of the companies through ghostwriters.[143] Pharmaceutical
companies generously fund ghost authors to prepare the
manuscript, which is then forwarded to a recognized
scientist in the eld, who may or may not be allowed to make
changes, and then sent to a reputable journal for publication.
Ghostwriting is not only present in pharmaceutical articles,
but also in academia.[164] is shadow management can lead to
various frauds such as: highlighting only the positive aspects
of the drug; omission of adverse events; overrepresentation in
medical journals of results in favor of industry while negative
results are underrepresented; or greater citation of industry
trials compared to nonindustry.[143]
Legg et al.[104] have developed a typology and a model
explaining the strategies that companies use to inuence
science. Among the industrial sectors listed in this study,
one obviously nds the pharmaceutical and medical
technology industries. ese industries inuence science
in a number of ways: manipulation of scientic methods;
reworking the criteria for establishing scientic “evidence;”
threats to scientists; and covert promotion of policy reforms
that increase condence in industry evidence. Companies
reshape and distort entire evidence bases for their own
benet. Hence, when, for example, researchers, policy
makers, and practitioners seek answers to their problems in
the literature, they may, oen unknowingly, nd evidence
bases ooded with research tailored to industry’s benet.
Here are some examples of detailed scientic manipulation
strategies identied by Legg et al.:[104]
• “Fund or create journals to have inuence over what is
• Suppress publication of unfavorable science
• Attack individual scientists and whole cohorts of
• Remove individual scientists from positions of power
• Silence plaintis using secret payments
• Recruit, fund, and train individuals to be trusted
scientic voices for industry
• Fund, produce, and disseminate textbooks and other
educational or academic materials
• Fund media outlets to inuence what is disseminated
• Coopt journalists through media training and conference
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
 
• Ensure and normalize industry’s presence in academic
settings in attempts to gain trust and scientic credibility
within academia.
Industries permeate and mold scientic, academic, and
policy systems to ensure that these systems work in their
interests.[104] In addition, for years, the pharmaceutical
industry has been buying physicians to become key opinion
leaders (KOLs) to promote their products.[105,145] ey are
considered the “hired guns” of the industry.[145] In France,
99% of professional medical associations that published
clinical practice guidelines in 2018 or 2019 had at least one
KOL in their board with a nancial tie to the industry.[34]
A brief history of the main pharmaceutical companies
e scientic scheme sent to the public has remained the
same for months. e vaccines, mostly produced by Pzer-
BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, and AstraZeneca,
represent the pharmaceutical industries’ response to COVID
treatment, directed and funded by the government,[37] as an
alternative to isolation and the wearing of masks.
It is necessary to recall that the main pharmaceutical
companies related to COVID-19: Pzer-BioNTech,
Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson, and
Merck, all have a heavy history of nes – except Moderna,
since it is a very recent company – concerning illegal
marketing (recommendations of drugs for o-label use),
misrepresentation of experimental results, concealment of
information about the dangers of drugs. us, in 2007, Merck
paid $670 million, in 2009, Pzer paid $2.3 billion, in 2010,
AstraZeneca paid $520 million, and in 2012, Johnson and
Johnson paid a ne of $1.1 billion (chap 3).[77] Since 1995,
Pzer has been assessed more than $6.5 billion in penalties
for 42 instances of misconduct; 36 instances of misconduct
since 1995, resulting in over $11.5 billion in penalties for
Johnson and Johnson; 35 instances of misconduct since 1995
and $8.8 billion in penalties for Merck.[129]
Pzer is singled out as having persistent criminal behavior and
casual disregard for the health and well-being of patients.[62]
Pzer is no dierent from other pharmaceutical companies,
but it is larger and more egregious. Pzer is a habitual
oender, persistently engaging in illegal business practices,
bribing physicians, and suppressing unfavorable trial results.
In general, corporations prefer not to go to trial; instead, they
negotiate a settlement that will allow them to continue to deny
wrongdoing while paying to make the charges go away.[62]
Pzer’s global revenue doubled in 2021 to $81.3 billion, which
is greater than the GDP of many countries. Pzer expects to
achieve revenues of $98 billion to $102 billion in 2022.[99] It
is also necessary to know that for the COVID period, nine
pharmaceutical companies partnered: AstraZeneca,
BioNTech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Merck,
Moderna, Novavax, Pzer, and Sano.[127]
Conicts of interest, treatments, military collaboration,
and scientic misconduct
Despite the benecial eects of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)
in the treatment of COVID-19,[51,115] the French government
banned its use on the basis of a fraudulent study published,
then retracted a few days later, by the Lancet.[113] As for the
RECOVERY trial, which did not show any positive eect of
HCQ, the dose used was not only inappropriate, but may have
been a disease-aggravating factor, negating the therapeutic
eect.[103] An intentionally high dose of HCQ was used in the
RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY trials in an attempt to make
the drug appear toxic (p.78).[95] In addition, a study found
that during the COVID-19 period, there was a correlation
between the nancial amounts received from Gilead Sciences
(remdesivir) by academic infectious diseases physicians and
their public opposition to the use of HCQ.[135] e conicts of
interest that caused the disapproval of HCQ and allowed the
authorization of remdesivir, concern physicians, medical event
organizers, publishers, and therapeutic trials.[135,114] In France,
Gilead Sciences is estimated to have spent $65million over
the past 7 years to establish its inuence with practitioners
and institutions.[119] Despite the fact that remdesivir has no
statistically signicant clinical benets,[157] and that it is highly
toxic to the kidneys and lungs (p. 125–134),[95] a 1 billion
euro contract was signed between the Gilead laboratory and
the European Union. Just before this contract was signed, the
World Health Organization (WHO) advised against the use of
remdesivir because of its ineectiveness, high renal toxicity,
and high cost.[79,12]
ere are other natural or medicinal substances (e.g.,
Vitamin D and ivermectin) that can prevent or cure
COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2).[18,39,100] A herbal preparation of
Echinacea purpurea (Echinaforce®) shows, in vitro, virucidal
activity against four human coronaviruses, including
SARS-CoV-2.[142] In vivo, the results of recent work seem
promising but this herbal medicine needs further clinical
studies to evaluate the hypothesis of its eectiveness
against SARS-CoV-2.[122] However, since the beginning
of the COVID-19 period, every time a treatment that
improved patient health was discovered, it was immediately
discredited.[15] Moreover, since March 11, 2020, virtually, no
governmental public statements have been made regarding
immune system improvement, while according to Kosto
et al., the only real protection during a viral outbreak is a
healthy immune system.[102]
During COVID-19, the pharmaceutical industry has
been collaborating with the military sector through the
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
 
defense advanced research project agency (DARPA), a
department responsible for research and development of
new technologies for military use: Moderna for SARS-
CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca
for antibody treatments, and Johnson and Johnson through
a partnership with the biomedical advanced research and
development authority (BARDA), known as Blue Knight (a
collaboration that aims to accelerate potential therapies and
vaccines to protect communities against pandemics and the
growing emergence of other potential global health security
threats).[41,42] Moderna is also associated with BARDA, an
oce of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
which, along with the food and drug administration (FDA),
has requested the cancellation of the use of HCQ as a means
of treatment for COVID-19.[66] is cancellation of HCQ use,
beneting the pharmaceutical companies, is related to the
fact that COVID-19 vaccines have received an Emergency
Use Authorization (EUA), which, then, can only be issued
in the “absence of adequate alternatives.[64] Due to the EUA,
the Moderna and Pzer trials are in Phase 3 until December
2022 and February 2023, respectively.[117,128] us, these
vaccines are still in the testing phase. erefore, to allow the
COVID-19 vaccines, as well as remdesivir, to benet from
an EUA, the ecacy of HCQ and ivermectin was sabotaged
In November 2021, an article explained that Ventavia
Research Group, Pzer’s company responsible for evaluating
the ecacy of its vaccine in clinical trials, falsied data,
unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained
vaccinators, and was slow to follow-up on adverse events
reported in Pzer’s pivotal Phase III trial. e FDA granted
marketing approval for the Pzer vaccine with full knowledge
of these reported problems.[149]
In France, according to the government, the primary objectives
of the COVID-19 vaccination program are to reduce morbidity
and mortality attributable to the disease (hospitalizations,
intensive care admissions, and deaths).[70] However, none of
the vaccine trials (Pzer-BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, and
AstraZeneca) were designed to detect a signicant reduction
in hospital admissions, admission to intensive care, death,
or if they can interrupt transmission of the virus.[46,47] In
addition, the vaccines were tested in a relatively young
and healthy population in contrast to the target group of
very vulnerable elderly with comorbidities.[101] Children,
immunocompromised individuals, pregnant, and lactating
women were excluded from most trials;[46,47] however, from the
start of vaccination in France, immunocompromised people
were on the priority list, with pregnant women following a
few weeks later.[69] While the authorization of vaccination of
children aged 5–<11years with the Pzer vaccine was voted in
Europe on November 25, 2021,[52] on October 26, 2021, Pzer
published a report stating that: “the number of participants
in the current clinical development program is too small
to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with
vaccination. Long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in
participants 5–<12years of age will be studied in ve post-
authorization safety studies, including a 5-year follow-up
study to evaluate long term sequelae of post-vaccination
myocarditis/pericarditis” (p 11).[67] It should be noted that
children under 15 years of age are generally asymptomatic
during primary infection and are very little aected by the
severe forms of COVID. ey would benet from a better
antiviral innate immunity of the nasopharyngeal mucosa
during primary infection, mainly due to a greater production
of Lambda 1 interferons (IFN) compared to adults.[73]
A Pzer-BioNTech study showed that a third injection of
Pzer-BioNTech vaccine in people aged 16 years or older
was safe and eective.[118] However, this study was funded
by BioNTech and Pzer. In addition, “Pzer was responsible
for the design and conduct of the trial; for the collection,
analysis, and interpretation of the data; and for the writing of
the manuscript.” BioNTech also contributed to interpretation
of the data and the writing of the manuscript. In addition,
Pzer and BioNTech manufactured the placebo used in the
trial. erefore, according to the previous explanations about
scientic publications conducted by the pharmaceutical
industry, it is inconceivable that this study was taken into
account in the development of health guidelines.
It should be noted that the centers for disease control and
prevention (CDC) has changed the denition of the word
“vaccine”. e old version was “a product that stimulates a
persons immune system to produce immunity to a specic
disease,” and the new one is “a preparation that is used to
stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.[27]
e reasons for this were multiple, but it can be hypothesized
that one of them was to protect manufacturers from being
sued for making a product that did not t the denition of a
Unknown risks
Although 12–15 years are needed to validate the safety of
a vaccine, only few months were used as being sucient
to ensure the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.[102]us,
for all types of populations, the potential mid- and long-
term adverse eects of COVID-19 vaccines are completely
unknown.[102] For example, a Pzer document from
December 2021 shows that the Pzer-BioNTech vaccine has
not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity,
genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility (p.20).[65] A study
showed that aer complete vaccination (two doses) of Pzer
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
 
vaccine (BNT162b2), male fertility was temporarily impaired.
ree months aer vaccination, sperm concentration and
total motile count were signicantly decreased by 15.4% and
22.1%, respectively, compared to prevaccination levels. Over
145 days aer the end of vaccination, the values of these
same parameters had also decreased by 15.9% and 19.4%,
respectively, compared to prevaccination levels, but without
reaching statistical signicance.[71]
As regards long-term side eects, a parallel could be drawn
with vaccines in general. e two main categories of diseases
reported in the biomedical literature triggered by vaccinations
are autoimmune: systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple
sclerosis, hepatitis, Guillain‐Barre syndrome (GBS), etc.; and
neurological: central demyelinating diseases, developmental
disability, encephalomyelitis, etc.[102] ese consequences are
especially worrying with the current repetition of vaccine
doses. Indeed, the literature shows that overstimulation of the
immune system by repeated immunization with an antigen
will inevitably lead to a systemic autoimmune response.[153]
Following mRNA vaccination, vaccine spike antigen and
mRNA persist up to 8weeks in lymph node germinal centers,
and spike protein production is higher than in severely ill
patients with COVID-19.[134] Because vaccination produces
much higher levels of anti-spike protein antibodies than
natural infection,[121] once again, autoimmune pathologies
are likely to occur aer repeated injections.
In addition, when an individual is vaccinated with a vaccine
against SARS-CoV-2, there is a high risk of triggering a more
severe disease than if they were not vaccinated because of the
antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) mechanism, that
is, when the entry and replication of the virus in a number of
cell types are promoted by antibodies.[29,102] erefore, as the
number of positive cases (Delta or Omicron variants) rises
strongly despite an increasing vaccination rate,[19,21,30,56] but also
that the mortality rate from Delta variant infection appears to
be 8times higher in cases that had received two doses of vaccine
than in unvaccinated cases,[81] the ADE hypothesis could
be correct.[81] Furthermore, in an interview by L. Mucchielli
(senior research fellow in Sociology at the National Center for
Scientic Research, and professor at Aix-Marseille University,
France), C. Vélot (senior lecturer in Molecular Genetics at the
University of Paris-Saclay) explains that mass vaccination in
the midst of an epidemic, whether with mRNA or adenovirus
vector vaccines, may increase the occurrence of new variants
due to recombination between the vaccine genetic material and
the genome of an infecting virus (pp 330-338).[120]
Spike protein
e four main vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 (mRNA and
adenovirus vector) are aimed at producing the spike protein
against which the body will make neutralizing antibodies.
However, the spike protein alone (without being part of
the coronavirus) is highly toxic and can damage the liver,
kidney, ovaries, endothelial cells, and alter and cross the
blood-brain barrier.[150,155] In addition, European Medicines
Agency (EMA) reports indicate that mRNA can be found in
many organs such as spleen, heart, kidney, lung and brain,
ovaries, and testis with Pzer’s vaccine (p. 54),[54] and in
spleen, brain, heart, lung, eyes, and testis with Moderna’s
vaccine (p. 47,52).[53] A very important study showed,
invitro, that the Pzer vaccine mRNA is reverse transcribed
in cells into DNA, using an endogenous reverse transcriptase
(LINE-1), in only 6h aer exposure to the vaccine.[3] If these
results are conrmed, it means that the Pzer vaccine could
permanently alter genes. en, people who received the
Pzer vaccine could produce the spike protein all their lives
and transmit it to their future generations.
Side eects
e work of Sene et al. showed the important distinction
between the impact of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the
impact of natural SARS-CoV-2 infection on TypeI IFN. Anti-
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce a profound impairment
in TypeI IFN signaling, whereas natural infection promotes
Type I IFN production very early in the disease cycle.[139]
Type1 IFNs play an important role in the immune response
and in protective immunity against COVID-19 illness.[139]
In addition, TypeI IFN signaling suppresses proliferation of
both viruses and cancer cells by arresting the cell cycle.[139]
us, Sene et al. demonstrated that the powerful alteration
of Type I IFNs (specically suppression of IFN-α), due
to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, can lead to reactivation
of latent viral infections and reduction of the ability to
eectively combat future infections.[139]
Aer COVID-19 vaccination, mild-to-severe skin reactions
and severe neuropsychiatric eects have been observed.[50,165]
A growing number of studies report neurological side eects
following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. e most frequent
neurological side eects are headache, GBS, venous sinus
thrombosis, and transverse myelitis. An antibody cross‐
reaction may be the most likely causal link between GBS
and immunization to SARS‐CoV‐2.[68] Moreover, in
April 2022, the French National Agency for the Safety of
Medicines and Health Products (ANSM) has alerted to an
increase in neuropathy named Parsonage-Turner syndrome
aer a COVID-19 vaccination with Pzer.[5] COVID-19
vaccination could also be responsible for inammation and
blood vessel damage.[25] According to Grundy,[78] the mRNA
COVID vaccines dramatically increase inammation on
the endothelium and T cell inltration of cardiac muscle and
may account for the observations of increased thrombosis,
cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.
Pzer’s December 2021 post marketing data demonstrate an
increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in men under
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
 
40years of age and that the potential long-term sequelae are
not yet known (p.7).[65]
On the European database of suspected adverse drug
reaction reports, put online by the EMA, the adverse events
at the European level for the four vaccines, as of July 9,
2022, are 65,669 for the Janssen vaccine; 506,221 with
AstaZeneca; 312,013 with Moderna; and 1,043,308 with
Pzer-BioNTech,[57] as of September 10, 2022, are 69,075 for
the Janssen vaccine; 523,696 with AstaZeneca; 337,429 with
Moderna; and 1,118,906 with Pzer-BioNTech.[57] However,
these eects could be largely underestimated, as evidenced by
the vaccine adverse event reporting system database, which
suers from signicant underreporting of adverse events.
Indeed, for traditional vaccines (other than COVID-19), <1%
of vaccine adverse events are reported.[102] Similarly, only 6%
(median) of adverse drug reactions are reported, so it can be
assumed that the harmful impacts of vaccines are signicantly
higher than the ocial data.[93] In France, 152,302cases of
adverse events have been reported since the beginning of
vaccination, including 4432cases of menstrual disorders. e
lawyer of a women’s collective, which denounces the adverse
eects of anti-COVID vaccines on menstruation, explains
that in most cases, the attending physician or specialist
considers that the adverse eect is not due to the vaccination
and refuses to make a declaration to the pharmacovigilance,
which underestimates the reality of the data.[156]
In healthcare workers vaccinated with AstraZeneca, infections
caused by the Delta variant are associated with high viral
loads, prolonged RT-PCR (reverse-transcription polymerase
chain reaction) test positivity (but without specifying whether
this was related to persistence of the virus or its fragments),
and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies.
us, ongoing transmission has occurred between fully
vaccinated individuals.[31] Consequently, the virus persists and
does not appear to have been killed by the immune response.
Only some of its clinical eects are moderated. In addition,
according to the work of Sene et al., the vaccines do not
prevent transmission of the disease and even the eect of
vaccines on symptom severity is beginning to be in doubt.[139]
e immunity derived from the Pzer-BioNTech vaccine
may not be as strong as the immunity acquired from the
COVID-19 cure. e CDC reported a 0.01–9% and 0–15.1%
increase (between January and May 2021) in hospitalization
and death rates, respectively, among fully vaccinated
individuals.[148] It seems highly likely that natural immunity
can provide protection (between 90 and 97%) against known
variants of concern.[2,32] is appears to be in agreement with
the guidelines of the Icelandic infectious disease authorities in
February 2022, who ended all restrictions on COVID-19 and
advised the population to infect themselves with the virus as
much as possible, because, “widespread societal resistance to
COVID-19 is the main route out of the epidemic.[133]
Unlisted components
e laboratories do not seem to have listed all their
components. Several groups of scientic researchers around
the world (Spain, New Zealand, Argentina, and Chile)
have found graphene oxide nanoparticles and geometric
microstructures in COVID-19 vaccines.[125] In relation to
these discoveries made by renowned scientists, the question
was put to the European Parliament in January 2022 whether
a thorough analysis would be requested from an independent
laboratory to verify the presence of graphene in COVID-19
vaccines.[126] Aer examining the analyses of the COVID-19
vaccines concerned, the EMA points out that graphene
oxide is not present in these vaccines. e EMA also states
that graphene oxide is not used in the manufacture of other
drugs.[6] However, the introduction of graphene oxide
nanoparticles into COVID-19 vaccines and treatments is
really underway. Indeed, the protective ecacy of a graphene
oxide-adjuvanted dendritic cell vaccine against SARS-CoV-2
has been tested.[167] According to the authors, large-sized
graphene oxide nanosheets increase the synaptic contact
between dendritic cells and T cells, thus improving the
ecacy of the dendritic cell vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.[167]
Graphene oxide in the form of nanoparticles can also be used
as an antiviral drug for therapeutic purposes.[137,154] Knowing
the conicts of interest within the EMA, a serious doubt
remains. Graphene is known for its superconductivity,[82]
therefore, if its presence is proven, it could increase,
following repeated injections, the health damage related
to electromagnetic elds which can produce neurological
In September 2021, a press conference of an Austrian
research group showed that undeclared metal-containing
components, distinguished by an unusual shape, were found
in the analysis of COVID-19 vaccine samples. eir results
are consistent with the ndings of Japanese and American
scientists.[10] If the existence of metallic elements is conrmed,
they could be, depending on their nature, neurotoxic, and
trigger neurological diseases, as is the case with aluminum in
traditional vaccines.[109,140,141]
e hypothetical presence of graphene and metal should alert
the leading universities in this eld to examine this issue, but
to date, no peer-reviewed studies have been published on this
To detect a virus using the RT-PCR test, a number of gene
amplication cycles (Ct) is required. Astudy of 3790 positive
cases shows that a positive RT-PCR test does not necessarily
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
 
mean contagiousness. With a cycle threshold (Ct) = 25, up to
70% of patients remain positive in culture, Ct = 30, this value
drops to 20% and at Ct = 35, <3% of cultures are positive.[90]
us, the high Ct values used in testing are primarily correlated
with low viral loads, corresponding to very low contagiousness.
In the United States, RT-PCR tests are performed with 37< Ct
<40, and in France, they are performed with 40< Ct <45. In
France, according to the COVID-19 scientic council: “High
Ct values oen reect little or no virus (virus remnants)
indicating that the person tested is not at risk.[138] In addition,
a large Chinese study in Wuhan concluded that asymptomatic
cases of COVID-19 do not infect anyone.[26]
It is reasonable to conclude that the contagiousness of an
individual cannot be determined by the use of the PCR
test with high Ct values. It is, therefore, very important to
know the Ct value used by the laboratory during a PCR test.
Furthermore, mass screening of asymptomatic individuals is
unnecessary to reduce the spread of the disease.
Social measures
A Johns Hopkins University study found that lockdowns do not
reduce COVID-19 mortality, but have resulted in enormous
economic and social costs. According to the researchers,
“lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected
as a pandemic policy instrument.” In addition, the authors
state that “studies looking at specic non-pharmaceutical
interventions (lockdown vs. no lockdown, facemasks, closing
non-essential businesses, border closures, school closures,
and limiting gatherings) also nd no broad-based evidence of
noticeable eects on COVID-19 mortality” (p.2,40).[83] Social
isolation measures also led to more depression and suicidal
ideation.[96,107] Moreover, the worsening of cardiovascular risks
(increased smoking, medication use, and decreased physical
activity), the rise in anxiety and depression, induced by the
lockdowns, are still visible 1year later.[14]
Concerning facemasks, studies have shown that outside of
health-care settings, mask use oers little to no protection
against SARS-CoV-2,[23,98,112] but that it can induce many
physiological complications. Indeed, the prolonged wearing
of a mask (cloth, surgical, FFP2 (N95)) inevitably leads to all
the repercussions associated with hypoxia and hypercapnia.
In addition, the clinical eects of its prolonged wear could be
similar to an intensication of chronic stress reactions.[97] Instead
of masks, hand hygiene is one of the most important ways to
prevent acquiring and spreading respiratory infections.[45]
Behavior modication techniques and authoritarianism
Governments have made extensive use of behavior
modication techniques (persuasion) during the COVID-19
period to gain acceptance of social measures (lockdowns,
distancing, and masks) and vaccines.[36,111] e call to protect
others aects intentions to vaccinate, but it also increases
people’s willingness to pressure others to do so. Behavioral
messages that create feelings of ownership over the vaccine
(e.g., “claim your dose;” “a COVID-19 vaccine has just been
made available to you”) increase vaccination rates. Whether
it is on television, on public posters, on websites or by email,
the messages are always built on the emotional burden.[40,92,136]
e authoritarianism of governments through the
introduction of compulsory vaccination disguised as a
vaccine passport, accompanied by the use of behavior
modication techniques, should raise doubts about the
scientic relevance of the social measures used as well
as the reliability and ecacy of the injected substances.
Indeed, a science composed of eective and safe results does
not need to resort to authoritarian techniques and mental
conditioning to be applied.
In total, 4.2 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine have
been ordered by the European Commission.[60] As the
European Union population is 447 million and the
European Commission is preparing for the next pandemic
phase of COVID-19, this shows the intention of the future
injections.[58] erefore, more vaccine campaigns using the
same kind of persuasion techniques are to be expected.
Instrumentalization of ocial agencies and governments
In 2015, a report showed the excessive inuence of the
pharmaceutical sector in the European Commission
in Brussels, to the detriment of public health and trade
fairness.[147] “is sector rmly holds the reins of a vast
and richly endowed lobbying machine that has almost
systematic access to decision-makers in the commission.
e pharmaceutical industry is also in close contact with the
EMA, whose aim is to obtain the liing of certain regulatory
barriers to facilitate the launch of new drugs on the market.
Aminimum of 40 million euros (article dated 2015) are used
to pay an army of 176 lobbyists linked to the drug industry.
e report details the key role of the European Federation of
Pharmaceutical Industries, claiming that various texts have
been shaped according to its wishes, in the area of clinical
trials or business secrets (with the threat of sanctions in case
of disclosure). Multinationals in the pharmaceutical business
are hoping to get “commercial condentiality,” which would
allow them to deny patients, doctors, and researchers access
to results and methodologies from drug testing.[147,108]
In 2021, “e European Parliament notes that the EMA is a
fee-funded agency, with 85.70% of its 2019 revenue stemming
from fees paid by the pharmaceutical industry, 14.29%
stemming from the Union budget and 0.01% stemming from
external assigned revenue.[61]
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
 
In 2009, the H1N1 episode should already have been
enough to reveal that governments and the WHO are not
autonomous. Work has shown that the 2009 H1N1 pandemic
seems (based on case fatality rates [CFRs]) to have been
the mildest inuenza pandemic on record.[49] Following
investigations by the BMJ, it appears that this event
declared by the WHO is signicantly tainted by conicts of
interest.[35,76] A report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe has heavily criticized the WHO, national
governments, and EU agencies for their handling of the
swine u pandemic: distortion of priorities of public health
services all over Europe, waste of huge sums of public money,
provocation of unjustied fear among Europeans, and
creation of health risks through vaccines and medications
which might not have been suciently tested before being
authorized in fast-track procedures.[35,124]
According to former head of health at the Council of Europe,
W. Wodarg, the swine u outbreak was a false pandemic
driven by drug companies that inuenced scientists and
ocial agencies.[110]
In 2010, in France, the report of the Senate’s commission of
inquiry on “the role of pharmaceutical companies in the
governments management of inuenza A” shows several
elements that suggest a manipulated pandemic. From 2003 to
2009, a pandemic was dened by the appearance of «several
simultaneous epidemics throughout the world with a large
number of deaths and illnesses» but a change was made
between May 1 and 9, 2009, making the severity criterion
disappear. is report also shows that the solutions to ght
an inuenza pandemic are very favorable to pharmaceutical
laboratories and have already been put in place since 2004
(Geneva meeting under the aegis of the WHO): vaccinating
is the best solution to limit mortality and morbidity, relaxing
the rules relating to licensing rights, nancing clinical trials
and oering tax incentives, and transferring to the States
the responsibility for the adverse eects or ineectiveness
of vaccines. us, in 2009, during the H1N1 vaccination in
France, the responsibility for the side eects was attributed to
the State and not to the suppliers. Some public health experts
had been excluded from scientic and technical decisions,
leading to unscientic recommendations and justications,
such as a wish to vaccinate the entire population. In this report,
we read that more than 75% of the experts in health agencies
declare conicts of interest. e nancial independence of
the WHO was also questioned, as in 2009, 80% of its funds
came from the private sector, including pharmaceutical sector
and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (which also has
known links to the pharmaceutical industry).[116] Note that in
2021, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the second
largest contributor to the WHO.[163]
COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers are relieved of any
responsibility for adverse eects of their vaccines, which
will, therefore, be the responsibility of the state.[24,48] It is
also necessary to mention that in the United States, vaccine
manufacturers have limited liability for side eects due to
the public readiness and emergency preparedness act of 2005
and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.[38,85]
In 2020, for the health management of COVID-19 in France,
the government created the Scientic Council (CS-COVID)
and the Committee for Analysis, Research, and Expertise.
Some members of these two groups have, for years, had
important conicts of interest with Gilead.[119]
During the COVID-19 period, France hired private consulting
rms, mainly McKinsey and Company, which is known for
working with pharmaceutical companies. e Senate Inquiry
Commission reports that McKinsey contributed on all aspects
of the health crisis, notably for social engineering strategies
on the vaccination campaign and the extension of the health
pass. e goal was, for example, to reach a large number of
people vaccinated at specic deadlines.[7,91]
e suppression of good science and scientists is not new,
but COVID-19 unleashed state corruption on a grand scale,
suppressing science for political and nancial reasons.[1]
Media: Funding, scientic censorship, and fear
e pharmaceutical industry funds and inuences the media
to ensure the presence of favorable messages.[86,104] e
control of information in favor of vaccination, and therefore
of the pharmaceutical industry, is also carried out through
Bill Gates who strongly funds organizations promoting
vaccines, such as the WHO and global alliance for vaccines
and immunization, as well as many media (e Guardian,
BBC, Telegraph, Le Monde, New York Times, Al Jazeera,
NPR, Public Broadcasting Service, etc) (p.441–443,458).[95]
Since the beginning of COVID-19, much scientic data and
expert opinion have been censored or labeled as false or
misleading by many internet platforms.[33,75,123] In France, the
mainstream media only peddle the government’s messages,
without any eld investigation, but rather censoring and
discrediting all the reputable scientists in their specialties
who dare to question the public health guidelines (p. 247–
263).[120] In contrast, KOLs are oen invited in the media.[135]
In June 2019, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the
United Nations signed a partnership (2030 agenda). In
the eld of health, this alliance is designed to combat key
emerging global health threats and achieve universal health
coverage.[161] In October 2019, in NewYork City, the Johns
Hopkins Center for Health Security and its partners the
WEF and the Gates Foundation, hosted Event 201, a ctional
coronavirus pandemic. In this modeling, seven strategic
pandemic management points are discussed. e seventh
part concerns information in the media: “Governments
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
  
and the private sector should assign a greater priority to
developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation
before the next pandemic response...is will require
developing the ability to ood media with fast, accurate, and
consistent information…Media companies should commit
to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and
that false messages are suppressed including through the
use of technology.[63] Among the partners of the WEF, there
are: Pzer, AstraZeneka, Johnson and Johnson, Moderna,
McKinsey, and Facebook et Google.[160] A few months later, a
coronavirus pandemic is declared, accompanied by its highly
mediatized universal solution, the vaccine.
In 2020, the “Trusted News Initiative” (TNI) was created. e
TNI is an industry collaboration of major news and global
tech organizations (AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada,
European Broadcasting Union, Facebook, Financial Times,
First Dra, Google/YouTube, e Hindu, Microso, Reuters,
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, and
e Washington Post) working together to stop the spread of
disinformation where it poses risk of real-world harm. TNI
says that it is ghting anti-vaccine disinformation related to
COVID-19: “It is vital that audiences know that they can turn
to sources, they trust for accurate, impartial information.
TNI partners will alert each other to disinformation which
poses an immediate threat to life.[152]
Note that a director of Pzer was also the President and Chief
Executive Ocer of omson Reuters and still maintains
a relationship with that news agency.[151] is raises an
important issue of conict of interest.
In September 2020, to combat misinformation, the WHO calls
on media, social media platforms, civil society leaders, and
inuencers to collaborate with the UN system, with Member
States, and is establishing the UnitedNations Communications
Response initiative to ood the Internet with facts and science
while countering the growing scourge of misinformation.[162]
is generates unprecedented scientic censorship.
Before COVID-19, the media was already propagating fear
about other “epidemics,” such as: AIDS, BSE, SARS, H5N1,
and H1N1.[55] Since the beginning of COVID-19, mainstream
media outlets report daily death statistics in a way that does
not support understanding and creates fear through poor
and biased reporting.[166] Public health communications were
based on fear, by overestimating the associated risk of illness
and death. COVID-19 was presented as 10times more lethal
than seasonal u. is overestimation is most likely caused
by misclassifying an inuenza infection fatality rate (IFR) as
a CFR. “An IFR is dened as the proportion of deaths relative
to the prevalence of infections within a population… while a
CFR is dened as the proportion of deaths among conrmed
cases of the disease.[22] IFRs from population samples include
undiagnosed, asymptomatic, and mild infections, whereas
CFRs are based exclusively on relatively small groups of
moderately to severely ill diagnosed cases. As a result, IFRs
are oen lower than CFRs. For COVID-19, the error was to
compare the IFR of a disease, seasonal inuenza (IFR: 0.1%),
with the CFR of another disease, coronavirus (CFR: 1%).[22]
Indeed, a comparison was made between the inuenza IFR
(0.1%) and the coronavirus CFR (1%).[22] Note that the IFR
for COVID-19 infection in persons under 70years of age is
approximately 0.05%.[89]
In France, the “Technical agency for information on
hospitalization,” a public institution of the State, published a
report showing that during the year 2020, COVID-19 patients
represented 2% of all hospitalized patients across all hospital
elds and 5% of all patients managed in intensive care units.[8]
erefore, the image of hospital wards full of COVID-19patients
that which the media has continuously propagated during the
year 2020 is very far from reecting the reality.
In May 2021, Bilds editor in chief (German newspaper)
apologized to the children on behalf of the government
and the media: “Sorry for this policy and media coverage
which, like poison, made you feel like you were a mortal
danger to society… a propaganda presenting the child as a
vector of the pandemic.[132] Furthermore, in May 2021, the
British newspaper, e Telegraph, reported that members of
the Scientic Pandemic Inuenza Group on Behavior had
encouraged ministers to heighten the threat of the pandemic
to control the behavior of the population.[131]
In addition to Event 201, other pandemic simulations, civil
(MARS and SPARS in 2017) and military (Dark Winter in
2001, Atlantic Storm in 2003 and 2005, Global mercury in
2003, and Crimson Contagion in 2019), have taken place over
the past 20 years. All these simulations correspond to fear
Fig Global interactions related to the pharmaceutical lobby.
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
  
programs induced by false media. For the general welfare of
the population, all these scenarios lead to the same methods
(identical to those used during COVID-19): Isolation,
control of movements and liberties, censorship, propaganda,
and coercive vaccination of the population (p.577–617).[95]
Based on all the observations described in this article, it
seems legitimate to ask the question: could COVID-19 be an
event organized to create a “pandemic”? However, there is
no doubt that this is an event manipulated by governments,
international agencies, pharmaceutical industries, and the
media.[9] In addition to the huge prots obtained by the
pharmaceutical groups involved, the primary goal of this
“pandemic” seems to be compulsory vaccination, because
the introduction of a European vaccine passport had
already been planned since 2019.[59] e WEF assumes that
vaccine boosters will be needed to maintain population-
level immunity amid the inevitable waning of their ecacy
and more infectious variants.[159] e objective of the WHO
is to impose the Chinese model to become the norm. at
is to say, a system with centralization of each person’s health
data and restriction of freedoms for the unvaccinated.
[130,88] e management of COVID-19 goes far beyond the
medical framework. Aperiod such as COVID-19 represents
a powerful lever for increasing the eectiveness of global
e determination of governments to vaccinate everyone
is done with full knowledge of the vaccine side eects and
is therefore not driven by good intentions. is nding is
supported by the persistent suppression of information
about eective and inexpensive treatments, as well as by the
application of persuasive techniques to get vaccinated. e goal
might be nancial for some, but for others, money is just a tool
to access more subtle ends, such as the control of health and
freedoms through laws (vaccine passport), further opening
the door to global governance. e overwhelming desire of
governments to vaccinate everyone could nd an additional
explanation through the work of Dr.Pablo Campra (PhD in
Chemical Sciences), from the University of Almeria in Spain.
is scientist discovered graphene but also microstructures in
COVID-19 vaccines. According to the experts he contacted,
these microstructures could be part of a Wireless Nanosensors
Network, whether as nanosensors, as nanorouters, or as
nanoantennae.[28] Dr. Campra himself requests that experts
in the eld of crystallography or nanocommunications
engineering conduct additional studies to conrm his
working hypothesis.[28] Nevertheless, it is important to note
that intrabody networks (nanonetworks), as well as human-
machine interaction, through the use of graphene-based
nanomaterials, have been studied for several years.[11,87]
If the hypothesis of this human-machine connection, by
intracorporeal wireless network introduced with vaccination,
is conrmed, it would allow, among other possibilities, to
strengthen the control capabilities of global governance
over the population. is hypothesis of human-machine
connection, which would require a massive use of wireless
communication technology, would also allow us to understand,
in part, the determination of governments to impose an ever
increasing amount of infrastructures generating microwave
frequency electromagnetic elds, despite the thousands of
scientic publications demonstrating their destructive eects
on health and the environment.[44]
Another argument showing that forced vaccination by
governments is not intended to keep the population healthy
comes from evidences that within several COVID-19 vaccine
manufacturers (Pzer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson
[Janssen]), some batches of vaccines are associated with
excessive deaths, disabilities, and adverse reactions.[16,13]
us, it can be assumed that the composition of vaccines is
not exactly the same for all batches, which could possibly be
used to test dierent unlisted components.
Figure1 shows a very simple overview of the global situation,
but nevertheless important to consider when analyzing a
particular situation such as COVID-19. e religious sphere
is included because it does not question the ocial version
of the COVID vaccines, implying a possible extension of
the pharmaceutical role or the inuence of a corrupted
science. Indeed, the Vatican requires all of its employees
to be vaccinated, and Pope Francis expressed the view that
vaccination was a moral obligation.[43,72]
To the industrial sectors that act in a similar way
to the pharmaceutical industry, we must add the
telecommunications lobby, which exercises the same
level of control over science with important conicts of
interest and political lies.[44,80] Since at least the 1950s, the
largest industrial lobbies have been spreading a high level
of scientic and media disinformation causing the deaths
of millions of people every year with the agreement of
governments. e COVID-19 situation should make it clear
that it is becoming vital to conduct powerful investigations
into the interrelationships between industry, science, the
media, government, and the military.
Institutional review board statement
Not applicable.
Data availability statement
Not applicable.
Declaration of patient consent
Patients consent not required as there are no patients in this
stud y.
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
  
Financial support and sponsorship
Conicts of interest
ere are no conicts of interest.
1. Abbasi K. Covid-19: Politicisation, “corruption,” and
suppression of science. BMJ 2020;371:m4425.
2. Abu-Raddad LJ, Chemaitelly H, Bertollini R, National Study
Group for COVID-19 Epidemiology. Severity of SARS-CoV-2
reinfections as compared with primary infections. N Engl J
Med 2021;385:2487-9.
3. Aldén M, Falla FO, Yang D, Barghouth M, Luan C,
RasmussenM, et al. Intracellular reverse transcription of pzer
biontech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 in vitro in
human liver cell line. Curr Issues Mol Biol 2022;44:1115-26.
4. Angell M. La Vérité sur les Compagnies Pharmaceutiques:
Comment Elles Nous Trompent et Comment les Contrecarrer (e
Truth about Drug Companies: How they Deceive us and what to do
about it). Montebello (Québec), Canada: Le Mieux-être; 2005.
5. ANSM. French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines
and Health Products (Agence Nationale de Sécurité
du Médicament et des Produits de Santé). Enquête de
Pharmacovigilance du Vaccin Pzer-BioNTech Comirnaty.
Rapport no.20; 2022. Available from: https://www.ansm.sante.
rapport-20.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Apr14].
6. Answer on behalf of the European Commission.
P-000303/2022(ASW); 2022. Available from: https://www.
EN.html [Last accessed on 2022Apr06].
7. Assassi E. Un Phénomène Tentaculaire: L’inuence Croissante
des Cabinets de Conseil Sur les Politiques Publiques-Comptes
Rendus. Sénat; 2022. p.305-26. Available from: https://www. [Last
accessed on 2022Mar17].
8. ATIH. Analyse de L’activité Hospitalière 2020-Covid-19.
Agence Technique de L’information Sur L’hospitalisation; 2020.
p. 2-3. Available from:
les/public/content/4144/aah_2020_analyse_covid.pdf [Last
accessed on 2022Feb10].
9. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. In: James I, Carolyn R, editors.
e China Virus. What is the truth? United States: Ausman
Education Foundation; 2021. Available from: https:// [Last accessed on 2022
Apr 23].
10. Austrian Research Group. Press Conference: Undeclared
Components of the COVID-19 Vaccines. Pathological institute
in Reutlingen. Austrian Research Group; 2021. Available from: [Last accessed on
11. Balghusoon AO, Mahfoudh S. Routing protocols for
wireless nanosensor networks and internet of nano things:
Acomprehensive survey. IEEE Access 2020;8:200724-48.
12. Barnéoud L, Aeberhardt C, Hecketsweiler C. Covid-19:
Comment Gilead a Vendu son Remdésivir à LEurope. Journal
Le Monde; 2020. Available from:
vendu-son-remdesivir-a-l-europe_6061300_3244.html [Last
accessed on 2022Jun05].
13. Batch Codes. Batch Codes and Associated Deaths, Disabilities
and Illnesses for Covid 19 Vaccines. Created in 2021. Available
from: [Last
accessed on 2022Apr23].
14. Bérard E, Kai SH, Coley N, Bongard V, Ferrières J. One-
year impact of COVID-19 lockdown-related factors on
cardiovascular risk and mental health: A population-based
cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:1684.
15. Blaylock RL. Covid-19 pandemic: What is the truth? Surg
Neurol Int 2021;12:591.
16. Blaylock RL. COVID update: What is the truth? Surg Neurol
Int 2022;13:167.
17. Borch-Jacobsen M. Big Pharma. Paris, France: Les Arènes;
2013. p.68-9.
18. Borsche L, Glauner B, Von Mendel J. COVID-19 mortality risk
correlates inversely with Vitamin D3 status, and a mortality
rate close to zero could theoretically be achieved at 50ng/mL
25(OH)D3: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Nutrients 2021;13:3596.
19. Brandal LT, MacDonald E, Veneti L, Ravlo T, Lange H,
NaseerU, et al. Outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron
variant in Norway, November to December 2021. Euro Surveill
20. Brandt AM. Inventing conicts of interest: Ahistory of tobacco
industry tactics. Am J Public Health 2012;102:63-71.
21. Brown CM, Vostok J, Johnson H, Burns M, Gharpure R,
Sami S, et al. Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infections, including
COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections, associated with
large public Gatherings-Barnstable county, Massachusetts, July
2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1059-62.
22. Brown RB. Public health lessons learned from biases in
coronavirus mortality overestimation. Disaster Med Public
Health Prep 2020;14:364-71.
23. Bundgaard H, Bundgaard JS, Raaschou-Pedersen DE,
von Buchwald C, Todsen T, Norsk JB, et al. Eectiveness
of adding a mask recommendation to other public health
measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in danish mask
wearers: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med
24. Burger L, Aripaka P. AstraZeneca to be Exempt from
Coronavirus Vaccine Liability Claims in most Countries.
London: Reuters; 2020. Available from: https://www.
idUSKCN24V2EN [Last accessed on 2022Apr17].
25. Burkhardt A, Lang W. First Time Detection of the Vaccine
Spike Protein in a Person who Died aer Vaccination Against
Covid-19. Germany: Reutlingen; 2022. Available from: https:// [Last accessed on 2022Feb07].
26. Cao S, Gan Y, Wang C, Bachmann M, Wei S, Gong J, et al.
Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in
nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat Commun
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
  
27. Camero K. Why did CDC Change its Denition for “Vaccine”?
Agency Explains move as Skeptics Lurk. Florida: Miami
Herald; 2021. Available from:
news/coronavirus/article254111268.html#storylink=cpy [Last
accessed on 2022Jun06].
28. Campra P. Work of Dr. Pablo Campra on the analysis of
Covid-19 vaccines. Counteranalysis of Covid vaccines.
Available from:
of Graphene in Covid-19 vaccines. 2021. Available from:
Microstructures in Covid Vaccines: ¿inorganic crystals
or Wireless Nanosensors Network? 2021. Available from:
crystals_or_Wireless_Nanosensors_Network; DNA crystals
nanotechnology in Covid-19 vaccines. 2022. Available from:
VACCINES; Interview with Dr. Campra in Madrid in May
2022. Available from:
Pablo-Campra-Madrid,-BigReset-2022-EngSub-720p:8 [Last
accessed on 2022 Jun 11].
29. Cardozo T, Veazey R. Informed consent disclosure to vaccine
trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical
disease. Int J Clin Pract 2021;75:e13795.
30. CDC COVID-19 Response Team. SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529
(Omicron) variant-United States, December 1-8, 2021.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1731-4.
31. Chau NV, Ngoc NM, Nguyet LA, Quang VM, Ny NT, KhoaDB,
et al. An observational study of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2
Delta variant infections among vaccinated healthcare workers
in Vietnam. EClinicalMedicine 2021;41:101143.
32. Chemaitelly H, Bertollini R, Abu-Raddad LJ, National Study
Group for COVID-19 Epidemiology. Ecacy of natural
immunity against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with the beta
variant. NEngl J Med 2021;385:2585-6.
33. Clarke L. Covid-19: Who fact checks health and science on
facebook? BMJ 2021;373:n1170.
34. Clinckemaillie M, Scan A, Naudet F, Barbaroux A. Sunshine on
KOLs: Assessment of the nature, extent and evolution of nancial
ties between the leaders of professional medical associations
and the pharmaceutical industry in France from 2014 to 2019:
Aretrospective study. BMJ Open 2022;12:e051042.
35. Cohen D, Carter P. Conicts of interest. WHO and the
pandemic u “conspiracies”. BMJ 2010;340:c2912.
36. Collombat B. Le Nudge, Arme Anti-Covid de La Macronie.
France: France Info; 2021. Available from: https://www.
macronie_4660085.html [Last accessed on 2022Feb11].
37. Congressional Research Service. Domestic Funding
for COVID-19 Vaccines: An Overview. United States:
Congressional Research Service; 2021. Available from: https:// [Last
accessed on 2022Jun05].
38. Congressional Research Service. e PREP Act and
COVID-19, Part 1: Statutory Authority to Limit Liability for
Medical Countermeasures. United States: Congressional
Research Service; 2022. Available from: https://crsreports. [Last accessed on
39. Covid-19 Early Treatment. Real-time Analysis of ousands
of Studies. Available from: [Last
accessed on 2022Jan23].
40. Dai H, Saccardo S, Han MA, Roh L, Raja N, Vangala S, et al.
Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature
41. DARPA. Covid-19. Virginia: Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency; 2021. Available from:
work-with-us/covid-19 [Last accessed on 2022Feb06].
42. De Francesco L. Preparing for the next plague. Nat Biotechnol
43. De Galzain B, Kourounis A. Covid-19: Quelle est la Position des
Églises Catholique et Orthodoxe Face à la Vaccination? France:
Franceinfo; 2022. Available from: https://www.francetvinfo.
vaccination_4922009.html [Last accessed on 2022Feb10].
44. Deruelle F. e dierent sources of electromagnetic elds:
Dangers are not limited to physical health. Electromagn Biol
Med 2020;39:166-75.
45. Desai AN, Mehrotran P. Medical masks. JAMA 2020;323:1517-8.
46. Doshi P. Covid-19 vaccine trial protocols released. BMJ
47. Doshi P. Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t
designed to tell us. BMJ 2020;371:m4037.
48. Ducos L. Pzer ne Serait pas Responsable des Eets
Indésirables de Son Vaccin, Une Plainte Déposée Contre le
Contrat. Montpellier Cedex: Midi Libre; 2022. Available from:
porte-plainte-10079369.php [Last accessed on 2022Apr17].
49. Duvvuri VR, Moghadas SM, Guo H, Duvvuri B, Heernan JM,
Fisman DN, et al. Highly conserved cross-reactive CD4+T-
cell HA-epitopes of seasonal and the 2009 pandemic inuenza
viruses. Inuenza Other Respir Viruses 2010;4:249-58.
50. Edriss M, Farshchian M, Daveluy S. Localized cutaneous
reaction to an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. JCosmet Dermatol
51. Elbazidi H, Erraih O. Mortality and hydroxychloroquine;
Politics and pandemic: Strange liaisons lead to strange
correlations: Mortalité and Hydroxychloroquine; Politiques
and Pandémie: Détranges liaisons impliquent d’étranges
corrélations. New Microbes New Infect 2020;38:100749.
52. EMA. Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine: EMA Recommends
Approval for Children Aged 5 to 11. Netherlands: European
Medicines Agency; 2021. Available from: https://www.ema.
recommends-approval-children-aged-5-11 [Last accessed on
53. EMA Moderna. Assessment Report COVID-19 Vaccine
Moderna. Procedure No. EMEA/H/C/005791/0000.
Netherlands: European Medicines Agency; 2021. Available
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
  
public-assessment-report_en.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Jan17].
54. EMA Pzer. Assessment Report Comirnaty. Procedure No.
EMEA/H/C/005735/0000. Netherlands: European Medicines
Agency; 2021. Available from:
assessment-report_en.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Jan17].
55. Engelbrecht T, Köhnlein C, Bailey S, Scoglio S. Virus mania.
Corona/COVID-19, Rougeole, Grippe Porcine, Grippe Aviaire,
Cancer du col de L’utérus, SARS, ESB (Virus Mania: Corona/
COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu,
SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the
Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making
Billion-dollar Prots at our Expense). Belgium: MPietteur; 2021.
56. Espenhain L, Funk T, Overvad M, Edslev SM, Fonager J,
Ingham AC, et al. Epidemiological characterisation of the
rst 785 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant cases in Denmark,
December 2021. Euro Surveill 2021;26:2101146.
57. EudraVigilance. EudraVigilance-European Database of
Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reports (Click on the
Letter “C” and Scroll down Until “COVID-19”) Available
from: [Last
accessed on 2022Sep12].
58. European Commission. COVID-19: Commission calls on
Member States to step up Preparedness for the Next Pandemic
Phase. Belgium: European Commission; 2022. Available from:
IP_22_2646 [Last accessed on 2022Jun09].
59. European Commission. Roadmap for the Implementation of
Actions by the European Commission Based on the Commission
Communication and the Council Recommendation on
Strengthening Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable
Diseases. Belgium: European Commission; 2022. Available from:les/vaccination/
docs/2019-2022_roadmap_en.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Jan25].
60. European Commission. Safe COVID-19 Vaccines for
Europeans. Belgium: European Commission; 2022. Available
[Last accessed on 2022Jun09].
61. European Parliament. Budget and Financial Management
of the European Medicines Agency for the year 2019.
Section: 3. Motion for a European Parliament Resolution.
France: European Parliament; 2021. Available from: https://
EN.html [Last accessed on 2022Nov23].
62. Evans RG. Tough on crime? Pzer and the CIHR. Healthc
Policy 2010;5:16-25.
63. Event 201: Public-Private Cooperation for Pandemic
Preparedness and Response. Maryland: Johns Hopkins Center
for Health Security; 2019. Available from: https://www.
[Last accessed on 2022Jan29].
64. FDA. Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained.
Maryland: FDA; 2020. Available from: https://www.fda.
authorization-vaccines-explained [Last accessed on 2022Jan27].
65. FDA. Highlights of Prescribing Information. Pzer BioNTech.
Maryland: FDA; 2021. Available from:
media/151707/download [Last accessed on 2021Dec30].
66. FDA. Letter Revoking Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
for Chloroquine Phosphate (CQ) and Hydroxychloroquine
Sulfate (HCQ). Maryland: FDA; 2020. Available from: https:// [Last accessed on
67. FDA. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
Committee. Meeting Document. Pzer. Maryland: FDA; 2021.
Available from:
[Last accessed on 2021Dec19].
68. Finsterer J. Neurological side eects of SARS-CoV-2
vaccinations. Acta Neurol Scand 2022;145:5-9.
69. French Ministry of Health. Vaccine Strategy Advisory Board.
(Conseil d’Orientation de la Stratégie Vaccinale). France:
French Ministry of Health; 2021. Available from: https://
avril_2021pdf.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Feb10].
70. French Government. Pourquoi Mettre en Place la Vaccination;
2022. Available from:
coronavirus/vaccins [Last accessed on 2022 Jan 22]. La stratégie
vaccinale et la liste des publics prioritaires; 2022. Available
covid-19/publics-prioritaires-vaccin-covid-19 [Last accessed
on 2022 Oct 08].
71. Gat I, Kedem A, Dviri M, Umanski A, Levi M, Hourvitz A,
et al. Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs
semen concentration and total motile count among semen
donors. Andrology 2022;10:1016-22.
72. Gaweł A, Mańdziuk M, Żmudziński M, Gosek M, Krawczyk-
Suszek M, Pisarski M, et al. Eects of pope Francis’ religious
authority and media coverage on twitter user’s attitudes toward
COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccines (Basel) 2021;9:1487.
73. Gilbert C, Lefeuvre C, Preisser L, Pivert A, Soleti R,
BlanchardS, et al. Age-related expression of IFN-λ1 Versus
IFN-I and beta-defensins in the nasopharynx of SARS-CoV-2-
infected individuals. Front Immunol 2021;12:750279.
74. Girel M. Propos de RN Proctor sur l’invention la plus
dangereuse de l’histoire. CNRS Le journal; 2014. Available
dangereuse-de-lhistoire [Last accessed on 2021 Oct 10].
75. Godlee F, Abbasi K. ‘Open letter from e BMJ to Mark
Zuckerberg’, 17 December 2021, Available from: https://www. [Last accessed on 2022
Oct 07].
76. Godlee F. Conicts of interest and pandemic u. BMJ
77. Gøtzsche P. Remèdes Mortels et Crime Organisé: Comment
L’industrie Pharmaceutique a Corrompu les Services de Santé.
(Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma
has Corrupted Healthcare). Laval, Canada: Les presses de
L’université; 2019.
78. Grundy SR. Expression of concern: Abstract 10712:
Mrna COVID vaccines dramatically increase endothelial
inammatory markers and ACS risk as measured by the PULS
cardiac test: Awarning. Circulation 2021;144:A10712.
79. Guarascio F. World’s Top Intensive Care Body Advises
Against Remdesivir for Sickest COVID Patients. London:
Reuters; 2020. Available from:
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
  
medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter [Last accessed on
80. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Health risks from radiofrequency
radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no
conicts of interest. Oncol Lett 2020;4:15.
81. Hasan A, Al-Mulla MR, Abubaker J, Al-Mulla F. Early insight
into antibody-dependent enhancement aer SARS-CoV-2
mRNA vaccination. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2021;17:4121-5.
82. Heikkilä TT. Surprising superconductivity of graphene.
Science 2022;375:719-20.
83. Herby J, Jonung L, Hanke SH. ALiterature Review and Meta
Analysis of the Eects of Lockdowns on COVID 19 Mortality.
Maryaland: John Hopkins University; 2022. Available from:
COVID-19-Mortality.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Feb02].
84. Horton R. Oine: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? Lancet
85. H.R.5546-National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Available from:
house-bill/5546 [Last accessed on 2022Mar21].
86. House of Commons Health Committee. e Inuence of
the Pharmaceutical Industry. Report, Together with Formal
Minutes Ordered by the House of Commons. House of
Commons Health Committee; 2005. p.8, 44. Available from:
cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Jan27].
87. Huang H, Su S, Wu N, Wan H, Wan S, Bi H, Sun L. Graphene-
based sensors for human health monitoring. Front Chem
88. Huang Z, Feng Z. Public health and private life under
COVID-19 vaccination policies in China: Alegal analysis. Risk
Manag Healthc Policy 2021;14:4627-38.
89. Ioannidis JP. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from
seroprevalence data. Bull World Health Organ 2021;99:19-33F.
90. Jaafar R, Aher S, Wurtz N, Grimaldier C, van Hoang T,
Colson P, et al. Correlation between 3790 quantitative
polymerase chain reaction-positives samples and positive cell
cultures, including 1941 severe acute respiratory syndrome
Coronavirus 2 isolates. Clin Infect Dis 2021;72:e921.
91. Jacquot G. McKinsey: Olivier Véran Révèle Un Nouveau Contrat
et Répond à la Commission D’enquête. Public Sénat; 2022.
Available from:
en-lien-avec-la-crise [Last accessed on 2022Feb08].
92. James EK, Bokemper SE, Gerber AS, Omer SB, Huber GA.
Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake
intentions. Vaccine 2021;39:7158-65.
93. Kampf G. Call to apply a consistent scale in public COVID-19
reporting. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2021;11:100264.
94. Kassirer JP. On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity with
Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. NewYork: Oxford
University Press; 2004.
95. Kennedy RF Jr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates et Big Pharma-Leur
Guerre Mondiale Contre la Démocratie et La Santé Publique (e
Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War
on Democracy and Public Health). Belgium: MPietteur; 2022.
96. Killgore WD, Cloonan SA, Taylor EC, Allbright MC, DaileyNS.
Trends in suicidal ideation over the rst three months of
COVID-19 lockdowns. Psychiatry Res 2020;293:113390.
97. Kisielinski K, Giboni P, Prescher A, Klosterhalfen B,
GraesselD, Funken S, et al. Is a mask that covers the mouth
and nose free from undesirable side eects in everyday use
and free of potential hazards? Int J Environ Res Public Health
98. Klompas M, Morris CA, Sinclair J, Pearson M, Shenoy ES.
Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era. NEngl J
Med 2020;382:e63.
99. Kolleve J. Pzer Accused of Pandemic Proteering as Prots
Double. London: e Guardian; 2022. Available from: https://
vaccine-pill-prots-sales [Last accessed on 2022Apr10].
100. Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the
emerging evidence demonstrating the ecacy of ivermectin
in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Am J er
101. Kosto RN, Briggs MB, Porter AL, Spandidos DA, TsatsakisA.
[Comment] COVID-19 vaccine safety. Int J Mol Med
102. Kosto RN, Kanduc D, Porter AL, Shoenfeld Y, Calina D,
Briggs MB, et al. Vaccine-and natural infection-induced
mechanisms that could modulate vaccine safety. Toxicol Rep
103. Lacout A, Perronne C, Lounnas V. Hydroxychloroquine
in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med
104. Legg T, Hatchard J, Gilmore AB. e science for prot model-
how and why corporations inuence science and the use of
science in policy and practice. PLoS One 2021;16:e0253272.
105. Leonardo Alves T, Lexchin J, Mintzes B. Medicines information
and the regulation of the promotion of pharmaceuticals. Sci
Eng Ethics 2019;25:1167-92.
106. Light DW, Lexchin J, Darrow JJ. Institutional corruption of
pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and eective drugs.
JLaw Med Ethics 2013;41:590-600.
107. Loades ME, Chatburn E, Higson-Sweeney N, Reynolds S,
Shafran R, Brigden A, et al. Rapid systematic review: e
impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health
of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19. JAm
Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2020;59:1218-39.e3.
108. Lundy D, Tansey R. EU Needs Compulsory Transparency
Register to Rein in Big Pharma Lobbying. Belgium:
Euractiv; 2015. Available from:
transparency-register-to-rein-in-big-pharma-lobbying [Last
accessed on 2022Apr19].
109. Lyons-Weiler J, Ricketson R. Reconsideration of the
immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum.
JTrace Elem Med Biol 2018;48:67-73.
110. Macrae F. e “False” Pandemic: Drug Firms Cashed in on
Scare over Swine Flu, Claims Euro Health Chief. Northclie
House: Daily Mail; 2010. Available from: https://www.
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
  
html [Last accessed on 2022Jan30].
111. Marie-Leconte J. Le “Nudge”, Manipulation Douce Pour Temps
de Crise. France: France Info; 2021. Available from: https://
html [Last accessed on 2022Feb11].
112. Marks M, Millat-Martinez P, Ouchi D, Roberts CH, AlemanyA,
Corbacho-Monné M, et al. Transmission of COVID-19 in 282
clusters in Catalonia, Spain: Acohort study. Lancet Infect Dis
113. Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN. RETRACTED:
Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a
macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational
registry analysis. Lancet 2020;S0140-6736(20)31180-6. Online
ahead of print.
114. Million M, Dudouet P, Chabriere E, Cortaredona S, RousselY,
Brouqui P, et al. Predictive factors of clinical assays on
hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 mortality during the
rst year of the pandemic: Ameta-synthesis. Afr J Clin Exp
Microbiol 2022;23:1-13.
115. Million M, Lagier JC, Tissot-Dupont H, Ravaux I,
Dhiver C, Tomei C, et al. Early combination therapy with
hydroxychloro quine and azithromycin reduces mortality in 10,429
COVID-19 outpatients. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2021;22:1063-72.
116. Milon A. La grippe A (H1N1)v: Retours Sur la Première
Pandémie du XXIe Siècle. Rapport n 685 de la Commission
D’enquête du Sénat sur le Rôle des Firmes Pharmaceutiques
Dans la Gestion: Par le Gouvernement de la Grippe A (H1N1)
v; 2010. Available from:
r09-685-1_mono.html#toc33 [Last accessed on 2022Feb01].
117. Moderna Trial. A Study to Evaluate Ecacy, Safety,
and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Adults
Aged 18 Years and Older to Prevent COVID-19; 2021.
Available from:
NCT04470427?term=NCT04470427&draw=2&rank=1 [Last
accessed on 2022 Oct 08].
118. Moreira ED Jr., Kitchin N, Xu X, Dychter SS, Lockhart S,
Gurtman A, et al. Safety and ecacy of a third dose of
BNT162b2 Covid-19 vaccine. NEngl J Med 2022;386:1910-21.
119. Mucchielli L. Behind the French controversy over the medical
treatment of Covid-19: e role of the drug industry. JSociol
120. Mucchielli L. La Doxa du Covid. Tome 2: Enquête sur la
Gestion Politico-sanitaire de la Crise du Covid. Bastia, Corse:
Eolienne; 2022.
121. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
NCIRD (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory
Diseases), Division of Viral Diseases. CDC COVID-19
Science Briefs. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (US); 2020.
122. Nicolussi S, Ardjomand-Woelkart K, Stange R, Gancitano G,
Klein P, Ogal M. Echinacea as a potential force against
coronavirus infections? A mini-review of randomized controlled
trials in adults and children. Microorganisms 2022;10:211.
123. Niemiec E. COVID-19 and misinformation: Is censorship
of social media a remedy to the spread of medical
misinformation? EMBO Rep 2020;21:e51420.
124. O’Dowd A. Council of Europe condemns “unjustied scare”
over swine u. BMJ 2010;340:c3033.
125. Orwell City. A Site Dedicated to the Scientic Analysis of
Covid-19 Vaccines; 2021. Detection of Graphene in Covid-19
vaccines by Micro-Raman Spectroscopy. Available from:nal-report.html; Covid
vaccine microphotographs. Available from: https://www.; Archive on
graphene detections in several covid vaccines. Available from: [Last accessed on
126. Parliamentary Question. Time for the Truth on the Presence
of Graphene in the COVID-19 Vaccines. Question Reference
P-000303/2022; 2022. Available from: https://www.europarl. [Last
accessed on 2022Feb07].
127. Pzer. Les Leaders de L’industrie Pharmaceutique S’unissent
Pour Faire Progresser la Science. New York: Pzer; 2020.
Available from: https://www.p
[Last accessed on 2022Feb06].
128. Pzer Trial. Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability,
Immunogenicity, and Ecacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates
against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals. New York: Pzer
Trial; 2021. Available from:
[Last accessed on 2022Oct08].
129. Project on Government Oversight. Available from: https://www.zer; Avaialble
johnson; Available from:
contractors/139/merck-co-inc [Last accessed on 2022Feb10].
130. Raposo VL. Can China’s “standard of care” for COVID-19 be
replicated in Europe? J Med Ethics 2020;46:451-4.
131. Rayner G. Use of Fear to Control Behaviour in Covid Crisis was
“Totalitarian”, Admit Scientists. London: e Telegraph; 2021.
Available from:
[Last accessed on 2022Jan29].
132. Reichelt J. Corona: BILD Entschuldigt Sich Bei Kindern.
Berlin: Bild; 2021. Available from:
watch?v=THuHFSQcQW0 [Last accessed on 2022Jan29].
133. Reteurs. Iceland to Li all COVID-19 Restrictions on Friday.
London: Reteurs; 2022. Available from: https://www.reuters.
covid-19-restrictions-friday-media-reports-2022-02-23 [Last
accessed on 2022Apr05].
134. Röltgen K, Nielsen SC, Silva O, Younes SF, Zaslavsky M,
Costales C, et al. Immune imprinting, breadth of variant
recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-
CoV-2 infection and vaccination. Cell 2022;185:1025-40.
135. Roussel Y, Raoult D. Inuence of conicts of interest on public
positiera, the case of Gilead sciences. New Microbes New
Infect 2020;38:100710.
136. Sasaki S, Saito T, Ohtake F. Nudges for COVID-19 voluntary
vaccination: How to explain peer information? Soc Sci Med
137. Sei T, Kamali AR. Antiviral performance of graphene-based
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
  
materials with emphasis on COVID-19: Areview. Med Drug
Discov 2021;25:100099.
138. Senecat A. Covid-19: L’hypersensibilité des Tests PCR, Entre
Intox et Vrai Débat. France: Le Monde; 2020. Available from:
debat_6051528_4355770.html [Last accessed on 2022Jan04].
139. Sene S, Nigh G, Kyriakopoulos AM, McCullough PA. Innate
immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations:
e role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs. Food
Chem Toxicol 2022;164:113008.
140. Shardlow E, Linhart C, Connor S, Soely E, Exley C. e
measurement and full statistical analysis including Bayesian
methods of the aluminium content of infant vaccines. JTrace
Elem Med Biol 2021;66:126762.
141. Shaw CA, Li D, Tomljenovic L. Are there negative CNS impacts
of aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines and immunotherapy?
Immunotherapy 2014;6:1055-71.
142. Signer J, Jonsdottir HR, Albrich WC, Strasser M, Züst R,
Ryter S, et al. In vitro virucidal activity of Echinaforce®, an
Echinacea purpurea preparation, against coronaviruses,
including common cold coronavirus 229E and SARS-CoV-2.
Virol J 2020;17:136.
143. Sismondo S. Epistemic corruption, the pharmaceutical
industry, and the body of medical science. Front Res Metr Anal
144. Smith R. Conicts of Interest-does Money Inuence Scientic
Publication ? Science in Parliament. Vol. 64. Whitsun; 2007.
p. 16. Available from:
uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/sip64-2.pdf [Last accessed on
145. Smith R. Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Like the Maa?
e BMJ Opinion; 2013. Available from: https://blogs.bmj.
industry-like-the-maa [Last accessed on 2022Feb15].
146. Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing
arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2005;2:e138.
147. Stroobants JP. Un Rapport Pointe L’inuence Excessive
du Secteur Pharmaceutique à Bruxelles. (Report Points to
Excessive Inuence of Pharmaceutical Sector in Brussels).
Mendès-France: Le Monde; 2015. Available from: https://
bruxelles_4743132_3234.html [Last accessed on 2021Nov23].
148. Subramanian SV, Kumar A. Increases in COVID-19 are
unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947
counties in the United States. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:1237-40.
149. acker PD. Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data
integrity issues in Pzer’s vaccine trial. BMJ 2021;375:n2635.
150. eoharides TC, Conti P. Be aware of SARS-CoV-2 spike
protein: ere is more than meets the eye. J Biol Regul
Homeost Agents 2021;35:833-8.
151. omson Reuters Foundation. e links between Pzer and
omson Reuters through James C. Smith. Available from: (“Board of
Trustees” section) Available from: https://www.p
people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith [Last
accessed on 2022 Aug 19].
152. Trusted News Initiative. Trusted News Initiative (TNI) to
Combat Spread of Harmful Vaccine Disinformation. Trusted
News Initiative; 2020. Available from:
harmful-vaccine-disinformation [Last accessed on 2022Jan28].
153. Tsumiyama K, Miyazaki Y, Shiozawa S. Self-organized
criticality theory of autoimmunity. PLoS One 2009;4:e8382.
154. Unal MA, Bayrakdar F, Nazir H, Besbinar O, Gurcan C,
Lozano N, et al. Graphene oxide nanosheets interact and
interfere with SARS-CoV-2 surface proteins and cell receptors
to inhibit infectivity. Small 2021;17:e2101483.
155. Ventura Fernandes BH, Feitosa NM, Barbosa AP, Bomm CG,
Garnique AM, Rosa IF, et al. Toxicity of spike fragments SARS-
CoV-2 S protein for Zebrash: Atool to study its hazardous for
human health? Sci Total Environ 2022;813:152345.
156. Vergnenegre A. Covid-19: Des Femmes Accusent le Vaccin,
L’ablation de L’utérus, C’est la Seule Solution qui se Présentait
à Moi. France 3 Régions. France: France Info; 2022. Available
seule-solution-qui-se-presentait-a-moi-2518184.html [Last
accessed on 2022Apr06].
157. Wang Y, Zhang D, Du G, Du R, Zhao J, Jin Y, et al. Remdesivir
in adults with severe COVID-19: Arandomised, double-blind,
placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 2020;395:1569-78.
158. World Economic Forum. Switzerland: World Economic Forum;
2022. COVID-19. Available from: https://intelligence.weforum.
org/topics/a1G0X000006O6EHUA0; Global Governance.
Available from:
a1Gb0000000LHN2EAO [Last accessed on 2022Apr18].
159. World Economic Forum. COVID-19: e Evolution of
COVID-19. Switzerland: World Economic Forum; 2022.
Available from:
[Last accessed on 2022Apr18].
160. World Economic Forum. Section Our Partners. Switzerland:
World Economic Forum. Available from: https://www. [Last accessed on 2022Feb14].
161. World Economic Forum. World Economic Forum and UN
Sign Strategic Partnership Framework. Switzerland: World
Economic Forum; 2019. Available from: https://www.
un-sign-strategic-partnership-framework [Last accessed on
162. World Health Organization. Managing the COVID-19
Infodemic: Promoting Healthy Behaviours and Mitigating
the Harm from misinformation and Disinformation. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2020. Available from: https://
the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation [Last
accessed on 2022Feb14].
163. World Health Organization. Our Contributors. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2021. Available from: https://www.who.
int/about/funding/contributors [Last accessed on 2022Feb14].
164. Yadav S, Rawal G. Ghostwriters in the scientic world. Pan Afr
Med J 2018;30:217.
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
  
How to cite this article: Deruelle F. e pharmaceutical industry is
dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19. Surg Neurol Int
165. Yesilkaya UH, Sen M, Tasdemir BG. A novel adverse eect
of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine: First episode of acute
mania with psychotic features. Brain Behav Immun Health
166. Young H. Poor, biased reporting of daily covid death statistics
without perspective creates fear. BMJ 2021;372:n640.
167. Zhou Q, Gu H, Sun S, Zhang Y, Hou Y, Li C, et al. Large-
sized graphene oxide nanosheets increase DC-T-cell synaptic
contact and the ecacy of DC vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Adv Mater 2021;33:e2102528.
e views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the ocial policy
or position of the Journal or its management. e information contained in this article should not be considered to be
medical advice; patients should consult their own physicians for advice as to their specic medical needs.
... Future research should explore the impact of COI in social media on the perceptions, beliefs and behaviours of their users. Despite the extent of misinformation, and disinformation on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic, 27 no study has assessed the prevalence of COI in that context. Interestingly, one study found a correlation between the amounts received by academic infectious diseases physicians from Gilead Sciences, producer of remdesivir and their public opposition to the use of hydroxychloroquine. ...
Full-text available
Objectives To synthesise the available evidence on the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) by individuals posting health messages on social media, and on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. Data sources MEDLINE (OVID) (2005–March 2022), Embase (2005–March 2022) and Google Scholar (2005–August 2022), supplemented with a review of reference lists and forward citation tracking. Design Reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We appraised the quality of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We summarised the results in both narrative and tabular formats. We followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting our study. Results Of a total of 16 645 retrieved citations, we included 17 eligible studies. The frequency of reporting of conflicts of interest varied between 0% and 60%, but it was mostly low. In addition, a significant proportion, ranging between 15% and 80%, of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry. However, three studies assessed the proportion of conflicts of interest of physicians identified through Open Payment Database but not reported by the authors. It was found that 98.7–100% of these relationships with industry are not reported when communicating health-related information. Also, two studies showed that there is evidence of a potential association between COI and the content of posting. No data was found on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. Conclusions While a significant proportion of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry, lack of reporting on COI and undisclosed COI are common. We did not find studies on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. Trial registration
... Also more information is needed on the safety of LNPs, mRNA and adjuvants of COVID-19 vaccines which may contribute to the serious side effects observed after vaccination, including thrombosis. Lethality (case-fatality ratio) for COVID-19 is on average between 0.5 and 1% compared to 0.1% for the flu worldwide [157]. Urgent studies are needed to understand the benefits and risks of this vaccination, in particular among young people who are affected very minimally by the disease, and regarding the fact that vaccination did not prevent from contamination. ...
... The enormous financial stakes for the pharmaceutical industry now exceed and reinforce the ideological aspect of this "vaccinolatry": vaccines are becoming more profitable than drugs, which moreover fall into the public domain after the 20-year patent validity period. Even vaccine advocates recognize the influence of the pharmaceutical industry's super profits on health policy [6] and the pharmaceutical industry becomes a health hazard [7]. One of the most famous promoters of vaccination, the "philanthropist" Bill Gates, has huge investments in the most profitable industry on the planet: Big Pharma. ...
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic is no longer dramatically in the spotlight, but its management confirms and amplifies the directions biopolitics has taken for decades. Biopolitics is the politics of the population and concerns in particular in its sanitary aspect the preparation and the prevention of pandemics. Its result is now moving away from the intended goal: it leads today to a strong degradation of the health of the populations. Vaccination has long been a means of this health biopolitics and to criticize it scientifically is almost impossible. Indeed, vaccination is part of the scientist ideology, especially since the financial stakes for the pharmaceutical industry exceed and reinforce this ideology. Any criticism is assimilated by the authorities to a conspiracy theory. The "improvised" management of COVID-19 (spectacularly but historically well prepared) will be written into supra-national treaties. Pandemic "preparedness" continues with gain-of-function experiments on many viruses to explore their ability to become pandemic. Yet it is now recognized that SARS-CoV-2 originated from these gains of function and that other epidemics have been caused by laboratory leaks. The future response of states and NGOs to pandemics will be based on rapid, global vaccination of the world population with mRNA as the favored technology. It is therefore urgent to reopen the debate on the dangers of gain-of-function experiments and mRNA vaccines. These mRNAs are gene products that should be subject to strict controls regarding GTPs (gene therapy products).
... Sectores industriales como la farmaindustria o los lobbies de los medios de comunicación ejercen el control sobre la ciencia con importantes conflictos de intereses y mentiras políticas (10). Desde al menos la década de 1950, estos grupos han estado difundiendo un alto nivel de desinformación científica y mediática que causa la muerte de millones de personas cada año con el acuerdo de los gobiernos (11). Otro concepto muy importante en la salud individual y comunitaria es la autogestión de la salud, de modo que cada persona es capaz de gestionar todo lo relacionado con su salud y toma sus propias decisiones en cada momento, que se complementa con los cuidados de personas dependientes, donde se producen dos reacciones de importancia: la persona dependiente agradecida con la que le cuida y la cuidadora que debe ser capaz de que esta administración de cuidados mejore o fortalezca su propia salud (12). ...
Full-text available
Health.Es una expresión para desear lo mejor.
... Future research should explore the impact of COI in social media on the perceptions, beliefs and behaviours of their users. Despite the extent of misinformation, and disinformation on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic, 27 no study has assessed the prevalence of COI in that context. Interestingly, one study found a correlation between the amounts received by academic infectious diseases physicians from Gilead Sciences, producer of remdesivir and their public opposition to the use of hydroxychloroquine. ...
Full-text available
Objective: To synthesize the available evidence on the disclosure of conflicts of interests by individuals posting health messages on social media, and on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media Study design: systematic review Data Sources: We developed a search strategy, using the help of a librarian, for MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar electronic databases from 2005 to present. The search combined various keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms relevant to concepts of conflict of interest, funding, and social media. We did not restrict the search to specific languages. Teams of two reviewers will conduct the screening in duplicate and independently. We will also screen the reference lists of included studies as well as other relevant papers. Data abstraction: The reviewers will abstract data from eligible studies in duplicate and independently. We will use a standardized and pilot-tested data abstraction form. We will abstract information on the general characteristics of included studies, characteristics of the social media examined, conflict of interest, and funding. Quality assessment: A team of two reviewers will assess independently the risk of bias of included studies using the relevant part of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
Full-text available
Background: The development of covid-19 vaccinations represents a notable scientific achievement. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised regarding their possible detrimental impact on male fertility OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of covid-19 BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine on semen parameters among semen donors (SD). Methods: Thirty-seven SD from three sperm banks that provided 216 samples were included in that retrospective longitudinal multicenter cohort study. BNT162b2 vaccination included two doses, and vaccination completion was scheduled 7 days after the second dose. The study included four phases: T0 - pre-vaccination baseline control, which encompassed 1-2 initial samples per SD; T1, T2 and T3 - short, intermediate, and long terms evaluations, respectively. Each included 1-3 semen samples per donor provided 15-45, 75-125 and over 145 days after vaccination completion, respectively. The primary endpoints were semen parameters. Three statistical analyses were conducted: (1) generalized estimated equation model; (2) first sample and (3) samples' mean of each donor per period were compared to T0. Results: Repetitive measurements revealed -15.4% sperm concentration decrease on T2 (CI -25.5%-3.9%, p = 0.01) leading to total motile count 22.1% reduction (CI -35% - -6.6%, p = 0.007) compared to T0. Similarly, analysis of first semen sample only and samples' mean per donor resulted in concentration and total motile count (TMC) reductions on T2 compared to T0 - median decline of 12 million/ml and 31.2 million motile spermatozoa, respectively (p = 0.02 and 0.002 respectively) on first sample evaluation and median decline of 9.5 × 106 and 27.3 million motile spermatozoa (p = 0.004 and 0.003, respectively) on samples' mean examination. T3 evaluation demonstrated overall recovery without. Semen volume and sperm motility were not impaired. Discussion: This longitudinal study focused on SD demonstrates selective temporary sperm concentration and TMC deterioration 3 months after vaccination followed by later recovery verified by diverse statistical analyses. Conclusions: Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good.
Full-text available
The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.
Full-text available
Preclinical studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2, developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, showed reversible hepatic effects in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection. Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells. In this study, we investigated the effect of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. Huh7 cells were exposed to BNT162b2, and quantitative PCR was performed on RNA extracted from the cells. We detected high levels of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells and changes in gene expression of long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1), which is an endogenous reverse transcriptase. Immunohistochemistry using antibody binding to LINE-1 open reading frame-1 RNA-binding protein (ORFp1) on Huh7 cells treated with BNT162b2 indicated increased nucleus distribution of LINE-1. PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
Full-text available
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a violent debate about the efficacy of a repurposed drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and a new broad-spectrum antiviral (remdesivir) and about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. To understand conflicting results in the literature, we performed a meta-synthesis to determine whether intrinsic qualitative criteria within studies may predict apparent efficacy or ineffectiveness of HCQ and remdesivir. Methodology: Predictive criteria were identified through critical review of studies assessing HCQ and remdesivir for COVID-19 mortality from March to November 2020. Multiple correspondence analysis, comparative meta-analysis, and predictive value were used to explore and identify criteria associated with study outcomes. Results: Among the 61 included studies, potential conflict of interest, detailed therapeutic protocol, toxic treatment (overdose or use in contraindicated patients), known centers and doctors, and private data computing company were the most predictive criteria of the direction of effect of the studies. All 18 observational studies evaluating HCQ and reporting detailed therapeutic protocol without conflict of interest were Pro. Potential conflict of interest was a perfect predictor for remdesivir efficacy. RCTs were associated with HCQ inefficacy and potential conflict of interest. The most predictive criteria were validated and allowed perfect classification of 10 additional studies. Conclusion: In therapeutic trials on COVID-19, the major biases predicting the conclusions are not methodology nor data analysis, but conflict of interest and absence of medical expertise. The thorough search for declared or undeclared and direct or indirect conflict of interest, and medical expertise should be included in the quality criteria for the evaluation of future therapeutic studies in COVID-19 and beyond. A new checklist evaluating not only methodology but also conflict of interest and medical expertise is proposed.
Full-text available
Lockdown measures have obvious psychological impacts, which could, in turn, increase cardiovascular risk. We assessed the association between lockdown-related factors and the worsening of cardiovascular risk, incident anxiety and depression during 12 months’ follow-up. During lockdown (April–May 2020), 534 subjects, aged 50–89 years, were included in the PSYCOV-CV study (NCT04397835) and followed for up to 12 months post-lockdown. We found that participants with symptoms of depression during lockdown were more likely to report increased cardiovascular drug treatment (Odds-Ratio (OR) = 5.08 (1.78–14.5), p = 0.002), decreased physical activity (OR = 1.76 (1.10–2.82), p = 0.019) and weight gain (OR = 1.85 (1.08–3.17), p = 0.024) after lockdown. Moreover, changes in sleep patterns (OR = 2.35 (1.13–4.88), p = 0.022) or living in a rural area during lockdown (OR = 1.70 (0.96–3.03, p = 0.069) were associated with higher incident depression, whereas a better relationship with one’s partner during lockdown was associated with less incident depression (OR = 0.56 (0.29–1.08), p = 0.084). Finally, we found that continuing to work during lockdown in a role requiring in-person contact with the public (such as cashiers, nurses or physicians) was associated with more incident anxiety after lockdown (OR = 3.38 (1.12–10.2), p = 0.031). Interestingly, decreased consumption of alcohol during lockdown was associated with less incident anxiety (OR = 0.30 (0.10–0.90), p = 0.032). Our study, conducted in a representative sample of an age group at increased risk of both cardiovascular disease and severe COVID-19, increases the understanding of modifiable factors associated with the health impacts of lockdown measures.
TO THE EDITOR We were surprised by the hydroxychloroquine dose chosen in the Randomized Evaluation of Covid-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial conducted by Horby et al. (Nov. 19 issue).1 In this trial, patients received a higher dose of hydroxychloroquine (4 g cumulated over the first 3 days) than that administered in the trial conducted by Lagier et al.2 (600 mg per day), and it was similar to that in the trial conducted by Borba et al.3 In vitro studies show that the effect of hydroxychloroquine is mainly mediated by alkalinization of the phagolysosomes,4 where it can concentrate about 1500 times more than in plasma. This effect can be obtained with low doses of hydroxychloroquine because of its long elimination half-life. High doses may therefore be useless or even deleterious because of the anti-interferon action of hydroxychloroquine,5 which may result in a more severe form of Covid-19.6 The dose used in the RECOVERY trial, the second highest after that in the trial conducted by Borba et al., arouses concern because it may have been a disease-aggravating factor negating the therapeutic effect.
Background: Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older. Methods: In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose. Results: A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3). Conclusions: A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 number, NCT04955626.).
An ordinary graphene bilayer exhibits extraordinary superconductivity