Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
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 Scientic 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-fderuelle@hotmail.com
*Corresponding author:
Fabien Deruelle,
PhD, Independent Researcher,
Ronchin, France.
fderuelle@hotmail.com
Received : 23April 2022
Accepted : 15September 2022
Published : 21 October 2022
DOI
10.25259/SNI_377_2022
Quick Response Code:
ABSTRACT
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 ocial documents were used: PubMed; National Institutes of Health resources; pharmaceutical
www.surgicalneurologyint.com
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
Editor
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 conicting and confusing information
for the public. e only solution to this problem scientically 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 eects? 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. Aer spending 8months
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: https://vimeo.com/755630905. You decide.
James I. Ausman, MD, PhD
Emeritus Editor-in-Chief; CEO, SNI™ and SNI Digital™ Publications
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
INTRODUCTION
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 scientic
evidence showing a link between tobacco and lung cancer,
the tobacco industry decided to control the science by
creating a major scientic controversy. e tobacco industry
developed the strategy of scientic uncertainty. e link
between industry and science was the foundation of the
public relations architecture. It was crucial for the industry to
inuence the media, public opinion, politics, regulation, and
the law. e creation of scientic 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 UnitedKingdom
detailed the control and consequences of the pharmaceutical
lobby: “people have been taking ineective and harmful
medicines for centuries… e industry is hugely inuential,
aecting every aspect of the medical world, including
prescribers, patients, academics, the media, and even
the institutions designed to regulate it. Its inuence 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
eect on what gets researched, but also how it is researched and
how results are interpreted and reported.”[86] Conicts 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 eects, 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
scientic censorship, causing many people diculties 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 eects
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 inuence (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 (scientic and legal). Afew 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: falsied clinical
trials and inaccessible data; fake or conict-of-interest studies; concealment of vaccines’ short-term side eects and total lack of knowledge of the long-
term eects of COVID-19 vaccination; doubtful composition of vaccines; inadequate testing methods; governments and international organizations
under conicts of interest; bribed physicians; the denigration of renowned scientists; the banning of all alternative eective treatments; unscientic and
liberticidal social methods; government use of behavior modication and social engineering techniques to impose connements, masks, and vaccine
acceptance; scientic censorship by the media.
Conclusion: By supporting and selecting only the one side of science information while suppressing alternative viewpoints, and with obvious conicts
of interest revealed by this study, governments and the media constantly disinform the public. Consequently, the unscientically 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 modication, Conicts of interest, COVID-19, Scientic censorship, Side eects, 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. Specically 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 justied
• Study the conicts of interest and relationships of
the pharmaceutical industry with governments,
international organizations, and media.
THE MAIN TECHNIQUES FOR THE CONTROL
OF SCIENCE BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL
COMPANIES
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
scientic literature, perhaps half, is simply wrong.[84]
e biggest conicts 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]
Scientic 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 eects.[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 inuence
science. Among the industrial sectors listed in this study,
one obviously nds the pharmaceutical and medical
technology industries. ese industries inuence science
in a number of ways: manipulation of scientic methods;
reworking the criteria for establishing scientic “evidence;”
threats to scientists; and covert promotion of policy reforms
that increase condence in industry evidence. Companies
reshape and distort entire evidence bases for their own
benet. Hence, when, for example, researchers, policy
makers, and practitioners seek answers to their problems in
the literature, they may, oen unknowingly, nd evidence
bases ooded with research tailored to industry’s benet.
Here are some examples of detailed scientic manipulation
strategies identied by Legg et al.:[104]
• “Fund or create journals to have inuence over what is
published
• Suppress publication of unfavorable science
• Attack individual scientists and whole cohorts of
researchers
• Remove individual scientists from positions of power
• Silence plaintis using secret payments
• Recruit, fund, and train individuals to be trusted
scientic voices for industry
• Fund, produce, and disseminate textbooks and other
educational or academic materials
• Fund media outlets to inuence what is disseminated
• Coopt journalists through media training and conference
funding
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
• Ensure and normalize industry’s presence in academic
settings in attempts to gain trust and scientic credibility
within academia.”
Industries permeate and mold scientic, 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
involved
e scientic scheme sent to the public has remained the
same for months. e vaccines, mostly produced by Pzer-
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: Pzer-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, Pzer 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,
Pzer 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]
Pzer is singled out as having persistent criminal behavior and
casual disregard for the health and well-being of patients.[62]
Pzer is no dierent from other pharmaceutical companies,
but it is larger and more egregious. Pzer is a habitual
oender, 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]
Pzer’s global revenue doubled in 2021 to $81.3 billion, which
is greater than the GDP of many countries. Pzer 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, Pzer, and Sano.[127]
Conicts of interest, treatments, military collaboration,
and scientic misconduct
Despite the benecial eects 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 eect of
HCQ, the dose used was not only inappropriate, but may have
been a disease-aggravating factor, negating the therapeutic
eect.[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 conicts 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 $65million over
the past 7 years to establish its inuence with practitioners
and institutions.[119] Despite the fact that remdesivir has no
statistically signicant clinical benets,[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 ineectiveness, 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 eectiveness
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
oce 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,
beneting 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 Pzer 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 benet from
an EUA, the ecacy of HCQ and ivermectin was sabotaged
(p.70,125).[95]
In November 2021, an article explained that Ventavia
Research Group, Pzer’s company responsible for evaluating
the ecacy of its vaccine in clinical trials, falsied data,
unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained
vaccinators, and was slow to follow-up on adverse events
reported in Pzer’s pivotal Phase III trial. e FDA granted
marketing approval for the Pzer vaccine with full knowledge
of these reported problems.[149]
Inconsistencies
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 (Pzer-BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, and
AstraZeneca) were designed to detect a signicant 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–<11years with the Pzer vaccine was voted in
Europe on November 25, 2021,[52] on October 26, 2021, Pzer
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–<12years 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 aected by the
severe forms of COVID. ey would benet 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 Pzer-BioNTech study showed that a third injection of
Pzer-BioNTech vaccine in people aged 16 years or older
was safe and eective.[118] However, this study was funded
by BioNTech and Pzer. In addition, “Pzer 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,
Pzer and BioNTech manufactured the placebo used in the
trial. erefore, according to the previous explanations about
scientic 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 denition of the word
“vaccine”. e old version was “a product that stimulates a
person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specic
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 denition of a
“vaccine.”
Unknown risks
Although 12–15 years are needed to validate the safety of
a vaccine, only few months were used as being sucient
to ensure the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.[102] us,
for all types of populations, the potential mid- and long-
term adverse eects of COVID-19 vaccines are completely
unknown.[102] For example, a Pzer document from
December 2021 shows that the Pzer-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 aer complete vaccination (two doses) of Pzer
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
vaccine (BNT162b2), male fertility was temporarily impaired.
ree months aer vaccination, sperm concentration and
total motile count were signicantly decreased by 15.4% and
22.1%, respectively, compared to prevaccination levels. Over
145 days aer 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 signicance.[71]
As regards long-term side eects, 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 8weeks 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 aer 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 8times 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
Scientic 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 Pzer’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,
invitro, that the Pzer vaccine mRNA is reverse transcribed
in cells into DNA, using an endogenous reverse transcriptase
(LINE-1), in only 6h aer exposure to the vaccine.[3] If these
results are conrmed, it means that the Pzer vaccine could
permanently alter genes. en, people who received the
Pzer vaccine could produce the spike protein all their lives
and transmit it to their future generations.
Side eects
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 TypeI IFN. Anti-
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce a profound impairment
in TypeI IFN signaling, whereas natural infection promotes
Type I IFN production very early in the disease cycle.[139]
Type1 IFNs play an important role in the immune response
and in protective immunity against COVID-19 illness.[139]
In addition, TypeI 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 (specically 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
eectively combat future infections.[139]
Aer COVID-19 vaccination, mild-to-severe skin reactions
and severe neuropsychiatric eects have been observed.[50,165]
A growing number of studies report neurological side eects
following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. e most frequent
neurological side eects 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
aer a COVID-19 vaccination with Pzer.[5] COVID-19
vaccination could also be responsible for inammation and
blood vessel damage.[25] According to Grundy,[78] the mRNA
COVID vaccines dramatically increase inammation on
the endothelium and T cell inltration of cardiac muscle and
may account for the observations of increased thrombosis,
cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.
Pzer’s December 2021 post marketing data demonstrate an
increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in men under
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
40years 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
Pzer-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 Pzer-BioNTech.[57] However,
these eects could be largely underestimated, as evidenced by
the vaccine adverse event reporting system database, which
suers from signicant 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 signicantly
higher than the ocial data.[93] In France, 152,302cases of
adverse events have been reported since the beginning of
vaccination, including 4432cases of menstrual disorders. e
lawyer of a women’s collective, which denounces the adverse
eects of anti-COVID vaccines on menstruation, explains
that in most cases, the attending physician or specialist
considers that the adverse eect is not due to the vaccination
and refuses to make a declaration to the pharmacovigilance,
which underestimates the reality of the data.[156]
Immunity
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 eects are moderated. In addition,
according to the work of Sene et al., the vaccines do not
prevent transmission of the disease and even the eect of
vaccines on symptom severity is beginning to be in doubt.[139]
e immunity derived from the Pzer-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 scientic 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] Aer 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 ecacy 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
ecacy 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 conicts 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
disorders.[44]
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 conrmed,
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
topic.
Tests
To detect a virus using the RT-PCR test, a number of gene
amplication cycles (Ct) is required. Astudy 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 scientic council: “High
Ct values oen reect 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 specic 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 eects 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 1year later.[14]
Concerning facemasks, studies have shown that outside of
health-care settings, mask use oers 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 eects of its prolonged wear could be
similar to an intensication 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 modication techniques and authoritarianism
Governments have made extensive use of behavior
modication 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 aects 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
modication techniques, should raise doubts about the
scientic relevance of the social measures used as well
as the reliability and ecacy of the injected substances.
Indeed, a science composed of eective 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 ocial agencies and governments
In 2015, a report showed the excessive inuence 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 liing of certain regulatory
barriers to facilitate the launch of new drugs on the market.
Aminimum 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 condentiality,” 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 inuenza pandemic on record.[49] Following
investigations by the BMJ, it appears that this event
declared by the WHO is signicantly tainted by conicts 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 unjustied fear among Europeans, and
creation of health risks through vaccines and medications
which might not have been suciently 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 inuenced scientists and
ocial agencies.[110]
In 2010, in France, the report of the Senate’s commission of
inquiry on “the role of pharmaceutical companies in the
government’s management of inuenza A” shows several
elements that suggest a manipulated pandemic. From 2003 to
2009, a pandemic was dened 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 inuenza 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 oering tax incentives, and transferring to the States
the responsibility for the adverse eects or ineectiveness
of vaccines. us, in 2009, during the H1N1 vaccination in
France, the responsibility for the side eects was attributed to
the State and not to the suppliers. Some public health experts
had been excluded from scientic and technical decisions,
leading to unscientic recommendations and justications,
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 conicts 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 eects 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 eects 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 Scientic Council (CS-COVID)
and the Committee for Analysis, Research, and Expertise.
Some members of these two groups have, for years, had
important conicts 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 specic 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, scientic censorship, and fear
e pharmaceutical industry funds and inuences 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 scientic 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 oen 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 NewYork 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: Pzer, 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 Pzer was also the President and Chief
Executive Ocer of omson Reuters and still maintains
a relationship with that news agency.[151] is raises an
important issue of conict of interest.
In September 2020, to combat misinformation, the WHO calls
on media, social media platforms, civil society leaders, and
inuencers to collaborate with the UN system, with Member
States, and is establishing the UnitedNations Communications
Response initiative to ood the Internet with facts and science
while countering the growing scourge of misinformation.[162]
is generates unprecedented scientic 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 10times more lethal
than seasonal u. is overestimation is most likely caused
by misclassifying an inuenza infection fatality rate (IFR) as
a CFR. “An IFR is dened as the proportion of deaths relative
to the prevalence of infections within a population… while a
CFR is dened as the proportion of deaths among conrmed
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 oen lower than CFRs. For COVID-19, the error was to
compare the IFR of a disease, seasonal inuenza (IFR: 0.1%),
with the CFR of another disease, coronavirus (CFR: 1%).[22]
Indeed, a comparison was made between the inuenza IFR
(0.1%) and the coronavirus CFR (1%).[22] Note that the IFR
for COVID-19 infection in persons under 70years 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-19patients
that which the media has continuously propagated during the
year 2020 is very far from reecting the reality.
In May 2021, Bild’s 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 Scientic Pandemic Inuenza Group on Behavior had
encouraged ministers to heighten the threat of the pandemic
to control the behavior of the population.[131]
CONCLUSION
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 prots 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 ecacy
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. Aperiod such as COVID-19 represents
a powerful lever for increasing the eectiveness of global
governance.[158]
e determination of governments to vaccinate everyone
is done with full knowledge of the vaccine side eects and
is therefore not driven by good intentions. is nding is
supported by the persistent suppression of information
about eective 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 conrm 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 conrmed, 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
scientic publications demonstrating their destructive eects
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 (Pzer, 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 dierent unlisted components.
Figure1 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 ocial version
of the COVID vaccines, implying a possible extension of
the pharmaceutical role or the inuence 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 conicts of
interest and political lies.[44,80] Since at least the 1950s, the
largest industrial lobbies have been spreading a high level
of scientic 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
Patient’s consent not required as there are no patients in this
stud y.
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conicts of interest
ere are no conicts of interest.
REFERENCES
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,
RasmussenM, et al. Intracellular reverse transcription of pzer
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 Pzer-BioNTech Comirnaty.
Rapport no.20; 2022. Available from: https://www.ansm.sante.
fr/uploads/2022/03/18/20220317-enquete-pv-vaccin-pfizer-
rapport-20.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Apr14].
6. Answer on behalf of the European Commission.
P-000303/2022(ASW); 2022. Available from: https://www.
europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-000303-ASW_
EN.html [Last accessed on 2022Apr06].
7. Assassi E. Un Phénomène Tentaculaire: L’inuence Croissante
des Cabinets de Conseil Sur les Politiques Publiques-Comptes
Rendus. Sénat; 2022. p.305-26. Available from: https://www.
senat.fr/notice-rapport/2021/r21-578-2-notice.html [Last
accessed on 2022Mar17].
8. ATIH. Analyse de L’activité Hospitalière 2020-Covid-19.
Agence Technique de L’information Sur L’hospitalisation; 2020.
p. 2-3. Available from: https://www.atih.sante.fr/sites/default/
les/public/content/4144/aah_2020_analyse_covid.pdf [Last
accessed on 2022Feb10].
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://
surgicalneurologyint.com/e-books/ [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:
https://www.pathologie-konferenz.de/en [Last accessed on
2022Feb07].
11. Balghusoon AO, Mahfoudh S. Routing protocols for
wireless nanosensor networks and internet of nano things:
Acomprehensive survey. IEEE Access 2020;8:200724-48.
12. Barnéoud L, Aeberhardt C, Hecketsweiler C. Covid-19:
Comment Gilead a Vendu son Remdésivir à L’Europe. Journal
Le Monde; 2020. Available from: https://www.lemonde.fr/
planete/article/2020/11/27/covid-19-comment-gilead-a-
vendu-son-remdesivir-a-l-europe_6061300_3244.html [Last
accessed on 2022Jun05].
13. Batch Codes. Batch Codes and Associated Deaths, Disabilities
and Illnesses for Covid 19 Vaccines. Created in 2021. Available
from: https://www.howbadismybatch.com/index.html [Last
accessed on 2022Apr23].
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 50ng/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,
NaseerU, et al. Outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron
variant in Norway, November to December 2021. Euro Surveill
2021;26:2101147.
20. Brandt AM. Inventing conicts of interest: Ahistory 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. Eectiveness
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
2021;174:335-43.
24. Burger L, Aripaka P. AstraZeneca to be Exempt from
Coronavirus Vaccine Liability Claims in most Countries.
London: Reuters; 2020. Available from: https://www.
reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-
idUSKCN24V2EN [Last accessed on 2022Apr17].
25. Burkhardt A, Lang W. First Time Detection of the Vaccine
Spike Protein in a Person who Died aer Vaccination Against
Covid-19. Germany: Reutlingen; 2022. Available from: https://
www.pathologie-konferenz.de/en [Last accessed on 2022Feb07].
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
2020;11:5917.
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
27. Camero K. Why did CDC Change its Denition for “Vaccine”?
Agency Explains move as Skeptics Lurk. Florida: Miami
Herald; 2021. Available from: https://www.miamiherald.com/
news/coronavirus/article254111268.html#storylink=cpy [Last
accessed on 2022Jun06].
28. Campra P. Work of Dr. Pablo Campra on the analysis of
Covid-19 vaccines. Counteranalysis of Covid vaccines.
Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/project/
COUNTERANALYSIS-OF-COVID-VACCINES; Detection
of Graphene in Covid-19 vaccines. 2021. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355979001_
DETECTION_OF_GRAPHENE_IN_COVID19_VACCINES;
Microstructures in Covid Vaccines: ¿inorganic crystals
or Wireless Nanosensors Network? 2021. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356507702_
MICROSTRUCTURES_IN_COVID_VACCINES_inorganic_
crystals_or_Wireless_Nanosensors_Network; DNA crystals
nanotechnology in Covid-19 vaccines. 2022. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358284707_
DNA_CRYSTALS_NANOTECHNOLOGY_IN_COVID19_
VACCINES; Interview with Dr. Campra in Madrid in May
2022. Available from: https://odysee.com/@archivoteca2020:d/
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, KhoaDB,
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. Ecacy of natural
immunity against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with the beta
variant. NEngl 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:
Aretrospective study. BMJ Open 2022;12:e051042.
35. Cohen D, Carter P. Conicts 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.
francetvinfo.fr/politique/le-nudge-arme-anti-covid-de-la-
macronie_4660085.html [Last accessed on 2022Feb11].
37. Congressional Research Service. Domestic Funding
for COVID-19 Vaccines: An Overview. United States:
Congressional Research Service; 2021. Available from: https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11556 [Last
accessed on 2022Jun05].
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.
congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10443 [Last accessed on
2022Apr17].
39. Covid-19 Early Treatment. Real-time Analysis of ousands
of Studies. Available from: https://www.c19early.com [Last
accessed on 2022Jan23].
40. Dai H, Saccardo S, Han MA, Roh L, Raja N, Vangala S, et al.
Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature
2021;597:404-9.
41. DARPA. Covid-19. Virginia: Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency; 2021. Available from: https://www.darpa.mil/
work-with-us/covid-19 [Last accessed on 2022Feb06].
42. De Francesco L. Preparing for the next plague. Nat Biotechnol
2021;39:1491-6.
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.
fr/replay-radio/le-club-des-correspondants/covid-19-quelle-
est-la-position-des-eglises-catholique-et-orthodoxe-face-a-la-
vaccination_4922009.html [Last accessed on 2022Feb10].
44. Deruelle F. e dierent 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
2020;371:m4058.
47. Doshi P. Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t
designed to tell us. BMJ 2020;371:m4037.
48. Ducos L. Pzer ne Serait pas Responsable des Eets
Indésirables de Son Vaccin, Une Plainte Déposée Contre le
Contrat. Montpellier Cedex: Midi Libre; 2022. Available from:
https://www.midilibre.fr/2022/01/31/pfizer-ne-serait-pas-
responsable-des-eets-indesirables-de-son-vaccin-un-avocat-
porte-plainte-10079369.php [Last accessed on 2022Apr17].
49. Duvvuri VR, Moghadas SM, Guo H, Duvvuri B, Heernan JM,
Fisman DN, et al. Highly conserved cross-reactive CD4+T-
cell HA-epitopes of seasonal and the 2009 pandemic inuenza
viruses. Inuenza Other Respir Viruses 2010;4:249-58.
50. Edriss M, Farshchian M, Daveluy S. Localized cutaneous
reaction to an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. JCosmet Dermatol
2021;20:2380-81.
51. Elbazidi H, Erraih O. Mortality and hydroxychloroquine;
Politics and pandemic: Strange liaisons lead to strange
correlations: Mortalité and Hydroxychloroquine; Politiques
and Pandémie: D’étranges 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.
europa.eu/en/news/comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-ema-
recommends-approval-children-aged-5-11 [Last accessed on
2022Mar10].
53. EMA Moderna. Assessment Report COVID-19 Vaccine
Moderna. Procedure No. EMEA/H/C/005791/0000.
Netherlands: European Medicines Agency; 2021. Available
from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-
report/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
public-assessment-report_en.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Jan17].
54. EMA Pzer. Assessment Report Comirnaty. Procedure No.
EMEA/H/C/005735/0000. Netherlands: European Medicines
Agency; 2021. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/
en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-
assessment-report_en.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Jan17].
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 Prots at our Expense). Belgium: MPietteur; 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: https://www.adrreports.eu/en/search_subst.html [Last
accessed on 2022Sep12].
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:
https://www.ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/
IP_22_2646 [Last accessed on 2022Jun09].
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:
https://www.ec.europa.eu/health/sites/default/les/vaccination/
docs/2019-2022_roadmap_en.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Jan25].
60. European Commission. Safe COVID-19 Vaccines for
Europeans. Belgium: European Commission; 2022. Available
from: https://www.ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/
coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans_en
[Last accessed on 2022Jun09].
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://
www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0073_
EN.html [Last accessed on 2022Nov23].
62. Evans RG. Tough on crime? Pzer 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.
centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/recommendations.html
[Last accessed on 2022Jan29].
64. FDA. Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained.
Maryland: FDA; 2020. Available from: https://www.fda.
gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-
authorization-vaccines-explained [Last accessed on 2022Jan27].
65. FDA. Highlights of Prescribing Information. Pzer BioNTech.
Maryland: FDA; 2021. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/
media/151707/download [Last accessed on 2021Dec30].
66. FDA. Letter Revoking Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
for Chloroquine Phosphate (CQ) and Hydroxychloroquine
Sulfate (HCQ). Maryland: FDA; 2020. Available from: https://
www.fda.gov/media/138945/download [Last accessed on
2022Feb14].
67. FDA. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
Committee. Meeting Document. Pzer. Maryland: FDA; 2021.
Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/153409/download
[Last accessed on 2021Dec19].
68. Finsterer J. Neurological side eects 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://
www.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/avis_du_cosv_6_
avril_2021pdf.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Feb10].
70. French Government. Pourquoi Mettre en Place la Vaccination;
2022. Available from: https://www.gouvernement.fr/info-
coronavirus/vaccins [Last accessed on 2022 Jan 22]. La stratégie
vaccinale et la liste des publics prioritaires; 2022. Available
from: https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/grands-dossiers/vaccin-
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. Eects 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,
BlanchardS, 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
from: https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/articles/linvention-la-plus-
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.
bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80 [Last accessed on 2022
Oct 07].
76. Godlee F. Conicts of interest and pandemic u. BMJ
2010;340:c2947.
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
inammatory markers and ACS risk as measured by the PULS
cardiac test: Awarning. 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: https://www.reuters.com/
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
article/us-health-coronavirus-remdesivir-gilead-idUSK
BN27T13W?taid=5fae848700c08d0001c01133&utm_
campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+content&utm_
medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter [Last accessed on
2021Dec03].
80. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Health risks from radiofrequency
radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no
conicts of interest. Oncol Lett 2020;4:15.
81. Hasan A, Al-Mulla MR, Abubaker J, Al-Mulla F. Early insight
into antibody-dependent enhancement aer 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. ALiterature Review and Meta
Analysis of the Eects of Lockdowns on COVID 19 Mortality.
Maryaland: John Hopkins University; 2022. Available from:
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-
Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Eects-of-Lockdowns-on-
COVID-19-Mortality.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Feb02].
84. Horton R. Oine: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? Lancet
2015;385:1380.
85. H.R.5546-National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Available from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/
house-bill/5546 [Last accessed on 2022Mar21].
86. House of Commons Health Committee. e Inuence 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:
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/
cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf [Last accessed on 2022Jan27].
87. Huang H, Su S, Wu N, Wan H, Wan S, Bi H, Sun L. Graphene-
based sensors for human health monitoring. Front Chem
2019;7:399.
88. Huang Z, Feng Z. Public health and private life under
COVID-19 vaccination policies in China: Alegal 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: https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/parlementaire/
a-aucun-moment-mckinsey-ne-m-a-fait-prendre-une-decision-
en-lien-avec-la-crise [Last accessed on 2022Feb08].
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. NewYork: 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: MPietteur; 2022.
96. Killgore WD, Cloonan SA, Taylor EC, Allbright MC, DaileyNS.
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,
GraesselD, Funken S, et al. Is a mask that covers the mouth
and nose free from undesirable side eects in everyday use
and free of potential hazards? Int J Environ Res Public Health
2021;18:4344.
98. Klompas M, Morris CA, Sinclair J, Pearson M, Shenoy ES.
Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era. NEngl J
Med 2020;382:e63.
99. Kolleve J. Pzer Accused of Pandemic Proteering as Prots
Double. London: e Guardian; 2022. Available from: https://
www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/08/pfizer-covid-
vaccine-pill-prots-sales [Last accessed on 2022Apr10].
100. Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the
emerging evidence demonstrating the ecacy of ivermectin
in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Am J er
2021;28:e299-318.
101. Kosto RN, Briggs MB, Porter AL, Spandidos DA, TsatsakisA.
[Comment] COVID-19 vaccine safety. Int J Mol Med
2020;46:1599-602.
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
2020;7:1448-58.
103. Lacout A, Perronne C, Lounnas V. Hydroxychloroquine
in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med
2021;384:881-2.
104. Legg T, Hatchard J, Gilmore AB. e science for prot model-
how and why corporations inuence 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 eective drugs.
JLaw 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. JAm
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: https://www.euractiv.com/
section/health-consumers/opinion/eu-needs-compulsory-
transparency-register-to-rein-in-big-pharma-lobbying [Last
accessed on 2022Apr19].
109. Lyons-Weiler J, Ricketson R. Reconsideration of the
immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum.
JTrace 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. Northclie
House: Daily Mail; 2010. Available from: https://www.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/the-false-pandemic-
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
drug-rms-cashed-scare-swine-u-claims-Euro-health-chief.
html [Last accessed on 2022Jan30].
111. Marie-Leconte J. Le “Nudge”, Manipulation Douce Pour Temps
de Crise. France: France Info; 2021. Available from: https://
www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-choix-franceinfo/le-
nudge-manipulation-douce-pour-temps-de-crise_4346415.
html [Last accessed on 2022Feb11].
112. Marks M, Millat-Martinez P, Ouchi D, Roberts CH, AlemanyA,
Corbacho-Monné M, et al. Transmission of COVID-19 in 282
clusters in Catalonia, Spain: Acohort study. Lancet Infect Dis
2021;21:629-36.
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, RousselY,
Brouqui P, et al. Predictive factors of clinical assays on
hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 mortality during the
rst year of the pandemic: Ameta-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: https://www.senat.fr/rap/r09-685-1/
r09-685-1_mono.html#toc33 [Last accessed on 2022Feb01].
117. Moderna Trial. A Study to Evaluate Ecacy, Safety,
and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Adults
Aged 18 Years and Older to Prevent COVID-19; 2021.
Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/
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 ecacy of a third dose of
BNT162b2 Covid-19 vaccine. NEngl 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. JSociol
2020;56:736-44.
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 “unjustied scare”
over swine u. BMJ 2010;340:c3033.
125. Orwell City. A Site Dedicated to the Scientic Analysis of
Covid-19 Vaccines; 2021. Detection of Graphene in Covid-19
vaccines by Micro-Raman Spectroscopy. Available from:
https://www.orwell.city/2021/11/nal-report.html; Covid
vaccine microphotographs. Available from: https://www.
orwell.city/2022/02/microphotographs.html; Archive on
graphene detections in several covid vaccines. Available from:
https://www.orwell.city/p/archivo.html [Last accessed on
2022Feb07].
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.
europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-000303_EN.html [Last
accessed on 2022Feb07].
127. Pzer. Les Leaders de L’industrie Pharmaceutique S’unissent
Pour Faire Progresser la Science. New York: Pzer; 2020.
Available from: https://www.pzer.fr/les-leaders-de-lindustrie-
pharmaceutique-sunissent-pour-faire-progresser-la-science
[Last accessed on 2022Feb06].
128. Pzer Trial. Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability,
Immunogenicity, and Ecacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates
against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals. New York: Pzer
Trial; 2021. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/
show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1
[Last accessed on 2022Oct08].
129. Project on Government Oversight. Available from: https://www.
contractormisconduct.org/contractors/188/pzer; Avaialble
from: https://www.contractormisconduct.org/contractors/293/
johnson; Available from: https://www.contractormisconduct.org/
contractors/139/merck-co-inc [Last accessed on 2022Feb10].
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: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/
scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid
[Last accessed on 2022Jan29].
132. Reichelt J. Corona: BILD Entschuldigt Sich Bei Kindern.
Berlin: Bild; 2021. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=THuHFSQcQW0 [Last accessed on 2022Jan29].
133. Reteurs. Iceland to Li all COVID-19 Restrictions on Friday.
London: Reteurs; 2022. Available from: https://www.reuters.
com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/iceland-lift-all-
covid-19-restrictions-friday-media-reports-2022-02-23 [Last
accessed on 2022Apr05].
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. Inuence of conicts 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
2022;292:114561.
137. Sei T, Kamali AR. Antiviral performance of graphene-based
Deruelle: e dangers of pharmaceutical industry
materials with emphasis on COVID-19: Areview. 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:
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2020/09/09/
covid-19-l-hypersensibilite-des-tests-pcr-entre-intox-et-vrai-
debat_6051528_4355770.html [Last accessed on 2022Jan04].
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, Soely E, Exley C. e
measurement and full statistical analysis including Bayesian
methods of the aluminium content of infant vaccines. JTrace
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
2021;6:614013.
144. Smith R. Conicts of Interest-does Money Inuence Scientic
Publication ? Science in Parliament. Vol. 64. Whitsun; 2007.
p. 16. Available from: https://www.scienceinparliament.org.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/sip64-2.pdf [Last accessed on
2022Feb12].
145. Smith R. Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Like the Maa?
e BMJ Opinion; 2013. Available from: https://blogs.bmj.
com/bmj/2013/09/10/richard-smith-is-the-pharmaceutical-
industry-like-the-maa [Last accessed on 2022Feb15].
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’inuence Excessive
du Secteur Pharmaceutique à Bruxelles. (Report Points to
Excessive Inuence of Pharmaceutical Sector in Brussels).
Mendès-France: Le Monde; 2015. Available from: https://
www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2015/09/02/un-rapport-
pointe-l-influence-excessive-du-secteur-pharmaceutique-a-
bruxelles_4743132_3234.html [Last accessed on 2021Nov23].
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 Pzer’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 Pzer and
omson Reuters through James C. Smith. Available from:
https://www.trust.org/about-us/#our-people (“Board of
Trustees” section) Available from: https://www.pzer.com/
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: https://www.ebu.ch/
news/2020/12/trusted-news-initiative-to-combat-spread-of-
harmful-vaccine-disinformation [Last accessed on 2022Jan28].
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, Bomm CG,
Garnique AM, Rosa IF, et al. Toxicity of spike fragments SARS-
CoV-2 S protein for Zebrash: Atool 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
from: https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/provence-alpes-
cote-d-azur/bouches-du-rhone/marseille/covid-19-des-
femmes-accusent-le-vaccin-l-ablation-de-l-uterus-c-est-la-
seule-solution-qui-se-presentait-a-moi-2518184.html [Last
accessed on 2022Apr06].
157. Wang Y, Zhang D, Du G, Du R, Zhao J, Jin Y, et al. Remdesivir
in adults with severe COVID-19: Arandomised, 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: https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/
a1Gb0000000LHN2EAO [Last accessed on 2022Apr18].
159. World Economic Forum. COVID-19: e Evolution of
COVID-19. Switzerland: World Economic Forum; 2022.
Available from: https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/
a1G0X000006O6EHUA0/key-issues/a1G680000004DRrEAM
[Last accessed on 2022Apr18].
160. World Economic Forum. Section Our Partners. Switzerland:
World Economic Forum. Available from: https://www.
weforum.org/partners#M [Last accessed on 2022Feb14].
161. World Economic Forum. World Economic Forum and UN
Sign Strategic Partnership Framework. Switzerland: World
Economic Forum; 2019. Available from: https://www.
weforum.org/press/2019/06/world-economic-forum-and-
un-sign-strategic-partnership-framework [Last accessed on
2022Feb25].
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://
www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid-
19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-
the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation [Last
accessed on 2022Feb14].
163. World Health Organization. Our Contributors. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2021. Available from: https://www.who.
int/about/funding/contributors [Last accessed on 2022Feb14].
164. Yadav S, Rawal G. Ghostwriters in the scientic 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
2022;13:475.
165. Yesilkaya UH, Sen M, Tasdemir BG. A novel adverse eect
of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine: First episode of acute
mania with psychotic features. Brain Behav Immun Health
2021;18:100363.
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 ecacy of DC vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Adv Mater 2021;33:e2102528.
Disclaimer
e views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the ocial 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 specic medical needs.
