In theory, politicians and doctors who
have studied for a long time are scientists. But in practice, few have a
scientific approach. No one today wants to take responsibility for the
allegedly sanitary measures that have been taken (confinement, social
distancing, wearing masks and gloves). They all take refuge behind collegial
decisions, the invocation of science and consensus.
Façade
of collegiality
The
Covid-19 outbreak took by surprise politicians who had lost sight of their
primary function: to protect their fellow citizens.
Panicked,
they turned to a few gurus. In this case the mathematician Neil Ferguson of
Imperial College [1] and the physician Richard Hatchett of CEPI
(Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), former collaborator of the
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2]. To communicate the decisions they had
taken, they called upon both scientists to justify them and moral figures to
endorse them.
Thus,
in secular France, President Emmanuel Macron set up a Covid-19 Scientific Committee, mainly composed of
mathematicians and doctors, under the authority of the President of the National Consultative Ethics Committee.
Everyone
could see that, faced with the epidemic, scientists in general were not at all
in agreement among themselves. Consequently, the choice of the members of this
Council made it possible to exclude in advance those they did not want to hear
and to give the floor only to those who they wanted to be heard. Moreover, the
appointment of a legal personality to head this mechanism was designed to
justify decisions depriving people of their liberty, which were claimed to be
necessary, but which were known to be contrary to the Constitution.
In other words, the Committee was merely a
screen to make people forget the responsibility of the President of the
Republic and his Government. Moreover, there is already a Public Health
Administration and a High Council of Public Health, while this new Committee
has no legal basis.
Discussions
on how to prevent the epidemic and the treatments to be implemented quickly
turned into a brawl. President Macron then appointed a second body, the Research and Expertise Analysis Committee, to put
things in order. Far from being a scientific forum, it defended CEPI’s
positions against the experience of clinical doctors.
The
role of politicians is to serve their fellow citizens, not to enjoy official
cars and then call for help when they are afraid. The role of doctors is to
care for their patients, not to go to seminars on the beaches of the
Seychelles.
The
case of mathematicians is different. Their role is to quantify observations.
Some of them have provoked panic in order to seize power.
Politics and medicine as sciences
Whether politicians and doctors like it or
not, politics and medicine are two sciences. In recent decades, however, both
forms of expertise have succumbed to the lure of gain and have become the most
corrupt professions in the West – closely followed by journalism. Few are those
who question their certainties, though to do so is the basic quality of
scientists. Now they are making a career of it.
We are
defending ourselves very poorly in the face of this degradation of our
societies. In the first place, we give ourselves the right to criticise
politicians, but strangely not doctors. Secondly, we sue doctors when one of
their patients dies instead of congratulating them when they manage to save
them, but we turn a blind eye to their corruption by the pharmaceutical
industry. It is no secret that the pharmaceutical industry has the largest
lobbying budget and even a huge network of lobbyists down to individual doctors
in developed countries, the so-called “medical sales representatives”. After
decades on this merry-go-round, the medical professions have lost their sense
of purpose.
Some
politicians protect their countries, others do not.
Some doctors care for their patients, not others.
Some doctors care for their patients, not others.
Patients
suspected of having Covid-19 and transferred to hospital were 5 times more
likely to die if admitted to some hospitals than others. However, the doctors
treating them had all followed the same studies and had the same equipment.
We
must demand to know the results of each hospital service.
Professor
Didier Raoult successfully treats infectious patients, which is why he was able
to build his state-of-the-art institute in Marseille. Professor Karine Lacombe
works for the industrialist Gilead Science, which allowed her to be appointed
head of the infectious diseases department at the Hôpital Saint-Antoine in
Paris. Gilead Science is the company formerly run by Donald Rumsfeld – again,
he’s the one who produces the most expensive and often least effective drugs in
the world.
Please
understand, I am not saying that the caregivers are corrupt, but that they are
run by “mandarins” and an administration that is largely corrupt. This is the
whole problem with French hospitals, which have a much larger budget than most
other developed countries, but have poor results. It is not a question of
money, but of where it goes.
The medical press is no longer scientific
The medical press is no longer scientific
at all. I’m not talking about the ideological biases denounced in 1996 by the
physicist Alan Sokal [3], but about the fact that three quarters of
the articles published today are not verifiable.
Almost unanimously, the mainstream media
have been involved in an intoxication campaign in favour of a study published
in the Lancet condemning the Raoult protocol and paving
the way for Gilead Science’s drug Remdesivir [4]. It doesn’t matter that it is not
randomized, that it is not verifiable, and that its main author, Dr. Mandeep
Mehra, works at Brigham Hospital in Boston to promote Remdesivir, in short,
that it is an undignified work. The only trouble is that The Guardian did some digging and noted that the
basic data of this study were obviously falsified [5].
Read this “study” and you will not believe
your eyes: how could such a deception be published by a “prestigious scientific
journal” (sic) like The Lancet? But
haven’t you seen similar deceptions in the “reference” political media (sic)
such as The New York Times or Le Monde? The Lancet is
published by the world’s largest medical publisher, the Elsevier Group, which
makes a profit both by selling overpriced single articles and by creating fake
scientific journals entirely written by the pharmaceutical industry to sell its
products [6].
Recently,
I alerted you to NATO’s operation to promote certain “reliable” (sic) sources
of information with search engines to the detriment of others [7]. However, the name of a publisher or a
media is not a definitive guarantee of competence and sincerity. Each book,
each article, must be judged for itself and by yourself solely on the basis of
your critical spirit.
The
“scientific consensus” versus Science
For
several years now, graduate scientists have no longer been interested in
science, but in the consensus of their profession. This was already the case in the 17th
century, when the astronomers of the time joined forces against Galileo. As
they had no way to silence him, they turned to the Church, which condemned him
to life imprisonment. But in doing so, Rome was merely aligning itself with the
“scientific consensus.
Similarly,
sixteen years ago, the Paris Court of Appeals cascaded down my complaints
against major newspapers that had defamed me on the sole ground that what I
wrote could only be false, given the “journalistic consensus” against me. It
did not matter what evidence I produced.
Or
again it is in the name of “scientific consensus” that we believe strongly in
the “global warming” promoted by former British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher [8]. Regardless of the many scientific debates.
Truth is not an opinion, but a process.
It cannot be voted on, but must always be questioned.
—
[1] “Covid-19:
Neil Ferguson, the Liberal Lyssenko”, by Thierry Meyssan,
Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 20
April 2020.
[2] “Covid-19
and The Red Dawn Emails”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger
Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 28 April 2020.
[3] Impostures intellectuelles,
Alan Sokal et Jean Bricmont, Odile Jacob éd. (1997).
[4] “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a
macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis”,
Mandeep R. Mehra, Sapan S. Desai, Frank Ruschitzka, Amit N. Patel, The Lancet Online, May 22, 2020.
[5] “Questions raised over hydroxychloroquine study which
caused WHO to halt trials for Covid-19”, Melissa Davey, The Guardian, May 28, 2020.
[6] “Elsevier published 6 fake journals”, Bob
Grant, The Scientist, May 7, 2009.
[7] “The
EU, NATO, NewsGuard and the Voltaire Network”, by Thierry Meyssan,
Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 5
May 2020.
[8] “1997-2010:
Financial Ecology”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé,
Оdnako (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 7 December 2015.
French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and
the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international
relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish
and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.
The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided
the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for
commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).
