Doctor Philippe Saegesser, a Vaud doctor, is the standard bearer of a collective of 700 doctors and health professionals demanding a moratorium on messenger RNA and DNA vaccines. Explanations.
– Why seek to interrupt the vaccination campaign which has just started and which gives rise to so much hope?
–
dr
–
– Philippe Saegesser: For a multitude of reasons. In the first place, because we believe that the time devoted to the development of these vaccines resulting from new processes was not sufficient to guarantee their safety. Unprecedented means have been mobilized while we are still waiting for malaria or AIDS. However, even with billions, one cannot buy the time to ensure that these products do not cause serious side effects in the medium to long term. While some see it as speed, we see it as dangerous precipitation.
>> Read the interview with Alain Berset: “No compromise with the vaccine!”
– Asking for a moratorium calls into question the authorizations granted by the health authorities, Swissmedic in this case, who claim to have assessed the benefit / risk ratio rigorously …
– How can we say that the benefit / risk ratio is favorable when it is the first time in human history that messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines are used? If these vaccines are so safe, why have the laboratories that manufacture them demanded and obtained that they be relieved of all responsibility in the event of a problem? Remember that a vaccine is a preventative treatment against infection. The people who use it are not sick. Therefore, we believe that having regard to the questions that these products still leave open, it is neither legal nor ethical to take risks when there is a potential for significant progress for a treatment given early.
If these vaccines are so safe, why did their manufacturers get them to be relieved of any responsibility if something went wrong?
–
– RNA technology is used successfully in oncology, significantly extending the life of people with certain cancers …
– That is correct and we welcome it. But in this case, the benefit / risk ratio becomes favorable. Carrying out gene treatment on a suspected convicted person or on a healthy person is a fundamentally different approach.
– Does your request also cover the vaccine produced by AstraZeneca?
– Absolutely. It is not an mRNA vaccine but a DNA vaccine. The vector allowing entry into the cell is a deactivated adenovirus (by definition DNA) into which part of the genetic material of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (RNA virus) has been inserted, converted into DNA. Correlated to the number of people vaccinated, this opens the potential risk of the emergence of new recombinant viruses.
>> Read also:“Vaccines: the 15 questions you ask yourself”
– What exactly do you blame them for these vaccines?
– The lack of perspective in the face of their potential adverse effects. What do we know about the different types of reactions of a vaccinated organism in the presence of the virus? What do we know about the contagiousness of a vaccinated person who is a carrier of the virus? What is the duration of vaccination coverage? We do not know. In addition, a year after the onset of this crisis, we have not yet identified with precision the mechanisms that lead to the evolution of the disease to a severe form. To achieve a safe and effective antidote, this is where we should have started before embarking on a frantic race for the vaccine.
– Yet the latter represents the hope of returning soon to a normal life …
– We can only agree with this perspective. But we note that, apart from sick people, it is not the virus as such that has an impact but the measures, some of which have even more serious consequences because they have so far not been proven. of their effectiveness. At this stage, our authorities cannot say that we will be “released”. When we measure the uncertainties to which these vaccine techniques expose us, it is legitimate to wonder whether the ratio between the risk and the benefit is indeed favorable and whether the enormous resources implemented should not be better distributed. Between the race for profits and the announced prospect of transhumanism, this makes you dizzy and raises big questions.
–
