< IMG LOADING = "Lazy" SRSC = "/Sites/Default/Files/Styles/Medium/2025-03/Vaccine.png ? Itok = Go_LWD_5" Width = "1300" Height = "802" Alt = "Class" Vaccines = "Lazyload Img-Fluid Image-Style-Max-1300x1300 "SRC ="/Sites/Default/Files/Styles/Max_1300x1300/Public/2025-03/Vaccine.png ? Itok = Ms56aqrg "/> France-Soir with AI < P > At the beginning of the Pandemic of COVID-19, the public authorities imposed a clear authorized narrative: the vaccines were safe, without notable side effects, summaries in the slogan “& nbsp; < em > all vaccinated, all protected ~ 60 > 62 > 62 > 62 > 62 > 62 > 62 ~& nbsp; ”. Aurélien Rousseau, then Minister of Health, said with Aplomb: “& nbsp; the vaccines are safe and effective, there are no side effects. “.” These declarations, which were already fallacious, were hammered to justify a massive vaccination. They are crumbling today in the face of a disturbing reality. An international study conducted by the global network of vaccine data, published in 2024 in Vaccine, reveals serious undesirable effects in 99 million vaccinated, contradicting the initial official discourse. The authorities, this research highlights risks that raise questions on the legitimacy of the authorizations delivered. certainties
< P >This research mobilized scientists from eight countries-Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand and Scotland-to analyze data from 99,068,901 people vaccinated between December 2020 and August 2023. This information, drawn from vaccination, hospital and public health systems, cover more than 183 million doses of vaccine Pfizer/BionTech (BNT162B2), 36 million doses of Moderna (MRNA-1273) and 23 million doses of Oxford/Astrazeneca (Chadox1). < P > The objective was to examine whether these vaccines, presented as irreproachable, increased Graves, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or myocarditis. By comparing the cases observed after vaccination to the cases provided according to historical rates (2015-2019), the researchers used a report observed/provided to detect danger indices, revealing faults in the official discourse. < p >< Strong > Methodology: an analysis that contradicts the narrative Official < P >The study targeted thirteen monitored side effects, grouped in neurological (Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell paralysis), hematological (thrombocytopenia, pulmonary embolism) and cardiovascular (myocarditis, pericarditis). Identified via the codes of the International Disease Classification (CIM-10), these effects were measured over 42 days after each dose. An index was deemed to worry if the lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval exceeded 1.5, a sign of a notable increase compared to forecasts – a result that the authorities would have thought impossible. Investigations will have to understand the decision -making process for approving these experimental products and the role of lobbyists. This is part of the surveys of senator Ron Johnson and the requests of the new Minister of American Health, Robert Kennedy Jr. < P >< Strong > Results: side effects passed under Silence < P > The conclusions are overwhelming for the initial narrative of total innocent: < Ul >< li > myocardite and pericarditis: vaccins (Pfizer and Moderna) show high risks. For Moderna, the observed/planned ratio reaches 3.48 after the first dose (< Strong > increase of 248 %), and for Pfizer, 2.78 after the second (increase of 178 %). The pericarditis follows with reports of 1.74 for Moderna (+74 %) and 1.67 for Pfizer (+67 %), above all affecting young men – an effect that the authorities had denied with insurance.< li > unusual thrombosis: Astrazeneca is linked to thrombosis of the cerebral venous of 3.23, < Strong >Or +223 %) and to splanchnic venous thromboses (report of 2.15, or +115 %), often with thrombocytopenia. These cases, minimized at the start, forced late restrictions.
< li > Neurological affections: Guillain-Barré syndrome after Astrazeneca reaches a ratio of 2.49 (< Strong >+149 %), De Bell with Pfizer climbs to 1.59 (+59 %). These data contradict the affirmations of absence of neurological effects.
< li >Despite a relative rarity, these effects are very real: if these cases remain uncommon in the face of millions of doses, their very existence denies the official discourse of a vaccine without risks. And we do not take into consideration many other elements as the resurgence of cancers among young people as Dr Soon-Chiong still declared this week at the microphone of Tucker Carlson.
< p >< Strong > a gap with the speech Official
< P > The health authorities, in France as elsewhere, built an “& nbsp; Official speech & nbsp;” Around < Strong > of allegedly perfect vaccines, dismissing any criticism as disinformation . However, these figures show that the side effects, far from being nonexistent, were predictable and measurable. This discrepancy between science and the official account fueled legitimate distrust, especially as the profits of vaccines – real in the face of a serious infection – have been exaggerated for populations at low risk, such as healthy young people. < p >< Strong > limits: An incomplete table. The study is not flawless: heterogeneous data between countries, non-adjusted factors (such as pre-existing diseases) and possible sub-declarations. But these limits do not excuse the initial lies of the authorities, which have presented vaccines as flawless despite obvious signals. < P >< Strong > Use in public policies: a turning point in the United States ?< P > These revelations could upset vaccine policies. In the United States, where the authorities have long defended a universal vaccination, < Strong > Critics rely on this study to require a suspension . President Trump spoke about it while making decisions to prevent vaccination obligations in schools. In 2023, elected officials and citizen groups pointed out the risks, especially among young people, faced with less fatal variants. The appointment of Jay Bhattacharya, an epidemiologist who criticized authoritarian measures and new director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2025, marks a turning point. Known for his criticisms of blind vaccine policies, he could push for a re-evaluation of authorizations, or even a deletion for certain groups, based on data like these, far from the initial promises. < P >< Strong > France: doubtful < P >In France, distrust is accentuated with the request of Bonsens.org and Laurent Toubiana, who have been demanding since 2022 the raw data of mortality and hospitalization all causes by vaccination status and by age class. Their request, aimed at clarifying the real impact of vaccines, remains unanswered, blocked by official silence. The Ministry of Health justified this refusal by invoking a lack of resources for an analysis requiring to cross several databases, arguing that this would disrupt its organization. Faced with this, Bonsens.org offered an external quote from a specialist, estimated between 12,000 and 15,000 euros. For an investment of hundreds of millions of euros in the vaccine campaign, the ministry would not have provided for such a modest budget for such transparency ? This lack of credibility, denounced by Bonsens.org and Toubiana as an attack on democratic clarity, strengthens the idea of a desire to limit the analyzes Independent. < P >< Strong > Vaccination safety: Eroded confidence to reconstruct < P > 62 > 62 ~Vaccination safety has been deeply eroded by the many lies and breaches of the authorities. The promises of total safety, contradicted by science, have undermined the credibility of institutions. Only rigorous, independent and without bias studies-like this, despite its imperfections-will be able to restore this confidence. The appointment of figures like Jay Bhattacharya to NIH could point out a return to an honest science, far from the imposed stories. In the meantime, this study recalls a bitter lesson: hasty authorizations, based on affirmations rather than on facts, have a human and social cost that the figures barely begin to reveal.< P >< Strong > The article you liked ? It mobilized our editorial staff which only lives from your gifts. < Br > Information has a cost, especially since competition from subsidized writing requires additional rigor and professionalism.
< P > With your support, France-Soir will continue to offer its articles for free & nbsp; we think that everyone must have access to free and independent information to forge their own opinion. < P > You are the sine qua non condition for our existence, support us for France-Soir to remain the French media which makes the most legitimate express.