Safe and effective covid vaccines? Opinion of the Scientific Council, the HAS, what the European Commission has done with it

Average: 10 (1 vote)

As a result, the pharmaceutical industry has already embarked on the production of hundreds of millions of doses of covid vaccines around the world, in the greatest possible disarray. It does not matter that the entire scientific community, which is still independent, is sounding all the alarm bells, the companies are stubbornly pursuing a demented productivism simply justified by overwhelming advertisements of nullity. Where is their proof of effectiveness? What biosafety results have they achieved with these products? Plunged into the hell of unlimited greed, good reading.


The SC gave its opinion in July 2020 to establish the "doctrine of vaccination": the scientific uncertainties it raises are confronted here with what is available to date on the safety and efficacy of future vaccines. The EC has already signed contracts with manufacturers before these criteria have been properly evaluated. These contracts are briefly outlined here. We will see that the transparency requirements are far from being met. As already exposed in this blog, the danger of ADE (aggravation of infection by antibodies induced by the vaccine) is underlined by the SC. The general and specific dangers of each type of vaccine are exposed here (DNA, mRNA, recombinant protein and viral vector vaccines). The obvious flaws in clinical trials show that they are far from transparent and do not answer the essential questions: will the vaccines be able to stop the transmission of the virus and avoid serious forms? Adverse effects are insufficiently evaluated in trials and post-marketing vaccine-vigilance is not adapted to identify them.


In July 2020 the Scientific Council (SC) issued a long, fairly honest and documented opinion on future vaccines against covid. In November the High Authority for Health (HAS) launched an inquiry to ensure transparency in the vaccination campaign .

But the European Commission (EC) has gone beyond this triviality: it has just finished signing six contracts as secret as they are far-reaching with the vaccine manufacturers, for a number of doses corresponding to the complete vaccination of 1.2 billion individuals!

Manufacturing of these vaccines has already begun before the end (and sometimes even the beginning!) of Phase III clinical trials. Let's take advantage of this wonderful transparency to take a close look at the safety and efficacy issues of future vaccinesThe Scientific Council gave its opinion on July 9, 2020 on the future vaccination campaign against Covid-19.

The Scientific Council does not recommend mandatory vaccination but does not envisage a vaccination strategy based on purely individual choices, note the subtle nuance. (1)

From a scientific point of view, the questions raised by the SC have not been satisfactorily answered. The accelerated marketing procedure does not address the scientific uncertainties about the efficacy and safety of vaccines. The contracts have been signed by the EC and are valid for France. The member countries have little room for manoeuvre in the application of the vaccination policy. The contracts are secret, the negotiators are not known (2).

General aspects

  • The Scientific Council asks for the vaccine to be free of charge :what will be the cost to the Social Security once added to the cost of PCR and antigenic tests whose usefulness in Public Health is not demonstrated (see the opinion of the Court of Appeal of Portugal on this subject, (3)).
  • According to the SC, the vaccine register will be kept in the DMP (shared medical file): there is a problem of data confidentiality, (4)
  • The SC underlines the difficulty of getting health professionals to accept to vaccinate themselves in order to gain the public's confidence: indeed, few professionals vaccinate themselves against influenza given the doubts about the usefulness and effectiveness of the vaccine. Influenza vaccination coverage among them is estimated at 34.8%, (5)
  • According to the SC, communication should be transparent on accelerated marketing procedures, uncertainties and scientific basis.

Communication is currently done through press releases or stock market releases by the manufacturers themselves (see Biontech Nov. 18, which purports to publish preliminary results of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), not peer-reviewed. (6)

Content of contracts signed by the European Union with vaccine manufacturers - Status as of November 24, 2020

These contracts are not public, here's what we know about signed orders: (7)

  • Astra Zeneca :300 million doses with an option for an additional 100 million,
  • Sanofi-GSK : 300 million; States will be able to give the doses to low-income countries. The protocol is secret but this vaccine is based on the recombinant protein (spike) technique associated with an adjuvant to increase its immunogenicity. It will be the GSK adjuvant, AS03 used in the 2009 Pandermix against the H1N1 flu suspected to have caused narcolepsy (which would explain why it is intended for poor countries?) Moreover the manufacturing process is longer than that of mRNA or DNA vaccines, so it will be available later than the others,
  • Janssen and Johnson : single-dose vaccines ordered for 200 million people + 200 million more,
  • CureVac 225 million doses and 180 million additional doses,
  • Pfizer 200 million doses and 100 million more,
  • Moderna 80 million doses and 80 million additional doses, signed on November 24, (8)

Taking into account the 2-dose protocols (all except Janssen Johnson and Johnson), the EU (448 million inhabitants) has ordered vaccines for 1.182 billion people.
Why so many? Could it be that mutations in the virus are built into the project and the planned orders to vaccinate the same people several times with vaccines adapted to the evolution of the virus?

The OC requested that emphasis be placed on the altruistic aspect of vaccines, For this, a sterilizing vaccine is needed to interrupt the transmission of the virus: How could vaccines be altruistic since vaccines will not be sterilizing, this is not envisaged in clinical studies . (9)

According to a renowned virologist (personal communication), " sterilizing immunity is exceptionally observed in acute virus infections. The upper respiratory tract is classically described as a viral "sanctuary" where immunity is weak. That is why there is no strong immune protection and no effective vaccine against "colds ". Antiviral immunity capable of blocking the cold and thus the contagion that goes with it has never been observed. »

Depending on whether a sterilizing or protective vaccine is used, the target populations are different.

Since it is not known whether future vaccines will be sterilizing (totally prevent mild infection such as colds) or will not prevent spread, it is impossible to target priority populations!

Scientific aspects

The Scientific Council has called for transparent communication, which is currently done through stock market press releases by the manufacturers themselves. (10)

Last minute:

AstraZeneca has published in the Lancet on November 18, 2020, as a preliminary clinical study result. (11) It shows that the study is a simple blind study, the placebo is not a blind study because it is the highly immunogenic meningococcal vaccine. Significantly, the protocol was changed during the course of the trial from a true saline placebo to a true saline placebo. All this completely invalidates the alleged results of the trial.

This included people over 70 years of age, but they were selected as healthy, which is not the case for the risk subjects targeted by the vaccine.

  • The table listing the serious side effects is very worrying: You can' t tell the side effects in the people who were vaccinated from those who received the placebo, is there something to hide?
  • As expected, no side effects were linked to the vaccine by the investigators,
  • There is a majority of serious side effects in people over 70 years of age, CONTRARILY to what is written in the title and the summary!
  • Most serious side effects are observed for participants whose second dose injection data are not reported: why? Would the first dose have caused effects of such concern that the second dose would not have been injected?
  • With regard to the expected "benign" side effects, more adverse reactions are observed with the vaccine than with the already highly immunogenic "placebo"!

Icing on the cake, Astra-Zeneca has just admitted to having committed a error in its protocol that would distort the glaring efficacy results: a not insignificant proportion of participants received half a dose of vaccine instead of the planned dose; how can we trust such poorly conducted trials and the official publications that are made of them? (12)

The SC underlines the interest of exploring cellular immune responses: the analysis of the diversity of responses and their persistence requires additional studies. It is not planned to explore these responses in most published clinical trial protocols and indeed clinical and pre-clinical studies usually take between 5 and 15 years, but here it is "fast track"!

The Scientific Council underlines that cross-immunity with common cold coronaviruses is detected in 40 to 60% of those not exposed to Covid-19, i
This is not taken into account in the planning of massive and non-targeted vaccination campaigns (13). It reminds that ADE or VAED (VaccineAssociated Enhanced Disease) is suggested by animal models.

For the moment there is no known correlate of protection, but it is postulated that vaccines should induce neutralizing antibodies against the S protein or its RBD (cell receptor binding domain), a T cell Th1 response, not a Th2 response, a high level of antibodies quickly reached to avoid ADE and VAED. Vaccines should also avoid Th2 type adjuvants.

There's a problem with all this: Current clinical studies do not evaluate the type of immunity conferred by vaccines at all, only the level of antibodies against the spike protein...
These potentials of vaccines will have to be demonstrated in clinical trials and their protective value in animal models will have to be assessed., verify the absence of DEDA by histopathological analyses of lung tissue.Every effort should be made for a more accurate analysis of potential ADE mechanisms.

Clinical studies also do not assess these issues, no analysis of the DEA (See..: Doshi Peter. ,op. Cit.). In addition, thehe animal models chosen for testing are not suitable. (14)

According to the Scientific Council, the vaccination of people who have already been infected will be possible: it claims that it is useless to make a preliminary serology because no problem is envisaged: no study has ever come to support such an assertion!

The SC requests that the vaccination schedule be updated to take advantage of the anti-covid vaccination, flu and pneumococcal vaccine, but we remind that influenza vaccination is strongly suspected of promoting coronavirus infections in adults (15) and children (16)(17).

Other remarks of the Scientific Council

The SC recalls the general problems concerning vaccination: weak immune responses in vaccinated people, doubts about the effectiveness of vaccines, rare but disastrous accidents, all of which can destroy confidence. In the particular case of Covid, doubts were expressed about:

  • Efficiency,
  • Security,
  • Immunization capacity,
  • Immunization time,
  • Possible mutations reducing vaccine protection,
  • Possible side effects (including antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) effects) observed for some coronaviruses, responsible for serious relapses of the disease during a second infection. "» )

Regarding ADE and VAED: (risk of aggravation of the infection following vaccination) See the full article published in Vidal and the previous articles on this blog. (18)

Concerning doubts about the efficacy and safety of vaccines: Previously pre-clinical and clinical trials for new vaccines lasted from 5 to 15 years, here they are accelerated to less than a year (19). The contracts signed by the EU (and valid for France) tell us which vaccines will be manufactured and are already pre-ordered.

The fact that the production of vaccines began long before the results or even the start of clinical studies puts intolerable pressure on states to force them to order such production. (19b)

General hazards of future vaccines against covid, the CRIIGEN report (20)


1- AstraZeneca

ChAdOx1, is a chimpanzee adenoviral vector vaccine, recombinant non-replicating. Virus-independent risk :

  • the injected DNA can in rare cases recombine with the DNA of another virus that may be present in a cell where the vaccine is injected,
  • Risk of inserting the injected DNA into the human genome,
  • Risk of reactivation of the chimpanzee virus vector,
  • Risk of non-specific immune reaction due to injection of a virus.

Many side effects have already been described in this trial:

  • The trials were stopped 3 times in a row following the discovery of serious adverse events that could be attributed to the vaccine;
  • The protocol was changed during the course of the study, which is not acceptable from a scientific point of view, 
  • Theplacebo has been replaced by a highly immunogenic vaccine, the meningococcal vaccine, which is known to cause serious side effects. (21)
  • The precise protocol has not been made public: where is the transparency?
  • We do notknow how this DNA is produced, so we do not know its length, which can modulate the immune response.


The protocol is totally secret, it is even talked about in the media, Ouest France and France Culture. Sanofi is developing 3 types of vaccines, the most advanced of which seems to be the one composed of a recombinant protein (the spike protein) made from insect baculovirusThis vaccine will be adjuvanted by GSK's AS03, suspected of being responsible for the serious side effects of Pandermix, the vaccine against the 2009 H1N1 influenza (22). This baculovirus-based technique is recent and has only recently been licensed in Europe for the new influenza vaccines of 2020.

Sanofi is also working on an mRNA vaccine (see below) and a vaccine containing the measles vaccine virus (attenuated) as a vector. The latter vaccine could combine the risks of the measles vaccine with the risk of reactivation of the attenuated virus as a result of genetic manipulation.

3- Janssen, Johnson & Johnson

The trials were stopped after a serious event that could be attributed to the vaccine (23). This vaccine uses the technique of a human adenovirus that has been rendered unable to multiply in humans.

This technique concerns vaccines not used in Europe (Ebola) or not yet approved (Zika, RSV, HIV).

This is not to build public confidence, as Rebecca Chandler, a WHO expert in immunization vigilance, points out (25).

4- Pfizer

There is an inconsistency in the Pfizer protocol: the observation of serious side effects is supposed to last only 6 months whereas the complete study lasts 2 years, why? Moreover, Pfizer will offer the vaccine to all participants who received the placebo: how then to distinguish the specific effects of the vaccine?

5- mRNA vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, CureVac

The other three contracts signed by the EU concern mRNA vaccines, two of which have received a lot of media coverage (Moderna - contract under negotiation as of November 20 - and Pfizer), the third is CureVac, which has also seen its share price rise on the stock market following the publication of a preprint on the trials.

However, the immediate side effects seem more serious with this vaccine than with its competitors, the possibility of viral genetic material being inserted into the genome of the vaccinated person, if encountered with a virus possessing a reverse transcriptase like HIV. (24)

Thereare also risks associated with the presence of PEG (polyethylene glycol), which is used in the nanoparticle carriers of mRNA vaccines. (26). Il antibodies to PEG are present in 72% of Americans. (27). Thus, this adjuvant may cause autoimmune diseases. Inaddition, it is a toxic molecule. (28)

6- Risks common to all vaccines

The human and mouse proteomes share many epitopes of the spike protein (which are used as antigens in vaccines): this could cause autoimmune diseases. There is also mimicry between spike protein epitopes and some human neuronal proteins that raise concerns about neuronal autoimmune diseases (29).

Foreseeable defects in the exploration of side effects in trials and in post-marketing pharmacovigilance

Adverse events will be classified by investigators as either vaccine-related or not, (30) IIndependent experts should have access to the raw clinical data in order to monitor them. Moreover, the premature announcement of the first far-reaching efficacy results shows that the trials have been unveiled, are no longer double-blind, and are therefore no longer reliable! The experts appointed to control are not independent and their names are kept secret. (31)

Remark on the "reinforced vaccinovigilance" requested by the SC :

On the Official Journal of the European Community there is a document issued by the British Ministry of Health: it is a call for tenders acknowledging that the United Kingdom expects a high volume of adverse effects but does not have the technology to deal with them, which, according to the authors, poses a direct threat to the lives of patients and public health. (32)

It should be remembered that, at world level, only 1 to 10% of side effects due to medicines and vaccines are reported to pharmacovigilance. (32b)

How does the French government intend to drastically modify the pharmacovigilance system for vaccines to deal with the many expected side effects?

Efficacy defects due to virus mutations

WHO has advised culling of farmed mink infected with Covid-19 : mutations in viruses transmitted to humans may reduce the effectiveness of future vaccines (33).
The manufacture of vaccines should therefore be adapted according to the changes observed and this according to the different variants and their geographical distribution: different vaccines for different regions (34, is this planned?), different vaccines for different regions (34, is this planned?), different vaccines for different regions (34, is this planned?), different vaccines for different regions (34, is this planned?).

Defects in the design of clinical studies

As expressed by Doshi, these RCTs will not show whether the vaccin is able to prevent severe forms in frail people, or if it has an effect on overall mortality (Doshi Peter.op.cit. )

The trials are designed to determine whether future vaccines will be able to prevent benign or even asymptomatic disease, not to prevent serious illness or death from Covid-19. The trials will not show that the vaccine can prevent human-to-human transmission.

The trials do not sufficiently test people at risk (elderly, obese, ethnic minorities who may be more susceptible to the disease or to the side effects of the vaccine) because c
he protocols for the Covid-19 vaccine show that the trials are designed to be successful.

Vaccines that we just hope will prevent headaches, fever, cough or mild nausea. They are not expected to prevent infection, serious illness or death from Covid. (35)

Candidate vaccines do not target mucosal or cellular immunity, which are the only operative ones. (36)

For the scientific director of the biotech company TheraVectys, virologist Pierre Charneau, the race for vaccines "kills innovation". And according to him, the method used to find out if they are protective is not the right one.

The participants in clinical trials disclose these themselves: there are no longer any double-blind participants, so all trials are a priori invalidated. It even seems that the syringes containing vaccine and placebo were of different colours. Most of the volunteers actually gravitate around Big Pharma and have easy access to serological tests, so they can very easily know in which group they were included, placebo or vaccine. (37)



Vaccination will not be compulsory, but we can trust the French health authorities not to really leave a free individual choice to the citizens. This is all the more serious as the new technologies of future vaccines (never used until now) add a lot of uncertainty about the safety and efficacy problems of future vaccines.

Moreover, the evolution of the epidemic does not justify such an investment in vaccines intended for the entire population: the virus seems to be running out of steam, particularly in France; it has lost much of its virulence and even seems to be becoming less contagious if we look at the national statistics published to date.

Emma Kahn
November 2020



Notes et sources
(9) Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us  BMJ  2020;  371 :m4037 monde a parié sur la production de vaccins comme solution à la pandémie, mais les essais ne visent pas à répondre aux questions que beaucoup pourraient supposer qu’ils sont.
(11) Ramasamy MN, Minassian AM, Ewer KJ, Flaxman AL, Folegatti PM, Owens DR, Voysey M, Aley PK, Angus B, Babbage G, Belij-Rammerstorfer S, Berry L, Bibi S, Bittaye M, Cathie K, Chappell H, Charlton S, Cicconi P, Clutterbuck EA, Colin-Jones R, Dold C, Emary KRW, Fedosyuk S, Fuskova M, Gbesemete D, Green C, Hallis B, Hou MM, Jenkin D, Joe CCD, Kelly EJ, Kerridge S, Lawrie AM, Lelliott A, Lwin MN, Makinson R, Marchevsky NG, Mujadidi Y, Munro APS, Pacurar M, Plested E, Rand J, Rawlinson T, Rhead S, Robinson H, Ritchie AJ, Ross-Russell AL, Saich S, Singh N, Smith CC, Snape MD, Song R, Tarrant R, Themistocleous Y, Thomas KM, Villafana TL, Warren SC, Watson MEE, Douglas AD, Hill AVS, Lambe T, Gilbert SC, Faust SN, Pollard AJ; Oxford COVID Vaccine Trial Group. Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2020 Nov 18:S0140-6736(20)32466-1. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32466-1. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33220855.
(13) Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?  Doshi Peter. Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?BMJ  2020;  370 :m3563
(14) Kanduc, D., Shoenfeld, Y. Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and mammalian proteomes: implications for the vaccine. Immunol Res 68, 310–313 (2020).
(16) Increased risk of non influenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine Benjamin J. Cowling1, Vicky J. Fang1, Hiroshi Nishiura1,2, Kwok Hung Chan3, Sophia Ng1, Dennis K. M. Ip1, Susan S. Chiu4, Gabriel M. Leung1, J. S. Malik Peiris1,5
Vaccins contre la COVID-19 : doit-on s’inquiéter du risque de maladie aggravée chez les personnes vaccinées ?
(19b) Odile Launay, août 2020,
(22) From the analyst’s couch,9 avril 2020,
(28) Szabó, G., Jr., Kiss, A. and Trón, L. (1982), Permeabilization of lymphocytes with polyethylene glycol 1000. Discrimination of permeabilized cells by flow cytometry. Cytometry, 3: 59-63.,Shiraishi K, Yokoyama M. Toxicity and immunogenicity concerns related to PEGylated-micelle carrier systems: a review. Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2019;20(1):324-336. Published 2019 Apr 15. doi:10.1080/14686996.2019.1590126
(29) Lucchese G, Flöel A. Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and respiratory pacemaker neurons. Rev. 2020;19(7):102556. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102556
Lucchese, G., Flöel, A. SARS-CoV-2 and Guillain-Barré syndrome: molecular mimicry with human heat shock proteins as potential pathogenic mechanism. Cell Stress and Chaperones 25, 731–735 (2020).
(30) Rebecca Chandler
(31) Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Michelle M. Mello, J.D., Ph.D., Ross D. Silverman, J.D., M.P.H., and Saad B. Omer, M.B., B.S., M.P.H., Ph.D. N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1296-1299 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2020926
(32b) Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006;29:385-96.
(34) Chen J, Gao K, Wang R, Wei G. Prediction and mitigation of mutation threats to COVID-19 vaccines and antibody therapies. Preprint. ArXiv. 2020;arXiv:2010.06357v1. Published 2020 Oct 13.)
(36) Covid-19 : «La vision d’un vaccin efficace dans quelques mois est illusoire»