Lawyer at the Marseille Bar, Me Heringuez defends a couple of restaurateurs who, during a day of mobilization and in order to show their opposition to the closure obligations as part of the health measures imposed by the government, had received around twenty customers in their establishment in Biarritz. After reporting, the police had evacuated the people and the restaurant owners had been taken into custody.
Their trial, which was to be held a month later, on March 4, 2021, had been postponed to November 30, 2021. The qualification of “endangering the lives of others” formed the basis of the legal proceedings. However, during the hearing, the prosecution dropped the prosecution, recognizing that this criminal qualification of deliberately endangering the life of others could not stand in the light of common scientific data.
In view of this decision, the lawyer pleads for the release of his clients, a decision which must be rendered on December 14th.
In their defense, the lawyer provides expert reports from scientists recognized for their skills. These new data call into question the scientific basis of the texts which were targeted by the prosecution, in particular a decree of October 29, 2020 in which the closure of “non-essential” businesses had been decided, which includes bars and restaurants.
Interested in the scientific origins of this text, the lawyer notices that in the preamble, a certain number of texts are cited. Among these texts, an opinion of the Scientific Council of the government which is not a binding opinion, is however used to justify the recommendations which appear in the decree.
The lawyer was interested in the scientific studies which made it possible to justify this decree. After examining these studies, in particular the Comcor study carried out by the Pasteur Institute, the National Health Insurance Fund and the Ipsos polling institute, he realized that they were no match, since bars and restaurants have been identified as a place of contamination even though data remains scarce. It is on this fragile basis that the scientific council has authorized itself to step out of its role by giving legislative advice.
A few months later, this study was cross-analyzed by the mathematician Vincent Pavan, who concludes that this study looks more like an opinion poll than a serious scientific study.
Following the mathematician’s second opinion, the RéInfoLibertés and Bon Sens associations decided to file a criminal complaint against X, which targets this Comcor study. The criminal qualifications proposed to the oarquet are: forgery and use of forgery, fraud and influence peddling.
The Comcor study (PDF)
This study has since been published in the medical journal The Lancet, June 16, 2021. After examining the version published in the Lancet, the mathematician Vincent Pavan found that this version had been modified from its initial version, his objections – to which he had never received a response – seeming to have been taken into account …
A debriefing offered in partnership with BonSens.org