EDITORIAL – “Ignorance, forgetting and contempt for fundamental rights are the only causes of public misfortune and government corruption.” Preamble to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789. We are 67 million French people united by a constitution and fundamental rights.
In the Covid crisis, after having contributed to disqualifying the various treatments without an objective scientific basis, the government sold us a unique therapeutic solution as a health response.
However, the burden of proof (or the demonstration of the performance of this therapy) falls on the government which incites this “sale”. As part of free and informed consent, the French have the right to demand that the government provide this proof.
The French have mostly “bought” this product advantage, enthusiastic for some, reluctantly or even under obligation for others, especially caregivers. In any case, under duress for many, with the expansion of the health pass to many acts of daily life. All this was backed up by a pseudo “scientific consensus”, which actually likes to communicate only selected information.
The sale and purchase are however governed by commercial law and, more specifically, by the principle of competition which itself is based on fair information. This has also given rise to the definition of insider trading (particularly in the field of finance): a person cannot have inside information and use it for himself or for others, either directly. , or indirectly.
In the situation that interests us here, was the information fair? Has it made it possible to respect the fundamental right to free and informed consent? The answer is probably no. And that is why we need independent expertise to assess the measures that have been taken by the government.
Did we have the means to know?
The scientific debate did not take place, no offense to the medical columnists who now appear to be officers on television. There is no scientific consensus and many people seem to have preferred to compromise their Hippocratic Oath.
To reach the conclusion that there is no consensus either on health measures or on the vaccine, it suffices to observe and objectively analyze the mass of existing data. In science and in conscience. This obviously requires a rigorous approach, independent of any competing interests (or others).
The precautionary principle quickly gives the impression of having been sacrificed on the altar of urgency for some, and greed for others. How else to explain the consideration of fragmented information discrediting the old competing therapies, suddenly presented as toxic? What toxicologist could have really believed it?
To continue in the single path of mass vaccination on unfounded scientific bases is potentially a health scandal. The experts will have to assess the asymmetry of the information proposed and the enforcement measures employed.
“For men to allow themselves to be subjugated, it takes one of two things: either they are forced into it, or they are deceived.” wrote La Boétie in the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude.
It is therefore up to men’s justice to rule. Whatever the decision, the French will have to understand whether they were led to acceptance by coercion alone or also by deception.
Still, to rebuild a nation, the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated will need a real democratic and scientific debate. No debate such as those orchestrated on television sets, with great support from communicators.
Communication has no place in the loyalty of information and this may be where the heart of the problem lies in the Covid crisis. Image and risk management are in total disagreement with the first duty of the Munich Charter: “Respect the truth, whatever the consequences for itself, and this, because of the right that the public has to know the truth. ”