version française


On January 30th, 2020, the World Health Organization declared an international health emergency, for the 6th time since 1964.

The SARS COV 2 was, at that time, already present on several continents, at that time it had alreafy affected most countries.

To cope with a situation of unprecedented magnitude in recent history, a number of States have implemented solutions, most of which were dictated by urgency, without carefull discernement weighing between benefits and risks.

As a result of that, and since then, legions of different generalized containment measures have been adopted.

In less than a year, in most states, the police has become the rule and freedom the exception!

Authors of this referral, all of which are scientists, or renowned doctors, whom distinguished themselves in the care of patients with COVID 19, fully understand the need to prioritize public health when necessary to the detriment, undoubtedly, of some freedoms.

In addition to the search for strict proportionality, they intend to argue that the measures thus enacted have, for many, no scientific basis, no health legitimacy as their benefit has never been demonstrated, whereas their risks have been clearly identified, and are estimated colossal individually and collectively.

On an individual level, and as will be explained, the generalized wearing of a mask, confinement measures, forced isolation, mass vaccination, have certain consequences, and the signatories of this letter are astonished that such consequences are denied or minimized, while the literature abounds as to them.

However, the benefit of these decisions is notoriously insufficient to be able to imagine curbing their very real risks.

This lack of scientific basis for the measures thus enacted and generalized, tend to worry the community of international jurists, who will soon submit a demonstrative request to the UN Human Rights Committee in order to question whether the pandemic just did not serve as a pretext for some States to establish the New bases of a social contract, which, unbalanced, would allow the restriction of public freedoms, and the force of opposition represented by their implementation.

Without being afraid of words, it is up to the Signatory Doctors and scientists to question the World Health Organization on what it intends to implement so that the covid19 epidemic is not followed by a political and social collapse. , economic of States, while they cannot accept that an infectious disease with limited and manageable medical consequences, can serve as a pretext for calling into question the foundations of democratic civilization, and that thus, despite themselves, they can be assimilated to promoters of a new political equilibrium.

It is up to your prestigious authority to denounce, following the UN, the political, economic, or philosophical recoveries of the pandemic, recalling the warning of Antonio GUTERRES, on February 22:

“Using the pandemic as a pretext, authorities in some countries have deployed heavy-handed security responses and emergency measures to crush dissent, criminalize basic freedoms, silence independent reporting and curtail the activities of non-governmental organisations.” 2

The signatories of this request are scientists, and science is their only guidance: a science based on evidence, a science which evolves, and which cannot be the object of political use, while their word cannot serve as a basis for justifying restrictions on public freedoms.

Some restrictions were for other purposes, they remind us that science cannot accept approximations, especially when these have consequences as serious as those we are witnessing at the moment.

They deplore that measures of doubtful and insufficiently proven effectiveness have been implemented, while others, yet with a level of proof, benefit and low risks have not been favored or implemented.

The question is all the more pressing because with more than 3 million deaths attributed to Covid-19, we can only see a failure in Europe, America and parts of the Middle East. These regions are in a worse situation than the 1889 railroad flu, which may have been caused by the emergence of another Coronavirus, HCOV-OC43.

This failure occurred despite the fact that this pandemic was predictable and had very low risks for the vast majority of the healthy population, as shown by the WHO's own publications. 3 .

With the support of these scientists and physicians, a comparative risk/benefit analysis is proposed (see Tables 5 and 6).
Table 5 – Comparing risk benefits of vaccinating populations and treatment using same standards of evidence and criteria

Table 6 – Comparing actions and interventions using same standards of evidence and criteria

Analysis of interventions neglected