A peer-reviewed study concludes that Covid-19 vaccines are not effective and that vaccination has an aggravating effect on the disease in many cases

A second independent analysis of the data of the 30423 patients treated at the IHU Méditerranée Infection concludes that the Covid-19 vaccines are not effective.

It is therefore not one study, but two that the multidisciplinary team of scientists gathered around Prof. Christian Perronne published in February 2024. Lounnas, Gkioulekas, Rendell, Lacout, Azalbert and Perronne, having independently and autonomously the data of the 30,423 patients treated in the infectious diseases division of the AP-HM (Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille) located in the IHU Méditerranée Infection, took a close interest in the Covid-19 vaccination data that was available.

They conclude that the Covid-19 vaccines are not effective. While the first study concluded that dual therapy was unquestionably superior by reducing the number of visits to intensive care and death by 58%. This second study is probably the most important, as it manages to link vaccination with early treatment and the authors conclude that "prior vaccination (to the disease) has an aggravating  effect on the disease in many cases, thus raising the question of the relevance and legitimacy of mass vaccination".  This study is unique in that it combines scientific multidisciplinary, which is critical for the analysis of medical data.  In this case, the IHU cohort is the only one that allows, after statistical treatment, to measure the interactions between the disease, vaccination and early treatment.  

Professor Perronne declares "in view of these irrevocable results, the Covid-19 vaccination should be suspended and a parliamentary commission of inquiry must take up the evaluation of health policy choices for the management of the covid crisis ".

Detailed analysis

• Without even looking at the results of the Marseille study in the interest of patients, Professor Molimard said that these data constituted "a wild trial". A previous article explained that the AP-HM, now represented by its director general, Francois Cremieux, has indeed given permission for the use of data for scientific publications, thus putting an end to the various controversies that the IHU's detractors have not failed to launch. In a letter dated 6 February 2024, which we have been able to consult, the AP-HM withdrew the authorization to use the data, thereby confirming that there had indeed been an authorization. The results of the IHU study are so favorable to early treatment, results confirmed by the independent analysis of Lounnas et al, that the authorities, in complete disarray, seem to be unleashed to have the data de-qualified on the basis of an argument of authority.
• Systematic approach 
  Let’s start by mentioning that in July 2021, while he was under pressure at the IHU with the parachuting of François Cremieux as the new Director General of the AP-HM, Professor Raoult had declared in a tweet" In view of the challenges of the current epidemic, I am in favor of the systematic vaccination of healthcare workers, with the vaccines recommended for their age group. I therefore encourage all my colleagues to get in touch with their vaccination center." However, he had refused to sign a document imposed by François Cremieux.

This tweet has caused a lot of ink to flow, especially as it can raised concerns and can be confusing.

In the tweet, the notion of "systematics" was put forward. Its definition is simple: "which is done methodically and proceeds from a predetermined order, which thinks and acts according to a system, in an absolute manner without ever denying itself, or which judges peremptorily according to its own system of value".  In July 2021, the Minister of Health and the President of the Republic, who called for compulsory vaccination for healthcare workers and other professions, on the grounds that it would protect others. In order to do so, following a systematic and invariable approach they must have had all the necessary data on vaccines in order to decide on this obligation. This was not the case, and we later learned that the president of the Scientific Council, Jean-François Delfraissy, had warned Olivier Véran that the vaccine did not prevent transmission, and that the studies did not conclude that the vaccine was protecting as announced.  The "all vaccinated, all protected" was therefore a lie.  The risk-benefit analysis therefore took a political turn rather than being based on real scientific data.  It is therefore critical to analyze the efficacy of this therapy.

This is what the authors set out to do in this second published study.

The conclusion of the study is clear: no efficacy of vaccination

After 8 months of analysis with advanced statistical methods in order to correct the various biases of the sample of 30423 patients treated at the IHU, the team concludes that the vaccine system is not effective: "An external and independent statistical analysis of the data from the IHU-Méditerranée demonstrated that the potential efficacy of Covid-19 vaccination was not substantially better than empirical treatment using a combination hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, given as early treatment. Vaccination has not had measured efficacy for those under 50 years of age and, contrary to what has been officially claimed, a negative (unfavorable) interaction has been found between vaccination and the severity of the Covid-19 disease. These results indicate that prior vaccination (to the disease) has an aggravating effect on the disease in many cases, thus raising the question of the relevance and legitimacy of mass vaccination.

The authors also add: "The very large observational cohort size of patients treated consistently in a single facility, as well as the quality of the statistical approach we used, make these results very difficult for those who have continuously denied the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine treatment of covid-19 patients during the pandemic and advocated routine vaccination for all age groups " .

Professor Perronne says:

"Having started the analyzes on the data in the summer of 2023, it very quickly became clear that it would be preferable to split in two with an analysis on early treatment and another on vaccination. The data were instructive, and the article would have been too long for the team, who wanted to provide as many explanations as possible about the methodology and, above all, the results needed to be verified in several ways.  This study therefore confirms the non-efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines and more particularly highlights a negative interaction, with vaccination often aggravating the disease. In other words, previous vaccination presents risks of a more severe form of the disease in some cases, which is contrary to the stated objectives of health policy as well as to the primum non nocere, a notion implied in the Hippocratic Oath.  Covid-19 vaccination should be suspended ."

These significant consequences should be the object of a parliamentary inquiry

• By systematizing early treatments based on hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, the number of lives that could have been saved in France is 97,400 out of the 167,642 deaths attributed to covid since 2020 – and more than 4 million worldwide. This result corroborates what had been observed in the Brazilian state of Para, which has systematized early treatment and which, between November 2020 and March 2021, had 296 deaths per million inhabitants (d/Mh).  This figure for France, estimated in this article, assuming that early treatment had been systematized for the same period, is identical to 298.9 d/Mh. The detailed calculation is described below.

• In addition to the lives saved, an authorization of early treatments in 2020 would have rendered the marketing authorization of gene therapies ineffective.  This is the number 4 condition that must be met for a vaccine under trial to be conditionally authorized by the FDA (Federal Drug Administration in the United States). The same constraint normally applies to Europe. In France, the ANSM has identified more than 200,000 side effects of vaccination, 25% of which are serious, knowing that reports of side effects are underestimated by a factor of 10 to 20. 
• These side effects result in an additional cost for the French healthcare system. Triple penalties for the French who have not been treated, have been forced to an injection with uncertain effects, or even to take a significant risk, and all this with their money. In France, vaccine contracts have still not been made public despite numerous requests – there have been 155 million doses of vaccines at a unit cost of between 11 and 17 euros.  That's an investment of €2.325 billion for vaccines alone.  While the profit is in favor of the pharmaceutical companies and the risk is in favor of the patients, the hospital is dying. 

In terms of dEclaration of interest, the non-profit Bonsens.org, of which two of the research authors, Christian Perronne and Xavier Azalbert are directors, financed the publication costs, a computer and powerful software at 829 euros capable of carrying out advanced mathematical and statistical work.