Marc Girard M.D., M.Sc.
Marc Girard was qualified in veterinary medicine in 1960 at the University of Paris, and in Science in 1967, and was trained in molecular biology of poliovirus as a post-doctoral fellow in the USA and France. His focus then changed to HIV where he spent 20 years working on the development of an vaccine. He served as Chairman, Department of Virology, Institut Pasteur, Paris from 1997 to 1999, as Director, European Research Center for Virology and Immunology, France from 1999 to 2001. Chairman, European Consortium for HIV Vaccine (EuroVac), Brussels from 1999 to 2002. Was Director General of the Merieux Foundation from 2001 to 2003. He served as the Chief Scientific Officer of Pasteur-Mérieux Sérums et Vaccins now known as Sanofi-Pasteur.
He retired in 2004 but still consults for WHO, pharmaceutical industry and vaccine manufacturers. He was the head of Vaccine Development of Mymetics Corp. from January 15, 2004 to March 9, 2009
Girard still teaches and is a member of the French National Academy of Medicine.
** It would be difficult to say that Marc Girard is not qualified to comment on issues surrounding vaccine safety and effectiveness.
Comments and papers regarding vaccines.
In effect, if this is so easy for amateurs to get involved in vaccine controversies, this is because as a whole, the development, assessment and administration of these agents is a shame for the medical world: the weaknesses, contradictions, dissimulations and even lies of most vaccine leaders or governmental “experts” are so gross that they cannot escape the attention even of non medically-trained persons.
Maglione MA. Pediatrics. 2014. (Go to comments at bottom of page for all of Marc’s scathing critique.)
By the distance between what it demonstrates and what it claims, this paper (as well as the preceding IOM report this one is supposed to update) illustrates that the issue of vaccines safety is still a matter of serious concern for anyone endowed with a minimum of expertise in drug safety or pharmacoepidemiology.
On VAERS safety data-
Another illustration of the same bias: when reassuring, VAERS data are unchallenged, whereas the shortcomings of the system are immediately pointed out each time they may suggest a safety problem…
On Iatrogenic risk-
In a country like the USA, this detection threshold is consistent with a shadow area on iatrogenic risk of about 40,000-80,000 persons per vaccine for each vaccinated class of age
Summary of points raised –
Methodological consistency and biases questioned.
Immunization against trivial diseases.
Conflict of interests
Methodological defects concerned with safety assessments in general
Underreporting of adverse events
Clinical trials and post marketing surveillance unreliable.
Iatrogenic risk of immunizations
On Hep B-
It is blatant that in the promotion of the hepatitis B vaccination, the WHO has never been more than a screen for an undue commercial promotion, in particular via the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board (VHPB), created, sponsored and infiltrated by the manufacturers (Scrip no. 2288, p. 22). In Sept 1998, while the dreadful hazards of the campaign had been given media coverage in France, the VHPB met an panel of “experts”, the reassuring conclusions of which were extensively announced as reflecting the WHO’s position: yet some of the participants in this panel had no more “expertise” than that of being employees of the manufacturers, and the vested interests of the rest did not receive any attention.
On Avian flu –
As a result experts are currently challenging the WHO on the fact that deporting a veterinarian issue to a medical one prevented national agencies from taking appropriate measures concerning animals which, most probably, would have been far more efficient in limiting the spread of epidemics.
On lack of expertise-
As a drug specialist with a more than 30-year experience in safety, I was often missioned as a medical expert witness in criminal or civil inquiries on vaccine litigations, where I repeatedly pointed out the worrying lack of knowledge of most vaccine experts regarding the basic scientific and regulatory requirements normally applicable to pharmaceutical products – esp. as far as adverse reactions were concerned: this represents a tragic shortcoming for such preventive drugs, targeted towards people in perfect health with the problematic aim of protecting them against diseases the occurrence of which in a severe form is often an unlikely event, and for which therefore the risk of side-effects should not go beyond extremely narrow limits… Amongst many others examples, this paper by Tozzi et al. is an impressive illustration of this lack of expertise a far as drug safety is concerned.
To come now to the assessment of causality of individual adverse reactions, the first remark is that the methodological inspiration of Tozzi et al. is regrettably obsolete. The use of algorithms has been almost completely abandoned by most regulatory bodies, for one reason which was pointed out more than 25 years ago …that use of algorithms is a tool for clinical decisions …whereas assessing causality in drug toxicity is a process of knowledge, and not of decision.
On ingenuity –
After all and as the authors confess with an astonishing ingenuousness, the main point is it not, to “maintain public confidence in immunization programs”?
Girard and Comenge propose a mechanism for the development of multiple sclerosis whereby the manufacturing process could introduce HBV polymerase as a contaminant, triggering an auto-immune reaction against myelin in some Hep B vaccine recipients.