Articles

Gardasil: faith and propaganda versus hard evidence

Faith and propaganda versus hard evidence

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

In a recent news: « Cervical cancer: deaths increase as HPV vaccine is underused, says WHO »[1] published in British Medical Journal, Owen Dyer pleas for of anti HPV vaccines  on the faith that this vaccine can prevent invasive cervix cancer. This golden tale is respectable but relies only on « predictions, » not on scientific hard evidences of real oncologic results. He acts as a new advocate of vaccination promising for now more than 15 years that cervix cancer will disappear in 20 years but forget to watch to oncologic results already published in cancer registries!

These real oncologic results are paradoxical and really worrying: In all the countries with high anti HPV coverage the incidence[2] of invasive cervix cancer increases in vaccinated age groups while in older (unvaccinated) population and in France, (with low vaccine coverage) the incidence diminishes.

 

The Myth of Australian success

Australia was the first country to organize routine immunization for girls aged 12 to 26 in 2007 and is always cited as the example of success of vaccine on the belief of a simulation presented as real results[3]. But, according to the cancer register[4], vaccinated age groups women suffer from risk increase: 113% (from 0.7 to 1.5) for those aged 20 to 24 (catch up vaccinated for more than 80% of them), about a third increase for 25-29 y women (p<0.05) and for 30-34 who are less vaccinated, (p=0.01). These last increases are statistically significant and cannot be due to hazard. During the same period, most older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease : less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1), less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9), less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8) and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10).

 

 

 

GREAT BRITAIN: THE PARADOXAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL PROMOTING CANCER

The UK national program was introduced in 2008 to offer HPV vaccination to 12–13-year-old with catch-up vaccination to girls up to 18 years old. Vaccination coverage in England has been with over 80% of 12–13-year olds receiving the full course. Coverage within the catch-up cohorts ranges from 39% to 76%). As related by Castanon « We expected cervical cancer rates decrease in women aged ages 20 to 24 from 2014… However, in 2016, national statistics showed sharp and significant increase in the rate of cervical cancer in the vaccinated age groups. Women aged between 20 and 25 years vaccinated for more than 85% of them, saw their cancer risk increase by 70% in 2 years (from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014 p = 0.0006)[5], and those aged 25 to 30,  who were aged between 18 and 23 at the time of the vaccination campaign saw their cancer risk increase by 100% between 2007 and 2015 (from 11 / 100,000 to 22 / 100,000 )”. According to Office of National Statistics Women 25 to 34 years, less vaccinated, have seen incidence increase by 18% (from 17 in 2007 to 20 in 2014).  Older, women unvaccinated, benefit of stable or decreasing incidence (-13% for 65-79, 10% after 80.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAME PARADOXICAL PHENOMENON IN SWEDEN.

In Sweden, Gardasil has been used since 2006, and the vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, with a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated.  In this country, the standardized incidence of cervical cancer in the global [6]population has increased steadily since vaccination from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012 and 11.49 in 2015[7]. This increase is mostly due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancers among women aged 20-24 whose incidence doubled (from 1.86 in 2007 to3.72 in 2015 c=0.89; p<0.001). The incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix increased by 24% in women aged 25 to 34 from 12.44 to 15.49(c=0.68; p=0.05), In contrast, a decrease in the incidence has been observed in women over 50. Dillner, a promoter of vaccination recognizes the increase of incidence of cancer in his country [8] but pretends that « less effectiveness of screening » is the culprit

Advocates of vaccination brandish good results against infection by stains included in the vaccines and decrease of CN2 CN3. But they should rather watch on registered cancer incidences and wonder about the paradoxical contrast of decrease of infection and statistically significant increases of invasive cancer. This paradox questions the causal Link between HPV infection and cancer and the repeated mis information pretending that 99% of cervix cancer are only due to HG HPV[9] 

 

 

 

 

France: the bad example for big pharma

 

 

 

The evolution of these countries, with high immunization coverage, can be compared to the trend observed in metropolitan France, where HPV vaccination coverage is very low (around 15%). France can be considered, for this reason, as a control country. In France the incidence of cervical cancer has steadily decreased from 15 in 1995 to 7.5 in 2007, 6.7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017, much lower than the countries with high vaccine coverage. This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in mortality from 5 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2012 and 1.7 in 2017.

It is paradoxical and very worrying that this favourable French evolution, could be jeopardized by an obligation considered in the short term by our representatives[10], for some misinformed and other with too much competing interests with big pharma

 

[1] BMJ 2019;364: l580 doi: 10.1136/bmj. l580 (Published 6 February 2019)

[2] Incidence = number of new annual cases/100 000 women

[3] BBC Cervical cancer: Australia ‘to be first to eliminate disease’2018 10 3 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45727977

[4] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

[5] Castanon A. Sasieni P. Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20–24 years in England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine 107 (2018) 21–28

[6] Cytological begnin abnormalities linked to infections

[7] According to Nordcan. register

[8] Dillner Joaquim: Livmoderhals cancer ökar hosbkvinnor med normalt cellprov Läkartidningen

Volym 115 article in swedish

[9] Ibid Already cited BBC 2018 10

[10] Their representativity is questioned by the « yellow coats

PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF ANTI-HPV VACCINE GARDASIL ON CERVICAL CANCER RATE

 

PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF ANTI-HPV VACCINE GARDASIL ON CERVICAL CANCER RATE

State of published results in registers,  on January 2019

Dr G Delépine, oncologist, surgeon

gerard.delepine@bbox.fr

 

 

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress”. Niels Bohr (Nobel prized for his works on the structure of the atom and chemical reactions )

 

 

Changing the natural history of cancer that increases in frequency and occurs faster.

It takes a long time to affirm that a preventive action really protects. But the failure of this supposed protection can sometimes be very quickly obvious. To prove that the Titanic was truly unsinkable would have required decades of navigation on the most dangerous seas of the world. Demonstrating that it wasn’t, took only a few hours … This  » Titanic  » demonstration is unfortunately reproduced by the Gardasil vaccination.

Evidence that vaccination increases the risk of invasive cancer can be rapid, if the vaccine changes the natural history of cancer by accelerating it. The analysis of trends in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer published in official statistics (registers) was studied in the first and most fully vaccinated countries (Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway). Unfortunately, it’s the case for HPV vaccines.

 

Pre-vaccination period : spectacular success of cervical smear screening with a steady decrease in the rate of invasive cervical cancer.   

In all countries that performed smear screening, the pre-vaccination period from 1989 to 2007 was marked by a significant decrease in the standardized incidence of cervical cancer.

In less than 20 years, the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased from :

13.5 to 9.4 n Great Britain [1]

13.5 to 7 in Australia[2] ,

11.6 to 10.2 in Sweden [3],

15.1 to 11 in Norway [4],

10.7 to 6.67 in the USA [5],

11 to 7.1 in France.

Globally, in the countries that used smear screening, the average annual rate of decline was 2.5% between 1989 and 2000 and 1% between 2000 and 2007, resulting in a total decrease of nearly 30% across 1989-2007.

 

Era of vaccination: reversal of the trend. Gardasil’s prevention failure erases the beneficial effects of the smear and accelerates the onset of cervical cancer. 

 

Since vaccination, in all the countries implemented with a large vaccination program, there is a reversal of the trend, with a significant increase in the frequency of invasive cancers in the most vaccinated groups. Let’s look at OFFICIAL sources.

 

AUSTRALIA : contrary to the FAKE NEWS OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICS, REGISTER DOES NOT SHOW CANCERS OF THE CERVIX DISAPPEAR, BUT INCREASE.

Australia was the first country to organize routine immunization for girls (April 2007 school-based program for females aged 12–13 years, July 2007 time-limited catch-up program targeting females aged 14–26 years) and then for boys (2013).. According to the last Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publication (2018 publication describing the detailed rates until 2014 ) [6] , the standardized incidence in the overall population has not decreased since vaccination 7/100000 in 2007 versus 7.4 in 2014.

This global stabilization results from two contradictory trends that only appears by examining trends, according to age groups.

Vaccinated age groups women have seen their risk increase:

100% increase for those aged 15 to 19 (from 0.1 in 2007 to 0.2 in 2014)

113% increase (from 0.7 to 1.5) in groups aged 20 to 24 more than 80% of them were catch up vaccinated when 13 to 17 years old.

But, as the figures are very small, this increase does not reach statistical significance.

About a third increase for 25-29 group (from 5.9 to 8 ,p=0.06) and for 30-34 (from 9.9 to 12.4 c=0.80 p=0.01) less vaccinated. These increases are statistically significant cannot be due to hazard.

 

A drama known to one top athlete  Sarah Tait

This increased risk of cancer following vaccination was dramatically illustrated by the sad story of Sarah Tait, olympic rowing champion, at the 2012 London Olympics. This champion saw her life shattered in full glory : she suffered invasive cervical cancer a few years later, being vaccinated and died at age 33. Of course, we don’t know if vaccination was the direct cause of her cancer, but she has, statistically, a one in two chances of having suffered from a cancer linked to vaccination (to be part of the 113% increase of cancer observed after vaccination). In addition, we remark that cancer appears very early in this woman.

 

Non vaccinated women continue to benefit from screening with pap smear

During the same period, older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease significantly:

less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1),

less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9),

less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8)

and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10).

 

GREAT BRITAIN : THE PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL PROMOTING CANCER

In UK, a national program was introduced in 2008 to offer HPV vaccination routinely to 12–13-year-old and offer catch-up vaccination to girls up to 18 years old. The UK national program initially used the bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix), but, changed in 2012 to use the quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil). HPV vaccination coverage in England has been high with over 80% of 12–13 years old receiving the full course coverage. The catch-up cohort has been lower covered (ranging from 39% to 76%).

Since the vaccination, the standardized incidence in the overall population increased from 9.4 per 100000 in 2007 to 9.6 in 2015. We observe contrasting trends between the age groups.

Vaccination promoters expected cervical cancer rates decrease in women aged 20 to 24 from 2014, as vaccinated adolescents enter their second decade. However, in 2016, national statistics showed a sharp and significant increase in the rate of cervical cancer in this age group. This information of 2016 has unfortunately not been publicized. They could have served as an alert.

Women aged between 20 and 25 years, vaccinated for more than 85% of them, when they were between 14 and 18 years old, have seen their cancer risk increase by 70% in 2 years (from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014 p = 0.0006) and those aged 25 to 30, ( aged between 18 and 23 at the time of the vaccination campaign)  have seen their cancer risk increase by 100% between 2007 and 2015[7] (from 11 / 100,000 to 22 / 100,000 ).

Women 25 to 34 years, (less vaccinated, only exposed to some catch-up vaccinations), have seen their risk increased by 18% (from 17 in 2007 to 20 in 2014).

In Great Britain, as in Australia, older, unvaccinated women have seen their risk decrease:

( -13% for women aged 65 to 79 and -10% for those over 80 ), most likely because continuation of smear screening.

 

 

SAME PARADOXICAL PHENOMENON OF GARDASIL IN SWEDEN : THE RATE OF CANCER INCREASES IN THE VACCINATED AGE GROUPS . ALERT!

In Sweden, Gardasil has been used since 2006. The vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, with a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated.

In this country, the standardized incidence of cervical cancer in the global population has increased steadily since vaccination from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012 and 11.49 in 2015[8]. This increase is mostly due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancers among women aged 20-24 whose incidence doubled ( from 1.86 in 2007 to3.72 in 2015 p<0.001)[9] and in women aged 20 to 29 the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix increased by 19% (from 6.69 to 8.01)

In contrast, as in Australia and Great Britain, a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer has been observed in women over 50, a group that has not been included in the vaccination program. The incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased between 2007 and 2015 by 6% for women aged 50 to 59 (from 14.24 to 13.34), and 4% for those aged 60 to 69 (12.63%). at 12.04,) 17% for those aged 70 to 79 (from 15.28 to 12.66) and 12% for those over 80 (from 15.6 to 13.68).

 

 

IN  NORWAY

Cancer registry shows an increase in the standardized incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix from 11.7 in 2007 to 12.2 in 2009, 13.2 in 2012 and 14. 9 2015 [10].

This increase is due -almost exclusively- to young women, which include all vaccinated, as evidenced by the sharp decline of the average age of onset of the cervix cancer from 48 years in 2002 -2006 to 45 years in 2012-2016.

 

Between 2007 and 2015 , the incidence of invasive cervical cancer increased by 8% among women aged 20 to 29 (from 7.78 to 8.47)[11].

 

During the same period, a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer was observed in older women, not involved in the vaccination program: -11% for women aged 55 to 64 (15.47 to 13.7), -16% for those aged 65 to 74 (17.7 to 14.71) and -29% for those aged 75 to 85 (18.39 to 13) .

 

In USA

 

In this country, vaccination coverage is lower than in previous countries (close to 60%).

According to the Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2015[12], the standardized incidence of invasive cervical cancer remains stable(+0.1) since vaccination.

 

In US, the same discrepancy is observed according to age groups, but of lesser amplitude. Women over 50, benefit a 5% decrease in their risk (from 10.37 per 100000 in 2007 to 9.87 in 2015), whereas younger women, which include vaccinated, have given their risk increase of 4% (5.24 in 2007 to 5.47 in 2015).

 

 

WITNESS COUNTRY: FRANCE 

The evolution of these countries, with high immunization coverage, can be compared to the trend observed in metropolitan France, where HPV vaccination coverage is very low (around 15%). France can be considered, for this reason, as a control country. In France[13] the incidence of cervical cancer has steadily decreased from 15 in 1995 to 7.5 in 2007, 6.7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017, much lower than those of countries with high vaccine coverage.

This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in mortality from 5 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2012 and 1.7 in 2017.

It is paradoxical and very worrying that these excellent French results, with low cervix cancer rate and low related mortality, could be jeopardized by an obligation considered in the short term by our policies, for some misinformed and other big pharma links[14].

 

DRAMATIC AND UNEXPECTED PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL: THE ALERT MUST BE GIVEN TO DECISION MAKERS AND THE MEDIA. 

In all countries that achieved high HPV vaccination coverage, official cancer registries show an increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer. 

For women under 20, the crude number are to small to reach statistical significance, but the similar increases in all the studied countries constitutes a strong alarm signal.

For women 20-30 the incidence increases after catch up vaccination, and is highly significant (p<0.01or 0.001). In these same countries, during the same period, older women, not vaccinated, have seen their risk of cervical cancer continue to decline.

Similarly, in metropolitan France, a country with low vaccination coverage, the incidence of cervical cancer continues to decline at a rate comparable to the pre-vaccination period.

These paradoxical results plea for a rapid revision of recommendations and intensive research to explain this catastrophic issue.

 

 

[1] Cancer Research UK, Cervical Cancer (C53): 1993-2015, European Age-Standardized Incidence Rates per 100,000 Population, Females, UK Accessed 08 [ 2018 ].

[2] AIHW [2]. 13. AIHW 2017. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. No. CAN 100. Canberra: AIHW.

[3] NORDCAN, Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries 3.1.2018

[4] Bo T Hansen, Suzanne Campbell, Mari Nygård Long-term incidence of HPVrelated cancers, and cases preventableby HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019005

[5] Table 5.1 Cancer of the Cervix Uteri (Invasive) Trends in SEER Incidence and US Mortality SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2012

[6] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: cervical cancer Canberra: AIHW. <Http://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books>.

[7] A Castanona, P Sasienia Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20-24 years in

England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine 107 (2018) 21-28

[8] Nationellt Kvalitetsregister für Cervix cancer prevention (NKCx), http://nkcx.se/templates/_rsrapport_2017.pdf [in Swedish]

[9] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed it 30 / 09 / 2018 .

[10] Cancer in Norway 2016

[11] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed is 1 / 10 / 2018

[12] SEER 9 National Center for Health Statistics, CDC

[13] Francim, HCL, Public Health France, INCa. Projections of Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Metropolitan France in 2017 – Solid Tumors [Internet]. Saint-Maurice: Public health France [updated 02/01/2018; viewed on the 09/05/2018

[14] https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/gardasil-alerte-risque-imminent-d-206314 Gardasil, alert, imminent risk of mandatory vaccination against HPV unnecessary, and sometimes dangerous , for girls and boys.

 

 

Prévention globale, dépistage systématique et diagnostic précoce : trois notions à ne pas confondre

cliquez ici pour voir le diaporama dépistage Lyon SEPT 2018

Depuis plus d’un siècle, et singulièrement depuis les années 80, les médias et politiques utilisent le concept de prévention qui éviterait tous les malheurs médicaux pour promouvoir à grand renfort de propagande dépistages systématiques : sein, prostate, voir poumon et maintenant tout azimut avec les magnifiques tests sanguins !  Même les émissions littéraires s’en mêlent en invitant les promoteurs de test à 484 € !

Or si bien sûr le diagnostic précoce a bien amélioré les choses, ne laissant plus se développer de gros cancers qui arrivaient ulcérés, infectés, puants, chez le médecin, ceci ne doit pas être confondu avec la recherche obsessionnelle pour le sujet angoissé d’un petit cancer caché qu’on guérirait mieux, couplée à la recherche encore plus obsessionnelle des labos et affidés du profit basé sur la peur citoyenne et la promesse d’immortalité ou presque …  Sachons faire la différence !

Ce diaporama a été fabriqué dans cette optique et n’hésitez pas à lire les articles des liens proposés. Bonne lecture

Gardasil : 8 députés veulent imposer une vaccination qui augmente le risque de cancer au lieu de le diminuer

Gardasil, alerte, risque imminent d’obligation d’une vaccination anti HPV inutile, et parfois dangereuse, pour les filles et garçons

 

 Lettre ouverte aux parlementaires, et à tous les citoyens.

 

 

article  à lire in extenso sur agoravox et à partager avec les élus et tous citoyens

https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/gardasil-alerte-risque-imminent-d-206314

 

 

SOYONS VIGILANTS. Alors que de nombreux médecins, étrangers et français, citoyens, patients parfois victimes, tentent d’informer depuis de très nombreuses années sur l’inutilité et les risques du vaccin contre les papillomavirus, une nouvelle offensive des lobbies pharmaceutiques conduit à nouveau certains députés à tenter de l’introduire dans la loi d’obligation vaccinale, déjà probablement la plus large au monde.

 

Nous-mêmes avons analysé le bénéfice-risque de ce vaccin initialement destiné à la gente féminine, mais les garçons risquent bientôt d’être visés[1] également, et dénoncé à plusieurs reprises[2] [3]son inutilité couplée à ses risques tant chez la femme[4] que chez l’homme.[5] Le temps passé depuis son autorisation de mise sur le marché par la FDA en juin 2006 ne fait qu’apparaitre de nouveaux arguments contre cette vaccination, dont le plus fort est l’augmentation du nombre de cancers du col dans les populations les plus vaccinées, qui devrait inciter ces pays à suive l’exemple du Japon et de l’Autriche et à supprimer la recommandation.

 

Attention danger, risque imminent d’obligation d’une vaccination anti HPV inutile, et parfois dangereuse, pour les filles et garçons. Par le docteur Gérard Delépine, chirurgien et statisticien

 

lire aussi la lettre de J P Auffret aux députés  anti-HPV JPA à députés 2018-08-04

 

l’inquiétude est internationale comme en témoignent les relais étrangers rencontrés pour cette publication sur agoravox

 

informez, partagez,il s’agit de la santé de nos enfants

 

 

Conflits d’intérêt, liaisons dangereuses, thérapies ciblées, immunothérapie, marchandisation, Bourse

2017 05 27 paris conflits d’intérêts NOUVELLES DROGUES CERCLE ARISTOTE 

diaporama en cliquant sur le lien ci dessus

 

et la vidéo de la conférence http://cerclearistote.com/video-de-la-conference-de-gerard-delepine-liaisons-dangereuses-medecins-labos/

 

 comprendre comment on en est arrivé à la situation actuelle qui privilégie  les nouvelles drogues et en fait la propagande : nouveau marché énorme qui intéresse la  Bourse au plus haut point

 

 

Liberté de soigner, suppression du joug des agences et retour à la médecine d’Hippocrate, c’est possible !

A la suite de la parution de la « face cachée des médicaments  » Frédérique Ahondt avait publié cette interview qui résume notre parcours de médecin et que je vous invite à lire.

Effectivement en raison du hold-up de la médecine par la bureaucratie, les médecins ne sont plus libres de leurs prescriptions, enfermés dans des injonctions des agences de santé, bras armé du ministère. Ils doivent obéir au risque, en cas de désobéissance d’être jetés, diffamés et in fine interdits de soigner. Certes, de nombreux médecins amoureux de leur métier, tentent de résister, sont sur le fil du rasoir, mais nous sommes robotisés et il faut prendre ces nouvelles conditions en compte dans la « confiance » qu’on peut accorder aux prescriptions, surtout celles dans le cadre de « protocoles » très formatés dans lesquels vos docteurs n’ont plus grand chose à dire, malgré leurs efforts.

 

« Quels conseils pourriez-vous donner aux personnes qui doivent affronter l’épreuve d’une maladie grave?

Il y a quarante ans, je vous aurais répondu : « Faites confiance aux médecins ! ». Maintenant, il faut être extrêmement vigilant. Lorsqu’un médecin vous prescrit un traitement ou qu’il vous donne un médicament, il faut lui demander pourquoi il vous propose celui-ci plutôt qu’un autre… Surtout concernant les nouveaux médicaments. Connaît-il suffisamment les effets secondaires ? Est-il suffisamment informé ? Je crois qu’il est absolument nécessaire d’interroger les médecins et de se prendre en mains. Si on reste passif… On est fichu ! Dans notre service, je le vois bien, nous avons beaucoup de chance. Les patients que nous avons sont des personnes intelligentes qui ont réfléchi et ne sont pas restées « dans le moule » en acceptant « qu’il n’y avait plus rien à faire »… Il faut que les gens se battent, qu’ils cherchent, qu’ils lisent des études, deux ou trois articles, qu’ils se renseignent. Chacun peut trouver autour de lui des sources d’informations : Internet, un ami ou un médecin de confiance, des personnes ayant fait quelques études ou des recherches sur le sujet, pour aider à faire le tri. On demande au patient d’être acteur de son traitement, pas d’être « le gogo qui accepte tout ». Il ne doit pas hésiter à discuter, pour comprendre. Dans le cadre des essais thérapeutiques par exemple, il ne faut pas que le consentement éclairé soit une vaste fumisterie… Une véritable information doit être donnée. Pas en dix minutes ! Le patient doit être averti des risques et des effets secondaires et le médecin ne doit pas se retrancher derrière l’excuse « qu’il n’y a rien d’autre à faire » et que « tout le monde fait pareil en France ou en Europe ». Ce genre de discours, c’est celui du monopole et de la pensée unique que les puissants veulent imposer à la médecine.
 Souvent, lorsque les parents des petits patients me remercient parce que leur enfant est tiré d’affaire, je leur dis que ce sont eux qui ont sauvé leur gamin… Pas moi ! Ce sont eux qui ont réagi et sont allés chercher ce qui se faisait ailleurs. Ce sont eux qui ont d’abord sauvé leur enfant. Nous, nous leur avons donné des outils…

 » Dans votre livre, vous démontrez le poids financier écrasant des firmes pharmaceutiques. Malgré ce pouvoir économique considérable, pensez-vous qu’il y a un réel espoir pour la médecine de demain ? Que les choses vont changer ?

Je suis plutôt optimiste… Sinon, je ne ferais pas de la cancérologie ! Oui, je pense qu’il y a de l’espoir. Les gens finiront par prendre les choses en mains. On sent bien que les choses bougent… L’impérialisme du fric, le « tout fric » de notre petit occident va forcément exploser. Il y a beaucoup de médecins qui ont envie d’exercer leur métier honnêtement, proprement, mais on ne leur en donne pas les moyens. Ce n’est pas eux qui détiennent le vrai pouvoir. Malheureusement, il y a une petite proportion de gens qui détiennent le pouvoir économique, politique, et celui d’imposer aux autres leurs décisions et leurs façons de faire. Il suffirait de parvenir à faire sauter cette chape de plomb des 10 à 15 % de décideurs et de laisser les médecins soigner et prescrire en leur âme et conscience. Il faudrait arrêter de multiplier toutes ces instances, supprimer les 20.000 agences, etc. Nous faisons quinze années d’étude pour nous entendre dire : « Appliquez ce que l’on vous dit d’en haut ». Pas besoin de faire quinze années de médecine pour ça… Juste un bon ordinateur pour nous dire ce que nous devons faire ! 
Effectivement nos enseignants sont devenus des machines à vendre des médicaments, mais cela peut cesser s’il y a une volonté suffisante pour que cela cesse. On pourrait peut-être aussi essayer de nommer les gens sur des critères plus intelligents que sur le nombre de publications qu’ils ont fournies… Changer les critères de nomination pour en revenir à la clinique. En quelques années seraient nommées des personnes qui seraient des médecins et pas des marchands. Tout ceci est soluble. Cette évolution suivra celle de la société. Il suffirait juste de faire sauter le bouchon de la Pensée Unique, celle qui bloque nos sociétés et empêche aussi les scientifiques de travailler librement. »

propos recueillis par Frédérique Ahondt

 lire la totalité de l’interview sur   http://www.neosante.eu/dr-nicole-delepine-les-medecins-sont-devenus-des-marchands-de-medicaments/     car notre combat reste le même !