Death post-Gardasil (2023): Is the doctor the only one to blame?

/dans /par

March 8, 2025/ by E3M

On October 19, 2023, young E. (12 years old) receives an injection of Gardasil (human papillomavirus vaccine), in his secondary school in Saint Herblain (Loire-Atlantique, France). Shortly after the injection, he feels faint and falls down. Suffering from a traumatic brain injury, he passes away on 27 October at the Nantes hospital.

On March 6, 2025, Ouest France informs us that the doctor present at the vaccination session is being investigated for manslaughter. This doctor “may have failed in his duty and is said to have left the two nurses to fend for themselves in this moment of extreme gravity”.

The risk is great that this doctor will become the scapegoat. But to us, it seems that this drama must be analyzed through a triple lens: the individual fault, the responsibility of the State and the responsibility of MSD, the manufacturer of Gardasil.

Individual fault

Justice will decide whether or not there is human error. This may be the case for the post-vaccination surveillance, as it appears to be here, but also for the risk analysis prior to any injection. The European Court of Justice recently reminded us that: « the doctors who administered these vaccines [against COVID in this specific case] without any prior individual evaluation of the patient could be held liable. Indeed, the fact that these vaccines had received a marketing authorization (MA) was not sufficient to exempt practitioners from their duty to conduct a risk analysis for each patient” (Judgment of the ECJ of 30 January 2025). A decision that will set precedent regardless of the type of vaccine involved.

The responsibility of the state

E3M opposes once again the practice of mass vaccinations, even more so in a place intended for education, preceded by extensive publicity campaigns and strong media coverage from the State. Any vaccination should be performed by the treating physician (or a para-medical professional, after prescription by the treating physician). It is a guarantee of safety, on the one hand because the attending physician knows his patient (and therefore any contraindications that are specific to him), and on the other hand he is used to administering vaccines and knows how to behave in the case of an allergic reaction.

The responsibility of MSD, the manufacturer of Gardasil

We were very surprised by the statement of the Regional Health Agency, shortly after the accident, that this death was “unrelated to the vaccine product or a defect in the quality of the vaccine” (France Bleu). What analysis had been done to make this statement? This looks a bit too much like the Pavlovian reflex we know so well: “vaccines are safe, vaccination is not up for discussion”. Well, actually it should be discussed, and especially in relation to the Gardasil and its many serious adverse effects (read our HPV file, and watch the video « Did you read the Gardasil vaccine insert? « ).

In an email sent to the Prosecutor shortly after the death was announced, E3M expressed concern: “the Food and Drug Administration vaccine insert mentions (1) syncope as an adverse effect of Gardasil – without any indication of a possible psychosomatic origin (stress, etc.), and (2) deaths following this vaccination.”

In a report made public, this concern is now amplified by the questioning of the quality of the safety studies carried out by the manufacturer (MSD) at the request of the European Medicines Agency and those carried out subsequently by the FDA and the CDC (North American agencies) using the same methodology. According to this document, Merck has made a biased selection of vaccine adverse reaction data to prove that its Gardasil HPV vaccine does not cause serious neurological effects. The FDA and the CDC used this same method of data selection for their own study, reaching the same conclusion (Source).

Review of the judicial consequences of E.’s death in Nantes

The prosecutor announced in 2023: «investigations will be conducted as to the origin of the malaise, which led to this fatal fall» (France Bleu). Aurélien Rousseau, then minister of health, promised: «everything will be examined and made public (Ouest France). As far as we know, the results of this investigation have not yet been made public.

We are asking for full transparency on this drama, in all its dimensions. The justice system should not limit itself to targeting one single doctor. We are calling for transparency even more so since the vaccination campaign in secondary schools is still on-going and could eventually even be expanded to include meningococcal vaccination (JIM – October 29, 2024).

The aluminum-free DTPolio vaccine discontinued: falsified data

/dans /par

6 September 2015 by E3M

Background

Alerts about the aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are important enough to prompt population protection measures. Aluminum free vaccines must be made available, especially for children subject to vaccine requirements.

Marisol Touraine, a French politician who has previously served as Minister of Social Affairs and Health in France, made a commitment during the election campaign: families “must have the possibility to choose aluminum free vaccines when they fulfill the mandatory vaccine requirements, especially since this was a possibility up until 2008”.

The marketing of the aluminum free DTPolio vaccine was discontinued in France on 12 June 2008 by the ANSM (the French Medecines agency) at the request of Sanofi Pasteur MSD, following a supposedly “significant increase in adverse reactions”.

General information about adverse reactions

All vaccines, like any other drug, has adverse effects.

The adverse effects of the aluminum-free DTPolio vaccine are allergic in nature. These are the kind of adverse effects mentioned in all vaccine package leaflets.

The usual number of adverse reactions for the aluminum-free DTPolio vaccine is between 3 and 4 per 100,000 doses, depending on the year. For comparison, the numbers for Gardasil, the papillomavirus vaccine, is 39.9 per 100 000 doses (2013).

The DTPolio Mérieux vaccine, free from aluminum, taken off the market

The withdrawal of the aluminum free DTPolio vaccine was officially justified by a significant increase in adverse reactions in early 2008: it was said that the number of adverse reactions had tripled to 10.7 per 100,000 doses (note: without any increase in serious adverse events).

An analysis of official data provided by the French Medicines Agency (AFSSAPS/ANSM) to E3M shows that:

  • 6 batches of DTPolio vaccines were sold in early 2008;
  • These 6 batches were also marketed in 2007;
  • The number of adverse events over the life span of these 6 lots is 3.78 per 100,000 doses, which is in the usual average for the DTPolio vaccine, which has been on the market for 47 years.

The same official data show a surprising distribution of adverse reactions:

  • In 2008: 10.7 adverse reactions per 100,000 doses;
  • In 2007: 1.08 adverse reactions per 100,000 doses;
  • Whereas 28% of the doses were sold in 2008, and 72% in 2007.

EI = Effets Indésirables = Adverse Effects

On a single batch of vaccines, it is conceivable that the adverse reactions would not be randomly distributed, for example following a cold chain interruption. But on 6 lots, the probability of such an irregular distribution is 1.16/100,000.

These elements led E3M to file a complaint against X for « faux, usage de faux, et escroquerie » (falsification and fraud) before the Public Prosecutor. In addition, E3M has joined with Karen BOUILLOT and Stanley ANNAN in a civil action for “Personal Injury and endangerment of others », because the new DTP vaccine (Revaxis) contains aluminum, and that the presence of aluminum in this vaccine has been proven to cause macrophage myofascitis (an inflammatory, often debilitating, syndrome characterized by muscle pain and extreme fatigue) in these two people.

The marketing authorizations for the 2 aluminum-free DTP vaccines are still valid

The Drug Agency (ANSM) and the Directorate-General for Health (DGS) claim that the marketing authorization (MA) of DTPolio Mérieux vaccines (and DTP Pasteur, which was a copy of the DTPolio Mérieux vaccine) are now obsolete, because Sanofi Pasteur MSD has not requested the renewal of these marketing authorizations at the scheduled dates (12/06/2011 for DTPolio Mérieux, 29/11/2012 for DTP Pasteur).

We contest this official position on the basis of article R 5121-45 of the Public Health Code: « Once renewed, the marketing authorization is granted without limitation in time. However, the Agency may, on renewal, decide, in particular for reasons relating to pharmacovigilance, for example if an insufficient number of patients are exposed to the medicinal product or product concerned, that this authorization must be renewed every five years.”

When reading the marketing authorization renewal notifications, they do not contain a five-year renewal request. Therefore, they are still valid.

The probable motives for this falsification of data

According to our analysis, two reasons may be at the origin of the discontinuation of the aluminum-free DTPolio vaccine:

  • A desire to rationalize production, through the disappearance of a majority of monovalent vaccines or vaccines that combine only a few virus strains (« small » combination vaccines or “atypical” vaccines);
  • An immediate financial interest, by shifting users to more expensive vaccines.

But the aluminum-free DTPolio vaccine met a mandatory vaccine requirement as well as a demand from the medical profession. For decades it sold up to 1 million doses annually.

It took Sanofi Pasteur 8 years to achieve its goals:

  • Supply shortage in the year 2000. A failed attempt which was followed by negative reactions from doctors and government officials.
  • “Procurement challenges” in 2004 for so-called “lack of efficiency”. Another failure since the aluminum-free DTPolio proves to be more effective than Revaxis in primary vaccination, and also effective when used as a booster.
  • Taken off the market in 2008 for “increased adverse effects”. This is an argument which will naturally scare health authorities. However, it has been shown that the underlying data was falsified.

It is therefore essential that the aluminum-free DTPolio be put back on the market, for the sake of all children entering the public school system (mandatory vaccinations in order to attend school), but also for all citizens who do not wish to be vaccinated with aluminum-containing vaccines. This has been one of E3M’s battles since 2008. Furthermore, light must be shed on the falsification of important data.

Disappearance of the aluminum-free DTPOLIO vaccine: Nothing to see here, just move along!

/dans /par

January 27, 2023 / by E3M

The Paris Court of Appeal’s Board of Inquiry confirms the dismissal order in the DTPolio vaccine withdrawal case. E3M deplores this decision and announces its intention to appeal against it to the Court of Cassation.

Paris, 26 January 2023.

E3M deeply regrets the decision made yesterday by the Paris Court of Appeal’s Board of Inquiry in the case concerning the conditions under which SANOFI decided to withdraw the aluminum-free DTPolio® vaccine from the market and the consequences of this choice on the people who had previously contracted the Macrophage myofascitis by getting vaccinated with alternative aluminum-containing vaccines. The appeal-judges effectively just confirmed the order of dismissal that was issued on November 25, 2021.

E3M announces today its intention to appeal in cassation.

For Didier Lambert, President of E3M, this case goes far beyond the issue of the presence of aluminum salts in vaccines; it is directly related to the extension of the vaccine requirement in France (the move from 3 to 11 vaccines) and raises important issues of public interest:

  • We can indeed deplore the inertia or even the guilty complacency of the Drug Agency (ANSM, Afssaps at the time) which settled for simply announcing SANOFI’s (industrially driven) choice without taking the time to check the information communicated by E3M first. Surely, the agency did not ignore the manufacturer’s true motivation (namely, its desire to permanently withdraw the aluminum-free DTPolio vaccine from the markets).
  • The same thing goes for the precautionary principle: why – despite increasing warnings about this product – has there never been a serious evaluation of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines? How to explain this ‘double standard’: the indefinite retraction from the market of the aluminum-free DTPolio vaccine due to an increase in adverse reactions (whose cause has never been identified) alongside the absolute indifference when it comes to warnings about the effects associated with aluminum adjuvants?
  • Is it legitimate for doubt to benefit vaccine manufacturers even though it is public knowledge that they knowingly maintain just that (cf. « Merchants of Doubt » by Oreskes and Conway)?

Doesn’t this stand taken by the criminal courts have the effect of fueling vaccine manufacturer’s sense of impunity (1)? With the vaccine market in constant expansion, the questions about whether or not the judicial system can adequately deal with cases that concern vaccine damages have become particularly acute (2).

  • Finally, and without being in any way opposed to the principle of vaccination itself, it seems legitimate to question whether the country’s vaccine policy is being led by pharmaceutical companies: it is quite clear that the change from 3 to 11 vaccines in January 2018 was not motivated by public health considerations (no benefit/risk assessment was conducted) but put in place in order to align the national vaccination policy with the products that the manufacturers had unilaterally decided to place on the market (see chronology in the press kit).

Let us hope that the Court of Cassation will take full account of these issues, which are essential in a health democracy. As for members of the E3M association, they will not give up, people’s health must take precedence over vested interests.

  1. Note that the State Council fully recognizes the link between vaccines containing aluminum salts and the occurrence of macrophage myofascitis. Since 2012, no less than 13 favorable legal decisions have been issued in this regard : CE – Conseil d’État (State Council) n°344561 du 21.12.2012 ; n° 345411 du 22.03.2013 ; n° 347459 du 30.12.2013 ; n° 362488 du 30.12.2013 ; n° 368150 du 11.04.2014 ; n° 366470 du 23.07.2014 ; n° 369478 du 22.07.2015 ; n° 369479 du 22.07.2015 ; n° 387694 du 11.05.2016 ; n° CE 384612 du 30.12.2016 ; n° 419329 du 13.02.2020 ; n° 435323 du 29.09.2021 ; n° 437875 du 29.09.2021.
  2. “The vaccine market, which rose from $26 billion in 2011 to $32.3 billion in 2014, will jump once again to reach $80 billion in 2025” (source: Le Figaro 2016).

“Approximately 16 billion doses of vaccines, worth 141 billion US dollars, were delivered in 2021” (WHO source – 11.2022)

DTPolio Vaccine: We’re not giving up!

/dans /par

27th January 2024

By E3M: Asssociation d’Entraide aux Malades de Myofaciite à Macrophages (Macrophagic Myofaciitis Sufferers Association)

Exactly one year ago, the investigation chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the dismissal order issued on November 25, 2021 in the case of the withdrawal of the aluminum-free DTPolio® vaccine. A decision that is questionable from a legal point of view, according to E3M, which then decided to appeal to the Court of Cassation. In a decision handed down on January 23, the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation partially upheld E3M’s appeal, thus allowing one of the aspects of the case – and not the least – to be re-investigated by the courts. A victory for the association!

As a reminder, on April 25, 2014, E3M filed a complaint against X denouncing the troubling conditions under which SANOFI had obtained the withdrawal of the DTPolio® vaccine from the market (arguing an increase in adverse effects), and the consequences of this choice (1).

Firstly, the investigation chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, in accordance with the conclusions of the investigating judge, considered that the statutes of limitation for the acts of forgery, use of forgery and fraud disclosed by E3M had expired. This led to evidence provided by E3M on the falsification of the data used to establish the alleged increase in adverse effects being rejected.

Secondly, it considered that the causal link between the withdrawal of the aluminum-free DTPolio vaccine, the roll-out of a replacement aluminum-adjuvanted vaccine (Revaxis®) and the development of macrophagic myofasciitis in those vaccinated with the new vaccine, had not been established. Worse, if we follow the judges’ logic, the facts revealed were not that problematic since a ‘satisfactory therapeutic alternative’ (sic) had been quickly put on the market.

On the issue of the causal link between the administration of Revaxis® and the onset of macrophagic myofasciitis in two persons associated with E3M in the initial complaint, the Court of Cassation cited the authority of the trial judges in dismissing the appeal. E3M takes note of this, but points out that the State Council has previously recognized this link based on serious, precise and consistent evidence (2). 

On the other hand, the Court of Cassation considered that the investigation chamber had indeed erred in law by considering that the facts were time-barred when, in view of the evidence, they were not. The case is therefore referred back to the investigation chamber, which will have to re-examine whether the conditions under which DTPolio® was withdrawn from the market to be replaced by Revaxis® were tainted by fraud. E3M welcomes this opportunity and will ensure that all light is shed on this case. 

This is indeed a crucial case because it shows the stranglehold of the pharmaceutical industry on our health system, including our vaccination policy.

Read the dossier « Chronology of a Big Pharma coup »
—

(1) The aluminum-free DTPolio vaccine, used in France since 1966, was indeed THE ONLY vaccine available and this was mandated to children at the time. In addition, it was adjuvant-free, and therefore aluminum-free. Following an alleged increase in adverse effects, it was replaced by Revaxis®, a vaccine containing an aluminum-based adjuvant, which causes cases of macrophagic myofasciitis.

(2) Note that the Conseil d’Etat (or State Council) recognizes the link between vaccines containing aluminum salts and the occurrence of macrophagic myofasciitis. Since 2012, no fewer than 14 decisions have been handed down in this regard: CE n°344561 of 21.12.2012; n° 345411 of 22.03.2013; n° 347459 of 30.12.2013; n° 362488 of 30.12.2013; n° 368150 of 11.04.2014; n° 366470 of 23.07.2014; n° 369478 of 22.07. 2015; n° 369479 of 22.07.2015; n° 387694 of 11.05.2016; n° CE 384612 of 30.12.2016; n° 419329 of 13.02.2020; n° 435323 of 29.09.2021; n° 437875 of 29.09.2021; N° 443248 of 25.04.2023.

With this victory, we are more determined than ever. We have a chance to really get our claims recognized and take our fight to the next level.

2024 will be another year of legal action. Your financial support is essential if we are to continue our fight in the courts. 

You can make a donation by clicking on this link. Thank you in advance for your support!

Death post-Gardasil (2023): Is the doctor the only one to blame?

/dans , /par

March 8, 2025/ by E3M

On October 19, 2023, young E. (12 years old) receives an injection of Gardasil (human papillomavirus vaccine), in his secondary school in Saint Herblain (Loire-Atlantique, France). Shortly after the injection, he feels faint and falls down. Suffering from a traumatic brain injury, he passes away on 27 October at the Nantes hospital.

On March 6, 2025, Ouest France informs us that the doctor present at the vaccination session is being investigated for manslaughter. This doctor “may have failed in his duty and is said to have left the two nurses to fend for themselves in this moment of extreme gravity”.

The risk is great that this doctor will become the scapegoat. But to us, it seems that this drama must be analyzed through a triple lens: the individual fault, the responsibility of the State and the responsibility of MSD, the manufacturer of Gardasil.

Individual fault

Justice will decide whether or not there is human error. This may be the case for the post-vaccination surveillance, as it appears to be here, but also for the risk analysis prior to any injection. The European Court of Justice recently reminded us that: « the doctors who administered these vaccines [against COVID in this specific case] without any prior individual evaluation of the patient could be held liable. Indeed, the fact that these vaccines had received a marketing authorization (MA) was not sufficient to exempt practitioners from their duty to conduct a risk analysis for each patient” (Judgment of the ECJ of 30 January 2025). A decision that will set precedent regardless of the type of vaccine involved.

The responsibility of the state

E3M opposes once again the practice of mass vaccinations, even more so in a place intended for education, preceded by extensive publicity campaigns and strong media coverage from the State. Any vaccination should be performed by the treating physician (or a para-medical professional, after prescription by the treating physician). It is a guarantee of safety, on the one hand because the attending physician knows his patient (and therefore any contraindications that are specific to him), and on the other hand he is used to administering vaccines and knows how to behave in the case of an allergic reaction.

The responsibility of MSD, the manufacturer of Gardasil

We were very surprised by the statement of the Regional Health Agency, shortly after the accident, that this death was “unrelated to the vaccine product or a defect in the quality of the vaccine” (France Bleu). What analysis had been done to make this statement? This looks a bit too much like the Pavlovian reflex we know so well: “vaccines are safe, vaccination is not up for discussion”. Well, actually it should be discussed, and especially in relation to the Gardasil and its many serious adverse effects (read our HPV file, and watch the video « Did you read the Gardasil vaccine insert? « ).

In an email sent to the Prosecutor shortly after the death was announced, E3M expressed concern: “the Food and Drug Administration vaccine insert mentions (1) syncope as an adverse effect of Gardasil – without any indication of a possible psychosomatic origin (stress, etc.), and (2) deaths following this vaccination.”

In a report made public, this concern is now amplified by the questioning of the quality of the safety studies carried out by the manufacturer (MSD) at the request of the European Medicines Agency and those carried out subsequently by the FDA and the CDC (North American agencies) using the same methodology. According to this document, Merck has made a biased selection of vaccine adverse reaction data to prove that its Gardasil HPV vaccine does not cause serious neurological effects. The FDA and the CDC used this same method of data selection for their own study, reaching the same conclusion (Source).

Review of the judicial consequences of E.’s death in Nantes

The prosecutor announced in 2023: «investigations will be conducted as to the origin of the malaise, which led to this fatal fall» (France Bleu). Aurélien Rousseau, then minister of health, promised: «everything will be examined and made public (Ouest France). As far as we know, the results of this investigation have not yet been made public.

We are asking for full transparency on this drama, in all its dimensions. The justice system should not limit itself to targeting one single doctor. We are calling for transparency even more so since the vaccination campaign in secondary schools is still on-going and could eventually even be expanded to include meningococcal vaccination (JIM – October 29, 2024).