Vincent Pavan denounces two years of scientific fraud

At the invitation of the L’union fait la force 88 association, the researcher and mathematician Vincent Pavan* held a conference at Epinal. An in-depth analysis of the scientific fraud of the crisis.

Per Alix Juan

Vincent Pavan (DR)

A government ad for the summer of 2021 insisted that “anything but numbers can be discussed”. However, Vincent Pavan does not share this opinion. This mathematics researcher is well aware that with a little or a lot of fiddling with numbers, you can express them however you like. He made this clear at a conference at Epinal: “Covid-19: Mathematical and Epidemiological Corruption”. A powerful synthesis of what he denounced as two years of scientific fraud.

delusional simulation

First, let’s go back in time. In 2009, the H1N1 influenza pandemic was announced. It was a dress rehearsal for Covid,” says Vincent Pavan. was. These predictions are largely the work of Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London, who was already known for publishing vastly overestimated mortality rates during his 2005 bird flu outbreak. It is [1].
In France, the same type of mathematical model was then used by the Institut de veille sanitaire and Inserm, or the Ecole des hautes études en santé publique. The figures produced are so off the mark that the Senate Commission of Inquiry on the Management of the H1N1 Pandemic Excellent 2010 report “The lack of correlation between modeled estimates and observed reality is surprising”, “Hypotheses formulated on the basis of models have no predictive value”. In short, scientific bullshit. The case seems to be heard.

But in 2020, we’re back on track. Neil Ferguson and his simulations are back to announce millions of deaths, including his half-million in France. “In fact, he modeled and vaguely adapted his old 2006 code,” he comments Vincent Pavan.Report 9′, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, just an Imperial College document. And our mathematician explains that this code contains so many input parameters (930 in total) that anything can be expressed. In statistics this is called “overfitting” or “overinterpretation”. The more parameters a model has, the less reliable its generalizations and predictions.

start of bias

Furthermore, mathematics has its limits. In other words, the result of the last formula depends on the data entered in the first formula. Hypotheses that are omitted or discarded from the start are therefore not included in the final results and are inevitably biased. For the 2009 model, for example, the Senate report emphasized that “the A (H1N1) virus was not thought to be less virulent than seasonal influenza.” this is very interesting…
Similarly, Ferguson said in 2020 that the only way to slow or stop the Covid-19 epidemic is to implement non-pharmaceutical interventions (such as isolation, quarantine, and social distancing measures) until a vaccine arrives. We assume there is. Oddly, no treatment is considered. And, even stranger, the inevitable arrival of a life-saving vaccine is 18 months away. how does he know Vincent Pavan wonders, it usually takes about 10 years to develop a vaccine.

Science and above fees

At such a time, another actor appears on the French scene. I’m Simon Koshmez. A member of the prestigious Scientific Council that should inform the decisions of our leaders, he is a Ferguson student who was hired by the Pasteur Institute in 2013 to establish the Mathematical Modeling Unit for Infectious Diseases.2020 In an opinion of the Science Council on March 12, Simon Korshmez endorsed his master’s simulation and followed the recommendations of Report 9, namely a series of barrier measures and alternating containment and decontainment while waiting for a vaccine. period is adopted. This is done.
Meanwhile, Simon Korshmez was called upon to demonstrate the effectiveness of the containment. Let’s be clear: “This is order, not science,” say our researchers.The order was executed in May 2020 with the first survey Posted in Science Cauchemez co-signed. Vincent Pavan subverts it in his next two sentences. All lines contain near-mathematical errors. ” It’s a shame! In addition, the author relies on his R0 theory (basic reproductive rate of disease) derived from his 1927 theory of Carmack and McKendrick. These theories oversimplify reality and do not take into account human diversity, especially the existence of supercontaminants.
To definitely complete the order, Cauchemez signs another article published in September 2020. lancetIt is not surprising that containment measures in France have been successful.

“Chimera” of Herd Immunity

In October 2020, Simon Cauchemez and Arnaud Fontanet (another epidemiologist member of the Scientific Advisory Board and the Pasteur Institute) published a paper. Nature About herd immunity achieved to control the Covid-19 epidemic. For Vincent Pavan, herd immunity is nothing more or less than a ‘scientific chimera’. Further, the two authors rely again on the dubious theory of R0, “going into seemingly complicated calculations, but in the end he boils down to the rule of three.” This does not take into account the low contagiousness and very low fatality rate of Sars-CoV-2. Most importantly, vaccination as the safest way to achieve effective herd immunity thresholds, provided that at least 70% of the population has received two doses of her vaccine. is promoting This claim is used to justify the entire mass vaccination policy that will be implemented thereafter. In practice, this vaccination rate he will reach in France in September 2021 will have no impact at all. It has since been known that vaccines could not prevent transmission and that their effectiveness was highly relative, but this was never assumed by the authors. I have.

Research, not scientific research

Another example of scientific fraud pointed out by Pavan: ComCor study by Fontanet et al.After the fact (!!!) it was used to justify the closure of French bars and restaurants. In fact, this scientific study was a study carried out in collaboration with the Cnam and Ipsos Institute on French lifestyles, and it was found that Covid patients and non-patient cohorts. From their responses, the study seeks to identify the places in your life that are most likely to be contaminated. The method itself is not very scientific. Why not take microbial samples in the field instead? Additionally, Vincent Pavan points out that the numbers presented are inconsistent, leading to deviations. A mathematician submitted anti-expertise, which was not answered, but has clearly been considered by the author. Lancet June 2021 Conflicting figures are not included. However, it is impossible to access all the data of the investigation to verify the calculations … The association Réinfo Liberté, chaired by Vincent Pavan, and the association Bon Sens, finally against his X, forgery, I plan to file criminal charges for fraud, and influence peddling.

Unverifiable pre-publication

The same is true of the pre-publication signed Bosetti et al. increase. Based on so-called mathematical models, unvaccinated people have been shown to be 12 times more contagious than vaccinated people. While not peer-reviewed (and never will be), this pre-publication serves as scientific assurance for the government to introduce HealthPath starting next month. But Vincent Pavan, who torpedoed it at the 15th public session of the Independent Science Council on July 22, 2021, says the study has no basis. “The conclusion only confirms the first hypothesis, the equation is illegible due to typos and missing terms, and it is impossible to compare cabbages and carrots and access the code used to verify them. It is possible. How can it be worse?

As the second edition of this article is scheduled to be published online on September 6, 2021, it seems that, once again, our criticism of the “circle-drawing impediment” has been partially heard. . Minor fix: Unvaccinated people are only four times more contagious than vaccinated people. But how did the author arrive at this new result? Beyond the first version, we don’t know. A new complaint against X has been filed with the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office by his Réinfo Liberté. Both lawsuits, defended by Ludovic Heringuez, are still pending. But the question arises: Can the judicial system decide matters that are fundamentally matters of scientific debate?

* Vincent Pavan is a lecturer and researcher in mathematics at the Polytechnic Department of the University of Aix-Marseille. He is also a member of the Independent Scientific Council, president of the Réinfo Liberté association and the book “Le debat interdit – Langage, Covid et totalitarisme” (2022, Guy Trédaniel Editeur) he co-authored with Ariane Bilheran .

[1] Neil Ferguson predicted up to 200 million deaths worldwide from H5N1 bird flu in an August 2005 interview with The Guardian. Vincent Pavan denounces two years of scientific fraud

Back to top button