A Guest Document
Open letter from Belgian medical
denouncing the contradictions of
INTRODUCTION (by The M+G+R Foundation)
All over the world, there are numerous medical doctors and health
professionals that have
raised their voices
warning about the contradictions of the Global Coronavirus Campaign.
The quality and authority of their testimony has not been correctly
presented in the mainstream media, nor has they been adequately heard
by the political authorities in charge of the lockdowns.
From among the important testimonies available, we have chosen the
following Open Letter from Belgian doctors - a letter signed by
hundreds of medical doctors and health professionals (i) - because it
very well the alternative point of view (alternative to the official
one) in a
balanced way and without fanaticism, in a language intelligible to the
general public, without being dispersed in too technical explanations,
and supporting their statements with abundant contrastable references.
Although we believe that their appeal to the good will of the
mainstream media and
dominant politicians is useless - since the will of these clearly
responds to a
plan and they will not reconsider their course of action - the
letter is not without value because it allows, to those who have eyes
to see and ears to hear but still do not see or hear, to have within
their reach a panorama of the contradictions of the Coronavirus Crisis
as denounced by the pen of medical professionals with scientific
letter from medical doctors and health professionals to all Belgian
authorities and all Belgian media.
September 5th 2020
We, doctors and
health professionals, wish to express our serious concern about the
evolution of the situation in the recent months surrounding the
outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We call on politicians to be
independently and critically informed in the decision-making process
and in the compulsory implementation of corona-measures. We ask for an
open debate, where all experts are represented without any form of
censorship. After the initial panic surrounding Covid-19, the objective
facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical
justification for any emergency policy anymore.
The current crisis
management has become totally disproportionate and causes more damage
than it does any good.
We call for an end
to all measures and ask for an immediate restoration of our normal
democratic governance and legal structures and of all our civil
‘A cure must not be worse than the problem’ is a thesis that is more
relevant than ever in the current situation. We note, however, that the
collateral damage now being caused to the population will have a
greater impact in the short and long term on all sections of the
population than the number of people now being safeguarded from corona.
In our opinion, the current corona measures and the strict penalties
for non-compliance with them are contrary to the values formulated by
the Belgian Supreme Health Council, which, until recently, as the
health authority, has always ensured quality medicine in our country:
“Science – Expertise – Quality – Impartiality – Independence –
We believe that the policy has introduced mandatory measures that are
not sufficiently scientifically based, unilaterally directed, and that
there is not enough space in the media for an open debate in which
different views and opinions are heard. In addition, each municipality
and province now has the authorisation to add its own measures, whether
well-founded or not.
Moreover, the strict repressive policy on corona strongly contrasts
with the government’s minimal policy when it comes to disease
prevention, strengthening our own immune system through a healthy
lifestyle, optimal care with attention for the individual and
investment in care personnel. (2)
In 1948, the WHO defined health as follows: ‘Health is a state of
complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the
absence of disease or other physical impairment’. (3)
Health, therefore, is a broad concept that goes beyond the physical and
also relates to the emotional and social well-being of the individual.
Belgium also has a duty, from the point of view of subscribing to
fundamental human rights, to include these human rights in its
decision-making when it comes to measures taken in the context of
public health. (4)
The current global measures taken to combat SARS-CoV-2 violate to a
large extent this view of health and human rights. Measures include
compulsory wearing of a mask (also in open air and during sporting
activities, and in some municipalities even when there are no other
people in the vicinity), physical distancing, social isolation,
compulsory quarantine for some groups and hygiene measures.
predicted pandemic with millions of deaths
At the beginning of the pandemic, the measures were understandable and
widely supported, even if there were differences in implementation in
the countries around us. The WHO originally reported in March that the
death rate among the registered covid-19 cases was 3.4%. Millions of
deaths were thus foreseen, and an extremely contagious virus for which
no treatment or vaccine was available. This would put
unprecedented pressure on the intensive care units (ICUs) of our
This led to a global alarm situation, never seen in the history of
mankind: “flatten the curve” was represented by a lockdown that shut
down the entire society and economy and quarantined healthy people.
Social distancing became the new normal in anticipation of a rescue
Gradually, the alarm bell was sounded from many sources: the objective
facts showed a completely different reality. (5)(6)
The course of covid-19
followed the course of a normal wave of infection similar to a flu
season. As every year, we see a mix of flu viruses following the curve:
first the rhinoviruses, then the influenza A and B viruses, followed by
the coronaviruses. There is nothing different from what we normally see.
The use of the non-specific PCR test, which produces many false
positives, showed an exponential picture. This test was rushed
through with an emergency procedure and was never seriously
self-tested. The creator expressly warned that this test was intended
for research and not for diagnostics. (7)
The PCR test works with cycles of amplification of genetic material – a
piece of genome is amplified each time. Any contamination (e.g. other
viruses, debris from old virus genomes) can possibly result in false
The test does not measure how many viruses are present in the sample. A
real viral infection means a massive presence of viruses, the so-called
virus load. If someone tests positive, this does not mean that that
person is actually clinically infected, is ill or is going to become
ill. Koch’s postulate was not fulfilled (“The pure agent found in a
patient with complaints can provoke the same complaints in a healthy
Since a positive PCR test does not automatically indicate active
infection or infectivity, this does not justify the social measures
taken, which are based solely on these tests. (9)(10)
If we compare the waves of infection in countries with strict lockdown
policies to countries that did not impose lockdowns (Sweden, Iceland
…), we see similar curves. So there is no link between the
imposed lockdown and the course of the infection. Lockdown has not led
to a lower mortality rate.
If we look at the date of application of the imposed lockdowns we see
that the lockdowns were set after the peak of the virus replication
rate was already over and decreasing. The drop was therefore not the
result of the taken measures. (11)
As every year, it seems that climatic conditions (weather, temperature
and humidity) and growing immunity are more likely to reduce the wave
For thousands of years, the human body has been exposed daily to
moisture and droplets containing infectious microorganisms (viruses,
bacteria and fungi).
The penetration of these microorganisms is prevented by an advanced
defence mechanism – the immune system. A strong immune system relies on
normal daily exposure to these microbial influences. Overly hygienic
measures have a detrimental effect on our immunity. (12)(13) Only people with a
weak or faulty immune system should be protected by extensive hygiene
or social distancing.
Influenza will re-emerge in the autumn (in combination with covid-19)
and a possible decrease in natural resilience may lead to further
Our immune system consists of two parts: a congenital, non-specific
immune system and an adaptive immune system.
The non-specific immune system
forms a first barrier: skin, saliva, gastric juice, intestinal mucus,
vibratory hair cells, commensal flora, … and prevents the attachment of
micro-organisms to tissue.
If they do attach, macrophages can cause the microorganisms to be
encapsulated and destroyed.
The adaptive immune system
consists of mucosal immunity (IgA antibodies, mainly produced by cells
in the intestines and lung epithelium), cellular immunity (T-cell
activation), which can be generated in contact with foreign substances
or microorganisms, and humoral immunity (IgM and IgG antibodies
produced by the B cells).
Recent research shows that both systems are highly entangled.
It appears that most people already have a congenital or general
immunity to e.g. influenza and other viruses. This is confirmed by the
findings on the cruise ship Diamond Princess, which was quarantined
because of a few passengers who died of Covid-19. Most of the
passengers were elderly and were in an ideal situation of transmission
on the ship. However, 75% did not appear to be infected. So even in
this high-risk group, the majority are resistant to the virus.
A study in the journal Cell shows that most people neutralise the
coronavirus by mucosal (IgA) and cellular immunity (T-cells), while
experiencing few or no symptoms (14).
Researchers found up to 60% SARS-Cov-2 reactivity with CD4+T cells in a
non-infected population, suggesting cross-reactivity with other cold
(corona) viruses. (15)
Most people therefore already have a congenital or cross-immunity
because they were already in contact with variants of the same virus.
The antibody formation (IgM and IgG) by B-cells only occupies a
relatively small part of our immune system. This may explain why, with
an antibody percentage of 5-10%, there may be a group immunity anyway.
The efficacy of vaccines is assessed precisely on the basis of whether
or not we have these antibodies. This is a misrepresentation.
Most people who test positive (PCR) have no complaints. Their immune
system is strong enough. Strengthening natural immunity is a much more
logical approach. Prevention is an important, insufficiently
highlighted pillar: healthy, full-fledged nutrition, exercise in fresh
air, without a mask, stress reduction and nourishing emotional and
of social isolation on physical and mental health
Social isolation and economic damage led to an increase in depression,
anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse. (16)
Studies have shown that the more social and emotional commitments
people have, the more resistant they are to viruses. It is much more
likely that isolation and quarantine have fatal consequences. (17)
The isolation measures have also led to physical inactivity in many
older people due to their being forced to stay indoors. However,
sufficient exercise has a positive effect on cognitive functioning,
reducing depressive complaints and anxiety and improving physical
health, energy levels, well-being and, in general, quality of life. (18)
Fear, persistent stress and loneliness induced by social distancing
have a proven negative influence on psychological and general health. (19)
highly contagious virus with millions of deaths without any treatment?
Mortality turned out to be many times lower than expected and close to
that of a normal seasonal flu (0.1-0.5%). (20)
The number of registered corona deaths therefore still seems to be
There is a difference between death by corona and death with corona.
Humans are often carriers of multiple viruses and potentially
pathogenic bacteria at the same time. Taking into account the fact that
most people who developed serious symptoms suffered from additional
pathology, one cannot simply conclude that the corona-infection was the
cause of death. This was mostly not taken into account in the
The most vulnerable groups
can be clearly identified. The vast majority of deceased
patients were 80 years of age or older. The majority (70%) of the
deceased, younger than 70 years, had an underlying disorder, such as
cardiovascular suffering, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease or
obesity. The vast majority of infected persons (>98%) did not or
hardly became ill or recovered spontaneously.
Meanwhile, there is an affordable, safe and efficient therapy available
for those who do show severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ
(hydroxychloroquine), zinc and azithromycin. Rapidly applied this
therapy leads to recovery and often prevents hospitalisation. Hardly
anyone has to die now.
This effective therapy has been confirmed by the clinical experience of
colleagues in the field with impressive results. This contrasts sharply
with the theoretical criticism (insufficient substantiation by
double-blind studies) which in some countries (e.g. the Netherlands)
has even led to a ban on this therapy. A meta-analysis in The Lancet,
which could not demonstrate an effect of HCQ, was withdrawn. The
primary data sources used proved to be unreliable and 2 out of 3
authors were in conflict of interest. However, most of the guidelines
based on this study remained unchanged … (48)(49)
We have serious questions about this state of affairs.
In the US, a group of doctors in the field, who see patients on a daily
basis, united in “America’s Frontline Doctors” and gave a press
conference which has been watched millions of times. (21)(51)
French Prof Didier Raoult of the Institut d’Infectiologie de Marseille
(IHU) also presented this promising combination therapy as early as
April. Dutch GP Rob Elens, who cured several patients in his practice
with HCQ and zinc, called on colleagues in a petition for freedom of
The definitive evidence comes from the epidemiological follow-up in
Switzerland: mortality rates compared with and without this therapy. (23)
From the distressing media images of ARDS (acute respiratory distress
syndrome) where people were suffocating and given artificial
respiration in agony, we now know that this was caused by an
exaggerated immune response with intravascular coagulation in the
pulmonary blood vessels. The administration of blood thinners and
dexamethasone and the avoidance of artificial ventilation, which was
found to cause additional damage to lung tissue, means that this
dreaded complication, too, is virtually not fatal anymore. (47)
It is therefore not a killer virus, but a well-treatable condition.
Spreading occurs by drip infection (only for patients who cough or
sneeze) and aerosols in closed, unventilated rooms. Contamination is
therefore not possible in the open air. Contact tracing and
epidemiological studies show that healthy people (or positively tested
asymptomatic carriers) are virtually unable to transmit the virus.
Healthy people therefore do not put each other at risk. (24)(25)
Transfer via objects (e.g. money, shopping or shopping trolleys) has
not been scientifically proven. (26)(27)(28)
All this seriously calls into question the whole policy of social
distancing and compulsory mouth masks for healthy people – there is no
scientific basis for this.
Oral masks belong in contexts where contacts with proven at-risk groups
or people with upper respiratory complaints take place, and in a
medical context/hospital-retirement home setting. They reduce the risk
of droplet infection by sneezing or coughing. Oral masks in healthy
individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections. (29)(30)(31)
Wearing a mask is not without side effects. (32)(33) Oxygen deficiency
(headache, nausea, fatigue, loss of concentration) occurs fairly
quickly, an effect similar to altitude sickness. Every day we now see
patients complaining of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems
and hyperventilation due to wearing masks. In addition, the accumulated
CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism which affects our
immunity. Some experts even warn of an increased transmission of the
virus in case of inappropriate use of the mask. (34)
Our Labour Code (Codex 6) refers to a CO2 content (ventilation in
workplaces) of 900 ppm, maximum 1200 ppm in special circumstances.
After wearing a mask for one minute, this toxic limit is considerably
exceeded to values that are three to four times higher than these
maximum values. Anyone who wears a mask is therefore in an extreme
poorly ventilated room. (35)
Inappropriate use of masks without a comprehensive medical
cardio-pulmonary test file is therefore not recommended by recognised
safety specialists for workers.
Hospitals have a sterile environment in their operating rooms where
staff wear masks and there is precise regulation of humidity /
temperature with appropriately monitored oxygen flow to compensate for
this, thus meeting strict safety standards. (36)
A second wave is now being discussed in Belgium, with a further
tightening of the measures as a result. However, closer examination of
Sciensano’s figures (37)
shows that, although there has been an increase in the number of
infections since mid-July, there was no increase in hospital admissions
or deaths at that time. It is therefore not a second wave of corona,
but a so-called “case chemistry” due to an increased number of tests. (50)
The number of hospital admissions or deaths showed a shortlasting
minimal increase in recent weeks, but in interpreting it, we must take
into account the recent heatwave. In addition, the vast majority of the
victims are still in the population group >75 years.
This indicates that the proportion of the measures taken in relation to
the working population and young people is disproportionate to the
The vast majority of the positively tested “infected” persons are in
the age group of the active population, which does not develop any or
merely limited symptoms, due to a well-functioning immune system.
So nothing has changed – the peak is over.
a prevention policy
The corona measures form a striking contrast to the minimal policy
pursued by the government until now, when it comes to well-founded
measures with proven health benefits such as the sugar tax, the ban on
(e-)cigarettes and making healthy food, exercise and social support
networks financially attractive and widely accessible. It is a missed
opportunity for a better prevention policy that could have brought
about a change in mentality in all sections of the population with
clear results in terms of public health. At present, only 3% of the
health care budget goes to prevention. (2)
As a doctor, we took the Hippocratic Oath:
“I will above all care for my patients,
promote their health and
alleviate their suffering”.
“I will inform my patients correctly.”
“Even under pressure, I will not use my medical knowledge for practices
that are against humanity.”
The current measures force us to act against this oath.
Other health professionals have a similar code.
The ‘primum non nocere’ ['first, do not harm'], which every doctor and
assumes, is also undermined by the current measures and by the prospect
of the possible introduction of a generalised vaccine, which is not
subject to extensive prior testing.
Survey studies on influenza vaccinations show that in 10 years we have
only succeeded three times in developing a vaccine with an efficiency
rate of more than 50%. Vaccinating our elderly appears to be
inefficient. Over 75 years of age, the efficacy is almost non-existent.
Due to the continuous natural mutation of viruses, as we also see every
year in the case of the influenza virus, a vaccine is at most a
temporary solution, which requires new vaccines each time afterwards.
An untested vaccine, which is implemented by emergency procedure and
for which the manufacturers have already obtained legal immunity from
possible harm, raises serious questions. (39)(40) We do not wish to
use our patients as guinea pigs.
On a global scale, 700 000 cases of damage or death are expected as a
result of the vaccine. (41)
If 95% of people experience Covid-19 virtually symptom-free, the risk
of exposure to an untested vaccine is irresponsible.
role of the media and the official communication plan
Over the past few months, newspaper, radio and TV makers seemed to
stand almost uncritically behind the panel of experts and the
government, there, where it is precisely the press that should be
critical and prevent one-sided governmental communication. This has led
to a public communication in our news media, that was more like
propaganda than objective reporting.
In our opinion, it is the task of journalism to bring news as
objectively and neutrally as possible, aimed at finding the truth and
critically controlling power, with dissenting experts also being given
a forum in which to express themselves.
This view is supported by the journalistic codes of ethics. (42)
The official story that a lockdown was necessary, that this was the
only possible solution, and that everyone stood behind this lockdown,
made it difficult for people with a different view, as well as experts,
to express a different opinion.
Alternative opinions were ignored or ridiculed. We have not seen open
debates in the media, where different views could be expressed.
We were also surprised by the many videos and articles by many
scientific experts and authorities, which were and are still being
removed from social media. We feel that this does not fit in with a
free, democratic constitutional state, all the more so as it leads to
tunnel vision. This policy also has a paralysing effect and feeds fear
and concern in society. In
this context, we reject the intention of censorship of dissidents in
the European Union! (43)
The way in which Covid-19 has been portrayed by politicians and the
media has not done the situation any good either. War terms were
popular and warlike language was not lacking. There has often been
mention of a ‘war’ with an ‘invisible enemy’ who has to be ‘defeated’.
The use in the media of phrases such as ‘care heroes in the front line’
and ‘corona victims’ has further fuelled fear, as has the idea that we
are globally dealing with a ‘killer virus’.
The relentless bombardment with figures, that were unleashed on the
population day after day, hour after hour, without interpreting those
figures, without comparing them to flu deaths in other years, without
comparing them to deaths from other causes, has induced a real
psychosis of fear in the population. This is not information, this is
We deplore the role of the WHO in this, which has called for the
infodemic (i.e. all divergent opinions from the official discourse,
including by experts with different views) to be silenced by an
unprecedented media censorship. (43)(44)
We urgently call on the media to take their responsibilities here!
We demand an open debate in which all experts are heard.
law versus Human Rights
The general principle of good governance calls for the proportionality
of government decisions to be weighed up in the light of the Higher
Legal Standards: any interference by government must comply with the
fundamental rights as protected in the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR). Interference by public authorities is only permitted in
crisis situations. In other words, discretionary decisions must be
proportionate to an absolute necessity.
The measures currently taken concern interference in the exercise of,
among other things, the right to respect of private and family life,
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and
freedom of assembly and association, the right to education, etc., and
must therefore comply with fundamental rights as protected by the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
For example, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the ECHR, interference
with the right to private and family life is permissible only if the
measures are necessary in the interests of national security, public
safety, the economic well-being of the country, the protection of
public order and the prevention of criminal offences, the protection of
health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the
regulatory text on which the interference is based must be sufficiently
clear, foreseeable and proportionate to the objectives pursued. (45)
The predicted pandemic of millions of deaths seemed to respond to these
crisis conditions, leading to the establishment of an emergency
government. Now that the objective facts show something completely
different, the condition of inability to act otherwise (no time to
evaluate thoroughly if there is an emergency) is no longer in place.
Covid-19 is not a killer virus, but a well treatable condition with a
mortality rate comparable to the seasonal flu. In other words, there is
no longer an insurmountable obstacle to public health.
There is no state of emergency.
damage caused by the current policies
An open discussion on corona measures means that, in addition to the
years of life gained by corona patients, we must also take into account
other factors affecting the health of the entire population. These
include damage in the psychosocial domain (increase in depression,
anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse) (16) and economic damage.
If we take this collateral damage into account, the current policy is
out of all proportion, the proverbial use of a sledgehammer to crack a
We find it shocking that the government is invoking health as a reason
for the emergency law.
As doctors and health professionals, in the face of a virus which, in
terms of its harmfulness, mortality and transmissibility, approaches
the seasonal influenza, we can only reject these extremely
* We therefore demand an immediate end
to all measures.
* We are questioning the legitimacy of the current advisory experts,
who meet behind closed doors.
* Following on from ACU 2020 (46)
we call for an in-depth examination of the role of the WHO and the
possible influence of conflicts of interest in this organisation. It
was also at the heart of the fight against the “infodemic”, i.e. the
systematic censorship of all dissenting opinions in the media. This is
unacceptable for a democratic state governed by the rule of law. (43)
of this letter
We would like to make a public appeal to our professional associations
and fellow carers to give their opinion on the current measures.
We draw attention to and call for an open discussion in which carers
can and dare to speak out.
With this open letter, we send out the signal that progress on the same
footing does more harm than good, and call on politicians to inform
themselves independently and critically about the available evidence –
including that from experts with different views, as long as it is
based on sound science – when rolling out a policy, with the aim of
promoting optimum health.
This letter was originally intended for Belgian doctors and health
More and more foreign colleagues reacted as well and wanted to sign the
open letter. The objectively substantiated facts and our demand for an
immediate end to all further measures appear to have crossed all
borders. We decided therefore at one point to definitively open the
letter to all doctors – anywhere in the world – who agree with its
This way, the open letter becomes an internationally supported document
that aims to openly expose the fake pandemic, which is being
perpetuated by the media and governments all over the world.
With concern, hope and in a personal capacity.
Una copia en
Español: Carta Abierta de
médicos belgas denunciando las contradicciones del Covid-19
(i) Signed by hundreds
of medical doctors and health professionals
(ii) The letter (and
below) as published here is a copy of
letter in English without any changes, except in the format.
(8) President John Magufuli of
Tanzania: “Even Papaya and Goats are Corona positive” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=207HuOxltvI
(video no longer available; Nov. 2020)
(9) Open letter by biochemist
Drs Mario Ortiz Martinez to the Dutch chamber https://www.gentechvrij.nl/2020/08/15/foute-interpretatie/
(10) Interview with Drs Mario
Ortiz Martinez https://troo.tube/videos/watch/6ed900eb...
(12) Lambrecht, B., Hammad, H.
The immunology of the allergy epidemic and the hygiene hypothesis. Nat
Immunol 18, 1076–1083 (2017). https://www.nature.com/articles/ni.3829
(13) Sharvan Sehrawat, Barry T.
Rouse, Does the hygiene hypothesis apply to COVID-19 susceptibility?,
Microbes and Infection, 2020, ISSN 1286-4579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.07.002
(16) Feys, F., Brokken, S.,
& De Peuter, S. (2020, May 22). Risk-benefit and cost-utility
analysis for COVID-19 lockdown in Belgium: the impact on mental health
and wellbeing. https://psyarxiv.com/xczb3/
Hafdahl en Brown, 2009; Martinsen 2008; Yau, 2008
(26) WHO https://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-we-did-not-say-that-cash-was-transmitting-coronavirus-2020-03-06
(29) Contradictory statements
by our virologists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K9xfmkMsvM
(31) Security expert Tammy K.
Herrema Clark https://youtu.be/TgDm_maAglM
(38) Haralambieva, I.H. et al.,
2015. The impact of immunosenescence on humoral immune response
variation after influenza A/H1N1 vaccination in older subjects. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26044074/
(39) Global vaccine safety
summit WHO 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJXXDLGKmPg
(40) No liability manufacturers
(42) Journalistic code https://www.rvdj.be/node/63
(43) Disinformation related to
COVID-19 approaches European Commission EurLex,
juni 2020 (this file
will not damage your computer)
(46) https://acu2020.org/ || In
(50) There is no revival of the
pandemic, but a so-called casedemic due to more testing.