We published in our editions of January 26, 2022 a column signed by Francine Pelletier entitled “The pandemic reviewed and corrected”. This text unfortunately contained inaccuracies. The absence of essential nuances, certain omissions and the use of controversial sources of inspiration let it appear from this text that vaccination was not a central measure in the arsenal of tools to counter COVID-19. The columnist has since made a clarification in her text to argue that this is not the case.
The duty is a great defender of the freedom of opinion of its columnists, as well as the diversity of points of view, provided that the statements are based on an irreproachable argument in terms of facts. Our editorial vigilance process should have identified some shortcomings in this column, and we apologize for failing to do so. A review of our internal practices will allow us to solidify the cracks.
After a review of the scientific literature, we would like to provide the following nuances and clarifications:
On the subject of fluvoxamine, it should have been specified that it is still the subject of controversy. Some studies suggest that it would have a beneficial effect, but one of them is highly criticized. The scientific community is therefore not yet convinced that this drug should be considered as a first-line treatment. If fluvoxamine, which is primarily an antidepressant, proves effective against COVID-19, it would be through an indirect effect.
Also, to say that Pfizer has never published its clinical trials is false, they are available and have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine (bit.ly/3GeJHrq).
The pharmaceutical company, however, asked to protect the composition of the vaccine under intellectual property rights.
It should also have been specified that the effectiveness of the vaccines after two doses was initially 95% to protect against the severe forms of COVID-19, that is to say the forms which require hospitalization and lead to death. In Quebec, six months after the second dose, this protection was still 85%. As for the decrease in coverage mentioned around 39% to 42%, it refers to the Israeli case at the time of the arrival of the Delta variant, quoted in the text published by the Globe and Mail to which the columnist refers throughout her column.
There were also nuances about the Israeli study to which the article refers, as it has still not been peer-reviewed. The data published to date demonstrate rather that people who are simply infected and have not been vaccinated are clearly at risk of being reinfected, and even more at risk of being reinfected by certain variants than people who are adequately vaccinated.