reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A Council of Europe health chief has accused major pharmaceutical firms of organizing a panic campaign and unduly influencing World Health Organization (WHO) decisions regarding swine flu. This official seeks an investigation into the WHO's decision to lower the threshold for declaring a pandemic, which triggered pre-prepared government contracts for drugs and vaccines. The investigation aims to determine if pharmaceutical companies influenced WHO decisions and if there were inappropriate ties between key WHO advisors and drug companies. Questions are being raised about whether the perceived danger of swine flu was exaggerated by pharmaceutical companies to increase profits. Governments are now burdened with bills for millions of unwanted vaccine doses.

The transcript discusses several intertwined points about the FDA's funding, information sources, and a personal health journey. It states that the FDA gets 47% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, and that this information was released only after a rumor claimed 50% of their funding came from big pharma. The speaker notes, “the people that you’re supposed to be making rules and regulations for are the same people that are paying you money,” describing this as a conflict of interest and urging readers to consider the implication of funding influencing regulatory decisions. The speaker then shifts to their personal experience with health issues and the challenge of finding valid information that isn’t paid for by big pharma. They share a statistic attributed to women with similar issues: “85 to ninety percent of the women who experience the same issues that I experience notice changes in their symptoms or alleviation completely from their symptoms simply by changing their diet, namely going gluten free.” Although the speaker says they personally are not inclined to adopt gluten-free changes, they are cutting out refined carbs and sugars from their diet and report progress: “I've been on this diet for two days now, and I already feel a ton different.” This personal anecdote is presented in the context of comparing diet-driven symptom changes to pharmaceutical influence. The speaker mentions ongoing changes to their living space and routines as part of their broader stance. They say, “we're putting up our squat rack again in our home gym,” signaling a strengthening or lifestyle shift. They also report, “we did get some egg laying birds,” suggesting new household activities. Throughout, there is a reiterated sentiment directed at big pharma: “basically saying a big to big pharma,” underscoring their stance against pharmaceutical influence. Finally, the speaker emphasizes the surprising nature of the 47% funding figure and reiterates, “I still can't believe it's 47% of their funding, and they think that's okay.” They invite audience engagement, closing with, “as always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts about all of this down below.”

Um das Vertrauen in die öffentliche Gesundheit wiederzugewinnen, müssen wir uns von den Interessen der Pharmaindustrie distanzieren. In den letzten vier Jahren haben wir gesehen, dass Desinformation vor allem von der EU-Kommission und nationalen Regierungen kam, nicht aus dem Internet. Es ging nicht darum, die Pandemie zu bekämpfen, sondern die Menschen politisch zu kontrollieren. Während wir Schwierigkeiten hatten, grundlegende Medikamente zu beschaffen, wurden 4,6 Milliarden Impfdosen bestellt, die weder sicher noch effektiv waren. Die Bürger wurden unter Druck gesetzt, sich impfen zu lassen, obwohl die Impfungen keine Übertragung verhinderten. Studien zeigen einen Zusammenhang zwischen Impfstatus und Geburtenrückgang in den Mitgliedstaaten. Es ist unsere Aufgabe, diese Zusammenhänge zu untersuchen, um glaubwürdig für die öffentliche Gesundheit einzutreten. --- To regain trust in public health, we must distance ourselves from pharmaceutical interests. Over the past four years, misinformation primarily came from the EU Commission and national governments, not the internet. The focus was not on combating the pandemic but on controlling people politically. While we struggled to procure basic medications, 4.6 billion vaccine doses were ordered that were neither safe nor effective. Citizens were pressured to get vaccinated, even though the vaccines did not prevent transmission. Studies show a correlation between vaccination status and declining birth rates in member states. It is our duty to investigate these connections to advocate credibly for public health.

Pharmaceutical giants like GSK, Sanofi, Novartis, and Baxter have been given the green light by the WHO to sell millions of vaccines, resulting in billions of euros in revenue. However, concerns have been raised about the WHO's handling of the pandemic. The organization is accused of easily declaring a pandemic by changing the definition, removing the criteria of a high number of cases and deaths. This change has allowed the pharmaceutical companies to profit from the situation. It is revealed that contracts for vaccines were signed between wealthy countries and the companies in 2005, with the condition that the WHO declares a pandemic. Furthermore, conflicts of interest are highlighted, as many experts advising the WHO also work for these pharmaceutical companies. The race for vaccine production is now underway.

A radioactive cloud passed near France, but it posed no danger to the population. The vaccine is considered safe and there is no toxicity or danger associated with it. The contaminated blood scandal is mentioned, with Laurent Fabius pleading ignorance. In 1994, the crusade against the Mathilde B virus began, promoting vaccination as protection. However, concerns arose about the vaccine's link to multiple sclerosis. The company behind the vaccine aimed to create a monopoly and pressured competitors. Despite legal proceedings against Pfizer, they claim their vaccine is safe and well-tolerated. The Mediator trial has started and is expected to last six months. Overall, the speakers downplay any issues and emphasize the safety of vaccines.

The speaker discusses the pharmaceutical industry and its problems. They explain that the industry has struggled to keep up with advancements in molecular biology and the changing face of capitalism. The speaker highlights how the industry has become powerful and profitable by increasing drug prices and creating "me too" drugs with slight variations to extend patents. They criticize the lack of transparency and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on decision-making at international and national levels. The speaker emphasizes the need for better pharmacovigilance and the importance of educating doctors about the risks and benefits of medications. They also mention the need for better reporting and understanding of adverse effects. The speaker concludes by stating that changes are needed in medical education and the way medications are developed and prescribed.

A group of European Parliament members wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization and not for controlling or preventing infections. They also admitted a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness against infections. The government's campaign to vaccinate for the sake of others was based on misinformation. Furthermore, the EMA emphasized the need to carefully consider safety information before administering vaccines. The mass vaccination campaign should be halted as it does not meet the EMA's requirements and puts people's health at risk. The government and supporting political parties should be held accountable for their lies and deception.

A group of European Parliament members wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expressing concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only approved for individual immunization, not for controlling or preventing infections. They also emphasized the lack of data on preventing infections and even mentioned that exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection, even in vaccinated individuals. The EMA highlighted the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccines. The government's vaccination campaigns were deemed unauthorized and based on misinformation. The EMA's information undermines the vaccination policies of the Dutch government, and they should be held accountable for their actions.

A network president revealed that allowing certain voices on air could lead to the host's firing due to advertiser pressures, particularly from pharmaceutical companies. During non-election years, up to 70% of news revenue can come from pharma ads, which serve as a public relations tactic rather than simply promoting drugs. This funding influences the media, making it reluctant to investigate pharmaceutical practices, even when there are serious concerns about vaccine safety and corporate misconduct. The media often dismisses legitimate questions as anti-science, silencing discussions about vaccine injuries. There's a growing need to reconsider trust in the pharmaceutical industry, especially with the increasing government funding for drugs like Ozempic.

The speaker discusses the pharmaceutical industry and its problems. They explain that the industry has struggled to keep up with the complexity of molecular biology and the changing face of capitalism. The speaker highlights how the industry has become powerful and profitable by increasing prices and creating "me too" drugs. They criticize the lack of transparency and the influence of the industry on decision-making at various levels. The speaker emphasizes the need for better pharmacovigilance and a change in medical education to prioritize understanding the dangers of medications. They also address concerns about the industry and the role of doctors.

Speaker 0 describes a highly significant and controversial issue surrounding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, including Gardasil and Cervarix, and reports that lawsuits are occurring worldwide. In Japan, there have been major lawsuits with hundreds of plaintiffs, including young women and girls, though the fundamental problem, according to the speaker, centers on contamination with DNA impurities. The speaker states that from the early days of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan, the core issue has been the contamination with DNA impurities in vaccines, and that this problem had already become clear by 2012 in a widely cited paper. The speaker explains that by 2012, a paper described the DNA contamination in Gardasil-related vaccines, specifically noting residual DNA fragments from HPV types 16 and 18 associated with the vaccine’s aluminum adjuvant particles. The claim is that vaccine samples contained residual HPV DNA fragments that were directly bound to aluminum adjuvant particles, and that PCR tests confirmed these DNA fragments were identical to the HPV sequences described in the paper. The speaker emphasizes that researchers around the world—doctors and researchers listening to women and girls’ voices—noticed unusual, severe post-vaccination symptoms in children and young women, and saw potential links between these symptoms and the residual HPV DNA attached to adjuvants. The testimony references samples gathered from multiple countries (Australia, Bulgaria, France, India, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United States) and asserts that nearly all of the Gardasil/HPV vaccine lots examined contained residual HPV DNA attached to aluminum adjuvant particles. The speaker mentions that in the specific investigation, sixteen samples of Gardasil-4 contained residual HPV DNA fragments bound to aluminum adjuvant particles, and that all samples tested via PCR showed the same DNA sequence as described in the 2012 paper. The speaker claims that in 2014, the vaccine program for cervical cancer halted in Japan, and that the subsequent attention brought this issue to light publicly. The discussion attributes the major role to a Japanese expert, Ishii Ken (Ishii-sensei), described as a leading figure in Japan’s vaccine adverse-event research. The speaker recounts that, in the years around 2012–2014, efforts involved international collaboration with HR/HSA, FDA, and others, although logistical obstacles caused delays. The speaker notes that in 2012, 16 vaccine packages were distributed in nine countries for examination and that contamination persisted in all samples. They credit Japan with acting as a global relay for disseminating information about DNA contamination and its potential health implications. Further, the speaker references a broader context: the later emergence of literature discussing how DNA contamination might relate to adverse neurological or systemic symptoms, and the evolution of guidelines on acceptable residual DNA in vaccines. The discussion mentions that WHO and FDA guidelines permit changing permissible DNA limits over time, with higher thresholds introduced for manufacturing and regulatory purposes, raising questions about what constitutes safety and what is permissible in drug development. The dialogue closes with Speaker 1 alluding to the seriousness of the issue, noting deaths in the context of messenger-type vaccines and subsequent debates about vaccine safety, while acknowledging that those opposed to this view are also active.

Last month, Joachim Küs and six other colleagues from the European Parliament wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding concerns about the vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only authorized for individual immunization and not for infection control, prevention, or reduction. In fact, the EMA highlighted a lack of data on the vaccines' ability to prevent infections. The EMA also mentioned that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The massive vaccination campaigns aimed at protecting others were not authorized and lacked factual basis. The EMA emphasized that vaccinations were solely for the protection of the vaccinated individual, and safety information should be carefully considered before administering vaccines. The government's vaccination policies and failure to report side effects were deemed dangerous and fraudulent. Vaccination campaigns should be halted immediately.

I am Marcel de Graaf, Member of the European Parliament for Forum for Democracy. I recently sent a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding the approval of medications in the European market, specifically questioning the COVID-19 vaccines. We have received a response that clarifies many issues. This response is highly critical of the vaccination policy in the Netherlands. I will provide more details in a press conference tomorrow at 3 PM via a livestream from Strasbourg. The EMA's response confirms that Forum for Democracy's criticism of the vaccination policy is justified.

**Italiano:** Un'indagine biennale condotta da giornaliste mediche rivela che la FDA statunitense ha approvato centinaia di farmaci senza prove di efficacia, e talvolta nonostante prove di dannosità. Su oltre 400 approvazioni tra il 2013 e il 2022, il 73% non soddisfaceva i criteri fondamentali per l'efficacia, come gruppi di controllo e studi replicati. La FDA ha spesso optato per percorsi accelerati, ma molti studi di follow-up non vengono completati o non dimostrano l'efficacia. Più della metà delle approvazioni si basava su dati preliminari. In oncologia, solo 3 farmaci su 123 hanno soddisfatto tutti gli standard. Esempi includono Kopictra, che ha ridotto la sopravvivenza, e Elmiron, ancora in commercio nonostante la mancanza di efficacia e gravi effetti collaterali. Tra il 2018 e il 2021, sono stati spesi miliardi per farmaci con studi di follow-up incompleti. Si stima che 128.000 americani muoiano ogni anno a causa di farmaci prescritti correttamente. Molti medici non comprendono il processo di approvazione della FDA. Si evidenzia la dipendenza dell'agenzia dai finanziamenti dell'industria farmaceutica. **English Translation:** A two-year investigation by medical journalists reveals that the U.S. FDA has approved hundreds of drugs without proof of efficacy, and sometimes despite evidence of harm. Of over 400 approvals between 2013 and 2022, 73% did not meet fundamental efficacy criteria, such as control groups and replicated studies. The FDA has often opted for accelerated pathways, but many follow-up studies are not completed or do not demonstrate efficacy. More than half of approvals were based on preliminary data. In oncology, only 3 out of 123 drugs met all standards. Examples include Kopictra, which reduced survival, and Elmiron, still on the market despite lack of efficacy and serious side effects. Between 2018 and 2021, billions were spent on drugs with incomplete follow-up studies. An estimated 128,000 Americans die each year from correctly prescribed drugs. Many doctors do not understand the FDA approval process. The agency's dependence on pharmaceutical industry funding is highlighted.

Speaker 1 reveals that Bear Corporation knowingly sold medication infected with the AIDS virus. They pulled the product from the US market and dumped it in France, Europe, Asia, and Latin America to make a profit. Shockingly, no corporate executives have been indicted or investigated by the US Justice Department. The FDA allowed this to happen, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent hemophiliacs and their family members. The government is turning a blind eye to the situation.

Speaker 0 describes finding vaccine insert materials with no printed content and says this is disheartening and “disgusting,” then adds that it “gets better” and that “more” continues to happen. Speaker 0 claims the CDC redacted every word of a 148-page study on myocarditis after COVID vaccination, and that when they asked to have the study printed, the entire document was redacted. They question what the study could have contained that required redaction and say this is “even scarier.” Speaker 1 says they are witnessing “an active cover up” of a “colossal consumer product safety debacle” affecting the entire world. They claim that in the United States the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and FDA are actively involved, and that similar actions occur in the UK with the MHRA, in Europe with European medicine agencies, and in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Speaker 1 states that each of these regulators requires product companies to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after a product comes out, describing this as a regulatory dossier. They say that if problems arise and are reported to a company (such as Pfizer), the company must report, compile, and produce a report that is made publicly available. Speaker 1 claims that for Pfizer, whose first vaccine was approved 12/10/2020, Pfizer did not produce a report after the ninety days. They add that when people asked what was happening, Pfizer allegedly did not disclose what occurred, leading to court proceedings. Speaker 1 states that the FDA’s lawyer allegedly said the dossier should not be released for fifty-five years, and that after pressure, the Pfizer dossier was eventually released. They then claim Pfizer recorded 1,223 deaths with their product within ninety days of release and recorded over 1,200 new adverse events. Speaker 1 also says the FDA worked to cover this up, and that FDA should have regulated Pfizer with at least monthly meetings and full disclosure about “novel vaccines,” which they describe as a “genetic transfer technology platform,” the first time human beings had been injected with foreign genetic material in world history. Speaker 1 ends by stating that two thirds of the world’s population took these.

Vaccine hesitancy or skepticism has been a constant issue in France, making it one of the most vaccine-skeptical countries. This has resulted in significant delays, such as in the case of the papillomavirus vaccine. Unlike countries in Northern Europe or Australia, where the vaccine has been implemented for a long time and has nearly eradicated cervical cancer, France still experiences a considerable number of deaths from this disease each year.

Last month, Joachim Küs and six other colleagues from the European Parliament wrote a letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding concerns about the arrival of vaccines. The EMA responded, stating that the vaccines were only authorized for individual immunization, not for infection control, prevention, or reduction. The EMA also highlighted a lack of data on contagion and stated that repeated exposure to the virus could increase the risk of infection even in vaccinated individuals. The government's massive vaccination campaigns, aimed at protecting others, were not authorized and lacked factual basis. The EMA emphasized the importance of carefully considering safety information before administering vaccinations. The government's policy of not reporting complaints within the first 14 days of vaccination was seen as deliberate endangerment of human life. The speaker called for an end to vaccination campaigns and accountability for the government's lies and deception.

Pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Glaxo have paid billions in penalties for dishonest practices, resulting in harm and deaths. The opioid crisis and Vioxx are examples of collusion between pharma and regulators, leading to thousands of deaths. Regulatory agencies have become puppets for the industry, depriving the public of informed consent.

A vaccine called Gardasil was developed to combat HPV viruses that cause cervical cancer. However, doubts have been raised about its effectiveness. Despite this, politicians worldwide have supported the vaccine. Clinical trials were conducted before its commercialization, but some experts argue that the company lacked scientific expertise. The vaccine was marketed as a solution to eradicate HPV and cervical cancer, but the frequency of the cancer has been decreasing over the years. Lobbying efforts were made to ensure widespread acceptance of Gardasil, targeting politicians and organizations. In the US, Governor Rick Perry passed a law mandating vaccination for young girls, which raised suspicions of influence from the pharmaceutical industry. Similar campaigns were launched globally, and the European Medicines Agency's decision-making process was questioned due to its financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. In France, the health minister bypassed administrative procedures to announce the reimbursement of Gardasil. Critics argue that politicians have been swayed by the promise of a cancer-preventing vaccine without considering the actual medical evidence. The influence of lobbyists and the prioritization of their interests over public health is concerning.

Les médecins reçoivent de l'argent des laboratoires, mais le vrai problème est le lobbying politique et économique caché. Les décisions importantes sont prises lors de rencontres secrètes, influençant la mise sur le marché des médicaments. Il est crucial de surveiller les conflits d'intérêts partout, y compris au sein de l'exécutif. Le lobbying pour des entreprises devrait être interdit pour éviter les abus.

The discussion traces a long, shadowy arc in the development of modern vaccines and medicine, arguing that rapid COVID-19 vaccine progress rests on over a century of influence by powerful interests rather than sudden breakthroughs. - The narrative centers on John D. Rockefeller, who became America’s first billionaire in 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve was created. It frames Rockefeller as leveraging his oil wealth to monopolize medicine, promoting prescription drugs while vilifying natural and holistic remedies. The claim is that Rockefeller used strategic philanthropy (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, established 1901; Rockefeller Foundation, 1913) to push laboratory-based, drug-centered medicine, marginalize herbalism and naturopathy, and steer doctors toward pharmaceuticals. The effect, according to the speakers, was to keep people sick so they would return for ongoing treatments rather than cures. - The timeline continues with the rise of the pharmaceutical industry from the 1920s to 1940s, described as moving into synthetic drugs with Rockefeller guidance. Natural remedies were said to be non-patentable while synthetic drugs could be patented, creating a business incentive for ongoing, chronic treatment rather than cures. - The conversation shifts to regulatory dynamics, arguing that regulation became regulatory capture from the 1930s to 1960s, with the FDA functioning as a gatekeeper increasingly populated by former pharma professionals. The FDA’s integrity is debated through the example of Dr. Francis Kelsey, who resisted approving thalidomide; the drug was later linked to birth defects worldwide, and Kelsey’s stance is presented as a rare early stand for public safety. - In the 1970s and 1980s, the narrative asserts growing corporate influence: pharma lobbies expand, advertising budgets explode, and medicine becomes a growth industry. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 is cited as enabling private patents on publicly funded research, tying universities to pharma interests and shaping medical education toward pharmaceutical solutions. Direct-to-consumer advertising is highlighted as a turning point in the 1990s, pressuring doctors through patient demand spurred by TV ads. - The discussion includes a first-hand account from a former pharmaceutical sales representative, Lisa Prada, who describes bribes and perks (golf outings, concerts, strip clubs, etc.) to influence prescribing, and asserts that patients were often treated as means to corporate ends. - Kim Bright, founder of Brightcore Nutrition, joins to discuss current health issues, arguing that the pharmaceutical industry prioritizes profits over patient well-being. She notes that the Rockefeller Foundation funded COVID-19 vaccine efforts (she cites $55 million) and argues the foundation and industry continued to push medical interventions globally. She notes that the FDA’s public acknowledgment of COVID vaccine-related child deaths is incongruent with whistleblowers’ claims and autopsy data. - The program underscores the idea that prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death in the United States and Europe, citing studies on gut microbiome disruption from medications like antibiotics and acid-reducing drugs (dysbiosis) as a major contributor to chronic disease. - The gut microbiome is emphasized as central to health. Dr. David Perlmutter’s work on the gut-brain connection is referenced, including criticism faced for linking diet and fermented foods to health outcomes. Kimchi is highlighted as a powerful antimicrobial and a potential anti-aging agent in cellular studies. The hosts discuss kimchi’s health benefits, including improved digestion, immune function, and weight management. - Brightcore promotes Kimchi One capsules as a convenient alternative for Americans who dislike traditional kimchi, claiming benefits such as reduced bloating, better digestion, improved hair and skin, and weight loss. A discount offer is advertised: 25% off online, up to 50% off with a phone order, free shipping, and a free vitamin D3 with the first 100 callers, using the code provided. - The conversation closes with reflections on the do-not-mistake-the-system dynamic, optimism about changes in medicine, and calls for removing dependency on processed foods and advertising-driven medicine, with an acknowledgment of RFK Jr.’s activism against pharmaceutical ads on television.

The speaker reveals that a vaccine funded by the WHO was discovered to be a fertility regulating vaccine. It was used without women's knowledge in South America in 1993. The vaccine caused idiopathic infertility, irregular periods, failed pregnancies, threatened abortions, premature labor, and other complications. These findings suggest a sinister agenda behind the vaccine's use.

Speaker 0 says they found “information like this,” such as vaccine insert paper, with “nothing printed on it,” which they call disheartening and disgusting. They add that it “just keeps happening” and claim the CDC redacts “every single word” of a 148-page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. Speaker 0 says they asked someone to print the study, and that the entire 148 pages are redacted. They ask what a study does if “there’s nothing there,” and they ask what might have been there that required redaction. Speaker 1 says they are “witnessing an active cover up” involving “a colossal consumer product safety debacle” affecting the entire world. They claim that in the United States, the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and FDA are actively involved in a cover up, and that similar cover ups are occurring in the UK with the MHRA, in Europe with European medicine agencies, and in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Speaker 1 states that each company that puts out a product has an obligation to produce “ninety days of safety monitoring” after the product comes out, describing it as a regulatory dossier. They claim that if someone has a problem and reports it to a company like Pfizer, Pfizer must report, write down what happened, collate it into a report, and make it publicly available. Speaker 1 says that when the ninety days elapsed for Pfizer’s first vaccine approved on 12/10/2020, Pfizer “didn’t produce a report.” They add that people asked what was happening with the vaccine, and Pfizer allegedly would not disclose what happened, leading to a court case. Speaker 1 says the lawyer for the FDA stepped in to say they did not want to release Pfizer’s dossier for fifty-five years. Speaker 1 then says that after the plaintiff pushed, the Pfizer dossier “slowly” came out. They claim Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty-three deaths with their product within ninety days of release, and they say people called Pfizer in desperation watching family members die after taking the vaccine. Speaker 1 also claims Pfizer recorded “over twelve hundred” new adverse events and refers to “doctor Boden” discussing problems they say they have been grappling with. They conclude by claiming the FDA worked to cover this up and should have been regulating the company with at least monthly meetings and full disclosure about novel vaccines, described by Speaker 1 as a genetic transfer technology platform and as the first time human beings were injected with foreign genetic material in world history, after which “they were getting it full on.” Speaker 1 ends by saying “Two thirds of the world’s population took”

The speaker discusses the strange situation regarding the pharmacovigilance system's early awareness of menstrual side effects from the vaccine. Despite this, the European Medicines Agency initially concluded that it was not significant, but recently revised their diagnosis. It is peculiar that while the pharmacovigilance system alerted early based on feedback from vaccinated individuals, it took a considerable amount of time for the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety to accept it as a probable side effect.