Manifesto for a reasonable solution to the Covid crisis

16th of November 2021

Spanish society is now understandably tired of the Covid crisis. The tension has eased considerably and not a few people would like to turn the page and talk about other issues after 20 months of monothema. However, some of the anti-Covid measures applied in our country or in other countries around us (health passports, indiscriminate vaccination, etc.) have no real scientific basis or health justification at this time, but they are an attack on the fundamental rights of individuals and have opened up some very dangerous trends for the democratic and ecological development of contemporary societies.

On the other hand, it is likely that winter will bring a new rise in cases, like those already being experienced in other countries[1], so we want to claim some lines of action that are still very necessary and have been neglected by the Spanish health authorities (who have centered practically all their strategy around vaccinations and social distancing measures). Therefore, the undersigned persons, health professionals, researchers in the field of medicine and biology, scientists from other fields, philosophers, activists, communicators and citizens in general, concerned about public health, which is our health, declare the following:

1 – It is necessary to move away from reductionist approaches focused solely on vaccination.

During these months, numerous scientists and professionals of undeniable reputation have denounced the need to treat Covid in all possible ways[2]: prophylaxis, early treatment, hospital treatment and vaccination, while the WHO recommendations followed by our government have ignored early treatment.

At present, thousands of doctors around the world are reporting excellent results in early care[3], and even in prophylaxis, with protocols composed of drugs such as ivermectin, fluvoxamine, quercetin, zinc, hydroxychloroquine, melatonin, or vitamin D[4]. In countries such as Mexico[5], India[6], Zimbabwe[7], Madagascar[8] and some states of Peru[9] and Argentina[10], early treatment kits have been used on a massive scale and have managed to significantly reduce infection, hospitalization and death rates[11]. It should be noted that ivermectin and other drugs that have been used in the early treatment of Covid are very cheap, as they are off-patent, and their side effects are low and well known, as they have been widely used for a long time.

However, the Spanish government and most European governments follow the guidelines of entities such as the WHO and the EMA (whose funding is heavily conditioned by companies and private entities[12]) without the slightest hint of criticism. After 19 months of intense research and numerous clinical trials with all kinds of drugs[13], the early treatment of Covid patients is still limited to home confinement and the use of painkillers until they are so ill that they have to go to hospital[14]. In that hospital phase, according to doctors with extensive experience in early treatment, it is much more difficult to combat the disease and the chances of cure are much lower[15].

International health-related organizations such as the WHO, the EMA and the FDA advise against all these early treatments on the sole grounds that there is no conclusive data on their usefulness[16]. This is, to say the least, negligent, since after so many months of pandemic, there has been more than enough time to analyze them in depth and elucidate whether they are effective or not.

These same international institutions, on the other hand, were in a great hurry to approve in March 2020 the antiviral Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid (priced as high as €2,000 per patient[17]) on the basis of two controlled clinical studies that found only very modest signs of its efficacy[18]. In these weeks several pharmaceutical companies are applying for emergency approvals for the approval of new on-patent drugs for the early treatment of Covid. Although they have received generous attention in the media, the trials showing their efficacy are far fewer than those of other early treatments and their safety is far from having the guarantees of drugs known for decades. In contrast, the early treatment of ivermectin for Covid still fails to gain approval from these agencies after 30 randomized controlled clinical trials, of which 27 show clearly positive results[19], despite being a drug with an excellent safety profile[20] that was approved for use against scabies with the support of only 10 studies and at the same doses now proposed for Covid[21].

Moreover, the public health system has hardly been strengthened since the beginning of this juncture. On the contrary, it has been degraded in both primary and hospital care. Nor have substantial efforts been devoted to research and the application of early treatments, limiting health action to vaccination, hospitalization of severe cases, the use of masks and restrictions on mobility and the right of assembly.

2 – The vaccine is being considered as a collective health issue without any scientific basis for it, and it is being administered without knowing the medium and long-term risks or taking into account individual particularities.

Despite the high percentage of people who have been vaccinated against COVID in our country[22] and in many others, the decrease in the rates of infection and hospitalizations has not been as expected[23]. Although the situation in Spain has improved, the data show that the vaccines have not been as effective as some promised and all of us would have liked[24].

For vaccines to achieve herd immunity, they should be able to significantly reduce virus transmission. If this premise is not met, vaccination ends up being an individual choice, respectable, but without social repercussions. This makes the urgency to vaccinate the entire population or the imposition of Covid passes to access public spaces become absurd and even counterproductive measures, because they create a false sense of security.

In recent weeks, various data have come to light confirming that Covid vaccines currently offer virtually no protection against infection. We highlight the following:

  • England has made it official that, against the delta variant (currently the majority worldwide), no difference is being observed in the transmission of the virus between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons[25].
  • A comparative study finds no correlation between the vaccination ratio in different countries and Covid cases[26].
  • Transmission between fully vaccinated persons[27] and similar viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons have been documented[28].
  • A study in Vietnam concludes that vaccinated people may be more infectious than unvaccinated people because they carry more viral load without developing symptoms[29].
  • Countries such as Singapore, Ireland or Belgium, with more than 70% of the population fully vaccinated, have suffered new outbreaks with the arrival of autumn.[30]
  • Data from the latest Vaccine Surveillance Report of the United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency[31] show that the infection rate among people with a complete vaccination schedule is not only not lower but higher (double) than among the unvaccinated.
  • Studies financed by the manufacturers themselves recognize that vaccine protection against infection is lost within a few months[32].

Given the large amount of data showing that vaccines are not able to reduce the transmission of Covid, it makes no sense to implement «vaccination passports» that strongly discriminate against people who choose not to be vaccinated for any reason, whether it be health, conscience or simple doubts about the risk/benefit ratio.

As denounced by several MEPs from various countries and political parties on October 20[33], this type of health pass undermines basic human rights and can only be justified in exceptional circumstances and if they are sufficiently supported by unequivocal scientific data. They constitute, in fact, a veritable apartheid of a new kind that coerces the population into accepting to be treated with an experimental drug whose efficacy, necessity and safety are, to say the least, dubious. Freedom of movement, employment, health, equality, freedom of association, education and free expression of thought are being seriously violated without cause and, in some European countries, peaceful protests against these unprecedented and unfounded health measures are being violently repressed.

On the other hand, it should be noted that current vaccines have been shown to have a much higher than usual number of adverse effects[34]. Some sources estimate that the Eudra Vigilance and Open Vaers surveillance systems have recorded more than 40,000 vaccine-related deaths between the US[35] and the EU[36], which is causing some countries to limit their use in young people[37].

Given this high number of adverse effects detected in the short term, the competent health institutions should provide detailed data, both on Covid cases and deaths by age and vaccination status and on all the adverse effects that are occurring due to vaccinations. In this way, an assessment of risk/benefit ratios by age could be made and physicians could choose to advise against vaccination in people who are at low risk for the disease, such as children and young people. These data are not being disseminated[38], nor is the necessary informed consent being sought from those who are being vaccinated[39].

The pharmaceutical industry, on the other hand, is promoting new vaccination campaigns, supposedly to make up for the loss of effectiveness of previous doses[40], but our health authorities should consider demanding from these companies a safer and more effective product before continuing to invest huge amounts of public money in successive massive vaccination campaigns, especially if there is more than enough evidence of effective treatments that can help to manage this health crisis in a much more economical way.

We cannot ignore the fact that this exclusivity in the strategy against CVID has allowed large pharmaceutical companies to sign multi-million dollar contracts for the sale of their vaccines, thus skyrocketing their profits in an exorbitant manner. These contracts, moreover, exempt the suppliers from any liability for possible damage or adverse effects. It should be remembered that the European Medicines Agency continues to give these treatments only a «conditional marketing authorization» and not full authorization, since they are still in the experimental phase[41] and, in fact, do not fit within the classic definition of vaccines[42].

In contrast, early treatments with excellent safety profiles and approved for human use for decades are still awaiting approval. Prophylactic measures as simple as monitoring vitamin D levels are not even contemplated, despite the fact that several studies confirm the relationship between low vitamin D levels and more severe cases of Covid[43].

In view of all this we claim to the Spanish Government and to the health institutions of the Autonomous Communities:

1. The inclusion of early treatments in the strategy to deal with Covid, especially all those based on low-cost drugs that have been successfully used in other countries[44]. We also demand attention and support for the development of other possible vaccines independent of the large pharmaceutical industries, of which there are already projects in our country.

2. We request that vaccination of children not be considered, since the incidence of infection in minors is very low in them and the adverse effects of vaccination are more common and serious and the risks outweigh the benefits[45]. We also request a moratorium on the vaccination of other groups more susceptible to adverse effects, such as pregnant women. We demand that the principle of informed consent be applied in all vaccinations.

3. Attempts to establish some kind of «Covid passport» and discrimination of unvaccinated people in all kinds of public spaces and services should be discouraged, both because of the limited success that vaccines are having in preventing infection, and because they violate essential freedoms that every democracy should guarantee and protect. We consider that there is no justification for the current institutional and media pressure to vaccinate the entire population and that the segregation of unvaccinated people is counterproductive (by creating a false sense of protection) and profoundly antidemocratic.

4. It does not seem logical to us to continue allocating the bulk of public spending on health to new purchases of vaccines or other expensive and unproven treatments while other possibilities of treatment with lower-cost drugs of proven safety are not studied.

5. We demand free public access to the full texts of the contracts already established with pharmaceutical multinationals. In such important matters for the lives of all, secrecy and opacity are unacceptable.

6. We demand a greater investment effort in the public health system, both in material means and in personnel. It must be guaranteed, with the appropriate security measures, that the doctor will always be present at the patient’s bedside. We must put an end to the multiple negative effects that this lack of care is causing.

7. We demand, as soon as possible, the elimination of control measures restricting mobility and interpersonal relationships, due to the social, economic, psychological and health damages they entail.

We would also like to address the media.

We have noted with great concern the scarce presence in the major journalistic institutions of spaces that give a voice to all the relevant actors and constructive debates on this health crisis. There is a worrying homogeneity in the contents published and an almost total absence of critical voices. Any objection to any minimal aspect of vaccinations is labeled as «denialist», if not «conspiratorial» or «ultra-right» and a climate of segregation and unjustified blaming of those who are not in favor of vaccination is encouraged. We see that many important medical figures from other countries who have been critical of the official discourse have been completely absent from the Spanish media and the information provided has ignored the results of numerous scientific studies.

We therefore ask the media for a more impartial and respectful position with respect to their deontology on these issues. There are numerous voices that, from science and clinical experience, are offering very valuable criticisms that are not reaching society. We urge the media to go directly to the sources of scientific information and to the professionals who work in the field, and not to rely solely on the versions of official institutions or pharmaceutical companies. We also ask society as a whole to stop discriminating against dissidents and to stop pigeonholing any critical opinion into the narrow stereotypes it has been subjected to during these months.

With all of this we want to defend the right of all citizens to the best available treatments to deal with Covid’s disease. We have the right to all effective treatments and to the best fruits of scientific research, regardless of the economic interests involved. We also want to demand freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and autonomy over one’s own health and that coercive measures that have no justification whatsoever as health measures should no longer be used with the excuse that they serve to defend public health.

Therefore, we encourage all free minds, and especially those who are committed to the promotion of health, the defense of human rights and democracy, to adhere to this manifesto.

  1. Countries with high vaccination rates such as Lithuania, Belgium, Singapore and the United Kingdom are seeing an increase in cases in recent weeks.


  3. The World Ivermectin Day and the International Covid Summit were attended by hundreds of doctors from all over the world.

    The main proponents of the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid are the Front Line Critical Care Covid Allicance. that has published this review of all the evidence and BIRD group

    Dr. Omura, who received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of ivermectin, has conducted this review. and has spoken out publicly in favor of it. and Dr. Luc Montagnier, Nobel laureate in medicine, speaks of it as an alternative to vaccines.

  4. The use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid has several meta-analyses:

    Hydroxychloroquine was widely used in the first months but doubts about its safety have arisen and it is being replaced by ivermectin.

    Vitamin D has been the subject of intense study and a strong correlation has been found between low levels of this medicine and Covid cases resulting in hospitalizations and deaths.

    Also melatonin, zinc, fluvoxamine, y quercetin have been reported to be effective.

    In A comprehensive compilation of all clinical studies and publications of various early treatments for Covid can be found at




  8. Madagascar has stated on several occasions that it is using plant-based protocols such as Artemisia Annua and probably also ivermectin. Reported Covid cases and deaths in Madagascar have been particularly low since the beginning of the crisis.




  12. ….






  18. Remdesivir only guaranteed a decrease in hospitalization time but not lower mortality. was finally advised against by the WHO because of its ineffectiveness. Merck has announced the molnupiravir (5 ensayos, 4 de ellos positivos) and Pfizer’s Paxlovid (one known trial to date).


  20. The safety of ivermectin has been proven in this study at doses 10 times higher than the 0.2mg/kg commonly used for Covid The WHO has been recommending ivermectin for some parasitoses for years







  27. This lack of immunity was already foreseen before vaccinations.






    Dr. Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal, doubts that the initial trials of the vaccines demonstrated efficacy.


  34. In the UK they are four times greater than the sum of those observed over the last 11 years and in the USA greater than those observed over 30 years.

  35. This website claims to be created by relatives of people affected by vaccinations and is dedicated to compiling and presenting in a simple way the results of the VAERS system of the American health system.



  38. The United Kingdom does provide detailed data on deaths by vaccination status and age., which the Ministry of Health does not do but adverse effects still depend on voluntary reporting which, it is thought, is greatly underestimated as healthcare professionals have no incentive to do so.