In a critical article published on September 16, 2025, by the Berliner Zeitung, a century-old German daily with progressive roots, the European Commission would be forced to admit that COVID-19 vaccines were approved and distributed without “complete” safety data. This revelation, drawn from a parliamentary question posed by Austrian MEP Gerald Hauser, raises burning questions about transparency, political accountability, and the risks for millions of Europeans. Yet, while the information circulates in so-called alternative media and on social networks, it remains curiously ignored by the mainstream media. Why this blackout? And what does this have to do with the transatlantic investigations into Pfizer in the United States? Let’s dive into the facts, the issues, and the gray areas.
The heart of the matter: an “admission” that shakes the EU
Franz Becchi’s article,”EU Commission admits: Coronavirus vaccines were approved without comprehensive data,” is based on a parliamentary question tabled by Gerald Hauser (FPÖ). In his written question to the European Parliament, Hauser directly challenges the Commission on the advance purchase agreements for vaccines signed in 2020-2021: » Why did the Commission not inform citizens that the efficacy and safety of gene vaccines – as stipulated in the contract – were not guaranteed? “
The Commission’s response is, in a bureaucratic form, a tacit admission . According to the documents cited, contractual clauses with Pfizer/BioNTech and other manufacturers explicitly limited the guarantee of long-term efficacy and safety, due to the pandemic emergency. The vaccines were authorized via a » conditional » procedure by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), based on phase 3 clinical trials (more than 40,000 participants for Pfizer), but without exhaustive monitoring of rare or long-term side effects.
The Berliner Zeitung goes further: the article accuses the Commission of having hidden these limitations to promote a mass vaccination campaign, potentially exposing the population to risks that were not fully assessed. This is not a simple technical anecdote. Hauser and the Berliner Zeitung see it as a major political flaw : Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission, personally negotiated these contracts for 1.8 billion doses with Pfizer. Ongoing judicial investigations, such as that of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office into deleted text messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, add to the image of an authoritarian rather than scientific European decision. It should be remembered that von der Leyen is also the subject of a criminal complaint by more than 1,000 plaintiffs, including two Member States (Poland and Hungary – information reported exclusively by France-Soir), initially brought by Frédéric Baldan, a former Belgian lobbyist.
The article poses critical questions: Who bears liability in the event of damages? Member states, via compensation funds, or the Commission, which centralized purchases on behalf of Europe? All this because the signed contracts negotiated by the Commission, with the potential interference of von der Leyen, who was not part of the negotiating team, granted vaccine manufacturers near-total immunity. “ A contract so favorable to the manufacturer seems abnormal to me,” explained law doctor Olivier Frot in his analysis of the contracts made available by the EC despite significant redaction.
A deafening silence in the mainstream media
Despite the potential gravity of this revelation, the information did not reach the mainstream European or international media. A search on sites such as Le Monde, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, or The New York Times reveals no repeats of this specific parliamentary question from Hauser, nor any articles headlined by the Commission’s » admission .” On X, the article’s link generated several thousand views, but without massive virality; the normative algorithms of social networks likely influence the reach of such information.
This silence is not isolated. It is part of a pattern observed since the beginning of the pandemic: criticism of the EU’s vaccine management, despite being documented by rulings from the Court of Justice of the EU (such as the one in July 2024 criticizing the lack of transparency regarding contracts), is struggling to penetrate the mainstream media landscape. Why? The reasons given by observers vary, but a recent anecdote illustrates perfectly the unease.
The BFMTV anecdote: when “consensus” stifles political debate
In January 2022, Céline Pigalle , then editorial director at BFMTV, acknowledged a form of submission to government narratives disguised as editorial prudence: during the health crisis, BFM refrained from going » against the official line » so as not to « undermine the social consensus “.
During a hearing at the Paris Court of Appeal on September 17, 2025, an appeal on civil interests in a defamation lawsuit, a BFMTV journalist was questioned about this information. The question, direct and hard-hitting: » Did BFMTV report this information to its viewers? Isn’t it in the public interest for this admission to be broadcast? “ The answer? First, the journalist’s stammering, who nevertheless presents himself as a « disinformation specialist.” Then, a laconic explanation: » BFM is repeating the scientific consensus. “
This « consensus » invoked as a shield is revealing. Here, it’s not a question of debating a molecule or a medical protocol. No, the issue is political: decisions made by public actors (the Commission, von der Leyen) under emergency pressure, with contractual clauses that exempt labs from liability.
By hiding behind a « consensus,” BFMTV—like other channels—avoids questioning institutions. Is this complacency? Fear of accusations of anti-vaxxer « disinformation “? Or simply an editorial line aligned with the health authorities, who dictate the dominant narrative?
This conformism is not new. As early as June 2020, France-Soir published comparative analyses showing that masks and lockdowns, imposed as health dogmas, had a limited, even deleterious, impact when comparing results between European countries or between American states. For example, differences in access to early treatments (such as hydroxychloroquine in Para, Brazil) led to significant mortality gaps – up to a factor of 5.5 compared to Amazonas, according to a 2021 peer-reviewed study. This information, validated a posteriori by numerous studies, has never found an echo on BFMTV.
Who is orchestrating this consensus? The WHO, the European Medicines Agency, Santé Publique France, or Ursula von der Leyen, whose central role in vaccine negotiations is at the heart of several legal scandals, is no stranger to the equation. Elected for a second term in 2024 despite the shadows surrounding the Pfizer contracts, she embodies a Commission accused of excessive centralization. Leaks, such as the missing text messages validated by a Court of Justice ruling in May 2025, reinforce the idea of opacity protected by a media establishment. In France, many media outlets like BFMTV are losing audiences due to the loss of listener confidence ( 70% of French people believe that channels like TF1, FranceTV, or BFM lack objectivity).
By complying with the « scientific consensus“, dictated by authorities such as the WHO or the European Commission, BFMTV and traditional media are depriving their listeners of a crucial debate on the politicization of medicine and European governance .
But is it the role of a media outlet to be conformist? Article 1 of the Munich Charter (1971), the code of ethics for journalists, is clear: » Seek and respect the truth, whatever the consequences .” By choosing the comfort of consensus over investigation, BFMTV is betraying this mission . Distrust of the media is rooted in this silence, while legitimate questions about the transparency and accountability of institutions – both European and national – remain unanswered.
Transatlantic Echoes: Ron Johnson’s Investigation and Pfizer’s Unanswered Questions
This European affair is not an isolated island; it resonates with the investigations conducted on the other side of the Atlantic by Republican Senator Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), who chairs the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). Since 2021, Johnson has been on a crusade for answers about COVID vaccines, focusing on Pfizer and federal agencies like the FDA and the CDC. In April 2025, Johnson sent formal letters to Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, and Johnson & Johnson, requesting “ all records and communications on the development and safety of COVID-19 vaccines .” The result? Radio silence.
A landmark hearing on May 21, 2025 , titled “The Corruption of Science and Federal Health Agencies: How Health Officials Downplayed and Hid Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Associated with the COVID-19 Vaccines ,” highlighted how officials downplayed the risks of post-vaccination myocarditis , despite early warnings. Johnson issued an interim report, accusing Biden officials of delaying public warnings to maintain confidence in the shots. To date, Pfizer has still not fully responded to Senate subpoenas. Witnesses, such as Dr. Peter McCullough and Aaron Siri (an anti-mandate advocate), have submitted hundreds of peer-reviewed studies documenting side effects—from simple discomfort to serious cases like thrombosis or heart inflammation. Johnson, in his opening statement, doesn’t hesitate: “These agencies corrupted science for political reasons .” » The American mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC) are reporting these hearings, but in Europe, the mainstream media are not talking about them, preferring to amplify the official European narrative.
The parallel is striking: legitimate questions about the transparency of Pfizer contracts (1.8 billion doses in Europe, billions in the US) remain unanswered on both sides of the Atlantic. Johnson, like Hauser, points to collusion between Big Pharma, regulators, and politicians—with von der Leyen as the emblematic European figure.
Beyond the Scandal: Responsibility, Risks, and Lessons for the Future
What do these « admissions » mean for the population? According to the EMA, mRNA vaccines have reportedly reduced hospitalizations by 60-70%—this information is now the subject of numerous scientific studies that call into question the data and methodologies used to promote such messages. The incomplete data at the time—and the clauses limiting the labs’ liability—pose a real ethical dilemma. In Europe, national funds (as in France) will compensate victims, but who pays the political price? Class actions are mounting, and court rulings could lead to reforms. The media silence, however, calls into question the health of our democracies. By clinging to a » consensus » dictated by the elites—von der Leyen at the forefront?—the BFMTV channels of this world risk widening the gulf of mistrust.
The Berliner Zeitung affair, like the Johnson hearings, is a reminder that the truth doesn’t wait for headlines: it emerges from the margins, from parliamentary questions, and from the courts. For Europe and the US, it’s a call for greater transparency—before the next crisis.