Host [00:00] Hello, thank you for inviting me. Thank you very much for your presence with us this morning. It’s very interesting to have you because you too, you have suffered the distress of everyone in relation to your positions regarding VOCID vaccination. That doesn’t stop. That’s why we support you on Twitter among others. I saw. Thank you. That’s important. I’ll give you the floor.

Christine Cotton [00:36] So maybe I’ll share my screen with you. I don’t know if everyone knows me, maybe I’ll represent myself in two minutes. I have a degree, I have a magisterium of statistical economists from the University of Toulouse. I quickly, after the studies, set up my company which was a CRO, so Clinical Research Organisation, that is, the subcontractor of the pharmaceutical industry with regard to the management of data of clinical research services. And as such, I worked in a lot of clinical trials, post-authorization surveys of myths on the market. and therefore the biostatistician, his role, is therefore to define the methodology of the clinical trials in relation, in agreement with the clinicians who thus write the famous protocol in which we will determine everything we seek, the objective of the medical research, what are the criteria of effectiveness, the criteria of tolerance, how we will analyze them, how many times the patients are seen by the centres that recruit them, therefore by the doctors who follow them, what is measured at each visit, etc.

So when we’re used to reading protocols, and I may have read a thousand of them in my life, either because I wrote them, or because I was asked for quotes on them, or because I only did the part of data management, i.e. recovery of database implementation, or I did the statistics, etc. We are used to reading the protocols and therefore we can necessarily read the clinical reports since the statistician is the one who provides the tables to the doctor who will write the famous report that will be submitted to the authorities to have an AMM or not.

So obviously, when we make the reports, we know how to read them. So, unlike what’s been going on for two years, with these doctors who think they’re Almighty God, it’s not doctors who do the clinical trial tests, it’s never been doctors, they’re biostatisticians, if they were doctors, it would know. And in general, doctors who claim to be biostatisticians, I don’t know if they’re good doctors, but often they’re very bad biostatisticians because you can’t have 12,000 caps and be good in all. I don’t pretend to be a doctor. I don’t treat patients, my job is biostat. And in that capacity, when we look at Pfizer documents, we still see that we have a number of problems.

So I may not be going to sum up everything. What we need to know, we’re going to start from a slide, there are two finally, there are two very important things on the basis of which we can discuss. So that’s this slide. This slide dates from October 22, 2020. It’s a presentation from the FDA that mentions, the person who presents this, a list of what he calls possible adverse event events, so possible side effects. And there, you can still see that there is… it’s pretty impressive.

So here, he’s already talking about Guillain-Barré, angphalomyelitis, transverse myelitis, seizures, narcolepsy, anaphylaxis, myocarditis, autoimmune diseases, death, pregnancy problems, thrombocytopenia, thromboambulism. in children, the famous, what was called PIMS, multi-inflammatory syndrome, etc. It’s from October 22, 2020. This list disappears completely from all the meetings. What does that mean? It means that in October 2020, we have people who already know that we may have this type of post-vaccination pathology. And that, we don’t talk about it anymore, it disappears completely. And we have the second thing that is very important, that already alerts us somewhere, even before we get the first marketing authorisation, we have the famous results on Pfizer’s preclinical study, i.e. on pimps. It is the antibody level, the neutralizing antibody, which is the criterion chosen to measure immunity. It is a criterion that has been chosen knowing that there are no other possible antibodies, since there are no specific antibodies to Covid-19.

So they’re telling us in an official FDA document, we don’t have any specific antibodies, so we’re gonna take neutralizing antibodies as the best measure of immunity. It means that if my antibodies go up, I’m proving that my product has an effect on my famous antibodies and that so it’s immune and that it’s going to protect the individuals who are going to take it. And then, what do we see on the pimps?

So 21, 28, there, you see, these are days after the first vaccination. So three weeks after vaccination, 28 days after, 56 days, so that is to say about two months. And what do we see? We see that antibodies, they go up and they go down there. That’s very clear to everyone. And at that time, it’s November 2020, that is, even before, we’re at a time when we don’t yet have the results on adults. And at that point, what’s going on? We have Mr. Dousteblazy who, in a small interview, tells us “yes, it’s very good, vaccines, we don’t have to get excited, the duration of protection is only two months.” And Mr. Dousteblazy disappears strangely from the traffic. We never hear about it again. Because Mr. Douste-Blazy, he’s done his big ball, that is, he’s announced what nobody wants to publicly announce, that antibodies will decrease after two months.

So what did I write? I have taken up all the documents that were available, I have examined how these products have been developed, all the time between the time China publishes the giant, when the laboratories announce we have found the first messenger RNA products, when they start clinical trials, and it is clear that in terms of time, between January 2020 when China publishes the SARS genome, when they find the products, when they start clinical trials, we have times that are absolutely record. On the left, you have the classic development of a product, whether it’s a medicine or a vaccine, and on the right we have what has been done for vaccines, that is, we start each phase without having finished the previous one.

So that’s necessarily already taking risks. So not only do we start each phase before we finish the previous one, but in terms of recruitment rates, we recruit people so quickly that we start in some kind of race or contest by encouraging the participating centres to include, include, include patients that makes it just within the time frame to include and follow them, i.e. to include them is one thing, but then we have to follow them.

So it’s already asking about whether the quality of the follow-up is correct with such a quick time of inclusion. And so when we look at the efficacy results, we find that their famous 95% that announces us, they only focus on this famous symptomatic Covid criterion confirmed by PCR test. That is, if I don’t do a PCR test, I don’t have a confirmation, so I don’t have a failure for the vaccine. And in the way of postponing this criterion, I have what is called bias, that is, I have less delay for the vaccine group. For one reason, we won’t go into the details. And if we had taken the anti-nucleocapside acerology, which measures just whether the person got sick or not during the clinical trial, what is called the seroconversion, then we find that the effectiveness of the vaccine was more about 55-56%.

So this table on the right is me who calculated it from the documents made public following legal actions in the United States. It’s the ADVA table, it’s a SAS table that we import, and finally it’s the XPT file that is on the sites of the docs made public and that we can import into the SAS software with which the analysis was carried out. A little bit about these docs made public. We have a lot of documents that are listings. What do statisticians get out? That is, all these documents, it’s very familiar to me because that’s exactly the work we were doing as Biostat.

So we get out of the paintings and we get out of the lists, obviously, of patients. And the SAS tables that are made public, so their famous XPT file, inside, everything is done so that we cannot make the calculations. That is, these tables, they must respect a certain format. which is called the CDISC format, which is a regulated format for submissions, in which one has a list of, what should be called the SAS tables, i.e. the database tables. Because a database is not a single file with all the measurements, maybe it’s 15, 20, 25 independent files that we’re going to stick with each other to make our calculations. And it’s on the basis of these calculations that we’re going to get out of the tables, as we have on the left here, that’s a statistician that comes out by programming. When we do this work, we record the log, the time when our program runs in case of an audit to be able to prove that our program has run smoothly.

So everything is extremely traced and when we have an audit, that’s what we show the listener to prove that we work in rules that follow the famous good clinical practices. So everything is done in these files that are made public so that we cannot repeat the calculations, that is, the variables that are put in these different files, they are not regulatory, there are not populations as there should be, there is not the treatment group, that is to prevent us from repeating the calculations.

So even in the documents made public, he manages to make SAS tables available, so the data files that are opaque, to prevent us from doing them again. Well, then we’re doing pretty much, but it’s complicated. Anyway, it’s not simple and we’re not always quite sure what we’re doing. But, overall, we know for example in the ADVV table, there, that we have fewer visits for the vaccine in case of potential VOCID than for placebo.

So, if I don’t make my visit for potential VOCID, obviously, I’m not going to be diagnosed with VOCID. So, it’s a success for the vaccine. So, all of this is bias that ultimately, my effectiveness, it’s not, I’m going to go back to my summary chart, it’s not the one that was announced at 95%, we’re sure. What do we know? We know, to go back to my antibody assay, that on the pimps, so I observed that I had a decrease in my antibodies. What do I observe in the clinical trial? I realize that he doesn’t measure his antibodies beyond his famous 56 days. That is, in my flowchart, that is, in my schedule of visits, I have a gaping follow-up hole of my patients and it comes to mind when you’re used to reading protocols. I have a visit, that is, the patient has to go to his doctor’s center that he recruited two months after his dose and up to six months he has none. And this gaping hole, why don’t we have a visit in the middle? We don’t have a visit because already, even in adults, we were seeing that antibodies were beginning to fall. And the biggest failure here, we talk a lot about it doesn’t stop, transmission, etc. We’re going to go back to that.

But the biggest failure of the clinical trial at Pfizer and of all the clinical trials vaccines, it’s there. That’s to say we didn’t dose these antibodies at three months because we knew we were going to fall. And when, in December 2020, we were presenting the file, if I had a measure there, where I put my red arrow on the right, which was down in the cabbages completely, which finally came back almost to the initial level, not quite, but because still there are neutralizing antibodies, but if it falls sharply, when we put ourselves in the place of the authorities, you arrive with a file, ah well yes, I have my 95% effectiveness, which is wrong, but the authorities did not make any remarks about it, you arrive with a connection with an immunity that goes down like that.

So, then, at that point, do I give my marketing authorization? So maybe I give it by saying yes, the urgency, we’re all going to die, we only have the vaccines, it’s going to save our lives, etc. But in that case, I can’t tell the population two doses and you’ll find your normal life. So I can’t do this narrative. I have to say, ah, yes, but immunity probably doesn’t last longer than three, four months and so you’re going to get behind extra doses.

So you understand why we don’t measure these antibodies at that time. Because if I measure them, I’m either in a position of rejection of my product, or I’m in a position of having to announce to the public, there will be more than just doses. And it changes everything for the com that we are told, that it’s rebuffed at that time from January 2021, it changes everything for the com, the two doses and you’ll find your bimormal, it doesn’t hold anymore. And besides, we know at that time, in the life of the HAS, that the laboratory is studying a boost as early as December 2020.

So, they know perfectly well that it’s going to fall. They pretend to tell us a few months later, we just realized that it’s falling. So, it’s total smoke since they know it very well. That’s why they don’t measure. And so, we need this famous booster a few months later, as if he’d just realized it’s falling, but they know it from the beginning, and the biggest smoker in Covid’s clinical trials, he’s here, so, what does all this have to do with it?

So that my pseudo-protection, it lasts three, four months, that every three, four months, I’m going to need my little extra dose, that’s why we’re at the fifth one today, because anyway, it doesn’t hold. My effectiveness, in terms of efficiency, what do I know? I know from the beginning that it doesn’t stop transmission, so it’s in the life of the HAS, it’s in the life of the NSM. So today they’re all in the middle of agitating, the transmission hasn’t been studied, but it’s been known since the beginning that it hasn’t been studied.

So on the basis of what we’ve been told it slows down transmission, but on the basis of real-life studies, these real-life studies, so we choose methodologies eventually, which will give us reason. There has been a fraudulent use of methodologies, it’s been for some time, and so he concludes that it slows down transmission while finally you see in reality that it doesn’t stop anything since people who are vaccinated catch the disease, transmit it, and we find the way to do studies that prove the opposite.

So there’s a total mismatch between what studies tell us and reality, as there’s a total mismatch between the results of the Pfizer trial and reality. 95% in reality we’ve never seen them. So that’s the result on the booster and you see where the antibodies are finally, where I put the arrow is the dosage before booster. So we can see that it’s completely in the cabbages, and that’s what we know from the beginning.

But they only recognize it from September 2021. And that’s when they’re giving us their little booster that they’ve been studying since December 2020. So, what else is the big problem? It’s obviously tolerance. Since my tolerance, when assessed on follow-ups that are very, very short, like a maximum of three months with half of the people followed less than two months, I do not have a good idea of my tolerance. When I have populations that are excluded, such as pregnant women, immunocompromised patients, fragile patients with ecomorbidity, patients with autoimmune diseases, all these people are excluded from the clinical trial. And what are they saying?

In fact, these are the first almost immunized people. This is the risk management plan of November 2020. So it’s exactly that list that I put on the left. And we have exactly the same thing in the risk management plan of September 2022. That is, nothing has been changed, apart from the anaphylaxis that they removed as a risk now, because they tell us that it’s known. As is known, we remove it, it makes sense.

So, we have exactly the same thing in September 2022. The same list. We still don’t have a clinical trial result on pregnant or nursing women. We still don’t have a clinical trial result on immunocompromised patients. We still don’t have a clinical outcome trial on interaction with other vaccines. You’re gonna be able to get the flu at the same time. What are the documents that tell me that if I administer the flu vaccine at the same time, I’m not going to have any effects, pathologies behind because it’s problems of interaction between the two vaccines since it hasn’t been studied, I don’t have any results.

So all this is really a big problem. So pregnant women, of course, they are vaccinated with a snuff, we encourage them even from the first trimester. So it’s risk-taking. It’s risk-taking to vaccinate certain populations on which we don’t have any results, and especially pregnant women, since it doesn’t mean that their lives are theirs, it also engages the baby’s life. We don’t know. So in this clinical trial we have more and more evidence of obvious fraud, since we have this Vantavia case, which tells us that good clinical practice has not been respected. It means that in the centres of this society in the United States, which managed patient recruitment and patient follow-up, if good practices are not respected that blindness, i.e. in the centre, normally people should not know what was injected to the patient, who evaluates the adverse effects, etc., should not know what the patient has had, since that is bias. In his judgment, if he knows for example that he has had the vaccine, he will have a more tendency to conclude, for example, that it is a reaction, the pathology to which the patient speaks, it is a reaction to the vaccine more than a Covid. That is why it is important to keep this anonymity of product. If it is not respected, it is a violation of good clinical practice. All this is known thanks to Brooke Jackson in the United States, who is also heavily attacked. We know that we have serious side effects that are not postponed, since we have Augusto Roux who participated in Argentina, who was volunteered in the Assai, which has had several serious effects that are not reported in the Kenny report.

So this is fraud. We’ve got the Mady de Garay case about teenagers too. I’ve talked about it a lot. So we know that the evaluation of tolerance in these trials is wrong. And what does that mean? In real life, we see a lot of things that, in the end, we’re sure that tolerance is poorly assessed in this trial. Why have we never heard of this list again? That’s why it was filmed because it’s also in a thing on the FDA channel, the FDA YouTube channel, where you can quickly see that it didn’t take long, it spent two, three seconds and then it removed the transparent.

So why with all these problems, you can see the effectiveness, it’s close to nothing, the transmission, it hasn’t been studied. And that’s common in vaccine trials. You don’t have to make a whole hay with this transmission. It’s quite common. There are lots of vaccine trials. I, when I wrote this report that I wrote, I recovered vaccine protocols, I called people working on it. So it’s quite common. Transmission is not necessarily studied in a clinical trial. It’s not a real problem.

So, well, then the effectiveness is zero. absolute zero, so-called effect on serious forms, we’re still looking for them, there’s a so-called effect on serious forms but not on mortality, so tolerance, protection, as we’ve seen, it’s the duration of protection, antibodies, it’s zero, and so we have a real problem with real measures of tolerance in this trial. So all this brings us to what? It brings us to see in reality a whole lot of cases, of pathologies, of people who are sick, necessarily. When we have a bogus trial as we have on these Covid vaccines, we observe in reality some big problems.

So at ANSM, we have little to say at the end since we have only 182,000 cases. So a reported case, it’s a person who says to his doctor, We know, from a paper that I didn’t put there, written by our friend, the head of the CRPV, Ms. Jean-Vilbera, that we only have 1 to 10% postponed. So if I have 1% postponed, it means that I multiply that number by 100. So, serious cases, I have 25% of that. So that’s why we always reason a percentage, since finally, absolute value, we don’t know about this sub-report. And then, what do we have, I put only the signals that are Pfizer vaccine, since it’s the most used one.

So they tell us, well, under surveillance, potential signals, so the Zona, but they tell us, well, it’s not really, there’s no connection, there’s no really identified link, heart rhythm disorders. The Union, the European evaluation has not identified a link. So finally, for everything, there’s very little connection. But apart from the myocardites who recognize it for everything else, there’s no connection, it’s a trick to the punished, we can have anything, they always find the way to tell us that there’s no connection finally. And that’s what they’ve been doing for a long time. Yes, yes, yes. That’s a big, big problem. And we see it when we talk to the victims, you have to know it at home. I, when I have victims of other collectives or other associations, like Veritifrance or people… Or as OM in cycle, yes. My cycle, in particular, I work a lot with REACT C19 because they are the most abandoned people in this whole story. When you have thrombosis, you’re treated. When you’re hungry for cardiac arrest, you’re treated. If you’re dead, obviously. If you have shingles, you’re treated.

But these people, REACT C19, are people who have very serious neurological disorders. They’re having trouble getting accurate diagnoses and the problem they’re encountering is that it absolutely affects, it can affect every organ, whether it’s the heart, whether it’s the brain, metallic noises, apofen problems. And these people are completely abandoned, so it’s the people I work with the most to try to offer people who care for them, and it’s a big problem.

So when you listen to these testimonies, you can see that there is really a willingness of the CRPV not to note all the symptoms, some wonder if they will not start a procedure against the CRPV, since we have mails, requests for additional exams. It seems that VRCs are doing everything they can to exonerate the vaccine, by asking for more and more examinations, to drag away, to reduce accountability, always to reduce accountability. It is really the goal of reducing accountability.

Guillaume Ageorges [28:30] Unfortunately, Christine, what you’ve been discovering with Covid vaccines, it’s been a long, long, long time. Finally, now, you know that, too, but all the people who have been victims of vaccination, hepatitis B, and then after that, you have all the kids who have been given asylum.

Cotton [28:49] Yeah, yeah, but that’s really it, not the CRPDs. There, I think it would deserve a good investigation. How the CRPVs work since this desire to discredit absolutely the victims in order, somewhere, to continue to protect the narrative. Vaccines are safe.

Ageorges [29:12] Clearly, here we are on something systemic, that is, it’s not just a guy who is zealous, because if he was a guy who was zealous, you wouldn’t have 158 testimonies.