Host [00:25] Good evening to all, welcome to this new issue of the incorrect ones. I am delighted to find you, and as every week I keep saying, thank you all who are ever more numerous on our YouTube channel, but also on our channel the incorrect ones most on Player, and thank you to our Player contributors since it is thanks to them. So we can acquire this independence, both financial and editorial, and it is of course this last independence that puts the most expensive.

So, we immediately get to the heart of the subject with a new guest. Two passages in Paris, so we are particularly happy to receive it on this orange bench. She is former CEO of a company of subcontractors specializing in the management of clinical trials, but she is also an expert biostatistician for the pharmaceutical industry for 23 years. She has worked on more than 500 clinical trials that have been entrusted to her by the world’s largest laboratories. After a first counter-investigation analysing the non-said from Pfizer’s preliminary clinical trials for lawyers, she has for the past two years put her expertise and professional network at the service of victims of Covid’s vaccines and accompany them in their efforts to report and recognize the post-vaccinal damage they suffer. She has just signed a remarkable book entitled “All vaccinated, all protected” by Guy Très Daniel, edition “The revelations of a biostatistician on vaccines, Covid-19 and their adverse effects.” Here is the subtitle of this book, a punch book that offers scientific insight to everyone. Christine Cotton, good evening.

Christine Cotton [01:56] Good evening, thank you.

Host [01:58] Thank you for accepting this invitation. After this long introduction, you have a rich resume. First of all, dear Christine Cotton, I would like to start. It’s the tradition in this show to talk a little about you. It’s like in your book. We’ll talk about your journey and your legitimacy to express you on all the topics we’re going to discuss. First of all, we’re going to go back from your studies, if you will. You have, if I’m not mistaken, a diploma of statistical economist obtained in Toulouse. First of all, why this path of specificity?

Cotton [02:29] So I had a childhood, we’re going to say, a school always in the first three. I was good at everything. And when you’re good at everything, you’re well bothered because you don’t know what to choose and you don’t know what to give up. So I prepache EC. So not only did I not like the atmosphere of the HEC prepa at all, but I didn’t want to go to a Parisian school at all. So I did two years, because it was very instructive.

Host [03:01] Because you’re not originally from Paris.

Cotton [03:03] Not at all, I was born in Cannes on the French Riviera. So let’s just say that when we were born in Cannes and grew up facing the sea, we don’t want to go to Paris. So I did Prepa HEC first in Toulon, then in Nice, and fortunately I missed the contests, because I would have been very bothered to have seen them, but I wouldn’t have gone anyway, and when we did Prepa HEC, the classic equivalence is that we go straight back to Doug’s second year of Sciences So I went to Toulouse, because it was a college that had an excellent reputation in economics.

Host [03:36] So now we’re going to the economy, right?

Cotton [03:39] So, I didn’t know what I was going to do, actually. So it was having it, we’re going to say, the easiest, after the HEC prep, which still has the enormous advantage of teaching you a method of work and developing a capacity for synthesis and work that is still phenomenal. It is true that when we work until 2-3 in the morning, we have binders from everywhere, we may have 20, geo history, maths, in every sense, we have a huge capacity to work. And in Toulouse, they had this famous magisterium of statistical economy which is a kind of sector, small sector, since we are only about thirty, and we are selected on file. And what I liked about that is that we had directed work. and compulsory courses and that we were learning concretely, that we programmed with software, so we had courses of statistics and probabilities, a lot of econometrics also since it is a field where at the same time we do the magisterium and at the same time we do the classical diplomas, that is to say that when we go back to the magisterium at the same time we do the bachelor of science eco, in the second year of magisterium we do the master of science eco, so we pass the exams of the master’s. And when you’re in the third year of the magisterium, you pass either a DESS or a DEA. And I, in this case, have had a DEA, financial intermediary market, where I never understood much.

But, well, it’s no big deal, I got it anyway. So it started that way. And then you decided to fork next, you have to understand, towards the field of the health of the industry… No, no, I didn’t fork, since in fact when you learn, when you study, you have directed work that is on samples, so you already work in applied statistics. So after we apply them to one field or another, it’s from the experience and the field in which we go. That is, everything I’ve learned in the magisterium of statistical economy, statistical methods, software, I’ve used it all my life, but applied it to the field of clinical research. I could have worked in the agronomy, in everything else, in insurance, in becoming an actuary, in finance. There are plenty of opportunities with this diploma. I in this case, life has referred me to the pharmaceutical industry.

Host [06:06] And precisely, you are talking about research. What do you think about the state of research in France, particularly in the field of health?

Cotton [06:13] That, I can’t judge because I’ve always worked in the private sector. In the private sector, my intervention came as soon as there were molecules that had already been found by researchers. How it happens before, it’s not an experience I have. So I can’t have any opinion on that because it would be an opinion that is completely undocumented, let’s say.

Host [06:40] So after this journey, in any case after these studies, you became what is called a biostatistician. This is the subject of the first chapter of your book. So first, can we do a little pedagogy, if you would Christine Cotton? A biostatistician for the people who listen to us, what is it?

Cotton [06:54] The biostatistician for clinical research is the one who writes the methodology of clinical trials, that is, the one who will write the protocol, the document that defines what we are looking for, the objectives of the research, the criteria that we will analyze, the measurement times, and how we will analyze all this. It’s the one that calculates the number of subjects on the basis of efficacy assumptions. We’re going to say that we want to put on the market an anti-pain. We’ve seen in the literature this, this, this and this. We think our new pain medication will have so much effectiveness or it’s going to reduce the pain time. How many subjects do I need if I am doing a clinical trial to statistically demonstrate this? Versus, for example, placebo or a treatment that already exists?

Host [07:54] This is a complementary approach from the point of view of the caregiver.

Cotton [07:58] Not at all, it has nothing to do with it. We are purely clinical research, we’re going to say that she uses caregivers in the sense that she uses, she needs staff to recruit patients from her trials. So if I’m in rheumatology, I’m going to have doctors participating in my trial, who are paid, what we call “investigators”, they’re going to be rheumatologists. If I’m in cancer, I’m going to have cancerologists. It depends on my study, what I’m looking for. If I’m in uro, I’m working on the benign hypertrophy of the prostate, the people who will recruit my patients to my trial, they’re urologists. So when you’re under-treated, you have the chance to work in many different therapeutic areas, for many laboratories, and so you see a lot of things.

Host [08:49] Is the statistical approach what you think is missing from doctors, journalists?

Cotton [08:54] It’s like everything, it’s a profession. If I’m starting to give lectures or go on TV about boat safety procedures, I think I’m going to make a good joke about it. That’s a little bit of the problem we have. Today, we have experts who have no expertise in the field they’re talking about.

Host [09:14] That makes me laugh a lot.

Cotton [09:17] The statistics of what ? The statistics of clinical trials, once this protocol was written, that the investigators recruited the patients, that we have the database, my company was specialized in the collection of these data. How do I collect them ? What tools do I make available ? What is called data management . And then, how do I analyze them ? I had data managers who managed the collection of this data, and I had biostatisticians who worked for me. I had up to 20 people in this company.

So, clinical trial statistics are biostatisticians who have a certain type of training. In general, these are baccalaureates plus 5 and have, for example, me when I hired them, who already had an experience in a contract research company, CRO, i.e. under specializing in the pharma industry, or who had diplomas where they had learned the same thing as me, i.e. stats and probabilities, so that they would be able to apply them.

But to make a good biostatistician, it takes at least 3-4 years, since it takes the experience. since one cannot ask anyone, even who comes out of school, immediately to be good advice. It is like everything, in fact, any profession. If I have a carpenter who has been working for 20 years, it may not be the same job that comes out of school. So it’s a profession that learns a lot, then the more you do… the more you participate in writing protocols, the more programming you do, the more results you make, the more reports you make, the better you work and the more you understand. So the more good advice you are. It’s like all trades, actually.

Host [10:58] And on the reliability of these figures in your book, you explain precisely that all statistics are public, especially on the Internet. How can we be sure of the reliability of these statistics?

Cotton [11:09] So, what statistics?

Host [11:12] I, for example, have a special attention that I would like to draw to the accounting, for example, of the deaths of the Covid-19, for example. To what extent is it reliable? I was recently speaking to a senior hospital official in Paris who explained to me that a road accident, for example, had been counted as Covid if it was tested positive.

Cotton [11:31] Ah yes, well I, in my own entourage, I have one of my friends who cut his hand to the chainsaw, and they put it only to Covid. So, well, it is clear that it is not reliable in the sense that we have testimonies from people who tell us “but so I didn’t have that at all”.

Host [11:49] No, but what is the stats, I’m a bit of a devil’s lawyer, is it still a good tool to understand reality?

Cotton [11:54] So in clinical research yes, if we follow the practices, the regulations, the reference documents that have been in place for years, to ensure that the results are precisely reliable. We did not put all these standards like that to please each other. We put them in because it allows all stakeholders to work in the same way around the world, and it also makes it possible to be sure that when we go to audit work methods, and we see that there are problems, we know that for example such a trial will be less well followed up or some participating centre, so normally we don’t do it again. Because he has working methods that don’t go well. When you’ve trained people, well… all this is traced, that is to say, the training of people involved in clinical research, it’s plotted. We have CVs that are signed, we have laboratory audits that come to check, us as subcontractors, that our staff is trained, we have tracking, logs, that is, where we record the dates of training. In the audits, they come to check that our working procedures are compliant All that? To be sure that the result we’ve made, it’s correct. If I start getting a finance specialist to work in a clinical trial, maybe the reliability of the results is not the same. So that’s why I’m saying it from the beginning, everyone has their job.

Host [13:21] Is it precisely, paradoxically, to what you are saying, that we are not in a world that is too much led by numbers? Can we sum it all up to numbers?

Cotton [13:29] That’s a little bit of what I wrote somewhere, finally all averaged, all counted like that. Statisticians certainly have a share of responsibility.

Host [13:38] We can say anything with the stats, can’t we?

Cotton [13:41] Doing everything, Christine Couton? Depends on which. Normally in clinical trials, no. In an observational investigation, that is to say in real life, it’s easier. Since I read the publication on Nutella, well, it’s almost supposed to protect us from cardiovascular problems. Indeed, here we say, we can do everything we can to the numbers.

Host [14:03] George Sheet said, “I don’t believe in statistics until I have falsified them myself.” What do you say?

Cotton [14:11] Normally, in clinical research and clinical trials, nothing is falsified, because it is too much responsibility. I’m not going to falsify results from a study, from a trial where I’m going to come to the conclusion, for example, that the product we’re testing doesn’t work, so I’m not going to falsify results, you realize the responsibility it’s. That means I agree to help put a product on the market that I found not working. It’s impossible for a biostatistician, it’s too heavy a responsibility. But by the way, I’ve always said, no one ever asked me to falsify anything, and clinical trials that don’t work and for which there is no publication, there are some that the lab has found a product, it does its clinical trial, versus Placebo, where to find that Placebo works as well as the active product. That is, we either go back to the product, we go back to the beginning, we say we abandon it because it doesn’t work. Or we do another study to check that this product is actually not effective. But no one ever asked me to falsify anything.

Host [15:22] No, but without falsifying, it reminds me of my job when I had the opportunity to order surveys, for example, we all know that we can publish or not publish surveys, so we don’t falsify anything.

Cotton [15:33] Survey is different.

Host [15:35] But in any case, what I would like to know in full transparency, since that is indeed what motivates you to say everything, you have worked in which companies? What you can say in any case, the companies in which you have worked?

Cotton [15:48] I was only working for myself, since I set up my company at 26 years of age. So initially, I set up this company with a partner, a partner who had a lot of experience in the pharmaceutical industry.

Host [15:59] Can you deliver us, there’s not anything you’ve seen where you’ve found an admission in your profession?

Cotton [16:03] No, I don’t!

Host [16:04] Never!

Cotton [16:04] But no, that’s why I was very surprised, but not at all, except for a few markers sometimes, I call them marker, marketing, who ask you to do completely stupid things and to which you say “but no, it’s completely stupid, I don’t do it.” I’ve never found something unattainable, I’ve always found that it was a rigorous job, where people worked seriously, I only worked with people like that. So I didn’t expect at all, putting my nose in Pfizer Clinical Trials, to find so many problems, but not at all.

Host [16:34] We often hear about Big Pharma, is it still a notion that makes sense to you?

Cotton [16:38] But Big Pharma, it’s a term used for… It’s not pejorative at the Big Pharma base, that is, it’s a term used to designate large laboratories, since in pharmaceutical laboratories too, people should not mix everything. A small pharmaceutical laboratory that has a few products, it has nothing to do with the Pfizer laboratory. It’s not the same working methods, it’s the same methods in the sense that we follow the same regulation, but it’s nothing comparable in terms of the level of financial power.

Host [17:09] It’s often said that it’s a small group of companies ready for anything for money, you didn’t feel that?

Cotton [17:14] No, never. I’ve worked a lot for the Ipsen labs, which have been the worst in the audits, Frankly, when you saw the quality of the auditors, you can never think that even inside the lab, they have a different behavior. And so when she was auditing us, she was taking us out to show them how we were validating our work, since we are valid, since we have a very big responsibility, we can’t be wrong. I can’t afford to give back results that are wrong.

So there’s a whole validation circuit. Who’s programming the analyses? Who’s seeing them again? Are my logs saved? Does my software allow me to record the logs? That is, I can prove to my listener that such a program, it was run such a day and that my result of the log does not involve any error. And if it involves errors, I must be able to justify it. There is a tracking, what is called tracking, which is very important in the pharma industry.

So we can’t imagine that these people have a different behavior when they internally audit their own structure. And in my opinion, they don’t have it. So that’s why I was still very very very surprised at the number of problems and especially the silence of the agencies on these problems which are still some completely obvious. So the question I asked me wherever I went is “did biostatisticians read the clinical reports and protocols of the Clinical Pfizer trial in the agencies. I haven’t had an answer so far.

Host [18:58] We’re going to talk about it, just a little bit about those famous conflicts of interest that we’ve talked about a lot during the Covid crisis. Is that something you’ve seen, Christine Cotton, while you’re practicing for the pharmaceutical industry? Have you witnessed any conflicts of interest?

Cotton [19:12] So, it’s complicated because, in fact, in some diseases, you have leaders – people who have a lot of customers, who have a lot of weight, who do a lot of publications. So when you do a new try, you’re going to look at this kind of people, obviously. So is it necessarily a conflict of interest? It’s complicated to answer that. For me, it’s not really a conflict of interest, since you really have brilliant people among the doctors, so we’re not going to go take the prick from the corner either to say, “Here, this one doesn’t have a conflict of interest.” It’s complicated, because you’re gonna have to take what’s called “opinion leaders,” that is, people who are going to make publications and that’s going to highlight your clinical trial results. Is that why the person who works, who agrees to work in your trial, is a rotten one sold to Big Pharma? I don’t think so.

Host [20:08] You have, however, been the subject of personal criticism of the, what are called the guard dogs of the system, the media like Conspiracy Watch, who calls your book an anti-vaccination burner Covid-19. Well? Ah, I didn’t see it. Ah, you didn’t see it? Oh, no, because I didn’t say it. No, no, then I don’t care, my poor. Well, what do you say to them?

Cotton [20:27] In any case, they have no legitimacy to comment on anything from a biostatistician work of the industry-pharma. I don’t care completely, these poor people believe they reach me at the level of my ego, it’s been a long time since nothing reached me at that level.

Host [20:43] The question underlying this, because obviously… I’m the question who pays them? Ah, bah, that’s a good answer. That’s the only thing I’m interested in… we call the fact-checkers, so what do you answer to these famous fact-checkers?

Cotton [20:52] I’m the only thing I care about is who pays them?

Host [20:55] It may be you and I too, since the Conspiracy Watch event was recently discovered in a Senate hearing, it was following another subject that had nothing to do with it, which was the Marianne Fund where they were being interviewed, and it was discovered, for example, that Conspiracy Watch had up to 50% of public grants. So that means finally, when you take a spit out of these people, you’re financing a little at 50%.

Cotton [21:15] Yeah, anyway they can spit out what they want, I don’t feel hot or cold. There you can see the extremely organized harassment networks on Twitter anyway.

Host [21:26] Now, that’s what I was going to ask you, what do you think of this strenuousness, of such a strenuousness on the subject?

Cotton [21:30] I think I’ve filed a complaint anyway and I’m not gonna let them go.

Host [21:34] Oh, so that’s it, finally it leaves you cold, but you’re still reacting.

Cotton [21:40] I react because it is necessary to know who these people are, why they do this, how it is that there are people who have been allowed to say for more than a year that I do not have a baccalaureate plus 5, that I am not a biostatistician, that I know nothing about clinical research, how these people allow themselves to have such words, they do not know me, my name I mean, in the pharma industry it is known in the sense that when we were 23 years subcontractor and we had a company that worked relatively well, I mean but who are these people to afford to treat others like this, professionals, while they do not have any qualifications in this field. But I’m not going to let them go, which is what they say in their little brains about… I was going to say chicken, but it’s insulting a chicken, cockroach. Maybe I call them very often on the networks. No, no, but I’m not going to let them go, that they say it well.

Host [22:33] The Covid-19 was a turning point for freedom of expression, do you think?

Cotton [22:37] Frankly, I don’t know.

Host [22:38] Do you think you’ve been censored or not?

Cotton [22:41] Oh yes, I do, a lot. Yes, a lot, as soon as I posted my report on the LinkedIn network, so I had a lot of professional relationships, and I asked for the opinion, by posting it was to ask for the opinion of colleagues in the pharma industry, we’ll say colleagues or customers, my account it was two days. I posted it, they censored it to me, I handed it over saying I wasn’t breaking the rules and they blew me off my account. And then, lately, I asked them to have it or, they don’t want it. So yes, it’s an infringement of freedom of expression. How to share expertise with colleagues at work, how we don’t have the right and how it’s a sharing of false information.

Host [23:29] How did we get here?

Cotton [23:30] And who works at LinkedIn, who is able to know if what I share is false information?

Host [23:37] He must have biostatistics skills.

Cotton [23:39] It’s clear, yes, but when they give them, let them list their skills.

Host [23:45] It’s a story of what, corruption, stupidity of journalists, managers of these sites, social networks?

Cotton [23:52] That’s why we have to make complaints, because we have to do investigations, so we’ll know one day by whom all these trolls recruit in trash cans, as I say here, for their failed lives, their failed careers, their rotten lives, we need to know who pays these people. That’s why I filed a complaint, not because it’s reaching me. I don’t care, but I don’t care. Besides, there are many times when it makes me laugh a lot.

Host [24:21] But these fatstickers, who, obviously, as you say, do not sound at all, but who do not really have any influence with the general public, but indirectly, when one still has one with the so-called mainstream media, called national, you are little or no invited in these national media?

Cotton [24:37] Anyway, you see very well in my complaint, we’re going to say all these accounts that follow each other, that are also subscribers to all the doctors on stage, that themselves are subscribers to part of these accounts, with completely weird names, but you can see that behind it feels the degenerate to hover, more than the skill. These accounts are linked to the doctors on the plateau, who themselves are linked to journalists, those accounts that are linked to journalists, I’m all in my complaint. That’s why I want an investigation.

Host [25:08] So Christine Cotton, we now come to the heart of your book. You describe at the beginning of this one what we could call your path to Damascus, or at least how you became aware of manipulations. Can you tell us Christine Cotton, the path that led to this bed first?

Cotton [25:24] My life is a little Forrest Gump, that is, the person who is there, who didn’t ask anyone, and who is going to be asked “you do this, you do this,” when I finally didn’t go at all to analyze the Pfizer clinical trials, and so I get in there saying, “Well, there’s a little problem anyway,” and then I see from January 2021 that we don’t have any effectiveness on the severe cases shown statistically, that we don’t have efficacy over 75 years, that we still have a certain number, that it’s intermediate analyses at three months, so that tolerance, if established, is established over this very short period of time. And so now I’m thinking, there’s a problem in these trials.

Host [26:03] So the general message first of all from your book, the one you wanted to see, this one, which had a problem… There are major methodological biases and serious shortcomings invalidating the conclusions.

Cotton [26:15] And I say it, I say it again, we have to do audits to know whether it was done knowingly, in which case it is called scientific fraud, or whether it is a contest of circumstance, we will say unfortunate, because of the urgency, I do not know what. and in which case we will have to take the appropriate convictions.

Host [26:36] So it’s a book, so very thorough, very documented, full of very interesting analysis. How long did it take you to write this book?

Cotton [26:45] So I was asked, it was supposed to be in August 2022. That’s an order no? Yes, yes, like my whole life, it’s orders. I didn’t ask anyone at first. So I accepted because it was for the victims. That’s what I was told, what to write, what we want in it, is testimony from victims. And I who had written this expert paper on the clinical trial Pfizer, obviously, I couldn’t not talk about it and put only testimonials. So I waited for almost all the testimonials to write all the rest around these testimonials. And I structured the chapters around the testimonials. And it took me three months, maybe not even. That is, the longest thing was getting the testimonials eventually.

Host [27:35] Gather all these testimonials together?

Cotton [27:36] Yes, that’s it, because to classify them, because there were those who had myocardites, who did not have the same care as those who had the neural problems, there were menstrual disorders. And then as it happened, there was information coming out, so I had almost finished the book, then I added something because it had just come out. So yes, it didn’t take me so long.

Host [27:58] So we’re going to go into the details of this book. First of all, the Covid, and I’m saying it purposefully because you refuse to say there. Is this a subject you’re working on full time today, the Covid-19?

Cotton [28:09] Not at all, Jardine. Ah, okay. I’m a big gardening fan.

Host [28:16] All right, but that’s still the fundamental subject of the last few years.

Cotton [28:22] From the moment I wrote this expertise from the Clinical Pfizer trial, I was forced to make it known, because I couldn’t, as a biostatistician, I couldn’t say anything. And once I had said, people had to be aware of it.

Host [28:39] How do you see your role, Christine Cotton, you say alert launcher, we see it in the subtitle of the book, what does that mean to you?

Cotton [28:51] An alert launcher is someone who warns of potential risks to the population. And that’s typically it. We have risks that are perfectly documented in laboratory documents, whatever they are, be it Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, because there are not only messenger RN vaccines that have problems. In my book, I’m also talking about the others who alert the public about possible risks. I’ve alerted the authorities too for that. I alerted the senators and the MPs of the OPECST. Then in the book, I’m talking about other things too that I’ve never publicly revealed. Because sometimes it’s more productive to do things and then not to talk about it than to talk about it and go… are there any topics you’re forbidden to address in this book? No. No, no, no. No, no. There, I said everything.

Host [29:39] And to return precisely to this term as an alert launcher, as an alert launcher, why don’t you, in your opinion, be more protected and taken seriously by the public authorities? That’s the question?

Cotton [29:50] That’s the whole question. Had the government wanted to take people like me into account and invite them on TV sets, instead of receiving general practitioners, urologists who had nothing to do with respiratory problems, virology, even stats, or anything at all, they would have invited biostatisticians.

Host [30:15] Have you been threatened or intimidated?

Cotton [30:18] Once, I had a phone call a little… I’m not very impressionable. Yes, I feel it. Let’s say that when I wrote, when I saw a little bit of the visits on my profile when I posted my report, it still stopped me. More after this completely degenerate troll harassment, I thought “these people are crazy.” They don’t have the light on every floor, so they’re capable of eventually attacking me, but I took a bodyguard for five months like this, it’s too complicated.

Host [30:54] Oh, yes, yes.

Cotton [30:54] Because I’m calling a guardian angel, and I took a guardian angel for five months.

Host [30:59] What do you think we’re risking today to write what you’re writing? A social death if we don’t have the strength you have or the environment you probably have?

Cotton [31:06] A social death, I sold my box in 2018 and there on the contrary I have laboratories that remind me that I work for them. So social love? Yes, of course. When we are good and we have always been good advice, I, my non-competitor clause, had a clause until mid-2020. And by the end of 2020, I don’t have to work again since I put my nose in those reports. And then I don’t have to work again because I couldn’t, I didn’t have the time, I couldn’t both try to share what I had found, do the network, and work for the pharma industry, no, no, it’s not a social death at all. I have people who remind me because they have always been very satisfied with my work.

Host [31:46] So for me and for the people who will see this book, I think, the interest of this book is to mix statistical and concrete rigour at the same time, and it’s rare enough to emphasize it. So your book, so you said, you recalled, it offers testimonies of some of the victims of the vaccine. First of all, even if you’ve already talked about it a little bit, I’d like to see you go back to these testimonials a little bit. How did you choose them? Because, again, I would also like you to tell me what you’re answering to those who might say. Maybe there are some who are going to say it. Who can be bogus, who can be manipulated? What do you answer to that to justify credibility?

Cotton [32:22] Yes, those who say it’s fake, that’s what I call rubbish trolls. How can we question a testimony of someone who suffers and who has signed and who attests to the authenticity? And then, I check, myself, in the medical records of people who testify. There are many MRIs that are made, there are peremptory understandings.

Host [32:45] You have for every testimony looked at everything.

Cotton [32:47] Yes, I think for the most part, yes. But then there’s a choice that… Then there’s the certificates on honor, the authorizations for publication, of course. Sometimes the declarations of effects to pharmacovigilance, it depends on the people. So…

Host [33:04] There are other criteria that have entered, in any case criteria, which have entered into the choice of certain testimonies.

Cotton [33:08] I didn’t actually choose them. I asked for them to be sent to me and all those who sent them to me, I published them. I didn’t choose them. Because it wasn’t possible. I couldn’t not publish, well no. Because for the most part, they’re people who have been in great pain, either physical, moral, or both. Some still suffer a lot because those who have had myocarditis, it’s almost the luckiest, we’ll say. They’re the ones that are best taken care of and almost immediately, even if for some it’s been complicated. But here’s the thing, these people who suffer from tinnitus, on a daily basis, it’s a terrible handicap for them. They have noises in their heads. Those who suffer from neurological disorders, it is really a disaster. Those who have found themselves sterile or have been removed from the womb because of the pain, the poor, it is not easy every day either. Even if they have, they have often removed the pain.

Host [34:04] What were the answers to those who might also tell you that these are very isolated, marginal cases?

Cotton [34:09] But you have to look at the numbers. You have to go to the sites of co-vigilance format, very marginal. There are 1.2 million reported effects on the EMA site. We know that there is under-reporting. So the doctors, you see, do not declare, because already, of one, they do not have the time, or then they do not want, or of themselves, they say, “No, there is no connection of which I do not declare.” Already, they have never been asked to establish the link, they have been asked to declare a bar. It is part of their obligations. It’s not for them to establish the link, it’s for the pharmacovigilance department. So we know that we didn’t declare the actual number. And behind, anyway, there are human lives. There would be only 10. We’ll let them agonize these people without treating them by saying that it’s not true. But let’s say there’s only 10.

Host [34:54] And why are these cases not further highlighted by the so-called “mainstream” media?

Cotton [34:58] But they’ve been censored on social networks, we’ve done everything to them, these people.

Host [35:03] And why?

Cotton [35:03] And it’s the same, the same trash trolls that attack me, they attack these people by saying it’s not true. They’re going to explain to the person that it’s probably because of other things. They haven’t seen the medical file, they’re commonplace of nothing. Their job is to discredit people who say there’s problems. It’s not complicated. So when we understand that, on the other hand, there are victims, it touches them to be treated like that as liars who are already in serious suffering, they do not need that, they are called liars and we continue to mistreat them. That’s why we have to prosecute all these people. I don’t just do it for me, I do it for others too. It happens that I have the means to do it, I have the means to pay a lawyer, and even if I can’t afford it, I make donations.

Host [35:52] Beyond that, why is it so important to give this question to you the biostatistician?

Cotton [36:01] So at what level?

Host [36:03] On both a moral and a scientific level, can both live together?

Cotton [36:09] We still need measurement indicators. For everything, in fact, we have measurement indicators for everything. So, well, strongly, we have statistics for everything. But the problem is that we forget about it…

Host [36:20] It’s important to put them forward, anyway, when you…

Cotton [36:23] The problem is, we forget that behind it, there are human lives, anyway.

Host [36:26] You’re giving them this book, by the way?

Cotton [36:28] Yes, because I wrote it for them, really, because if it hadn’t been a… with victim testimony, I would never have written it. That’s because there was this, and I thought, I can’t… I can’t not do it. It was really important because these people, they still suffer and some people keep telling them that it’s in their head, when they have MRIs, reports. I mean, we’ve fallen into the most complete nonsense. You have people, their psychiatrist will say, “No, no, no, it’s not in his head, there’s a real problem coming from elsewhere,” and they go to the emergency room and people say, “No, it’s in your head,” and it happens with the psychiatrist’s letter that says, “No.” What does that mean?

So you have people in the emergency room, now they’re better like cicata, who follow someone, you have people who aren’t biostatisticians for the pharma industry, who explain to you that they’ve understood better than you Pfizer Clinical Trials by being a math teacher or oceanographer, we’re really in a society of a hallucinating mediocrity. So I hate me for mediocrity, so you have to put everyone back in their place. That’s, so trolls in the hoops, that they should never have left, oceanographers in the sea with the fish, and everyone his profession.

Host [37:48] This denial by the public authorities of the effects of the vaccine, how do the victims live it?

Cotton [37:55] It’s terrible for them, it’s the worst of all. Already, they have the impression that they have been lied to about effectiveness, and about tolerance, since they are sick. Then they will consult some, you have seen in the testimonies, how many doctors, how many different specialties, 10, 15, how many visits to the emergencies. Now we tell them no, it’s not okay, no, you don’t have anything, even for myocardites, that is to say, something where you have to do exams, it’s not very complicated, we don’t do them the right exams, but no, it’s not that, you don’t have to have that. And then after they declare pharmacovigilance, it’s not where they don’t get the e-mail or it’s not taken into account, we tell them but it’s not something else, it’s not because of the vaccine. For them, it’s them, they want justice.

Host [38:42] You think one day these victims will be recognized?

Cotton [38:44] Yes, yes, because the wheel turns, it’s one of the laws of the universe. Everything is cycle, everything moves.

Host [38:53] You still don’t think we have the impression that we’re going to put an eternal veil on this issue in view of the huge interests at stake?

Cotton [39:04] No, because every cycle has an end, it’s like that. It’s spring, it’s summer, it’s all cycle in life. I managed a box, I was boss, then I could be boss. Maybe I’ll go back to boss one day. It’s all cycle, everything has a beginning, everything has an end.

Host [39:23] So you’re not alone anyway, because you’re still supported in your fights by some personalities like Bartine Vauner or MEP Michèle Rivasi. Do you have any other support in the political arena this time?

Cotton [39:39] Laurence Muller-Browne, who wrote the preface with Michèle Rivasi. Virginie Jorot also, who asks for transparency. Today I was with Nicolas Dupont-Aignan.

Host [39:50] And then what welcome did you have?

Cotton [39:52] Well listen, he thinks this book is very instructive and people need to read it. Yes, so already people need to read it to understand how trials work in general. Because finally, who really knows, people who don’t work in clinical research, who really knows how clinical trials are going? Do people know he’s a biostatistician doing the tests?

Host [40:19] How exactly do you explain by the Nicolas Dupont-Aignan that opposition parties such as the LFI or the RN do not precisely grasp subjects, which is a subject they should choose from?

Cotton [40:29] So Nicolas Dupont-Aignan also asked for a commission, he asked for a commission of inquiry yes.

Host [40:34] Not finally Nicolas Dupont-Aignan unfortunately for him in terms of political influence it is not the weight of the LFI or the RN what.

Cotton [40:41] Oh, yeah, well, how do I explain it, I don’t explain it, I have to ask it. How do they condone letting people like that die, young people who are dying in their homes with little fire? How can we condone it? Oh, yeah, that’s unacceptable. That’s unacceptable. I, that’s the thing I can’t stand. It is to know that there, while we are talking, there are people who are half dying of hunger because they can’t eat anymore, because they have problems of swallowing. It is unacceptable. That is really what motivates me to continue. I can’t let these people down. And even beyond the researchers… So maybe when it’s their own kid, they’d move a little bit more. Right now, they’re pretty lucky and neither they nor their kid. But, well, that’s like it all, turn it back.

Host [41:33] So today it’s like this, tomorrow… Exactly, what a look you’re looking at these public figures, because there are some, who have been able to be critical at some time and who have changed their shoulder rifle. I’m thinking of Michel Onfray for example.

Cotton [41:44] Frankly… I find that changing your mind is not a bad thing, because we were able to join for a while, let’s admit that today at the beginning we say good it’s there the vaccines come out, we hope it will work etc. I mean after a while we can see that it doesn’t work no? Who found about 95% effectiveness? Where was that? On the Moon? In the metaverse? I don’t know but it wasn’t in reality. At the end of a while, you can think that you were wrong, you got caught.

So to change your mind, if he changed his mind, so much the better. He may have been at the beginning, saying, “Yes, you believe in it, you believe in it.” I said, “You don’t have to believe, you have to check.” I said that to my employees all my life. When they arrived, having done a bumblebee, I thought that “no, no, you don’t have to believe, you have to check.” So instead of believing, we ask ourselves, we go see the right experts, we go look for the documents and we stop believing. If you want to believe, you go to church, or the mosque, or I don’t know where, but no, science, you don’t believe. Assumptions are made, which are tested by experiments, after we have results, on the basis of the results we have conclusions, i.e. the assumptions we made are proven, i.e. in clinical research, the effectiveness of my new product is superior to that of placebo, for example, so I will apply for a marketing authorisation because I have proven the effectiveness mathematically, statistically in this case. If I haven’t proved it, I’m packing my merchandise and I’m proposing something else, that’s how it works.

Host [43:35] You were talking about pursuing trolls. Do you think that policies should be pursued at some point?

Cotton [43:39] Oh, clearly, especially those trolls, the troll network, it goes back to the politicians, but let them make sure, no, I won’t tell you.

Host [43:50] All right?

Cotton [43:51] But yes, of course, it goes back to politics. You have trolls that make spaces, you have these Twitter space where we have everything and anything, we have deep morons who express themselves for hours with their two neurons running behind without ever catching up. And so, you have these people who incite harassment to try to block my account, because I tell anything, but always without any argument, of course. They tell anything. They can’t give arguments, they don’t have any. So yes, whether they brag about being in touch with senators or MPs or I don’t know what, but if they’re reassured, I’ve also traced this in my… I’ve spent hours copying tweets glued, I’m someone… Traceability is quality, I was a quality insurer, I copy-paste, I spent my life copy-pasteing tables to make reports, I don’t mind spending 300 hours copy-pasteing tweets. And most importantly, I told you, I’m not nice. Yes. I don’t see how people can be treated this way.

Host [44:57] Question a little out of date, but I would still like to talk to you about it for a moment, as is the case with Professor Raoult. How did you react to the searches of the IHU in Marseille and to the attacks on Professor Raoult?

Cotton [45:08] Raoult, it’s a little complicated. I can’t go in there directly because I haven’t studied his work.

Host [45:19] His numbers.

Cotton [45:21] I didn’t do the calculations again. There, he released his pre-print and he made the database available. To get an opinion, I have to make my own statistics on this database. However, as I have many other things to do, I never did. So hydroxychloroquine based on Raoult’s work, I can’t get an opinion since I haven’t been expert. Now, what I see is that the people who so-called re-analyzed Raoult, as if by chance, in there is the famous oceanographer against whom I filed a complaint, because it’s been a year and a half since she said that I don’t have a degree and that I’m not a biostat, while she’s an oceanographer, so we’re wondering what she’s doing in clinical research. And our statistician and stuff, and these people are part of this famous gang of stalkers.

So I find that anyway, those who criticize have no legitimacy to criticize anything, and that would be good to go back to their own work instead of bothering others. So that’s… In fact I don’t defend Raoult when I defend him, I delegitimize those who criticize him. It’s like me if I were to criticize something that I don’t understand, in which I never worked. What would be the credibility of my word? Tomorrow, I’m giving a lecture on the repair of pipes in boats, because I repaired my shower hose. Those whose jobs it is will say, “Listen, Christine, you’re nice, but you’re out because you’re just talking bullshit.” It’s the problem from the beginning, it’s that we listen to people who have no legitimacy to talk about what they’re talking about.

So it exists, and there it is. After that, what I also know is that hydroxychloroquine was a product that was massively sold in the world and used for 70 years, and that Raoult asked the ANSM for a temporary ATU authorization. I worked a lot in the ATUs, so that’s to put, finally there are the ATUs, the RTUs, so temporary recommendation for use. So when we already have a product on the market that we want to test an extension, there’s no need at all, at least another indication, to do a clinical trial. We can do an RTU.

So why the ANSM refused Raoult this thing when it was put in place right after the Mediator case? That is, you had products that had an AMM, an authorisation for certain indications, and were given for other indications. So if the lab today wants to give it for another indication, it does not have to do a clinical trial. It can do ATU, RTU, that kind of device. to facilitate the normal marketing of a product that would be urgent, we will say, or of interest for health, without having to repeat a whole clinical trial process, which is much longer. And now we’re going to search, but then why don’t we go search at Pfizer?

Host [48:20] A search that takes place a few days after the publication of a gallery, which was signed by several scientists, who were precisely criticising the Institute’s practices, founded by d’hier or in Marseille, What do you think Christine Cotton says about the role of the media? Like who are these scientists in fact? And some scientists precisely in the conduct of judicial cases.

Cotton [48:37] I don’t know, I need to see the list of the scientists in question to see if they’re being massively followed by stalkers’ accounts.

Host [48:44] You’re afraid to see him go to jail some day, for example?

Cotton [48:55] Again, those who criticize, what legitimacy do they have to criticize?

Host [48:58] Do you think he might ever be convicted?

Cotton [49:02] I can’t answer that question. If we condemn where? In that case, we have to go and audit the clinical trials of the laboratories, simple, not just the Pfizer laboratory, to see how it happened. There is double standards, the problem is there, there is double standards, there are obvious frauds in the Pfizer clinical trial with serious effects, serious adverse reactions that have not been reported, which do not appear in the databases, which are not in the reports, and there is nothing said, and Raoult on hydroxychloroquine, we are going to penalise. So it is this double standard that I denounce more than the Raoult case in itself.

Host [49:42] It’s a little surprising what he got a lawyer, you got Fabrice Divizio to fight trolls.

Cotton [49:49] I don’t know, maybe he’s been looking for them for six or a year. I don’t know if he found them, if he’s still looking.

Host [50:01] And then he didn’t change a bit of opinion about Raoult, apparently, because a few years ago, I heard that there was a letter sent to the Council of the Order, if I’m not mistaken.

Cotton [50:11] I got an echo.

Host [50:14] Well, we’ll stay evasive on this question. Well, anyway, he takes whoever he wants, as you say, but, well, it’s not necessarily the best choice, we’ll see, anyway. What does it say more broadly, talk about freedom of expression, what does it say more broadly about scientific freedom, finally, everything that’s going on right now?

Cotton [50:31] So, scientific freedom is a vast term. I, the thing that is troubling me, is that we are moving towards accelerated development, now, of clinical research. and to burn down all the steps and not to respect the processes that have been in place for years, if they have been put in place, if they have been written, if we have done thousands of audits to verify that these processes were respected and therefore it was on this basis that we could have reliable products on the market if now we no longer respect them, what are we going to have as a junkry available on the market? I’m worried about the future of clinical research, and when you took 10 years to develop something, if now it takes 9 months, what of the staff of all those people who work in the labs, who work in the subcontractors, who work in the analysis labs. I feel like it’s gonna be the door to a good package there.

Host [51:29] Is it still possible to do science, even if you say you’re not a nice guy, but is it possible to do science in such a harmful context? Is it possible to be solid?

Cotton [51:41] Science is a word that is too broad for that in fact since science, everything is science somewhere, or from the moment there is this process of experience and conclusion, everything is science, astronomy is science.

Host [51:51] When you see that even some of Raoult’s confreres are inclined to attack him, I don’t know, it says a lot anyway.

Cotton [51:58] From the moment we leave experts who aren’t coming to explain life to people who don’t get their ankles, well, it’s complicated, but I mean, after a while, it’s up to people too to make an opinion. Now, if we could ask the French how they could be most appreciative of those who taped on the trays to sell us the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine by telling us that it was safe and effective, where can we be? I think the case is quickly folded. Because in the end, these people always end up decredivizing themselves in the long term.They would do their mea culpa by saying “good we were wrong, we had hope, nana, there was nothing else, it was the urgency,” but no, they continue. There I don’t know if you saw on Twitter, I put a tweet under the account of Karine Lacombe, who was in a conference, and I told him “when was a symposium on the adverse effects of vaccines, when did the victims recognize them?” She said to me “don’t come and pollute my thread with your fantasies.” My fantasies.

Host [53:01] Karine Lacombe answers that.

Cotton [53:05] So the poor girl was already completely decredible for a long time in the eyes of everyone, even in the eyes of those who are not at all aware of what I’m saying, since everyone understood that these vaccines were totally ineffective, the proof is that no one goes there anymore. So some of them understood that they were very toxic because they’re making the cost of it. And here in addition, instead of saying I’m going to put my doctor’s coat back on because I still took the oath of hypocracy to go to work to try to do something for the victims, these are my fantasies. My fantasies are to see the stalkers, the corrupts in the accused’s box. That’s my fantasies.

Host [53:41] To see the continuation of the show without any censorship, please subscribe to the channel Les Incorrectibles Plus on Player from the link described under this video.