Host [00:07] – All vaccinated, all protected, you heard it on all television sets, today it is the name of this book, the work of a whistleblower, Christine Cotton, hello. – Hello Elise. – So to introduce you, you are biostatistician, specialized in data, so clinical trial data, you have been CEO of a research company under contract, basically, in summary, it is a subcontractor of pharmaceutical laboratories, if I have to simplify, and you have worked on the clinical trials conducted by Pfizer. So perhaps to begin, one of the latest information available, South Africa, justice in South Africa, revealed the Pfizer contracts by showing unacceptable clauses. According to some, what is your point of view?

Christine Cotton [00:48] So actually in the South Africa contract, Pfizer, we see the risk taking from the state, from the government, to sign orders, to order a product on which we clearly have information where we are told that the tolerance finally in the long term we do not know too much and the efficiency we do not know too much. So I have just one comment on it, and I took it. I took the page that we are interested in because I’ve noticed something that I think is very important to lawyers. That is to say that our friends tell us in the supply of the product, here on page 8, they tell us not obsessing the efforts and dates set out in the provisional delivery schedule, the parties recognize that the product has completed the clinical trials of phase 2-3. It is very good this one. In April 2021, but it is not likely that Phase 3 will be completed since it begins in July 2020 and lasts for two years.

So it is hard to see how in April 2021, when we sign this contract, we were able to finish the Pfizer trials. Especially since in April 2021, they will release the report on adolescents, perhaps we will talk about it as we go. In which we have clearly expressed a failure, or missing information, which we do not know about transmission, we do not know about mortality, we do not know about symptomatic cases, we do not know protection, we do not know long-term tolerance, finally good, in short, we do not know anything.

Host [02:13] – We don’t know much and in Europe we also don’t know what the exact terms of the contract are, since we don’t have them.

Cotton [02:19] – No, we still haven’t seen this contract. Finally, apparently the MEPs have seen it, they have not had the right to have a copy of it, it is a vast masquerade.

Host [02:28] – With a whole part that was scratched, blackened.

Cotton [02:30] – That’s why we saw South Africa as well, but the one signed by the European Commission, unless it did so by SMS too, it may have made an electronic signature.

Host [02:42] So, I introduced Christine Cotton to you earlier as a biostatistician, so you’ve been working your entire life, since 95 in the pharmaceutical industry. We can’t say that seeing your profile, we thought you were going to be alerters against the pharmaceutical industry eventually. How did you actually get to look at these contracts? – Be careful, I’m not against the pharmaceutical industry. – I hear.

Cotton [03:06] “By the way, I have always said, I have only worked with competent, serious people who followed the recommendations, what are called good clinical practices. I have never seen from my Biostat career since 1995 an essay with a methodology of this mediocrity, never. Because precisely, the role of the biostatistician, when what does the LEM tell us? The LEM is the companies of the medicine. The LEM, on this site, we have a job file of the biostatistician, that is to say the one who writes the methodology. with teachers, doctors, laboratories, finally all the staff we think about knowing what we’re going to study as a criterion, how many times we’re going to see the patients, that is, the visits and how much we’re going to make them do with them, how long it’s been spent, everything is planned in advance by this famous protocol.

So the LEM tells us that the biostat has a major role since it is it that validates all these criteria, makes the analyses, etc. So every time you see something that might not fit in a protocol that a client submits to us, we say it since we are supposed to sign the clinical report. So we can’t sign something we don’t agree with. So a biostatistician, by definition, is often someone totally incorruptible because he assumes responsibility for the results.

So I’ve never seen since 95, so I stopped for a little while, there I’m working for the pharma industry again, for small labs on things that interest me. – Is that a good sign? – Yes, my former clients are coming back to pick me up. So I’m pretty happy because I’ve always been interested in it. And because I don’t have to fool myself. It’s not tomorrow the day before we’re going to remove all the drugs, we’re not going to need any more dressings, what’s called medical devices, prosthetics. We have to have people who produce them and who continue to make them and then have some innovation on them. Not everything is to be thrown into this… So there, clearly, when I put my nose in December 2020 in this first Pfizer report, I immediately saw that there was something wrong.

Host [05:15] “But what got your attention if I can say? It’s the massive operation to sell the vaccines you talk about every day or it’s out of simple curiosity?”

Cotton [05:25] “In the beginning, I say in the book, I was asked to go and look at this document where I didn’t think I’d find so many mistakes. In fact, they’re not even mistakes, that is, they’re methodological problems. That is, these are things that can be contradicted in how to manage the study, how to manage the participants, how to choose the criteria, how to choose the measurement times, I mean, someone who has a little experience in clinical trials and whose job it is to write protocols, normally, he must have that pretty quickly. While there, all health agencies have validated this main criterion that does not measure the disease, which is completely bogus, because there is no other word. And we have seen it well in real life, we have never had 95% effectiveness. But never! Who has seen 95% effectiveness on this planet?

Host [06:09] “So I found precisely in preparing this interview a statement by Olivier Véran who was even more stingy, who said it was 95% efficiency, of which we don’t know, and 100% effectiveness against containment.

Cotton [06:20] “Oh yes? I don’t know what that means.” – But the doctors, Olivier Véran, we tend to forget him too. – I think it would be nice to go back to the source of the clinical trials too because he didn’t even know the trials were not finished. He had told the public that the clinical trials had been over for months. I don’t know where but no.

Host [06:38] What you also say in the book, however, is one point that raises the curiosity of many professionals and of many French people in my sense, incidentally, that between the time when we have the genome of the virus that is decrypted, I am sorry I lose the term, January 2020, three months later, there are already more than a hundred vaccines that are under study, of which 73 I believe without mistake, which are being tested. - How effective!

Cotton [07:03] – And Pfizer starts its phase 1, I think, it’s April 2020, and starts phase 3, July 2020, and where they’re going to recruit 44,000 and a few participants, so we’re going to analyze at the end of the year, in November, to provide its famous first results, with its famous 95%, which in fact only measures the cases Covid, light or moderate, confirmed by PCR test, counted from 7 days after dose 2. So we already see that this criterion is very specific.

Host [07:34] – And incidentally, it rests on the PCRs.

Cotton [07:37] – Also. But in terms, we’re going to say, purely of statistical bias or methods, it doesn’t cause me any problem. Since I’m not supposed to have more mistakes, we’re going to say, of PCR tests in one group than in another. – Of course. – While I’m interested in, it’s a little bit the difference between the two. So if I’d had more positive cases, it was actually lowering my effectiveness, but there’s no reason for me to have a lot… the fact that the gap between the groups is very changing. So that’s why I’m not talking about it, I’m not questioning those famous PCR tests that some have called into question.

Host [08:10] And regarding the duration of development, if we had to make a comparison, even if everything is different, each molecule is different, whether it is old or innovative, but on timing, to make an anglicism that our viewers love very much, If you compare the one of the vaccine Corminati, Pfizer, and the products that you have already had to study before in your work, how will you see things?

Cotton [08:39] Ah, well, we know that these vaccines, they have been the subject of accelerated development. So all Covid vaccines. We start Phase 2, Phase 1 is not finished. Phase 3, Phase 2 is not completed. We market a product after analysis, we do an intermediate analysis after a follow-up at three months only. So we have three months back. When we are told it’s effective, we have three months back with 50% of the people followed by less than two. And we are told, it’s well tolerated. Yes, over the period we analyzed in the clinical trial. So three months maximum, with 50%, so 18,000 people followed by less than two months. Does that give a sufficient reduction for tolerance? Is there usually a form of incompressible duration? It is estimated that it takes a good ten years to develop a product. So here we have 300 and a few… 325 days, I think.

Host [09:29] I mean, I’m a devil’s lawyer, it’s also my job, but in the end, in the case of a pandemic, as was the case with Covid-19, wasn’t it just enough to speed up the development of this vaccine?

Cotton [09:42] “If, probably, but it doesn’t justify not respecting good clinical practice and it doesn’t justify choosing criteria that don’t measure the disease properly.”So yes, you could do an accelerated development, it exists anyway.”We could have done it. – That is to say, we have systems, it’s called fast tracks, rolling reviews, that is to say, these reviews as they go, so that it doesn’t take too long at the end. Fast tracks too, they’re systems to speed up the marketing of a product. But it doesn’t matter that the clinical trial in its method, it has to keep going.

Host [10:11] “But over time, we’re going to say total, we could have reduced it.”

Cotton [10:14] Yes, also what’s embarrassing is that, well, we’re going out, we’re going to say, in the emergency, the December 2020 vaccine. Well, but then, we’re also analyzing teenagers, children, 5-11 years old and babies at three months of follow-up. They couldn’t say, well, we went out for the adults, now, about the children, we’re going to do a six-month analysis to see a little bit, have a little more tolerability tracking, see a little antibodies, how they behave at six months, since we didn’t measure them at three months, at three months in the first trial, since fast, fast, we had to put them on the market. So no, in fact, we’re doing exactly the same process so we can do it again. Because if we lengthen this time, instead of analyzing it over three months of follow-up, we’re analyzing it over six, at that time we see that antibodies are dropping, since we know it from the beginning. That’s why they’re not measuring them, so they can’t lengthen that time. But who gave permission to proceed like this? The IDF, changing the recommendations on vaccine analysis.

Host [11:11] – So exactly, normally there are health security agencies in almost every country, in France we have the NSM, in the United States there is the CDC, the FDA, etc. which is supposed to be the guarantor of the health security of citizens. How do you explain the role that these agencies played at that time? Did they want above all, I was going to say, to provide an answer to the fear of the citizens, that they had more or less manufactured, or did they want to make things easier for the pharmaceutical industry for reasons…

Cotton [11:45] There, by changing the recommendations, what are called the guidelines in my Biostat jargon, which exist for all the activities of all the players in a trial, they made them a highway to do their bonding. Since it has in its guidelines, it allows them to release its famous results after three months of follow-up. It never happened. Why three months? Why not four? Maybe at four months, we were measuring the antibodies. And then, what were we seeing from December? Finally, it would have come out in January 2021. And what would we have seen? The antibodies, they go up and then they drop. Then it looked like thanks, you’re nice, Pfizer, but your antibodies only last four months, so your vaccine, we can’t approve of it.

Host [12:29] – There is also a figure that has struck me a lot in the book, you evoke relative efficiency and absolute efficiency and you talk about the 95% that have been put on the front of the stage by everyone and you get to 0.84 points.

Cotton [12:41] – That’s efficacy when you just make the difference between the two percentages of cases precisely, between the placebo group and the vaccine group. I gave it as an indication, but it’s not a methodological problem, since relative effectiveness is the classic method of vaccines. They’re all analyzed like this. And we say that transmission is not studied. It is never studied in clinical vaccine trials. – But in this case, to say that it reduces the time of transmission, it is… “Well, they did it on the basis of real-life investigation, real-life study, which have a level of proof, I said x times, close to zero, since it is for this reason that in the pharma industry, we never do it. That is, you take databases that already exist. You’re making a little bit of a joke about taking the people who set you up between such a date and such a date, and you’re comparing, ah, that’s a less vaccinated, unvaccinated group, he’s got less, and then you’re saying, ah, that’s a transmission.

Host [13:35] “You say it’s very spontaneous, it feels like it’s part of the game.

Cotton [13:39] “Well, clearly, I’m saying, it’s a skill maybe.”“We’re getting the same result. That’s the same result that people are being beaten up by giving them figures that are completely wrong or that you can’t trust because the level of proof of the design of the studies used is not enough to trust these numbers. All health policies in the world have been based on studies that the level of evidence, in the HS, the High Health Authority tells us, is the lowest level of evidence that exists in drug studies. And we do health policies on this by saying but it’s great we’re going to use this but since when in fact? And if it was enough to use this, it would be a long time before we could do more clinical trials, so why do we do it then? Why do we need randomized designs? All this is to remove biases. That’s why it’s a biostatistician job. How do I remove elements that will distort my result? That’s my job.

So when I reread a protocol, I look at everything that’s weird, or I think it’s going to have an influence. Like if I study anything, migraine, take migraine, study pain and then I allow my participants in my trial to get full of a progeny start, I don’t know what, okay, that’s gonna distort the use, my conclusion, finally give you anything, that’s it. So we’re going to say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It exists in all clinical trials. So there are a lot of methods to remove these biases, so that my result, when I get it out, I’m sure it’s reliable, that I’m not telling anything. Now, clearly, these trials, it’s big anything.

Host [15:44] “But how do you explain that this work was not done precisely, that we no longer have the test?”

Cotton [15:48] – It’s a mystery. Since in the agencies, they have the perfect competence to do this. That is, this report that I wrote is a health agency job. More than even a biostatistician. Well, because I, being the CEO of a contract research company, knew how to manage all the steps. So data collection, all the steps then necessarily stage, and then above all I was a quality insurer. So I kept the standard operating procedures that auditors, laboratories, clients would audit regularly. They even came to audit, not only that we had them, but that we were working in accordance with these procedures. Well, so it’s almost a job as a quality insurer that I’ve done. I’ve looked at several documents and then when we look at each other, we think there’s a serious problem. – But I presented this to the NSM.

Host [16:42] “So that’s exactly what I was going to say. I have noted a quote that repeats what you have said to the authorities, on several occasions, at least three, as early as January 2022. “The methods used in the Pfizer clinical trial do not ensure that the results presented are reliable and sound in accordance with the quality and ethics standard of good clinical practice. Given the risks identified and the information still missing, it is therefore urgently necessary to suspend any coordinated vaccination, Pfizer, for endangering the lives of people.

Cotton [17:12] “Clearly, I wrote this in January 2022. I presented this to our dear senators and members of the OPECST in April 2022. I presented this to the ANSM in July 2022. – At Eightclos, you say it. – Yes, at Eightclos. They weren’t going to make it public at my hearings. It’s obvious that they got laminated from top to bottom. After that, for senators who don’t know anything about it, it makes sense. Senators MPs and these clinics who know nothing, they never worked in it. But the ANSM, well. So they told me that this main criterion was chosen, accepted by all health agencies around the world. So there is either a deterioration of the generalised masses, or a general incompetence, or there is a clear will to put this product on the market when we know that it has problems. And here, in fact, there are breaches of the obligations of prudence and safety for the population.

Host [18:09] And then you finally invite the authorities to stop this mass vaccination? Answer, we’re going to make several doses.

Cotton [18:17] – Anyway, the multiple doses, they had planned them from the beginning. – We saw orders. – No, then the life of the HAS, anyway, we already knew that they were studying a boost, finally that they had plans to study a boost, we knew it in December 2020. Well, so why? They don’t measure antibodies, so they don’t show that they’re dropping. Once it turned out, since everyone noticed it after six months of saying it, well yes finally it fell, it doesn’t matter anymore. And then we get the boost out of the hat we’ve been planning from the beginning and we’re going to have to take a third dose because unfortunately the anti-corchutes, it’s true that we couldn’t see it before.

Host [18:53] - Well, no, we didn’t measure them.

Cotton [18:55] “No, but we saw them very well on the publication on monkeys. So I saw it, Mr. Douce de Blasie saw it, since he had made an interview France Info I believe, where he says, we must not panic, put hope in the vaccine Pfizer, the antibodies only last from wood. Well, he had read the monkey ad visibly, finally Mr. Douce de Blasie evaporated, I don’t know where the boy went.

Host [19:18] “He spoke two three times and then he was handed over to the niche.”

Cotton [19:20] “Oh yes, it was over, he evaporated, we never saw him again. In the meantime he was right, that is, he read the ape ad, that’s where we see him. So everyone who read this publication saw him. We have to say, we see a graph. You see, antibodies, they go up and then they go down. And antibodies, what is it? It’s the so-called protection against the disease. It’s to prevent us, if I have antibodies, from catching it or if it’s less serious. It’s the definition of a vaccine. Well, we’ve seen that it wouldn’t stop it from catching.

Host [19:47] “And the fact that it’s potentially effective only for two months, is that a problem?”

Cotton [19:52] – It is not even effective for two months, since they take a criterion that does not really measure the effectiveness. When one measures that mild, moderate cases, counted from seven days after dose 2… And then we’re doing a lot of tricks in the management to manage the participants, to finally not postpone, to finally less test the people of the Vaccin group than the people of the Placebo group, well that clearly reduces the cases. So what do we do? Let’s introduce, huh? Bias! – It’s clear. So we introduce a bias, so my results are… – Wrong! “It is not even necessary to have come out of Jupiter’s accused, in fact. It is pure logic.”“The proof, I followed.

Host [20:32] In the meantime, it’s a joke because your book, and it’s a reason for hope, is full of humor. It’s both a scientific book, of course, but you also give the floor to many victims. “Because we have to talk about it too, there we have talked about efficiency, questionable, we have understood it well, but we must also talk about another very heavy subject, side effects.”“Oh yes, that’s less funny.”“Here again, the assessment of side effects, it quickly became a totally taboo subject.

Cotton [21:03] So what we know in the clinical reports on adults and teens, we know that we already lack serious effects that have not been postponed, since we know that, since we have victims of vaccines that were in the clinical trial. and that have failed, finally that have had serious disorders and did not refer in the reports. So already, there’s still a problem with good clinical practice. In a centre, you have someone who’s half dying and then the doctor who recruited this participant doesn’t postpone it.

But since when? It doesn’t exist. So here’s how the tolerance that is given in the reports, it’s wrong. And then, actually, we have this haummerta on all the people who report having serious effects that say they are abandoned by the medical body or transbahts from right to left, who see X doctors of all kinds to try to get better and then they don’t get away with it. Sometimes to get a simple diagnosis, or even to see half of them in psychiatry.

Well, there’s one who didn’t testify, but she, I think she stayed in psychiatry for a month, they knocked her out of everything and she wasn’t sleeping. I think this one spent three months without sleeping. I don’t know how, these people are superheroes. Because some, when you see the treatment they have had, plus all the pathologies, they continue to live and continue to seek solutions. I have a lot of admiration for them, really. Because they’re warriors. Some, it’s amazing. While sometimes you say, this is the end, they won’t spend the week. And then no.

Host [22:38] Some did not spend the week, I think of the first testimonies obviously of young Maxime, where you tell that finally still today justice did not really shed light on the cause of his death, he is 22 years old, he dies globally within 5-6 hours after his first injection. When he is at the table with his beautiful family, one talks about his allergies, especially peanuts, the allergy that is proven. However, the taking of peanuts is obviously not. And you explain, for example, that in the autopsy that is made of this young boy, this young man, who explains that in the autopsy, for example, it is said that there is no trace of allergies on the arm at the level of the injection, whereas in reality they take the other arm, the arm where there was the adrenaline sting to revive it.

Cotton [23:24] It’s surreal though. Well, we see the level of experts who do the expertise of vaccine victims to come to the conclusion that nothing actually happens. And we have this problem for everything. That is, those experts who are mandated by the justice system, we end up with expertises sometimes that are really at a pitiful level. We’re thinking, but it’s an expert doctor who wrote this, but it’s not possible. We have the impression that anyone would have done better. – So, are these people under pressure?

Host [23:58] “Is it not the desire to put everything under the carpet?” Because we also see with another victim who goes to see his generalist who says to him, “Ah, I hesitate a little, the generalist, I answer her, because they are more or less friends, well, you’re nice, I kept you a dose, I’m not going to be able to fit it in the next half hour, so I’m going to buy it, so you’re going to fall asleep and…” – Yes, that’s Lucie. - It’s not a doctor’s practice.

Cotton [24:18] “Lucie, who’s getting better today, because she’s still taking up some energy, she’s recovered a lot of energy, but she still has her absolutely atrocious pains in her brain.

Host [24:26] And we see that, to alert the pharmacovigilance, the general practitioner is not very favorable.

Cotton [24:34] It’s a serious failure to report cases like this to the pharmacovigilance sites so that the agencies can calculate the signals, the famous safety signals where we’re going to say attention we have a problem with such a vaccine on such pathology. If the doctors don’t do it, how can we calculate signals? And the doctors don’t do it so we don’t know it. Sometimes, for lack of time. Some are very well aware. But they can’t, it takes too long. It’s unconscious not to do it. I know, if there are any people who listen to us, yes, okay, it’s a long time. But all those people who don’t report the effects are criminals because they don’t calculate the signals correctly and they keep telling us that everything’s going very well, whereas we probably have a lot more signals than we’ve seen in the NSM reports.

Host [25:33] – No postponement, no problem. – Certainly. In the collaboration, I was going to say, of the medical corps, of a large part of the medical corps, because obviously we must also mention the suspended caregivers who paid very dearly their opposition to health policy. The others collaborated massively in the massive vaccination operations. In view of the information you give us, is there ultimately not a breach in duty Finally, in the oath of hypocracy simply. – There are shortcomings everywhere in this story.

Cotton [26:06] There are serious shortcomings of health agencies that have authorized a product that should never have been authorized. There are serious deficiencies of doctors who rushed to vaccinate without reading any source document, not even the package leaflet, since they did not even know where it was. But since when do you rush into a new product, a new disease, without even reading the package leaflet?

Host [26:28] Do we not have the impression that this is what we also see a little in hospitals, that the doctors have been a bit functionalized and that somewhere we tell them it’s very well, we have to administer this, administer this and that they don’t even realize that their responsibility is normally engaged? – Well yes, but some will end up in court.

Cotton [26:44] – It doesn’t happen right now. – It doesn’t happen because as long as justice closes up business and all this doesn’t happen. But it won’t come at a time when it’s going to happen. Since some will attack their doctors. – Well, you talk to the victims, so we have several solutions. Either we attack the health agency. Well, some people have chosen this as Pascal Nagédi in Switzerland, he has attacked the health agency. The prosecutor has closed the complaint, he has attacked the prosecutor. There are some who do not let themselves be killed. Well, so, are you okay? – It’s a panache. – There will come a time when it will not be completely unknown victims in the four corners of France who die, they will be daughters of police officers, they will be women judges and there we will talk about if the complaints will be closed.

Host [27:29] – So precisely, I would like to go back to the subtitle of your chronic work “Vaccin Covid-19” of a health disaster announced. For you, the disaster, it is behind us, it is in progress or it is coming?

Cotton [27:39] – Ah, it’s in progress. When we already see the number of reported effects on the sites, be it VIGI Access and the WHO, the watch sheet is the OMA. Well, at the NSM we have some, I think we have to be about 200,000, just for the Pfizer the first. We know that it’s largely under-reported. In there we’re between 25 and 30% serious. You say we have about 10% of the reports? Yes, but maybe we even have a lot less than that, since we can see this sub-report when we talk to people, when they’re more conscious doctors we’re going to say, these tell us, I don’t report either. What do you mean? The person, she is aware that it causes effects and even this one does not delay. They don’t have time.

Well, they’ll have to take it at some point. And the patients themselves, when they have side effects, maybe sometimes they don’t make the connection either? So some, they don’t even know how to report. That’s why at the end of the book… but maybe they just didn’t make the link? So yes. But the later it happens in relation to the date of vaccination, the less they make the connection. So we have this problem too.

So we know, but even, let’s admit… even if it would have about fifty very serious ones in France. Is that a reason not to take care of them? No, of course. In any case. How come they mistreat them in this way? How is it that the health agency didn’t set up structures to help treat them, do several tests in the same place, instead of truncate them to the right to the left at the doctor’s where they get more or less… ball, they have to go miles to miles because the doctors are difficult. And some who try to take care of them properly, who has pity, in quotation marks, who does his job well, the guy is overwhelmed, so there is no room. It’s very complicated for these people. There would even be a hundred in France of those people left behind. We’ll keep leaving them abandoned for a long time? Of course. While that, I told the NSM about these people.

Host [29:49] I told them how long they were going to let me die.

Cotton [29:53] “Oh, no, they told me no, no, that indeed, one had to take charge.

Host [29:56] Well, it was in July 2022. – They’re still waiting, of course.

Cotton [30:00] “I don’t know, we’re waiting for the flood, Noah’s return.”

Host [30:03] “Then there is a response that has been formulated for some of the victims of side effects, especially those who have had myocardites or pericardites, we explained to them that ultimately it is not so serious.

Cotton [30:12] “Yes, it is. I don’t know if the people who said that, did they read the definition of myocarditis or pericarditis? Here we see it, in the United States we talk a lot, there are a lot of audiences who continue to come out on this subject. Well, it would be sequelae in the heart and good, it’s far from being so serious.

Host [30:29] “In your book, moreover, there is a young boy who can no longer do sports, the mother is tetanized to the idea that something happens to her as soon as he leaves his home, at last it’s pretty dreadful, he’s 14 years old.

Cotton [30:39] - That’s right, but no, but it’s okay.

Host [30:43] - Either it’s okay, or it has nothing to do with the vaccine.

Cotton [30:45] “There, there, obviously, they recognized that it had to be seen, the myocardites, pericardites. It’s even those who are pretty much better taken care of, because they were taken care of quite quickly. But finally, people have a part of their life ruined but it doesn’t continue to be serious.” It’s collateral damage.”

Host [31:07] “We have the feeling, and it’s something that struck me in you reading, that you still have the hope, and we know that you have been in court, too, so that’s why you still have confidence in justice.”

Cotton [31:20] “Oh yes, yes. Yes, I must be one of the few. Yes, I have all confidence in justice. Is it a matter of time? Yes. For me, it is a matter of time. But when it affects their family, we talk about it again. Because there is no reason, I am a statistician, no reason in statistical terms that the families of the police officers, the gendarmes, the police were not obligatory but many did, nevertheless, gendarmes, even politicians, since there we see in Europe they must all be vaccinated, well vaccinated, well protected. There’s no reason why these people don’t have undesirable facts. No reason. Besides, maybe some of them already have, maybe some of them have already died. But once again, as long as the link is not made, so there will come a time when to put the dust under the carpet to please our friends, Pfizer, Moderna and Tutti Quanti, I think it will no longer happen. I have absolutely trusted in justice.

Host [32:29] – Well, it will be a message of hope and we really need it. Thank you very much Christine Cotton for coming to us, to the studios of TV Liberté to present this work.

Cotton [32:37] - It took me a while to come.

Host [32:38] – Well yes, but now that you know the way, you can come back. I recall the name of your work, “All vaccinated, all protected”, is Guy Trédaniel editions. And of course, you know, dear friends, you can acquire it on TVL’s website on TVL. Thank you all for following us. I count on you to share this show and of course click on the thumb in the air to improve the SEO.