Michèle Rivasi [00:06] Look, I just got out of an interview with Christine Cotton, you know it’s from a biostatistician who did a whole study on Pfizer’s clinical trials to get permission on the vaccine conditional market vis-à-vis Covid. And it’s true that I came out of this very disturbed interview because one, it shows evidence in support, that Pfizer’s clinical trials are truncated, are insufficient and do not obey the standard protocol that is requested by the official bodies with respect to clinical trials to obtain the authorization that will be the market. Notably on efficacy, but it was known a little since at first the laboratories talked about 95% effectiveness and then we see the second thing is on immunogenicity, that is, the number of antibodies. It proves that after 2 months, there are almost more antibodies if a person gets vaccinated. And then on transmission, where in any case, vaccinated or not vaccinated, one can transmit. And finally on the problem of side effects, where there is a real denial of patients who have side effects following vaccination.

Host [01:53] Anyway, thank you for being here.

Rivasi [01:56] For me, it is very important that you testify because, on the one hand, you will come forward to tell yourself your skills and why you have done this study on Pfizer’s clinical trials. I myself am a Member of the European Parliament, I am very concerned with the problem of health centres. And it’s true that on the problem of side effects, nobody talks about it, as if it didn’t exist. I myself worked a lot on the directive on pharmacologiance. I had asked for stress test to see if it worked, we realized that it wasn’t. And that, whether it’s in Europe or the United States, it’s hard to make this causal link between the number of side effects and vaccination, so there’s been a petition in France. This petition collected more than 33,000 signatures and it actually led the Senate to entrust this problem to the OPECST, which is the parliamentary office of scientific and technological choices, and when I was a Member of the National Assembly, I was part of that OPECST.

So you were interviewed in that context. And I’d like to know a little bit about what you said, since it was in camera, what’s your analysis of Pfizer’s clinical trials? All marketing authorisations, be they European by EMA, i.e. the European Medicines Agency or by the United States, are based on laboratory evaluation based on clinical trials. So it’s very important that someone outside like you, with the skills you have, that you’re going to call back, you can see if it’s on the road or not. Because when we are told about efficacy, when we are not told about a side effect in clinical trials, how many clinical trials have been conducted, and if there are not also grey areas where there have been no clinical trials, for example, I am thinking of pregnant women, I think it has very important consequences. So, I’ll give you the floor and then try to explain to us a little bit how it happened. And what types of questions have been asked to you by parliamentarians, since OPEX, the advantage, is that you have both MPs and senators from different political backgrounds, and I think it’s quite interesting as an organization because it reflects different sensitivities.

Christine Cotton [04:51] Michel, thank you very much for giving me the floor. It is indeed difficult to be heard for almost a year that I have been working on this subject. I have done a magisterium of statistical economists at the University of Toulouse. Immediately after my degree, I worked in the statistical laboratory and probability of the university for a year. I set up my company which was therefore a CRO, i.e. a research company under contract, dealing with the pharmaceutical industry. who worked for research and development, especially everything that was managing clinical data.

So data management is data management, it’s data recovery, data collection, the establishment of secure websites to collect data, control it, clean it up, and statistical analyses that are therefore the ones provided in clinical reports by biostatisticians. So what’s very important is that on TV, on the trays, we’ve seen a lot of epidemiologists, we’ve seen a lot of doctors, it’s not these people who work in clinical trials. I’m not an epidemiologist, I’ve done a number of amber studies.

But the work of biostatistician is really special because it is the guarantor of the methodology of the trial since it participates in the writing of the protocol with the promoter before the implementation. That is, it is he who will determine the number of subjects, who will then write all the appropriate analyses on the criteria that have been chosen, etc. And we realize that if we change, for example, even a primary criterion that is the one on which we are going to allow the medicine or not, we are not going to find the same results at all. This is why we have a phenomenal number of recommendations, called the guidelines that have been in effect for more than 30 years, to frame all the practices of all the stakeholders that must be followed to the letter, all of which are aimed at minimizing the risk of error and the risk to the patient’s life.

So, why did I do this analysis of the Pfizer trial? I had done a first little debrief in April 2021 on the four trials. Finally, I had already identified a number of problems between what we had in the clinical trials and the communication that was made of it on TV. such as effect on serious cases, etc. While there was none statistically in clinical trials and efficacy over 75 years of age that were unproven. And so, I did it because I have the time, because I know how to do it and because I felt it was really my duty to do it because since I did this, on the limit, I only attract years and a half and I expect absolutely no personal benefit from it.

Rivasi [07:59] Yes, you’re the one who decided to do this study, and it wasn’t an order or how it happened?

Cotton [08:07] No, I’m not paid at all for this work. It was initially a request from a lawyer in Quebec who wanted to include her. As by chance, this lawyer, following her argument at the Quebec Court of Appeal, received a notice from the Ordre des avocats, or I don’t know what structure, to make a psychiatric expertise. And as she refused, she was suspended by the bar of lawyers in Quebec. But in fact, she didn’t order it from me. She asked me if I could write something about it because I was in a good position to do it.

So, this expertise, it belongs to me. That’s why I communicate it. And I don’t have a particular connection to this lawyer I didn’t know before. That’s what I’m saying. So, the big problems with Pfizer trials are that there are… so I took this Pfizer, I could have taken another one, but that’s the lab I had the most documents for. So what we need to understand is that the 95% effectiveness we have been told is this famous main criterion, i.e. symptomatic VOCID from 7 days after dose 2, confirmed by PCR test. Here, if we look at the results, in fact, 95% effectiveness, it is In reality, we have only 0.84% less symptomatic VOCID for the vaccine. That’s 95%, that’s a calculation. If we just calculate a difference between the percentages of occurrence of this symptomatic VOCID, that’s 0.84%. You already see that when we express the criterion in a different way, it gives more at all the same impression. For this criterion, the main problem with the tests was that the participants were recruited and left in the wild, returned to their homes quietly, with the burden of reporting their own symptoms. When they had symptoms, the centre recruited them, which was to prescribe them a PCR test. As a result, participants were also responsible for reporting their own adverse reactions, i.e. clearly a criterion that depends solely on the sign-off by the participant himself.

So that’s a problem, especially during a pandemic, because the Pfizer trial is phase 3, it’s July 2020, first analysis November 2020, and we find that we have a higher antipiretic use in the vaccine group, so it removes symptoms, finally we have a number of problems. So basically, it’s like the lab finally didn’t even want to know who had the Covid or not. Because if they wanted to know, or they would have done regular PCR tests to everyone to find out if people had the disease, where they would have made regular serologies, anti-nucleocapside serologies that would have allowed them to know if people had Covid. So basically, their criteria, it’s really hyper-limited to the symptoms confirmed by PCR test, no PCR test, no symptoms, equal success for the vaccine. So there’s an underestimation of the number of symptomatic cases, and in particular that is in favor of the vaccine. So it’s called a statistical bias. So the 94% are wrong.

Rivasi [11:28] And usually it’s done the same or it’s done differently? Here it’s about the testimonials, from what I understood, and on symptomatic effects. People who didn’t have a symptomatic effect, they were passing through the meshes of the net.

Cotton [11:45] Exactly. There are standards of protocols as there are standards of everything. Vaccine trials are usually done on models that look like this. We cannot say that the laboratory did not use a standard model of vaccine tests. The problem is that here we are in an accelerated development framework where all phases have been started without the completion of the previous phase of development. We are in the middle of fast track, that is, we have done everything possible to speed up recruitment, procedures to allow the product on the market, but we have not adapted the protocol at all to the disease that we did not know in 2020. that it was supposedly a deadly disease that was going to kill half the planet, in fact a standard protocol was used on a disease that a priori was not at all that of influenza or a vaccine against papillomavirus since it was a product that was supposed to be given to billions of individuals.

So we did not take that aspect into account at all. So the most serious thing is that when we look at the immunogenicity results, i.e. the neutralizing antibody assay, which are the markers that evaluate the protection against the disease. So as of December 2020, we had a decrease from two months after the second dose of these markers. So it means that we already had, in the first clinical report, a decrease in the immunity we observed. And worse, we already had it in the public on the pimps.

However, in the way the trial is organized, there is such a spacing between visits than at the moment we do this intermediate analysis, because these 95% results are an intermediate analysis. The trial ends in February 2024, something like that, for Pfizer. So, at that time, we only have a dosage that is two months after dose 2. And strangely, we don’t have a dosage after. And if we had had a dosage after, certainly we would have seen this decrease in immunity as early as December. And so, we would never have put this product on the market. However, strangely, there is no such measure.

Rivasi [14:00] Because it’s in the protocol that if, after two months, there’s a decrease in antibodies, actually, you’re talking about immunogenicity, there’s a decrease in antibodies after two months, that means the vaccine isn’t effective?

Cotton [14:18] Theoretically, if after 2 months, I already have my antibodies that drop, I don’t measure 3 months, oddly, where they would have dropped the advantage again. And as of December 2020, we learn in the opinions of the HAS that Pfizer already has a booster under study. And strangely, a few months later, they say, “Well, finally, we just realized that we have a decrease in immunity, you’re going to need a booster for friends.” And what do we see today? So, booster equals third dose. Finally, booster, after four months, it drops. Hold on, no joke, we didn’t expect it at all. So, you need a fourth dose, and finally, the fourth dose is there, in the United States, they’re talking about the fifth dose, so I mean, wouldn’t we just give a shit?

Rivasi [15:06] All right. Is the cornerstone of the clinical study, however, is the marketing authorization, even if it is conditional. Was it enough on the number of individuals taken to conduct the clinical trial? Do you see, the variety of people was enough since it played both on, at the time, 18 to age point? You see, I would like to see if it was representative of the population. And then, when they said it was 95 percent effective, why agencies? Because that was what the labs said.

Cotton [15:56] Why didn’t the agencies do the calculations you made? In fact, the authorizations as they progressed, the first interim report in December 2020, is over 18 years old. The second report submitted to the IDF in the United States, it is in April 2021, it is on the 12-15 and the third it is in October 2021 on the 5-11. So on the first report, in terms of the number of patients, we have 38,000 analyzed, so that’s actually enough.

Well, then that’s enough, but the duration of observation at the time of the analysis, since it’s intermediate, we have a maximum of three months of follow-up of participants. So what do you want to see in three months? That is, three months of follow-up over 24 months of study. It’s like watching a football game and looking at the first 10 minutes and saying, it’s there, we saw the whole game, but clearly not.

So that’s the first thing. Then, the 12-15 year olds, we have numbers that are low because we’re about 2000 and the 5 year olds, it’s the same. So, are we able to detect effects, any kind of effects on such weak populations? That’s not at all certain. But the worst thing is that in the 12- to 15-year-old trial, we have a serious adverse effect that is not noted in the report. This is a case that came out in the United States of a 12-year-old participant, which has had multiple serious effects that she still suffers and that is not included in the clinical report. It means that on a staff of just over 1,000 participants who took the vaccine, we have a very serious effect leading to a disability. Had this effect been deferred in the report, would it have been allowed in the 12-15 age group? I don’t think so.

Rivasi [17:43] And how did you know it wasn’t reported back in the report?

Cotton [17:48] Because in the United States, this participant with her mother participated in a commission that was opened by Senator Ron Johnson, which gives the floor to the victims of the undesirable events, because there is an omerta about these effects. It is not possible, it does not exist. So there’s a total denial of the medical profession and that’s how we knew that this kid, vomiting, nausea, memory loss, she’s on a wheelchair, she’s fed on gastric bottoms and that’s not in the clinical report. So it’s absolutely scandalous. On all five waves, it’s the same, we have a relatively small workforce. Is it possible to look at this, especially for tolerance? There is little to see. What is also very annoying is that in the results there is no effect on severe cases on teenagers or children, for the good reason that there are no severe cases in the trial. Therefore, there is no statistically significant evidence that this vaccine protects serious forms, nor in the first adult report, since it was not statistically significant, i.e., no difference in placebo vaccine. There is no effect on teenagers or children, so there is no evidence in the trials that it prevents S&R cases. No proof.

Rivasi [19:10] So after that, we… is it important what you’re saying? The argument of the labs, and I’d say media and powers in place, that was to say, one, it’s an effective vaccine at 95%, two, even if there’s a decrease in antibodies after three months, it prevents serious cases, because that was very important. It doesn’t prevent transmission, it doesn’t stop being sick, but it prevents serious cases.

Cotton [19:42] So, in clinical reports, none. So, how can we communicate prevent serious cases? And even transmission, that is, transmission not studied in clinical trials. So, no demonstrated effect on transmission. That is communication. No effect on transmission by December 2020. Communication of media, plateau experts, etc. Except that in real life, as we vaccinate people since we gave permission, we have a lot of people like Epifar in France, for example, who are studying in real life. And here, above all, the basis of these real life studies that have a level of evidence that is far lower than the tests, that even closes to absolute zero, since on the other hand also the HAS rocos, the gradations of the level of evidence, These tests on retrospective databases, that is to say databases, are not people that are being recruited to do a study, they are databases of information already recorded, this is called retrospective data.

So these studies there, yes, we are announced, it slows down transmission, so it slows it down in April 2021 on the basis of a study in Israel or I don’t know where, then finally it slows it down to 38%, then it slows it down to 40% and then finally it doesn’t stop it at all. So we can see that these amber studies have absolutely no level of reliable evidence and that it is on the basis of these tests that we communicate on TV, to people and that we finally announce that we are doing health policies.

So, for example, these studies, they are ambered, they are also done to assess if there are side effects. You open even Epiphar on the effects, on strokes, everything that is heart problem or I don’t know what, and then what you learn when you start reading at the end of four lines that they study the side effects only within 21 days after each dose is injected. But if I have tons of people who have effects after 21 days, I don’t count them.

So, we can see that these ambitual studies have absolutely no level of evidence, they’re all more biased than each other, and we can’t base a health policy on that. In addition, in clinical trials, populations were not studied, such as pregnant women, immunocompromised patients, patients with co-morbidity, fragile patients with co-morbidity, thus diabetics, those who had COPDs, not studied in the trials, on which they were rushed just in January 2021 to vaccinate them, whereas they were eventually not studied in the clinical trials. Finally, the co-administration of our vaccine was not studied. So, how could we vaccinate people in one arm, the flu, in Covid’s arm? In real life, we have impossible aberrations. And these real-life studies tell us no, there is no problem for pregnant women. That’s what these studies tell us, but they are not actually reliable.

Rivasi [22:49] All right. Is it that, because we had a lot of problems with the elderly, because we saw the numbers, we could see that they were elderly people who were dying with Covid or there were co-morbidities, but finally there was Covid. Have there been any clinical trials on the elderly specifically and from what age? You just said that co-morbidities were not included in clinical trials. We’re talking about obesity, diabetes, because at some point they were said to be no longer at risk.

Cotton [23:30] Had this been taken into account in clinical trials? No, not at all. These are populations… The population over the age of 75 at the time of analysis in December 2020 is very low. This is why there is no evidence of efficacy over the age of 75 in December 2020, since there are not enough cases, i.e. symptomatic VOCIDs, to prove effectiveness. Pregnant women, it is classic that it is not studied since they are excluded from all trials, since they are protected population.

So, as we rush to vaccinate all these people, we don’t have evidence in the clinical effects that we have an effectiveness, so we have phenomenal risk-takings systematically by governments, by health agencies, so why the health agencies didn’t make those remarks that I did, but I don’t know. I keep asking them the question, and my report was sent to them in February, and they did not deny it. So, the committee on undesirable effects, there is a hearing of one of the co-rapporteurs who has read the Pfizer report. Because when we see this, obviously, on the basis of the elements from December 2020, there is no authorisation to give for these products, on the basis of a follow-up of a maximum of three months insufficient, not allowing to properly assess the risks, of the biases on effectiveness that distort the conclusion. So the benefit-risk ratio, clearly, is false.

Rivasi [25:11] So I was shocked by something about the Moderna vaccine, but I think Pfizer was a bit the same thing. It is because they were agencies of the countries of the North, in particular Finland, Denmark, etc., who saw that in teenagers there were problems of myocarditis and pericarditis, and which made sure that after agencies like the French or German agency said, my Moderna was not given for adults under 30 years of age. So how is it that I asked the European Medicines Agency, how is it that it is national agencies that sound alarms and alerts, and that it is not the European agencies that still have vigilance sheets, that have pharmacovigilance tools, that have not brought up these side effects?

Cotton [26:11] So, what we know is that the reporting of side effects, already, is largely underestimated. If we may have 10% of all the delayed effects, maybe even 5. Because there, around us, when we talk, we see that we have so many. And there are so many who tell us, the doctor didn’t want to say because he said it was in the head or it was a remnant of if, of angina, I don’t know what. So, there’s really already a denial of doctors who don’t declare.

So, on what’s actually declared, the agency’s job is to calculate safety signals. That is, at the end of so many occurrences of an adverse event, it is supposed to have a signal. When one looks at myocarditis, one had, I believe, as early as April or May 2021, first statements in Israel of myocarditis. If between now and the United States, then the agency that’s supposed to look at the effects and say whether there’s a signal or not, they put on, they finally determined the signal, it was almost October 2021.

So it takes almost seven months to get a proven signal. So during that time we are told, we continue to say that there is no problem with myocardites, so we are vaccinating young people since it is especially the under 39s where there is really a significant increase in myocardites, pericardites in this population. But the problem is that after the signal, we keep vaccinating them anyway because this signal, we have it at Moderna, but we have it on Pfizer.

However, we continue to vaccinate the under 40s with this thing. So, why do we know it’s not serious? Because the signal, we only have 1 in 10,000. It’s called a rare event. This is a rare event, but for the one who has been for 6 months, because we in the associations, especially Veriti, with the association with which I work, we see that myocardia does not last at all 4 days. I have people, teenagers, who for 6 months have been diminished, under beta blocker. They have not at all regained their capacity.

But even after the signal, we continue to immunize, so it’s still a risk taking. Worse, it was that in the OPECST report itself, of December 2020, the OPECST wrote reports regularly and in December 2020, It was written black and white in this report that, from the first day of vaccination in December 2020, there were significant allergic risks from people who had had serious reactions and that it was recommended not to vaccinate people who still had an adrenaline pen on them because they were allergic profiles.

So, we know we have this risk for the populations, but it’s no big deal, we’re going to vaccinate them anyway. Then, if we have a few that slam in the way, well, even in faith on the number of vaccines, it’s not… So, systematically, in everything, there are risk-takings that are phenomenal and that are contrary to all the recommendations that have been made, which we have been following in clinical research for 30 or 40 years.

Rivasi [29:13] It’s completely incomprehensible, and so I would like us to come back to the children because I was very shocked. We vaccinated the adults with, as you say, a lack of consideration of certain populations. But now, in the children, there were still some friends who were a little different on the balance of benefits and risks. So, we put the argument, yes, but it’s true that children do not develop VOCID so much, but for the sake of solidarity with adults. That was one of the arguments. Except for the sake of solidarity, but if, by being vaccinated, we transmit the virus, good, and then adults get vaccinated at that time. What can you say, you, about the clinical trials provided by Pfizer, who received after the green light from European and American agencies to have the children vaccinated.

Cotton [30:16] So children, yes, it’s a subject that has been discussed since the pediatricians themselves visibly said that there was no collective immunity for children. So, what’s completely crazy is that we’re told, vaccinate yourself to protect others. But we’ve seen well that since it doesn’t stop transmission, it doesn’t stop being sick. I don’t see how we’re going to protect anyone when we vaccinate. So, this is completely aberrant.

So, the risks to children, they are far greater than the benefits. And especially when we see in teenagers this serious undesirable case that was finally concealed. All this certainly to get permission, because once again, if it had been in the report, would we have vaccinated teenagers? No, certainly not. So, we have a real problem, especially about children, because there, it is really very, very clear that we have risks that are greater than the benefit. And for pregnant women, too, almost as well, because what we need to know is, for example, in the reports of pharmacovilences of ANSM, we still have 25 % serious effects, which for them is apparently not terrible, but on pregnant women we have 69 % serious cases, but we continue to immunize them.

So here we can see that there is a kind of compressor roller that is running to vaccinate at any price finally, when we know very well that if we do not have a product that slows down transmission, whose efficiency is ultimately completely challenged by the actual figures. When you look at the amber studies, then it works, it’s great, but when you look at the reality, the contamination rates with the curves, you can see that it doesn’t work. And not only does it not work since every four months you need a booster to give us a little bit of immunity because after four months you don’t have any more. So how can we keep this product on the market? It’s incomprehensible in fact, totally incomprehensible.

Rivasi [32:18] And about Pfizer’s clinical studies on children, when you analyzed them, were they sufficient? Did they apply the same protocol as for adults, i.e., were the parents who had to say whether there were symptomatic effects or not? And did they have the PCR test? How did it happen? Was that deceitful?

Cotton [32:46] The same is true, that is, at the time of the intermediate analyses, because it is still intermediate analyses of the children’s population, Maximum time observed, three months, half of which less than two months. Of the 1,000 children who receive the vaccine, 500 are followed by less than two months. So already, biased effectiveness since it’s the same criterion, low sample on which you can’t really find a lot of cases, concealing serious effects for teenagers, It’s like the rest, it’s not worth much.

But theoretically, Michel, all the recommendations that have been put in place for 30 years, they are aimed precisely at ensuring that this kind of problem does not happen. Because they say, yes, but the labs are judged to be gone because they do their own tests, but that has always been the case. But that’s why we have recommendations to follow from all the stakeholders, and in statistics, we have some in biostats, we have hundreds of them of how to analyze whether the survival analysis of this and the stratified models. There is a mass of recommendations in every direction. It’s about minimizing the risk of putting a defective product on the market, that is, a product you don’t have, that would put people’s lives at risk, and that’s usually what’s going on with these things.

Rivasi [34:19] Yes, so I wanted to ask you the question about that, because often we hear about a vaccine that we tested, if there were dead, there could be two, three dead, we stopped the vaccine, we stopped the marketing authorization. There, yes, we say that there were dead, but that did not prevent the marketing authorization. What do you know about that?

Cotton [34:50] So in December 2020, in the first analysis, there are none of the deaths. Except that these participants, they continue to be followed in the trial. And when you look at the results at six months, there are 15 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 in the placebo group. And what we know is that we have two Covid deaths in the placebo group and one death in the vaccine group. So we see there already in the clinical trial itself that there is strictly no efficacy on Covid mortality.

So after the deaths they are postponed to pharmacovigilance and there we have this problem. So already from sub-airport and we have this problem of accountability because here we see it with the victims, it is the combatant’s journey to get pharmacovigilance to recognize that the effect is attributable to the vaccine. So people, through the combatant’s class, we’re getting them to run tests in every way to be sure that if they had myocarditis, it doesn’t depend on something they had, a gene, something. There’s really the impression that pharmacovigilance, it’s doing everything not to connect with vaccination. And we have in particular the case of people who are on trial. a 24-year-old who died of multiple thrombosis, rat burst, eight days later, and for almost a year, they still have no return, there is an open investigation on the subject, there is no return to know what their son died of. And all this is not imputation. So, as long as you don’t blame the effects on the vaccine, you say nothing happens, friends, you can continue to inject people quietly, nothing happens. It’s for sure, nothing happens.

Rivasi [36:47] So, with the hindsight you have on the analysis of Pfizer’s clinical trials, what can we say now about the effectiveness of the vaccine? What can we say now about the hyminology of the vaccine? And what can we say about the history that it prevents serious Covid? You see, after all these analyses and a little bit of a step back from what the labs were saying at the very beginning, three months later when they did their test, what can we say now?

Cotton [37:27] So, it doesn’t stop transmission because anyway, even though we’ve had a few real-life studies, so maybe they were a little better than the others. who were proving that it was stopping transmission, on the side of the variants, it doesn’t stop transmission since we still vaccinate people with Wuhan’s strain. Variants, clearly, it’s not effective or very little on variants. Symptomatic cases, which were therefore the main criterion of the study, in real life, no efficacy on symptomatic cases since we see that curves, efficacy on asymptomatic cases, not tested in clinical trials, in real life, we see clearly that there is no efficacy on this. So the last so-called argument, that is avoids serious cases. But on our side, we have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Arab fans, including thousands of deaths. So finally, on serious cases, it’s zero effectiveness since people may not be able to make a serious case of Covid, but they’re going to get caught, they’re going to die of other things. This is the third, the booster that has been put in, which has been authorized by the HAS just on the basis of antibody assay results, i.e. no efficacy data.

Rivasi [38:52] But how can one authorize a product without efficacy data? Tolerance to evaluate, just a few antibody assay results.

Cotton [39:01] So in fact, today, what we see is that these vaccines, apart from causing damage, that’s all they do. So the big big problem, and here it’s very, very important, is that this way of proceeding in clinical trials, we’ve aired 30 years of reliable clinical research, which, therefore, in the working method and which allowed us to have in the market products that were effective and safe. So it’s imperative to understand that if we let this trial go, it’s the open door, it’s the end of clinical research as it was in our country, even around the world. That is, it’s the end of clinical research. Since we already have our dear friends from McKinsey who have made a little article where they’re all happy to have these vaccines put on the market in 325 days, and tell us that now we have to get products in 100 days, but when we see the dirty thing we have in 325 days, what are we going to have in 100 days?

So here, we have to stop, because here, I, my conclusions, is that I ask for an immediate stop for endangering people’s lives. For you, in fact, the Valselle has not been used for anything. Not only is it useless, but it makes people sick. And we see it, the problems of rules, the deaths among young people, moreover there is an excess of mortality among the 0.14 years. Strangely since mid-2021, then these figures, the government does not have them. They work on studies biased by structures that are more or less related to the ministry itself or to health agencies.

So there’s a time when these people have to take over their responsibilities because anyway, I’m telling you, Michel, the complaints are going to rain and I think they’re even going to be nominative after a while. Because here, it’s put in danger of the lives of others almost, since we put the public at risk on the basis of something that, far from protecting them, it’s no use really from the point of view of restraining the Covid. On the other hand, it makes them run risks, facts that we don’t know, since pregnant women, the effects on milk passage, had not been tested. The effects on the foetus, we don’t know. It’s very serious what’s going on. Is it not going to have an effect on the fertility of women? That at 30 they will find themselves sterile. It’s very serious.

So we have to suspend this product because already for the lives of people and especially because if we accept this, it’s the end of clinical research. We’ll only have on the market some dirty things tested under lamentable conditions that we’ll force more or less, we blackmail people to take them. But there, anyway, this fight, it’s already lost. Because when you see that in the December 2020 OPECST report, there’s a whole part about how to deal with all the vaccine reluctance, you wonder if the goal is to stop making people sick or if it’s just to vaccinate them.

Rivasi [42:30] And my question is now, finally, what you’re saying, we had a little bit anticipated before, it was the whole philosophy of fast track, that is, the labs are asking for us to go faster in the market missile clearances, and we were opposed to that because precisely, we wanted to guarantee security. And now we see that the Covid pandemic has lifted all the locks, but then what are the questions that senators and MPs have asked you at the OPECST level? When you had to say that, it must have shaken the doxa, I would say, of the state.

Cotton [43:15] Yes, so they did ask me a question about real-life data, since the policies are made on these real-life data that are strictly worth nothing, only at a level of proof close to absolute zero. So I think they understood it with my little three-minute demonstration that unplugged them three studies, especially EPIFAR. They asked me the problem of pharmacovigilance. What should be done to improve? We visibly have the so-called, it’s one of the most monitored products, we don’t have any extra staff to manage the side effects at all.

So they’re overcrowded, accountability is not proven, signal calculation is not done properly. There is the denial, the non-communication of these effects, the denial of the medical body which makes that no, there is a course of the fighter for all those who suffer effects, they no longer know what to do to get taken care of. There are even children who have terrible pains to whom they say it is in the head and that we have to go to a child psychiatrist. I think that I did demonstrate to them the methodological blow of the lack of proof of these tests, the number of biases that made the conclusions unreliable, these products should never have been allowed on the basis of the results that were provided as early as December 2020. After how we improve pharmacovigence, at the limit we don’t care, we must immediately suspend their use in real life, there is no other thing to do.

Rivasi [44:55] All right, it’s gonna be hard to get back in line to tell them that the whole talk was about getting out of the pandemic through vaccination. Luckily we got this vaccine because we avoided serious cases and thanks to the lab. That’s what the talk is all about. So tell them, this vaccine didn’t do anything?

Cotton [45:30] Ah yes, it was used to make hundreds of thousands of people sick. It was at least used to that. So, in fact, I asked clearly what I asked the three people who listened to me, besides I didn’t really have a welcome, it was quite friendly, who listened to me, I told them but we’re going to continue this circus, how long in fact? That’s it, since we can see that since we need these boosters, it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. In real life, people who have three doses, when we talk around us, we can see that they’re sick. The curves show it when we look at the raw figures of the contamination curves. You can see, we have peaks of contamination that the famous pandemic of March 2020 next door, the peak is almost invisible next to what we have today. It doesn’t work.

So, how can one justify continuing so, so, so, so, I have nonetheless pointed out to them that the greatest efficiency, it was to enrich the pharmaceutical laboratories. Now, it was clear that if the goal was that, it worked very well. So now, what are they going to do with that? I don’t know. In the meantime, what I’m explaining to you here is exactly what I explained to them. They were still a little bit sluggish to see the real figures, since when we base ourselves on completely biased bogus studies, we do not see the reality and it is not their job to go and look for it. However, it is the profession of people like me. And when we put before them these curves of contamination, the curves of death, we see clearly. But when I showed them these curves by telling them, but tell me where you see any efficiency in there. I didn’t get an answer. We can’t say by looking at that that there’s any efficacy of these vaccines.

Rivasi [47:25] But it’s very serious what you’re saying, because… Oh yes? I, yesterday, there was another debate about maintaining the Covid passport on a European level, and the Members of Parliament are convinced that it prevented the increase in the epidemic, and they live in a parallel world.

Cotton [47:49] The people there live in a parallel world. Because just look around us. All the people who have had three doses, I all, I don’t see big people and all the people I’ve been talking to, they’ve been sick. You’re talking to ten people, inside you have at least two women who have rules problems. So you really have to live in a cave or in the fourth dimension to realize, not to realize that people who are vaccinated are sick and they have side effects. Or you have to have bad will, bad faith. So it’s a choice. So there’s a time when you have to open your eyes. And now it’s time to open our eyes because we’re going to face a health disaster. It’s a health disaster that awaits us. And trials on appeal. We don’t need these people to believe they’re untouchable. Because I’ve been contacted by a number of lawyers. And the trials will rain. Perhaps it would be time for them to go back a little bit to reason and methodology, numbers, statistics, good clinical practice and abandon this vast smoke shop while it’s time, because anyway, I think they won’t get away with it either. Okay.

Rivasi [49:10] All right, listen, thanks for the testimony.

(unclear) [49:19] … … …