Host [00:01] Hello everyone. I invite you to subscribe to this channel, to love, to share, to comment. These videos are very important. It is a way to support us. Thank you all.

Host [00:27] Hello, Christine Cotton.

Cotton [00:28] Hello, thank you for the invitation.

Host [00:30] But it is a real pleasure to receive you today. I remind you that you are biostatisticalian, I will have to say this word very often in the interview, I wonder for excuse if I skin this name, specialized in the management of clinical trial data for 23 years, author of reference studies on the Pfizer vaccine. You are also a former CEO of a research company under contract for the pharmaceutical industry. And then we are also with Didier Maïsto, our partner on Thursday. Hello Didier.

Didier Maïsto [00:53] Good morning, after this great reading that took me a good night.

Host [01:02] I’m sorry. I haven’t slept much more than you, I think, but this is an extremely important book for which we are receiving Christine Cotton today. All vaccinated, all protected. I make it clear that there is a question mark at the end that will be very important. Vaccine Covid-19, chronic of a health disaster announced. It was found in the Guy editions, Très Daniel. It’s coming out today. So Christine Cotton, I propose you anyway, to plant the set, to pose a little your legitimacy, because it is a subject that you still know extremely well. Can you simply make a small return on your career, on the profession of biostatistician, which is a profession that is not known at all, which was not even known during this crisis of the Covid, while it is a profession that is at the heart of the reactor of vaccine clinical trials?

Cotton [01:46] Yes, then the biostatistician, I am a biostatistician of training, I have practiced this profession all my life, but I have also mounted what is called a research company under contract, under the treatment of the pharmaceutical industry, which also managed data, what is called data management. These are codified, precise, regulated steps, like all the activities of clinical research. Everything is written, we must follow an extremely strict regulation called good clinical practice. So this job, I’ve done it all my life as a biostatistician, as a data manager, since I was also managing the data, i.e. collecting the data before analysis, as a quality insurer of my company. So I had audits, so I worked in maybe more than 500 clinical trials. Whether it’s me or my team, for small laboratories or very large ones, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, Aventis, Servier, etc. In any type of studies, i.e. in any type of phases 1, 2, 3, 4. So here we are dealing with phases 3, i.e. those leading to marketing authorisation. I have an extremely varied experience and indeed, it is a profession that we don’t know and that we haven’t heard of, of course, since it would have been very embarrassing.

Host [03:19] I guess. I forgot to point out that this book was prefaced by Laurence Miller-Brown and Michèle Rivasi, Laurence Miller-Brown senator and Michèle Rivasi Euro MP ecologist. And it is completed by two forewords, one from Virginie Joron, the other from Martine Bonheur, which we obviously received at length here in this morning. So it’s a book that actually mixes a scientific counter-investigation with testimonies from victims that are really edifying. It’s full of a period finally when common sense no longer mattered so much and with people who have found themselves in great difficulties we will have the opportunity to return to it.

But I still propose to start with your personal journey through this crisis since that’s what your book tells you. For you this story begins in November 2020. Still, you are offered to look at these clinical trials that are announced, how these vaccines have been developed. And already, one thing strikes you, you, very quickly, is the speed with which these vaccines were allowed, with the speed with which the phases followed each other, since you, as a biostatistician, for 23 years, have never experienced such speed in the way of finally authorizing vaccines.

Cotton [04:28] What struck me afterwards was really the detail of the methodology, maybe we’ll talk about it a little later. It hit a lot of people. Develop something in 9 months, get a 9 month license of a new product on a new disease. So we don’t know very much about messenger RNA technology, never used in real life, though some say. Dixit, Pfizer’s president himself, Albert Bourla, who tells us that it was never used, not for any vaccine, not for any medication. So obviously it hit a lot of people and I think it’s contributing to the vaccine reluctance of a package that today is not vaccinated, without needing to be a methodologist of confirmed clinical trials.

Maïsto [05:21] So, in the end, nothing predisposes you to become an alert launcher. You are an extremely rational person when you read your book. Anyway, there is no more rational than a bio-satisitian, that is, you collect data, you establish a methodology. And you compare, and above all this methodology must be super rigorous, whether double-blind, to collect data, to see side effects, to see side effects, from mild to severe, to very severe, etc. There are a number of statements that are made, that are irrational, we will say, of the sentimental order, of the fear that we have also caused to be removed from the whole population, from all populations, since it is a phenomenon unfortunately global.

So you’re starting to have the chip in your ear, you’ve sold your company, you’re buying your software, you’re spending hours and hours, even two years finally, as you say on your hill, compiling this data, and then you realize that there are a number of problems. So I’m going to congratulate him, what you’re doing in your book, on the methodology itself. We see that Pfizer has not tested serious adverse reactions, not listed in clinical trials. The observation period, you find, is too short. to evaluate the tolerance in the medium and long term. The high-risk populations of the severe Covid-19, they will not be studied at all. Efficacy, so at that we heard so much about the fact-checkers of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 not studied, it was said not long ago, it was officially recognized. Against asymptomatic infection, Not studied. Against mortality, not studied. Against people already affected by SARS-CoV-2, not studied. On the potentials of co-infections, not studied. On the evolution of the virus, exactly the same. On the duration of protection, it is completely unknown. on the rapid weakening of antibody protection, and finally, of course, all side effects. I’m talking about it, it’s because we’ve been dumped for two years, and we’ve seen high school doctors who were nefrologists, were not paid for there by labs and people who are not so much doctors anymore, who have become nonsense.

Cotton [08:04] You must have noticed that I call this the experts without expertise. Everyone we’ve seen scroll on the trays, I don’t think there’s a single one who had to participate in a clinical trial in writing a protocol. And really participate in the sense that actively contribute to making results.

Maïsto [08:29] Now, my question is how to explain to you that despite the fact that the serious people who have dedicated their lives, whether they are biostatisticians, whether they are epidemiologists, virologists, people of the profession, they have at one point been questioned by this methodology, this speed, and then it was enough to go and, finally, it was still quite complex to go and get the scientific data that are all available. How are we in this delusion?

Cotton [09:02] This is very important, that is to say, these documents that I examined, on the basis of which I wrote in January 2022, An Expertise of the Pfizer Clinical Trial in relation to Good Clinical Practice, are documents that are available as authorisations are given. That is, 95%, it’s a document, it’s a clinical report that dates back to December 2020. And it was quite available to everyone on the FDA website, so the health authority in the United States. That is, all my work is not invention on the basis of docs that I invented, these are the docs of the health authorities laboratory. what are called risk management plans, the SPC, the summary of the characteristics produced, that is, they are classic documents of any drug and that we obviously know when working in that medium.

So, how do I explain it? What is very important to understand for those who listen to us is that if I choose a criterion that only measures part of the disease, I find a result that has an effectiveness, we will say, on part of the disease. So the big one, we’re not going to reveal the whole book because it’s brought in little by little, but we’re going to say that the great illusion of this Pfizer Clinic trial is that we’re being selected criteria that are not representative of the Covid in real life.

Maïsto [10:38] So are revealed, there is an affirmation, a postulate that rests only on itself finally, whose ears were also squeezed to us, it’s the famous 95% of efficiency. It may be you can explain it what these 95% theoretical are, and in reality how much it corresponds to in real life.

Cotton [11:04] Yes, in fact, it’s 95%, it’s a calculation, a kind of ratio that… which is standard for vaccine trials, that is, there is a classic use of the method. All vaccine trials are the main criteria of vaccine trials. This is a criterion that is called effective vaccine, so vaccine efficacy, which is a calculation with a ratio. And when we make ratios, we have percentages. So, overall, it corresponds to a person who caught Covid under vaccine, or eight people, sorry, and 162, something like that. 162. That’s 162 under placebo. So, when you make the percentage ratios of these things, that’s 85%. But when we calculate the percentage difference between these two values, finally, it makes us that 0.84%. We finally save 0.84% of Covid light or moderate, confirmed by PCR test. This is the main criterion of the clinical trial Pfizer. It’s not Covid had the Covid, did not have the Covid. It is Covid mild or moderate, confirmed by PCR test, counted from 7 days after dose 2.

Maïsto [12:25] This still already introduces at least 3 or 4 methodological notes, from the background that this ratio presented as absolute no longer means anything.

Cotton [12:37] So that’s not a bias. That’s… it means no less, we’re going to say, that for the other vaccines already put on the market, with the same method. The big problem, it’s elsewhere in Pfizer techniques, because that’s classic. The big problem is that, for example, when you measure antibodies and do an intermediate analysis, which was the case in December 2020 at three months, necessarily that your antibodies after dose 2, for example, you will be able to measure them only in a very short time. Your tolerance, you will be able to have an idea of this tolerance that in this very short time, which has a duration of observation of three months. All the authorizations of the health agencies were given on the basis of intermediate analysis, knowing that the initial trial, however, must last two years. So when you have a trial that starts in April 2020 and you get the results in December, you can see that we’re not, after two years, just 50% of patients, we have two months of follow-up for 50% of patients and we have a maximum of three months.

Maïsto [13:44] I do not want to take the floor, I will of course leave the floor to Valentin, but you would say that in the end all the health authorities, from the Western countries, we will say, but not that, by the way, because, let’s say that Africa is spared, that is, to make short. We were playing the sorcerer apprentices a bit, as long as we didn’t know this new messenger RNA technology, and we chose, in what we were presented, in the balance of profit-risk always, to go to a technology by saying, that’s what we were sold, to go in the emergency… No, that’s not my vocabulary, that’s to say… No, I didn’t say it was you.

Cotton [14:29] Yeah, but it’s not my vocabulary, because it’s not a biostatistician vocabulary. So no, in this clinical trial there are serious methodological deficiencies that invalidate the results, be it efficacy results, antibody assays, or tolerance since there are serious effects that are not reported in the data, which have not been entered into the database and therefore a fortiori are not in the results. So on the basis of that, when we know the good clinical practices, which is the regulation to follow, this trial is not valid in its conclusions. So, the benefit-risk ratio that is announced and on which health agencies are based is wrong. And until now, so it’s been a year and a half since I said that, I haven’t had any lawsuits, despite 133 lawyers who came to visit my LinkedIn profile in the space of two days before my account was closed permanently, I haven’t had any lawsuits and no one in the world has managed to give the slightest argument that my analysis was wrong. So apart of course a few experts without expertise who will have to clarify by whom they are paid later and against whom for the most part I was filing complaints of gang harassment.

Host [15:48] We’ll have the opportunity to go back to the harassment you’ve been subjected to, because it’s true that it was quite upbuilding, but we’re going to stay on these issues for now. You’ve already proven that the phase, the clinical trial, the methodology, which led to the approval of the vaccine, was wrong, at least, was misled and so it invalidated the results. But there are also those side effects that you’ve started to talk about since you’re going to discover that gradually, there’s a whole bunch of side effects that, at first, are quite public since the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, lists them but are not so much accounted for. And to some extent, you think that these side effects may not have been anticipated during the trials and that they must have been later. It’s not very serious in the end. When I say it’s not very serious, it means that these effects could not have been anticipated beforehand. And finally, you’re going to find out with a case that’s extremely precise and extremely serious that I’d like you to come back to, it’s the Mady de Garret case.

Cotton [16:54] There are several things. In fact, we put these famous vaccines on the market. From there, we enter the post-AMM pharmacovigilance systems. That is, people who suffer the ends of the Arabs can postpone them and health professionals have an obligation to postpone them. And regularly, we can do analyses on the pharmacovigilance databases of health agencies. The easiest to recover is that of VAERS in the United States, which thus lists the adverse reactions mainly from the US, but also from some other countries in the world. And then, there are the side effects of the clinical trial itself within the tolerance on which there was nothing disturbing, indeed, and there is nothing worrying since we have these famous serious effects that do not appear in clinical reports since they are not in the database. This case told me to park. She was a teenager who participated in the Pfizer clinical trial as well as her two other brothers and sisters since the mother was convinced of the benefit, she wanted to advance science, as they say, science, as I often say in the book, and so she enrolled these three children, the seclinics on teenagers aged 12 to 15. And so the other two, there’s one, I think there was a placebo, I don’t know if the third had a placebo, at least Amady Degaré, she did have the vaccine, and she suffered more than 30 serious side effects with disability. Poor girl, we see her on a wheelchair with a gastric probe during a testimony in the United States in front of an American senator. And it really appears in a way, we’ll say, there are two effects that appear vaguely in the clinical report and that do not at all reflect the seriousness of what this girl has had.

However, we’re going to say that Garret’s family took a lawyer, but they did a lot of hay for the little one to be taken care of. This should have alerted the health agencies to send what is called an audit. When you have cases like this from people who tell you, me, during the clinical trial, I almost died, I’m on a wheelchair, theoretically, what do we do? We send an audit to find out why it’s not in the clinical reports.

Now, the health authorities around the world are not listening to its participants in the trials, since there are not only Madi Degaré, who alert the whole world by saying “but I was in it and almost died of the vaccine.” And it is not noted. So why are the health authorities not listening to these people? Why were they censored on Facebook? You have Brienne Dressen, too, who alerted for months, who had serious neurological effects in the AstraZeneca clinical trial. All these people, we censored them, we did everything we could to silence them. And that’s why I wrote this book, because I didn’t intend to write anything at all, I thought there was enough, it’s to give the word, try to reach the general public of the few people who agreed to testify in my book, there’s a little more than 20 of them, and to get people to get access to these people’s testimonies. Every effort has been made to discredit the fact that doctors have mistreated people for whom they have most often refused to declare the effects harmful to pharmacovigilance when they are obliged to do so. So that’s why I wrote this book because when you’re doing a clinical development of this mediocrity, you can’t expect to see anything other than what you’re seeing, zero effectiveness, antibodies that last only three months as they later announced, and massive adverse reactions.

Maïsto [20:58] Just Christine Cotton, there’s not much time left before the news flash. I’m going to ask you the question, we’re going to leave her in abeyance, we’re going to spare a little suspense. One would first like to recall that the drug agency at the time, at the time of the Mediator case, where the departmentalized pharmacovigilance systems had worked, and that everything had happened in Paris was going to the trash. Because the health agency, the drug agency, I don’t know what its name was at the time, it changed its name, it was taken hostage and completely infiltrated by the people of Serbia with government people.

Moreover Serbiar did not talk too much, it indicated people to move on. There are several thousand deaths reminding them of this health scandal. What’s interesting, I find, is that you’re just talking about statisticians from this FDA, they’re feeling that, so there are long monologues, it doesn’t end, etc., but still from time to time, as you listen to everything, you note that you still have to note a number of problems in the methodology, you have to be very careful about, I give some, obviously death, problems during pregnancy at birth, Guillain-Barré syndrome, neurological adverse effects, which are clinically serious, encephalitis, honeyitis, meningos, encephalitis, meningitis, encephalopathy, ataxia, convusions, epilepsies, stroke. Anaphylaxis, narcolepsy, cataplexy, myocardial aeglu infarction, myopericarditis, it’s important all this, thrombocytopenia, thrombombulitis, that’s it. If I’m talking about all this, it’s precisely that, when you’re recording, when you’re making these people talk about these problems, and when you yourself in your studies you’ve identified all these serious side problems, these effects, they’re not side effects anymore, it’s really very serious, there, it’s gone in silence and the methodology doesn’t officially allow them to be identified. What’s corny is that we feel it. Yes, we understand it well. Yes, I know it’s going to be the flash. But now it’s the flash. I’m really sorry. But it’s not serious. We’re not on BFM. The world is going to go crumbly. We can take a few seconds.

Cotton [23:30] Oh, no, because on BFM, he’s not inviting me.

Maïsto [23:34] So no, but maybe before, just before the flash, put this in perspective to go back into detail, just after the flash. It’s now, Valentin, you can breathe.

Host [23:43] And it’s with Emmanuel Noël and we’ll be right back with Christine Gauton.

Station ID [23:51] Straight line.

Host [23:54] We are still with Christine Cotton, a biostatistician specializing in the management of clinical trial data for 23 years, author of reference studies on the Pfizer vaccine and author of this book, especially all vaccinated, all protected with a question mark, it is very important to clarify it. Vaccin Covid-19 chronicles a health disaster announced, it is to meet you at the editions Guy, Très Daniel and we are still with Didier Maïsto, our partner on Thursday. Christine Cotton, you were questioned just before the break by Didier Maïsto on its side effects.

Cotton [24:22] Just a small remark from the title. One wonders how one could say “all vaccinated, all protected” with a vaccine, a clinical trial in which transmission has never been studied. What is more classic in vaccine trials is not specific to the Pfizer clinical trial. To return to these side effects found at the pharmacovigilance sites, whether in the United States, Europe, on the EMA site, the European Agency or the French Agency reports, the ANSM, since we can download them regularly and see how many of them there are, Europe today, side effects, we have a little more than one million of them. So we’re estimated to have between 1% and 10% postponed, so if I’m 10% postponed, that means I have to multiply, that’s 1.2 million by 10.

Maïsto [25:12] Yes, because recalling, it is very important for us not to be told conspiracyists, etc. You yourself compiled this data and you finally resulted in a number each time higher than what was officially recorded by the French authorities in particular. There are lots of cases that disappear, which are not carried over.

Cotton [25:35] So, there are a lot of cases that aren’t reported, because they’re not reported. So, how, so, you realize that, too, it’s when you talk to the victims. When you have people, and there’s a lot of them in my book, that tell you about this journey where doctors refuse to report these side effects that have yet appeared the next day or the week after vaccination. There is a denial that is absolutely incredible, incomprehensible. It is the pharmacovigilance services that have to establish the links, so what they are asked to do is to declare the bar. So why these people don’t want to do it when they encourage a fine, it’s absolutely disgusting.

Maïsto [26:32] Why don’t they do it in your opinion?

Cotton [26:36] You have to make them come and ask them why for months they have people who come complaining regularly with a life that is completely messed up for some, a life fucked up, there are no other words. And why we refuse to report the side effects by saying no, it’s not possible, it’s not possible, we didn’t ask you for your opinion. You were asked to log on to the NSM website in France, for example, and to declare your case. That’s all you were asked to do. So you do it and that’s all. And so, as these people don’t do, we have an understatement that is very important. So when we are told, for example, in Europe, there are 1 million 2, if I multiply by 10, that makes me 12 million. per cent, that makes me 120 million people who potentially suffer from adverse effects. So the truth, surely between the two, there are probably serious effects that may be well-declared like myocardites, pericardites, because that, we’re going to say, came into the mainstream. They were forced to recognize it because we had a whole bunch of kids falling steep.

Maïsto [27:36] A lot of teenagers, a lot of high-performance athletes with intense efforts that had never encountered the slightest problem. Teenagers who were vaccinated, there were a lot of myocardites and that, it was finally, they were forced to recognize it because there were so many cases.

Cotton [27:52] And then it hit young people, so then there are people who don’t make the connection when you may have a history, but when you have a history, normally, and there’s a sudden worsening of a disease that you already have… for example, we have people with diabetes. Diabetes, they’re not included in clinical trials. They are among the populations with co-morbidity, fragile patients with co-morbidity, who have never been… on which, in December 2020, we had absolutely no results. Pregnant women, pregnant women are excluded from clinical trials in general, they are part of protected populations. So when you are told in April 2021 pregnant women are going to get you vaccinated because they have been classified in populations at risk, there are no results of clinical trials that allow us to know whether the tolerance on these people is identical to the tolerance on others, already knowing that the tolerance on others is obviously false.

Maïsto [28:51] And Christine Cotton, perhaps it is necessary to specify what you are doing in your book, that it is your profession, your profession that is even sorry all this because a doctor can’t know, a doctor has no hindrance because of course on a large scale sees his patients etc. he can’t control it is your job to control and if doctors don’t actually report cases of side effects, severe, serious or light etc. you can’t, the numbers are biased, the study is biased but doctors are not in a position to…

Cotton [29:28] Now, people need to understand that the reports, the results of the clinical trials, no doctor has ever provided results of clinical trials. They are actually people like me, it’s my profession as a biostatistician for the pharmaceutical industry and not for the scrambled waters or I don’t know what else. sector of people who claim to be biostatisticians of clinical research, no, no, it is a profession.

So actually, it is the biostatistician who intervenes from the writing of the protocol before the beginning of a trial and who intervenes at the end to provide the results. So obviously when we provide them, we know how to read them. and these tables of results are then commented on by a medical writer who is usually his doctor or pharmacist. So it is not the general practitioner of the point who provides the results of a clinical trial. He may possibly participate in investigations or in CHUs, in particular clinical trials. It’s not that they know how to program the analyses and comment, interpret the results. So, I’m sorry Didier, but it’s very important. When we were told in December 2020 that populations at risk, so they have to be vaccinated. So we had no statistically demonstrated difference over the age of 75, i.e. statistically proven. And there was no proven effect on severe cases.

Maïsto [31:03] So that’s a crucial point. And I would really like your opinion on the subject, because I am not a scientist, but it had struck me a lot, like many Frenchmen, I was reading the reports of Public Health France, where there were, however, a number of elements, already proving, going in the sense that you say, it was enough to read them, inextinso, but also the press, daily, of the ingenuable Mr Solomon, who has not now seen his career, opening up to quite impressive perspectives to the WHO. In the beginning, we were told that it was linked, mortality, to comorbidities. What were they? We could see that, everyone understands it, that it increased exponentially with age, that is, let’s put it from 65 and at 80, let’s not talk about it, but above all that it was people who had diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory inadequacies, all this type of diabetes, pathology that increased the risks to a considerable extent. My question, the next, why, first of all, they stopped communicating about co-morbidities quite quickly, and why in public health policies, in all countries, we always tackle the consequences and never the causes. The junk food industry, the food industry, that manufactures these cardiovascular diseases, that manufactures these cancers, that manufactures this diabetes, that manufactures these cardiovascular diseases, obesity, etc. So every time we do stuff, great national cause, but in fact nothing happens. So could we not drastically reduce mortality if we had real public health policies at the same time?

Cotton [33:01] I am not going to answer in this way because obviously I agree completely. So in any case when we look at the laboratory documents and the reports of the health agencies of the high health authority in France etc. So it’s written black on white that the populations we’re talking about here are not. We don’t have a result in December 2020 on these populations, for the good reason that they’re not imputed in the sequinis. We have people who tell us on TV monumental bullshit about which they have no competence and then we have people like me from the pharmaceutical industry that obviously we never invited because it makes orders to have people who contradict the divine word that comes from above and so it’s absolutely… I’ve been laughing a little since the beginning because I’m thinking, my God, but it’s not possible.

Host [34:02] I’d like to go back to some of the subjects. Yes, because there are other very important topics.

Maïsto [34:11] Why am I talking about it? Because if we eliminate people who are primarily at risk and we say, the over 75s, there is a proven efficiency for older people, etc., it helps to protect against transmission in particular, we lie twice.

Cotton [34:33] In any case, there was very little risk to children, extremely little risk to teenagers, even very little risk to young people. It is true that Covid mortality was mainly observed in older populations. In fact, on which there is no statistically proven evidence that the vaccine has the least effect. I mean, this story is a vast fumistry.

Host [34:58] Of course, we’re walking on the head.

Cotton [34:59] And we’re more wrong than we were from the beginning to the end, and then for people who know each other about it.

Host [35:04] And I would also like to return to an important point that you are developing in your book, that is diseases, side effects on women, since you have been also, you are close to the collective OEM in cycle, which we obviously received here also in the morning. Again, there is a huge problem of recognition, even today, of these side effects, of these side effects, and it has been a real cross road to bring this cause to the level of institutions.

Cotton [35:26] Yes, knowing that they finally recognized, at the end of perhaps a year of battle, they recognized that the abundant bleedings, they almost didn’t recognize anything of all the troubles people suffer, but there are some that testify in this book.When you get taken off Russian tea so much you suffer, it’s not recognized as being directly. So be careful, it is not because at the agency level, it is said that it is an effect that is recognized, that all the files of people who suffer from it are recognized, because the files are assessed individually.

Host [36:03] Of course, and I did it because we still see… so we’re not going to tell all these stories because it’s really horrible, but we have people who were in good health, who find themselves totally disabled with people who compare their heads to a huge blue so the pain is unbearable. There are people who have tinnitus, someone who was allergic, who controlled her allergy enough and who was vaccinated and who was recognized as dead from an asthma attack while she was in control of her allergy. So we really have no medical follow-up, so we’re already a little talked about during this show. There’s also this long Covid problem. So today, you’re moving forward in your book, proof of course that all these long Covids are also related to the vaccine since most of the people who had Covid were vaccinated at least two doses.

Cotton [36:49] Initially, the first ones who suffered from the long Covid, it was really the Covid. I, I am not one of the people who once said that this Covid was not serious. I, for my part, had three thanks to the operation of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know, because I haven’t been out in two years, we understood it well, or three years. I don’t know, they had to spray it on me by helicopter, but so I was never one of the people who said that this Covid wasn’t a big deal. That is, the first Covids, in particular, they caused a lot of damage in some of them, including what was called the long Covids, which is a completely wrong term. Since it is not a long Covid, they are species of symptoms that can be neurological, which can affect many systems inside the human body. It is not a Covid, it is no longer a respiratory disease. And so obviously these people, if then when we’ve already had Covids, antibodies, if we’ve dosed the antibodies when we’re already very high antibodies and behind you we give you doses of vaccines, it’s not going to fix your condition. So actually there are many people who are going to rank them Covid long today. I don’t care if it was activated by the vaccination or if it’s already… probably some of them had done Covid before.

Host [38:13] Yeah, that’s to say it’s a little strong inside everything.

Cotton [38:14] Since when do you vaccinate people without knowing if they already have antibodies? I mean, it doesn’t exist. Whatever they follow, what biostatisticalian and not doctor. A priori, when you’ve already had a disease, you don’t re-vaccinate.

Host [38:29] Indeed. So we didn’t have time to discuss everything during this show. There are a lot of elements in this book that I really invite you to get. All vaccinated, all protected with a question mark of course to the editions of Guy Très-Daniel. There is the harassment that you have suffered on social networks. There is this relationship with the Senate. You’ve been heard by the Senate, and you’re sharing this experience with yourself in the book. I’d like to end with the fact that today, we still have a number of data that go your way, that go with the fact that the vaccine actually causes side effects. There are even many countries in the world that have begun to recognize these effects, which have begun to compensate people and accompany them. In France, on the other hand, I explained to you that this is still not the case, that we have a lot of difficulties in moving forward on these subjects, so maybe you can explain to us if you have any avenues of reflection why, and above all, we have this reflex to constantly dress reality, that is, that you evoke in the end a whole bunch of pseudo-scientific articles to justify the increase in mortality in recent times, or there, it’s completely hideous things, the style with the sunscreen, or the… So, in fact, we prefer to dress reality.

Cotton [39:36] What I wanted to say is that this book, I wrote it a bit like a novel, actually. It’s the only way I found it, we’re going to say, to make it not too hard to read. I’m actually telling my life during these two years and that passage before senators and members is the parliamentary board for evaluating scientific and technological practices. These people wrote a report in June 2022 following the hearings. Here, they were to provide a final version in October or November, a version that we still expect.

So in there, they were still writing that we had to recognize the victims and that we had to deal with them. Well, then I don’t know what they’re doing, but maybe we’re going to send the victims to their homes on vacation. There, to this day, it’s mostly me. I have a lot of them on the phone. And to this day, they’re going to come to see me, but it doesn’t work out for them. So, we’re going to say this political immobilim, it’s inexcusable because behind, you have people who literally die. I don’t know if you’ve read this testimony about this person who has Charcot’s disease and who had a serious Covid in 2020, who should never have been vaccinated. And now, this person, he can’t talk anymore. Her life is ruined.

Host [41:04] Christine Cotton, if Valentine leaves you for a few seconds. Frankly, I’m sorry, it’s not my responsibility, but we don’t have time to continue. But in any case, I invite you to continue to simply get you this book. All vaccinated, all protected by Guy Editions, Très Daniel. Thank you very much, Christine Cotton, for coming today. This is the date today of release of this book. I recall that you are therefore biostatisticalian specialized in the management of clinical trial data for 23 years, author of reference study on this vaccine Pfizer. and former CEO of a research company under contract with the pharmaceutical industry. And then thanks to you Didier Maïsto and for not having been able to let you ask any last questions, but you are our inescapable partner on Thursday. You will have the opportunity to come back.