Host [04:09] Here, we’re live on this February 2022, here again with Martine Wonner. So 7:30 pm, it’s a new schedule that we opened last week, but it was Friday, there we come back on Thursday. 7:30 pm, I’m very happy to see you again. Good evening.

Martine Wonner [04:26] Good evening, everyone.

Host [04:30] In any case, tonight we have a very busy program because we have a lot of things to tell you and tell you. We tried to put headings in order to be able to represent each week, to have a recurrence in the sections. So we’ll start in a few moments with an image of the day that we’re going to comment, which is relatively funny this image. We’re going to present it in a few moments. We’ll have the file of the week and this file is dedicated to the freedom convoy that is slowly moving towards our friend Gérald Darmanin in Paris, who is a little bit panicking though. We are also going, so this is sad information that we learned this week, it is the disappearance of a very great Mr Luc Montagnier, we had doubts at some point about the veracity of his death because indeed we had a small concern, we did not know too much whether it was false news or whether it was real news. We’ll come back to it again, Luc Montagnin, the great gentleman who left us this week. We’ll have the number of the day, the number of the live, it’s actually a figure that’s going to get upset, we’ll talk about it. We’ll also have a little return by the Senate box with Olivier Veran who was interviewed on the McKinsey file and we’ll see that he’s been put in trouble. And finally, we’ll have a guest, a prestigious guest you know well, who is Christine Cotton, who did a remarkable study, Pfizer, you sent him to me.

Wonner [05:59] Who made a report, who made a report in more than 100 pages and who worked for several months and I am very pleased that we can welcome him together earlier.

Host [06:07] We’re going to welcome him earlier, Christine Cotton, it’s going to be at the end of the show, at the end of the live show, and we’re going to start with the image of the day, the image of the live, and we’re going to put it on, we’re going to incruze it, that’s it. So it’s an image we’re going to comment on, we’re going to have Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron in 2018, and we have the same two in 2022.

Wonner [06:28] So we really have the impression that in 2022 they are very respectful of distances, right? So it is probably the Covid that he imposes that he is very far away from each other. Instead, we have the symbol of the cold war between two presidents. We had two presidents who were in a form of intimacy a few years ago, finally in 2018, and then there, Macron who was not received at all like a President of the Republic, like a Head of State, absolutely not. He was received as a mere NATO messenger. And in fact, he got a good slap from Putin. The picture is very amusing, indeed, but we learned that Macron, before going to Russia, had had Biden on the phone.

So, in fact, he was there, the NATO messenger. And all this form of masquerade, which is almost a provocation, first questions very much why this attitude. So he was first seeing Putin, then he was in Kiev. And in the end, what is extremely shocking is that he paid tribute to the Ukrainian soldiers who died in battle. While we must know that currently, in Ukraine, the military are fighting their own citizens.

So somewhere, it’s shocking, first of all, this ejection in this conflict, and also, in this way, to be in a certain way, it should remain neutral. And here, we have the French head of state who, once again, may be mingling with something that wouldn’t look at him. And above all, he… he really gives the feeling that he is NATO’s puppet. He does not act at all like a head of state. I find it particularly shocking. We will see the next step. That is also why give this impression that Putin would like to return to conflict with Ukraine again. While in fact, no, he keeps saying it, there were the Minsk agreements in 2015, the agreements for the moment are, we’re going to say, respected, those agreements that had been signed, but here’s, so it’s a little bit, it was the image that was in any case…

Host [09:08] Yes, this image is very funny, but it is true that it reflects, you are right to say so, the state of mind today of Emmanuel Macron’s image internationally, and especially in Russia. So you must also know, Martine Wonner, that Ukraine is not part of NATO. It is very surprising to see NATO, France, mingle with a conflict that is ultimately a conflict…

Wonner [09:34] There are tensions at present and, above all, there are tensions that have been pinned up while in fact there are armed movements on Russia’s border and all this is amazing.

Host [09:51] So, in any case, Vladimir Putin showed who the boss was.

Wonner [09:54] That’s right.

Host [09:55] And that, I have to say, it’s rather fun on my side to see this President Emmanuel Macron coming. He wasn’t received like a president, you’re right. It seems even at the Kremlin level, so I don’t know if it’s true, but they’ll be crazy. He would have gone through a back door. We will perhaps come back to it because it is true that we are talking a lot about this Ukrainian conflict, about this Russia where it crystallizes a little attention and sometimes even the question arises whether it is not done voluntarily to divert attention from what is happening in France. So we will get there in France precisely. We’ve seen that in Canada, Ottawa, there’s been… so it’s amazing, because they’ve been in place for 10 days now.

Wonner [10:42] “We talked about it last week, we had seen images of the citizen IS, you know, all these far-right fools, but in the end they are happy citizens, who share the idea, we will say, of fraternity and who simply demonstrate to regain their full freedom.

Host [11:06] So Justin Trudeau asked for the army to intervene, the army didn’t say listen to it at all, they asked that the troublemakers, so I don’t know how to do it, the troublemakers come to remove the trucks, the troublemakers said we all have the Covid, so in short no one wants to move and it’s so much better and so Justin Trudeau we still don’t know where he is but it’s still hidden and it’s also a symbol of having a head of state like Justin Trudeau Prime Minister who is forced to leave Parliament, to force him to leave Ottawa to shelter himself and bark elsewhere. What he barks is what he does and he continues to say that you must be vaccinated, it is not normal. Well, that being, we will now come to France and we will talk about this convoy of freedom that started. Then this convoy left and we will see some images immediately from Avignon and the south of France. We have images I believe of Avignon. So we’re going to look at these pictures, which are very interesting, so this convoy that is forming, which has gone from the south, so we have Nice, the promise Alpe Côte d’Azur.

Wonner [12:10] We find on many networks the cartins that appear, so we can follow where the convoys are. There were even convoys that had left Spain, Portugal, that crossed the border and there we have images, it seems to me,

Host [12:46] There, that’s the vignon.

Wonner [12:47] It may be a little less impressive than in Canada, because there are not these absolutely monstrous trucks. There are a lot of vehicles, there are motorcycles, there are individual vehicles, there are a few trucks, but it’s a little less impressive. And all these convoys are the reflection, it is necessary for this government to hear it and finally notice it, are the reflection of the ras-le-bol, of the despair of this people who can no longer pass, who can no longer of all its libertic measures and who want to demonstrate that the government really needs to change its strategy.

Host [13:31] This is the issue of the day. It is important because we have seen that in Canada, the citizens are in great solidarity with the Canadian people for these libertic measures. I think it was a little fear of the Canadian government and it is the fear of the French government, but I think it’s really launched now.

Wonner [13:54] So it’s launched, indeed there are a lot of vehicles that are slowly going up to Paris, citizens who are indeed ready to host, bring meals, bring hot drinks etc. On arrival, we already have some information about the arrival since the prefect of the city of Paris, the prefect German took a very clear order to ban in fact the arrival of the vehicles and stop which will cover the weekend since it is from 11 to 14.

So in fact, he understands that all these movements are likely to lead to public order disturbances, so that’s how it is determined. He even reminded in his decree what the citizens risk, two years in prison, 4,500 euros fine. And the information that circulated this evening would be that the Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin, who also has to show force, would be ready to deploy armoured vehicles to prevent the demonstrators either from staying in Paris or even from returning to Paris.

So big question mark on what might happen. I am a little shocked in a way, because the citizens are quite peaceful, peaceful. There are men and women who are not used to doing demonstrations of this type, who simply want to meet together, to show that the people are united and that the people want to become sovereign again in France. It’s our article 3 of the Constitution, and on the other hand, we already have warnings of the deployment of force, and what’s unfortunate is that we know very well that it’s the state that unfortunately has all the forces on its side and it’s extremely damaging, while in addition, the police are paid by the French, they’re paid by our taxes. So, at some point, I think he should think about which side he’s on.

Host [16:26] It’s true that this is a big problem, but I think that when we got these images in Ottawa, we thought it would actually last a while, but that’s really done to last. And besides, the drivers said, we don’t leave until the government resigns. We feel this fear very well today at the level of the French government and the Minister of the Interior. So he is not the only one, there is Eric Ciotti also, there is Clement Bonne.

Wonner [16:49] Yes, there are some policies that have intervened, either those that accompany the candidates, such as Eric Ciotti, or secretaries of state or ministers in place. Yes, I can understand that it may be worrying because the movement is large, the movement is real, the movement is relatively well coordinated. And then the next step, so there is a first step, if I judge it, then I am not at all informed more than the ordinary citizens who find all this information about the networks, but it would seem that the next step is Brussels and it would appear that the mayor of Brussels has already taken measures to prevent any such demonstration in his city.

Host [17:37] It would be extremely welcome if the forces of law and order would join in the freedoms of the people, because they are primarily citizens, they are men, they are fathers of families, they are people who today must have conscience and values. And it’s true that it’s delicate, I’ve met law enforcement people who can’t distinguish themselves from the father of the family, the policeman, like, listen, you’re one man, first be a father of the family, police, if you’re asked to do things against the father of the family, ask yourself if it’s right. That being said, I can understand that there are concerns, but at the same time, Martine Bonner, this may be the time to put this anger on the mainstream media in France.

Wonner [18:24] No, the mainstream media, why do you want them to change their attitude when for two years they’ve only been in propaganda? So they don’t want to illustrate in any case somewhere the rage or the desire of the people to regain freedoms. We saw a few articles pass that were, once again, to make all citizens look like violent and far-right people, so it’s terrible. There would be legal violence on the one hand, on the side of the forces of law and order, and this violence, which would be, first of all, not at all claimed today, the people go up to the capital but to show that it is solidarity and that it is capable of holding a true union of the people in order to reduce all these measures that have been taken by this government.

Host [19:33] The point I wanted to make with regard to the media is to say that for the first time, maybe they won’t have the choice to show crowd images. Because they still minimized the protests every Saturday. You know very well, we were millions in the streets of France. BFM has given amazing figures of 200,000 demonstrators throughout France. And of course, it’s not the reality by far, but here, with what’s happening in Canada, with what’s going to happen in Paris, I don’t know how the media will get away with it.

Wonner [20:06] And in other European countries, since there are also movements in other European countries and the rallying point is in Brussels. So wait to see what is going to happen, and I hope above all that things are going to take place in peace, in negotiations, and that the few images of armoured vehicles will not have to intervene. That would be terrible.

Host [20:33] It would be terrible, it would obviously give a very bad image, but at the level of the image, unfortunately, we are

Wonner [20:38] There had been the yellow vests already in 2018 where the state had been very violent. And at the level of the Council of Europe, moreover, France had been completely downgraded or rather almost placed under monitoring. Perhaps France should remember that. And above all, this government cannot go through violence measures. It would be very unfortunate.

Host [21:07] I hope we don’t get these images, at least, on TV. I have a pious wish. What would be extraordinary is to see all these policemen rally the people of France, and put down these helmets, put down these batons.

Wonner [21:21] “It’s very rare for them to hear you, Steve, that would be really remarkable.

Host [21:27] “If it happens like this, I think we will indeed have taken a big step towards our freedoms, because that is really what it is about. And I believe that today, unfortunately, not the people who look at us, because the people who look at us know what is happening today, but there are a lot of people who are still misinformed. I’ve had some again this afternoon on the phone that said but here we are watching TV, the government, we’re doing what we’re told to do, except that the freedoms were taken from you anyway. So I’m going to make a quick point even if you allow. So there’s a site called convoy.fr, convoy to plural, .fr to see the evolution of the convoy. Very quickly what is happening in other parts of the world and to conclude on this issue, In New Zealand, there is a convoy that is underway in Wellington, Finland, Helsinki too. There are protesters who are gathering against restrictions, but also against the high price of fuel. Because that too, it’s very important because we’re not far from the two euros. Besides, I think there was a spokesperson who talked about it.

Wonner [22:25] I like to fill up just before, it’s pretty amazing.

Host [22:30] You put two euros, you got a full one, according to Gabriel Attal.

Wonner [22:33] Yeah, that’s right. I think he’s never filled up once in his life.

Host [22:39] And then there are also roadmen in Alaska who are meeting, there is really great and what is very funny also is that you have cowboys, you’ve seen horses, cowboys, it’s very beautiful there, who are joining all these events there, farmers, here is everyone converging today for freedoms. It’s a tremendous boost, and what we see is absolutely necessary to support it, and we need the Paris Police Prefecture, the Minister of the Interior, to be able to be in restraint. That’s what I have to say.

Wonner [23:12] Of course, as a parliamentarian, I can only repeat what you have just said: it is non-violence but on both sides. on both sides because there were, we were passed a few laws for which I voted against, in particular, the global security law and I think that this government is in a sort of escalation at the same time liberticide but as if the objective was to look at the people and there I fear that it will not happen that way and the people aspire to become free again.

Host [23:51] So I’m just passing a message for drones, buses, eagles, it works very well. So if you have drones walking over Paris or if someone raises buses, eagles, I’m launching a little message. It works very well drones, it works very well. I’m telling you because…

Wonner [24:06] I’m not sure there’s a lot of people raising buses, but finally…

Host [24:09] Look, we’ve got Eagles stealing that’s not far away.

Wonner [24:11] It’s true, but it’s in Alsace.

Host [24:13] It’s in Alsace, but in any case, it works very well. They don’t like drones. That being the case, we’re going to go over another subject now after this issue of the week. So, we’ll go back to it because we don’t have a lot of images at the moment. We have some images, but it’s really very sporadic. Tomorrow, the convoy should leave from eastern France and so Saturday Paris and Monday Brussels. Here. We will now talk about a great gentleman who left us on 8 February. So I am very sorry for many reasons. We will see in a few moments an exceptional document, a document that dates from at least 30 years ago from this professor Luc Montagnier who already at the time said things very right. So I am sorry why? Because first of all it is a great gentleman who left, a very great gentleman, alerting, freedom, truth. But especially what hurts me a lot Martine Vauner is the total lack of information on mainstream media and the total absence of government that cannot pay tribute to a great medical gentleman.

Wonner [25:15] So I wanted, tonight, everyone knows Professor Luc Moutagné who left on February 8 at the age of 89. Indeed, we have seen a kind of completely delirious controversy on social networks with people who were asking themselves whether the professor really had died, since indeed there is a totally deafening silence of the French media. It seems that for 2-3 hours, CNews has indeed evoked the disappearance of the professor, but it’s just absolutely amazing. Perhaps briefly recall his career, which everyone knows, So this gentleman of course won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 2008 for the discovery of the AIDS virus. It’s very important. He was a biologist and virologist, research director at CNRS, professor at the Institut Pasteur, director of the Molecular Biology Centre in New York, director of the Research Institute in Shanghai. And above all, so I had a lot of messages and I wanted to read, there were several citizens who sent me small words saying but it is absolutely incredible and we would like to share with you this need, this need for expression and I retained a very simple message that said we were 20 years old in the AIDS years and this lack of recognition of national tribute is an insult to science to his family, to the resistors who are, they said very little time ago, the guardians of humanity. And of course, they were talking about unvaccinated people, but should we wait for another attitude of the president who no longer behaves like a statesman respectful of his people? It’s very simple. I wanted to read this little text because I think the professor really deserves to be paid a national tribute. And if we can look at Professor Montagnier’s few images about 30 years ago, do we have the images?

Host [27:38] We’re going to put them with the sound. It was more than 30 years ago, Luc Montagnier on a TV set. We’re looking at his ideas. Luc Montagnier, 30 years ago, was already talking about almost a whistleblower. In any case, he was against coercion, he was against these repressive measures. He’s a great gentleman who leaves us, Martine Volaire.

Wonner [27:56] It’s amazing because we could translate what he was saying 30 years ago to today. So he was talking about AIDS, but of course, today, the same talk about Covid, we know very well that it was not worth confining, it was not worth excluding like that from society We are not going to resume the debate but in any case the people tested positive and I find extraordinary and we also know that we are right to make this parallel because by 2020 Professor Luc Montagnier had said that in the sequence of the virus, we necessarily found a little bit of the virus, of AIDS. So he left us. I really hope the government will get to… I mean, I don’t know. In any case, the people pay tribute to him.

Host [28:54] I’m going to tell you, Martine Wonner, very sincerely, I’m telling you really, what I think for the government is too late. It’s too late for the President of the Republic…

Wonner [29:04] It is a confession, it is a confession. That is, this silence is a true confession. That is to say that they had classified Professor Montagnier on the side, indeed, of antivax, etc. I do not want to repeat all these derogatory qualifiers. So, that’s why they decided not to say anything, not to make communication, but it is shameful.

Host [29:30] No, it’s a real scandal and it’s unworthy of the French government, but we’re starting to get used to it. So, we’re going to change the subject since the time is running out and we’ve got Christine Cotton, we’ve invited that we’re going to have in a few moments. We’re going to talk about the number of the week. So, that’s a figure I found that’s quite eloquent too. It’s the cost of the Covid tests in January 2022. So I’m going to give this figure, it’s a figure So you have to stand because… Hold on, it’s 1.6 billion euros. And in that, obviously, there are not just non-vaccinated people who have been tested since there have been 12 million positive cases a priori. 1.6 billion euros is still the equivalent of the construction of 19 40 000 square meters hospitals. So that means that with this money, we could have actually built 19 40 000 square meters hospitals on this cost of 1.6 billion euros. So, we just have our technicians who went through the field very quickly. Dominique? It’s live, it’s because he’s preparing…

Wonner [30:45] So even to say that 1.6 billion euros, I think it’s so phenomenal that it’s really hard to see what it is, you said the number of hospitals that we… 19 hospitals. It’s just amazing because I remind you that we’re in a health crisis. If by 2021, when there was the extra cost, where we spent 450 million euros a day, what to do with a CHU every day, you’ll see how many hospitals we could have built since then. So all this is amazing. You know, Martine, I’m going to add a little bit more

Host [31:28] To the absurdity, I was shocked, I was called a few weeks ago, I was told I’m from Hagenot, so here I am not very far from here, I’m told Friday 2:00 p.m. or noon, no, it’s 2:00 p.m., protest at Hagenot Hospital. I said but what’s going on? I’m told all the caregivers are going out, and I think they’re doing it all over France now, they’re going out, they’re making a minute of silence, a minute of silence. I went there, I looked at it. It’s very impressive. You have all the caregivers coming out. They make a minute of silence and you do have this minute of silence for financial problems.

Wonner [32:06] The hospital’s dying, and we’re never gonna say it enough.

Host [32:11] In any case, after these angry figures, we’re going to talk about someone who is very upset. Olivier Véran was the one who was heard in the Senate. It’s an excerpt that we’re going to show in a few seconds.

Wonner [32:26] We moved on from one subject to another. We came back, thanks to this tribute to Professor Montagnier, we’re talking again about the Covid, but I really want to talk, we talked about these figures, but we’re talking about corruption. Because we’re going to deal in a way with corruption in dealing with the crisis in two ways. We’re going to start with a little bit of what happened in the Senate when Olivier Véran was auditioned. It’s impressive, and Olivier Véran, who usually answers everything, is still in hell’s trouble. And then, as you said, and as we announced, we’ll have our guest of honor.

Host [33:11] We’re going to look at this sequence.

MP [33:12] Thank you.

MP [33:13] So, minister, in these cases, we’re going to be very specific, and I’m going to be very specific. There’s a note, I don’t know if I’m going to find it, here’s a note that was written to the attention of the Director General of Health. Planning for the dissolution of the interdepartmental coordination unit logistics and health facilities CCILMS. This note was written by two persons. Finally, the file was followed by two persons, one of whom is employed by a private firm.

MP [33:55] And ? A note to the Health Branch can be written by teams that come in reinforcement and on the private firm. Yes ? What is the astonishment that you put in your question ?

MP [34:08] Minister, it’s no bother in your sense that a document stamped Ministry of Solidarity and Health…

MP [34:14] I wasn’t finished, there’s the ministry of solidarity testing.

MP [34:17] Except that it was someone from a private firm who wrote the note. The person who wrote it is not at McKinsey’s headquarters. The person who wrote it is the principle, forgive me, of reinforcement of counsel, is a person who is delegated by the firm, because of his skills, within a team, within the department.

Wonner [34:38] We have a minister of health who is struggling, at least he’s trying to find logical explanations for the fact that we have people from a private company who are integrated squarely into the minister’s team, into the ministry of health, and he finds that? Normally, he takes the example in addition to, it’s like when he says but the gendarmes are part of the team too, we integrate law enforcement and at once he dares to compare state officials with people that the government is paying in addition a crazy sum because we know it’s several million each month to McKinsey. It’s just amazing. I was very amused that OCDA is pointing to this corruption, because there is no other word. There is a corruption of the government. To use public finances to this extent to pay private companies. And we still have a country that trains high-ranking officials who are able to enlighten the minister. I would remind you that the minister is also a doctor, he could be enlightened all by himself from time to time, but he has a lot of trouble with that boy. And here, in fact, there is absolutely no transparency. And thank you very much at this moment when senators are going to titillate it, but it is more than titillating it there, they point at the guilty actions of this government. So it was interesting that we can, we will say, talk about this point.

Host [36:34] Good look, don’t you think he smoked something?

Wonner [36:36] I don’t know. We said no attack on physics but on appearance. We remain extremely serious and on facts. And it’s true that… we also remember, I repeat, that McKinsey in the United States is really involved in real scandals in recent years, in the opioid scandal. So we trust, not only do we trust, we pay for people who have already been convicted. In the past, it’s a way to introduce perhaps our guest, Christine Cotton.

So we’ll see if the technique works. Ah, we see Christine in the picture. So I don’t hear anything, but is it normal that we don’t hear Christine? Good evening Christine, very happy to welcome you. I know that you are currently very, very much in demand. I know that your evening will last a while. to the independent scientific council or maybe you will go into more technical things than now. Today, right now, we’re talking to a general public, so I’m just asking you to stay extremely didactic in what you’re going to introduce to us. I’m really proud that you agreed to be this guest because you’ve done an absolutely remarkable job that took you a lot of time, a lot of energy.

But what I would like the citizens to understand is that you really have all this legitimacy for doing this work. So maybe in a few minutes, you can already introduce yourself. And then in addition, then we will go completely into this report which is still absolutely incredible in its conclusions. And that allows us to ask a lot of questions tonight and I hope that one day there will be all the answers.

Christine Cotton [39:14] Yes, so I was a biostatistician for 23 years, I set up my company at 26 years of age, that’s what we call a CRO, Clinical Research Organization, so it’s the subcontractor of the pharmaceutical industry. It’s the one who will manage, who worked for the biometric service, so really in clinical trials. Well, I’ve also done observational surveys, environmental studies, etc. But really, my preference, it goes to the clinical trial.

So I’ve worked for a lot of laboratories. When you’re underhand, you work for several clients. and in very diverse fields, dermatology, cancerology, lots of very different things. The profession of biostatistician is a profession of rigour, of precision, because one is in charge, one is the guarantor of the methodology of a climate test. It is the biostatistician who makes the calculation of the number of subjects to be included in a trial to demonstrate for example the effectiveness. It is not a doctor. The medical hypotheses are going to be proposed by the doctor, but it is the biostatistician who does the calculation. And you think that it is not better to be mistaken. Once the trial is on its way, we have activities called data management where we are going to collect the data. It is an activity that we also manage in my society. We’re going to check the data on the site to see that people report the data to us. The site is the medical structure. It can be a clinic, a hospital that will recruit patients. It’s an activity called monitoring, to go look at these data and see if they are compliant. And behind it is the statistician at the end who will still make the analyses. So any picture that is in a clinical trial report, it is made by a biostatistician. So that’s why from the beginning we see a lot of doctors talking about all this, but the doctors they… in the clinical trials, at last really in the analysis part, they simply recover the tables and often they call us because they are not able to read them.

Wonner [41:34] “Yes, but then precisely, it is true that I say, at last, in medicine, when we study medicine, we do not indeed have that qualification at all to be in capacity. I know that you are an expert of tables with thousands of lines of numbers, but it is true that we doctors, we like when the conclusions are already advanced. So, a question, because it is important to say so. The doctors who were on the trays are barred not from diplomas but from conflicts of interest. What about you?

Indeed, indeed. So I had several questions anyway because I read carefully this report which is absolutely remarkable, extremely thorough. And as you just said, I’m a doctor. I’ve just… so I haven’t been to the conclusions right away, but in any case, the conclusions are amazing. And we really have… well, what we understand is that Pfizer didn’t act at all. academically and according to the methods that normally have to be used to have a necessary and sufficient quality, but to be quiet, to think that we are marketing a product, that the product in question is a vaccine, and can you explain to us why in your conclusions you are asking yourself questions? Should this vaccine continue to be given to the world population? Shouldn’t it be better for the moment to have a moratorium on this vaccination? And why? Can you explain a little to us what’s going on?

Cotton [43:45] To sum up, therefore, we are always talked about on the trays actually of ratio, benefits, risks. So, then, the benefit is what? It is efficiency and it is immunogenicity, therefore protection. The risk is measured by tolerance and these are the desirable effects. So in the efficiency, in the report, we measure this on the basis of the criteria of effectiveness. And especially the famous 95% that we have heard about for a year, they come from a calculation on the main criterion which is therefore a first appearance of symptomatic Covid from seven days after dose 2, confirmed by PCR test.

So, on this criterion, the problems we have, it is the participant himself who has to postpone the symptoms to the laboratory. So we have people coming into the clinical trial, they get vaccinated once, they come back 21 days later, they get vaccinated a second time, and it’s up to them to call the centre, the one he recruited, to report that he’s sick, so there’s a lot of problems with that. There’s no answer from the center, and we know it happened because we have it in the famous Vantavia case. If only in three centers, we are told that there are cases that have not been tested. We also know it because we have an imbalance. Why, in fact, I know that I have problems because I have imbalances on certain parameters depending on, for example, the number of confirmed PCR tests. If I have sick patients, not all of them are doing behind a PCR test. So that’s not awkward. That’s not equiles. Where I see…

Wonner [45:44] Here, where I see… – I’d like to ask you a question to be sure to understand well. So we have people who, in the clinical trial, had these two doses of vaccines. They are quietly at home, if I may say so. And it’s up to them to decide whether they report a strange effect or not. So after them they don’t know too much, they may have temperature, they feel tired, they may have pain somewhere. Do they have a very clear grid?

Cotton [46:21] So they have a list of symptoms they need to report. And when you look at this list, there are a number of symptoms, chills, fever, diarrhea, vomiting that are also reactions to the vaccine.

Wonner [46:35] All right.

Cotton [46:35] So, when he calls the center, the doctor is not able to tell him if it is possibly Covid symptoms or reactions to the vaccine. And so, it’s at that time that we tell him, well, do a test. But if we don’t make him do a test. No test, no Covid.

Wonner [46:51] And another question, if the person, because he’s not feeling very well, he’s taking an analgesic or an antipyretic to remove pain or fever, how can it be interpreted? That’s something that’s wrong too?

Cotton [47:05] So, on this criterion, we have a problem because if we had all the participants, if we had the same proportion, it calls me an imbalance and therefore a bias that will distort my assessment of effectiveness. It is from the moment I have behavioral imbalances between the treatment groups that I have a problem. And here we know that in the vaccine group, we have about 3-4 times more people who have taken an antiperatic. So it removes symptoms. If I remove symptoms, behind, I don’t have a test. So no test, no Covid. That is, when I calculate my 95-15%, I have a number of Covid cases in the vaccine group that is necessarily wrong.

Wonner [47:52] Of course, of course, and do we know these tickets there that these vaccines were made extremely quickly, and this is the first time we have vaccines that are put on the market, so with this emergency authorization, temporary emergency, I think we never have medical history to make a vaccine so quickly. So obviously, not all of these notes could be analyzed.

Cotton [48:22] So, the biases, in fact, they distort the result. So I have biases that distort my result of efficiency, that is, my 95, it is questionable from the point of view of its reliability. Here, for me, this 95, it is unreliable. It does not mean that we would not have had any proven efficiency, since above 50, it was placed on the market. But in any case, it’s not 95, and what do we see today finally? Does it look like 95? Clearly not. Then, my second big problem is my antibody assay, because at the time this vaccine arrives on the market, the duration of the protection, finally, we do not know it and we are not likely to know it for more than three months since that is the duration of the participants’ follow-up.

Wonner [49:11] And this too, Christine, is completely incredible, but it’s never seen before. Usually, people in a trial are followed much longer.

Cotton [49:24] They’re supposed to be followed 24 months and it’s common for us to have intermediate analyses, but that we have such rapid intermediate analyses that lead to the placing on the market of a product that has been accelerated. We started phase 2, we didn’t finish the first one, we started the third one, we didn’t finish the second one. We haven’t quite finished at all. preclinical phases on animals, but that’s clearly never seen. So what’s also a very big problem for me is that I don’t have a three-month antibody assay, for example four months after dose 2. And so, it’s highly problematic because if we had seen one, we would have seen the decrease of antibodies. It wouldn’t have been necessary to wait until I don’t know more September 2021 to say, it’s there, it’s down, we need a booster. If we had waited 4-5 months to analyze that we had a dosage at that time, it’s going well, the dosage we don’t have it. So we’re not likely to see it dropped before because we hadn’t.

Wonner [50:24] And that, Christine, I’d like to interrupt you, that’s a really shocking argument and on several occasions I put in a really bad posture, but almost it wasn’t voluntary, but the Minister of Health at the National Assembly. I’m a doctor, basic. When you’re sick, you look at the antibodies. When you’ve had a vaccine, you take the antibodies and see if you need a reminder. And then, when I talked about serology, when I talked about that question, when he doesn’t have the answer, he gets angry, the minister. And that’s it, anyway, he never answered that question. But now I understand better than what you’re explaining to us.

Cotton [51:07] So, anyway, we couldn’t conclude that there was a term of protection of more than 3 months since we had analysed 3 months, so the case has already been settled. So then as far as the risks are concerned, here too we are very bored, it is that so this 3 months duration, it is a 3 months duration, that is to say that when we are told that there is no problem of tolerance, there is no serious problem of tolerance actually in the studies, Well, we are leaving anyway, I will go back to it after, over the three months, on the first population of the over 16 years, we have no big problem of tolerance.

But what we know next about the others is that we have very small sample sizes on the children of 12, 15, the teenagers, and I have a report in October 2021 on the 5-11 and there they tell me clearly that the size of the chantillons is too small to detect cases of myocarditis so that means that I have a size of the chantillons too small to detect serious effects so that it’s common I can have small sample sizes to detect serious effects and that’s why it’s all the more necessary to follow after the patients to whom we are going to give a drug for example on which we would have had this problem but it’s that in addition to that in the trial of the 12-15 we have the famous case Mady de Garret and Mady de Garret it’s a serious case that is ultimately a disability since the little one participated in this trial. She had 35 side effects. She’s on a wheelchair, she’s powered by her stomach, and this side effect is not in the clinical report.

Wonner [52:44] And it must still be said that this little girl was in perfect health before she had this injection.

Cotton [52:50] For sure, otherwise he wouldn’t have included it in the test.

Wonner [52:53] It’s terrible, it’s absolutely terrible, and so now you’re explaining to us that as it started to have side effects, they took it out of the study.

Cotton [53:03] Yes, in fact, this case, we know why? Because there is a more or less Senate commission in the United States. It is Senator Ron Johnson who makes a collection of desirable ends because there is more and more of them. So, people no longer know who to turn to, and so it is this senator who gives the floor to the victims. We are going to say that no one cares that we try to silence more or less. This is highly problematic because, as a result, it means that out of 2000 to about 2300 patients, I have a disability, which is not counted in the report. So then, that we do not come to tell us that it is perfectly well tolerated, that there is no problem. So this is the same. If I go back to my term of protection, what had we been told? We had not been told too much, since we did not know. In fact, what is happening? In fact, protection lasts four months. It means that every four months, I get a little injection.

Wonner [54:06] That’s it, that’s it. And that was already planned. That is, in the study, that’s what I thought I understood when I read the report, that they had already planned the boosters, the reminders, etc. from the start.

Cotton [54:20] So exactly, that is, in the opinion of the HAS of December 2020, we are already told that Pfizer is studying boosters. It’s a good thing because as the antibody dosage decreases, fortunately they have thought of studying boosters, it saves them time to be able to market it. So then it’s true that when you see this, there are still a lot of questions to ask yourself and the problem is that on these adverse events today since you want to vaccinate children etc. there is a strong but here, the problem is that you don’t know too much, in the medium-long term, what it can give, since it’s not observed during the study.

Wonner [54:59] “Of course. And then a question, because how many times I heard the minister saying, if you get vaccinated, anyway, it decreases, it reduces times 13, so there were numbers coming out, transmission, etc. But did that, you found it in…

Cotton [55:19] Ah no, but then the vaccines are not meant to stop the transmission, it doesn’t exist. Anyone who tells you it stops the transmission, it’s totally wrong communication. Moreover, the HAS says, the NSM says, there is no study of the transmission in these trials. It reduces the number of symptomatic Covid cases confirmed by PCR test, bar-point, and no other thing, but there is no transmission. So, no, it doesn’t exist. That’s, so, good.

Wonner [55:58] “There we are facing… You are in the process, in this report…"”So, wait, sorry, Martin, if I may say so…"”But of course it’s us.

Cotton [56:05] “These times 13 and all that, all that, are real-life studies.

Wonner [56:08] - Yes.

Cotton [56:09] These envireal studies are done in relation to methodologies. So here what I’m trying to explain to the people who watch my YouTube video really the longest explanation about all this, with all the tables, the extracts from the reports, the links, etc. That’s the statisticians, they’re people that are precise.

Wonner [56:30] So… “A bit obsessive, even. That’s the psychiatrist talking to you, but there’s the side… I think it’s reassuring, the obsessive side, at least we’re sure. Finally, if you could have collaborated in the noble sense of the term with Pfizer, we wouldn’t be there, because there, you would have said, you would have said, but you have to stop everything, there, because…

Cotton [56:50] I’m sure that some people have had to make e-mails to say that there were problems, and I’m pretty sure because precisely this role as a statistician is a very big responsibility because if we are wrong in our calculations and it comes from our erroneous conclusions, we manage to put something on the market that shouldn’t have been because we didn’t analyse it well in terms of efficiency or tolerance, but it’s very serious so I had civil liability insurance, and finally it’s a very specific job and it’s true, it’s valid to many. Normally, there is a very high level of quality, which is not at all in these tests. These studies in real life, we must also take them with caution, that is, we do not know the methodology. That is to say, to know what this time is worth 13, we must go and deconstruct the methodology, how it was done, what the thresholds are set. Because for example if I take the CDC data for example, the Center Disease Control in the United States, which is therefore the health authority that is supposed to look at the signals, that is to say the tolerance problems that appear in real life. they only count them 21 days after each dose. Why not 3 days? Why not 25? Why not 60?

So there are thresholds and these thresholds are found everywhere. That is to say, by changing these thresholds, I’m not going to have the same results at all. That’s why it’s very important to know the water metals. Because this thing that announces me less times 13, I didn’t read, I didn’t look, I don’t know what the methodology is. But if for example it’s kind of like this with thresholds, maybe it counts on, I don’t know, 23 days, 25 and it doesn’t count the rest. So it doesn’t, it doesn’t have a value. Well, people have to understand things, they have a value that from the moment we explained the methodology that is being studied.

Wonner [58:49] Otherwise it’s worth nothing.

Cotton [58:51] That is, we are not able to understand it. It is not that it is worth nothing. It is that we are not able to understand this result.

Wonner [58:57] Of course, and so we can only have doubts, that is, from the moment when there is no transparency and no precision when we ask questions, etc. That’s what I was saying earlier about the non-transparency of the French government. who can only worry us because already, as a parliamentarian, I am being written every day to describe the side effects that they are experiencing after vaccination. So there are those who today do not want to and will not at all boost it because they have already suffered side effects for some serious ones.

Cotton [59:41] There, precisely, there is a pre-print that came out, which I shared on my Twitter, which was shared by Dr. Alice Desbioles. And this pre-print, he says that the booster has absolutely no effect below 80 years. So this is a public health publication France.

Wonner [1:00:04] So public health France, judges or in any case, we would all like to see Minister Veran take inspiration to tell us it’s no longer worth going to boost and above all your vaccination pass, which is already no longer, you know, and I denounce it, is not a health tool but has become only a political tool. So here we have all the evidence in fact and this preprint is very interesting. I’ll go see on your Twitter page because I haven’t been reading it yet but it’s really a very important item.

Cotton [1:00:43] On my Twitter page, you will see that Coralie Dubost accuses me of putting pregnant women at risk because I had the misfortune to share the Committeey notice that people ask, since then they ask me for the source documents, so I provide them. And unfortunately, he wrote that pregnant women are only vaccinated if the benefits are greater than the risks. And that’s the estimate in relation to it. It’s an estimate that is individual. If you put it individually, there’s no… that’s it. And so, I’m accused of endangering the lives of pregnant women.

Wonner [1:01:22] I don’t think she was seen or listened to. First of all, you didn’t make a judgment. You just provided Pfizer’s package leaflet. Pfizer said you shouldn’t vaccinate pregnant women.

Cotton [1:01:36] He wrote that it’s depending on, looking at potential risks and potential benefits, so it’s clearly on a case-by-case basis.

Wonner [1:01:44] That’s right.

Cotton [1:01:45] Depending on the age, depending on the comorbidities, maybe it’s not…

Wonner [1:01:50] On a case-by-case basis, and several gynaecologists have nevertheless been surprised that it is still quite new that pregnant women are proposed to be injected, since until now all vaccinations have been avoided during the incrocosity. And unfortunately, we also have quite official figures on the various sites, whether it be VAERS or the site of the National Agency for the Safety of the Medicine, In France, we still have figures with miscarriages, the percentage of which still astonishes, astonishes very strongly, which has never been so high. In any case, Christine, I know, so I promised to return the antenna, if we can say it like that, around 8:30 pm, we would have a lot of things to say and I think you still want to say things. So it’s so important that I, of course, of course, continue Christine.

Cotton [1:02:50] I have asked for the suspension of this report, so I wrote it for the request from a lawyer in Quebec and it turns out that curiously this lawyer in Quebec ten days after having pleaded must make a psychiatric expert.

Wonner [1:03:18] Unbelievable, incredible.

Cotton [1:03:21] That’s where we are, so obviously, any causal link is not established, but, well, coincidence anyway.

Wonner [1:03:33] While this woman lawyer had never had, I don’t know what, behavioral disorders that might have put the doubt and that would indeed have required psychiatric expertise. But where are we going? Thank you in any case for these clarifications. Thank you very much Christine for this remarkable work. I can only agree when you say that this vaccination should be stopped, at least for the time being, suspending and analysing a lot of things. I had already made several recommended letters. to the Minister of Health, to Mr. Salomon, who is the Director General of Health, the DGS, so that there is indeed a suspension. There had been AstraZeneca with lots of extremely rapid cardiovascular problems.

Then there were indications depending on the age groups that had changed, etc. All this is not transparent. The modest role of the parliamentarian that I am is to evaluate and monitor the government’s action, so it seemed important to me to ask them to suspend this vaccination as a matter of urgency. Really, your report and the conclusions go in the same direction. In any case, I hope that all the questions that you put in this report, which is very enlightening, will make it possible to move forward. I really hope that the French government, in a very reasonable way, will already suspend the vaccination, especially not to encourage the vaccination of the little ones, because we also know that Pfizer’s desire is to get out of the miracle vaccines for babies. We already have the youngest between the ages of 5 and 11. And I am quite happy that in France, for the moment, there are very few children, at the bottom, who have been vaccinated. So, I know that if the government listens to me, it will make them scream. But I am glad that today, parents do not rush at all so that toddlers are vaccinated.

Cotton [1:05:46] Why do we want to vaccinate the young? Because they don’t risk much. They have very low risk of having a severe Covid and eventually the parents would like to vaccinate them since eventually they would be contagious for others. But we know that it doesn’t stop transmission. There’s no point anymore. There are no scientific criteria that allow us to say yes it is imperative to vaccinate children since it does not stop transmission. Vaccinating, not vaccinating, it does not stop transmission. And from there, the risk to them is clearly greater than the benefit, since in the clinical trial, we do not have a full risk assessment, since we only have it over a period of three months. It is completely aberrant.

Wonner [1:06:31] But I believe, Christine, that you are talking about science. We are still trying to talk about science. But on the other hand, unfortunately, it is not science that is being put forward, but it is the instrumentalisation today of this global health crisis. And with, again, it has become a political weapon and I regret it. In any case, really thank you. So I’ll say it again later, you’ll be at the independent scientific council with real scientists who will be at your side perhaps asking yourself questions and you’ll have more time to detail all this. Really, thank you, thank you very much and congratulations, congratulations for this work.

Host [1:07:21] We’ve learned a lot tonight. Christine Cotton, who still has a concrete resume. That’s the case with saying, I do puns, but it’s not on purpose.

Wonner [1:07:30] But excellent this pun. It’s the pun from the end, you had a little time to prepare Steve.

Host [1:07:35] No, it’s total improvisation. I saw his resume very quickly, it’s still someone who did 500 clinical trials. I saw the methodology, 110 pages ago, it’s extremely detailed. So, I’m not a scientist of course, but the conclusions, we heard them, it’s a real scandal. I’d like to thank the technique tonight. We had a few new problems on Facebook. So, Marc Montagne de Sucre, I like to call him that, I’m like Zuckerberg, I don’t like it too much. He wants to leave Europe, I think. He decided to leave Europe. Maybe he took us a little ride tonight.

Wonner [1:08:06] It is true that we are used to talking about dossiers, bad subjects. At any rate not bad for the citizens who follow us, who like to find the Thursday evening lives, but in any case bad for the Mountain of Sugar.

Host [1:08:23] Sucre Mountain, I’m again less censored, I took 30 days again, I’m used to it now.

Wonner [1:08:29] Anyway, I hope we could still follow this live.

Host [1:08:32] Yes, it was followed on YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Odyssey. I thank Angelo who put the links on Facebook precisely to direct the netizens, the spectators on the other platforms. Anyway, it will be in replay. I thank Dominique, Jean and Philippe on the side of the board. Thank you Martine Wonner.

Wonner [1:08:52] And thank you, Steve, and we’ll meet in a week.

Host [1:08:58] Absolutely. in a week.