Host [00:00] Renaud, I’d like to have an asshole of a virus in the meantime. It’s, it seems, still there. We don’t know, the clues, no, no, no, it’s not the same, the others don’t say at all, not at all. It’s there, but is it always, always it is, that yesterday, obviously, as usual, Elon Musk, you know, the boss of Tesla, SpaceX and then Twitter, of course, bromatized X, and well it went from his tweet, from his video that obviously made several million views very very quickly as usual.

So, well, he was talking about what? There are posters, it shows things, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, etc. 100% security, 95% absolutely. All vaccinated, all protected, as Christine Cotton wrote that we’re going to receive right away. But before, it’s interesting, because what Elon Musk said, it’s worth saying… and saying what he wrote. He said what was more worrying to me was the outrageous demand that people take the vaccine and more reminders to do anything. And he recalls that until the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated Biden’s decree on the vaccination obligation, SpaceX and many other companies would have been forced to dismiss anyone refusing to be vaccinated. and Elon Musk adds, we would not have done so. I’d rather go to prison than send back good people who didn’t want to get stinged. I, said Elon Musk always, received the vaccine before the rune’s slight symptoms came out. He was hit with Covid, he said, and he had to receive three vaccines to travel. Yes, because he, without travelling, it’s not possible. And he says the third shot almost sent me to the hospital. He says how many other people have symptoms that are realities of the high vaccine or Covid treatment, rather than the Covid of the M. And it’s the center, don’t find the opposition, I’m neither doctor nor expert on it, but then how many vaccinees actually victims of the Covid and how many unvaccinated, etc. He quotes Elon Musk always Djokovic, he says Djokovic who never took a vaccine of his life, The schlems, they win them, we talked about it, etc. And he says this, Elon Musk, he ends up, it’s not like I didn’t believe in the vaccine, I think.

But the cure can’t be potentially worse than the disease, and the public debate on effectiveness must exist, can’t be banned. That’s it. And he adds, in conclusion, there is also a great potential for the graying of many diseases thanks to the RN6-sathetic, so let’s not jog the baby with the bath water, the baby with the RN. That’s it. Well, he’s not more scientific, either, but still, he has some experience in the matter. And what’s going on?

So, hello, Christine Cotton. “Hello, Mr Bercow.” “Hello, we have already received you, and with pleasure for your book, which has made a lot of noise, which continues to make it, all vaccinated, all protected. I just want to, just, Christine Cotton, before we begin, to recall this. Indeed, on December 24, 2020, the French high health authority indicated that the vaccination effectiveness of viral transmission had not been evaluated, but it was early 2021, the vaccination campaign, and it reported an effectiveness rate of 96% in the prevention of infection with Covid-19. 96%, moreover, it is the posters that Elon Musk gives, which were all the laboratories given, 4.25, 4.16, 100, even 100%, etc. We could see very well, it was all, practically all. And here we have the figures that date from February 2023, from the very official national agency for the safety of the medicine and health products, the ANSM. And here’s what she’s saying, so here we have to read it anyway, he says, the complete first vaccination of two doses achieved since the launch of the vaccination campaign, keeps a long-term effectiveness, they say about the risk of hospitalization.

But this effectiveness, listen to me well in relation to the figures condemned at the end of 2020, early 2021. This efficacy is estimated to be 45% up to more than a year since the primary vaccination. 45%. We have increased from 4.25% to 45%. And the booster doses are effective. 56% say for the third dose, 75% for the fourth and fifth doses. But they say in the long term, we don’t know. And finally, it’s very interesting, it’s that compared to primary vaccination, so if you want, we went, to say it very quickly, we went from 55% to the effectiveness of booster doses, since the third dose. It decreases over time, from 55% between 2 and 4 months, to 30% in 4 and 6 months, then to 22% 6 months after primary vaccination. That is to say, you have to make 4, 5, 6 and more 6 affinities. Christine Cotton, you probably saw Elon Musk’s video and then above all the numbers of the NSM and then you wrote this book, this book all vaccinated, all protected. So the biostatistician that you are, where are we really today?

Christine Cotton [05:32] So, you have to specify what this 95% effectiveness was. So I describe all this in my book whose subtitle is still “Vaccin VOCID-19, chronicle of an announced health disaster.” Don’t forget it. So these 95% announced, so in December 2020 they were only mild or moderate VOCID cases, confirmed by PCR test, counted from 7 days after dose 2. So you already see that it doesn’t concern everyone. So there, we weren’t obviously studying asymptomatics. There were not a whole host of populations that were excluded or on which there were no results, such as pregnant women. There were no results on patients with co-morbidity. There was no proven efficacy at that time, December 2020, on severe cases.

So, in fact, all the numbers that were announced were for the clinical trial that was only measuring part of the disease, and I’ve been saying that for over a year and a half, the antibodies had not been measured in my opinion specifically so as not to show that they were falling. That is, we know from the beginning that this effectiveness will not hold. In any case, since in December 2020, we already have a booster in the pipeline, because we know it will last no more than 3-4 months.

So all these numbers that we’ve been told about, obviously the transmission was not studied, we’ve seen it, but we know all about it from the protocol of the clinical trial, that is to say October 2020, even before. You mean all that knew since October 2020? But of course, the health agencies know from the beginning because they have the trial protocols that so I have reviewed and recovered. So all those numbers that we were told then are studies that are done in real life and that are not clinical trials.

So it slows down the transmission of so many percents, so all this is blablabla. So, then, it’s still very important to talk about this pseudo-efficiency that never existed and for which, we’re going to say, we found an artifice that I’m documenting in my book since I have a little chapter called The Trial was almost perfect. So, we recently recovered the Pfizer contract with South Africa. So, I know that some have made videos on this subject. I, what I found in this contract and which interests me a lot, is that we have a chapter called product supply and there we are told that the product has completed the Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. But when South Africa signed the contract in April 2021, the two-year clinical trial, it was not likely in April 2021 to have completed a phase 3 trial that began in July 2020.

Host [08:15] Yeah, it’s not exactly the same time, yeah.

Cotton [08:18] So, then, we knew in April 2021, since we have, when we look at the clinical reports of the laboratory and especially the clinical report of adolescents, there was black on white, but black on white on page 38 of the report, that the unknowns on the teenagers of 12-15 were the same as on the population over 16 years of age. In other words, the duration of the unknown protection, the efficacy of certain populations with unknown risks, the efficacy of unknown symptomatic cases, the unknown long-term effects, the unknown mortality, and the unknown transmission. That is to say that from the beginning, we are being taped with a pseudo main criterion that is not worth a nail, and I have told the agencies, since I have had the honor, we are going to say, to talk to the NSM, where I told them this main criterion is not valid, it does not measure the disease, and therefore that is why we see this effectiveness that is collapsing. because it’s not representative of what’s happening in real life.

Host [09:22] So what you’re saying, Christy Cotton, you’ve already said, by the way, you’re saying that in fact the studies have been conducted, I wouldn’t say in spite of common sense, although the question can be asked, but the time has not been taken for the study. We were so impacted, we were so afraid that there were tens of millions of deaths, remember Ferguson and the modellers, that we rushed.

Cotton [09:44] So when we get the results out for all populations, we come out of the results that are available only over three months of max follow-up. That is, we have a trial that lasts two years and you get out of the results after three months maximum, with 50% followed less than two months. So how did we want to assess tolerance? Even if only tolerance? That’s impossible. So this is when we give the authorizations, December 2020, on the say to the elderly, immunocompromised, you are a priority and you have to get vaccinated, there is no evidence of effectiveness on these populations in the clinical report. That is to say that the speech we were given on all TV sets, with what I call experts without expertise,

Host [10:22] The doctors on the set, the doctors on the set.

Cotton [10:25] Here, the experts without expertise, you have people who have not been screwed to read even the risk management plan, if only one clinical relationship with the real results, I don’t even know if they can read them, I’m in the business of providing the tables of these reports, so obviously I can read them, it’s my job to do them. So that’s very important, and that’s the way it doesn’t work, and it’s never gonna work, so we keep throwing up vaccines that we’re seeing again with variants and subvariants. So here we have the XBB 1.5 monovalent that’s allowed and recommended for who, of course, the over 65s, the women in 5, that’s it. Immunocompromised patients on which we have to date no results, and the HAS continues to tell us that we need to co-administer with the flu vaccine. And we have strictly no clinical trials that prove that it is safe to do so since there is no trial, no interaction study that has ever been done. So they take us, I tell myself, Mr. Berkov, from the beginning, they think we’re assholes. That’s what’s going on!

Host [11:38] And tell me, I’m reading there, in 20 minutes to reproduce this, you know the Merck pill, the famous pill, the mollnupiravir can give meaning to viruses that have mutated significantly. Because until… now we recommend, you’ve seen, solutions for both attacking the flu and now it’s both… It’s all about the flu and the coronavirus. That is, what is it? Is it some kind of narrative that has nothing to do with the real or what?

Cotton [12:11] So, in fact, there’s one thing that’s very important and in my opinion our listeners don’t know, it’s that when we give Pfizer approval by announcing these famous 95-600 vaccines, we’ve just changed the production line in the clinical trial. Because Pfizer realizes that, my faith, the poor, they won’t be able to produce billions of doses with the current production chain that produces the vaccine from the clinical trial, and then they say we’re changing the production chain, and then you get a product that’s not the same. So even when you advertise these 95%, it’s not the product that was given to the population. It’s another one manufactured in other factories. For which the European Medicines Agency, and it’s all documented, had expressed reservations, or even major objections, since they had a rate of messenger RNA that was not the same.

Host [13:05] The same one, yes.

Cotton [13:06] There, he was inferior.

Host [13:08] That was late 2020?

Cotton [13:10] Yes, late 2020. So this is the first time, we’re going to say, in the history of the drug, that we have a laboratory that changes our production line almost at the end of its clinical trial, we’re going to say, or finally in the middle. And for which agencies give permission, while we’re supposed to start at the beginning of the chain to prove that this product, we’re supposed to go back on rats and mice. We’re not supposed to say yes it’s perfect, bravo, we’re going to give it to billions of human beings. So from the beginning we’ve had a guilty complacency of the health agencies, which I explained to them perfectly during my interview with them. And so this frickin’ main criterion that doesn’t measure effectiveness is the one that has been accepted by all agencies in the world. While finally I mean a simple review of biostat, whose profession it is, I repeat it, the biostatistician is the one who makes the methodology, analyses them and validates the criteria used.

Host [14:15] Christine, stay with us Christine Cotton, we take a little break and we resume in two minutes. We are always with Christine Cotton, biostatistician and author of this book. Very controversial, but very furnished and very documented. all vaccinated, all protected, with a huge question mark. But beyond the polemic Christine Cotton, to listen to you anyway, to give you factual things, we have the impression of being between X-Files and meeting the third type and traveling in unknown land anyway. That is to say, we have the impression that we actually have, and fortunately, there have been no millions of deaths and there have been no good, today the controversy is enormous on side effects, collateral, etc. But in fact, we have rushed and we have not looked at what is perhaps the basis, in the medium term, the effects. And today, we’re talking about fourth, fifth, tenth dose, new variants, new vaccines, etc. It goes on and on, Christine Cotton?

Cotton [15:21] So this book is controversial, yes and no, since so far there has not been a single person with a valid background, a valid experience, which managed to contradict the least line of what I wrote a year and a half ago in my expert report. of the clinical trial Pfizer in relation to good clinical practice. So in fact, when you don’t follow all those rules that have been in place for 30 years, that each practitioner must follow in a clinical trial, from writing the document called protocol to providing the results through the doctors who recruit patients, etc., when you don’t respect all this, how you want to have a reliable product at the end.

So you can’t since you’ve not only done an accelerated trial with phases completely… phase 3 that started, phase 2 wasn’t finished, etc. You’re making an accelerated movement. You don’t follow good practices with good methods. What do you want to have on the market, other than something that doesn’t work? So that’s the first point, but if it was that, that it was ineffective, it wouldn’t be very serious. The problem is that we say the controversy about the side effects, but like that, there’s no controversy to have. You go to the website Eudra Vigilance of the European Medicines Agency, EMA, you look at even for the first vaccine Pfizer, the one called monovalent. You have 1.2 million cases postponed, with 25% serious. If we take into account an understatement, let’s say at least 10%, you multiply by 10, that means you have 12 million patients in Europe.

Host [17:07] Because you estimate, wait, you estimate, but it’s not sure, you estimate that only 10% are declared.

Cotton [17:12] Ah, but if it is certain, because we have a publication which dates back to 2006, moreover co-signed by the head of the pharmacovigilance centres, of French, Jean-Ville Bérat, who is therefore part of all this, who in 2006 estimated, which in particular for serious cases, a sub-report, or perhaps even that it is necessary to multiply some cases per cent.

Host [17:39] So you say that the effects, the damage, the collateral effects and the damage are indeed extremely numerous, we are talking about it in the world.

Cotton [17:51] In relation to the benefit Mr Berkhof, supposedly the benefit-risk ratio is evaluated, but so-called it is favorable to the vaccine, but yes or that? On the Moon, I don’t know where, but it’s not on Earth in any case. You can see that it can’t be positive for the vaccine when you have a whole bunch of unknown patients on whom you don’t have any data, but fragile patients with co-morbidity, you don’t have clinical trial data, yet it’s the ones we vaccinated first. You have risks that are documented in the risk management plans. At first, we had anaphylaxis.

Finally, they took it away. They said no, finally, there aren’t many, it’s not very serious. Except how many cases you have of people who may have died in the days after the vaccine that are not postponed? So you have the myocardites, the pericardites, so it’s a risk that has been most discussed we’ll say. You have the disease aggravated because instead of protecting you the vaccine eventually it fatigues you and you’re even more ill.

But where is the benefit ratio favorable? I don’t know where the agents manage to find it. I’ve been looking for him for 2-3 years, I still haven’t found him. You still have people who testify, and in my book I think I have 24 testimony, you still have people who are on the tile, who are going very badly, who nobody cares about and whose agencies around the world don’t care, which is totally unacceptable.

Host [19:12] It’s clear, it’s clear and it’s true in any case that the problem is posed. Again, you’re talking about the facts and the huge question is there and we see that it’s in the United States, in France and elsewhere. And all this does, unfortunately, what to start. Indeed, and it is not by chance that there is what the mirror of this and then others is doing. Thank you Christine Cotton, thank you for all these exercises and we will continue to talk about it. Goodbye.