Host [00:02] Hello Christine Cotton, you’re with me today live from France, I think. Is that possible?

Christine Cotton [00:09] Yes, that’s possible.

Host [00:12] I didn’t know if you were in Belgium or France. You’re in France. Thank you for being with me today. I’ll explain a little to those who were going to join this discussion. Christine Cotton, I’ve seen you go on Twitter a few times. You still have an account with a good reach. You’re a biostatistician and you just released a book. You say you’re an alert launcher, you’ve worked 23 years for the pharmaceutical industry, and before we get into the details of this conversation, what’s a biostatistician?

Cotton [00:48] Indeed. So, a biostatistician for the pharmaceutical industry, it is a very important specialty since it is the person who writes the methodology in the clinical trial protocol. The clinical trial protocol is the document in which we will define the objective of the research. That is to say, in this case, the subject we are dealing with, is the COVID vaccines. So, what are we looking for? What are the objectives of this research? How many patients are we going to recruit? This is a calculation. This is a calculation that is done by a biostatistician. It is not done at random. We don’t say, well, I’m going to take 30 people, I’m going to take 60, I’m going to take 44,000. No, no, no, it’s calculated and it’s calculated on the basis of efficacy assumptions and efficacy assumptions on a criterion that we’re going to name the main criterion of effectiveness. Hence the very important choice of this criterion. Since this criterion, I prove that I have an efficiency of my product on this criterion, I can therefore submit to the authorities to have an authorisation placed on the market.

So, the biostatistician, it intervenes at that time, at the moment when the protocol is written, it is it that validates, it is the guarantor of the methodological quality of the test. And then he intervenes when we’re going to have patients who are going to be recruited, by what we’re going to call participating centres, that is, doctors who are going to participate in this research, that we’re going to pay, doctors, of course, they’re not doing this for free.

So, these doctors who are going to recruit these patients, they’re going to enter the data from a specialized site that we’re going to set up. What was also part of my profession is what we call data management, that is, the data management of clinical trials. I think I had a company that managed data management and clinical trial statistics, and in this company, I was also a quality insurer. Hence the knowledge, we’re going to say, of all these standards that frame all activities, but those in particular. And once we have data, so it goes into databases, these databases, we’re going to analyze them and we’re going to provide tables. It’s these tables that are going to be put in clinical reports.

So the biostatistician’s work, it’s upstream and it’s at the end. So if I’m wrong, we’re going to say in my methodology, if I’m wrong in my results, in my way of getting them out, that is, programming them, since it’s programmed, it’s not software, I’m opening the software, there’s absolutely nothing, we’re going back to zero almost every new project, so that’s a program, under approved software. And once we have these tables of results, we put them in a clinical report that is going to be completed, we’re going to say, by a medical editor, and it’s this report that is submitted when we’re in phase 3 to the authorities for authorization. So it’s an extremely rigorous, precise job. And in fact, we all have validation systems to control ourselves, to get controlled by others because we can’t be wrong.

Host [04:07] You don’t have the right to make a mistake.

Cotton [04:09] No, it’s impossible. That is, if you make mistakes, you have to find out before you give it back to the client, so that you can see it, you’ll be valid, you’ll be valid for several.

Host [04:25] So, we’re gonna be able to come back because I already have at least 12 questions that just appeared in my head listening to you talk, but I think it still puts the table. So, you’re someone who knows very, very well the pharmaceutical industry, and you’ve seen others before the pandemic we just lived. You’ve seen others, but this time, you suddenly decided to write a book. You wrote it in three months that I saw, then it just came out, it’s not available in Quebec. It’s called “All vaccinated, all protected,” so I put it to rest because I’m in Quebec. It would have been nice for me to read it for a better understanding, but we’re still going… I think what you’re dealing with is super important, so we’re going to discuss it.

Cotton [05:13] Yes, or more, yes.

Host [05:15] Then you also drew up a portrait of what happened. What was your motivation, in fact, to write this book?

Cotton [05:23] So, why did I write this book? So, at first, I didn’t intend to write anything at all. I thought there were enough books, and I was thinking, oh there, I’m probably not going to add a book to all of this because, well, there’s already too much and that’s all that. I’m not going to, especially not, never write a book. And as often when I say never, it doesn’t actually work. So I’ve been contacted by an editor because they’ve seen for almost a year and a half my ties with the victims’ associations, the victims where I really spent maybe hundreds of hours since. more giving to talk to victims because they have to support them too. It’s not just identifying them, it’s people who lack so much attention because nobody takes care of them. There have been people where sometimes I spent two hours a day because they were on the verge of suicide. I spent a lot of time with these people that I got to know and that I learned to love somewhere too. That is, today I have friends among these people. And so, the fact that there are these testimonies of victims, I thought, I can’t refuse, in fact. If I had been asked to write a book on biostat, I probably wouldn’t have done it.

Host [06:40] So it was the order, it was to make testimonies of these victims?

Cotton [06:45] And then I thought, how can I combine these victim testimonies, so if there are victims, it means there are problems. Why are there problems? Because there are side effects. And why didn’t we see them in clinical trials, these side effects? Have we not seen them? No, we haven’t seen them.

Host [07:07] I would’ve thought we’d closed our eyes a little bit to figures that were disturbing, right?

Cotton [07:13] No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I’m Augusto Roux, I’ve heard about you, I almost died during the Faiza clinical trial. I’m not sure that you’ve had any serious and unbearable effects, that is, that you have participants who have suffered serious effects, like Mady Degaré in the United States, in the adolescent clinical trial, like Augusto Roux in Argentina, who called me from Argentina, one day I get a message saying, “I’m Augusto Roux, I heard about you, I almost died during the Faiza clinical trial.” But except for me, in my results, I don’t have Augusto Roux who almost died in the Pfizer clinical trial, it’s not marked because it’s not reported in the database. Why? That, you have to ask Pfizer. No, no, no, you have to ask already the one who runs the Argentine center, which is a military hospital. What is known as the lead investigator, that is, the one who supervises all the teams that receive the participants, because there are very many in a centre to look after the participants, especially in a centre like the military hospital in Argentina, in Buenos Aires, which has recruited more than 3000 patients, I believe.

Host [08:29] Wow, for the clinical studies. So, just to be sure, the clinical studies took place before or while we were vaccinating, because I felt like we were in phase 2, we were still vaccinating, it’s a little confused for me.

Cotton [08:41] The clinical trial, that’s why it was important to take advantage of this opportunity of this book, to explain to the general public how clinical trials generally work, because what is a biostatistician? No one knows that this profession actually exists.

Host [08:56] It’s pretty rare, I didn’t know any of them before I talked to you.

Cotton [08:58] Well, that’s it, nobody knows it in general, it’s normal. So it’s a rare job. Clinical trials, people really have a vague idea, they say yes we do tests but they don’t know how it works. So I took advantage of this book to mix these victim testimonies, the clinical trial methodology and all the problems of the Pfizer clinical trial. So you targeted Pfizer in particular? Why did I target Pfizer? Because I had written in January 2022, what I called an expertise, from the clinical trial to good clinical practice, which are these famous standards that we must follow for our trial to be valid. That’s what we were saying a little earlier, that if my data are not valid, my results are not valid. If the choice of criteria was wrong, my proven efficacy is false. And that’s exactly what I demonstrated in this clinical trial, that is, transmission was not studied, symptomatic cases were not studied, there was no efficacy at the time on severe cases.

So why the trial went on, and that was the case with all the labs, is that they did what we call intermediate tests. They said to themselves, that’s, there we have results for 36,000 patients. That was in October, November 2020. And they said, we’re going to do an interim analysis on the follow-up of these patients. Except that these patients, the 36,000, were followed three months, there were those who were followed a month and a half, there were those who were followed four days. That’s the risk of intermediate analyses.

So at that time, what do we do? His main criterion, which is therefore the number of mild and moderate Covid cases, confirmed by PCR test, but counted only from 7 days after dose 2, that is, I also have results after dose 1, but the main criterion is 7 days after dose 2. Why? They felt that at least the two doses needed to be taken, and that the time had to be given to the vaccines to reduce the person. Because it was usually there that there was a peak, that people were sicker immediately after having the injection. Yes, but we put it well because we don’t count them. It’s convenient. Practical. That’s already a problem. So, this main criterion, it was supposed to prove effectiveness, except that you can see in real life, you’ve realized that people have actually fallen ill and that the 95% announced, you’ve never seen them.

Host [11:57] When they got sick, you mean they didn’t necessarily get sick of VOCID, but there were other side effects, that’s what you mean?

Cotton [12:03] No, no, VOCID. They were still catching VOCID. It’s 95%, I don’t know who in the world saw a 95% result. Nowhere. So why in the clinical trial we had this and why in real life we didn’t see it? Because the choice of this criterion, it measures only the mild, mild, moderate, symptomatic Covids, confirmed by PCR test. Unconfirmed, equal, no problem. So what I wrote is that I have demonstrated this whole series of so-called statistical notes that distort the result. That, and all the more so since in the seclinics, they have a criterion called antinucleocapside serology. This is a blood test that tells you whether you have had Covid or not. And if we analyze this criterion whose analysis has never been provided, the results have never been provided by the laboratory. Why? Since they measured it, they did not provide it.

So, by recovering the documents made public, we have the database Pfizer. And by programming the statistical analyses on this database, I find in the order of 55%. So, I’m telling myself, not just me, since we’re many of us working on this database in the world. I, I’m working with someone called Pierre, Open is going to be who’s been doing a huge job on this database for months with several. So some are in Israel, some are in Australia, some are in the United States. And in fact, we’ve validated the results more or less all three of us.

Host [13:50] And the 55% you’re talking about, is that 55% of the vaccine’s effectiveness?

Cotton [13:56] So, 55% effectiveness on the antinucleocapside serology criterion that allows me to see who caught the Covid during the trial, who didn’t catch it.

Host [14:07] Is that satisfactory, 55%?

Cotton [14:11] Well, no, let’s say the problem was if the lab had announced, had taken that criterion, which was therefore measuring the people who had Covid and not that the mild symptomatic nanas confirmed by PCR test. Here we were not at 95, we were at 55.

Host [14:29] In fact, we’ve been sold a little bit of a lie, that’s what you’re showing.

Cotton [14:33] Yes, I called it in my book, the great illusion.

Host [14:36] Yes, very great illusion. It’s a pass-through tour. Then how to explain, because the people who did Pfizer’s clinical studies, they’re people like you, they’re people who have your expertise. So, how do you explain that?

Cotton [14:53] So this, I can’t speak instead of my biostatistical colleagues who It’s like health agencies. In fact, when Pfizer arrives with this clinical report, I, this clinical report, I downloaded it, it was supposed to be late 2020, December 2021. When the lab arrives with that in front of the health authorities, logically. So that’s a point that needs to be made. That’s the one I’ve just made for you. Then, you have this famous antibody assay. The antibody assay is what’s supposed to protect against the disease so I don’t get it. The vaccine makes me increase my antibodies and so I’m immune to Covid. So, what’s going on? It’s that in the clinical trial, they measure the antibodies before obviously being vaccinated, so we have zero, we have nothing, we have none. And since in fact, in the clinical trial, they only take people who have not been ill. About, but I’m not going to go into detail. So these, obviously, they don’t have Covid antibodies. So then we redose the antibodies regularly and then, weirdly, we stop at two months after dose 2, and if we… so, that is, I dose my antibodies, it starts from zero, it does that, and then it goes down slightly.

Host [16:14] So, we don’t see how much they disappear.

Cotton [16:19] Exactly. Why don’t they dare three months after dose 2? To not show that they are falling. Yes, because we already see a trend towards falling. Exactly. And that’s what we already saw in the pre-clinic on pimps. We already saw the fall. And in France, we have a former Minister of Health who says in November 2020, oh there, but we should not expect too much of the vaccine, because protection only lasts a few months.

Host [16:48] But that’s not something we knew, because it’s a coronavirus. We know that coronaviruses are killing. We’ve seen in the past that coronavirus vaccines are not very effective. That’s things we already knew, right?

Cotton [17:00] But then, in that case, we couldn’t tell the population two doses and you’ll resume your normal life. That is, it wasn’t good for the narrative.

Host [17:08] No, but at the same time, they chose him.

Cotton [17:11] Of course, they knew that, and that’s why they didn’t measure it.

Host [17:14] Yeah, I get it.

Cotton [17:15] And then what did they tell us a few months later? We just noticed that antibodies are dropping and you’re gonna need a third dose.

Host [17:25] We didn’t see him coming.

Cotton [17:26] No, we didn’t know, we didn’t see it. And in fact, we saw it all the more because we, in France, in the documents of the health agencies, we wrote black and white. In the document of the HAS, therefore high health authority in France, so it is part of the major health authorities, as its name indicates. And they had written in December 2020 that Pfizer was already studying a boost. Ah yes, okay. Yes, so it’s very convenient to see six months after protection doesn’t last, since we had a boost under our hands that we were already studying.

Host [18:02] There is a question that really comes to me because you say that you worked 23 years in this industry and there suddenly you are showing still that fraud, you already used the word fraud sometimes. How did you, you experienced that? Did you have a disillusion? Is this a trend that you have already observed in your career? What was it personally as in relation to your values?

Cotton [18:24] Never. I’ve worked with people, I’ve always said, extremely competent people. Extremely anxious to do well, extremely respectful of standards. We’ve had my company in view of how many audits, since I have had a company that has had up to 20 people. We could have become much bigger, but I didn’t want to. To be the boss of SMEs is not my kiff, in fact. I prefer to program my statistics, spend my time doing calculations of estimates and then manage the money with Excel spreadsheets. I don’t like it, actually. I liked the programming, it was being in the essays, it was being in the stats. And that’s why I never stopped the statistics. There’s a whole bunch of directors of what’s called the CRO, Clinical Research Organization, a whole bunch of people who stopped programming or doing the job they were doing. I never wanted to because I don’t like managing. I like the taf, it’s the stats. That’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it. And the first time, I did an interview in April 2021 about really the first results on the four vaccines. Moderna, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, of course. and the Janssen, and I just watched, I didn’t go into the detail of the methodology, just look at the results, and especially on the green breaks, and we found at that time that there was no effect on the green breaks, neither for the Pfizer, nor for the Moderna, and as we were announced on television, it slows down the green breaks. At first, they didn’t tell us, it’s after they told us. They told us a few months later, when they had real life studies, which are not clinical trials, to the bogus methodology, we’re going to say, which encourages us to something, it’s to prove what we want to demonstrate.

But when I read these first reports, especially the Pfizer, I thought, there’s a problem in this trial, I’d find it. Then I did the analysis of the data of the VAERS, so the pharmacovigilance database in the United States. I took a few months anyway to program this, because there were more than 400,000 lines. And then I saw the people, I calculated the deaths, which were already indicated, but I checked that they didn’t smoke me in the deaths. I read all these death reports to validate my calculations. Under Excel files, I spent hours and hours reading what people had died of. When I saw the grandpa die in the afternoon on the toilet, the grandma found dead the next day, a lot in the nursing homes, young people dead in front of their PCs during a math class.

Host [21:24] Then we were told a lot about sudden death. That’s the new term for… I talked to Dr. Perron about it. He said, we’ve never heard of it before, but he’s trying to tell us that it’s something that’s always existed. That’s how we brought the news, anyway. You, is that something that you had observed before, this famous sudden death?

Cotton [21:42] I don’t see it in clinical trials, but here in trials, for example, we don’t see it. We don’t see it. No, there are deaths, there are 19, I think. In VAERS, there are thousands. What shocked me most of all, it’s not so much the number of deaths. With my statistical software, it allows me to do all the calculations that I want since it is extremely powerful as software. Calculations on thousands of lines, it turns in seconds, not even, about ten seconds. It allowed me to calculate the delay between death and vaccination. That’s where I found it very worrying. It’s because there were more than 60% of the people who died within 21 days of the vaccine, and when I read all these reports, I thought, there’s a real problem in these products, and that’s where I left. in Pfizer, since it was the one where at the time I had recovered the most documents, since it was the most prescribed, we’ll say, the most distributed. I went back in all Pfizer’s documents on that vaccine.

So that is to say clinical reports, whether it is the first one with the famous 95%, the one on teenagers, where precisely, this essay on teens where Mady Degaré had dozens of side effects that are almost not postponed. You have postponed two of them. It has nothing to do with the suffering of this kid. The report on children, the 5-11 years old, which dates back to October 2021. I took it all over again and I thought to myself, but in fact… and I downloaded documents called the risk management plan, where there are very few people who know that it exists, that, the risk management plans. And in there, we already had the known risks and the unknown, especially. So the duration of protection, for example, was unknown. Yes. It’s written black on white since December 2020 that pregnant women are not part of the trials. It’s written in there.

Host [23:45] But they’re prioritised for vaccination.

Cotton [23:48] Yes, because they were judged to be at risk, which is quite extraordinary, and that wasn’t tested on patients with autoimmune diseases, it’s written in the risk management plan.

Host [24:00] Okay, but there are so many things there, and I think it’s worth it. Your book is about 350 pages, so it’s going to be interesting to read it. There’s still a lot of suckers in what you’re saying. I just read Alexander Henry’s book in code that I received in an interview that makes a summary of the messenger RNA vaccine, which explains what the messenger RNA is. We already see how much fraud, lies, it doesn’t stop, and then you bring us like another layer because it’s not in relation to messenger RNA, you, it’s really in relation to data capture and these studies, in the end, in methodology. I also received Pierre Chaillot, who is a statistician, not a biostatistian, but he also showed that there was already a lot of bias, in fact. But then you were telling me how you reacted, you, when you realized that it was totally biased as a study.

Cotton [24:52] Have you been in denial a little? I didn’t, in fact, expect so many problems. Do you think it’s good that it’s voluntary? When I looked at all these documents and started typing my findings, in this document that I called Expertise in terms of good clinical practice, since the consideration of good clinical practice means that it doesn’t follow the usual clinical trial methodology. But why doesn’t it also follow it? Because, well, then it doesn’t follow her, there are things that are unforgivable. And this intermediate analysis that they were allowed to do after only three months of follow-up, that’s the IDF that allowed them. You did your intermediate analysis, you have your patients, you present me with results over three months of follow-up. I’m not enough. I want six months of tolerance, I want six months of antibodies, I want six months of efficacy.

Host [25:51] But it wasn’t possible because we were told that the vaccine was the only way out of the pandemic.

Cotton [25:56] It’s not possible.

Host [25:59] That’s what’s extraordinary, in fact, in the really bad sense of the extraordinary term, but what we notice, in fact, is that these studies were done, but we knew even before he started to study, that he was going to move on. That’s how it feels to me when I listen to people like talking to you.

Cotton [26:17] Yes, yes, yes. That is to say that somewhere, whatever the results, in the end, we were already thinking that anyway, it would be allowed. Exactly. Except that at the level of statistical results, it was justified that it should be allowed. So we chose the necessary criteria to find an efficiency that does not exist, that never existed, but we had to be able to demonstrate it at the methodological level.

Host [26:48] But there are still people who have done this. That’s what hallucinates me. I think, because often, what we are told when we are called conspiracyists is, imagine how many people it would have taken in the plot, it’s unthinkable. Then when I see what you’re telling us right now, it’s that there’s still some studies that have come out. There are people who have a certain expertise, a knowledge of methodology, who have still been against the current of what they know that is good to get the numbers corroborated so that they can move forward.

Cotton [27:16] That’s what I understand. Conspiracy is a word I don’t like too much, but we’re going to say, when I see it all again, I’m post-orientated. That is, I have some hindrance since I’m examining x documents. So, I’m post-orientated. So we can say that people who were at the time of the emergency, who do these analyses, who are taken into this system that goes very, very quickly, since we have to provide the results very, very quickly, etc., that at that time, these people, Me, I can’t say that they are in the plot. These people, somewhere, they are in a system, they may be caught in it and they themselves may not have realized the methodological problems of this essay. Maybe if I had been one of those people at that time, maybe I wouldn’t have seen it. I doubt it, because I’ve always had a very critical eye.

Host [28:11] But you still give them the benefit of the doubt, actually, that’s what I understand.

Cotton [28:16] Yes, because when we are, I have been under this pressure from the pharma industry for 23 years, because there was pressure from it. There was a pressure of madness, especially for statisticians. Are we the last link in the chain, the one that will return the results? You have everyone on your back, but in Reza Macron, that pressure. So, you have the project leaders who call you. So, what does it say? What does it do? We work like crazy people sometimes until 2 a.m. Because if the result is to return it that day before such an hour, the subcontractor in particular, people like me, he has to return it that day before such an hour.

Host [28:50] But we don’t necessarily put pressure on you to have results that will corroborate it. It’s not that kind of pressure. It’s no longer a matter of time in fact.

Cotton [28:58] That’s the pressure to give back, because if the product doesn’t work, you have to stop it or modify it eventually, so we’re going back into phases before, and if the product works, then that’s the jackpot for the labs, that is, they have to organize themselves for the next one. So, they’re in a hurry to get the results. It’s super important since when you spent 10 years, for example, developing a product, there you are in phase 3, they’re all in the starting blocks, they’re waiting for the results of the stadium like Messi. So, you have a pressure but madness. So, there are people besides, I’ve seen in my team, there are people, they’re not able to handle that. You can’t keep them on the team because they’re losing their means. Yes, yes, yes, I understand. For me, statisticians, it’s that you need the character that goes with it. Yes, it’s that, it’s like air traffic controllers, it’s jobs that seem pretty antigenous. That, you need a character or good, I need the pressure, good. It’s okay. It doesn’t reach me much.

Host [30:00] It was the job done for you, but we haven’t talked much about the side effects, the testimonials yet. I have more side effects, now I say more side effects. Let’s talk about it. What do we see at this level?

Cotton [30:18] We’re looking at a lot of things. I made a little point today on the EMA European site. There are 1.2 million. A set reported? Reported, so we have a phenomenal understatement. According to some papers, we think there may be 1 to 10% declared. So that means that if I have 10% declared, I have to multiply by 10. That’s 12 million. If I have 1%, that’s 120 million, so the truth is probably between the two, but in that, I’m going to have very little serious things and I’m going to have very serious things.

Host [30:53] So very little serious, it looks like a headache, a pain in the targets of the injection, that kind of thing.

Cotton [30:58] So here, we have a lot of them, for example, that are going to report pain in the arms, things like that, which will surely pass quite quickly. So the problem, in fact, it is that in October 2020, we have people who were informed, who had made a list, we’re going to say, of possible side effects and who had made this presentation to the FDA in October 2020. And there, we already had a number of neurological problems that we knew were likely to have neurological problems, we had blood problems, but what didn’t have the tooth was the menstrual disorders.

Host [31:41] They hadn’t anticipated that, yet they’re quite a few.

Cotton [31:46] Yes, that’s it.

Host [31:47] It’s more than one in two women, I think there are problems with these rules.

Cotton [31:51] So, on the EMA website, today, I think it’s 14 or 15 percent of the reported effects or maybe a little less. I can check it out because I put it on my Twitter. Because I regularly look, so it’s sure that there’s less and less effect, they’re increasing less and less, you’re going to say, since people as they move forward in time, they’re becoming less and less connected to the vaccine, so already they weren’t saying much. He says less and less.

Host [32:27] When you say declare in Europe, because I said in the United States, we can self-declare our symptoms, that’s on the site towards, while in Europe, I think it’s a doctor who does it. Is that it? No, no, no. It may also be me who will declare it personally.

Cotton [32:42] Yes, doctors, health care professionals have an obligation, theoretically, and how many witnesses do we have from people who tell us that doctors didn’t want to?

Host [32:53] The majority, me, the amount of people who write to me to tell me that their doctors don’t want to get wet, they’re afraid of sticking doctors, they’re not sure. I can’t understand that either because in the precautionary principle, it seems to me that we should still make a rapprochement.

Cotton [33:08] Exactly. I find it completely incomprehensible because even if we admit, in any case, we don’t ask them to make the link. we ask them to declare. Then, each file is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. And by the number of statements on this type of pathology, we’re going to say that we have a problem with these pathologies, but we don’t have one. But in any case, accountability is established on a case-by-case basis for each patient. It is not because, for example, in the reports of the pharmacovigilance agencies, as a desirable effect post-vaccinal encephalitis, all those who have declared post-vaccinal encephalitis will be blamed. It is assessed on a case-by-case basis. As well as the compensations, we will say.

Host [33:55] In Pfizer’s clinical studies, excuse me, I’m cutting you off, but in Pfizer’s studies that you’ve analyzed, are you trying to make the parallel between what we know about clinical studies, adverse effects, and then what we know about the reality of what you’re saying, 1.2 million is two completely different things, right?

Cotton [34:15] In the results of the clinical trials, in the Pfizer reports, in terms of adverse reactions, there is nothing alarming, or very little in fact. Very little, since we will say, there recently, the number of women who become pregnant in the clinical trial has been calculated from the database. Of memory, there are 77, and the number who make miscarriages. And what do I find? That finally, I have more miscarriages under the placebo.

So, there are a lot of people who are shaking. Yes, miscarriages in the clinical trial Pfizer, there is absolutely nothing going on in the clinical trial Pfizer in terms of miscarriages. Nothing. Okay, it’s out. Since there are a lot more women on placebo who make a miscarriage. It’s special? Yes. So, what are we going to say? So it can depend on the background of the person. That’s why accountability, it’s the case by case, since it depends on a whole bunch of…

So, it’s miscarriage. When we read the results, or there were frauds, like the Augusto Roux case, I was told to park, and it’s not postponed. So, we don’t have them, but either really, there wasn’t. So here, as there is doubt about the quality of the data, we know that there have been non-reports of serious effects that would still have alerted health agencies that it is not included in the reports. So we can say that for a moment there is doubt about quality, there is doubt for everything. They may very well not have reported some deaths, some miscarriages.

Host [35:51] In the study.

Cotton [35:52] Now we’re talking about Pfizer’s study. Yes, that’s why I, when I wrote my expert report, asked for a full audit of the database and of all the participating centres. Did you get it? Of course not.

Host [36:07] It’s not very transparent.

Cotton [36:10] Of course not, but there normally when a health agency receives the call from Stéphanie de Garé, Maddie’s mom, saying my daughter she had 30 serious side effects, I’m trying to reach the center that recruited her who was the hospital in Cincinnati, I warned Pfizer, everyone doesn’t care, There’s a problem, normally that the health agency has to do, it’s right now, the IDF, it’s sending, doing an immediate audit to check the quality of the data.

Host [36:40] That too is something that is difficult to understand because in these situations, as you say, the girl who had 30 unwanted cases, it seems to me that we had enough red flags to make a moratorium, to stop the vaccination. And yet, we have systematically deafened everyone who had inferences. Myocardia, you don’t matter.

Cotton [37:03] There’s a will from the beginning to minimize the effects. That’s it. It’s our friends from Fact Shaker and Arcelor all over the networks. I personally call the CAFARs. That’s nice. In my book, “The Relatives”, moreover, it’s the most amazing and disgusting people, we’ll say, that I’ve seen in my life. So, fortunately, in the pharmaceutical industry, I’ve never had to associate with this kind of person, you have to say it anyway. It’s also in the media. Because in the pharma industry, you don’t have people, for example, who usurp skills they don’t have. With the project manager, the pharmacovigilance manager, everyone talks about their thing, everyone respects each other, everyone works in the same perspective, and we don’t have people who claim to be biostatisticians overnight. There you haven’t seen, there are biostatisticians everywhere now. Yes, and that’s what you do… They’ve never worked in any attempt in their lives, they don’t even know how it works. Right. Mechanology, they don’t know it, standards, they don’t know them.

But then, biostatisticians pull in, but they’re gonna open up you to check out. They’re gonna tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s what’s amazing. It’s heavy, that’s to say that when you’ve done a job for 23 years and read the nonsense these people are saying, but it’s also in the whistleblowers, I assure you. Breaking news goes to everything and then sells stuff, because I didn’t sell anything, this book pays off. Well, I’m not the one who edits it, I can’t do anything else. But I didn’t sell anything. I made all my work available for free. On social media? On social media. I made an express website so people could download the documents, so they could read them, so they could have links. So, I didn’t sell anything.

Host [38:52] Did you say it was taken over by other people?

Cotton [38:58] You’re telling me about Mac Carlo. Is that your job? Yes, yes, yes. It’s one of the people who read it first. In February 2022, I think, I sent it.

Host [39:09] So it still circulated in the circle.

Cotton [39:13] Yes, it’s been a lot of traffic, but nobody’s done anything. There’s no action class in the United States based on this document. While in France, obviously, according to what I understand today, it is that in any case, as behind it, it is managed more or less by the ministries, the army, anyway, I think they could have pulled out any boost of truffled reports, even more methodological errors. In any case, it didn’t change much. They were almost not obliged to provide a report by management, but in France a complaint was filed for poisoning. Yes, we filed a complaint for poisoning. I was involved in re-reading this complaint and writing the parts that concern my report, since from the moment that there are failures in this clinical trial, logically it should reverse the responsibilities. That is to say, the payment of adverse reactions, since the clinical trial is bogus, it may have to be the lab that pays them and not the states.

Host [40:26] Yes, we’re far from achieving that result.

Cotton [40:30] I don’t know if you saw that tweet. When I posted my report on LinkedIn, I got a visit from Apple, U.S. State Department, WHO.

Host [40:45] What do you mean by visit?

Cotton [40:48] Visit my LinkedIn profile. I had 133 lawyers in two days because after they blew up my account. I had time to take the print screens of these few visits before I could access and they don’t want to give it to me. They told me that I want to share false information.

Host [41:04] Wellington was strong enough in censorship during the pandemic.

Cotton [41:09] There was the censorship of the victims by saying, “No, it’s no big deal, they tell anything, it’s definitely something else.” People get in shape, as in my book, they tell it very well, there are people in shape. They’re going to get vaccinated two days later, they’ll know he’s dying, but that’s not it.

Host [41:23] It can’t be that.

Cotton [41:24] No, it’s not, it’s not, it’s probably an inventing censure of whistleblowers, so then they dragged me into the mud, they called me a whore.

Host [41:34] Yeah, actually, but that shows, they kill the messenger because they don’t attack what you say, they don’t attack your data, they can’t, they don’t have any skills.

Cotton [41:42] If, they try, but some, they tried. But, the poor, they didn’t even understand the title, so don’t hesitate to disassemble my analysis. It made me laugh a lot when I saw the towel they laid by being very proud to say, we debunked Christine Cotton, but the poor…

Host [41:58] They debunked Idrissa Berkhan, they’re gonna debunk… Professor Raoult, I mean, visibly, well, everyone who is extremely intelligent, much smarter than them, makes banquets, then often, in Quebec, I get quoted out of context, then there, they laugh at me on television or radio, but it’s so much, it’s an abyssal intellectual vacuum, then they won’t call me to have a discussion, that’s not the question. Especially not.

Cotton [42:28] I wouldn’t even talk to these people. I don’t have anything to say to people who aren’t biostatisticians, but you talk to me. So yes, but that’s not the same. I explain. I mean a methodological discussion. I, if I’m a plumber and I’m going to a house to fix a leak of water, I discuss how I’m going to fix it with a plumber. I’m not going to talk to a mechanic. I bring my car, not my piping. It’s big anything. In this book, I tried to mix it all into chapters that are told like a story. I thought it was very complicated. The only way I found it was to make it like a story accessible is that I told my life. I told my life and it allowed me to mix the testimonies of the victims, the methodology of the clinical trials, the biases of the clinical trial Pfizer, all in a story that is a bit like a police investigation. Interesting. I really hope I have the opportunity to get a hold of your… I’ll send it to you before both, because it’ll be available in two months’ time in Canada.

Host [43:44] Oh, okay, that’s it, but at least he’s gonna be.

Cotton [43:47] But it’s not possible, so there are a few people I have to send it to before, of course.

Host [43:51] Thank you. I am very happy to read and promote it. I think most of the people who follow me are the first to want to buy your book and that kind of book. It’s important, I think, to include themselves.

Cotton [44:03] In fact, if you want, I just want to read 25 lines for you to see the tone, in fact, because I have a lot of humor. I’m rather teasing, we’ll say. And I’m also a singer-songwriter-interpreter. Really? It came to me brutally. So I wrote this with my usual little irony. So I’m just going to read you the little passage 95% for a question. So I wrote, I’m diving, I’m immersing myself in the clinical reports tables, I’m taking notes, I’m reading, I’m reading, I’m puzzled about what I’m discovering. As I write a summary of my findings, I remember all the discussions around the famous 95% presented with pride by the Pfizer-BioNTech laboratory. I see friends who had the virus a few months ago and who see no reason to get vaccinated, 95% or not. I remember this discussion with my neighbours, Josette and André, 76 and 78 years old this end of year 2020. Christmas was no longer far away. Alleluia, had cried out Josette. They found a vaccine that works. She was so happy, as if she had just broken the world record of crossing the Atlantic in the middle of the chavoy. Andre had blown the champagne before the hour, not to celebrate the birth of Jesus, but the resurrection of all, so much promised by the new vaccines. Disappeared the croque-morts who daily count deaths every night on television. No more fear of dying alone in the hospital, less of his family to be buried in a plastic bag. Forget the confinements to stay locked up for a long day without seeing souls living, curfews and deserted cities. Well, I’m passing you, blahblah. It’s very well written. Here. They were going to be able to receive their loved ones again, travel, resume a normal life. They wanted to make an appointment as soon as possible to be part of the 95%. They were surprised at my question, 95%, what? Here, so it’s written like that, that’s it.

Host [46:07] Everything is written that way, and I’m going to be able to write the dedication.

Cotton [46:12] Yes, go ahead. Because it’s important. So I put it, the truth is a science that has a future. So unfortunately, I didn’t find the author of this absolutely extraordinary sentence. Because science is that, it’s something that is moving forward. It’s not sunk in the concrete. That’s it. And I put this book and dedicated it to all the victims of the Covid-19 vaccines as well as to all the people I have met during my 53 years of life on this earth, that they have brought me joy and love or pain and sorrow, and tears, forgiveness, because they have made me what I am. So it is not at all a book that is difficult, in fact. I wrote it, it happened to me, and for that I only took three months because it came on my own.

Host [46:55] I saw in your Twitter comments that you said it wasn’t hard for you to write it, so the inspiration was really there.

Cotton [47:02] Yeah, yeah, that’s right, I noticed with the songs, actually. That is, somewhere, it feels like we’re not the ones who decide what we’re going to write.

Host [47:09] That’s what’s beautiful about inspiration and then creativity, it’s when you’re really aligned. I think when you do the right thing too, things are easily set up. That’s exactly what it is.

Cotton [47:20] When I took songs in four minutes with the melody in my head and hear the arrangement, I’ll tell you that it has to be like that. Why this melody? Why these words? Why this theme? In fact, we don’t know.

Host [47:34] It’s also given. That’s it, it’s really fascinating. I’m as much an interpreter as I am. I was before, I stopped, but I know what you’re talking about. Then it’s funny to see a biostatician who’s also an artist. It must be quite rare in the field.

Cotton [47:47] I wasn’t an artist at all. I didn’t write anything in my life, but I’m actually talking about it in the book. That’s what I call miracles. There are things that happen sometimes.

Host [47:57] Yes, but there have been nice things with the pandemic too. It has revealed to us in something beautiful too, I think, and then we must also put the emphasis on it. So you say, in two months’ time, in Quebec, it means in July about, that your book should be available? I think. We stay in touch, then I’ll talk about it on my platforms and in your book will be available.

Cotton [48:15] Now I think I can’t wait to get the first returns. I, all those who read it, was really easy to read, within everyone’s reach. I vulgarized by telling my little biostat life locked up on his hill, where I saw three peeled intondus in two and a half years finally. Because I had a lot of work to look at, it’s a concentration job, you don’t spend your time outside, it’s not possible, you have to work. After when I wrote this, I thought to myself when I had all those visits, national gendarmerie, ministry of armies, I said to myself ulalala. You won’t have to feel everything.

Host [48:56] Yes, that’s it, it’s serious anyway. I’m really looking forward to hearing about the testimonials. I think we haven’t talked enough about it yet. It’s good that you’re talking about it in your book. I hope we’re going to hear more and more about these people who are greatly censored and as you say, living. There’s a hell, there’s a lot of people writing to me. They are often taken with permanent sequelae for the rest of their lives with very little support because no one even wants to recognize that it was the injection that injured them.

Cotton [49:24] Then there are the deaths. There are those who died, so it’s the family commands. And then there are all those who suffer or who took months to get a diagnosis of their pathology that we took for crazy. So that’s the word in fashion, it’s conspiracy and either you’re depressed, neurotic, you have to take chances of depressing.

Host [49:45] It means absolutely nothing, in fact, it’s just a way to stop having a discussion, we lock the debate, and that’s it. That’s it, it’s to put an end to any discussion.

Cotton [49:56] Thank you for doing what he does to you. I think this book, it’s going to be read by… My goal is that it affects the general public, it’s not so much those who follow me, because those who follow me, they’re a little aware of what I say, me and months.

Host [50:09] That’s what I think. What we want is to get a little out of this, then go get people who may have been injected, who weren’t sure, who had pressure, but who are willing to vary a little bit their sources of information. So, I repeat the title, it’s all called immunized, all protected, that’s it.

Cotton [50:24] Yes, chronic VOCID-19 vaccine from a health disaster announced.

Host [50:28] Christine Cotton, who is a biostatistician. I thank you very much for your time, Christine, and then we stay in touch.

Cotton [50:34] Thank you very much.