Pierre-Yves Rougeyron [00:06] Comrades of the Aristotle Circle, hello. Today, our guest, Christine Cotton. Christine Cotton, hello. Hello. So, those who have followed the health crisis know you. You are biostatistician, you are the author, forgive me, since author, it hurts me too much. You are the author of the book, all vaccinated, all protected, question mark, and it is not for nothing, to the editions Très Daniel. So, I already know what some will say, don’t come back to this crisis and the past, don’t be traumatized victims at a moment to get out of a trauma, you have to manage to verbalize it. And above all, we must not let some people get away with the caisse, which is a temptation for some. Now, I wanted to know about the publication of your book, if you could sum up your work, I know it’s complicated, since you’re a specialist on these issues, you’ve had more than 20 years of work in the industry on these issues, so I know it’s hard to think about it, but where are we? With the famous vaccines, with or without quotes for now, on the Covid-19. Where are we? Because the file tends to sink, so maybe we should go back.

Christine Cotton [01:44] So the file, we’re going to say that it would make a lot of people go down. That’s what we’re seeing a little bit on the networks. Today, we have a lot of victims who are showing up, who had never spoken before. And we have comments below people “you’re still at your Covid vaccines.” So why are we at it? I personally, why am I still in the Covid vaccine? Because this book that I wrote at the request of the publisher, its subtitle, is “Vaccin Covid 19, chronicle of an announced health disaster.” So the health disaster, in my opinion, is in progress. I think it’s even the beginning.

So why is it a health disaster announced? Because when you work in the pharmaceutical industry, as I have been for 28 years, with an interruption in the middle since I was CEO of a research company under contract, so under dealing with the pharmaceutical industry specialized in the management of clinical data. That means the collection, the cleaning of test data, the STAT analysis, the writing of the protocol, so the document that we write at the beginning to explain everything we’re going to do and why, that is, how we’re going to analyze, etc.

So, from the beginning, in December 2020, I personally, had already noticed a number of things that seemed strange to me. I was contacted by a lawyer in Quebec in November 2021. who left pens in this case since it was for a case at the Court of Appeal and unfortunately she had to undergo psychiatric assessments which she then refused and was removed from the bar. You already see that this work visibly, so maybe not that work there, maybe she had other disturbing files, but that still bothers the world since 23 years of experience, or health lawyer, Master Gloriane Blais, to whom I’m returning anyway because it’s someone who sacrificed his career on the altar of the truth of Covid vaccines.

So why did we know we were going to have a number of adverse reaction problems and sick people? Because from the clinical trials, when we go into the methodology, we see that we have a number of problems. We know, for example, as of December 2020, that transmission is not being studied. It is known that the results are provided over a follow-up time for participants in the three-month trials only. It is known that the main criterion, therefore the one on which we say yes is effective, This is a criterion that only measures mild and moderate Covid cases, confirmed by PCR test, counted 7 days after dose 2. You see that this is not all Covid cases. If all Covid cases had been measured on the basis of serology, called antinucleocapside serology, then much less efficacy would have been found at that time, which would not at all have been for the Pfizer, à 95 % vaccine, but rather of the order of 50.

So even a patient, the same study. Depending on the criterion chosen, we are no longer in the same order of magnitude. It was known that there was no effect on severe cases in December 2020. It was known that there was no effect on those over 75 years of age. It is written in the reports. It is written in the reports. Then, in how to manage participants in clinical trials, in clinical trials then on adolescents, children and babies, we know that we have a number of what are called methodological biases that invalidate the results.

So a bias, what is it? It is an element that distorts the result. So it’s 95%, not only does it not represent true vaquinal efficacy, but they’re also wrong. So the excuse at the beginning, we’re going to say yes, it was the emergency, December 2020, everyone is very very afraid of dying of Covid, etc. So you have a method, analysis methodology on adults, we’ll say the 16+ years. This method uses exactly the same for 11-15 year olds. That is, you continue your trials on younger populations but with exactly the same methods that are known to be incomplete and false, you reproduce the same thing over 5-11 years, you authorize products over 5-11 years, while their probability of death is extremely low, and you still do the same about babies from 6 months to 4 years old. And then you say, babies can be given 3 doses, 4 doses, I mean, after a while, you can see that there is an obstinacy to do always the same way, while the method used is not valid.

So why also am I able to demonstrate that it is not valid? One, because it’s my job, and two, because I in my company, I was a quality insurer. So, subcontractor to the pharmaceutical industry, that means you have lots of labs, clients, who come to audit you. Ipsen, who came to audit us several times. I have different small labs. Ipsen, he’s one of the biggest people who’s audited us on a regular basis, and then I even had an audit sent from the United States with people who came from Washington to audit me. He sees how you implement the recommendations So it’s regulatory that are standards that all clinical trial stakeholders must follow, including sub-treating. And those standards that need to be applied are not. What is called ICH, they are not. Good clinical practice is not met in these VOCID trials.

So to sum up, I mean it’s very clear, any quality insurer that connects my work will not find much to say, any biostatistician, some will confirm my analysis, and to this day, apart from insults, we will say coming from a part that I would say adverse party, which persists in saying that vaccines are extremely effective, that they have saved millions of lives and that they have very little inescapable effects, these people, no one has ever contradicted my work with expertise that runs the road in any way. So here’s a summary of what my work has been like for three years.

Rougeyron [08:10] In fact, if we press the “if”, we agree, what are the consequences, I say that for our listeners, if clinical trials have been shown to have been biased and this is shown. I think it is important for our listeners to understand why. If we invalidate the clinical trial, what are the consequences?

Cotton [08:47] If your results are false, I do not see how contracts that are signed on the basis of these results can still be considered valid. Knowing that there is a lot of ink that has sunk on these contracts, which the European Commission does not want to make public despite the struggle of some Members of the European Parliament on this subject of transparency, including Michèle Rivasi, who unfortunately left us and whom I personally loved very much, who moreover prefaced my book, or company others, of course.

But these contracts have been signed, as some of them have been on the run, and the South African contract, the Pfizer-South Africa contract, they had written that the Phase 2-3 clinical trials had been completed. So it was totally impossible in April 2021, when they signed the contract, that the clinical trials were completed, since the clinical trial, initially, must last two years. So you realize that when we have results in December 2020, we are three months away from the blinked trial. You have something that is planned to last two years and you are given the results at three months and you are told it is safe and effective.

So already we can not tell you that it is safe beyond three months since you have nothing but three months of observation. So, it is very problematic because, that is, we have given false information to the population. So, these contracts, me for me, they’re out of order, and in these contracts, we have lab protection. But if the contract is over and the results provided to the agencies to sign the contracts are false, I think the states can turn against the laboratories and blow up this famous protection that would make the labs not compensate the victims.

Rougeyron [10:42] You who saw these test reports, because at some point, you know, there’s Bonaparte’s famous phrase that we were asking if between an idiot and one and it’s between an idiot and a crook who had to hang both. He had answered the fool because dishonesty has limits, imbecility does not have any. Are these tests that have been sloppy or are these tests that have been rigged?

Cotton [11:20] So for a long time, I said, we don’t know. So that’s why in this report I wrote in January 2022, I made a cautious conclusion, we’re going to say, saying we need an audit of the laboratories, we need to stop the product, at least temporarily. We have to ask the Pfizer laboratory for all the documents related to the tests, including what we call, something that is fundamental, what we call in terms, in my profession, the audit trail. The trail audit is the recording of all the data, from which data was entered on a special software for patient data, to see if we have data that has been cancelled, if there have been recommendations to eliminate certain deaths, i.e. that it allowed us to have transparency, to have the audit counter-records, etc.

So it took all the calls from the participants in the study. I can’t detail that because, so, it would really make me leave in the explanation of the biases and we would have it for an hour and a half. Well, let’s say that with that, we still had a vision of what could be Was it negligence, a sum of negligence, or a will to hide something? So my starting point is that it could be perfectly a sum of negligence that ultimately leads to a product that is ultimately unreliable and carries a lot of risks that we carefully hide from the general public. After that, when we continue to search and search all the documents that were made public later, we find that finally, the Pfizer product given to the population is not the product of the clinical trial, it is not the product of the clinical trial, because in the clinical trial they changed the manufacturing chain and the contents of the vials. and they planned in the famous protocol to test this new manufacturing process only on 250 patients per batch and we have in the database that I have recovered, that some are analyzing around the world and that have done an absolutely extraordinary job without necessarily being personal of the pharmaceutical industry. who have done an exceptional job of highlighting a number of inconsistencies which still pose many questions.

So, what’s curious is how health agencies were able to accept a product that wasn’t the one that had the 95% efficacy and that had not even been provided for in the clinical trial protocol to not have been planned to measure tolerance, even though it’s perplexed. So why did the health agencies let choose this somewhat complicated criterion that does not measure Covid cases but that the cases Covid light, moderate, blablablabla ? Why ? Why ? How come we don’t have a neutralizing antibody measurement, which is supposed to testify to your immunity finally, three months after dose 2 ? That is, there are two, three measurements and after six months, you measure more, that is, you have a big hole in the middle of this clinical trial, whereas we know quite well from the beginning, according to the monkey advertising, that the antibodies will fall.

So we tell you, take two doses. The product you are given is not that of the clinical trial, it is not that of the 95%. We know, the health agencies know that this product, it has an integrity RNA rate that is lower than that of the clinical trial. And besides, the analyses today of vials around the world prove that there are impurities, there is DNA that is wandering around. Finally, it is absolutely a disaster. It is not known if the quality accounts have been done correctly.

Well, you do not measure the antibodies to not show that they are falling. You have patients who have participated in the clinical trial, who have serious effects whose effects are not reported in the database and therefore are not in the reports. So we’re telling you it’s safe. So basically, in December 2020, January 2021, we’re telling you two doses and you’re going back to normal life. We’re giving you a product. You’re really a guinea pig on which there’s no result of efficiency. And besides, we’ve never seen them to date. That we vaguely tested a process 2, that we vaguely tested on 250 people because we have them in the database. We know who it is.

So for which we have absolutely no hindrance. Health agencies let it do it quietly. You have a lot of unknowns about pregnant women, about immunocompromised patients. How do we know that? It’s written in the risk management plan. That is, it’s not blabla. You have a document in December 2020, it’s called a risk management plan ordering certain products from the pharma industry. These vaccines, we have one.

So you have a whole bunch of unknowns and we’re telling you, go get the flu at the same time. So you have in this document that there has never been a study of interaction with another vaccine. So it is an unprecedented risk taking, it is the co-targeting of the population. Without knowing of its own free will, without knowing of its own free will, you are told two doses, you will return to normal life and behind you the third dose, the fourth, the fifth, etc. Because two doses doesn’t work and we know it from the beginning. That’s why we don’t measure the antibodies. So today, with all that back then, I think we can talk about fraud. I think we can talk about fraud, because statistically, we’re going to say, it’s unlikely to make so many mistakes.

Rougeyron [17:33] For the moment, industrial accidents are called, that is to say, a sum of which the most topical is the air crash, that is, a human fault, etc. Well, very well. But at this point, at this point, it is highly unlikely.

Cotton [18:00] Once again knowing what is known as good clinical practice or good manufacturing practices, which are all the reference documents and regulatory documents to be followed by stakeholders. That is, you have laboratories that no longer comply with any regulation that has been in place for 40 years to make sure that you have products that are well tolerated and effective, nothing is respected with the blessing of health agencies. That’s what is completely crazy.

Rougeyron [18:28] That brings me to my last question. You have a lot of experience in these circles. Before you find out, if you want, I’m a white blouse family. I’ve seen my father make thousands of diagnoses. And the rigour of the diagnosis conditions the success of the treatment. How did we get there? How we got there, how the pharmaceutical industry was able to afford this across the entire Western world. I put the developing world apart because the developing world, either it has militarized or other state-owned enterprises that are totally different, including in highly developed countries like South Korea or other, or it is dependent on Western companies. It is really a Western problem. How do you think what you could observe, how did we get there?

Cotton [19:31] I wrote in my book “Clinical research is in the process of poubellization.” I had noticed in recent years that there was a kind of power grab, marketing, where we still had… I had some problems, because I don’t like to work with marketing, I prefer to work with people in pure and hard clinical research. Well, but it still remained a clinical research that really met the standards. I still worked for large laboratories. I worked for, I think for AstraZeneca, but it had to be in an ATU, temporary authorization to use. I’ve worked for Aventis, not bad, I’ve done a lot of studies, for Servier, for Ipsen, for Johnson-Sillag, for Medtronic. For Sanofi, for Santé Labo, Pierre-Fabre, Takeda, I’ve still worked for many laboratories. I’ve never seen, but never! no clinical trials managed in this way. I’ve never seen a health agency behave in this way. I participated in FDA filings in the United States with questions from agencies on products for example that were administered twice and then wanted to administer them continuously, etc. That is, there is a desired change in marketing authorization and therefore there are clinical trials that go with it.

Well, I’ve always said, I’ve never seen anyone in the pharma industry of what we call corrupt Big Pharma that was deliberately working hard to reach conclusions that do not exist. Never. So this is quite unusual. These Covid vaccines, they opened a door that is the door of the most total mediocrity. We no longer respect standards. While the labs are trying, we’re going to say, that the labs are trying to say good, that’s right, we’ve done you a dobe, which I like to call toxic and inefficient dobe, but which the agencies accept. For me, there is a phenomenal responsibility of the health agencies because as soon as they submitted the files, as soon as they submitted the protocol, that is, April 2020, there were lots of questions to ask, lots of comments to make on this document, in the method, that is, what we were going to measure, how many times, at what interval, etc.

Then, when they submitted the results, it’s the same, there were lots of questions to ask, still methodological. They come out of the summary of the characteristics produced, so Amin Umlil said it very well. In there, we have schedules with obligations of rendering, of results on such and such excipient that has been added, what are called the new excipients. The new excipients, when they are integrated into a product, they require some complementary studies. We have never seen them. Preclinical studies in animals, we already saw some toxicity in rats, etc. We lack a lot of studies to know if we are going to have an impact on the generations after, etc. We have nothing.

So the icing on the cake, we know by a Moderna scholarship information, a SEC, what they call the SECs in the United States, that for the FDA, these products were gene therapies that were classified as vaccines so that they could accelerate their development. So that means what it means. It means you’re baccalaureating animal testing, you’re baccalaureating tests on people, you don’t have all the data, so you’re not able to know what it’s going to do in the medium or long term, and we’re still drying up everywhere it’s safe. No, it can’t be sure when we have so many unknowns. It can’t be sure. It’s an unprecedented risk taking, and from the moment we opened this door, of course, everyone gets into it. That is, now and McKinsey the first, who have been asking for how many years, there, because I have an article on this subject, they want to develop vaccines in 100 days, medicines in 100 days.

But when we see what we’ve had in 325 days, I think that’s it, for the Pfizer vaccine, 325 days. Well, in 100 days, what are we going to have? The tragedy is that now every product that comes out, we’re not sure at all about its reliability. It was complicated to understand for the general public since already biostatisticians, people don’t know what it is. They’re the ones who do the clinical trial analyses, they’re the ones who do the results tables, they’ve never been seen on a television set. I don’t have to remember that someone came to talk about the results of the clinical reports. No one spoke of the risk management plan that raised all populations that had never been studied and for which risks were to be taken by immunizing them, since there were no results.

Well, now that we’ve opened this door, we’re going to have a lot of developing products, and it’s already underway, whether it’s messaging RNA or collateral damage. Today, what we see is that we have millions of adverse reactions reported with a sub-report that is phenomenal, because we know we have a sub-report in vaccines, we always know it, we have publications on the subject, so when you may have excuses, I break everything. When you have a million cases or two million cases postponed, you can multiply that by ten or maybe even by twenty or fifty.

So you potentially have millions of people who are sick. So those who get to us on social media, we’re going to say, they’re people who are in a very serious situation since they’ve been in a terrible medical legacy for months or years, and these people really need help. So the urgency, it really is to recognize the victims since there recently, you saw, we had a former Minister of Health who was still telling us that there were no desirable ends for the vaccines. It is absolutely scandalous. It was all the more false information that we can easily verify since we had compensation for victims.

So we don’t see how the ONIAM could have compensated victims who aren’t. So already it was big stuff, we’re used to it. So the urgency is really to recognize the victims since there’s a need to take care of them. You have a lot of mealgic incephalitis, very serious cases with people who are extremely diminished. This is the one who tries to express itself since unfortunately with the doctors, she cannot find a solution.

So why is it an advanced health disaster? I wanted to go back to that anyway, because in October 2020, we have people who are very well informed, because they are CDC or IDF people, who had presented at the first meeting precisely at IDF, whose meetings are available on the IDF YouTube channel. So we find, we can listen again if we want, I put all the links in my book, those people who present the adverse events to watch. And then, what did they present to us in October 2020?

Well, they were telling us that what they called possible adverse events outcomes, so the possible side effects, they were telling us about the Covids, they were talking about death. problems during pregnancy or in children, guillembares, neurological adverse reactions, disseminated acute encephalomyelitis, transverse myelitis, multiple sclerosis, optical neuritis, chronic myelitis inflammatory polyneuropathy, encephalitis, meningitis, ataxia, blablabla, epilepsy attack, seizures, stroke, narcolepsy, autoimmune disease, anaphylaxis, myocardial infarction, myocarditis, pericarditis, no, thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, embolised thrombus, arthralgia, arthritis, etc.

So this, October 29, 2020. So how today we can make ourselves believe that we couldn’t predict that there was going to be an astronomical amount of problems, knowing that the Amédics had to monitor all this? That’s it. So, how can we make it believe? It is in this sense that I do not agree at all with the term “apprentice” used by Alexandre Orioncotte. So it is true that it is a very good title, “The sorcerer apprentices”, that is a very very very good title, it is very tapering. There are no apprentices in the pharmaceutical industry. There has never been one.

So I, this title, I don’t like it because it has a tendency to, we’re going to say, excuse the people responsible for all this. When you’re an apprentice, you do stupid things, you didn’t know. It’s unthinkable to think that we developed these products in record time, without having done a minimum of tests that maybe we didn’t make public. If we didn’t know what it was going to do, we knew it was an unprecedented risk-taking. We knew it, and as such, we still put people’s lives at risk. It was the object of my work in January 2022. I asked for urgent suspension to endanger people’s lives.

Obviously, despite my passing before the Members of the Senate of OPECST, the parliamentary office, assessments, technical practices, etc. So this commission, which was only a masquerade to try to ease the anger of the victims, I presented my documents and asked for this, proof in support, of course. I presented this work to people from the Medicine Agency, the ANSM, who kindly received, by the way, they did not have to. Well, then, justifications, you can find dozens, yes, urgency, etc. But finally, after a while, you have to go back to the method.

Rougeyron [29:59] And if you want, it’s hard to excuse the emergency. Finally, if you want, the emergency cannot justify a… How can I say? The emergency cannot justify a product that can still be discussed on efficiency and which, a priori, we have tried everything to minimize danger. The emergency, because, please, it can hide a lot behind the emergency. As Raymond De Vos said, state reason is a lot of reasons, so he can have a lot of reasons.

Cotton [30:42] I love Raymond De Vos, I love it. So, yes, yes, and then, after a while, even admit that we took risks, we can see that there are problems, that there are people complaining. Have these people been received by the health authorities? No. Now, vaguely by the OPECST, they’ve auditioned some of them, but I don’t think it’s very interesting for the ANSM to contact people who are agonizing in corners. Besides, it didn’t even interest the authorities, people who have had serious adverse reactions in clinical trials. In the United States, we have Brian Dressel in the AstraZeneca, in the clinical trial AstraZeneca. We have Augusto Roux, a lawyer, in Argentina, who participated in the clinical Pfizer trial on adults, who almost died by the way. We have Amadie Degarré on the clinical Pfizer trial for teenagers. all these people have had serious effects. They said, but it’s not true, it’s not sure since I almost died. I had 35 serious effects and I’m heavily disabled.

But no one cared about these people who participated, who are volunteers in the seclinics. How we explain that there was this cabal organized against the victims, against the whistleblowers, since that’s clearly what we see on the networks. That is, they are organized networks, troll packs an uncultivated woman who will soon be in court, but who are in contact with journalists, with doctors on stage, or even with politicians.

So how do we explain all this? It’s good to hide something. And from the moment we want to hide, it’s that we knew. That’s what we knew. And the problem now is the legal proceedings. That is, now from the moment we are a number of professionals who have written documents that they will have a lot of difficulty in contradicting. Because I recall that I posted my report on the LinkedIn network in January 2022. I had the exact visit of 133 lawyers in two days before LinkedIn closed my account. I had just posted to ask for the advice of my colleagues in the pharma industry, it was not to make controversy particularly, I wrote this, I asked for it to be read and evaluated, it is a completely scientific approach.

So 133 lawyers, U.S. State Department, National Gendarmerie, Ministry of Armed Forces, Ministry of Interior, Apple, WHO, what have I seen from different states, Geneva, etc. Talest, Airbus, I still wondered what these people were doing on my profile. So this work from the beginning bothers and this monumental flaw in the clinical trial, I think they didn’t expect her to see herself. They had planned the whistleblowers for the side effects but that someone is in a situation, we’re going to say like me, to have nothing to do and to have the courage to say no, no, this clinical trial, it’s completely out of place and it’s not okay. They didn’t plan, but they didn’t plan people who put a line either, who were going to say at the regulatory level, we have problems. And unfortunately, at the regulatory level, they’re a little bit stuck because it’s complicated for them to say that there’s no problem because we have the evidence. We have the evidence. Unfortunately, the victims exist, people who almost died during the clinical trial, in clinical trials, and it’s complicated today to make them disappear. It’s perhaps easier to make the whistleblowers disappear than to make the victims disappear, since there’s a lot of them.

So this is where we are today. So here, today, we need legal procedures, and then, what I wanted to add, is that people like me or several professionals who are not necessarily known, who write expertise sometimes anonymously, because they don’t want to take the lead, as I’ve taken over the last two years. Well, we’ve got expertise that’s quite the road of absolutely qualified people, the plain for poisoning that we dropped off. It held the road perfectly and it holds the road more and more, I will say, as the elements come out, the analyses of the vials, this RNA which does not read correctly, finally I cannot go into the details because it is not my domain, but which visibly can create, replication will create proteins that do not exist.

Well, I mean, it’s a risk-taking that’s phenomenal in relation to the initial mortality of the disease, again. Young people were very weak. Finally, those who died were those who had concurrent pathologies. It was the elderly populations, it was the populations that had co-morbidities. But it was very little, neither the children, finally the children or the young. And today, what do we see? We still have excesses of overmortality.

So I don’t know if you saw, but we have Andrew Bridgen, in the English Parliament, who made an absolutely magisterial speech, which I really invite everyone to listen to. I would have just wanted to read the beginning of his speech, that’s a sentence, and Mr. Bridgen, for whom I really have a lot of esteem, because he left a lot of feathers in this fight for truth in England, He said, “The eyes of history are on us. Each generation marvels at the incredible mistakes made by his predecessors. They ask themselves questions such as “How could they not realize how wrong they were? What happened to them? Why did they ignore the evidence for so long, as well as their values and all the opportunities to learn the lessons from the mistakes of the past? What madness grasps men!

(unclear) [36:40] »

Cotton [36:42] Mr Bridgen made the start of his speech to the English Parliament this week on the debate he finally got on the overmortality in England, which has been discussed for a few years now, and when I had discussed with Michèle Rivasi, we were at the beginning of the first few signals about overmortality. Since it cannot come from the Covid since the vaccines are supposed to prevent us from serious forms and therefore, fortiori, death.

So, it comes from where this overmortality? So we can see that there are a lot of questions and that the agencies refuse to answer. And that we also have a merdiatic propaganda, as I often say, which continues to sell us wind by putting forward experts without expertise and a number of people who have absolutely no legitimacy to talk about all this. That’s where we are. Unfortunately, those who trap are the victims. That’s why for the last two years, I’ve really taken their side since I have a lot of them that have come to me by being a little desperate and I’m very worried for some. Because unfortunately, treatments may not be tested for multiple sclerosis because they don’t have the AMM to treat these post-Covid or post-vaccine pathologies because post-Covid also exists, what has been called long Covids.

Well, you don’t have to say that these people don’t exist either. And unfortunately, well, then, there’s also a debate about cancers that are starting to appear. I don’t know what it’s going to give, but the health disaster is starting. I’m going to make an XM call to the health authorities to recognize these victims, please. Now that we’ve made these people sick, I think it’s pretty normal to do something to try to treat them.

Rougeyron [39:03] Yes, we will conclude on this fact that at times in history, the problem of the victims is that they are also witnesses. Very good conclusion. Thank you very much, Kacine Gotong. We will continue to follow your work and the developments of this case which will occupy us a long time.

Cotton [39:28] We’ll go all the way anyway.

Rougeyron [39:31] Thank you very much.

Cotton [39:33] Thank you.

Rougeyron [39:34] Dear comrades, if you want more content, information, popular education and intellectual training, don’t hesitate to make a donation on our Tipee page.