Host [00:01] Hello everyone and welcome to our YouTube channel, the straight line channel. I invite you to subscribe to this channel, to love, to share, to comment. These videos are very important for our SEO and it is a way to support us. Thank you all. The famous sanitary pass, you know, we even remember more. The entrance to restaurants, cinemas, concerts, hospitals for activities, for work, etc. Well, we have forgotten it so quickly, except obviously our caregivers, our firefighters and other care professions. suspended for unvaccinated people.

But now, the elections pass, the summer passes and all this risks remembering us very quickly and we will no longer be able to do the ostrich again. The health pass, which is a normal and therefore normally restricted emergency measure over a limited period of time, normally also justified by a state of health or other emergency, was to end definitively on 30 June next. But when we no longer hear about a pandemic, the European Commission is preparing a further extension of the health pass until 30 June 2023. That is why we will have won another year with this liberticide measure. And which says another year perhaps after another year. Why not? the Commission, which is the source of this extension, does not justify PASS in any case by any health crisis. PASS is now justified by the fact that it is a tool which promotes the increase of vaccination coverage. One point that is all. That is. The objective is to vaccinate and this is the only justification. We need to immunize more and more. We have another point of concern in the horizon that opens before us, the preparation and vaccination of children. Until then, in France, there have been some reservations. And then, here’s a Pfizer communication that fell on May 23rd. In general, it starts like this, besides, not a Pfizer communication. Pfizer’s Covid vaccine is safe, says Pfizer, and effective for children aged 6 months to 5 years with three doses. The efficacy was 80.3%, according to a preliminary estimate. This is Pfizer’s official communication. And in the meantime, we learn that the US Drug Agency, the FDA, is planning three meetings in June to study the authorization of Pfizer vaccine in children under five years of age.

So that’s the little music that starts again for the vaccination of children. Of course we will follow the American model once the model is in place in the United States. This is where we are and that is why we must remain vigilant on these subjects and above all not let ourselves fall asleep by the torpor of the summer. I therefore propose that we invite our two awakeners of conscience. Hello Christine Cotton. Hello. You are a biostatistician specializing in the management of clinical trial data for 23 years, author of studies on the Pfizer vaccine. You have worked a lot on the documents that have been published by Pfizer. We will come back in a few moments. And then we are also with Virginie Jauron. Hello, Virginie Jauron. You are the Euro MP of the Identity and Democracy Group, also a member of the Special Committee on the Covid-19 Pandemic, lessons learned and recommendations for the future. I would like to start with you, Virginie Jauron, on what has happened, since you are the one who issued the warning on this subject about the European Commission’s desire to extend the health step.

Virginie Joron [03:17] Yes, indeed, it is a case that I have been in since the beginning, and indeed the Commission has proposed to extend the extension of the digital certificate at European Union level for a year, so why not? But in any case, there are no studies. There is no report that specifies the effectiveness of the pass, because I want to get something that works. But we all had, we all experienced the health pass and that showed that it did not at all prevent the spread of the virus, the contamination, and so there is no substantive argument today to extend it. If it is not, and as you have said very well, the main objective is vaccination, and they put it in the proposal, and this morning I reread the legislative basis for this proposal, and they say that a clarification will have to be made in these certificates of attraction or tomorrow, should be specified the number of doses in each Member State.

So this is already a new point. And then, indeed, they say, the objective, indeed, is in the Brussels communication on 27 April, it is to focus on those who are not vaccinated and those who are today, who have not had their booster dose. So, in fact, this certificate is going to be a tool to force people to get vaccinated. And what’s funny too, I don’t know if it’s funny, but now, you know, I take this with a lot of hindsight, is that our precision in this proposal, that is to say, will also be included and will have permission to use this pass those who are doing a clinical trial on these vaccines.

But I want to say, today, everyone has done a clinical trial on these vaccines, since we all know, and Christine Cotton will be able to say, that… these vaccines are still in the trial phase until 2023. So this is the scandal today, it is that we are extending a pass without a substantive argument, without a basis of scientists who have proved the effectiveness of this pass, and also without any relation, since that is what is being asked by the Commission and the Council today, since there have been discussions this week and they have all been found, they have found a favourable agreement for today actually to put in place this health pass which will be put to the vote on 23 June. I am indeed calling on my fellow Members of the European Parliament, since we are 705, to vote against this pass because it is not a tool to facilitate people’s lives and protect fundamental value, freedom of movement. On the contrary, it is a tool to restrict our freedoms and is groundless.

Host [05:57] So I still have a question before giving the floor to Christine Cotton, Virginie Geron. If it is voted on in the European Parliament, even if it is on the initiative of the European Commission, unfortunately that is what we call democracy and European democracy here, but it has been voted on. Can we go back to this kind of decision-making?

Joron [06:19] So, at European level, they are setting up the framework at European level so that all Member States can, within each Member State, continue or not continue to set up the health pass; in fact, it is a proposal for a framework, which is what they have put in place today, and then each Member State is free or not to apply this health pass. It is also clear from this proposal that this framework does not run counter to more restrictive measures, known as domestic measures, in the Member States, and it is well known that today the Presidency of the Council is presided over by Emmanuel Macron, so this desire for progress and the introduction of health passes is not annoyed. We know very well that Emmanuel Macron, and moreover he more or less announced it at the next Council of Ministers on 22 June, they have already prepared… tools to put in place new health measures.

So it is clear that the health pass at the level of the dead state is also in the drawers. We saw for a year the batoning in relation to this pass. It will not disappear at the level of France, so in fact it is a tool that has been put in place to force the Member States to set up the health pass, under the cover of the European Union, which makes it possible to facilitate free movement between each Member State. The difficulty, and that’s what we’ve seen in France, and I’m denouncing this now because there are also elections and people know what’s being put in place, is that again, restrictions of our freedoms, still today to access a hospital, the health pass exists, and I want more, and that’s why I’m on the alert about it, because what we’ve been through, it’s been completely crazy, crazy, people have lost jobs. We’ve been completely disproportionate, and we know very well that with the government we’ve had and the government that’s in place, it’s gonna be worse.

Host [08:15] So Virginie Jauron, we’re going to keep talking, we talked about the tool, then we’re going to talk about the vaccine itself with Christine Cotton and then the Pfizer documents. But it’s 8:30, we’re doing a quick update on the information with Emmanuel Noël.

Station ID [08:29] Straight line.

Host [08:34] And we’re still with Christine Cotton, a biostatistician specializing in clinical trial data management for 23 years. We’re going to talk about these clinical trials in a few moments. We’re also with Virginie Jauron, MEP, member of the Identity Democracy group and member of the Special Commission on the Covid-19 Pandemic. I now turn to Christine Cotton. Christine Cotton, you’re first specialist in clinical trial data management. It turns out that you’re looking at Pfizer documents. The families that were forced by, you know, I’m going to tell a little bit of the story to our listeners, the Food and Drug Administration, so the American food and medical regulators, had given Pfizer 75 years to publish the documents concerning the study of these vaccines and their vaccine safety. And Covid-19 obviously, and it had been accepted by the FDA. It turns out that there was a federal judge, Marc Pitmana, who ordered Pfizer to publish the 55,000 pages of his documents per month, 12,000 were published at the end of January, and then it continues every month, to finish publicizing all the documents of his Pfizer studies at the end of 2022. And you consulted them with Chris and a cotton?

Christine Cotton [09:52] Yeah, so I didn’t consult everything.

Host [09:54] It’s a hell of a job.

Cotton [09:56] And already, it’s not really of interest because in this, we find administrative documents, filled patient notebooks that are very consistent, so there’s no point in going through it too much. I, what I have essentially consulted, is what interests a biostatistician. These are SAS tables, that is to say SAS, it is the software that is mainly used in the pharmaceutical industry. I spent my life programming under SAS, because when you…

So what we have to explain to those who listen to us is that the biostatistician is the one who writes the methodology of the clinical trial in the protocol, since the protocol is a pre-test document. So that’s where we’re going to describe what our objective is, what are the criteria for effectiveness, tolerance, etc. And it’s the one that does the analysis. And in general, to do the analysis, we use software that is specific and we program everything. That is, when we open the software, there is nothing. Everything is programmed. I spent my life typing SAS code, among other things. So I had concluded in my expertise in the Pfizer clinical trial that finally the main criterion of 95% was not only biased, that is, there were elements that distorted the result, but that in addition it was not representative of the amberean disease.

Host [11:14] Here you talk about the efficiency figure sold by Pfizer.

Cotton [11:18] That’s the first 95 percent that we’ve been drinking for months, so I’ve concluded from the review of a lot of documents that this 95 percent was wrong. I didn’t know what order it could be wrong. And I said, if Pfizer had wanted to know who had Covid or not in his clinical trial, they would have made an anti-neocapside serology, nucleocapsides, since that’s what makes it clear whether we’re positive or not. And so, we have a SAS table that has this serology in the documents that were made public.

So I tampered with all this, I imported this document, and then we realize that if we’re working on that criterion, from dose 2, finally, I could at all… I think I had eight patients who had the main criterion, so Covid, PCR-confirmed symptomatic for the vaccine, eight patients who had this criterion in the initial trial and 162 placebo. That’s what gave me my 194. And then I have 56 and 126. So, I’m no longer at 8, there. I’m no longer at 8 Covid confirmed by PCR test. I’m at 56 vaccine patients who had Covid during the trial.

So, if I recalculate my efficacy, that’s more like 56%. So, if it’s boring, what’s boring is that this number, it was never announced by the lab in December. Now, this is the database on which I am calculating, it is theirs, and it is data that is available, which was available, what is called the cut-off of 14 November, that is, the time when they stopped the database to do the analysis. So this is a first thing, so that figure, it was never announced. And we finally see in real life, what’s going on? We can see that’s right. That is, I have a lot of people who get Covid when they’re vaccinated, one dose, two doses, three doses.

Host [13:35] But even today, it is admitted since even the… Finally, Olivier Véran, etc. today admit that the vaccine does not prevent contamination. So serology, in fact, the fact of finding serology in patients who are tested for the trial is not surprising compared to ads that have necessarily evolved over time. You have to remember, because at first, it was supposed to prevent contamination. Today, we agree that it doesn’t prevent contamination. So that 56% you’re announcing.

Cotton [14:03] These basic clinics, the transmission was never studied. That is, at the end, in January 2021, when people were told, go get you two doses and then you will return to normal life, the transmission had never been studied. They could not announce at that time that it was hindering transmission. It was on the basis of real-life studies that they announced this later. I think it was going out in April or May where we said, it’s there now, we prove that it’s stopping transmission. We can see that it’s not stopping anything at all.

So I also concluded at that time that the non-dose of neutralizing antibodies after two months, after dose 2, mask the fall of antibodies. And this, we are working, we are many to work on these declassified documents in the world. I was working with an Australian, with an Israeli, so we really agreed, we checked each other out. Not quite in fact, we check the… The results between us, the Australian is very advanced, that’s why I often only relay and check what he does. On the other hand, so we see very well, yesterday he released a graph, for example this dosage of neutralizing antibodies, it is presented with a logarithmic scale. And we have the impression that it goes up sharply and that it slowly decreases two weeks after dose 2. And in fact, if we trace, we change the way we plot the graph, we take the raw value and no longer the transformation into log, and there we observe very well the fall of antibodies. So all this is already predictable as of December 2020. That’s why we finally get a booster, because we already know at that time that the antibodies are going to fall.

Host [15:50] We know that from the beginning! But what’s interesting is that here, again, you work from Pfizer’s nose base itself, at last from these agencies. But normally we don’t work, finally the FDA and the health agencies don’t take into account the communication of a laboratory, but rather the studies behind, the clinical studies that will be done behind. And then we have the impression that everything… Ah no, no, no!

Cotton [16:19] No, no, no. When there is a file submission to an authority, whether it is the FDA, Europe, the ANSM or anything, the authorities are already working on the documents that are provided by the laboratory since it is the promoter, all that gives rise to the marketing, the promoter is always a laboratory. But that’s not embarrassing, because there are people who say, yes, but it’s the lab documents. That’s why we have standards in every sense that are called recommendations and that we group up under the name of good clinical practice and that when we follow these standards that allow us to frame all the practices and tasks of all the participants, there is no reason to get out of the results that are wrong and because there is a whole chain of control. On the other hand, the lab also sends the database. So, the reviewers in an agency can do calculations. And normally, there are biostatisticians in the agencies who can do calculations at that time too. That is, they can reprogram the main criterion to see if it is 95% they are correct or not.

Host [17:30] Now, what you mean is, in fact, anyone, and the… AFDA, and the re-viewers, as you say, that means the re-readers, those who will check before they publish in a scientific journal, all those people should, in fact, have done their job, that is, re-calculate, rather than just take the ads from Pfizer, since… Pfizer themselves give the figures so that they can finally consider the relative effectiveness or inefficiency of their products.

Cotton [18:00] Exactly, that is to say that I did the work I did, my expertise, it is an expertise from the point of view of good clinical practice, it is the work of the reviewers of the agencies that I did there. So expanded since I took not only the first report but then I took the one on the teenagers of the 12-15 and on the children on the 5-11 of October 2021. So in addition, we go a little fast, if I can afford to use this term, on adults and we reproduce exactly the same way of working on teenagers and on children, with the numbers that are very small.

So what we also see in this Pfizer database is that we have five centers that recruit almost 10,000 patients out of the 36, 38,000 as of December 2020. So that means that, normally, I’m supposed, as I have centers that are called an imbalance, non-balance, what, in English. So, I’m supposed to provide… When I have such differences between my centers where I have very large and small ones, besides, the center, it is the site that recruited the patient.

So that, normally, I am supposed to provide one analysis per center. This analysis per center, it is not there. And when I look at my centres that are the most recruiters, I realize that I have an Argentine centre that is a military hospital that alone has to recruit more than 5000 and a few patients. And strangely, at first, it starts slowly, its recruitment, 60 patients a day, and then suddenly, from mid-August 2020, it accelerates to 240 patients a day. And how do you explain that? Ah, that’s right, so we can explain it, that is, we can say an Argentine hospital, they have 10 people who take care of the participants to vaccinate them, explain the operation of the trial, etc. Because it’s not just giving them a shot there, it’s not a vaccinedrome, we have to train them in the practice of the trial. What is curious is that this centre is codified in the pharmaceutical industry. And in the databases too, we have standards. We have a format to respect which is called the disc. That is, my variable names, that is, as if I had an Excel file, my column names, they are codified. And when I have a site that has a number for example of 1231, which is the center of Argentina, I have to have patients, patient numbers that start with 1231.

But for this site, it starts a whole part with 4444. There are a lot of weird things like that in this base foot. And when I look at my protocol deviations, that is, what wasn’t done in accordance with what was provided for in the protocol, I see that I have more people taking the vaccine who didn’t visit Covid for suspicion in the vaccine group than in the placebo group. So it confirms what I wrote in my expertise, it’s called a bias. When my two groups, I have a way of managing… yes, one that’s more checked on the Covid than another.

Host [21:11] The placebo was more checked on its contamination than the other.

Cotton [21:16] I have patients who are sick, they call their site, they’re supposed to run a PCR test to see if it’s Covid or not.

Host [21:23] Yes, even in the numbers, in the databases eventually, since there, it was finally not done equally.

Cotton [21:30] Not only the numbers…

Host [21:33] No, actually, to summarize Christine Cotton, not only the numbers, when you take them back, when you recalculate, show that finally we’re not 95% effective, but 56. And then even these numbers are biased, since between the Witness group and the Placebo group, there is a difference of treatment and the Placebo group was much more tested on the Covid than the other.

Cotton [21:53] That’s it, except that we’re 56 on another criterion that just testifies to Covid+. Yes or no, whatever the symptomatic asymptomatic status, which is not the main criterion chosen for the trial.

Host [22:08] So I’m going to turn to Virginie Joron. I think you already know Christine Cotton. In any case, we say this calculation which has not been done properly, visibly, by the reviewers of these scientific journals, especially by the drug safety agencies, be they American or French. This is in any case the impression that it gives us, since the figures are not the same as those announced by Pfizer. It’s a big question, Virginie Joron.

Joron [22:40] From the beginning, we can ask ourselves all the questions about this vaccine strategy at all, whether it is the purchase of vaccines, lack of transparency. Now, we see it with the studies. In fact, it is Pfizer who decides the validity or not of the effectiveness of a vaccine. We still see it with the side effects. Today, there are more than a million side effects with the European Medicines Agency. He doesn’t care. He doesn’t care, he lists, he closes and it’s over. There’s no open investigation. Today there is this strategy that is being put in place at European Union level with the willingness of the Member States to pursue this strategy, with the tools that are being put in place such as the health pass. And I repeat, this health pass doesn’t allow because that was how they sold it to us to, how to say, stop the spread of the virus.

Indeed, it’s all new. We were all scared at home, confined to our necks. We thought why not, we’re going to do this. And we’re still seeing it. We see it today, we have been subjected to extremely strict, crazy rules, and today we see that the effectiveness sold every day on all media, we do not see it. The proof still today with Trudeau, tripe or quadrupe, or a vaccinated guy who still has the vaccine.

Host [23:53] The Prime Minister of Canada who says it’s thanks I’m positive at the Covid, but thanks to my 3 or 4 backs, I don’t know where it is, everything’s fine, I don’t have any serious forms.

Joron [24:04] That’s right. So there’s this policy, how to say, very hard, very authoritarian about vaccination. As Mrs Cotton shows, with studies, we’ll say, very light and then a whole system that is set up to actually, finally to get to the laboratory applications. I have another question, too, and I’m going to ask the committee. Why is the Valneva vaccine suspended? There had to be a purchase by the commission of this vaccine. which allowed those who had doubts about the new messenger RNA vaccine, we had said, well, for those who are recalcitrant on the vaccine, we will give them a more traditional vaccine. Today it is suspended. Why?

So I have a bit of my answer because in the sense that we have 4 billion doses ordered by the committee, they have that in stock, they don’t know what to do with it because there are pension dates that are six months, and I last asked Commissioner Kyriakides the question which answered me. We hope the labs take some time in delivery. Is that an answer? No. So, that’s, everything shows, everything is done lightly with behind the Big Pharma, with this lobby that is very powerful and that today leads the boat. They are the ones who are running the boat today, and we are the victims of this vaccination strategy because I regret that we are being sold the vaccine as what the panacea is all about. I want to say, if we want the health pass, if we want to circulate freely, that we are being given the free tests. I think today, the only method, the only effective way to see if we have Covid, is the test. Today, we have been removed from the test free of charge. We need to develop the tests and we need to develop other treatments that could, how to say, treat the doctors. Because I had Covid. When I got the Covid, I was told, you’re going home, you’re taking three dolipranes. That’s how we treat the Covid today. I know we’re many of us to have experienced this. So, we’re told that it’s the end of the world with the virus, the pandemic, etc. Today, we’re treating people with Dolipranes.

Host [26:15] And I point out that it is because there is no recognized treatment, since others say that Ivermectin, for example, many studies now prove it, works very well. But since there is no recognized treatment, it is thanks to this policy that we still have the right today to have this vaccination which is only in exceptional circumstances. I would like to turn to Christine Cotton regarding the effects, and finally the fact that today, in any case, the version is still what she reminded Justine Trudeau, that is to say, it certainly does not prevent contamination, this vaccination, but it prevents serious forms. Have you seen anything about it in the Pfizer documents, Christine Cotton?

Cotton [26:53] So initially, in the first report, there was no proven efficacy on serious forms, for lack of cases. That is, there were so few of the 38,000 patients that from a statistical point of view, it was not significant. There were zero serious forms in teenagers and zero in children. So it was not likely to be significant in the trials. So everything comes from this thing, it comes from enviral studies. I, at the time, had looked at only one, which was those famous EPIFAR who worked in collaboration more or less with ANSM. And every time you put your nose in an EPIFAR study, it’s not complicated, you see biases in every sense that render the conclusions invalid. So from there, this history of serious forms, in my opinion, everything is based on these envireal studies. What’s important is that here we still observe, so it slows down the serious forms if we take the narrative. So we’re not going to be in rea and then we’re not going to die. Except that in a number of countries in Europe and there is a high mortality rate in Australia which is phenomenal and Australia which is still heavily vaccinated.

Host [27:56] Great vaccine country, yes.

Cotton [27:58] That’s it, big immunizing country, so what do people die of if they don’t die of the Covid of serious forms then? Maybe many side effects. And then even then what should be stressed is that there was this committee in the Senate at the OPECST, so the office of the parliamentary populations, of the technological practices. And so, there, they have produced an interim report that tells us that, indeed, there has been a lack of transparency on the side effects and that we still have to recognize today that there are people who are suffering and that they need to be treated.

Host [28:29] I believe that this is the term they use for information about these adverse reactions that have not been sufficiently disseminated to the general public.

Cotton [28:40] Why aren’t they aired?

Host [28:42] That, I would remind you, is the report of the Senate committee, and we are only reporting this report.

Cotton [28:48] For which I have been auditioned and we are a certain number, we have not been invited to the public hearing on 24 May and our hearings will not be made public. Yes, strangely. Strangely enough, it is still strange, while you are auditioned.

Host [29:04] This is where we live today, but it is all quite dark. Thank you very much to both of you for this round table which reminds us that there are very important issues at this moment regarding this health step and this vaccination that things are not yet clear. Thank you Christine Cotton, bio-satisician and Virginie Jauron, MEP. members of the Identity Democracy group. You are working very hard on these Covid-19 issues and you are also part of the Special Commission on Covid-19. Thank you both.

Station ID [29:36] Do you like this show? Then help Radio Courtoisie produce others in total independence. Go to support.radio-courtoisie.fr. Thank you in advance.