André Bercoff [00:04] And yes, you imagine, this song was written by Jacques Lansman and sung by Jacques Dutronc 60 years ago. And here we are, we’re hiding everything, we’re not told anything. Christine Cotton, hello.

Christine Cotton [00:21] Good morning, Mr. Bercoff.

Bercoff [00:22] Good morning, ma’am. You have studied, you have in any case begun to study this report, these Pfizer tests declassified for some time, for about a month, a few weeks already and so there are a lot of things going out with that and you had been received with pleasure and we know that you are very rigorous in what you say and what you are doing, what you are advancing. You’re not getting out of your hair, but you’re saying what’s in it. So what can we get out of it? It seems that 42,000 people would have been tested, that there would have been 11,000. I’ll give you some advanced figures, but you’ll tell me, you’ll correct me if I’m wrong. 9,000 of which we do not know what they have had, what they have become, 11,000 who have not fully recovered their health, not to mention the dead. But again, what can be said today of concrete in relation to these declassified pages?

Cotton [01:21] — So there are a lot of things going on about it, there are a lot of things wrong, since the people who read are not necessarily specialists in clinical research. So, to remind everyone who listens to us, the people in charge of the analyses and the method of clinical trials, they are biostatisticians, nobody else. Not epidemiologists, not doctors, not anyone but biostatisticians. So to put things in context a little bit, it’s because at first we have an emergency use authorization that is given in December 2020 on the basis of interim analysis, that is, we only analyzed the first three months of the clinical trial out of the 24 in total that is supposed to last the trial. This did not allow the assessment of tolerance in the medium and long term, so that was a real problem.

Bercoff [02:26] You mean, we gave permission after three months of exam, trial, right?

Cotton [02:32] There, we did an intermediate analysis on people followed for three months, half of which followed less than two. So obviously, the medium-term-long-term tolerance, we can’t evaluate it on the basis of these data. There was no tested efficacy, i.e., transmission was not studied in the clinical trial, asymptomatic cases were not studied, thus there was no demonstrated efficacy on transmission, not on asymptomatic cases, and at the time, as of December 2020, there was no statistically demonstrated efficacy. Statistically, clinical trials are methods, they are results, they are interpretations of results.

So, statistically, no efficacy on severe cases. There was no efficacy over 75 years. On teenagers, children, no demonstrated efficacy on severe cases either. And we had in addition, what I have demonstrated in my expertise in terms of good clinical practice, we had a main criterion, so the famous 95%, which is false. because of bias, what is called methodological bias. And icing on the cake, we didn’t measure neutralizing antibodies, so these famous antibodies that testify to the famous immunity, we didn’t dose them two months after dose 2.

However, we already saw in the publication on monkeys and in the results of phase 1-2 that these antibodies, from two months after dose 2, they drop. So why doesn’t the lab measure them beyond that? So all these were issues that already deserved to stop the administration of the product and to do an audit, since we clearly did not have enough setbacks over the past three months, which were contrary to the previous WHO guidelines, which said that it took six months to assess tolerance and one year for effectiveness. Since then, what have we seen? We saw that we were given a third dose, which CEO Pfizer himself told us that antibodies are necessarily dropping. The fourth is in progress, the fifth is in the United States.

So, in real life, what’s going on? Everyone realizes that these vaccines don’t prevent them from getting sick. That doesn’t prevent transmission of the disease. So, what is possibly left of us in terms of efficiency? It protects from serious forms. So this argument which was based on one of the real-life studies whose methods of statistical cost, again, are very questionable and one can dispute, that is, that the results are biased.

Bercoff [05:24] But then Christine, that your two things, sorry, remember, it’s true that at first we were all told, at last worldwide, that the effectiveness of vaccines, doses, was 90%. 95%. 95%, exactly. Apparently, in the tests, finally the Pfizer studies declassified, show that they themselves did not put that at 90% or 95%. That’s right?

Cotton [05:47] No, in fact, to get to these declassified documents, we have several kinds of documents. We have PDF documents that are of several kinds. In there, we have patient notebooks. These are all the documents that bear in their name the name CRF, Case Report Form. That is, it is patient data when the doctor includes them in the study that reports them to an electronic collection site.

Bercoff [06:20] “Okay.”“And what does it actually give them?”

Cotton [06:24] “So this is impossible to analyze, because we have hundreds of pages for the same patient.”“I understand.”“So if, I have looked at one, which is a centre, so, Vantavia, of this famous site having practices, we will say, of absolutely working that do not respect good technical practices, and indeed, what do we see in this… Just the first one I opened, we see that we have a date of Covid that’s hidden. That’s, so why in declassified docs we have hidden dates? So it’s a patient who had a Covid. who visibly died of that Covid, but we see clearly in the documents that things are not clear at all in how to complete the data.

Bercoff [07:11] All right. So Christy Cotton, we can see that you did the quick but extremely accurate inventory, indeed, of the opacities. and fog as to the result and how we proceeded, and above all you show the speed, finally three months when it took six months and even a year, what do you say? So what we’ve heard today, since we’ve been talking about all this, since this controversy, obvious and real and legitimate, is that, yes, but wait, you’re telling us that, but look, billions of people have been vaccinating and there are, well, some side effects, maybe thousands, but what are these thousands compared to billions of people vaccinated and apparently doing well? What do you say in front of that? Because we hear that a lot now, right now.

Cotton [07:57] Yes. So, how do we demonstrate that people are doing well? Again, we have to go back to the method, science, it’s evidence. This is not where we ask any specialist to make an opinion a state of fact. How do we demonstrate that people are doing well? We do serious investigations. For example, when we are told that there is no problem with stroke, pulmonary embolism, etc. over the age of 75. So, when you look at the real-life study that’s supposed to prove this, you find that it only counts these events within 21 days of vaccination. Are the 21 days after vaccination representative of what’s happening in real life? And we’ve had this problem for everything for over a year now, where we’ve been regularly swiped on the TV sets of results, it slows down the transmission of X%, and then it divides by two, and finally it slows down more at all. Because it’s based on real-life studies that are worth mediocre evidence. To get back to these Pfizer docs, what we also have in it, what interests us most, biostatisticians, is that we have patient data files.

So here I think it’s an Australian named Jekyllix who started looking at this data and I’m delighted to have a colleague in the world who is looking at the subject, because since then, in terms of biostatisticians, I’m a little isolated on the subject of vaccines. So, what did he find? He found that we have patients who are numbered, starting with 4444. What we need to know is that the standards of the pharmaceutical industry are very numerous and we also have standards for numbering patients and centres in the databases themselves. So if I have a patient who starts with 4444, that means he belongs to a centre, so an investigator, a hospital, a medical facility, which is numbered 4444. But there is none. There is no 4444 centre.

Bercoff [10:31] Ah yes, you mean 4444, it’s not the 4444 patients, it’s the number in principle of the center that tests them.

Cotton [10:38] That’s the number of the center, the doctor, because all the numbers, which is supposed to have recruited these patients.

Bercoff [10:46] And this center doesn’t exist, well, the number, yeah, okay.

Cotton [10:50] It doesn’t exist. In the list of centres provided. I understand. But what does that mean? What does that mean? What’s weird is that when you look, you find that patients 4444, they were recruited by a site with number 1231. And this is a military hospital in Argentina that alone, out of 44,000 patients, would have recruited more than 5,700 patients between mid-August and the end of September 2020.

Bercoff [11:20] You mean only one hospital in Argentina would have recruited 5,000 patients to test them out of the 40,000 that were tested?

Cotton [11:29] And we actually have more than 10,000 patients recruited only by five centres. An Argentine military hospital, it can have 15 people who take care of the patients, because it is not just about immunizing them, it is about receiving them, explaining to them the procedures of the trial, what they must do to report their symptoms when they are sick, etc. Well, so I’m not saying it’s impossible, but we’re going to say it’s still a suspect and I always come back to my story that these tests are sufficiently opaque in terms of insufficient duration of analysis, as well as serious undesirable defeat on a teenager we’ve hidden, which is not reported in the teenage report, which is still hanging on a wheelchair powered by its gastric. And it’s not in the clinical report.

So, we still have a lot of evidence that makes us think that the quality of this trial is more than mediocre. So, in this case, what do we do if we’re reasonable? We suspend the product, since we risk putting people at risk for their lives, since it’s poorly assessed. These are the standards of the pharmaceutical industry all in the sense of minimizing the risk to the patient and to his life. However, we must suspend ourselves and do an audit. What do we do?

Bercoff [12:57] We didn’t suspend him and we didn’t audit him.

Cotton [13:00] So there were audits, but it’s the lab itself that’s doing an audit. No, you have to take independent people and agencies and the lab itself to do an audit. So not only do we have this, but here, lawyers, what do we see in real life? We’re told yes, there’s not a small percentage of serious effects. So one, fortunately not everyone has one,

Bercoff [13:23] There you go.

Cotton [13:23] That’s the argument. Ah yes, but I’m fine, I didn’t get anything. A particular case has no scientific evidence value. That’s it. So we’re studying.

Bercoff [13:32] What’s true, what’s true. No, but the problem is not there, you’re right. The problem is from what risk one launches something and it’s actually said, but as you say in real life one has to statisticate, what is the proportion of acceptable risk or not acceptable? This is the problem.

Cotton [13:49] In the meantime, we have a multitude, but hundreds of thousands, ends of the resirable, with 25% serious, that affect young people, who are in an unbelievable medical legacy, since they have multitudes of symptoms that generalists cannot diagnose. So we have people who’ve been hanging out for six months, for the last year, 40 times in the emergency room, 40 times in the emergency room, without any diagnosis, and then I’ll spare you the visits to the neuros, and the cardios, and all that’s quantum, or we’ll tell them, for some of them, now it’s in your head.

Bercoff [14:24] Christine Cotton, all this, we’re going to talk to you again, unfortunately we don’t really have time, but we’re going to come back to this very soon, Christine Cotton.

Cotton [14:34] I still have something to add, which is very important, that it is important to know that the lawyers still took care of all this, because there was an investigation into the adverse effects in the Senate for which I was interviewed, and that we still have lawyers where there is a complaint of poisoning by these vaccines that have been laid. People need to know that.

Bercoff [14:58] And we have, in any case, we will follow and follow the results with you. But what you do very well is to remind all listeners, in real life, what is going on? That’s the most important thing. Thank you Christy.

Cotton [15:10] Watch real life and stop watching TV, friends.

Bercoff [15:13] Listen to the radio above all. Science, the test and God. Michel Iveau-Loré, if there is, you talk about it at 1 p.m., André. In the meantime, we will return to a historical event that comes back in the news.