UK Column recently interviewed France's leading vaccine expert, Professor Christian Perronne, on the controversial topic of Covid-19 vaccines. Next, we share the important statements made by Professor Perronne -as well as his outstanding curriculum to know who he really is-, and a complete transcript of the interview he gave to the British medium ...
Among other questions, when the interviewer asks: "Is there a pandemic, was there ever a pandemic, but on top of that, should the unvaccinated be afraid of the current" variants "that exist and the" variants "to come?" , Professor Christian Perronne replied:
“Exactly the other way around! Vaccinated people are at risk for the new variants. In transmission, it has now been shown in several countries that vaccinated people should be quarantined and isolated from society. Unvaccinated people are not dangerous; vaccinated people are dangerous to others. That has been proven in Israel now, where I am in contact with many doctors. Now they are having big problems in Israel: severe cases in hospitals are among those vaccinated. And in the UK too, you had a more extensive vaccination program and there are also problems. "
Who is Christian Perronne?Professor Perronne is Head of the Medical Department of the Raymond Poincaré de Garches Hospital, the university hospital of the University of Versailles-St Quentin, near Paris. He was Head of the Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases at the University from 1994 onwards, but was fired from that position a few months ago. He is a member of the world-renowned French biomedical research center, the Institut Pasteur, from which he graduated in bacteriology and virology and where he served as deputy director of the National Reference Center for Tuberculosis and Mycobacteria until 1998. He has chaired many health committees high level, including the French Committee of Specialists in Communicable Diseases and the Higher Council of Public Health (French acronym: HCSP), which advises the government on public health policies and vaccination policies. He is not against vaccines and in fact wrote France's vaccination policy for many years, as well as chairing the National Consultation Group on Vaccination, also known as the Technical Committee on Vaccination (CTV). Professor Perronne was also Vice Chair of the European Advisory Group of the World Health Organization. At the national level in France, he has chaired the College of Teaching of Infectious and Tropical Diseases (CMIT), the Federation of Infectious Diseases (FFI, of which he was co-founder), the Higher Council of Public Hygiene (CSHP) and the National Medical and Healthcare Agency for Product Safety (ANSM, formerly AFSSAPS), which assesses the health risks of medicines and is the only French regulator for biomedical research. Until 2013, he was a member of the Scientific Council of the French Institute for Research in Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (IMMI / INSERM).
Despite Professor Perronne's extensive knowledge and experience on communicable diseases, vaccines, and vaccine policy at the national and government level in France, he was quickly censured for speaking out on the subject of Covid-19 vaccines, their presumed efficacy, and their identifiable risks. In short, he was professionally marginalized, his reputation was attacked, and his professional opinions were censored.
Professor Perronne was accompanied in the interview by Dr. Anne-Marie Yim. Anne-Marie is highly qualified to speak about vaccines and their effects on the body, having worked as an expert in protein and immune response research within the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry in general.
Full transcript of the UK Column interview with Professor Christian Perronne and Dr Anne-Marie Yim, July 2021
Brian Gerrish (UK Column interviewer): Welcome to all of our UK Column viewers and listeners. We are very happy to have two distinguished experts with us, who are going to speak with us on the subject of Covid-19 and also on the vaccination policy that we are seeing unfold in the UK, France and around the world.
First of all, I would like to welcome Anne-Marie Yim. Anne-Marie and I have spoken before, so it's a pleasure to have her back. He will be joined tonight by Professor Christian Perronne, and I think we are going to have a very good discussion.
So, Anne-Marie, thank you for joining us. Please could you tell the audience a little about your professional background and qualifications?
Anne-Marie Yim: Hello, and thank you for UK Column for inviting us tonight with Professor Perronne. It is a great privilege for us as French citizens to be able to address your British audience.
My name is Anne-Marie Yim, I am a French citizen and I was born in Cambodia. I have a PhD in organic chemistry, in peptide proteins, from the University of Montpellier, which is now the Institut des Biomolecules Max Mousseron . I have been doing a post-doctorate in proteomics, which consists of identifying membrane proteins, at the University of Michigan, with Professor Samir Hanash, a recognized expert in this field. I also worked with Professor Borschitz [name as heard] on the inflammation process in rheumatoid arthritis.
I also have a master's degree in intellectual property, and since 2018 I have been studying law related to patent engineering [the preparation of patent applications] , at the CEIPI in Strasbourg. I also worked as a patent engineer here in Luxembourg, but very briefly, because I did not like the environment very much, and then I started my own structure in 2018 and I am basically a science and language tutor for primary school children. from school to high school and higher, to college.
Brian Gerrish: Thank you very much for that, Anne-Marie. And Professor Perronne, welcome to UK Column. It is wonderful to have you with us. I would just ask you to also tell us a bit about yourself, your professional background, and I also understand that since you have spoken out against some of the official government policies on Covid-19 and vaccines, you have been censored. he has been prevented from speaking.
Christian Perronne: Thank you very much for the invitation. I am Professor Christian Perronne. I work in a university hospital near Paris, with the University of Versailles. I was head of the infectious diseases department since late 1994, but I was fired from that position a few months ago because of my public statements. Shame on our government because I worked for various governments, both on the right wing and on the left wing of politics, and for fifteen years I was chairman of many committees, [including] the Higher Council of Public Health, which advises the government on health policy public and vaccination policy. I was also vice chair of an expert group for the European region of the WHO.
So I was involved in the management of various epidemics and pandemics, with different governments, and when I saw how the epidemic was managed from February-March 2020, I was astonished. I saw that he was completely insane. That is why I spoke in the media, but now I am censored in the media.
Brian Gerrish: This brings us to the heart of the matter. I think it is important that we tell the audience: First of all, neither you nor Anne-Marie Yim are against vaccines. Would you like to tell us a little more about your position on this?
Christian Perronne: I am not against vaccines, because I wrote the vaccination policy for France for many years. But the problem is that the products they call "vaccines" for Covid-19 are not really vaccines. That's my problem.
Brian Gerrish: Can we push a little more? If they are not vaccines, what would you call them?
Christian Perronne: Perhaps genetic modifiers; I don't know exactly the right term from a scientific point of view. But when he injects messenger RNA to produce a large amount of spike protein, a fragment of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, he cannot control the process. And the problem is that in human cells, we know that RNA could go back to DNA.
Normally, it goes from DNA to RNA; This may be a bit difficult for a general audience to understand, but it can go in the opposite direction , because we have on our chromosomes, in our genome, genes in our DNA that originate from retroviruses. , of animal origin centuries or millennia ago, and these can encode enzymes that can encode in the reverse direction. So now we know (it is officially published), and now we find, in the human genome, DNA sequences corresponding to the RNA of the virus . That's proof that what I said in an open letter in December [2020], saying it was dangerous to inject these products, has now been confirmed. And all governments continue! For me, it is a big mistake.
Brian Gerrish: And, Anne-Marie, can we ask you the same question? If, in principle, you are not against vaccination, what are we facing?
Anne-Marie Yim: Virology experts who work in the field of vaccines say that it is not a vaccine, because generally when you have a virus, for example, the flu, etc., you take the virus and kill it with formaldehyde. or with ultraviolet light (called virus attenuation), to make it harmless. He then injects it, along with a physiological saline and usually an adjuvant, to boost his immune system. And that's the definition of a vaccine.
And then for the central delivery part of the vaccine, if you like - you can't use different vectors if you want to inject it. But here, clearly, with Pfizer and Moderna and BioNTech and Johnson & Johnson [Janssen], [it's different]: Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech are mRNA vaccines, and AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are viral DNA. Usually [you start with] DNA, and the DNA turns into RNA, and you read the RNA, and that leads the ribosome to protein S [spike protein] .
But here you have a sequence of a gene, and that's the first time this has been done. Clearly, it is genetic material that is injected into your body. And it shouldn't be labeled "vaccine", because that's misleading.
So many scientists say it is a genetic injection. That's why they [prefer] to call it "a jab."
Brian Gerrish: Professor Perronne, what I would like to ask you, and this is for a wider audience, for people who are really trying to get on with their lives and all of a sudden we've had these amazing events, what do you think? is it really happening? What is being done around us regarding Covid-19, pandemic claims, and then the "vaccination" program?
Why have all the special effects appeared when, for many, many years, of course, every winter we have the flu and people die, but certainly these tremendous countermeasures have not been implemented? What do you think is happening around Covid-19 and the “vaccines” program, and why is it happening?
Christian Perronne: I think they should pose this question to politicians, because in the history of infectious disease medicine, it has never happened that a state or politicians recommend the systematic vaccination of billions of people on the planet for a disease. whose death rate now. it is 0.05% . That is a very low death rate! And they are making everyone fear that there is a new so-called "Delta variant" coming from India, but in fact all these variants are less and less virulent , and now we know that [with] this so-called "vaccine", in the population that is inoculates in general, it is in these people where the variants arise.
So I don't understand why politicians and different authorities in different countries ask for massive inoculations while the disease is so mild. And we know that more than 90% of the cases are very old people . And we can treat them : we have treatments. There are hundreds of posts showing that early treatments work - there is hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, zinc, vitamin D, etc. It works! There are posts!
So all these products, the so-called "vaccines", are useless, because we can perfectly control an epidemic . And the best example is in India: there are a billion and a half people, with many different states. In the states where they treated people with ivermectin, zinc, doxycycline, and vitamin D, the epidemic [stayed] at a very low rate: it ended [soon]. But in the states where they banned these treatments with antibiotics and antivirals that act on the virus, and [where] they promoted the “vaccine” and also promoted Remdesivir (coming from France and Belgium, because Remdesivir was so toxic and not effective: The French and Belgians sent planes loaded with Remdesivir to the Indians!), In these areas of India where they used “vaccines” and Remdesivir, the epidemic returned, with new cases of mortality. That is proof that if it is treated in time, it can be successful and the epidemic will end very quickly .
In all the countries with massive inoculation of these products (I don't like the term “vaccination”), we see that there is a recurrence of the epidemic, with new cases of death.
Mike Robinson: Professor Perronne, I'd like to dive into hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in a little more detail in a minute, but before we get there, you said something in your last comment that only raises a question. Is there currently a pandemic? What you said suggests there isn't. Was there ever a pandemic?
But, on top of that, regarding the "variants": the mainstream media and politicians are pushing, on the usual Sunday morning political programs, once again with much force than the "Delta variant" and the "later variants" that are to come are going to have an extremely negative impact on anyone who is not vaccinated at this time. They say that this coming winter, the "vaccinated" are going to be fine in general, but the unvaccinated are going to have a very bad time.
So is there a pandemic, was there ever a pandemic, but on top of that, should the unvaccinated be afraid of the current "variants" that exist and the "variants" to come?
Christian Perronne: Exactly the other way around! The people vaccinated are at risk of new variants. In transmission, it has now been shown in several countries that vaccinated people must be quarantined and isolated from society. Unvaccinated people are not dangerous; vaccinated people are dangerous to others. That has been proven in Israel now, where I am in contact with many doctors. Now they are having big problems in Israel: severe cases in hospitals are among those vaccinated. And in the UK too, you had a more extensive vaccination program and there are also problems.
But also, the "variants" are not very dangerous . All the "variants" since last year are less and less virulent. That is always the story of infectious diseases. In my hospital, in March-April 2020, the whole building was full of people with Covid-19: fifty patients. And the so-called "second", "third", "fourth wave" were very small waves, because the hospitals are no longer full . But in the media, they said that all hospitals were full of patients. That is not true. Of course, the epidemic continued, but the "variants" were becoming less virulent.
You know, in August 2020, they said, “The 'Spanish variant' will kill all of Europe!” But in the end, there was no real problem.
After that, they said, "The British variant!", And after that, "The New Zealand variant!", And "The American variant!", And "The South African variant!", And so on. . All of that is just media stuff. It is not scientifically. The "Delta variant" is very low virulence. If you look at the official rates of the disease and death in Brazil and India, which were the last two countries in the world with active transmission of the disease, all the curves are going down. And now, the epidemic has ended in many countries of the world.
However, there are now governments that force their citizens to get vaccinated with these so-called “vaccines”, and in the countries where they did, once the epidemic [already] ended, the epidemic returned and the deaths began again.
In Vietnam, for example, it was a staggering success, they only had a few dozen deaths for over a year, [the epidemic] ended, and then one of the ministers said, "We have to vaccinate the entire population!" Now it is almost mandatory, and after the start of this vaccination campaign, the epidemic returned and fatal cases occurred again . This is proof that these inoculations are not a vaccine, but they can facilitate the recurrence of the disease and also of the deaths.
Mike Robinson: And in fact, that's exactly what we saw in the UK, because in October-November [2020], we saw a new wave coming, which seemed to stabilize and even fall again. As soon as the “vaccination” program started around December 8, it peaked (in mid-January, we had a pretty high peak) and then in February and March that peak dropped very steeply. The graph was very similar to what happened in 2020. And what happened in 2021 has been, according to politicians, "due to vaccination." There seems to be no consideration in this of what normally happens in a respiratory flu year.
So could you say something about that, and also if the lockdown and “vaccinations” policy was the correct one, or if herd immunity, as originally discussed, would have been a better way to go ahead with this?
Christian Perronne: With regard to the confinement, we now have proof, compared to many countries in the world, that the confinement was completely useless , because the countries with the strictest policies of restricting civil liberties, etc., like France, France is a champion of the suppression of freedoms today it has the worst results in the world.
By the end of June 2020, we [were] able to analyze fatality. Case fatality is the death rate of diagnosed cases. Maybe we could speak third [as a third factor in the equation] about PCR tests (PCR tests are not very reliable) but at that time, PCR tests were not available and the diagnosis was based on the doctor, on a CT scan of the chest and so on, and it was a good, reliable diagnosis.
France was the worst country in the world. Yemen was a little worse than France, but Yemen is a country at war, with destruction of the health system, where hospitals have been destroyed. And imagine that France, which was rated ten years ago by the WHO as the best system in the world, had the worst mortality and fatality results in the world!
We can't really trust the statistics of many countries, because with PCR tests, which amplify the RNA of the virus when you have small fragments of this swab that you put in your nose, the PCR tests are much more amplified, and so we have many. , many false positive results.
Now, from August 2020 [until] now, most of the so-called “positive cases” are false positive cases. So they invented the so-called "second wave", "third wave". Of course, the epidemic was not over; there were also new cases, and unfortunately people who died. I agree with that. But now, the numbers are not reliable.
Anne-Marie Yim: I agree, because the PCR test was performed by a scientist whose name was [Christian] Drosten, and it has been shown that with an amplification limit greater than 25 [cycles], if it is exceeded 45 or 50 [cycles], as some labs are doing, you will get 97% false positives and only 3% true positives. So these tests are very unreliable.
That is why a doctor, Dr. Hérault [name as heard] , proposed, instead of doing a PCR test, to do serological tests , which means that the plasma is entered and the dose of antibodies is [measured] deadly targeting the Covid virus. This is much more reliable. If the [required] dose is high, it means that you are protected and do not need vaccinations. That is what we have to tell people: that they are protected.
And, like I said, the wife of [Professor] Adrian [VS] Hill, who is the scientist who invented the AstraZeneca vaccine, said that we cannot achieve herd immunity through vaccination.
As I think the WHO said, herd immunity should be achieved when 80% of the population has been vaccinated, but that is just a legal definition and has no scientific basis. Therefore, it should be considered null and void. It should not apply. You can't apply that, because group immunity is the field of [Professor] Dolores Cahill , an immunologist, so she's an expert on that, and she said once you've got infected with it and don't die, [ that's to say] he's recovered, his innate immune system [starts] building antibodies for life . Your B lymphocytes, located in the bone marrow, accumulate antibodies.
There is a recent study that has been presented by a Thai doctor in Germany, Dr. Sucharit [Bhakdi]. He has been presenting some results saying that they have been measuring the level of antibodies in people who have had the first and second injections. What they found is that immunoglobulin M is not detected, but immunoglobulin G and A, which means that it is the long-term antibodies that show up.
If this is the first time your body has seen a virus, your body will make immunoglobulin M, which is the first response. But if the antibody knows the virus and your body has memorized it and recognizes it, then it secretes immunoglobulin G and A. And that's what happens after the first injection and after the second injection. This shows that we have already achieved herd immunity.
Christian Perronne: Just one comment to complete what Anne-Marie said: we should already have reliable serological tests. Serology is where you take a blood sample and look for the antibodies your body has made against a virus, if you had the illness weeks or months before. The problem is that no laboratory in the world has developed a reliable serological test. That's terrible.
French physician David Mendels has published on this comparing various serological tests (around twelve; I can't remember the exact number) from China, Germany, France and other countries. All were evaluated by the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. Most of these tests were ** t bulls. They could not correctly identify the amount of antibodies.
I think that's terrible, because I think that the scientific community, [due to] some conflicts of interest, did not want to develop reliable serological tests , because if we had, today we could see that the majority of the British, French, German population and Spanish is now immunized.
But if they proved it, it would be a big problem for the commercialization by the drug companies, because they could not enforce the vaccination policy, because I think that most of the people in Europe and other countries in the world are already immunized. There is herd immunity.
So they did everything they could to not have reliable serological tests, and to me, that's a big scandal.
Anne-Marie Yim: This is sabotage.
Christian Perronne: Sabotage, yes.
Brian Gerrish: Anne-Marie, I would like to actually ask you the same question that I asked Professor Perronne just now, which is the question of what is happening. His answer to me was that he would do better to ask politicians, and I understand their answer, because we are in very strange times. We have what I am going to call a medical-scientific policy that is being forced into action in the UK, France and other countries. This is being driven by politicians. There is very little scientific debate about what is happening, and people who challenge political policies, like Professor Perronne, find themselves censored or silenced, or lose their jobs.
So my question to you is, what do you think is happening? What is Covid-19 and why do we face the vaccine policies and restrictions that we are?
Anne-Marie Yim: Everyone has reported that during the last year, and the first lockdown in March 2020, all doctors, such as general practitioners [family practitioners], had received a protocol, such as Dr. Hawk ( e) s [name as ear] , or even Dr. Perronne, or Dr. Francis Christian in [Saskatoon,] Canada.
Basically, they have been reporting the same thing: that they were ignored by the political protocol that was put in place to detect and treat the disease at an early stage, meaning that people who were sick with the flu from day one to day 5, with symptoms such as coughing or loss of smell, inability to swallow, etc., were sent to a center, especially in Luxembourg.
The general practitioners were ordered to close their practice. Like Dr. [Benoît] Ochs [in Luxembourg], they closed their practice. They had to work in military centers for 48 to 72 hours, where they did not have the right to treat patients but to prescribe an order for [patients] to be tested to see if they were positive. And then if they were [positive] they would send them back home with a box of paracetamol or Doliprane [French trade name for paracetamol] or whatever.
And they were waiting for complications to occur, until day 12, as the patient could no longer breathe, he had difficulty breathing. And when he had difficulty breathing, he would dial 112 [emergency], and then they would send an ambulance and take him to the ICU, the emergency [treatment room], to have an induced coma and they would intubate him and give him oxygenation. . . And they were forbidden to take heparin, which is an anti-inflammatory drug, and aspirin, which is a blood thinner.
And therefore, when they were forbidden to take [an unclear word; possibly 'hydroxychloroquine'] , there were complications and people would have a stroke. Their lungs were failing, so they [had] a cytokine storm, an inflammation process, and they would have water in their alveoli [lung], and then they would lose 40% to 60% of their lung [capacity], and they couldn't breathe. And the oxygen-CO2 exchange wouldn't work, so they basically didn't have oxygen [to get] to the brain or other organs, so they would have complications like tissue necrosis.
And [then] they would get a bacterial infection, and then sepsis, and they would die. Therefore, they would only have around a 50% chance of recovery.
So now, everyone agrees that it was a huge political mistake and that this protocol is total negligence. Doctors must treat patients at an early stage and not let the disease progress so that people die. [Refusing to treat] is called lack of assistance à personnes en danger ["not helping those in danger" in the French penal code], so it is a doctor's duty not to let people die . The Hippocratic Oath says primum non nocere , which means "First, do no harm." So you must not harm patients, and here, clearly, we are harming patients.
Doctors in France are [being ridiculed] by people as "four-D doctors." The four Ds stand for Doliprane [paracetamol], domicile ["send home"], dodo , which means "to sleep", and finally décès , "death". That is totally wrong. And now all the scientists have been doing scientific research and found that acetaminophen actually triggers a cytokine storm, resulting in organ failure.
They discovered that paracetamol is capable of inducing oxidative stress , which is when a superoxide is formed (when you are deoxygenated, a molecule called oxygenase is formed, which has great oxidative power). Acetaminophen can block an enzyme called glutathione reductase.
Consequently, the body cannot break down these reactive oxidative species (ROS) into water and oxygen. What this means, to be clear, is that acetaminophen blocks the body's mechanism to reduce ROS, resulting in apoptosis, the death of cells. That is what it means.
So now we know that acetaminophen is wrong [as a treatment here].
Mike Robinson: It's very interesting that you say that, Anne-Marie, because if I think about March, April and May 2020, in the British media, it was ibuprofen that was being demonized as being "dangerous", which was pushing the people to acetaminophen . So is ibuprofen dangerous in the same way?
Anne-Marie Yim: That's what people have been reporting, but actually, the disease involves different stages and triggers some molecular pathways, so you can't give [the same] drug at a different time and in a different dose. different.
A very simple example: if you give 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine over five days, [within the post-infection range of the patient] from day 5 to day 12, you can kill or eliminate the virus. When the viral load is almost zero, it gets rid of the virus. But if you give, for example, 2 mg of hydroxychloroquine in ICU in an induced coma, you can have heart attack problems and it can result in death. That is what they have been trying to show with RECOVERY Trial . They're trying to say, “Look, hydroxychloroquine doesn't work! It kills patients if given at a late stage. " Of course, [you should] treat it at an early stage !
The same applies to ibuprofen. Apparently they said that ibuprofen should not be given, but Dr. Ochs has found interesting results: that people who have been vaccinated have a very high level of D-dimers [ proteins in blood tests that indicate a clotting process ], and many doctors have reported blood clots with AstraZeneca.
But those blood clots are very rare. They are not the result of the normal thrombosis process, with all the cascades in which fibrinogen is being transformed, triggered by thrombin, into fibrin, and you have it in combination with platelets, and then you have clots. [Rather,] here with Covid-19, you have thrombocytopenia, which means very low platelets.
So basically it's clotting, but that's not induced by fibrin platelet formation as expected. Rather, it is induced by another process, by leukocytes that act with a protein found on the surface of the endothelial cells of the arteries called E-selectin. So, it is the interactions of E-selectin with leukocytes that form these clots.
For example, Professor Dr. Ochs prescribes vitamin C and ibuprofen to those vaccinated who have a high level of D-dimers, a normal leukocyte level with a high level of C-reactive protein (CRP), which is an indicator of inflammation processes. , and a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia).
This is very important, because some doctors have found that if you let the disease progress, some people will have clots forming in the occipital lobe, which is the back of the brain, and if you give too much heparin or too much aspirin [to them], you will dissolve clots. But then if it drops below a certain level, if [the clots] get too released, you start bleeding, because you don't have enough platelets.
So it is a very, very difficult symptom and a complex disease that evolves. And you have to administer a certain drug at a certain time and in a certain dose. The same drug can save lives or kill. So ibuprofen, for example, is given when there is a high level of D-dimers, a normal level of leukocytes, a high level of CRP, and a low level of platelets. Under those conditions, you can give vitamin C and ibuprofen and patients recover: D-dimers return to normal and clots disappear.
Ibuprofen is a clot-dissolving treatment, but it must be given with all settings [in place], if desired.
That was a very complex answer, because it is actually a very complex disease.
Mike Robinson: Thank you. You mentioned the RECOVERY test . I would like to ask Professor Perronne about that trial in the UK. Professor [microbiologist] Didier Raoult was quoted as saying they were "the Marx brothers doing science."
The RECOVERY trial in the UK deliberately looked like an overdose, if not too strong a word, to the people who participated in the trial. I think they were using a starting dose of 2400mg [hydroxychloroquine] and it was followed up for the next ten days with a maximum dose of 800mg per day . So I was wondering if you agree with Professor Raoult on this and if you are concerned about the announcement that the UK may be about to conduct a similar trial with ivermectin.
Christian Perronne: I was surprised by the design of the RECOVERY trial, because on the first day I think they used more than four or five times the maximum authorized dose of hydroxychloroquine from the European Medicines Agency. We know that hydroxychloroquine can be a complement to suicide if you take a very high dose. And we see that in the RECOVERY trial, the mortality rate was high, much higher than in other trials.
So they changed the evaluation criteria and we can't access the original database [stating] at what point in the therapeutic course the participants died. Maybe they made that information disappear.
I think we had an excess mortality problem in this trial due to completely stupid very high doses of hydroxychloroquine . And when a French journalist asked the professor at, I think, Oxford University, whose name I don't remember [ Martin Landray ] , who was in charge of the trial , “Why did you use this high and toxic dose of hydroxychloroquine? "He replied," Oh yes, it is the usual dose to treat amoebic dysentery . "I was very surprised, because hydroxychloroquine is not the [usual] treatment for amoebic dysentery.
So this guy was probably an epidemiologist; I don't know exactly his CV [NB: Landray is an epidemiologist], but I saw that he did not understand anything about infectious diseases, about anti-infective drugs and [still] he was the leader of an international trial. International, because French scientists also participated in that trial.
So, for me, it was such a terrible thing. He could not imagine that experts could do this type of test, and he could not imagine that ethics committees could authorize this type of test, with doses that were very dangerous.
Mike Robinson: Yes, that was Professor Landray. In closing, are you concerned that the ivermectin trial that the UK government has announced could go in the same direction?
Christian Perronne: Ivermectin is a very good product, but ivermectin has not been proven [to the satisfaction of the WHO] to work. [For hydroxychloroquine,] we've had a lot of published studies, including randomized studies, because very often last year, when experts said that hydroxychloroquine worked very well, there were randomized studies in China that showed that it worked well, but after that , Didier Raoult's studies in Marseille were not randomized; they were open evaluations. So yeah, [ivermectin] works great, but it hasn't been tested: there was no placebo and it wasn't randomized.
But I agree that when you are over 80%, sometimes 90% successful, you don't need a placebo. That is a completely stupid idea. Even the WHO published recommendations several years ago that it is not necessary to have a placebo [test] in a crisis situation when you have non-toxic drugs that work. It's a completely stupid idea [that placebo testing is essential], coming from scientists who are no longer scientists. They are charlatans , I don't know what.
So for hydroxychloroquine I agree, but unfortunately there are not many randomized studies. However, for ivermectin, they were not randomized studies, and it has now been proven. And now in India it is spectacular. In the states of India where they used ivermectin extensively, the success was enormous, and in the states of India where they did not use ivermectin but were inoculating this so-called “vaccine”, it was a catastrophe.
If you look at the world news, there is a woman [Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, as reported by UK Column News from 1hr17 'on June 30, 2021] that she was at a high level at the WHO [Chief Scientist] who is Indian, and is now on trial [UK column note : has been charged ] in India because she said ivermectin was not helpful and was toxic, and so on.
To think that ivermectin is toxic is completely stupid : hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people in the world have taken ivermectin for [parasitic] diseases, [lymphatic] filariasis, etc. So it is a well-known product. It does not work; it is fully tested.
But the problem with all the drug [regulatory] agencies in the world - the FDA in the United States, the European Medical Agency, the French drug agency - they all say “No, hydroxychloroquine doesn't work; azithromycin does not work; Ivermectin doesn't work, ”despite many, many published proofs that they work. Because if they recognize that they work, it is impossible for them to market their so-called “vaccines”. That is the only reason; it is a marketing reason.
For me, it's terrible, and I think all these people should one day have to give an account of why they made these decisions, which are completely contrary to any ethical basis.
Anne-Marie Yim: I totally agree. Professor Perronne was speaking of Professor Didier Raoult from the Marseille hospital. He is the first infectious disease specialist to cure people [of Covid-19] in France with a protocol of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and, later, zinc. But at first, there was a lot of controversy because he had been curing people without random blind testing [as a basis]. That is [the requirement for] a protocol that pharmaceutical companies have developed when they have a candidate drug in the pipeline: first they test it on animals and then if it works, it goes to Phase I, and then they can progress to Phases II, III and IV, before they obtain ANM, authorization to commercialize the drug.
The point is, when it's being tested, they give it to doctors, and the doctor first chooses a population of about fifty people, then a hundred, then three thousand, and so on. Half of them receive a placebo (that is, only a normal saline solution) and the other half receive the active agent, the drug. And then they compare [to see] if there is a result or not. And that's what randomized, blinded trials mean: "blind" because the doctor doesn't know which patients get the placebo and which group of patients get the actual drug.
So the reason it was so controversial was because Professor Raoult had done his study with, I think, only twenty people or less, and he didn't do the placebo test, which means he treated all of his patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. , and recovered 100%. They said, "Your trial is invalid because you didn't have a control group" (ie, the placebo group). "You should have given twenty other people the saline." And he said: “When I have sick and dying people, I don't play with their lives. He had a duty to treat them. That's why I didn't do a placebo test. "
And all the doctors supported him, especially the Chinese community and the African community [in France] in training for the doctorate. (He was born in Senegal, so he has a strong connection with doctors and researchers in Africa.) They were all behind him. They said, “Who cares about a placebo test? It is valid!"
And then he remade a trial with 3,000 people, because they had said, "Your results are invalid because you didn't have a placebo control group and the cohort, that is, the [number of] people tested, was too small to be meaningful." . ; you should do it with at least 3,000 people; that's when [you can] move on to Phase II. "All these protocols have been established by pharmaceutical companies [for] when they seek authorization from health agencies to market the drug.
Mike Robinson: It's kind of ironic, then, that all the vaccine manufacturers got rid of their placebo groups, giving the vaccine to their groups!
Anne-Marie Yim: Yes, they were always testing their medications with placebos. They choose men, women, a variety of ages, so that they have a [representative] group, and they observe if [the participants] only have Covid or if they have Covid with comorbidities, that is, for example, a weak heart group or type diabetes II. So they look at people a lot [to participate in trials]: their gender, age, if they have any diseases, if they [only] have Covid or if they have Covid plus anything else. And then they will divide the group in two, to have the same [distribution of] people in each group.
For example, if they have a woman in her thirties [in the active drug group], they should have a woman in her thirties [in the placebo group], and so on: with Covid, or with Covid and diabetes, or with Covid and heart failure, or no Covid, [all agree]. And they keep these two populations the same between the group that receives the placebo and the group that receives the drug, in this case, ivermectin.
Christian Perronne: For me, the big scandal [is that] all these experts said that it is not normal that some studies did not have a randomized control group and so on, but [actually] in France, the government sponsored two large trials : a discovery trial that was called “international” , “European”, but [in which] there were actually only a few people included outside of France; and [secondly] the iCovid study [as heard] .
And there was a study that compared different strategies: Remdesivir, Retrovir (which is an anti-inflammatory drug against HIV), and I don't remember all the branches of the study, all the groups. There was also a hydroxychloroquine group, and the iCovid study included [a group treated with] hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.
When the fraudulent study was published in The Lancet , they said that hydroxychloroquine was "dangerous" or "not effective." Two days later, the Minister of Health prohibited the continuation of the hydroxychloroquine groups in the official randomized trials [in France]. He was immediately arrested.
But in fact, some slides from the interim analysis of these two studies were leaked on the internet, and we could clearly see that when the Minister said “Stop hydroxychloroquine!”, The only group that had a lower kill efficiency was the group that used either hydroxychloroquine in the DisCoVeRy study or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin in the iCovid study.
It was not statistically significant yet, because since DisCoVeRy, it was planned to have 1,500 patients [treated with that protocol] but in fact they only had three thousand [presumably Professor Perronne meant 'three hundred'] , and for iCovid it was the same.
So it wasn't completely significant, but when you look at the curves, it was spectacular : [deaths] with hydroxychloroquine were much lower .
And then the experts responsible for these studies didn't show these slides; of course I got the slides in another way. They said, "Oh no, hydroxychloroquine is out!" But in fact, that was not [seen] at all in our studies, but it was a huge public lie from scientific experts.
And sadly, two weeks later [it became clear that] the Lancet study was fraudulent, but the minister never changed his policy; continued to ban hydroxychloroquine. And now, we have people who say that I am not a scientist. They are unscientific. They are the charlatans. They don't depend on good science.
And I am deeply appalled by all these so-called "experts" who are advisers to our authorities, who are on television every day, and most of them have huge conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical companies that make Remdesivir, who also make the " Vaccine "and so on. It is a great scandal.
I think all these types of the media should be fired, if we want to follow French law, and also [those] in other European countries should be fired from official committees. They should no longer be advisers.
They should not be group chairs. I was president of the Higher Council of Public Health for Infectious Diseases for fifteen years, so I know everything; I know the whole system. For me it is a great scandal.
Anne-Marie Yim: Yes, it is corruption, it is corruption. Basically, they lie and dismiss good scientists like Professor Perronne or Professor Raoult, and try to publicly discredit them. And we know that Remdesivir improves the inflammatory process and it doesn't work at all compared to hydroxychloroquine.
So they are trying to block studies, as Professor Perronne says; trying to lie to the general public, saying that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and Remdesivir does. The same goes for ivermectin - they are trying to do these studies, but then they are misleading the results.
It is shameful. It is a scandal. Scientifically it is a fraud and politically it is a crime. The Indian Bar Association is suing the [WHO India] chief scientist for all the policy that is being pursued, which has resulted in more than three million deaths worldwide.
Brian Gerrish: I think we would absolutely agree: we are dealing with charlatans. We are looking at politicians, and also at members of health organizations, who say they are there to protect the public, but the reality is that they are not protecting the public; they are allowing the public to be harmed as a result of these so-called "vaccines."
Can I go back to Professor Perronne and ask for his opinion on adverse reactions to the vaccine? We have now collected a considerable amount of data on adverse reactions, and here in the UK the figures that are compiled by the regulatory authority, the MHRA, now stand at over a million recorded adverse effects, and deaths are around 1,400, so this is significant damage.
Professor Perronne, what do you think of the adverse effects that are occurring at the moment?
Christian Perronne: In the past, with other real vaccines , there were some crises, problems with some side effects; But neither for me nor among friends and family had I seen such serious side effects. I even know of two deaths around me: the mother of a friend and a boy who was a cousin of another friend, who died from the "vaccine."
Speaking personally as a French citizen, I see around me cases of death, cases of paralysis. A woman, a neighbor who was vaccinated, several days later developed malignant arterial hypertension; she had never had hypertension [high blood pressure] in her entire life. Various thromboses, partial paralysis, arthralgic problems [joint pain]; around me, I have seen many cases.
I think the databases [of adverse effects] in some countries are not accurate, because in these cases that I was able to see, I know that the general practitioners [family doctors] did not want to report the death or the side effect to the authorities, saying : "No, it's just a coincidence!"
Therefore, many, many side effects are not reported. If there's a stroke, they say, “Oh no, it's not the vaccine; it's [just] a stroke; this person was older, so it's normal to have a stroke. "
Because I talk to my patients (I have some patients who are directors of high-level companies), I know, they tell me, that doctors in large companies where many employees were “vaccinated” (I don't like to use this term “vaccinated”) [ they saw that] they had problems, but the occupational health doctors did not want to report the cases to the French authority. So it is not connected with the "vaccine"; is [being listed as] "coincidence".
If we compare the French database with the Dutch one, with the same proportion of vaccinated patients [in both populations], the notification rate is much lower in France [as reported by UK Column News as of 22:50 on June 30 2021] . That's not normal! But if we look at the European level, we see that there are a large number of deaths and serious side effects.
We know, it is officially recognized by the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control of the United States, that many young people who are "vaccinated" (let's say "inoculated") have had heart problems: myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle or pericarditis, inflammation of the wrapping around the heart. So that's official ; it is reported all over the world.
And if we look at the mortality rate comparison in others, we find that in vaccinated children, it could be close. As we know, children do not develop [Covid-19] disease at a high rate, and very few children have had severe cases, and the death rate from [Covid] in children is close to zero. We now know that the risk of death and serious problems is much higher if you are vaccinated than not vaccinated [as a child].
And now, we see in some countries that most of the problems, of the cases, come from vaccinated people , who are transmitting the disease. And of course, this is not an official language, but in France the government lies : they say: "Although we have seen some cases, it is the fault of the unvaccinated for contaminating the vaccinated."
I am a member of the Louis Pasteur Institute; I have worked in the field of vaccination for years and years. This is the first time in my life that I have heard from companies, manufacturers, ministers, the WHO [that talk]: “It is a very good vaccine, but we have to tell you that if you are vaccinated, you can get the disease anyway! And we're not sure, but it can slow down the transmission. "
This is not normal. If you are vaccinated with an effective vaccine, you are protected . You should no longer have to wear a mask; you should have a normal life. But in fact, in many countries, they say, "Oh, you have been vaccinated, but you are not really protected." And now they tell the vaccinated, that they are supposed to be protected, that they should be confident! - Oh, the unvaccinated will contaminate them!
Now, as for the "health passport": you know they published [this proposal] five weeks ago in Israel, and they were close to civil war in Israel. They were fighting within families. The "vaccine" was mandatory for doctors, for students. And now, they have stopped that [requirement].
In France now, President Macron will speak tomorrow night [ July 12 ], and he is expected to say [ as he duly did ] that vaccination will be mandatory for healthcare workers, healthcare providers and to participate in some [aspects of] public life. I think it is a big scandal and I think there will be a civil war if we continue down this path.
Brian Gerrish: Anne-Marie, could I ask you the same question about adverse reactions to vaccines? We are looking at the figures collected here in the UK; We know that the MHRA says [that] perhaps only 10% of the most serious reactions are [ever] recorded, and the MHRA also says that perhaps only 2% to 4% of the mildest adverse reactions are recorded.
Therefore, there is insufficient recording of serious reactions, and yet the public is constantly being told that they are safe. What do you think is the main reason for such a large increase in adverse reactions to the “vaccine”?
Anne-Marie Yim: As you say, the official death toll from "vaccinations" is around 15,000 [across Europe]. It was 14,000, but it has been increasing, and now we have officially 15,000 deaths [registered in] the Pharmacovigilance Network [Eudravigilance] . And in fact, it is not reported. People say 10%; in France, sometimes even 5%. So I should multiply this number by [up to] one hundred, yes.
First, why are they not being reported? Because it has to be done by a doctor: for example, when you get vaccinated and you experience adverse reactions, you have to go see a doctor, your MD, and you have to tell them, and then you are supposed to submit a form. online, and it takes fifteen minutes, and connects to a network.
For example, in Luxembourg, we have to send it to the Nancy group [eastern France], because we work with the Région du Grand Est [French]. That's the reason the numbers are lower [than reality], they are not well reported: whether it's the CDC or VAERS, all those official sites are reporting blood clots with AstraZeneca, and with Pfizer you have Bell's palsy.
As Professor Perronne says, you can have myocarditis, especially among young people. That's what Dr. Hervé Seligmann said [ Part 1 | UK Column Interview Part 2 ] : In Israel, they have seen young people get myocarditis, especially men under 45. As Professor Perronne says, there is a correlation [between age and mortality from Covid vaccine]: many old people are dying and not the young.
Why? Because [young people] have a high level of glutathione, so they are not dying; they are protected, compared to vaccination-induced oxidative stress [in the elderly].
I want to emphasize that although I know we are not talking about treatments, it is very important [to point out] that people who receive intravenous glutathione injections recover very well , because this frees them from the effects induced by oxidative stress.
Secondary adverse [reactions] are basically a cytokine storm, leading to organ failure. And it can be the heart, the brain, the lung, or the kidney. You can have the process [in any of those organs]. Lung disease evolves very quickly, and when it develops to a certain stage, you have this process of inflammation and these clots that then go everywhere, to your organs.
If they get into your brain, you have [a thrombosis]; If it goes into your heart, of course, and you have this whole process of inflammation, this leakage of water into the organ, then the organ stops working.
Basically, they are shutting you down; its vital functions are shutting down. And it can be very abrupt and brutal, and anything can happen in 24 hours.
And now, people have been discovering that this graphene oxide exists: a Spanish team has reported that this graphene oxide [enters] the brain, that it is also causing Guillain-Barré syndrome, and that it is consuming myelin, [ the coating] on the nerves.
People have also reported allergic reactions, such as anaphylactic shock, and sometimes skin bleeding as well.
These are very serious adverse reactions, yet the media continues to tell us: "The vaccine is safe, effective, and the benefits far outweigh the risks, so we must continue to vaccinate people."
I think this is all propaganda. The reality is that the vaccine does not work. It kills in 42% of these cases, but if you bring it to a random population, that means it kills all the time, it kills 100% of the time. It basically triggers the aging process and cancer, and this is just the beginning. I think this is [only] the beginning of what we are going to see.
They are lying to us. They say it is safe; no, it's not safe, it kills people. Kill people. It does not protect against variants; does not protect against transmissibility; it does not protect against disease.
Then, ¿ for what we're having? People who are taking the “vaccine” say, “Oh, it's because I want to travel. I want to go on vacations. I want to go to school. I want to be able to take my exam. I want to be able to go to the restaurant. I want to be able to have a normal life ”. That's basically what people say.
One of the main [phenomena] reported is the magnetic test at the vaccination site: it sticks. People have been measuring them and there is an electromagnetic field designed .
People have been researching this and have discovered that there is a lipid nanoparticle that is being made by this company called Acuitas Therapeutics [from Canada], which is supplied to Pfizer / BioNTech [and] Moderna.
[The lipid nanoparticles used to deliver Covid-19 vaccines] have three components: basically, first, phospholipids (a fat), binase [as heard] , but it also contains ferrous oxide and polyethylene glycol . [Ferrous oxide] is inserted [as heard] with polyethylene glycol into the phospholipid layer. And that [including ferrous oxide] goes into your brain. It can cross the blood-brain barrier. Normally, it shouldn't, but it can happen to your brain.
And there is also this graphene oxide. Basically, everything about this injection is poisonous : not just this messenger RNA and these spike proteins, which cause inflammation and can be integrated into [your] DNA, but also graphene oxide. Clearly, from all points of view, this is poison.
Brian Gerrish: Thank you very much for explaining a topic that is very difficult for many people to hear, but we have to be realistic about the concerns about what is happening.
I'd like to go back to Professor Perronne. Just one last question, as you have covered a lot of ground. Professor, I would like to ask you: if you were in control right now, if you had power in France, what would you do to resolve the situation you see?
Christian Perronne: First of all, I would stop the so-called "vaccination" campaign . I would promote early treatment with ivermectin, zinc, vitamin C, and doxycycline or azithromycin to general practitioners.
Also recommend the strict isolation of the patients symptomatic , because that is the way to control the transmission: only two weeks of isolation are sufficient during the contagious period of symptomatic people, but strictly isolated, with a mask if necessary and so successively. Treat them very early. And if it does, it quickly ends [the broadcast].
I am in favor of the strict isolation of symptomatic patients, but the blockages that were ingrained in many, many countries of the world are completely stupid. An epidemic does not stop with a confinement, with masks on the street! That was shown in Denmark , with randomized studies with people wearing and not wearing masks. The mask is not effective.
So he would immediately restore all civil liberties , because now France is no longer a democracy; it is like a dictatorship, with only five or six people around the table now able to bypass Parliament and say "vaccination is mandatory" and so on.
So restore freedom; restore democracy; stop these futile "vaccination" campaigns for a disease with a very, very low mortality rate; and immediately treat patients without confirmation [as heard] .
And also, stop PCR testing of the general asymptomatic population. It is completely unscientific. The people who developed the PCR test never, never did large-scale PCR testing of asymptomatic patients, because you get a huge false positive rate.
So it's very simple: you isolate the cases, deal with them, and that's it.
Brian Gerrish: Thank you very much, teacher.
And, Anne-Marie, what would you say to your fellow scientists who right now don't seem to see the dangers that you see?
Anne-Marie Yim: I think everyone sees it, but they are afraid.
There are two kinds of scientists : those who [participate in] bribery and those who are corrupted, with Dr. Fauci and everyone else, with Bill Gates and all those people. They are in the booth right now.
Good professors, like Professor Perronne and Professor Raoult, or Dr. Ochs, are being sued and taken to court by the [profession] of medicine itself. The Medical Council is suing French doctors, and the same is happening in France, in Canada, in Luxembourg; we see the same pattern everywhere. It is a pattern that we are seeing here.
You know, we have to have the courage to go to these people and say, “You are damaged. All the policies you are enforcing are nonsense. It has no scientific basis; it has no legal basis. You are trying to take away our freedoms. You are exerting social pressure on us: if you don't get vaccinated, you will lose your job. And if you want to travel, you need the vaccine. This is blackmail. "
All scientists should have the courage to say, "Enough is enough." Not just scientists; lawyers too. Everyone knows the truth. All the world knows the truth; it's just a question of whether or not we fight. Do we adjust to society, to the system or not? And I think our thirst for freedom and freedom should overcome our fear, and we should just say, “Stop. Stop this vaccination campaign. Stop and stop now. "
Brian Gerrish: Thank you very much for joining us. It has been truly fantastic to hear the information you have relayed on this very important topic.
We hope that by spreading this material, others will begin to realize the dangers of the “vaccine” program.
Therefore, Professor Perronne and Anne-Marie Yim, we sincerely hope that your information will help many in our audience and beyond to understand what is happening and to be a part of how to end it.
