So far, I have always been interested in health and how to be healthy.
I did not deal with diseases, drugs and medicine
it's not my job, I'm not competent nor interested in it.
For me, it's health first ...
And then, I became a dad a year ago.
It is the most beautiful experience of my life.
like all fathers, I was
confronted with the question of vaccination at one point or another
And frankly, I hear everything and its opposite.
This goes from the classical speech about the obvious
and the absolutely essential and harmless nature of vaccines
up to the most disturbing testimonials,
especially in my environment. I have examples around me.
I realize that in the end,
I do not have the elements to make a choice on vaccination, the famous informed choice.
And for my son, I want the best, the full health.
I do not want to make random choices, and especially not play the Russian roulette ...
We talk about free and informed consent,
so, since nobody seemed to be able to inform me without taking sides,
I started an investigation, I did my own investigation,
with all the energy that is given by the love for my son.
Music: "Shine" by Hicham Chahidi
I wanted finally to know what was the "truth about vaccination".
My opinion does not matter at the end, and neither my choices.
What I want is to give everyone clear, rational information
and based on scientific facts in order to make an informed choice.
I am not "anti-vaccine", I am pro-science, pro-public health,
pro-happy and healthy child,
so I will ask questions and try to answer them!
IMMUNIZATION INVESTIGATION Episode 7: Whooping cough, conflicts of interest, Vaccination policy in France and Vaccination coverage amoung health professionals!
We all want our children to be healthy, right?
I called my friend Alex to film my testimonial about my investigation
and that he can account for the path I had taken
to untie the truth from the false.
This film is the testimonial of this investigation,
it's my way to the truth about vaccination!
A: Good evening!
T: Hi Alex! We meet again !
Today, we have a big piece to deal with. For me, it was almost the last video.
It will not be the last, there is still one left in which we will talk about natural immunity,
and especially the immunity in children.
It will not be a video that will focus on vaccines, but rather on natural immunity.
So, we're going to say, this one is the last of the videos on vaccines.
And we will deal with some topics which will be a bit controversial.
I will try to talk about them in the least controversial way possible,
but it seemed to me necessary to understand also why, in France, we are in a situation that,
according to what I saw, even though I'm not supposed to give my opinion,
seems to me really complicated and dangerous.
And I have to say, I checked this afternoon, you were absolutely right
the vaccination policy of France, which was an exception in Europe,
since most countries did abandon the vaccination obligation,
well, actually, this vaccination policy will be now extended.
A: To all Europe ...
T: To all Europe. Due to a European decision.
Let's say that when I was studying at the university, I was taught something called the scientific method.
The scientific method consists of asking a question, going to the end of this question by experimenting and then
to accept the results of this experiment.
If we ask the question today "are the vaccines harmless? "
I think it's absolutely obvious that the answer is no.
The real question is: how dangerous are they and how risky are they to the population?
I showed you studies that show that there are really very disturbing factors.
And my first reaction would be to say: ooops!
Wait, let's calm down and fund independent studies
which will allow us to know exactly what is the truth about vaccination.
But since we press on the accelerator like crazy persons when it comes to vaccines that have not been tested if they are safe or not,
it forces me to ask questions.
And these questions, we will have some elements of answer them in this video.
We will talk quickly about whooping cough, and we will have fun with a little quiz,
to see if you followed all things during this series. And those who watch the video can have fun too.
And then, we will talk about conflicts of interest,
vaccination policy in France and vaccination coverage of health professionals.
Because there are some very interesting things.
Not to play whistleblower, conspiracy and so on,
but to really answer questions. You'll see, I think I did it pretty well.
Are you ready for this?
A: I do not know! (Laughter)
T: You have no choice! (Laughter)
Your documents, the same, all of what I relied on is available for download below the video.
You can go to see the scientific studies, the documents, we will rely on WHO documents, in particular.
So, they are all there. If they are not directly there, you have the links.
So, afterwards, you can access them and have your opinion,
because, the important thing is not to take my word for it, but rather to say,
OK, that's what he says, let's check, and then see. It's OK ?
Here, look, I made a juice for you. For your immunity.
A: Oh, great! Because it is very hot today!
T: Carrot, ginger, with orange and turmeric.
A: Good!
T: I gave you the little straw, because I'm tired of you being always taller than me.
So, I will take the bigger straw. And you, the little straw! Cheers !
A: Thank you.
T: So, let's start.
There is one last vaccine that I had not talked about, but I wanted to do it like a review of others.
It's whooping cough vaccine.
So whooping cough is a bacterial respiratory infection.
It is said "not or little feverish", that is to say that there is no associated fever.
It affects the entire respiratory system.
There are two bacteria that are of the Bordetella type: Bordetella pertussis and Bordetella parapertussis.
So when we say Bordetella pertussis, it's the bacteria that causes whooping cough.
So, it's an illness that lasts long.
I can tell you from experience: my son had whooping cough.
For 5 months.
A: It's long, and it's very impressive.
T: It's very impressive. It's never too serious.
And besides, I know that when he had whooping cough, most of the elderly people told us:
"No, it is hard, but, rejoice, whooping cough is an illness that makes a kid grow. "
That is to say, he will mature. It is considered by the elderly as a necessary illness
A: An initiation, somehow.
T: Exactly. An initiation. It's really an initiation ... for the people that are around too!
A: Yes, that's it! (Laughter)
T: So, every parent would want his child to avoid it.
I know that, at the time, we tried everything.
I remember that we even did the so called High Flying and Decompression Treatment.
That is, we boarded a small non-pressurized aircraft.
It was a technique that was used; and it goes down from a very high altitude.
This is supposed to allow the elimination of Bordetella pertussis.
It did not work, we had a nice little flight over the Catalan mountain, the children enjoyed.
But hey, it did not go further. But we tried everything: well ... all possible ways.
So I, too, would have wanted to avoid this, because it was hard, and like any other parent, I wanted to avoid that.
There is therefore a vaccine. It was not mandatory, so we did not do it.
I'm going to play a little quiz with you. This vaccine is supposed to deal with a bacterial infection.
What could one imagine, considering what we saw previously,
as a consequence of vaccination against a specific bacterial strain?
A: The fact that we focus on a strain in particular ...
that means the other strains will multiply and become stronger and ... explode somehow.
So, in the end, even create other strains ... something like that ...
T: Yes. First thing. There are 2 things that can be expected. First thing, excellent.
A: The question is: what can we expect from a vaccination ...
T: Yes, exactly.
A: What would be the consequences?
T: You see, I say: well, I am working on whooping cough,
What information should I search from the Internet?
From what I learned previously, what information can I look for?
So, yes, it's good.
We will go to see: did vaccination against Bordetella pertussis led to the appearance of other Bordetella strains?
For example
A: Much stronger ... T: More virulent ... To see a little bit ...
There is another ... I'll allow myself, eh?
A: Go for it.
T: I know the answer.
To look if people who carry the Bordetella pertussis vaccine
are potentially contaminating people who are not vaccinated.
Which means, does the fact that they are vaccinated means that in
their breathing, we will find Bordetella pertussis bacteria?
Let's answer this question?
A: Sure
T: So, first of all: lower immunity.
We had seen that the protection against whooping cough drops ...
So what they call immunity is vaccination immunity, it's the elevation of antibodies, which is not the real immunity. We saw it already.
It drops drastically in 2 to 4 years.
That is to say that one should vaccinate every 4 years, at least, and every 2 years at most,
to be sure to be permanently protected against whooping cough.
Nobody does it. So, most of us are not vaccinated.
It must be clear: most of us are not vaccinated against whooping cough.
So: "The protection against whooping cough decreases after 2 to 4 years.
Lack of long-term protection after vaccination may contribute
to an increase in whooping cough in adolescents. "
So, we have a drop,
and then we have mostly an adaptation of the bacteria, as you presupposed.
"According to mathematical modeling,
vaccines designed to reduce the growth rate of pathogens and / or toxicity
could cause the evolution of pathogens with higher levels of virulence.
So, we assume that the decline in vaccine immunity of whooping cough
and the adaptation of pathogens have contributed to the resurgence of whooping cough. "
Because there has been, indeed, a resurgence of whooping cough.
"There is evidence from prospective epidemiological surveillance
and recent experiments on organisms
that immunization with whooping cough vaccine could actually increase
the probability of infection of the host by Bordetella parapertussis. "
Because, indeed, the vaccine affects Bordetella pertussis.
However, there are 2. So, it increases infections by Bordetella parapertussis.
So, you were correct, huh?
"Bordetella parapertussis infection affects younger children and is more virulent than Bordetella pertussis.
So vaccination increases the susceptibility of children getting Bordetella parapertussis infections"
Besides, that's why we, in our family for example,
when there was whooping cough, I know there are elderly people who told me:
"Well, it's surprising, back in our day, it lasted much less. "
And that one was stronger. It is very impressive and it is very violent.
So, chances are it was Bordetella parapertussis
and the Bordetella parapertussis grew stronger
because we vaccinated against Bordetella pertussis. Always the same.
"Our results suggest that,
besides the potential contribution to reduced efficiency and declining immunity of the vaccine,
the inability of the vaccine to prevent colonization and transmission is a possible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis. "
So, a partial vaccine which makes strain selection,
selecting of course the strongest and, ultimately, we end up with an infection.
"We hypothesized an additional explanation for the resurgence of whooping cough,
that the individuals who took the vaccine can be asymptomatic carriers
or slightly symptomatic, and therefore contribute significantly in the transmission to the population. "
So, we answer the 2nd question:
Can vaccine carriers potentially be infectious in the population?
Answer: yes.
Once again, vaccinated people contribute strongly to the general infection because, once vaccinated, they become carriers
then, they tell you "asymptomatic" or "partially symptomatic", with very few symptoms.
So, they say: they do not have whooping cough.
Yes, but since they have been vaccinated, they have bacterial strains in their breathing ...
if they spit, if they cough, or even they are near someone, they are carriers of these bacteria.
I just wanted to talk a little about meningitis.
I had written some notes on meningitis.
For meningitis ... what did I include for you ...
So, these are bacteria, so we're not going to do it again, huh? You passed your exam.
I wanted to do it twice, but then you passed your exam.
These are bacteria, what can we expect?
One can expect that there is a mutation of the strains, an adaptation of the bacteria.
We can expect to find a factor of spread of the bacterial infection through the vaccinated persons,
by a simple touch, breating or things like that.
"The number of pneumococcal meningitis in babies" ...
So, I quote the conclusions of a study that you have there, and you have several studies
"The number of pneumococcal meningitis in babies" ...
So, pneumococcal meningitis is something that can be fatal, if it is badly treated.
"The number of pneumococcal meningitis in babies has risen in Northern France
during the pneumococcal conjugate vaccination program,
with the emergence of extremely virulent pneumococcal serotypes not included in the vaccine. "
It's interesting, anyway.
"The number of pneumococcal meningitis in babies has risen in Northern France
during the pneumococcal conjugate vaccination program,
with the emergence of extremely virulent pneumococcal serotypes not included in the vaccine. "
That's what makes me say that we should still take the time to think a little bit about what we're doing.
So now, since we're in the last video about vaccination, I'd like to ask a question.
I think we've accumulated a lot of scientific evidence,
A: ... studies, numbers T: rational, objective,
which prove that we have recurrent phenomena with all the vaccines we have studied, which are the main vaccines.
adaptation of strains with greater virulence,
transmission by those who are vaccinated,
disappearance of heterosubtypic immunity
(which means that people are much more sensitive to other bacterial strains),
aluminum toxicity,
mercury toxicity,
toxicity of adjuvants in general, with neurotoxicity, autoimmune reactions and so on.
So, there is a set of factors that seem to me relatively undeniable.
We have countries in Northern Europe that came out of the vaccination obligation.
Now, unfortunately, they're back in.
With all this evidence, How does one not launch a campaign of independent research and reflection?
With such an accumulation, why are we continuing?
Why, in Europe, we support to fully
vaccinate many more children with vaccines that have never been tested for their safety ... the hexavalent vaccines ...?
With alerts in all directions saying:
Be careful, sudden infant death, and so on.
So, I will propose an answer, which I will try to develop.
The goal is not to create controversy, the goal is to really open the eyes,
because it's about children's lives. It's about the health and life of children.
And for me, it's still a question that deserves an answer.
The best answer I found was the conflict of interest.
When I say conflict of interest, it's not about stigmatizing anyone,
to select someone in particular and tell them "big bad guy".
I think there are easy conflicts of interest. We may have a conflict of interest ...
For example, if I'm your friend, and I work with you regularly and so on,
and there is someone who comes to see me and say bad things about Alex.
Well, the fact that I know you, that I spend time with you will result in
what the person will say, I will not listen to it, because I know you.
I do not necessarily have a special interest
it's just the fact that we're constantly together, that's it ...
And that's often what we will see.
I will not only talk about financial conflict of interest.
So the conflict of interest, as we have seen, exists when it comes to drugs.
Wait ... I'm going to restart that ...
The conflict of interest exists. I will not recall the case of the Mediator, for example,
but there are some huge things that happened during the Mediator affair and that was known.
Recently, I had another one that I mentioned,
it was Michel Aubier, who is a famous pulmonologist, who was paid by the Total firm,
it is known, he said it himself.
On TV, he minimized the effects of air pollution by hydrocarbons. He said :
"I do not think, and most experts agree ..."
of course, with no evidence
"... that being exposed to environmental pollution, in cities like Paris, predisposes to lung cancer,
unless if we have another factor that favors it, such as smoking. "
And it was so big, that there are some of his colleagues who ...
A: That's what I was going to say ... I heard that other colleagues ...
T: Oh yes, the guys were furious.
They said, "No, but wait, seriously, we're doctors too, we can not let you do something like that. "
They quoted: "Recent studies have confirmed the conclusions of WHO.
They also showed that the risk of lung cancer was increased with exposure levels, even below European standards.
So even at low concentrations, fine particles are carcinogenic.
And these tests were done in people who were smoking and not smoking.
The problem is that on TV with this Michel Aubier,
there were health experts, I will not say their names,
people who are supposed to be references when it comes to health, and they didn't say a word.
You have a guy who made big mistakes like him, and nobody says nothing.
It makes you wonder what is going on.
Martin Hirsch ... I noted a statement from the Public Hospital Network of Paris given by Martin Hirsch,
who was a Minister, if I remember, at one time ... No, but you were ...
A: I was very young.
T: You were not there. How old were you, 5 years old? 6 years ? (Laughter)
A: 7 (laughs)
T: In the statement, he says:
"We learn that the trips of doctors from Public Hospital Network of Paris to professional conferences
are funded at around 40 million euros by the pharmaceutical companies.
The working committee therefore proposes that at these conferences,
a "neutral third party" mediates between the doctor and the industrialist.
The pharmaceutical industry also funds the continuing and compulsory training of doctors.
The expenditure is estimated between 300 and 600 million euros minimum each year. "
So for continuing education of doctors, pharmaceutical companies spend between 300 and 600 million euros.
I doubt they are investing so much money for nothing, just like that.
But above all, our minister, Agnes Buzyn, said:
"The pharmaceutical industry makes almost no money with vaccines. "
So me…. it's like what I told you ...
For me, at the level of vaccination policy in France, they are doing things completely wrong.
If they stopped the ridiculous statements like "the vaccines are harmless" or "the pharmaceutical industry does not gain anything",
it would not make people like me want to go digging.
You see, if I was told, "Well, the vaccines, it is not so good,
it is not necessary the way to make a lot of money"
I would say, well, OK, why not? But I am told that they earn almost nothing.
No, no, but it is not possible!
A vaccine does not cost much to produce, when you see the Gardasil,
the 3 doses bring back 450 €, you say, there is a problem.
So, I went to look a little closer
and I did not need to look very far.
You'll see, I took the reports ... the major laboratories reports.
I went to their websites, and I looked at their financial report from the previous year.
So already, in an article in Le Monde diplomatique that was in January 2008,
there is a journalist named Leila Shahshahani,
who made several good articles, which go deep.
In "le Monde diplomatique", at the same time, it happens quite often, there is still a real editorial freedom.
She gives us some leads.
She says that "globally, the turnover of the vaccine industry was 42.3 billion euros in 2016"
which is not nothing "against 20.3 billion euros in 2012."
So between 2012 and 2016, it doubled.
So, it's still a pretty mind-blowing growth.
"It could be around 67 billion by 2025. It's the fastest growing rate in the drug business. " Oh !
So, I tell myself that Leïla is a journalist,
it might be an anarchic thing, we may qualify this as partisanism.
I said, I will try to find more official and acceptable numbers.
Well, I came across a WHO report, which was made by someone called Miloud Kaddar,
a report that was commissioned by the WHO, so more official, I give the links.
And so, Miloud Kaddar, what did he conclude?
He basically mentions "Spectacular Growth Rate"
15% per year, versus 5 to 7% for the rest of the drug industry,
so 3 times more growth than all the rest.
So, already, you can say, this is a promising sector in terms of money.
It has tripled in value.
In the 2000s from 5 billion, the global vaccine budget increased from 5 billion to 24 billion in 2013,
and the prediction for 2025 is 100 billion.
So, we can not say that they earn almost nothing.
During my research, I came across some things.
And to show you that I think there are a lot of people talking without knowing what they are saying.
For example, there is someone who has a space in Le Monde newspaper, called "The Decoders".
You know, right now, we talk a lot about sects
and I think that there are sects and things like that.
And often, we link sects to religion, to spirituality ...
Currently, there are also sects of rationality, scientist sects and so on.
These are people who are ...
As soon as something is not absolutely proven, completely
it's mockery and so on.
So, "Les Decodeurs", in Le Monde, play this role.
And the person who writes it says:
"The vaccines are generic, they do not report much to the labs, you have to stop. "
It was a Twitter link.
So, for a sector that currently has over $ 40 billion a year,
"you have to stop", this sector is lucrative.
So, I went to see the financial results of the major laboratories, as I told you.
For example, I went to see GSK's financial statement.
The vaccine sector has a turnover of 4.6 billion pounds sterling.
We are far from having nothing back.
In the 2016 Sanofi-Pasteur annual report, I give you the link too, we learn that, in 2016,
Sanofi achieved a gross margin of 62% on vaccines. What does it mean ?
It means that when they sell a vaccine that costs 100 euros, they gain 62 euros.
Overall, beyond 60% gross margin, for an industrialist, it's just the bingo product!
A: The best thing!
T: Oh no, but I've always heard people say, already at 40% gross margin, you're good, you have the stability in your business.
At 50, you have something that performs good, at 60 ...
A: You are the king of the world!
T: You are the king of the world! At 60% gross margin!
It means that the cost is very low compared to the selling price.
So they have a 62% gross margin on vaccines, the highest in 5 years.
"Better, the 2016 operating result of the vaccines sector is 1.7 billion euros,
which is 35% of the total turnover of the laboratory. "
That is to say that more than one third of the laboratory's turnover is provided by vaccines.
So, we can not say that it's nothing, that's wrong.
So, what can explain such inaccuracies in assessments?
What are the things that can explain the saying: the laboratories do not gain anything?
What can explain, for example, that INSERM ...
I say that because, for me, INSERM is a top laboratory.
I read in a brochure of INSERM:
"The effectiveness and safety of the 11 vaccines that will become mandatory in France are scientifically proven. "
Of course, no scientific reference.
I do not have any contact method to reach INSERM.
I would have liked to call the president of INSERM and say:
"Excuse me, but I have proof that there was no test for these products.
For hexavalent vaccines, we have no test, so, excuse me, but tell me where did you find your scientific evidence.
Because I did not find them. "
And the Italian parliamentary report did not find them either.
And there are hundreds of researchers ...
There is an institute, for example, in the United States, called the Cochrane Institute.
Cochrane is an independent research institute that has more than 600 Nobel Prize winners.
You see ? So, the same, it's still serious, it's not Disneyland.
And yet ... I have nothing against Disneyland, no defamation against Disneyland.
But what I mean by that is that the Cochrane Institute came to the same conclusions:
there are no safety studies.
How can we say such things?
So, I will propose an answer.
I'm going to state the obvious,
but I think it's important to know that,
because we will not be able to have a reflection on the vaccination policy in France
as long as we are entangled in these stories.
So, I was telling you, what can explain such inaccuracies,
to deliberately say things that are wrong?
A: And with certainty ...
T: And with such confidence!
like poker players! It's impressive.
A: Especially, with the responsibility of talking to the people, and so ...
T: You see, for me, it's not trivial.
When someone has a position of responsibility, his word is worth more.
You see, if a guy at the coffee shop says:
"Anyway, vaccines work and, it's harmless. "
Well, it's not very serious, it does not bad.
If a minister of health says it, I trust this minister to take responsibility for it.
You see, I mean, take the measure.
A: Absolutely!
T: So, an answer that I can present to you.
A National Alliance for Life Sciences and Health has been created, called Aviesan,
which federates INSERM, the CNRS, universities and
Biomedical research from various public offices: CNRS, universities, CHU, and so on.
So all of them are grouped under the name of Aviesan, the National Alliance for Life Sciences and Health.
The purpose of this alliance is to
«Facilitate the link with the industry by offering a unique interface
and therefore fostering innovation by enhancing the value of biomedical research. "
And besides, the CEO of INSERM is president of Aviesan.
He says: "We have signed a partnership of 50 million euros with Sanofi-Aventis,
in which a first basic research agreement was put in place
with the Immunology Center of Marseille-Luminy, last December, for a period of five years. "
What I mean by this is that as INSERM and ANSM (ie the National Agency for Drug Safety) also collaborate,
all these groups regularly collaborate with the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines.
I am not saying that there are any favors, or bribes that are paid,
it's just that they work together constantly.
They are all into vaccines. They have no reflection.
They have absolutely no reflection with what they do.
They work together, they are their colleagues. They are their friends.
They receive funding. Not personally.
I'm not saying that the CEO of INSERM became rich,
I just want to say that structures are entangled.
How do you want to have independent research in these conditions?
It's impossible !
And when you know that public institutes are funded in part by private laboratories,
you say, they do not even need to buy them,
there is no need to buy them, it's just ... it's together, all the time. All the time, all the time!
For example, when there was the Mediator investigation, I am not the one saying it,
but I quote the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs, during the investigation of the Mediator. Same, you have the links.
"The drug chain works today so that
the doubt benefits not patients and public health but pharmaceutical companies.
This is true of the marketing authorization,
which is conceived as a sort of right for the pharmaceutical industry to market its products,
regardless of the state of the market and regardless of the public health interest of the products in question.
The reassessment of the benefit / risk is considered an exceptional procedure.
Taking into account the risk requires strong scientific certainty,
the existence of a profit being easily recognized. "
What does it mean ?
That means that, a priori, a medicine that is put on the market is safe,
and it is up to the consumer or independent organizations to prove that it is harmful.
It is an inversion of the burden of proof that is completely ridiculous.
"In these circumstances, the withdrawal of a marketing authorization (MA) is seen as a last resort procedure
and as a kind of forfeit for the commission that granted the authorization. "
So, it's extremely rare.
"We must also mention the importance of interest for the experts contributing to the work of AFSSAPS.
These are links of financial interest or other interests as they should be reported to the Agency,
which is not systematically the case at the moment,
according to the statements of the current chairman of the AMM commission. "
If each of us conducts his investigation, like I did, finally ...
If each of us conducts his investigation, he will discover this.
If none of us do it, we are led by interests,
that mostly benefit vaccine producers.
So, automatically, they will go in the direction of vaccine production.
It is mandatory.
It is not only in France that there is this kind of problem.
I have several studies, for example, investigation reports in the United States:
"The investigation carried out by the committee determined
that the conflict of interest rules used by the FDA and the CDC have been extremely weak,
that the application has been lax
and that committee members who have important links with the pharmaceutical companies
received waivers to participate in the work of the committee. "
For the record, the CDC is in charge of the validation of new vaccines on the American market.
"Most US clinical trials are funded by the industry.
Sponsors have the opportunity to influence research in a way that compromises its objectivity.
Here we give first-hand knowledge that shows that compromises have occurred at the level of:
the well-being of research participants (9%),
research initiatives (35%),
the publication of the results (28%),
interpretation of research data (25%)
and scientific advancement (20%) because of industry support. "
So, at all levels, it's completely complicated.
In the years 2010-2015, I came across something very surprising.
In France, everything suggested that we will stop the vaccine obligation.
A: Really?
T: Yes. And I want to tel you a little history.
Everything indicated, everywhere, when you read the newspapers, Le Monde and so on,
you are told that even the HCSP, the High Council of Public Health, says that it seems natural to stop the obligation,
which is counterproductive, which has an extremely restrictive side
and that raises suspicions about vaccines.
And they are right !
When you are forced to do something, right away,
there is a part of the population like me which says: When I'm forced to do something, I do not like it, you see?
So everyone was pushing for that. And why, in one fell swoop, in 2017, we switch?
I did my little investigation. This story is interesting for you?
A: Of course!
T: It is very interesting.
So, the High Council of Public Health has issued a statement, I believe it is in 2012:
"Among the industrialized countries, only France and Italy ...",
So, the same, you have all the links,
"Only France and Italy still have vaccine obligations. "
All the others had no more vaccine obligation, so you can imagine the change in a few years.
"In order to appreciate the opportunity to change the legislation,
the High Council of Public Health analyzed the French situation.
The HCSP considers that:
- the keeping or not of the vaccination obligation in the population is a choice of the society
deserving of a debate that the authorities must organize;
- if this principle is maintained, the list of mandatory vaccines must be revised and be subject to a statement from the HCSP. "
So, it was rather in the sense of "we discuss, we think and we reduce".
Another question: must we put an end to compulsory vaccination?
"At the French Pediatric Society, we support the HCSP proposal a 100%.
The current policy is the fruit of history, not the severity of diseases,
explains Dr. Robert Cohen, Vice President of the SFP.
It is no longer valid today.
Dr. Cohen said he supported the end of the obligation,
provided it is accompanied by effective promotion policies. "
What is, at the educational level, much more interesting.
If you explain to people what is the point of taking the vaccine,
that you bring valid scientific evidence, there is no reason why not.
We all want to take care of our children. So, it's obvious.
So, that was in 2014.
Vaccines: in the face of public distrust, Marisol Touraine launches a public debate ... Nice!
"The Minister of Health, Marisol Touraine, announced this Tuesday 12
a "major citizen consultation about vaccination", this year,
which could lead to a change in the French vaccination policy, especially on compulsory vaccines.
We can no longer ignore the concerns of French people,
said the minister at a press conference. "
When she said that, the concerns of the French people, it was the people who were worried about vaccines,
and for the consequences following the hepatitis B scandal and so on.
She says they can not be ignored.
As a citizen, I am saying:
Wow! I've been heard, we're really going to ask ourselves some questions and think
and we will have a decision that will be made for the collective good.
A: So that's when? What year was it?
T: 2014 or 2015. I do not have the dates exactly. So where is the debate?
A: So, it never happened?
T: It took place. You'll see, it's a little more complicated.
In early 2016, everyone thought we will move towards an end of the vaccine obligation.
And then everything changed in the spring of 2017.
In spring 2017, all of a sudden, the Minister of Health plans to have 11 compulsory vaccines.
It came out of nowhere.
While everything led to believe that we will end the vaccine obligation, it came out of nowhere.
What happened?
So, it's very interesting. It took me a long time to understand what had happened.
"If the new minister" ... I give you the link ...
"If the new minister took a position so quickly on this sensitive issue ,
it is because of the very tight schedule imposed by the Council of State.
The Council of State in France has been seized by an association for the promotion of natural medicines,
the highest administrative court had ordered the government in February
to take steps to make available, by August 8,
the three mandatory vaccines (DTP), not found since 2008 without being associated with others. "
What is this story ?
This story is, normally, in France, there were only 3 compulsory vaccines.
Except that since 2008 the laboratories had stopped producing them individually,
So, if you wanted to have these 3 vaccines, you had to take 6 or 7.
So, there is an association for natural medicine that went to the Council of State saying:
"It's abnormal, you have to force vaccine manufacturers to stick to French legislation,
not to impose 6 or 7 vaccines even though the French law requires only 3.
The Council of State was fored to ask pharmaceutical companies to do that.
The problem :
"Getting things ready in such a tight deadline is impossible, said the pharmaceutical companies,
the development of a new DTP vaccine would take about ten years. "
Labs are told: "You have to produce vaccines that stick with French law. "
And the labs say, "We can not." So what happened?
"The alternative from Buzyn was simple: take the vaccination obligation by decree" ...
because the laboratories are not able to give the vaccines that agree with the French legislation.
So either take the vaccination obligation,
or make a whole set of vaccines mandatory so that it sticks with the vaccines currently available on the market.
A: OK
T: There were 2 choices, the choice that was made ...
A: This is the one we all know today.
T: Exactly.
"This is the solution advocated by Marisol Touraine, the predecessor of Ms. Buzyn,
who announced during the transfer of power on May 17 to have prepared a law for this.
It was also recommended in November 2016, the steering committee of the citizen consultation on vaccination.
We find this citizen consultation on vaccination.
I did not hear about it, no one heard about it, but in any case, it took place, obviously.
"... the steering committee of the citizen consultation on vaccination,
chaired by pediatric immunology specialist Alain Fischer. "
So, you know me, I looked who was Alain Fischer.
So, for someone who chairs a steering committee for citizen consultation,
there is a small problem, anyway, for me, when we talk about conflict of interests.
Alain Fischer, in 2013, so 3 years before, had received 100,000 euros from Sanofi-Pasteur
100,000 euros, it's not nothing!
He had been distinguished as an emeritus researcher by the Sanofi-Pasteur laboratory.
I did not look further, there might have been others ...
What I mean is that they are people who know each other,
who work together, constantly, who fund each other.
Entrusting the keys of a committee of orientation and reflection on the obligation to vaccinate ...
Because Marisol Touraine had said:
"We can no longer ignore the concerns of the French people. "
And what does she do?
She puts someone at the head of the committee who works hand in hand with the vaccine industry.
It seems to me a little ...
A: Wacky!
T: Yes, it's tricky, anyway!
So, in the end, what happened?
Well, the change happened around what?
The laboratories were not able to comply with French law.
Since they were not able to comply with French law,
what we did, we put the French law in conformity with the laboratories.
It's as stupid as that?
I am not a conspiracist, I do not want to see more than that.
I think it's stupid, that there are financial interests that are more important.
The labs said, "We can not produce it, we need 10 years to produce it. "
They did put the pressure. They have colossal financial means.
And we made the choice.
But the problem is that this choice is in line with the health of the laboratories,
but not in the sense of children's health because everywhere,
there are indicators that tell us: "Guys, slow down, take a moment to think. "
A: Crazy!
T: How are health professionals positioned?
I asked myself the question. Because I don't to be fast.
I have many friends around me who are doctors, and so on,
and I appreciate their contribution.
I do not target any socio-professional category,
I target a state of mind, if necessary, but not a socio professional category.
So, how are the doctors positioned? I ask myself
Because, some do not have the information.
Some follow, blindly, they do not have time to think,
they have so many patients, they have no critical mind, they do not have the time,
they do not have energy, they are tired, okay. But there are some who have a critical eye.
How do they position themselves?
Well, it turns out that Agnes Buzyn, in October 2017, gave me a key.
I had noted, this article, that I though will be necessary one day,
She criticized health professionals. She said:
"If this call for mobilization for the vaccination of health professionals does not lead to a change ..."
she's talking, the minister, huh?
"... we will think about more incentive measures, even coercive".
She was upset because health professionals were not well covered, especially against the flu.
It was in October 2017, so not long ago,
at the launch of the annual flu vaccination campaign.
In fact, only 25% of health professionals were vaccinated against influenza.
The guys are not crazy, they do not want to be vaccinated every year,
they know very well what will be the result! Only 25% of health professionals.
"Influenza vaccination of health professionals ..." I quote from a study.
"Influenza vaccine coverage in both care facilities for the 2006-2007 season is 27%.
It is a little higher at Besançon University Hospital than at Dole Hospital, respectively 28 and 24%,
but this difference is not significant. "
So, what does not seem so obvious, it is to make health professionals join it.
So, I went to see a little bit elsewhere.
I thought, well, since health professionals tend not to be vaccinated,
let's see who vaccinates the most in a given population.
Let's see which socio-economic fringe vaccinates the most.
Is there something to see?
One night, when I was bored, alone, in front of my screen ...
I said, let's go see
"Vaccine practices of physicians, for them and their children. "
This is a very interesting study in the United States.
"When asked to vaccinate a future child,
a significant proportion of answers moved away from CDC recommendations (among physicians)
including more specialists than general pediatricians (21% instead of 9%). "
So, there are more than 21% of pediatricians who do not vaccinate their children at all in the United States.
It's interesting! 1/5 that do not vaccinate at all.
There are others who do not follow the vaccination recommendation, there are 1/5 who do not vaccinate at all.
"Vaccination coverage of physicians, for hepatitis B, whooping cough and seasonal influenza, 2010 study,
the vaccination coverage of doctors for themselves was 76.9% for seasonal flu,
73.0% for hepatitis B, 63.9% for whooping cough and 60.8% for pandemic influenza A / H1N1. "
Even though, for the H1N1, there were ...
A: A lot of talk.
T: A lot!
By the way, we had bought a lot of drugs from pharmaceutical companies,
which were not used because, ultimately, the population did not play the game.
The French are not cool. The French have a bad spirit. It does not work…
A: (laughs)
T: Vaccination coverage among physicians is much lower than that of the rest of the general population.
The general population is around 90%, 95% of vaccination coverage.
Among doctors, we are at less than 70%. It's still intriguing, huh?
"Families with the highest level of education and the highest incomes are the least vaccinated. "
"Most unvaccinated children are white ..." in the United States
"... have a married mother with higher education,
live in a household in which the annual income exceeds $ 75,000. "
So, $ 75,000 ...
A: Not bad, huh?
T: Come on, that's ... oh yeah! $ 75,000 divided by 12, that's $ 6,000 a month!
Eh, not bad! You will have a good life!
A: Yes it's not bad!
T: "Most unvaccinated children are white,
have a married mother with higher education,
live in a household in which the annual income exceeds $ 75,000.
In addition, their parents generally expressed concerns about the safety of vaccines
and said the doctors had little influence over them ... "
therefore, they are smart people, who do not have this kind of submission to the authority of the white coats
"... the doctors had little influence over them regarding vaccine decisions for their children. "
"Vaccination levels high ..." So, these are studies, you have the links
"High vaccination levels were associated with mothers with little education and low socio-economic status. "
"Determinants of an entirely negative attitude (against vaccines)
were a high level of parents' education, working in the health field ... "
It's interesting anyway, you say, you should expect the contrary,
working in the health field makes you more pro-vaccination.
Well no, on the contrary, it is one of the key factors.
So the high level of education ... the more people are educated,
the more they are against vaccines ...
"... working in the field of health, the absence of religion ..." ...
the religious are pro-vaccination, it seems ... I do not see the argument, but ...
"... the perception of vaccine inefficiency and the perception that vaccines cause asthma and allergies. »Among others ...
All of this is annoying, huh?
A: It is questioning ...
T: It's questioning, huh? We will do a summary
A: Yes, great!
T: A little summary of everything we've seen in these videos.
A: OK
T: I tell you, in these videos, my goal is not to give my opinion.
My goal is to be an alert launcher.
I now know that the choice to extend the vaccination policy to 11 vaccines in France was not motivated by medical interest,
was not motivated by the interest of children's health,
is not based on scientific studies but, on the contrary,
has been rushed, with products for which there is no security test,
only to satisfy the economic needs of the manufacturers.
I know there are a lot of questions about many vaccines,
and in particular the new hexavalent vaccines.
That too is something that can be said very easily.
When they talk to you about polio and smallpox, well, we talked about it ...
What you have to see is that Grandpa's vaccines, 30 years ago, have nothing to do with current vaccines.
They were monovalent vaccines, we gave a dose, often, we vaccinated much later in age ...
I mean, there were so many parameters!
When we talk about vaccinating ...
Vaccinate with a hexavalent vaccine a child of 2 months
and vaccinate with a monovalent vaccine a 3 year old child who was breastfed, I mean ...
We will talk about it in the next episode, it is completly different!
That's why, say "I'm for or against vaccination", for me, it does not make sense.
"I am for or against vaccination at 2 months of children with hexavalent vaccines ...",
there, although I do not say my opinion, you will can clearly understand, for me, it is very dangerous.
A: The dogs are against it! (Laughter)
T: Yes, the dogs are against too, it's the evening. They get upset. (Laughter)
So, I made a small list. We are still faced with undeniable troubling facts.
We have a system for measuring vaccine injuries that is incomplete and does not work.
Even the VAERS, in the United States, which is nevertheless an extremely successful system,
there is no equivalent of VAERS in France, it states 1 to 10% of vaccine injuries.
We also saw that placebos were fake placebos
and that the majority of safety studies were done by the manufacturers themselves.
So, it's not very serious.
In the United States, where a victims' compensation fund has been created,
the paid amount (3.8 billion $) give us a small glimpse of the number of potential cases.
We said between 150,000 and 450,000 victims, knowing that they are serious victims of vaccine injuries.
Hexavalent vaccines made mandatory since January 1, 2018 have never been tested, never evaluated.
And all the work on cross-doses, and so on,
what Gilles-Éric Seralini did, and things like that tell us: be careful, danger, maximum danger!
The composition of most vaccines, currently, is a source of real concern:
aluminum, detergents of all kinds, human DNA ...
we saw that it was a cause of autoimmune diseases ...
proteins that will cause autoimmune reactions and so on, defoliants, unexpected viral and bacterial strains.
We do not really control the culture mediums.
Many studies tend to prove that vaccines have a clear tendency
to lead to the proliferation of other viral and bacterial strains, more virulent and, ultimately, more dangerous.
This is called the "shift".
Immunity through vaccination declines.
When you are not vaccinated for 5 to 10 years, your immunity through vaccination...
the name is misleading, we had seen it already ...
So, antibody elevation declines.
Most of the French people is not vaccinated. It did disappear a long time ago.
A vaccinated individual is contagious for others. We have seen it many times.
Studies showing a rapid increase in cases of psy / nervous disorders following series of vaccinations are increasing.
There are alerts and red lights.
The conflict of interest reigns in research and decision-making when it comes to the vaccine issue.
New vaccines like Gardasil are extremely profitable for their manufacturer.
450 euros, it starts to be a lot.
So there, we can say, nevertheless, that the financial interests are high.
Vaccine immunity has nothing to do with natural immunity.
By preventing vaccinated people from "getting" harmless childhood diseases,
it prevents them from developing what is called heterosubtypic immunity, which is a broad-spectrum immunity.
If we consider, in addition, that the vaccination works as a real gym,
by making a selection of the most virulent and the most strong bacterial strains,
on one hand, we have individuals who have an immunity that is more restricted and more weak,
an very-specialized immunity, thus a weak immunity,
therefore, weak individuals on this side and an environment that contains the viral strains that are there.
Do you see the distance? It's going to be crazy !
A: (laughs)
T: It will go crazy.
There is a generalized immunodeficiency linked, certainly, to the abuse of vaccination practices.
And then, an objective study of official statistics,
in terms of diseases, old diseases, major pandemics of this century,
on which we always rely to justify the vaccination,
shows that most vaccines did nothing to get the decline of major diseases.
A: what makes me think, in general, in this world
is we never question or even search for the body's ability to defend itself.
Just talking about that, in fact, who we are,
before doing anything else and look for other solutions.
T: So that's going to be the subject of next episode.
And that's interesting, because here you talk about the body.
And, yes, I am not against vaccination.
I'm not against, I'm not for vaccination, I do not care, actually.
I am for all approaches that allow people to be healthy, to flourish and to be happy in life.
If you prove to me that vaccination contributes to this, there is no problem for me with vaccination.
And besides, we could talk about homeopathic vaccination, for example.
The exposure to some kind of stress, overall, is something positive.
We grow up ... You know, there's Nietzsche ... (I'm not Nietzschean at all) ... who said:
"That which does not kill us, makes us stronger."
This is called the hormesis law.
The hormesis law is exposure to a stressful element that does not exceed your adaptive capacity,
well, it makes you stronger.
So, you could say that exposure to viral strains makes you stronger.
Except that there is one thing we have forgotten is that it is totally individualized.
That is to say: what does not exceed YOUR adaptive capacity?
A: It's my own dose, in the end.
T: It's your own dose.
A: And not to normalize for everyone ... yeah yeah, that's clear!
T: Exactly. I am not against vaccines.
There is a fundamental difference between a monovalent vaccine given to a healthy child at the age of 3
and a hexavalent vaccine given at 2 months to a baby who is already weak and in immuno-depression.
So, we give it in an inconsiderate way, regardless of the condition of the body.
This is madness !
There can not be a vaccination policy that is not an individualized policy.
This is madness !
And what I'm saying is:
stop going crazy and do general vaccination policies
and start to study the circumstances that can make that, from one individual to another,
for some, it will be alright, for others, it will not.
Let's see if, for some individuals, it has an interest and benefits, for others not.
Let's see if for some individuals,
maybe the profit-risk balance will be in on the side of profit,
for others, it might be risky.
And let's try to establish the criteria that will allow us to know, in advance, before injecting anything.
Because, the moment you injected, after it's done ...
And it's very hard to go back when you swayed toxins and it had a neuro-degenerative action on the body.
Let's try to know the circumstances that will tell us:
Ooh! For that one, wait, we'll be careful, we'll pay attention.
For that one, no, go, green light, we can go, it'll be interesting for him, his body will react well.
This one, blurred zone, wait, we will not put the same dose, and then we will do it a little later.
We will not do it at 2, we'll do it at 4,
because he will have a stronger immune system by then.
You see ! An individualized policy. That's what I am talking about. I am not against…
A: And with sense, to do it if ...
T: Yes, and taking into account the body's condition. Taking into account the body's condition of each person.
So, I'm a charlatan, if I ask myself these questions?
I'm a charlatan, if I ask myself these questions?
I'm expecting it, huh? I think these videos ...
Someone told me, not long ago:
"Until now, you were the guy who talks about crudivorism. Now, you will invent the caillouvorisme.
Because you're going to eat so many rocks with this series! ".
I mean, I did some research.
I asked myself some questions. I'm honest. I have no interest.
I have absolutely no interest in defending nothing in particular.
This series, it's me who finances it.
Because, it touched me so much that I thought:
I want to offer it to people who do not have the time to do this research.
I asked myself some questions, I find things that alert me, and I need answers.
And this series is here to say:
Hey ! Do you have the courage?
Do you have the scientific confidence to answer these questions?
To stop drowning us in dogmas and statements that are not based on anything,
and to have at least the authenticity, the rigor, to really answer these questions?
To have a real public debate on these issues, with independent and unfunded researchers,
who have always been independent and who can really tell us.
Because it's about the health of our children, in the end!
These are the future generations.
These are the guys that will work for you, they are guys who will make decisions.
What do you want ?
Decerebrated zombies, completely neurotic, with psychological disorders?
If that's it, say it. So that we know at least.
A: Yeah, so that it is clear.
T: So that everyone can make up his mind, at that moment, I will join the resistance.
You see, I'm not against the government at all, I'm not against anyone.
I mean, we have a French government and I want to move forward.
But I want them to make choices that are not completely delusional, that are not based on nothing.
That's the whole point of these videos. That's what I really have in my heart.
And I'm a dad, and I know what the life of a child means.
And I know what the life of a child that changes, what it can represent for the whole family.
That's what I want to avoid.
We'll have a break, we'll stop here. It was the dramatic part. (Laughter)
No, but this episode, I had it in my heart.
It is important for me. I am very happy that I did it.
Because, it's not easy. I did not want to accuse anyone.
I'm not here to shout scandal, corruption or whatever.
I'm here to tell everyone who may have made wrong choices:
Hey, wake up already!
Seriously, stop messing around!
Stop messing around with the health of our children!
It's not possible, you do not have the right to do that.
You have a conscience and it calls you.
You know it deep inside you. Everyone has the truth deep inside, that I know.
I'm sure, everyone.
And anyone can, overnight, change, in a second,
can change their mindset and start doing something that is in line with the common interest and public health.
And it is time to really have a public health office that goes in the direction of public health.
A: It's mostly ... too ... for me ... an action,
for us citizens to question things that are vital and very important to our lives ...
and less ... taking everything without the ... without questioning!
T: You should have minimum knowledge about our vital needs.
The rest, the accessory needs, knowing how an iPad works, things like that, we do not care, because if you do not have an iPad ...
A: You live anyway.
T: You live anyway.
But, have a minimum of knowledge about your food, your water, vaccines, drugs.
You will be asked to make choices all your life.
If you do not have minimum of knowledge that allows you to say: Ooh! that one, he totally confuses me.
No, that one, on the other hand, he's not confusing me, you see?
You're going to be messed with.
And your children will die or in any case will feel bad.
And that's not right.
I would like to end with a last episode, which will be a little different.
We will talk about the natural immunity in children.
Because we just talked about vaccines, as if, immunity was only through vaccines.
This is the dream of the Promethean man, you see, who never looks inside,
who does not even know the treasure he has inside.
But, for me, talking about the treasure that every human has inside,
these incredible abilities of the human body,
it's my full-time job, that's what I've been doing for years.
Somehow, I jumped a little with these videos,
I have never "denounced" anything, I have never done critical research on a product.
It was not my job.
This was the first time because this subject was so important to me.
My job is to tell people: you have a system that is just fabulous.
Use it, use it.
We will make a last video about this.
What is natural immunity in children?
How can we promot it?
And then, natural immunity in general:
How to nourish and develop it?
The question I ask myself is, for example, imagine that,
I decide not to vaccinate my child.
Is he in danger?
Are there ways to make him strong?
Will he be at the mercy of all these viral strains?
What will really happen?
Is immunity only through vaccines?
Those are many questions I'd like to answer.
Alright?
A: Yes.
T: Great, we meet tomorrow?
A: Yes, tomorrow morning,
T: Good night Alex!
A: Good night!
T: See you soon! We'll meet again in a few days for the final episode.
For more infomation >> Patrick Mahomes II Rich Lifestyle | 2018 - Duration: 8:43. 
For more infomation >> Package Thefts Caught On Camera - Duration: 1:47. 
For more infomation >> Search For Suspect In Metrolink Station Stabbing - Duration: 1:56. 
For more infomation >> 4 kids, 2 adults in critical condition after they were trapped in their car after a crash - Duration: 0:29. 
For more infomation >> 《如懿传》嫔妃在前面疯狂开撕，霍建华却躲在后面吃冰淇淋，绝了 - Duration: 3:30. 
For more infomation >> 高凌風女兒出道失利「狂試鏡還是沒人要」，靠老本過活「現況曝光」網驚：和弟弟差好多! - Duration: 4:11. 
For more infomation >> ウッズ最終戦で復活V、松山4位、総合王者はローズ - Duration: 2:51. 
For more infomation >> 冯提莫：好想好想和你在一起数天上的星星 - Duration: 3:34. 
For more infomation >> Sunday PM forecast update Sept. 23 - Duration: 2:04. 
For more infomation >> flu shot - Duration: 1:41. 
For more infomation >> Meghan Makle's mother returns LA after supporting her daughter at her charity cookbook launch - Duration: 3:08. 
For more infomation >> "미국의 인민해방군 제재는 중국의 과학기술 발전 견제용"➤ korean army - Duration: 3:52. 
For more infomation >> Kavanaugh Accuser's Supporters Hold Vigil In San Francisco - Duration: 1:58. 
For more infomation >> New allegations raised against Kavanaugh Sunday - Duration: 0:48. 
For more infomation >> 陳坤無辜上熱搜？發的都是歌迷看不懂的東西？喊話：多發自拍！ - Duration: 3:39. 
For more infomation >> 《新舞林大会》总决赛，超级八强明星表有你中意的吗 - Duration: 0:41. 
For more infomation >> 陳翔江鎧同藕斷絲連？限娘令人人自危？劉濤又虧錢？樂華力捧程瀟？靳東對小朋友蜜汁喜愛？ - Duration: 5:44. 
For more infomation >> 李晨人设崩塌《渣男李晨现形记》，你不配拥有爱情 - Duration: 4:29. 
For more infomation >> Revolutionize Your Productivity By Reducing Labor Costs & Decreasing Primer Dry Time.
For more infomation >> ✔️Nightcore - I'm Not Her - Duration: 2:56. 
For more infomation >> Females yo | Logging On Episode.1 - Duration: 35:19. 
For more infomation >> 널 지우려해 서태지 (Rock ver.) cover - Duration: 4:41. 
For more infomation >> "Heart Attack" - Demi Lovato (Sam Tsui & Kurt & Chrissy Costanza ) 歌詞和訳/JPN - Duration: 3:29. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét