Scathing, in a good way, at the official vaccine narrative. He does an excellent job of debunking the propaganda surrounding vaccine safety and efficacy.

His treatment of religion and science and his references to Karl Popper are excellent.

[0:00]

Introduces his new book: “COVID-19 wartime notes: The biggest medical scandal of the 21st century”.

He apologizes for advertising his new book, but feels compelled to do so in order to set the record straight.

He mentions many people have distorted and taken his words out of context.

His book contains all the information he presents on his YouTube videos and provides an accurate account of everything he has said from the beginning of the pandemic to December 2020. (Including his testimonies in front of the French parliament and senate).

He will release another book soon, which will cover all of 2021.

His goal, for releasing these books, is to stop people from misquoting him.

[1:19]

He mentions that he uses publicly available official data from around the world.

To him, the most important question is: “Who is dying from COVID?” (as in age groups).

He reemphasizes that all the data comes from official sources. As surprising as it may seem to some people.

Data from INSEE, clearly shows that since the beginning of the COVID pandemic there are NO excess deaths for those under the age of 50. (In fact there have been less deaths!)

The good news is that for all age groups, the excess deaths by age groups is significantly decreasing over time. (Dark blue bars to light blue bars. The bars represent different time periods. The darker the color the older the time period.)

He then looks at some data from Ontario Canada.

Particularly this graph, which shows the percentage of people hospitalized by age group, and vaccination status:

He points out that there are many vaccinated people in hospitals and in ICUs.

He is debunking the claim made by many French officials that vaccines prevent hospitalisation. He demonstrates, with this graph, that it is not entirely accurate.

Anecdotally, he mentions that 12 people died in the last month in Marseille, and he knows first hand that half of them had received 2 shots.

The vaccines do not protect immuno-compromised people.

He then shows a similar graph showing the percentage of deaths by age group and vaccination status:

Again, he re-iterates that those at risk are over 50, and the vaccines do not prevent death (as is being falsely claimed by some in the French media).

He mentions they do show some protection, but not a complete protection against death.

“The vaccines are not magic” [4:21]

He will come back to this point but wants to show more data first.

4:33

(The question is not clear. I guess it is trying to figure out if the vaccines need to be assessed at a global level, rather than an individual level. Others are welcome to improve the wording of the question.)

On an individual level, before Omicron, the data shows that the vaccines do provide some protection against hospitalization. It is not complete. In fact, it is propaganda to claim the vaccines provide complete protection against hospitalization.

He has evaluated the protection to be about 50%, that is, up until Omicron came on the scene. The “problem” with Omicron, is that it is so mild that there are no hospitalizations and even less deaths. (He states this based on the earliest studies that have been released on Omicron.)

He remarks: “It is hard to protect people from death (due to the virus), when people are no longer dying (from the virus)”. (Great logic )

He mentions in passing that he will come back to discuss the propaganda vs misinformation, surrounding the vaccines.

He goes on to present some data from his hospital, that shows that since Omicron, the percentage of “vaccinated” vs “non-vaccinated” people being admitted, is about 50/50.

He then proceeds to present another table, that captures all the patients that have been admitted to his hospital based on variants.

He mentions they always analyse the virus variant for all their patients. They have done this from the very beginning and were the first to implement such a practice.

He makes the point that it took nearly 3 months for the rest of the world to catch up and realize that COVID could have variants. He says there were a lot of people who believed that COVID could not have variants in the early days of the pandemic, which he finds bewildering, yet revealing about the depth of knowledge from virologists at the time.

7:11 Furthermore, he goes out of his way to point out the dearth of knowledge in France from virologists, who have an opinion on everything but can't even get the basics right. He is quite scathing here.

He states the way the information was handles is “not serious”, especially in light of the hostility his hospital (and himself) have been subjected to.

“Those who don't know what they are talking about are congratulated, whereas those who have the most experience and knowledge are penalized.”

He states that at the time he was the most awarded and recognized researcher in this field, and yet was treated unfairly. (“You are not well treated when you know (what you are talking about)”).

He labours the point and states that those who talk rubbish all day long are given medals and perhaps even monetary prizes.

(Notice the number of different variants they have been keeping track of!)

8:50

The efficacy of vaccines against the Delta variant was not great, and is even worse with Omicron.

The percentage of symptomatic patients is the same for the vaccinated and non-vaccinated cohorts, and the viral load is the same in both groups. (! i.e. he is saying that, when it comes to Omicron, the vaccines are completely useless.)

9:58 He highlights a misconception: that a vaccinated person who is infected, is less dangerous than a non-vaccinated person who is NOT infected. He emphasizes this is complete rubbish. (He is alluding to the irrational marginalisation of healthy unvaccinated people in France.)

He goes on to elaborate that it was the reverse with Delta. People who were vaccinated had a higher viral load than non-vaccinated people when positive. (!) (They have the viral cultures to prove it.)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x-eozrCCNM#t=11m00s|11:00] The key to ending the pandemic is to prevent people from getting infected and spreading the virus. The vaccines are becoming less and less effective at preventing people from carrying and spreading the virus.

People have to stop fantasying on vaccines.

We must not confuse vaccines as a scientific medical tool with “religion”.

11:28

When people claim they are “pro-vaccine” they making a religious statement. It makes no sense, simply because there are different types of vaccines. There are 7 different types of COVID vaccines that have different delivery mechanisms, have different risk profiles. Some vaccines have been removed or stopped because they were a risk to the younger population (AstraZeneca and Johnson). They were resulting in cerebral thromboses and blindness. So you can unilaterally claim you are “pro-vaccine”. Some don't have serious side effects, but some do. Also, taking a vaccine may have no advantage depending on where you live.

He then proceeds to give an example of the US army that vaccinated its troops during the Iraq war to protect them against smallpox, because they thought Sadam Hussain had developed a smallpox bio-weapon. A hundred, young and healthy US soldiers died from the vaccine, due to this “vaccine fantasy”. So we need to be extremely careful with what we do. (He mentions a person named “Venchtein”(?) who studied this carefully. Need to find a source.)

13:48 The difference between religion and scientific theory has been very well explained by one of the greatest epistemologist “Karl Popper”. We cannot understand science if we don't take the time to understand and study the errors made by science. I have studied epistemology for over 20 years.

One of Karl Popper's significant contributions is empirical falsification. It is the means by which we can differentiate religion and scientific theory.

It asks the questions whether there is anything that could change your mind regarding your scientific theory. If there is nothing, or you can't formulate a scenario that would disprove your theory, you no longer are dealing with science, but rather are dealing with religion.

14:40

(Need to come back here and refine the translation. Will try and flesh out the major points.)

When we no longer objectively look at the data, and review our strategies accordingly we are operating within a religion.

Heritics. People must obey the religious dictates.

[15:31] All the speeches full of hatred, are coming from the same side.

People become irrational and no longer allow their thoughts to change with time and new information.

[15:53] I mentioned several months ago, that the pandemic development didn't make a lot of sense to me. I didn't understand what was going on.

Only recently are things starting to make a bit more sense. let me explain.

When the vaccine was tested, they did not track what was happening to people during the first 15 days after being vaccinated. This approach was adopted everywhere.

The explanation was that it takes 15 days for the vaccine to build immunity. i.e. During that time people are not immunized and therefore are not protected.

We noticed that a lot of COVID infections were happening shortly after a person received the vaccine. So if you don't take this into account, you are hiding information that is actually relevant and very important.

So if our hypothesis is true, the vaccines facilitate the spread of COVID during the first few days after vaccination.

[17:42]

The blue bars show a dramatic increase in COVID cases immediately after vaccination.

(Raoult mentions that they are investigating this phenomenon and have some very interesting findings, but does not discuss any details.)

What is the significance of this for controlling the pandemic?

[18:51] Worldwide COVID data from John Hopkins

• Nearly 9.5 billions of injected doses
• The green plot shows the number of vaccinations by day

It is not obvious that the vaccines are reducing the number of deaths.

In fact if we don't agree that the vaccines are not noticeably reducing the number of deaths, we are dealing with what Karl Popper describes as “religion”. People refuse to look at the evidence.

We can now look at different countries.

[19:29]

Australia is a good case study because they are very committed to the vaccination program. (sarcasm)

80% of all COVID cases since the beginning of the pandemic, only occurred since they started their vaccination campaign.

They have injected over 44 million doses.

People need to wake up. If you look at these plots and you believe the vaccines are working, then you have a problem (sarcasm).

(If the vaccines are causing an increase in COVID cases, from a scientific point of view, we should be able to see it in other countries as well.)

[20:37]

They didn't have a lot of cases before they started their vaccination program.

They have injected over 108 million doses and they now have more COVID cases than ever.

[21:07]

[21:26]

[21:59]

[22:18]

Claims the vaccination campaigns around the world have been successful are false.

Some may argue that the increase in COVID cases is happening everywhere. That is not the case.

Countries that haven't been mass vaccinated and countries that have inactive vaccines, have significantly less COVID cases.

So

1. The mRNA vaccines, have been unable to control the spread of the virus. They might reduce the severity of the symptoms, however the symptoms themselves are not very sever to start with. (not sure if he is referring to Omicron or Delta.)

In any case, it does not justify the manner in which the un-vaccinated have been treated, by threatening, insulting or intimidating them.

We need to keep things in perspective and remind ourselves that we are dealing with a new virus, and using a vaccine technology we have very little experience with. Not to mention the fact that treating RNA diseases such as influenza, with vaccines, has historically been difficult with limited success.

[23:45]

We need to tread carefully because we know that with the dengue virus, we should only vaccinate people that have already been infected, otherwise, the infection will be much worse for people who get vaccinated first, than if they didn't get vaccinated.

(The point he is trying to make is that we already know of viruses for which we need to be careful about when we vaccinate people. He is suggesting more studies need to be done with COVID to see if it falls within the same category.)

So you can see that vaccines are complicated. They are not a miracle cure. They must be adapted to the situation.

(He goes on to explain that he was his opinion on dengue vaccines over 10 years ago, and that he has a lot of experience treating the dengue virus.)

We know there are vaccines that make things worse.

(He gives an example of “poliomelite”(?) that has been re-introduced into the community because of active vaccines, when the chance of contracting this virus in nature is negligeable.)

[25:46]

Some vaccines work very well, others don't, and there are some that are dangerous!

Vaccines are not a magic wand or a miracle cure.

This is not religion, it is science. When our knowledge and understanding improves our strategies need to change and improve as well. We must not stop analysing and objectively assessing new pieces of information.

[26:10]

I would like to redress a point concerning the northern suburbs of Marseille. The propaganda press have stated that there are more COVID cases in the northern suburbs of Marseille because less people are vaccinated there.

This is completely false and pure propaganda.

[26:41]

Here is a chart of people who have been tested in each suburb. We can see in red the people that tested positive, but it also clearly shows that there are not more positive cases as a percentage of the population, in the northern suburbs than elsewhere around the country.

[27:06]

The fire brigade department also keeps very good records of positive cases around the region.

Here is a map of the worse affected areas around Marseille, and as you can see the northern suburbs are not noticeably worse than the other areas in the city.

In fact it looks like the wealthy suburbs, are the worse off, which might be due to people coming back from their skiing holidays.

We have to stop vilifying people from the northern suburbs, and stop calling them names because they don't want to get vaccinated, and blaming them for the pandemic. This is false. People need to stop and take stock of the reality of the situation. They must objectively look at the data and change their minds.

As better information is becoming available, people need to review their positions.

[28:11]

It's hard to tell, but there is some new information that may give us some clues.

Here is the chart which shows the different variants:

You can see that “Marseille-4” originated in France and was the dominant variant during the first wave.

In Spain they had a different variant called “Marseille-2”, which we detected in France relatively soon, but never became a dominant variant.

I have no idea why one variant is more dominant than the other, but Marseille-2 is the variant that dominated the United Kingdom to start with, probably due to people returning from their holidays in Spain. The English never gave this variant a name. It was then followed by the Alpha variant (dark red), then Delta (green).

[29:20]

In Denmark, you can see they have a “mix” of variants to start of with, which can be explained by Danes returning home from holidays from different countries. The “Alpha” variant then became dominant, followed by Delta.

Getting back to the map of France, you can see we have been affected by some South African variants as well.

(Summary)

So you can see there are many variants. Different locations have different variants. And we have no idea why one variant will dominate another.

Nevertheless we have thoroughly studied the “Marseille-4”. We produce 10,000 complete DNA mappings of this variant, in order to better understand how it starts and spreads through a community. Why do we get these funny shapes in the plots?

How can we explain that?

[30:22]