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

[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.

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 the those over 50 are the most at risk, and the vaccines do not prevent death (as is being claimed).

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%, up until Omicron came on the scene. The “problem” with Omicron, is that it is so mild that there are no hospitalization and even less deaths. (He states this based on the earliest studies of 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 the virus variant.

He mentions they always analyse the 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 preeminent 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 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 positive. He emphasizes this is complete rubbish. (He is alluding to the irrational of marginalisation of healthy unvaccinated people in France.)

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

[11:00] Stopped for now. Will resume later. He is about to tackle some important subjects and I need to take a break.