The UK Column channel recently had the opportunity to interview leading French vaccine expert Professor Christian Perronne on the subject of Covid-19 vaccines. Professor Perronne is head of the medical department at the Raymond Poincaré Hospital in Garches, the teaching hospital of the University of Versailles-St. Quentin near Paris.
He has shaped French vaccination policy for many years and chaired the National Consultative Group on Vaccination, among other highly placed roles. Brian Gerrish interviewed the two scientists. By Niki Vogt.
This is an interview with Anna-Marie Yim, PhD, a PhD in organic chemistry and an expert in peptides, an expert in patent engineering and she is also a patent engineer. The other interview guest is a very senior expert, Prof. Dr. Christian Perronne. He introduces himself like this:
I am Professor Christian Perronne. I work at a university hospital near Paris, at the University of Versailles. I was head of the infectious diseases department since the end of 1994, but I was dismissed a few months ago because of my public statements.
I embarrass our government because I have worked for various governments, both right wing and left wing politics, and for fifteen years I was chairman of numerous committees, [including] the High Council of Public Health, which advises the government on public health and vaccination policy. I was also vice-chair of a group of experts for the European region of WHO.
So I have been involved in managing several epidemics and pandemics, with different governments, and when I saw how the epidemic has been managed since February/March 2020, I was amazed. I saw that it was completely crazy. That’s why I spoke out in the media, but now I’m being censored by the media.
Prof. Perronne is generally a “persona non grata”, i.e. an undesirable person, since his following statement. Anyone who contradicts the vaccination narrative loses his reputation, his employment, his salary, everything that has made up his life and reputation. Prof. Perronne, however, is one of the upright and steadfast who nevertheless will not be silenced. He said already in late summer 2021:
In the case of 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. This has now been proven in Israel, where I am in contact with many doctors.
The fact that this observation is now being made everywhere, but kept quiet for fear of harassment, dismissal and damage to reputation, is well known among health workers. There are also more and more doctors and nurses who can’t take it anymore and openly tell the truth.
Here comes the interview with Prof. Perronne and Dr. Anna-Maie Yim.
It’s long, but it’s packed with important information. Both scientists also describe how, at the request of the pharmaceutical industry and governments, effective and good drugs that could have saved many thousands of lives were demonized as poisons and deadly with faked studies and massive overdoses so as not to compete with vaccination. Yet these medicines had long been used against covid in South America and India with complete success in millions of applications.
Brian Gerrish: Welcome to all viewers and listeners of the UK column. We’re very pleased to have two distinguished experts with us to talk about the Covid-19 issue and also about the vaccination policies that we’re seeing in the UK, in France, and around the world.
First of all, I would like to welcome Anne-Marie Yim. Anne-Marie and I have spoken before, and I am delighted that she is here again today. She is joined tonight by Professor Christian Perronne, and I think we will have a very good discussion.
Anne-Marie, thank you for being with us. Would you please tell the audience a little bit about your professional background and qualifications?
Anne-Marie Yim: Hello, and thank you so much for having us on the UK Column tonight with Professor Perronne. It is a great privilege for us as French nationals to be able to speak to your UK audience.
My name is Anne-Marie Yim, I am a French citizen and I was born in Cambodia. I graduated from the University of Montpellier, now the Institut des Biomolécules Max Mousseron, with a PhD in organic chemistry on peptide proteins. I did a post-doctorate at the University of Michigan with Professor Samir Hanash, a well-known expert in the field, in proteomics, that is, the identification of membrane proteins. I also worked with Professor Borschitz [name changed] on the inflammatory 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 CEIPI in Strasbourg. I also worked as a patent engineer here in Luxembourg, but only very briefly because I didn’t like the environment that much, and then I started my own structure in 2018 and I’m basically a tutor for science and languages for kids from elementary school to high school and beyond, all the way to university.
Brian Gerrish: Thank you very much for that, Anne-Marie. And Professor Perronne, welcome to UK Column. It’s wonderful to have you with us. I’d like you to also tell us a little bit about yourself, your professional background, and I’ve also heard that since you’ve spoken out against some of the official government policies on Covid-19 and vaccination, you’ve been censored and prevented from speaking out.
Christian Perronne: Thank you very much for the invitation. I am Professor Christian Perronne. I work at a university hospital near Paris, at the University of Versailles. I was head of the infectious diseases department since the end of 1994, but I was dismissed a few months ago because of my public statements. I embarrass our government because I have worked for different governments, both right wing and left wing politics, and for fifteen years I was chairman of numerous committees, [including] the High Council of Public Health, which advises the government on public health and vaccination policy. I was also vice-chair of a group of experts for the European region of WHO.
So I’ve been involved in managing several epidemics and pandemics, with different governments, and when I saw how the epidemic was managed since February/March 2020, I was amazed. I saw that it was completely crazy. That’s why I spoke out in the media, but now I’m being censored by the media.
Brian Gerrish: That brings us to the heart of the matter. I think it’s important to tell the audience that neither you nor Anne-Marie Yim are anti-vaccination. Would you tell us a little bit more about your position on that?
Christian Perronne: I am not against vaccination, because I have been shaping vaccination policy in France for many years. But the problem is that the products they call “vaccines” for Covid-19 are actually not vaccines. That’s my problem.
Brian Gerrish: Can we expand on that a little bit more? If they’re not vaccines, what would you call them?
Christian Perronne: Maybe genetic modifiers; I don’t really know the right term from a scientific perspective. But if you inject messenger RNA to produce a large amount of a spike protein, a fragment of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, you can’t control the process. And the problem is that we know that RNA can go back to DNA in human cells.
Usually it goes from DNA to RNA-this may be a little difficult for a general audience to understand-but it can also go the other way, because we have in our chromosomes, in our genome, genes in our DNA that come from retroviruses that were introduced from animals centuries or millennia ago, and these can code for enzymes that can code in the opposite direction. We now know (it is officially published), and now we find in the human genome DNA sequences that correspond to the RNA of the virus. This is proof that what I said in December  in an open letter, that it is dangerous to inject these products, has now been confirmed. And all governments continue to do it! To me, that’s a big mistake.
Brian Gerrish: And, Anne-Marie, can we ask you the same question? If you’re not opposed to vaccination in principle, what’s in store for us?
Anne-Marie Yim: Virologists who work in the field of vaccines say it’s not a vaccine because when you have a virus – for example, the flu, etc. – you take the virus and kill it with formaldehyde or with ultraviolet light (that’s called attenuating the virus) so that it’s harmless. Then you inject it along with a physiological serum and usually an adjuvant to boost the immune system. And that’s the definition of a vaccine.
And then, for the core of the vaccine, if you will: You can’t use other vectors if you’re going to inject it. But here, with Pfizer and Moderna and BioNTech and Johnson & Johnson [Janssen], it’s clearly different: Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech are mRNA vaccines, and AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are DNA viruses. Normally [you start] with the DNA, and the DNA is converted to RNA, and the RNA is read, which brings the ribosome to the S protein [spike protein].
But here we have the sequence of a gene – and this is the first time anything like this has ever been done. So it is clearly genetic material that is being injected into your body. And it shouldn’t be called a “vaccine” because that’s misleading.
So a lot of scientists say that it is a genetic injection. That’s why [they prefer] to call it “vaccination.”
Brian Gerrish: Professor Perronne, what I want to ask you – and this is for the broader audience, for the people who are really trying to get on with their lives, and suddenly we have these amazing events – what do you think is actually happening? What is being done around us in terms of Covid-19, the claim of a pandemic, and then the “vaccination program”?
Why did all of these particular effects occur, even though we have flu – of course, for many, many years – every winter, and people are dying, without these tremendous countermeasures being taken? What do you think is happening with Covid-19 and the “vaccine” program, and why is that happening?
Christian Perronne: I think this is a question that should be asked of politicians, because in the history of infectious medicine, it has never happened that a state or politicians have recommended systematic vaccination for billions of people in the world against a disease that has a mortality rate of 0.05% today. That is a very low mortality rate! And they are scaring everybody that a new so-called “delta variant” is coming from India, but in fact all these variants are less and less dangerous, and we know now that [with] this so-called “vaccine”, in the population that is vaccinated by and large, it is precisely in these people that the variants are emerging.
So I don’t understand why the politicians and the different authorities in the different countries are calling for mass vaccination when the disease is so mild. And we know that over 90% of the cases occur in very old people. And we can treat it: We have therapies. There are hundreds of publications showing that early treatments work: There’s hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, zinc, vitamin D, and so on – it works! There are publications!
So all these products, so-called “vaccines”, are useless, because we can very well control an epidemic. The best example is India: there are almost one and a half billion people living in many different states. In the states where people were treated with ivermectin, zinc, doxycycline and vitamin D, the epidemic stayed at a very low level: it was over pretty quickly. But in the states where they banned these antibiotic and antiviral treatments that work on the virus, and [where] they promoted the “vaccine” and also Remdesivir (coming from France and Belgium, because Remdesivir was so toxic and not effective: the French and Belgians sent tons of Remdesivir to the Indian population!), in these areas of India where they used “vaccines” and Remdesivir, the epidemic came back, with new deaths. This is proof that with early treatment you can succeed and the epidemic will be over very quickly.
In all countries where there is massive vaccination with these products (I don’t like the term “vaccination”), there is a resurgence of the epidemic with new deaths.
Mike Robinson: Professor Perronne, I want to go into more detail about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in a moment, but before we get to that, you said something in your last comment that raises a question. Is there a pandemic going on right now? What you said suggests that there is not. Has there ever been a pandemic?
But also in terms of “variants”: The mainstream media and politicians are once again pushing very hard on the regular Sunday morning political shows that the “delta variant” and the “subsequent variants” that are coming will have extremely negative effects on everyone who is not currently vaccinated. They say that the “vaccinated” will generally be fine this coming winter, but the unvaccinated will have a very hard time.
So is there a pandemic, has there ever been a pandemic, but should the unvaccinated also be afraid of the current “variants” that are out there and the coming “variants”?
Christian Perronne: Exactly the opposite! Vaccinated people are at risk from the new variants. In the case of 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. This has now been proven in Israel, where I am in contact with many doctors. There are big problems in Israel now: serious cases in hospitals are occurring in vaccinated people. And there has also been a major vaccination program in the United Kingdom, and there are problems there, too.
But even the “variants” are not very dangerous. All the “variants” since last year have been less and less virulent. That is always the case with 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 waves” were only very small waves, because the hospitals are not full anymore. But the media said that all the hospitals were full of patients. This is not true. Of course, the epidemic continued, but the “variants” were less and less virulent.
You know, in August 2020 it was said, “The ‘Spanish variant’ will kill all of Europe” – but in the end there was no real problem.
After that, it was “The British variant!”, and after that, “The New Zealand variant!”, and “The American variant!”, and “The South African variant!”, and so on. All of this is just media stuff. It’s not scientific. The “Delta variant” is of very low virulence. If you look at the official disease and mortality rates in Brazil and India, the last two countries in the world where the disease is actively transmitted, all the curves are going down. And now the epidemic is all but over in many countries around the world.
But now governments are requiring their citizens to be vaccinated with these so-called “vaccines” – and in the countries where they did that, after the epidemic had [already] ended, it returned, and the deaths started again.
In Vietnam, for example, it was an amazing success, they had only a few dozen deaths over more than a year, [the epidemic] ended, and then one of the ministers said, “We have to vaccinate the whole population!” Vaccination is now almost mandatory, and after this vaccination campaign started, the epidemic came back, and there were fatal cases again. That’s proof that these vaccines are not a vaccine, but can promote the recurrence of the disease and also deaths.
Mike Robinson: And that’s exactly what we saw in the UK, because in October-November  we saw a new wave come in that seemed to die down and even go back. As soon as the “vaccination” program started around December 8, it peaked – we had quite a peak in mid-January – and then, in February and March, that peak dropped off very steeply. The curve was very similar to what happened in 2020. And what happened in 2021, according to policymakers, was “due to vaccination.” That doesn’t seem to have taken into account what normally happens in a year with respiratory flu.
So could you say something about that, and also whether the policy of lockdown and “vaccination” was the right one, or whether herd immunity, as originally discussed, would have been a better way to go?
Christian Perronne: As far as the lockdowns are concerned, we now have the proof that it was completely useless in comparison between many countries in the world, because the countries with the strictest policy of restricting civil liberties and so on, like France – France is a master of suppressing liberties today – have the worst results in the world.
By the end of June 2020, we were [already] in a position to look at lethality. Lethality is the mortality rate of diagnosed cases. We could maybe mention PCR tests as the third factor in the equation – PCR tests are not very reliable – but at that time there were no PCR tests, and the diagnosis was based on the doctor, on a CT scan of the chest and so on, and that was a good and reliable diagnosis.
France was the worst country in the world. Yemen was a little bit worse than France, but Yemen is a country at war, where the health system is destroyed and the hospitals were destroyed. And imagine that France, which ten years ago was ranked by WHO as the best system in the world, had the worst results in terms of mortality, lethality, in the world!
We can’t really rely on the statistics in many countries, because in the PCR tests, where the RNA of the virus is amplified when you have small fragments from that swab in your nose, those are amplified much more by PCR tests, and so we have many, many false positives.
Since August 2020 [until today], most of the so-called “positive cases” are false positives. 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 no longer reliable.
Anne-Marie Yim: I agree, because the PCR test was developed by a scientist named [Christian] Drosten, and it has been shown that when the amplification threshold is over 25 [cycles] – if you go over 45 or 50 [cycles], as some laboratories do – you get 97% false positives and only 3% true positives. So these tests are very unreliable.
That’s why one physician, Dr. Hérault [name changed], has suggested that instead of doing a PCR test, you do serological tests, which means you examine the plasma and [measure] the dose of protective antibodies directed against the covid virus. That’s much more reliable. If the [required] dose is high, it means you are protected and don’t need vaccination. That’s what we need to tell people: that they are protected.
And as I said, the wife of [Professor] Adrian [V.S.] Hill, the scientist who invented the AstraZeneca vaccine, said that we cannot achieve herd immunity through vaccination.
I think the WHO has said that herd immunity should be achieved when 80% of the population is vaccinated – but that’s just a legal definition that is not scientifically based. Therefore, it should be considered null and void. It should not apply. You can’t apply it because herd immunity is the field of expertise of [Professor] Dolores Cahill, who is an immunologist, so she is an expert in this field, and she said that once you get infected and you don’t die, [i.e.] you recover, your innate immune system makes antibodies for life. Your B lymphocytes, which are in the bone marrow, build antibodies.
There is a recent study that was presented by a Thai physician in Germany, Dr. Sucharit [Bhakdi]. He presented some results that they measured the antibody levels in people who received the first and second injections. They found that it is not immunoglobulin M that is detected, but immunoglobulin G and A, which means it is the long-term antibodies that are present.
When your body first comes in contact with a virus, it produces immunoglobulin M, that’s the initial reaction. But when the antibody knows the virus and your body has memorized it and recognizes it, then you release immunoglobulin G and A. That’s the first reaction. And that’s what happens after the first injection and after the second injection. So that proves that we have already achieved herd immunity.
Christian Perronne: Just a comment to add to what Anne-Marie said: We should have reliable serological tests by now. Serology is taking a blood sample and looking for the antibodies that the body has made against a virus if you had the disease 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 a paper on this, comparing several serological tests (about twelve; I don’t remember the exact number) from China, Germany, France, and other countries. They were all evaluated by the Institut Pasteur in Paris, France. Most of these tests were bullshit. They could not correctly determine the number of antibodies.
I think that’s terrible, because I think the scientific community didn’t want to develop reliable serological tests [because of] some conflicts of interest, because if we had done that, we could see today that most of the British, French, Germans, and Spaniards are immune.
But if they showed that, it would be a big problem for marketing by the pharmaceutical companies because they would not be able to enforce the vaccination policy, because I think most people in Europe and other countries around the world are already immune. There is herd immunity.
So they did everything they could do to not have reliable serological tests, and that to me is a big scandal.
Anne-Marie Yim: This is sabotage.
Christian Perronne: Sabotage, yes.
Brian Gerrish: Anne-Marie, I want to ask you basically the same question that I just asked Professor Perronne, which is what is happening here. He answered me that I’d better ask the politicians, and I understand his answer, because we live in very strange times. We have what I would call a scientific-medical policy that is being pushed in the United Kingdom, France, and other countries. This policy is being pushed by politicians. There is little scientific debate about what is happening, and people who question the political policy, like Professor Perronne, are 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 are we facing these restrictions and these vaccination policies?
Anne-Marie Yim: Everyone has reported that during the last year and the first lockdown in March 2020, every doctor, like general practitioners [family doctors], have been given a protocol, like Dr. Hawk(e)s [name as heard], or even Dr. Perronne or Dr. Francis Christian in [Saskatoon,] Canada.
Basically, they reported the same thing: that they were bypassed by the policy protocol that was put in place to detect and treat the disease in its early stages, meaning that people who were sick with influenza from day one to day five, with symptoms like cough or loss of smell, difficulty swallowing, and so on, were sent to a center, especially in Luxembourg.
The general practitioners had orders to close their practices. Like Dr. [Benoît] Ochs [in Luxembourg], they closed their practice. They had to work for 48 to 72 hours in military centers, where they were not allowed to treat patients, but only to issue a prescription so that the [patients] could be tested to find out if they were positive. And then if they were [positive], they were sent home with a box of acetaminophen or Doliprane [French marketing name for paracetamol] or whatever.
And they waited for complications to occur by day 12, like the patient couldn’t breathe, he had shortness of breath. And if he had shortness of breath, he dialed 112 [emergency number], and then they sent an ambulance and took him to the intensive care unit, the emergency unit, where he was put into an induced coma, intubated, and given oxygen. They were not allowed to take heparin, an anticoagulant.
Then, when they were also forbidden to take [one word unclear; possibly “hydroxychloroquine”], complications arose and people suffered strokes. Their lungs failed, there was a cytokine storm, an inflammatory process, and they had water in their alveoli, and then they lost 40% to 60% of their lung capacity and couldn’t breathe. The oxygen-CO2 exchange stopped working, so the brain and other organs couldn’t get oxygen, which led to complications like tissue necrosis.
And [then] they would get a bacterial infection and then sepsis, and they would die. So they would only have about a 50% chance of recovery.
Now everyone agrees that this was a huge policy mistake and that this protocol is a complete malpractice. Doctors need to treat patients at an early stage and not let the disease progress to the point where people die. [Refusal of treatment is called “non-assistance à personnes en danger” in the French penal code, so it is a doctor’s duty not to let people die. The Hippocratic Oath states “primum non nocere,” which means “first of all, you must do no harm.” So you must not harm the patients, and here we are clearly harming the patients.
Doctors in France are [derided] by people as “four-D doctors.” The four Ds stand for doliprane [paracetamol], domicile [“send home”], dodo, which means “sleep,” and finally décès, “death.” That’s completely wrong. And now all the scientists have done research and found that paracetamol actually triggers a cytokine storm that leads to organ failure.
They found that acetaminophen is able to trigger oxidative stress, which is when superoxides form (when there is a lack of oxygen, a molecule called oxygenase forms, which has great oxidative power). Paracetamol is able to block an enzyme called glutathione reductase.
Consequently, the body is unable to break down these reactive oxidative species (ROS) into water and oxygen. In plain English, this means that acetaminophen blocks the body’s mechanism for breaking down ROS, which leads to apoptosis, the death of cells. That’s what it means.
So we now know that acetaminophen [as a treatment] is wrong.
Mike Robinson: It’s very interesting that you say that, Anne-Marie, because if I think back to March, April, and May of 2020, it was ibuprofen that was demonized in the British media as “dangerous,” which pushed people toward acetaminophen. So is ibuprofen dangerous in the same way?
Anne-Marie Yim: People keep saying that, but the disease progresses in different stages, and some molecular pathways are triggered, so you can’t give [the same] drug at a different time and at a different dosage.
A very simple example: If you give 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine for five days, from day 5 to day 12, you can eliminate or kill the virus. If the viral load is almost zero, you have gotten rid of the virus. However, if you give, say, 2 g of hydroxychloroquine in the ICU in an induced coma, you can have heart attack problems and death. That’s what they were trying to show with the RECOVERY study. They are trying to say, “Look, hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work! It kills patients if you give it at a late stage.” Of course [you should] treat at an early stage!
The same is true for ibuprofen. Apparently it was said that ibuprofen should not be given, but Dr. Ochs has found interesting results: that people who have been vaccinated have very high levels of D-dimers [proteins in blood tests that indicate a clotting process], and many physicians have reported the formation of blood clots with AstraZeneca.
But these blood clots are very unusual. They are not the result of the normal thrombosis process with all the cascades where fibrinogen is converted to fibrin by the thrombin, which in combination with the platelets leads to clots. [In Covid-19, there is thrombocytopenia, which is a very low platelet count].
So basically, it’s clotting, but it’s not caused by platelet formation with fibrin, as expected. Rather, it is triggered by a different process, namely leukocytes interacting with a protein on the surface of the endothelial cells of the arteries called E-selectin. So it’s the interactions of E-selectin with leukocytes that form these clots.
For example, Professor Dr. Ochs prescribes vitamin C and ibuprofen for vaccinees who have high D-dimer levels, normal leukocyte levels with high levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) – which is an indicator of inflammatory processes – and low platelet levels (thrombocytopenia).
This is very important because some doctors have found that in some people, blood clots form in the occipital lobe, the back part of the brain, as the disease progresses, and if you give them too much heparin or aspirin, the clots dissolve. But then if you fall below a certain level, if [the clots] are too free, you start bleeding because you don’t have enough platelets.
So it’s a very, very difficult symptom and a complex disease to develop. And you should give a certain drug at a certain time and at a certain dosage. The same drug can either save lives or kill lives. For example, ibuprofen is given when there is a high D-dimer level, a normal leukocyte level, a high CRP level, and a low platelet level. Under these conditions, vitamin C and ibuprofen can be administered, and patients recover: D-dimers normalize, and clots disappear.
So ibuprofen is a treatment to dissolve blood clots, but it should be administered taking into account all the parameters, if you will.
That was a very complex answer, because it is indeed a very complex disease.
Mike Robinson: Thank you very much. You mentioned the RECOVERY study. I would like to ask Professor Perronne about that study in the UK. The [microbiologist] Professor Didier Raoult was quoted as saying that it was “the Marx Brothers in science.”
In the RECOVERY study in the UK, the study participants were apparently deliberately overdosed, if that’s not too strong a word. I believe an initial dose of 2400 mg [hydroxychloroquine] was used, which was increased over the next ten days to a maximum dose of 800 mg per day. I wonder if you agree with Professor Raoult and if you have any concerns in light of the announcement that the United Kingdom may be doing a similar trial with ivermectin.
Christian Perronne: I was surprised at the design of the RECOVERY study, because on the first day, I think more than four or five times the maximum dose of hydroxychloroquine approved by the European Medicines Agency was used. We know that hydroxychloroquine at a very high dose carries a risk of suicide. And in the RECOVERY study, the mortality rate was high, much higher than in other studies.
So they changed the evaluation criteria, and we don’t have access to the original database that shows at what point in the course of therapy the participants died. Maybe they made that information disappear.
I think that in this study we had a problem with excess mortality that was due to completely stupid, very high doses of hydroxychloroquine. And when a French journalist asked the Oxford University professor, whose name I don’t remember [Martin Landray], who led the study, “Why did you use this very high and toxic dose of hydroxychloroquine?” he replied, “Oh, yes, that’s the usual dosage for treating amoebic dysentery.” I was so amazed, because hydroxychloroquine is not the [usual] treatment for amoebic dysentery.
This man was probably an epidemiologist-I don’t know his CV exactly [note: Landray is indeed an epidemiologist]-but I saw that he didn’t know anything about infectious diseases and about drugs for infections, and [yet] he was head of an international study. International because French scientists also participated in this study.
So for me, this was something quite terrible. I couldn’t imagine that experts could do such a study, and I couldn’t imagine that ethics committees could approve such a study with a very dangerous dosage.
Mike Robinson: Yes, that was Professor Landray. Are you concerned that the ivermectin trial announced by the U.K. government might go in the same direction to close the issue?
Christian Perronne: Ivermectin is a very good product, but it has not been proven [to WHO’s satisfaction] that ivermectin works. [For hydroxychloroquine, we have published many studies, including randomized studies – because last year, when the experts said hydroxychloroquine worked very well, there were randomized studies in China that showed it worked well, but after that, the studies by Didier Raoult in Marseille were not randomized; they were open assessments. So yes, [ivermectin] works very well, but it’s not proven: There was no placebo, and the trials were not randomized.
But I agree that if you have over 80% success, sometimes 90% success, you don’t need a placebo. That’s a completely stupid idea. Even the WHO published recommendations a few years ago that in a crisis situation a placebo [test] is not necessary if you have non-toxic drugs that work. It’s a completely stupid idea [that placebo testing is necessary] 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 trials. But for ivermectin, there have been randomized trials, and now it’s proven. And in India, it’s spectacular now. In the Indian states where ivermectin was used extensively, the success was tremendous, and in the states where ivermectin was not used, but vaccinated with this so-called “vaccine,” it was a disaster.
If you look at the world news, there is a woman [Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, as reported by UK Column News at 1:17′ on June 30, 2021] who was at a high level in WHO [Chief Scientist] who is Indian, and now she is on trial [UK Column note: has been indicted] in India for saying that ivermectin is not useful and is toxic and so on.
The claim that ivermectin is toxic is completely nonsensical: hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people in the world have taken ivermectin for [parasitic] diseases, [lymphatic] filariasis, and so on. So it’s a very well-known product. No, it works, it’s totally proven.
But the problem is that all the drug agencies in the world-the FDA in the United States, the European Medicines Agency, the French Medicines Agency-are saying, “No, hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work; azithromycin doesn’t work; ivermectin doesn’t work,” even though there is many, many published proofs that they do work. Because if they admit that they work, it is impossible for them to market their so-called “vaccines.” That is the only reason; it is a marketing reason.
To me, that’s terrible, and I think all these people should one day have to account for why they made these decisions that contradict any ethical basis.
Anne-Marie Yim: I completely agree with you. Professor Perronne talked about Professor Didier Raoult from the hospital in Marseille. He is the first infectious disease specialist who cured people [of Covid-19] in France with a protocol of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and – later – zinc. But initially there was a lot of controversy because he had cured people without randomized blind testing [as a basis]. That’s [the requirement for] a protocol that pharmaceutical labs set up when they have a drug candidate in the pipeline: They test it on animals first, and if it works, it goes into Phase I, and then they can take it into Phases II, III, and IV before they get approval to market the drug,” he said.
The thing is: When it’s tested, they give it to doctors, and the doctor selects a group of about fifty people first, then a hundred, then 3,000, and so on. Half of them are given a placebo (so just a physiological serum) and the other half are given the active ingredient, the drug. And then they compare whether there’s an outcome or not. And that’s what randomized blind trials mean: “blind” because the doctor doesn’t know which patients are getting the placebo and which are getting the real drug.
The reason the study was so controversial was because Professor Raoult had done his study with, I think, only twenty people or less, and he didn’t do a placebo test, which means he treated all his patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin – and he got a 100% cure. They said, “Your study is not valid because you didn’t have a control group” (meaning the placebo group). “You should have given the physiological serum to twenty other people.” And he said, “When I have people who are sick and dying, I don’t play with their lives. I 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], which trains its PhD students (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’s valid!”
And then he repeated a study with 3,000 people because they said, “Your results are not valid because you didn’t have a placebo control group and the cohort – that is, the number of people tested – was too small to be significant; you should do the study with at least 3,000 people; only then can you go to Phase II.” All of these protocols were established by pharmaceutical laboratories when they apply to health authorities for approval to market the drug.
Mike Robinson: So it’s a little ironic that the vaccine manufacturers got rid of all their placebo groups by giving their groups the vaccine!
Anne-Marie Yim: Yes, they have always tested their drugs with placebos. They select men, women, and different age groups so they have a [representative] group, and they look at whether they have covid only or whether they have covid along with concomitant diseases – so, for example, a weak heart or type II diabetes. So they look closely at people [for participation in trials]: their gender, their age, whether they have any diseases, whether they have covid [only] or whether they have covid plus something else. And then the group is divided into two groups so that there are the same number of people in each group.
For example, if they have a woman in her thirties [in the 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 without Covid, [all together]. And they keep these two populations identical 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 it’s not normal, that in some studies there’s no randomized control group and so on, but [in fact] the government in France sponsored two big studies: a DisCoVeRy study, which was called “international,” “European,” but [in which] in fact few people outside of France participated; and [secondly] the iCovid study [as heard].
And there was a study comparing different strategies: Remdesivir, Retrovir (an anti-inflammatory HIV drug), and I can’t remember all the branches of the study and all the groups. There was also a hydroxychloroquine group, and the iCovid trial included [a group treated with] hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.
When the fraudulent study was published in The Lancet, it said hydroxychloroquine was “dangerous” or “not effective.” Two days later, the Minister of Health banned the continuation of hydroxychloroquine groups in randomized official trials [in France]. It was stopped immediately.
But in fact, some of the data from the interim analysis of these two trials leaked onto the Internet, and we could clearly see that when the minister said, “Stop hydroxychloroquine!” the only group that had an efficiency of fewer deaths was the group that used either hydroxychloroquine in the DisCoVeRy trial or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin in the iCovid trial.
It was still not statistically significant, because in the DisCoVeRy trial there were 1,500 patients scheduled [to be treated with this protocol], but actually there were only 3,000 [presumably Professor Perronne meant to say “three hundred”], and it was the same with iCovid.
So it was not totally significant, but if you look at the curves, it was spectacular: the [deaths] with hydroxychloroquine were much less.
The experts who were responsible for these studies didn’t show these data – I got them through other means, of course. They said, ‘Oh, no, hydroxychloroquine is down!’ But in fact, that wasn’t [seen] in our studies at all, but it was a big public lie coming from scientific experts.”
And unfortunately, two weeks later, it turned out that the Lancet study was bogus, but the minister didn’t change his policy; he continued to ban hydroxychloroquine. And now people say I’m not a scientific guy. They are unscientific. They are the charlatans. They are not based on good science.
And I am deeply shocked at all these so-called “experts” who are consultants to our agencies, who appear on television every day, most of whom have major conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical companies that make Remdesivir, who also make the “vaccine” and so on. That is a big scandal.
I think all these people in the media should be fired if we follow the French law, and also [those] in other European countries should be fired from the official boards. They should no longer be consultants.
They should not be chairmen of groups. I was chairman of the High Council of Public Health for fifteen years in the field of infectious diseases, so I know about it; I know the whole system. To me, this is a big scandal.
Anne-Marie Yim: Yes, it is corruption, it is corruption. Basically, people are lying and they are disposing of good scientific people like Professor Perronne or Professor Raoult and trying to discredit them publicly. And we know that Remdesivir increases the inflammatory process and does not work at all compared to hydroxychloroquine.
So, as Professor Perronne says, they are trying to block studies; they are trying to lie to the public by saying hydroxychloroquine does not work and remdesivir does work. It is the same thing with ivermectin: they try to do these studies, but then they cheat on the results.
That is shameful. It’s a scandal. Scientifically, it’s fraud, and politically, it’s a crime. The Indian Bar Association is suing the chief scientist of [WHO in India] right now because of this whole policy, which has led to more than three million deaths worldwide.
Brian Gerrish: I think we absolutely agree: we’re dealing with charlatans. We are dealing with politicians and also members of health organizations who claim to be protecting the public, but in fact they are not protecting the public, they are allowing the public to be harmed by these so-called “vaccinations.”
May I go back to Professor Perronne and ask him for his opinion on the adverse effects of vaccines? We have now collected considerable data on adverse effects, and here in the UK the figures collected by the regulatory body MHRA now amount to over a million adverse effects recorded, and the number of deaths is about 1,400, so we are talking about considerable harm.
Professor Perronne, how do you assess the adverse effects currently registered?
Christian Perronne: In the past, with other, real vaccines, there have been some crises, problems with some side effects; but neither with myself nor with friends and relatives have I ever seen such severe side effects. I even know of two deaths in my environment: the mother of a friend and a man, the cousin of another friend, died as a result of the “vaccine”.
As a French citizen, I see deaths and paralysis in my environment. One woman, a neighbor, who was vaccinated, developed malignant arterial hypertension a few days afterwards; she had not had hypertension all her life. Multiple thromboses, partial paralysis, arthralgic [joint pain] problems – in my neighborhood I have seen many cases.
I think that the databases [on adverse effects] in some countries are not accurate, because in the cases I’ve seen, I know that the general practitioners [family doctors] didn’t want to report the death or the side effect to the authorities and said, “No, it’s just a coincidence!”
So many, many side effects are not reported. When there’s a stroke, they say, “Oh no, it’s not the vaccine; it’s [just] a stroke; this person was old, so it’s normal to have a stroke.”
As I talk to my patients (I have some patients who are high-level directors of companies), I know-and they tell me-that the doctors in the big companies where a lot of employees were “vaccinated” (I don’t like to use the term “vaccinated”) [saw that they] had problems, but the occupational physicians didn’t want to report the cases to the French authority. So it’s not associated with the “vaccine”; it’s dismissed as a “coincidence.”
If we compare the French database with the Dutch one, with the same proportion of vaccinated patients [in both populations], the reporting rate in France is much lower. This is not normal! But then if we look at the European level, we see that there are a large number of deaths and serious adverse events.
We know – the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control in the United States, has officially confirmed this – that many young people who were “vaccinated” had heart problems: myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, or pericarditis, an inflammation of the covering around the heart. So that’s official; it’s reported worldwide.
And if we compare the mortality rate in others, we find that it could be similar in vaccinated children. As we know, the disease [Covid-19] is not so common in children, and very few children have severe disease, and the mortality rate [Covid] in children is close to zero. Today we know that the risk of dying or having severe problems is much higher in vaccinated children than in unvaccinated children.
And now we see in some countries that most of the problems, most of the cases, are from vaccinated people transmitting the disease. And of course, this is not the official language, but in France, the government is lying: saying, “Although we’ve seen some cases, it’s the fault of the unvaccinated who infect the vaccinated.”
I am a member of the Louis Pasteur Institute and I have been working in the field of vaccination for many years. It’s the first time in my life that I’ve heard from companies, from manufacturers, from ministers, from WHO [such speeches], “It’s a very good vaccine – but we have to tell you that if you’re vaccinated, you can still get the disease! And we’re not sure, but it might slow down transmission.”
This is not normal. If you are vaccinated with an effective vaccine, you are protected. You shouldn’t have to wear a mask anymore and you should be able to live a normal life. But in many countries, they say, “Oh, you’re vaccinated, but you’re not really protected.” And now they say to the vaccinated – who should be protected, who should have confidence – “Oh, the unvaccinated will infect you!”
Now, as far as the “health passport” is concerned: you know they published [this proposal] five weeks ago in Israel, and they were on the verge of a civil war in Israel. There were fights within the families. The “vaccine” was mandatory for doctors, for students. And now they have stopped this [requirement].
In France, President Macron will give a speech tomorrow night [July 12], and he is expected to say [as he has already done] that vaccination will be mandatory for health care workers, health care providers, and for participation in some [aspects of] public life. I think that’s a major scandal, and I think there’s going to be a civil war if we go down that road.
Brian Gerrish: Anne-Marie, could I ask you the same question about the side effects of vaccines? We see the numbers that are collected here in the UK; we know that the MHRA says that maybe only 10% of the most serious reactions are recorded, and the MHRA also says that maybe only 2% to 4% of the milder side effects are recorded.
So there are far too few serious reactions being recorded, and yet the public is constantly being told that they are safe. What do you think is the main reason for the huge increase in adverse reactions to the “vaccine”?
Anne-Marie Yim: As you said, the official numbers of deaths from “vaccination” are about 15,000 [across Europe]. Originally it was 14,000, but the number has gone up, and we now have officially 15,000 deaths [registered in the] Pharmacovigilance Network [Eudravigilance]. And in fact, it’s underreported. People talk about 10%, sometimes even 5% in France. So one should multiply this number by [up to] a hundred, yes.
First of all, why is it underreported? Because that’s what a doctor should do: For example, if you are vaccinated and you have side effects, you should see a doctor and tell him. He then has to fill out an online form that takes fifteen minutes and is forwarded to a network.
In Luxembourg, for example, we have to send it to the group in Nancy [eastern France] because we work with the [French] Région du Grand Est. That’s why the numbers are lower [than in reality] and underreported: Whether it’s CDC or VAERS, all these official bodies report blood clots at AstraZeneca, and at Pfizer there is Bell’s palsy.
As Professor Perronne said, myocarditis can occur, especially in young people. Dr. Hervé Seligmann said the same thing: “In Israel, they have found that young people get myocarditis, especially men under 45. As Professor Perronne says, there is a correlation [between age and mortality from the Covid vaccine]: a lot of old people die, but no young people die.
And why? Because [the young] have high glutathione levels and therefore do not die; they are protected compared to the oxidative stress induced by the vaccine [in the elderly].
I would like 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 caused by oxidative stress.
The secondary adverse [reactions] are basically a cytokine storm that leads to organ failure. And that can be the heart, the brain, the lungs or the kidney. The process can occur [in any of these organs]. Lung disease develops very quickly, and when it reaches a certain stage, you have this inflammatory process and these clots that then migrate everywhere, into the organs.
If they move to the brain, you have [thrombosis]; if they move to the heart, of course, you have this whole inflammatory process, this leakage of water into the organ, and then the organ stops functioning.
Basically, your vital functions become paralyzed. That can happen very abruptly and brutally, and all within 24 hours.
There have also been reports of allergic reactions like anaphylactic shock and sometimes bleeding on the skin.
These are very serious adverse reactions, and yet the media keeps telling us, “The vaccine is safe, it is effective, and the benefits far outweigh the risks, so we should keep vaccinating people”!
In my opinion, this is all propaganda. The reality is that the vaccine does not work. So basically it triggers the aging process and cancer, and that’s just the beginning. I think this is [just] the beginning of what we’re going to see.
They are lying to us. They say it’s safe; no, it’s not safe, it kills people. It actually kills people. It doesn’t protect against the variants; it doesn’t protect against the transmissibility; it doesn’t protect against the disease.
So why do people get vaccinated? The people who get “vaccinated” say, “Oh, because I want to travel. I want to go on vacation. I want to go to school. I want to be able to take my test. I want to be able to go to a restaurant. I want to be able to live a normal life.” That’s basically what people are saying.
People have done research and found out that there is a lipid nanoparticle that is made by a company called Acuitas Therapeutics [from Canada] that supplies it to Pfizer/BioNTech [and] Moderna.
They [the lipid nanoparticles used to deliver Covid-19 vaccines] are made of three components: first, phospholipids (a fat), binase [as I said], but also polyethylene glycol. And that gets into your brain. It can cross the blood-brain barrier. Normally it shouldn’t, but it can get into your brain.
Brian Gerrish: Thank you very much for taking us through a subject that is very difficult for many people to bear, but we have to be realistic about the concern about what is happening.
I would like to get back to Professor Perronne. Just one last question, because you have already said a lot. Professor, I would like to ask you: if you were in power right now, if you had the power in France, what would you do to solve the situation that 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 among general practitioners.
I would also promote strict isolation of symptomatic patients, because that is the only way to contain transmission: two weeks of isolation during the infection period of symptomatic people is enough, but strictly isolated, with mask if needed, and so on. Treat them very early. And if you do that, the [transmission] will stop quickly.
I’m in favor of strict isolation of symptomatic patients, but the lockdowns that have been put in place in many, many countries around the world are completely nonsensical. You don’t stop an epidemic with a lockdown, with masks on the street! That has been shown in Denmark in randomized trials with mask wearers and non-mask wearers. The mask is not effective.
So I would immediately restore all civil liberties, because France today is no longer a democracy, it’s a dictatorship, where there are only five or six people at the table who can bypass parliament and say, “Vaccination is mandatory,” and so on.
So restore freedom; restore democracy; stop these useless so-called “vaccination campaigns” for a disease with a very, very low mortality rate; and treat patients immediately without confirmation [as heard].
In addition, PCR testing of the asymptomatic general population should be discontinued. This is completely unscientific. The people who developed the PCR test never did PCR testing on a large scale in asymptomatic patients because the rate of false positives is enormous.
So it’s very simple: you isolate the cases, you treat them, and then it’s over.
Brian Gerrish: Thank you very much, Professor.
And, Anne-Marie, what would you say to your scientific colleagues who don’t seem to recognize the dangers that you see right now?
Anne-Marie Yim: I think they all see them, but they are afraid.
There are two kinds of scientists: those who take bribes and are corrupted, like Dr. Fauci and all the others, like Bill Gates and all those people. They are in the cockpit now.
Good professors like Professor Perronne and Professor Raoult or Dr. Ochs are being sued and dragged into court by the medical profession itself. The medical association sues French doctors, and it is the same in France, in Canada, in Luxembourg; we see the same pattern everywhere. We see that pattern here as well.
You know, we have to have the courage to go to these people and say, “You are corrupted. All the policies you are prescribing are nonsense. They’re not science-based, they’re not law-based. You are trying to take away our freedoms. You are putting social pressure on us: If you don’t get vaccinated, you lose your job. And if you want to travel, you need the vaccine. This is extortion.”
All scientists should have the courage to say, “Enough is enough.” Not just scientists, but lawyers. They all know the truth. Everyone knows the truth; it’s just a question of whether we fight or don’t fight. Do we conform to society, to the system, or not? And I think that our thirst for freedom and independence should overcome our fear, and we should just say, “Stop. Stop this vaccination campaign. Stop it, and stop it now.”
Brian Gerrish: Thank you so much for joining us. It was really fantastic to hear the information you shared on this very important topic.