Transcript Pr Raoult YouTube video 6/22/2021 « Covid-19: a confusing epidemic »

Translation of original speech in French: Citizen4Science – Please report any errors/omissions to us – video: bottom

Question: Professor Didier Raoult, what do you think of the epidemic situation in England? 

It shows, as it has always shown since the beginning, that new diseases are totally unpredictable. They are complex. That therefore, uh, the general press, which would like to have simple solutions to the incredible fire that has been unleashed, thinks each time that there is going to be a magic wand to change things and it is not the case, so, three weeks ago they said look at England, they are really the best, they vaccinated everyone, look, it’s extraordinary, there are more cases in England.
Except that, if there are more cases in England, I remind you that when I started to talk about variants, nobody at Le Monde, my paper was refused three times, nobody at Le Monde wanted to accept the idea that the reason why were variants, that it was not just the rebound of something but what you see here are epidemic curves.

Each time, a new epidemic, and this one that is starting in England, which we don’t know the dimension it will take, is an epidemic due to the Indian variant, we do not have to call it the Indian variant anymore, now we call it the delta variant, not to say that it is the Indians who did it, It is not them who did it, this, these first cases that appeared are there, but in any case, it is still there and inside now they are at more than 10,000 cases per day of which 20% are vaccinated so uh, the, when I said there is no magic wand we must use the vaccine like other weapons, especially for the most fragile populations.
I agree with myself, I continue to agree with myself, so, you can see that there is no uh The fight is not only to try to organize social measures to prevent people from having a more or less reasonable life, nor to vaccinate everyone, we must also fight, This is what I think is an essential element that has been neglected, and I will come back to it, we have to take care of people, to organize care, where things have gone the worst in the world is in London.
In practice, it is the organization of care and the fact of transforming this epidemic into a vast field of experimentation for new drugs or vaccines, so we must first take care of the patients, take care of them calmly, correctly, test all the possibilities, not forbid the use of harmless drugs in which people may have found that it had some use.

We have entered a world that is entirely ideological and cannot be convinced by observation, that is to say that it is an extraordinary observation, that of India was an extraordinary observation, well the press, part of the press, was happy that there were cases in India, saying look, they are using hydroxychloroquine, there are cases anyway, but finally the epidemic is falling back and I don’t see anyone saying that it is because of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, which has just been included in the recommended drugs.
So epidemics do not obey the press or politicians, they do not obey anyone, so when we are facing an epidemic, we have to try to evaluate the measures. We have to accept to question the strategies and the general orientations that we have given when we see that we are, the victory is not there, so, we have to continue to fight so we have to come back to medical care, health, doctors, so as to avoid the maximum damage during this epidemic.

Question: What is the status of the verification of publications following the denunciations made by Ms. Bik and on the PubPeer site?

Yes it is, [inaudible] it is, it is actually quite interesting that some of the press, now, where she herself is now screaming saying that she is the one who is being harassed, well, I personally do not know her, I have never spoken to her, I have never replied to her, I don’t know who this lady is, nor why she is getting so excited about us, I don’t know what happened to her.
There are several hypotheses that I have and that I do not want to present because it is going to be, it is all going to be filed with justice, I am not going to discuss with her to know about each or every one of the things, about all the points that she blames me for, it took us 200 hours of work, you see, to do this:

Which is the response to the 246 comments, see, that there was on PubPeer, I am passing this on to justice, I am passing this on to the President of the University so that we can see how far it is exclusively harassment, it is nothing but harassment that took me, which took us a long time to respond, but I usually respond to every question, not to the press, but as a I am a professional, answering point by point, so there are 70% of the observations that concern so-called ethics.
I hope that Mrs. Bik, and her, the people who follow her, consider that analyzing human droppings is human sampling, which is a fundamental error, droppings are waste, they are not human samples and if they have not been collected for a specific purpose If they have not been collected for a specific purpose, they are nothing more than waste and therefore, from the moment there is no longer any link between the person who has produced the poop and the poop, there is no particular problem, lice are not human samples either.
You have to explain it to her, because it was, including a newspaper that must have had someone who did not quite understand either, who asked if an Ethics Committee had been requested to remove lice from clothing, okay, no, but, so, we have arrived at people who have a notion, notions of ethics and science that are ridiculous uh, the, and the rest, is of the same nature.
She has instruments to detect publications that are very very rustic next to what we are able to do at the expense [inaudible] become specialists in duplication analysis, with real tools, not with Photoshop, if you want, serious stuff, uh, and so, uh, there you go, all that uh, and then the, his opinions on what we do, the fact that we are neo-colonialists, that we shouldn’t name the Massiliensis bacteria all that, it is slander that has no, slander so at the end of the day it is not a subject for discussion, it is not a subject for dialogue.
It is, it is, there are people who harass us, we have to defend ourselves, like all people we have the right to respond when we are harassed. So, the answer to the harassment is to say, listen, now stop or it is justice that does it, but we have, you know, even, when she removes little by little the terrible things that she put on the Internet, the last thing that she put is, you know, the, there are people who are over 80 years old who are dying, they are refused by the resuscitation and so we said listen, we are going to publish, listen with the Optiflow we manage to save some of them, there are lots of people who use it since then.
And so she made a text message saying we do not do any control, the control was dead. The controls, die if you do not oxygenate someone so that means, she is no doctor she does not know what a sick person is, and she makes comments that are, it is, i iss called the, the parachute paradigm so you know we never, for the parachute, we never did a control group to try the parachute, see, so we never said listen [inaudible] jump with an empty bag, the others, jump with a parachute, to know if you die when you jump without a parachute. That’s called the parachute paradigm.
That is to say, for the Optiflow, people who die and you have to do a control group to see if you don not put them in the Optiflow if they really die, but it is that is to say, you can see the total disconnection that we have in this world now between the observed reality that is the one that we see, I do not know, treating 35,000 people, so this, we know what we are talking about, it is reality, these are real things, they are there, you can not make people disappear, a magic wand you cannot make them reappear.
It is true and so there are people who, who have opinions on everything and there has been this kind of madness around, around this disease, and around treatments that uh, are not profitable which, which, which, which really raises a question.

Question :  What do you think should be done in the future?

In the future, I think that we must do what I thought about twenty years ago, that is what I wrote in my report to the Ministry, that I had, that I spent my time repeating, we must organize ourselves, that is to say, the organization of care must be achieved.
We need to have centres like our that can really take care of the patients rather than talking about them, okay, we need to use all the possibilities, the idea that, that we ban the use of drugs that are harmless, that we try to make people believe that they are toxic, against all evidence and that it works, it’s one of the greatest mysteries of what I have seen, how we could make people believe that a drug that must have been prescribed 50 billion times.
So if Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine were so toxic, how people could be made to believe that, how people could swallow such a thing is something that is unheard of, what had to be studied in this situation and from the beginning, it is , well, there is a new drug, let’s study its toxicity thoroughly because that is the problem, the toxicity of the drugs that we know, we already know it, we are not going to reinvent it in the same way.
And now, I am happy, we are starting to see the real data that are available from the ANSM, that is to say, from the national drug agency, with the General Director of Health (DGS), with INSERM to understand why they stopped the work on Hydroxychloroquine in the middle of the process when they were showing that it worked and that it was published without the number of cases necessary to demonstrate that it worked.
I am glad that they try to give us lessons in methodology and I am always glad to learn, but the basis of the method is when you define something it is to know how many people you need in each group to show that there is a difference. If you do not have enough people to show that there is a difference in death, for example, if you don’t have enough people in each group to show that there is a difference in death, for example, of 50%, then the study is not significant, the study does not make sense.
But to stop it in the middle of the study when you have not reached the minimum objectives to show something like that, it is absolutely necessary that you cannot show that it works.

So I am happy that this paper has just been accepted, where we explain that the official work that was done on the evaluation of Hydroxychloroquine by other teams than ours did not have sufficient numbers to conclude that there was a trend, that there were fewer deaths in the Hydroxychloroquine group, so one day this will have to be explained, now we have the letters, we will see what happened, we will see, you see, I am not worried about the future, it is the same, these decisions, these terse decisions, the ban on prescribing a drug that was prescribed in millions of doses per year or now banning the use of ivermectin here when it is recommended in India or in Argentina, we can see that all this is not done in the name of reason.
There is not a different reason here, where there is much more trouble, in Europe, which has been the place with the United States where there have been the most deaths and the worst management, we do not have a better conception of medicine than the Indians, the Argentinians the Chinese, the Koreans, it’s, it’s, it’s not exact, so inside it’s a basic reconsideration, with a real reflection.
I hope that there will be a thorough reflection and that, I don’t know, will pass either by justice, or by a new parliamentary inquiry, with perhaps a new parliamentary inquiry, by a new parliamentary inquiry, with perhaps a new parliament to review and understand how we arrived at things that no one can understand unless they become conspiracy theorists, that is to say that all this, there is a phenomenal manipulation in this epidemic so, I am waiting to know if all this was a succession of stupid things with people who are afraid to go back or to contradict themselves or what is going on so that we do things that are so implausible.

« Merci beaucoup »