We are at the beginning of the vaccination campaign and many people will wonder about the need for a new dose. What do you suggest?
Please read my book as soon as possible. Decisions of this importance cannot be made without understanding what we are putting into our bodies. It seems that no one has understood what messenger RNA is and how Covid vaccines do not work like the others. It is an incredible decision to modify our genetic heritage by adding foreign genetic information. This information enters our cells, even our brain. With a modified genetic code, different from our natural mRNAs, these vaccines force us to produce a toxic viral protein called Spike. Moderna’s own developers spoke of “hacking the software of life.”
What is the scientific basis that supports your theory regarding possible risks or adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccines and how does it compare with the scientific evidence accepted in the medical community?
My “theory”? But it’s not a theory: it’s a fact! When the Israeli Health Minister reports that 10% of vaccinated women suffer from menstrual problems, we are not talking about theories! When another Minister of Health, like the German Karl Lauterbachpublicly apologizes to the victims of the serious effects of vaccines, these are not theories [Lauterbach, afirmó que no es ético rechazar la vacuna contra el coronavirus y aseguró que solo la vacunación puede poner fin a la pandemia, con lo que se manifestó a favor de su obligatoriedad (sic)]. It’s about lives. The only thing I have done is collect official documents from health organizations such as the OMSthe FDAalong with those of Pfizer y Modern, as well as scientific publications. They are the instruments of our scientific community. We have no others.
His theory fuels conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccines. What differentiates you from them?
For the second time, you speak of “my theory.” If you read my book, and the references I use, you will see that the conspiratorial and anti-vaccine labels are gratuitous smears! Albin Michel, in France, and La Esfera de los Libros, here in Spain, are serious publishers that surely would not have published me otherwise.
Do the essentials, as you call them, have an advantage over vaccinated people against other pandemics?
What I call the “essential” ones are known in France as the “suspended.” 100% of my royalties go to them because our Government punished them by prohibiting them from any job, any salary, for more than 20 months, under the pretext that they refused to reveal their vaccination status. We are talking about tens of thousands of health professionals, such as doctors and firefighters. In my opinion, these are “essential” people who, with their sacrifice, have reminded us of the importance of the freedom to accept or reject a medical procedure, and of respect for medical secrecy. Let us remember that vaccination is a medical act and, therefore, is subject to professional secrecy. These are the basic rules of our society. Like taking the time necessary to evaluate new drugs or vaccines, instead of injecting them in the middle of phase 3. Kathrin Janssenhead of Vaccine Research and Development at Pfizer, understood this well when he told Nature magazine on November 11, 2022: “We started flying the plane when we were still building it.” [En la misma entrevista Janssen asegura : «Me parece sorprendente, después de todo lo que pasó la humanidad, cuántas personas todavía no ven el valor de las vacunas y no se vacunan»]. If you want to get on board a plane that’s still being built, it’s a choice that can’t be forced on anyone. Even today. [La reciente concesión del Premio Nobel de Medicina a los pioneros de las vacunas con ARN mensajero, Katalin Karikó y Drew Weissman, confirma que se lleva trabajando con estas vacunas desde hace ya más de 30 años, por lo que la idea de que las cosas se hicieron demasiado rápido parece equivocada].
He talks about individual genetic variability influencing the response to vaccines against Covid-19. What could be the implications of this variability in the vaccination strategy?
This aspect, according to the information I have, has not been publicly debated. However, it is essential. It shows that we are unequally exposed to mRNA vaccination and that our genetic variability leads to a very different immune profile. Studies show that the variability of immune responses to mRNA vaccines, both humoral (via our antibodies) and cellular (via our T cells), is influenced by individual HLA profile. Therefore, taking our HLA profile into account seems to be the minimum in a society that believes itself to be modern, when in reality it treats everyone equally.
What is your position regarding herd immunization strategies and the acquisition of herd immunity through vaccination?
My “stance”, as you call it, is not to argue a vaccine policy against this or that disease, but to share with people what concerns our genetics, its beauty and wealth; the importance of respecting it and not modifying it; the failures and dangers of messenger RNA in the last 20 years, and the repeated condemnations of the pharmaceutical industry. This is the content of my book, The Sorcerer’s Apprentices, put into simple and accessible words for everyone. If I have specifically addressed the risks inherent in vaccination against coronaviruses, it is because through a phenomenon called ADE, antibodies behave differently and, instead of neutralizing the virus by slowing its spread, they facilitate it. Therefore, there is a risk of producing antibodies that facilitate the disease instead of fighting it. In this case, producing antibodies does not seem to be the Holy Grail… This is the risk that has been known for many years about vaccines against coronaviruses, as well as vaccines against bronchiolitis and Dengue. [Los informes actuales muestran que las vacunas frente al covid19 disponibles en España no han mostrado ningún indicio de provocar el fenómeno ADE].
I have been called a conspiracy theorist when it was not true, just because I had done my job better almost three years before the others, or because I had more courage.
In your opinion, how should the Covid-19 pandemic be addressed effectively?
Without a doubt, my proposal is that we do the same as in 2019. The great thing we did then was treat pneumonia, whose name and cause we did not know, with antibiotics, and probably Vitamin D. No vaccines, no masks, no PCR tests, no confinement , without stress, without paracetamol. Only much later did we realize, thanks to Spain, that the virus was already circulating in 2019. It was in Barcelona where the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater was confirmed as early as March 2019. Furthermore, thanks to various publications In the United States, France, Italy, Spain and Brazil, evidence of its presence has been provided that same year, sometimes in wastewater and other times through the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that we found in patients at the time. Why couldn’t we draw conclusions and consider that 2019 was an example of success in patient management, much more practical than the traumatic solutions that were taken and for which we are still paying the consequences? We would then have an alternative source of inspiration for the new epidemic announced for the fall.
Some experts predict a pandemic of a deadlier flu virus. In your opinion, are we prepared and how should we approach it?
If these experts predict something, then it can be said that we are talking about a theory! And it’s theories like these that have kept people afraid. I don’t know where they come from, or what their justification is. I don’t think there’s anything scientific about them. I am a scientist who works from observations. I don’t read the future in my crystal ball. To each his own.
You ask me if we are prepared for the future. But how can we be if we are not even able to take into account what has happened, for example in 2019, and what is happening? A publication by Anthony Fauci analyzed all pandemics, including the Spanish flu, and concluded that the deaths were not due to the virus, but to secondary bacterial infections, and therefore antibiotics had to be taken into account for any future pandemic. [Aunque la investigación existe, no hace mención alguna a las mascarillas ni a su supuesta vinculación con la neumonía bacteriana]. And that is precisely what we were doing in 2019 when SARS-CoV-2 was circulating, unknowingly, we were treating patients with antibiotics.
He is not the first or the last person to speak of a human origin of SARS-CoV-2. Can you provide us with any scientific data in that regard?
I was one of the few scientists who dared to talk about the human origin of SARS-CoV-2 because the others wrote in March 2020 things like: “We strongly condemn conspiracy theories that suggest that covid-19 does not have a natural origin.” ». So there were very few of us who dared to express this doubt in March 2020. Today, as published in Science in November 2022, the consensus among virologists is, as I have always said without ever changing my position, that the origin natural of SARS-CoV-2 is “almost zero.” [En dicho artículo se concluye: «Los acontecimientos precisos que rodearon la propagación del virus siempre estarán confusos, pero toda la evidencia circunstancial hasta ahora apunta a que se produjo más de un evento zoonótico en el mercado de Huanan en Wuhan, China, probablemente entre noviembre y diciembre de 2019».].
She has to be very convinced of what she says because many have called her anti-vaccine and conspiracy-minded. Has she ever regretted saying what she says?
As you may have already deduced, scientists have done a 180 degree turn and agree, as I do, that its origin is most likely in a laboratory. They have stopped defending a natural origin of the virus, as they did in the past, condemning those who disagreed with them. Under these conditions, having been branded a conspiracist when it was not true, just because I had done my job better almost three years before the others, or because I had more courage, is shameful. It’s even scandalous. It’s as if they accused you of having a fake reputation. I note that these scientists have not apologized to public opinion either, which will cause a loss of confidence that is easy to anticipate.
Three years ago I preferred to share a scientific truth rather than protect my reputation
So, for my part, three years ago I preferred to share a scientific truth rather than protect my reputation. I would do it again? Yes, because behind it is the scandal of the authorities, who have done nothing since then to protect our populations against the possible future leak of other modified viruses from laboratories.
Their theories are very reminiscent of those who still maintain today that HIV was a virus created in a laboratory by humans. Do you think that the AIDS virus is also the work of humans and the industry to sell medicines?
What I can share is that in my 30 years of scientific career, which culminated in the highest rank of research director at Inserm, I have never posed the slightest theory. Not even about the origin of the virus, what I have always said is that an analysis cannot be a test, even if it is shared by the majority of virologists. That’s why we say “almost zero.” This is also the reason why we cannot say that vaccines are safe and effective. This is called scientific caution. For me it is important. It is one of our treasures. The great physicist Poincaré said: “Doubting everything or believing everything are two equally comfortable solutions, both exempt us from thinking.” Let’s say that I am one of those who prefers to think and invite people to do so.
Aren’t you afraid of ending up like the virologist Luc Montagnier, repudiated by science for his anti-vaccine stance?
But science does not repudiate! It is the men who repudiate. And if these men were completely wrong, while they strongly condemned those who doubted the fable of a pangolin or a bat, it is they who no longer deserve to be considered scientists. Therefore, I will answer you that Professor Luc Montagnier was a virologist exceptional enough to receive the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the AIDS virus. That he was also one of the first to share his doubts about the origin of SARS-CoV2 and to warn people against experimenting with these vaccines.
2023-10-08 03:06:23
#dissident #geneticist #Covid #vaccines #prefer #share #truth #protect #reputation