RNA Expert and Geneticist Alexandra Henrion-Caude raises questions about the mRNA Covid “Vaccines” (in French), January 16, 2021
Summary/paraphrase/translation of highlights of the interview
Doctors who are speaking in the mass media are only the “tip of the iceberg” while the submerged part of the iceberg is composed of a very lively medical community that is not in agreement with what media are reporting. It consists of 30,000 doctors and 100,000 citizens who are working to counter the official narrative.
The idea that the covid virus could have been produced in a lab was first totally rejected but now the possibility is being discussed in the mainstream media, and this is due to the fact that many doctors have talked about the issue.
Pfizer started the vaccination trials first in South Africa, and people there complained that they were being treated as guinea pigs
According to Pfizer’s own statements, the clinical tests for the Pfizer vaccine are still ongoing and will end in 2022, which means that the millions of people receiving it this year are experimental subjects. They are not being informed that they are subjects in a medical experiment.*
The Pfizer vaccine was supposed to treat mainly people at risk of severe cases of covid, which in fact is not the case now. It is being given to people who face a very low risk of complications from an infection. It is pure folie to give the RNA vaccine treatment to young and healthy people.
Based on figures from the French National Institute of Statistics, there has been only a small increase in mortality in France in 2020, compared to previous years (from 1945 on) (17:30 in the video).
Some of my colleagues and I have studied the waves of covid cases in France and elsewhere and we have found three different scenarios (24:00 in the video): 1. a sharp increase and then a sharp decrease, 2. nothing and then a spike followed by a decrease, 3. a U-shaped curve. The results show that the lockdown did not stop the spread of the virus. The pandemic follows a natural course and cannot be stopped.
The RTPCR tests are not perfectly reliable, since further analysis via genomic sequencing would be required for confirmation, which is not done usually.
The notion that asymptomatic people could be a risk to others has been contradicted by a study published on Nature Communications conducted on 10 million people in Wuhan.
Dr. Didier Raoult (University Hospital IHU, Marseille) has put in place a very effective diagnosis technique based on analysis of waste water. It is able to detect the presence of the virus at an early stage before infected people develop severe symptoms.
The Pfizer treatment is not a vaccine according to the traditional definition of vaccine since it is based on putting RNA into cells to make them produce a specific protein. It should be called a pseudo-vaccine.
It is dangerous to let people get the RNA treatment since injected RNA can combine, not often but under certain circumstances, with human DNA. This possibility is real, in spite of it being denied or dismissed as a non-issue by proponents of the RNA treatment. For example, transfer to DNA happens in people who are positive for HIV or spumaviruses—a family of viruses called “foamy viruses“ that don’t receive much attention because they are non-pathogenic (harmless).
Because there is this possibility of RNA changing DNA, there is a risk of transferring permanent changes in DNA to subsequent generations. Pfizer has issued instructions that women receiving their treatment should be practicing contraception and not be pregnant or trying to become pregnant.
Pfizer reports that 2.7% of people given their vaccine have had adverse effects serious enough for them to be unable to return to work for a while. In other words, they experience the same inconveniences that they would have had with an infection by the virus. This is a high percentage and a large number of people when the treatment is given to millions of people (27,000 per million).
In France, authorities have established a treatment watchdog to monitor adverse effects from the vaccine. However, only new types of reactions are recorded, not the ones already identified by Pfizer.
Those over 75 were not being tested in the trials of the Pfizer treatment (before emergency use approval), so the effect on them is unknown. They are the guinea pigs more so than other age groups that at least were represented in the trials that occurred before delivery of the vaccine to the masses.
Pfizer was previously fined 2.3 billion euros for having provided false information on different treatments in the past (50:00 in the video).
Vaccination given while the virus is still widespread creates more pressure on the virus to evolve variants that can evade the defenses created in the body by the vaccine.
There are various treatments that are very effective against covid, already tested and proven to work, especially when early treatment is given.
Many doctors agree with me, but few speak out like this. It takes courage and one has to have the right expertise. I speak out because I am fortunate. RNA is my specialty and my research is cited often, so I must speak out. I have been censored on and removed from many platforms, but my critics have to contend with the fact that my research is respected and often cited. The “fact checkers” can knock themselves out trying to prove me wrong. As an expert in this field, I feel obliged to speak out fortunate to be able to do so.
– end of summary –
In a subsequent video in which Dr. Henrion-Caude spoke in English, she emphasized that putting RNA into cells artificially is a very new biotechnology. To illustrate the importance of epigenetics with a striking example (5:30 mark in the video), she mentioned the fact that a queen bee has the same DNA as other bees in the hive. It is diet and environmental triggers that turn an ordinary bee into a queen. RNA interacts with molecules in the cell in complex ways that are still poorly understood (7:00 minute mark in the video). Even when RNA does not alter DNA, there are sure to be epigenetic effects that cannot be predicted at this time.
For background on the discovery made in 2010 of a process that delivers RNA into cells, and an explanation of its potential uses (beyond vaccines), see this article published by Mint Press News in September 2020.
Definition of epigenetics from livescience.com: Epigenetics literally means “above” or “on top of” genetics. It refers to external modifications to DNA that turn genes “on” or “off.” These modifications do not change the DNA sequence, but instead, they affect how cells “read” genes.
Another video (in English), March 10, 2021, of a presentation by Dr. Henrion-Caude.
Blog author’s comment
*There are numerous “fact-checking” organizations that have emerged in the last year claiming to be “debunkers of fake news and rumors.” They assure readers that they are “balanced,” “neutral,” “impartial,” “objective,” and so on, and informed by chosen experts. Such claims are themselves red flags that one has stumbled upon a propaganda operation. One has to be suspicious of any person or organization that goes out of its way to state that it has the ultimate claim on truth and decisions about what the facts of a situation are.
One relevant example is this one on a site called Boom. It discusses the point raised by Dr. Henrion-Caude that the pseudo-vaccines now being injected into millions of people are an ongoing experiment. Since this program is still in the experimental stage and subjects have not been informed of this fact, the experiment is a violation of the Nuremberg Code. The post on Boom attempts to debunk this claim by presenting facts which are not facts at all. Regardless of the opinion one has about this question, it is obvious that it is matter of interpreting a situation and making value judgments. It involves many ambiguities about how one defines the boundaries of a medical experiment, and it is obvious that there will be legal challenges.
The article also examines whether the vaccination program violates the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which also requires informed consent and the right to refuse treatment.
The people at Boom found a law professor, Lawrence Gostin, a specialist in public health law at Georgetown University, “who said the claim was ‘utterly false,’ as a person does not have the right to decline treatment and then transmit an illness to others.” Notice the word “treatment” applied here to vaccination given to a person who is not sick. Professor Gostin’s claim is a specious falsehood for three reasons.
First, it implies falsely that declining the vaccine equals malicious intent to infect others and that declining the shot would definitely lead to the infection of others.
Second, it accepts as truth the belief that asymptomatic transmission of Sars-Cov-2 has been a significant factor in the pandemic, yet there is weak research to support this belief and there is other research that shows it is not a significant factor.
Third, it implies that there is a norm in society that says it is acceptable to force asymptomatic carriers of disease to submit to various forms of social control—quarantine, medical treatment, vaccination, fines, exclusion from employment, imprisonment and so on. One could point to exceptional cases like Typhoid Mary, but the fact that needs to be checked and remembered is that pathogen-laden citizens have always been free to go where they like while being asymptomatic carriers of potentially deadly diseases—even though they pose serious threats their vulnerable and immune-compromised fellow citizens—such as cold viruses (which do kill elderly people every year), influenza, tuberculosis, HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis and so on. For decades public health policies have favored managed care and education over harsh restrictions and enforced treatments.
There was a time in mid-20th century when “suspicious women” were imprisoned for lengthy periods on the grounds that they were carriers of sexually transmitted diseases. This was long ago recognized as an egregious abuse of human rights, so there is good reason to be wary of these new attempts to demonize asymptomatic carriers of a coronavirus, even if one wants to make distinctions about how the means of transmission is different from sexually transmitted diseases. There is no reason why Sars-Cov-2 could not be treated under the principles of managed care. We need only to educate people about the importance of taking precautions, maintaining a strong immune system, and self-isolating for two weeks if they become infected with symptoms. Why should the social progress that led to managed care policies suddenly been abandoned by the arrival of a corona virus with an infectious fatality rate, according to CDC data, of 0.02% for people aged 20-49 and 0.5% for people aged 50-69?
Fact checkers are the new plague.