Part 1

Professor of medicine, Christian Perronne, sacrificed his high position within the French medical establishment by speaking his mind during the Covid-19 emergency. He opposed the non-pharmacological interventions (masking, social distancing, school closures, confining the healthy etc.), the suppression of timely treatment with effective off-patent drugs, and the mandating and coercion of a medical treatment that had an insufficient record of safety and efficacy. His enemies attempted to have him disciplined by the medical profession, but in a decision rendered in October 2022 by the Order of Physicians, Professor Perronne was completely vindicated. The decision said nothing about whether his views were correct, but it gave a full endorsement of his right to speak and even his obligation to speak about important matters within his field of expertise. A translation of a report on this news follows in Part 2.

Such decisions coming 2.5 years after the emergency began may be a sign that the establishment’s reckoning of “how we got it so wrong” has begun. Look at the shifting media perspective about Bush’s war that emerged in the 2006-08 period for a historical example. First they cheered it on, then they performed a self-excusing show of mild contrition. Perhaps what is happening now is just something that was planned all along. That is, those who carried out the suppression knew that the dissidents would have to be re-instated eventually, after objectives had been achieved, but they had to be sidelined for a while. Increasingly, there is official recognition that “mistakes were made” and the reputations of dissenters are being quietly restored. Prosecutions are being dropped as the witch hunters begin to fear the whirlwind of civil lawsuits coming for them.[1]

A short, fatuous piece by Emily Oster (professor of economics at Brown University) was published by The Atlantic on October 31, 2022 suggesting there should be an amnesty for all that was said and done for the last thirty months and that we should just forgive each other for unspecified transgressions and move on.[2] Over the next week there was a furious blast of anger on social media about this call for amnesty, summed up in the concise joke below cracked by Jimmy Dore.[3]


Do you think the Pandemic Amnesty will be a safe and effective treatment? Personally, I worry about the possible cases of breakthrough ‘Go-fuck-yourself.’”

– Jimmy Dore, “COVID Smear Artists Want ‘Amnesty’ for Their Lies,” The Jimmy Dore Show, November 4, 2022, (27:00~).


The Atlantic article implied no apologies are needed. The crimes and transgressions need not be specified or discussed. It’s like waking up after a wild party, apparently. The adults did some crazy, drunken stuff and now they can’t find their underwear, but memories are vague, so they say, “Let’s just blame it on the booze, kids, crawl home in this harsh morning light and forget about it.” They meant well. Come on, who knew? It’s time to get ready for the next thing, right? Oster actually doesn’t acknowledge any mistakes more serious than closing beaches or keeping schools closed too long. She evinces no awareness of medical research fraud and vaccine injuries, or of the crimes described so thoroughly in Robert F. Kennedy’s book The Real Anthony Fauci. The call for amnesty says, “You lost your job or your business and the media and the government taught your friends and family to label you as villainous anti-social trash worthy of exile or death, but hey, we meant well.” (Heh-heh. Shrug. Headscratch.) “We couldn’t have known at the time, right? After all, we were working at the speed of science.”[4]

This messaging calling for amnesty was entirely predictable because the misdeeds are too wide, deep, and consequential to ever be faced honestly by most people. Too many perpetrators, too many accessories to the crimes. Buyer’s remorse is much less common than buyer’s denial, or what cognitive scientists call “choice-supportive bias” and “post-purchase rationalization.” It’s hard to admit you bought the snake oil, and in this case, it’s going to be extremely difficult for the complicit to admit they didn’t just buy the juice but also did the salesman’s work for him and coerced others to swallow the poison against their will, or they stood by silently while it was all going down. Silence is passive consent and participation.

Some people were merely comfortable and complacent and didn’t care one way or the other. They just didn’t want to face the risks and experience the stress of talking over the most divisive issue of their lifetimes. The silent ones were in some ways worse than those who spoke out. At least the belligerent ones were willing to cough up what others were afraid to say. I will always remember the friends who expected me to laugh along with their ridicule of “anti-vaxxers” and “conspiracy nuts” while they accepted everything that was being fed to them through official channels.[5] There was that awkward silence when they realized I wasn’t on board. At best, they reduced contact and spoke around the issue. In the worst cases, they cut off contact completely without explanation, and I admit I did too.

One strange aspect of the split I went through with people is that I was living in Japan and observing the North American anti-“anti-vaxx” mass psychosis from the outside. I knew what was being said in the media, but I wasn’t in the cult. North Americans couldn’t appreciate that Japanese society was managing to function with very low “Covid deaths” and without all the strife and trauma created around vaccine coercion and enforcement. The Japanese government went as far as to explicitly forbid institutions from requiring vaccination. Peer pressure did a good job of coercing people, but there was no official pressure on people to vaccinate, and no pressure put on retail businesses to require proof of vaccination from their customers.

One old friend who decided to have a confrontation lectured me about the need to do the right thing and not spread dangerous information. After he took the mRNA shots, he needed surgery for an aneurysm in his arm and his partner developed an embolism in both lungs. I had no idea how to talk to him after hearing that and haven’t talked to him since. I have a list of seven other friends and relatives who had medical downturns within a year of getting the shots—a large increase compared with my memories from years just before 2021 of people in my social circles needing hospitalization. And by that, I mean there were none in 2019-2020.

Meanwhile, I declined the proffered “vaccination,” and I survived the “dark winter of death” threatened by US President Joe Biden, and I also survived the dreaded infection in the summer. I did this in my early sixties, not by gambling with my life but by educating myself about my risk profile (no chronic illnesses) and how to stay healthy.

I have hesitated for months to talk about this because I know people will say I was reckless, and that I just got lucky. They will say I’m gloating about my good fortune and rejoicing in the suffering of others. Yes, I’m fortunate, but I also did a lot throughout my lifetime to stay in good health. But I’m not gloating or taking satisfaction in the suffering of others. I want to stress that, unlike the people who joined the two minutes of hate against the unvaccinated, I never in my life demanded denial of health care for those who didn’t conform to my standard of responsible healthy living and disease prevention. I don’t gloat about the sudden untimely deaths in 2022 of those who wished harm and banishment on the “unvaccinated” in 2021, but I will say that these ironic deaths are an interesting phenomenon that has to be noted in the historical record. They provide a teachable moment.

Many young and middle-aged people have died over the last year from sudden heart attacks, and debate rages over whether the cause is Covid or the “vaccines,” the stress caused by pandemic measures, or whether these deaths would have occurred in any case. The famous example of this in November 2022 is Julie Powell who died at age 49 after having both a recent booster mRNA shot and a recent Covid infection.[6] The invective she had hurled at the unvaccinated only added to the controversy. At the very least, her case is further evidence that the mRNA shots are useless if they lead to one getting Covid and dying from it after the infection has apparently ended. 

It’s been a nightmare to watch people turn a deaf ear to rational argument and to see medical disasters fall on people I care about. I’m telling what I saw happening around me because it’s important that the stories be told in order to have a proper reckoning with the history of the Covid emergency. For the record, I have to say I did not get long covid. It was easy to isolate myself for a few days. I did not put others at risk. I did not end up in that situation that was played up in the media constantly—the portrayal of pathetic victims (played by crisis actors) gasping for air in hospital and regretting that they didn’t take the shot. In the fear porn, it was never a doctor regretting the loss of a patient due to the systemic failure to teach prevention and the importance of getting treatment as soon as symptoms appear, never a dying patient asking why he was not allowed to proper treatment on day 1.

A curious aspect of the Covid extremism is that in spite of the fear, outrage and blame that people express verbally, their actions seem to speak otherwise. It is a strange kind of believing but not really believing. John Steppling and his guests on the podcast Aesthetic Resistance have talked about this recently, and they might be the first to have made what should actually be an obvious point. The extremists say that masks protect us from the pandemic, but even for them it must be obvious that masks never stopped the spread of the virus. They know the virus continued to spread after the vaccines were deployed (though some still erroneously blame the unvaccinated for perpetuating the pandemic). They know that what they claim to be a very dangerous virus is still out there, yet they wear their imperfect masks and get their imperfect “vaccines” then go back into crowds, back into shopping malls, back onto airplanes. A self-help guru says vaccine mandates are justified for university students, then he takes his old body on an international book promotion tour. They ride crowded escalators instead of taking the wide empty staircases beside them, foregoing the option to do one small thing to stay away from people, burn calories, lose weight and thus be less vulnerable to fatal inflammation while infected. If the virus were really that terrifying, they would never leave their homes. They know on some level of consciousness that they don’t really believe any of it. Their behavior is largely performative, done for reasons that remain a mystery. As John Steppling pointed out on his podcast, it is similar to the way that people express fear of oceans rising and destroying life as we know it within ten years, yet they continue to save money for their children’s college education or for various other common middle-class aspirations.[7]

The call for amnesty is to be expected in the culture of impunity that has been entrenched for a long, long time. There were officially admitted “probable conspiracies” in the assassinations of the 1960s, but no further investigations were pursued. Vietnamese forces defeated the invading army in 1972, but President Nixon had to call it “retreat with honor” for a foreign policy mistake and moral failing that “had good intentions.” Mr. Teflon, President Reagan, said “mistakes were made” in the Iran-Contra affair, but he was not impeached, and his vice president became president in 1989. The destruction of buildings on September 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed, still have not been fully explained, to say the least. The full list of unsolved and unprosecuted state crimes is much longer.

Charles Eisenstein explained very well why the lame request for amnesty must not be accepted. The reason is not because the offended parties want to gloat or to demand revenge, humiliation, and punishment. The reason is that to prevent the crime wave from recurring, the perpetrators have to demonstrate contrition and an understanding of all that they did wrong. It is more than a matter of “not knowing at the time.” It is a matter of not learning at the time what could have easily been known, and it was a matter of vicious denunciation of those who pointed out the crimes that were being committed. Professor Oster wrote, “The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat. Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.” For whatever reason? This is a sinister attempt to obscure what really happened and what the issue now must be. Vague glosses like “for whatever reason” are unacceptable. The people who got it right did so not because of a crazy bet on a roll of dice. They got it right by being skeptical of those in power, asking questions, reading, learning, and analyzing the issue correctly.

Charles Eisenstein provided a precise list of the questions that need to be faced:

The invisible workings of the Covid machine must be laid bare if we are to prevent something similar from happening again. People and institutions must become cognizant of the role they played in the social catastrophe that was Covid. I will support amnesty when…

… the universities admit they coerced young people to take unnecessary and dangerous vaccines

… Pfizer describes how it manipulated data to get its shots approved

… regulators confess that they allowed shoddy vaccine manufacturing processes to proceed without oversight

… medical boards and hospitals acknowledge that they expelled doctors for using beneficial therapies

… the FDA admits that it removed helpful drugs from the market

… social media platforms acknowledge that they censored important, true information

… fired workers are reinstated with back pay

… the government acknowledges vaccine damage and compensates the victims

… regulatory agencies are freed of corporate influence

… vaccines are subjected to long-term, robust scientific study to determine safety and efficacy

… mainstream media gives attention to the dissidents and whistleblowers it has ignored and ridiculed

… brave, conscientious doctors like Peter McCullough and Meryl Nass are reinstated by professional organizations and medical boards

… a moratorium is declared on genetically engineered bioweapons research, and its full extent made transparent to the public

These are the kinds of things that would have to happen for me to trust that amnesty wouldn’t mean license to repeat the crimes, again with the excuse of “We didn’t know.”

OK, Professor Oster, you didn’t know. Do you know now? Show us. Make the effort to get to the bottom of why you didn’t know. Believe me that I speak for many when I say, truly: We do not want revenge. We don’t want to gloat. We don’t want to keep score. We want this never to happen again.[8]

For whatever reason, she endorsed mandates. Professor Oster supported violation of the Nuremberg Code, and various other codes of medical ethics, in order to coerce people into taking an experimental medical treatment. Now she argues for amnesty for unspecified mistakes.

Though I said at the top there is sort of a Covid wrap party in motion, that does not mean there won’t be sequels. I leave the last word to C.J. Hopkins:

In our brave new totalitarian global-capitalist “reality,” anyone who questions or challenges … “facts” immediately renders oneself a “Deviant” and is excommunicated from “Normal” society. Seriously, just for fun, try to get a job at a corporation, or a university, or a part in a movie or a Broadway play, or a book deal, or a research grant, etc., while being honest about your beliefs about Covid. Or, if you’re a “respectable” journalist, you know, with literary and public-speaking agents, and book deals, and personal managers, and so on, go ahead, report the facts (i.e., the actual facts, which you know are there, but which you have been avoiding like the plague for the last two years), and watch your career get violently sucked down the drain like a turd in an airplane toilet. That last bit was meant for “urban professionals,” who still have careers, or are aspiring to careers, or are otherwise still invested in remaining members in good standing of “Normal” society, i.e., not you folks in Florida and Idaho, or my fellow literary and artistic “Deviants.” We have pretty much burned our bridges at this point. Unless you’re prepared to mindfuck yourself, and gaslight yourself, and confess, and convert, there’s no going back to “normal” society (which we couldn’t go back to anyway, on account of how it doesn’t exist anymore) … We’re not going back. The Normals are never going to “wake up.” Because they’re not asleep. They’re not hypnotized. They’re not going to “come to their senses” one day and take responsibility for the damage they have done. Sure, they will apologize for their “mistakes,” and admit that possibly they “overreacted,” but the official narrative of the Covid pandemic and the new “reality” it has ushered into being will remain in force, and they will defend both with their lives. Or, rather, they will defend both with our lives. If you think I’m being hyperbolic, well, consider the epithets GloboCap has conditioned the Normals to use to demonize us … “conspiracy theorist,” “science denier,” “insurrectionist,” “extremist,” “violent domestic terrorist.” None of which signify a political ideology or any political or critical position whatsoever. They signify deviation from the norm. Any type of deviation from the norm. They are tactical terms, devoid of meaning, designed to erase the political character of the diverse opposition to global-capitalism (or “globalism,” if you are touchy about the word “capitalism”), to lump us all into one big bucket of “deviance.” It is usually not a very good omen when nations—or totally unaccountable, supranational global-power systems—suddenly break out the “deviance bucket.” It is usually a sign that things are going to get ugly, ugly in a totalitarian fashion, which is precisely what has been happening for the past six years.  – C.J. Hopkins, 2022/11/14

Part 2

A translation of a report in FranceSoir on Professor Perronne’s exoneration

Complete victory for Professor Perronne before the disciplinary chamber of the Order of Physicians

F. Froger / Z9, for FranceSoir



At a press release dated October 22nd, 2022, Professor Perronne’s lawyer, Mr. Thomas Benages, announced the decisions rendered on October 21st by the disciplinary chamber of first instance of Île-de-France (metropolitan area of Paris) of the Order of Physicians following the complaints filed against him. The decision gives full support to Professor Perronne.

The Disciplinary Chamber considered that during the Covid-19 crisis, Professor Perronne, in view of his standing as an internationally recognized infectious disease expert, had “the obligation to express himself in the field which falls within his competence.”

The decisions rendered by the disciplinary chamber are summarized below.

On September 13th, Professor Christian Perronne was heard by the Disciplinary Chamber of First Instance of Île-de-France of the Order of Physicians following two complaints, filed in 2020, one by the National Council of the Order of Physicians (CNOM), and one by Dr. Nathan Peiffer-Smadja.

The National Council of the Order of Physicians considered that the doctor had violated the Code of Public Health when he spoke in the media and in his publications. According to the council, he “seriously affected colleagues who cared for family members or who participated in public health decisions”, and, in general, did not contribute to the public health policies put in place by the government. In addition, he was accused of having denigrated the “public health policies” put in place during the Covid-19 crisis.

Because of Professor Perronne’s comments made in the media as well as in the documentary Hold-Up, Dr. Nathan Peiffer-Smadja believed that he had been personally attacked by Professor Perronne, as his comments referred to the scientific value of his publications.

In return, Professor Perronne had filed an ordinal complaint against Dr. Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, the latter having published, from May to October 2020, 14 tweets in which he expressed derogatory, defamatory, and insulting comments.

As part of these three legal proceedings, the Île-de-France disciplinary chamber of first instance of the Order of Physicians  ruled in favor of Professor Perronne in decisions rendered on October 21st, 2022.

First of all, concerning the procedure brought by the CNOM, the Disciplinary Chamber upheld all of the defendant’s arguments. They maintained that Professor Perronne had standing as an expert and that he was qualified to express views that contradicted the government during the health crisis.

The Disciplinary Chamber concluded: “Dr. Perronne, a specialist internationally recognized as an expert in the field of infectious diseases, was best able to understand public health issues. He expressed himself in the press on the actions of the government and on the pharmaceutical industry, as it was legitimate for him to do. He even had the obligation to do so, considering that the subject was within his field of competence. The only limitation is that he must express himself without invective when dissenting on a subject of public interest.”

In addition, according to the disciplinary chamber, it does not appear from any of the documents in the file that this infectious disease specialist did at any time make an “antivax” speech. (Editor: That this point could even be raised leaves us shaking our head in disbelief.)

The Disciplinary Chamber also considered that the criticisms expressed by Professor Perronne against Ms. Agnès Buzyn and Mr. Olivier Véran “concerned these people only as health authorities holding a political position. Thus, even though these authorities also had the status of doctors, Dr. Perronne cannot be regarded as having disregarded, by the criticisms directed against them, the aforementioned provisions of the Public Health Code.”

Regarding the proceedings against Dr. Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, the disciplinary chamber considered that he had made remarks against Professor Perronne of a “seriously un-fraternal nature” and pronounced a warning against him.

The complaint of Dr. Nathan Peiffer-Smadja against Professor Perronne was therefore rejected. The disciplinary chamber considered that “Professor Perronne’s remarks concerning Dr. Nathan Peiffer-Smadja were aimed solely, and in an impersonal manner, at his qualification as an author of a critical study.”

Thus, through these fundamental decisions, the Disciplinary Chamber has come to reaffirm the freedom of expression enjoyed by medical professors at universities, when they express themselves in an impersonal manner, while emphasizing the preponderant role played by Professor Perronne during the health crisis in challenging the government and in having “a dissenting voice on a subject of general interest.”

Through these decisions, the Disciplinary Chamber has therefore recognized that a doctor may have a different opinion from that expressed by the government and may express it publicly.

This Wednesday, October 19, at the invitation of several MEPs (Members of the European Parliament), including Virginie Joron, Professor Christian Perronne, doctor and infectious disease expert, former head of Garches Hospital, was received at the European Parliament in Strasbourg to give a conference on the vaccination policy of the European Union and its management of the health crisis.


[1] James Howard Kunstler, “American Inquisition,” Klusterfuck Nation-Blog, October 17, 2022. James Kunstler notes about the prosecution of Dr. Meryl Nass in the state of Maine: “Watch the video. I think you can see that the Licensure Board members begin to realize in the proceeding that Dr. Nass is fixing to sue the living shit out of them, and that just about everything they’ve said implicates them in a malice-driven campaign to defame her. In fact, it may be appropriate as events move forward for a court to recommend suspending the medical license of board chair Maroulla S. Gleaton, and the several other board members who are doctors (some are not) for official misconduct, as well as paying damages to Dr. Nass.”

[2] Emily Oster, “Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty,” The Atlantic, October 31, 2022.

[3] Tyler Durden, “’You Murderous Hypocrites’: Outrage Ensues After The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Authoritarians,” Zero Hedge, November 2, 2022.

[4] Filiz Mustafa, “Pfizer Vaccine Not Tested for Transmission Due to ‘Speed of Science,’” HITC, October 12, 2022. From this report: “Member of the European Parliament, Rob Roos, asked Pfizer executive Janine Small: ‘Was the Pfizer covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?’ She replied, ‘Regarding the question around did we know about stopping the immunization [SIC] before it entered the market: No. We had to move at the speed of science to really understand what was taking place in the market.’” This contradicted Pfizer’s statements made at the time of first   vaccinations. In one tweet made by the official Pfizer account on January 13th, 2021, the company stated, “The ability to vaccinate at speed to gain herd immunity and stop transmission is our highest priority.” This implied ability to stop transmission was repeated constantly in the media and in Pfizer’s public relations campaigns in the first half of 2021.

[5] Y. Shir-Raz, E. Elisha, B. Martin et al. “Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics.” Minerva, November 2022.

[6]Julie Powell: 49-year-old New York food writer calls the non-vaccinated ‘lunatics’ and ‘assholes,’ dead 10 months after mRNA booster shot,” TheCOVIDBlog, November 4, 2022.

[7] John Steppling, Aesthetic Resistance Episode 73, November 4, 2022 (00:55~).

[8] Charles Eisenstein, “Amnesty—Yes. And Here is the Price,” Substack, November 4, 2022.