‘Refuse this vaccination’: Acclaimed French doctor unloads on COVID vaccine
December 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — While people learned on Wednesday that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 “vaccine” is not recommended for people with “significant” allergic reactions, after two “adverse reactions,” the French are widely rejecting future vaccinations against the illness, scheduled to start in January. In a recent poll, 54 percent of respondents announced that they intend to receive the shot; further surveys are confirming that half of the French population is “against” the COVID-19 vaccine in a context of growing suspicion regarding vaccines in general and the breakneck speed with which Moderna, Pfizer, and other companies have developed new shots in particular. Many voices have been raised, not only on social media and anti-COVID-19 restrictions websites, but also in the mainstream media, with prominent anchors saying they won’t take a vaccine whose middle- and long-term effects are totally unknown.
Of the anti–“sanitary dictatorship” figureheads, Dr. Louis Fouché, an anesthetist and resuscitation specialist in one of the four major hospitals of Marseille, is one of the most vocal. He recently published a YouTube video that has been seen many tens of thousands of times, in which he offers a global “tour” of the dangers and flaws of the upcoming vaccine campaign in France, clearly advising all viewers not to have the shot.
Fouché is a respected doctor, who has the support of widely popular Pr. Didier Raoult of the Marseille unit of infectious maladies — the first and most prominent French academic who recommended the hydroxychloroquine-azythromicyne-zinc treatment for COVID-19 patients in the early phase of the disease. Fouché regularly pleads for a return to normal life, the end of fear and of compulsory masks, even heading a public event in Marseille last weekend to encourage all to stand up to the present wave of irrational panic.
His remarks regarding the current innovative RNA vaccines give valuable insights into the way these are supposed to work, but also the gigantic financial interests involved and the insane but clever way in which the authorities are promoting them.
COVID-19 vaccines are not and will not be compulsory in France, President Emmanuel Macron said in one of his recent addresses to the nation. But as Fouché shows, that may not be the end of the case.
Here are some of the highlights of Fouché’s remarks in his November 28 video.
Creating a “yes set”
Fouché first called attention to the modus operandi of the present vaccine-mongers: creating fear and hopelessness, the idea that restrictive measures are necessary, and the idea that hospitals should be protected from overload. All of these are widely shared in the population through media propaganda. “They have created a ‘yes set’: a hypnotic concatenation of concepts many agree with, ending with one that is false: the last one says that ‘the only way out is the vaccine.’” This excludes treatment, and treatment is available,” he recalled.
Later in his talk, he quoted a French Senate report on the H1N1 vaccine fiasco in France: “The more we increase fear, the more we increase the degree of acceptability of a vaccine in the general population.”
A vaccine, Fouché argued, is “a therapeutic tool like any other, not a religion.” We should before anything have a correct risk-benefit assessment, and this is lacking. “The vaccine is for people who are well and healthy. The focus of risk must be very much on the safety side,” he added: you shouldn’t take lightly the risk of making well people ill , especially when the fatality rate of COVID-19 is only 0.05 percent.
Fouché is especially wary of vaccinating children. “They are neither vectors nor contaminants,” he stated, quoting a French study that found “very, very few contaminations related to children,” noting the so-called “case of Contamine,” where a COVID-positive child was known to have been in contact with 178 people, not one of whom was contaminated. Instead, “[a]dults can contaminate children ... but is that so serious?” he asked. To date in France, three children have died of COVID, two of whom were known to have serious illnesses.
SARS-COV-2 is a highly “mutable” virus
Another reason for rejecting the vaccine is that “ARN viruses” like SARS-COV-2 are particularly “mutable.”
“We’ve decoded the 5th and 6th mutants in Marseille: the 4th was already very far from the 1st. It’s a delusional idea to think that like with flu, we can use a strain from the Southern hemisphere after their winter to vaccinate in the North,” said Dr Fouché. The vaccine aims to create antibodies. “But these antibodies are not necessarily protective, and if they are, maybe not for long. We don’t know,” he pointed out.
Importantly, he recalled that “some antibodies” sparked by vaccines “are not protective, but facilitators.” He gave the example of dengue fever in the Philippines, where the vaccine created by Sanofi, a French laboratory, facilitated a second episode of dengue fever that was more severe than the first in those who had already had it.
“Dengvaxia short-circuited the first episode of benign dengue fever, as if preparing everyone who had had it to have a severe, hemorrhagic, and sometimes fatal dengue fever,” he said. “There were deaths that were completely attributable and fully attributed. There are ongoing lawsuits. Sanofi was driven out of the Philippines, and the vaccine was banned.”
“The same vaccine, oddly enough, is still authorized by the European Medicines Commission,” said Fouché, concluding his section on the “scientific contextualization” by recommending a paper by Kamran Abbasi, “Covid 19: politicisation, corruption and suppression of science,” published in the BMJ last November. “There is systemic corruption in the health system,” he stated, so that “you won’t know very well if these vaccines are effective, are there side effects, and so on.”
“There are other strategies against COVID-19”
In a second section, Dr Fouché pointed out that the legal and legislative context shows that rules around the manufacture of a vaccine are particular: “The procedure for making a vaccine has nothing to do with the procedure for putting a drug on the market. A drug follows safety phases one after the other, first preclinical, then clinical, and then has to demonstrate that it is more effective than other strategies, showing it renders a service that is important. Otherwise, it will not be marketed, because it will not obtain a marketing authorization.”
“Vaccines don’t follow that rationale. They are not asked to compete with other strategies that would be the gold standard in an infectious disease. This is a real problem: we’re to evaluate the vaccine on its own, as something that would be isolated from the rest. But in truth, nothing is isolated. There are other strategies against COVID-19 that would allow us to stop the delirium on the one hand and to stop the disease on the other hand, and they would keep the hospitals away from overload and strain.”
In the pandemic’s wake, vaccine development was accelerated, and safety procedures were whittled down. This “has gradually brought in an emergency regime into the law that is tending to normalize itself into a kind of totalitarian emergency regime that replaces the rule of law,” warned Fouché, adding: “This is really a problem, and we must return to democracy, the rule of law, and the normal regime of expression of the law.”
Vaccine-producers don’t take responsibility
The problem lies with developers’ absence of responsibility, Fouché explained: it is the State that bears the brunt of any costs related to undesirable side-effects, even the most serious ones. “These laws were passed at the American, European and then French levels, as usual, always in the same order, which means that vaccine companies do not have to worry about reimbursing adverse drug reactions and the legal proceedings that would be related to them. What? Does this mean that the people who develop these therapeutics are not responsible for their effects?” Fouché asked rhetorically.
“But that’s not normal. Ethically, there is something wrong. If you are sovereign, free, and you have the right to develop a treatment, for example, you have to take responsibility for the damage; you must take responsibility for the consequences,” he continued.
“We are responsible for what we do, in space and in time. When you pose the risk, you must weigh it in the medium and long term,” he added, and not make it weigh “on you and on me through our tax money.”
“This exit from the crisis is being developed in a context of fear and haste. Have you done many things in your life in fear and haste that have turned out to be good things? There is a cardinal value in Aristotelian philosophy called phronesis, which is prudence. It doesn’t mean cowardice; it means the intelligence of courage. You must have the contextual wisdom to see that the COVID-19 vaccine, which is being proposed to you here with plenty of marketing punchlines; you need to see the whys and wherefores, the context and the various issues behind it that are obviously not aiming at keeping you healthy,” said Fouché.
On the political side, he remarked: “There is a sociological and democratic context that is worrying, since many people are standing up to explain that vaccination must be linked with a law of exception, that would end up with a kind of totalitarian regime induced by the fact that if you refuse vaccination, you could be given a Chinese-style social credit. That is to say that access to civil rights, social rights, and various services would be denied you if you were not vaccinated.”
This is also of concern in France, because even if the COVID-19 vaccine is not compulsory, travel companies and others could make it a prerequisite for obtaining their services.
How the Danes rejected compulsory vaccination
Fouché gave the Danish example: “This is the proposal that was made in Denmark, which led to nine days of uninterrupted demonstrations that forced the authorities to retract and revise the draft law: it consisted of saying that you could be put in a containment camp because you refuse vaccination, and that you can be forcibly treated against your will. There is really something wrong with the arbitrariness of the prince in the face of individual liberty; there is an excessive tension where the arbitrariness of the king, of the merchants who are around him and of the medical power that surrounds him are moving into what [the French philosopher] Foucault called ‘biopower,’ the idea that health becomes a totalitarian category.”
“We are being led to something that is extremely nauseating and that you probably don’t want,” he added.
Nanoparticles, RFIDs, and tracing
Fouché also addressed the question of the innovative technology behind the new vaccines. He said:
“You have heard as I have that there is talk of injecting, at the same time as the vaccine, either nanoparticles or RFIDs, in any case, a way to be able to know if you are vaccinated or not: a vaccination certificate that starts to fluoresce when you pass your smartphone over it, and things like that. Well, all the technology and patents are ready. It hasn’t been talked about in the mainstream media, but that will come because it would be so ‘convenient.’ Now here is something that’s contemporary to this whole crisis: the idea that professional and medical secrecy have to be shattered, that your health is a kind of public good that everybody has to be aware of. Again, I invite you to think whether this is what you want.”
Fouché warned: “The guilty haste with which the government has started talking, and the parliament also has started talking, about a constitutional amendment in view of a total vaccination obligation, makes me think that something needs to be done right away.”
In France, this constitutional amendment has been on the parliamentary agenda as of November 26. “This is slowly leading us to be in the situation of the white Khmers, a totalitarian situation on a techno-sanitaristic basis. We mustn’t be afraid or angry about it; we just have to say no, very, very clearly,” said Fouché.
“In the same way, children should not be vaccinated, children have nothing to do with this business,” he insisted. “COVID is not a childhood disease, as I told you they are not sick, not vectors, not transmitters, nor reservoirs. So leave the children alone, like in ‘The Wall’: ‘Hey, teacher, leave the kids alone!’”
“Trying to impose a generalized vaccine in a brutal way”
Fouché is not happy either with the way a completely new type of vaccine is being distributed with no foresight as to its potential issues.
“Finally, there is a technical contextualization to be made: we are talking about vaccines that are quite innovative for a certain number of them. Thirty-eight vaccines are at stake.
“We are no longer making a risk-benefit assessment; we are trying to impose a generalized vaccine in a brutal way through manipulation techniques and social engineering, and this is very problematic,” he said.
Developing classical vaccines that use deactivated particles of virus is a lengthy and expensive process, Fouché explained. The same goes for vaccines that use synthetic viral particles, and the results are uncertain. He described the new process as follows:
“The new technology being used is based on nucleic acids, DNA or RNA.”
How ARN vaccines work
“It’s an intellectual pirouette which is rather attractive. That is to say, rather than injecting you with the proteic immunizing particle, which is complicated, expensive, and takes time, they inject you with the message, the RNA, and it is you who in your cells will manufacture the viral particles that will become immunizing. It’s very attractive, especially as RNA doesn’t cost anything to produce. It’s very easy to do. You can easily modify it using bio-computer technology. There is no particular difficulty. On the other hand, the difficulty resides in the fact that in reality, it’s hard to know if you’re going to start on a synthesis by your cells of too many viral particles and be sick all the time, and have very serious forms of the illness, or if on the contrary you’re going to have a form where you're going to synthesize very little and, in the end, the whole thing’s not going to work, or if it’s going to be just right and be very good.” But there is an even more serious concern: “We can’t know whether the RNA is going to integrate into your genome.”
Fouché explained: “What does that mean? Normally our genome is DNA, and ARN doesn’t retrotranscribe — unless if you have a retrotranscriptase, which is the enzyme that turns RNA into DNA. Or if you have an integrase, which allows this DNA to enter into your own DNA. It so happens that there are people who have these enzymes: all people who are HIV carriers[.] ... And then there are other systems as well that put retrotransposons in the human cell, that is to say this retrotranscription and then integration into your genome, to the point that we presently have 8 percent of our genome that is made of retroviruses that have been integrated. These retroviruses are not expressed, but if they are ever reexpressed, some people think that this may be related, for example, to schizophrenia.”
“We’re playing at sorcerer’s apprentice,” he commented. “This is a case where ‘science without conscience is but ruin of the soul,’ and primum non nocere — first, do not harm — should be the basic principle of this whole affair. No one knows what will happen, so be careful: we’re back to the Aristotelian phronesis, prudence.
“The development of these vaccines has gone too fast, and Thomas Madden, who is the boss of Acuitas therapeutics, which makes the lipid nanoparticles that need to surround the RNA to stabilize it — because RNA, if left in nature, degrades quite rapidly — Madden himself, who has nothing to gain by slowing down the process, said it’s going so fast, that it’s going too fast and that we haven’t had time to do the stability tests.”
Is the situation so bad that these risks could be justified? Fouché thinks not, and he said so in crude terms:
“On the beneficial effects: they’re trying to reduce the mortality or transmissibility of a virus that is relatively harmless in the population, where most of the consequences that have been observed socially and sociologically and economically and health-wise are related to health policy choices, not to the virus itself, or its virulence or its severity. The effort must therefore focus on this: on health policy, on a health system which must be resilient, on protecting people who are weak and who are at risk of serious forms, not on pissing off the French, trying to get into their bodies.”
At the individual level, the benefice is nil
He added: “The benefit is not at all clear in the general population. At the individual level, it’s obviously nil, since you have healthy people in whom you inject something so that eventually they won’t get sick, whereas they would already have a very small risk of getting sick, strategically and epidemiologically. For the moment we have these marketing punchlines from certain vaccine firms, like Pfizer and BioNTech, who have told us: the vaccines are 90 percent effective, even 92 or 95 percent. What does that mean? Well, actually, we don’t know, because we don't have data-monitoring. It’s the vaccine companies themselves that provide us with those figures.”
“For me, this is just something to sweep away. It has no impact whatsoever. It’s like I’m trying to sell you something, and I tell you it’s great. It’s really marketing, progressive brainwashing to tell you that everything is fine, there are no side-effects, et cetera. That is not true. Right now, we just don’t know. We don’t know the age of the people who were vaccinated in the cohorts. We don’t know their co-morbidities. They’re probably healthy volunteers, so probably they would have made mild or asymptomatic forms of SARS-COV-2 anyway. When they tell you that it reduces the number of severe forms, even the definition of severe forms is not given in the texts that you can read on marketing sites that are the showcases of the vaccine industry.”
Fouché also recalled what might be called the “ordinary” issues with a number of vaccines: “Regarding the side-effects, we talked about the risk of producing too many viruses, the risk of retrotransposons and integration of the viral genome. But you also have the usual risk of vaccines and the risks are often immunological and delayed. You probably know that the Pandemrix in 2009 for H1N1 is the cause of narcolepsy: there are people who are really very handicapped by it; they fall asleep just like that. It’s a very hard disease to live with, with an incidence of one per 100,000 in France as far as has been established, but there are probably people in whom it hasn’t been detected. Then there are risks of autoimmune diseases, things like that. It depends on the vaccine you have, and the adjuvant that was put into it.”
Why there are few assessments of long-term issues
Fouché also warned about long-term issues with some vaccines:
“But in the end, it’s hard to see the side effects of the vaccine. Why is that? Often you are told, within three months the case is closed. This is not true. Most important side-effects occur much later. And we have a problem here: as I told you, vaccine companies do not pay for vaccine side-effects, and who pays? The government. Is it in the state’s interest to see if there are side-effects? No, it is not. And so the state doesn’t fund research on the side-effects of vaccines, and neither does industry, so nobody really funds research on the side-effects of vaccines. It’s a real problem: you have no Phase 4 trials, no serious vaccine pharmacovigilance, and you have very low bibliometrics around key words related to vaccinal side-effects. There are some very motivated teams, but often they are accused of being biased, because they exist because they are motivated to try to understand, and they have tiny budgets for their job. Here we have a real systemic problem once again, a systemic corruption that makes us unwilling to face the adverse effects of vaccines.”
This prompted Fouché to make clear that being told of an absence of adverse effects within a period of two months among the tested cohorts doesn’t allow one to conclude anything at all.
Say “no” to the totalitarian dystopia!
His final warning was a call to lucidity: “Caution invites you to refuse any totalitarian drift that would be linked with the vaccine idea itself: social credit, vaccination certificates under the skin, etc. All this should shock you to the highest degree, and you should refuse it at the risk of going toward a totalitarian dystopia. We have to stick together, we have to act, we have to write, we have to talk, we have to explain to people what I have just told you. You will see, the government and its medical and pharmaceutical acolytes, the political, economic, medical, and technocratic power behind it, will recoil, because that is the only thing they can do when confronted with common sense and peace. Maintain the balance of power. Refuse this vaccination.”
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.