reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Jean-Marc Sabatier, a research director at CNRS, discusses the lack of scientific debate and censorship surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. He explains that there is a silence and taboo within the scientific community regarding the adverse effects of vaccines. Despite evidence showing the deleterious effects of current vaccine platforms, there is a favoritism towards the narrative promoted by Big Pharma and those who follow it. Sabatier highlights the explosion of adverse reactions and the increased risk of infection among vaccinated individuals. He attributes the lack of scientific consensus to administrative and political influences within research organizations like CNRS. Despite facing marginalization and potential repercussions, Sabatier remains committed to conducting research based on scientific evidence and protecting public health.

The speaker expresses their opposition to being labeled as an anti-vaxxer and clarifies that they are against fraud. They state that those who did not receive the vaccine will not resort to violence, but rather it is the individuals who feel betrayed and poisoned that may become violent. The speaker predicts that the elites will eventually face consequences for their actions, as history has shown. They emphasize the importance of whistleblowing and coming forward to avoid personal harm. The speaker references the French Revolution as an example of what can happen when the elites are disconnected from the people.

The speaker questions Dr. Fauci's support for institutions pressuring people to get vaccinated. They criticize the impact on individuals' lives, citing examples of job loss due to vaccine mandates. The speaker accuses Dr. Fauci of instilling fear through mandates and closures, eroding trust in public health institutions. They emphasize the importance of individual freedoms and decision-making in healthcare. The speaker challenges Dr. Fauci's approach and its long-term consequences on society.

The speaker shares their experience with the Johnson vaccine, stating that they had four surgeries since January of this year. They mention being vaccinated because they were a deputy and didn't want to give the impression of not doing their job. They were unaware that President Macron and many government officials were not vaccinated. The speaker wanted to set an example but advised against copying them. They mention other world leaders getting vaccinated and state that they did it because they are somewhat known and wanted people to see how they were doing. They mention that they mentioned getting sick during the election campaign but no one listened. The speaker experienced severe side effects and almost died. They question the campaigns to push people to get vaccinated, especially with vaccines that are not well understood.

The speaker criticizes the justification for implementing COVID-19 measures based on a high case fatality rate that turned out to be inaccurate. They argue that this rushed response disregarded ethical and regulatory norms, such as informed consent. The speaker, labeled as far-right and a conspiracy theorist, identifies themselves as a physician and scientist involved in the development of the technology behind the vaccines. They express concern about the disregard for safety and efficacy standards, as well as the lack of transparency in defining these terms. The speaker suggests that the dissemination of misleading information is a form of psychological manipulation.

There will be other health crises in our country, and there will be other gurus who will undermine the trust of our citizens on a large scale. Some may even target our institutions. We are here to make laws, to protect the most vulnerable, and to remind everyone of the obvious. The obvious is based on science. We can debate ideas, but we cannot claim expertise we do not have and put the safety of our fellow citizens at risk for personal gain.

Nous sortirons de la pandémie grâce à la vaccination, malgré quelques personnes hésitantes et extrémistes opposées à la science. En tant que leader, il faut choisir : tolérer ces opposants minoritaires ou se concentrer sur la majorité vaccinée pour retrouver nos activités préférées.

The speaker criticizes Dr. Fauci, claiming he lacks knowledge about electron microscopy and medicine. They accuse him and other administrative figures of having personal agendas and making up rules. The speaker believes that the public cannot distinguish between good and bad scientists, which is a problem in the scientific community. They mention a request for Dr. Fauci to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject.

Jean-Marc Sabatier, a research director at CNRS, discusses the lack of scientific debate and censorship surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. He explains that there is a silence and taboo within the scientific community regarding the adverse effects of vaccines. Despite evidence showing the deleterious effects of current vaccine platforms, there is a lack of scientific consensus due to administrative and political pressures. Sabatier emphasizes the importance of independent research and the need to prioritize scientific evidence over beliefs. He acknowledges the risks and marginalization he faces but remains committed to his role in protecting public health.

Jean-Marc Sabatier, a research director at CNRS, discusses the lack of scientific debate and censorship surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. He explains that there is a silence and taboo within the scientific community regarding the adverse effects of vaccines. Despite evidence showing the deleterious effects of current mRNA vaccines, there is a favoritism towards the narrative promoted by Big Pharma and those who follow it. Sabatier highlights the explosion of side effects and the increased risk of infection after vaccination. He attributes the lack of scientific consensus to administrative and political influences within research organizations like CNRS. Despite facing marginalization and potential repercussions, Sabatier remains committed to conducting research based on scientific evidence and protecting public health.

The speaker questions the sincerity of governments claiming to have the people's interest at heart, stating that throughout history, political elites have never genuinely cared about the well-being of regular people. They advise not to trust any government blindly and always question their motives. The speaker expresses their refusal to be vaccinated with an untested drug, emphasizing the lack of scientific evidence regarding its benefits and long-term side effects. They assert that no one can grant them freedom, as they are already a free person. They challenge the European Commission and the German government, stating that they will not be coerced into getting vaccinated.

This pandemic is a complete fake. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the ethics committee, a pandemic is defined by the number of excess deaths and severe cases of an unknown or known disease. However, reports from Professor Toubiana and Professor Yoanniedis show that there were no excess deaths in France in 2020 compared to previous years. They argue that the PCR test, which replaced doctors, is a fraudulent tool that cannot diagnose anything. They claim that the PCR test is being used to justify lockdowns, economic shutdowns, and vaccinations. They also argue that the flu and other diseases have disappeared. They encourage people to question and challenge these fraudulent practices.

The speaker discusses the idea of learning lessons from the Covid crisis and being wary of gurus like Didier Raoult. They express frustration towards those who believed in Raoult, including the media. The speaker mentions their previous encounters with Raoult and his controversial views on alcohol, sun exposure, and tobacco. They believe that people's fear during the crisis led them to seek a savior, but the real issue lies in how institutions handle such individuals. The speaker criticizes the medical and health institutions for not fulfilling their role and advises against visiting Raoult, even questioning if they would have advised the President to do so. They describe the visit as "distressing."

Jean-Marc Sabatier, a research director at CNRS, discusses the lack of scientific debate and censorship surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. He explains that there is a silence and taboo within the scientific community regarding the adverse effects of vaccines. Despite evidence showing problems with current vaccine platforms, there is a favoritism towards the narrative promoted by Big Pharma and those who follow it. Sabatier highlights the explosion of side effects and the increased risk of infection after vaccination. He attributes the lack of scientific consensus to administrative and political influences within research organizations like CNRS. Despite facing marginalization and potential repercussions, Sabatier remains committed to conducting research based on scientific evidence and protecting public health.

Speaker 1 expresses their disappointment with Michel Onfray's comments during the Covid pandemic, where he compared non-specialists to rapists and accused them of spreading AIDS. They mention that Onfray positioned himself as an inquisitor and criticized geneticist Alexandra Orianne-Caude for her faith, claiming she couldn't be rational. Speaker 2 denies comparing anti-vaxxers to child rapists and dismisses the accusations as nonsense. They state that they only discuss with people who respect reality. The conversation shifts to the popularity of irrational beliefs and the importance of verifying information. Speaker 2 argues that having expertise in one field doesn't grant authority in others. They mention Orianne-Caude's involvement in conspiracy theories and question the idea that having a degree allows one to say anything. The conversation ends with Speaker 2 expressing their astonishment at the notion that harming others is a right.

The speaker questions why the French government wants to move on from the COVID-19 pandemic when there are still restrictions in place, such as mandatory vaccinations, limited hospital visits, and PCR tests before surgeries. They highlight a case in Poitiers where a family was unable to perform funeral rites for their deceased relative suspected of having COVID-19. The speaker argues that this lack of dignity and respect for human life is a result of the pandemic and warns against the emergence of tyranny. They call for a legal and political response to reject this society and protect human dignity. Translation: The speaker raises concerns about the French government's desire to move on from the COVID-19 pandemic while still enforcing restrictions and disregarding human dignity. They highlight a case in Poitiers where a family was unable to perform funeral rites for their deceased relative suspected of having COVID-19. The speaker warns against the emergence of tyranny and calls for a legal and political response to reject this society and protect human dignity.

The speaker discusses the passing of Article 4 in the National Assembly, which aims to combat sectarian abuses by creating a new offense of provocation to abstention from care. They question whether this law could be used against those who do not follow the government's guidelines during future epidemics. The speaker also raises concerns about the efficacy of vaccines and whether people were misled into not using other means of preventing contamination. They ponder whether government officials should be held accountable for their actions.

Some individuals are turning their freedom into irresponsibility, endangering the lives of others and restricting their freedom. There are calls to make unvaccinated people pariahs and force them to get vaccinated. Others suggest creating a legal obligation for vaccination and sending teams to non-vaccinated individuals' homes. Some believe that non-vaccinated individuals should face consequences such as no unemployment benefits. There is a desire to silence those spreading misinformation and hold them accountable. While some argue against vaccine mandates, others believe that those who refuse vaccination should bear the full consequences of their choice. The majority of French citizens have chosen to get vaccinated, while those protesting vaccine passports are seen as misguided.

The speaker criticizes Dr. Fauci, claiming he lacks knowledge in electron microscopy and medicine. They believe that most top officials, including Fauci, have personal agendas and make up their own rules. The speaker argues that the majority of people cannot judge good scientists, which is a problem in science today. They mention that Fauci has been asked to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject, as they believe he lacks understanding.

The speaker warns against manipulating patients and emphasizes the importance of safe vaccines. They mention having written a book advocating for safe vaccines and criticize the government's stance on vaccination. The speaker shares a personal experience of being vaccinated and still contracting COVID-19, highlighting the need for revaccination. They accuse big pharmaceutical companies of manipulating the population and influencing politicians. The speaker refers to a book that challenges official COVID-19 statistics and argues that the increase in deaths is due to age rather than the disease itself. They also mention cases of medical abuse and negligence in hospitals. The speaker estimates around 160,000 deaths in France, attributing them to pre-existing conditions and lack of treatment.

Some individuals are turning their freedom into irresponsibility, endangering the lives of others and restricting their freedom. The unvaccinated should be treated as outcasts and forced to get vaccinated. Those who protest against vaccination are foolish. Non-vaccinated individuals should not receive unemployment benefits. Vaccination should be mandatory, and non-vaccinated individuals should be visited by authorities and informed of the consequences. Those who spread misinformation should be arrested. The real battles are climate change and equality, not protesting vaccine passports. Those who refuse vaccination should face consequences and not burden the healthcare system. Anti-vaxxers are trying to disrupt the system. Most French citizens have used their brains and got vaccinated, unlike the anti-vaxxers.

Jean-Marc Sabatier, a research director at CNRS, discusses the lack of scientific debate and censorship surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. He explains that there is a silence and taboo within the scientific community regarding the adverse effects of vaccines. Despite evidence showing the deleterious effects of current vaccine platforms, there is a push to follow the narrative of pharmaceutical companies and authorities. Sabatier highlights the explosion of side effects and the increased risk of infection after vaccination. He attributes the lack of scientific consensus to administrative and political influences within research organizations like CNRS. Despite facing marginalization and potential sanctions, Sabatier remains committed to conducting research based on scientific evidence and protecting public health.

Charles Richet, a French researcher, received the Nobel Prize in 1913 for his work on anaphylaxis. According to the speaker, Richet's work demonstrates that vaccination is impossible. The speaker believes Richet was given the prize because he discovered how to poison people by sensitizing them to common environmental elements. Richet was a committed eugenicist, a fashionable attitude among the well-to-do at the time. The speaker claims that eugenicists were concerned with controlling the overbreeding of the poor classes, who lived in crowded conditions with poor hygiene. Instead of addressing these issues, they decided to vaccinate them. The speaker equates this to Bill Gates's work in Africa and India. The speaker asserts that eugenics never went away and that globalists still think of normal people in the same way, believing it is acceptable to poison, sterilize, and lie to people for the greater good. The speaker concludes that what started with Richet continues today.

The speaker discusses the controversy surrounding President Macron's vaccination status. They mention that the speaker, Jean Lassalle, a former deputy, made a statement claiming that Macron was not vaccinated. The interviewer asks why Lassalle made this claim, highlighting his history of political activism, including a hunger strike. Lassalle asserts that he spoke the truth and had confirmation of his claim. He also mentions the importance of protecting sources and adhering to journalistic and parliamentary ethics. Lassalle believes that Macron was not vaccinated and suggests that there may be evidence to support this claim.

I want to announce an action I have decided to take against Jean Lassalle. As you may have seen in several videos, Lassalle claims to have evidence that the President and government members are not vaccinated. This is crucial for us, as victims' families. Macron locked down the country, encouraged vaccination, and suspended unvaccinated healthcare workers. He even expressed a desire to annoy the unvaccinated. That's why I have initiated legal action against Lassalle. Many bailiffs have refused to get involved due to fear. However, an official will be going soon. If Macron is found to be unvaccinated and lied to the French people, it would be an absolute scandal. I urge Lassalle to speak up because there are deaths, injuries, and a scandal surrounding Covid. It's concerning that some bailiffs refuse to visit Lassalle, which raises questions about the Covid situation. Thank you.