The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 416: DIDIER RAOULT UNCENSORED

Episode Date: March 21, 2025

Renowned French physician, microbiologist, and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, M.D., sits down with Del to revisit the injustices of the COVID-19 pandemic. As one of the most controversial figures of the pandemic, Raoult was among the first to advocate for a cheap, repurposed drug that he claimed showed promise in treating COVID. But what followed was a storm of censorship, scientific suppression, and personal attacks.In this explosive interview, Raoult reveals what really happened, the global forces that worked to discredit his findings, and why the scientific community turned against him. Plus, hear his startling position on the origins of COVID-19, including his unexpected take on the Chinese lab leak theory. Guest: Didier Raoult, M.D.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Have you noticed that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want any corporate sponsors telling me what I can investigate or what I can say. Instead, you are our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark legal wins, If you want hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to I Can Decide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yeah. Let's do this. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out onto the high wire. One of my favorite things about doing this show is that I get to interview some of the most brilliant minds and doctors. and scientists in the entire world. All through COVID, this was the hub where so many people came to see what the other scientists

were saying, those that were outside of HHS or NIAID. If Tony Fauci was wrong, what were the other scientists saying? And I've been on a journey through COVID to tell that story as thoroughly as I possibly can. And every once in a while, I call them my bucket list interviews. today may be the biggest bucket list interview of them all. This is someone that I think changed the conversation and probably could have changed the world in the entire COVID experience if we'd listen to him.

This is my interview with Diderre Raute from France. He flew in recently to finally sit down and do this interview. I've been trying to get him to do an interview for several years now. Now, for those of you that maybe weren't watching the high wire during COVID, or maybe you don't know who he is, this guy is the reason anyone ever talked about hydroxychloroquine. In the middle of the pandemic, in fact, right in the beginning, right when it was coming out of the gate, he started running studies in China using hydroxychloroquine. And he came out of those studies and said, not only is this upper respiratory illness we're calling SARS-CoV-2 treatable, It's one of the easiest upper respiratory conditions to treat an outrageous statement that set Donald Trump into having the words come out of his mouth. I've heard about this thing called hydroxychloroquine.

I'm interested. We're going to try to get it to everyone in this country. As they say, the rest was history as we watched one of the biggest coverups of all time. Tony Fauci jumping to the microphone to say, no, it's not safe. Well, Dedierey Ute was at the center of it, he's still under attack for the positions he took. He's one of the world's, if not the most prolific biologist alive today, certainly one of the most prolific virologists in all of history. He has bacteria that are named after him. And he has some revelations in this interview that absolutely blew my mind.

This conversation goes to places I never imagined. In fact, he sees the Wuhan lab leak different than almost anyone else I've talked to. He has a different perspective, one that surprised me, and he gets very candid about what it's like to be under attack for hydroxychloroquine. What did he know about it? How did he know it? And what happened there? I hope you enjoy this interview.

This is one of the most exciting interviews that I've ever done in my life. and it's, you know, virtually wraps up the entire book around the experts in the middle of the COVID pandemic, the silenced experts that could have changed the world. I hope you enjoy my interview with Didier Rout. Here is a scientist out of France. His name is Didier Raute, I think, is how you say it. He's a French biologist and infectious disease specialist. My understanding is he's discovered personally over 60 different viruses, brand new viruses around the world.

In Europe, they compare this guy to Stanley Plotkin, who's our, you know, reigning godfather of the vaccine program here in America. He's made more vaccines than anyone alive. In fact, Dr. Stanley Plotkin quotes Didier Raute all the time. Well, look at, he gave a speech last week. He came out and basically said, uh, the coronavirus, it's time to party. This thing is over. Why? Look at what he said in this video.

Okay. A scoop of the last minute, a new new very important. The Chinese are the most the most pragmatic, so that are the most pragmatic, rather than to search a vaccine or a new molecule that is with a coronavirus, we do what we call a repositioning,

it's a year, test the molecules that are ancient, who are known, who are no problem of toxicity, for it tested against their new virus. They've tested against their new virus, they've found, as it had been found on the SART and,

I've been to be in their new virus, their new corona, the chloroquine is active in vitro. I had been interviewed by the telecline Chinese. We had asked me the advice that I'd give to the Chinese and what I'd attend to the Chinese, I consider the best of the the best of the virus, I would say I hope that very, very, the Chinese will give the results of a first study on the efficacy, the effect of the chloroquin, on the coronavirus, and it's very to be able to It's effective on the coronavirus with 500migram of chlorochim

per day, for a new year, there's an amelioration spectacular. And it's recommended for all the cases clinically positive of infection in coronavirus, Chinese. So it's an excellent fluke, it's probably the infection respirator, the most easy to treat the flu. And so it's not the pain to be excited. It's not the pain to be excited, to promise the vaccines inantin, they're

working, to work, to see the molecules potentially active, and that are immediately are immediately that's all that you say

there will be going to be more than the pharmacy. He says, actually, from all respiratory infections is probably the easiest to treat.

This guy would know is one of the top disease specialists in the world, so there is really no reason to get excited anymore, there is really no reason to get excited, and to rush

to produce a vaccine. Well, there you have it. That's the high wire bringing you the actual news about coronavirus this week. I'm not sure I don't watch MSNBC all the time, or Fox or CNN, or NBC, ABC, but you should probably be asking yourself, why aren't they mentioning vitamin C if they're having success in China? And even more importantly, since we know that it's being driven by the drug industry here in America, Why are we talking about chloroquine?

For those of you that don't understand what chloroquine is, let me make this make sense. This is an anti-malaria drug that is used very successfully to treat malaria. And in fact, as he pointed out in his discussion, after SARS they used it and had great effect against SARS, which was a coronavirus. And now he said to the Chinese government

that reached out to him because he's one of the best specialists in the world, what should we do? He said, try chloroquine. And they ended up try. it and it works so much so he says it looks like this is an easy upper respiratory illness to cure maybe the easiest it's amazing to reflect back that was March 5th of 2020 the very very beginning really of the coronavirus pandemic the video made by Didier rault was from February so even earlier when we stumbled upon it and said wait this is this amazing product

it looks like coronavirus is easy to deal with. Well, there is a huge story. We all lived it. We watched this drug get shut down made unavailable. We watched attacks from media upon it. But at the heart of this is science and is my honor and absolute pleasure to be joined right now by the man that made hydroxychloroquium famous during the pandemic. Dr. Didia Raute. Thank you for joining me. We have covered many, many of the experts that were involved in the pandemic. I have been calling you for several years. I'm so excited to actually have you here because I think this may be the most incredible story of the entire pandemic and maybe the most important one for history and science. We believe we live in a world where the best ideas rise to the top. And I think this story showed us something perhaps sinister, much more alarming, is special interests, especially when it came to the lives of people.

But to begin with, why hydroxychloroquine or originally just chloroquine? If you take any textbook of medicine in the world, you find out the treatments that I put on to treat a disease named C. And this is any book on infectious disease in the world, okay? And I treat these patients since here, thousands of people, and I get in contact with people over the world, including in the US. And this disease, the very first paper that I did on this disease, they get a 65% mortality.

And then I try to understand why, and I have to understand why, understand why and I realize that none of the compound that we test was because I get the biology. So I was, my specificity, I'm an infectious disease physician, I was, and microbiologists in the same time. So I can do everything and much. Biology and microbiology, you do it all. Yeah. And seeing patients. Okay, and seeing patients.

Which is critical. That is critical. You're not just a... No, I will speak more about that because I think that's one of the people. that one of the problems is that the people who decide don't know where a patient is. And the thing is that I find out working on the bacteria that cause a cue fever. And then I saw that none of the compound was efficient. And there was a very fundamental work that have been done by somebody here in the USA

showing that chloroquine change, you know, when a bug, bacteria or virus come in the cell. It comes commonly in a small bag that we call phagosome. And then there is small bags with enzyme that make fusion with this and acidifies this. And this is to kill the bugs. Okay. But the bugs that will give disease survive and eventually use it to multiply. For the virus, it helps the virus to get out of the cap seed and come into the cells. its pathogenic virus, and for this bacteria, in fact, this bacteria is multiplying only at

acidic pH. Okay. Okay. But at acidic pH where it lives, no antibiotic is effective. Then I use an association of antibiotic and hydroxychloroquine because what hydroxychloroquine is doing is not unspecific. It's alkalanize the vacuole. So is it the natural response of the body's creating this insiniscence?

acidic environment in response, but that acidic environment is helping the bacteria multiply and grow. The ones that are pathogenic. That are pathogenic. You're bringing in a product in chloroquine that alkalinolizes, so it gets it out of that pH level so that it can be killed. And even at this time when I discover this, you know, and then it becomes the basic treatment of this patient all over the world. In Q fever?

Is it a mosquito-borne illness? No, no, no, it's come from the cattle, goats, sheep, and so on. Okay, okay. In fact, we test also if any compound that will alkalanize, the lysosome will have the same effect, and yes, it has the same effect. So hydroxychloroquine, it's really alkalizing this vacuoles that make that it is efficient. It's unspecific. Okay. Okay.

So I work on this, and I find that it works very nicely in another disease. Weeple's disease were trying to discover the bugs that caused that. And we know that it worked for bacteria in cells. We know that it works for parasites, such as malaria. It's very safe, you know. First, it comes from Keenan. It's a story that it comes from Kenin into Peru, where Indians used that against fever. It was not malaria in Peru because malaria was imported from us.

Okay. So, but it worked. Then it comes- Here we go. Is it quinine that we used for like gin and tonic? Yeah, like it's the initonic. Yes, okay, very good. Yeah, the same.

When you take gin and tonics, the same that is you used. That's probably why I did so good during COVID. This is why nobody, well, like, I've come with that. Nobody can believe it's toxic. And then when it comes in France, it becomes a big, a big market for the Spanish that imports as a medicine, probably first medicine for infectious disease. And in France, our king, who is the 14, was treated with that. He decided he gets fever, probably.

Louis XIVA. Yeah. Okay. It was a very first official treatment. No random treatment, but he was cured. Probably about. So he was getting fever from? Yeah, recurrent fever, probably because in Versailles there was water in Mosquito at this time and probably malaria.

Okay. So this is what we believe now. So you think you had malaria, you used Gwineine. Yeah, but nobody knew what was malaria and always worked, of course. But people knew that it worked on fever, on many fever. Okay. Then I wrote that a long time before the beginning of coronavirus, and I was interested when the coronavirus...

Did they ever try it on flu, by the way? Like, did any ever... I think some people try that, but there is not a... I will talk about this. The problem of infectious disease is that because of AIDS and of chronic hepatitis, now the doctors don't make the protocol to treat. It's only the pharmacies that make it. And then if you don't make money out of it, you cannot manage specifically because they make things more and more difficult.

Let's say, well, you need big, multi-centric, random. with the harder and harder trials to get through randomized control trials and nobody want to pay that and of course that makes that the pharmaceutical industry makes that that anyway they make that it's it's cheating because to know if you treat AIDS or not with a compound you don't need to to make any comparative study you just look at the viral load in the blood if it disappeared works if it doesn't disappear you don't you don't need So you're talking with like AIDS, we want to do these big studies, but just try it. Right.

Right. Is the age disappearing for the blood or not? Yeah, yeah. It's if it's disappearing in the blood, it works. I mean, this is a question that we need to relapse when I stop, and of course for age it will relapse. But for hepatitis C, for example, it's a very good example. Gilead, that's terrible, propose people to treat people for 24 weeks. Now we know you need only six weeks.

But people were not allowed to test by themselves the time. But we know that when there is no more virus, if you wait for three more weeks, I mean, the patient is cured, that's finished. Yeah. But by making their own protocol for years, you get to treat them 24 weeks that costs so much four times more. This is because the trial went 12 weeks, but you don't need to know. But you don't need a trial. To look at the, but sometimes you heard because you ask yourself,

are they completely damp? Is anybody dumbed, not just thinking like, see, like that? You know, I get meetings. Well, why do you do all this thing? You just look at, and this is what we did. I mean, we look if the virus disappear when you get hydroxyclogne, and this is what happens. Right.

So, and immediately you can see that. I see my first. Now, if you realize that just Pfizer make $250 billion with the vaccine, you understand that what's going to happen. Right. And Bill Gates was saying in Davos in 2017, I know very well the guy who was his cancer in infectious disease, and I ask, is he mad?

I mean, he says... Is Bill Gates mad? Did you're asking? Yeah. Yeah. He didn't answer me. But I wrote him. And then because he says, well, you know, we're going to have a next pandemic and we need to make a vaccine within two months or three months and vaccinate everybody and so on.

The idea is to take a new way of building vaccines that could let us develop in less than a year a novel vaccine. They're called DNA-R-R-N-A vaccines. And so we'll fund a few. few projects to build specific vaccines. One of the problems with Gates and with many of these people take decision is that they don't know, he don't know anything about infectious disease. You know, he's playing a video game, you know? And many of the decisions, social decision and vaccine, it's like a video game.

It's not real word, you know, say, well, put a mask, you know, like you can see, you know, in the video game, you know, there's an air brake, put the mask, stop the transmission. Not true, stupid. It doesn't work. The world doesn't work. And the vaccine, you know, we don't have any vaccine for any respiratory viral disease that works. No. None.

None. So you can't Iraq. So you would say flu vaccine doesn't work. No, flu vaccine. If you balance, you know, if you're at risk person or if you may be a relay in the patient like people working in the hospital, it's fair to say, well, Maybe you should be vaccinated because it will be, it has a 70% protection, but it's better than nothing if you have at risk for the patient or if you're a patient at risk.

So it's fine. You know, I wrote this book a long time before, but I see this is why I love this one on vaccine. And I was doing in several comfort that I gave. I ask all the people, I'm going to ask you if you're for or against vaccine and say, well, who is against and people? Nobody who is for the vaccine? I'm sorry, you're all stupid. It's a stupid question. You should tell, well, which vaccine for whom, in which place, what age?

Yeah. This is a correct answer. This is, you cannot say it's always good or it's always bad. I mean, it's stupid. Yeah. It depends of who are you talking about, which vaccine are you talking about. So you need to be clever. But these people are not clever.

They're dumb, you know, or they make money out of it. Because immediately after Bill Gates put a lot of money in Berenet Tech and to generate vaccines that will be, you know, crashing all control that you can get for the technologies that have never been used. I prefer, I told that really, and I told that to my politician as well, my president. I think the best thing to do was doing the same thing that Chinese do. The thing that was done for flu, you know, you grow the virus, you kill the virus, and you injected that, and you make a regular vaccine, doesn't make, you're not going in

something you cannot understand because we don't know. So instead of MRNA technology, you would have been on the side of more of a protein-based standard, grow it in some sort of cell culture. Yeah, like flu. Yeah, like flu, you know, cell culture. Yeah. So that was one of the things. So this is, and then, but I can't imagine that people will start to say it's not safe. And even if you foresee start to say, we don't know if it's safe. And you know, the year words have been more prescribed, as far as I know, was 2006 because it was a basic treatment even at this time of malaria.

There was six billion prescriptions of chloroquine or hydroxychicroids. So by 2006, there's six billion prescriptions being used in the world. Mostly Africa, places where malaria is an issue. But you couldn't have a better just sort of natural study of safety. Like we can say it's safe, like whether or not it's effective. Very interesting. And I don't know. You should not know this.

When I was the only editorial consultant from France in the Lancet. So I was quite friendly with them, not. always agree because they are very politically oriented, even in science. So they say, they seem there is a good thing to say and the things that you should not say, which is not my point of view. Right. But at the moment, I send them my second or my third paper on hydroxychloroquine on 300, 300, 300 patients, and they reject that without reading. This is coronavirus now. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So 3,000 patients. Where were those people? patients located? In Marseille. In Marseille. So in your own patients. My institute.

Your own institute. Three thousand patients. You gave them hydroxychloroquine. Yeah. Yeah. You sent them the study what you had seen. Yeah. Yeah. And what was the conclusion of the same that we have now. Now we get 30,000 patients have been treated with that. It's have been controlled by a bailiff because people were saying that we are dissimulating data. So we show to the bailiff the different data banks that we use. independent of us to make the study and show that if you treat there is no death under 50 only if you get very no and the Swedish find the same thing so at the mean but you need to to take care of the patient because some of the patient may have coagulation complication or lack oxygen so but if you treat

the patient there is no death and treat the symptoms with if they need oxygen give them oxygen give them a blood thinner if they're getting blood clots or something like that, but you're giving hydroxy chloroquine, it's slowly getting the disease out of their body. So, and then it's very, it's efficient between 50 and old age, if you give it early, so when patients are still ambulatory, and it reduced the death rate by 70%. 70% reduction. 70% yeah.

And if you, when there's a full-time hospitalize, with lack of oxygen and needing, you know, a very, lot of care, then you save 30% more, 70% of these. So once there's sort of critical care, ICU, space, they're in really bad shape, you still reduce death by 30%. And part of it is because hydrocechloroquine is also used very much not only on treatment of infectious disease or parasitic disease, but of immunological disease. You know, it is the compound that we use when people get autoimmunity. get auto-antibodies. Okay? Okay. So it is the treatment of lupus. It is the treatment of lupus,

polyarthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis. Yeah, and this is specifically hydroxychloroquine which is used. And in the late phase of COVID-19 infection, there is a lot of auto-antibodies. So probably at this time, the virus is not so much attainable, but it is susceptible to hydroxychloroquine because the immune response is so severe, cytokine storm. Right. Yeah. He is controlled by hydroxychloroquine. But whatever, I send these papers I don't want.

They asked me to review another paper on hydrochloroquine. And in this paper, provided by an association of rheumatologists all over the word, they compare 1 million people treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to 1 million in rheumatochic acidicroquin. in rheumatology, treated by sulfamide, which is all the treatment of chronic polyarthritis. Okay. And show there is no heart attack in one million person treated for years

because you can treat 10 years with hyacloquine. This paper, were rejected, but I review the paper, it's fine. I mean, it's a discussion of the safety, it's fine, because they use the same dose that we use 600 milligrams per day. Yeah. It's okay. They did not publish that, but they published in the same. So they get the three paper at the same time, the editorial board,

and they publish the ones which is the Lancet Gate, you know, of people, you don't know even where they get the patients. And they claim that hydroxychloroquine was killing 10% of the people. Nobody can believe it. We're talking about the Surgesphere study because it was a huge part of this. This is the Guardian cover of the. Surgesphere, governments and WHO changed COVID-19 policy, based on suspect data from tiny US companies,

Surgesphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studies. This was an incredible thing because, as you pointed out, ultimately this article goes on to talk about it, they said they had these sort of pilot studies all over the world, and a lot of scientists reached out, said, where's this data coming from?

We'd like to see the data after it was public, And Surge's Fear never was able to provide any of the data. It appears it was all made up. I feel bad about this. Well, first, then I understand that they were dumb or they were cheating. There is no explanation. So they're either cheating or they're dumb. Yeah.

And then the counselor of the President Macron called me Friday evening and tell me, did you see this paper? Did I want to get your opinion? I say, well, I'm exhausted. This is the weekend coming. I will tell you Monday. And until before Monday, I mean, the W.O. Show guy, you know, it's impossible. This man is an Ethiopian.

If he eats chloroquine like mad in all his life, you know, I'm born in Senegal. When I was a kid, I was eating Clarkin like mad. You don't think of prevention. So you say like Tadros should know he's been taking steps of all life? It's impossible that he believes something like this. Or you don't know, you know. It's bizarre. It's things that there is some barrier in the brain that people have done, things,

seen things, say things. And in another time, they say completely... And what was so shocking about the surgesphere study is that it said it wasn't safe. I mean, right? I mean, that it was like it was causing heart attacks. It could cause heart problems, these things. Which the one thing that we, you know,

whether or not it's efficacious, whether it works, that's up for a debate. We could look at... But safety you had been covered. Yeah, it works. It works because it's W. show, say we need to stop immediately to do chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine. And then our minister say we should stop, and he stopped the studies that were ongoing

were hydroxychloroquine was two studies. Hydrocycloroquine was better than a placebo. But the number was at this time too small. There was a 50% reduction in these two studies. But it stopped and never wanted to go back. So take me back to the moment, though, coronavirus starts sweeping through China. We're seeing these crazy videos of people falling over whether or not that was real or not, I don't know. But you got a hold of China and said you should try hydroxychloroquine.

Were you a part of working with China very early on? No, I've been in contact with the guys that was the star in China of SARS, you know, that I've worked on SARS. So you worked on SARS. You worked with the guys in China. No, I didn't work. We didn't get cases. So I work only when we get cases. You know, and I don't want to be too much sorority call. Okay. I'm a doctor. So, but I phone him and I was sorry because he was sleeping when I phone him and ask him what do you think?

What's going on and what is it? And then the Mandarin, the TV, the National... So I get more viewers than anybody in the world when you go on this. I mean, I don't know, many hundreds of millions of people look at that in China. Yeah. And then we discussed and specifically I tell them at this time, I don't think that you know. In China, people are splitting, you know that? Have you been in China?

They're splitting. Okay. Okay. In the street, everywhere. Everywhere, okay. And then I told him, you should be careful and give message. on this. Stop spending on the street.

Stop splitting on the street because if you get to market and they are on motorbike and splitting in motorbikes, you get an aerosol. I test that. I test the number of, of course, I'm a scientist after that. I test the number of bugs that you get in, when you split. And you know, it's enormous. It's incredibly odd. So you spit, there are motorbikes, it's aerosolizing across large.

Yeah, you split one, one ML and there is 10 to the 14 virus per mal in this. So you can, you know, so you should not split. And I think the reason why it spread at this moment was splitting in the market, you know. I told them in the TV and they say, well, that's true. This is a big difference in our country and in China. They're splitting everywhere. So I get Chinese to do that. I say, well, stop spitting. Everybody's screaming. It would stop spitting. Because this is the moratorium about spending in the street. Let's go to the moment. I want to play this now. China does some study. You come forward. You give that speech, basically.

Hydroxychloroquine works. This is, chloroquine works on coronavirus. You said basically, not only can we treat this upper respiratory illness, it's an easy illness to treat. President Trump, the United States of America, somehow gets that information. Did you, did you reach out to him? Did you? No, no. He just, he found it, some, somebody found it for him. This is what, if you might have forgotten this, this is how quickly President Trump at the time jumped on top of this discovery. Take a look. A drug called chloroquine, and some people would add to it hydroxy, hydroxychloroquine.

So chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Now this is a common malaria drug, and it's been around for a long time. and it's very powerful. But the nice part is it's been around for a long time. So we know that if it, if things don't go as planned, it's not going to kill anybody. When you go with a brand new drug, you don't know that that's going to happen. You have to see and you have to go a long test.

But this has been used in different forms, very powerful drug in different forms. and it's shown very encouraging, very, very encouraging early results. That's March 19th. So imagine we opened this segment on the high wire. On March 5th, we announced hydroxychloroquine just a month earlier. D.D.A. Raute had come public and said, we've got a solution here. This doesn't have to be a panic. People don't need to die any longer.

So we're within weeks. President Trump is on top of this. And then the very next day, something kind of odd happened. I think we were all there. But just to remind you, this is the day after that. Watch this. Dr. Fauci, as was explained yesterday, there has been some promise with hydroxychloroquine, this potential therapy for people who are infected with coronavirus.

Is there any evidence to suggest that, as with malaria, it might be used as a prophylaxis against COVID-19? No, the answer is no. And the evidence that you're talking about, John, is anarchism. evidence. So as the Commissioner of FDA and the President mentioned yesterday, we're trying to strike a balance between making something with a potential of an effect to the American people available at the same time that we do it under the auspices of a protocol that would give us information to determine if it's truly safe and truly effective. But the information that you're referring to specifically is anecdotal. It was not done in a controlled clinical

trial, so you really can't make any definitive statement about it. I think I'm without seeing too much, I'm probably more of a fan of that than maybe than anybody, but I'm a big fan and we'll see what happens. And we all understand what the doctor said is 100% correct. It's early. But I've seen things that are impressive, and we'll see. We're going to know soon. We're going to know soon, including safety.

But, you know, when you get that safety, this has been prescribed for many years for people to combat malaria, which was a big problem, and it's very effective. It's a strong drug. So we'll see. It was fairly effective against SARS. It was, as I understand that, is that a correct statement? It was fairly effective on SARS. John, you've got to be careful when you say fairly affected.

It was never done in the clinical trial. They compared it to anything. It was given to individuals and felt that maybe it worked. So you'd- But was there anything to compare it to? Well, that's the point. Whenever you do a clinical trial, you do standard of care versus standard of care plus the agent you're evaluating. That's the reason why we showed back in Ebola why particular interventions worked.

And we'll see how it works out, Peter. I'm not saying it will, but I think that people may be surprised. By the way, that would be a game changer. But we're going to know very soon. But we have ordered millions of units. It's being ordered from bear, and there is another couple of companies also that do it. For clarity, Dr. Fauci said there is no magic drug for coronavirus right now, which you would agree. I guess on this issue, then we'll let me see.

I think we only disagree a little bit. Sorry. I disagree. Maybe and maybe not. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. We have to see. The president feels optimistic about something, his feeling about it. What I'm saying is that it might, it might.

be effective. I'm not saying that it isn't. It might be effective. But as a scientist, as we're getting it out there, we need to do it in a way as while we are making it available for people who might want the hope that it might work, you're also collecting data that will ultimately show that it is truly effective and safe under the conditions of COVID-19. So there really isn't different. It's just a question of how one feels about it. An absolutely outrageous exchange. You know, of course, FOSI is not an infectious disease physician. He's ignorant because 70% of the treatment recommended in this country for infectious disease

have never been through randomized comparative study. Never. And penicillin or whatever, what we do for our bugs is that looking first if it's working in vitro? Okay, antibiotics, susceptibility testing or viral. In a petri dish, basically, you do it, see does it work there to begin with it? And then 70% if you look at the recommendation of the Infectious Disease Society of America. Yeah. Incidentally, I'm the man who have published the most number of papers in IDSA journals.

So I know this is filled very well. And 70% of the recommendation are not based on controlled trial, but on evidence. So you treat the patient, you know that in this disease there is, I don't know, this is what I told, it's a parachute paradigm. Nobody has made a control if parachute is saving life. Right, yeah. It doesn't make sense. We're not going to do a double-blind study on parachutes. You don't use one, we're going to use one.

Yeah, but we lack volunteers. We like volunteers. We like volunteers. Can I get enough people to sign up for this double-blind random flights control? And I'm going to tell you something. When you get terrorist attacks of the towers, 9-11. Yeah, 9-11.

Just after this, you get an anthrax, a few cases of anthrax that have been reported in politicians and journalists send in envelopes. Yeah, the anthrax, remember that the scares being stinted over. And that make, you know, Bioterism story, which is completely mad. It's not true. Nothing is true.

Nobody ever have ever had a bug in the lab that is able to kill only the enemies, or it's not true. Mostly, it was people in the US knew very early that it was not true because I know the guy who sequenced the bugs that was sent, the anthrax bugs that have been sent, and the genome was exactly the same that the genomes that have been weaponized in Fort Detrick in the USA. So it was an internal problem,

of somebody probably mad. I don't know, the guy who was suspected is dead and pretend to reside in the food. But you're saying you can't send anthrax in the mail. It wouldn't work that way. Yes, you can do this, but you cannot kill a lot of people like that.

Okay, yeah. And if you look at the monies that have been, that get out of this, I mean, it's incredible. So you're saying that the entire bioweapons industry that's looking to create viruses you can release and kill lots of people

that we are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in that because it can't be done. Because we don't know how it works. And specifically, you know, so I know that many people that, I'm sorry because many people who support my work say also

that it comes for Wuhan. And of course, mostly should not, because it was... Gain of function, the whole gain of function conversation. Because it was forbidden in the USA, you should not be. do that in China. I mean, I think it was illegal. It's not my opinion, but I'm not a jurist.

But anyway, you don't know how to do this. You don't know why a virus is becoming contagious between humans. So you can always get, you know, the story of virus in humans start like a zoonotic disease. So animals. Does an animal zoonotic. And in fact, what's happened is that, and we're pretty sure that that's happened several times with the coronavirus. You may know that there is currently four endemic coronavirus that are, we are suffering with this in every country of the world. They come from bats, okay?

Because to manage to create new virus, you need to get a huge and dense population. And the big population of wild animal, there is two big populations. There is bats. In one place, you can add four million bats. Four million bats. And they just all together.

And there is hundreds of coronavirus within there. But not only coronavirus, there is something very close to missiles, very close to mumps, very close to para and friense. And they're rebuilding virus all the time. And sometimes one is going on. And if you're unlucky or if you describe a disease or that people pick up when, they eat some of the bat or if you have contact with the blood of the bat which is probably also the case for Ebola then you could have a disease that is coming from the zoonos this is

this is happen also for avian flu but to get another step that is now it is transceivable in human beings it's very rare it's rarely happen and we don't know it works and now But now we know much more because at this occasion of COVID-19, people try to start to sequence a lot of genome. In our place, we just sequenced 24,000. But in the world, there is 60 million genomes available. Genomes available. Okay, so you're sequencing all of these different viruses.

Yeah, and then I think I was the first in the world to say, well, you know, there is variants. So you're the first one to say there's variants of the same. Yeah. There's no, you're not just getting one. There's different versions of all. And I told that to my Ministry of Health, he told me, you know, I'm sequencing since 2000, my first way. Hold on one second.

I want to just so that everyone knows who we're talking to. I want to bring up this guy's resume just for a second because you're like, well, I mean, I haven't really heard of this guy. Just so you have a sense of who we're talking to right now. He's identified a name, this is you did here, identified a name more than 400 new bacterial species. He's identified dozens of new viruses including the discovery of giant viruses, founder and director of the infectious and tropical emergent Disease Research Unit in Marseilles, pioneered grand breaking research on antibiotic resistance, received a Grand Prix Insurm for his contributions to medical research. That's massive. Election is a fellow of the European Academy of Microbiology, one of the most published microbiologists

globally with over 3,000 scientific publications, and three bacteria have been named in honor of his work in the field, Raltela, the genus, Candidatus, Rickettsia Rale-T, And Cadidatus Clustridium Reli. So they're naming bacteria off of you. So you've done their, you're in this. And you're saying right now, and it's, by the way, you're the first person of your, you know, a level of understanding to say to me that you mostly are saying,

we don't know how a virus, how to make a virus transfer human or human. We don't know. We don't know. No. We don't know. And not only that, but I've published since one year or half, I'm specifically, I'm focusing on two things. But one of these is analyzing all this data and why you get, you know, this new virus arriving. And we don't know either.

You know, the first virus, there is anosmia and you don't feel the other and the taste. But with the late one, you don't get that. So you lost your taste and sense of smell to be. So this was the specificity. When it comes to omicron, you get this throat, you know, the pain in the throat for angiitis that you don't get in the first. So these are different virus with different epidemiology, with different severity, probably. And we don't know why. We don't understand why.

The thing I can tell is the pandemic virus have not been in China. When people come back from China and in Europe, and we get the sequence from Chinese, and we get the sequence of the beginning of what's happened in Europe. In Europe, there was two major mutations that I published all that and some other people. So in China, you're saying that's not really the pandemic virus. No.

It's what happened once it got to Europe. It gets two major, you know. It would have been, it's possible that it would have been like, you know, SARS. So limited to China and few cases and maybe in terms. some case, second hybrid, like in Toronto, for source. And like Merce Corona, that's another one. So it could have been more serious, but it just didn't spread. Yeah.

Okay, got it. So there is two mutations that appear. One is in the enzyme, which is a factory of the virus, in the virus. So the polymerase. So the coronavirus get before this a reputation of not allowing, not making a lot of mutation. Okay. But with this mutation, he's doing 100 more mutations that the ones that come from Wuhan.

Okay. Okay. And you get another mutation on the spike that makes the virus adhere much more to the cells. So you've got the mutation on the spike where it adheres more to the cells. And make more mutation. And so that's what happens is that,

and this is the problem, this is why you don't want to get gates, you know, directing this, because they don't get enough science. You know, when people, were speaking about this virus, people are speaking about this virus like an object. But it's not an object. When you're splitting, I publish that because I love this film, you know, the wild bunch.

I say there was a wild bunch of viruses. So you don't split on one type of virus, but all the company of virus. Okay. Okay. And among these hundred that we call quasi-species, some will be able to. produce virus that will multiply and come in what I call the democratic genome. All the genomes that have been published are wrong, in fact. They are the democratic genome.

So there's the most common base that go on the genome, but in fact, even when you sequence that, there is plenty of different quasi-species and you take the most democratic, the most common alignment that you can do. Is that too confused? Most common alignment, right. You're saying there's all sorts of variations, but you choose the ones where they kind of where you can show that they line up. And so and these Democratic Genome have in all the studies that you have seen on all the genome have a new

mutation involved every other week every 15 days. Every 15 days. Okay, so all the genomes that we have now if you count the weeks, the week, you divide that by two and you have all the mutations that differ of all the strains that we have now compared to that. It's living, okay? It's multiplying. It's constantly changing. And usually one variant is lasting for three months and a half. Okay.

Because it can tolerate seven mutations which are not favorable. Okay. So took, took, took. After every 15 days, you get a new mutation. After seven, you can see that it's vanishing and disappearing. and then you get another merchant or not. So this is the story. So how can you make that?

How can you produce 10 to the 11 virus that we split in lab? I mean, how can you do this? It's very difficult. And how do you select the one? You know, people, we get this story with H1N1. You know, the case was the guy in Netherlands, A good virologist, but he wants to simplify too much and say, well, we leak in the ferret,

and the ferret will tell you if it's killing human or not. It's stupid. There is no animal models that predict that. It's not true. Do you then believe that this is a natural origin versus lab? You don't believe in the lab origin theory? No, no, because I'm looking at not only this disease, but a lot of diseases, you know. For example, I just conclude I get another, I get a book every year.

The next one is I invent a new field that I call the paleomicrobriology, making the diagnosis of the past epidemic and cases. Okay. And I wrote a book on what we did and what other people did. This was also a big fight because people want to say that the big plague on the middle age was caused by Ebola or whatever. and prepared to this, you know, this story of the virus that would kill the humanity is coming out since a very long time. So we're talking about...

We've been afraid of the deadly virus that kills everyone on the planet forever. Of course, forever. And then when we show that it was really plagued, your city of pesticides, we have been, you know, people say, well, you're wrong, it's, you know, one more time, you know, it's a failure, it's not true.

In Wikipedia, which is a terrible place, they say, well, we don't know what is the cause of black death and so on. And what's... So they're challenging now. We no longer are allowed to say the plague, black death. These things are all back under review. No, well, after 17 years, people say, well, finally, it's black deaths. It's black.

Yes. Right. You know, it was just stupid people didn't read. I mean, it was very well described by doctors in France when it happened. So it was a bubonne. I mean, there is no other disease giving a bubon, so we know exactly what it was clinically. But people don't know who to read that. It was a phantasm, you know, on the emrologic fever, you know, that was a phantasm.

But when I get, so I was not surprised because in this story of the bioterrorism, at this time, my government asked me to make a study on preventing the infectious disease and what to do with bioterrorism. And then I was very surprised. So bioterrorism, the Macron's, like, your government reaches out. What do we do about bioterrorism? Got it. And then the first time I say, well, look, it's very bizarre because the recommendations that you give before I come, that doesn't make sense, is that you want to give quinolone, cyproproxacin, to treat this patient.

But we know how to treat in tracts since a very long time. I mean, treat that with penicillin. Why do you want to buy these compounds that are very important? expensive say well we do like people in the US okay and then during my mission I go to the CDC I've been several times before the CDC and I go to the NIH and I discuss I say why did you pick up cyporexasin and what do you say is this is why it's so interesting to see Fauci because he jumped from one point to another without consistency because they say well because in rabbits it works very nicely of course

you cannot treat rabbits with penicillin and it kills the rabbit. But Cyprofluous, nobody has been treated not with cypherphorox. But it was the recommendation. And they are so dumb, they don't want to say that. So if you look now on the literature, how do you treat antaracts? They say, well, if it's natural, look how stupid it is. If it's natural anthrax, you can give penicillin or plenty of antibiotics that cost nothing. But if it's terrorist antaracts, you can do it.

You should use cyberfluosity. What? Yes, it's right time we're look. You can look that on your computer. It's mad because they don't want to say, and when I came to say, what did you do? Say, well, we do place that are, you know, unknown from the public where we store tons of cyproproxin,

you know, they make, they buy tons of cyberfluos. You got tons and tons of cyberfluxtene. They need to use it so if you get. You get natural anthrax, antibiotics. There's a job, pedicillin. And if you get terrorist versus anthrax in the mail, we're going to give you this giant storage of a different drug. And they are going to make millions out of it. All right.

Look, the thing about the high wire of this show, science has never settled. But you're bringing a point. So I want to drill down this because all we're hearing is, you know, you've got this faren cleavage site that's in this insert that's clearly could only happen in a lab that is creating this spike protein. that adheres to ACE2 receptors so perfectly in human beings, but this fair and cleveland site that that would never happen in nature and that they cannot find any other form of coronavirus that has this fair and cleavered site and that we would have seen an evolution that gets us to there. It comes out of nowhere.

That's the story on the street. You don't agree with that story. No. I'm a shantiest. So what's the story then? Is there a fair and cleavent? Is there a fair in Cleveland site in this virus? I'm going to tell you, very interestingly,

when we see all these variants that change, we saw that the very last gene, open-reading frame of the virus, name of 8, gets top-colon. So it could not be expressed, and it vanished at the time come. And three of the outbreak, including the alpha virus, have these part of the virus vanishing.

Vanishing. Disappearing. There are variants where the same parts disappearing off the end of the... Yeah. Now we look at what happened, and it happened three times that you get an outbreak coming because these genes disappear. And when we published that, in the same time,

there was a study that claimed that it was a viral antifactor. And it's a non-viral antifactor. So the virus is worst if you remove these genes. And now, let me explain you this. And of course, all the coronavirus in the bats get this off equivalent within at the end or within. And all the coronavirus adapt to humans have lose this part.

You get only remnants of this in all the one adapted to human beings. So it is possible that maybe if you take another of this bad virus and remove this gene at the end, it becomes more transmissible in human beings. Every time we see it infecting human, it lost this gene.

Yeah. When it becomes endemic, yeah. When it become an endemic virus. So once it loses it, that's when it starts becoming, you know, infectious for human beings. And the other thing is that all the new disease that we have come from, you know, zonautic agent. And for example, we believe now, because with my friend Michel Danko, we are looking at serology on, the big things that we have for working on all disease, we're working on the teeth.

Because in the teeth, there is a dental pulp, and this is, there is a blood remnant there. And you can do PCR, you can do culture on that, you can do serology, Okay? On the teeth. On the teeth that have hundreds of years. It's keeping clothes and you get powder. You can go back to teeth of people that are buried and studied. And we never find, we never find influenza before Spanish flu.

There is no, there is coronavirus. We find that in the 16th century. Okay, coronavirus goes back to the 16th century. Yeah, in humans, huh? But flu, not until the Spanish flu. No, don't. And we link that to the fact that you have mass chicken factories that make it possible. Because people discover that when you give vitamins to chickens,

you don't need them to go outside to the sun. So you could get that in a home and get thousands of this. And this is when, and you know flu come partly from chicken. Specifically, if you rice, chicken and pigs together, Then it comes from chicken, go to pigs, and pigs it's easier to go to humans. And then we believe that it's when you get an intensive growing of chicken that the flu appear. Before that, because you don't get this circulation. But for example, I'm going to tell you something.

Well, it's sort of like what you said with the bats when they're really close together, when the chickens are all packed together. Yeah. And many, many, many disease that we have now, such as. Because for resistant of antibiotics, for ecoli, for example, we know not that a clone, you know, nobody knew until recently that urinary infection are a zoonotic disease and there is epidemics of urinary infection. Nobody believes that. Urinary infection. Yeah.

And we know that because now we can sequence that and clone that and see what happens. And it comes from chicken. Okay, and this is partly the reason why there is so high resistance in E. coli is not coming from the human treatment because you can see why the transmission of urinary infection from human to human, and it doesn't make sense. But if you touch the chicken, the chicken have E.coli on this, you know, and we knew since years that the E. coli that we have in the urine are the same that they get into the chicken. So urinary tract infections are really E. coli infections from handling chickens. Yeah, and you get outbreaks. It's known in France and in England.

We get outbreak with a single clone within three years that will cause 30% of all urinary infection, and it vanished. So the same for staff, and specifically for staff in pigs. So, okay, and we get a staff resistant to antibiotics from the 19th century on animals because it's an antibiotic disease as well. So we know now that, In fact, the new bugs come from zoonotic agents in animals when you get crowed, when it's crowded, when there is a huge number, they're crowded, then it circulate like that, you know.

And together is a really bad idea. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Are you worried about bird flu? I mean, this is a huge, huge concern. They're talking about collie. I mean, they're killing chickens like crazy across America. I never make prediction and I've been very happy not to make. If you want to get such a prediction, the guy, the Nostradamus, you hear about it?

Nostradamus is from very close. It's 30 kilometers from Marseille, but I don't believe him. And I don't believe in Nail Ferguson. Neil Ferguson, he is receiving a lot of money from Bill Gates, and every five years he predicts the end of the world, you know. Yeah. He's always wrong. He starts with Maltcoe.

Every five years, he's predicting making beautiful papers in nature, and he predict millions of deaths, and it's never work. But they ran to him because they love, you know, you could not, people ask me, oh, can you believe it? Say, well, look at what people are looking at. They love this. If you put a picture. We love to be panicked. A horror picture, you know, people love this. They love, they love.

Colors, you're not, you don't do the colors and graphs for people. Like all the graphs and all the colors and this is how this, this is how we're all going to die. Like he puts it all together, right? All the modeling. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I don't, I don't believe very much in mathematics, in, in medicine, in fact. I think it, and I think one of the big problems that we have, the worst problems that we have, and I think it's our civilization. So it's very, it's very, it's terrible.

So if you see the proportion of people that work in the tertiary world, and people work for real. Yeah. Okay? It's come at the beginning of the 20th century, 30% of the people were in tertiary. But now in UK, in France, in the USA, 80% of the people don't work by themselves. Wow. Okay? So 30% were tertiary, now they're 80% of them are.

And then even they don't understand medicine. You know, they want that medicine will be the same whatever is a doctor, which is impossible. But they want to regulate everything because they don't know anything else. And the only thing they know is the films that they have seen and the games that they have seen on, you know. That's it. And it's not medicine at all. You know, it's not like that. And it's very interesting because this is the people who make the decision.

They don't know what the patient is, you know? Yeah. And this is the reason why they believe that all these could be organized in the fact that you don't get any hazard. But, you know, this was a big discussion between Einstein and Bohr. You know, Einstein is a very clever guy. But in this case, Einstein and who? Boar. Okay, Boer, yep.

It was wrong. They get both Nobel Prize. Boar younger than Einstein, as far as I know. And Bohr was describing quantum, mechanic, quantum. And he says that depending on the observator, so you will get either a particle or an end, you know. And this will be the hazard. It will not be predicted.

And Einstein said, well, I don't believe that God play dice. And Borr said, but who are you to know what God is playing? Yeah, yeah. And in fact, we know that only since three years it has been demonstrated, that in fact, Borr was right. I mean, it's just chance. So that meant something as that we still more than one. We're trying to give order to things that don't have order.

It's chaos. It's chaotic, how it's all working. Yeah. This is all my last book is on this. The evolution, I think Darwin was completely wrong, and I think that the evolution is chaotic, mainly chaotic. And this is what, you know, that's why you get mass extinction, you know. You don't really know why. You know, now we don't know why you don't know. Do you believe in God? I don't know. That doesn't matter. I mean, I'm just curious. I don't know. You know, I think there is a place that we, never be able to explain because we never have the world story.

So you, oh do you, what do you put in this? Is it God? Is it several gods? Is it, I don't know and I will know, I will help to know a little bit more, which is what I'm doing. But this is... You seem to have more humility, I would say, than many of the scientists that we observe here in America. Because I've said it on my show. Like, people will say they, like, they, there's people that watch this show.

And, you know, maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. But they will say that we are making, you know, little robots that can be injected in put into your body and can make disease and control your mind. And, you know, and I keep saying, I don't think we're that talented. I don't think the people at the top of this game are that good. making disease. They don't seem to know how to really stop a disease. Most of the vaccines barely do anything at all, you know, and then some of them have more problems than they solve. So it just, it does seem there's a, um, um, a delusion of grandeur in most of science,

a delusion that we are more capable and, and all powerful than we all. Science have been very arrogant. And this is arrogant, perfect word. And this is mainly what I think I try to explain here. When you look at the genome of human banks, I've seen this since a number of years and people really were shocked when I say that. You know, I think Darwin is completely wrong, specifically with universal common ancestors, stupid.

We are mosaic. Universal common ancestors stupid, right. We are mosaic of everything. We get virus, plenty of viruses. Even recently, you know, there is a herbivirus virus six, that is probably 5% of the people have now this virus in their genome. Because it was transmitted by the mother or the father who have been infected, and this go in the germinal cells.

And then you get that, it's part. So you get a grandfather who has a herpes virus and plenty of others. So it's very easy to gain genes from virus or anything that have nucleic acids that come in the cells. And if it comes in the cells, and we know now, for example,

there is a very nice example with the AIDS of koalas. The koala gets a kind of AIDS, okay? Coalas get AIDS. Yeah, their own AIDS. Okay. And this AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, and it's a terrible disease.

And we were afraid to see that these are very bad. But the worst is not true either. So there is, in the US, there is two zoo, one in San Diego, one in San Francisco, with coalized. And in the zoo of San Diego, there is no more death of COLA AIDS. Okay. And why is because something happened with his name, endogenization. That means the virus getting the genome, like AIDS virus.

But in the case, it is inactivated and transmitted to the progeny. And the progeny is protected against it. So they've developed an immunity of sorts. Yeah, that's what I call the cannibalism immunity. So they- Cannibalism immunity. Yeah, yeah. This has been described very well, you know, with CRISPR, you know, genetic in bugs. So what they do is that you integrate part of the genome of your enemy and then with this,

you can recognize your enemy and then you cut it. Okay, this is what happened? You know there is an overprice on this. Yes. So that means it's a very common way of evolution to cannibalize your enemy. And you know, in human beings, in many cases, ritual cannibalism was based on taking the power of the enemy. Yeah.

And specifically in America, I'm sorry. Yeah. And before the Europeans, but... Yeah, no, I joke. mother's Mohawk from upstate New York, Iroquois, and they'd rip the heart out of the chest of the warrior and eat it. It was very common. Yeah.

And so on. So now what we know about the genome, everybody thinks the genome have been described in 2000. It's not true. There is probably only one human genome which is known. And it's not very sure. Why? Because when people speak about the genomes, they speak about the genes that we know, you know, they get the genes.

DNA, they make RNA and then a protein. And in fact, there is only one percent of our genome that contain genes. Everything else, there are a small repeated sequence that don't code for anything. And it's growing with the complexity of the organids. So there is very, very, very few in bacteria, and it's growing in those that get more animals and humans get 99% of these repeated things. And the two mass repeated, one calls transposal, it's short that 200, 300, and the most common is alu. And there is one million repeats of this in the genome everywhere. And we knew very few functions of this allu,

but one is very funny. It's the reason why the apes and the human don't have a tail. It's because in the gene of the tails there was one alu, And there is a second one, you know, it's epidemic in the genomes. There is one that come, the second ones that come in this gene, and then it's mixed with the first and inhibits the tail. The tail. And this is why we don't get tail.

But, you know, this is very, very, very new. We knew that some of these are interfering with the cerebral hormone as well. But when you see it's so easy to come in the genome, And there is so much place because in this place, in the transposal, and the other most common is a retroposon that make it possible to transform RNA in DNA and express that. And there is 500,000 copies of this. So all together, if you take the allu and these long retrotransposin,

this make 25% of our genome. and they're moving. Wow. And they come from the other. Right. Okay. Yeah. So, I mean, we need to be, you can be arrogant when you're ignorant.

And the proportion of arrogance should fall with the knowledge. More you know, see. More you understand. Yeah. I always think that that's true on many things. The more you know, the more humble you get because you realize what's possible. The less you know, the more arrogant you are because you think. you dominate the world.

You know, I direct myself from 100 PhD, okay? The first thing I say, I teach them when they get a question to say, I don't know. And I say, this is what I use all the time, I don't know. But I can give you an opinion, but it's not knowledge, it's opinion. And I teach that to the student, and when they get the, they support their thesis, if they try to answer the question where they don't know the answer, I'm, I'm, I'm screaming. during the days and say, shame, you should be my student and say, I don't know. I don't know.

To, and by the way, what an amazing conversation, super fascinating. We're really deep in the weeds here, but a lot of our audience really is fascinating by those things. Let's just wrap this up to take it back to the emotional journey has been many, many scientists and doctors were censored here to America. America were shut down Dr. Robert Malone who helped develop the technology for the vaccine

was censored. I mean, if you're, you know, Dr. Peter McCullough, one of our top heart researching doctors, you know, you know, was censored. Everybody that was trying to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin is itramycin. Dr. Zelenko, who, you know, took your protocol, added zinc to it, had a lot of success, I think even treated president Trump. But with all of that happening, we saw something happen in medicine and science that was really unprecedented. When coming out of that meeting with Fauci, where he's like, we don't know if it's safe, which was a crazy statement. He could say, we don't know if it works. But to make an argument that it could potentially not be safe was insane. This is one of the most, you know,

as you said, six billion to skinny, horribly emaciated human beings in Africa, take this all the time so they don't die in malaria. So even weak individuals without strong bodies were taking this. So there's this argument. Then Surgesphere comes out, says it's dangerous. That's proven to be a fraud. Fauci quotes it. That's proven to be a fraud. But what it looked like was an agenda to kill hydroxy chloroquine. Fauci was gunning for this drug. He didn't want it. He didn't want it to be. It's the least it looked to me. And you said Tadros, these people, people were not acting natural. They weren't acting in a reasonable way. Tadros grew up, probably taking this drug, as you said, knows it's safe. Suddenly they all get excited to point out

a bogus study and say, see, it's dangerous, and they stopped all of the trials. Literally, we were in the middle of trials, and they stopped all of those trials dead in their tracks, said no more trials. This drug is dangerous. I mean, you're, You're watching that. You're watching the world, you know, on the news every single day saying, coronavirus is going to kill everybody. We're destroying our economies. We're masking ourselves up. We're locking ourselves in the house. We're shutting down businesses. And we're saying, do not let anyone take hydroxychloroquine is dangerous. At that point, with someone with your background, what were you thinking? We're decadence and stupid.

And this is also science, I'm sorry to say that, but you're like Earth. So the IQ is falling since the 21 century in France, in the Western Europe and in the USA. We're just getting dumber and dumber. Yeah, and even it's worse. Now they get, you know, people have been studied the performance

of the students with seen Pisa or Pisa. I don't know, do you say that? They test that every year to see what, people are doing in in mathematics comprehension problems and the best are extreme orient so this is China, Japan, Singapore and so it's impressive so the thing now that they've done in adult they think in France like in the USA 30% of the people cannot read one page understand one page written 30% so we're dumb Right, okay.

And we drive by people living the more stupid of all. Yeah. I got a problem with the politician in France because there was a school probably like Harvard, where they, or Yale, they create the people. Like Harvard or Yale? Yeah, that will take the position in the government, probably all the people in Washington, D.C., so I'm looking at very, I'm very interested to see you going to fight all these people. fight all these people or not but if he don't fight these people it can't change you say well how do you explain that these people are doing stupid thing and but they are very

clever i said no they are not clever this is why they're doing stupid things they're not clever at all and you know see if you want to see the ultimate arrogance the man who believe is god is bill gates i mean what is doing with this this man this mad guy you know but why don't it make money it's okay it don't need to leave the rest of us alone. I don't. Yeah, just, why are you getting involved in all these things you don't know anything about? I mean, no, and it's, you know, it's a Trojan or so, he say, well, to do good for the people, but. So I have a theory. Do we have the emergency use authorization? Can I just bring that up? This is what I think happened. This is, in order to approve the vaccine, which they were rushing onto the market here in America, which would have driven it for

the whole world. There was a rule that the FDA had, which is right here. Under an EAA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose treat and prevent serious or life-threatening disease or conditions when certain statutory criteria had been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. In order to rush the vaccine onto the market and which to get out of the trials early, need an emergency use authorization. If hydroxychloroquine works, they can't get this EUA. To me, that always is the only way to explain why you would try to block a drug that, you know, was perfectly safe and had no replacement. I mean, they were blocking hydroxychloroquine

before the vaccine was anywhere near development. They were blocking it all the way back in, what we're talking about. In March, he's saying, I don't know, we better be very careful. We didn't get the vaccine for nearly a year later. I think there is two of things which are structural to our civilization, which explain why, I mean, you know, if you look at the money that you put in health and the success rate that you have, it's terrible. Yeah.

I mean, probably your life is lower than Cuba. Yeah, yeah. It's terrible. Yeah, we have terrible life expectancy and we're spending more than anyone on health. And so there is, there is, Having more money and you get a big part of the big farmer. Yeah. You get the worst.

I mean, there is no very useful medics that have been invented in 21 century. But we leave, you know, all our society, occidental society, leave on the innovation and obsolescence model in the brain. So this is what patent, you know, so you get that for 20 years and then everybody can use and you cannot make money more. make money more out of this. So once you're out of the patent, it doesn't make any money. Chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, these things are worthless. But during this century, we have found a lot of compound. Most of this compound, to tell the truth, are natural compounds, okay?

Yeah. If armectin is one other. You remember the FDA saying that if you're not an horse or not a cow, you should not take it. Came out against avermectin, you know. And you know, in Senegal where I get a baby lab until recently, they give that to the whole population on the year. They give the entire population ivermectin in Senegal once a year, evermectin. To kill the parasites, and there is no more parasite now.

It's not cow and it's humans. Humans, wow. So, how can you, and it's only recently that they remove that from the FDA saying that, you know, it's not for humans. What can you say? So we leave in the idea that everything is going on with progress. Yes. And the progress and the answer to a new disease should be a new compound. Right.

Okay? So it is in the brain of many people. And it's not only, you know, big people who make that, you know, all the people, you know, many, many of the doctor of infectious disease, which is a phase. you know, of the infectious disease physician, is that because they feed on AIDS and hepatitis since years, you know? Yeah. They go in meeting, which are tourist science, you know,

everywhere in the world, there is nothing to learn. They go there, they make money. So the worst, you know, I'm interested when people say that what we do is not ethic, but in France, at the minimum, I think it's the same in the US. when an investigator, you know, it's an Helsinki accord of ethics, is that if you have money to prescribe a treatment, you should tell that to your patient. You should be honest. You're getting paid money, getting a kickback is what we call it here. Not only kickback. When you do a trial, they give you money.

Oh, you're giving you paid, right, they're paying you. Yeah. Right. You don't tell that to the patient. Right. And even when you, and I know that. So you have ethics issues with how they're doing this thing. You have the papers that you should present officially the papers that you give to the patient to sign and in none of these I've ever seen I will receive money or indirect money if you accept to go in my trial. Because if you say that, I mean, maybe this patient will not be so much happy. And specifically, the worst thing of the pharmatic industry is the non-inferiority trial.

Have you ever heard that? The non-inferiority trial, yes, I have, yeah. And so in the non-inferiority trial, you should say to the patient, you know, there is a treatment that we know that is working. And now I want to test on you. Another treatment, I don't know if it is good

as a reference treatment. Do you want to play? If you tell that, nobody's playing. Right. So they lie. Right. Because you cannot, it's indecable. I mean, you cannot say that to a person.

patient if you're a doctor. Oh, can you say that? Yeah, we have a working product. We want to test another one. Could be worse, not sure, but the study is going to try and prove it's not inferior to the other product. And I'm making some money out of it. It doesn't bother you. You know, it's amoral. You don't seem worried. I mean, because right now, like, we can bring up the headline just recently. They've retracted another one of your papers on this issue of hydroxychloric. Really from the studies back in 2021. This is December 18th, 2024. So controversial COVID study that promoted unproven treatment

retracted after four years saga, a paper on hydroxychloroquine led by France researcher Didier Raoul is second most cited study ever to be withdrawn. In fact, in El Savier, the academic publishing company that owns the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, said concerns have been raised regarding the people, papers adherence to ethics policies and their appropriate conduct of research involving human participants. There were also concerns regarding the methodology and conclusions of the article

published in 2020 according to the retraction note. The investigation that led the article's retraction was conducted with an independent consultant, Dr. Jim Gray, who specializes in microbiology. What do you have to say about this event? I think in these like, you know, we, we, we, get our society is changing very quickly. Society is changing. Yeah. And when I was young, you know, most of the journal were academic journal. Okay. And now they make very big concentration like you know Elsevier or the worst is Nature Springer. Yeah. If you look at the editor-in-chief of most of the Journal of Nature, I mean, you're surprise, they don't get any papers.

Their editor, in my, you cannot imagine, you know, paper of nature, of, you know, the baby journal from nature. When they wrote me things, I say, well, I'm going to see who is these people, because it's easy to see. Yeah. No paper, nothing. Never written themselves. No.

And they teach me that this is not correct or this is correct. And when I say, you know, specifically they say, they, they, they, they, they, they teach me that this is, They try to hurt me very much about technical, because there is something that is very interesting. I've been working a lot on stools this 10 last years to try to get a landscape of the microorganisms that are associated with human beings. Stools?

Is I said stool samples? Yeah, very good. And then I'm not at 600, more than 900 bucks that we've discovered. and I will stop when we get 1,000. So that will make probably... So we're discovering new bugs every week.

Inside the human body. And if you look at what happens in this last years, 60% have been discovered by my team, 30% by the Chinese, and 30% by the rest of the world. I'm very proud because if you want to use these bugs to make therapy or whatever, you need to get the bugs,

not just sequencing, all the thing without knowing what you're doing. So these have been the thing, so in France, like in many countries, I think, in France we don't get, the law is regulating medical research. So it's not an ethnic committee. There is no ethic committee in the law in France. So the law described very well,

if you need to get a medic, you get a national evaluation of these, and more than that, the equivalent of the FDA will say yes or not. And if you, but if you look at waste, since the Roman code of justice, waste don't belong to anybody. So waste doesn't belong to anybody from the Roman code of law.

And it has been transmitted, of course. So yours, are you saying then to have, you don't have an ethical issue to study? No. Stool samples. No. What we did is that we asked aunts to say, well, what do you think?

Senares, which is a big institution that was affiliated to and to a regular ethic committee created for answer question of the journals. And they both say, well, if you are going bacteria in stools and you don't have a link with the patient, it's not medical research. And even a senator, ask the Ministry of Health of this time, what do you say? Do you need, where does it come? If you look at stool, any answer officially, stool, it's waste, and then it's not medical research.

But they still report. They are reporting that you, they're now going through all of your studies, unethical practices, and one of them is because you're studying. stool samples without an ethical release from the people that gave you the stool sample. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, one time they say, I'm looking in stool for chryphals. I'm very happy because I was able to understand why the resistance of klepsiola, the worst bag currently come from the wild and not from the place where we prescribe antibiotics.

So it's a very complicated story, but very interesting. And I need to know if it comes from apes, and I find that in chimpanzee. And in case, we go where the apes were, and we collect stool on the soil, you know. And there is a same, well, you should not, is an underdred species. You should not take your store. You know, they're stupid. Say, damn. So what do you want to tell the truth?

You know, I don't really. I don't care. Are you worried they're going to take your license or do you get, I mean, here there's a lot of scientists aren't a threat. under threat or has France been protecting you? I mean, is your government protecting it all there? It's, it's, they don't know. So no, in fact, I was, say, they sent a director of my hospital that didn't want me to be prolonged three more years when I was 69, but I really don't care.

I do just science now. I'm not seeing patients. And I've never done private practice, so I don't want to start at 69 private practice. And then the order of medicine this year, there is three years that I'm not practicing and I'm not paying anymore. I'm saying, well, can't me out. But they condemn me for two years not to practice medicine, but I'm not practicing medicine. So it's ridiculous.

It's just to put the shame, you know. But I don't care, you know. I get everything. I don't want to, because I don't want to be arrogant, but you're putting one of my price, but I got four prices in the USA. I've been the one publishing more paper in IDSA and ASM. If you look at, you know, on Google Scholar, the Ash Factor,

the two first in my field are I and Nick White. And Nick White was the guy who showed that four sees a dump because he's the best tropicalist in the world. So he got the hash factor of something like 196. I got the hash factor of 218. And so he is very well normal as the best tropicalist in Oxford. Yeah. And he wrote recently a paper that he had been unable to wrote for months,

and he wrote that in the paper, in plus biology, that shows that it works as prophylaxies. Yeah. It works. Rosa, relaxes, yeah. I published that it works in Tretic Passion. He published that it works. You know, and Nick White is even older than I.

I don't think he don't care. So you don't care about the attack on your character or on your career? What about the people that died, though? Like when you think about the death rate in America, you know, sort of, you know. But, you know, you, we give, it's our fault. I mean, we're supposed to be a democracy. We give the law to people who are unable to do this. For example, you know, if we go back to chloroquine,

the trial, the English trial recovery. And I got to a story that you don't know, which is incredibly funny. They use the dose. I use the dose that I have been using, as I told you, since 30 years. Yes. So I know exactly you get, if you give 600 microgram after five or eight seven years you're forever you've been using 600 micrograms yeah but I

don't know why they don't ask the to the people who use hydroxychrocracrine they decide by themselves they they they made one more mathematical model of pharmacokinetics and decide to give the first day 2.4 gram of hydroxy chloroquine and this is toxic toxic right this is four times the those that I'm giving. 44 times. Four times, yeah. Four times, yeah. So, and this is the big thing that everybody rely on recovery to say, you know, maybe have a

little toxicity. Very interestingly, a guy in France named Braun have made his medical thesis on the toxicity. It has been used for suicide, like, you know, Dorypram, you know, it's one of the most used. Hydrochloroquines used for suicide? Yeah, yeah, chloroquine, mainly chloroquine, but chloroquine and I don't see chloroquine. I've been used for suicide. Okay.

And then this guy gets a 20. We have to take a big load of it. Yeah. Yeah, a lot. Okay. But it's thought to be toxic, starting at 2 gram. Okay. He made his thesis.

His name is Braun. And for which reason I don't know. And when it starts, he said, well, I'm confident that Raoul knows exactly. I don't see chloroquine. They will not have a problem. He knows that very well. But Xavier Azalbert from Frassois wrote to him after he left the ministry and said, oh, we find out your thesis because this thesis have vanished, disappeared.

But we find that on the... Grands pieces, okay. And we publish your teasies where he said, under two grams, never toxic. Okay? Yeah. And under two microgram per amount, never toxic. We never reach two microgram per amount. And he writes, we find your thesis and are going to publish this year, oh, very nice.

And say, but in your thesis, you say that it's 2 grams that is toxic and under 2 gram is never toxic. And in the different protocol, only recovery get more than 2 grams. There's an article written about this. We can bring it up from age of autism. This was in the middle. And we reported on this two on our show. W.H.S. Solidary UK Recovery Clinical Trials of Hydrocorring using. potentially fatal doses. Now remember everybody when you're looking at this, remember Fauci is saying,

I'm not sure about it. It could be dangerous. Then they have the surgesphere study, which is a fraud, but says it causes heart attacks, which it hasn't in the billions of doses prior to this fake trial. That trial gets pulled by Lancet. It's a fraud. But then they go back. So now they had frozen all the studies. Then these two trials end up going forward recovery. So remember, folks, This guy who's been using this for 30 years has been using 600 milligrams. So then when they finally do a trial, the trial use, this is what this is about. Now let's read this. We finally get funded trials.

And the hydroxychloroquine dose in remit used in recovery trial was 12 tablets during the first 24 hours, 800 milligrams initial dose, 800 milligrams, 6 hours later, 400 milligrams, 6 hours later, 400 milligrams, 6 hours later, 400 milligrams 6 hours later, later than 400 milligrams every 12 hours for nine more days. This is 2.4 grams during the first 24 hours and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days. So as you said at 2.4 grams it's now toxic. Yes, it not only is this. This is what I'm upset with. It's not my own problem. And I know very well the story of my family and, you know, you know,

The resistance during the old family was in the resistance. They called that terrorist until 1944. Okay, so your family, you come from a family of the resistance. Oh, yeah, warriors. Yeah. And then the second thing on recovery is that you can't imagine when you are a doctor, an infectious disease doctor. You know the diagnostic of infectious disease in the 20th century is based on a biological test.

But in these studies, they say, if you don't have a biological test, but you believe it's COVID, it's okay. We include the patient. So they didn't even prove that they were treating COVID? But part of them were not prove at all. So they didn't even have to treat in COVID. So this is bullshit. I mean, I'm sorry.

I mean, you know, can you imagine? It's just been published in New England Journal of Medicine. You know, when I was younger, very proud to publish my first paper in New England. I was proud to publish it in Zubk. Now I say, you know, it's nothing. There is not a review that can see the search of the truth. where it's just a fake and that this is not doctors doing this. I mean, make a diagnosis by, I feel it's COVID.

You know, even they don't even know at this time which were the very symptoms of COVID because they do not, there was not doctor observing people. Just to finish this up, I'm concerned. I'm concerned that we're doing gain of function research. You've sort of made me little less concerned about that because you're saying they don't know what they're doing anyway, and they're not going to be very good at creating a bio-weapons, so maybe I don't have to worry about it leaking out of a lab in the future, potentially. But if this much stupidity is around, and I don't know, maybe it's nefarious, I think there's

agendas, I think you're trying to push vaccines. You also have drug companies, we can't make money off of it. But all of these pushes and pull that are manipulating and really just handcuffing scientists like yourself so that you can't do your work, you're being, you're under attack. Scientists coming up under you, young scientists must be afraid to be traded like that. So they're going to give into pressure. I mean, are we at risk? I mean, it seems science can be dangerous if it's, if it's arrogant and it's, and it's not able to say, I don't know. And if it's, and we here in America, you don't hear any scientists say, I don't know. I mean, they just Fauci just knows every call

it. I am the science. If you're questioning me, you're questioning, science. He never discovered anything. Yeah, you never discovered anything. Are you worried about the future of science? In, in US and Europe, yes. It's done already. It's done already. Yeah. But it's it will come from you know China, Africa, you know, these people don't have interests in big pharma so they don't care. They treat patients with you know yeah compounds that are produced in China or in India cost nothing yeah that's worked very well so I have to fight obesity which is one more problem and it is I'm going to tell you something and this is why I don't want to be arrogant because I I want to I'm looking for self-esteem which is

If you're lucid, and if you're looking for self-esteem, well, you get a long way. It's difficult. Yes. But for example, I remember a few years ago, and even things which are close to my field, if you don't know, you don't know, and you should say, I don't know. People were talking about the difference between Europe and the USA in the use of genetically modified organism. Okay. And there was, like there is now against Kennedy,

there is a signature of 17 Nobel Prize saying it's stupid, in fact it's safe people, it's very important. There is no evidence, there is nothing coming out of this thing. And I say, well, it's true, a million, maybe billion of people have eat that and we don't see the difference. So, maybe they're right. The genetically modified food, these scientists are saying it's safe. Yeah, but you need to know the context now. In fact, you know it works. No, you don't know.

I have to be to, I work on this because I work on antibiotics. And in fact, what they use is glyphosate and they put gene that is resistant to glycosate, that's a bacterial enzyme. Yeah. They put that in the plant and then they put tons of glycosate and they kill everything but the plants who have the gene to resist to the glyphosate. So genetically modified has a gene that resists glyphosate, they spray tons of glyphosate, everything else dies, this stays alive. And glycosite is an antibiotic.

It's an antibiotic, correct, yes. Yeah. And there is a patent on antibiotic use of glyphosate. Wow. So we kill all the microbiota around the bacteria around the glyphosate. around the plants, kill all the plants, and it is the most prescribed antibiotic on the earth. Because when you put that for rice, for example,

you put tons of this in the water. So we don't know what we do. And another thing, which is very specific for America, it's fun, they're going to hate me. I don't get enough enemy, I'm going to fight with Coca-Cola. In my, there is a very interesting disease which I didn't think was linked to microbes. And you wouldn't understand why I'm doing this culture of anything that you get into good.

There is a very interesting disease with his name, Nech. You know that? Nash. Non-alcoholic Stato's hepatitis, no? Okay, no, I haven't heard of that. There is more cirrhosis now, specifically in the USA, without alcohol, that with alcohol. It's interesting because now they start to scream on alcohol.

And in fact, commonly they're obese, not all the time. It commonly... There's an obesity. Yeah, but... And then Chinese, one more time, they look at... They look at the people that get Nash. They were sure that they didn't drink alcohol and make same kind of studies that we don't look at the stool.

I hope they get, you know, a... I think comedy. And find a bacteria named klepsiella and saying, well, they look if you put sugar in this klepsiella, can you produce alcohol? And the answer is yes. And they look in the blood of the patient, do you get alcohol, but by eating only sugar? And the answer is yes, the people get nash, take only sugar, and they could get as much as 0.5 gram per liter of alcohol.

Wow. Okay, produce internally, we call that internal brewery. Wow. And these have been described, but people didn't believe in this. And then there were two studies that came, one from my lab, when we work with the gastroenterologist. And what we find is that even better than the Klepsiella, all the people with Nash get yeast. Okay? Uh-huh.

And this is very interesting because it's come back to my master, Pasteur, because the very first work of Pasteur was the fermentation, you put fougar, you put yeast, and you get alcohol. And then we look what the yeast are doing, if you put some sugar, and specifically if you could fructose, inspect of glucose. And it generates alcohol ten times more that with bacteria. And then we say, well, look, we're going to see, of course, I mean, if you're going to want to fight against obesity and against Nash, you should avoid sugar drink. Yes.

Basically. But we say, well, we're going to see if there's a difference between one sugar and the other. And then I get a very, very, very nice student from Mali. And I say, well, take some Coca-Cola from Mali. And I take some Coca-Cola from France. So the Coca-Cola from Mali users, they send the dry thing and put the sugar that you have.

So that's canned sugar. So they use in Mali. In our place, we use sugar about beetroot. Is that right? Betrav? Beet, beet sugar? The red, yeah, bit sugar. Beat root sugar, right, okay. And in here, you use sugar from mainly fructose.

Okay. Okay. And say we got to test the three Coca-Cola. So you got cane sugar, beet sugar, and fructose. Yeah. In Coca-Cola. Yeah, in Coca-Cola. And we asked the FDA, do you know the contents of the thing?

And the students say, because we're studying the difference. And the FDA refused to give the combustion of the sugar obtained by mice and say, well, there is no reason why you should know that. It's not toxic and nothing. And so, but we get the machine to test that. And we test the sugar, if you see the sugar that you have for the Coca-Cola in the U.S., I mean, you turn mad. I mean, there is plenty of different sugar.

And we look what alcohol you get after 24 hours when you put the yeast and you get alcohol with African ones the French one and get three to four times more alcohol with the American one and And that's fruit toast is that mainly fructose not only it's plenty of sugars Different sugars and is it just the amount is it just more sugar? There is a lot of sugar and fructose is When I don't want to to do too much biochemistry, but when you look how you transform sugar in alcohol, you get one step less on fructose, so it's easier to make. You need one enzyme less to do alcohol from fructose and from glucose.

Interesting. And so this is probably the reason why there is much more Nash in the USA, and why there is an epidemic of nash which is appearing and is growing like mad. So I think that Fossey should care about Coca-Cola in spite of giving stupid opinion on chloroquine. And you know, it's what you call the Boussau? What do you call the Boussau? You know the thing that you get to seize the north? What do you call that a compass? Compass?

Yeah. He's the south compass. Okay, he's the south compass. Right. Go to the opposite direction, wherever he's pointing. So when he says, some say I'm looking at the opposite eye. For example, you know, the only virus that have been made in laboratory, which gives you an outbreak is the vaccine of poliolysis.

And it's growing since Gates started to work on this on W.O. Show. Now it's spreading everywhere. Before this, it's just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, no more than that. But he decided that in spite of fighting poliomyelitis, he wants to fight the virus. And it is stupid. And specifically, we know that very well in COVID, We found in Africa when I was looking after a gorilla stool, we find a gorilla that apparently gets

a polyomeliitis. And this was not known. It was not in chim, but not in gorilla. So say, well, what's happened? And then we decide to see if we can see. Because in this part of the world, there were cases of vaccine polyomelitis. Yeah.

Then we make sample, we isolate a virus that is a mixture, a combination between the poliovirus, vaccine poliovirus, and another anterior virus very close. We know now with COVID-19 that if you get the two virus circulate in the meantime, currently I think we're first to privilege that, you know, get ebreds between the two. Abides between the two, yeah. So the same for, for, for,

for poliovirus. So we wrote a paper to say, well, since you want to eradicate the virus in spite of treating, of avoiding polomelitis, to avoid polomelitis, you make injection. That's how we fight polyomelitis in most of the country, and it disappeared. But they say, well, but the virus may circulate, and the only way to avoid circulation have immunity of the good, and then you need to get the virus leaving. And now you get 10 times more virus caused by the vaccine, that disease.

And now it's really important, you know, in your country, a case in New York. I know. In London, you know, in Gaza, the people, when I say that and TV, say, stop, stop, stop, don't speak about this. In Gaza, it's the, and the rush to even put more and more vaccine in this place, which is a terrible place. I mean, so it's the worst place to put a virus like that, you know. Yeah.

In spite of injection. Look, I want to thank you for joining us. It's your, I mean, your passion, I love it for science. Hopefully, we don't just destroy science in Europe and America. I think you're, like you said, it'll happen in China and other places. But you've been a voice. I think you were courageous, clearly a hero. I wish more people had listened to, you know,

and followed the protocols. And I think you're still under attack because honestly now, I think there's people that could be accused of murder for having denied access to hydroxychloroquine. So that's why you have a study just over a month ago still fighting this battle because if it's ever,

if you go down in history as having been right, then Fauci and those that blocked hydroxychloroquine go down as having murdered hundreds of thousands of people in America and probably millions of crime. the world. So that's an agenda and you're up against it. It doesn't seem to bother you. I love that you're having so much fun. Oh yeah, your research is fun. And fighting for research is fun also. It's interesting. All right. We'll keep fighting. All right. Thank you.

Well, you know, I know you may not believe it, but I actually have a couple more questions for DDAR that I want to deal with in off the record. One of them being, there's a question about germ theory and terrain theory, what does DDA Air think about that? This is off the record. It's time to go off the record. The show exclusively for our donors. All right, we're rolling. Here we go.

I want to thank you for just sticking around a little bit. We call this off the record. This is what we couldn't talk about on the high wire. I actually want to dive into a very sensitive topic. You have no obligation to be honest with these people. Is anyone telling me the truth? No doctor wants to say that they're killing people. Yeah, but doesn't every doctor want to stop killing people?

You have no freedom, you have no liberty, you're a slave. Journalism massively failed the United States. It's silly to call people anti-vaccine. It's nonsense. All the vultures come out, you're married? Yeah. All of that's BS. This whole system's rigged, and they don't care about our health.

We will have full discovery power. Watch what happens when we go off the record. You are not going to miss this. Good hanging out. Indeed. What an amazing... What an amazing man, what an amazing interview. We should all have that much joy as we pursue our passions and get attacked by everyone in the outside world.

Since I've done that interview, it has haunted me that statement that he has said, we don't know how to make a virus infect a human being. I have to say, I don't know if that's true. I mean, he's the first scientist to sit here and say he doesn't believe gain of function is even possible. That's an outrageous statement. It shows you what you get when you're watching the high wire. We don't come in with some preconceived idea, or maybe I had one. We certainly didn't follow it in that conversation.

But it's going to make me look deeper, and it's a very important question. I mean, either is he under all this attack from all of these outsiders and all of the government officials that wanted to push this narrative, he's under attack from them. So why would he say that this isn't a lab league? Why would he say that we can't infect human beings with a virus? I mean, certainly he would know. This guy has been studying viruses his whole life. He is one of the best, if not the best, in the world.

So he's been in those labs. I just keep thinking he knows what they say they're trying to do, and he says, it's ridiculous. They can't do it. Honestly, my head is spinning. I don't know what to make of that. But that's the kind of surprise you have here on the high wire. And you're going to love the off the rest. record because he says some even more shocking things. In fact, because he says we don't know how to

infect human beings with a virus, it made me think, does he even believe or is he questioning germ theory? I ask him about that. Way to see his answers in off the record. That too is going to blow your mind. I want to thank all of you that support the high wire. I hope that you'll donate to the highwire, obviously, bringing in DDRI Uts and getting these stories to you and getting the truth to you, it's an investment. It's an investment we make every single week. We make it for you. We also make it for our children so that the truth will live here in this time capsule.

And maybe some of these scientists that are saying different things when we look back 10 years from now, we'll see who got it right, who got it wrong. Or maybe they were all right in some strange way. all of it's being recorded here all of it is transparent here this is radical transparency this is what it looks like and thank god for scientists like ddia arayut that never ever falter never fear to say what they believe i hope there's more like him in our future there's certainly going to be more interviews like his in the future of the highwire and i'll see you next week