A critical reading is invited because certain facts must be shared immediately and widely commented in a critical and scientific way. That is before it’s too late for our people and our country. No one is anti-vax, but we all want safe vaccines, developed in compliance with the strictest scientific and ethical protocols. This is not the case here. Virologist Ilaria Capua also clarified a key point: “whoever gets vaccinated does not get sick but can still be infected and transmit the disease”. So what are these hasty vaccines good for, without verification over a sufficient period of time? Citizens cannot be treated as guinea pigs for Big Pharma.

I personally believe that the unrealistic and vain hope in the vaccine will prolong the health crisis and aggravate the ongoing economic crisis. This will allow our regressive and neo-Nietzschean leaders to exploit fear and social dispair to complete their most reactionary reforms, thus dragging our Republic into the trap of the ESM, the European IMF, with all its iron conditionalities. Therefore understanding is the first act of resistance.

Summary: The major problems with these vaccines are:

A ) The studied cohorts – mostly less than 55 years old – with post-vaccine verifications of only a few months knowing that it usually takes 7 to 10 years on average to homologate a vaccine; therefore, the published results are insignificant, if not downright dangerously false. This is because they underestimate the side effects on young people aged 1 to 18 who are discarded from studies and on the over 65s, especially those over 80, precisely those with the most significant lethality rate;

B ) The problems of contagiousness and re-infection of vaccinated people due to the very high mutability rates of the Sars-CoV-2 virus;

C ) The very serious unverified danger of polluting the human genome with vaccines, or rather with the genetic therapy of these so-called “vaccines” which use mRNA that is potentially capable of modifying the human genome.

Launching a vaccination campaign with these mRNA vaccines and these hasty data means conduncting a mass genetic experiment of the type illustrated by Marlon Brando in the film The island of dr. Moreau especially if the “scientists” and executives involved go ahead to involve seniors over 65 !!! It seems that an illegal mass experiment is being carried out using, in spite of themselves, citizens as guinea pigs. I personally hope that there will be appeals in the courts for crimes against Humanity and violation of the Constitution.

I hope the EU will understand the stakes at play and postpone this active eugenic experimentation until it obtain less insignificant data. Other very effective and inexpensive treatments exist, for example the protocol developed by one of the greatest experts in immunology and microbiology, prof. Raoult of the IHU of Marseille. This protocol that combines hydroxychlorocin and the antibiotic azithromycin is likely to remove the viral load in a week immediately after the first symptoms are verified with the swab, most often leading to healing and preventing contagiousness, a set of results which the proposed vaccines are incapable of. .

On 15 Dec. 2020, we could read with interest this: “Covid, from the Council of State green light for the use of hydroxychloroquine on prescription and non-refundable”, by Liana Milella, This is a big step forward. Perhaps in this way family doctors and others will be able to help save the country and our people. Too bad it is not refundable given the indisputable and so far unparalleled benefits in treating Sars-CoV-2 but, being a generic, it doesn’t cost much. For confirmation see also: , and more recent:

Premise: When, on January 3, 2016, we read about the new CRISPR / Cas9 (*) method, we immediately understood that a new revolutionary chapter in genetic microbiology was opening up on a par with the extraordinary innovation for understanding the human genome provided by genomic sequencing. When some allude to the possible origin in a laboratory of the Sars-CoV-2, they do so precisely because this new technology makes possible what, a little while ago, was unimaginable.

The problem of strengthening research protocols and the code of ethics is therefore posed with extraordinary acuity. The necessary updating reform of the biological weapons treaty is also urgently needed. What can be allowed inside the laboratory or outside it and, in particular, what is allowed in the case of interventions on the human being? It is one thing to imagine a genetic intervention to heal or palliate a genetic “deformation” that carries a debilitating disability or is harmful to the physiological and human development of the person. It is quite another thing to play the sorcerer’s apprentice to modify the human genome. Meanwhile, fortunately, these individual cases, certainly humanly tragic, are statistically marginal. Gene therapy, framed by rigorous protocols and controlled for its effects over time, can try to help because it does not have the potential to change the human genome that defines our species.

We are a species with a conscience that adapts to its environment not only slowly with small successive mutations, but also with human intervention. The more one progresses in human history the more adaptation is a function of the knowledge and control that our species possesses of the Laws of Nature, knowing however that it must live in harmony with Nature and with Society to preserve itself. This is good because environmental changes are sometimes faster than adaptive biological ones. The science of the evolution of our cells, the transmission of dominant or recessive characters, is progressing in great strides, but we are still only at the beginning. Therefore, what can be contemplated in targeted and strictly framed interventions, cannot be contemplated for mass gene therapy experiments, especially if one does not even take the time to respect the scientific methods of proceeding and verifying, or to respect existing ethical codes, developed and updated in the light of scientific progress.

One cannot play the sorcerer’s apprentice since it is our human species that i at stake. Some have already pointed to the possible repetition of the remdesivir scandal with these mRNA pseudo-vaccines. We know that the EU spent € 1.5 billion on remdesivir, an experimental treatment that is now finally considered dangerous for patients and harmful to the kidneys. But there was no excuse on the part of the doctors who advised it in the media and on TV without pointing out their conflicts of interest … even when the inefficiency and danger began to be understood. This new health and intellectual scandal is likely to occur even sooner than expected given the rapid mutations of the virus in question. The media are already documenting cases of hospitalization and many side effects in the few already vaccinated in the UK and the United States. Australia has wisely decided to wait in the case of Pfizer’s vaccine, one of the pseudo-mRNA vaccines. Why should the EU be in a hurry? “Science without conscience leads to the ruin of the soul” so warned François Rabelais. (**)


Here is a very bad Italian news. : “Vaccination campaign underway throughout Europe, and in Italy, between 12 and 15 January 2021” The article explains the 10 points of the vaccination plan called “Italy is reborn with a flower”, but without saying that, in all likelihood, it will be another grave flower after the over 65,000 – not counting the over-mortality – already reached today. (1)

Let us see the reasons to be very pessimistic, especially the feared success of genetic therapies of so-called messenger RNA vaccines – mRNA – such as those of Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer and Moderna. We already know that we must not expect any miracle or even any turning point in the deadly strategy of “living with Covid-19” put in place with the sole objective of not over-saturating hospitals and their intensive care units, but counting the dead, mostly elderly and with co-morbidities. Virologist Ilaria Capua also clarified a key point: “whoever gets vaccinated does not get sick but can still be infected and transmit the disease”.

Given that the cohorts analyzed by Astra-Zeneca largely involve people between the ages of 18 and 55, that the cohorts reviewed by Pfizer update to around a median of 52 years – those over 65 are statistically insignificant – and that the Moderna cohorts, as far as we know so far, they mostly concern people between 18 and 55 years old, the statistics tell us that the efficiency rates around and above 90% are actually insignificant, given the cohorts considered. In fact, most of the deaths due to Sars-CoV-2 involve people over 80 years and often with co-morbidities.

None of the vaccine studies, in particular the three mRNA-based studies considered here, provide sufficient data for the co-morbidities and, for example, for what concerns the differences introduced by the treatments to which certain Sars-CoV vaccines are subjected to, and on the vaccine itself. It is obvious that the analysis of these sub-groups would require much more time and medical and statistical refinement. But these pharmaceutical companies don’t want to wait. Nonetheless, these genetic therapies pushed without the necessary scientific-temporal verifications involve side effects and create a false confidence that will put the population at risk, particularly the elderly.

Apart from the very small groups between 1 and 18 years of age in Phase 3 of Moderna, this population group is not taken into account. So that if parents and grandparents are vaccinated – with a vaccine not studied for their age groups over 55 – they risk infecting others and being infected by children and teenagers. What are these vaccines good for, then, if they also are potentially dangerous for human genetic luggage as we will explain below?

Let’s go step by step.

1 ) Mortality and lethality rates for the various age cohorts: The mortality rate relates the number of deaths by age group over the total population. The lethality rate that interests us most here compares the number of deaths from Covid-19 over the total of positive infections.

The following link shows that the lethality rate is very low under 70-79 years. And less than 5% as much for men, a little more infected than those under 70, and for women. The group really at risk is between 80-89 and even more than 90 and more. But these groups are not studied assuch in the three dangerous mRNA pseudo-vaccines mentioned above. See:

For the critique presented here, these crucial rates and the age groups considered are sufficient. Most updated numbers as of Dec 9. 2020 are given by the Ministry, but in a very incomplete way:

The quote provided by the virologist Ilaria Capua and already referred to above, raises important questions. In particular: even taking into consideration the age groups, what are these pseudo-vaccines good for? Not to get sick? Submitted reports already document cases of re-infection in vaccinated cohorts. But with only two months, more or less, of verification, the danger is great also because this coronavirus does not behave in a seasonal way like that of the flu and produces mutations in various geographical areas simultaneously. Unlike the flu that follows the cold around the globe, there is no time to prepare ourselves using the strains known elsewhere that will then come to us. Traditional or mRNA vaccines are manufactured on known Sars-CoV-2 strains, whose bell curves have already disappeared today that they are proposed – with a few months of verification instead of the 7 to 10 years on average usually required by medical research protocols. and basic ethics. The mRNA vaccines proposed today are based on the initial genomes published by the Chinese, that is, on strains that have already disappeared …

We know, for example, that the strain or strains from last November were much more viral than the one strain or strains from July and August. In Italy, unlike the IHU in Marseille, this crucial information is not given to citizens, so that there is a lot of obscurantist talk about n waves and other parameters such as the rate of contagion and the Rt. This without ever saying from which strain specific we are talking about. Unfortunately, we cannot speak of the first, second and third waves of Covid-19 because this description, in addition to being unscientific, does not allow the right response to be planned by the scientific and political authorities.

The reality is that there are many Sars-CoV-2 strains characterized by great mutability. Each strain has its own bell curve, that is, it manifests itself, reaches its peak, which can be lowered with appropriate medical and social measures, and then eventually disappears. We therefore have more strains and more bell curves and not several waves of a single strain of a virus. If we talk about waves, they are those of the Sars-CoV-2 virus, not of the initial specific form Covid-19, which has now disappeared.

The Marins Pompiers of Marseille have provided a very useful method of anticipating curves: by analyzing the gray waters of the sewers they are able to mislead the new strains a week before the IHU in Marseille through its molecular swabs. This is probably due to the fact that this new and innovative method gives a picture of the circulation of the virus for the general population while the molecular tests concern individuals with symptoms or carriers who wish to be tested and go to the IHU for a swab.

Sometimes it just appears as if the scientific committees are not even aware or, being informed, do not know or do not want to take these facts into account! It remains that the news leak and they are not a good omen. For example, today we learn that a new, more viral strain is circulating in the GB, thus endangering the success of the already dubious vaccination campain given the cohorts considered. (2) With us in Italy, Sars-CoV-2 was already there long before and certainly in September 2019, that is, before Wuhan !!! Citizens need to know which Sars-CoV-2 strains are circulating and where in our country in order to be able to judge and take appropriate measures. It does not even seem legal to me not to make this minimal but crucial information available to the citizens, instead of the macabre daily theater of contagions and deaths, always underestimated and massaged to reach a contagion rate and a precise regional color purporting to indicate the local degree of risk … (When there are too many infections there are fewer tampons and vice-versa. Et voilà! We are the first in Europe for the dead … officially counted.)

We repeat: What are these pseudo-vaccines not verified according to the usual protocol good for? Nobody knows. Because it does not matter for Big Pharma, nor for certain so-called experts who do not indicate their conflicts of interest but who do not hesitate to compare the unverified introduction of mRNA into the human organism with the alleged scientific revolution of going to the Moon. This Burioni, and others like him and the authorities who listen to them, should first clarify their conflicts of interest especially when they defend pseudo-vaccines of which obviously they have not read the reports on the age groups studied and of which they want to ignore, without the slightest reliable verification, the potential consequences on human chromosomes. It seems to me that such advice, even worse when accompanied by efforts to make these vaccines mandatory, are punishable by criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical companies cannot possibly believed to be protected by law and to be immune to the consequences of the adverse consequences of their products. Such nonsense is not only unconstitutional and also contrary to the Nuremberg Agreement. At most, informed consent of the patients to be inoculated must be obtained. But then they must be provided with the verified data without lying about the age groups considered and the lack of knowledge both about the risk of infecting others and being infected themselves as well as about the longer-term risk of these unverified genetic therapies. If as noted above: “whoever gets vaccinated does not get sick but can still infect and transmit the disease” “, one cannot rationally hope to achieve herd immunity by living with the virus and pseudo-vaccines while continuing to kill our elderly little by little – over 65 000 already today. Furthermore, usually, if one is already contaminated, one cannot get the vaccine because it would no longer have the desired effects. For example, a person with the flu cannot be vaccinated against the flu. The asymptomatic carriers are already a multitude. And we already know with verified reinfections that the antibodies of the pseudo-vaccines to mRNA – and of the other more conventional ones – will not last beyond those acquired in a natural way, that is, they will not last beyond 3 months, more or less.

Australia’s wise caution must be emphasized. They suspended a trial of one vaccine because it produced “false positive HIV” results. These results cannot be taken lightly because they seem to confirm what prof. Montagnier said on the presence of operational segments of HIV in Sars-CoV-2. It also seems to confirm what the Australian Prof Frazer, a leading expert on vaccines, said about the foreseeable failure because no vaccine up to now had ever happened with coronaviruses or with HIV.

The lesson taught by Australia is even more evident with the decision to take more time to evaluate before proceeding with Pfizer’s vaccine given that the measures taken so far, targeted lockdowns and timely medical treatments, have been successful. (3)

Incidentally, in this hypothetical perspective, which however can no longer be discarded without investigation, what the Nordic countries say seems to be confirmed, namely that Vitamin D has a preventive effect – like zinc – to block the development of the disease. However, this too refers to a possible impact on Asian or non-American or European peoples – presumed deficiency in vitamin D – which some had pointed out from the beginning when they were still trying to understand what Covid-19 was. (4) In addition, we all learned about the simulation of a very serious health crisis in NY, on October 18, 2019, the Event 201 of Bill Gates, the Davos Forum and John Hopkins (5), just before the case broke out in Wuhan. And we also know that, before the pandemic, the British had already filed a vaccine patent for the coronavirus. It is not a question of “conspiracy”, because none of this can be doubted as it is documented and easily verifiable.

We also refer to the document of the Harvard2thebighouse group which from the beginning tried to clarify scientifically by pointing to the consequences of this virus on smell and taste, therefore part of the brain, on the kidneys and the liver, on the underlining the malaria-type changes or on the functional segments of HIV, or even on the “gain function” etc. of a Sars-CoV virus that seemed to come out of a laboratory. (6) And which also seems to take hold on antibodies to mutate more quickly.

2 ) There are 3 major types of vaccines.

But in reality the messenger RNA vaccine is a gene therapy not a vaccine in the conventional sense of the word. Its possible repercussions on the human genome have not been verified at all, also because it would take years to do so.

2 a ) Here are the three types: At this link you will find the typology in very accessible words: «How are vaccines classified? » In

Although we can say that the most classic vaccines – such as the Chinese or the Cuban ones – do not have the same serious problems inherent to the mRNA genetic therapies sold as anti-Covid vaccines, the normal vaccine certification times usually between 7 to 10 years are not respected. The health emergency is put forward to justify this rush. But, at least, for the most rational countries – and for Venezuela with its new molecule DR10 – while looking for a vaccine rightly, the searches for the best possible medical treatments for the three great phases of the evolution of Sars-CoV are not abandoned That is, the verification of positivity with rapid molecular swabs and immediate lowering of the viral load, for example with the effective and proven protocol of prof. Raoult – hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin -, possibly followed by treatments in the hospital, including oxygen, anti-coagulants, etc. and, finally, the most suitable treatments in intensive care units but also in palliative care units … people who have been tested positive cannot be sent home to wait to recover spontaneously or to have to be taken to an emergency hospital in worse and serious conditions …

To understand the extreme importance of this medical approach not degenerated by unspoken conflicts of interest with Big Pharma, just think of the HIV epidemic. While looking actively for the vaccine, which is still unrealized, the search for treatments capable of helping the sick and preventing infections was not discarded. In addition, a crucial fact, this human and scientifically and medically rational approach had all its success because, while every attempt to stigmatize the disease was condemned, it made available to the whole community all the information necessary to the extent that it was provided by the science.

Fortunately, the current theater of fear, of deliberately contradictory communication that serves the strategy of “living with the virus”, had not been played out and is still not being played out for HIV, and no one is just waiting around for a providential arrival of vaccines made available without real scientific and humanly acceptable verification, thus only serving Big Pharma’s billionaire interests. Bill Gates had already calculated that a mandatory vaccine for all would bring in around US $ 65 billion. Imagine having 3 or more vaccines every year for a mutable Sars-CoV-2 !!! (7)

We also know that there has been talk of subcutaneous chips that allow permanent traceability – or, in polite words, a “vaccination passport” that would be always updated and easily accessible even with the proximity of the iPhone. (8) In the same vein, various experiments were already conducted in Africa with the injection of fluorescent nanoparticles, so that even if they are invisible to the naked eye, these nanoparticles can be read by various sensors, such as the cell phone, with all the information that they contain; that is, the subcutaneous chip has become archaic, the nanoparticles are more in. The beauty is that gene therapy pseudo-vaccines such as Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines and others use nanoparticles – lipids – to allow the simple helix of RNA to reach the cells without being destroyed by the body. For now they do not seem fluorescent but if one can claim the health urgency – discarding proven medical treatments such as the protocol of Prof. Raoult or the Cuban interferon – to impose these genetic therapies without the necessary 7 to 10 years checks, then who can insure citizens that this type of traceability will not be reached immediately? (9)

We can already see with what face, despite the lack of verified data, certain pitres who do not specify their conflicts of interest and certain other pitres who are not very worthy of trust, speak of making such experimental “vaccines” mandatory although we know for a fact that they were tested on naturally less risky cohorts in order to obtain presentable statistics… presentable … to the markets and the stock exchange !!! At this point it is no longer a question of irrationality but of irrationality erected in a totalitarian political program, with ulterior motives with respect to the fate of our Gentile peoples. Here, as elsewhere, there is no worse crime than the silence of the “righteous”.

2 b ) What is this genetic therapy?

Sars-CoV-2 uses its spike protein to attach itself to the cell to be infected. Once inside the cell it frees messenger RNA segments; that is, this mRNA – single helix – is a transient copy of the double helixes of DNA that contains our genetic code. This mRNA is read by the cell’s ribosome to replicate the virus which goes on infecting other cells. The vaccine uses modified mRNA to trigger the immune system’s reaction against SARS-CoV-2. With the pseudo-vaccine Astra-Zeneca the vector material used is a chimpanzee retrovirus. (10) Transformation is usually done from DNA to RNA, so we assume that these types of vaccines may be safe. Unfortunately this is not the case. There is a microbiological mechanism called reverse transcriptase that allows mRNA to trace back to chromosomes with the possibility of modifying human genetic heritage in an unknown and unpredictable way. And it is precisely this danger that prof. Perronne pointed to. (11) This danger that cannot be discarded with false certainties just because one decides to serve the interests of Big Pharma against those of humans and the sick, all with Phase 3 texts of only a few months that do not even hold against any older cohorts really at risk. What will be done if malformed babies are born soon? Will this active eugenic policy be also applied to them? Meanwhile, even before transmitting any malformations to one’s offspring, the vaccinated person with gene therapy may develop other diseases, such as cancers. Nobody knows.

2 c ) Vaccines and also this genetic therapy use adjuvants.

In the case of Pfizer and Moderna, besides messenger RNA, nano-particles are used. It is true that they should not be confused with the subcutaneous chips for traceability that Bill Gates likes so much, but some experiences not related to Covid-19 have already fielded fluorescent nanoparticles, therefore capable of being seen and read by a portable sensor divices capable to read information not visible to the naked eye. In a nutshell, this technology will potentially allow access to all the data necessary for an “electronic vaccination passport” on which, by falsely asking for consent – as is done for the Internet, that is, without consent, no private service … – many others can be added information. Perhaps you already know that, in these times of sometimes abusive or at least not rigorously framed genetic experiments, the personal data of European citizens were transferred to Colorado without anyone’s consent … All this violates the Constitution and the Nuremberg Agreement on inviolability of the individual and his / her right to refuse treatment – without incurring social punishment. Professor. Fouché commented on this point.

3 ) The problem of the age cohorts of the samples used in the three phases.

3 a ) The Pfizer vaccine focused on an age cohorts mostly between 18 and 48 years (Prof. Crisanti also said so). The very short Phase 3 Report, with the benefit of only two months of testing, specifies a median age of 52 years, i.e., half of the cohort is under 52 years old, the other half exceeds this threshold !!! But the over 65 years are statistically insignificant in the considered cohort and the cohort 1-18 is absent. In these 18-65 age groups, the mortality and lethality rates are insignificant. (see data above, point 1). So, if Pfizer’s advertised “effectiveness” rate is around 90%, then we are in trouble because the rate of inoculation problems seems higher than normal in the absence of any intervention …

We refrain from commenting on the now known manipulation of the stock market shortly before Pfizer’s announcement of the first results as the SEC is normally incharge with initiation of an investigation unless it has reverted to Madoff’s kind of behavior. We also refrain from commenting on the difficult logistical question, and not only in emerging countries, for a vaccine that requires a continuous cold chain at minus 80 degrees Celsius. This year in Italy the competent authorities were unable to ensure supplies and vaccination for the flu in time.

This Pfizer vaccine is dangerous because its real effectiveness is not in the least supported by the numbers provided. The other mRNA vaccines share these shortcomings. At the most, it can be argued that this relationship borders on criminal behavior. It does not say much specifically about the cohorts used but we know by deduction from the data provided that the people over 65-70 involved in the study are numerically marginal – v. more below. We are told that the median is 52 and that between 18 and 55 the group represents 57.7% – 49% women. We are then told that ‘The study was not designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a single-dose regimen. However, in the interval between the first and second dose, the observed efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine was 52% and in the first 7 days after dose 2 it was 91%, reaching full efficacy against the disease with onset at least 7 days after dose 2. Of the 10 severe Covid-19 cases observed after the first dose, only 1 occurred in the vaccine group. This finding is consistent with a high overall efficacy against all Covid-19 cases. The severe case division provides preliminary evidence of vaccine-mediated protection against severe disease, alleviating many of the theoretical concerns about vaccine-mediated disease improvement. ‘And adding’ The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups (0.6% and 0.5%, respectively). “(12)

These two paragraphs are significant. The first is a simple lie because it wants to imply that there is a high success rate after the second dose. But we know they have only a few over 65 and no one over 70. This false or at least partial presentation of the data is unmasked by the second sentence confirming that there is no difference in the incidence of adverse events between vaccinated and placebo!

Now the Report informs us that in the group of 37K plus, we have … that is, in a first group of 17K plus, 8 cases of people infected with Covid and in the second group – the remaining – we have 9 people. This is to avoid saying that 17 people contracted the virus and fell ill. Now, they will say that very few serious cases have been noted, but this is not surprising given the marginality or absence of older people much more at risk. Severe cases rarely occur under 65 years of age.

But that is not all. We are also told that people in the two groups did not have any Covid-19 infection before receiving the first dose. But then we read this “Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases were observed in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group, with a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68, 4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting 12 days after the first dose. So, if we understand correctly, 39 people had the virus between the first and second doses but without serious consequences – I assume because of the cohorts involved. So, in fact, the success rate is very bad because not only are the cohorts too young to make a difference from normal – that is, people sent home without treatment and, of course, without the benefit of the generic drug protocol, unexpensive but highly successful, such as hydroxychloroquine plus the antibiotic azithromycin – but the success rate after the second dose includes autoimmunization of affected people – just like in the normal population under 65 years of age.

It’s not just about biased results, but massaging statistics. In fact, if one can read the statistics, this report says that the vaccine – with the additional problems associated with its mRNA – does not protect well against the virus.

In addition, we know that this gene therapy vaccine was based on the information first disclosed by the Chinese – the text of the report says so – and therefore on the available genomes of the first strains of the virus… in China. We can also infer that the November 2020 most aggressive European strain in effect was not included in the study with its data verified in fury and haste for only 2 months after innoculation of volunteers. This represents a serious violation of scientific and medical ethics that cannot be justified due to the health emergency. Worse still, we know from the Report itself that their primary concern was to get a 30% margin over the FDA’s requirement of 50% effectiveness for approving a new vaccine. So they had to hide the cohort problem to surpass their initial 62% efficiency to reach around 92%. This operation can be called backward data massage. For over 40 years, too much massage of this kind has happened in all scientific disciplines and not only in “dismal science”. The problem now goes well beyond that of the so-called “Baconian empiricism” denounced by Koyré (13)

The Pfizer Report has included HIV-infected patients said to be in “stable condition” but then they claim that no patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy have been included, a statement I don’t understand. How is it possible? (re: «Adults aged 16 years or older who were healthy or had stable chronic medical conditions, including but not limited to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus, were eligible for study participation. exclusion criteria included a medical history of Covid-19, treatment with immunosuppressive therapy, or diagnosis with an immunocompromised condition. “)

Without wishing to muddle the waters, however, we know that in Australia another type of vaccine was suspended due to tests giving false positive results for HIV, so one wonders how stable HIV patients included in Pfizer’s study were treated. Similarly, the UK was forced to ban the Pfizer vaccine for all those susceptible to undefined allergies.

In such a context, Australia is to be commended in contrast to the United States where intolerable pressure was exerted by the outgoing Administration on the FDA to approve the vaccine immediately. The FDA was rightly asking for more time to evaluate the data provided for only two months after vaccination, not enough time, especially with cases of reinfection already reported !!! Not to mention the problem of the cohorts considered by the experiment. It is all very rushed and dangerous. We will soon know, but at what cost in human lives? We repeat that even for a normal vaccine without the added dangers of gene therapy, 7 to 10 years of study are needed before commercialization. Citizens and Gentile Peoples are not guinea pigs for Big Pharma.

I can already predict with enough certainty that older people will continue to die as before or even more from the negative effects of the vaccine, especially if winter and then spring bring new strains. Prof Raoult’s protocol must be quickly generalized especially since its great success has now been demonstrated when administered from the beginning – see and – and it is also very useful in all other stages of the evolution of the virus sickness. What’s more, in no ways does it compromise what the hospital has learned to do so far to deal with this new virus. Indeed, the data confirm that the protocol of prof. Raoult decreases the hospital stay of patients and increases the likelihood of leaving the recovery room alive. Sending positive patients home to wait to recover spontaneously or to have to be rushed to hospital with aggravated conditions is indisputably a crime. Especially if those who impose these public health rules hope, without reason, to eventually solve the problem with vaccines marketed quickly and with little chance of being useful …

As for the possible interference of mRNA with human chromosomes, we won’t know for a few years, but the dangers of this rushed vaccine are too real to ignore. Therefore, we ask for clarity on this point and on the relevance of the cohorts studied before this rush vaccine is imposed in the EU. Today with the political pressure of an outgoing president because he was defeated in the elections, the FDA was forced to approve Pfizer’s vaccine as a matter of urgency, while shortly before it questioned, with good reasons, the lack of sufficient data. This represents a double threat to the population – a) with unverified gene therapy – it takes on average 7 to 10 years for this kind of approval process – and b) with the generalization of vaccines contrary to the scientific and ethical codes.

Despite this, Italy rushes to do the same thing in January with Pfizer and Moderna. What kind of country have we become, or rather what kind of scientific and political leaders do we have? On what consciences do the over 65,000 deaths already accumulated and the additional thousands already predicted with the continuation of this curve or wave weigh in January and February?

4 ) Astra-Zeneca.

The Lancet‘s article is clear. Here is the link «Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomized controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK»

The cohorts used are mostly between 18 and 55 years old and women are more numerous. So that these representations give kewed statistics. If that was not enough, the Report clearly states that in the 5 subgroups COV001-COV005, the cohort over 70 years is so small that it is not treated separately. So that becomes statistically insignificant. They hope to make vaccination against Covid-19 mandatory with vaccines that give less results than staying at home just because they have chosen the wrong cohorts to get better statistics. And we say nothing about the success of prof. Raoult who is criminally sidelined and sometimes prohibited only because it has a proven efficiency and because being based on generics it would not cost more than 40 euros per treatment. We are dealing with a strategy defined by Professor Raoult as “insane”.

Today, 15 December 2020, with around 65 000 deaths in Italy, in addition to being a insane this strategy is criminal, because the data are not and cannot be ignored either by the pseudo scientific committee – whose members do not clarify their conflicts of interest – or by political leaders, scarce in all subjects, according to the results under the eyes of all.

4 a ) The Astra-Zeneca vaccine has an advertised success – with the cohorts mentioned above … – of 62.1% with two full doses and over 90% with half a first dose followed by a full dose.

The variation between 62.1% and 90% was due to a mistake that led to the modification of the protocol in progress since the initial half dose gave better results. Again, not much is being said about the details, for example with respect to the sub-groups with their co-morbidities associated with age, particularly over 55 years.

But, in the image of the Russian Sputnik 5 vaccine – which probably has the same defects for the same a-scientific and statistical reasons – this vaccine doesn’t seem promising. To such an extent that it was seriously (sic!) proposed to inoculate these two vaccines for every single person, that is 4 doses, first Astra-Zeneca and then Sputnik 5 or vice-versa, with the hope of increasing the response and therefore the protection immune. (14) Double sales, double profits? We understood the nonsense of these speeches. Especially since it is the health of the people who should be protected with first-line public medical clinics and with treatments offered from the first symptoms even with generic medicines such as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. With good reason the great prof. Raoult speaks of « madness ». And for those who talk about the double vaccine, this is an incredible admission of defeat. Without even addressing the problem of mutated strains of the virus. But nevertheless they want to subject people to these charlatan therapies even daring to speak in an anti-constitutional way of obligation !!!

5 ) The Moderns’s case

Moderna’s vaccine exhibits the same defects as the other mRNA vaccines already discussed, problems of the considered cohorts, a hasty process in view of commercialization with few reliable results and reassurances for the public and politicians without possible validity with respect to side effects and above all the possible pollution of the human genome. We provided the reference to the video of prof. Perronne. (15)

But let others speak. The commercial aspect of this unscrupulous race is demonstrated by the maneuvers observed on the stock exchange as was the case with the Pfizer announcement. (16)

Raising the alarm in July 2020, Senator Kennedy jr. noticed that Moderna had jumped altogether the animal experiments phase, which was totally omitted. In addition, they had tested 45 people, 15 people with high dose, medium dose and low dose respectively. One in 15 people inoculated with the low dose was hospitalized. 3 people inoculated with the high dose i.e., 20% were hospitalized. Nonetheless it was decided to go ahead by manufacturing 2 billion doses of this vaccine. (17)

Here’s what we know about the preliminary analysis: «The preliminary analysis included 95 participants with confirmed cases of Covid-19, of which 90 had received the placebo and 5 the active vaccine. The 95 cases include 15 adults aged 65 or over. Among them 20 were not “White” – including 12 of them Hispanic or Latino, 4 African Americans, 3 Asian Americans and one multiracial. Severe cases of coronavirus were observed, including 11 severe cases in the first preliminary analysis “(18)

We await further Phase 3 results with due skepticism.

6 ) Sanofi’s wise announcement.

We liked Sanofi’s announcement yesterday in which it said that they would take more time to make sure their vaccine will have an effect on the older population, the one most at risk as the lethality rate shows. At least one group of scientists has recognized the problem that is statistically under everyone’s eyes. (19)

7 ) The Chinese vaccine is a vaccine in the most traditional sense and does not have the same potential genetic problems. But it is said that the effectiveness rate is a little lower even if I don’t have the exact numbers, especially for the side effects. However, they should be obtained.

8 ) The Cuban vaccine seems innovative and not based on gene therapy like those of Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca and Moderna. Although the experiments are proceeding urgently, it has not yet completed Phase III. (20)

The others candidates – there are talks of 48 scientific attempts – are not yet well known.


As was the case with HIV, while looking for an effective vaccine, it is important to treat people with proven cures, while looking for others. And this is the true mission of the public health system, certainly not to prepare people to accept rushed and potentially dangerous vaccines to fatten Big Pharma.

We therefore conclude by referring to the two links – , and more recently: – which demonstrate the effectiveness of prof. Raoult for the three main phases of the disease, pointing out that the real numbers found in the IHU in Marseille are even better because action is taken there immediately after the first symptoms – the IHU in Marseille is capable of doing a reliable molecular CPR test under 35 cycles and give the results between 20 minutes and 2 hours maximum. It makes a big difference.

Therefore, beyond that, the truth remains that medical treatment is superior to the venal and too hasty search for a vaccine under the pressure of Big Pharma. See the comparative numbers on the Planet, for example in the West compared to Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, China, New Zealand, Africa etc. See the comparative statistics here: . This comparison seems like an accusation without possible refutation.

This crucial role of prof. Raoult remains demonstrated in the 3 phases of the evolution of the disease caused by Sars-CoV-2:

Phase 1 – Symptoms and protocol of Prof Raoult which in a week removes the viral load therefore the disease together with the contagiousness. These are results that the proposed vaccines do not produce, especially the more dangerous mRNA vaccines.

Phase 2 – Hospital and oxygen.

Phase 3 – Resuscitation in intensive care units

(and we can also add, at least for the IHU in Marseille, the fact that some patients out of intensive care units, ending up in palliative care units, are still being treated and still have a chance to survive despite their very advanced age.)

This occurs when the doctor is given the opportunity to do his duty as a doctor and not as a drug pusher.

Now let’s wait to learn more about the side effects.

But above all about the rates of reinfection and contagiousness of the persons subjected to these dangerous and hasty vaccines.

We can already venture the hypothesis that the lethality rate that mainly affects the over 80s will not change much – if not for the worse – given the numerally insignificant cohorts of subjects under 55 and 65 taken into account in the vaccination studies in question.

Paolo De Marco, 12-15 December 2020.


* ) « CRISPR/Cas9 and Targeted Genome Editing: A New Era in Molecular Biology, crispr-cas9-and-targeted-genome-editing-a-new-era-in-molecular-biology » in . 3 janvier 2016, par Pierre Barthélémy , Comment bidouiller un gène pour soigner la myopathie

** ) I have tried to apply this dialectical Marxist apprehension of reality in my essay « Matrimonio, unioni civili e istituzionalizzazione dei costumi » also available in French in the Pink Section of my old Jurassic site, see :

1 ) « Vaccino Covid, dal “V-day” alle dosi: la campagna “L’Italia rinasce con un fiore” in 10 punti » E’ la primula il simbolo della campagna del piano nazionale vaccini, ribattezzato “L’Italia rinasce con un fiore”. Ecco dosi, modi e tempi illustrati dal “super” commissario Arcuri, editato in: 2020-12-14T15:32:36+01:00 da QuiFinanza , 14 Dicembre 2020 

2 ) « Coronavirus, identificata nuova variante: è allerta. Cosa cambia », In Gran Bretagna è stata isolata una nuova variante di coronavirus: cosa cambia. Il parere dell’Oms,

3 ) Australia Cancels COVID Vaccine Trial Over ‘Unexpected’ False Positives For HIV, by Tyler Durden, Friday, Dec , 2020 – 9:45, 

Vedi pure « No Need For Vaccine This Year: Australia’s Chief Medical Officer », by Tyler Durden, Saturday, Dec 12, 2020 – 21:30, Authored by Andi Yu via The Epoch Times,

4 ) Added note on Dic. 16, 2020 concerning the role of Vitamine D « Covid: appello degli scienziati per la cura che non viene usata », Il ministero della Salute non ritiene utile la vitamina D nella lotta al Covid, anche se molti studi hanno suggerito la sua efficacia contro il virus,

5 ) « The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences. »

6 ) Vedi « Logistical and Technical Exploration into the Origins of the Wuhan Strain of Coronavirus (COVID-19)», Posted on January 31, 2020March 21, 2020 by harvard2thebighouse . The Wuhan origin is fanciful given that strange never-investigated pneumonitis took place in the American military laboratory Fort Detrick, Maryland, USA, prior to its closure, causing over 10 000 deaths.The infected on the Roosevelt and Nimitz aircraft carriers had not been in contact with Wuhan. Instead in Wuhan the disease appeared with the arrival of American soldiers for the military games of November 2019. In Italy the Sars-CoV-2 was present at least in September 2019 and perhaps already much earlier, a reality to be related to the numerous bases in ourPeninsula. However, the article should be read for the data on Sars-CoV-2 and not so much for the question of origin.

7 ) Robert F Kennedy Jr. Exposes Bill Gates’ Vaccine Agenda In Scathing Report »,by Tyler Durden, Sun, 04/12/2020, Authored by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense,

8 ) Among the people suspected of harboring such projects is Bill Gates, who however tries to deny it. At the same time, our governments are moving forward with tracking apps that are not only useless – if the transmission of the virus is mainly due to touching contaminated people or objects, the proof of physical proximity means nothing, for example in public transport – and the Apps is not totally public, nor protected as far as privacy is concerned. And therefore without real guarantees on the use of our personal medical data by private agencies always ready to commercialize the data and impose any type of nudging without the knowledge of the owners of mobile phones etc. For the tracking, it suffices to give the assignment to the people tested positives to contact the people they have met in the last few days and possibly help them do it.

Tracing without medical treatment is one additional nonsense in the unacceptable strategy of living with the virus and the impossible herd immunity for a rapidly changing virus… If prof. Crisanti tried to save at least the honor of his profession in Italy, in my ignorance I do not understand his advocacy of tracking Apps … In light of the facts known to date, it seems that monitoring their symptoms – smell, taste, fever, etc. -, washing one’s hands often, respecting social distancing and making quick swabs immediately from the first symptoms followed by appropriate treatments, in particular the protocol of prof. Raoult, plan working hours to ban overcrowding in means of transport and workplaces, simply starting work at different time, ditto for schools, using ultraviolet rays that destroy germs and viruses in the absence of students and workers, is much more effective than tracking the patients that will then be sent home without treatment to wait to either get well or get really sick … But I’m not a medical doctor.

With respect to Bill Gates’ denials, here is an excerpt from the article quoted in note 8 below: « Qu’en est-il ? Un article du Monde publié en 2019 est souvent cité en exemple pour étayer cette allégation. Il rapporte que des ingénieurs du Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) « ont inventé des nanoparticules injectables sous la peau qui émettent une lumière fluorescente invisible à l’œil nu, mais visible par un smartphone, et qui pourraient un jour servir à confirmer que la personne a bien été vaccinée ».

Ce projet, financé par la fondation Gates (par ailleurs partenaire du Monde Afrique), doit permettre aux pays en développement de disposer de carnets de vaccination, là où les dossiers médicaux sont généralement inexistants. Des enquêtes d’opinion ont été lancées au Kenya, au Malawi et au Bangladesh pour savoir si ces populations seraient prêtes à adopter ce type de carnet vaccinal. Les chercheurs, à la fin de 2019, espéraient le tester sur « des humains en Afrique dans les deux prochaines années ».

Mais, contrairement à ce qui est avancé, ce projet n’a ni vocation à pucer l’humanité ni à être utilisé dans le cadre du Covid-19. L’un des ingénieurs du MIT, Kevin McHugh, l’a confirmé auprès de Reuters en mars dernier : la technologie employée n’est « pas une puce électronique », et « il n’est pas prévu de l’utiliser pour le coronavirus ». »

9 ) Here is an article with speaks which ends up saying more than it intended on these subjects see: « Nanoparticules et vaccins contre le Covid-19 : 5 questions pour démêler le vrai du faux, » Avec l’arrivée prochaine des vaccins en France, les théories conspirationnistes sur les nanoparticules rencontrent un certain succès. Par Assma Maad ,Publié hier à 17h15, mis à jour à 09h52 . We note the dr. Fouché expresses himself in a very measured and documented fashion on this particular subject. The article does not questions the real existence of such use of nanoparticles in Africa, nor obviously the use of nano-lipid for these vaccine that make use of mRNA.

10 ) Vedi « COVID-19 vaccines start moving into advanced trials »,

11 ) See :Pr Christian Perronne :”Moderna, Pfizer, ce ne sont pas des vaccins, c’est de la thérapie génique”, 2 dic 2020; Vedi pure « Ce que l’on sait de la sûreté des vaccins à ARN messager », Bien qu’étudiés depuis longtemps, les vaccins à ARN ont atteint une maturité technique plutôt récente, ce qui soulève craintes et questionnements.,Par Gary Dagorn, in

12 ) See : Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

13 ) See my Methodological introduction in the Section Livres-Books of my old Jurassic site:

14 ) « Vaccins : le britannico-suédois AstraZeneca va combiner son AZD1222 avec le Spoutnik V russe », Par AFP  |  11/12/2020, in

The Astra-Zeneca vaccine was already the object of serious criticism, see : ‘It Will Never Be Licensed In The US’ – Analyst Warns AstraZeneca Vaccine Efficacy “Embellished”, by Tyler Durden, Mon, 11/23/2020 – 09:10

15 ) Pr Christian Perronne :”Moderna, Pfizer, ce ne sont pas des vaccins, c’est de la thérapie génique”, 2 dic 2020  A 12:07 mn

16 ) « D’autres sociétés, dont Moderna, font l’objet des mêmes critiques  (note : que pour Pfizer) : son PDG ainsi que plusieurs de ses dirigeants ont déjà vendu pour plusieurs dizaines de milliers de dollars d’actions. » in Le vaccin contre le Covid-19 de Pfizer « ne semble pas adapté à une vaccination de masse », Pour nos journalistes Chloé Aeberhardt et Chloé Hecketsweiler, qui ont répondu à vos questions lors d’un tchat, le vaccin sera coûteux, car les conditions de conservation sont très contraignantes., Publié hier à 16h00, mis à jour hier à 19h29

17 ) Vedi “The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether,” Kennedy said during an online debate on mandatory vaccinations with renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. The debate was aired by Valuetainment and moderated by Patrick Bet-David.

Another aspect of testing was equally unsatisfying, Kennedy said. The Moderna vaccine was tested “on 45 people. They had a high-dose group of 15 people, a medium-dose group of 15 people, and a low growth group of 15 people.”

In the low-dose group, one of the people was so sick from the vaccine they had to be hospitalized,” he explained.

That’s six percent. In the high-dose group, three people got so sick they had to be hospitalized. That’s twenty percent.”

In spite of these significant problems,

they’re going ahead, and making two billion doses of that vaccine.”

« Kennedy Jr. Warns Parents About Danger Of Using Largely-Untested COVID Vaccines On Kids », by Tyler Durden , Tue, 07/28/2020 – 23:15 ,Authored by Martin Berger via,

18 ) «The interim analysis included 95 participants with confirmed cases of Covid-19, of which 90 had received the placebo and five the active vaccine.

The 95 cases included 15 older adults – aged 65 and over. This included 20 people who were not white – including 12 of whom were from Hispanic or Latino/a backgrounds, four African Americans, three Asian Americans and one who was multiracial.

Severe cases of coronavirus were also examined, including 11 severe cases in the first interim analysis. » in

19 ) « Le vaccin de Sanofi et GSK retardé à fin 2021»,Par AFP  |  11/12/2020, 9:22 |

20 ) « I progressi di Cuba sui propri vaccini », di Randy Alfonso Falcón, Oscar Figueredo Reinaldo, Yunier Javier Sifonte Díaz, Lissett Izquierdo Ferrer, Dinella García Acosta, Lisandra Fariñas Acosta* ,

Comments are closed.