A rather poor auto-translation, but the main facts are clear... read the whole thing... or watch the video if you understand French...
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.entreprendre.fr/professeur-didier-raoult-il-existe-70-deffets-secondaires-avec-le-vaccin-pfizer-on-navait-jamais-vu-ca-avec-un-vaccin/Professor Didier Raoult: “There are 70% side effects with the Pfizer vaccine, we had never seen that with a vaccine! "Professor Didier Raoult, Director of the IHU Méditerranée Infection, analyzes the latest studies on vaccination against Covid. According to him, the vaccine is far from having been proven to prevent the circulation of the virus.
What are the latest data that can be observed concerning vaccination?
We are starting to have data. There is a very interesting work which has appeared and which analyzes in a very honest way, in England, the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine against the English mutant, which is the one which circulates the most and which represents 85 to 90% in our country. cases. This study shows that the AstraZeneca vaccine works less well than expected.
It's no wonder: by just taking a protein which is that of the virus which was there in March / April 2020 to create a vaccine with that protein rather than with the whole virus, the chance that you have mutation in this protein which vaccine resistance is quite high.
If you take the whole virus, maybe it's less directive, maybe the concentration is less, but there is a chance that there is still some immunity. However, with the choice that has been made, immunity is very fragile since it is based on very few amino acids.
It seems that for the symptomatic and documented forms, the degree of protection is of the order of 70% in the best case and when we are talking about people who are carriers or who have no declared symptoms then the rate of protection is extremely low.
On the South African and Brazilian variants, it works extremely poorly. Now we ask ourselves the question: what do we do with this in practice to give advice to people? So, I repeat: for the moment, the vaccine is not compulsory, it is the medical practitioners who must discuss with their patients to tell them: I advise you or I do not advise you to vaccinate yourself for the moment. .
The most important point is of course to do as usual, ie what is the balance between the risk and the benefit?
When people tell you there is no risk, that is not true. We are starting to know the risks of this vaccine, there are really dangerous risks of allergy due to the compound we use, polyethylene glycol, with people who have anaphylactic shock that may be fatal and people who have thromboses . So the numbers we have need to be solidified to know how many people are in potentially fatal accidents. Is it 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 10,000? These are things we need to know to say, this is the risk you are taking with the vaccine.
Now what is the risk you take when you are not vaccinated? Well, it's a mix between the proportion of people who are infected and then the proportion of people who are infected have a severe form. So, to avoid severe forms, this vaccine is probably of interest. We must give people the choice to think. After when you are over 75 or 80, then of course the number of sick people who are at risk of dying is significant. Mortality among those over 85 is over 20% so the benefit to be hoped for in a period when the virus is circulating for people over 80 is very good.