Hello friends, today is Thursday the 20th
August 2020 and tonight I have the privilege

to be with Jean-Dominique Michel
Hi Jean-Dominique!

Good evening Sylvano!
Now you have become famous and

famous throughout the French-speaking world
with the covid crisis,

but tell us before this
crisis, Jean-Dominique Michel

what was he doing?

I am a health anthropologist.
Anthropology is the study of

the human species through space and
time. An astonishing species:

she is creative to the point of arriving
to build universes of meaning and

modes of social organization all more
different from each other.

The anthropology of health is
study of how

different cultures describe what
is to be in good health, define

disease and since people fall
sick throughout history and time

what to do when someone
became ill to allow him to

regain health. So
traditionally we have traveled through

the world to see how it was going
in distant tribes. Nowadays

the anthropology of health is very much
more focused on our own practices

knowing that in our societies exist
of course biomedicine, which is the

main method of care to which the
most people speak up when they

are going badly but that there are plenty of others
proposals as well. Whether they are

ancestral or traditional medicines
such as Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic

or very recent proposals such as
quantum medicine or epigenetics

and then to observe
how according to his convictions

of its culture of its origin the people
use a particular discipline

depending on the difficulty.
It's extraordinary. Anyway I will put

jean dominique michel's blog in
in the program description

and I frankly advise you to do so
go and read because it is

fascinating everything he writes.
So when there was this covid crisis

What did you think at first?
Did you think about anything?

You've seen a little bit of
normal way or how you lived it?

So if you want for the specialists
the issue of epidemics and health

of a possible pandemic is a risk
recurring

so if you're over fifteen years old, you'll be able to
all have examples in mind when it comes to the flu

avian influenza, swine flu from
the flu this the flu that and to

every time we dread the big one, you're
know it's the word we use for

describe the earthquake in
California has a very important flaw

and we know that if one day there is a very
large earthquake

there could be a shift of
land a whole part of the

california in the ocean obviously we
hopes that this will not happen, though.

seismologists know it will happen
sooner or later. Is it in a

year or ten thousand years from now we don't know.
So we are vigilant with regard to

seismic activity in california, and the
people who work in the

the health sector, especially the
infectious diseases are seeing departures

epidemic regularly because the
virus mutate and then each time we get a new one.

said is it going to be the big one or
not? Then obviously that of my

point of view, but I don't want to have
look a little cynical or

indifferent is always interesting
and a new trick in China and to try

quickly enough to capture the size order
of the epidemic and the actual risk

that it makes the population of
find out which disease is different

each time and then I feel like saying with
this observation of monitoring systems that

tend to overreact depending on the
precautionary principle.

Today we all know the predictions
Professor Ferguson's delirious in

England which is wrong every time
but in orders of magnitude

monstrous and yet we continue to be
turn to him as soon as there is a new one.

fire starting by saying:
"How bad is it, doctor? »

The WHO of course, but all the
politicians in general do not want to get involved in the

be blamed for not having done enough
also tends to ring the bell very quickly.

and then in a process of
classical scientific discovery on

find out what's going on as you go along.
measures the passing weeks and then

there we can have a more complete view of the
reasonable.

And what is special but I
you don't learn anything in the case that we

occupies is that even though the
first signals arrived very quickly

which allowed to be reassured about
the order of magnitude, and say:

it is an epidemic event like those
to which one is accustomed.

We see since the month of March a species
of collective delirium settling in and which

treats in a totally
exceptional and unreasonable some

which is of the order of usual
and this obviously poses

a lot of questions about what
organize our companies but also on

the collective mentality that has as much
lost sight of what an epidemic is.

And you thought you could have a
day live what we are currently experiencing

with this covid crisis?
Depends on what you're talking about.

if ever it is the epidemic itself
yes, because that's what we're going through

regularly. It should be remembered that according to
that we include in the name the dead in the

ehpad and according to the count we are between
the 9th and 14th epidemic episodes

the most serious since the post-war period.
So there have been between 8 and 13 plus

serious before. And I've had
e-mails from a retired doctor who has

said but you don't surrender
counts the famous Hong Kong flu

in '68 69, the dead were laid out in the
hospital corridors it was absolutely

"as worse" as Quebecers would say
that today and therefore there is nothing

exceptional in this epidemic so
I tell them very quickly the epidemic it

even is normal. On the other hand, what I
I didn't expect to see and who continues to

the time to be interested and to be afraid is
this collective over-reaction but which has

still look like they're being piloted by
very special interests.

to put it another way and I go to
the essential but then I'm sure we'll be able to

will develop this or that element. The covid
it's a 100 billion dollar business

of dollars
and if he had been treated like 30 years ago...

or 40 years old and thinking, "There's a peak.
epidemic has people dying

it's mostly people at the end of life
after it goes down there's more death.

everything is fine, we are starting to live again. »
is 100 billion

Dollars of failure for people and
companies an industry that only requires

that to capture this manna but which have
need to be able to capture it,

maintain a collective psychosis
unfortunately, this is what we see

for months and months of a
in a way that is totally out of sync

in relation to the epidemiological reality
and then in a way then that is

also totally damaging to the
population. We are many to have it

says very quickly month from the month of March
but that there was a risk that the

measures included the following
fter none of them had any basis

serious scientists would risk
cause consequences

much worse than what we have been doing.
sought to avoid

and this is something that we can see
today and the research is coming out

that allow to document this
intuition that many of us have had.

so to do this you still need to
the complicity of two things

of each country's politics and the media.
How is this possible?

So if you want me to study these
questions for a long time because

that they are central and perhaps
that one of the easiest ways to do so is to

to speak is to make comparisons
why hasn't it been 40 years

that we've switched to energies
renewable and that we have not been

weaned from energy dependency
fossils and well because the interests

at stake are such that even though
this transition was possible

that it would have been beneficial
there are lobbies that have locked the

things and subsidized energies
fossils by refusing to subsidize

renewable energies: "when are we going to
not even subsidize energy".

but in the meantime they were subsidizing
oil extraction and therefore there has been

status quo until today, when we are
realizes that it's very late for

consider changes
so if you want this configuration of

supposedly democratic country but which
in fact do not have the freedom of the

decisions they make and whose
decision-making bodies are totally independent.

infiltrated by the industries concerned
it's something that is generic

today. It's about pesticides
it's about energy it's about

armament concerns all fields
of life. And in the medical field this

which is interesting is that the
specialists have been making this diagnosis since

about fifteen years. And the specialists
it's a university ethics center

is the medical journals themselves
editors and former editors

chief editor of all major journals
medical ten since years ago

something deeply rotten
in the system that spoils research.

Research is already being tinkered with at
departure to achieve the desired results

after magazines and reviews

scientists are only the cases of
marketing resonance that do not make

their work to sort the quality of the
research. We saw it recently with

the Lancet and the NEJM which published,
Excuse my French, shit!

But it's passed through the filter,
why, because deep down they are only

the more scientific journals are
marketing sounding boards of

certain interests.
And then there are the instances

country by country governments that are
completely infiltrated by

industry representatives.
Obviously you are being sued as much as I am.

It sounds very conspiratorial except that
this is the house of commons

the British senate, which says so.
French that says it, it's the university

of Oxford who says so. We have a problem
why because people who are

at the helm in these different circles
are all in serious conflict of interest with

the industry and therefore necessarily that
It skews everything. So the term which is

retained technically it is that of
systemic corruption. So it makes you angry

a lot of people when you use it
because they feel they are being made to feel like

accuses of being corrupt, and that's not all.
has done this systemic corruption.

Systematic corruption means that
if I hadn't paid you wouldn't have me

received on your antenna so I am obliged to
to lubricate the leg to be able to

get the desired result.
Systemic corruption

is when the rules of the game are
sufficiently distorted to a large extent

by legal facts, i.e.
that it is not illegal.

You see in France we have a lot
noted that the expert committees were

all with a conflict of interest is
not illegal.

They publish it on the site any citizen can
go and see : Karine Lacombe touches so much,

thing touches so much, so it's
not forbidden but in the meantime we

say the ethics centers of the
universities is problematic because

that it comes as a final result to
what the mercantile interest of

industry takes precedence over the needs of the
population in decisions that are

taken. And that again
it's a lot of fun because today

it's a scandal, but you can find
the articles of Le Figaro, Le Monde, de

Libération, reports from TF1,
2 3 4 5 10 years ago where

they say so! Because it is a truth.
And what strikes me a lot in

the times we live in, it's that all of a sudden
it's as if by saying: "there are some

narco-traffickers in Mexico "what everything
the world knows, people say:

"But how can you say such a thing!

You are plotting! You also believe
to the aliens! How is it

possible to say something as
scandalous" when everyone knows it!

It is known, it is not hidden. And there we
is in an extraordinary fiction

actually played by the authorities, the
media that consists despite common sense

of what has been proven that the entire
world knows, to make people believe, to create a

fiction that is false and that would leave
to believe that decisions are made

for the good of the population then
that they are not. And here we are

actually in a hiatus so I
thinks it's partly orchestrated

because we're in a logic
criminological. I make a little aside

but one of the world's leading epidemiologists
to the world, Professor Gøtzsche,

wrote in 2014
a book called "Organized Crime,

pharmaceutical industry" where he shows
that industry strategies are

the same as those of the mafia.
This book in 2014 receives the award of

the British Medical Association
doctors they know what they are made of

speak. And what does the professor describe
Gøtzsche ? It's that there are tricks at the

level of drugs to impose them
that industries even put

on the drug market
that they know they don't have the effect of

beneficial and toxic effects.
There are deaths. It is discovered at a

given time.
The pharmaceutical industries are

criminally convicted. But if you ever
makes 15 billion in sales

with a cure, that you have 500 million
1 billion in fines and

interest you leave with a net profit of
13.5 billion and therefore what the

Professor Gøtzsche, it is not me who says so,
I read what the specialists say and

I allow myself to make it known to my
risks and perils

what Gøtzsche says is that deep down inside
the industry today has incorporated

this penal dimension and the
sanctions as part of the

business model. Like when you pay your
rent to do your shows,

the pharmaceutical industry, it puts a
billion set aside for fines

that she's going to harvest, but that doesn't stop her
not to go and Gøtzsche gives 15

different examples of this strategy it
there was the Mediator in France there was the

Levothyrox, finally it is repeatedly and in the
flu cases we are interested in

h1n1
rock has made tens of billions

of benefits with a drug
inefficient that was useless Tamiflu

which he has managed to sell to the entire states
by reselling vaccines I believe that

Roselyne Bachelot had purchased 93,000 doses of vaccine at the time, which were used for the following

useless but you see that everything is not
not lost for everyone. And so it

there's really a criminological dynamic.
I know that what I'm saying is again

appallingly shocking but I invite
any person of good faith and common sense

and a little bit capable of being
document by itself to go

check the sources. There are many in the
blog posts I read. And from

new it is known as the white wolf.
So what's amazing about the

figure and which I am in any case astonished by.
it's commented is it

strings that big, how does
such enormous manipulations...

you've seen the fraudulent studies
published in the biggest ducks

how do these guys dare to do
things like this and how

explain that despite the all-too-favorable side
obvious fact of dirty handling

that they implement
they still manage to get by

and impose their agenda? There are
questions that are strong but also

quite worrying as to what organizes
our company and who makes the decisions

about what. So how do you
explain that there are people like you

like me like all my subscribers who
are fully awake to it,

that become even you know very in
anger at this huge masquerade

this manipulation which is there under
their eyes they see it and how you

explains that such a dichotomy with
people completely asleep

who see nothing.
How is this possible?

There's a lot of thinking about this.
in social psychology.

I believe that a first element of
answer is to recognize that

in any case the evolution of our societies
is dictated by an agenda that has not been

democratically chosen.
If you take 1980, politicians

Chirac, Mitterrand, Giscard... who would have said :
"The world of 2022 is the one I want,

for my country and for my children. »
No one. No one would have dared.

However, this is what is needed, year
after year. So, here we are rather

in political science
but it is essential and urgent

to detect that there is a checkmate
of the popular will through

representative democracy that makes 
that we get to the point of adopting the measures

that the population does not want, does not want, does not want
wishes not to, see that it does not support

but which are imposed on him towards and
against everything. So what are

the mechanisms the processes it's a story
complex, it's not my area of expertise.

All I can do is
to note. On countless occasions,

we force the population that is supposed
have the power and be able to decide through

her elected officials to things she doesn't want.
So that's the first element.

The second is that the efficiency of
this impregnation and this taking of

power by the lobbies the industry is such, 
that no one can oppose it

except to get shot. I know
it's not quite your edge.

but Danielle Mitterrand at one point recalled
that when her husband was elected, she told him:

"So it's okay, you're going to apply the program.
that you say you want to implement. »

and that he replied: "No no, you're
Don't understand, I have a government,

I don't have the power. I can't go
against the World Bank, against the IMF

against Europe, so there you go, I'm not going to do anything.
do what I said I would do

I can't, I can't afford it. »
So you see anyway.

So that's one element.
And then it's efficiency in fact.

of this stranglehold 
on public decisions

and then afterwards there is unfortunately
all in one elite conditioning

and the population, not to be noticed,
not to react, not to measure.

So the elites are relatively
easy because in the end it's people

which are a bit like in religion.
You see when you're a scientist today...

in a scientific committee
it's a bit like being a cardinal.

at the church
so all you have to do is repeat

the same as the others
there is an esprit de corps and we have

much seen in the controversy around
hydroxychloroquine. You will remember

one of the great reproaches
of these scientists was to say:

"But Raoult who does not study
randomized in double blind so that

is worth nothing. "And Raoult said it right away,
I have been checked throughout the

scientific literature he is right:
a randomized double-blind study

is not better for evaluating a cure
in infectiology that a study

observational like the one he did.
But then you had this whole chorus

cardinals who said: "No, it is the
dogma and if we don't respect the dogma,

we know nothing. "So there you really have an effect
of conformism to the extreme

benefits, which makes the elites of the world's
have become... it has become difficult for them

to think intelligently.
Then afterwards at the population level

Well, it's all about the benefit of the doubt, 
on the fact that they can't imagine

that the dice can be piped
and then for some time now

years the fact that we are depriving more and more
the more people that are formed

ways to think. When for example
Rhetoric has been removed from the school curriculum.

Rhetoric is what makes it possible to
to understand how is organized

the discourse of the other who seeks to persuade us.
And if you stop teaching rhetoric

you give more to people
the means to identify manipulations.

Currently we are in the process of
to remove all humanities

and the humanities
from everywhere: it's the only thing

that opens the mind. So what allows
scientist not to become a cardinal

and to remain a scientist is to have
had access to the humanities and art,

to sociology, to have travelled in
other countries to have had access

to other things than his field
and today we hyper-specialize

so many people in some kind of tunnel
that they become hyper-sharp in

their small areas of knowledge
but completely dumb about everything else

and therefore can no longer contrast the
know that they have

with a global apprehension of reality.
And when you mix it all together, well, it's

ideal conditions so that in fact
the population the citizens

and women citizens are deprived of all power
not only to act but even to react.

That is to say that at school they make these things.
from the school. That is to say that at school

until the baccalaureate the programs become
more and more stupid. It is not enough to

take a look at the 1923 bin
and try to do so

you will see the difference.
And then we actually specialize it

in a domain, and then there it remains
a specialist in his field, he can no longer see anything

of what's going on around it.
Yes and you see what I was passionate about

in the covid is that experts in the covid
have said, but the enormity

nonsense like me I wouldn't even have
Dare to think of saying such things.

So we can see that this expertise
by dint of shrinkage it loses even

its validity in the field in which it operates.
See? That is to say that basically

what makes expertise is to have an
solid knowledge and then a base that

allows to have counterpoints of
and guardrails and that

it allows you to think intelligently.
But when you isolate people in

hypers rutting and we make them do that.
all their life, that is to say that even

in their field of expertise
they lose the skill so I had some

17 examples. Doctors who we
explained here that everyone was going to

getting sick because no one had
never encountered the coronavirus.

Yes, but there are four others.
Today, we realize that there are

a cross-immunity that half of the people
a priori are already immune.

So, you see the super virologist from
the unity of Geneva that the President

macron has just hired to evaluate the
French policy

he said such a stupid thing
in the month of March.

And because he is an expert everyone
listened to this as the gospel word

and in the aftermath we said: "yes but the
science is complicated we can't

always know everything in advance".
But no one asks the question:

how is it that experts 
supposed to be experts,

can say such nonsense?
And that for me is still the

question of substance. And then how
the world's number one expert

in infectious diseases, Didier Raoult,
is not listened to at all. Is treated

a charlatan? I don't get it.
What I have observed a lot

by frequenting scientists,
is that the best in their field

are extraordinary people 
open-minded

humble, competent, they recognize their ignorance
they are relatively free

in relation to power games, well, Raoult
it is solid, it is very clever, compared to power.

We don't do it to him. But still it is that he
has preserved its integrity, in particular by

report to the pharmaceutical industry.
So the "all good" in their field

they are of this nature. And then after
you have the cohorts of followers

who are much less gifted who are
much less awesome that are

much less competent, but who they are at the
contrary boast

of their powers, knowledge and authority
and that gives the fanatics.

See? So how are we going to get out of this
of all this? Well, listen as well as you can

or not at all. How do you see yourself
the next three months?

Look, I don't know.
I used to say that I am a

joyful pessimist. So I'm not optimistic
because I have the impression that the critical mass

is not reached 
that the locking of power systems

is such that no counter-power 
cannot be opposed at this time,

already the media I teach you nothing
no longer play their role at all

of counter-power
and then you saw even when

guys like Raoult, like Peronne
or like me at my modest level

did everything we could
to alert... pure loss, you see.

At least in appearance.
So I have the impression that for the moment

it's irresistible.
That said, I have a question that I ask myself

it's deep down in themselves
in their inner conviction

what people really think when you know
they are less than 27 or 22%.

to trust the French government 
on health issues today

there are more than 70% of people who know 
that they can't be trusted.

So on the obligation of the mask
they seem to agree more than 60%.

but we don't really know
what it is about the conviction of each one.

Things are today divided by a
in such a way that there can be no

of gathering energies for
challenge the policy in place

but it is not excluded that at some point in time
given there are movements of revolt.

Either because people are tired of
Wear a mask that at first serves no purpose.

but it is also totally
suffocating and is like

a violation of bodily integrity.
And then I think that in the scenarios

possible futurologics is
likely the imposition of the vaccine

that may generate a reaction.
That's what they have in mind.

they will do everything they can
to get there. But I have the impression

as much as people can accept
being locked in their homes and wearing a mask

when it comes to making
inject something dangerous

because you don't make a vaccine in six months.
that's not true, with a technology

that we don't know and that can be
dangerous with consequences

from which the vaccine companies have already exempted themselves.
by an impunity that is assured to them

regardless of the consequences...

there we see that you still have a bomb.
And then I wouldn't be

perhaps moreover that the vaccine
will be completely harmless and that

and that it will work just fine. We don't know. 
But I think that people at that time

when this taxation will be advanced
will have a defensive reaction.

Will it be enough
to thwart the plan? To be continued...

Often when talking about WHO
of GAVI's vaccines we think of Switzerland.

You are in Switzerland, how are things at home?
What is it? Where are you at?

to give news from Switzerland.
Wearing masks, vaccinations, politics?

If you want there was something
really interesting to observe

because God knows if I have been critical
French health responses

which in my opinion
so I totally agree with Peronne's analysis.

everything that could be done
of false and bad was done

and Switzerland has a peculiarity is that basically
it systematically copies France

but not as bad
so we confined it to a time when it was

probably not necessary but we have
semi-confined. Here, the mask is imposed

in some cantons not in others
but only in enclosed spaces

outdoors not. The latest developments
they talk about the objective is to achieve

80% of volunteers in the population
who agree to be vaccinated.

So you see its soft measures,
i.e.

that we are not in a logic
authoritarian as in France

or pyramidal or centralized but it is 
not very different, but it is a little bit

less serious. And finally already as
that citizen is nice, because

I prefer this diet to the one you have
have suffered. And then on the other hand it has

the dreaded side effect
that it cuts the grass under the feet

of any reaction.
Since it's not that bad.

And then you know it
Switzerland is still the plate

the turntable of all the mafias
international: sports federations,

international organizations,
money laundering, all corruptions

finally converge here and therefore
people like Bill Gates are

"ass and shirt" with the government but as in all countries

but that's the rule of the game today.
and me what amazes me

is that it is not a problem.
Yeah that's what's crazy!

And wait, do you really think that Mr. Gates
has bad intentions?

But that's not the point.
The point is that a guy as rich as he is

does not have to dictate health policy
states wherever it comes from.

And now I think we're very entangled.
i.e. it is as if

we were told: "But you
suspect people of being dishonest? »

They may or may not be, I don't know.
But that's not the question.

The question is that of probity and of
transparency of governance systems.

And here we have an obviously major problem.
But nevertheless

80% of the volunteer population
that's a huge thing!

But there is no vaccination obligation in Switzerland. 
for the moment.

And then how would I say once
you've scared people enough

you claim to have a safe vaccine
even if it is not, you see most of them

people are not going to ask questions
and we will say: "Phew, that was a close call.

we didn't die from that terrifying thing."
even if they are 40 years old and are not sick.

"and then I'm offered something

who is guaranteed to save my life 
or to protect me

so I'm going. That's the kind of...
Yes I see. Which makes sense.

As long as they are afraid.

Today Didier Raoult has switched to
the French antennas on a media,

a long interview and he said:
"You traditional media,

you are overwhelmed by the media
alternatives including youtube "

and the reporter said "yes".
Is that a first sign?

Look, it's interesting but I think
that it also illustrates the reason

for which said alternative media
are being monitored

like never before and that we actually see
the massive return of measures

infringements of the freedom of opinion and expression
you know something about it

so it's true but after
it's a bit like a cybernetic loop

i.e. the more the media
betray their fundamental mission

and today it's just and terrible...
the more they lose people's trust

so the more people lose interest
look elsewhere

and then here it is at first
it came with a lot

criticism of the fact that what
circulating on the internet is not mediated

so the journalists are there to do
this work to discriminate to balance

points of view, but they don't make the points at all.
in any case. So it became

only tool species
of propaganda that no longer respect

the values the missions and the charter
ethics of the profession.

And then on the internet you can find everything
and anything of the things well done

intelligent things of things
excessive things. But finally

It's obvious that it's overwhelmed.
Look at the number of spectators you have.

My blogs have had nine million
readers, you know? "Le Monde" can go get dressed.

And I'm all the more proud of it because
from the beginning I told myself

I'm going to make papers that are complex
that addresses difficult aspects

which are extremely well documented I have given up
simplify anything

by taking the bet people are smart.
Then there are people who may disagree.

with my analyses or not appreciate 
my way of writing but you

see what I mean,
provide quality content and in fact

that's what made it big and I think that
it's really... it reflects the fact that people

have a need a thirst a thirst to have
information that is solid and reliable

that is supported and then not supported. 
in those silly journalistic shortcuts

that we see all the time.
If you have any doubts

on wearing the mask outdoors you are an "anti-mask".
This is absolute nonsense,

is the zero degree of reflection.

Yes that's right. And the media are there
in it unfortunately. They are in

this extreme caricature and I find
that people are turning away from it.

I even heard a great
professor say that the one who is

against the fact that there will be
a second wave

that one who is against the fact that
the mask protects are negationists.

How can we explain, how can we get there?
You did a great show

what to say to someone
who calls you a schemer, but me...

there's always a question
that I didn't understand: what does it mean to be a conspirator?

If they call you a schemer,
What are you plotting?

For me there is a little
two levels to your answer.

First of all, there are conspiracies.
There are plots all the time.

You know the adage: there are two positions to avoid: believing that everything is a conspiracy.

and to believe that nothing is conspiracy. So there are always plots.

There are bribes for the attribution
from the olympic games there are wars

that are triggered on bases
false only to be able to

to go and steal the oil at last there is
shenanigans in a lot of places and therefore

For me, the first answer is to be "aware".
of this reality and then it does not hide it.

and therefore ask questions.
And then there's another conspiracy

so always be careful
not to over-psychologize or psychiatrize

but the fact remains that
the human mind is inhabited by

a natural curiosity and that
the most difficult thing for him is to be

in inconsistencies that are not
understandable on the basis of what we are told.

And one of the ways to be comforted
or to find comfort is

to imagine things that do not exist
but which allow to give meaning

to these elements of reality. And this is
the real conspiracy drift. You see what

I mean? It's a way to
to put back consistency is wrong.

Because coherence is a
basic neurological needs.

And then, of course, we get into things
who become delusional at some point.

But what is complicated in this case
is that in fact negationism

he is on the side of those who
deny the possibility of any problems

of any scheming or any
intentionality. Because it is not true

it's like that nowhere in life.
So they turn the thing around

but these reversals
it is at the same time very Orwelian

and it's very perverse. See? When
the government explains to you that we lock up

the elderly and in the EHPAD
to protect them and then in fact

it's a hecatomb, it's perverse.
If you want to protect

old people, you don't do that.
You do otherwise.

So we are permanently in these
reversals and then after "conspiracy"...

well, it's just like any other
label if I call you a "leftist".

or "Trumpeter", all this means that
by the label that I stick on you

I no longer need to be interested in this
you say, I disqualified you right away.

And that's where, you know, I did
a small "tag" on social networks

"neither sheep nor schemers,
yes to debate, no to insult".

Someone who is convinced that the port
of the outdoor mask can be useful,

I am open to discuss with her.

I don't share this conviction
but maybe she knows things

that I don't know and that with his contact I will
be able to think things differently

maybe the other way around I'll be able to say:
"But listen, look at Holland

and in Scandinavia do not do it, they do not have
no more problems than us so

for me it is rather the proof that 
it is a measure that is not necessary

but at least there is a dialogue that is possible
and the real dialogue is when

you listen to what the other has to say.
Processes like what you describe

but that we see systematized today 
in the media and politics

it's really a way to
close the debate before it is even open

and it scares me because
historically it is on this basis

that all the worst excesses have
always been built. Absolutely.

It is the first step towards
dictatorships this. Yes, that's the fact

not to be able to stand the difference
not to tolerate divergent points of view

to immediately dirty the person you have in your home.
in front of you. And I think you've been there.

I too have 55 brooms, not born of the last rain,
I've never had such violent attacks.

as malevolent and as twisted
that this time. And we felt that there was

a kind of rage, it was necessary at all costs
demolish the man because

his message was unbearable.
And now we are no longer in civility.

We are no longer in respect
we are no longer in humanity.

Yes, and many people tell me that
that is to say that many doctors

many lawyers
have not been used to

to this violence.
And this violence they have been

all very shocked.
Personally I am used to it because

the de-bunkers I have on my back
for years and the funny thing is

is that when they called me they started
always with this sentence: "I am not a

conspirator" to apologize you already see
what they were going to tell me

because they found that things
did not go into all this management

of the crisis and the epidemic.
But some have let go because

precisely it is of an unheard-of violence.
But really as you say it is

something the people who listen to us
can't understand because they

have never experienced this.
Yes, it's a first alarm.

I had already met some perverts
narcissistic on my personal journey

so I knew from experience

this extreme malevolence from someone
who seeks to destroy you at all costs

without any consideration for his humanity.
So I had some personal landmarks

if you want. But what I found most
already struck then already some of these

attacks as far as I'm concerned
I'm sure they come from the industry.

they have been sponsored we know
that there are boxes that do that.

who will search your past on the internet
and then inquire

to be able to get dirty so
I've had things done very well

it was very well documented but
always turned in the direction

to prove what a bad guy I am
and someone who doesn't know his field.

while I am a very good expert,

sorry to have to call him back,
but really with this intention. That being said

that struck me the most in the experience,
is the number of relays of this malevolence

I know people who have told me...
but I stopped reading

at the end of two paragraphs, it's
was nauseated. It was so mean.

See?
And then after me I saw a lot of people.

including people I know in
the health systems of people who have

positions of power, people with
who I thought was in a good relationship

mutual esteem, people with whom
I worked on projects and suddenly, all of a sudden

relayed "posts" but from a
extreme malevolence, saying that I was

an impostor, a crook, but you see some
hyper serious stuff. And all of a sudden

you have a small notable of institutions "hop"
which sends it to its network. And then

I know enough about human psychology
to think

that they must be convinced of the usefulness
to do it you see. They didn't say:

We're going to hurt Jean-Dominique, we'll be happy.
There is something in them

who must have adhered to this manipulation.
But afterwards I find it breathtaking

that the editor of a medical journal
a former hospital director

a person in charge of a health system 
monstrosities post about me

when they know me and they know who I am
And there, the collective process

of stoning where finally everyone throws
his stone. It's like mobbing

in schoolyards :
you get the creep who spots a guy

that does not belong to him it goes against, then afterwards
he's rounding everybody up so that everyone's gonna fuck up

his punch. And that's what
worries me a little bit, so fine,

again I am happily
quite philosophical at this stage of my life

and sufficiently aware when to
what motivates the values that are mine

but I find that there is something
this is what happens to young people who

commit suicide in order to be taken to task
on social networks, you know?

It is this kind of mechanism. And what strikes me
is that there is still no

seems to be an immunity in the collective
compared to that. That is to say

that the responsibility of each
a human being worthy of the name

in the face of attacks of this nature
is to say stop, I'm not participating in this.

We can agree or disagree with Mr. Trotta.
we can agree or disagree

with Mr. Michel, but I don't participate
to something of this nature. And what I saw

on the contrary, it's a bit as if
a lot of Mr. and Mrs. everyone

were completely embarking on
this proposal for a mimetic revival.

But then we know
when there are times of great

collective tension of great stress
there are often outlets for violence

where we take a poor guy who's passing by for a ride.
or who had the misfortune to dare to open his mouth

then all the others keep quiet
and that there is a rampage

it's lynching, you know. Here I am
often read about it on social networks.

This is the first time I've seen it live. 
It feels funny. And at the same time...

Many doctors have told me:
"I thought I had friends

thought they had even
very close friends

I thought I was working with confidence
and because I had a different attitude

a different reasoning from them
they lynched me. Overnight.

It was so violent
that I had been shocked. Psychologically shocked. »

I call it a little bit the virus of truth.
It's where you discover your real friends.

And this is incredible.

Have you been able to see in foreign countries,
and you've been around the world a little bit.

models that still have you
a little bit given back a little hope?

Already here it gave me hope, I don't know. 
what it is for you, but me

I received, but literally,
thousands of messages of support

but of a generosity! People but
who write 4, 5, 6, 7 paragraphs where they talk about themselves.

Which are painted in such goodness
to say, "Thank you so much for doing what you do! »

You know me at the beginning my intention

it was very sanito-genetic.
I said to myself: but it's so anxiety-provoking,

it's so traumatic,
that it is absolutely necessary to give

response elements
reassuring to people for

that they can say, "Yes, I have to be careful,
but no reason to panic. »

And I've had, but literally, thousands
of messages from people who said to me:

"But when I read you,
It was a breath of fresh air,

it has been a lifeline in the
ambient delirium. How good it made me feel! »

And many of them said to me:
"You put words to what I knew to be right

but I didn't have
of vocabulary to say. »

And that is perversity.
It's when you make an entire population believe

that she is wrong.
So what a great sense of what's going on.

So this intention, me it is also 
what did I agree to?

to take hits and put me
forward and suffer consequences.

But the generosity of the people,
You see, she's so touching,

she is so beautiful.
And then afterwards, the...

It also means that if you hadn't been there
if I hadn't been there so full

thousands of others like us,
had not been there, these people would be today

in a rather strong psychological distress.
Yes. And you probably know

that the outlook is very bleak in this area.
That is to say that there is already a wave

in psychiatry, which in fact,
is the real second wave.

And then of people who do not suffer
of classic psychiatric illnesses.

It's not bipolar people
or psychotics who all of a sudden

have an outbreak because of the epidemic.
These are people who were not suffering from anything.

beforehand and which are going into a spin,
so much the treatment, especially media treatment,

was violent. And you see a friend
professor of neuromarketing

which studies the effects on the brain of
advertising messages, was telling me

that they could not believe they were imagining
the effect on who this part is

of the brain which is in permanent vigilance
to see if there is any danger or not.

Have you ever been at home, has there been a presence
even from a relative, but you didn't know

that he was there. Then all of a sudden
you make a monster jump.

"You scared me! " It's the amygdala.
And this amygdala is bludgeoned.

for months and months and months,
and in a way but totally delirious!

And I said very early on, if we were doing
the same hype, with for example

heart attacks :
"Today, 220 heart attacks in France!

Today 10% more heart attacks! »
After three weeks everyone

is afraid of having a heart attack and then everything
the world becomes hypochondriac.

Everything knows what I mean. You've really got a bludgeon
panic. Again a second time

I tried to oppose it,
obviously in pure loss...

And that of course it's going to have
sustainable impacts. We can see that suicide rates

explode, the precariousness, because there again, the precariousness
the effect on the economy will be devastating.

And so we are in the process of
to create a disaster.

I used as a metaphor at the very beginning:
it's like bombing the cities

to fight against malaria.
Now we go on except that there is

even more mosquitoes.
We continue to bomb! And I say to myself:

but what conscience do the rulers have
to make decisions that are

so traumatic without even asking the question?!
When you see kids wearing masks

at school what's it going to do
on their psyche, on their security needs,

of trust?
We are creating monstrous damage

for something that's between the 9th
and the 14th most serious epidemic

and which has been extinct since May.
There is no more epidemic. Yes, there is. It is terrible.

In Switzerland kids will have to carry the mask back?
Yes, above 12 years old.

This is so absurd.
You know, I've published a text by a psychiatrist who specializes

in the delirious puffs.
There are examples in the story

notably in Orleans in 1968. And tells him we are
in a collective delirium.

That is to say that school principals
are so panicked at the thought

that a child can get sick and infect
an elderly person and then dies

and then let it be his fault as a school principal
we block, everything is locked,

we secure everything, but in a deadly way 
really in a collective delirium,

but I'm really thinking about the meaning
psychiatric term. It is in any case

what this psychiatrist says.
In addition, we in France, we had for two months,

almost three months, one non-access 
to the hospital for everything that is

heart attack, stroke,
treatment of cancers...

Here again it is a second wave quite
important.

In addition to psychiatry.
I wondered about containment,

Because when you watch
epidemiology "textbooks",

None of them recommend containment.
like what we've been through. None.

It's not in the recommendations.
They say that it may be useful

at the very beginning of the epidemic for
nip the epidemic in the bud,

but once the virus has spread a little bit,
it's worse than anything

because it brings together contagious people
with not contagious people etc...

So I really tried to see what
research said and the latest studies

that went out in England show that
two thirds of the deaths during

containment did not die from the covid.
They died from the causes you say.

And that the consequences will be long
term.

So it's absolutely true and here it is
it's this drama we've fallen into.

To take precautions
we caused the damage is infinitely worse.

And with governors
that have so much toppled over

in denial and their belief systems, 
that even today they are

totally incapable of questioning themselves,
to consider that maybe it was

not the right thing to do and therefore against all odds,
continue to assert the things we know

today that they are false.
You think they're so dumb that they're not

being aware of it, that they were wrong?
Then no,

I think that... already there was a headline in the newspaper,
at a given time :

"Those who don't want to wear
masks are often

narcissistic or psychopathic". You remember the trick.
I replied on social networks:

"Wait, guys, wait, narcissists...
and psychopaths,

in general they are found in
positions of power, to frighten others

and to enjoy the power they have.
taken to terrorize the population. »

Not to be confused. So I think a part
people in power who are sociopaths.

And that unfortunately we have
channels of accession to power

that favour problematic profiles.

This is a pretty clear statement.
Then the other thing, I see it here because

our politicians in Geneva
they're not bad guys.

They are people of good will, but what I observe is,
it's when you made a mistake

for a long time, the psychological cost
to realize that you made a mistake

is such, that there is this process of denial which
is well known to psychologists,

that is being put in place and that make
against all odds, they continue to assert

that this is the way it is, but almost in good faith.
They convinced themselves.

That's crazy.
The Minister of Health in Geneva,

he held an extraordinary reasoning
on social networks by saying :

"You don't realize, it's because we have
taken the steps we have taken

in March/April that today there are no more
of sick people. And those who criticized us

already in March/April to take
measures taken continue to us

criticize to maintain the measures then
that if we got them up, it'd be like, you know, it'd be like...

as in March and April.
You see, this is completely wrong as a result.

In Sweden they have not confined the epidemic.
is extinguished.

So nowhere does it go back to the
conviction in which is this type:

"if we have arrived at the result in which we have
is today it's because of what we've done "

it's totally fallacious. It is not true.
That's not the reason. But he is

so convinced and I think that
would be so costly on a personal level

to open our eyes to the fact that
no, everything he imposed from a to z

was essentially unnecessary,
that there really is a process

basic psychological issues that concern us
all, which is denial.

Yes, that's right, they are in denial. 
And how do you see it,

you wanted to talk about international politics,
how you see a little bit,

international politics by
to this covid. Do you see

countries that you feel have done well
choices and others that are really

vectors of corruption
Listen to the corruption it is everywhere and then

systemic corruption in particular.
It is the former Minister of Health of Ecuador

who did a paper in the
Lancet to talk about corruption

who is who intrinsically.
The abuse of language that we all commit

is to talk about health policy.
We don't have a health policy.

We have a disease industry. It's not at all the same.
In the West today 80% of diseases

are chronic. They are diseases of 
civilization that would be avoidable.

It is the product of our food,

pollution, stress, lack
of movement, lack of sleep.

So we could reduce by 80% the
diseases from which the population suffers

if it was protected against the factors
of risk and in fact we do nothing,

or next to nothing. It causes this damage
and then we have a medicine

very specialized, very expensive that comes
repair people who are damaged but for whom

nothing was done at the collective level
to avoid damage.

So that's not a health policy.
it is an economy of disease.

From this point of view, the logic is the same,
worldwide, because they have the same interests

that configures it. After what has been observed
fun and interesting in this epidemic.

is that poor countries have
much better, because they reacted much better, because they have

the habit of dealing with not much,
because in many countries

chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine
they know it very well,

they eat it like smarties, in any case.
in some regions they know

that it is not dangerous,
and above all, they are not interesting markets.

for pharmas. So to panic
the United States France and

Switzerland is a guaranteed jackpot.
Panic in Senegal, or... you know...

There, there was this reversal and Raoult
said it early on. But I find

that they gave us lessons
pragmatism and intelligence

but with a slightly disturbing perspective,
which is the decay of the West.

If today we are so incapacitated
to evaluate the seriousness of a phenomenon

to take answers
pragmatic and efficient

and to recognize when, along the way
we made some bad decisions.

It's just that we're ripe for the EHPAD.
Public policies

in the West are just
but completely senile.

It is clear. And you as a scientist
still recognized,

were you still invited
on TV sets

on mainstream radio stations in Switzerland? 
In France a lot. The French have been very nice.

Just one or two who have been around me
who are science journalists

so very close to the... 
but the French was very nice

notably André Bercoff, but in Switzerland
even though I had to be invited

about 50 times on national television
between 2000 and 2017,

to talk about anything and everything
but that's what an anthropologist does:

I was not made to talk about the death of the pope.
John Paul II, and of the staging

of the Catholic Church...
it's great... Sancto subito,

Sancto subito... fuck, guys, they're
had been paid, prepared signs...

An anthropologist, he decodes that.
On the other hand, when it's my field of expertise,

I have been, but boycotted, not according to the
boycotting but radio and television

began to say: "Yeah, we don't know
where this Mr. Michel comes from,

it is dubious,
we're going to check his CV, we feel like

he doesn't know what he's talking about,
finally you see a demolition company...

But who was up to the fact
to tell lies about me

at prime time.
In this case in my exchanges

with an editor in chief I had done
screenshots of the mails we got

which allowed me on my blog to say
but here's what the guy said

on air
and this is the reality of our exchange.

It doesn't shock you that the editor-in-chief
of a so-called prestigious daily newspaper

allows himself to lie only
to smear someone's reputation?

So no, I was confronted with something
very particular and which has been systematic.

Ah, it's incredible!
Has he made a reaction to your blog?

No, but I filed a complaint with the
Swiss press council so in my opinion

it is badly crossed out. I really could
document the fact that he said

on the air something wrong
with the obvious intention of harming me

and to make listeners believe
that I was someone who needed above all

not listen. But that's crazy. It's just
unbelievable. It's really unbelievable.

Yes, but that's the world today you're in.
see. Me, that's where I hallucinate.

You know, I was 18 years old
I've been to the United States,

I saw a lot of stuff I didn't know about
films that were

cut four times for advertising, or the
same pub that was hammered all along.

of a sporting event or program.
I was thinking, thank God that's never going to happen.

at home, you see. And then
Twenty-five years later, we were there.

So unfortunately this is today's world.
it's a world that looks like

to the advertising clip of the
American presidential campaign

or no matter what you say the important thing is
you're trying to smear your opponent

and then journalists then who
in any case in Switzerland have totally

lost sight of the balance of points
of sight and the duty of truth in which they are

to reflect things in a way
approximately in line with reality.

So that's the world today.

And it is the same in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and in
Italian-speaking Switzerland ? Yes, if you want, it's

a little bit different because Switzerland
has a tradition of conformity, extreme.

In France you love to bite your nose off
on the TV sets, everyone's screaming,

it gesticulates, nobody listens to anybody

and then that's a good debate.
In Switzerland, it is above all nothing to say

that could offend anyone,
and that could disturb anyone.

And anyone who creates a breach of the rule
makes himself badly seen by everyone.

So obviously I went quite hard
you see, but by telling me the subject

is so important, the stakes
are so great and above all the risks

that we make the population run with
such bad management are such

that I have a duty to open my mouth.
So then I hit myself head-on

to the fact that criticizing the authorities :
"But Mr. Trotta, you don't think about it! »

In the end it is infantilism,
but which takes another form.

The first interview you did,
I had to pinch myself twice: he is

Switzerland! Not possible.
You must have shocked there in the country.

That's funny of course it was shocking.
And then I have the pleasure

a little bit of pride, I apologize,
but to see that four months

later all I said was
right. So what I found

interesting, so of course I went quite frankly.
and that, my faith, is a risk I took.

but that it is mainly the fact

for saying true things that shocked.
As for Raoult

as for Peronne,
and in the hundreds of emails I have received

of doctors, a significant number of
said to me: "we don't dare to say

what we think for fear of the consequences. »
And I ask the question:

what is a democracy
in which doctors dare not say

what they are convinced of
in their soul and conscience.

In the freedom of opinion,
someone may have a different opinion.

But what is a system
where people are terrorized?

That's it. And what is a system
or doctors are censored?

Or punished for treating people or persecuted, etc...
And then I did

published on my blog a lot of letters
which I have called "resistant doctors".

A woman doctor in Paris who fought
but like a lioness

so that one of those 85-year-old patients
be cared for when they had decided

not to treat her, to let her die,
she struggled for four hours with the head doctor,

she has managed to get her way, and now,
she brings joy to her children and grandchildren.

I had to fight against my government
to find hydroxydoroquine

because I was sick of the covid.
And I was able to arrange a clandestine deal

on a parking lot to get
a drug that could save my life.

I had to trick my government.

What kind of world do we live in? Medicines
that were on sale over the counter a short time ago.

Exactly. And what keeps me
knocking you see is what it looks like

to be an evidence for you,
it's obvious to me, but when I talk about it

for example, to health officials here,
they don't see why it's a problem for me.

They're surprised that it makes me angry
or that it shocks me

or that I find it questionable.
That's crazy. It's crazy but I think

that we've tipped over
in a collective madness.

People are in awe.
There's a psychic rift that makes you think more...

So sometimes it goes into hysteria.

I've had medical teachers
who insulted me by telling me

that I was dangerous.
Hysterical. I wanted to throw them out.

a bucket of water in the face
to bring them back to their senses.

University professors of medicine.
It shows that the emotional brain

it is even in everyone's home since

just because you're a university professor
that you can't be in the same state

of inner panic. And he gave you one of the arguments?
Yes. What did he give you?

as an argument? Why were they hysterical?
What were they mad at you about? Listen in part.

I understood because he said
that he disputed my statement

that we were in a natural order of magnitude
for an epidemic in terms of

contagiousness, dangerousness and lethality.
And he said to me, but you don't account for it!

We had dozens and dozens of beds
with people in intensive care,

it never happened, so...
and from this point of view he was not wrong.

That is to say, the clinical reality,
as it can be observed

at the peak of an epidemic it's different
the epidemiological reality that says that

it didn't kill more than usual.
It is two realities that are adjacent,

if you want. But him because he was
so anxious, and then it was a man

more than 70 years old, so I think that deep down
he was freaking out about himself. He felt like

that death was lurking and then me,
instead of fighting with him against death,

I was saying that
but no, but no, death was not dangerous.

And then somehow he couldn't stand it.
So these are arguments

that he was trying to get, but I had a good time.
repeat it five or six times until the moment when the

where I was forced to block it
social networks so much it became harassing.

To explain to him:
I don't dispute what you're saying.

but from an epidemiological point of view
that's what it is. But he had lost

the ability to think about these issues.
I hope that he will read and listen to you and then

he will realize that, since the internet has some
memory,

you were right. Oh, I didn't so much
confidence in it. You know what

Max Planck said about scientists?
He said, quite rightly, and so he who has

revolutionized physics with physics
quantum, he was saying a new theory

is not necessary because the proponents of the
ancient theories adhere to it,

it is necessary because the proponents
of the old theories end up dying

and there's a new generation coming
who has no prejudices

compared to the theory. And you see, I didn't
so much hope on that side.

I think that people who are so robbed do not
will never be right. In any case

we're going to keep fighting,
We've been talking for an hour.

It passes quickly the time
that we discuss together.

In any case, Jean-Dominique, you continue.
Subscribe to his blog. Read,

share his articles, because
Frankly, they are extremely well done,

and very documented very sourced, it is really
the work of a very great professional

and do not hesitate to share them frankly.
Jean-Dominique, thank you

you can go on my channel whenever you want.
Thanks to you, frankly, one moment

of quality. That's why time flies.
And then indeed

Fortunately, free electrons
as you and I dare to take

their responsibilities. I've been criticized a lot
not to be an academic. And at some point,

my wife told me, made me observe:
"But if you were a university professor

with a 20-year career,
you would never have dared to say what you said. »

And that's where the difference lies,
on the contrary it must be valued,

listen to everyone and so that
people can make up their own minds

according to what makes sense.
Thanks to you in any case.

Thank you Jean-Dominique thank you bye-bye.
See you soon! Ciao!