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!