DIDIER RAOULT lâche les 3 révélations sur la SCIENCE que personne n'attendait | GPTV

Sister, let's remember the last book published last spring, The Factist Society, Journal of a Conspiracy Theorist. It's a book from Faillard Press. Well, we're right on the subject. I was recently reading some news on Google about you, or they're making a big deal about a gang, the Cherry Gang, I think, something like that, with a kind of persecution that you're the object of on the internet. They themselves say that they're being persecuted. That's what's really funny, it's the victimization of those who persecute. I admit that the world we live in is extraordinary. This society of factism, the Empire of Lies that you also sometimes talk about in the West. Could you tell us a little bit more about it in relation to the book you wrote? Yes, if you want, it's me, you know me a little, I'm not really interested in reacting to current events. I like everything to teach me a lesson. That's why nothing bothers me, because whether things are pleasant or unpleasant, as my teacher Nich used to say, it's rather unpleasant things that teach me something. Pleasant things don't teach me anything. And so this question that arises here is the same, if you like, as that of your previous interlocutor. This is what I'm explaining in The Society of Factis, is that we are witnessing a general phenomenon that is absolutely cataclysmic mediocrity in all areas, including mine. And mediocrity is associated with totalitarianism because we can no longer tolerate contradiction. Yeah. When you're bad, you can't listen to what others say, especially those who are good. That's a kind of caricature. If it's not your job to look at people's scientific relevance, but if you do, you'll be terrified. So, one of the reasons why it aroused such fury is that I was already the object of extreme jealousy because, without insulting my modesty, I've been able to quote microbiologists for over 20 years, 25 years now, and so the number of people who hate that, who hate success... Remember, we still live in the country of 1792, when the head of the navigator, the world's greatest scientist, the greatest French poet and its greatest jurist was cut off in the face of 6 months. So, in 1994, sorry, it's a recurring phenomenon in totalitarian countries, if you like, of not being able to tolerate controversy, and controversy is the very basis of social life. There is no social life without controversy. And so the only thing that really is, but if you look at the book, The Factist Society, by the way, I was already saying, look at the collapse of our children's reading and arithmetic skills, which has worsened since my book came out. France has dropped another five places, but all the media reports have dropped one or two places every year. I'm saying it's stable, we only lose one or two places, but after 10 years, you lose one place every year. Yes. The latest PISA ranking, the PISA ranking, the PAC, which is the ranking of adults, there are 30% of adults in France who cannot understand a page of writing. I don't know if you see where we are. It's the same with science, if you like. And so I'm a kind of model for how France is being destroyed. The IHU was the place, hold on tight because it seems unbelievable, but here too, you just have to look at the data. In the IHU in 2020 and 2021, there were nine people who were very highly cited according to Clarivate's analysis. There are 10 in the analysis, but this is one of them. It's the one that is used the most. There were nine at the IHU out of 85 highly cited researchers in medicine and biology. This is of course unique in France. And in infectious diseases, it's unique in the world. So you had the reactor core of global infectious diseases and you had the core of the most productive research in France. You have to see that the equivalent of Pasteur, there were two, at INSERM, there were three. At the University of Paris, there were three and at the IHU, there were nine. Yeah. And so they succeeded in destroying that, they succeeded in destroying it scientifically. It's still alive because despite the fact that they cut off funding, even after I left, although they know that obeying never solves problems. They cut off funding, so the state no longer funds it, but fortunately I had organized recurring loans. On the one hand with a Japanese microscopy manufacturer, and on the other hand with the people to whom we rent the premises who occupy them because I built a building there in the middle, which really annoyed them, which also explains a number of things. I left the ultra-technical building that I had built, but I became the project manager after having had a very, very serious argument with all the state bodies. I sold it at €2,000 per sqm, while the hospital opposite built a new facility for €5,500 per sqm concurrently. That's the French state. And of course, when Ligas came, they said that our management wasn't very good. I had €12 million invested and the university hospital had €1.4 billion in debt. Okay. So all of this is unbearable for mediocrity. And so when you have people who are extremely mediocre, of course, they hate success, that's just human nature. You only have to know history to know that success arouses hatred that is unheard of. But in the moments, if you like, of very, very great mediocrity, in what we have seen to be very great mediocrity, then it's merciless. And we are also able to see things that show you to what extent I think because you take everything into account. The IQ in Europe is decreasing. We have lost 5 points in 20 years. France will be between 25th and 35th place, as for PISA and GDP per capita, as these are phenomena that are congruent, that all go together. So France is declining at a considerable speed. Which is not bad, which is not surprising, because when you see... listen, honestly, the political debate, I don't want to get involved in saying who I want to vote for. But there is one that interests me, the one that interests me the most of all, because I think he is the craziest, it is the mayor. You see? A guy who was the Minister of Economy at the head of the most incredible failure imaginable. 1,000 billion in debt. While he was a minister, he wrote a book describing his partner's anus, which is really a rather surprising ministerial activity. While another minister, Mrs. Schap, was describing her sex parties, and now, with a stroke of brilliant light, he says: "Since children can't read, they now have to start compulsory school at the age of one." So if you want to be crazier than that and for it to be repeated over and over again without anyone saying, "But you know this guy is completely crazy, he has to be stopped." Finally, the proof that schooling at age 3 doesn't work is that since it became compulsory at age 3 and people are prevented from being homeschooled, children are doing less and less well. Nothing works, nothing at all because they replace French and maths with sex education. And the consequence of this, which is quite extraordinary, is that young people no longer have sexuality. There are 30% of young people who no longer have a partner before the age of 30 and who therefore no longer have children. So it's a kind of collective failure. So I'm just illustrating this and personally, if you knew, I know, I continue to do research because it amuses me and you can't stop me from working on data that is public. I wrote one of the best papers of my life this year on the revolution of evolution based on genetics. Yeah. A paper that, for me, is an extraordinary paper that I'm writing with two other retirees and one who's not very young, if you like, and we're having a blast. We're, uh... we... There are data analyses that can be done thanks to absolutely extraordinary databases that no one knows how to exploit because no one knows how to do science with it. So personally, I don't care at all. I think it's typical, you know, this mediocrity that's taking hold everywhere. Yo

big deal about a gang, the cherry gang, I think, something like that, with a kind of persecution that you're the object of on the internet. They themselves say that they're being persecuted. That's what's really funny, it's the victimization of those who,

who persecute. I admit that the world we live in is extraordinary. This society of factism, the Empire of lies that you also sometimes talk about in the West. Could you tell us a little bit more about it in relation to the

book you wrote? Yes, if you want, it's me, you know me a little, I'm not really interested in reacting to current events. I like everything to teach me a lesson. That's why nothing bothers me, because whether things are

pleasant or unpleasant, as my teacher Nich used to say, it's rather unpleasant things that teach me something.

Pleasant things don't teach me anything . And so this question that arises here is the same, if you like, as that of your previous interlocutor. This is what I'm explaining in the society of factis, is that we are witnessing a

general phenomenon that is absolutely, uh, cataclysmic mediocrity in all areas , including mine. And mediocrity is associated with totalitarianism because we can no longer tolerate contradiction .

Yeah. When you're bad, you can't listen to what others say, especially those who are good. That's a kind of caricature. If it's not your job to look at people's scientific relevance, but if you do, you'll be terrified. So,

one of the reasons why it aroused such fury is that I was already the object of extreme jealousy because, without insulting my modesty, I've been able to quote microbiologists for over 20 years , 25 years now, and so the number of

people who hate that, who hate success ...Remember, we still live in the country of 1792, when the head of the navigator, the world's greatest scientist, the greatest French poet and its greatest jurist was cut off in the face of 6 months. So, in 1994, sorry,

it's a recurring phenomenon in totalitarian countries, if you like, of not being able to tolerate controversy, and controversy is the very basis of social life. There is no social life without controversy. And so the only thing that really is, but if you look

at the book, the factist society, by the way, I was already saying, look at the collapse of our children's reading and arithmetic skills, which has worsened since my book came out. France has dropped another five places, but all the media reports have dropped one

or two places every year. I'm saying it's stable, we only lose one or two places, but after 10 years, you lose one place every year.

Yes. The latest PISA H ranking, the Piza ranking, the PAC, which is the ranking of adults, there are 30%of adults in France who cannot understand a page of writing. I don't know if you see where we are. It's the same with

science, if you like. And so I'm a kind of model for how France is being destroyed. The IU was the place, hold on tight because it seems unbelievable, but here too, you just have to look at the data. In the IU in 2020 and 2021,

there were nine people who were very highly cited according to Clarville's analysis. There are 10 in the analysis, but this is one of them. It's the one that is used the most. There were nine at the IHU out of 85 highly cited

researchers in medicine and biology. This is of course unique in France. And in infectious diseases, it's unique in the world. So you had the reactor core of global infectious diseases and you had the core of the most productive

research in France. You have to see that the equivalent of Pasteur, there were two, at INCERM, there were three.

At the University of Paris, there were three and at the IchU, there were nine.

Yeah. And so they succeeded in destroying that, they succeeded in destroying it scientifically. It's still alive because despite the fact that they cut off funding, even after I left, although they know that obeying never solves problems. They cut off funding,

so the State no longer funds it, but fortunately I had organized recurring loans. On the one hand with a Japanese microscopy manufacturer, and on the other hand with the people to whom we rent the premises who occupy them

because I built a building there in the middle, which really annoyed them, which also explains a number of things.

I left the ultra-technical building that I had built, but I became the project manager after having had a very , very serious argument with all the State bodies. I sold it at € 2,000 per sqm, while the hospital opposite

built a new facility for € 5,500 per sqm concurrently. That's the French state. And of course, when Ligas came, they said that our management wasn't very good. I had € 12 million invested and the university hospital had € 1.4 billion in debt. Okay. So

all of this is unbearable for mediocrity. And so when you have people who are extremely mediocre, of course, they hate success, that's just human nature. You only have to know history to know that success arouses hatred that is unheard of. But in the moments,

if you like, of very, very great mediocrity, in what we have seen to be very great mediocrity, then it's merciless. And we are also able to see things that show you to what extent I think because you take everything into

account. The IQ in Europe is decreasing . We have lost 5 points in 20 years.

France will be between 25th and 35th place, as for PISA and GDP per capita, as these are phenomena that are congruent, that all go together. So France is declining at a considerable speed. Which is not bad, which is not

surprising, because when you see... listen, honestly, the political debate, I don't want to get involved in saying who I want to vote for. But there is one that interests me, the one that interests me the most of all, because I

think he is the craziest, it is the mayor. You see? A guy who was the Minister of Economy at the head of the most incredible failure imaginable.

1,000 billion in debt. While he was a minister, he wrote a book describing his partner's anus, which is really a rather surprising ministerial activity. While another minister, Mrs. Schap, was describing her sex parties, and now, with a stroke

of brilliant light, he says: "Since children can't read, they now have to start compulsory school at the age of one." So if you want to be crazier than that and for it to be repeated over and over again without anyone saying, "But

you know this guy is completely crazy, he has to be stopped." Finally, the proof that schooling at age 3 doesn't work is that since it became compulsory at age 3 and people are prevented from being homeschooled, children are doing

less and less well. Nothing works, nothing at all because they replace French and maths with sex education.

And the consequence of this, which is quite extraordinary, is that young people no longer have sexuality. There are 30%of young people who no longer have a partner before the age of 30 and who therefore no longer have children.

So it's a kind of collective failure. So I'm just illustrating this and personally, if you knew, I know, I continue to do research because it amuses me and you can't stop me from working on data that is public. I wrote

one of the best papers of my life this year on the revolution of evolution based on genetics.

Yeah. A paper that, for me, is an extraordinary paper that I'm writing with two other retirees and one who's not very young, if you like, and we're having a blast. We're, uh...we...There are data analyses that can be done

thanks to absolutely extraordinary databases that no one knows how to exploit because no one knows how to do science with it. So personally, I don't care at all. I think it's typical, you know, this mediocrity that's taking hold everywhere. You know, we're going

to look for it, we're going to say, " Listen, now, to combat disinformation, we're going to set up an integrity committee." The integrity committee includes all three of them, Ms.

Costagliola, who worked for the industry, even though it's forbidden by French law when you're listed in the Court of Auditors. She just has to read it. I don't know why the people at the Court of Auditors didn't write an

Article 40 because they say that there are INCERM researchers who worked for the pharmaceutical industry without being doctors. It's illegal. No, if it's illegal, we have to report it, we have to prosecute her before the financial prosecutor's office because

she worked for all those who sold products for AIDS and hepatitis C because she was the one who thought she was the priestess of the interpretation of the results of therapeutic trials.

Mr. Bouimar, the money comes to him through associations and other things, and it pours in like crazy, including through Pfizer to promote Parlide. As for Mr. Maisonneu, I thought that this minister, for once, reacted quickly by throwing him out. Because he received I

don't know how many hundreds of thousands directly into his own little box, which he had managed to hide, because since he wasn't a doctor, the pharmaceutical industry wasn't required to declare that it had funded it. It's only required to declare the corruption

of doctors, not the corruption of others, even if they have responsibilities. So we are a corrupt country. We are a country in which it is the corrupt who explain what integrity is. You know, you can look it up—when we looked at the beginning,

we were curious—there was a European site called Euroforoc that collected data in France. One of the ways to get around the law that had been put in place at the time thanks to my friend Domic Maranki, who was the first

director of the NSM at the time of Xavier Bertrand, was the mandatory declaration of direct or indirect donations made by the pharmaceutical industry to doctors.

Yes. And now, the data on the ministry's website is incredibly scattered. So it's a real job to track all that down.

There are people in Europe who have done the Euro forc because the United States had already marked the dollar forox so that we could know who had what. And we looked at this at the beginning of the crisis and we showed

that there was an absolute correlation between criticism of hydroxychloroquine and the level of funding. The top one was Professor Raffi, who had received € 600,000 and who called me to threaten me with death anyway. So, if you want to know, the level of

corruption in this country is something that is outrageous. The lack of clarity about conflicts of interest is terrifying. There you have it. So we can always talk about each other's corruption. I am sensitive to this because, as you know, people spend

their lives talking about corruption in Africa because of their links with Africa. But in Africa, there is a system called Malaki where they prosecute politicians who have enriched themselves and they go looking for money here, there and so on. I think

that we have immaturity in this country . So we are marked by great mediocrity.

The political personnel are atrociously mediocre. I have never seen such a cast in medicine. I have never seen anything like it. So of course, they can't stand the fact that there are people who have a scientific reputation and who say the

opposite of them, it's unbearable. You see? And that's what the totalitarian state is. At some point, we can't stand the contradiction anymore because we don't have the means to stand the contradiction. By the way, you know the huge study we did on hydroxychloroquine

. Yes. And treatment, 30,000 people, no one from the government ever came to look at the results. There have already been three studies that have been published on this data that was available and then the French government went to

great lengths to have this data withdrawn, which was available and perfectly legal, if you like. But for now, the publications are still not...

But it's not the French government, it's not the health authorities who said, "We're going to look at what they did." And yet, in order to guarantee them, we asked a bailiff to validate each of the operations by showing that

none of these data entry operations depended on us. And so this state cannot do it, they are so bad that they cannot tolerate contradiction. And so the only way is censorship or this criminal association because even in this criminal association, there are

still elements that are missing. The Marianne funding that funded people to fight against disinformation, it is not yet between two livesnau and between two personal stories that funded the fight against disinformation made by corrupt people. It is so ridiculous

that if you want, I don't know, the history of France will have to tell this story in 20 or 50 years because it is so extraordinary. It is extraordinary. If there are people, if, if there is a bit of lucidity, of

intelligence that returns...but we can't, you see. I'm afraid, but it's perhaps a fear linked to my age that, now, I can see clearly, that I won't have time to see things turn around.

You know, when I was president of the university, I was the first to make thesis contracts so that students would have at least one international publication at the end of their thesis so that they could have a career that

wasn't based on the thesis, yeah. But on international publication to go all over the world. Well now, since it's not at all a priority to do science when you're taking a science test, the priority is comfort. We don't

want to bother you. And so now you have referents, mentors, and in my own university, there are students who have gone to complain about the fact that their thesis supervisor was telling them, "Listen, now you're going to submit your thesis, it's time for you

to finish your article." He is harassing me, telling me that I have to finish my article, an article. You see, that's the country, the country we're in. And so, we've collapsed there too.

I've been ringing the bell for 20 years of my life, saying, "Look at research, especially medical research, it's going to hell." I went to see President Chirak about that. I went to see them, I struggled as much as I could, and I

was neither left nor right. I went at the same time as Philippe Even, who was a socialist activist. So we tried to prevent that, but at the time in France , if you look at my report written in

2002, uh, France still produced between 5 and 6%of the world's science. You have to know that in the 18th century, France produced 40%of the world's science.

Okay? We were already at 5%, now we are between 2 and 2.5%. You see, in the space of 20 years, that's where France's proportion has been divided by 10%in the space of 20 years. But you still have all the big newspapers in

power saying, "No, no, but it's marginal and it's not important and it's". There you have it, and so it's us, but in the middle of the West, that is to say that there is, uh, an incredible major crisis, uh, in the

West, in Western science which has been completely devoured by the, uh, the pharmaceutical industry, which has also devoured the, uh, the pension funds have devoured both the pharmaceutical industry and scientific publications, which have become, uh, journals that advertise for the pharmaceutical

industry and nothing else. And if you oppose that, it's the same. The most toxic being the Nature Springer group, a gang of thugs that they replaced, there is no more academic in there. The editors-in-chief are almost self-taught , they have published nothing. We can

look and while the scientific journals were at the beginning, there are a few that remain, those by the way that have not bothered us at all, which remain linked to, uh, learned societies. Those are correct, but even they can have

problems and errors. We have to be very vigilant, because the financial power is colossal, of course. But all those who are just African machines, whether it's Nature, Springer, Elsvire, Wiley, Plos, all of them are African machines, and of course African machines make

money: their only purpose is to make money. They don't do science, they don't do truth, they make money. And so we have a real problem. Especially since there is a Western tension due to the arrival on the market because don't

think that TMU is the only one. There is also in scientific publications, the Chinese are arriving, the Indians are arriving, the Arabs are arriving, and everyone has realized that it's a huge pie. It doesn't cost anything anymore to produce newspapers. You put it on

the internet, you see, it's the same thing as on YouTube. It costs nothing to do this. So with a camera or a computer program, it costs nothing. And they charge you € 3,000 to € 5,000.

And these big newspapers have managed to get the French state to pay. I don't know what kind of deal they had, I don't want to know. Agreements called coupon agreements. € 135 million are paid every year to these big scientific

companies and they force scientists or push them to publish in these prepaid newspapers by telling them: "That way, you don't have to pay anything, it's the state that pays the newspapers directly." But then, don't publish in other newspapers, because the

newspapers that aren't part of the cartel are rogue newspapers, you know. So Europe is trying to defend itself, Europe and the United States are trying to defend themselves, if you like, against the competition because the price of all this is completely crazy.

You can't be asked to pay € 5,000 to do nothing, you see. Yeah, exactly. We're at the end of a cycle. And at the end of this cycle, with everything in everything, people in France becoming increasingly stupid and no longer able to read or count,

well, well, you have a political staff that is an exact reflection of what France is, who wouldn't put up with it, who would have the greatest difficulty putting up with it if there was someone who was intelligent and had a

vocabulary, because they wouldn't even understand what they were saying, wouldn't understand one word out of three. You see? So we're in a situation that is a situation. The fact that people are saying that all they need to do now is get by, be quiet, and the

most important thing in universities right now is moral harassment. You shouldn't tell someone that this is sexism, you shouldn't say, "Don't give compliments", you shouldn't open the door to a lady because that's sexism.

If you like, it's a cardinal sin not to produce science, uh, that's not it, and since the research market is colossal, you realize in France 2.5%of the GDP, it's huge to produce nothing. You see, not very, very little. And those who

are productive, I'm far too old for that, but those who are productive, the most productive, they leave because the working conditions are bad. Given that we don't care about you, it's in France , we even invented something, the

biggest prizes that are given in France . Look at the CNRS gold medal or the Grand Prix d'In, I know what I'm talking about anyway. The Grand Prix de l'INSER, these are the only prizes where, contrary to their name, the

prize means you get money. It's the force that invented that the biggest prizes give more money, they don't give money, they cost a crazy price, you know. I was the grand prize winner of the INSER, I don't know how much, 400

people, the ministers, it must have cost € 300,000, that thing to make a body for people to shake hands. But the researcher doesn't get anything at all, you see.

And that is the situation, even though our researchers are the lowest paid in the world.

So, uh, there's something there. And so the researchers who are the least careful go and eat from the pharmaceutical industry, because that's where they collect money. Because in France, we don't pay them, and even when we give them prizes, except when

they're private prizes, most of the time they're given a handshake as a prize, a piece of paper, and so it's quite astonishing. I've won prizes all over the world, and I'm the only one who hasn't given me the slightest

resource, and the prize. The others give me a little something, not always extraordinary things, but in a way, it's the world we live in, it's not just congratulations. Of course, you see.

There are love and proofs of love that go with it. You said earlier that history would judge the current era very harshly, that's for sure. Will it see, uh, uh, in relation to this mediocrity that is, by the way, uh,

politico-media, huh, because there is the media side. Journalists are not bad either in the genre, uh, of mediocrity, uh, and we still had at one time other journalists at another level in France.

Is there really a period, you have a long professional career, was there a period, a moment of inflection, of tipping point or is it like a lake that is about to freeze? a lowering of the temperature until it freezes. That's

what totalitarianism is, by the way. Finally, is a definition that is sometimes given that says, was it 20 years ago? For example, I see 20 years ago as the end of Chirakism. I have the impression that the political personnel

dropped significantly at that time. Is this also true in other areas? Is there a moment of inflection or is it continuous? There is, there is indisputably, there were two France has been struggling for a long time since the revolution, France has not

recovered from the destruction of universities, it is still a great invention, we are alone in destroying universities, it is true, and in the course of the 19th century, as I told you, France, which is the first to pass behind Germany, which

explains the catastrophe of 70, we have a technological delay and a mediocrity of military personnel which is terrible . Uh, and at the time, the great intellectuals of the time, uh, Pasteur Ten Renant, wrote saying, "Wait, you have completely abandoned intellectual

training. Research must be resumed, we must redo research," and he advocated for a reconstruction of the university in the German style, the HBT would not be done. Uh, and on the contrary, things will continue like this. The, the, the, the Belle Époque was not a

very great era for science. Of course, the second, the arrival of the Second World War, will show our weakness in every corner because once again, it's not just weapons, it's not just soldiers, it's when heads are weak.

Heads are weak. When we have neither head nor courage, and that and then there is a rebound that is very interesting, which is the rebound after the Great War. In the post-World War II period, there is always a

remarkable breath of fresh air. You know, it's a very famous phrase by Democritus, taken up by Okay, who says, who says Podemos is the father of men and gods. That is to say, conflict, polemics, war, war and the father in France, in French

we have trouble translating it, we are the conflict and the father of men, conflicts redistribute the cards in a violent manner, of course, but it deteriorates quite quickly in the 4th Republic and then there is de Gaulle who is a character who loves

research, who loves greatness because research is not a democratic thing. Research is greatness. No, no.

And so if you don't like greatness, you can't have the money. There you go. If you don't like the...It's the taste for greatness and de Gaulle will try to reconstitute everything. He will, I had the opportunity to write this. I did

journalism a long time ago in Le Figaro . I had written about thirty articles.

Oh yes, yes, yes, or in the orange pages of Le Figaro when Rosa I explained that part of the decline in research was that Chevellement tried to get things going again, but the infrastructure was poor, but under Pompidou, research funding was cut by

30 to 40%. Oh yeah, so Pompidou didn't like research. He had a money-grubbing side to him. He was a banker, and scientific excellence wasn't his thing, right? That's not his thing, is it? So, there was...Let's not talk about Giscar

, who was a big fantasist, if you like. But, uh, Mitteran had Chevellement in his environment. Unfortunately, Chevellement, for medical research, Chevellement made a big casting mistake by appointing a polytechnician to head the INCERNE, who destroyed hospital research and who never recovered.

Yeah. And so, ever since, there we are, and we can look at the castings as we go along. and gradually there is a mix, as you say without saying it, if you like.

There is an increasing mix between politics and communication. And communication is something for idiots, it's advertising. It's something for idiots.

Uh, and so, uh, which of course goes as far as marriage, huh, and which is deteriorating. But you can't say that it's new. I remember it was striking in the debate, uh, when, uh, Mitteran was interviewed for Mastrich. The three

journalists who were interviewing were the wives of three of his ministers. It's something extravagant. Yes, yes, yes, yes. So it doesn't date from everyone anyway. No, no, it's if you like this degradation of morals, uh, and a diversion, I think one of the

things that could have given a little more vitality to this country, it was really a diversion, it was really the referendum of 69. It was absolutely necessary to break the Parisianism that has become the west of Paris, it has

become towards Versailles. It's a thing where morals have degraded to a point that is that of Versailles, you know.

It's stable, so we have to break that. We have to distribute it throughout the country, create real regionalization with autonomy and leave only the sovereign right, uh, centralized, on the one hand. On the one hand, he decided to transform the

Senate into a second, an assembly of wise men and not a branch of the National Assembly. It's a brilliant idea. He wanted to create the equivalent of an expanded economic and social committee with wise men, with people who had held responsibilities,

with on the one hand, I would find the least bad system, a proportional representation in the National Assembly and an assembly of wise men to calm the nervousness of the moment. You see, we would have a balance of this nature,

but it's not certain that it would work either because all this only reflects the general state, uh, of the will of the population. And if the population is as it is, that it doesn't really want to work, that it wants to have

leisure time, that it doesn't want to suffer, that it doesn't want to grow old, uh, what do you want me to tell you? We are in that stage of civilization. It's already happened. I love ancient authors, if you like. It's

already happened. You read in Latin authors, you find that, you have to say Juvenal or you have to say. It's already happened. We've already had the same thing with people who had the same and morals that went in all directions.

Uh, the thirst for gold. Uh, we had the same thing, huh. So, uh, and then it collapsed and then there was a new episode and then sometimes there are no new episodes because when there have been three or four episodes like that,

the capacity to react is exhausted. That's what happened with the Empire. Roman. It didn't just fall apart once.

It happened gradually, but it was the same here. The Romans didn't want to fight anymore. So they hired the barbarians to fight in their place and they said, "Listen, since we're fighting in their place, we can just take everything, you see.""So here,

we're the same, we have debates. I disagree with most people on immigration because I think immigration is necessary to survive. I don't know how far we're going to go because the people who work, and in my experience, the dynamic, willing ones who still

have energy and ambition, are the emigrants. So, we have to look at that, right? And so, we're at that stage of the Roman Empire where, in order to have soldiers, they had to recruit abroad because the Romans no longer

fought. They had comfort, bread and entertainment, like we saw, which is wonderful, the Olympic Games. In reality, these Olympic Games are still a big scam, people only for the Pope, and they've lost money now, after 2 years. You look at the economic

analyses, they've lost money, it's a big lie. But we celebrated. even for the first time the 1 year anniversary of the Paris Olympics. So we don't know what to do anymore to say, look, we're partying. Here we are, we're partying,

we're not working. And if you think that this could work, but it was Marx's hypothesis, which is now coming back into fashion. Look at the laziness lodges.

Yeah, he's the one who won, not Marx. You see. So in relation to this mediocrity, this refusal to hear contradiction, divergence, we see that there are still differences.

France is particularly badly off compared to the United States. You come back to this in your last post, I think , on X. Uh, they can't kill the truth, so they kill the person who brought it.

You explain that in the United States, the Minister of Health, well, there are truths that are emerging, whether it's about, well, the recognition of hydroxychlorquine, hydroxychloroquine as the best solution. The side effects of Pfizer, after AstraZeneca, including turbocancers, well, all that, that's

how it is, are starting to be recognized in some Western countries. But then in France, I was reading again recently about this famous" cherry gang "that was relayed by all the media, which explained that you were completely wrong: it was an absolute

imposture, that hydroxy not only was useless, but was dangerous. We're still there, huh, we haven't changed. We've stayed there.

Yes, but once again, you know, we have to take things where they come from.

But I'm less optimistic than you in the United States, I think that it's facing extreme difficulties. It's extraordinarily difficult. Yes. Uh, because the powers that be, the financial stakes are such, which is one of the reasons, you know, people would

like me to do I've been involved in politics for 30 years. I never wanted to do it. I'm past that age. The contradictions you're faced with are such that you can't have a line that's right for yourself. You see? Kennedy is

a character entirely different from me, whom I like a lot. I think that a lot of the things I've done are linked to my own genealogy, to my family history, if you like. Well, my grandmother, when she was 60, was 1.50 m tall and weighed

40kg. She was teleported to Vasbruc because she had led the resistance network in Marseille while Mon Gamber had taken over, who was the director of the Marseille resistance network. So if you want, it gives examples and ways to

follow. Ten says he has a family, that's something. But his niece denounced Keled as a madman. from the United States. They still know what a conflict of interest is. They have a pretty clear idea of what a conflict of

interest is. And so the guys showed that Caroline Kennedy was receiving millions of dollars. And they released that, they published that because there are some opposition newspapers in the United States, which is much rarer here , there aren't any at all. Uh, and so

she kept quiet, she said," Oh no, no, that's not going to work. She was Merk's ambassador to Australia. Merk is the biggest crook with Per, right? So if you want, you have to be careful in the United States. There are still

journalists. There are still journalists. There are still newspapers. There are still very courageous people. Americans have a taste for heroism that has been lost in France. In France, at least for the most part, in the media and among

politicians, heroes are no longer fashionable. That's just the way it is. There haven't been any for too long.

And so in the U.S., yes, it doesn't mean—I don't know if they'll pull through, or even how. Of course, once again, we can change things through chaos. We can't, we can't change things . The idea that we can change things by

slippage is one and is not supported by history. That's not how it happens. It happens through chaotic events.

Yeah. And so, uh, that's how we got out of the Middle Ages, paradoxically enough.

I must have written that in one of my books, I think it's in Moticus. We emerged from the Middle Ages, thanks to or because of a coincidence, after the worst catastrophe that had befallen the West, the Black Death.

Yeah. You had 30%of the population, then the West ruled the world. We arrived at the Renaissance, the West dominated the world just after the worst catastrophe that had befallen the West. And so when you see when Democritus the great Democritus says

Polemos is the father of men and gods, that means something. So it's catastrophic situations that allow things to change. And if you don't have a catastrophic situation, which is one of the reasons why things are so complex, look at the end of the Second

World War, what should you do? Uh, Gaul comes in there. Uh, again, I followed these things because my family was very , uh, invested in them. My grandfather was once the president of the Bougeux purge committee. What do you do with

all these people? What do you do with that? When you had 95%of prefects, 90% of judges, or collaborated. What do you do? Do you behead everyone? What do you do? You can't do that, except in situations where it happens on its own, but you

can't if you want to. And so that's why you ended up with Papon, who eventually became a minister. Did it take time to come back to that? And it was practically forbidden, you know. We talked about that again, about the

horror of the French deportations, if you like, in the 60s. There was a period of obscurity, there was a cloud of fog. uh by René and then by Jean Ferrard who said "But you know what happened anyway?" And and the guy who

wrote this which is an absolutely remarkable book by Robert Mer who wrote it in 55 called Death and My Bait that guys are now rewriting years later which is exactly the same thing that we will find at the trial was boycotted.

It was considered a horrible bastard to talk about that, it's over. We reconcile, we are all friends, we are all buddies, we mustn't talk about it anymore.

Yeah. And so that means that you have kept exactly the same staff who are ready to obey anything. And that's what we've seen again here. I've seen again.

People who obey everything, we tell them anything, they believe it. You see , talking about you say "But you know, is this thing one of the three most prescribed drugs in the world?" I even pulled out an article from the WHO where it said, at

95, there were 6 billion prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in the world this year and saturated 10%of people. But this is interesting, we'll see, I'm watching with great curiosity this new minister who is already a rheumatologist, she fired this house of

work who is a scoundrel who is a big dishonest. was part of this gang there, the gang in Bonoau of We'll explain to you what is the truth. And uh, this lady is a rheumatologist. And so this lady, she spent her life prescribing

hydroxychloroquine because it was a basic drug in rheumatology and at the dosage that I used, not the one used by these crazy English people, they used toxic doses of course.

You know that we asked Bron the question, you realize how Mr. Raou gave doses that were not toxic. You did your medical test on him, he did his test when he was the Minister of Health. He did his medical test on the toxicity of

hydroxychloroquine. Okay. That's extraordinary. So he said below 2 g, it's never toxic. From 2 g, it's quite often toxic. We gave 600 mg.

The English in their study gave 2 g. They said, look, there are two deaths.

That's all written there. You just have to read the literature, not be ignorant and not be stupid. You know, it helps. Yes, well, but since ignorance is fashionable and stupidity is common usage, well, people can continue to tell any nonsense if you

want. Not one of them is going to say, "Oh, I was wrong after all." That's not true, it's nonsense. You see, what did you want to do? I repeated it because I was annoyed with Landet because I was

the only French person who was an editorial consultant for Land 7. So I had sent my second paper on hydroxychloroquine to Land 7. Very well , they rejected it without reading it.

And then they sent me to review a paper on hydroxychloroquine written by rheumatologists. 1 million treatments with hydroxychloroquine in rheumatology , mainly for rheumatoid arthritis, compared to 1 million treatments with the alternative treatment sulfadia and a sulfide. So are there more cardiac

arrests in the 1 million done by professionals? These aren't mathematicians, these aren't Mrs. Costa Gliola, these are doctors who say: " Here, all the rheumatologists, we're going to tell them how many sudden unexplained deaths you've had with hydroxychloroquine versus the other

zero-based reference, 1 million cases" and he sends me, it's extraordinary. So , it's a kind of coincidence that I'd like to know the end of, well I'd like to know. At the same time, they analyze and they don't have the madness of

Landet gate analyzed. The guy says there is a 10%death rate and no one knows where they are from. It doesn't exist. It's a complete fake. He doesn't publish the paper. I recommend that he publish the paper on 1 million because

it's the largest series. He doesn't publish it. When I say you know, it's a shame that it hasn't been published. They ended up publishing it in a journal called Anêtre Respiratory Disease or Anêtre Hematologie, and they don't even read mine. Okay? So that means

that in hydroxychloroquine, you can clearly see that there is no science in this choice.

Of course not. It's fake, that's fake science. This totalitarian aspect, you also develop it on the side effects of vaccines, turbocancers. I would say that's already a lot, it's starting to make people laugh even less because these are elements that should be made

known to the public. You know, I did it because of course totalitarian states or totalitarian situations rule through fear, of course I saw that it was one of the titles of your books.

Yes. I looked, I analyzed two batches of vaccine to see what the presence of DNA was in these vaccines. Okay.

Yes. So we did two things to do it. On the one hand, mass sequencing is very easy, right? So you sequence, you know, to sequence RN, you first have to transform it into DNA. To sequence DNA, you don't need to do anything, it's

direct. We realize that everything is in there. In the vaccine, there is the plasmid that allowed the production of the virus in the bacteria. There is the initiation factor that allows the genes to enter it and then there is the

modified spike sequence that will be used to make the spike. And so very well, we tried two or three times to publish this thing, it was unpublishable. I asked three of my friends, my real friends, my students, people who run laboratories around the

world outside of France and who did their theses with me. Friends, I said to them: "You know, look, I've done DNA PCR on the vaccine.

There's DNA and we can quantify it, and considerable quantities of DNA, including plasmin, which is something we found by doing blind sequencing." In the same way, I said: "Listen, it would be good if I wasn't the only one in the

world to say this, because it's...it's easy anyway." At the time, I must have been the second person to say that there was DNA that was still DNA in it.

Well, my three friends said or they never wanted to do it. No, no, it's too dangerous. We're going to get all the scientific publications of the cartel kicked out. Then you blacklist, you have the crazy people there because

the same thing happened to me with part of the same gang of crazy people to an American researcher who had published on the more potential dangers of vaccines.

Yeah. And he harassed, harassed his university president. He harassed, this harassment, didn't believe...I'm not a unique victim, I'm one of the victims of, of how to silence people, but as we did in the time of Stalinism, it's the

same thing, right? Yeah, it's the same. It's you, zero and infinity. You've read that before; reading it is the same.

Uh, I talk about it in my book. You know that, uh, our dear friends Sartre and Beauvoir said that they would refuse to shake Cler's hand because he had written this horror. See, at the time when they were triumphant

communists over the pure Stalinists. Right to say that it's pure Stalinism, it's youthful mistakes. You see? Yes.

Yes. Yes. That's interesting. The fact remains that the glimmer of hope for science, I'm never pessimistic, it was set up in France.

Well, it wasn't France that started it, the one who started it, quite interestingly enough, was Schwenegger when he was governor of California.

Yeah. He realized that all the published science practiced in California was given to industry, to the publishing industry. I have the pharmaceutical industry, they're the same, they're mixed up, and that including copyright, that was unacceptable because California had paid for it, so it

belonged to California and so it had to be open access entirely in California. Hm hm.

Okay. He's the one who introduced that. And we're not there yet. We still pay them to publish our data, to claim copyright and to eventually claim the right to say that we were wrong to publish it, that we no longer agree to

publish it without giving you the money back. A brilliant scam. They asked us for € 3,000 or € 5,000 to publish a paper. 10 years later, they say, "Listen, there are people who told us that it wasn't good,

but in the end we retracted it, but we still won't give you your money back.

We didn't do our job, since we didn't see that it was bad." But then, in France, there's something called online archives, which was set up by the CNRS, now that all the universities have accepted, in which there is no

censorship. So you can include working documents. It doesn't compete with copyright since copyright only indicates when the publisher has modified it. So if you put the first version on all, you don't contradict copyright and so you can put it. And so

I suggest to all people who do research to stop doing that. I can tell you that for this article on DNA in vaccines, it has been viewed tens of thousands of times. It has been printed thousands of times. times,

although it has never been published in a journal whose reading committees are made up of people who are not scientists and for which there are no longer reviewers. There are so many journals that reviewers are no longer disputed. So the idea of a review by

the fathers is a 20th century fantasy that is outdated. The proof of the review is that you can retract articles that have been reviewed by the fathers, which means that it no longer makes sense. So we need to move to another

scientific model, which is online publishing. That's what's starting to happen. Like you create an alternative to traditional media by publishing online.

Yeah. And in a certain number of cases, I've had the experience of doing that. It was a very big surprise when I had my channel at HU. One of the reasons why they absolutely had to fire me from

management was to simply close my channel. We had 3 million views every day. Tuesdays and more FM, that's what I don't earn a penny. I have to tell you that what makes them all sick is that I've always been in this

activity, I've always been a volunteer. I've never received a penny from the IU , I've never received a penny for doing research. I was paid the same whether I did research or not. And my president didn't receive a penny either. You see?

So that's the side and I've never done private practice medicine. There's no one in the H who did private practice.

So there was a discrepancy and we didn't work with the pharmaceutical industry since 1999. I consider them thugs. I didn't want to work with them anymore. So you see, we were in a situation where we were too perpendicular to the general machine. I

tell you when we looked at Euroforox, the only infectious disease specialists who hadn't received any money from the pharmaceutical industry were all at the IHU.

Yeah, that's saying something. It's a meaning, right? Oh, of course it's a meaning. Absolutely. So, we can't hide reality forever. So it's a way of knowing what's going to happen, what do you think will be the determining factor

that will allow us to break this totalitarian blanket? I don't know. You know, I've always been careful not to make predictions.

My talent, if I dare to define it myself, is observation. That's what sets me apart from most people. I'm not clouded by ideas or opinions. That's it . I'm often an investigator, sometimes practically.

So, I have a capacity for observation, if you like, and as a result, a large part of my science has been to develop the use of new tools to observe in a different way. That's why we discovered a number of incredible things. That's

why the other idiots can spew whatever they want. It's up to us alone. Thanks to my penultimate scientific strategy that I called the mixed culture, we discovered 800 new human bacteria out of the 3,000 that we have known since

the beginning of human history. They are all recorded, and we can't destroy that. So what people say, if you like, what it may matter to me, I don't care what history will remember of all this. It's not my problem. But

what I see, what I am capable of saying is, wait, things are starting to change . When I talked about the decline of French research, little by little, I became interested in other declines, including economic ones. I told you, I

was a freelancer for a while, I have a small pension from Le Figaro, I freelance for Figaro. And so, I published an article in saying, "Look, this is interesting. It's really simple . I was looking at The Economist. I

used to get a bunch of newspapers at university. I glanced at them and The Economist showed the growth of GDP. And I realized that in reality, since Giscar, France had 1%less growth than other comparable OECD countries.

So, from the 70s to 74 and 75, we can always say that it was the oil crisis. I think it was the Carbestin crisis, which was a disaster.

It doesn't matter. Then, there's a gradation in the numbers, where we reach a level where we ask ourselves what will happen if we have more. We have more than that, it's going to be something. But he had started, if you

see, there's not a huge difference between Giscar, except that's the time between Giscard and Macron because he was the first to have used journalists to make ministers, you see, that was not nothing, you see. So start casting if

you want by using celebrities, you see. Yeah. to be able to make ministers, you see, media celebrities to make ministers.

That's not de Gaulle's style, you know. No, no, no. We reached a milestone there with Giscard. We reached a milestone and so I, I recorded all the data year after year and I sent it and I had my

vice-president was an economist. I had shown it, he told me" But Didj, that's not true, it goes against all the theory. "And the theory is that everything is convergent. So there can't be one that works less quickly than the others in Western countries.

It's convergent. Yes. Then I showed it to the dean of the faculty of economics at my university, Didier, but listen, these were two economic researchers, right? Didier, that's not possible. I said," Wait, look, it's factual. " I sent it to Rosa, who was also an

economist, and she told me what you're saying. No one says that. I just had to look at the figures. It's really simple , but there's no ideology involved. He said to me," Are you really sure you want to publish? "I said," But look at

the data, cite the sources. "I cited my sources. I published it, and the first person to respond to it was a political journalist, I don't know what he was, whose name was Alain Grillotter, who picked it up in Le Figaro magazine,

saying," Look, France is growing at 1% per year. "And I say not only is it true, but I observed something because I went to the United States twice at the beginning of my career in 84 and 86. France was not yet on its knees. At

the time, we were the only ones capable of putting American satellites into orbit. There had been the problem with the space shuttle. America no longer knew how to do it. We had the mine. Okay. We had the best nuclear power generation in

the world, okay? We had exceptional aeronautics, okay? And so, we were a country and we had a GDP per capita that was the 3rd or 4th in the world.

We were ahead of the United States. When we say that now, it seems like we only have to look at the figures. What France was in 81 from 81 to 85 in economic terms was unheard of and all

that was liquidated, thrown away. Yes. And so this is not something that started yesterday, you see. It didn't start with Chirac. Even if one of the craziest people in it was Jupé too.

Jup was also a weirdo. And Jupé, you know, had chosen the research that interests me. So I'll bring up this anecdote, it must not have pleased Jupé but I told him face to face to Jup. So I was university

president at the time and so it was Jupé who became prime minister instead of this win, which was really, as you can see, a colossal mistake. This win was a great guy. He also met this great guy.

Yeah. And Jupé, Chirac told him," You have to put some good women there because there have to be good women. " So the famous ones, and so in the good women for medicine, he put a militant generalist medicine

that didn't last long. She was part of the skirts there after 2 years, they fired the good women.

And for research, he didn't know that he was researching and his chief of staff was a fourc. H and fourc and why don't you put my wife ? My wife, she's intern but she would do well for their dear. He said well

very well we put your wife and so he put his wife and his wife was the executive secretary of Professor Jeun Tilini. I knew her very well. And so she passed from one day to the next but like the other one he did the same

thing. See Macron he took a woman who was a medical secretary to make her Minister of Health. So it's all the same. She knows well she typed stuff.

She knows health. and the other one answers Jeanini's phone, she knows about research, so clowns aren't new, you know.

And so, this kind of contempt, I think there are quite a few things in common between Jupé and Macron, if you like, this total contempt, if you like, of others, saying:" But I'll be the one pulling all the strings ", if you like,

who happens. It's the...and that's the key to Greek culture that everyone forgets, it's Ibris. You have to say Ibris, hey, not hybris hybrise.

Because we don't say hybrid, we don't say hybrid fool, that's an English neologism transformed into French, that's the lesson of the Iliad, it's Agamemnon's Ibris, it's not the wrath of Achilles, it's Agamemnon saying I'm the king, so I'll take your wife. And that's yes,

but of course that's what makes it. That's why Hasil goes back to his wife, under his pike. He didn't do anything.

They stole his wife from him. He's not happy because someone stole his. He's like," I'll steal yours. "No, but that's not manners. And so all the madness that is recounted in the Iliad, it's actually Agamenon's Ibris who is

going to pay for it because, you know, he's going to pay for it. Yes, he's going to pay for it. In the history of the Greek gods, the worst of all, and in the Greek gods, when we look at ancient Greek theology,

there were several layers of gods. There are the ancient gods and then the recent gods who are the gods of the OL.

Yeah. And in the ancient gods, there are terrible gods. Among these terrible ancient gods , there is Nemesis.

And the new gods have little power. They didn't share this view; the Greeks had no concept of absolute power. We can see this clearly in Liliard. Zeus doesn't have the power of destiny. He puts Libra, it's Libra who decides.

He's not the one who decides. And Nemesis is an archaic goddess that no one can influence and whose role is to punish the Ibris and nothing can stop her. So that's a meaning. All religions have crystallized a human thought at

one point. Isn't the Ibris always punished? That's a real question. See the unreason linked to power. Isn't it always punished? We see it before our eyes, for Ibris is daily life. You see clearly that any source of power is a

terrible danger of reasons to take oneself for God. You see, there's a tragedy in the Ibris, and then there's this tragedy in the Ibris, which means that it's a tragedy that goes on for generations after generations. Not even Agam, but

the Atrides and Attrae. That is to say, from generation to generation, there's this Ibris that has been expressed since the first of the Atrides line.

Yes, that's another story. It's not hybridity, it's curses. Yes. But it's linked to the Ibris. He's the Ibris, since originally Ibris thinks he's a god. He feeds the god of humanity. So his own son, his brother.

He feeds his brother. He feeds his brother, his son. Yes. But the Ibris is always a great, great lesson from Greece and Rome, right? The ibris is always described very, very well when you read the lives of the

Roman emperors. You can clearly see the danger of the ibris every time. It's the ibris, it's the people who, in particular, are the most sensitive, those who have extreme powers, who have this power when they're young and who

didn't inherit it. Yes, those are the worst. Yes, so it's going to be Caligula, Nero , Domician. There you have it, those are the worst, those who have absolute power that they inherited, they didn't win through the force of war. And so,

it's a real lesson. Well, I don't know what it means, but in any case, in our time, another thing that is very particular to the current era is this negligence of, I apologize, I have a conflict of interest because I'm not

very young anymore. This neglect of the wisdom of age and experience. You see, there is a neglect there. There is a generation that thinks that, in my generation, which was the one just after the IPs, we used to say, uh, uh,

all people over 30 are all idiots. Hm. So here, I don't know if he says over 30, but he would say, if you like, those over 40 are just old fools. So there's no point in listening to them.

The initial balance of society between the elders and the wise. At the beginning, you couldn't be a senator at 25, right? You see?

Uh, that gradually faded away and, uh, there, wisdom, the wise, you see, a kind of committee of wise people, even I'm not sure at the beginning, the Constitutional Council seemed to be made up of wise people with former

presidents of the Republic, the old ones. And here, we can clearly see that it's more about putting in people who will guarantee your safety, if you like , rather than putting in great thinkers or great people who have done great

things. You see? So, there's a negligence here on the part of wisdom, if you like. Of course, people who are a certain age are not capable of having the activity of a young minister, if you like. But they have experience,

they have seen things when they are not idiots, huh. But that means at least two circumstances that are starting to become complicated when casting. But as long as we stay within the idea of casting, if you like, we need casting,

so a little bit of this, a little bit of that, characters who are...We have had the impression for some time that what matters is the photo on the steps of the Élysée. Uh, there have to be beautiful girls, there have to be a bit

of every color, there has to be a bit of every faith. Uh, I, I, I'm not convinced that doing a photo shoot will help better govern France, unless we think that they're not the ones who govern, but the people who pull the

strings at the Élysée or at Maton. Which is often the case, huh, when it comes to age and youth. It's true that you're absolutely right about the myth of Greek mythology, you also have Tae, who is always too young. So he is going to

kill, but he is not going to kill his own brother, who is actually the Minotaur. He abandons Arian. He's the cause of his father's death because he's mistaken about the veils, black veils, white veils. He is always there

because he recovered too early, very young, the divine aspect of his dimension, and that is...he is a hero, that is...that is...and that is the heroism you were talking about. But the Greeks warned about this heroism made of ibriss precisely. And there, we may

no longer have heroes, but we still have this ibriss today, that is clear, and it is linked to Yes. Yes. Because, because power as, a power of this nature which is partly fantasized because some people realize ...which is, you see, if you ask me

what is changing, I think that—I think I wrote it in this book—the fact that we are starting to judge people who were at the height of French power. Despite all the barriers erected to prevent them from being judged—

because this High Court of Justice is truly a denial of rights—to have ministers judged by their cronies in the National Assembly is wrong; there is no reason why ministers should not be judged by standard judges like everyone else. Listen, it should be

judges from the high court. We cannot have a system where elected officials judge their own peers. In the end, this remains a complete denial of democracy.

Listen, there will be judges against cassation. It is not normal that the President cannot be prosecuted during his term. It goes without saying that not being able to be prosecuted for his actions after his term is also not

normal. Anyway, it is...So we are told that politicians cannot be judged on their actions. That is the very principle of responsibility, that is, being able to account for them. So there are some things here, but I see that, I don't know how far it will go,

but still, if we had been told 10 years ago that we would put a President of the Republic in prison. We would condemn a Prime Minister, I don't know what will happen with Mrs. Datine.

Anyway, it is going to be quite severe too. Well, if you want the very basis of intelligence and the very fight since we no longer have Nemesis, you see what Nemesis must embody, is justice.

Justice avenges and so justice is now starting to regain its legitimacy. That is to say, being a countervailing power is essential. By the way, I'm going to tell you a gossipy anecdote like that, you'll like it.

I was invited to lunch or dinner once with Jean-Louis de Bré. I don't have much respect for him.

But he asked me the same question. What do you think about him not going into politics and so on? I think I was where I had just become president of a university. I was in Marseille and people had gathered a few people so

that it would be...I say, you know what I think, I think like Montesque, whom I really like, I really like the Americans make fun of us because Montesque is French and that we didn't understand anything about Montesqueux, you know. That's it, that's it, it's

pretty clear and in particular about the counter-power of course. And he says, Montesque wrote a very important thing that should be repeated in France. You know, the legislator must apply the law. That's even the first duty of the legislator.

He made the law, he must apply it. Listen, I can tell you that he was outraged that I said that.

Oh yes, yes. And why? It's because if you like, people had the feeling, politicians had the feeling that they were out of touch .

Yeah. So they can get as many tickets as they want. We'll get rid of them. They could have, well, that gives them the right to tolerate abuse of corporate assets, to buy jewelry, extraordinary clothes, which replaced a system. No, I wondered

if it was good or bad. Were you familiar with this slush fund system? No. Did you know about it? Oh yes, the name of course, the meaning of the fund, the slush fund, it was a lot of money, several hundred million

francs, it was there at Matignon, it was there at Lisé. Yeah. and it was distributed at the beginning. He was the only one left, it was Josemmin who removed it. The only aftermath of this slush fund remained for the Ministry of the Interior to pay

the informers, that is to say to have money without a trace. H But for everything else, you had me, I think I knew the one who distributed.

One of Yes, in the safes, there was money, he distributed. the cash. I knew one of the ministers who was in charge of distributing the cash. That's it.

So a small packet of cash for the minister worked. So on the one hand, the guys who are in the cabinets for 2 years, they lead a crazy life, they are very badly paid and so hey presto, we

added a little cash. That's it. That allowed, and this hiding, people told me that, for example, Bar had bought his house on the Côte d'Azur with the black man of Matignon and that Chirac paid for all his trips in cash

because he was the black man of Yes. of the presidency. So this organization is illegal and we don't declare our taxes. Politicians have a right to something that no one has the right to have cash like that, not to declare it,

not to pay taxes, not to pay security. It exists. No, but traditionally, the separation of authorizing officer and accountant means the accountant must know what the officer does; the minister is the principal one.

Exactly. Exactly. That's no, that's it. And so a whole generation was raised by that. And that's how this poor guy, if you like, got caught up in it because he thought it was normal to have a bonus and so he was complaining,

he was taking, he was complaining, I don't know if that's how you say it in French, it's Parseillais. No. He was skimming, taking, and eating off the black money meant to pay the police and the informers. He was making a bonus

with that and he was convicted. So he was because it was the tradition, it was a republican tradition, which is cash that circulates in the ministries and at the Élysée of course. So there was still a phenomenon quite particular

to France and a vision of what power is that is not ordinary. That's not, it's not ordinary and of course now it's replaced so from time to time there's a scandal. Maybe that too will stop.

That's replaced by the problem of social welfare, that is to say that money is now given for expenses. So Chirac was also heavily attacked on that, on food expenses because he didn't eat everything he spent because he spent considerable amounts after the

benefits in kind. Jupé was convicted for that because it seems that Chirac walked around the places where he was on vacation with pockets full of money and he also gave out a lot of money. That's the black money. He knew better than to

do with it how to launder things. That's the black money of the Élysée or of Matignon. And so there are habits , if you like, which are situations.

That's why I think that there are situations of sudden changes that will change that. You can't pay. There are a few ministers I was very friendly with, including the research minister who defended us well, Jeff Fazao. At the

time, she was a socialist at the time when Fillon was caught. So what do they take? They take money from their parliamentary assistant. At first she said no, that’s not right. Then she reflected and told me," You aren't

wrong, because I was a minister and Hollande decided there were too many ministers, so he changed my role. "She was doing exactly the same thing. He made her a Secretary of State. Her salary went from € 10,000 to €

6,500 per month. So the woman who was in charge of the university, of research in France, responsibility, she had € 6,500 per month. Okay. And so people have a feeling, she was a very honest woman who was content with that.

Yeah. In fact, she became a member of my board of directors at the time as a volunteer and she worked very, very sincerely and very regularly. So her driving force was not money. But she told me anyway, it's true that you

heard because I sign appointments for people who will earn 10 times what I earn.

So there is still something. And so as long as we don't restore a balance, I think there was an entrepreneur who said this recently: You know, I earn 10 times what the President of the Republic earns per year. So until we restore some sort of

balance by saying everything, now you have no more on the side, no more abuse of social security, we don't pay you for the suits, we give you money and you live like everyone else, but we give you money normally.

We pay you normally. No hidden money, no, well, we pay you normally. Not three drivers, not four drivers, not five drivers, not five cars. No, I recently saw a politician with five working cars. That is not acceptable, you see, so we are in need

of a functional car. They're not all like that, but the temptation is strong , you see. So it's very, very difficult . We're in a situation where people aren't paid what they should be paid, disguised, and they have considerable

benefits in kind, where they are subject to temptations, if you like, that are not always easy to resist. H by the way, the source of the break is giving in to the temptation of power.

Yes. So, final question because we have already gone well beyond the time allocated to this sequence, professor.

So you confirm that you have no political ambition because it's the moment, I have the impression that we are in a period when things are no longer confusing, huh? The French are waiting for something else. No, but I

don't want to say like de Gaulle, he said that 70 years ago, at 67 years old , at my age, I'm not going to start doing that. So you think that we need a dictatorship, in the end, that's it, no

no no I think we live in a hidden dictatorship, I think we live in a dictatorship. It's in a place where you can no longer express yourself, in which the state is ready to allow the development of means that

are totally illegal. Because, you know, every time I filed a complaint, if you like, either my complaint...but one day ...I don't know if I can tell you what happened with HCH? No, did I tell you that?

No, no, no, I testified before the National Assembly and I took an oath, which is not a big deal because most of the time , I, I, I don't say it would be a lie to say that I've never lied because

sometimes you have to lie. Well, uh, I, I know, it's not part of my tactics, because maybe it's out of laziness, or because in any case I think that when you...you always end up overlapping. And it's not my nature, it's not like that, it's not

part of my nature. And then because I'm not afraid to say what I think, which is another thing. Very well. I'll explain in passing that there is an over-dramatization in Paris because the management of Covid in Paris at the

beginning of Covid was an unheard-of disaster. They didn't test, they didn't test the sick to the point where the index case came from the highest level.

That's the. The when the Council of Ministers decided to repatriate people from China, they said ," We're going to put them in Marseille because only Marseille can take care of them. "Very well. Busin was furious, she hated me. I had helped get her

husband deported, which was an unheard-of conflict of interest. You cannot employ your own husband in the state. These are things that required an international campaign to say that France was still as rotten as ever for us to decide to fire Levi anyway,

and Yv Levi hated me because I was asked to give a speech when I spoke about infectious diseases. I said, here's the biggest waste of infectious diseases in 30 years, the idea that we're going to find a vaccine for

malaria, AIDS and tuberculosis. And we won't find anything better than BCG. We won't find a vaccine for AIDS or malaria. Since it's a disease that doesn't give people immunity, we'll have to vaccinate people every 3 months . And Lav was involved in that. I'll

tell you something new, by the way, that I didn't know that he had developed a patent to make a vaccine for AIDS in 2010. There's still no vaccine for AIDS, a patent to make a vaccine for AIDS. He did something, I

never said it. I'll tell you, I told the Court of Auditors and the Court of Auditors removed me from its investigation into infectious diseases because I had given them the documents.

Since it was contradictory, it was obliged to publish them. And so what happened? Inserme paid 6 million euros at the instigation of our enemy Elfressi to finance the evaluation of Mr. Levi's patent through a private American foundation, the

Bayor Institute. It's a strange thing. Yes. Yes. Strange thing. Strange things are happening in this country. This country paid INEM, paid a private foundation to develop Mr. Levi's patent, pushed by Mr. See, we find the same actors since

then. You can imagine that Mr. Levi doesn't like me because I know the reality, I know the truth and his wife of course doesn't like me at all either . The fact remains that when they send these Chinese people, I know a lot

about diseases and epidemics, I say very well, they send two people, they take samples on the tarmac. I guarantee you that 2 hours later, we have all the results and the people get off the plane knowing whether they are positive

or negative. The negatives go directly to the positive at the H. The minister puts her veto on it, saying" No, they are tired, we won't take their samples.

"She sends them to the CTA. The next day, they send the same ones to the CTA , they are forbidden to take samples from people and they had to wait 48 hours without knowing what they were.

All mixed together positives, possibly positives and negatives on a whim of this minister who understands nothing about infectious diseases. So this is spectacular stupidity. And so when we arrived in Paris, in Paris, they were doing so few tests, they were so

incapable, which is one of the real underlying problems of this country. Secondly, since we put idiots or cronies everywhere, you don't really think that HR knows how to run hospitals. Say, run one of the biggest hospitals in the world. You don't

see who knows how to do that anyway. Everything he did, he created networks, a bit of humanitarian work, he tampered with it and you put him in there. They don't know how to do PCRs. They can't do PCRs. We did up to 3,000 a day. When

he sent us the people who came from Ruan, we did 250 PCRs in 2 hours. We returned the results by calling me at night to ask me for it, I validated it, I don't validate it.

Saying that was proud. Well in Paris, we couldn't do it, so the instructions that had been given to the hospitals came from the Ministry of Health. This good Mrs. Busin who knows infectious diseases so well. I wouldn't even let this good lady treat me with a

whitlow who said," Listen, we're only going to test people from China who have a fever, who are coughing and who are coming back from UAN, and only that . "And so the index case, an unfortunate 80-year-old Chinese man who

came back from China, he has it but he doesn't cough, which is a very important point because there are a lot of people who don't cough. And he didn't come from Huan, he came from the Huan region called Ubay. And so he

doesn't test him, he sends him home, he comes back. So he checks, do we check all the boxes? No, no, we don't check all the boxes, he doesn't come from, we send him home. The third time he comes,

he's in the colbar, we send him. Listen carefully because it's extraordinary. I heard this story told to the Élysée Palace. I have witnesses.

Uh, they sent him back there, they sent him to the lord chosen by Yasdan Yasdan Palin in crazy Henriçon. There, they gave him Remd Civir. Yeah. And he died of kidney failure. And this story was told in front of the President of the Republic

where there were people who were going to take care of it, the president of Gilead who turned to Yasampada and said " Do you remember? "I saw he used informal terms with friends. Look at President Gilead who was peddling Remed Civir, uh, uh,

which we bought for a billion in Europe and which is useless, you see. Uh, he said absolutely.

I remind you that I gave you some and when he said he died of kidney failure, he said yes, but we knew that it caused insufficiencies. The president of Kiliade who says that in front of the President of the Republic anyway, huh?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I repeat this: I say," You know, there's a problem, the index case, your management of the epidemic, is that you don't really know much about infectious diseases in Paris. "And the second thing, I say:" On top of that, you

treat them too late, "which was true, later we understood why. You know, it's the story of happy hypoxia. It's not at all like the flu, as Fausi or Delfress had claimed, it's another disease. And we don't know about diseases until

we've observed them. Not by deduction, but observation. I say that what interests me is observation again. Yeah. And we realized that people were starting to get out of breath just before the oxygenation, but that they already had oxygen in their socks, if you like,

before they got out of breath. Yeah. It's a specificity of this disease, and so on the contrary, it was necessary to treat much earlier, to check. It's, you remember, that I said that and that everyone started buying oxygen meters from pharmacists who had

fallen, whoever managed to get some, not to measure their own oxygen, since they didn't measure it in the hospital anyway. I say that and I say, well, here's the mortality rate in intensive care in Paris, I tell you, it was 40%

when we had 18%. Yes. H and Irche, scandalized, wrote to the President of the National Assembly saying," Mr. Raoul gave false testimony , a registered letter, false testimony.

Then he does as he is, it's the press that pleases him, his wife works in the world, all that's his network, it's still the political-media thing. Uh, he says it's scandalous, he gave false testimony. Listen very carefully. I,

the one who had conducted the investigation, was on Tit, I sent him the two documents. The documents where Yasd Padar said it on television, the Chinese thing, and then the internal documents in Paris that I had been given on the mortality rate in

intensive care in Paris and the death rate, I sent him the mortality rate in intensive care in Marseille. It was the third and Eric Sioti asked him the question, said: "You said that, Mr.

Raou, but look, you have...oh no, but it's not the same time, we mustn't mix everything up. While the deaths, it's the The only thing that really matters is the dead. You can't cheat on the dead. You just have to look at the INC.

We know who's dead and who's not. Very well. And then Mrs. Lacombe tells me:" But Mr. Rout, he's going to be prosecuted for perjury, "and so on.

Very well, I'm attacking him. So the judge says yes, no, it's defamation, but it's defamation in good faith. All the people who defamed me, they defamed me in good faith.

Yes, that's something special. I know, but there's a whole group who defamed me once and for all. Then, well, I file a complaint against Mr. HCH and my lawyer sends a letter. That's the justice system in our country. It's

interesting, isn't it? We send a letter ordered to the Paris court. Ah, he doesn't receive the letter ordered.

Once a letter ordered, we send a second letter ordered. Ah, he doesn't get the letter ordered. My lawyer goes to the Paris court and he takes the complaint to the court by hand. Very well. We wait, I don't know how many months and

then it's filed. So, I continue in civil proceedings. It costs me; they tell me, to sue him, it is going to cost you € 8,000. Very well, it costs € 8,000 h and I, the police summon me to Paris, I

show them the documents. The police are suffocated. Hm hm. There's nothing. So we stop, document, we stop.

They say that you lied, you didn't lie, we stop. There you go. Very well, that's fine. And then the court decision is that we can't prosecute him because there were so many emotions at that time that words sometimes

outweighed thoughts and so on. Well, it doesn't matter, he's not guilty. It's extravagant. Look at the justice system in this country.

But of course, he went to the Council of State since that when you lie like that , you earn a place on the Council of State. You see?

Yeah. On the evidence, exactly. That's interesting. There was also this Yve Levi, the AIDS vaccine specialist, who was also on the Council of State. You see? And so that's what scares me about this country. That's one of the reasons

why this is my slightly pessimistic side. There's the pessimistic Heraclitus side and the optimistic Democritus side. Democritus is always there. Heraclitus cries all the time.

Well, my Heraclides side, which I also like a lot, says, uh, says this: unfortunately, the infrastructure, that is to say, all the countervailing powers, have been undermined by the appointment of people who are not made for it, who do not have the competence

for it, who are put there because they have failed at something else, so that they don't shout too much when we do them fire, you see, that resigns. And suddenly, everything is saturated with that. And so you see, for example, the

Court of Auditors. I don't know anything about the Court of Auditors. I don't know this minister, but the first statement by the President of the Court of Auditors is to say that we don't vaccinate enough against the flu.

Yes. Yes. Mrs. de Montchalin. You see, in the state of French finances, that the first concern of the President of the Court of Auditors is this, that means I understand between her and the mayor to see who is the one who says

the biggest nonsense anyway, huh? For the other, we just put them all at one to learn reading at one. See, they learn to read at one year old, they will be able to write better later.

Anyway, that goes without saying. Luckily, there is the mayor to think of another place. The others interested in the birth rate have never had children in their lives. So, they don't know what The thing is, children, why are

they problematic? How are they educated ? They think that the most important thing of all is to provide sex education in primary school. And then we wonder why there are sexual issues with children when we spend our time

talking to them about sexuality, as if kids, before we taught them about sex de-education in school, we knew how to act like children. Yes.

Yes, that's true. Now that we teach them about sex in school, they don't know how to act anymore. So maybe they're making mistakes in what they're teaching them, I don't know. But in any case, we can't say that it's a success. It is like

Pizar or Pia, after all; it does not have what one would call a spectacular success.

With each crisis, the State obtains new means of action in the name of our protection. But how many disappear when the danger has passed? Laurent Ooson goes back to the war, fear and mobilization. to explain how the exception becomes normal. This

transformation and its effects on our freedoms are detailed in the free investigation file. To discover it, click on the first link in the description.