All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
54:30
Pierre Chaillot: “I’m coming out ‘no virus’…” | Dr. Sam Bailey
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And you've had your coming out party now, Pierre, and no virus.
Yeah, it's like a coming out.
Maybe during the pandemic there were about 5% people aware that there was a scam.
Maybe now it's 10.
Maybe we will, if we have a big success, we will arrive at 15.
But I don't think we need more.
I think what we need, what is essential, is to be perhaps a minority, but a big minority.
We have to be a minority that governments, other people, annihilate, can't destroy.
Pierre Chiault is a statistician and author from France who has been exposing the data related to COVID-19 since early 2020.
Using official French figures, he meticulously demonstrated that even on their own terms, there was no infectious disease pandemic and it was all a show.
His ultimate conclusion from his analysis was that SARS-CoV-2 did not exist as claimed.
This revelation led him to start investigating the statistics related to other claimed viral diseases such as influenza.
The mainstream media and fact-checkers did their best to smear his work, but Pierre's book became a surprising bestseller in France where it sold over 50,000 copies.
I had the great honor of writing a foreword for the English version of the book COVID-19 Decoding Official Data.
Thank you Pierre so much for agreeing to come on the channel with me today.
It's such a pleasure to have you.
Thank you Sam to receive me and I got to say I'm really happy and really honored that you accepted to write forewords and to invite me on your channel tonight.
Tonight for me in France.
Brilliant, well it was a pleasure and I can't wait to share with everyone about the new book because I think it's so important.
But just to start, for people that don't know you, would you be able to give the audience a little bit of background about your training and your education?
My name is Pierre Chaillot.
I'm a statistician at the National Institute of Statistics in France.
Yeah, I got a channel on YouTube and for about 10 years I'm writing articles and I register videos to explain people Statistics about economics.
Since 10 years, and since a few years, I started to talk about COVID and the COVID statistics in France, in Europe and a bit worldwide, but especially in France and Europe.
And two years ago, I wrote a book, which is in France, COVID-19, ce que révèle le chiffre officiel.
It's COVID-19 decoding data.
It was a bestseller in France with more than 50,000 readers.
We decided to translate it in English.
It was sort of a journey for me to question a lot of things.
That's what we're going to be talking about, I think.
I didn't realize that you had been on YouTube for so long.
That's quite amazing.
So did you amass a bit of a following on YouTube over time?
What happened for you with COVID, with 2020?
What was your Thoughts when the pandemic first started?
Yeah, my main topic on my channel was about economics.
But when we arrived in 2020, everybody was talking about, especially in January and February, everybody was talking, every media, was talking about the new pandemic and the COVID-19, the killer virus that was killing everybody in China.
So I just...
I heard the numbers and I made a video at this time just to explain people that if there is a killer virus that killed in a month in China 2,500 people, I think, in one month, it was just ridiculous.
Because there is maybe 1 billion and a half people in China.
So there are maybe 80,000 people that die each day.
So 2,500 people in a month.
It's invisible.
You can see that.
It is ridiculous to speak about that.
So that was my first video.
And when I published it, I didn't understand why, but there was such a war on my channel, with people saying that I was right, and there was the grid reset, and I didn't know at this time what it was, and other people saying that I was a sort of...
I don't know, a killer to say people that it was not dangerous and that I was completely fool and that YouTube should stop my channel because it was dangerous what I was saying.
So it was really, it really upset me at this time and I just, at this moment, I just decided to continue To read the statistics, to explain things, to explain to people how to find the numbers, the statistics, in which websites I talk about Eurostat, INSEE in France, etc, etc.
And I just continued, and I discovered all the statistics about Covid, vaccine, tests, etc, etc, all the time after.
How did you get censored on YouTube?
At first, my first video when I said the title, it's in French, I get to translate, was the coronavirus scam, who's gonna pay for it?
It was my first video in February 2020, but as I say, it started a war on my channel, so I suppressed the video after about one week, because my economics videos I made for 10 years about a thousand views, no more.
It was my It was my numbers, and this video in just one week made 200,000 views in just one week.
So it was an explosion for my channel.
So I decided to suppress it.
After I talked about the numbers, but I get to say with less maybe, I don't know the word, I'm being less aggressive in my titles and in my words, but I made another video one month after when the lockdown started in France.
I made a video which title was the real danger of coronavirus, the shock strategy.
I explained that the lockdown is like a shock, as Naomi Klein explained, so we were living a shock.
So that was my second big video that made about 300,000 views in two weeks.
And this video, YouTube censored it.
YouTube removed this video of YouTube, of the platform, for a few days.
I asked YouTube why did they remove my videos.
No rules were transgressed, you know.
There was no problem about rules on YouTube.
They put the video back in the platform, but with a shadow ban.
I wasn't aware that it really existed, but the fact is that this video is shadowbanned.
You can find it by researching my name on my channel, or even the title.
You can find it now.
It is on YouTube, but you just can't find it.
So it was the second time my channel has a crowd of people looking at my videos.
Pierre, did this affect your work, your employment?
Yes.
To be perfectly, to precise it, At this moment exactly, I was not working for the National Statistics Institute in France.
I was working for another... I was in another work, I get to say.
So, the National Statistics Institute in France could not send me anything because I was not working for them.
But when my contract stopped with my other work, I went back to the National Statistic Institute.
At this time, I discovered several problems.
I won't explain everything on this channel now.
I'm working on the National Statistic Institute in France.
But my coming back was not so easy.
Let's talk about the book.
How did you come about to write the book, COVID-19 Decoding Official Data?
I got my channel.
Every time I made a video, at first I write an article.
Every time.
And I give the article, I put it on the internet, on different websites, freely, for everybody who wants to read it.
And I have to say, there's no advertising on my channel.
Everything is free, and I don't earn any money about this.
So during three years, I worked on articles and on my videos.
I think every night, every weekend, every vacation, I was working and I was working on it.
So I wrote maybe about 200 articles and made videos during two years.
And after two years, I decided to write a book With all this material, these 200 articles.
So the book is sort of a resume about these 200 articles.
And it's not a resume because I understand a lot of things working during 2 or 3 years.
And I understand things that I couldn't think at first that I will change my mind so much.
That's interesting because that is a lot that you've written.
200 articles over that time.
Do you have a family?
What's happening in your life as well?
Yeah, I got a wife and three boys.
I got to say during this time, I was like in war.
So I wrote these articles, I gave them to advocates, to lawyers, to politicians.
I gave them to try to fight what was going on in France.
For some articles, I know that things have been helpful to stop.
For example, for the vaccinations.
One day, there was a vote in the French Parliament, and just two days before the votations, An institute in France, an agency but it's like an institute, wrote an article to say that vaccines were safe and effective and that we got to vaccine every children.
So they published their article just one day before the votations.
That was to force politicians to vote.
And a friend of mine that has a newspaper just called me to say, look at what they wrote.
So I quit my job.
I go back to my house and for about 16 to 4 a.m.
I wrote an article just to show that it was only bullshit.
So at 6 a.m.
there was my article on the table of every politician in parliament, just to say that it exists some things that say it's wrong, and it was mine.
In fact, finally, vaccinations were not an obligation.
Children were not forced to vaccinate.
So I don't know if it's only my work, but I know I did this on this purpose, and The end was acceptable.
That is incredible, Pierre.
Such courage and hard work to do that.
Were you against vaccines prior or were you awake to some of these ideas before COVID-19?
Oh no, I was not aware before COVID-19.
My son got about 14 vaccines each.
So I can't say that I was aware of anything before COVID-19.
I discovered I don't know how to say that.
Doubts, that doubts exist about vaccine.
Just at this time, before COVID-19, I thought that just people that doubts about vaccine were just not really well informed or that they were a bit mad and don't understand how real science was.
So, that was the first time I asked questions, really, about vaccines, and I asked for real studies.
In fact, when I read studies, Pfizer studies and Moderna studies, I discovered such stupid things that I was really I don't know.
Astonishing.
It's not as high as I want, as well.
But you know, I discovered such bullshit.
It was incredible.
So, and everybody was saying in France, COVID-19 vaccines are not real vaccines.
There are real vaccines that work, and these vaccines are not real vaccines.
So I just said to them, OK, I'm not a physician, I'm just a statistician.
What I need is statistics and studies.
I want to read a real study that proves that other vaccines are good vaccines and work.
So I just ask everybody, somebody can give me an article, a study that shows that a vaccine really works, please, just to allow me to compare The COVID-19 vaccines to other vaccines.
I don't know how to say that, but I discovered a silence.
I was asking everybody and nobody answered me, even physicians, even statisticians, even researchers, and nobody was able to give me anything about that.
So that was a bit, I don't know, disturbing?
Is it the right word?
As a statistician, but as a father too.
I'm asking myself, why did I make that?
I mean, I allow physicians to vaccinate my kids.
I was not forced to do that.
Only for three vaccines I was forced because they can't go to school if I don't do that.
But they got 14 and I was not forced.
I just do what others do and what physicians say.
I listen to them and I don't question it.
So, that made me understand that I was like everybody, just, I don't know, having trust in others, in physicians, in governments.
So, today I think differently, but I can't, you know, be upset about people that don't understand now and are not aware about this, because I was like them just a few years ago.
Getting back to the book, what I really liked about what you wrote is that I think numbers are very confusing for the average person, and you have a way of being able to break it down and just elicit for the audience that there was no pandemic.
Was that your intention?
Yes, there was no pandemic.
I think maybe English people won't discover that, but I can explain simply statistics to people.
I think they will find that in the book.
At first, I did not understand that there was no pandemic.
I thought there was little pandemic.
It's not exactly the same.
A lot of people that were, I don't know if you use this word, but in the resistance, that people that did not accept the lockdowns, the masks, etc, etc, they think there was a pandemic.
But a little pandemic, a too little pandemic to organize these things.
But these people think that if one day there is a real pandemic, a bigger pandemic, This measures lockdowns, masks, etc.
It could be a good thing.
So there is a big difference between saying that there was little pandemic and there is no pandemic.
And at first I thought there was little pandemics because we see that there were some People dying, some spikes in mortality at different times.
So I thought there was a little pounding, just like a flu in winter.
During winter, we can see spikes of mortality on the elders each year.
But I discovered after reading a lot of things and studying different parts that there were no pandemics.
And if there are spikes of mortality, we have to question why there are these spikes and we can find answers and understand why we can see spikes of mortality.
In different countries, at different moments, when governments are accusing COVID-19 to kill people, but it's not COVID-19.
What, in your mind, would a pandemic look like, statistically, if there was such a thing?
Mathematically, if there is a pandemic, there is a spread.
If there is a spread, we must see the spread.
It means that if there is a first person who is sick in a country, in a territory, somewhere, so this person will spread viruses or something and contaminate people around him or around her.
And that will make new sick people that will spread and contaminate, etc, etc.
So we got our first sick person and around him or her we will see more and more sick people.
And if it's dangerous, more and more dead people.
So we can count more and more dead people and statistically we will see a spike.
A moment later, there will be someone that will travel to go far away.
And this person can start a new epidemic Elsewhere.
In this new place, we will see the number of sick people rising, and the number of dead people rising.
So we will see another spike.
So another spike, different from the first.
If there is a pandemic, and if there is a spread, we will see different spikes.
Different spikes of sickness, of sick people, and different spikes of dead people.
And I discovered that we never see different spikes.
Each winter, in all Europa, the spikes are perfectly at the same time.
And during the COVID-19 pandemic, when states begin to say there is a COVID-19, you can check and see that spikes are perfectly at the same time.
So just as a statistician, I just say that it can be a spread.
It's not a spread.
It is impossible.
And when I say that to people that believe that there is a virus, virologists, for example, they say, yes, but virus can hide and only weather conditions can activate them, etc.
But you can add this in the statistical model.
You can add this point, it doesn't change anything.
The spikes have to be different.
So there is no virologist that has an explanation why spikes are perfectly at the same time.
So when I discovered it, it was not me, it was Denis Rancourt, which is Canadian.
We have a talk about this.
And at first I made a model that I believed that there was an explanation.
I tried to construct a model to explain the spreading of the virus.
And he told me, you're doing shit.
It's not a spread, because the spikes are, just check, you will see the spikes are at the mid-time.
But at this moment, Denis, Denis Rancourt, I think he didn't question the virus, etc, etc.
He made me on the path to question it and to understand that it is just impossible statistically that there was a spread.
So it's not an epidemic, a pandemic, if you say that a pandemic or epidemic are a spread.
There's no spread at all.
What you saw statistically was that the peaks all happened at the same time, which is impossible.
It's impossible that the pics are all at the same time on every different country.
And what I loved, what I found fascinating about you, Pierre, was that you came to the same conclusion as we did, but you came at it from statistics versus knowing anything about virology.
At first, on my first videos, when I started to question the coronavirus scam, there were people on my channels that were saying, oh, virus, virus scam, etc, etc.
But I could not believe them at this time, in 2020.
It was too far from me.
And it made me years to begin to question that.
At the moment I discovered pigs were synchronized.
I was asking, what are the proofs that a sick people can give his sickness to other people, to healthy people?
How do we become sick?
But I believe at this time that people were spreading virus and I was Yeah, you understand this thing?
And I just question, in 2021 maybe, is it real?
And when I was asking physicians, researchers in the resistance, everybody said, yeah, it's proved for a long time, we all know how it works.
I said, okay, cool.
Can I have a study?
And I received exactly the same silence as vaccines.
One of them, in France, he asked me several times to shut up.
To stop asking for things, to question viruses because it was ridiculous.
He was a physician in France and he healed so much people in France from viruses after they were sick and now they are perfectly healthy because he fights the virus.
So explain me that.
So virus exists and it is definitely proved.
So I said, thank you very much for saying that.
So because if you know that virus existed, that virus exists, can you just please give me a study?
Anything?
Something where you read that and just give me a proof.
Anything!
And he asked me again to shut up because the virus existed.
So I said, yeah, I understand the virus exists.
OK, but just asking for the proof.
And he ends the discussion saying that he doesn't know.
He doesn't know why the virus existed, but it just exists.
OK, so I did.
I asked so many people to give me studies or proof and I did not receive anything.
In four years, I'm asking that for three years, about three years, I received a lot of books about virus theory, a lot of virus theory, but nothing about experiments that prove that you can be sick with a virus or spreading virus, etc.
Nothing.
So I continue to ask, maybe with a little provocation now, but I try to force people to give me something.
If they can't, I want them to admit that they can't.
That's all.
What was the trigger for you to really go down that rabbit hole, as it were?
Was it the graphs or was it something else?
The statistics and the packs.
Really, I'm a statistician.
Just four years ago, I truly believed that the virus was the cause of the sickness and there was a little pandemic.
I truly believed that.
But I worked, as I said, I worked a lot every night.
And when I discovered the packs were perfectly synchronized, I just thought at this moment, I got to, there's no explanation about this, so I got to question something else.
When you're working scientifically, you can make an experiment, or if you are a statistician, you have a hypothesis, and you go and you try to find the data, to explore them.
But when you find that your model is wrong, that your conclusions are false, You have to question the hypothesis.
You have no choices.
So it makes me about two years to understand that I have to question the hypothesis.
And what was the hypothesis?
It was the spreading of sickness.
So it needs a lot of time to discover that and to be able to question it because it's deep.
It's deep in our mind and in our belief.
Did you have any surprises?
You've written these 200 articles and compiled it into the book.
Were there any surprises that came at you other than the idea that there's no pandemic that you discovered?
Discovering that there was no spread was a big surprise and very hard.
But there is another theme that was really, really hard to believe, and I was not able to believe that at first.
One friend of mine, he's now a friend, José Briochet, he wrote a chapter with me, discovered that during the first wave in France, what is called the first wave, Elder people died much, a lot.
And he discovered that they died exactly as the time, in the moment, and in the number, and exactly with the well numbers, when our government decided to stop healing elders for when our government decided to stop healing elders for common cold or flu, to say that there were no place in hospitals, but hospitals were empty.
But there were no place for them in hospitals.
And that's the only thing that you can do was to give them palliatives, especially a medicine that is called Rivotril in France.
And he discovered that the number of these medications was exactly the same as the number of deaths, of COVID-19 deaths registered in France.
So there is...
So when you see the numbers, when you see the graphs, it's sure that when we are talking about the first wave in France, the first COVID-19 wave in France, For the elders, it is 100% explained by this medication.
So this choice to not healing people, elder people that have common cold or flu, but to give them palliative.
And we have exactly the same thing in England when we have the The number of dead elders and the midazolam.
It's exactly the same and it was too hard to believe at first and it needed for me to really study, one time again, statistics and to see that there were no other explanations and it was too perfect to be wrong.
I didn't realize, Pierre, that they had done the same protocols in France.
They did the same protocols everywhere in the world.
I did not say, I explained this in the book, but in France we had a decree saying that nurses can give Rivotril because there were not enough midazolam.
England governments, American, USA governments and Canadian bought the old stocks, the old worldwide stocks of Midazolam.
And England bring a French part of the stocks, so we don't have any Midazolam in France.
They wrote a decree in urgency to replace the Midazolam by Ribotryl.
That's why we have a proof And that's why we have statistics, because Midazolam is delivered by hospitals, and we don't have any data about what hospitals give.
But, Ribotryl, Clonazepam, was given by pharmacies, and we have data.
We have pharmacies' data.
That's because there was no Midazolam, that we have data.
So it was a mistake of our governments, because they give us, you know, The weapon of the crime and all the data to have it.
So it's a bit unique in France because we have all the data because of that.
We can find it in England, but in countries that where, you know, medicines were given by hospitals, they don't have any data.
Well, in France, we have real proof that can be used worldwide to accuse what was happening.
I noticed you have a section in the book about post-vaccine mortality.
Could you speak a little bit more about this because it's something many people are interested in?
As I said, I discovered there was no pre-spreading because the peaks were synchronized and I just checked with downloading every data and I didn't, I think I did not say it, but I got all my programs can be used by anybody that knows R languages and everybody can find my graphs and verify everything I said because everything is on GitHub.
So I just checked if vaccine spikes, peaks, were synchronized with mortality peaks, spikes, and I discovered that it was too often the case.
So that's my My head shatters when I show the graphs, where in a lot of countries in Europe, in a lot of countries and a lot of ages, that we see that spikes of mortality are synchronized with spikes of vaccination.
So it's a trace, it's a proof.
Because we can have two cases.
Maybe we give a vaccine to dead people, but I think it's not the case.
The other possibility is that we vaccine and people die just after, which is, I think, more realistic.
So I think we got a proof here that vaccines kill people.
And we have to remember that death is the worst thing that happened.
For one dead, we got a lot of sick people.
So it's the hardest, it's the worst thing, but it represents A lot of sick people.
That's why I will show that because we got pharmacovigilance that shows that people that declare that they are sick after vaccination but we can be sure about How was it with other colleagues, statisticians, colleagues with you?
Because as you have shown, the numbers can't lie.
mortality spike, mortality peaks, just synchronized with vaccination peaks, we got to prove that it's a cause.
How was it with other colleagues, statisticians, colleagues with you?
Because as you have shown, the numbers can't lie.
So what was the reception from your colleagues?
It was hard because the National Institute in France published a lot of papers saying that there was a big pandemic with a lot of dying people all the time and that vaccines were sure and effective and that it worked perfectly.
They have no data to say that, I precise.
So they asked for other statisticians, for other institutes, especially Institutes of the Ministry of Health, to write things in their publications, etc.
So it was completely mainstream.
And a lot of my colleagues in the National Institutes test themselves every three days, and some of them wear masks today.
Again, they continue to wear masks.
They go vaccination.
So, a few statisticians of the Institute are aware and understood what, and just checked what I was saying, just to check that my datas were the official datas, and that I was doing no other thing that What we do every time with such data.
But just a few did that.
The majority of statisticians, 90% of statisticians, just follow the rules.
And some told me, OK, I know you're doing such a thing, but I don't have to check.
I don't have time to check.
That's why, you see, we have to understand that if a statistician that has the data on his computer, a statistician that knows how to compare it, knows how to write programs, to understand models, to understand statistics, if a statistician just doesn't want to look I don't want to check data before having a vaccine.
It's normal that people don't do that too.
Statisticians don't do that.
They prefer to follow the crowd.
That makes sense, despite how disappointing it is, because I would have thought that statisticians are such, well they are, you are very logical people, that people would want to look at the sources.
But what is remarkable, Pierre, is that You create, you make the information available.
You can say, you can check it, look at it yourself and you help people to see it.
And the book, I think this is so important.
Yeah, I get to precise where I'm with a Belgian researcher, Patrick Meyer.
We wrote about the perfect synchronization between vaccines and mortality on young people.
And we have been peer reviewed.
We begin to be allowed to speak about vaccine mortality.
It just begins.
Maybe with time we will be more able to talk about that.
How is it with people in the Zeitgeist in France right now, with people understanding your work?
Is there more positive awareness of what you've done?
We begin to see people that believed about the coronavirus camp, but they believed there was a pandemic and it was dangerous, and they begin to ask questions now, because I think the fear is down.
When the fear was up, it was not possible to ask questions, to discuss.
Now, they begin to ask questions.
But I think, you know, maybe during the pandemic there were about 5% people aware that there was a scam.
Maybe now it's 10.
Maybe we will, if we have a big success, we will arrive at 15.
But I don't think we need more.
I think what we need, what is essential, is to be perhaps a minority, but a big minority.
We have to be a minority that governments, other people annihilate, can't destroy.
So what is important is to continue to discuss, to ask questions, to try to convince too, and to have on focus that we must, yeah, maybe we will not win and be the majority and having winning elections, etc., but staying a force, a minority, but a big one.
Excellent advice, yeah.
Now tell me, for the audience, where can they find the book?
Because I highly recommend that everybody get this book and actually see the data for themselves because it applies not only in France but across, you know, across the world.
First, you can find it on Kindle, so you can read it on the tablets.
The book is a bestseller in France with, I said it, 50,000 readers.
But if the book on Kindle begins to be a success, we hope that there will be an editor that will be interested Having this book somewhere, maybe in England or in America, and to make it more visible.
That's our goal.
Our aim today is that, is to try to make this book be seen by people, by resistance at first.
You know, what was hard in this time is that everybody thought, I thought, and everybody around me thought, I am alone.
I am alone in this camp, to understand this camp, and there is nobody that I can talk, I can discuss about this, because everybody thinks there is a big pandemic.
And it was, I don't know how to say that, but it was a big thing when we discovered we were not alone.
And I think we have to be aware that in each country there were people everywhere in the world that were
That understood what was happening and that we have to share our works, to share our different point of view, our different way to work and to discover the scam and to understand that we can have people that can maybe after help and we will be I think more I like that.
I really do.
to resist against the next time, the next scam.
I like that.
I really do.
Your message is a powerful one because I think at its core, people, like you say, do feel alone or did feel alone.
But I love it that this has actually brought, I feel like it's brought the world together, actually.
I feel more connected with people in France.
I'm way across the other side of the world, but I love it that I can talk with you and know you think the same.
And you've had your coming out party now, Pierre, and the no virus, like a coming out party, you know?
Yeah, it's like a coming out.
In fact, I continue to ask and to discuss with people that truly believe and strongly believe that viruses exist and make people cease and responsible of all sickness, even cancer.
But I like these people because we fight together during the scam against the government and I want to continue to discuss with them.
Some of them are not able to understand or just to question it.
Some of them truly believe, for example, They think that viruses are a chapter of Neo-Darwinism, so everything in biology has to be understood as a chapter of Neo-Darwinism theory, and viruses are a part of it.
So they start with the hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism, and they say that viruses exist because it's a part of it.
And I can't, we can't discuss the existence of viruses.
And when we try to, they find, when we show them things that doesn't work, the pikes for example, but there are other things, the tests.
I show in the books that positive tests are more often with healthy people and that negative tests are more often with sick people.
When we ask a virologist to count the number of viruses on sick people, they find more viruses on healthy people than on sick people.
So everything, it doesn't work.
But these people, with the neovirus theory, they just always find excuses.
So, for example, for the test or for the number of virus, they say yes, but at the beginning of the sickness, there is a lot of viruses and no sickness.
Every time we try to challenge them, they will find an excuse.
So that means the virology is not a science, because in science, you have to to define the limits of your theory.
And you have to say, there is this experiment that you can do at home, everywhere, to challenge my theory and to find that my theory is right.
And when you have this sort of people, you can find an experiment to challenge a theory.
They won't accept any experiment to challenge a theory that made biology is not a theory.
It's a dogma, it's a belief, what you like, but you can discuss with them.
So it's important to discuss with everybody, but knowing that there are some people that where you won't change their mind at any time and you are not able to question them because they don't have a scientific way to think about vitology.
It's more than that.
It's dogma.
100%.
I agree with you.
Also, Pierre, where can people follow you?
I do have some French-speaking people that might be interested, but also, where is your work?
I'm beginning to translate all my videos in English.
I'm using I'm trying to do that in a few days or maybe one video each week or something like that.
I will take one of my videos, translate it, Put it in English and to promote the book too.
I will try to do that, to have another media and to allow people to understand my work with my YouTube channel.
So I'm beginning, I'm trying to do that to find the right way to do that.
So your YouTube channel, what is it called?
It is Décoder l'éco, which can be translated as decoding.
Éco was for economy at first, but I'm doing demography, only demography for four years now.
Nice.
Do you have any other social media platforms, Pierre?
X, Twitter and Facebook but especially in French.
My real channel is YouTube and I'm going to... I begin to translate my... You can find one or two videos in English for now.
Some of them are professionally translated in English with subtitles.
Not all of them but I will do better for my book.
Perfect.
I'm so thrilled for you, Pierre.
It's really exciting because for us it's the first time being able to talk even though we've spoken via email.
I think your work is incredible and is so important for the future and I just would really encourage everyone to please have a look and to get a copy of your book and to I think stay in touch and just carry on really with the movement.
Yeah, we got to carry on.
I think we got to discuss and to question everything now.
I think a lot of people understood that we can't trust mass media anymore and that we have to make our own researches, not believing anybody.
Don't believe me, just check what I say and just try to understand and decide to believe me or not.
It's a decision.
And it's not, I don't know, it's not the truth that is falling down the sky, I don't know, but you have to understand, to make your research and to decide who you're going to trust or not.
And I think everybody now has got to do this for climates, for politics, for economics and for everything.
And we have to understand that we don't have to trust one point of view, which is mass media.
There can be 200 channels, it doesn't change anything.
It is mass media with only one point of view.
We have to do our own research.
That's what we have to understand, to remember what we lived these past years.
And the other thing that really strikes me about you, Pierre, is your humility.
How humble you are, despite everything that you've been through, actually.
But you've done it because, I imagine, for your family.
Was that a big thing?
Exactly, for my children.
I was in a fight for my children.
That's why I have the channel and I wrote all the articles, is to allow my children just to breathe the air without a mask, to go to the cinema, to go to school, to make them understand that they will not kill their grandfather by just breathing next to him.
That was completely false.
To make them understand that, yeah, everybody can be mad around them and just understand that it was just madness and they have no stress and no fear of dying, of being sick.
So, and I fight too to make them, to be sure they won't be forced to vaccine with these products.
So yeah, that was for my children first, and believing that I have to say, to explain this to everybody, because together we are more stronger than just being alone.
Thank you so much, Pierre.
It's been a real pleasure.
Yeah, and thank you for all your work this past year.
I'm really aware of what you've done, the time you've passed to do this.
So thank you, Sam.
I say that again, but I'm really happy to be here.
And I'm really proud that you accept what my fault was and that you accept to ask me questions and to speak slowly.
I think maybe in a few months when I will try to speak a bit more in English, it will be easier.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection