In this viral interview, portions of which were translated exclusively for RAIR Foundation USA, a French geneticist dismantles the ongoing leftist narrative about the coronavirus. Alex Henrion-Caude claims that the focus should be on the lethality of the coronavirus. Instead, the public is presented with “cases”, meaning those who test positive to the virus, but do not necessarily have symptoms.
As reported at RAIR, the infection fatality rate is microscopic. But as Henrion-Caude, former Director of Research at the French National Institute of Health (Inserm), points out, the charts presented to the public are not illustrative of mortality or even symptoms but of positive PCR tests, the vast majority of which are asymptomatic. “So perhaps this curve should be made not only in relation to the presence of positivity, but to symptoms as well,” Henrion-Caude says.
“We’re not in control of information anymore,” Henrion-Caude declares. The coronavirus does not represent a “health crisis” in the true sense of the phrase and the endless arbitrary and unscientific mandates are unnecessary. “That means this doesn’t deserve any special treatment, other than the treatment we have for the flu or those we have for any other of the usual pathologies,” she explains.
While Alex Henrion-Caude’s comments were from October, the French magazine Nexus posted a portion of the interview again in mid-February on YouTube, gaining almost 70k views at the time of this writing:
Henrion-Caude chides that with the testing of healthy people, the “paradigm has shifted a little bit, because people who are tested are usually patients.” This shift shows that the “patient” is now the “consumer”. “Is it medicine or consumerism?” she asks.
“We’re no longer acting according to our Hippocratic oaths,” Henrion-Caude laments, “Therefore, we are in the midst of a change, a break in humanity’s understanding of what medicine is,” she continued. In the second and third translated clips (all transcripts can be found below), the geneticist claims that based on the information “virus genome,” “it should have been very nasty,” so it was right to expect a high level of deaths based on what appears to be “gain of function” work done on the virus that allows it to infect humans.
“In the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, they are separated by the insertion of a sequence which uniquely gives access to the virus to possibly infect human cells. This is what we call in our jargon the ‘gain of function’. So let’s consider that this virus is indeed an artificial construction: when you look at the sequence, it should have been very nasty”.
Based on this author’s interpretation of Henrion-Caude’s comments, it appears that the expectation was for more deaths as a result of the coronavirus – whether or not the origin was from a lab, which is still in dispute. But the consensus that the coronavirus would be more lethal did not materialize, yet the brutal lockdowns still occurred.
Along this vein in the third clip, Alex Henrion-Caude questions those who claim to be the “guardians” of truth. Despite continued uncertainty surrounding many factors of the coronavirus, citizens were being assured that experts were in control. “I mean, very quickly things were presented as if we understood everything and that we had certainties and that these certainties emanate from a scientific consensus,” she said.
Alex Henrion-Caude took part in a viral French Documentary “Hold Up,” which was brutally attacked (without substance) by the leftist establishment media. After being smeared, the geneticist stated during the interview that she “witnessed that they [the media] are capable of lying about me and lying about COVID.” She continued: “So I can’t trust them, because they’re not trustworthy.”
Watch RAIR’s exclusively-translated video clips from the interview here:
Many Thanks to Miss Piggy for the Translation!
Alex Henrion-Caude is a geneticist, RNA specialist and former research director at INSERM. In this excerpt from an interview given to Nexus, she unravels the charts of “covid cases” on TV. She believes that we are not experiencing a “health crisis” and regrets the fact that rather than testing “patients”, we’re testing consumers.
This is usually how cases are presented in the media today in France.
The situation is quite worrying, since we’re shown an exponential upward curve.
It is indeed an exponential upward curve that we see. So now we are talking about cases.
What are “cases”? Usually when we say “case” in English, or in our jargon, it means patients.
Are they patients? Given the fact, as I told you, that 64% to 90% of these cases have no symptoms, we’re not talking about patients.
So perhaps this curve should be made not only in relation to the presence of positivity, but to symptoms as well.
So when you look at this, I really understand everyone’s terror, because this looks like a calamity. We’re not in control of information anymore.
So then, what’s the reality on the only parameter that’s actually of any interest, since that is, once again, what determines the danger? The lethality.
Here we have a chart showing the curve of deaths in France from February of this year (2020) until October. October 12, 2020.
That means we currently are at 50-80 deaths per day in France.
50-80 deaths a day in France is always one too many.
However, these are not deaths which justify any of these sanitary measures.
Nor does it justify calling it a “health crisis”. By calling it a “health crisis”, we are lying, because this part is worrisome, but this part isn’t.
That means it must be monitored. It must be checked, it must be watched, but it is necessary to have a reason to watch it.
That means this doesn’t deserve any special treatment, other than the treatment we have for the flu or those we have for any other of the usual pathologies.
So as soon as we have a test that works just as well as the oropharyngeal test, from that moment, we’ll be doing oropharyngeal tests that are obviously much easier to implement by laboratory technicians, they’ll be more than happy to implement this technique, because it is much less invasive and less intrusive for the non-patient consumer!
So now that paradigm has shifted a little bit, because people who are tested are usually patients.
So we go to a laboratory to verify something, for diagnosis and so on.
But now, that’s where we are, even when you don’t have any symptoms. —So has medicine changed?
Is it medicine or consumerism?
Is it medicine which changed to the point where medical indicators are no longer followed as the law of bioethics currently does? For me, this is no longer medicine.
We’re no longer acting according to our Hippocratic oaths. Therefore, we are in the midst of a change, a break in humanity’s understanding of what medicine is.
Alexandra Henrion-Caude is a geneticist, RNA specialist, and former research director at INSERM. In this excerpt from an interview given to Nexus in October 2020, she discusses the origin of the coronavirus genome, which raises questions to whether it has natural or artificial origin, and she believes that, on paper, this genome was terrifying.
Obviously from the beginning, I was interested in the sequence.
The SARS-CoV 2 sequence presented out of the ordinary compared to the other coronaviruses.
—Well, this virus has a certain amount of information which enables it to infect cells. One of these pieces of information is called the protein S.
In fact, almost all vaccine strategies and a huge number of vaccines are based on this protein.
Protein S is part of the information of the virus genome and it consists of two elements: s1 and s2.
In all Coronaviruses s1 and s2 are side by side.
In the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, they are separated by the insertion of a sequence which uniquely gives access to the virus to possibly infect human cells.
This is what we call in our jargon the “gain of function”.
So let’s consider that this virus is indeed an artificial construction: when you look at the sequence, it should have been very nasty.
Much nastier than it was.
So, in a way, that’s where we see the humility that we must have.
That means when reduced to the sequence alone, we were right to expect lethality comparable to SARS or MERS, we just never reached the same lethality.
Alexandra Henrion-Caude is a geneticist, RNA specialist, and former research director at INSERM. In this excerpt from an interview given to Nexus in October 2020, she criticizes those who claim to be guardians of the truth. She also discusses the origin of the virus, and she believes that the mainstream media are not trustworthy.
Taking action perhaps means doing research and making discoveries, and then a moment comes where we are faced with a new situation, like the one we are living through, and speaking up seems to me the fundamentally approach in order to give another perspective.
That is to say, the goal isn’t to say that I, myself, possess the truth, I’m convinced that no one holds the truth, but many have declared themselves as the guardians of this truth. I mean, very quickly things were presented as if we understood everything and that we had certainties and that these certainties emanate from a scientific consensus.
—Like what for example?
— Typically, the origin of the virus.
So, the virus comes out and right away we had the story with the market, as you are well aware of…
- The pangolin?
— The pangolin, but afterward, nope, it wasn’t the pangolin, it was the bat, and then after that, it was the pangolin again.
In the end, it’s a kind of game that’s quite unhealthy, because it was still presented as the only story. As we say in English, the “storytelling”, the art of telling the story. In fact, the terrible thing about this story is that people were considered irresponsible and incapable of managing their own health.
This is the exact opposite of what I think, and what I promote at SimplissimA.
That’s what interests me right now. Looking at things through a different prism, because the prism of the mainstream media, of the usual media, I’ve witnessed that they are capable of lying about me and lying about COVID. So I can’t trust them, because they’re not trustworthy.