Renowned French Scientist: Coronavirus ‘Danger is No Longer Present Yet We Continue to Spread an Irrational Fear’ (Video)

Renowned French Scientist: Coronavirus ‘Danger is No Longer Present Yet We Continue to Spread an Irrational Fear’ (Video)

  • Posted by Amy Mek
  • On August 18, 2020
  • 1 Comments
  • Amy Mek, Chinese Coronavirus, Communist, Corona, Coronavirus, Coronavirus vaccinations, COVID-19, Emmanuel Macron, Estates General of prevention, France, High Council for Public Health, Jean-François Toussaint, Les Grandes Gueules, Mandatory Face Masks, University of Paris

On August 10, Jean-François Toussaint , Professor of Physiology at the University of Paris was the guest on the popular French program “Les Grandes Gueules” on RMC. Toussaint previously served as President of the Estates General of Prevention and member of the High Council for Public Health.

Asked about the current health crisis resulting from contamination by the Chinese virus at the start of the school year, Professor Toussaint explained that the protective measures are divorced from any scientific rationale. On French national television he warned, that as the crisis continues, the response becomes “increasingly less and less scientific and increasingly irrational”.

Professor Toussaint believes that young people are the scapegoats in this pandemic. “In phases of major tension, the way we are going to operate irrationally is to designate the goat. Who is the goat now? Youth.”

As reported by Epoch Times, the professor denounces the wearing of corona masks and the government’s push to blame children for a potential “second wave”:

it’s just social mimicry, that’s just that, we have absolutely no demonstration of any scientific interest and currently we say: it is the youth who make themselves” responsible “for the second wave ”.  But no, that’s a ‘collective suicide’ generated by the Scientific Council, to collapse an economy whose young people will pay the most important price in the years to come ” .

Watch the following video translated by RAIR Foundation USA:

Quartier Libre TV

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/

Many thanks to Miss Piggy for the following translation:

Last week we heard the head of the scientific council warning of the danger of — 
the expression that was used was “super contamination” — during the back-to-school season. 
Do you share that view and concern?

We have had multiple opinions from the scientific council. They remain, for the most part,
inconsistent. On March 12, on March 14, they authorized a number of major measures in France.

Then on March 15, legitimately, the confinement of the whole population followed.
We had the first notification from the scientific council as early as March 12, which set the tone
for all the other opinions for which the French were responsible.

A certain form of relaxation before the containment had been established.
So the idea had already been established, and this idea persists in the spirit of the 
scientific council, which has become legitimate by its own existence.

The president of the scientific council announced himself on June 7th that the scientific council
had to complete its work in July and that it was not healthy, these are his words, that it 
was not healthy for a structure that was created from scratch to continue beyond the 
emergency resolutions.

The council was important, but uncertain and strained at times, during moments when
the scientific knowledge was very weak. The problem is that the consequences are gradually
appearing more and more, because knowledge is progressing, and this isn’t taken into account.

That leaves us with the beliefs from March 12. So we are in a world of belief which is
increasingly less and less scientific and increasingly irrational.

I don’t see the scientific arguments being provided for many of the decisions that have been made.
In the beginning, decisions were made in uncertainty, and we can understand that.

However, now we must quickly re-evaluate what we do. We have to show that others aren’t
doing the same thing, but are having the same results. So maybe the containment was not useful;
maybe it didn’t help in the end. The side effects of which we knew very early on, and are now
witnessing. We know that they are long-term. This should have been anticipated.

In addition to that — and this is where I still have a great difficulty
hearing the current discourse, which is about designating a scapegoat. As always in a phase 
of major tension, we’ll operate irrationally and try to designate the scapegoat. 
Who is the scapegoat at the moment? Young people.

Precautions must be based on scientifically proven elements. —OK.

At present, we have absolutely none, for example on the usefulness of masks outdoors,
at the end of the pandemic phase. We are currently at the end of this pandemic phase.

Perhaps this is a first phase. Perhaps there will be others with the return to seasonality,
which won’t a result of bad behaviour on the part of the French.

What’s currently happening in South America? 

In the case that the virus returns in the fall, at that time it will be necessary to 
resume these behaviors and to show where the danger is.

However, the danger is currently no longer present, and we continue to spread
an irrational fear, and I would like to point out in addition…

It’s a political health parameter to protect us. That’s all. I don’t believe it is just political. 
Primarily it is scientific, and if a committee is not a scientific council but more of a 
political health committee, we should change the rules that apply to the population that is being 
impacted by its side effects uniformly.

The decisions that have been taken, these side effects this second half of the time that
we will have, if we manage to blow the whistle at the end of the first half, so if the second 
half comes, it will be essentially social, economic and health-related, because today’s economy 
is tomorrow’s prevention and tomorrow’s health.

We have just shown that more than sixty thousand children in the world have already died from
the effects of general confinement. From blind confinement, that has not allowed them to have
the necessary nutrition, to have the food intake that allows them to survive.

In all the countries that have blindly confined people, it is clear that in all of these countries
there is no relationship between the intensity of the confinement and the motivation behind it.

We have had multiple opinions from the scientific council. They remain, for the most part,
inconsistent. On March 12, on March 14, they authorized a number of major measures in France.
Then on March 15, legitimately, the confinement of the whole population followed.

We had the first notification from the scientific council as early as March 12, which set the 
tone for all the other opinions for which the French people were responsible.

A certain form of relaxation before the containment had been established. So the idea had 
already been established, and this idea persists in the spirit of the scientific council, 
which has become legitimate by its own existence.

1 Comment

Miller
Thank you for all the information. I believe I can help a bit here for accuracy: The translation, to be accurate here, "the French were responsible. A certain form of relaxation before the containment had been established." isn't accurate. I'm no good at translating, but I'm French and he very clearly states that the French were being told the increase in covid cases​ was their fault because they were not following the measures of containment well enough - and this even before the very same measures had been established.

Leave Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *