Interview with Professor Didier Raoult, Marseille, France, 2021/07/13

Professor Didier Raoult, recognized before the 2020 pandemic as a leading world
expert in virology, has been a steady and reliable source of information about the
Sars-Cov-2 virus and a critic of the official responses to it. As an expert in this
field, he cannot be dismissed as a quack who says “it’s just a kind of flu” or “the
virus doesn’t even exist.” While he has questioned the policy responses to the
disease, he has not denied that Sars-Cov-2 is a unique and serious public health
threat. It causes a unique form of disease that requires specific new treatment
protocols. Nonetheless, he has called the reactions of governments and health
authorities a tremendous scandal.

In the following eleven-minute interview, he explains why the new coronavirus

should not have considered as a stable virus for which a vaccine would provide a
simple and lasting solution. The emergence of troublesome variants proves he was
correct. He argues instead that the best approach would have been to deal with the
new coronavirus as we have always dealt with new strains of influenza that appear
every year. We vaccinate the vulnerable with a de-activated virus strain, then hope
that it will provide protection in the coming winter season. Sometimes this works
well, and sometimes it doesn’t, but we never become obsessed with vaccinating
everyone and thinking we could eradicate influenza. We live with influenza.

Professor Raoult explains that the Sinovac vaccine produced in China has followed
the traditional approach described above. Independent research done in Chile has
now confirmed its effectiveness and safety. This stands in contrast with the new
mRNA vaccine biotechnology that was hurried to market based on the research
findings of the non-independent makers of the vaccines themselves. Although they
have been effective in reducing mortality and hospitalization, some serious safety
and efficacy concerns became apparent only after they were given to hundreds of
millions of people.

Video language: French, Subtitles: English and French

TRANSCRIPT

Translation by Dennis Riches

Professor Didier Raoult, with the emergence of this Indian variant, this delta
variant, what should be done about vaccination?

It is one example of vaccination, with the delta virus now here, that shows—as I
have been saying since the beginning, which even shocked people— that we mustn’t
make predictions—in particular, about unknown new diseases. So first, predicting
the evolution of diseases that we do not know is a matter of divination. This is
not science. People are trying to make us believe that it is science, that you
could have a mathematical formula, but it is not true. It just reassures the
anxious. We know that the people who believe in luck and who believe in predictions
are rather the politicians, or people who are going to go to war. It has been like
that since ancient times, but it doesn’t work out very well.

The second thing is that there has been a quite shocking ignorance in the
scientific world, an absence of the application of what we know about all the other
RNA viruses. We knew it is difficult or impossible to have vaccines for them, to
have vaccines with complete and stable coverage. It was strange that they thought
this time would be different. The plan should have been the same as for influenza
or dengue fever. These are viruses that have some variants. I was the first to talk
about this in the scientific world, I think, in September [2020]. It took three
months before the scientific press and the media came back to the idea that there
are variants. Virologists said publicly that there would be no variants with this
RNA virus, but that would have really been a huge surprise.

Of course there were, and so, I had an opinion about the vaccines that I had at
that time, that I expressed at the time, that I maintain now, which was this: the
vaccine that seems to me the easiest to make, to my knowledge, is to approach the
task like we approach the flu because we are, after all, in the same situation.
Every year we have new variants, and we make a mixture of strains, usually three,
sometimes four, that we give to persons at risk at the time when seasonal winter
infections begin—that is, in November. In some cases, it provides good coverage. In
other cases, there is a new variant that has appeared, and it doesn’t provide good
coverage, so influenza is more severe in such years. And so we live with the flu.
We have not conquered influenza. It is likely that now we will see varieties of
this corona virus. We are not going to eradicate the coronavirus, especially now
that is has x number of variants and that it is not stopped entirely by vaccines,
especially if the vaccines focus on very narrow targets. It is very easy for new
variants to develop resistance when a vaccine targets just one protein.

So from the beginning, I thought that the Chinese vaccine was a more reasonable
approach. I wanted to see France developing something similar because even though
many efforts have been made by the French, by Sanofi, to make vaccines for avian
influenza and for H1N1, which probably didn’t have the usefulness that they
imagined, they have developed a strategy in terms of adjuvants. They are among the
best adjuvants. They should stick to what they are good at. We have the influenza
vaccines, and we could apply this knowhow to the coronavirus, to all the
circulating strains, including the Indian strains, and continually readjust
according to the circulation of viruses in the world. We could have a weapon that
will allow us to reduce the risk.

The first very big work on the Chinese vaccine has come out. For once, it’s a
really good study, which means you can take it seriously. It was done in Chile.
It’s independent. It wasn’t financed by Chinese money. They compared 17 million
vaccinated with 5 million unvaccinated. So it can be said that they compared things
that make sense. They did this in a very strong epidemic situation, and the number
of people who were not vaccinated was extremely large. They did this in the middle
of an epidemic to see what was going on. There was a protective effect of 65.9%
against any infection, for prevention, 87% reduction for hospitalization, 90% for
resuscitation, and 86% for death. It is, honestly, at least as good as anything I
have seen for the AstraZeneca or the Pfizer vaccines in real situations, as in
England or Israel now.

On the other hand, life is always full of uncertainty. There is a risk in making
traditional vaccines, as there always has been, with their strengths and weaknesses
in fighting influenza. But these are not a technological novelty which could have
unexpected consequences, such as with AstraZeneca which is causing blood clotting
in young women, which may be fatal in some cases, or a loss of vision. Everyone
eventually gave up on this vaccine. The risk of having totally unknown effects,
with totally unknown mechanisms, is much more dangerous than those of a well-known
process that can be applied.

When we use an inactivated virus, the immune response is based on all elements of
the virus, all forms of immunity, cell immunity, antibody immunity. It is a
response that allows us deal with something that we know. Since I am often asked
what I think of vaccination for children or the younger people not at high risk, I
say that will require a political decision. But I am not at all convinced that we
have sufficient evidence of safety to recommend these vaccines, but I have no
reservations about the former ones because, frankly, we know what will not happen.
There is a difference between manipulating cells as we have never done before to
respond to an urgent situation for people who may die from the treatment, just to
ensure protection with new vaccines whose consequences are not known. Look at how
long it took to discover that women were having thrombosis. It took several months,
and during this time we were vaccinating continually. It was unexpected because we
had never seen that with a vaccine. So there are abnormal things going on with
these vaccines, like myocarditis from the Pfizer vaccine. Abnormal things happen
with these vaccines.

You might think that the relative risk in urgent situations is acceptable. As soon
as we have vaccines that are safe, when we know the type of reactions they produce,
we will be sure about what to do, which is better than engaging in vaccine
adventurism.

I remain consistent. So now, it amuses the press to wonder whether I am for or

against vaccines. This is silly. If a vaccine has a good safety record, why not use
it? It is just a question of balancing risk and benefit. So currently, as many
health care workers will be exposed, if things continue like this, we will have
more cases of the Indian variant. I don’t know how much protection the vaccine is
giving because there are many vaccinated people who are infected, as we see in
Israel and in England, and as we see here with half of the Indian cases among the
vaccinated. But in any case, it is reasonable to vaccinate with this when there is
a risk for health care staff, staff who are in contact with patients, potential
carriers of infection. It’s reasonable. Later, for the rest of the population, for
people who risk getting a serious infection, of course, it’s important that they
are vaccinated with the vaccines that we have now, even though they are not a
panacea.

These vaccines are not great. The vaccines we have are not the most effective. They
involve dangers that have not been identified, but if we have a risk, it’s better
to try to reduce the risk, even if the decrease in risk is not as spectacular as
what they say in the advertising. There is the marketing message, and there is the
reality, which is becoming apparent. This is one of the reasons why I have said
little about vaccines. I can better explain myself now because we have data
observed by reliable people—that is, people who are not involved in the development
of the vaccine but who are users. From the beginning we have argued that users make
a better assessment than the industry which has its methodologies made specifically
to arrive at the results that they hope for, or, if they don’t get them, they don’t
publish.

So we’re in the real world. In the real world we now have a vaccine that costs much
less and is much more traditional. It would surprise me if it had unexpected side
effects. So I think it was good news to see that France is adopting this path
because I have been recommending it. But again, I have no conflict of interest with
Sanofi. On the contrary, I argued with them to let us get hydroxychloroquine
because at the pharmacies here and at the hospital, staff were desperate to get it
to treat the sick. So I don’t get money from them. I am not particularly friendly
with them. And that is not my problem. That is not how I manage my relationships. I
avoid having personalized relationships, or concordance, if you prefer that term,
with people who may later have an influence one way or another on what I say
because the only thing that interests me is being able to look back at what I said
without feeling ashamed.