“We Have Been Lied To”

Posted on by

Alexandra Henrion-Caude is an Anglo-French geneticist. She holds a doctorate in genetics from the University of Paris-Diderot.

In the following video Dr. Henrion-Caude lists a series of assertions that were made about the experimental mRNA treatments intended to mitigate the effects of infection with the Wuhan Coronavirus, and later turned out to be false.

Many thanks to HeHa for verifying the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:00   We have been lied to. They made them inject us with a product that we had, supposedly,
00:04   mastered and known for long time, as they told us. It’s false.
00:09   We have been lied to. We have been told that messenger RNA would degrade immediately.
00:14   It’s false. We have been lied to. We have been told
00:17   that messenger RNA would remain in the muscle. It’s false.
00:21   We have been told that we would get vaccinated only twice, with these doses. It’s false.
00:26   We have been told that they were safe and effective.
00:29   They are neither safe nor effective.
00:32   We have been told that phase 3 was over.
00:35   It’s false. We have been lied to.
 

12 thoughts on ““We Have Been Lied To””

  1. Interesting, but, as always, I’d need to see something beyond claims (e.g., peer-reviewed research) before drawing any [useful] conclusions.

    • fredreethreethree: Peer review no longer confers credibility, due to the politization of science.

      • “Peer review no longer confers credibility, due to the politization of science.”

        Point taken. However, it’s better….ALOT better methinks….than simply taking the word of Ms. Henrion-Caude, especially, without either randomized, double-blind scientific studies or affirmations—based on empirical research that produces similar results—by other researchers. That’s all I’m saying.

        THINK, don’t comply.

    • Peer-reviewed research is the gold standard, but with all the shenanigans from the medical associations supposedly responsible for that peer-review it would be impossible for the layperson to know who’s telling the truth, shades of the truth, or outright fabricating it.

      At this point its easier and likely safer to just look at the cast of characters pushing the latest thing, and from that make ones judgement of whether or not it’s something that you want in your body.

      For example, if Bill Gates tried to sell you his crappy computer software instead of forcing you to use it through making it impossible to run a computer without it would you still buy it? I know the value of his terrible software so if he tries to push vaccines then I am just as sure that they are also full of bugs and glitches.

    • I believe she is simply itemizing false statements that are known to be false. I have heard each of these things previously, and the claims are already well-documented,

    • I think you can come to the conclusion that it is less safe than a traditional vaccine without verifying all of the other claims because of the mechanism by which it works. If you are injected intravenously with it, is it probable you will die or be seriously injured. You can have side effects/allergic responses to traditional vaccines administered correctly or incorrectly but the mRNA ones attack your cells to make the spike protein and that will be standing next to your vascular system when your immune system comes to kick ass if it gets into your bloodstream.

  3. For the record, I’ve been ambivalent re most of the C-19 “experts” from day-one and’ve been posting on facebook (fb) to that effect. So I’ve got a paper trail. In fact, just this morning, fb issued an(other) apology to me re an “anti-vaxx” post from January that they’d initially removed for “violating community standards”.

    Also, I spent several years as the editor of an FDA journal. Although I’d never profess to being a medical expert, I do know when an “expert” is pissing into the collective sippie cups of Jamestown whilst ordering the inhabitants to “drink-up”. Just sayin’..

    • Sorry, that should be “Jonestown”….which should now put my comment in its proper context.

Comments are closed.