Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: An Overview of Covid Vaccines
“I want to stress the fact that we face an unprecedented worldwide situation harming … at least 3 million [people] already – potentially endangering all of them, meaning billions of people, and likely future generations with a lack of demonstrated benefits … So it is, I believe, our responsibility to stop at once, this never-ending campaign as the fourth dose has already been announced in Israel,” Prof Henrion-Caude said.
The Exposé is now heavily censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter and PayPal. Let’s not lose touch, subscribe today to receive the latest news from The Exposé in your inbox…
“We all know, I hope, that [the injections] are still at the R&D stage, research and development. Those products were still in the research and development stage and therefore are still under clinical trial status,” she stated, adding that there was no assessment of the epidemic dynamics of the Covid injections and there was a flawed risk-benefit analysis.
In addition, there was sufficient literature, prior to emergency use authorisation, warning that no coronavirus vaccine had been successful. This prior knowledge, and because no other coronavirus vaccine had had passed Phase 2 trials let alone been approved in France, led a group of scientists to publish a paper in October 2020 which stated:
“Independently, SARS/MERS vaccine candidates, commonly exhibited ADE associated with high inflammatory morbidity in preclinical models, obstructing their advancement to the clinic.
“Given the strong evidence that ADE is a non-theoretical and compelling risk for Covid-19 vaccines and the “laundry list” nature of informed consents, disclosure of the specific risk of worsened Covid-19 disease from vaccination calls for a specific, separate, informed consent form and demonstration of patient comprehension in order to meet medical ethics standards.”
Prof. Henrion-Caude also explained that the Covid injections could only be imposed on the world because all other treatments had been excluded. The emergency use authorisation was conditional that there was no alternative treatment.
Below is the video of Henrion-Caude’s testimony and the transcript.
Watch the full Grand Jury sessions Days 1-6 on Odysee HERE or on Internet Archive, with chapters and timestamps:
- Day 1, Opening statements, 05 February 2022
- Day 2, General historical and geopolitical backdrop, 12 February 2022
- Day 3, PCR test, 13 February 2022
- Day 4, Injections, 19 February 2022
- Day 5, Financial destruction, 20 February 2022
- Day 6, Eugenics, closing arguments and outlook, 26 February 2022
More information about the proceedings and contact details can be found on the Grand Jury’s website, HERE.
Transcript Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude
(Links contained within the text below are our own)
Reiner Fuellmich: Now let’s hear from the real medical experts. What is it about the vaccine? We’ve learned last time that no pandemic exists and that the virus can be treated by traditional methods of treatment effectively and safely. What is the truth?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude:
Hello everyone. My name is Alexandra Henry Henrion-Caude. I will share my screen. Can you see it correctly?
I, Dr. Alexandra Henrion-Caude, director of research in Genetics and director of Simplissima Research Institute, declare no conflict of interest.
It seems that we do face an unprecedented problem and I want to stress to start with, to give more relief to the testimony you just showed, Reiner, that we have in the present database over 3 million adverse reactions that have been notified in the database of VigiAccess by the World Health Organisation. This is unprecedented because if we gather all the deaths, for instance, that took place only after Covid-19 vaccination in comparison to over the 30 years of any other vaccines, they already account for over half of the death over 30 years. So basically, within one year of those Covid vaccinations, we’ve already reached over half of the deaths.
The problem is actual. Because no matter how or the way we look at the data, talking with Our World in Data we have an increase of the weekly confirmed Covid-19 death per million people. That keeps on increasing. Specifically, all the more, in the countries that do vaccinate at a high rate. And more so than in countries where the rate is difficult to assess, basically because it’s India and Africa. But the trend of the curve is just so obvious that we can only say that the vaccination is not the solution.
I want to stress that the problem is not an anti-vaxx or a pro-vax problem as it has been constantly presented to the people. The problem is to openly discuss our scientific knowledge and the gaps of this knowledge. And typically, we need to accept that RNA viruses undergo relatively rapid mutation which can critically impact vaccination strategies. To take an example, I will take the ancestral Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 variant, that is likely extinct – that is to say that we haven’t seen it in Europe or in any other country. And this Wuhan variant happened to be extinct without a vaccine.
So, for the last two years a sole answer to Covid-19 – has been repeatedly offered to us – which was presented as the vaccine. Yet we have at least five issues with this presentation of this sole solution to Covid-19.
One is that this vaccine were unwary and ethical products. We all know, I hope, that they are still at the R&D stage, research and development. Those products were still in the research and development stage and therefore are still under clinical trial status.
The second aspect is that they were presented as the sole solution with false and changing promises, mainly due to the fact that again there was this ongoing status of the clinical trial that would end in 2023.
The third aspect is that they could be imposed to the world because they excluded any other treatment. Basically, we have this conditional existence of this emergency authorisation that solely depends on the lack of any alternative treatment. So, one can only understand why no other treatments were presented.
The fourth aspect is that there was no assessment of the epidemic dynamics in terms of the decision of going further to vaccinate massively. And this is also something very important as well as a defectuous pharmacovigilance because the issue was so big.
And the last, but not least, aspect. The fifth one is that there was a flawed risk-benefit analysis that would not take account of age, nor the disease status, nor the status of immunity, whether natural or even the waning one now, as well as the adverse reaction. With these five items of the background, we understand how Covid-19 [vaccines] were imposed to us as the unique solution.
I will go reverse, so instead of going 1-2-3-4-5, I will quickly browse.
The fifth point: display risk benefit analysis. But we’ll go later into detail because those are concerned the future.
The fourth point is the fact that there was no assessment of the epidemic dynamics. And this is important because normally when you do vaccinate a population you try not to be in a replicative stage of the virus that will go beyond a certain threshold. And you don’t want to be in the dynamic that there is an increase. (NER: This is what Geert Vanden Bossche warned about in March 2021 that you cannot vaccinate during a pandemic as it will cause endless variants to generate, He was vilified by the mainstream but as with all Covid conspiracy theories he was proven right)
In Israel, the black line, here, was the start of the vaccination campaign. And after that you got the strongest peak of death, Covid-19 deaths, of the Israeli population. The same happened in UK where it was actually more in the lower part of the dynamics of the epidemics. But yes, again the start of the campaign was followed by the highest peak of Covid-19 death. Same with Emirates. And with those three countries that took place quite early because they were the soonest to vaccine massively their population, they should have had a halt.
The exclusion of any other treatment. We have loads of studies that do show other treatments. Yet, those were excluded just for the sake of saying that there was no other solution.
This false and changing promises are important. The failed promises, those are typically the fact that those products were presented to us as a means to end the pandemic. Instead of ending the pandemic, we can read on the World Economic Forum on the conversation in September 2021 that Covid-19 was likely shifting from pandemic to endemic. So, this is a failed promise of the
The other promise was that it would be a weapon to eradicate a virus. Now in Bloomberg last month, in January, one could read that Europe was slowly starting to consider treating Covid like the flu, meaning to take medication and not solely rely on vaccination. So, it was a failed promise.
Another failed promise was it was a drug to protect from the disease. But we all know, and Bloomberg again published it, I think it was yesterday, that new Covid variants obviously did complicate the question of vaccine mandates, because these variants cannot ensure the fact that those drugs will protect from the diseases.
The other part that is important in this form and changing promises is that at no stage was the immune status taken into account. And this is a big issue. There is this very nice paper taking over 52,000 employees, health employees, that clearly show that whether you have been previously infected or whether you have been vaccinated, you have a substantial protection against the Covid-19, and that vaccination of previously infected individuals does not provide additional protection against Covid. Meaning that all these passports imposed on the people on not taking care of the immune status are wrong.
To end up with the first point, which was the unwary aspect of those products. One should know that there was sufficient data in the literature to have all the warnings to understand that any anti coronavirus vaccines were never successful. No anti coronavirus vaccines were ever approved in France, whether in animals or in human. And this had led scientists to publish this very nice paper early on, stating that: Independently, whether you would fight against SARS, against MERS with vaccine candidates, you had a phenomenon with antibodies that were “associated with high inflammatory morbidity in preclinical models, [and therefore] obstructing their advancement to the clinic.”
So, they by-passed this knowledge. They also by-passed the fact that this phenomenon was consistent across any sort of vaccine used. It was not a question of the strategy, was it mRNA or DNA or what kind of vector. But it was irrespectively of the type of vaccine and issue. And therefore, they were asking that if we were to vaccinate anyone, we would disclose to them the specific risk of “worsened Covid-19 disease from vaccination.”
The other part is that there was known warnings for the mRNA “vaccine” as well. As such, a little bit like the anti coronavirus vaccine, no mRNA vaccines were ever approved, worldwide, for any disease in human. And this, you see it very well in the literature, through reviews.
Basically, when you unravel all the clinical trials in the past, except with the exception of Covid, they did not reach beyond Phase 2.
The last issue that I want to stress with these unwary products is the fact that choosing spike in the design of all these vaccines – because no vaccine does target spikes specifically – was a big mistake. For three reasons.
One is that spike is known as a hot spot for evolutionary for mutation. All these little triangles that you get means that you have intense mutation in the spike. So now if you build up antibody against a region that keeps on changing and mutating, obviously you know in advance that your product may be very well outdated.
The second part, spike is a hotspot for glycosylation. It is a little sugar that is added to the spike, in red that you see – this is the virus, in red, the spike – and this glycosylation added sugar. Meaning that the patterns of those sugar on the spike keep on changing. And this again will clearly make any sense of vaccination more than tricky.
And the last part, not the least, is the fact that they chose a pathogenic antigen that they did not try to attenuate or to inactivate, which was normally the case in vaccination. That is to say that the toxicity of this spike remained.
The last part, is the fact that we know now that there will be repeated boosting, repeated injection. And this is, again, from our past knowledge, a critical issue because systemic autoimmunity appears to be an inevitable consequence of overstimulating your host immune system.
To that I will pass it onto Vanessa and Sukarit, I believe. I want to stress the fact that we face an unprecedented worldwide situation harming a few people – at least 3 million already – potentially endangering all of them, meaning billions of people, and likely future generations with a lack of demonstrated benefits as compared typically to vitamin D, for instance, because they could have compared their strategy. So it is, I believe, our responsibility to stop at once, this never-ending campaign as the fourth dose has already been announced in Israel.
Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you very much. Alexandra, one question I have. You said no mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for humans. Is it correct that mRNA technique has only been used in cancer research and been used on patients who literally had nothing to lose, not on healthy patients?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: Cancer and infectious disease, that’s where the different trials, clinical trials are ongoing.
Viviane Fischer: And could you quickly say what the second step of the trials is? Phase 2, what does that mean for the audience who doesn’t know or what that means?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: It means that you have a number of critical steps that you need to reach in order to ensure safety, before you can move forward into humans. And those are like the technical stages that you normally have. Phase 1, phase 2, phase 3, phase 4. And because they were not successful, they did not pursue further. Vanessa wanted to elaborate I think.
Viviane Fischer: Okay, good.
Reiner Fuellmich: Any other questions? Sorry, Dexter.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: No problem. Reiner. Good day Dr. Henrion-Caude, I just wanted to find out, you are a geneticist, is that correct?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: Correct.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay. For how long have you been practicing as a geneticist?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: For, um … I’m very bad with time. Since I graduated my doctorate, so it was in 1997
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: So 1997, that’s definitely quite a number of years. We are talking more than 20 years, approximately.
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: Yes. And over more than that, yes. And over 12 to 15 years on RNA biology. On RNA specifically.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay, so you will then say that you are an expert when it comes to genetics. You know all the ins and outs, basically, when it comes to genetics.
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: No, that’s something very nice in our job is that we never know everything and that we are always in the process of acquiring knowledge. So, we are supposed to be a specialist – that is to say that we have a good knowledge of the literature, of a number of things, which is the stage at which the knowledge is. So, it’s never the truth, it’s never something that is completely established. It is always evolving.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: So, when it comes to this vaccine. It is public knowledge that when it comes to the Covid-19 vaccines we are talking about and we have presented evidence, we are talking about the mRNA vaccines, which is in genetics or it is a genetic way of introducing new cells to the human body. Is that correct, doctor?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: Again? I didn’t understand your point.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: It is a common knowledge that Covid-19 vaccines and you have given evidence that it is mRNA vaccines which means it is a gene therapy. So, it is then certain cells that is injected into the human cell, the human DNA. Is it correct if I say that?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: I still didn’t get your point. So, it is correct to say that it is an advanced medicinal product based on gene. Some call it gene therapy. Even the FDA, I believe, has called it gene therapy. I am not comfortable with the fact it is a gene therapy because therapy means that you are being cured of something when here, in the current case, it has been injected in people who did not need to be cured, who did not need to get treated. So that’s why I’m not comfortable with this gene therapy. What it is, is that indeed, by injecting those mRNA into the cell, one cannot say that you do not reach status of gene modification by this sole fact that this gene, viral gene, goes into the cells and to the best of our knowledge we don’t know yet when it gets degraded. But I think Vanessa again will elaborate on that. You are modified, we don’t know at which stage you seeing modification.
Sukarit Bhakdi: May I make a comment, Dexter?
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: You can make a comment.
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: Yes. What Alexander was saying is actually that you are not injecting the body with cells, you’re injecting the body with the viral gene and the gene gets into your cells. So, it’s a big difference. But otherwise, whether you want to call this gene therapy or not, is a matter of semantics.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay, excellent. Thank you so much for clarifying it. Doctor, just before you go.
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: No, I’ll stay in and I think you will get to know much more now.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay. So, you have given evidence and your evidence, and for me I actually regard it as very crucial evidence, and you have stated that no assessment of the epidemic dynamics has been done. According to you how crucial is it for that to have been done? Just to put it, how important is it?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: Crucial enough as to be in any books of any medical students in medicine. That is to say it’s the basics that you get to learn. You do not want to vaccinate someone when there is a chance that he or she is sick or getting the disease. So, you don’t want to take the chance.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay. So, my last question to you, doctor, is that, and I believe that you are aware when it comes to the four basic ethical bioethics code of medicine and I am going to mention it to you briefly. The first principle – that’s the four main principles of ethical principles – there is beneficence and then we have non-malfeasance, autonomy and justice. Now having regard to the evidence that you have presented, will you say that any doctor who presents or actually inject any citizen in the world with this mRNA vaccine, which has never passed phase 2, any of those doctors, are they in a breach concerning the four main ethical principles that I’ve mentioned? And I’m going to quickly just … beneficence, non-malfeasance, autonomy and justice.
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: What is it when they’re ignorant?
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: But when it comes to a medical doctor …
Virginie de Araujo Recchia: Dexter, if you don’t mind, perhaps we can have some points for Professor Henrion-Caude about the Nuremberg code. It’s about enlightened consent and I think it’s very important. If you don’t mind, I will confirm the scientific conclusions of Professor Henrion-Caude with the principle which were determined in 1947.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Please proceed.
Virginie de Araujo Recchia: Thank you. The Nuremberg Code of International Criminal Jurisprudence presents a list of ten criteria. First is following:
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person consenting must have the legal capacity to consent. That he or she must be placed in a position to exercise free power of choice without intervention of any element of force, fraud, coercion, trickery, deception or other amended forms of compulsion or coercion. And that he or she must have sufficient knowledge and understanding of what is involved to enable him or her to make an informed decision.”
What it says is: “consent with its revocability is the essential criterion for distinguishing from a criminal perspective between the victim and the subject.”
Professor Henrion-Caude, in your point of view, can we consider that people injected with so-called anti-Covid vaccines are given a true enlightened consent, following what you say?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: Yes, I do.
Virginie de Araujo Recchia: You think that they gave enlightened consent to the vaccines, anti-Covid vaccines?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: No, they were not enlightened so they could not. So I think that due to what I think was their ignorance they could not, they were not in the capacity of informing the patients.
Virginie de Araujo Recchia: So, they are victims because they cannot be subject to an experimentation if they didn’t give an enlightened consent, true consent.
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: So basically, the victims are dual. The victims would be the medical doctors, a number of them who injected without having the knowledge, and the other where the victims are the victims themselves because they were not having an informed consent, sufficient [informed consent].
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Can I quickly come in there and I think this is very important, doctor, is that we need to make this differentiation because you have actually defined two types of victims. The one victim you’ve defined is the medical doctor who actually injects this experimental mRNA in unsuspecting citizens, therein is the first victim that you’ve said. The second class of victims that you’ve identified is then ultimately the patient per se.
What I want to get to and that is the first class. I am of the view, and you can tell me as to whether you agree with me, is that when it comes to a medical doctor, a medical doctor cannot plead ignorance under any circumstances based on the four ethical basic principles that I’ve read to you. And [ ] is one of them, whatever they inject or whatever prescription they give, it must be to the benefit of the patient. So, a doctor that has not done his or her research, in any country of the world, injecting this mRNA – now we’ve got evidence it has never even passed the phase 2 – that doctor cannot be ignorant and he must, or she must, be held liable. Do you agree with me on that statement that I have made, doctor?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: Not quite. Because as I said in my presentation, I think we were facing an unprecedented situation. That is to say, the pressure of the medical doctors to do the job of injecting the people was so strong that I do not see how they could possibly, or where could they possibly, look for the information, because the information they were receiving themselves was not sufficient to get their information. That’s why I really think that this is a very unprecedented situation.
Sucharit Bhakdi: May I Dexter?
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Thank you very much for that, doctor. When it comes to … I’m taking note of you, Professor Bhakdi but I’ll come to you just now.
So, you’ve now clarified, basically, according to you, and that’s basically your evidence and then the evidence is, it is unprecedented. So, which means these medical doctors, in a sense, it is justified for them to be ignorant, although I will completely disagree with that, because as a medical doctor, you actually put yourself out there to ensure that you look after the best interest of your patients. It is your duty, even when it comes to pandemics and epidemics, any kind of illness, to actually do thorough research and then actually consult wherever you need to consult. And this is the problem, what we have, because everything has been top down from the World Health Organisation. There are ministries of health in each and every country in lock step.
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: I agree with you, but as I said, when you don’t know where to find information, this is more critical.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: I understand. Thank you, doctor. I just want to put it on record because we do have evidence in this Grand Jury where a South African doctor gave evidence last week, and in his evidence, he explained to us what was the medical analytical process he underwent when he was confronted with this novel coronavirus. So then in conclusion seeing that he could have actually done that as a general practitioner, that’s actually not from one of the main cities in the country, but you could have done that. So, I will say when it comes to a duty of care the medical doctors and, specifically here, I’m actually making a reference to Dr. Fauci. He’s supposed to have known and I’m talking about all the medical experts as well also medical societies in each and every country they were supposed to have known and they cannot be ignorant. But thank you for your evidence. I really appreciate it. In conclusion Professor Bhakdi, would you like to add anything?
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: Yeah, I just want to say that what I presented was a little browsing and the details are upcoming now with the presentation of Sucharit and Vanessa. So, it was just meant to be a browser so I took shortcuts into presenting it.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Thank you doctor. Yes, Professor Bhakdi?
Sucharit Bhakdi: I just wanted to say that I would absolutely share your opinion about the responsibility of doctors to get informed. Especially, when they see that something is going wrong. Not perhaps at the very beginning but after months of these deaths and injuries that we’re seeing – no one can plead innocent.
The only other detail I wanted to say is that this new vaccine has passed the stage 4 because of the manipulation of the studies. All right? So, let’s not make a mistake here.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Thank you so much, professor.
Prof. Alexandra Henrion-Caude: I said but the Covid, the exception. Yeah, to the exception of the Covid
Sucharit Bhakdi: Exactly.