CRIIGEN - COVID-19: Vaccine technologies under the magnifying glass Conférence de Christian VELOT
| Long-métrage | [Santé] COVID-19 | Vaccin | Vu 169384 fois
[CRIIGEN] Vidéo N°18221
After having published his expertise report for the general public on vaccines using biotechnologies, Dr Christian VÉLOT*, molecular geneticist at the University of Paris-Saclay and President of the CRIIGEN’s Scientific Council, proposes an educational video (subtitled French/English/Spanish) on the different types of vaccines against COVID-19, and in particular the latest generation vaccines with the potential risks that they can generate. Have a good viewing!
Remember to share and make share!
Thank you for your support!
The CRIIGEN team
- https://criigen.org/
* C. Vélot is an associate Professor from University ; he declares having no conflict of interest.
Expert note for the general public: https://criigen.org/rapport-dexpertise-sur-les-vaccins-genetiquement-modifie/
To continue to support us :
• 2 other conferences for general public by Dr VÉLOT (in french) : https://criigen.org/commande-de-dvd/
• To make a secure online donation to us: https://www.helloasso.com/associations/criigen/formulaires/1/widget
• To join CRIIGEN: https://criigen.org/adherer-au-criigen/
Protecting your person of course! But what about collective risk?
Or from the individual responsibility to vaccinate oneself to the collective responsibility not to do so in order to protect humanity... By Jacques TESTART (member of CRIIGEN and Sciences Citoyennes)
The risk that the organism of a vaccinated person will be the site of an unfavourable viral recombination is minute. But the sheer number of people vaccinated worldwide - hundreds of millions or more - makes it very likely that this will happen somewhere, and that a much more virulent virus will spread through vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
So the responsible argument "If you don't get vaccinated, you put others at risk" turns around, making every vaccinated person a potential new focus! Vaccination, which is certainly beneficial for oneself, can be irresponsible for the species. The same recombinations can occur after natural infection (81 million cases at the beginning of January 2021), but become much more likely after vaccination (several billion people?).
So what can be done?
We find ourselves in the same individual situation as with over-consumption, which aggravates environmental damage: the responsibility would be to abstain rather than consume if the collective is more important than the well-being/comfort of each individual.
The choice not to vaccinate could illustrate the inversion of responsibility as defined by official injunctions, in the name of concern for others .
In the absence of effective drugs, these contradictions will only be resolved with the arrival of "classic" vaccines with inactivated viruses or recombinant proteins.
Remember to share and make share!
Thank you for your support!
The CRIIGEN team
- https://criigen.org/
* C. Vélot is an associate Professor from University ; he declares having no conflict of interest.
Expert note for the general public: https://criigen.org/rapport-dexpertise-sur-les-vaccins-genetiquement-modifie/
To continue to support us :
• 2 other conferences for general public by Dr VÉLOT (in french) : https://criigen.org/commande-de-dvd/
• To make a secure online donation to us: https://www.helloasso.com/associations/criigen/formulaires/1/widget
• To join CRIIGEN: https://criigen.org/adherer-au-criigen/
Protecting your person of course! But what about collective risk?
Or from the individual responsibility to vaccinate oneself to the collective responsibility not to do so in order to protect humanity... By Jacques TESTART (member of CRIIGEN and Sciences Citoyennes)
The risk that the organism of a vaccinated person will be the site of an unfavourable viral recombination is minute. But the sheer number of people vaccinated worldwide - hundreds of millions or more - makes it very likely that this will happen somewhere, and that a much more virulent virus will spread through vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
So the responsible argument "If you don't get vaccinated, you put others at risk" turns around, making every vaccinated person a potential new focus! Vaccination, which is certainly beneficial for oneself, can be irresponsible for the species. The same recombinations can occur after natural infection (81 million cases at the beginning of January 2021), but become much more likely after vaccination (several billion people?).
So what can be done?
We find ourselves in the same individual situation as with over-consumption, which aggravates environmental damage: the responsibility would be to abstain rather than consume if the collective is more important than the well-being/comfort of each individual.
The choice not to vaccinate could illustrate the inversion of responsibility as defined by official injunctions, in the name of concern for others .
In the absence of effective drugs, these contradictions will only be resolved with the arrival of "classic" vaccines with inactivated viruses or recombinant proteins.
[CRIIGEN]
Toutes les vidéos
Réagissez, commentez !
- Aucun commentaire pour l'instant