covid-19 conspiracy

Hold-Up: Successful Documentary Claims To Unveil Global Covid-19 Conspiracy

With his documentary called Hold-Up, the director Pierre Barnérias wanted to denounce the “lies, corruption and manipulation” in France around the management of the coronavirus. However, if this production is successful on the web, the reactions are sometimes strong. Indeed, the documentary develops conspiracy theories on a global scale.

COVID-19 Conspiracy Documentation

For several hours on social networks, it is possible to watch a mysterious documentary called “Hold-Up”. The film poster is also unequivocal, showing two masked faces and whose eyes contain the logos of AFP, TF1, BFMTV as well as CNEWS. It is also possible to read the following words: “lies, corruption, manipulation, Covid-19 Return to chaos”. With this production of about 2 hours and 45 minutes, the director Pierre Barnérias – former journalist of TF1 and Europe 1 – intended to clarify the errors made by the State, the media as well as doctors of the scientific community in the management of the Covid-19 pandemic in France.

Only here, some voices were raised like that of the essayist Tristan Mendès France. On November 11, 2020, the interested party published a tweet criticizing the documentary Hold-Up which according to him, “excites the complosphere”. It must be said that when it was released, several hundred thousand Internet users (or even millions) viewed the film and there are many shares. The production was made possible thanks to several crowdfunding campaigns – on Ullule and Tipeee. More than 5,000 people contributed to these operations, which raised more than 200,000 euros.
But what does this documentary really contain? The main thesis of the film is quite simple: the World Economic Forum in Davos is using the artificially created Covid-19 as part of a global project to subjugate humanity.

Many speakers

No less than 37 speakers are present in the documentary and several extracts from the film are the subject of accompanying publications. Let us quote for example Nathalie Derivaux, a visibly moved midwife commenting on the remarks of Laurent Alexandre (polemicist) on the elites by comparing him to Adolf Hitler. However, it should be noted that these comments were made in 2019, before the pandemic. Let’s also mention Michael Yeadon, former Director of Research at Pfizer. The latter said that there was no evidence concerning the second wave of the epidemic and advanced the argument of false positives. Let us also quote Michael Levitt, biophysicist and chemist, and Nobel Prize in chemistry. In February 2020, the man predicted the end of the epidemic when there were already more than 2,500 deaths in China. He also said the outbreak was over in the United States on August 22, 2020.

A word about the main character of the documentary: Christian Perronne. Head of the infectious diseases department at Raymond-Poincaré Hospital in Garches, the person concerned does not carry government policy in his heart and supports Professor Raoult as well as his protocol. Christian Perronne became known some time ago before the pandemic for his statements on the origin of Lyme disease. According to him, it is about a secret proliferation of ticks modified by a Nazi researcher. Among the other speakers, we also find Valérie Bugault, Ema Krusi, and Silvano Trotta. All listed by L’Observatoire du Conspirationnisme, these very controversial personalities often speak on their own YouTube channels or social media pages.

A relentlessness on wearing the mask

Another excerpt features the words of Olivier Véran and Jérôme Salomon during the first wave. The Minister of Health and the infectious disease specialist have indeed said that it was not desirable for the wearing of a mask to be generalized to the entire French population. Nevertheless, these words were in line with the WHO recommendations which have since naturally changed. However, the documentary ignores certain well-known scandals, for example concerning the low quantity of masks in the strategic stock. of the French State when the pandemic arrived. The film, however, focuses on an alleged ineffectiveness of the mask when people are not sick. However, studies have already shown that the mask also protects its wearer and that asymptomatic patients can be contagious.

Remember, however, that since the appearance of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, conspiracy theories have multiplied. These relate in particular to the origin of the virus, the future vaccine, and of course, the wearing of a mask. The fake news evokes, in particular, a risk of hypoxia (lack of oxygen), CO2 poisoning, or too large the mesh size of the masks, allowing the virus to pass. Obviously, these allegations have absolutely no scientific basis and have already had the effect of debunking.

A misleading journalistic form

However, it is ultimately a question of a sprawling conspiracy theory evoking a global conspiracy and where the elements stack up quite awkwardly. In addition to the “dangers” of the mask, we find various themes such as Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the questioning of the lethality (and the origin) of the coronavirus, a holocaust on the poorest 3.5 billion earthlings or still 5G. The director still went so far as to bring in a man presented as a former intelligence agent. With his face covered, the latter explains that a source from the Nuclear Safety Agency (ASN) confided to him the artificial nature of the coronavirus. The man also claimed that the virus is a biochemical weapon aimed to bring down the world’s population. This kind of statement goes against everything possible to find in the scientific literature, even if the origin of the virus is not yet clearly established and the trail of the laboratory accident still seems. active.

This “documentary” has the appearance of a journalistic investigation. However, the lack of substantive work could not be more glaring. Indeed, the comments of the speakers are never contextualized and even less called into question. At first, the film is very general, dealing in particular with the fear that politicians would maintain. Certain passages are very insistent, in particular the one referring to hydroxychloroquine. The latter is also based on the controversial study published and then withdrawn by the journal The Lancet. Finally, the last third of the film switches to a primary plot tinged with confusion.

Leave a Reply