France Criminalizes Opposition to mRNA Injections

France enacted a controversial new law in February that critics say could be used against anyone opposing injections with mRNA vaccines or other treatments recommended by the state and based upon current medical knowledge.

The law aims to combat religious violence, but under one section, criticism of therapeutic treatments when mandatory or recommended by the government could result in up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of 45,000 euros. The provision, which was quickly dubbed ‘Article Pfizer’ by critics, represents a significant shift in the balance between public health policy and individual freedom of expression, says Robert Kogon, the pseudonym of a writer for the U.K. website The Daily Sceptic.

“The legislation in question has prima facie nothing whatsoever to do with mRNA drugs, but is devoted rather to the fight against so-called ‘sects’ or ‘sectarian tendencies,’” said Kogon. “Even if just limited to religious ones, incidentally, it is hard to see how an officially-promulgated ‘fight’ against sects or ‘sectarian tendencies’ is compatible with freedom of conscience.”

‘It’s the Big Lie’

How bad does it have to get before somebody says, “Hold on a minute,” asks John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D., a physician and policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, which publishes Health Care News.

“This is totalitarian, authoritarian, autocratic government by a bunch of people who are not scientifically informed enough to make these decisions, but who have decided to do what they’re told by the army of experts who have designated themselves as the experts even though they have ignored the research that shows what they’re claiming is not true,” said Dunn.

“It’s the Big Lie,” said Dunn. “They’re pushing the Big Lie, and the way that they get it done is they criticize, condemn, punish, or censor anyone who objects to the Big Lie.”

“People need to wake up to the fact that we have a totalitarian, political entity running the United States at this point that’s called The Uniparty,” said Dunn. “So, what it comes down to is all the things you see that are going on in Europe, and why there’s no big outcry by the politicians and the media in the United States, [it] is because they want to adopt the same kind of approach here.”

‘Bad for the Soul’

It is hard to believe that such a law could be considered, much less passed, in a country claiming to be free or democratic, says Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

“It gives unbridled dictatorial power to government, with no accountability or recourse for injury or death to unwilling recipients of a medical intervention,” said Orient. “Calling it the ‘Pfizer amendment’ is totally appropriate.”

It appears that government officials have been threatened or bribed by a mammoth private entity to sacrifice their constituents—in the process destroying the trustworthiness of scientists and medical professionals—to a profit-hungry corporation that has already paid billions of dollars in criminal fines, says Orient.

“Persons of integrity, be they medical workers, journalists, or even elected officials, could be bankrupted or imprisoned, while citizens are at the mercy of brainwashed, corrupt, power-hungry apparatchiks,” said Orient. “Staying in France is bad for your life, your health, and your soul.”

‘Dialogue Is Crucial’

Although the new French law may not be as draconian as some suggest, it does fit into the larger question of health policy and freedom, and certainly those in the public health profession who seek to go beyond the limits of experts in a free society, says Daniel Sutter, Ph.D., the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

“Experts should not make decisions for citizens; rather they should help inform citizens of the advantages and disadvantages of proposed courses of action, clearly letting the citizen ultimately decide what is best for himself or herself,” said Sutter.

Also, shutting down or criminalizing differences of opinion really impairs our ability to learn as a society, says Sutter.

“We need to let dissenting experts, in particular, criticize the rules recommended by government agencies,” said Sutter. “We know politics, and not science, can influence all government health recommendations. And government experts might share similar biases and are failing to recognize some costs.

“When outside experts dissent from the recommendations, what we as citizens learn is that the recommendations may not be as solid as the government experts think, and there may be some patients for whom outside experts (doctors) realize the recommended treatment or vaccine may not be best for,” said Sutter. “This dialogue is crucial in societal learning and needs to be preserved.”

Voluntary Choice Better Than Force

“Finally, I think pharmaceutical companies should rethink their long-term position relative to getting government to mandate their treatments or vaccines,” said Sutter.

“Markets are based on voluntary choices and Big Pharma would be better served by trying to truly market their products instead of forcing them on people. It’s easy to boost sales short term through government mandates but, longer term, consumers no longer view your companies as truly part of the market, as products meant to make consumers’ lives better.”

Kenneth Artz (KApublishing@gmx.com) writes from Tyler, Texas.