On Feb. 14th, 2024, the French parliament passed alarming legislation, dubbed "Article Pfizer," that criminalizes criticism of state-recommended mRNA and other medical treatments. Individuals who discourage others from undergoing such treatments now face up to 3 years in prison or a 45,000 euro fine.[1]
As reported by Reclaim the Net:
"France is taking some radical steps in order to suppress opponents of Covid vaccines – even if this is designed to leave out explicit mention of either the vaccines, or people who have taken a negative stance on the issue.
But it does mention mRNA manipulation-based inoculation, and so the implication is fairly clear.
The country this week passed a new law (Article 4) which goes as far as to say that Covid skeptics of “therapeutic treatments” are to be treated as participants in “sectarian aberration,” reports say.
And they potentially face jail time (up to three years) and a fine in euros equivalent to some $48,500."
This poses dire implications for medical freedom and informed consent.[2] The law unfairly privileges one-size-fits-all pharmaceutical-backed solutions without allowing open debate on their merits and alternatives. It sets a precedent for silencing dissent and gives the state unchecked power to mandate medications while quashing objections, as well as completely ingnoring fundamental issues related to the medical ethical principle of informed consent which requires that information health risks associated with mRNA vaccines be made available alongside their purported benefits.
Such censorship and suppression of open discourse is already rampant across mainstream platforms like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Many sites offering alternative health perspectives, like Greenmedinfo.com, have been unfairly targeted or deplatformed for presenting peer-reviewed evidence that challenges the dominant pharmaceutical narrative, e.g. that vaccines are a priori, and without exception "safe and effective." [3]
To foster diversity of dialogue, we encourage use of alternative platforms like Unite.live that do not censor on the basis of viewpoint.[4] There, concerned citizens can exchange information freely, ask difficult questions and make informed choices about their health without risk of punishment or bans.
Rather than compel through force of law, health authorities should earn public trust through transparency, integrity and openness to critique of all kinds. Suppressing dissent only foments confusion and resistance. Citizens denied basic rights to control their health choices are unlikely to comply voluntarily with heavy-handed government demands.
As dissenting voices argue, “...the law not only undermines the democratic process by limiting the scope of public discourse on health policy but also prejudges alternative medicine and potential whistleblowers who may have valid concerns about mRNA technology or other treatments.”[5] We must create space for respectful sharing of information from all sources, mainstream and alternative, so people can evaluate and choose what they feel is best for their health.
For more resources to support your health rights and freedoms, use the Stand for Health Freedom website.
Footnotes
[1] BNN, France's 'Article Pfizer': A Controversial Shift in Health Policy and Free Speech, by Mahnoor Jehangir, February 15, 2024.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Greenmedinfo.com, accessed February 21, 2024, https://www.greenmedinfo.com/.
[4] Unite.live, accessed February 21, 2024, https://www.unite.live/.
[5] Ibid.
Comments
Sign in or create a free account to join the conversation.
Sign in to commentBe the first to comment.