3d illustration of france boundary mapped with french flag and vaccine needle

France Should Reconsider Its Extreme Vaccine Policy

by Pavla Karon and Bill Wirtz
Foundation for Economic Education

The French government announced that it might make 11 vaccines compulsory for children, adding to the three already mandatory shots (diphtheria, tetanus, and polio). Under the new jurisdiction, parents would be forced to follow a vaccination schedule including jabs against measles, hepatitis B, meningitis C, rubella, mumps and whooping cough.

This change of heart comes after the Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest administrative court, ruled in favour of parents who chose not to vaccinate their children, as the three mandatory shots were not available separately, but only in one shot combined with additional vaccines. The former Health Ministry opposed making these three vaccines available for people, which led the court to give the new government 6 months in order to find a solution.

Instead of working with the growing number of parents who seek alternatives to the state-prescribed vaccination schedule, the French government might take a different direction and increase the total number of compulsory vaccines.

The Ministry of Health also claims that its renewed consideration of the issue is a reaction to an outbreak of rubella in the northeast of France, not mentioning that out of 61 recorded cases, 40 percent of children were vaccinated against the disease. Nevermind the fact that disease outbreaks occur even among highly vaccinated populations, that fully vaccinated individuals can contract and spread disease, and that vaccine-induced immunity isn’t permanent.

French Vaccine Skepticism Among Population and Doctors

Newly appointed Minister of Health Agnès Buzyn told Le Parisien in an interview:

Vaccines have saved millions of lives, but we have forgotten about it. We only know about the side effects, of which many haven’t been proven.”

But many French beg to differ. In the largest study on vaccine confidence to date, France was found to be the least confident in vaccine safety out of 66 countries surveyed, with 41 percent respondents disagreeing with the claim that vaccines are safe.

The skepticism isn’t limited to the general population; a quarter of French practitioners aren’t confident about the risk and efficacy of vaccines, either.

Scanning vaccine package inserts shows that questioning vaccine safety isn’t only an issue for conspiracy theorists: the European Medicines Agency – a decentralised agency of the European Union, located in London, responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU established in a report that at least 1 in 10 children given the commonly used Infanrix Hexa suffer from appetite loss, restlessness, irritability and abnormal crying, fever above 100,4°F, local swelling at the injection site (≤ 50 mm), fatigue and redness.

1 in 100 children experience continuous nervousness, diarrhea, vomiting and fever rates of above 103.1°F. Other side effects include respiratory tract infections, coughing, collapse or shock-like state, diffuse swelling of the injected limb or bronchitis. It gets more insidious with the MMR vaccine (measles – mumps – rubella), for which the manufacturer lists side effects affecting nearly every system, including lymphatic, respiratory, sensory, and nervous.

Little wonder, considering one of the ingredients in vaccines is neurotoxic aluminum – a substance, incidentally, whose purpose in vaccines more than half of French practitioners don’t feel confident explaining to patients.

In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has established a long list of people who should not be vaccinated at all, including a sinister warning “Anyone who had a life-threatening allergic reaction to a previous dose of MMR or MMRV vaccine should not get another dose.” Thanks for the warning?

No Liability, No Incentives

The MMR vaccine is produced by Merck & Co., Inc, a company ridden by scandals. In 2002, the pharmaceutical company recorded$14 billion in revenue that it did not collect, leading its stock price to crash. Even more alarming are the accusations of two former Merck scientists.

In the case of United States et al v. Merck & Co Inc, the whistleblowers claim that the company consistently falsified tests of vaccine efficacy. Reuters reported in June 2015 that in an answer to attorneys’ discovery questions about the vaccine’s efficacy, “Merck has been consistently evasive, using “cut-and-paste” answers saying it cannot run a new clinical trial to determine the current efficacy, and providing only data from 50 years ago.”

In France, reparations for damages caused by non-mandatory vaccines must be reimbursed by the producing company, but the government is responsible for injuries resulting from compulsory vaccines. Specifically, the Office National d’Indemnisation des Accidents Médicaux (National Office for the Compensation of Medical Accidents) would be on the hook for damages. In short: making all 11 vaccines mandatory would strip the pharmaceutical industry of all liability.

This is already the case in the United States, based on a Supreme Court ruling from 2010. As a result, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had to pay for damages exceeding the shocking sum of $2 billion in the last ten years alone.

Rather than following the example of the USA and its ever-expanding vaccination schedule, the French Ministry of Health should look to Sweden, Austria, or Switzerland, countries with no mandatory vaccinations and an obvious lack of population-consuming epidemics.

In free markets, companies are held responsible for their actions, through the rule of law or by consumers making different choices in the marketplace. Mandatory vaccines rule out both of these control mechanisms by making consumption compulsory, then removing any responsibility.

Mandates Violate Liberty

Most importantly, mandatory vaccines are fundamentally at odds with the concept of self-ownership. With a large part of the population asking the government to respect the idea of “my body, my choice”, forcefully injecting a substance into children that their own parents might reasonably object to is manifestly contrary to the idea of liberty.

Those who make the argument in favor of individual liberty should preach skepticism towards government decisions, and the inherent danger of big corporations that lobby their way to power.

The argument about risks and efficacy is one thing (and a fundamentally valid one), but given the government’s track record of horrible decisions made in the name of public welfare, lovers of liberty should be distrustful of mandates such as this. Once we begin to compromise, we might also trade in privacy for security or free speech for more courteous discourse.

Read the full article at Foundation for Economic Education

Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.

In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.

One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?


One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.