An Imminent Public Health Scandal in France


This video is in French but I've summarised the essentials below

Vaccination of children is obligatory in France. You run the risk of a 3750 Eur fine and six months in prison if you refuse. Serious stuff.

So, you'd think that those in charge of public health would only impose the safest vaccines on the market, those with a proven track record of safety and the least number of nasty side effects and consequences.

You'd be wrong... and this is brewing into a massive public health scandal.

Two-month old babies have to be vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus and polio (DTP). Up until September 2014, this was not a problem. They had the tried and trusted DTP vaccine that's been on market for donkey's years. My kids had it, with no problem.

Bizarrely, pharmaceutical laboratories stopped producing this vaccine in 2008 for no apparent reason. In its place are "super-vaccines" such as Infanrix hexa which contains, in addition to DTP, three non-obligatory vaccines - whooping cough, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b - plus the neuro-toxin aluminium, formaldehyde, and antibiotics (polymixine-B, neomycine) which are not at all necessary for babies and are potentially dangerous.

The traditional DTP vaccine cost a little over 6 Eur. Unsurprisingly, Infanrix hexa costs a lot more - nearly seven times more in fact, at 40 Eur! Follow the money. Always.

These vaccines are too much for small babies and risk setting off an anaphylactic shock in the short term, and auto-immune diseases in the long term. Aluminium and formaldehyde are both toxic, and the vaccine against hepatitis B is suspected of provoking multiple sclerosis. Cases of MS increased dramatically after a hepatitis B vaccine was put on the market in 1994...

Parents are in a total panic about what to do. If they do nothing, they are condemned by the courts; if they accept the vaccine, they are playing Russian roulette with the health of their precious child.

However, the most unbelievable and devious issue coming to light concerns compensation.

The law says that if your child falls ill after being vaccinated with an official vaccine (the traditional ones), you can claim compensation. However, if your child dies, or has an adverse reaction to one of the new vaccines, the ones you have no choice but to buy, you are told that you vaccinated your child with a vaccine not on the official list, so you are liable - it's your fault!

The video above has been produced by Pr Henri Joyeux, oncologist, who is trying to rouse the medical community as well as the wider population to demonstrate massively their objections to this situation worthy of a totalitarian state. His aim is to bring back the traditional DTP vaccine which has a proven safety record and is dead cheap.

To this end, he has set up a petition which is acquiring signatures by the minute. In two days, it reached 200,000 names. Please add your name to it, and send it out to all your friends to do the same. We cannot stand by and let the health of the nation's babies be compromised by voracious greedy pharmaceutical companies and a government which is proving each day that it cares only about hanging onto power, and NOT A JOT about the health of the most vulnerable members of the population.


I agree Geoff. When I was working with children and AIDS with the GPA of the WHO they had social scientists like myself looking at the phenomenon to put the non-medical perspectives on the appearance of 'new' diseases, mutation of old ones and occasional resurgence of ones that had become at least rare if not almost extant. For instance, when HIV/AIDS hit SE Asia like a tidal wave' there was a hell of a resurgence of bubonic plague which, as far as I know, in remoter areas of Viet Nam, Cambodia and throughout Laos into China and parts of Myanmar is still quite a problem. A lot of established medical science went out of the window. We all attended conference after conference to look at such phenomena with factions emerging among the medical 'experts' at hell's own pace. Of course, Big Pharma was on backs demanding answers so that they could have the science done to produce the 'remedies' and were becoming angry about all the 'don't knows'. That was the reason I opted out and went back to more mainstream work as I had before. The bottom line was that the AIDS programme which had become the largest single programme in the history of the WHO under Jonathan Mann fell apart. He was probably the key figure in the early fight against HIV/AIDS. He resigned as a protest against the lack of response from the UN with regard to AIDS and the actions of the then WHO director general, plus the pressure the pharmaceutical giants were exerting on everybody for results which were not forthcoming because of so many divergences of opinion.

So Geoff, to take what you say "none of us has the facts with which we can make any decision" proved to be the situation back then in the 1990s with little progress two decades later in real terms. Retro-virals appeared very quickly and have helped people live longer and stay quite healthy. However, the schisms in medicine and science have never taken any great steps toward the prevention and cures leading to the eradication of AIDS predicted 20 years ago. The jury is still out, the same goes for vaccines.

The problem is Duncan that by saying "but now, due to vaccination, serious HiB related diseases are extremely rare", you have made the leap of associating the reduction in incidence of disease with the introduction of vaccines.

This is not your fault. All of your training has no doubt told you this (just as most dentists believe Flouride to have positive effects on teeth), however it may not be so, this relationship may be false.

There are many who believe the incidence of a number of diseases was already falling due to other changes in our living conditions well before the introduction of vacines.

As I said in my previous post, we simply do not know because we do not have the facts and worst of all the gatekeepers of those facts usually do have (unlike your good self) an "affilliation or interest" in directing the debate. I am sure you have attended many conferences in many parts of the world during your carreer - and probably done so courtesy of the major drug companies. It would surprise me if this did not contribute in some small way to bolstering certain views which favoured those companies.

Please don't get me wrong. I fully respect the work you have done in saving lies and my comments above are not meant in any way to take anything away from that.

In a nutshell, what I am saying is that none of us has the facts with which we can make any decision;



I don't want to get into the debate about complusory vaccination, but as a physician working daily in childrens critical/ intensive care I can tell you that diseases caused by Haemophilus Influenza Type B including acute epiglottitis and meningitis can be fatal. I have managed many children with these conditions in the past, but now, due to vaccination, serious HiB related diseases are extremely rare, except in the historically unvaccinated adult population. The younger generation of physicians in my specialty simply don't see acute epiglottitis any more... it's largely an historical disease. Thanks goodness, as its onset is rapid, the throat swelling up internally and blocking the airway... children simply can't breath. The lucky ones meet someone like me early enough in their illness and survive after a few days in intensive care. Sadly some don't get to expert help in time. I have no affiliations or interests to declare other than my interest in never seeing a child suffer from a preventable illness, and that of course would include illness caused by vaccines. HiB vaccination has saved lives of countless since it's introduction.....

Strangely enough I had almost a whole school year off during which amongst other things I had measles, mumps and scarlet fever plus glandular fever, all of which made me too week and vulnerable to go back to school. My appendix went in a massive great bout of agony so off to hospital and out it came. During that year, 1957, there was a massive epidemic of flu. My parents were bed ridden. I had to look after them for about a week, plus my sister. I have never ever once had any kind of flu, indeed I could probably count common colds. With all of my travels and work in some desperate places I picked up Hepatitis C once, it must have been on the way out before it was diagnosed but then the slum I was living and working in had plenty of it. I have rarely, except when on contract to UN agencies who insist, had vaccinations. I have discussed my low number of illnesses and each person I have spoken to has speculated on the same point. That during 1956 into 1957 the string of illnesses I had physically weakened me but by the time of the flu virus having been ill four times, my system was on a kind of survival overdrive. Immunity has lasted me thus far in life.

Whilst I was working with the WHO in a high risk part of Africa where AIDS was killing people on mass, some people were still hysterical about it. I was doing research among street children with a high incidence of HIV and full blown AIDS. An American doctor asked me why I was not wearing a mask and surgical gloves? I told him that 'coughs and sneezes', shaking hands and so on do not transmit HIV. He had been taught otherwise. Plenty of other people from Europe and the USA were similar despite the briefings to medically trained and social research people as we were. Just two years ago I was told that European medical personnel were still wearing masks because they knew only outdated research papers that perpetuated that disinformation.

One of the WHO specialists and I talked about why some children had HIV and AIDS yet others not. He postulated a view that those who did not become infected had had a good number of 'childhood' diseases before roughly puberty. So I told him about my 'immunity'. He said that I would be a great guinea pig to see if his hypothesis worked. I naturally declined, albeit neither of us was actually serious. The point is he made medical intellectual capital out of the notion of acquired immunity without the 'deficiency syndrome' that follows HIV infection in many people. For him a lack of medical records to show what the children had had up until about age 12 years stood in the way. What was clear was that none of them had ever had vaccinations, therefore it was certain most of them had been ill but what and how often was his question. He said that my four hits within four or five months was exceptional even in 1956/57 but some of these children might well have had far worse things and more of them than I had had.

I have never yet seem research pursuing that route. The emphasis has always been on retro-virals as a means of containing the development of HIV. Indeed I have a friend who has stayed very healthy since the second half of the 1980s although his partner was gone in about two years. The retros are very good but knowing more about human immunity has made little progress. There is a school of thought that does believe that the crossover from Central and West African primates hunted for 'bush meat' and sometimes eat raw probably in the late 1950s and before the 'discovery' of AIDS coincides with massive vaccination programmes for children in the region that abruptly stopped when wars broke out.

Lots of words but my point is that following what Ian says, all factually presented by medical science and reasonably well evidenced, more 'contemporary' diseases have been assumed to have been potentially eliminated which, as he says, is not the case. Infantile polio is increasing again in parts of China despite as close as possible to all children being immunised. The virus has mutated or immune systems of the second and in some parts third generation is breaking down. Big Pharma gets lazy when they are successful and relaxes research into the diseases, preferring to work on the means of prevention which even holds back drugs for relief and cure being developed further.

Add that to the effects of catalysts in vaccines that help delivery into the system but have as yet unknown long term effects and a few 'casualties' on the way and then rationally we should start asking questions. Unfortunately massive financial interests pull strings and provide most of the research funds that come with such rigid conditions that we are lucky to have as much knowledge as there is contrary to delivered wisdom from high places. I do not dismiss it all, but the Utopian idea of a disease free world is very unlikely to happen as we see with 'new' infectious ones like the recent Ebola outbreaks and quickfire spread. Fortunately that one was nipped in the bud but as I know from my time in the field with those who know because that is their field, each year numerous new diseases emerge of which the majority are minor but a handful are serious. So too the mutation of old diseases like bubonic, septicemic and pneumonic plagues and other zoonotic diseases which are serious in parts of SE Asia at present and indeed just this March researchers found traces of Yersinia pestis bacteria (bubonic plague) along with those that cause anthrax and meningitis in the New York subway! None of those diseases should, at least theoretically, be possible in New York where recorded human cases of anthrax and bubonic plague are far too old for bacteria to still be present.

The bottom line is that we do not know. Assumptions are not evidence.

Liz, the new multiple vaccine appears to add vaccines for three diseases. The first whooping cough, is a notoriously inneffective vaccine. The second, Hepatitis B, is relevant only for children of IV drug users and/or those practicing unsafe sex with such people. The third vaccine, for Haemophilus influenzae type b, is both ineffective and comes with a well documented marked increase in infant diabetes. So I think that parents should be (a) given this information, which isn't necessarily easy to find, and (b) given the choice about whether to have each of these three vaccines.

But the problem that I fear we are going to see more and more is the evaporation of herd immunity. It's not what you might think either. The problem I'll describe is with measles, though this may apply to other diseases. In the past essentially everyone had measles by their 15th birthday, with most getting it between the ages of maybe 2 and 6. These numbers may not be exactly right, but as you'll see it's not that important. There were problems with measles in some cases, but we know now that high doses of vitamin A when the child has measles are very important and effective at preventing any of the serious complications. In a well nourished population measles rarely causes issues. Once one had had the disease, one was immune. For life. The immunity conferred by recovering from measles lasts at least 60 years, probably longer. This meant that the people getting the disease were able to cope with it, and those who never had it were protected by the herd, because measles in an adult is a far more serious disease. In this model research showed that it only needed something like 65% of the population to be naturally immune to measles to have herd immunity. Women becoming pregnant tended to have had measles, and were therefore immune, and having had measles naturally they are able to transfer immunity to protect their babies for 12 to 18 months.

Now, however, we have a measles vaccine. What does this change? Everything, but not in a good way. First, children are vaccinated with a product that may or may not cause problems. There are undoubtedly adverse reactions to vaccines, it's in their nature. Not having had to conquer measles themselves, their immune systems are then compromised by the way the vaccine worked. The immunity that they have is thought to last perhaps 20 years, but in fact there's no good data on this. It may be less. But what is certain is that immunity is not lifelong from the vaccine. We also know from China that even with vaccination rates for measles of 99%, there are still outbreaks. You see? It's a far cry from the actual herd immunity that we used to have. Those who have been vaccinated for measles are also now known to shed the virus for at least two weeks after their vaccination. Women thinking of becoming pregnant are now just about at the right age for their vaccine-induced immunity to be wearing off. So they may not be protected, and if they do still have some immunity they only transfer 3 to 5 months immunity to their children. We are moving now towards a point where we will be having lots of people with no immunity because it has worn off, where they are now adults and susceptible to much more serious measles cases than if they had had the disease as children, and where our desire to vaccinate everyone means we have children shedding the virus after vaccination. At the same time those with genuine natural immunity are dying off gradually, lessening the genuine herd immunity in which they played a part.

So what has the measles vaccine achieved? We have traded a really not that serious childhood disease for a future where those liable to catch the disease are just the people we want to avoid it: mothers, adults, the elderly.

There are people who can say all this far better than me. One such person is Roman Bystrianyk. Read what he has to say on measles and the vaccine here. It might make you stop and think.

That's just one vaccine, there are many issues that need to be addressed with this one and many others and sadly (from the pharmaceutical companies' perspective) no interest whatsoever in fixing the problems.

this is the problem Liz

with everything from vaccinations to flouride addition to water the "FACTS" that you implore us to look at are only the ones that the established media choose to make public and yes, this includes peer reviewed journals.

The world is full of "proven facts" but also full of many research papers that have been burried.

The truth is - we cannot know anything for sure. For my part, I look around the internet - yes that's right I know there is much missinformation but also it is the only source of information that has not been censored.I also ask the question "who has to gain from this" and I follow the phrase "follow the money" and often that helps me decide what is probablt right or wrong



Liz, there is more than sufficient hard scientific evidence from independent researchers with qualifications, skills and experience to be taken seriously. Of course nobody should be influenced by innuendo and unfounded rumours but where there is scientifically proven doubt, which is the case with aluminium, albeit affecting a minority of children, then it should be taken seriously. I also look at it from the rights perspective which is my professional area and administering any form of medication without informed consent is dubious, making it compulsory is by definition a breach of human rights. Plenty of us have put the two elements together as scientists and find that until those issues are resolved then the right to say no because of the benefit of the doubt must be retained, ideally until children are old enough, which is still quite young but not infants, to have fair explanation and then be able to give consent to vaccination.

Please stop the hysteria on vaccination, and check FACTs not websites that repeat unproven lies…vaccines do not cause autism. Herd immunity is vital so that children who cannot receive vacination because of medical issues are not put at risk. The new vaccines added to the triple are important for protecting kids from sometimes lethal disease, you try talking to a bereaved parent who child has died because they were not vacinated from some so called trivial disease…

Its a bit like with the seeds as they imposed huge fees for Kokopelli... Maybe some people through how can any pharma-co-kinetical test performed on 2 month old toddlers? So they just went ahead and allowed this preparation on to the MARKET. Reminds me on bird-swine-flue and other hysteria

Hahaha! Nice one Ian. Actually, the bailiffs who take the materials in and out of the court have to weigh it for their handcarts. We had four loads. One of the bailiffs commented that had it all been singled side printed paper (all of ours was double sided) it would have been (da da da-dah!) twice the weight which means the (poor, poor) bailiffs would have had to move it in and out again twice as often! Ah, the wheels and workings of justice!

Ahhh, I always wondered where the expression "to weigh the evidence" came from. :-)

I'll get my coat...

Before I do some work one point to add to Ian. The testing regime for human application is over 60% other primates (apes and monkeys), just under 30% dogs and about 5% rats. Only about 2% of testing is done on humans. The negative outcomes of vaccination are actually a low percentage of all given but there are two problems that are not often discussed openly. Although each vaccination contains low traces of the catalysts such as aluminium there is build up through the number of shots given over a short period, especially in children whose body is still developing and is a low volume anyway. Build up may be then caused by use of other products that contain or are contaminated by aluminium or substances that react to or with even small traces. It is the same problem in effect as pollution of the natural environment, it builds up although each unit causing it in and of itself should be quite harmless.

The second issue is clusters. The scientists do not really know why and pharmaceutical corporations hush up the fact that there are clusters. Theories abound including the effects of localised natural radiation, particular water quality, lead in paint and so on. Part of the case put in front of the Supreme Court in the USA included evidence of clusters in areas where there are concentrations of GMO cash crops. It is not, said the scientists, the crops themselves but the fertilisers, pesticides and medium used to speed up the ripening process in order to enable double cropping per year that are suspect. The evidence was presented but never commented on. I think you have more or less quoted what the court said in 'unavoidably unsafe' when they ruled in favour of Monsanto and so on who produce, in most cases, not only the agro-chemicals but produce or least own the companies who produce most pharmaceutical goods or the patents that mean that other companies must use the same formula. When I went to court a decade ago we had 34 kilos (about 500 sheets of paper per kilo) of evidence on paper against the MMR and other combined vaccinations I was questioning the obligation to have. People who had similar amounts of evidence lost. In one case the likes of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer and a dozen other companies produced around 18 kilos (about 10,000 pages) against over 30 kilos that some of us helped put together, but despite the double amount of scientific material the court dismissed the case.

Try to work it out for yourselves. Little people alone against vast companies have little chance of being heard, let alone achieving much.

Bob, it's a vast and polarising subject. Single shots would be less dangerous because they could be spaced out, but they lead to less profit because they are more expensive to produce for various reasons, and because then people would pick and choose those that they considered necessary, i.e. those that had few recorded adverse reactions and that actually provided a benefit.

Regarding the metals used as adjuvants, they are there to irritate the hell out of your immune system and provoke a response. They are so dangerous even at these levels because they are injected directly into the blood stream - not the case with metal exposure in daily life - and because they are large doses relative to the size of the baby. Vaccines are one size fits all, which is another issue. But I digress. The multiple shots, I'm not sure that they are tested individually, but they are never tested properly against no vaccines. Vaccines are, in the words of the US Supreme Court I think, "unavoidably unsafe". It's for each person and each parent to evaluate that risk based on the potential benefits.

The money, in general, is in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies because they have products that are more and more mandated or forced on people, and for which they have close to zero liability in case of problems. That's why the explosion of vaccines in recent years.

Like I say it's a vast subject.

I too heard about this genicde product from a friend who reads all the left of normal conspiracy theories on the globe.. and asked why would the government allow such potentially problematic drugs to be used on kids?.. so looked a little deeper and itseems the original triple vac had adverse reactions..and is withdrawn from french use.. but why has no one proposed using three independent jabs for the same dtp.. other readings said the formaldehye and aluminium are in trace levels, and aid the action of the drugs.. but obviously dangerous in high concentrations for workplaces and other uses.. does the one off minute quantity mean it is dangerous??.. and as for combo shots.. are they not tested and approved?.. and how could any government condone such meds if as dangerous and this doctor want us to believe?.. who's paying for and benefitting from the antivax petition???.. is it really the kids benefitting, or another organisation trying to rubbish the meds?..

I hope you have the screenplay ready, Geoff. :-)

I think it's just money. And I also think, with my conspiracy theorist hat on, that the plan to use vaccines in the US is going swimmingly and the pharmaceutical companies are guaranteed enormous incomes now to give lifetime drugs to all the people who are now in such serious trouble. If only THAT were just a screenplay.

Ian alludes to the possible future mandatory immunisation of adults as well as children.

Imagine if everyone was immunised.

Imagine if such an imunisation contained an RFID (radio frequency implantable device) to track everyone's location. Well you do care enough about your children to want to know their whereabouts don't you?

Is this just my imagination or is this where the whole thing may ultimately be leading?

Indeed it does appear that there is an approach that includes making vaccination mandatory. WHO support it and those of us who work in the human rights and children's rights world have taken it to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child for consideration but, as far as I know because nobody has told me otherwise, the Committee have no mandate to do anything with this issue. Nonetheless, obliging people to have any form of vaccination before even the lowest consensual age is a human rights infringement because there is no hard evidence to show it is necessary in this form. As somebody else commented, people working in medicine are privately having their children vaccinated using the individual ones. If that does trigger alarm bells, then I am not sure what does.

I agree that this is a very bad situation. It appears that the reactions and adverse effects of vaccines are worse the more you put in the same vaccine, and indeed children often receive several vaccines on the same day. Aluminium is one adjuvant, mercury is another. In either case these metals are seriously dangerous neurotoxins, and the idea that they can be injected straight into the bloodstream horrifies me. Anyway, if you want to know what's in the different vaccines you'll find all the details here. I have signed, I hope many others will.

As for the hidden agenda here, it wouldn't surprise me if the tactic will be to make more and more childhood vaccines mandatory (because we have to protect the children, right, and how could you possibly disagree with that?), with a view to then making them mandatory for adults too. It's a money machine, pure and simple.

The vaccine apparently may contain traces of formaldehyde and antibiotics, used during the manufacture (perhaps the same for all vaccines?), and the percentage of aluminium is about 0.2%.