ER Editor: We’re doing a two-fer regarding the French vaccination situation as per Le Courrier des Strateges with the excellent and perspicacious Eric Verhaeghe. The first, by way of an extended extract: Did Véran cover up thousands of illegal vaccinations of young children? by Isabelle Hock. (We remind readers that France is one of the most vaccine-hesitant countries anywhere, and that capturing the kids has probably been a top priority on the pernicious govt’s vaccine agenda.) Of note:
A new state scandal seems to be confirmed in the course of the management of the Covid 19 pandemic.
In December 2021, while PFIZER does not yet have any vaccine for children under 5, no less than 4,512 children in this age group have already received a first dose of mRNA vaccine!
Indeed, according to the newspaper “Le Monde” in an article published on November 23, 2021, no less than 22,490 French children aged 0 to 11 have already been injected with mRNA. However, vaccination for these children will only be offered by the High Authority for Health (HAS), without any obligation, from… December 20, 2021 .
In other words, these children were vaccinated outside of any accepted scientific procedure.
guinea pig children
French children have therefore indeed served as guinea pigs for large-scale mRNA vaccine experimentation.
The figure of 17,199 children fully vaccinated and 22,490 children having received a first dose is staggering compared to the 1,250 children aged 5 to 11 who participated in PFIZER clinical trials during the same year 2021, according to official statistical data of Public Health France, and this since April 2021, included in the article of the “World”. The newspaper even advances the date of December 27, 2020 for the first two injections on toddlers.
However, during the month of May 2021, Alain FISCHER, Mr. Vaccine of the MACRON government, declared that vaccinating children under the age of 12 was not possible before the start of 2022. On June 21, 2021, the Committee Consultative National d’Ethique (CCNE), chaired by Professor DELFRAISSY declared “unacceptable to vaccinate children under 12 with these products.”
For these thousands of children injected illegally with a product not suitable for pediatric use (which has not yet been approved by the competent national or European authorities), there has been no pharmacovigilance monitoring, nor any possibility of exercising informed consent on the part of the parents, given that no clinical study had been carried out or evaluated beforehand. …
More than 12 million pediatric doses of PFIZER serum have been delivered to France , a country with less than 6 million children aged 5 to 11 years.
In March 2021, the French Society of Pediatrics affirmed that COVID was not a pediatric disease, while authorizing the injection of an mRNA vaccine in children aged 0 to 11…
No doubt the members of the Haute Autorite de Sante (High Health Authority) know all of this, plus that they have some realistic idea as to the actual harms being done, as well as deaths, to the vaccinated population (including hepatitis among children). Hence the following short article —
ALERT: is the Haute Autorité de Santé starting to panic over the side effects of vaccines?
Is the Haute Autorité de Santé taken by a feeling of panic in the face of the question of the side effects of vaccines, which has escalated after the hearing of the “anti-vax” by the Parliamentary Office chaired by Cédric Villani (read our summary of this session published on Friday)? In any case, his latest published document, on the vaccination strategy to be implemented this fall, suggests between the lines that the compulsory vaccination so loved by the government and its European sponsors is now raising some problems of conscience.
It is absolutely necessary to read between the lines of the press release published by the High Authority for Health, entitled “Covid-19: anticipating periodic vaccination of the most fragile”, to understand the unease that is taking hold at the head of the State around vaccination.
This document describes three scenarios for the fall of 2022, only one of which foresees a “vaccination booster campaign for the general population”. This scenario is described as “pessimistic”. The other two limit vaccination to people who are immunocompromised or at risk (those over 65, in this case).
Why can we speak of malaise at the HAS?
First point, we will note this oddity on the approach itself “of anticipation” in terms of vaccination. As the HAS points out:
To do this, the HAS issued an internal request to issue recommendations for a vaccination campaign in the fall of 2022, the objectives of which remain identical to those set since the start of the epidemic: to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with Covid-19 and the spread of the epidemic, maintain the capacities of the healthcare system and the vital operating needs of the country.
What holds the attention here is the “autosaisine” (ER: self-referral) of the High Authority for Health. This choice to intervene spontaneously when no one asks you questions is strange. Either the HAS wants to fill the political vacuum created by the elections, or it wants to anticipate an authoritarian vaccination strategy based on compulsory vaccination of the population. Or both.
One can very well imagine that, for lack of vision, the government is not indulging in its natural impulse which is to vaccinate everyone in the fall to please Brussels and the financiers of Pfizer, without asking questions. To avoid this catastrophic scenario, the HAS is taking the lead.
Are its members tired of having to scientifically endorse authoritatively imposed political choices?
What does the HAS recommend?
According to the HAS press release, the most likely scenario is this:
To define its vaccination recommendations for the fall of 2022, the HAS retains the evolution scenario of the health crisis which it considers to be the most probable, in which the impact of the circulation of the virus, which is still active, would be less thanks to a lasting and sufficient immunity to limit serious forms and deaths.
We understand here that the High Authority of Health foresees a relative resumption of the epidemic in the fall, and that it recommends vaccination of the over 65s, probably compulsory.
On the other hand, it considers that the scenario of a virulent epidemic peak is “pessimistic”. Vaccination would only become compulsory (and even that word is not pronounced…) if and only if a new, more virulent variant appeared.
What is called opening the umbrella
Regulars of administrative action therefore understand that the High Authority for Health, probably in view of the controversies which thrive on the side effects of vaccines, are beginning to “open the umbrella”, that is to say to clear themselves of their future responsibilities in the event of criminal action against those responsible for the health disaster that is taking shape behind the scenes. To avoid future lawsuits, the members of the HAS therefore took the initiative of advising the government, without any partisan pressure, to limit vaccination to vulnerable people only, i.e. to cases where the analysis risk-benefit justifies it. (ER: We doubt that the fully known risk-benefit analysis will even justify any type of vaccination against Covid.)
Apart from these situations, the HAS has let the government arbitrate politically in defiance of scientific advice.
Of course, all this is subject to the assumption that a virulent variant would not appear, which is anything but certain.
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.