Professor Perronne's analysis of the law on sectarian aberrations: “It depoliticizes medicine and re-sanctuaries the relationship between the patient and his doctor”

F. Froger/Z9, for France-Soir Professor Christian Perronne.

Following the vote on February 14, 2024 of the law on sectarian abuses and its article 4, which was quickly rewritten on the night of February 13 to 14, 2024, the BonSens.org association offered a legal analysis by reserving the possibility of participating in its request for withdrawal in the event of referral to the Constitutional Council.

Today, Professor Perronne offers a more complete analysis that you find below:

Several questions arise about this law which will still have to pass the stage of the joint joint commission, return to the Assembly and then be validated by the Constitutional Council if elected officials decide to take it up (BonSens.org will participate if this is the case).

If this law had been in force since the start of the Covid crisis, would the authorities have made the same speeches? Would they have been impeccably rigorous so as not to fall foul of this law?

1 – The Minister of Health Olivier Véran in 2020 would have does it imposethe wearing of a mask in the general population despite the absence of arguments concerning its effectiveness? Would it have prevented the potential harmful effects of prolonged mask wearing in children, as shown by, among others, a >published study ?

2- Would the Minister of Health have warned the population that there wasno scientific proof that confinement and curfew would have any impact on the epidemic&nbsp ;and that the risks for mental health and the economy would be too great?

3 – Would the Minister of Health have stood up in indignation, as we have 'we did in theNew England Journal of Medicine, against theToxic overdoses of hydroxychloroquine from the WHO Recoveryclinical study, increasing the risk of transfer to intensive care and death to hospitalized patients in this study? Would he have spoken about the increased risk of respiratory deterioration due to a shunt effect? Would he have tried to convince the trial promotersto lower the doses and give the treatment earlierin view of the favorable data published at that time by several teams around the world?

4 – Would the Minister of Health have reacted vigorously to the fraudulent data of the study published in theLancet and retracted a few days later? Would he have quickly asked the teams responsible for French clinical studiesDiscovery and Hycovid to resume their course despite promising results from the IHU-Mediterranean and the Garches hospital?

5 – Would the President of the Republic, on July 12, 2021, have opposed compulsory vaccination of certain professions, given the absence of data on transmission and insufficient data on the safety of vaccines?

6- Would the French deputies have fiercely opposed the vaccination pass, knowing that we could not impose on the population an experimental vaccine on which there was no hindsight? , without putting the population at great risk for a virus whose lethality was very low for those under 65? This, especially sinceinternational conventions prohibit the forced administration of an experimental product.

7 – Has the Minister of Health Olivier Véran warned the French, as he had specified to the Council of State, that the vaccine does not  not protect against infection or transmission? Would he have warned them that the new Covid-19 vaccines had only been tested on a few people and over a short period and&nbsp ;that the extent of the adverse effects was far from being known? Would he have warned that it was unwise to vaccinate young people, without risk factors against Covid,  since nothing was known about the potential side effects in the medium and long term?

8  – Rather than declaring that the Covid-19 vaccines did not cause any side effects, would the Minister of Health Aurélien Rousseau in 2023 have commented to the French on the official figures in France and abroad the frequency of these declared side effects and the mortality figures?

In fact, these people would probably have been more cautious in their assertions in the media, knowing that they risked influencing many of our fellow citizens without proof.

As a doctor, my experience as a teacher-researcher and national and international expert on the evaluations of vaccination policies, means that although I deplore this law and its hastily written article 4, which is added to numerous already existing legal systems, I see a potentially beneficial side of it. Indeed, this law should make it possible todepoliticize medicine and re-sanctuary the relationship between the patient and his doctor. This is essential to avoid certain deviations,including those of the government on decision-making and communications based on non-existent or incomplete data.

For example, how to say that the vaccine protects patients with comorbidities even though the scientific data did not allow this to be concluded? The current law would require them to act with caution and make reasoned and balanced decisions. < strong>How to declare that the vaccine prevents 95% of transmission of the virusand say that consequently vaccination protects caregivers, firefighters, soldiers including gendarmes (but not police officers!) and other professions subject to an obligation, while the scientific data does not allow not conclude that the vaccine prevented transmission? How, for the same reason, can we encourage our fellow citizens to obtain a vaccination pass giving them the right to regain their freedom? ; In fact, the data were absent, fragmentary or incomplete, and therefore the benefit-risk analysis was biased.

So yes, we can only be for the defense of science with complete objectivity in the interest of the patient, but without political exploitation, by excess of authority in the name of pseudo-science.

If this law had existed on July 12, 2021, could President Macron have made 12 unfounded scientific assertions on television? In the absence of knowledge of the undesirable effects of a new product, you must refrain: primum non nocere.< /em>

The partisan and hastily carried out evaluations have flouted all the principles of patient protection. This law will likely return the power of real medical science and normal procedures, with real analyzes of benefits and risks. Remember that medical and public health data evolve every day.Scientific progress is based on the permanent integration of new, sometimes contradictory, data. Consequently, scientific consensus is only possible for a limited period and only if all data, including divergent ones, are taken into account. Any other approach would be a sectarian drift.

Somewhere, rigor and common sense are returning.  I wish so.

ALSO READ

The “citizen” Perronne was right again CHRONICLE — Since the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of August 26, 1789, France presents itself to the eyes of the whole world as the land of choice for the. .. December 28, 2021 – 4:25 p.m. Opinions Law on “sectarian abuses”: for Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, “it is an anti-Raoult, anti-Perronne, anti-me, anti-you article of law” INTERVIEW – The MP and president of the Debout la France party, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, took a detour to the France-Soir set before the second day of debate… February 14, 2024 – 5:58 p.m. Videos “We can't do it anymore accept these state lies” Christian Perronne On the occasion of the release of Robert Kennedy Jr's book, Professor Perronne, multiplying explosive declarations, returns to denounce acts of collusion… February 10, 2022 – 8:00 p.m. 00 Videos

Did you like the article? It mobilized our editorial staff which only lives on your donations.
Information has a cost, especially since competition from subsidized editorial staff requires additional rigor and professionalism.

With your support, France-Soir will continue to offer its articles free of charge  because we believe that everyone should have access to free and independent information to form their own opinion.

You are the sine qua non condition for our existence, support us so that France-Soir remains the French media that allows the most legitimate expression.