France’s Strangely-worded New Medical Law
On February 14, the French National Assembly (pictured) passed a bill into law that was quickly criticized by medical freedom advocates
The bill’s nebulous title indicates that the proposed law is for opposing heretical religious or philosophical sects that the state deems dangerous to public health.
The title of the law is as follows:
Translation: BILL aimed at strengthening the fight against sectarian abuses and improving support for victims
Article 4 has attracted special attention and criticism within medical freedom circles.
Article 4
Après l’article 223-1-1 du code pénal, il est inséré un article 223-1-2 ainsi rédigé:
Art. 223-1-2. – Est punie d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 30 000 euros d’amende la provocation, au moyen de pressions ou de manœuvres réitérées, de toute personne atteinte d’une pathologie à abandonner ou à s’abstenir de suivre un traitement médical thérapeutique ou prophylactique, lorsque cet abandon ou cette abstention est présenté comme bénéfique pour la santé de la personne visée alors qu’il est, en l’état des connaissances médicales, manifestement susceptible d’entraîner pour elle, compte tenu de la pathologie dont elle est atteinte, des conséquences particulièrement graves pour sa santé physique ou psychique.
Reading this bad run on sentence is like getting lost in the fog. A direct English translations is as follows:
After article 223-1-1 of the penal code, article 223-1-2 is inserted as follows:
Art. 223-1-2. – It is punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 Euros for the inducement, by means of repeated pressure or actions, of any person suffering from a pathology, to cease or abstain from following a prescribed medical treatment, therapeutic or prophylactic, when this cessation or abstention is presented as beneficial for the health of the person concerned, whereas it is, in the state of medical knowledge, clearly likely to cause for them—taking into account the pathology of which they are affected—particularly serious consequences for their physical or psychological health.
Like the title, the language of this law is so nebulous that its interpretation and application will entirely depend on WHO is interpreting it.
For example, the former French Minister of Health, Agnès Buzyn, and the French microbiologist, Professor Didier Raoult, would probably take sharply differing views of how this law should be applied.
As a thought experiment, consider if this law had been in effect when COVID-19 arrived in France in March 2020. At that time, Professor Raoult advocated prescribing early treatment (hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin) to prevent hospitalization and death.
Almost the entire official French medical establishment in Paris—by means of “repeated pressure or actions”—systematically suppressed early treatment and persecuted Professor Raoult for trying to help his patients.
Had this law been in effect in 2020, it would (in my opinion) warrant arresting most members of the French medical establishment and imprisoning them for one year. Only Professor Raoult and a few of his discerning colleagues would have remained free.
The key point that the dummies in the French National Assembly still don’t understand is that l’état des connaissances médicales (the state of medical knowledge) is, at any given time, a matter of discussion and debate.
WHO will be authorized to decide, at any given time, what precisely is the state of medical knowledge about any given illness? If the illness is caused by an infectious disease, will the “state of medical knowledge” be ascertained by Professor Raoult or by Ministry of Health hacks in Paris?
Note that the law’s title presumes that anyone, no matter how medically qualified, who takes an unorthodox view of medical matters has fallen under the influence of “sectarian” ideas—that is, heretical ideas that pose a danger to society.
For some time I have perceived that the belief in the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is an article of religious faith, and NOT a scientific proposition. Here we see the French National Assembly venturing into the business of enforcing orthodoxy and stamping out heresy.
At first glance, the second paragraph of Article 4 seems to be a fairly straightforward assertion that acts of medical malpractice are punishable with the same penalty.
Est punie des mêmes peines la provocation à adopter des pratiques présentées comme ayant une finalité thérapeutique ou prophylactique alors qu’il est manifeste, en l’état des connaissances médicales, que ces pratiques exposent à un risque immédiat de mort ou de blessures de nature à entraîner une mutilation ou une infirmité permanente.
It is punishable by the same penalties when there is an inducement to receive treatment, and the prescribed treatment is presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose, when in fact it is obvious, given the state of medical knowledge, that these practices expose them to an immediate risk of death or injury likely to result in mutilation or permanent infirmity.
Note that the word manifeste—i.e.,, “manifest” or “obvious”—is used to describe a dangerous medical practice. This raises the question: how does this law relate to existing laws prohibiting medical malpractice?
Also notable is the word mutilation. To the French general public, the word mutilation will likely conjure the act of female circumcision that is practiced by some religious sects.
Provided this new law passes judicial review by the Constitutional Council and is signed into law by the president, it should (in my opinion) be applied for the purpose of outlawing gender reassignment surgery.
Such surgeries frequently result in the ghastly mutilation of mentally troubled patients who are misled into believing that the procedure will give them a new lease on life.
See more here substack.com
Header image: Politico
Some bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
salpute
| #
This so called law voted by scumbags (freemasons, infiltrated from the WEF, CFR or other globalist syndicates, sold-out big pharma puppets and few useful idiots) has only one goal:
suppress criticism and dissent regarding alternative treatments and impose big pharma covid deathvax and other deadly concoctions they are planning for the future plandemics.
They are not going to stop gender surgery since they are the ones pushing for this evil agenda, and certainly not stop circumcision since France is the target of an organized invasion from mainly Muslim countries.
France is a totalitarian banana republic and as such, BS laws like these are imposed on a very docile population that still doesn’t understand why their lives get worse and worse and yet keep voting for the same criminals.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
“quickly criticized by medical freedom advocates”
This highlights the major problem in their entire “pandemic” agenda. It all acts as though Nuremberg never happened.
When the nobility gifted their vaccine companies liability immunity, they took the opportunity to push out as much as possible under the EUA. For example, Moderna pushed out 10 patents for covid, one of which contains 552 patent citations, a peptide list of 1500, and clauses saying that each list ‘includes, but is not limited to’.
However, NOTHING came with it. Where are the diagnostic tools so that a person can know if picornavirus IRES loops were used to cross the blood brain barrier, or if they have one if the new fictitious ‘obelisks’?
What are the signs and symptoms for picornaviruses, nanoparticle mimics and carbon nanotubes?
How are they removed? Treated? Where are the safety studies that go with them?
How do carbon nanotubes make their way into public use with zero liability when they were put on the SIN list in 2015 for causing lung cancer? That is a KNOWN risk that was never conveyed to recipients, and this likely nullified the EUA.
They’re acting as though it’s all accepted medical practice, but it is not.
Where are the protections from intellectual property rights claims over humans????
Reply