France Passes Controversial Law Punishing Criticism of mRNA

Dubbed "Article Pfizer"

As reported by Thomas Oysmuller in TKP, The French National Assembly passed a controversial law on Wednesday that could criminalise encouraging people to refuse recommended medical treatments, including mRNA vaccines. Critics have dubbed it the “Article Pfizer” law and warn it threatens freedom of speech regarding health choices.

Photo by Chris Karidis on Unsplash

Article 4 is the key section of the new legislation and allows up to three years in prison and a 45,000 Euro fine for the new offence of “requesting to stop or refrain from following therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment.” This applies to treatments that according to “current medical knowledge” are “obviously suitable” to treat a person.

Biologist Annelise Bocquet reacted with shock, tweeting "To my international friends and colleagues: Today a law was passed in France that describes any opposition to mRNA-LNP injections as a “sectarian aberration.” It is punished with a penalty of up to three years in prison and 45,000 euros."

The law's defenders claim it fights dangerous misinformation but opposition parties say it prejudges complementary medicine and threatens whistleblowers.

It initially failed when Article 4 was deleted, prompting accusations of an "alliance against science" from the majority. But the government maneuvered to reinstate Article 4 using an obscure parliamentary rule allowing "second consultations" at the request of the executive. The slightly reworded version passed 151-73 without debate.

Critics blast the move as undermining liberty. Florian Philippot of the Patriots party had pre-emptively labelled Article 4 a “Pfizer amendment” imposed by corporate interests. An observer called the law “blatant pre-fascism” meant to “punish, discipline, coerce.”

The amended bill now returns to the Senate, where opponents may still resist but the administration has methods to override them. Justification for the new law included warnings that "the next pandemic is coming." However, the law’s critics say it uses public health as a pretext to suppress dissent.