French Vaccine Debates: What immediate measures are required?

SaneVax-FeaturedBy Attorney Philippe Vanlangendonck, guest author from Belgium

Translated by Helen Kimball-Brooke, European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance (EFVV)

The Colloquium and public hearing on the aluminium in vaccines, held in Paris on the 22nd May 2014: What immediate measures are required?  Mandatory genetic tests before any aluminium-containing vaccine, or immediate moratorium on these aluminium-containing vaccines?

As an attorney registered with the Brussels Bar and defending vaccine victims, I was honored to be able to attend these two important scientific meetings held on the 22nd of May 2014 at the French National Assembly in Paris.  It is at present too early to grasp the full extent and impact of these discussions, the scope of which was vast.

Vaccine Safety Debates

Vaccine Safety Debates

In the morning, E3M (Macrophagic myofasciitis sufferer support group) had invited internationally renowned medical consultants to take part in a colloquium called “Aluminium and Vaccines: International expertise requires action;” and in the afternoon, OPECST, the Office parlementaire des choix scientifiques et technologies, the equivalent of the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had organized a public hearing, open to the press and called “Vaccine Adjuvants: A Controversial Question”.

When one attends a scientific meeting in a political setting such as this and the presence of a minister is announced, the said minister often sends a replacement at the last minute, due to his busy schedule, but on the 22nd of May, it was the exact opposite which happened and this is remarkable enough to be highlighted.  In fact, a correction had been included in the introductory section of the OPECST public hearing programme, informing those attending that Mme. Marisol Touraine, French Social Affairs and Health Minister would be present.

So the French Health Minister attended this public hearing, the profile of which was raised by her presence. The consequences of this for her, as political figure responsible for the proceedings, are clear because by attending this public hearing she cannot later claim not to be aware of what took place.

In fact, any decision in the field of health must take the latest scientific advances and knowledge into consideration.

On the 22nd of May 2014, the latest scientific and technical knowledge in the field of health were presented:

  1. Professor Yehuda Shoenfeld, director of the Zabludowicz Centre for autoimmune diseases and international specialist on immunity, pointed out that certain individuals have a genetic predisposition to much greater and more serious reaction to immune system stimulation in the form of aluminium salt-containing vaccines.
  2. Professor Yehuda Shoenfeld also informed those attending that we already have genetic ‘tests’ which can determine, before any vaccine is administered, whether an individual’s genetic makeup is such that he may be susceptible in the long term to a potentially very serious auto-immune reaction.

Now that the matter has been so clearly outlined in a political setting, the only valid criterion to take into account is that of current scientific knowledge and progress.

As of today, current scientific knowledge and progress has revealed that aluminium is responsible (as an isolated triggering factor or combined with other factors, including the presence of an antigen) for what can be called vaccine-induced illness, or, depending on the case, illnesses which did not naturally exist pre-vaccination and which the individual therefore contracted through aluminium toxicity; as such, he or she would NEVER in his/her life have contracted this disease since without the presence of aluminium, his/her genetic predisposition to serious reactions when exposed to aluminium COULD NOT have caused this illness, e.g. macrophagic myofasciitis.

In other words, no individual even genetically predisposed would ever contract such an illness unless he or she were exposed to the aluminium in a vaccine.

What all this means is that either a genetic ‘test’ would need to be performed before any vaccination (particularly if the vaccine contains aluminium) or no vaccine containing aluminium could ever be mandated.

Professors Exley and Gherardi had also made the same observations regarding the toxicity of aluminium.

On another matter, the fact that Mme. Marisol Touraine, French Health Minister, had taken a public stance during the French presidential campaign in favour of freedom of choice for families faced with aluminium salt-containing vaccines for their children, shows that she is fully aware of the problem and the urgent need to take concrete measures as soon as possible.

Against this background, lack of immediate action, no action or delaying the adoption of the essential measures required would inevitably result in a scandal similar to that of contaminated blood.

The problem is also that the presence of unknown disease makes it very difficult to recognize the disease and treat people suffering from vaccine-induced ailments.

As far as Belgium is concerned, I am working on a letter which I will send to the head of ONE (Office de la Naissance et de l’Enfance), the Belgian Birth and Childhood Authority.



  1. It is extremely encouraging that these important meetings, the Colloquium and public hearing on the aluminium in vaccines, took place and that the French Health Minister personally attended the hearing.

    Professor Yehuda Shoenfeld pointed out that certain individuals have a genetic predisposition to serious reactions to immune system stimulation from aluminium -containing vaccines; and that those who are genetically predisposed would not have become ill had they not been subjected to aluminium containing vaccines.

    In Norway there are several hundred who are still struggling with health issues, suffering from a wide array of neurological damage and serious autoimmune conditions after a scandalous meningococcal vaccine experiment run by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) on 200 000 young people during 1988 – 94. Extremely few have been granted any compensation whatsoever.

    There is the realistic possibility that some who took part in the experiment were genetically predisposed to serious reactions from injected aluminium.

    There is also the possibility that some may have suffered from increased risk of synergistic toxicity between aluminium and mercury:
    The vaccine contained both aluminium and mercury (thimerosal), a combination which may involve an amazing increase of mercury toxicity due to the presence of aluminium.

    Aditionally, the Norwegian vaccine experiment involved a false placebo. The evaluation report (in Norwegian) was critical regarding the experiment but did not focus on the fact that the vaccine (and “placebo”) contained both mercury and aluminium. Page 39:

    Because the placebo was active, the vaccine was made to appear less dangerous in the safety trials than if a true, inert placebo had been used.

    Those who became ill and who had received the so called placebo were lead to believe that their illness could not be caused by the placebo, which of course is not necessarily the case.
    Many were given the placebo first, then the vaccine, which means that they received several doses with the toxic combination of both aluminium and mercury.

    There is now a gigantic campaign taking place in several African countries to vaccinate millions with the meningococcal vaccine MenAfriVac which also contains both aluminium and mercury, as does the so called placebo used in the trials.
    NIPH is also involved in this project.,7555:1:0:0:::0:0&MainContent_6894=6765:0:25,7572:1:0:0:::0:0&Content_6765=6729:89442:25,7572:1:6770:12:::0:0

    Questions to NIPH, GAVI and WHO concerning the presence of the toxic combination of aluminium and mercury, regarding both the Norwegian meningococcal vaccine and in MenAfriVac which is being administered in Africa, have been met with silence.
    Similarly, questions have been ignored regarding potential synergistic toxicity of aluminium and mercury when separately present in vaccines which are administered concomitantly.

    Due to the toxicity of injected aluminium, the potential genetic predisposition for serious reactions to injected aluminium and to the issue of synergistic toxicity between aluminium and mercury, the many who are suffering serious adverse reactions after the Norwegian experiment and the MenAfriVac vaccine should be duly helped and compensated; and a moratorium on aluminium containing vaccines should immediately take place.

  2. The Euroscicon newsletter also has a summary of my paper that was presented at the Controlling Cancer Summit: Advances in Cancer Screening and Prevention (12 May 2014). The presentation was titled ‘HPV Vaccines have not been demonstrated to be Safe or Effective in the Prevention of Cervical Cancer’. Here is the Euroscicon summary


  1. […] The public hearing held in Paris on the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines was attended by the French Health Minister and reported on by the European parliament. The hearing was open to the press and titled ‘Vaccine Adjuvants: A Controversial Question’. The most recent science on aluminium adjuvants in vaccines demonstrates that many individuals have a pre-disposition (genetic condition) to experiencing a serious reaction from aluminium adjuvants in vaccines. These serious reactions include neurological damage and autoimmune diseases – multiple sclerosis, arthritis, lupus, etc – and are caused by the artificial stimulation of the immune system with vaccines. Here is a link to the report on the public hearing […]

Speak Your Mind