French Vaccine Debates: What immediate measures are required?

By 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.

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.