France Adopts Controversial “Pfizer Amendment” Bill

This article originally appeared on Sonia Elijah Investigates and was republished with permission.

Guest post by Sonia Elijah

Recently, I was alerted to France’s parliament passing the contentious draft legislation aimed at tackling “sectarian abuses,” commonly known as the “Pfizer Amendment” among critics, on Tuesday, April 9th.

My initial coverage of the draft bill’s progression through France’s National Assembly was reported in February on my Substack. Subsequently, my report was republished in Brownstone Institute, The Epoch Times, Children’s Health Defense Europe and Vigilant News Network.

France’s “Pfizer Amendment” Could Turn mRNA Critics into Criminals

Alexandra Henrion-Caude, a geneticist and molecular biologist, as well as the Research Director of SimplissimA Institute, recently expressed her gratitude on social media, personally thanking myself and others for shedding light on this contentious bill.

This stands in stark contrast to the mainstream media’s noticeable lack of coverage on the matter.

SOMETIMES I WONDER: IS SEEKING FREEDOM A CRIME❓
France's #PfizerAmendment finally passed on April 9th 2024
I want to thank @sonia_elijah @HighWireTalk @delbigtree @ClaytonMorris @brownstoneinst @jeffreyatucker @TheRedactedInc (etc) who did try helping ushttps://t.co/dSMerfJB0S

— Alexandra Henrion-Caude (@CaudeHenrion) April 12, 2024

The adopted bill now introduces a new offense- criminalizing “the request to stop or refrain from therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment” as well as “the request to use practices that are presented as therapeutic or prophylactic ”.

The legislation has sparked division among French parliamentarians, especially considering that the offense carries a penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of EUR 30,000. If the incitement leads to action, the fine increases to EUR 45,000, and the prison sentence extends to three years.

Of particular concern is the potential criminalization of individuals who criticize state-sanctioned “therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatments,” such as experimental mRNA vaccines, if they advocate refraining from them.

The bill passed in Parliament with a vote of 146 in favor and 104 against, highlighting the contentious nature of the legislation.

According to CNews France:

The Secretary of State, Sabrina Agresti-Roubache, said in the Chamber that it was “not with the government’s intention to ban medical criticism” or “to prevent patients from consciously deciding whether to take or refrain from treatment”, but rather to fight the ‘conspiracy’ on the Internet, which, according to her, ‘makes thousands of victims every year’.

A position that responded to the concerns of the Insubmitted, Communist, Republicans and Rassemblers National, who were threatening “public freedoms” or whistleblowers who criticize the pharmaceutical industry.

The article preserves “freedom of expression” and “the role of whistleblowers”, assured Brigitte Liso, the Renaissance parliamentary rapporteur of the text, supported by Socialist MEP Arthur Delaporte.

Given that only a few years ago, Macron’s France was plunged into a medical apartheid system with the implementation and enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine passports- which many viewed as a violation of individual bodily autonomy and freedom of choice, Agresti-Roubache’s remarks offer little reassurance.

The Secretary of State’s choice of words are also interesting, particularly when she states that the bill’s aim is “to fight the ‘conspiracy’ on the Internet.”

In this context, one could argue that the “Pfizer Amendment” serves as an extension of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which became effective across the EU on 16 November 2022. Similar to the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA), the DSA aims to combat the spread of what authorities classify as disinformation online.

Copyright 2024 Sonia Elijah Investigates