A Victory For Intellectual Freedom And Truth: National Body Exonerates French Vaccine Critic Prof Henri Joyeux
In a blow to the medical absolutism of the government of President Macron France’s governing medical body "the National Disciplinary Chamber" have overturned a decision by the Disciplinary Chamber Languedoc-Roussillon to expel Prof Joyeux from medical practice. The original finding had denounced him for his criticisms of vaccination and being the initiator of an online petition against the use of GSK's vaccine Infanrix Hexa, a hexavalent which includes a Hepatitis B component - also recently been introduced in the United Kingdom - despite the fact that infants are rarely at risk from Hep B. Hep B vaccination had previously been excluded from the French infant schedule after having been found to be associated with multiple-sclerosis. The petition, which was widely relayed on social networks and still online, has been signed by more than 1.1 million people.
Dr. Joyeux, who is well known on French TV, criticised the presence in Infanrix Hexa of "aluminum and formaldehyde" as two "dangerous or very dangerous substances”. The President of the National Council of the Order of Physicians, Patrick Bouet had previously censured Joyeux for "dangerous talk", and for "statements not supported by scientific evidence which undermine the profession". The National Disciplinary Chamber, on the other hand, found that Joyeux's views belonged within the context of an existing and legitimate scientific debate.
In 2017 Prof Joyeux gave a presentation with Nobel prize winner Prof Luc Montagnier. On that occasion Montagnier stated:" We risk poisoning little by little all the population which succeeds us, the children, the babies" and Joyeux remarked: "We are entering into a kind of vaccine dictatorship".
Prof Joyeux: The national disciplinary chamber cancels his expulsion on appeal
Article 1: "The decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of first instance of Languedoc-Roussillon of the Order of Doctors, dated July 8, 2016, imposing the sanction of the cancellation of the order of the order to Prof Joyeux, is canceled" .
Article 2: "The complaint filed by the National Council of the Order of Physicians against Prof Joyeux is rejected".
This is the decision that has just been rendered the decision that has just made the National Disciplinary Chamber after the hearing of Prof Henri Joyeux on May 24 to which the Order criticized two petitions on the dangers of vaccination, one against mandatory vaccination against HPV recommended by the High Council for Public Health (HCSP), the other for the return to market of trivalent vaccine DTP.
Freedom of expression
The board found that "in the context of the scientific debate and controversy surrounding the HPV vaccine and the unavailability of the DTP vaccine to which these petitions related and the principle of freedom of expression, the appeals Professor Joyeux and the arguments he developed did not disregard medical ethics, in particular the obligations to exercise probity and prudence and to be concerned about the repercussions of his remarks to the public ".
Regarding the petition for vaccination against HPV, the board stated that "since it was a measure proposed by an advisory body and not a measure decided by a competent authority to do so, that the demonstration of his disagreement by Professor Joyeux could not be considered as a breach of the obligation on the doctor to assist the said authorities with a view to the protection of health and health education (Article R. 4127-12 of the Code public health) ". The board also considers that the text of the petition "consisted of a documented and verifiable set of scientific data on the partial ineffectiveness of the vaccine as well as its adverse effects and the positions that would have been taken by other countries and practitioners. about this question ".
With regard to certain "statements" and "strong affirmations" statements contained in this petition, the Chamber finds that they do not exceed "the principle of freedom of expression, including in a context of public distrust of the public. immunizations ".
Corroborated by the State Council
As for the second petition on the DTP vaccine, the Chamber notes that the statements contained in the text are "corroborated by the decision of the Conseil d'État of 8 February 2017 enjoining the Minister of Health to take the necessary measures to ensure that put on the market a vaccine containing the only three mandatory vaccinations (diphtheria, tetanus and polio). The board also notes that comments about the effects of multiple-valence vaccines, the toxicity of aluminum as an adjuvant and the dangerousness of the hepatitis B vaccine, "have been the subject of much controversy for many years" and that if the arguments put forward by Pr Joyeux "are certainly partial and simplified" but "only reflect the points of view of certain scientists in this debate".
These two petitions have, according to the disciplinary chamber, breached the ethical obligations...
"I am not expelled, I bear no blame. It is saying what? It is saying I am right! " reacted the doctor to AFP.
Great decision, now we must defend doctors in America.
Posted by: Autism Investigated | June 29, 2018 at 07:42 PM
Yes, we should also note that in the Wakefield et al case it was the people from the medicine licensing committees Denis McDevitt and Surendra Kumar who were appointed to sit over the case (it was that blatant): McDevitt had to withdraw but it transpired 6 days into the hearing that Kumar was just as conflicted. Then the farce went on for three years. In this case I am not sure the French medical establishment (or Macron) are on to quite such a good thing. The Wakefield case was about smearing the integrity of three very good men, which shamefully they continue to succeed with for the time being. The Joyeux case was about the foundation and legitimacy of his views, and while they may succeed in expelling him again from the profession, the cold reality of state repression and authoritarianism has already been exposed.
Posted by: John Stone | June 29, 2018 at 10:00 AM
Errata-Sorry I should have said Dr Jane Barton. Here's the story:-
Posted by: Jenny Allan | June 29, 2018 at 07:36 AM
@ John Stone "Sadly, I have heard that the decision has been appealed and the case may linger on another year"
Yes - There's no justice for any individual who dares to challenge 'The Establishment'. Governments are prepared to throw huge amounts of taxpayers' cash, on lawyers fees and endless court appeals; Rich corporate interests can afford the best lawyers and so called 'independent experts' and use all kinds of delaying and obfuscating tactics.
The UK General Medical Council has become a (pardon the pun) sick joke, with all cases being assessed by the Government's 'Privy Council' - a bunch of very secretive politicians. In practice this has resulted in doctors found guilty of medical malpractice, like the recent scandal of hospital doctor Sarah Barton, thought to have overseen the unnecessary deaths of 500+ patients, via both unnecessary and often fatal dosages of powerful opiates AFTER the GMC allowed her to continue in her job after sanctioning her for the exactly same negligent practice decades earlier.
Instead, the GMC, SUPPOSED to be about patient safety, has instead become a corrupt tool used by politicians to silence medical whistleblowers, and researchers, who happen to discover problems with drugs and vaccines. In the UK, Pharmaceutical Industries like GlaxoSmithKline can do no wrong as long as they are profitable and employ people. The GMC did not further challenge the appeal verdict of Judge, Lord Justice Mitting, who restored Professor John Walker-Smith's medical licence, after some behind the scenes straight talking. Quite simply, the UK Government did not want the publicity of another GMC court case. There was very little mainstream reporting of Prof W-S's appeal, particularly the critical comments of the Judge, who stated the GMC's examining of the evidence was 'superficial and inadequate' and in several instances their conclusions were just plain WRONG.
Of course, this entire 3 year GMC farce, costing an estimated £8million, (how much public money?), was never about patient safety. No parent complained about their child's diagnosis or therapy. This was a 'show trial', conducted like the Spanish Inquisition with guilty verdicts on all three doctors already decided upon, and the 'evidence' presented to look as damning as possible, with elaborate inventions and deletions of anything favourable to the defence. Professor Walker-Smith had been retired for 7 years before the GMC 'trial' began in 2007, and Dr Andrew Wakefield's research contract of employment precluded any clinical contact with child patients. Only Professor Simon Murch, who was involved with my Grandson's case, and to whom we are still very grateful, was allowed to keep his medical licence to practice.
As Brian Deer would say-GO FIGURE!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | June 29, 2018 at 06:01 AM
Sadly, I have heard that the decision has been appealed and the case may linger on another year - I think perhaps it makes a powerful point irrespective of what happens next.
Posted by: John Stone | June 29, 2018 at 02:28 AM
Very good news. Thanks for sharing this decision!
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 28, 2018 at 11:52 PM
Great news. Vaccine dictatorship indeed.
Posted by: David Weiner | June 28, 2018 at 12:04 PM
Posted by: False scientists | June 28, 2018 at 11:46 AM
A great result but they need a doctor these day's just a nodding head with a bank account would seem suffice.
Pharma For Prison
Posted by: Angus Files | June 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM
There are now other figures that use their influence as doctors to spread their concerns about vaccination and to urge patients not to get vaccinated. On 13 May 2015, a French doctor, Professor Henri Joyeux, initiated a petition against vaccination and received almost 700,000 signatures. In Belgium, Dr Jean Jacques Crèvecoeur publically criticised the influenza A (H1N1) vaccine and provided a long list of reasons why people should refuse the vaccine 
. Dr Johann Loibner is an Austrian doctor who founded ‘Pathovacc’, a symposium for healthcare workers critical of vaccination 
. Little attention has been paid to these different levels of vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers and how they could influence patients.
As the most trusted source of information on vaccination, there is a risk that hesitant healthcare workers might spread concerns about vaccines to the general population, recommend vaccines less frequently to their patients, and reduce vaccine confidence and uptake by their patients.
Posted by: Hans Litten | June 28, 2018 at 07:02 AM
Beaudette was also named an associate director by Allergan in March 2018. On Linkedin, he wrote, “Skilled technical leader with over 7 years of industry experience in late stage pharmaceutical drug product development. Multidisciplinary scientific background with expertise in formulation, materials science, polymer chemistry, and pharmaceutical manufacturing technologies including extrusion, molding, and compression. Experienced in formulation and manufacturing process development of solid dosage forms, with broad expertise in sustained release drug delivery systems (bio-erodible and non-degradable) and combination products. Successful track record managing cross functional Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) teams to meet global project goals and milestones.”
He had recently left Allergan to start a new job, his family and the company said. It is not clear where he was going to be working.
He Earned His Ph.D at UC Berkeley, Where He Studied & Worked on Research Papers About Vaccines
He & His Wife Were Preparing to Move to the Bay Area for New Jobs, His Family Says in a GoFundMe Campaign
Posted by: Hans Litten | June 28, 2018 at 07:00 AM
Posted by: Hans Litten | June 28, 2018 at 06:17 AM