ER Editor: The HAS referred to below is France’s High Authority for Health. The figure of suspended, non-vaccinated healthcare workers in France is typically put at 15,000 but this figure could be far too low. In the UK, Covid vaccination for healthcare workers was thrown out as a compulsory measure because 80,000 (eighty thousand) workers threatened to quit the National Health Service. Both countries have comparable populations according to official stats.
This means that 15,000, plus perhaps thousands of others, are living on fresh air right now and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, with some of their basic rights suspended. France has shown itself to be one of the most tyrannical, corrupt western countries over the last two-and-a-bit years. However, people here really need waking up as to the nature of the institutions governing their lives.
Another recent article by France Soir relays the attitude of the French Academy of Medicine, which also refuses the re-hiring of non-vaccinated healthcare workers. You seriously couldn’t make this up:
“There is no argument to scientifically validate the refusal to be vaccinated”
“None of the rehashed arguments (lack of efficacy, adverse effects, lack of hindsight, etc…) can scientifically validate the refusal to be vaccinated, the real medical contraindications to vaccination being very rare”, continues the Academy of Medicine. Finally, “vaccination remains very effective against the different variants and sub-variants to protect against severe forms of Covid-19, it makes it possible to make the recognition of serious Covid-19 as an occupational disease exceptional in vaccinated caregivers“ it notes.
Another argument put forward by the Academy of Medicine: “The reintegration of unvaccinated health professionals within the healthcare team would compromise the climate of trust and the cohesion which must exist between its members and with the patients”. In addition, “it would endanger the fragile patients”.
0.3% of professionals
The Academy therefore expresses “its firm opposition to a reversal” which would concern only 0.3% of hospital professionals, caregivers and non-caregivers, according to a figure attributed to the French Hospital Federation. (ER: Which we seriously doubt.)
Reintegration of non-vaccinated caregivers: finally, the government opposes it
Stoppage on the return of caregivers not vaccinated against Covid. As the debate gathered momentum, the government decided on Friday that they would not be reinstated, following a negative opinion from the High Authority for Health.
“The Academy of Medicine, the Scientific Council and the High Authority for Health have a convergent opinion (…) it is negative” and “we follow the advice of scientists“, announced the Minister of Health François Braun, during a trip to Seine-et-Marne.
“They will not be reinstated ,” he later confirmed to CNews.
The Minister of Health François Braun on the reintegration of non-vaccinated caregivers: “My position, mine and that of the government are clear: we follow the advice of scientists as since the start of the crisis and it is negative” pic. twitter.com/hueGvEpKT1
— CNEWS (@CNEWS) July 22, 2022
Shortly before this announcement, the HAS, whose opinions serve as the basis for public health decisions, said it was “in favor of maintaining the obligation to vaccinate against (the) Covid-19” for caregivers.
The opinion of the HAS was all the more awaited since the parliamentarians had decided on Thursday that a possible reinstatement of the caregivers would be automatic as soon as the authority gave its agreement.
An opinion is in line with other recent positions such as that of the Academy of Medicine.
Slightly less clear-cut, the Scientific Council, on the verge of dying out after having guided the government’s policies against Covid for more than two years, said Thursday it was “very reserved” about reinstatement.
Other eminent scientific figures, not very suspicious of complacency towards movements qualified as “anti-vax”, believe, conversely, that it is time to reintegrate unvaccinated caregivers.
This is the case of epidemiologist Antoine Flahault who ruled on Twitter on Wednesday that “the maintenance of the suspension of unvaccinated caregivers (was) no longer scientifically based” in view of the loss of effectiveness of vaccines.
1/3 – Maintaining the suspension of unvaccinated caregivers is no longer scientifically sound. There is indeed no reason to require the vaccine among caregivers because it does not sufficiently avoid or reduce contamination with new variants of #SARSCoV2.
— Antoine FLAHAULT (@FLAHAULT) July 20, 2022
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.