Art. 223-1-2 . – Provocation to abandon or abstain from following therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment is punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 15,000 euros, when this abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial for the health of the persons targeted when it is, in the state of medical knowledge, clearly likely to result in serious consequences for their physical or psychological health, taking into account the pathology from which they suffer…

When the provocation provided for in the first two paragraphs has been followed by effects, the penalties are increased to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros.

The bill now awaits final approval in the French Senate.

Imagine being arrested for following your conscience and medical advice from a doctor that you trust and yet going to prison for it because it contradicts the “medical knowledge” of your government. With this bill as it stands today, what will happen to those doctors and scientists in France who still oppose the mRNA injection?

I recall that what was deemed “medical knowledge” by the ministers of science in the CDC, FDH and NIH included the absurd notion that the jabs were safe and effective. I recall deaths being caused directly by the vaccines, ventilators, remdesivir, and refusing early treatment.  I also recall permanent disability and infertility due to “vaccine” injury as well as diseases like myocarditis, Bell’s Palsy, among others.  In fact, there are many confirmed reasons why the “state of medical knowledge” – as promoted by the government – might not be in our best interest.

The bill’s aim of “strengthening the fight against sectarian aberrations” is just one example of the kind of control governments might exert over the masses as they protect Big Pharma.  Ultimately, that’s what it’s all about with the upcoming 76th World Health Assembly (WHA) on May 24.

The WHA is the World Health Organization’s (WHO) decision-making body and is prepared to make amendments to the International Health Regulations which, if ratified, would consolidate power among vested interests like world leaders, the WHO and Big Pharma. 

All three benefit from these agreements, but it’s important to be clear on the difference between two aspects of negotiations. Proposals for negotiating the WHO “Pandemic Agreement” and the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) are frequently confused but are basically two wings of the same plane, and the plane is Big Pharma.

As researcher James Roguski clarifies, The “Pandemic Treaty” appears to be a business deal that is designed to redirect billions of dollars of public and private funds to dramatically expand the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency industrial Complex (PHEIC) into poor countries in order to access more of Big Pharma’s drugs and injections making them more dependent, thus making Big Pharma richer.  Whereas the brewing terror we are now familiar with, like the denial of human rights and freedoms; mandating regulations and making them legally binding for all member states; empowering the Director-General to declare emergencies; and recommending things like quarantines, vaccines, and medical treatments, etc., are in the International Health Regulations.  (Taking James Roguski’s pop quiz on this can be very clarifying).

The WHO Pandemic Negotiations with the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) and the Working Group for Amendments (WGIHR) resume this week and continue throughout the month of March. It will all culminate in the big assembly during the week of May 27^th.

So, what has been the pushback in the United States? 

Frank Gaffney, Executive Chairman for the Center for Security Policy, mentioned in a recent press conference with Rep. Chris Smith that the House of Representatives has zeroed out the funding for the WHO in one of the appropriation bills if the WHO does not send whatever negotiations produced to the Senate for its advice and consent.  There have also been valiant attempts by Rep. Rick Scott, Rep, Chip Roy, Rep. Andy Biggs, and Senator Ron Johnson to either oppose the amendments or exit the WHO outright, as President Trump did.  In the case of Senator Johnson’s bill, 47 senators were the only ones to sign on.  But even if there were a majority of supporters and a win in the House, President Biden would still have to sign the bill -- an unlikely event, to be sure. 

Problems are compounded by the fact that the Biden Administration may join the above convention by executive agreement, bypassing Senate approval.  It seems to me that the tension between Senate approval and executive agreement will grow as we approach the Assembly. Indeed, the WHO accord is being drafted specifically to circumvent Senate approval.  Hopefully, the attitude among House representatives will be what Francis Boyle, professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, advises:

“I think the House of Representatives has to make it clear that they object, that there is no way they are going to go along with any orders coming out of the WHO, the World Health Assembly or this new international pandemic organization, and that they have the power of the purse and that they will defund anything related to the WHO.”

None of the above entails that people are going to be arrested for actions inconsistent with whatever comes out of the “Pandemic Treaty.” But what has happened just days ago in France is a very serious development.  We are witnessing, in real time, the criminalization of truth.  And whenever that happens, government bodies, politicians and interested parties have a way of arresting the continuation and development of free minds and bodies.