French doctors use 'official' science to fight mandatory vaccines law

With the deadline for the introduction of mandatory vaccines in France looming, a group of respected medical professionals in the country have launched a last ditch attempt to stop the new law being enforced from January 1st 2018. In an open letter sent to all relevant French authorities, the experts make use of indisputable scientific facts to counter the official explanations on why adding eight new mandatory vaccines is not only useless, but downright dangerous.
Until now, in France, there were only three mandatory vaccines: diptheria, tetanus and polio,but from 2018 these will be joined by eight more: whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumonia and meningitis C.

Protest in the city of Lyon last weekend

Doubtful benefits

One of the main propaganda battle-cry is vaccines save lives!
Actually, vaccines don't save that many lives, the document says: Out of 4000 deaths a year registered in France for children under 15, adding eight new mandatory vaccines would only prevent 1% of deaths, and that is assuming you can get 100% children vaccinated and the vaccines being effective 100% (conditions obviously unattainable).
Some of the new vaccines are useless as the illnesses their supposed to protect against are not currently circulating among French children, as is the case with HepB. Why should parents face huge fines and the risk of seeing their unvaccinated children being denied access to the public education schools for refusing vaccine whose benefits are doubtful and in some cases non-existent?

Mass vaccination proved useless

As for meningitis, especially the group C type, there are only some 120 cases a year for all age groups, with 1-3 deaths registered. However, secondary-effects can be severe for newborns, so risks greatly outweigh supposed benefits. Looking at other European countries where mass vaccination has been introduced 15 years ago, the situation hasn't changed much. In the UK for instance, where children receive three shots of the meningitis vaccine during their first year of life, plus another booster shot around age 15, the number of type C meningitis cases registered is similar to that in France, 30-40 cases a year. If there are no obvious benefits, why make the vaccine mandatory?

The doctors point to the decline in group B meningitis cases in EU countries from 3400 in 2007 to 1766 in 2014. That's a 50% decline and it's not due to vaccination as there was no group B meningitis vaccine. (A MenB vaccine was approved by the EU only in 2013.)

No real need for the HepB vaccine

The infamous HepB vaccine is described by French doctors as totally useless, seeing that are few cases in France overall and there is no transmission among children. Moreover, pregnant women in France are routinely checked for HepB since 1993 and if such case presents itself the child receives medical treatment as soon as it is born.
The number of French children diagnoses with Hepb is around 70 cases a year, with only 1% of these patients at risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver. If the risks are almost non-existent why vaccinate all newborns? Not to mention, the letter adds, the fact that contrary to public statements the HepB vaccine does not offer protection into adulthood.

The failure of pneumococcal vaccines

Pneumococcal vaccines have done a lot of damage as the bacteria they are targeting mutates easily, French doctors explain. After the introduction of the heptavalent Prevenar 7, there was a sudden increase in type 19A serotype cases, which the shot did not cover against. The Prevenar 13 contains six new serotypes, including 19A. But according to the French doctors, Prevenar 13 is already showing signs it is failing. Instead, during 2010-2014, there were 252 severe side-effects registered in France, with 12 children dead.
While is efficacy is doubtful for patients, Prevenar is a success story for its maker, Pfizer, bringing in $6 billion dollars each year, the French doctors point out.

Fighting the system with its own weapons

Initially, I was surprised that, throughout the document, the doctors stick to facts and make no reference to arguments used by the growing anti-vaccination movement. I believe they chose this strategy because the moment you mention toxicity or the link to autism, authorities immediately dismiss such arguments as conspiracy theory. Sticking strictly to 'official' science, the document cannot be dismissed beforehand. This is also the reason why the document is being circulated by Romanian anti-vaccination campaigners trying to stop the mandatory vaccines law currently under debate.

Thanks for reading