Blogs
Featured Image
Dr. Gregory PamartScreenshot/CNews

PARIS (LifeSiteNews) — Dr. Gregory Pamart, a member of the “ReinfoCovid” group that has worked actively for truth and freedom since the beginning of the COVID restrictions in France two years ago, published a video on Wednesday calling on ordinary citizens to “make noise” about what is happening to him. Last Tuesday, he received a letter from the official doctors’ body in France, the “Order of Physicians,” a professional institution that watches over medical probity and – normally speaking – defends the reputation of medical doctors. It is also tasked with providing doctors with practice licenses. 

Pamart is being threatened with sanctions that could include striking him off the register because he gave a free consultation last December to a man who had been ill with COVID for eight days and who, besides being of frail health, had become very short of breath. 

The man called for an emergency doctor who wanted to send him to hospital in view of his condition. The patient, who had lost faith in the medical profession because of the official handling of the COVID crisis, by which doctors were officially not allowed to treat COVID patients other than giving them paracetamol or sending them to emergency wards, refused and asked whether he could have oxygen at home. The visiting doctor is said to have replied that too much paperwork would be involved, and left. 

It was the patient’s nurse who called on Dr. Pamart, who was already suspended for having refused to take the COVID jab. The suspended physician got in his car and drove 40 miles to see the patient, giving him treatment and urging him to undergo certain examinations at the local hospital, which the man went and got, meaning that he had recovered some faith in the institution, much to Pamart’s satisfaction. 

The patient recovered and is doing well. 

Dr. Pamart, on the other hand, is facing administrative prosecution for having (successfully) treated the COVID patient, and he now faces never being allowed to practice again. 

He was reported anonymously to the Order of Physicians by an unknown person who got hold of the prescription he had made and forwarded it. The Order is now accusing Pamart of having repeated derogatory remarks about the (unnamed) emergency doctor, of having treated a man who was not in a state of vital emergency, and of having prescribed drugs that “do not agree with established scientific data.” 

Gregory Pamart told his story to LifeSite in French via a video interview during which he upheld the values of care for others, honesty, freedom and above all, truth. He suggested that many doctors are not acting freely in the COVID crisis because they are “prisoners” of money, the search for pleasure, and financial obligations. He also suggested the need to “abandon” oneself to “divine providence or the service of life” when choices appear to be taken away. 

One question no-one seems to have thought of is how an “unvaccinated” doctor can pose a threat to a patient who has already suffered from COVID for eight days.

Here below is a translation of Dr. Gregory Pamart’s full interview: 

LifeSiteNews: You have been summoned by the Council of the Order of Physicians because you treated, free of charge, a person who was not getting any care even though he was very ill with COVID. What was the reason for this summons? 

Dr. Gregory Pamart: In fact, I had already been summoned, and I had already answered questions put to me by colleagues at the Council; the news I received on Tuesday was that they had decided to defer me to the disciplinary chamber. Basically, they have heard my story, and upon hearing it they feel that there is reason to sanction me. 

LSN: What kind of sanction would that be? Could it be anything from a financial penalty to removal from the register? 

Dr. P.: This is administrative justice, so normally there is no financial penalty, but it can go from a warning or a reprimand, to a temporary or even a permanent ban on practising. 

LSN: You yourself are not vaccinated against COVID, so you have been suspended since September 15, 2021.  

Dr. P.: That’s right. There was a law, the law of August 5 announced on July 12 by the President of the Republic, which states that all health care personnel and health care workers in health care institutions must be vaccinated against COVID. It is a law that was initially made to protect the users, to protect the patients, but which is not really explainable anymore, and which for me is obsolete in the sense that we now know that a vaccinated person can totally transmit the disease. But it is still a law, and a law that is still in force: these caregivers are still not allowed to work. 

LSN: Let’s talk about you first. How long have you been a doctor? 

Dr. P.: I passed my baccalaureate in 2006, and I studied medicine for 9 years. I spent three years as a replacement and then almost three years working as a doctor in Jenlain, in the North of France. 

LSN: So you have 6 years of experience in general medicine, and I imagine that you love your job: you do it to help others.

Dr. P.: Yes, of course. I chose this profession because, well, I had to choose one, and I don’t regret it at all because, in the end, these are things that I discovered: caring for others, taking care of others, being there for others, welcoming others. Of course, this is something wonderful that I had the opportunity to do and to discover by being a doctor. So, yes, I like what I was doing. 

LSN: The measure that struck you is a simple suspension: you are not struck off, you are still considered a doctor. Are you allowed to write prescriptions, for example? 

Dr. P.: That’s a real question. If we take non-practicing physicians, like retired physicians, they have the right to write prescriptions in case of emergency, and for their close relations. Based on this principle, when I stopped working, I wrote a letter to the Order of Physicians explaining that, in particular if I was faced with an emergency, or for the particular case of COVID patients who could not be treated otherwise and who needed me, I would assist them. I didn’t get an answer to that, so at that point the Order didn’t say yes, and it didn’t say no. It didn’t stick its neck out, so to speak. On the other hand, months later, they blamed me for it. 

LSN: So you were suspended, but still have, if I understood correctly, the right to intervene in case of emergency. 

Dr. P.: The duty, I would say. Because it is a penal duty to assist a person in danger. 

LSN: And you have that duty even more because of your competence as a doctor and your ability to prescribe. So, in theory, what you did in December was your duty. 

Dr. P.: Morally, I would say yes. Morally I did my duty; in fact, we can stop at that because today I would not be able to cope if I had not helped this gentleman. 

LSN: And is this gentleman well? 

Dr. P.: The gentleman is fine. And he is grateful. He is very happy with the care he got. And when he went back to see his doctor a few months later, he told him that it was lucky I had been there for him. Sometimes we joke that we save lives. In reality, in a doctor’s life, you don’t save that many lives. Of course, we know people, we know their families, we are there for them in difficult and important moments, but saving lives doesn’t happen that often. But in all honesty, he was not well, and it could have ended badly for him. I am very happy that it ended well – but it could have ended badly despite my care, mind you! 

LSN: Can you talk about what you prescribed for him? 

Dr. P.: I can talk generally. But I don’t like to talk about him because if one day it becomes publicly known who this gentleman is, I don’t want to have to given information about him; that’s what bothers me in your question. If I speak generally, in people who are ill with COVID, there are several phases, and there are several things that can be done. There are three risks of complications: the risk of superinfection, when there is a microbe that enters the lungs at the moment when they are fragile; the risk of phlebitis or pulmonary embolism, a clot that forms in a leg or in a vein that goes afterwards into the lungs, which can give shortness of breath; and the risk of a respiratory distress syndrome that is linked to a massive irritation of the body. When we see a patient after eight days who is short of breath, we have to ask ourselves what the complication is. If we suspect a superinfection, we will give an antibiotic. Azithromycin, for example, is the antibiotic of choice for flu superinfections. If we suspect a state of generalized irritation of the body, we know that cortisone saves lives. If you suspect a pulmonary embolism, you need to do a CT scan or a scintigraphy, or at least do an examination to make sure there is nothing there. Sometimes you don’t have the answer right away. You can do some tests, and then you start specific treatments for these problems. Why not cortisone if the patient can be on cortisone? Why not an antibiotic anyway if you put him on cortisone, to prevent superinfection, or to treat a superinfection if it is already there?

Then there are non-specific treatments that have been proposed for COVID. There are very consensual treatments. Recently there’s an antiviral that came on the market; it has a 15-page list of side effects. And then there are other treatments that have been offered: vitamin D, for example. Studies seem to say that when you take vitamin D it helps the immune system. Ivermectin has also been proposed. It’s an antiparasitic drug that is used in scabies, and in many studies it shows an improvement. So these are things that we can prescribe as doctors, and that we prescribe in these cases “outside the market authorization.” We warn the patient that there is no indication to prescribe this drug for COVID but that we can give it; it is just that the drug will not be reimbursed. And then we inform the patient of the benefits and risks. And it’s up to the patient to decide. That’s what I do. 

It’s also part of what I’m being criticized for. I’m being criticized for treating someone while I was suspended, and I’m also being criticized for offering medication to that patient. 

LSN: I was surprised to see that you were reported anonymously with a copy of the prescription. Do you have any idea what happened? 

Dr. P.: I don’t know. A referent doctor from the Order of Physicians, but who is not a member of the Order of Physicians in the North, told me that, in any case, they put anonymous reports in the garbage, they are not there to deal with the problems of poison pens. This is especially true since this prescription belongs to the patient, so if it is not the patient who gave it, it is simply an object of theft. We shall see if the people responsible for this can be criminally prosecuted or convicted. Yes, an anonymous report is problematic. I should add that in this case, in front of my colleagues of the Order, I recognized the facts, because I [affirm] the truth. But I could very well have said: “Listen, I do not know.” I could have lied and got away with lying. 

LSN: You could have got away with it, but you’re still suspended! 

Dr. P.: Yes, I’m still suspended. I’m still not allowed to provide for my family from the benefit of my professional activity. 

LSN: Can I ask you why you made the decision not to get vaccinated? 

Dr. P.: This is a legitimate question. In general terms, I am a doctor, I ask a lot of questions, and it is by asking questions that I have learned to treat patients effectively. What I was able to offer this gentleman did not fall from the sky. I had to exchange [opinions] with colleagues, I had to read a lot, I had to get a lot of information. On the question of vaccination, I also read a lot, I also informed myself a lot, and I made this decision for myself because with any product, with any medical intervention, there is a benefit, there is a risk, and for me, I would not even say that the risk is greater than the benefit – I would say that the risk is unknown. A drug normally takes ten years to come out. In a year and a half, we cannot have a safe drug; it is impossible. We all know scandals regarding drugs like Mediator, thalidomide, distilbene (Diethylstilbestrol), which were all products presented as miraculous and without risks. Today, we don’t know, we can’t rule out risk. 

So there it is: I made this decision, and it is interesting to say why, but in fact behind all this, it does not matter if I am right or wrong, in a way. It’s my health, it’s my problem. The Minister of Health said that a vaccinated person cannot transmit COVID: today we know that that is false. At the time when it was said that a vaccinated person cannot transmit, it was possible to understand that the political authority, the public authority, should use force to restrict caregivers’ ability to work; today, when we know that it is not the case, this rule is no longer legitimate. We are facing a political will to punish people who think differently. And, therefore, we are facing a kind of society which refuses those who are different; it refuses the possibility of being an individual with one’s choices. 

LSN: Would it be possible for you to refer to these considerations when you face the disciplinary chamber of the Council of the Order? Would it be of interest, and more importantly, do you think you could be heard? 

Dr. P.: I’m afraid not. You know, when I decided to send out my message to people telling them they need to know what’s going on, unfortunately it’s because I’m facing someone on the other side who can’t listen. If I had a reasonable person in front of me, we would have a reasonable discussion. When you are facing someone who is not reasonable, you have to cause a shock. And, fortunately or unfortunately, I also take risks by testifying, and by saying these things publicly. But I take these risks because I believe that, unfortunately, the colleagues opposed do not realize what is happening. That a doctor decides to attack another doctor because he treated a patient in an emergency, I just think: “Wow, how can they be doing that?” If they can do that, it’s because they don’t realize what it means. So I’m trying to create a shock, which is what I did with when I posted a video online. 

LSN: On a personal level, you said that you are no longer able to provide for your family from the income of the profession you were trained for, and God knows there is a shortage of doctors. How do you manage? Have you found an alternative, or do you still hope that sanity will return, and you will be able to practise your profession again?  

Dr. P.: Quite honestly, the Order is attacking me, and they will continue to attack me. There is a certain probability that I will no longer have the right to practise medicine, even on the day when caregivers will be allowed to work without being vaccinated. I am aware of this. How do you make a living? Well, a doctor earns a good living, and so I have savings. I have always lived soberly: that’s also what allowed me to have this freedom and to say “Stop, I give up.” And then, afterwards, it’s all about renunciation. As a general practitioner, I could have nice cars, a nice house, go on nice vacations. Today I have decided to give up all that. 

But in the end each renunciation makes me grow because with each renunciation you gain more freedom. Today I may not have a big bouquet of roses to brighten up my table, but I do have a small bouquet of wildflowers, and it is just as beautiful, if not more so. In fact, every time you give up something, you set your eyes on something else that is simple, easy, and beautiful.  

LSN: When you talk about doctors who may not have this freedom because they have made other choices, is it because they have made other life choices that they are trapped in relation to the present crisis?  

Dr. P.: Of course. There are many ways to live. When you are used to enjoying your possessions, when you are a prisoner of a lifestyle, when you are a prisoner of money, when you are a prisoner of houses on credit, of real estate investments, when you are a prisoner of nice leased cars, when you are a prisoner of your habits, that’s it! Sometimes you are even unhappy and you work like crazy: there are doctors who are like that, who work 80 hours a week, who don’t have time to breathe, who don’t have time to look outside at the sun, and these people, yes, today they are prisoners, and often unhappy, I think. It’s perhaps a value judgment, but they are often unhappy. So they compensate this unhappiness with pleasures, with gratification. And they need even more dough to squander when they are on vacation. 

Once again, it’s hard, I sometimes say things that are a bit harsh. But it’s not a judgment: I have a lot of compassion. And all this doesn’t mean I’m right: there are many ways to be. My way is to be simple. 

LSN: You have made this choice, a courageous choice. Many people are afraid today, I think, that a general vaccination obligation will be imposed on them. How do you see the future? Do you have a vision of things, or are you just waiting? 

Dr. P.: It is difficult to have an idea of the future. We don’t know where we’ll be in three months, as you say. Life can be suspended. There’s this idea of “suspended caregivers.” How strong is that message! It’s terrible to be suspended! Suspended from whom, suspended from what? For a moment, I don’t know if I can hope. To hope… Yes, I hope. There is a part where you can no longer be a complete actor of your life, and so you have to abandon yourself. You have to surrender to Divine Providence, to the force of life… You are in any case at the service of something greater than yourself. You have to stop wanting to do all the time. You have to stop wanting to oppose all the time. That’s why I don’t like it when people talk about being anti-vax, anti-stuff, anti-something. No, I am not “anti.” I am at the service of life. What will that lead to? I don’t know. But I think it will be good. I will have done what I could; that’s what I did when I went to take care of this man. I don’t know why, but at that time, when I went to see him, I knew very well that it could go wrong for me. I could get in trouble for this. I said to myself: “I am going to treat my brother, a human being. What else can I do but do this? I’m in the right place, and I’m doing it.” 

LSN: Listening to your conscience. 

Dr. P.: You have to listen to your conscience and put yourself at the service of life, the way, the truth. The truth is also important. I said earlier: “No, I cannot lie.” I can’t lie because I would be destroying myself if I lied. And you damage yourself with a little lie that is natural. Some people say to me: “Why don’t you use fake documents? It’s very simple, you know.” I’ve been asked that many times. Several different people have said to me: “Listen, it’s okay, I’ll make you something, and you’ll be fine. You’ll go to work.” Or: “I know someone: you slip him a banknote, and you’ll be fine.” But this is a little lie that damages you, that forces you to make another little lie on the side, and little by little you move away from yourself, and you no longer know who you are. You no longer recognize yourself. It’s not that you don’t know how to look at yourself in the mirror, it’s that you don’t know how to recognize yourself, and the person in front of you is not you, he is damaged by society. 

Featured Image

Jeanne Smits has worked as a journalist in France since 1987 after obtaining a Master of Arts in Law. She formerly directed the French daily Présent and was editor-in-chief of an all-internet French-speaking news site called reinformation.tv. She writes regularly for a number of Catholic journals (Monde & vie, L’Homme nouveau, Reconquête…) and runs a personal pro-life blog. In addition, she is often invited to radio and TV shows on alternative media. She is vice-president of the Christian and French defense association “AGRIF.” She is the French translator of The Dictator Pope by Henry Sire and Christus Vincit by Bishop Schneider, and recently contributed to the Bref examen critique de la communion dans la main about Communion in the hand. She is married and has three children, and lives near Paris.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

3 Comments

    Loading...