Featured Image
Olivier VéranBFMTV / YouTube


PARIS, France, April 7, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In a recent lawsuit initiated by a COVID-vaccinated octogenarian against the French State, a revealing statement was made by French health minister Olivier Véran. According to the nationwide mainstream radio station Europe 1, Véran said: “Vaccinated individuals are also those most at risk for severe forms and death in the event of initial vaccine ineffectiveness or post-vaccine reinfection or variant virulence.”

These words are certainly worth a second read. In substance, and if Europe 1 reported them exactly, they amount to saying that people who have recently received the COVID-19 jab are not less, but more exposed to becoming ill and even to dying because of the Wuhan virus.

So France’s health minister is acknowledging — albeit in the relatively discreet environment of an administrative procedure — that vaccinated individuals can actually be more exposed to severe COVID-19 than if they had not received the jab, either because the vaccine has not yet produced its effects, or, more worryingly, because they had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to their vaccination and the new “wild” infection can be worse, especially when in “variant” form.

A caveat here: This sounds like part of the fear 2.0 project denounced by anti-lockdown scientists after Geert Vanden Bossche started warning about variants that could lead to making a new vaccination campaign necessary for people who have already been vaccinated, as LifeSite’s Patrick Delaney made clear only last week.

But whatever the objective, Olivier Véran has now officially said that vaccination does not actually protect individuals as promised. On the contrary, they should stay at home, wear masks, and observe “social distancing” as usual.

The 83-year-old man who launched a “référé-liberté” procedure before the French Council of State — an emergency lawsuit before the highest administrative court with an aim to protect civil and fundamental liberties against decisions made by the executive — was among the first people in France to receive the COVID-19 experimental vaccine. He got both the Pfizer jabs in January.

When in March, new lockdown measures were set up in his “département” in the greater Paris region, he complained that he would be prevented from going further from his home than 10 kilometers, even though he was no longer at risk. He said that he should recover his liberty to come and go, as measures such as movement restrictions, lockdowns, and the curfew at present applied in France between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. are not necessary or proportionate for vaccinated people. Had he won his case, all fully vaccinated individuals could arguably have ignored COVID restrictions by applying the Council of State’s jurisprudence.

The Council of State decided to reject the plaintiff’s request, following the government’s reasoning as put forth in particular in a memo produced by Olivier Véran that is not available to the public. However, Europe 1 claims to have had access to the document and has reproduced several of its passages in quotation marks. The quotes — including the one about “vaccinated individuals” who are “most at risk” in some cases — were repeated widely both in the mainstream and in the alternative media over the last six days, and have not been denied by Véran or his cabinet. Le Figaro, a mainstream daily, published further quotes. It is by now reasonable to consider them to be authentic.

Other assertions by Véran quoted by the two media deserve mention, such as:

  • “The effectiveness of vaccines is only partial.”

  • “The vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus to others. The impact of vaccination on the spread of the virus is not yet known.”

  • “Vaccine efficacy has become particularly contingent due to the emergence of new variants”

  • The South African and Brazilian strains “may notably cause reinfections in people who have already been infected with COVID-19, as well as a risk of vaccine escape (leaky vaccines)”

  • “Vaccinated individuals may develop mild forms or even be asymptomatic, and still spread the virus.”

  • “From the trial stage … there was therefore no guarantee of immunity.”

So: Back to step one? Did the French minister just admit that the experimental COVID vaccines cannot be invoked or used to stop restricting civil liberties, simply because no one has a clue as to whether they are going to make the situation any better anytime soon, or even whether they might be making the situation worse?

The judge’s decision does not directly quote Véran’s memo; in particular, it doesn’t pick up the first phrases quoted in this story showing that in some situations, vaccinated individuals could in fact be “most at risk” regarding COVID-19.

It notes that even if the jabs are efficient, only a minority of the most vulnerable to COVID have been fully vaccinated, and that they do not eliminate the possibility for the vaccinated also to be potentially contaminating virus carriers. The judge rejected an American study affirming the opposite, as produced by the plaintiff’s lawyers: He said that it did not demonstrate with certainty that non vaccinated vulnerable people would be protected from being contaminated by others who did receive the jab. Vaccine coverage would have to be higher, the judge stated.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Say 'No' to COVID 'Vaccine Passports'!
  Show Petition Text
217269 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 225000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Powerful nations of the world, including China, the UK, and Canada are discussing plans to require so-called 'vaccine passports' as a condition for travel, and possibly to restrict entry to shopping and entertainment venues.

Israel has already put in place a system to discriminate against those who choose not to take the COVID vaccine, and, in the United States, Joe Biden has signed a new executive order which could pave the way for the implementation of a 'vaccine passport' system. [See more below.]

This kind of medical dictatorship must be resisted, and therefore, we must act quickly before these authoritarian notions take root and spread!

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to SAY NO to government 'vaccine passports.' Tell your legislators to respect your freedom not to vaccinate without fear of repercussion.

People should not have to live in fear of government retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It would be intolerable and immoral for the government to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping, go to a high school soccer game, travel on public transport, or visit their relatives who live in a different part of the country, or overseas.

Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.

So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished, restricted, or tracked for refusing an experimental vaccine.

Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.

Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.

We will no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question. And, neither can we accept the dictates of some doctors who seem detached from reality and from science.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which asks national political leaders (as well as state and provincial legislators in the U.S. and Canada) to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and NOT introduce 'vaccine passports,' or any other system which would discriminate on the basis of taking the COVID vaccine.


'Biden executive order directs government to evaluate ‘feasibility’ of vaccine passports' -

'China lobbies WHO to develop COVID vaccine passports for all nations' -

'UK advances plans for vaccine passports to travel, enter stores' -

'Canada’s health minister: Gov’t ‘working on the idea of vaccine passports’' -

'European Commission president plans to introduce vaccine passports' -

'Israel’s ‘Green Passport’ vaccination program has created a ‘medical Apartheid,’ distraught citizens say' -

'LA schools to track every kid using Microsoft’s ‘Daily Pass’ COVID app' -

  Hide Petition Text

Vaccination is therefore not enough, and “barrier gestures” and restrictions on liberties can and should apply and are “proportionate,” added the ordinance.

The plaintiff’s two lawyers, Diane Protat and Henri de Lagarde, attempted to obtain a decision that would “discriminate” between the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated, in the same way that little children who have no vaccine certificate are not eligible for day care or inscription in schools.

Lagarde told the news site “Dossier familial”: “The question is whether it is justified that people who have been vaccinated are still confined. The purpose of confinement is to avoid pressure on hospitals, to avoid having too many patients in the resuscitation services. Now, when one is vaccinated, one is certain not to develop a serious form of COVID-19,” he said.

He mentioned another objective of containment, which is “to limit the circulation of the virus and therefore social interaction.” “Can vaccinated people still transmit the virus? In the state of our scientific knowledge, vaccination leads to a decrease in contagiousness,” he said, adding that vaccinated people who wear masks and respect barrier gestures do not have to be confined. “If there is still a risk of contagiousness, it cannot justify confinement, or else we would need confinement to go on forever,” he noted.

Lagarde also underscored that Olivier Véran argued in his memoir that any certainty regarding the contagiousness of the virus will appear “in two years’ time.” The lawyer said that was reason enough to refuse present and possible future lockdowns.

But to date, the governments of the world in general and of France in particular have not been open to such logic.


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.