Christian Perronne: scathing response against the AP-HP

    Christian Perronne: scathing response against the AP-HP

    Christian Perronne was dismissed from his post as head of department during his interview with Martin Hirsch last Thursday. Guest of our Truth Challenge, he had announced that he did not intend to play the lambs that are taken to the slaughterhouse. The response was not long in coming, with the announcement on Friday of a complaint against the young doctor who accused him, not without cheek, of having lacked brotherhood.

    This time, it is an opponent of another caliber that Professor Perronne and his lawyer Me Benages are attacking, by issuing a press release that attacks the AP-HP.

    Communiqué that we reproduce here in full.

    This battle should see other episodes and FranceSoir will keep its readers informed.


    The AP-HP violated the freedom of expression of teacher-researchers by dismissing from his post as Head of Department Professor of Infectious Diseases Christian PERRONNE.

    On Thursday, December 17, the Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) announced the dismissal of his duties as Head of Department, Professor of Infectious Diseases Christian PERRONNE.

    Since then, the media have been reporting a “PERSONAL Affair”, without the facts alleged against him having been specified and without his having been able to respond to the accusations against him.

    It is therefore for me, in my capacity as lawyer for Prof. PERRONNE, to present the arguments which will be presented before the Administrative Tribunal of Paris in order to challenge the decision of the AP-HP.

    First of all, it is appropriate to set out precisely the reasons put forward by the AP-HP in support of its decision.

    Thus the AP-HP exposes, in its decision of December 17 that Pr PERRONNE has “For several months, taken public positions in very regular contradiction with what is taught within the framework of the DES in infectious diseases”, thus underlining the fact that the disputed remarks were made by an academic, professor of infectious disease.

    In addition, the AP-HP exhibits:

    “Pr PERRONNE has for several months in a context of health crisis made statements contrary to the obligation of dignity, even though he is a hospital practitioner”

    “He clearly questioned the competence and the quality of the services of certain AP-HP hospitals, implicitly accusing them of being at the origin of the death of patients,”

    “These remarks, made by a department head, cast significant discredit on the AP-HP and on the quality of public hospital service,”

    “And that finally, by not showing restraint, Professor PERRONNE has departed from his duty of reserve which is imposed on any official,”

    The AP-HP thus refers to the comments made by Professor PERRONNE in the context of his book “Was there a mistake they didn’t make?” “, of the resumption of these remarks in the media, and by which Pr PERRONNE delivers his personal view on the management of the current health crisis.

    Finally, the AP-HP also justifies its decision by the fact that “As part of a film, titled“ Hold Up ”, Prof. PERRONNE publicly made non-confraternal remarks about a doctor in training which were widely reported on social networks and are now fueling insults , attacks, and threats against the latter putting him in serious danger ”(…) Considering moreover that these facts gave rise to the filing of a complaint by the AP-HP to the Departmental Council of the Order doctors as of December 16, 2020 ”.

    In this, the AP-HP refers to the remarks made by Prof. PERRONNE within the framework of the documentary Hold-Up, remarks which also gave rise to the filing of a complaint by the AP-HP to the Departmental Council of the ‘doctor’s orders.

    It is therefore necessary, before any development, to return precisely to the remarks that Professor PERRONNE is accused of having made in this documentary:

    After having underlined the contradictions of communication of the government concerning the wearing of the mask, Pr PERRONNE will return to the “Lancet scandal”, in the 56th minute of the documentary Hold-Up, scandal which had been unveiled by the whole of the press national:

    “You realize the gravity, I thought that everything was going to be settled when there was the” Lancet Gate “as they say, that it is there the international community was going to see that there was a gigantic world deception. Well no, people have continued to publish totally delusional articles against chloroquine as very recently in France (there were not only French people, there were Swiss in the affair), an article was published with in particular Nathan Peiffer Smadja, who is an intern at Bichat, who is a student of Yazdan Yazdanpanah, who also works at Imperial College in London, the university behind the biggest hoax saying there was going to be over 500,000 deaths from Covid in England, even in other European countries. They supposedly did a meta-analysis, an analysis of everything that has been published, but it is distressing when you read this article, how it could have been published in a major newspaper! What are the reviewers of this article doing? They analyzed 800 articles supposedly, they kept 29 of them, whatever did not suit them they discarded it, they included data which had not yet been published! This study is totally bogus! But she made the headlines for three days by saying “now that’s it, mass is said, chloroquine does not work”.

    Thus, in his intervention, Pr PERRONNE only returns to the Lancet scandal, unveiled by the major French media. He only emphasizes that following this scandal, people “continued to publish articles against chloroquine”, taking the trouble to cite his sources.

    Thus, nothing in the intervention of Prof. PERRONNE in the documentary Hold-Up, can be considered as false information or as words “non-confraternal towards a doctor in training ”, as the AP-HP supports.

    In these conditions, Professor PERRONNE cannot be criticized for having fed insults, attacks and threats against Nathan Peiffer Smadja on social networks.

    Conversely, it is important to remember that on December 16, Professor PERRONNE lodged an ordinal complaint against Dr. Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, who, over a period of 6 months, between the months of May to October 2020, has repeatedly published offensive, defamatory and threatening tweets against Prof. PERRONNE, through which he does not hesitate to summon public opinion and to call on the tweetosphere to have a petition against Prof. PERRONNE, or by launching calls to act against him. It was reported to the Council of the Order of Physicians that such facts are qualified by the courts as moral harassment online.

    Thus, while Pr PERRONNE only cites his sources by mentioning Dr Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, the same Dr Nathan Peiffer-Smadja engaged in a form of cyber-harassment similar to that which was recently sanctioned by prison closes as part of the case « Marvel Fitness ».

    Paradoxically, one was sanctioned by the AP-HP, while the other pretends to be a victim!

    Concerning this point, there is a “double standard” totally unbearable in the treatment inflicted on Prof. PERRONNE.

    Thus the Council of the Ordre des Médecins de Paris will play its credibility in its treatment of the ordinal complaints which were lodged by Prof. PERRONNE then by the AP-HP: if it had to transmit the complaint concerning Prof. PERRONNE to the disciplinary chamber, while sparing Dr Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, it would lose all credibility in the management of the various ordinals!

    It is now necessary to come back to the other reasons put forward by the AP-HP in order to justify its decision to dismiss Professor Christian PERRONNE from his post as Head of Department.

    This decision is motivated, in a general way by remarks made by Pr PERRONNE for which he would not have made “Proof of detention”, and for which it would be “Departed from his duty of reserve which is binding on any official”.

    Thus, in addition to the fact that it will be for the Administrative Tribunal, to be referred to by Professor PERRONNE, to rule on the procedural flaws which marred the decision-making of the AP-HP, the Tribunal will in particular be called upon to decide pronounce on the question of the freedom of expression of teacher-researchers.

    It will thus be up to the administrative judge to sanction the decision of the AP-HP if it should appear that the latter, as we maintain, did not respect the fair balance between the rights and freedoms of a teacher-researcher. and the proper functioning of the public service.

    It will be argued, before the judge, that academics benefit, in France, from an almost absolute freedom of expression and research whether in the service or outside the service.

    In this case, what is reproached to Prof. PERRONNE, were the remarks made in his book “Was there a mistake they didn’t make?” “, as well as the reiteration of what is exposed in this work in certain media. However, it should be noted that, in France, the writings of teacher-researchers enjoy great freedom because it is considered that the courts do not have to make themselves the judge of scientific truth.

    Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights has already underlined “The importance of academic freedom, which notably allows academics to freely express their opinions on the institution or system in which they work as well as to disseminate knowledge and truth without restriction” (ECHR, June 23, 2009, n ° 17089/03, Sorguç v / Turkey, § 35).

    It could not therefore be brought closer to Professor PERRONNE to throw “A major discredit on the AP-HP and on the quality of public hospital service” unless you want to go back on the fundamental freedom that constitutes the freedom of expression of teacher-researchers.

    In conclusion, it is also possible to raise that, for the European Court of Human Rights, a professor cannot be condemned following comments made in the press once he has acted in good faith and raised a problem. of public interest without voicing gratuitous personal criticism (ECHR, n ° 12138/08, 19 Jan. 2016, Aurelian Oprea v. Romania).

    In this case, whatever the AP-HP may think of the comments made by Prof. PERRONNE, in his work and in the media, it is indisputable that he acted, and continues to act, in good faith for attempt to raise issues related to a major health crisis, the public interest of which is not to be demonstrated.

    Master Thomas BENAGES

    Share Button