At the attack of the law 210? The "government of change" for the worse!

At the attack of the law 210? The "government of change" for the worse!
(Reading time: 3 - 5 minutes)

To ensure that we never miss the good news, we need to deal with the latest document published by the Ministry of Health: the Act of address for the identification of the political priorities for the year 2019

The pdf is downloadable at seg. link: https://goo.gl/dbjhYH

Therefore, among the priorities of our ministry, we read:

- [] obviously PREVENTION. Do you start with lifestyles and nutrition? No, the opening is dedicated to the "prevention of communicable diseases especially of epidemic importance" ... question: these damned epidemics that slander the country with deaths wherever they are?

- [] We continue talking about vaccines on page 7, where we find the reference "to the activity envisaged by the PNPV (National Vaccine Prevention Plan) 2017/2019, in all its contents, emphasizing the importance of vaccination prevention ALONG ALL THE ARCO DELLA VITA and communication on the subject of vaccinations, aimed at strengthening the conscious choice of citizens on the subject and increasing the spread of the CULTURE OF VACCINATION (immunization literacy), taking into account the provisions dictated by DECREE LAW 7 JUNE 2017 N.73 ( the Lorenzin law ndr) WITHOUT NEGLECTING THE INTERNATIONAL SIDE IN WHICH THE COUNTRY IS COMMITTED ". 


Translated: continue to persevere on the road traced by the previous legislature. Too bad, from the government of change we would expect some break on the issue that has been so dear to current lawmakers, namely the freedom of choice in the vaccination field ...

Reading these lines, one wonders if Minister Grillo is really the same person who in 2017, precisely with regard to that decree-law mentioned here, spoke of oligopoly in the vaccine market by a few large pharmaceutical companies, of a large market for 23 billion / year in constant growth, of antitrust relations, of commercial economic reasons in the DL73 proposal ... but even more recently, the same person who in June of this year intervened in a well-known television program declaring that there should be at all the costs a discontinuity with the work of Beatrice Lorenzin!


Then the question arises: if you consider the discontinuity with respect to what was promulgated by the previous executive absolutely necessary, why does the DL73 even fit into a document in which - honestly - you could very well do without mentioning it? Yes, we read that the conscious choice must be strengthened, but immediately afterwards the due reference is made to the mandatory introduced in 2017. No mention instead of the desire to reformulate the mandatory or want to follow up on other legislative proposals, reopen the dialogue, review certain positions ... nothing.

- [] Finally, the icing on the cake comes to page 33, where you have to widen your eyes by reading that compensation and indemnities are now obsolete, yes you understood correctly, it is necessary to review (this time yes) the current legislation in favor of those damaged by compulsory vaccinations (and blood transfusions), because, listen listen, medicine has made great strides! Today, those who suffer damage can be treated and therefore it no longer makes sense to give compensation for life ... I will let you read this passage with your eyes in the image below. 


In short, if you happen to get hepatitis C from transfusion, or to be the unfortunate ONE MILLION (I am ironic) who gets vaccine damage, no problem: medicine comes to your aid (the State isn't that much).


Among other things, it honestly disgusts me to have relegated the only mention of vaccine victims to the chapter “Policies for management efficiency”. It would have been nice, let's say, to at least pretend to worry about the issue of vaccination safety (given the mandatory nature of the vaccine, and the numerous scientific studies that raise questions about it) making a slight or veiled hint of it. For example, in chapter 2, dedicated to communication, where we are informed that "among the various issues, the promotion of information on vaccinations is particularly noteworthy", inserting something like "information on benefits AND RISKS" of the same would have been a good way to give a signal of discontinuity ... Above all because of the fact that among the Italian laws there are also some that provide that any health act must be accompanied by a small thing called "informed consent", or the fact that in law 210 the local health authorities, and therefore the Ministry, are expected to provide information on the risks associated with vaccinations ... But no, as we know since 2017, vaccine damage has become "fake news", and there is no change here it is a trace, indeed it is also attentive to the ultimate protection of citizenship that one day, deprived of the right to health, may well be deprived of the right to compensation.

Unfortunately, we have long denounced the ever increasing difficulty in seeing vaccine damage recognized and obtaining the related compensation, difficulties such as to make this type of compensation a chimera today, but it is evident that it is not enough: vaccine damage must simply disappear, and to do this the most comfortable and easy way is to hide it, not recognize it, pretend it doesn't exist. 



I would like to dedicate a small parenthesis to the part of the document (chapter 6) which describes the "New Health Information and Statistical System" (NSIS). We are told that this was created to "make an individual-centered data asset available" and that all information on the individual's contacts with the NHS (hospitalizations, first aid etc.) is collected by making available to the Ministry a " information heritage "(the use of the word heritage repeated twice in a few lines stands out) and that all this" will allow us to intercept the path followed by the patient in the face of a healthcare need "... Here, in a climate of health dictatorship more and more evident, with the witch hunt taking place both on the vaccine level and on the level of freedom of choice of treatment (from homeopathy to herbal medicine to all the so-called alternative treatments) this has a not-so-disturbing…