Who is the parliament?
Today, the Health Commission in the parliament, you start to discuss the new law on vaccines which will replace the law Lorenzin. (Ddl 770, the first signer Stefano Patuanelli, M5S).
The hearings will be held within the Commission during the next few weeks: there will be a debate extended to the classroom. The parliamentarians, in their entirety, will be able to approve or to block only the final text. The request to appear at a hearing has expired today.
It is necessary, in the meantime, to report a fact that I do not know if it is better to define “unfair” or due to a “conflict of interest” or, worse yet, to call it a “theft of democracy”. But I’m afraid that the three expressions are not sufficient to describe what happened.
The facts of the case.
At the end of September, the Committee for the freedom of the vaccine choice – which brings together 70 associations of parents, scattered on the Italian territory – has asked a classroom in parliament to present a proposal for a popular law. They were harvested about 75,000 certified signatures (15 thousand more than those provided for by the Constitution), for a bill that provides for the recommendation of vaccination and the non-exclusion from schools. Here is the text.
The request however was refused. The parliament has said No.
No, you cannot submit your bill (without telling why, and stop).
No to the parents (who are also voters and taxpayers).
But where they had to submit a proposal for a law, Italian citizens, if not in parliament?
And who is the parliament?
Let’s go ahead.
It is later learned that today, shortly after the start of work on the Health Committee, to the Hall parliamentary Acts, we are holding a symposium of Glaxo: “Global Health: the Italy drivers of best practice”. The company is a producer of vaccines will discuss the role played by Italy in the context of vaccination strategies. Take a few minutes of time to read the press release of the parents, here: at the conference were invited the same members of the health Commission that should work on the law. Then, after the request for an explanation, someone has decided not to participate in the conference.
Moral: the request to have a classroom in parliament, Glaxo has been answered yes. And stop.
The Glaxo produces vaccines; it is one of our suppliers. But the State is us and the wallet is our…
But we are not, we do not have a right to a place in parliament. Them and not us.
Pay and shut up.
I appeal to the minister Cricket and its first scientific adviser, epidemiologist, and scholar Vittorio Demicheli in 2015, ahead of a Vaccination Plan he judged “a photocopy of one of the industries”, he wrote on the newspaper Il sole 24 ore that “this way of doing health care policy would have damaged the culture of vaccinations, and fostered the conspiracy”.
And now, minister, Cricket, that the text of the law under discussion provides for a “duty flexible” from 0 to 90 years, for “all the vaccinations that the authorities deem necessary, when the situation require it”, we should be quiet?
Ps. Explain briefly what is necessary to keep us safe: no obligation estimate in view of the infections that “could” happen, since the possibility of contracting viruses and bacteria that each of us are endless, possible but not necessary (it is not said that all of us are ill).
The mandatory measures (see the traffic jam due to dust or the closure of schools when there is a flood) are implemented when a risk is real; in short, the society in which we live has all the tools to deal with emergencies (real).
Ps. The legend on the Ddl 770. The text speaks of emergency, epidemic or andpidemiologiche to implement the obligation of vaccination on the entire population. “Epidemic” is a pandemic (e.g. swine flu or the avian flu in the past only difference, and that never happened). A pandemic is already planned in the coming years by Bill Gates: Microsoft founder has already calculated that it will make 33 or 34 million deaths. Read here.
“Epidemiological” refers to the case in which the vaccination coverage were to fall below the objectives of the Plan of vaccination (95% coverage for all?).
We ask ourselves: obligation flexible means obligation forever?
Original source: http://blog.ilgiornale.it/locati/2018/10/09/di-chi-e-il-parlamento/