I reflected on three, different topic but united by the same fil rouge of hypocrisy. A journalism course, the fire of milan 16 thousand cubic metres of garbage and the news of a little girl just made the heart in the Marche region.
First rule: mystify.
In the course of professional training titled “The new plan, and vaccine prevention vaccine”, organized by the society of scientific communication and Sics for the Order of journalists of lombardy, with the participation of prof. Roberto Burioni. The practice writing involved the compilation of a title (on two lines, the most eyelet and deadbolt) of our choice. Therefore, mindful of a tragedy just occurred, carry on the two lines dry: “Die child of two years, the day before had been vaccinated”. Eye: “Drama in Puglia”. In the clasp: “you may Not know if the cause of death was vaccination (but not exclude it): the need for accurate assessments or studies”.
In the course, I learned that: my title is totally wrong; it contains a judgment that would “the day before had been vaccinated”. Sorry, that is a fact, not a judgment. Ps. they are always convinced that it is a fact, in any case, that fact-become-judgment is not to be explained “because it instills doubts in the readers“.
I understand that, nowadays, have or result in doubt, is a sin as to doubt of the infallibility of the papal.
I understand that you must mystify the reality, when this does not like.
…then I was rejected the explanation of the title: “you no study!” (Even after the death of a little girl at 24 hours by the vaccine?) “No, you should know that a vaccine does not die a nobody.” But, among the available studies, there are conflicting results on the deaths post-vaccination. And then when I go to the doctor with the headaches and the specialist asked me what I ate and what medication I took the day before, and if I die is evaluated every particular. Typically, in the case of sudden death, it is also expected the autopsy to the presence of an expert.
I understand that with the headaches ago, with the deaths in general idem. Only with the death, if it occurs after a vaccine, you do not do.
At the end the prof Burioni thanks of this title. He says that it will be useful.
To me, the question remains whether the three things that I understand are not part of the ethics of the profession, who make a fight with my conscience.
Second rule: to reassure always.
On the 14th of October a fire broke out in a waste depot on the northern outskirts of Milan, the area Bovisasca-Quarto Oggiaro. Combination a couple of days before, the deposit was considered to be “not up to standard” and then (the link to the chronological is not the same as the nexus of cause-and-effect) is burned all. Sixteen thousand cubic meters of garbage: plastics, metals, cardboard, organic waste and special. A bonfire which lasted from Sunday to Thursday morning. And a stench unbearable plastic smoked has invaded waves of the districts for all five days.
To find out more about it by calling us at the Harp, I used an adjective not liked: “don’t call it the cloud of toxic, because it will create alarmism unnecessary”, and I was shooting. So I have been able, for the first time, that a black cloud from various materials, even plastic in flames, might resemble mountain air…
Certainly that is not the fault of the Harp if the air became smelly but the defense was deployed. (But why then is the defense? For those who work in the Harp?).
And you can still claim that breathing dense smoke (particles of the composition in the way of assessment) from the fire does not pose a risk (not today, not tomorrow, but the health is not made only today and tomorrow).
And anyway. From the early hours from the stake, the newspaper headlines and tv news were reassuring: “there are No hazards to health, declares the Harp”. Harp was certain of this, even if the analysis of the filters required 72 hours, “because from the first surveys were excluded hazards”.
After 72 hours it is spoken of as a “partial alteration of the quality of the air”. And dioxin? “According to, WHO has fixed the threshold limit, but only in the case of prolonged exposure, and this is not the case”. The aromatic hydrocarbons? “Equal to those always present in the atmosphere of the milanese”.
Here it is.
One wonders why, then, have been told to keep the windows closed; avoid going out of the house and, to those who can, to go away from the city.
Third rule: insist up to the persecution.
A little girl, in the age of the nest, underwent a delicate heart operation. The postoperative course is the norm, surely the recovery will take some time. We do not know the other. What is known is that the Asl of the Marche region, where the family resides, has intimated to the parents of vaccinarla, under penalty of exclusion from the nest and the fine. See here.
From the letter of the lawyer (yes a lawyer…) we learn that parents “prefer to postpone the vaccinations, waiting for the girl to recover completely.” Request normal, you should worry if it is not there. We are not in the presence of any epidemic, and there is the herd effect, we are told. Therefore, because such fanatical haste? It means that parents have read the bugiardini of medications and well as the informed consent, therefore, are aware that only they, only they, can decide if and when to vaccinate their daughter. Already, the Asl intimate and threat but does not sign any informed consent.
The informed consent is regulated by 11 laws of the Italian State, without this you can’t proceed. Those who want insights, read Ivan Cavicchi, here.
Three cases of hypocrisy: how toxic you can be the judge.
Original source: http://blog.ilgiornale.it/locati/2018/10/29/ipocrisia-tossica/