Vaccines yes, with obligations no
On Tuesday, we will be the first hearing of the Constitutional Court on the legality of the law on the obligation of vaccination. At present the appeal has been the Veneto Region. Click here to know the reasons.
On the program are the manifestations of protest of the families in different cities. In Milan, a procession of the pacific was held Saturday, (see photo), to Rome, to be repeated Tuesday.
The parents dispute the 10 compulsory treatments in the absence of epidemics. “If the vaccination can result in adverse events, although rare, must be put in condition to choose. All the more so today it is indispensable to a voluntary consensus because there are no studies on the inoculation of 10 vaccines on infants”.
Remember that the law passed in July (law decree as converted) does not require the consent, but the obligation. And, as an effect, the expulsionor non-admission from the nests and from the nursery of the children not vaccinated, in addition to the payment of a fine. For children from 6 to 16 years do not comply with the vaccination takes only the fine.
In Milan, there was a press conference, promoted by the Association of studies and Information on the health (Assis), the Association for the Person-centred Medicine Onlus (AMCP) and by the Association for the Implementation of the Constitution chaired by Paolo Maddalena, judge emeritus of the Constitutional Court.
It was also presented the book “Vaccines, yes, with obligations no” (edizioni libreria Cortina Verona) Paolo Bellavite, professor and researcher. Bellavite, 250 publications, appears in the list of Top Italian Scientists. Here. Bellavite declare that they have no conflict of interests and that the proceeds of the book will be donated to the Association scholarship John Scolaro non-profit organization.
Labels & Information.
The pediatrician Eugenio Serravalle, the founder of Assis, has sued a journalist for the British Medical Journal, Peter Doshi, who, months ago, by analyzing the way of doing journalism when the topic is vaccinations, has written: “it does Not matter if the vast majority of doctors or scientists agree. The medical journalists should be among the first to be aware that the evidence count, but are also the concerns of the patients”. Still: “..we are witnessing a willingness on the part of doctors and journalists, to create two factions, one pro and one against, by labeling anyone who raises questions about the current practices in vaccine”.
(Parenthesis on media).
We, in Italy, the labels derogatory no-vax on the media have appeared in the last 4 or 5 years. First, having to present a controversial theme, it was good, the ethical norm illustrate the opinion pro and one against, and place them both on the same floor.
Today, the style of communication stigmatized by Peter Doshi has taken to such a point that foot in the salons televisi who exhibits questions perplexed is often presented as a fanatic (vegan in a negative way or as an alternative to the extreme; always of a cultural level more low), as opposed to those who belong to health institutions, and has degrees and specialties in medicine. With this way of communicating will continue to strengthen the opinion more strong and will choke the hesitations of legitimate families. “You have to trust what we tell you” is the message. Who has authorized you to insult those who don’t trust (the“dunces raglianti” or “dumb people”), and to malign those journalists who shed light on the contradictions of the policy of vaccination. Of them they are saying that they are “responsible for deaths”. (Ps. For this reason, the colleague Guglielmo Pepe of the Italian Republic has sued for defamation, the doctor Roberto Burioni. You can read the tweets of Pepper on this).
The opinion of the doctor
“It is not true that vaccines are risk-free. Medical information officers provide on vaccines, like other medicines, lists the adverse reactions that may be common, not common, and not confirmed, but possible – said Eugenio Serravalle – vaccines are administered to a large number of people in good health, mainly to children who have a low risk of contracting the disease for which they are immunized; for these reasons, ‘the profile of safety’ should be higher”.
Not afraid of being radiated to the fact to participate to this press conference?
“If it is true that no medical dispute, the principle of vaccination, it is equally true that a doctor can criticize a policy of vaccination”.
What to suggest to families puzzled?
“Many families have noticed that there is no access to the information; 10% reported having vaccinated the children, ignoring the diseases for which it has decided to immunize; the majority ignores that there are laws which protect the damaged by vaccinations, and that the pharmacovigilance active (data collection on post-vaccination), unfortunately it does not work in all regions. The policy of immunization that we criticize is that merely aimed to convince of the goodness of the practice. Ask, rather, how to do in order to protect the health of a child. Vaccinations are only one aspect”.
Anyone who has a child who has had an adverse reaction and don’t want to vaccinate your other children how they can behave?
“The law does not discuss this aspect”.
The law could be made better?
“It is a law for tax, which claims to vaccinate children under blackmail; does not release information, cancel any informed consent (the form for a parent signature at the time of vaccinate his son, of whom it is written that you have received adequate information). Is then it is false to say that the scientific community is in favour of the obligation. There is a debate around the world about this. Neither the Who nor the Ecdc have never recommended the mandatory.”
They have a sense of the exams prevaccinali to prevent any adverse events?
“There is a strand of research on this, but not positions that are unique. At the moment it is known that some genetic mutations, sex, and weight can influence the effectiveness of a vaccination. The direction is still this: you get to understand why some subjects are immunized a long time, others for a short time and others for nothing. In the future, as we will have personalized medicine, we will have a vaccination custom.”.
It is true that there are no studies on vaccinated children?
“No study has compared the state of health among children fully immunized and the other never vaccinated. Nothing is known of vaccinated on medium and long term. Today’s research does not attempt even to investigate whether the vaccinated are immunized. Yet the Institute of Medicine (today known as the National Academy of Medicine, the wonders years”.
There are those who reassures the worried parents of having to make 10 or 14 vaccines by saying that in an afternoon at the park, the children encounter many more viruses and bacteria.
“Can’t you do a similar comparison. It is very different to inoculate the virus or bacteria from entering in daily contact with millions of germs. We are structured for the second situation, we have defense systems, which are bypassed with the injections”.
The herd effect.
It is written in the book by professor Bellavite:
“To assess whether it is lawful for the imposition of vaccination by the State is not to be verified if the vaccines are useful to the individual child (the topic of medical interest but extraneous to the question of the legitimacy of the obligation) , but is to be determined with certainty whether the imposition of a treatment is necessary to the health of the community (herd effect) and if, however, this treatment is not likely to cause adverse effects, serious or long-lasting”.
Bellavite cites the recent work epidemiologists on vaccines made mandatory by the law, “the majority of the vaccines provide protection of the individual. There is no evidence that create the herd effect for Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis (whooping cough), Hepatitis B; there are doubts on Haemophilus, Mumps, chicken Pox, Polio injective”.
Where, instead, the vaccination ensures the herd effect“, the 95% threshold, assumed only for the measles, set to 9 other vaccines is arbitrary and not based on any evidence.” Bellavite remember that in order to obtain a coverage of 95% measles does not make sense to vaccinate only children. Notes that in the past few months, the infection has affected mainly adults, “for which it is unrealistic to think that an increase of a few percentage points of range paediatric, already covered at 90%, solve the problems of epidemiological of today”. Finally, that no country has eradicated the measles only vaccine and even with the obligation.
Bellavite says: “The fact that vaccines are farmaceuticamente safe (i.e. properly prepared) does not mean they are harmless. In the name of the precautionary principle, the frequency and severity of the side effects – which are acceptable as a risk to be a healthy baby for the collective interest – should be proportional to the magnitude of a possible danger to the community. There is currently no emergency epidemic, the risk was imposed without consensus, however, seems unacceptable”.
The opinion of the lawyer.
The lawyer Mirella Manera, in the representation of the lawyers for the popular action (ALC), the association founded by Paolo Maddalena, judge emeritus of the Constitutional Court, intervened on the unconstitutionality of the act vaccines.
The law violates article 32 of the Constitution, the principles of reasonableness, proportionality and precaution is necessary because an obligation that health care is legitimate.
The law is in breach of article 34 of the Constitution, which establishes that the school is open to all. And the school of the Child is included in the educational system (law 53/03). “This is all the more discriminatory and unreasonable if you think that, on the one hand, the same children have not been vaccinated will still be attending the school when they reach the age and, secondly, already today, the children from 6 to 16 years can attend the school also does not vaccinandosi”.
Original source: http://blog.ilgiornale.it/locati/2017/11/19/vaccini-si-obblighi-no/