US Politician Pro-Child Health Safety – Running for Vermont State Senate

With the kind permission of Vermont State Senate candidate Robert Wagner, Vermont, USA, we reproduce here below an article from Robert Wagner‘s site.  He is an American doing politics.  He is pro-child health safety from conviction.  He is pro-vaccine choice.  He is a Liberty Candidate.  Last time he stood for the Vermont State Senate, he did not win.  He may not win next time.  But what he did and will do is take votes. 

Robert Wagner seems a quiet American.  But the Robert Wagners of the USA are giving you a choice when it comes to voting.  You can choose not to vote for the politicians who keep failing you and your children.   The Robert Wagners give you much more besides that – a choice to vote for someone who does stand up for your children in politics and a chance to place your vote elsewhere.  If enough of you do it, the Robert Wagners will win.

Robert Wagner is campaigning to get 30 new independent Liberty candidates into the Vermont State Senate including himself.  So if he succeeds Vermont will not have just one Robert Wagner.  It will have 30 to take the votes from the Republicans and Democrats.  And some of the 30 could just win too.  With your help all of them could.

The one thing other candidates cannot afford is for someone to be taking their votes from them.  The autism community has real political power.  With 1 in 100 US children having an autistic condition but with parents and many more family members, aunts, uncles, grandparents each child can potentially call on many more votes than 1% of the voting population. In States like New Jersey one in 49 children — one in 29 a boy — has an autistic condition – autism is now a world-wide pandemic: Autism rates hit ‘epidemic increase’ in N.J. Thursday, March 29, 2012  BY LINDY WASHBURN STAFF WRITER The Record.

The well-known to be corrupt United Nations organisation, W.H.O. only declares pandemics for its drug industry paymasters for money-making scams like swine and bird flu: Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic by sarah106.

Sometimes elections are won on just a few votes and a 1% swing can make a huge difference to some elections and then to the balance of power when Senate membership is finely politically balanced between Republicans, Democrats and others.  You can read about Robert Wagner’s political positions by clicking here.

Autism and vaccination freedom for parents, children and families is not or should not be a party political matter.  But you cannot afford to wait for election time.  In the run-up to the US Presidential elections in 2008, candidates Obama, McCain and Clinton all jumped on the autism bandwagon and then did nothing later about taking action to stop the causes of children developing autism.  So even when the candidates are forced to appeal to particular voting interests, once elected they do nothing.

Politicians need to know well before they are standing for reelection that next time you won’t be voting for them when they fail to deliver and that you will vote for the candidate who is standing up for and  will do something for your autistic child.  So in Vermont, don’t wait until election time again – tell the other politicians right away, while they are wasting your child’s life doing nothing, that you want action now or you will vote for one of the Robert Wagners of the USA.  You may not live in Vermont but the same principles could work where you live.

Americans need conviction politicians like Robert Wagner, doing his bit because he believes he should for the greater good.  Whether he wins or not next time around, parents and families of autistic children can do something before it comes to the ballot box.  When you have candidates like Robert Wagner you can tell the incumbent politicians you will be voting for your local Robert Wagner and taking your vote away from them. 

Here is the article from Robert Wagner’s site:

Stop Legislature, Governor from caving in to corporations  May 09 2012

 monsantolandvaccinesSome are calling this “‘compromise’, because most things in Montpelier are about ‘compromise’.”  I disagree.

Compromise between whose interests? Why should our elected representatives compromise our interests for the sake of corporations, for the 1% who already make a killing here in Vermont?

But—I imagine—the corporate money is too good to pass up. Not to mention federal block grants, handouts to localities in return for giving even greater subsidies to corporations (out of our paycheck tax withholding). This is a machine politician’s measure of success… selling out his people in return for those grants.

The Vermont Legislature keeps trying to close down schools (more on Act 155 in a later article), but handouts to corporations since 1998 total $231,328,428. These are tax subsidies, loopholes and outright payments from our tax withholding. You can find this information yourself on the Subsidy Tracker at Good Jobs First.

Monsanto defeated the second Vermont GMO labeling bill this year, by combined threats and lobbying. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto spent $8 million on lobbying efforts in 2010 alone, and gave more than $400,000 in political contributions. Monsanto also spent $120 million on advertising, to convince consumers that genetically engineered foods are safe—despite overwhelming scientific evidence showing otherwise.

In 2002, Shumlin killed off the first GMO Labeling Bill. The Rutland Herald documented his sellout: “…A measure mandating labels on genetically modified seeds and food, liability for the purveyors of the technology and registration of the location of transgenic crops with town clerks flew through the Senate Agriculture Committee. But its good fortunes ended in the Finance Committee. Democratic Sen. Peter Shumlin voted with Republicans to table the bill.”

“Shumlin told Sen. Cheryl Rivers (D), then chair of the Agriculture Committee, that he was “unwilling to support a bill requiring labeling of genetically modified foods because the Democrats had already lost the contributions of pharmaceutical companies, and he was not willing to sacrifice contributions from the food industry…”

My opponent, Claire Ayer, backed S.199, a bill introduced by Sen. Mullin (20 grand from out-of-state in the 2010 election), which attacked the very concept of informed consent. On behalf of Big Pharma. I am running against Claire Ayer to protect your rights and liberties, which are not for sale.

I’ve set the stage, connecting forced vaccinations and GMOs. Now you know why the machine incumbents need to go. Start with the Senate, there’s just thirty seats, it can be done. It won’t be easy, they have wads of out-of-State money and influence behind them. Let’s show them that real Vermonters can’t be bought through out-of-State influence peddling.

Corporate Power: Mullin Jabs his Constituents with a GMO Vaccine Needle

Corporate Power: Mullin Jabs his Constituents with a GMO Vaccine Needle

Biotech 2, Vermont 0

Brian Gaston for Salem-News.com
The biotech industry has had to use corruption and threats to keep secret what they continue to claim is safe and “substantially equivalent” to normal food.

(MONTPELIER, VT) - Vermont was slammed by the biotech industry twice this month.

They were hit the first time when 90% of the population wanted GMOs in their food labeled but the governor would not sign a bill requiring this because the biotech giant Monsanto threatened to sue the state. Monsanto thus stopped “informed consent” around food, leaving people without crucial information needed to decide what goes into their and their children’s bodies, and are thus essentially tricked into eating it in not know what is what. Instead of informed consent required in medical experiments – and this is one of the largest in human history – there is enforced ignorance. The biotech industry has had to use corruption and threats to keep secret what they continue to claim is safe and “substantially equivalent” to normal food.

And Vermonters were hit a second time by the biotech industry around “informed consent” over vaccines when the drug companies got the Vermont legislature to undermine parents’ human right to philosophical exemption to vaccines for their children. While there are stories indicating that philosophical exemption was maintained in Vermont, this is not the case. Dr. Paul G. King says:

To truly preserve the philosophical exemption in Vermont, the parents would have had to get the legislature to pass NO law modifying this exemption — and they did NOT do this.

Nicole Matten lost her 7 yr old daughter Kaylynne last December, 92 hrs after she received a flu shot.

Nicole Matten lost her 7 yr old daughter Kaylynne last December, 92 hrs after she received a flu shot. Click picture for details.

Philosophical exemption was not preserved, but altered into near meaninglessness. As the law now reads, it requires the signature of a “health” provider who may or may not give it. If the parents even know about it (a first obstacle for less educated or poor parents), and if they can obtain it (another obstacle for the poor who must understand and be able to argue for the exemption from state health care providers, not private pediatricians they know), parents are then forced to sign a document saying they know that by not vaccinating their children, others are put at risk.” Dr. King again:

The reality is that parents are endangering the health of others by vaccinating with the pertussis vaccine, because pertussis is being spread through vaccinated groups. From an article by Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a pediatrician and a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) of the Government of India:

The vaccine against whooping cough seems to be putting children at INCREASED RISK of whooping cough. California is experiencing its worst whooping cough outbreak in more than 60 years. Thousands of people have gotten sick and 10 infants have died, including two in San Diego County.

Health officials across the country are trumpeting pertussis vaccinations, but a four-month investigation by KPBS and the Watchdog Institute, a nonprofit investigative center based at San Diego State University, has found that many people who have come down with whooping cough have been immunized.

The key findings of the investigation:

  • For pertussis cases in which vaccination histories are known, between 44 and 83 percent were of people who had been immunized, according to data from nine California counties with high infection rates. In San Diego County, more than two thirds of the people in this group were up to date on their immunizations.
  • Health officials in Ohio and Texas, two states experiencing whooping cough outbreaks, report that of all cases, 75 and 67.5 percent respectively, reported having received a pertussis vaccination.
  • Today, the rate of disease in some California counties is as high as 139 per 100,000, rivaling rates before vaccines were developed.
  • Public officials around the world rely heavily on two groups of pertussis experts when setting vaccine policy relating to the disease. Both groups, and many of their members, receive money from the two leading manufacturers of pertussis vaccine.

And the vaccine appears to have a new strain in it and to actually be more dangerous. From the Investigative News Source:

[Dr. Friz] Mooi, who heads the Pertussis Surveillance Project at the National Institute of Health in the Netherlands, said an epidemic in 1996 in his country gave the need for research more urgency. “And we found really a kind of new mutation in that bug,” Mooi said. In tests, Mooi’s lab found the mutated strain produced more toxins, which could make people sicker.

The health care providers in Vermont are not informing Vermont parents of this danger. Nor are they informing all the parents in Vermont that they have a human right to refuse any or all vaccines. Thus, at both the medical level and the human rights level, there is no “informed consent” in Vermont whatsoever.

But the situation is worse than that. By requiring parents who do not wish their child vaccinated to sign a document saying that they know that by not vaccinating their child they are endangering others, the state of Vermont is withholding parents’ human right to refuse vaccines unless the parents lie on a legal document.

The Senate Health & Welfare committee voted 3-1-1 to remove the philosophical exemption to mandated vaccines, without ever holding the promised public hearing. Senator Ayer: yes; Mullin: yes; Miller: yes; Pollina: no; Senator Fox: absent. Ayer, Mullin & Miller MUST GO. Vote them out!!!

In Vermont, in the place of “informed consent,” the state now offers “coerced misinformation” as the requirement for parents to refuse vaccines.

This is a stunningly invidious and deceptive undoing of “informed consent” around vaccines (which now all use GMOs), just as is any refusal to label GMOs in food. As the FDA with a Monsanto lawyer working there at the time, hid 40,000 documents showing extreme toxicity of GMOs (exactly as Monsanto hid the deadly toxicity of its PCBs for years), the biotech behemoth Monsanto relied on massive PR to promote lies about GMOs better yields and safety, has planted them without approval here and in other countries, routinely threatens farmers with law suits, and now has threatened to sue the state of Vermont to keep its “safe” GMOs unlabeled, etc. Parents are being their human right to know what is going into their children’s bodies, information they need to consent or to refuse.

But in the case of vaccines, the biotech industry not only uses corporate giants like Murdock’s news empire to lie about vaccines and excoriate doctors who are researching them, but is using legislation like that in Vermont to force parents to tell lies for them, about the dangers of not taking vaccines. The reality of the growing dangers of taking biotech’s vaccines is missing.

From Child Health Safety:

No investigation of Murdoch’s crimes should omit his efforts to use his media empire to prevent exposure of potential dangers from the MMR vaccines and possibly all the new DNA vaccines.

And what dangers do all the new DNA vaccines present but are not part of informed consent in Vermont? From a CBS health article:

Ratajczak’s article states, in part, that “Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination [emphasis added]. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain.”

The destruction of “informed consent” in Vermont around what goes into its children’s bodies is complete and then some.

The legislature in Vermont is undoing “informed consent” at a new level:

  • NOT requiring that GMOs in food be labeled, thus is choosing NOT to inform its people of the presence of highly toxic material.
  • NOT informing about GMOs presence in food though 90% of its people want to know; and in NOT requiring that information Vermont has obliterated any true consent or refusal. leaving Vermonters to ingest and feed their children highly toxic GMO material solely out of ignorance.
  • Exposing Vermonters and their children to GMO material that is associated with destroying reproductive organs so is acquiescing or promoting the destruction of fertility among Vermonters.
  • NOT informing about vaccine exemptions and is thus denying Vermonters “refusal,” coercing them through their ignorance of exemptions, to get their children vaccinated.
  • NOT informing about the biotech industry’s new vaccines and their increasing dangers to children’s genetic make-up or about the increasingly disturbing ingredients the government is producing for them.
  • NOT informing parents that each child’s ownership of their DNA is being stolen by the introduction of synthetic patented material which the pharmaceutical could lay claim to as Monsanto is doing now with GMOs in crops.
  • Morcing parents to sign legal documents attesting to false (and frightening) information as a requirement to avoid vaccines – removing parents’ rights to refuse while making parents to agents of misinformation.
  • Making pariahs of parents who are forced to sign legal documents falsely agreeing they are putting other people’s children at risk.

There is more than a surface similarity to keeping toxic GMOs in food unlabeled and twisting of vaccines exemptions into almost non-existence. The biotech industry produces both the patented GMOs in food, and the patented GMOs in vaccines. Both are contaminating DNA (one in plants, one in humans) and causing genetic mutations. One set of GMOs is contaminating crops via GMO pollen, and that unstoppable contamination provides a means for the drug corporations to take “ownership” over plant DNA via patents. The other set of GMOs is contaminating human-DNA via vaccines and laws voted for by corrupted legislators, and that legislatively-driven contamination provides a means for the drug corporations to take “ownership” over human-DNA via patents.

Coalition for Vaccine Choice demonstrates in Burlington

Coalition for Vaccine Choice demonstrates in Burlington in front of appointed Health Commissioner Harry Chen’s office. Chen showed a misleading map to Legislatures to pretend that there’s a health emergency, on behalf of Big Pharma. If you repeat a lie often enough, people start believing it.

Nationally, right now, there is a flood of biotech industry moves to aggressively remove all obstacles to their patented GMOs in food and to their patented GMOs in vaccines. Whether by introducing laws to criminalize all dissent to GMOs in plants and vaccines, paying to make whistleblowing a felony, planting two years before any charade of an approval process, corrupting agencies so they turn regulating the biotech industry over to the biotech industry itself, removing all liability over vaccines, inserting a new rule to all manufacturers to insert whatever they want, creating laws that would force untested (GMO) vaccines on the public in an unproven emergency, censoring news stories on safety even as HHS makes a banned substance, threatening and blocking journalists writing on a GMO drug, hiring Blackwater to infiltrate anti-GMO groups, attacking doctors studying dangers or attempting to destroy scientists’ careers, the facade of “health” for GMOs is slipping and showing a dark side mated to corruption of many kinds.

When the public which hates Monsanto for contaminating farmers’ fields and laying claim to what it caused, realizes that vaccines are coming from the very same industry and are contaminating human-DNA, it will look at the things it’s been told about vaccines and ask where that “information” came from, and what have independent scientists been saying. It will look at the 47,500 cases of paralysis caused by Bill Gates in India, and his saying just what Vermont is forcing parents to sign – that those not taking vaccines are endangering others. Gates said vaccine skeptics are killing children, using a brutal McCarthy approach to try to silence parents who are justifiably concerned with vaccine safety. Gates’ polio vaccines killed children and at twice the rate as natural polio.

Jacob Puliyel, a pediatrician in India on the vaccine board who is exposing what the GAVI (Gates, WHO, World Bank) polio vaccine has done to children in India) MA Gupta and JL Mathew say in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics Vol IX No 2 April – June 2012 Page 114-7, in an article entitled “Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on”:

…in 2005, a fifth of the cases of non-polio AFP ["non-polio" is what the WHO labeled cases of paralysis following the polio vaccine] in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) were followed up after 60 days. 35.2% were found to have residual paralysis and 8.5% had died (making the total of residual paralysis or death – 43.7%) (28). Sathyamala examined data from the following year and showed that children who were identified with non-polio AFP were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection

Parents in Vermont, to protect their children from vaccines, must sign that by not vaccinating they are putting others at risk.

The Vermont legislature, in depriving the state of informed consent that would include information on the pertussis vaccine that is spreading whooping cough, the polio vaccine that is paralyzing children, the MMR vaccine now associated with mitochondrial failure, the measles vaccines that are failing, all the new DNA vaccines which alter DNA with patented GMOs, all the mandated vaccines and the flu vaccine containing polysorbate 80 (an ingredient destructive of fertility), etc. and inform Vermonters what food there contains GMOs which the FDA knew were highly toxic in the 1990s and hid the evidence and which now are destroying reproductive organs, and causing lethal diseases.

Informed consent is the bedrock of medical ethics. What the Vermont legislature is doing to lives and freedom of its own people, it is doing for the sake of the biotech industry.

Corrupted Vermont Senator Kevin MullinMy opponent, Claire Ayer, backed Mullin’s S.199 and voted it out of committee, caving in to Biotech and Big Pharma.

Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic

  Robert Wagner seems a quiet American.  But

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV: – BUT – So Has The USA – Some Autism History

Supplementing our recent three articles on this Italian Court case is information showing this is not a “one of a kind” decision.  [The links to the three articles are at the end of this one]. 

US Government officials, including the present Director of Merck’s Vaccine Division are on public record on US national broadcast television in the aftermath of the Hannah Poling case confirming vaccines, not just the MMR vaccine, cause autistic conditions.  US Federal Court Special Masters in the so-called US “Vaccine Court” have also decided cases confirming this. 

Here are CHS articles setting out the quotes and citations from US government health officials, from medical literature and details of some successful US Court cases.  People have short memories.  So we recommend you read or read again these posts and let others know of them.

Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

US Government In US$20 million Legal Settlement For Vaccine Caused Autism Case

MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court

So what we can also say from this is the government health officials in all countries must know this and have known this for at least a decade if not more.  They have constantly and continuously still maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autistic conditions, in the teeth of the evidence.

They have all presided over the present position where 1 in 64 British children, 1 in 100 US children have an autistic condition and the rates of autistic conditions worldwide have soared – including China: Autism Hits China Big Time.

This is vastly more serious than the over-exaggerated claims for the hazards of the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to  protect children against [but don't: eg. Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working].

If you have never done so, check out CHS’ Site Map for many other articles, tell others and have a great read yourself.

Here you can see the exaggerated claims for the vaccines and for the diseases they are meant to save us all from:

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

Here you can see how vaccines are directly implicated in causing autistic conditions in large populations of Japanese and British children whilst the medical “profession” is busy publishing journal papers claiming the opposite, ignoring or distorting the clear evidence and covering up the serious hazards of vaccines:

Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

Autism – Why Autism Research Goes Nowhere – The Researchers Who Takes Us Down All The Blind Alleys

30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards To Sell More Vaccines And Harm Your Kids

Conflicted Government Expert Airbrushes Embarrassing Autism Science

And politicians do the same:

British Minister Misled Parliament Over US MMR Autism Case

But it is not just autistic conditions which are a problem.  All kinds of autoimmune conditions in children have increased substantially in the vaccine decades particularly since the substantial increase in mass childhood vaccinations in the 1980′s.

And here are our three prior articles on the Italian Court decision: 

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism


Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

STOP PRESS:

The Italian Court Decision is not a “one-off”.  People have forgotten – We have been here before.

Just posted 28/May/12 – Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV: – BUT – So Has The USA – Some Autism History

Original CHS article now continues:

We present here a professional medical translation of the full text of the decision of the Italian Court of Rimini holding that the MMR vaccine causes autism in children.  First a few observations.

The MMR vaccines used in Italy prior to 2007 were is Merck’s MMR II, GSK’s Priorix and Morupar, from Chiron [until the latter was withdrawn urgently on short notice by W.H.O. because it was unsafe: click   here  and  here  for copies of W.H.O. and other documents - [Green text updated 26/5/12]].  Morupar is a Urabe mumps virus strain containing vaccine, which is the type abandoned unilaterally and urgently in the UK in September 1992 by the manufacturer [a GSK company] for legal reasons because of the high levels of all kinds of adverse reactions it causes.  It was done so urgently that the UK’s Department of Health was not even given a week to break the news.  However, the kind of MMR vaccine Hannah Poling in the US received with 8 other vaccines on the same day would have been Merck’s MMR vaccine containing the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps virus.  [US Government In US$20 million Legal Settlement For Vaccine Caused Autism Case]

And here is the key part of the Italian Court’s judgement:

The medicolegal and auxilary medicolegal assessments must be conducted according to their merits, which, on the basis of an in depth examination of the case in the light of the specialist literature to date, has conclusively established that the young child is suffering from AUTISTIC DISORDER ASSOCIATED WITH MEDIUM COGNITIVE DELAY ascribed with reasonable scientific probability due to the administration of the vaccine MMR occurring on the date 26\3\2004 at the ALS of Riccione

It should also be acknowledged that the auxiliary evaluation pursuant to the Medical Commission has expressed the view that there is a permanent impairment of physical and mental integrity established, ascribed to the first category of Table A, attached to the DPR 30 \ 12 \ 81 n.834.

Now a further point to be made is that in common law jurisdictions like England, Australia, Canada and the USA and many more, a finding of fact by a Court of first instance is extremely difficult to overturn except in the case of manifest error or some other factor like fraud

Additionally, it appears the judgement of the Italian Court was by consent, which also appears to mean 1) the Italian health authorities did not contest the findings and 2) they cannot appeal.  If a qualified Italian lawyer might like to comment here on CHS on whether that is a correct intepretation of the judgement that would be appreciated.  The relevant part of the judgement is:

The case, informed through the production of documents and the testing of medical-legal advice, was discussed at today’s public hearing as a consent decree.

The English translation provided here has been kindly provided by Dr JLM Donegan. 

Dr Donegan is the only English medical practitioner whose advice on vaccination issues has been found in a three week UK General Medical Council legal trial in August 2007 to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to be based on valid medical and scientific literature, not to be misleading and unaffected by any personal views Dr Donegan may hold – in other words Dr Donegan’s advice is independent, objective and unbiased.  The findings in the case were most unusual.  Instead of finding that the GMC prosecution’s case was not proven, the hearing panel made a positive finding and found in Dr Donegan’s favour to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that her defence was proven.

More information can be found here:

UK’s GMC, Dr Jayne Donegan’s Story, Vaccines & MMR

The hearing came about after Lord Justice Sedley in the English Court of Appeal condemned Dr Donegan’s evidence to the English Family Court as “junk science”.  This was without Dr Donegan even being present, given any opportunity for comment or being represented.  [So much for English justice].

The GMC’s expert witness at the GMC trial, Dr David Elliman, then of Great Ormond Street Hospital spent 5 months preparing an expert report against Dr Donegan for the August 2007 hearing for the purpose of having Dr Donegan’s medical licence revoked, only to be forced to admit in cross-examination that he was “quibbling” over a few details.

Interestingly, whilst Dr Elliman was spending all this time on his report for the GMC prosecution there were problems in the unit he managed at Gt Ormond St Hospital.  Despite being warned by his professional staff he took no management action.  This matter came to a head with what has become known as the scandal of the death of “Baby P”.  In short a child died, killed as a result of extensive injuries over many months caused by child abuse by the partner of the child’s mother.

Dr Elliman has never been charged by the General Medical Council with anything nor has his licence to practise medicine been revoked.  The UK’s General Medical Council appears to have done nothing whatsoever about this despite their main purpose being to regulate the conduct and practice of medical doctors to protect the public.  Well, they did not protect “Baby P” and by doing nothing they will not protect all the other “Baby P’s” there may be in future.  They did however spend millions of pounds getting Dr Wakefield’s licence revoked and now it appears that all along Dr Wakefield was right.

Here follows the translated judgement.  Any observations on or suggestions for improvements to the translation or typographical or other errors would be appreciated as this has been prepared as rapidly as reasonably possible:

Italian Republic

On behalf of the Italian people

The Ordinary Court of Rimini

Civil Division, Labour Section

With a single judge presiding in the person of Judge Lucius ARDIGO’ pronounces

JUDGMENT

in the civil case, with the ritual of work, registered as N.474 \ 10 RGL brought forward by:

XXXX and XXXX on their own behalf and as parents exercising parental authority in the case of their son, a minor xxxx (child)

represented and defended by the lawyer. VENTALORO LUCA with an address for service in Viale Principe Amedeo 12 47900 RIMIN at the Chambers of. VENTALORO LUCA

-APPLICANT-

AGAINST

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CF80242255589), with the ADVOCACY of the lawyer DISTRICT STATE ADVOCATE electively domiciled in Via Guido Reni 4 40125 BOLOGNA at the Chambers of. DISTRICT STATE ADVOCATE

-AGREED-

Concerning

Compensation under Article 2, paragraph 1, of Law no. 210, 1992

GROUNDS FOR DECISION

By application filed 8 \ 06 \ 2012 XXXX and XXXX on behalf of themselves and in their capacity as parents exercising parental authority over the child xxxx agreed to press charges against the Ministry of Health, applying that they be ordered to pay compensation for irreversible damages from complications caused by compulsory vaccination

The basis for the application stated that on 26 \ 03 \ 2004 the minor (child) xxxx was subjected to prophylactic trivalent MMR at the AUSL (Local Health Authority) of Riccione.

The same daily worrying symptoms arose daily (diarrhoea, nervousness) between 2004 and 2005. xxxx (the child) experienced signs of serious psychological and physical discomfort as far as the date of 31 \ 08 \ 2007 when the recognition took place that he was invalided totally and permanently to a level of 100%

Only on the date 27 \ 06 \ 2008, did the specialist Dr. Niglio attest as to how the reported damages to the minor (child) were attributable to the vaccination carried out, this theory was definitively confirmed on the date 25 \ 07 \ 2009 by the specialist Dr. MONTANARI.

Therefore on the date 28 \ 04 \ 2008 the parents, the applicants, submitted an application for verification of eligibility requirements for the compensation provided for the benefit of those harmed by the irreversible complications due to mandatory, vaccinations, but on the date 13 \ 10 \ 2008 the Medical Hospital Commission refused the application because the MMR vaccination did not turn out to be compulsory by law or ordinance of Health Authority.

The case, informed through the production of documents and the testing of medical-legal advice, was discussed at today’s public hearing as a consent decree.

In a preliminary ruling it was asserted that the the capacity to be sued of the Ministry was exempted under the provisions of Article D of .114> L.vo No. 112 of 1998, regarding the contribution to the Region of the functions and administrative tasks relating to Health, Article 123. This same decree explicitly recognized the retention by the State of the duties relating to appeals (to be understood both as administrative and judicial, in the absence of normative distinction) for the payment of compensation in favour of those harmed by the irreversible complications due to vaccinations, compulsory medical treatment and the like.

The latter theory shared by the most recent and prevailing case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation (Highest Court of Appeal) which has clarified how in the case of especially the capacity to be sued, it is exclusively the responsibility of the Ministry of Health (see most recently Cass. Sec. L n. 29311 of 28 \ 12 \ 2011 Rv. 620379; Compliant same section 13 \ 10 \ 2009 n. 21702, n.21703, n.21704 of 3 \ 11 \ 2009 n. 23216, n. 23217, by 5 \ 11 \ 2009 n. 23434, the 6 \ 11 \ 2009 n. 23588).

In point of law it is considered that the fact that the alleged permanent impairment of physical or mental integrity is due to a compulsory vaccination cannot be an impediment to the recognition of compensation required.

Referred to herein and in fact, to the judgment of the Constitutional Court. 27 \ 1998 and 423 \ 2000 that it was declared unconstitutional by violation of Articles 2 and 32 Constitution, Article 1, paragraph 1, I. February 25, 1992 No 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of an irreversible type because of mandatory vaccination, blood transfusion and the administration of blood products), in so far as it provided no entitlement to compensation under the conditions specified therein, of those who were subjected to non-compulsory vaccinations against Hepatitis B and Poliomyelitis as a result of campaigns by the Health Authority to legally promote the dissemination of these vaccinations.

The aforementioned vaccinations, like the trivalent MMR vaccination in question, had been strongly encouraged by the state while not imposing a legal obligation: it is not constitutionally permissible in the light of Articles 2:32 of the Constitution, to require that the individual puts his own health at risk for the collective interest, without collective being willing to share, if you will, the weight of the negative consequences, there is no reason to differentiate from point of view of the aforesaid principle, the case where medical treatment is required by statute and that in which it is according to a law promoted by public authorities, in view of its widespread distribution in society.

The medicolegal and auxilary medicolegal assessments must be conducted according to their merits, which, on the basis of an in depth examination of the case in the light of the specialist literature to date, has conclusively established that the young child is suffering from AUTISTIC DISORDER ASSOCIATED WITH MEDIUM COGNITIVE DELAY ascribed with reasonable scientific probability due to the administration of the vaccine MMR occurring on the date 26\3\2004 at the ALS of Riccione

It should also be acknowledged that the auxiliary evaluation pursuant to the Medical Commission has expressed the view that there is a permanent impairment of physical and mental integrity established, ascribed to the first category of Table A, attached to the DPR 30 \ 12 \ 81 n.834.

As for the ascertainment, on the part of the parents, of the actual knowledge of the cause of disability, it should be noted that in none of the medical records examined was the clinical picture established definitely as post-vaccine, in the sense of, caused by inoculation of the vaccine, and that the causal relationship is indicated for the first time only in the medical report on 27 \ 06 \ 2008 of the specialist Dr. Niglio.

In particular, we should highlight as the starting point, not reckoned in the knowledge of the diagnosis, or by the mere suspicion of an origin from compulsory vaccination, but from the moment when, on the basis of medical records, the claimant is found to have had knowledge of the damage, that awareness of the aetiological relationship between irreversible injury (including ascribability table) and the cause from vaccination (which entitles you to compensation).

As reiterated by the Supreme Court in the analogous issue of knowledge of occupational disease indemnification, it is not sufficient that the employee is informed of the mere professional/ occupational origin of the disease but it is also necessary that the same is aware of the importance of sequelae so as to provide an impairment higher than threshold percentage fixed for the recognition of pension entitlement (see in this sense civil Cassation section. Lav., April 3, 1993, No. 4031, in Riv. In fort. and mal. Prof. in 1993, II, 111; Supreme Court as well as civil sez. Lav., January 8, 1996, n. 63 INAIL Bulgari c rv 495 260)

Therefore, a deadline of two years from knowledge of the cause of the damage is enforced(Article 3 of Law no. 210, 1992), being the permanent impairment of psycho-physical integrity due to 1 / \ category in Table A attached to the DPR 30 \ 12 \ 81 n.834, and should be entitled to compensation provided for under Articles 1 and 2 of Law 210 \ 1992 comprised therein for the payment of the One off payment of Article 2 paragraph 2 of that law.

Under the combined provision in the Article 429 c.p.c. and 16. paragraph 6 of Law 30 December 1991, No. 412, the amount due in respect of statutory interest on pension claims is used to offset any amounts payable for the restoration of greater damages for the diminished value of the claim, which is why an adjustment for inflation becomes operational only for periods of time which the amount of interest is not sufficient to cover the full damage due to devaluation.

The court costs are settled on a payment formula accepted by the Ministry according to the general criterion of negative outcomes.

For this same reason they are definitively accepted by the Ministry as are the costs of CTU, to the extent already settled by a separate decree.

FOR THESE REASONS

THE ORDINARY COURT OF RIMINI

with a single judge presiding in the function of judge of the work

pronouncing definitively on the application brought by XXXX and XXXX as parents exercising parental authority over the child xxxx with an application lodged on 8 \ 06 \ 2012, dismissing all other claims, objections or inferences, will thus provide, in adversarial proceedings with the Ministry of Health:

1) I verify that (child) xxxx has been irreversibly damaged by complications caused by vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR) with a right to compensation referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 210, 1992, ( lifetime pension backdated for fifteen years), I order the Ministry of Health in the person of the Minister in charge to pay to (child) xxxx the compensation provided for by Articles 1 and 2 of Law 210/1992 including the payment of the One off payment of Article 2 paragraph 2 of that Act (for the arrears plus interest accrued in so far as legally possible and the second monetary revaluation ISTAT indexes, as required by law for payment of the application);

1. I Order the Ministery of Health to pay the court fees in settlement a total of Euro 2.500,00 in addition LVA, CPA and reimbursement of the general charges as required by law;

2. I definitively place the burden on the Ministry of Health to meet expenses of CTU (Expert witnesses).

Thus decided in Rimini, public hearing on the 15 \ 03 \ 2012.

THE JUDGE
Lucio ARDIGO ‘

Translated by JLM Donegan 23 May 2012

Autism Caused by MMR Vaccine – Italian Government Tries To Avoid Paying Up – Just Like the UK

STOP PRESS 23 May 2012:

Full English Translation of Italian Court Decision Found on CHS here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

ORIGINAL CHS ARTICLE NOW CONTINUES:

It appears not only did an Italian Court rule in a case in which an Italian child’s autism was caused by the MMR vaccine, but the Italian government remarkably, accepted Autism was caused by the vaccine but continued to fight cases on the basis that children should receive no compensation whatsoever because the MMR vaccine is not compulsory.  This demonstrates how grossly irresponsible morally bankrupt and corrupt governments and their health officials are when it comes to vaccines.  They demand you have your child vaccinated to protect the very few other sickly children somewhere else who might not come through a disease unscathed but when it all goes wrong for you and your child, you are on your own.

The MMR vaccine concerned, Morupar, contained the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine, just like Pluserix MMR and Immravax MMR vaccines in the UK.  The difference is that the UK Urabe vaccines were withdrawn from sale by the manufacturer in September 1992 because of all the injuries they caused.  Italy was still using Urabe strain MMR vaccines until 2006.

Now, whether or not there is any compensation, what would you prefer?  A child injured for life by a vaccine or not?  And if you choose the first option and have no problem, good luck and thank God but if you do have a problem – you will not get any help from the State even though these are their vaccine programmes and by the 21st Century they have  wholly failed to develop effective treatments for simple childhood diseases.  If they had done, none of our children would be put at risk of the vaccines.  That is the success of 21st Century medicine.  It sucks.

We report on another case like this from Italy below where the Italian Constitutional Court ruled this was illegal and that compensation should be paid on the basis the government promoted the vaccines even though they were not compulsory.

This is just like the disgraceful state of the English authorities – with the wholly corrupt UK Vaccine Damage Payments Unit.  Hardly anyone knows it exists and their job is to deny compensation as far as they possibly can, making up as many spurious reasons as possible to wear down already worn down parents until they go away. 

The cost of trying to get money out of these corrupt people in terms of time and money could well offset what is paid out.  Since 1998 to 2008 they have paid out on 34 claims – and not much money either – an £80,000 lump sum for a child requiring 24/7 care: FOI Response From DWP – [history of request HERE].

The total paid out on just 34 claims is an average of: £96,544.12.  The grand total paid since 1998 is £3,282,500 [about US$ 5 million] for all the cases.  The success rate for claims is an abysmal 45 out of 46 cases get nothing.  So just 2 in 100 applicants get anything.  It is hardly surprising few bother or just give up.  Cases are assessed by the Department For Work and Pensions on the same basis as an industrial injury suffered by an adult worker.  Children used to have had to be 80% disabled and now it is 60%.  This means children are vaccine injured but in addition to making up loads of reasons why the DWP should not pay up the ultimate insult is that the child is not sufficiently disabled.  There is no legal funding normally either to assist with cases.

CHS previously recently reported on the original judgement of the Italian Courts here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

Here are the details of the Italian Court decision on compensation – ruling the Italian Government has acted illegally.  The Italian Constitutional Court’s Decision with an English translation of the article posted on “Autismo & Vaccini

English Translation of “Importante sentenza della Corte Costituzionale” Pubblicato da Autismo & Vaccini su 26 aprile 2012

 ___________________________________________

Important Constitutional Court ruling

Posted by Autism & Vaccines on April 26, 2012

Important ruling issued today by the Constitutional Court.

You are entitled to compensation for damage caused by vaccines, even when not required, but recommended.

The Court has declared unlawful the law on compensation in the fact that it excludes non-mandatory vaccines.

Clicking on the photograph you can download the judgment [highlighted in red an essential step], which highlights the public responsibility that comes from vaccination choices, arising from reliance on prevention campaigns, as saying that the choices are not precisely defined as real choices, that is, free and informed decisions.

Judgment is interesting not only because it extends for the compensation for vaccine damage, but also because it helps deepen the political discourse on health prevention and health promotion, from the point of view of the right to be informed, which is a prerequisite for exercising the right choices in health care.

The Constitutional Court confirms the concept expressed by the Court of Milan, Sec. Work, with no judgment. 625 of 13/12/2007: “there is no reason to differentiate the case where medical treatment is required by statute [mandatory vaccination] than where it is, according to an Act, promoted by public authorities in order to become ubiquitous in society [recommended vaccination].

CHS sets out a translation of the Italian Constitutional Court’s Decision [this is not a professional translation]:

Judgment No. 107
YEAR 2012
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of: Chairman: Alfonso FORTY; Judges: Franco GALLO, Luigi Mazzella, Gaetano Silvestri, Sabino Cassese, Joseph TESAURO, Paolo Maria Napolitano, Giuseppe fridge, Alessandro Criscuolo, Paolo Grossi, Giorgio LATTANZI, Aldo CAROSI, Marta Cartabia, Sergio MATTARELLA Mario Rosario MORELLI,

gives the following

Judgment

in the judgment of the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 25 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), sponsored by the Ordinary Court of Ancona, in the proceedings pending between C. P. and L. E., in the quality of LG’s parents, and the Ministry of Labour, Health and Welfare and the Marche Region, by order dated December 21, 2010, entered at no. Register of Orders 214, 2011 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic n. 44, first special series 2011.

Hearing in chambers on March 7, 2012 the Judge Rapporteur Paul Grossi.

The facts

A. – By order of December 21, 2010, the Ordinary Court of Ancona raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3 and 32 of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 25 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), “insofar as it fails to provide that the right to compensation, established and governed by the law and under the conditions laid provided, is also entitled to persons who have suffered injuries and / or disabilities, which are derived from irreversible mental and physical integrity, for being vaccinated, not mandatory but recommended against measles, rubella and mumps. “

He pressed the court to have been invested as an employment tribunal, in an application – to obtain compensation under the contested provision – proposed by the parents of a child who, after vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR ; vaccine “Morupar”, then withdrawn from the market, just days after administration, in the matter in question), he reported – according to the findings of the outcome of CTU – A toxic epidermal necrolysis with iliac vein thrombosis of the left femur, with consequences (“outcomes of intervention drainage of abscess in the iliac fossa – left inguinal region in the context of infection of the pelvis with reactive lymphadenitis secondary to septic arthritis with persistent obstruction of the vein common femoral and iliac estrinsecantesi with edema of the lower left compared with the contralateral right plus 2 cm of the thigh to measure that extends to the foot “) believed to be attributable to the seventh category in Table A annexed to the Decree of the President of the Republic on December 30 1981, n. 834 (Final adjustment of war pensions, to implement the authorization provided for in Article. A law September 23, 1981, n. 533).

Notes in this regard, the court referring the question proposed by the applicant can not be upheld in light of the current regulatory framework, since, even taking into account the decisions of unconstitutionality referred to Case no. And No. 27 of 1998. 423 of 2000 – with which it was extended the right to compensation for those who were vaccinated against polio and hepatitis B in the period preceding the date on which such vaccinations, even though it had already recommended, had become obligatory – its dicta can not be applied in this case. Such judgments, in fact, complement hypothesis pronunciations additive by omission (and non-additive principle) that operate only within the narrow confines of the specific object identified by its device: therefore, with effects limited only to weather the type of hepatitis and polio vaccines B. Hence the need to raise, in reference to the hypothesis of species, the related question of constitutionality, it is not feasible interpretation adeguatrice in ways desired by the applicant, although in this regard have expressed some judgments on the merits. Landing hermeneutic, the latter, however, countered by the jurisprudence of legitimacy, which, evoking the nature of welfare benefits in question, as a form of social solidarity, imposes a strict application of the rule.

In this regard, the national court points out how the law n. 210 of 1992 has introduced key protection in solidarity in favor of those harmed by mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions or administration of blood products or following treatment activities sponsored or managed by the state for the protection of public health, in accordance with the principles drawn from this Court in judgment no. 307, 1990, where he highlighted the need of the necessary balance between the individual value of health and solidarity between the individual and society, which is the basis of mandatory treatment. Therefore, “in the absence of an indemnity provision, the injured party would be forced to bear alone all the negative consequences of a health care carried out not only in the interests of the individual, but also the entire society.” In this channel are placed, then, remember the ruling by this Court (No. 27 of 1998 and 423 in 2000), the foundation of which – as recalled by the referring

- Was given the finding that differential treatment between those who have undergone vaccination for imposition of the law and those who have submitted an appeal to the joining together for a health program, “would result in a patent irrationality of the law. It would treat, in fact, those who were induced to behave in a utility for reasons of social solidarity favorable treatment than it is in favor of those who acted under the threat of a sanction. “

About the relevance of the question, the referring court observes that it appears in this case established – and not disputed by the defendant – the existence of a causal link between vaccination is practiced at the applicants’ daughter and damage to the physical integrity of the same, just as also documented and non-controversial is the fact that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine has been the subject of an intensive awareness campaign, as evidenced by the various ministerial circulars and administrative acts analytically passed in review by the referring court. The question of compensation, then, was filed within the statutory time limits.

On the non-manifest groundlessness of the question, the referring court points out that the function of law no. 210 of 1992 should be sought primarily in the need to implement fundamental human rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental: namely, art. 2, in reference to the right and duty of social solidarity; art. 3, in terms of the recognition of equal opportunities to all; art. 32, which protects the right to health. Recalled, then, the principles that have formed the core of the above sentences n. And No. 27 of 1998. 423 of 2000, the referring judge stressed that the Constitutional Court – is called, in particular, judgment no. 226 of 2000 – stood in consider that the “reason justifying compensation should rinvenirsi in the protection of the health promotion group – which can be taken to the subject of a legal obligation or any public dissemination policy – and not nell’obbligatorietà already and not so much because of this treatment, which is a mere instrument for the pursuit of such interest. “

The compensation provided by the contested legislation would present, therefore, a ratio related to the need to give solidarity to the preparation of the collective action of remedies in respect of damage suffered by the individual to undergo medical treatment has proved harmful and practiced for the benefit of the same communities. In the conflict between individual interest of the individual to protect his health and protection of the collective health of the community as well, the principle of solidarity, though, on the one hand, may give precedence to the collective interest of the individual, other side “forces to provide an adequate remedy for those who have received damage to health in fulfilling the same duty of solidarity that underpin the right to compensation.” This repair will require, therefore, even if vaccination is not mandatory, but “widely advocated by healthcare institutions,” because otherwise “they would end up sacrificing the minimum content of the right to health of those who were induced by vaccination reasons of social solidarity. “

In this case, the national court points out that the applicants are determined to vaccination ‘to protect the health not only of her daughter, but also of others, in the high risk of infection, and preschool-age children; for involving the public in the early stages of drug control, administration and propaganda. ” Considering therefore, that vaccination was carried out in preparation of a general benefit, “resulting in compression of the right to health of the younger daughter in the name of solidarity with others”, it is reasonable that the community should be to take the same related costs. The failure to extend the compensation would, therefore, for these reasons, contrary to art. 2 of the Constitution

The first complained of lack of protection would also breach Article. 3 of the Constitution, for the irrational unequal treatment of similar situations. It is, in fact, already noted – reports the court – the comparability of the harmful event originated from a mandatory treatment compared to that achieved with medical treatment recommended, always in the public interest, “the State can not ignore or limit his liability in respect of citizens, mostly children, affected by treatments scientifically burdened by a risk of side effects, more or less severe and permanent, after having recommended medical treatment. “

Recalling once again the dicta of the recall ruling by this Court, the court a quo further and conclusively indicates that “in the absence of a fair restaurant in favor of the taxpayer’s medical treatment recommended, it would give the irrational result of the compensation those whose parents have behaved utility behind the threat of sanctions and deny it, conversely, those whose parents have resorted to vaccination for reasons of social solidarity. ” There would, moreover, a further profile of irrationality of the contested provision, since it also extends the benefits of treatments in this case is not required, as referred to in paragraph 4 of that Article. 1, where the compensation is envisaged in the case of vaccination, “to gain access to a foreign state.” Event, this, that does not appear reasonably justify a different treatment than the recommended vaccination and, for reasons of social utility, since travel abroad can be caused by reasons of mere pleasure.

It denounces, finally, also infringes Article. 32 of the Constitution, because the rule would frustrate the object of censorship without explanation the right to health of vaccinated subjects, who, “receiving the vaccination in the name of solidarity” against the associates, have suffered irreversible damage to their health “for a expected benefit from the entire community.”

Regarded in law

A. – The Ordinary Court of Ancona raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3 and 32 of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 23 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), “insofar as it fails to provide that the right to compensation, established and governed by the law and under the conditions laid provided, is also entitled to persons who have suffered injuries and / or disabilities, which are derived from irreversible mental and physical integrity, for being vaccinated, not mandatory but recommended against measles, rubella and mumps. “

The referring court exhibits to be called upon to rule, where an employment tribunal, on appeal – to get the compensation provided for in contested provision – proposed by the parents of a child who, as a result of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR ), carried out using a vaccine later withdrawn from the market a few days after administration, had suffered serious illness, believed to be attributable to the category in Table VII A) annexed to the Decree of the President December 30, 1981, n. 834 (Final adjustment of war pensions, to implement the authorization provided for in Article. A law September 23, 1981, n. 533). Vaccination, although not required – and, therefore, not liable to give rise, when generating the complications provided by the legislation complained of, the compensation provided for therein – it appeared, however, strongly encouraged by public authorities, since it has been the subject of intense awareness campaign, attested by numerous acts in this regard by the public administration. So that would be light on the same principles under which the jurisprudence of this Court has considered extending the compensation provided by law to criticism in favor of categories of persons who had suffered damage as a result of vaccinations in a period in which these were not mandatory, but recommended. All this – he added the court – as a function of proper emphasis to be given to the principle of solidarity, by reason of which the community has to bear, through a specific compensation for damage suffered by the individual, where they undergo a treatment health for the protection of health, not only individually but also collectively.

From here, first of all, the alleged violation of Article. 2 of the Constitution, resulting incoherent legislation which does not include among the users of those benefits, as the daughter of the applicants with permanent disabilities have irreversible effects of vaccinations which was the subject of an incentive for health policy of protection of health entire community, as has been shown to be vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella. It would also violated Article. 3 of the Constitution, because, in the absence of a fair restaurant in favor of the taxpayer’s medical treatment recommended, you would have the irrational result of granting compensation to those whose parents have behaved utility behind the threat of a penalty and to deny it, conversely, those whose parents have resorted to vaccination for reasons of solidarity. Compromise would be, finally, also the art. 32 of the Constitution, since that would unjustifiably nullified the guarantee of the right to health of vaccinated individuals who, by accepting the vaccination in the name of solidarity with the other constraints and solder them to the community, they are found to suffer damage fatal to their health for the benefit expected by the whole community.

2. – The question is based.

3. – On the issue of mandatory or recommended vaccinations, and entitled to compensation for damage to health as a result of treatment provided, this Court has had occasion to say, since the judgment n. 307, 1990 – pronounced in polio vaccination for children within the first year of life, at that time provided as required – that “the law of taxation of medical treatment is not incompatible with Art. 32 of the Constitution if the treatment is directed not only to enhance or preserve the health of those who are subjected, but also to preserve the health of others, since this is just another object, which relates to health as a collective interest, to justify the compression of the human self that is inherent in everyone’s right to health as a fundamental right. “

But if “the constitutional significance of health as a collective interest” – is added – requires that “in the name of it, and thus solidarity towards others, each one can be forced, it being so legitimately limited to self-determination, at a given medical treatment, even if this amounts to a specific risk, “yet it” does not postulate the sacrifice of health of each to protect the health of others. ” It follows that “a proper balance between the two above mentioned equity dimensions of health – and the same spirit of solidarity (to be considered obviously mutual) between the individual and society that is based on the imposition of medical treatment – involves recognizing, for If the risk is true, an additional protection for the taxpayer’s treatment. In particular, would be sacrificed with minimal content of their health rights guaranteed to him, if he had not ensured, however, to the community, and through it the State that has required treatment, the remedy of equitable rest of damage suffered. “

The callback ruling constituted, as is known, the basis on which it was shortly thereafter enacted into law n. 210, 1992 (see the report to the draft Law. Presented at the 4964 House of Representatives July 12, 1990, and merged, along with other parliamentary initiatives, in the preparatory work of the relevant law), and is then gradually gained – on retainer basis that, in any case, vaccination is not “configured as a coercive treatment” (judgment no. 132, 1992) – not only the close correlation in the “constitutional discipline of health”, including the fundamental right of the individual (side ‘individual and subjective “) and interest of the entire community (on the” social objective “) (judgment no. 118 of 1996), because, above all, the need, where the values in question may be in the clutch, risk taking, related to treatment “sacrificing” individual freedom, is reduced to a size of type of solidarity.

Placing himself, also with a view to identifying the ratio of compensatory providence in every situation in which the individual has exposed to risk their health for the protection of a collective interest, it is then argued that under Articles. 2:32 Constitution established the obligation, symmetrically configured in the hands of the same community, “to share, as you can, the weight of any negative consequences” (judgment no. 27, 1998). If it is done to achieve that there is therefore reason to differentiate the case in which “medical treatment is required by law” from “where it is, according to a law, promoted by public authorities with a view to become ubiquitous in society, in which case you cancel the free determination of peoples through the imposition of a penalty, one in which there is an appeal to the collaboration of individuals to a program of health policy. ” “Differentiation – it was made clear – which denied the right to compensation in this second case would result in a patent irrationality of the law. It would reserve it for those who have been induced to behave in a utility for reasons of social solidarity favorable treatment than it is in favor of those who acted under threat of sanction “(judgment no. 27 of 1998) .

It is, in short, derivative that “the reason of determining entitlement to compensation” is “the collective interest to health” and not “obligatory as such treatment, which is simply a tool for the pursuit of this interest “and that the same interest is the foundation of the general duty of solidarity towards those who, undergoing treatment, are suffering from an injury (see n. 226 and n. 423 of 2000).

4 -. On this basis, we can observe, in detail, that if in the prophylaxis of infectious diseases appear decisive prevention activities, designed to prevent and curb the risk of contagion, is decisive in all cases the increased importance of campaigns awareness by the competent public authorities in order to reach and make the widest range of participant population. In this perspective – which is even difficult to define exactly a “public” space of evaluations and decisions (such as due to a collective entity) compared to a “private” choices (as is attributable to simple individuals) – the various actors to realize an end goal – that of the broader immunization against the risk of contracting the disease – regardless of their specific desire to work together: and is completely irrelevant, or indifferent, that the cooperative effect is due, the active side, in an obligation or, rather, to a conviction or even, by the passive side, the intent to avoid a penalty or, rather, an invitation to join.

In the presence of widespread and repeated campaigns in favor of the practice of vaccination is, in fact, naturally develops a general climate of “custody” in relation to what their “recommended”: what makes the choice of each adhesive, to the beyond their particular and specific reasons, in itself objectively also voted to protect the collective interest.

Corresponding to this sort of involuntary cooperation in the care of a common interest objectively, that is truly public, will naturally consider that among communities and individuals to establish proper ties of solidarity, in the sense – above all – that the stories of individuals that can not be regarded, even in perspective “integral”, ie referring to the entire community with the result, among others, that the occurrence of adverse events and complications of the permanent type because of vaccination to the limits and forms of which the prescribed procedures, should be, in fact, the community to bear the burden of individual injury rather than the individual affected to bear the cost of collective benefit.

In terms of values guaranteed in the Constitution, Art. 2, as well as art. 32, the fade, in other words, the importance of strictly subjective reasons (which may have led to the choices imposed or desired by the health administration) justifies the translation in-chief for the community (which is also favored by those choices objectively) of adverse effects may result.
In a context of solidarity essential, moreover, the compensatory measures is intended not so much for herself, such as damages, to repair from harm, but rather to compensate the individual sacrifice considered equivalent to a collective advantage: it would, in fact, unreasonable that the community can, through appropriate bodies, to impose or even encourage behavior directed to protection of public health that it does not then have to answer each of which is prejudicial to the health of those that have been standardized.

In a framework such as that mentioned, it is easy to perceive how the practice of vaccination against measles-mumps-rubella vaccine has been the subject for more than a decade, the insistent and wide campaigns, even extraordinary, information and recommendation by the public health authorities, in their highest instances (with distribution of information among health care is specific both at the population), to the point that, in computing the official website of the Ministry of Health, among the “recommended vaccinations,” still appears that concerned, in line with the determinations of which already Ministerial Decree of 7 April 1999 (New calendar and recommended immunizations for children and adolescents), with circular no. 12 of 13 July 1999 (control and elimination of measles, mumps and rubella through vaccination), the National Plan for elimination of measles and congenital rubella (approved for the period 2003-2007, the State-Regions Conference in session of November 13, 2003 and now, for the period 2010-2015, with Intesa State-Regions of 23 March 2011) and the National Plan vaccines (update 2005). The survey made on this point by the referring court must therefore be regarded as comprehensive for the purpose of demonstrating the assumption according to which the practice in question, although not compulsory under law, is part of that line of health protocols for which the ‘ awareness, information and belief of the public authorities – in line, however, with the “projects of information” provided by art. 7 of Law no. 210, 1992 and assigned to the local health units “for the prevention of complications caused by vaccination,” and in any case to “ensure correct information on the use of vaccines” – is deemed more appropriate and responsive to the purposes of protecting public health with respect to compulsory vaccination.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 25 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), in so far does not include the right to compensation under the conditions and manner established by that law, against of those who have suffered the consequences set out in that Article 1, paragraph 1, after vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella.

Decided in Rome, the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, April 16, 2012.

F.to:
FORTY Alfonso, President
Paul Grossi, Editor
Gabriella MELATTI, Chancellor
Lodged with the Registrar April 26, 2012.
The Director of Stationery
F.to: MELATTI

Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working

There is new information from Australia indicating that whooping cough vaccine [pertussis vaccine] again is not working and that the authorities are not making the information public, whilst of course putting children at risk from the vaccine for which adverse reactions are highly under reported and rarely investigated.

CHS previously reported:

Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”  April 8, 2012

According to a recently published paper not only does whooping cough vaccine “wear off” within as little as three years of administration [assuming it ever "wore on" in the first place] but [according to Reuters] the original manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline never bothered to check whether it worked.  And 81 percent of recent whooping cough cases in California were in children fully vaccinated and teenagers and adults are now put at risk when they would have had lifelong immunity contracting the disease naturally:

Witt MA, Katz PH, Witt MJ, Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak.

Whooping cough vaccine fades in pre-teens: study – By Kerry Grens Thompson/Reuters NEW YORK | Tue Apr 3, 2012 2:13pm EDT

Now from Australia published on The REAL Australian Sceptics website comes this information

Australia is now in the 5th year of a record-breaking whooping cough epidemic.

These figures on the incidence of disease by local government area seem to be a closely-held secret. I have had many discussions with the Department of Health where I asked to be shown this data but they won’t provide it unless I tell them what I want to use it for. What are they afraid of? They seem to provide this data easily enough to media pundits but hold it back when speaking with anyone who they think might use it for purposes they don’t approve of – like being critical of policies which these same figures show are not working.

We do know, thanks to a year’s worth of correspondence back and forth between Greg Beattie and the Department of Health and Aging, that there is no evidence available to show the whooping cough vaccine  has done anything to reduce the rate of infection in Australia during the current epidemic. When looking at the age groups which would have been most recently vaccinated – those aged between 0 and 4 years old – fully vaccinated children were far more likely to get the disease then the unvaccinated. Seventy-five percent of those who were diagnosed with pertussis (whooping cough) were fully vaccinated; a further 14% were partially vaccinated and only 11% were unvaccinated (including an unknown percentage who were too young to be vaccinated).

Whooping cough is rife in every country where vaccines are administered and vaccination rates have never been higher. So the medical community – which has long had a reputation for spinning a failure into a success – has decided that instead of blaming an obviously ineffective vaccine, they will blame those who haven’t been vaccinated for the occurrence of disease in the supposedly protected population. Only those who are not thinking would believe that sort of garbage and yet, the majority of the medical community and their pals in the media seem to fit that bill perfectly.

What will it take to convince them?

The vaccine is failing. Don’t take my word for it. We currently have more cases of whooping cough per capita then at any time since 1953 when the vaccine was introduced for mass use in Australia. Let me say that again another way. In 1952 when we had no mass vaccination for whooping cough, the incidence was lower than it is today with close to 95% of children vaccinated.

The same situation is being seen in the US where a large study of  the 2010 pertussis outbreak in North America showed that those most likely to get whooping cough were fully vaccinated children between the ages of 8 and 12 years old.

We have a real belief that the durability (of the vaccine) is not what was imagined,” said Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California, and senior author of the study. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease.

“We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That’s what started catching our attention,” said Witt. (http://blog.imva.info/medicine/whooping-cough-vaccine-failing)

The most recent estimates for ‘protection’ from whooping cough if you are vaccinated is three years. But immunity from infection lasts for between 30 and 80 years!

The vaccine is failing our children and the government and the media in conjunction with mainstream medical organisations are doing their best to point the finger of blame at the unvaccinated rather than accepting that it is the vaccination that is the cause of this outbreak and the fully vaccinated who are its victims.

Read more here from The REAL Australian Sceptics:

Media fear campaign – ABC Catalyst, 17 May, 2012 1 May 18, 2012

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

STOP PRESS 23 May 2012:

Full English Translation of Italian Court Decision Found on CHS here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

ORIGINAL CHS ARTICLE NOW CONTINUES:

The following is an initial English Summary of the decision of the Italian Court.  We hope to be able to provide a complete translation as soon as it becomes available.  Our first article on this can be found here Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism:

The document is all about irreparable damages attributed by a Doctor Niglio to the MMR vaccination, which was received at a government public medical facility and therefore consequent governmental liability, even if the vaccine was not mandatory.

The right to  ‘indennizio’ is discussed, which is compensation, regarding the child’s care after doctors certified that he has suffered serious “total” and “permanent” psychological and physical issues which can be attributed to the vaccination and has resulted in what Italy designates as 100% incapacity.

The government tried to avoid paying saying it wasn’t liable because the vaccination wasn’t mandatory, but there is discussion that because it was as a result of governmental publicity campaigns, liability is still theirs.

If the foregoing is a sufficiently accurate summary, which it seems to be, then it is interesting to note the basis of denial of liability was not that the vaccine was not the cause of the autistic condition.  This suggests the Italian health authorities know it can cause autistic conditions, just as we know US government health officials and Merck’s director of vaccines have admitted vaccines can cause autistic conditions:  Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

Baby Monkeys Develop Autistic Conditions With Standard Doses of Popular Vaccines

Republished from:

Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys given standard doses of popular vaccines develop autism symptoms – by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer - Originally published May 6 2012  naturalnews.com article

(NaturalNews) If vaccines play absolutely no role in the development of childhood autism, a claim made by many medical authorities today, then why are some of the most popular vaccines commonly administered to children demonstrably causing autism in animal primates? This is the question many people are now asking after a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh (UP) in Pennsylvania revealed that many of the infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research developed autism symptoms.

For their analysis, Laura Hewitson and her colleagues at UP conducted the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted — but never has — for such regimens. And what this brave team discovered was groundbreaking, as it completely deconstructs the mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism.

Read this for a more detailed account of the research, findings and the politics about why there is no follow-up by the authorities:

Monkeys Get Autism-like Reactions to MMR & Other Vaccines In University of Pittsburgh Vaccine Study By | April 29th, 2012

Presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, in 2010 the findings revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys’ sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.

Included in the mix were several vaccines containing the toxic additive Thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others. Also administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children (http://www.greenhealthwatch.com)

This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children,” said Lyn Redwood, director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism. “SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen.”

Vaccine oversight needs to be taken from CDC and given to independent agency, says vaccine safety advocate

Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.

The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal,” said Wrangham. “But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency.”

Be sure to read this thorough analysis of the study by Catherine J. Frompovich of VacTruth.com:
http://vactruth.com/2012/04/29/monkeys-get-autism/

Sources for this article include:

http://vran.org

http://www.safeminds.org/

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

STOP PRESS 23 May 2012:

Full English Translation of Italian Court Decision Found on CHS here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

ORIGINAL CHS ARTICLE NOW CONTINUES:

This is an extract of a Google translation from the Initiative Citoyenne blog [France]:

Autism cases: for the tribunal of Rimini, “it is the fault of the vaccine” – April 10, 2012

Autism.   Rimini District Court: “The fault of the vaccine.” The ministry ordered to pay compensation.

Now, it seemed an old theory denigrated, the court instead of Rimini argued that a vaccine can make a child autistic.

This judgment No. 2010/148, part No. 2010/0474, journal.n ° 2012/886, gave the appeal lodged by parents against the Department of Health, who demanded the payment of compensation for irreversible complications caused by a vaccine.

The vaccine is MMR. According to parents, in fact, symptoms of autism in their son did appear after inoculation.

And really the same day, as read in the judgement [CHS Ed: this is a .pdf file in Italian which you can click to download]. Return to the clinic in Riccione, March 26, 2004, the child began to show troubling symptoms (diarrhea and nervousness) and then between 2004 and 2005 occurred signs of severe psychological distress to physical recognition, 7 August 2007, the total and permanent disability to 100%.”

To read the full translated post [or to read the original untranslated] click here:

Autism cases: for the tribunal of Rimini, “it is the fault of the vaccine” – April 10, 2012

Cas d’autisme: pour le tribunal de Rimini, “c’est la faute du vaccin” – Avril 10, 2012

[CHS Ed:  We would be willing to post a professional translation of the judgement if any of our readers know a translator willing to translate the original Italian Court judgement - contact us on chs@childhealthsafety.com].

______________

ED’s UPDATE in green text 10 May 12:  See our initial summary translation here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

We expect to have a professional medical translation of the Italian Court’s judgement shortly and will post that on a new post.

If you want automatic notification of when the translation is posted then plug your email address into the “Email Subscription” box at the top left of this blog.  You can always cancel the subscription later using the WordPress subscription facility if you do not want to get any more email notifications of CHS articles.

______________

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 884 other followers