First of all the numbers
Codacons has unveiled data from AIFA, the Italian Medicines Agency, on reports of suspected adverse reactions to vaccines, data that had not been disclosed since 2013. In 2014, 2015 and 2016 the total reports were 21.658.
For hexavalent only: 3551 reports, 454 serious reactions and 5 deaths
How real are the numbers?
In addition to AIFA, the Istituto Superiore di Sanità and WHO, also FIAMO (Italian Federation of Homeopathic Associations and Doctors), SIMA (Italian Society of Anthroposophic Medicine) and SIOMI (Italian Society of Homeopathy and Integrated Medicine) are keen to stress that:
- vaccines are not harmless; they can have even serious side effects which must be clearly explained to citizens before vaccination by giving them the instruction leaflet so that they can give real informed consent to vaccinating themselves or their children;
- the damages produced by vaccinations are underestimated due to an unreasonable and dangerous tendency of some doctors to deny their correlation with the vaccine. This tendency, which is detrimental to the indispensable relationship of trust in medicine, distances the citizen from the vaccinator doctor and from vaccines;
Marco (invented name) is subjected to vaccinations by his parents. At a certain point in his vaccination journey, Marco accuses serious health problems and...
...the parents go to the pediatrician's office, who reassures them, "vaccines have nothing to do with it". The parents then go to the ASL, which confirms: "vaccines have nothing to do with it", it's a coincidence (in fact we are realizing that vaccines are probably the most frequent cause of coincidences in the world!).
From this precise moment on, this family is left alone.
Alone to face the pilgrimage from one hospital to another, from one specialist to another, to understand WHAT happened to Marco. Only every time that word "vaccination" comes out of their mouth, because the first thing to do, apparently, is TO DENY. ALWAYS. ALL.
First it is denied, as far as possible, then everything is done to delay or make a diagnosis vague, and when it finally arrives, it is often too late.
Yes, because you know that if your child, after a vaccine, feels unwell, has some problem, or has very serious problems, 99 times out of 100, the diagnosis will arrive late enough to make the recognition of the temporal and causal correlation so difficult to discourage most people.
For the "stubborn" (or reckless, or courageous), here is the path ahead (we always remember that we are talking about a destroyed family, because nobody would think of taking a court case for a "banal" reaction For that, one would be satisfied with a report and a study on the state of health and on the possible contraindication to continue vaccinations ... but that's another story).
- Request for recognition of the damage, in the first instance to the Hospital Medical Commission (CMO)
- Waiting for the first judgment practically always negative, regardless of the seriousness / timeliness of the damage.
- If negative, appeal to the Ministry of Health with waiting times of 2 years. Answer, almost always negative
- At this point a lawsuit can be filed, instructing a legal practice containing, also, the reasons for contesting the judgment, the certificates, the medical record, etc etc
From here on, the times are those (biblical) of Italian justice. And if you win in court (an event now more unique than rare in our experience), it is almost never finished: often, the ministry resorts in turn, up to the last degree of judgment. Before then, you won't be able to close that painful chapter.
We can well realize how many and which are the obstacles to overcome - psychological, emotional, economic, logistical - for a family that already has its problems to face in everyday life.
210 / 92 law
1. Anyone who has reported, due to mandatory vaccinations by law or by order of an Italian health authority, injuries or infirmities, from which a permanent impairment of psycho-physical integrity has derived, has the right to compensation by the State, to conditions and in the ways established by this law.
4. The benefits referred to in this law are for unvaccinated persons who have reported, following and as a result of contact with the vaccinated person, the damages referred to in paragraph 1; to people who, for work reasons or on behalf of their office or to be able to access a foreign state, have undergone vaccinations which, although not mandatory, are necessary; at risk subjects operating in hospitals that have undergone vaccinations, even if not mandatory.
A qhis link you can view the full text.
In our opinion, article 7 is very interesting:
1. For the purpose of preventing complications caused by vaccinations, the local health units prepare and implement, within six months from the date of entry into force of this law, information projects aimed at the population and in particular to donors and recipients of biological materials. humans, people to be vaccinated and people in contact.
2. The projects referred to in paragraph 1 ensure correct information on the use of vaccines, on the possible risks and complications, on the methods of prevention and are primarily aimed at parents, schools and communities in general.
3. The regions, through the local health units, take care of the collection of cognitive data on vaccine complications, also in order to adapt the information projects and prevention methods to these data.
To you readers, has anyone ever given information on the possible risks of vaccinations? Has anyone ever told you about law 210/92?
What happens to the indemnified today?
To those subjects who have been recognized serious vaccine damage and who should therefore also receive a monthly allowance that allows the family to look after them and themselves to lead a "decent" life (most of these people are in very serious health conditions which also lead to significant costs).
On 15 July 2015, Minister Lorenzin answered a question to the Senate on the quantification of applicants for vaccination compensation and on the extent of the "backlog", the complete text is available here.
Some interesting data emerged from this question:
- 648 are the beneficiaries of 210/92 as recognized as damaged by compulsory vaccinations.
- 8.000 are the titles to be executed, i.e. arrears.
- 2 are the years (2016-2017) to implement a specific project aimed at executing the sentences and injunction orders sent in 2012-2014 but the two-year period has passed, who knows if the arrears have been recovered.
Perhaps it is the state of "difficulty" of the Ministry to deal with the many requests for compensation, due to various factors, today's "reticence" in recognizing those affected by vaccines.
The fact is that our advice for those who are about to submit their child to one or more vaccinations, by conscious choice or by giving up in the face of a legislative obligation (perhaps because they are unable to pay the fine that would exonerate them from the role of "greasers") , it's a simple thing:
Document as much as possible the state of health prior to each vaccination. Get exams, certificates, photos and videos to confirm your health beyond reasonable doubt. This is for two reasons: the first, obviously, to avoid vaccination in case of problems that should arise (however you will have to pay them, because it is not foreseen by the NHS that before this health treatment it is reasonable to ascertain); the second, in the unfortunate and rare event that you find yourself in the situation described at the beginning of this article, You will need to have proof that something happened after the vaccine. And clamoring for this something to be properly investigated. Only with the before and after tests can you have the slightest hope of seeing a causal link recognized with the vaccination of any adverse event.
We, for our part, hope that in a civil state, the first in which 10 compulsory vaccinations are introduced, the compensation of those - few or many - cases in which this health treatment derives damage of various kinds will follow without delay. entity, eventuality of which it is not possible, with reason (and law), to deny the possibility.
We want health professionals, doctors, nurses, professors, specialists, not to have the slightest fear or hesitation in saying "yes, it could ALSO have been the vaccine, LET'S INVESTIGATE".
Why this is asked here, the possibility of seeing a law recognized and applied, without this having to mean a painful and long epic for those - few or many - families who are denied serenity, love, the future, the hope.