who, contrary to what is erroneously believed, did not make his decision “not caring” of unspecified “national and international scientific community.”
Far be it from me to provide legislative indications that an industry expert lawyer will illustrate, however, you can be summarized in a short few concepts:
1. Scientific evidence is evidence of damage to health . Do not think that it is necessary to remain immobilized in bed by some kind of adverse reaction or disabling condition to have the clear certainty of harm: a biological DNA damage, damage to the immune system or encephalopathy are all that remain permanent damage [ unfortunately] for life and tarnish the existence of a person!
2. The legal test is to determine the causal link beyond reasonable doubt . Ie ” the existence of a causal link between a point in the event and well-malicious can be established on the basis of serious and reasonable criterion of scientific probability, especially when there is no evidence of pre-existence of the conjunction or the occurrence of other factors “. So he certainly acted the judge of the Court of Rimini Sec. Work according to the appointed expert [CTU], drawn up by a “doctor”, and consulting techniques Part [CTP] drawn up by other doctors that do not meet the names Goofy, Pluto and Donald Duck as you want to believe.
3. In recent years, in this regard, there have been a number of judgments of all levels: from the Supreme Court to the Courts of Appeal [Milano, L’Aquila etc.], by various courts [Milan, Naples, Livorno, Genoa, Busto Arsizio, Ravenna, Venezia, Ascoli Piceno etc.], even to the Regional Administrative Court and the Court of Auditors [actors involved AIFA].
Why only now he cries with “violence” to the scandal? – The potential harmfulness of vaccinations has always been known and is reported in thousands of texts [also university], publications, articles and so much scientific research that insist otherwise is frankly bizarre.
As I wrote previously in ” Trema the Italian caste of vaccines “, it seems the question of conflict of interest does not excite the Italian journalists . Yet to reveal conflicts of financial interest with a simple search on the internet, in the database that the experts know very well.
Therefore, I do not want the Scientific Board of the Vaccine Schedule for Life [whose name already plays an obvious promotional meaning], I went to investigate the mission of this committee and I could verify that the “autoelettesi highly prestigious experts of ‘ hygiene and Public Health “are the same who have joined the consensus conference to support new vaccines [ just read these 710 pages of Acts to realize the interests at stake ] and, on the occasion of one of these in Rome, they have formally signed the joint proposal of a vaccination schedule for life from zero to a hundred years that have passed to the institutions, including the National Health Council [where they operate “their” colleagues] and some regions [where there are as many “their” colleagues]. They are the same who also participated in some workshops on vaccines and vaccinations promoted by the Scientific direction Farmindustria in support of the same, just to show that pharmaceutical companies are “their allies” in health care [???].
The “strange” analogy between the definition of the Scientific Board Vaccination Calendar for Life with the definition of Sanofi Pasteur MSD – Vaccines for life – leads me to recall that a trivalent vaccine, the latter [ Tripedia , tetanus vaccine diphtheria-pertussis] contains in its package insert [page 11 of 13], among the adverse events reported during post-approval use , just Autism. The same Sanofi Pasteur MSD is also engaged in a smear campaign against the social network , as if it were taking place a crime of treason to the sacred dogma of vaccination.
It is therefore clear that the Scientific Board forget how in research – and especially in the more closely connected with clinical problems – the guidelines of a researcher can be directed and motivated not only by cognitive problems or by the exclusive desire to find a remedy morbid situations, but ” also by personal interests or those connected with the institutions of which the researcher belongs .”
All this is widely claimed by the COMMITTEE NATIONAL BIOETHICS in his report drawn up on 8 June 2006, and the same states that are some situations that are frequently described were created, in which the research objectivity and that of ‘ scientific information that is given to doctors, may be endangered:
1. The industry often does not provide a neutral and comprehensive information to doctors, but a question already addressed, created in their offices.
2. Products medications are often duplicate other existing drugs [the so-called drugs me-too ] that does not have advantages compared to the latter and which are sold at a higher price. The industry usually promotes the most recent and expensive medicines and to this end sometimes bestows physicians various types of ” gifts ” that induce an attitude in health prone all’iperprescrizione or lapse of more expensive drugs.
3. The industry controlling and directing research through funding that the University bestows.
4. The industry sometimes interrupted as favorable research or prevents publication. In other cases distorts a search in progress, replacing the primary objectives with surrogates objectives.
5. The ” raw data ” of clinical drug trials often remain in the hands of industry and are never made available to researchers who have produced them. The latter data is supplied only when they have been processed by the statistical offices of the companies.
6. The industry, as “own the results”, does not publish negative results.
7. The scientific journals do not publish articles with negative data because of limited scientific or commercial interest.
8. The industry conditions, through advertising, the major medical journals, whose referees often have relationships of economic dependence by companies.
9. The doctors who write the reviews or the guide-lines often are not really independent of the industries.
10. Even the public administration are often not independent of the industries.
Considering all this and the invitation of the Scientific Board of the Ministry of Health to use on appeal against the aforementioned judgment, declared its willingness to make available a wide scientific literature, I hope that during the trial some Advocate formulate the request to acquire acts also ” scientific studies brutes of clinical drug trials ” that often remain [ hidden ] in the hands of industry. I am sure you will see some good and we will understand even better [if you really we need] the meaning of the decomposed reaction of the Scientific Board .
The failure to publish the results of a study unfavorable or poorly conducive to a specific treatment is a factor that distorts the overall knowledge of the scientific community and therefore, before stating [mistakenly] that the Judgment of the Court of Rimini Sec. Work is based on a ” false science ,” you should also consider what you might call ” legalized and cooked Scientific false ” especially for all studies are interrupted for manifest lack of effectiveness of therapy or tested for the presence of significant side effects.
Indeed, the absence of literature publication of negative results of a search produces a very serious knowledge gap, both in the experimental [allowing duplication of similar research, with an unacceptable waste of economic resources that could be allocated to other sectors], both in clinical settings [not allowing the clinician to comprehensively know all the information necessary to guarantee each patient the pair had ” best therapeutic result / minor exposure to the risk of adverse advents “].