Are you talking about the Lorenzin Decree on vaccines? They knock you down. Here is what you need to do

(Reading time: 6 - 12 minutes)

There was a time when someone sent everyone off for anything. Was the revolution. He sent the corrupt to fuck, he sent the thieves to fuck. He sent fuck those who lived attached to armchairs, journalists servants, ministers, unscrupulous bankers, sent pharma companies and their businesses.

Today, pharmaceutical companies and their businesses have hit the wrong mark. With a law decree written by the Minister of Health Beatrice Lorenzin, with the probable help of the ministerial consultant Roberto Burioni, the Government has issued a decree according to which the mandatory vaccines go from 4 (one of which resulting from a bribe of 600 million paid by GlaxoSmithKline to the Minister of Health De Lorenzo, with sentence confirmed in cassation), at 12. Twelve mandatory vaccines. Not only that: inability to attend schools from zero to six years for the unvaccinated, while for compulsory schools heavy penalties for parents who do not vaccinate, in whole or in part: up to 7500 €. And the report to the Juvenile Court for the suspension of the parental authority.

Not bad huh? Come on, let's face it: a measure that compares Mussolini was Gandhi. But not only. You will say: what do you have against vaccines? "They do well, they are super safe"Says Burioni. And then they are necessary: ​​all those terrible diseases such as measles. What if an epidemic breaks out? Let's all get vaccinated! Let's get vaccinated against anything. But does a vaccine against idiocy exist? I guess not: it's counterproductive.

The question is not whether vaccines are good or bad, or - more likely - good and bad at the same time, because like all drugs (yes, they have leaflets with contraindications, which make you sign, and you sign as if you understand them ) should be taken when needed, and not flat. Nor is it a question of whether or not you need a college degree to discuss vaccines. First of all because if - as they tell us - we parents had to have a medical degree to decide on vaccines, then even less to decide for a whole country should be a lady (Minister Lorenzin) who has the classical high school diploma, yet not only does it show conviction that not even a Nobel Prize, but legislates for third parties with unparalleled arrogance and pride. But then also why - and here a idiocy vaccine it would be useful - if the parents cannot "understand" why they do not have a medical degree, then they can sign abstruse abstracts before the fateful inoculation of their young. How can they not be able to question vaccines because they are not competent, and at the same time be able to give informed consent? So if you demand me to be informed, you are obliged to explain and convince me, and I can decide. Otherwise, since vaccines are now mandatory, you don't have to sign anything anymore, rather: they must sign Lorenzin and Gentiloni, and take full responsibility for the case, together with the State, jointly and severally liable for any adverse reactions, already discovered or yet to be discovered.

But we can go in addition to the question of mere competence, and make a reasoning that even an Uzbek with the first grade could do (with all due respect for the Uzbeks, to whom I apologize for the unwary comparison). Indeed, we can do much more than just one reasoning. I will limit myself to making the first three that come to my mind, otherwise Treccani comes out.

First reasoning: the emergency decree

Do you know what a decree law is? Let's pretend not: I'll tell you: it's a government law that immediately comes into force and goes beyond parliamentary discussion. In a democracy, in fact, the legislative initiative (the power to make laws) belongs to Parliament, where the representatives of the People sit (yes, with the p capital). But then, if the people have to make the laws, why can the government make a law decree? Recall and passant that the Government is chosen by a gentleman appointed by the President of the Republic, and does not arise directly as a consequence of the outcome of the vote: in fact, after the resignation of Renzi, who was himself appointed, we did not go to the vote, but Mattarella put a Renzi's avatar at Palazzo Chigi. Answer: the Government can make a law, surpassing the Parliament, only if the conditions of extraordinary necessity and urgency exist. Now, you who are not vaccinated against idiocy, answer me: when do the conditions of extraordinary necessity and urgency exist for a decree law on vaccines? But when there is an epidemic, of course! Unless you want to disavow those four neurons that still remain in your head. The next question is: is there an epidemic in Italy at the moment - or is there the risk of any epidemic - such that a parliamentary discussion could not be expected, where at least the representatives of the people would decide? How do you say? Meningitis? No… that was one fake news of the media to empty the warehouse stocks of the pharmacies, disavowed by the Ministry of Health itself (after the warehouses were emptied, however) and by the media that launched it. So polio? Mumps? Itching in the big toes? Or ... no, don't say it ... you said it: the measles?

If you think there is an ongoing measles epidemic, show yourself to a good one. Just to spread a pitiful veil on yet another fake-news of the servants of the printed paper, salaried by someone, theIstituto Superiore di Sanita he just certified un 84% drop in measles cases for May compared to April, and of87% compared to March. And watch measles cases since 1970 will make you understand that even those of 2017 are nothing special. There were more than double in 2008, in full vaccination coverage. So, in proportion to today, what should we have done? Organize gods stock for parents and children not vaccinated? Obviously, since it was not done, it was not a problem. But maybe there GlaxoSmithKline (that of the 600 million bribe to De Lorenzo, which made their hepatitis B vaccine mandatory) he hadn't bet yet € 1 billion over the next 4 years on vaccines in Italy, starting from a nice 60% (still with 'sti 600 million, what a lucky number!) dedicated to the vaccine for meningitis (also here, you know, true, that meningitis has many causes, and that the vaccine covers only one small part? Of course, of course: this Lorenzin tells you every day).

So there was no condition of extraordinary necessity and urgency to make this decree law. IS last but not least, guilty confess is just Paolo Gentiloni, who is candidly saying at the press conference that there was no emergency. So why was it done? And above all, since it has been done unconstitutionally, is it valid? I bet the Constitutional Court won't deal with it. But even where he did, given that in the past it took even eight years to make a decision, in the meantime someone will be able to rub their hands well, in their backroom.

Second reasoning: are you sure that it is medical evidence that all these vaccines should be mandatory?

No, you don't have to have a medical degree to understand it either, don't worry. Of course, not being an idiot helps, but you can do it. Follow the lip. I will take you to the magical world of logic.

What they tell you is that you absolutely have to get vaccinated (even if Gentiloni himself says that there is no emergency), to the point of even making a decree for the extraordinary need blah blah blah. But then, if it were necessary to get all these vaccines because otherwise Burioni gets dark, one would expect that also in the other civilized countries of the European Union there will be all these mandatory vaccinations and even more. Why, gentlemen, if you have not realized it there is Schengen, so not only goods and people can move freely, but also their guests: viruses, bacteria and other terrible amenities.

So let's take the official data of 2010 (not the last century, eh?) Compulsory vaccines (i.e. that must be done as a result of a real health need) or only recommended (that is, whether or not you will make them to your children is your choice, but even if you do not do them you will certainly not represent a danger to society, otherwise they would be mandatory, right?). We take them from, an '"European peer-reviewed scientific journal devoted to the epidemiology, surveillance, prevention and control of communicable diseases“, So Burioni is happy that it is not Montanari's blog.

Well. So what do you say? Are the driving economies of the European Union also so vexatious and fascitoid towards their citizens? They too have many small Burioni and many mini Lorenzin to give fines of 7.500 euros and to steal children from parents?

Surprise (for you, not for me). We make the ranking of countries by number of mandatory vaccines. You want to know Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Holland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom how many mandatory vaccines do they have? Three? Four? Two? One No ... Zero! You got it right: ZERO! Nobody! Null! ноль! But how? No parents in jail? And the children who die from the fearful measles? And immunosuppressed don't have it? What about flock immunity? Could it be that the other peoples of Europe are much less flocked than we are? No because in Sweden they just voted against all the 7 bills that proposed mandatory vaccines (yes, you know ... there is still a Parliament that works, not like we do), and Sweden is a country that surpasses the United States in fundamentals on health as infant mortality rate, maternal health and well-being, and life expectancy. Tell Burioni and Lorenzin about it! Provided that you have the opportunity to express yourself.

And that's fine: we will not be like the French, like the Germans, like the British, like the Dutch, the Austrians, the Spaniards ... We won't even be as lacking as the Estonians and Cypriots, but the other countries? How many mandatory vaccines do they have? Here I made the ranking, by hand.

Belgium has only one (polio); France and Malta have three; Greece has only four (as we had four until yesterday, before Lorenzin - from the top of her diploma to the classic - decided to have compulsory medical treatment for everyone); the Czech Republic and Slovenia seven; Hungary, Poland and Romania have eight; Bulgaria and Slovakia nine. And the winner is ... ladies and gentleman ... with a gap of no less than three points on the runners-up (trumpet and trombone blast): ITALY! (on a par with Latvia, what prestige): twelve vaccines!

From today we are the first in all Europe (including Iceland and Norway) for the number of vaccinations to our children. Are all the others, we hear, dying of measles? And take a look at the map of the countries that have four or more. Uuups… Will there not be many Eastern European countries where corruption is supposed to be a much more important phenomenon than people's health and scientific truths? But then ... what is Italy then? For posterity (if we have them) the arduous sentence.

Third reasoning: political-health hypocrisy

The newspapers write that access to schools will be prohibited only to children up to six years of age, not in compliance with the vaccination calendar "Burioni-Lerenzin". And the others? No problem: they can easily enroll in compulsory schools (primary, secondary, high school, etc.)! Yes… because for the latter Valeria Fedeli (the Minister of Education, ed) has expressly requested and obtained (great Pyrrhic victory) that education (constitutional law) was guaranteed. Oh yeah! because it will certainly be so! In fact, children not up to date with the vaccination calendar will be able to attend elementary, middle and high school safely! ... apart from the little detail that their parents will come referred to the ASL, that in case of further refusal to vaccinate the little ones (no matter if motivated or not) they will impose fines of up to 7.500 euros each year (yes, every year) and will report them to the Juvenile Court to do them suspend the parental authority (and therefore, plausibly, once suspended, proceed to forced vaccination). Would this, dear Fedeli, mean that the right to education is safeguarded from a constitutional point of view? That is, children can go to school, but then are they actually "expropriated" by the state? What is a state called that does such a thing? Police state? Orwellian state? Nazi-fascist state? Prison? Lager? What's your name?

In 2018 there will be elections (at least we hope so, because frankly today we no longer know). Someone will go to power. Remember to vote whoever puts you in writing who will throw this abomination into the toilet and put those responsible under investigation by a specific parliamentary committee.

In the meantime ... start learning Swedish.