Tag Archives: efecte adverse

Galerie

Am citit si mi-a placut: Carnetul de Vaccinari – pasaport pentru educatie?

In Romania nu exista la ora actuala nici o lege privind obligativitatea vaccinarii si abuzurile pot fi sanctionate. Legea 649/2001 nu se refera la obligativitatea de a fi vaccinat, ci la obligatia ca medicul sa vaccineze la cererea pacientului, dupa ce l-a informat corect cu privire la actul medical in sine. In lege se vorbeste si despre schema de vaccinare recomandata de Ministerul Sanatatii, nicidecum de schema obligatorie. Insusirea in mod automat si impamantenirea termenului“obligatoriu” este ceea ce eu obisnuiesc sa numesc “folclor” si se datoreaza lipsei de instruire sau orbirii civice despre care am mai amintit. Orbire care ne face sa luam in mod automat drept bun si adevarat tot ce spune (mai ales de catre o autoritate in domeniu) fara sa verificam la sursa sau sa contestam. Citește în continuare

Evaluează asta:

Anunțuri
Galerie

Vaccinarea anti-HPV si minciunile si riscurile despre care nu vorbeste nimeni -1

Deci avem interzicerea publicitatii pentru Gardasil in Franta, retragerea campaniei pentru Cervarix in Anglia ( caz rezolvat pe tacute) – in ambele cazuri pentru mesaje publicitare ce induc in eroare consumatorul, adica falsa promisiune ca respectivele vaccinuri previn cancerul de col. Mi-au scris cateva persoane sa-mi spuna ca al nostru minister s-a reapucat de vaccinarea anti-HPV. Am cautat cu rabdare, in ultimul timp nu am mai urmarit campaniile „minunatilor” alintati in diverse moduri de producatorii de medicamente. Iata noi informatii care sa va ajute sa decideti ce faceti legat de vaccinare. Citește în continuare

Evaluează asta:

Galerie

MINUNATA SANATATE A COPIILOR NEVACCINATI

Françoise Berthoud, MD [paediatrician]
Cu ceva timp in urma, in Aprilie 2009 mai exact, am fost invitata sa vorbesc la o conferinta despre vaccinare. Randul meu venea dupa ce vorbeau 2 dintre cei mai buni speaker-i pe care ii are Franta pe acest subiect , journalista Sylvie Simon and biologul Michel Georget. Ii mai ascultasem si cu alte ocazii si imi devenise absolut clar ca cel mai bine este sa stai cat mai departe posibil de vaccinuri. […].
Citește în continuare

Evaluează asta:

Vaccinarea, encefalopatia si autismul

Siringa si ADN-ulIn cazul in care credeati variantele oficiale … de genul vaccinarea nu are nimic de a face cu autismul, iata ca problemele nu sunt deloc lamurite.

Intr-un review al studiilor publicate din 1943 si pana acum in PubMed  si Ovid Medline, H. Ratajczak autoarea review-ului spune asa:

 Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination.

Traducere: cauzele documentate ale autismului includ mutatii sau disparitia / stergerea [unor fragmente de ADN], infectii virale si encefalita post vaccinare.

Evident, scepticii sunt pe pozitie desi realitatea este ca stiinta si oamenii de stiinta au fost de nenumarate ori fata in fata cu evidentele si nu au fost in stare sa vada dincolo de limitarile paradigmei in care inoata. Este o chestie interesanta si cu paradigmele astea; iti impun nu numai solutiile dar si modul de a pune problemele. Orice persoana pune problema altfel decat „da voie paradigma” este automat eretic. Thomas Kuhn ( cel care a definit pe larg  distinctia paradigma si efectele sale inclusiv in lumea stiintifica) mentiona adesea cazul descoperirii planetei Uranus. Ei bine, Uranus fusese observat de cel putin 17 ori de diferiti astronomi; toate astea se intamplau in perioada 1690 – 1782. Credinta preponderenta era ca luminile de pe cer sunt stele, dar observatiile legate de ceea ce mai tarziu a fost numit planeta Uranus nu aveau sens daca era considerata stea. Apoi Sir Herschel a venit cu o noua perceptie – „steaua”este o planeta pe orbita! Si totul a devenit clar!  La fel a fost si A. Wegener si teoria lui „ridicola”cu deriva continentelor si provenienta dintr-un singur continent, la fel a fost si cu super-conductorii de temperaturi ridicate sau laserele, la fel se intampla acum cu perceptia legata de efectele adverse ale vaccinarilor dar si cu perceptia legata de influenta mintii individuale si colective asupra modelarii realitatii, chiar daca studiile arata ca aceasta influenta exista si este clara, dincolo de orice dubiu probabilistic si chiar daca in rapoartele guvernelor ( de exemplu SUA in timpul administratiei Reagan) este clara aceasta influenta si mai mult, este considerata un pericol – „recunoasterea generala a gradului de interconectare a mintilor ar putea avea implicatii imense sociale si politice pentru aceasta natiune si pentru intreaga lume”. ( vezi cartea „The roots of consciousness” J. Mishlove 1993).

Evident ca pentru o persoana ca Dr. Brian Strom care este expert guvernamental pentru evaluarea sigurantei vaccinurilor, aceast review este lipsit de substanta, pentru ca este despre teorii iar stiinta este bazata pe fapte. Hmm…. dar faptele pornesc de la teorii si trebuie sa fie legate de teorii, altfel sunt numite fenomene disparate si se cauta in disperare teoriile care sa stea la baza faptelor. Ceea ce mai spune Dr. Storm este ca opinia medicala prevalenta la acest moment este ca efectele secundare a vaccinurilor pot fi „legate” stiintific de encefalopatie dar nu de autism. Desi cele doua diagnostice sunt extrem de legate. Interesant de citit este acest raport ( NU este un studiu). In SUA orice avocat ce a lucrat la cazuri ce implica solicitarea compensarilor pentru efectele adverse cauzate de vaccinare stie ca, daca vrei sa obtii banii, o conditie esentiala este sa nu mentionezi cuvantul autism ci encefalopatie. Si asa obtii compensarile. Paralelismul intre cele doua diagnostice  considerate diferite de catre medicina alopata dogmatica este extrem de interesant.

In lucrarea Helenei Ratajczak este foarte interesant faptul ca autoarea se uita la un factor mai putin discutat si anume continutul de ADn uman al vaccinurilor. Da, vaccinurile contin ADN uman, Ratajczak mentioneaza 23 de vaccinuri. Ea discuta despre cresterea incidentei autismului, crestere ce corespunde cu prezenta ADN-ului uman in vaccinul MMR ( ROR ) si sugereaza ca acest factor joaca un rol important.  Autoarea mentioneaza ca o crestere a autismului s-a inregistrat in 1995 cand vaccinul impotriva varicelei a fost produs folosing tesuturi provenind de la fetusi[i umani].  Ar putea ca acest ADN uman sa cauzeze problemele neurologice? Ratajczak explica faptul ca prezenta ADN-ului uman in vaccin determina aparitia unei reactii din partea corpului gazda ce dezvolta anticorpi impotriva proteinelor respective. Unde se gasesc aceste proteine in mod express? In creier. Deci corpul  ajunge sa „omoare celulele creierului” si exista o continua inflamatie a creierului. Evident, raspunsul Dr. Storm este ca el nu stie ca ADN-ul uman sa provoace autism ( in sensul de dovada stiintifica – nu ca s-ar fi cautat :))  ) iar Ratajczak i-a replicat ca nimeni nu a dovedit contrariul, deci dezbaterea stiintifica este inca deschisa.

Un numar de cercetatori independenti au declarat ca au fost subiectul unor campanii orchestrate pentru a-i discredita atunci cand cercetarile lor au aratat probleme legate de siguranta vaccinurilor, mai ales daca erau legat de subiectul numit autism. Ratajczak a fost intrebata cum de cerceteaza un subiect atat de controversat iar ea a raspuns ca ani de zile a lucrat pentru industria farmaceutica si a avut restrictii legate de ceea ce avea voie sa publice. „Acum sunt la pensie” a declarat catre CBS , „pot sa scriu ce vreau [liber]”

Avand in vedere parerea oficialilor guvernamentali ca teoriile care leaga vaccinurile de autism ar trebui complet respinse iar review-ul publicat de Ratajczak arata exact pe dos, jurnalistii au cerut si parerea CDC-ului . Oficialii de la CDC au spus ca „un review complex realizat de CDC … ar lua ceva timp” si au pus la dispozitie link-urile ce sunt la sfarsitul articolului.

Ratajczak nu adreseaza si alte probleme legate de vaccinare, de exemplu suprapunerile intre proteinele provenite de la virus si cele umane, suprapuneri ce arata clar ca orice copil vaccinat este un candidat 100% pentru o boala autoimuna, dar chiar si asa review-ul este interesant.

Mai jos este articolul aparut pe CBSNews si preluat de Sign of The Times (SOTT)  .

For all those who’ve declared the autism-vaccine debate over – a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism.

The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review. The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them.

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 article goes on to discuss many potential vaccine-related culprits, including the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of time. „What I have published is highly concentrated on hypersensitivity, Ratajczak told us in an interview, „the body’s immune system being thrown out of balance.”

University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety says the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain damage), but not scientifically linked to autism. As for Ratajczak’s review, he told us he doesn’t find it remarkable. „This is a review of theories. Science is based on facts. To draw conclusions on effects of an exposure on people, you need data on people. The data on people do not support that there is a relationship. As such, any speculation about an explanation for a (non-existing) relationship is irrelevant.”

Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn’t been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That’s right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.

Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: „Because it’s human DNA and recipients are humans, there’s homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it’s changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it’s an ongoing inflammation. It doesn’t stop, it continues through the life of that individual.”

Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, „It does not matter…Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism.” Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open.

A number of independent scientists have said they’ve been subjected to orchestrated campaigns to discredit them when their research exposed vaccine safety issues, especially if it veered into the topic of autism. We asked Ratajczak how she came to research the controversial topic. She told us that for years while working in the pharmaceutical industry, she was restricted as to what she was allowed to publish. „I’m retired now,” she told CBS News. „I can write what I want.”

We wanted to see if the CDC wished to challenge Ratajczak’s review, since many government officials and scientists have implied that theories linking vaccines to autism have been disproven, and Ratajczak states that research shows otherwise. CDC officials told us that „comprehensive review by CDC…would take quite a bit of time.” In the meantime, CDC provided these links:

Interagency Autism Coordination Committee: http://iacc.hhs.gov

Overview of all CDC surveillance and epi work: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/research.html

CDC study on risk factors and causes: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/seed.html

Notă

Din pacate au inceput si decesele la baietii vaccinati cu Gardasil. Citește în continuare

Evaluează asta:

Programul naţional de vaccinare – abuzuri şi manipulare

SURSA: Bucovina Profunda

Programul naţional de vaccinare – abuzuri şi manipulare

Nu trebuie sa fii specialist ca sa intelegi despre vaccinuri ca sunt extrem de periculoase si ca sunt ineficiente. Sunt deasemenea integrate in programul mondial de reducere a populatiei, atat ca numar cat  si calitate. De cand am aflat toate astea din surse si argumente credibile, am refuzat orice vaccin pentru mine, copiii mei si familia mea. Am semnat ca refuz pe proprie raspundere, fara sa clipesc.
In Romania vaccinurile NU SUNT OBLIGATORII. Ei le numesc asa abuziv, pe cele din programul national de vaccinare. (Corect ar fi sa le numeasca vaccinuri  recomandate sau gratuite. Desi nu sunt nici recomandabile, nici gratuite, caci toti platim la  CAS.)
Ei nu te pot vaccina pe tine sau pe copiii tai decat cerandu-ti acordul. Tu poti sa le specifici ca optiunea ta informata este sa  nu accepti vaccinurile. Tu esti stapan pe tine si pe trupul copiilor tai si raspunzator pentru asta in fata lui Dumnezeu, iar daca noi nu vrem sa-i vaccinam nu pot face nimic legal impotriva acestei decizii. Sanatatea este o stare de echilibru si nu vine din flacoane si fiole. Vaccinul produce un dezechilibru temporar cu repercursiuni teribile pe termen lung.
Stiu multe familii care au luat aceasta decizie si o respecta cu mult curaj. Probleme au intampinat la inscrierea in gradinite sau scoli, dar le-au depasit in final.
Exista si un vaccin ce -l recomanda gravidelor, un antitetanos, care NU e necesar, in plus vaccinarile la gravide pot duce la diverse boli la copiii lor nenascuti (boli autoimune, psihice, neurologice etc.)

Schema programului national de vaccinari se aplica fara informarea parintilor privind riscurile si beneficiile, de multe ori cu presiuni din partea medicilor, fara sa fie informati ca ei, parintii, sunt factorul de decizie, fara a urmari reactiile adverse sau a le despagubi.

Schema este asa:
Primele 24 de ore            1 vaccin   (Hep B)
4-7 zile                           1 vaccin   (BCG )
2 luni                              5  vaccinuri    ( D,T,P, Hep B, VPO)
4 luni                              4 vaccinuri   (D,T,P, VPO )
6 luni                              5 vaccinuri  (D,T,P, Hep B, VPO )
12 luni                            4 vaccinuri  ( D,T,P, VPO )
12-15 luni                       3 vaccinuri  ( R,R,O )
30-35 luni                       3 vaccinuri  (D,T,P )
7 ani (in cls. I)                5 vaccinuri   (D,T, R,R,O )
9 ani (in cls. III-a)            1 vaccin    ( VPO )
14 ani (in cls VII-a)          3 vaccinuri  ( D,T, Rub)
18 ani (in cls XII-a)           1 vaccin  ( Hep B )

Mi se pare monstruos ca unui copilas de la nastere pana la 3 ani, sa-i fie facute 26 de vaccinuri, pana in clasa a II-a 31 de vaccinuri, iar pana la clasa a XII-a , in total 36 de vaccinuri. Cel mai monstruos mi se pare numarul de 5 vaccinuri facute tuturor copiilor de doar DOUA LUNI, lucru care il obliga pe bietul copilas sa-si stoarca sistemul imunitar de resurse ca si atunci cand ar avea cele 5 boli odata. Si numarul de 26 de vaccinuri facute pana la varsta de 3 ani mi se pare la fel de ingrozitor, cu atat mai mult cu cat exista voci avizate in lumea medicala care nu recomanda (ba chiar INTERZIC) utilizarea vaccinurilor inainte de varsta de 2 ani , inainte de care se sistemul imunitar nu este maturizat si deci nu este recomandabil sa-l expui la aceste furtuni imunitare numite vaccinare in masa, care de-a lungul timpului si-au aratat atat ineficienta, cat si nocivitatea.

dr. Mircea Puşcaşu

de citit si : Câteva probleme punctuale ale vaccinărilor “obişnuite”

Despre  efectele vaccinarii gravidelor info si aici: https://nostrabrucanus.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/pandemia-sclavilor-vaccinarea-antigripala-in-timpul-sarcinii/

Fertilitatea – No comment!

No comment!

partea a 2-a

continuarea pe youtube.

UE si pedeapsa cu moartea in caz de revolta a populatiei

A incercat un cercetator francez sa ne convinga cat de democratica este UE ca institutie. Il ascultam si ma gandeam cat de orb e; dupa 30 de minute m-am plictisit . Am realizat ca el este si platit pentru ceea ce spune, dar eu ca sa stau sa-l si ascult o fac pe banii si timpul meu. Asa ca l-am intrebat care este argumentul in baza caruia UE considera pedeapsa cu moartea ca un exercitiu democratic  in cazul unei revolte a populatiei nemultumite de guvernanti ? Si francezul a dat din colt in colt, apoi a inceput sa spuna ca nu exista asa ceva. I-am citit ce spun altii despre asta, i-am pus hartiile in fata si m-am carat. Si  nu singur 🙂 , au plecat majoritatea din sala.

Interesant de citit; dupa 15 iunie cand revin o sa-l si traduc.

Sursa: Current Concerns

Reintroduction of Death Penalty Possible Due to Lisbon Treaty

by Dr Titine Kriesi, Switzerland

Following a ruling of the Federal Constitution Court of Karlsruhe, democracy in general, states under the rule of law and welfare states remain at the mercy of the Brussels dictate. The supranationality of the EU is hardly debilitated. Not much change can be expected in terms of depriving national states of their power and nations of their rights. Yet only nations have the legitimate right to exercise legal power. Large or small scale politics requires a plebiscite free from manipulation. The Lisbon Treaty is a decision from the “top”, and not based on the knowledge of free people of their rights. So called “guarantees” and “side laws” do not help get over this fact. Similarly, the possibility of reintroducing death penalty on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty requires objective discussion and a plebiscite.  Whoever wants to build a European Europe can still leave the Union (Art. a (50) EUC in order to force a treaty that is in the interest of nations and citizens and that takes the freedom of citizens and peoples into serious consideration.

Ireland is the only one out of 27 EU states that allows its citizens to vote on constitutional issues. On 2nd October the Irish people will be asked a second time to go to the polls for that same treaty, because those in power in the EU did not like the ‘No’ with which the treaty was rejected in a clear and well-founded fashion back in 2008. The remaining almost 500 million EU citizens will not even be asked! This starkly contradicts the ideal of democracy where, as the Greek suggests, it is the people that hold sway over the land, and not the governments.

Citizens not treated as citizens, but as immature beings

Which government has honestly informed its people of the contents of this treaty so that each citizen can form his or her own opionion? If anyone today does not know which fatal consequences, including long-term restrictions of citizen rights, the treaty entails, it is not because he or she does not understand it. The reason is rather that party deputies just follow their party heads without having read the treaty for themselves. Ireland’s Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, is said to have bragged on television about not having read the treaty.1 Is the treaty hushed up because they know exactly that the nations would reject it if they knew how many citizen rights it deprives them of?

No law of citizen rights and freedom

Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be aware of this in saying that if there were a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, in every country where such a referendum would take place, it would be lost. Sarkozy added: “There is a cleavage between people and governments. A referendum now would bring [our] Europe into danger.”2 Similarly the conservative British Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague: “Opinion polls carried out in 16 EU member states show that almost all persons entitled to vote would have rejected the Lisbon Treaty, had they had a chance to go to the polls.”3 The Irish EU commissioner for the home market, Charley McCreevy even thinks all political leaders are aware of the fact “that in case of a referendum 95% of the population of their respective countries would probably have said no as well.”4 “We [in Ireland] do it by referendum. That’s democracy.”5 However referendums do not take place in 26 EU states, including the UK, where “in breach of an election manifesto promise, the Labour government has denied British voters any say on the Lisbon Treaty at all, either in a referendum or at a general election.”6 In fact, no discussion whatsoever, or at least no honest discussion is taking place on part of the government in any of the 27 EU member states. How sheep-like are millions of people considered by them? In the case of treaties of such far-reaching consequences as the one in question, citizens surely expect politicians to enter into honest dialogue. Since this is not happening, everybody is asking rightfully: “How good can a treaty be if, after months of national debate, its merits cannot be comprehensibly explained?”7

Duty to arm and fight terrorism

The Irish government has expressed doubts about the Lisbon Treaty concerning, among other things, its neutrality. In response to the Irish misgivings, Brussels answered in sheer contradiction of the truth that the treaty had never foreseen any restriction on neutrality.8
Any doubts were said to have been “abated once and for all”9 thanks to the “warranties” granted by the EU especially for Ireland. “The Lisbon treaty does not affect in any way Ireland’s traditional politics of military neutrality. [Neither is the Treaty said to pose any basis] for creating European armed forces or compulsory military service for any military formation.”10
Yet in the Lisbon Treaty it says that the member states of the Union (Par. 42, subpar. 3 2 TEU) not only commit themselves to “improve step by step their military abilities”, i.e. to arm, but the treaty assumes in Art. 43 Par. l TEU a right to wage war (ius ad bellum). And particularly so with the end of fighting global terrorism, including in one’s own country. Thus the explicit ban on wars of aggression is played down (art. 26 par. l GG), i.e. wars of aggression are tolerated even though they contravene the German Constitution (commitment to peace). Are we in for more wars because of the Lisbon treaty? The nations do not want that.

Evidence of EU collusion and confusion tactic

True, in the Treaty on the EU it says: “No person shall be sentenced to death, nobody should be executed.” (Art. 11-62 VV) But this is not the whole truth. For the Lisbon treaty also states that any explanations on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (ECHR) of the European Union which have been adopted from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms “have the same liability as the basic text itself”11 (ECHR). What does this mean?
Evidently the plain truth is only seen in the explanations given on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and not in the Charter itself, claims Professor of law K. A. Schachtschneider: “The Charter of Fundamental Rights is based, at least as far as classical fundamental rights are concerned, on the ECHR of 1950. At that time it seemed inevitable to leave the numerous member states of the European Council the possibility of the death penalty. Germany had only just abolished the death penalty in 1949, but France, Great Britain and many other states still had it. And a declaration of human rights would never have been reached had there been a general demand to abolish the death penalty.”12
This explanation dating back to 1950 was reintroduced deliberately in December 2007 as a binding explanation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It was not an accident. We should be able to read and understand this explanation, says Schachtschneider.13

Death penalty in times of war and perils of war and …

The fact that, besides the duty of the member states to arm, it says in a comment on a footnote that the death penalty will be feasible again – and not just in times of war and perils of war (Germany and Austria are at war), but also in times of insurrection and upheaval, is a blatant scandal.
Brussels says: „Nothing in the EU Treaty of Lisbon (…) affects in any way the need for protecting the right to live (…) as foreseen in the Irish Constitution.”14
Yet in the Lisbon Treaty it says: Contrary to the right to live (Art. II-62 VV) the death penalty, killing and execution in the event of war or imminent threat of war in accordance with the detailed provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be introduced by Council decisions on the general rules of missions (Article 43 paragraph 2 P. l TEU. 43 Abs. 2  S. l EUV).15 In the explanation on Fundamental Rights it says: “A state may forsee the death penalty in its rule of law for deeds that are committed in times of war or imminent threat of war. This penalty may only be applied in those cases which are foreseen in the rule of law and are in accordance with its regulations.”16 In other words, the death penalty is possible in times of war or imminent threat of war, without there remaining any protection by Fundamental Rights. It is true that the death penalty is not listed in any law as yet, at least in Germany. But if the EU issues detailed rules for missions (Article 43 paragraph 2 P. l TEU) i.e. if it takes military action (war) as a reaction to some crisis and issues legal regulations for such an event of war which facilitate the death penalty, then any contradicting fundamental right in the EU Constitution or any national set of fundamental rights will be to no avail. But, as stated before, the actual explanation on the Fundamental Rights would apply, and not the Right itself!17

… Death penalty in times of riot and insurrection

In the notes on explanations it states: “3. a) Art. 2 para 2 of the ECHR: A killing is not considered a violation of this article when it results from the use of force which has been absolutely necessary to a) protect any person from unlawful violence; b) lawfully arrest or prevent the escape of someone who is lawfully deprived of liberty, or c) to lawfully fight a riot or insurrection.”18 So even in case of revolt or rebellion the death penalty would be possible if it accurately reflects the explanation. And because it is a European act of law it cannot be measured against either the Irish, German or any other national constitution, even if it states that the death penalty has been abolished. Since European law overrules national law, the death penatly would be possible.19 Well, somebody will ask: Who defines what is an insurrection or a riot? The EU is entitled to interpret ad libitum what and how it deems. Could this apply to situations as we used to have in Leipzig (the Monday demonstrations) or riots like we had recently in Latvia etc.? I.e. demonstrations accompanied by violence which could be interpreted as insurrection? Or when people gather because they do not agree with something and then some “black bloc” is smuggled in from somewhere? Will Brussels interpret the social disturbances expected even by Germany on the grounds of the economic crisis as upheavels or riots? And who, in that event, will be responsible for measuring the extent of violence?

Citizen right to live not secured

Since in the Lisbon Treaty the death penalty is again permitted under certain circumstances, the right to live is not secured. This is a crime, all the more so because this is just mentioned in the footnote of a footnote and can thus be reintroduced through the backdoor. Which politician has explained this clearly to his or her voters?
The Irish Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy, Anthony Coughlan expresses his outrage at the reintroduction of the death penalty in the the Lisbon Treaty, too, saying that “most people in Ireland and Britain have never heard of it.” 20 (!)
Both the German Constitution (Art. 102 GG) and the principle of human dignity of the UN Human Rights Charter command the abolition of the death penalty. The peoples of Europe have fought hard for this principle after the two horrible world wars in which 55 million people were slaughtered and which paralized the countries involved for decades. Reintroducing the death penalty would mean a step backward, falling behind the Enlightenment principle of “freedom, equality and fraternity”, the Human Rights Declaration of 1948, any right to justice and the hard-fought-for freedom of our nations.
The EU would do well to cooperate with its citizens in a mutual effort to fashion our society reasonably and to aim at living and working together in dignity and equality based on human standards. Anything else is mere striving for power which the peoples of Europe do not want.

1     Cf. Eberhard Bort, Mit ihrem Nein stürzen die Iren die EU in eine tiefe Krise. In: News aus Irland. Deutsch-Irischer Freundeskreis, 14.6.2008; Premier Brian Cowen, Spiegel online, 19.6.2009, p. l.
2     Nicolas Sarkozy, November 2007. In: Euro-med, March 7, 2008.
3    William Hague, Irish Times, July 26, 2008.
4    Propagandaschock, Nein zur EU-Diktatur, 2.7.2009.
5    Charly McCtreevy, Irish Independent, 29 June 2009.
6    William Hague, Irish Times, 26 July 2008.
7    Irish Times, 26 July 2008.
8    Focus Online, 16.6.09, Erklärung zum EU-Reformvertrag soll Weg für zweites Referendum ebnen, p. l.
9    Ibid.
10    Ibid.
11    Ibid.
12    Ibid.
13    Cf. Ibid.
14    Focus Online, 16.6.2009, Erklärung zum EU-Reformvertrag soll Weg für zweites Referendum ebnen, p. l.
15    Prof. Dr. iur. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider: Der Vertrag  von Lissabon ist ein Grundgesetz des ungebremsten Kapitalismus. Zeit-Fragen Nr. 14/15 vom 6.4.2009.
16    Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider: Europa nicht als Grossstaat, sondern als “Republik der Republiken” organisieren. BüSo, Juni 2005,  S. 5.
17    Cf. ibid.
18    K. A. Schachtschneider: Argumente gegen die Zustimmung zum  Vertrag über eine Verfassung für Europa, Kurzfassung, S. 3 f.
19    Cf. ibid.
20    What Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen should now do on Lisbon. In:  Point 12, p. 4/PANA Peace and Neutrality Alliance by Anthony Coughlan, 25 September 2008.

Cum se rezolva problema contaminarii vaccinurilor – simplu, schimbi regulile jocului

Spuneam aici despre faptul ca echipa de cercetatori americani a gasit probleme NU numai in cazul Rotarix si mai spuneam ca nu este foarte clar ce altceva au mai gasit in vaccinuri.

Este foarte interesant faptul ca echipa de cercetatori, in loc sa anunte intai FDA-ul, au notificat intai GSK-ul. Deci in data de 9 Februarie 2010 echipa de cercetatori notifica GSK referitor la rezultatele analizelor facute asupra vaccinului Rotarix. Abia pe 15 martie 2010, GSK anunta FDA despre problema.

Surpriza vine pe 30 martie, cand apare o propunere parca venita de pe malurile Dambovitei:


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

Summary:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend the biologics regulations to permit the Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) or the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), as appropriate, to approve exceptions or alternatives to the regulation for constituent materials. FDA is taking this action due to advances in developing and manufacturing safe, pure, and potent biological products licensed under a section of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) that, in some instances, render the existing constituent materials regulation too prescriptive and unnecessarily restrictive. This rule provides manufacturers of licensed biological products with flexibility, as appropriate, to employ advances in science and technology as they become available, without diminishing public health protections.

In traducere libera, se propune ca unul dintre cei doi directori ce au legatura cu evaluarea respectarii standardelor pentru produse biologice sa aiba libertatea de a aproba exceptii si alternative la lege. Plangerea este ca in unele situatii, regulamentele legate de materialele ce intra in componenta produselor biologice licentiate sunt prea … restrictive! Si o astfel de „relaxare” legala le-ar da producatorilor flexibilitate … etc etc.

Asta va insemna mai mult aluminiu sau alti adjuvanti, mai multe substante prezervative si cine stie cate altele. Evident, nu se sopteste o vorbulita despre faptul ca respectivele limite au fost obtinute cu greu, desi dovezile stiintifice legate de efectele adverse ale acestor substante nu lipsesc. Dimpotriva .. exista extrem de multe.

Pacat ca nu s-a inventat vaccinul anti-lobby si vaccinul anti-coruptie.

Notă

masinile sunt rechemate de pe piata daca in 9 ANI GENEREAZA / sunt asociate cu 54 de decese si 2600 de rapoarte. Un vaccin nu este interzis daca in 2 ani genereaza / este asociat cu 60 de decese si peste 17.000 de rapoarte legate de efecte adverse. Citește în continuare

Evaluează asta: