capitalismo vaccinale
di Martina Marino Capitalismo vaccinale e dissenso sociale: l’iniziativa “Cultura Sospesa” – OP-ED – L’Antidiplomatico (lantidiplomatico.it)
Recent Posts
Jineolojy conference
Virtual – originally to take place in Bochum, Germany. I’ll talk the 18th at about 15 about “Capitalism, population and the role of women”. We kindly invite you to our online CONFERENCE “GENDER STUDIES MEETS JINEOLOJî II – NATURE, BODY AND GENDER: RE-ACTUALIZATIONS” ON FRIDAY […]
FAQ sui wireless di Arthur Firstenberg
| https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What is wireless technology? Wireless technology is any means of sending information or energy through space without wires. It includes:satellites, radar, radio, television, cell towers, cell phones, cordless phones, microwave ovenssmart meters, WiFi, Bluetooth, fitness trackers, smart watches, baby monitorswireless keyboards, mice, printers, headphones and speakers, wireless security systems, wireless car keys, wireless garage door openers, wireless battery chargers, remote controls, wireless microphonesRFID chips in credit cards and driver’s licenses, radio collars and chips in wildlife, cattle and pets, chips in home applianceswireless hearing aids, assistive listening devices, medical alert pendants, chips in medical implants, wireless pacemakersautonomous vehicles, drones, and robotsnumerous other radio-enabled devices that are proliferating in today’s world Every one of these devices, without exception, emits radiation. What’s wrong with wireless technology? By substituting radiation for wires, we are swimming in an ocean of artificial electromagnetic fields that are interfering with life itself. We are in effect electrocuting ourselves, our children, our pets, the insects, birds, animals, trees and plants around us and all of living creation. We are killing our planet. This is about long-term exposure, right? Cancer that takes years to develop? No. The effects are rapid. Heart rate changes immediately. Blood sugar rises in minutes. Having wireless devices on in your house interferes with your sleep and your memory. Using a cell phone destroys brain cells in minutes to hours, and can cause a stroke or a heart attack. Studies show that even cancer can develop within months of first exposure. When a cell tower is turned on, birds leave the area immediately. Insects disappear. Even slugs and snails vanish. Most of this takes no time at all. What types of radiation are used in wireless technology? All frequencies of radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, lasers, sound waves, even nuclear radiation. Most home devices use microwaves. Isn’t microwave radiation natural? Don’t microwaves come from the sun and stars? Almost all the radiation we receive from the universe is the light and heat from the sun, not microwave radiation. The microwave radiation a person receives from an average cell tower is millions of times stronger than all the microwave radiation from the sun and stars. The microwave radiation a person’s brain receives from their cell phone is billions of times stronger than the microwave radiation from the sun and stars. And at any particular frequency it is trillions of times stronger than the microwave radiation he or she receives from the sun and stars at that frequency. And the faint microwaves from the sun and stars are not pulsed and modulated. It is the pulsations and modulation that cause much of the harm. Aren’t light and microwaves both electromagnetic? Therefore isn’t microwave radiation safe? No. That is like saying arsenic is safe because oxygen and arsenic are both elements, or that cyanide is safe because water and cyanide are both chemicals. But oxygen and water are necessary for life, while arsenic and cyanide are deadly poisons. It is the same with electromagnetic radiation. Visible light is necessary for life. Microwave radiation is a deadly poison. Aren’t toxic chemicals more harmful than electromagnetic radiation? Electromagnetism is more complex and more fundamental than chemistry. Electromagnetism shapes the sun and stars. Electromagnetism animates life. Electromagnetism is behind chemistry. There is no “chemical force” in the universe. Outside of atomic nuclei, there is only gravity and electromagnetism. Electromagnetism guides everything we see, including ourselves. Chemistry is an effect, not a cause. Can’t we find safe frequencies? Won’t that solve the problem? That is looking at both wireless technology and life too simplistically. Most wireless technology has only one goal: to transmit information to computers, information of great complexity and variety. It is not simple, constant radiation of one amplitude and one frequency: such radiation would carry no information. Instead, it is multiple large frequency bands, each divided into hundreds, thousands, and millions of individual frequencies of all different bandwidths, overlapping and interacting, pulsed at an enormous variety of intervals, in an enormous variety of shapes, patterns and durations, all over the world. Even a single signal from a single device has a variety of amplitudes, frequencies and pulsations, and is modulated in complex ways in order to carry all the information needed to be read by a cell phone or computer. Life has to also carry an enormous, almost infinite complexity of information in its nervous systems and its meridians, and to store and process this information in its cells, organs and chakras, and in its DNA which is shared and circulated among trillions of individuals of 50 million different species, all connected to one another and to the earth, sky and universe in a grand circuit of energy and information. The artificial cloud of energy and information is interfering with, overpowering and destroying the natural, living circuitry of energy and information. It cannot be otherwise. What about LiFi? If light is safe, why not use light instead of microwaves? Light is a nutrient. We absorb it with our eyes, and into our blood. It is necessary for health. It regulates our biorhythms. Green plants need it for photosynthesis. We absorb more of the pulsations and modulation frequencies when they are carried into our bodies by light than when they are carried into our bodies by microwaves. LiFi is more harmful to life than WiFi. Cell phones are much smaller than cell towers. Doesn’t that mean they are safer? Doesn’t it mean the radiation does not travel as far? Cell phones and cell towers emit the same radiation; size has nothing to do with it. The main difference is that a cell tower emits as many signals simultaneously as there are cell phones communicating with it at that time, whereas a cell phone only emits one voice channel and one data channel. A cell tower therefore emits stronger radiation than a cell phone, but by the time it reaches your body, its radiation is much weaker than the radiation from a cell phone that you hold in your hand, near your body. And a cell phone emits signals that a cell tower does not: Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS and other signals. The radiation from a cell phone travels just as far as the radiation from a cell tower. The radiation from a cell phone will reach all people, animals, birds, insects and plants in line of sight with it, no matter how far away. It will reach a cell tower 90 miles away. It will reach a satellite 22,300 miles away. It will reach Mars 200 million miles away. With 15 billion mobile devices on the Earth, we are polluting not just our homes, our neighborhoods and our planet, but the entire solar system. My cell phone does not make me sick. Why should I stop using it? Your cell phone is damaging your health whether you are aware of it or not. It is damaging your blood-brain barrier — the barrier that keeps bacteria, viruses and toxic chemicals out of your brain tissue; the barrier that maintains the inside of your head at a constant pressure, preventing you from having a stroke. Since brain tissue has no pain receptors, plenty of damage can occur without pain. Instead, it will cause memory loss, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders and so forth. In rats, damage to the blood-brain barrier can be detected after just a two-minute exposure to a cell phone. After a two-hour exposure the damage is permanent. There is no reason for it to be different in humans. The radiation from your cell phone is also slowing your metabolism — your ability to digest sugars, fats and proteins. This causes either obesity or weight loss, depending on your genetic makeup. It also causes diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Wireless technology is the cause of more obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer than any other factor. The people who are aware of the damage in real time are the people who can feel it in their nervous system or their heart. That is maybe one-third of the population. It feels to them like they are being electrocuted. And they are, but so is everyone else. The few who have heard of such a thing call themselves “electrosensitive.” Those who have not heard of it think they are suffering from anxiety, or that they have a neurological or cardiac disorder. Isn’t a flip phone safer than a smartphone? Both are digital and both emit pulsed, modulated microwave radiation. And despite what many people think, flip phones can emit as much radiation, or more, than smartphones. But safety is not determined by power level. Damage to the blood-brain barrier is greatest at the lowest power level, at least in laboratory rats. The bandwidth is more important than power level. Smartphones use more bandwidth than flip phones. The bottom line is that cell phones have been killing people since they were invented. In each city in the United States where 2G “flip phone” service was turned on for the first time in 1996 or 1997, mortality rose immediately, on the day it was turned on in each city. And the overall health of the population was damaged permanently. At least ten thousand Americans died from the radiation within three months after 2G “flip phone” service was turned on in various cities in 1996 and 1997. Whether more people died from their new phones or from the new cell towers is impossible to know: the radiation comes from both. Isn’t a cell phone safe to use as long as you hold it away from your head? About 20 years ago someone started promoting the idea of the “near field plume” which was supposed to extend out six inches from a cell phone, and that if you held your phone more than six inches from your head, you were safe. That is a complete fiction. There is no such thing as a near field “plume.” It does not exist. The region very near to a source of radiation, where the electric field and the magnetic field are separate and complex, is called the near field. The space very far from the source, where the electric and magnetic fields are tied together and diminish with distance, is called the far field. The near and far fields blend into one another. There is no dividing line where one stops and the other begins. And it is certainly not true that the radiation stops at six inches. If that were true, the radiation would never reach a cell tower and the phone would not work. And if it were true of a cell phone, it would also be true of a cell tower, which emits the same radiation. Then a cell tower would be safe if you stood more than six inches away from one. How absurd! And your body is a conductor, so if you are holding the phone in your hand, no matter how far away from your head, the microwaves are conducted into your hand and throughout your body, and your arm is an extension of the phone and is part of the radiating antenna. If you put the phone on a table in front of you and do not hold it, then the microwaves are just irradiating you and not being conducted into you. But since for some types of harm, for example damage to the blood-brain barrier, the damage increases with distance, that does not protect you either. If the radiation levels from cell phones and cell towers were reduced, wouldn’t that make them safe? No. It is the informational content, not power level, that causes the harm. A cell phone exposes the brain to microwave radiation at roughly 10 milliwatts per square centimeter. At power levels one trillion times lower than that, microwave radiation has been shown to affect ovulation, the immune system, plant growth, human brain waves, and the structure of DNA. Don’t we need more studies before we know if microwaves are dangerous? No. We already had 10,000 studies by 1980. Today we have at least 30,000 studies. There are more studies showing harm from microwaves and radio frequency radiation than from any other pollutants except tobacco smoke and mercury. How long has this been going on? How long have we known that wireless technology is harmful? For as long as wireless technology has been around. At Marconi’s first public demonstration of radio in Salisbury Plain in 1896, spectators described various nerve sensations they experienced. When Marconi turned on the first French radio station in Wimereux, one man who lived nearby “burst in with a revolver” because the waves were causing him sharp internal pains. On the evening of January 22, 1901, when Marconi fired up a new, more powerful transmitter on the Isle of Wight, Queen Victoria, in residence on the island, had a stroke and died. Within a few years, 90 percent of the bees on the island had disappeared. Marconi himself suffered from recurring fevers from the time he began experimenting with radio and for the rest of his life. He suffered nine heart attacks, the last one killing him at age 63. Even prior to Marconi, in the early 1890s, Jacques-Arsène d’Arsonval published the results of experiments on humans and animals showing that high frequencies affect blood pressure and profoundly alter metabolism. Do telecommunications company officials know their products are harmful? Are they doing this to us deliberately? They all use cell phones like the rest of the world and are as much in denial about them as everyone else. The denial, which runs deep in society, goes back to the beginning of the development of electricity in the 1700s. I keep my phone off except in emergencies. Doesn’t that protect me and others? A cell phone leaks radiation from all of its resonant circuitry, even if it is turned off, as long as the battery is in it. So does a modem or router that has WiFi, as long as it is plugged in. I have measured radiation coming out of modems in which the WiFi was disabled. I can always tell when someone is carrying a cell phone because I can feel the radiation, even if it is turned off and hidden in their pocket, even from across a room. I have never been wrong. For whatever reason you have a cell phone — any kind of cell phone — all of the world’s cell towers have to be there in order for it to work when you want it to. No matter how rarely you use the phone, all the cell towers have to be there. If you use it “only in emergencies,” that is even worse, because you are likely to be using it in remote places where there are no cell towers and service is not good. Every call you make from a location where there are no towers is recorded as a request for service, and your provider will eventually put up a cell tower there in response to those calls. When I am at home I use my cell phone connected by an ethernet cord to a modem. Doesn’t that protect me? It does not protect you because it is still emitting radiation. It does not protect others because when you are not at home you need all the cell towers to be there and you are irradiating everyone around you simply by carrying the phone around. There are no landlines available where I live. I need my cell phone. Unless people get rid of their cell phones, there will soon be no landlines left anywhere. The existence of landlines depends on demand. The existence of cell phones depends on demand. No one is doing this to us. We are doing it to ourselves. Is fiber the solution? Fiber enables 5G. 5G antennas are connected to each other and to the Internet by fiber optic cables. Wireless companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars laying fiber all over the world for 5G. When a fiber company or a city lays fiber optic cables, wireless companies pay for the right to use it. After the fiber is laid, they stick antennas into it and broadcast 5G. How is 5G different from 4G? 5G can use much higher frequencies (millimeter waves). But the biggest difference is that 5G towers and 5G mobile devices aim narrowly focused beams at each other instead of sending the radiation in all directions. If you are holding a 5G phone in your hand, the nearest 5G tower is tracking you and aiming a beam of radiation directly at your body. This is called phased array technology and it results in greater penetration of the radiation into your body, even at millimeter wave frequencies, than previous wireless technologies. 5G towers also send radiation in all directions because they are constantly scanning the environment looking for devices to connect with. Is 5G a weapon? No. 5G can use millimeter waves. There are also crowd-control weapons that use millimeter waves. But the weapons are a thousand times more powerful and they are not modulated and carry no information. They are different technologies that were developed by different people for different purposes. Are there devices that can protect us from these frequencies? There are many companies today that prey on the gullibility of people who are desperate to protect themselves from an assault that is coming from everywhere. They sell “protective” chips to put on your cell phone or computer, pendants and bracelets that will “neutralize” or “harmonize” the radiation, devices to plug into your wall that will “protect” an area hundreds or thousands of square feet around your house. Some advertise that they are “quantum” devices, or are based on “scalar” technology or “torsion” fields, which are sexy words that sound scientific but mean nothing. You cannot “neutralize” or “harmonize” radiation. These devices, without exception, are ineffective and most will harm you. Many of these devices emit a 7.83 Hz signal which is supposed to duplicate the first Schumann resonance of the Earth. These are point sources that cannot duplicate a natural frequency that bathes us from all sides. They make some people feel good for a couple of weeks, and they can be addictive, just like the frequencies from a cell phone or computer can be addictive, but they will harm you. What are the alternatives? The alternative is wires. Wired phones. Wired computers. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, wires are what we had before wireless and are superior in every way. Wires carry the same voices, but clearer. The same information, but more securely. And the information is contained in the wires, instead of being broadcast all over the earth in a cloud of radiation. Wireless is convenient, but for the sake of convenience we are killing ourselves in real time and destroying our planet. |
| Recommended reading:The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life Especially: Chapter 8, “Mystery on the Isle of Wight” Chapter 9, “Earth’s Electric Envelope” Chapter 11, “Irritable Heart” Chapter 12, “The Transformation of Diabetes” Chapter 13, “Cancer and the Starvation of Life” Chapter 16, “Bees, Birds, Trees, and Humans” |
15 febbraio: reagiamo con la lotta sui posti di lavoro e fuori!
Appello allo sciopero e alla mobilitazione per il 15 febbraio. Scaricalo in formato volantino: Appello per 15 febbraio def Con l’entrata in vigore a inizio mese dell’obbligo vaccinale per gli over 50, dal 15 febbraio i lavoratori che non accetteranno di piegarsi alla vaccinazione e ai […]
solidarietà agli studenti torinesi
Contro la repressione degli studenti no green pass al rettorato di Torino! – il Rovescio
Proposta dell’Assemblea Militante
Per un’opposizione di classe alla gestione autoritaria della pandemia https://www.sinistrainrete.info/sinistra-radicale/21962-assemblea-militante-per-un-opposizione-di-classe-alla-gestione-autoritaria-della-pandemia.html pubblicata anche su Il Rovescio: Microsoft Word – pandemia30dicembre2021.doc (ilrovescio.info) Ho personalmente aderito all’Assemblea Militante
Parere del CIEB sulla correlazione tra la disciplina della “vigile attesa e tachipirina” e la procedura d’immissione in commercio dei cosiddetti vaccini anti-Covid, nonché sulla violazione del principio del consenso libero e informato nell’ambito della campagna vaccinale
V Parere del Comitato Internazionale per l’Etica della Biomedicina (CIEB) http://www.danieladanna.it/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/V-Parere-CIEB.pdf
COMUNICAZIONE PANDEMICA
IL COMITATO INTERNAZIONALE PER L’ETICA DELLA BIOMEDICINA (CIEB) RILEVA CONFLITTO TRA DOVERI DEI GIORNALISTI E CONTRIBUTI STRAORDINARI EROGATI DAL GOVERNO
Il Comitato Internazionale per l’Etica della Biomedicina (CIEB) ha adottato oggi il Parere sull’eticità e la trasparenza della comunicazione scientifico-sanitaria e sui doveri del giornalista nel quadro dell’emergenza Covid.
http://www.danieladanna.it/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/IV-Parere-CIEB-con-Abstract.pdf
sulla pericolosità dei “vaccini”
Due articoli scientifici US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity” J. Bart Classen, MD Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA […]
Military Being Deployed to Reinstitute Disastrous Covid-19 Government Protocols, History Repeating
Un documentato blog che denuncia le politiche in corso globalmente, affermando che il virus non è mai stato isolato, le autopsie ai morti Covid-19 rivelano altre malattie, per lo più batteriche, i tamponi sono inutili alla diagnosi (questo lo si sa da tempo), e documenta […]
La somministrazione di terapie geniche a fini di sperimentazione scientifica
Parere adottato dal Comitato Internazionale per l’Etica della Biomedicina (CIEB) il 5 gennaio 2022. Con il presente Parere il CIEB intende ribadire le criticità bioetiche e biogiuridiche concernenti la cosiddetta vaccinazione anti-Covid, alla luce delle notizie che danno per imminente la decisione del Governo italiano […]
A tutte le donne del mondo
da https://lematriarcali.wordpress.com/iniziative/nato-di-donna1/ Il primo marchio di un certo successo del desiderio maschile di avere un ruolo principale nella riproduzione degli esseri umani è forse il sacramento del battesimo, che sanciva chi poteva entrare o meno nel regno dei cieli, escludendo di fatto una grossa fetta […]
Parere del CIEB dedicato alle condizioni di eticità della partecipazione del personale medico e sperimentatore alla somministrazione del vaccino anti-Covid
VACCINO: IL COMITATO INTERNAZIONALE PER L’ETICA DELLA BIOMEDICINA CHIARISCE LE REGOLE ETICHE CHE IL GOVERNO, LE STRUTTURE SANITARIE E I MEDICI VACCINATORI DOVREBBERO SEGUIRE
Il Comitato Internazionale per l’Etica della Biomedicina (CIEB) ha adottato oggi il Parere dedicato alle condizioni di eticità della partecipazione dei medici e sperimentatori alla somministrazione del vaccino anti-Covid.
Il Parere ribadisce l’esistenza di una serie di principi e di norme di natura bioetica e biogiuridica che devono guidare l’azione del medico/sperimentatore in ogni intervento di natura medica e biomedica, quali i principi del consenso informato, di precauzione, di beneficenza, di non maleficenza e di equo accesso alle cure sanitarie.
Il Parere, pertanto, raccomanda al Governo, agli atenei, agli enti di ricerca e alle strutture sanitarie di sollecitare il personale medico e sperimentatore alla conoscenza e all’osservanza dei principi e delle norme richiamati nel Parere medesimo, anche a tutela del personale medesimo in vista del contenzioso che la campagna vaccinale inevitabilmente dischiuderà.
Il Parere del CIEB, infine, invita il Governo a recedere dalla sua politica volta a estendere l’obbligo vaccinale a categorie mirate di lavoratori, costringendo surrettiziamente alla vaccinazione porzioni ancor più ampie di cittadini, nonché a promuovere finalmente un dibattito pubblico trasparente e obiettivo in merito ai rischi e all’efficacia del cosiddetto “vaccino” anti-Covid.
Il CIEB è costituito da un gruppo di docenti universitari di diverse discipline e nazionalità allo scopo di riportare i valori e i principi cui si ispira la riflessione bioetica al centro della gestione politica del Covid.
* * *
TESTO INTEGRALE
Comitato Internazionale per l’Etica della Biomedicina (CIEB)
Parere sull’eticità della partecipazione del personale medico e sperimentatore alla somministrazione del vaccino anti-Covid
Con il Parere sull’obbligatorietà del vaccino anti-Covid, reso d’iniziativa il 20 dicembre 2021, il CIEB ha richiamato l’attenzione dell’opinione pubblica sul fatto che l’immissione in commercio del cosiddetto “vaccino” anti-Covid è avvenuta secondo una procedura «condizionata», applicabile in via accelerata o d’urgenza esclusivamente ai «medicinali» per i quali «non siano stati forniti dati clinici completi in merito alla sicurezza e all’efficacia» (art. 3, n. 1, del regolamento della Commissione europea n. 507/2006 del 29 marzo 2006).
Questa evidenza normativa dimostra, al di là di qualsivoglia dibattito sui dati scientifici rilevanti, la natura sperimentale del “vaccino” anti-Covid e la finalità sperimentale della campagna vaccinale in atto, nella misura in cui i soggetti riceventi vengono esposti a un rischio ignoto per la salute.
Poiché il “vaccino” in questione è un medicinale sperimentale, è evidente che il suo impiego deve avvenire conformemente ai principi e alle norme che costituiscono l’acquis etico-giuridico consolidatosi a partire dal secondo dopoguerra nel campo della biologia e della medicina. Alla formazione di tale acquis ha contribuito la stessa comunità scientifica, mediante dibattiti e confronti interdisciplinari che hanno condotto, tra l’altro, alla proposta di specifiche moratorie, come quella sull’uso del DNA ricombinante discussa nel 1975 dalla Conferenza di Asilomar. Oggi tale acquis costituisce la fonte cui si ispirano gli ordinamenti degli Stati liberali e democratici, il Patto internazionale relativo ai diritti civili e politici del 1966, il corpus normativo costituito dalla Convenzione per la protezione dei diritti dell’uomo e della dignità dell’essere umano nei confronti delle applicazioni della biologia e della medicina, firmata a Oviedo nel 1997, e dai suoi Protocolli addizionali, nonché alcuni strumenti declaratori di portata universale, quali la Dichiarazione universale sul genoma umano e i diritti dell’uomo adottata dalla Conferenza generale dell’UNESCO l’11 novembre 1997 e la Dichiarazione universale sulla bioetica e i diritti dell’uomo adottata dalla Conferenza generale dell’UNESCO il 19 ottobre 2005.
I principi e le norme in parola sono volti a salvaguardare i diritti e le libertà fondamentali dell’uomo nei confronti delle applicazioni della biomedicina, con particolare riferimento all’esigenza di proteggere i soggetti che partecipano ad attività sperimentali dai rischi collegati o conseguenti allo svolgimento delle attività in questione. Rilevano, in modo specifico, il principio del primato dell’essere umano sugli interessi della scienza e della società, nonché i principi di precauzione, di beneficenza, di non maleficenza e di equo accesso alle cure mediche.
Nella prospettiva indicata assume speciale rilevanza il dovere del medico/sperimentatore di rispettare gli obblighi professionali ispirati al rigore, alla prudenza, alla professionalità, all’onestà intellettuale e all’integrità morale non solo nella trasparenza delle decisioni adottate e nell’utilizzo delle migliori conoscenze disponibili, ma anche nella presentazione dei risultati scientifici conseguiti (art. 4 della Convenzione di Oviedo, art. 13 della Dichiarazione universale dell’UNESCO del 1997, art. 18 della Dichiarazione universale dell’UNESCO del 2005).
Il rispetto di tali obblighi professionali – che si traduce prioritariamente nella dichiarazione di eventuali conflitti d’interesse del medico/sperimentatore – è indispensabile al fine di assicurare la salvaguardia di un altro principio generale: il principio del consenso informato. Secondo tale principio, infatti, un intervento di natura medica e biomedica può avvenire solo quando le persone interessate siano state previamente informate dal medico/sperimentatore in merito, tra l’altro, ai rischi dell’intervento in questione, rischi di cui il medico/sperimentatore deve avere, evidentemente, specifica conoscenza (art. 7 del Patto internazionale del 1966, art. 5 della Convenzione di Oviedo, art. 5 della Dichiarazione universale dell’UNESCO del 1997, art. 6 della Dichiarazione universale dell’UNESCO del 2005).
Precipua rilevanza assume anche l’esigenza di promuovere periodicamente, in questa materia, un dibattito pubblico interdisciplinare, pluralista e fondato, che coinvolga i soggetti direttamente interessati e la società nel suo insieme, al fine di permettere la libera espressione di tutte le opinioni pertinenti, comprese quelle minoritarie (art. 28 della Convenzione di Oviedo, art. 21 della Dichiarazione universale dell’UNESCO del 1997, art. 18 della Dichiarazione universale dell’UNESCO del 2005).
A corollario dei principi generali finora richiamati sono poste le norme che riconoscono ai soggetti ingiustamente danneggiati da un intervento di natura medica e biomedica il diritto di ottenere l’equo risarcimento dei danni sofferti, secondo la legislazione applicabile (art. 24 della Convenzione di Oviedo, art. 8 della Dichiarazione universale dell’UNESCO del 1997).
Sulla scorta di queste considerazioni, e riprendendo le conclusioni del Parere del 20 dicembre 2021, il CIEB ribadisce anzitutto l’esigenza che il Governo promuova, anche attraverso i media, un dibattito pubblico trasparente e obiettivo in merito ai rischi e all’efficacia del cosiddetto “vaccino” anti-Covid. Il CIEB, inoltre, ribadisce l’esigenza che il Governo receda dalla sua politica volta a estendere l’obbligo vaccinale a categorie mirate di lavoratori, costringendo surrettiziamente alla vaccinazione porzioni ancor più ampie di cittadini.
Con specifico riferimento alle condizioni di eticità della partecipazione del personalemedico/sperimentatore alla somministrazione del vaccino anti-Covid, il CIEB raccomanda al Governo, agli atenei, agli enti di ricerca e alle strutture sanitarie di sollecitare il personale in questione alla conoscenza e all’osservanza dei principi e delle norme richiamati nel presente Parere, anche a tutela del personale medesimo in vista del contenzioso che la campagna vaccinale inevitabilmente dischiuderà.
Roma-Parigi, 27 dicembre 2021
Il testo originale del Parere è pubblicato sul sito: www.ecsel.org/cieb
Primo parere del Comitato internazionale per l’etica della biomedicina
A proposito di obbligatorietà del vaccino per una malattia curabile, che uccide quasi solo anziani con patologie multiple
Lettera al Rettore e ai docenti di Unisalento
Ecco la lettera inviata da un gruppo di studenti e docenti al rettore e al corpo accademico, seguita da un commento dello studente Marco Zuccaro alle inqualificabili risposte ricevute da colleghi che credono di vivere in un talk show – oppure in un’università-caserma, nel qual caso avrebbero ragione
articoli utili
Interessantissimi anche i commenti: https://www.sinistrainrete.info/societa/21185-nicola-casale-ancora-sulla-maledizione-pandemica-che-ha-colpito-la-sinistra-di-classe-i.html https://www.sinistrainrete.info/articoli-brevi/21193-andrea-zhok-incubo-orwelliano.html https://www.sinistrainrete.info/articoli-brevi/21702-sonia-bibbolino-lettera-ai-compagni.html (sottoscrivo pienamente, dopo le reazioni censorie e insultanti della maggior parte dei “compagni” di Sociologia di posizione e Sociologia pubblica alle mie considerazioni sullo stato di emergenza pseudosanitaria!) Il Covid lungo dei banchieri centrali | La Fionda Sono […]
