Recent Italian Court Decisions on Vaccines and Autism
By Mary S. Holland
Milan: 2014
On September 23, 2014, an Italian court in Milan award compensation to a boy for vaccine-induced autism. (See the Italian document here.) A childhood vaccine against six childhood diseases caused the boy’s permanent autism and brain damage. While the Italian press has devoted considerable attention to this decision and its public health implications, the U.S. press has been silent.
Like the U.S., Italy has a national vaccine injury compensation program to give some financial support to those people who are injured by compulsory and recommended vaccinations. The Italian infant plaintiff received three doses of GlaxoSmithKline’s Infanrix Hexa, a hexavalent vaccine administered in the first year of life. These doses occurred from March to October 2006. The vaccine is to protect children from polio, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, pertussis and Haemophilus influenza type B. In addition to these antigens, however, the vaccine then contained thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative, aluminum, an adjuvant, as well as other toxic ingredients. The child regressed into autism shortly after receiving the three doses. When the parents presented their claim for compensation first to the Ministry of Health, as they were required to do, the Ministry rejected it. Therefore, the family sued the Ministry in a court of general jurisdiction, an option which does not exist in the same form in the U.S.
Based on expert medical testimony, the court concluded that the child more likely than not suffered autism and brain damage because of the neurotoxic mercury, aluminum and his particular susceptibility from a genetic mutation. The Court also noted that Infanrix Hexa contained thimerosal, now banned in Italy because of its neurotoxicity, “in concentrations greatly exceeding the maximum recommended levels for infants weighing only a few kilograms.”
Presiding Judge Nicola Di Leo considered another piece of damning evidence: a 1271-page confidential GlaxoSmithKline report (now available on the Internet). This industry document provided ample evidence of adverse events from the vaccine, including five known cases of autism resulting from the vaccine’s administration during its clinical trials (see table at page 626, excerpt below).
As in many other developed countries, government, not industry, compensates families in the event of vaccine injury. Thus GSK’s apparent lack of concern for the vaccine’s adverse effects is notable and perhaps not surprising. In the final assessment, the report states that “[t]he benefit/risk profile of Infanrix hexa continues to be favourable,” despite GSK’s acknowledgement that the vaccine causes side effects including “anaemia haemolytic autoimmune,thrombocytopenia, thrombocytopenic purpura, autoimmune thrombocytopenia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, haemolytic anemia, cyanosis, injection site nodule, abcess and injection site abscess, Kawasaki’s disease, important neurological events (including encephalitis and encephalopathy), Henoch-Schonlein purpura, petechiae, purpura, haematochezia, allergic reactions (including anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions),” and death (see page 9).
The Milan decision is sober, informed and well-reasoned. The Ministry of Health has stated that it has appealed the Court’s decision, but that appeal will likely take several years, and its outcome is uncertain.
Rimini: 2012
Two years earlier, on May 23, 2012, Judge Lucio Ardigo of an Italian court in Rimini presided over a similar judgment, finding that a different vaccine, the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine (MMR), had caused a child’s autism. (See: Italian MMR Remini decision 2012) As in the Milan case, the Ministry of Health’s compensation program had denied compensation to the family, yet after a presentation of medical evidence, a court granted compensation. There, too, the Italian press covered the story; the U.S. press did not.
In that case, a 15-month old boy received his MMR vaccine on March 26, 2004. He then immediately developed bowel and eating problems and received an autism diagnosis with cognitive delay within a year. The court found that the boy had “been damaged by irreversible complications due to vaccination (with trivalent MMR).” The decision flew in the face of the conventional mainstream medical wisdom that an MMR-autism link has been “debunked.”
***
Both these Italian court decisions break new ground in the roiling debate over vaccines and autism. These courts, like all courts, are intended to function as impartial, unbiased decision makers. The courts’ decisions are striking because they not only find a vaccine-autism causal link, but they also overrule the decisions of Italy’s Ministry of Health. And taken together, the court decisions found that both the MMR and a hexavalent thimerosal- and aluminum-containing vaccine can trigger autism.
These court decisions flatly contradict the decisions from the so-called U.S. vaccine court, the Court of Federal Claim’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. There, from 2007 to 2010, in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, three decision makers, called Special Masters, found that vaccines did not cause autism in any of the six test cases, and one Special Master even went so far as to compare the theory of vaccine-induced autism to Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. The Italian court decisions contrast starkly with these U.S. cases based on similar claims.
How do we reconcile the difference between the U.S. and Italian decisions in similar cases? What’s different about Italy? Well, there may be many differences, but a critical one is that in the U.S., if someone loses in the government vaccine injury compensation program, she cannot sue the government in civil court; she can sue only the manufacturer. In the U.S., her family would have to shoulder legal fees in a David and Goliath mismatch, pitting a global pharmaceutical behemoth against a family likely already suffering financially from serious health costs.
Furthermore, since 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court has foreclosed potential cases and class action lawsuits to contest unreasonably dangerous vaccine designs, such as the use of thimerosal as a preservative or the simultaneous administration of multiple live viruses, such as the MMR. Since the Supreme Court’s 2011 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth decision, no court in the U.S. can entertain vaccine design defect claims, the most likely legal actions to aggregate plaintiffs in similar circumstances against large, pharmaceutical defendants.
Unlike American victims of vaccine injury, the Italian plaintiffs didn’t have to sue GSK; they sued the Ministry of Health. In both the Milan and Rimini decisions, the plaintiffs won compensation based on findings that vaccines caused autism. One might say that these cases achieved nothing more than a small payout for injured children. But arguably the families, lawyers and medical experts behind these cases achieved far more. They took the issue of vaccine-induced autism to impartial courts, and they got clear a clear judicial answer based on the evidence: vaccines cause autism.
Are court decisions science? Of course not. There is a desperate need for more science on autism and the role that vaccines play, flimsy industry, medical and government retorts to the contrary notwithstanding. But in the current absence of the necessary science on vaccines and autism, decisions of impartial judicial tribunals, based on extensive evidence and testimony, may be some of the best sources of information and insight we have.
Mary S. Holland is a Research Scholar at the NYU School of Law and chairs the advisory board of the non-profit organization Health Choice.
THANK-YOU! Now, in 2023, as relevant as ever....
Posted by: Bill Bradford | January 31, 2023 at 12:44 PM
Dude,
I believe the Rimini decision was over-turned.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/03/italian-court-reverses-vaccine-autism-decision.html
Posted by: John Stone | October 15, 2017 at 10:10 AM
I keep thinking that I read somewhere that recently the Italian courts ruled a different way on this. It coincided with the Italian push for forced vaccination. Am I wrong? Please answer.
Posted by: Dude | October 15, 2017 at 09:12 AM
I FULLY AGREE THAT VACCINES CAN AND OFTEN DO CAUSE MUCH MORE SERIOUS EFFECTS THAN THE DISEASE THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO PREVENT. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT CERTAIN VACIENES, ADMINISTERED TO SOME PEOPLE, DO RESULT IN EXTREMELY SERIOUS CONDITIONS, SUCH AS GUILLAIN BARRE SYNDROME AS AN ADVERSE REACTION TO FLU VACCINE WHICH MY SON CONTRACTED LAST NOVEMBER, 2016.
IN ANY EVENT, THE NATIONAL VACCINE INJURY PROGRAM , FUELED BY BIG PHARMA, IN AN IMMENSE EFFORT TO LIMIT MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY, ALSO LIMITS WHAT A PERSON SUCH AS MY SON COULD RECEIVE IN COMPENSATION. I AM NOW INTERESTED IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE FEDERAL LAW MIGHT ALSO PREVENT OR LIMIT HIS OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO SEEK COMPENSATION VIA A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM IN A CIVIL COURT, WHERE A DOCTOR FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE SYMPTOMS WHEN MY SON FIRST VISITED HIM, AND THE DELAY IN OBTAINING A PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT CAUSED A MORE SEVERE REACTION TO THE GBX.
Posted by: LIONEL | April 13, 2017 at 10:17 PM
Thank you so much for all of this useful information. I really appreciate everyone who speaks out in truth regarding this important issue.
Personally, the major reason why I don't vaccinate my children is to completely eliminate the possibility I will have to kill someone with my bare hands. Because that is what my first instinct would be (and my instincts are very, very strong) upon learning MY child was killed or maimed by the actions of another person, group of people, organization or company, for profit.
They know it kills or seriously maims 6%+ of the population exposed to their cocktails, administered without much thought, testing or consideration by a bunch of medical robots. With all the money they make and the resources they control, pharmaceutical companies should be pouring billions into RESEARCH FOR SAFER VACCINES, TRAINING/PROCEDURES TO ESTABLISH PROPER DOSAGE AND APPLICATION, DEVELOPMENT OF PRE-VACCINATION TESTING and EVALUATION TO DETERMINE RISK TO CUSTOMERS BEFORE APPLICATION, instead of funding smear campaigns, information distortion and suppression.
God help us.
Posted by: Karin Hauenstein | March 24, 2016 at 03:50 AM
Should the World Health Organization should make greater effort in the relationship of these vaccines and autism
Posted by: Mark Sin | October 17, 2015 at 09:37 AM
This applies to the forced fluoridation disgrace also:-
Australian Government is a Tyrannical Government even becoming worse than the USA.
If a mad with power and control Government over the population is allowed to continue - they will NEVER be stopped with anything else - a tyrannical Australian Government even stopped our health rights freedoms and our individual rights to informed consent to treatment and our individual rights to refuse treatment - it does not get much worse than this people - the bastards all through Australian politics are all the same - a threat to us all in every respect.
SAY NO TO GOVERNMENT / MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
FORCED VACCINATIONS / EXTORTION / BLACKMAIL /RANSOM
GUNPOINT MEDICINE PLAYING VACCINATION RUSSIAN ROULETTE
SIGN PETITION TO PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM IN AUSTRALIA WHICH IS FAST BECOMING A TYRANNICAL DICTATORSHIP
If anyone is foolish enough to trust the American Government and our Australian Government with this you are sheep to the slaughter - all evidence of harm has always been covered up and a compliant controlled media is the government's and big pharma's mouthpiece - the Australian media have sock puppets not investigative journalists.
GO TO THIS POLL AND VOTE NO http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/polls/
or you will have sealed the fate of more of our population to not only have differing levels of vaccine induced brain injury and our rights and health rights choices and our rights to choose what medical treatment we have will be under the control of the government and their interests. Political donations control governments and 'agendas'.
You would know the high levels of corruption in American government and the ICAC investigates the high levels of corruption polluting Australian politics.
The reason more are refusing vaccinations is because they are independently researching and finding out exactly what is in them and the damage on different levels being done to 'brains'.
GUNPOINT MEDICINE is not okay in any country.
remember to also sign petition
https://www.change.org/p/minister-scott-morrison-don-t-punish-parents-for-making-an-informed-choice-about-their-children-s-health-all-parents-deserve-to-make-an-uncoerced-choice?
We call on all Australians who have done their own research and found that vaccinations are anything but safe and effective and calling on those who haven't done their own research to sign also because we have done the research for you and we have no political agenda or 'conflicts of interests’.
There is nothing funny about toxic, neurotoxic and carcinogenic 'ingredients' being injected into us and especially our babies. There are many who are suffering brain damaging vaccination injury and countless who have died from such vaccine brain injury. Medical ethics must always honour an Individual Rights to Informed Consent to Treatment and individual rights to Refuse Treatment - also the 'herd immunity' theory is based on flawed theory and I personally know people who were vaccinated against whooping cough and got shocking dose of it. INDIVIDUAL rights to informed consent to treatment and individual rights to refuse treatment. So many people are ignorant and clueless about the dangerous neurotoxins (and carcinogens) contained in vaccines of this ma$$ive billion dollar indu$try. WAKE UP PEOPLE - THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND THEIR INTERESTS CANNOT BE TRUSTED - VACCINATIONS ARE NOT SAFE AND NOT EFFECTIVE AND MUST NOT BE FORCED ON ANYONE OR WELFARE PAYMENTS STOPPED IF PARENTS REFUSE TO 'PLAY VACCINATION RUSSIAN ROULETTE'.
Posted by: Diane Drayton Buckland | April 14, 2015 at 11:41 PM
Thank you John for this update.
Posted by: Danchi | March 04, 2015 at 05:03 PM
The Rimini case has been overturned in the Bologna appeal court. However, the family intend to appeal to the supreme court (provisional translation):
"However, Luca Ventaloro, lawyer of the Romagna couple does not seem particularly impressed by the judgment. "The consultant to the court has only given superficial evidence, not connected to the latest studies", he says. "We will make use of them in the Supreme Court." The lawyer has prosecuted dozens of civil cases on vaccine damage (arguing that they have caused cases of epilepsy, diabetes, encephalitis, heart disease), of which ten relate to autism. He claims to be in contact with Wakefield. "The majority lose them but in recent years the trend is reversing. I win on appeal and often in the first degree, but I cannot say anymore or the ministry will challenge me."
http://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina/2015/03/01/news/autismo_i_giudici_assolvono_il_vaccino-108441541/
Posted by: John Stone | March 02, 2015 at 10:32 AM
Thank you so much to Mary and all you for your hard work and love of the truth.
My son is 20 now. Very intelligent, loving boy due to 1000s of hours of various therapies. Which thankfully worked pretty well in his case. Not all are so fortunate. He's a college student. Best friend also has Autism (Aspergers).
What I'm looking for is an attorney who would like to take this on. We filed in the vaccine court many years ago but Matt timed out before he could be heard.
Basically I want to sue in which ever court you deem best state, federal or Mickey mouse! Make it a class action ok. Treason sounds fabulous. Who ever you think best Pharma, CDC...
I just decided to yesterday, saw that guy from the NIH slandering Dr Wakefield again (without mentioning his name) on the BBC. I want to burn their house of lies down.
Let me know if anyone interested in the case or if there's one already in motion.
Posted by: Sara Jane Millard | February 25, 2015 at 06:22 AM
Since the majority of decease are VIRUS's, colloidal silver stops all virus's before they can cause harm to your body if taken on a regular basis. I have taken it almost daily in small amounts since 1995 and have not been sick once since I started using it. Today is 02-21- 2015. I have not turned blue or had any side affects, my blood work comes back perfect every year from the doctor and I am healthy and 64 years old. I make my own with a generator I made.
Posted by: Greg Baugher | February 21, 2015 at 08:09 PM
I like to see all sides of things, but I'm of two minds about this. I don't trust drug companies, but we also don't need the return of measles, polio, and black plague. One idiotic practice is to immunize against Six different things at once, especially in children, who do not have strong immune systems. The immune system is only so resilient and hitting it with six attacks at once is just stupid.
I recall getting sick from all-at-once immunization in the military, but never got sick from single immunizations. This is sheer laziness on the part of doctors and greed on the part of drug companies - since one delivery system is a lot cheaper than six.
This is also a rare event due to susceptibility - which should be diagnosed before administration. Once again, physician laziness. Some people are allergic to various antibiotics, and doctors have killed patients by their thoughtless broad-spectrum administration, without testing, or at least asking questions.
Also, there is no longer any reason to include thimerosol in drugs, as a preservative. There are other options.
As with all things, it's complicated. However, since idiots can't understand complications, it may be best to not mention such things to the dumber, since they'll take a total black-and-white approach. (I am assuming most readers here are not idiots ;')
Posted by: Jim Mooney | February 10, 2015 at 09:53 PM
Compulsory vaccines is the ultimate violation of personhood... not to mention our basic, fundamental human rights. It WILL lead to horrific suicidal violence directed at those that promote such $talinist ideas.
Posted by: RICHARD RALPH ROEHL | February 10, 2015 at 03:46 PM
Autism is caused by contaminated vaccines proven by SCPI founder, President, Chief Scientist Dr Theresa A Deisher PhD. Reference 2014 study titled"Impact of environmental factors on the prevalence of autistic disorder after 1979" published in the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology. Reference link http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JPHE/article-abstract/C98151247042. Follow link to SCPI website http://SoundChoice.org to newsletters that detail fraud at CDC, and a new video on Adult Stem Cell research. Reference link http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.org/theresa-deisher-phd-adult-st .
Posted by: William Hewitt | January 13, 2015 at 08:41 PM
Posted by: Twyla | January 11, 2015 at 11:39 PM
Jak:
Children were suffering encephalopathy following vaccination long before Dr. Wakefield's paper. Many of these children also have autism and were compensated in the NVICP, going back to 1988.
Stop blaming Dr. Wakefield having the courage to speak out and accept responsibility for the damage inflicted by your drugs.
Posted by: Louis Conte | January 11, 2015 at 08:30 PM
Hi Jak (as one might say)
So you people have been caught out.
No, it is not a question of ignorance but of knowledge and the multiple frauds against Wakefield have been meticulously documented in these columns. For instance, only three days ago:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/01/brian-deer-remains-mute.html
+ a few of many others
http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/05/the-dismal-return-of-brian-deer.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/leveson-inquiry-submission.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/02/hacked-off-boss-martin-moore-sat-on-uk-government-panel-with-editor-who-hired-brian-deer-.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/01/sir-crispin-davis-and-james-murdoch-no-longer-on-gsk-board.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/12/bbc-trustees-stand-by-groundless-insinuations-against-andrew-wakefield-in-.html
But the real inditement of the vaccine program is the testimony of thousand families marginalised by big government and the bought out mainstream media. The contribution of the Santa Clara bot project may be minute (perhaps even a bit of a fantasy) but shabby (and ignorant). Perhaps you ought to go back to slaying vampires in a Hollywood B movie.
Posted by: John Stone | January 11, 2015 at 04:14 AM
The ignorance of people such as John Stone is truly frightening. It's that kind of scientific stupidity that's pushing us backwards, and leading to real medical harm but I'm not expecting much from a group of people that believe a myth started by a fraudster except embarrassment.
Posted by: Jak Crow | January 11, 2015 at 02:33 AM
I am researching the fraud and corruption in the telecommunications industry.Cellphone companies believe they are invincible,because of a 1996 law,whereby they believe they cannot be sued.Here is the interesting bit.In 2012,an Italian court allowed expert witnesses to testify on behalf of the plaintiff.He sued because he got brain cancer from his cellphone.The Italian judge ruled in his favor,and gave more credence to the independent research used as evidence than to the defense's statements.This was a benchmark case,opening the door for many more cases to follow.In 2014,for the first time ever,in the USA,an American judge has allowed expert witnesses to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs,who are suing,claiming that their brain cancer were caused by cell phones.The judge has allowed this case to go to trial.Please read the following links and the statements made by the judge.This case is ongoing now in 2015.You will see the legal similarities with autism. With this landmark ruling the cases are moving forward to fact discovery.”http://www.emfacts.com/2014/08/major-breakthrough-in-cellphone-industry-product-liability-lawsuit-in-usa/
Defendants are Motorola Inc. Qualcomm Inc. Nokia Inc. Audiovox Communications Corp. Samsung Telecomm American LLC.http://www.emfacts.com/2014/08/major-breakthrough-in-cellphone-industry-product-liability-lawsuit-in-usa/
Each of the plaintiffs suffers from a brain tumor or is suing for a family of someone who died of brain cancer.http://www.emfacts.com/2014/08/major-breakthrough-in-cellphone-industry-product-liability-lawsuit-in-usa/
2012 Italian courts dismissed research co-financed by the mobile phone industry including the WHO Interphone study. http://www.emfacts.com/2012/10/italian-court-ruling-links-mobile-phone-use-to-tumour/
2012 Courts relied on epidemiologic research by Lennart Hardell &colleagues in Sweden consistent evidence of increased brain tumor risk
Research which was co-financed by the Telecom industry was of lower quality and was less likely to report evidence of increased tumor risk
Authors of these studies dismissed the evidence of risk they did uncover as artifactual http://www.emfacts.com/2012/10/italian-court-ruling-links-mobile-phone-use-to-tumour/
There is no reason why their should not be a class action lawsuit against the makers of vaccine as well.Just like the cellphone companies,they are not above the law.If there is evidence of wrongdoing they CAN be sued.Hope this is helpful.
Posted by: Wilma Miles | January 11, 2015 at 12:29 AM
Excellent that they've posted the 1271 page internal GLAXO report online! The last 52 pages are "international event" pages of other babies (in germany, it looks like) that died shortly after vaccination - aweful but provide a REAL look into what kinds of things can happen to the body from them. How many deaths around the world are happening from vaccines and going undocumented or documented and filed away in "confidential" vaccine manufacturer files. What are the real numbers when you add up deaths, and permanent disabilities, and autoimmune diseases together.
Posted by: Jenny | January 10, 2015 at 01:02 PM
Dear Pharma-funded Bots and Propaganda Spin Doctors:
An Italian Judge got a hold of documents you've kept hidden from humanity and decided that one child should be treated fairly because the drugs your bosses created left him with brain damage and the behaviors called autism.
Your drugs cause autism and several other horrible injuries.
You are hurting children and lying.
Posted by: Louis Conte | January 10, 2015 at 11:55 AM
I can confirm, having made further investigations, that this is with virtual certainty the famous bot message referred to by Jeff Hays, and I seem to have read it before although I cannot trace another occurence presently using google.
What strikes me is that it is just nasty rather than effective, and that the human labour that is used to pour poison on to the web is barely an incumberence in terms of financial cost to the pharmaceutical industry, government, Gates etc. "Cheapness" is a word that comes to mind.
Posted by: John Stone | January 10, 2015 at 07:28 AM
@Jac Crow - I think it was Goebballs who said if a lie is repeated often enough and widely enough it becomes accepted as truth!
From John Stone's link:-
"But please don’t miss the point.
We have the brightest minds in the world, killing conversation, eliminating discussions, shutting down thinking using massive computer bots to target moms who are worried about their children, vaccines and autism. They are using computerized bots to eliminate resistance to vaccine dogma, claiming science where none exists. What if a mother of a vaccine injured child, who speaks out on on Facebook and then is attacked and shut down by what appears to be a friend of a friend, found out the respondent is actually a computer bot?"
I expect those same robotic generated cyber lies are also responsible for all those exaggerated measles cases in the UK 2013 Welsh measles outbreak (see AoA Measles article and thread). The numbers quoted, around 1500, were more than five times the ACTUAL laboratory confirmed cases, around 250, but quess which statistic is used when Wakefield bashing press and media articles and programmes are presented to a gullible public.
However, we can't blame the bots for widely attributing the death of young Welsh man Gareth Colfor-Williams to measles. The inquest clearly found the measles MIGHT have caused the pneumonia which killed him, but where there is a doubt, (Gareth also had severe asthma and was an alcoholic), then deaths should be recorded under the ACTUAL cause. In this case respiritory failure due to pneumonia. The UK Government, have collectively broken their own rules by recording Mr Colfor-William's death as a measles death. At the time of the outbreak, the Welsh health authorities, seemed to be quite desperate for a death, in order to justify their doom and gloom preditions.
Please note in Australia, there has been a loud campaign to try to stop Sherri Tenpenny from speaking out about vaccine dangers. Several venues have cancelled, fearful of thuggish repercussions.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 10, 2015 at 06:45 AM
I just posted the comment by "Jak Crow". My guess is that Crow is the robot mentioned by Jeff Hays:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dr-tenpenny-on-vaccines/computer-bots-against-vaccines/10151953988518344
"Jak" does not of course respond to the documentation in the article "he" is just plugging the urban legend created by our governments.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/01/brian-deer-remains-mute.html
I gather "Jack Crow" is a mercenary vampire slayer in a 1990 film.
Posted by: John Stone | January 10, 2015 at 05:06 AM
The origin of the vaccine causes autism myth was started by Andy Wakefield, a fraud who was bribed by a lawyer to write a report saying a vaccine caused autism to support a lawsuit the lawyer was a part of. Wakefield was debunked years ago, but it's amazing that people still believe this hokum.
Posted by: Jak Crow | January 09, 2015 at 09:08 PM
Thanks for this information! Excellent report. Surprisingly I looked for research regarding brain histology specimens from SIDS cases of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated infants and found nothing. It would be interesting research to look at histology specimens from SIDS cases, particularly encephalopathy cases to see if there is any concentration of damage to certain brain centers with and without vaccines. Would be an easy, cheap study to perform as the specimens are deceased. Are areas of inflammation higher in certain brain regions than in others or is the inflammation diffuse in nature? Are some specimens more susceptible to development of inflammation than others? Where is the specific mechanism of injury? So many ?'s need to be addressed medically before we can state that vaccines are in any way safe. The research doesn't support vaccine safety. Epidemiological studies are not valid on an individual basis.
Posted by: Tammy Martino, DPM, RPh | January 09, 2015 at 08:19 AM
Mary W. Maxwell, thank you. Maybe more a personal vent (and please feel free to consider your generous response more than my intellect deserves already), because I don't know if any answer will really be satisfactory to this, but I don't understand why the federal courts/Supreme Court can rule on a state law nullifying federal legislation regarding an issue that the Constitution says is not under federal purview.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | January 08, 2015 at 11:03 PM
Great job, Mary! This is missing, though: "[hyperlink to Rimini decision]"
Posted by: Zoey O'Toole | January 08, 2015 at 12:56 PM
Dear Jeanette Bishop, Will you permit me to answer your two fabulous questions? I bow to Mary Holland’s greater experience. Here is my (angry, but not reckless) take:
First, I’ll move the focus from civil actions to criminal prosecutions. That way, it’s a snap to answer your question about immunity. In the UK, the monarch has immunity from prosecution. Literally, the king can do no wrong. I think it’s helpful to remember that, about the king, so we can say clearly “NOBODY ELSE, anywhere, has immunity from criminal prosecution.” (In the US, the prexy ain’t no monarch and he can do wrong. Brother, can he do wrong! Fort Leavenworth is hungry for him.)
Thus the answer, re the immunity of the CDC is: “They sure as hell have no immunity.” Isn’t that nice? However, in criminal law (I realize you asked about civil law), the blame falls not on an agency but on human beings. Any person at the CDC, of high rank or low, can be indicted, arrested, tried. “I was obeying orders” does not wash. (I think Judy Mikovits has got a little list…)
Naturally, you’d have to identify the crime allegedly committed. Anything related to autism I’d look for treason, or, if death occurred, murder. Treason and murder have no statute of limitations. There are other crimes relevant to vaccination, particularly assault and battery, but they usually have a 2-year limitation. (Maybe peek at laws against human experimentation? I’m ignorant of those.)
For my interpretation of the Constitution’s Article III, Section 3 rule on treason, please see ProsecutionForTreason.com, and my cancer book at maryWmaxwell.com.
I note you referred to “obfuscation and omission of data.” I would not rest there; the consequences of their doing that not only led to physical harm IT WAS MEANT TO LEAD TO PHYSICAL HARM. (We’re talkin’ treason.)
Now to your second question. I thank you for making my day, as I am a states’ rights man and that’s a lonely place for to be. Generally, when a state and the feds do not agree on something, the federal government trumps. In Article VI, the Supremacy Clause says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the [state] Constitution or LAWS OF ANY STATE to the contrary notwithstanding.” [Emphasis added]
You ask: “Is it a viable solution to the vaccine injury epidemics for states to nullify the NCVI Act by allowing residents to file claims for injury in state/local courts?” The first answer is that the Supremo’s to date have consistently trashed state nullification. I wouldn’t let that stop you, however. “Settled law” gets changed all the time.
You wrote: “If the principle of local sovereignty over federal actions in powers not granted to the federal government via the Constitution is upheld….” I agree with you that it’s a principle but it is more than that. It is clear in the Constitution. The federal legislature can speak only on matters listed in its 18 powers, as carefully enumerated in Article I, Section 8. It can’t legislate on music, state sales tax, same-sex marriage -- anything not specified in those 18 powers.
Congress may not legislate on health. Ah, but I hear you say, Congress legislates on health left, right, and center, lock, stock, and barrel and Tom, Dick, and Harry. Sure they do it but they can’t do it. Their doing it shows where their loyalty lies and it isn’t to the Constitution.
Anyway, Congress’s excursions into health matters is irrelevant to today’s question, which is whether Capitol Hill was legal in passing a law against your taking a civil-action claim to a plain-old-state-court for adjudication. (Instead of the ridiculous court that was created within the 1986 statute.) I do believe Congress can do what it did, which is to set up a new court. In fact, that’s one of their 18 powers, namely Power power number nine: “9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.” (It’s worded that way because they are not allowed to trod on the Article III powers of SCOTUS.)
But it was done in bad faith. What they did was set up a court that clearly, and I mean how clearly can one get, violates a constitutional right, a very basic right, which is the right to sue one’s neighbor for harms done (i.e., torts, or for breach of contract, etc). That is so basic in law that I don’t think it would need to be included in the Constitution. After all, in 1787, the Framers weren’t attempting to say all that could be said to protect people. However the 7th Amendment does specify:
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, [Jeanette, yours is above 20, isn’t it?] the right of trial by jury shall be preserved ….”
Madam, you have a right to trial by jury for your child’s injury.
Is this Mary Maxwell speaking? No. This is the Constitution speaking. (Note: the term “common law” there means “not at Courts of Equity,” but you might try them, too.)
So I said yep, Congress has a right to create a new court. But it has no right to say you cannot sue Glaxo or whoever it is. When they did say that, they expressed it in a context of Congress legislating in favor of vaccine manufacturers so that liability would not cause those manufacturers to walk away from any production of vaccines at all, leaving the nation bereft of vaccines. What a sick joke! The government could have manufactured the said vaccines.
I repeat: they acted in bad faith. Even if Congresspersons were “sincere” about the danger of us losing our store of vaccines, I believe they violated your plain constitutional right.
Finally, can the federal legislators write statutes that offend the Constitution? I shan’t dignify that with an answer!
Posted by: mary w maxwell | January 08, 2015 at 06:44 AM
Thank you, Mary Holland, for your insights!
A couple of questions I want to throw out in case anyone has something they want to add to my limited understanding of all of this:
What legal immunity do agencies like the CDC have regarding consequences of their recommendations, particularly consequences stemming from obfuscation and omitting data necessary for informed consent?
Another question, is it a viable solution to the vaccine injury epidemics for states to nullify the NCVI Act by allowing residents to file claims for injury in state/local courts? If the principle of local sovereignty over federal actions in powers not granted to the federal government via the Constitution is upheld to the level it was at the founding of the U.S., and I think it is gaining ground in awareness and perception of value, I believe more respect might be paid to the principle of "first do no harm" on the part of more health agencies, corporations, and healthcare providers involved.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | January 07, 2015 at 10:25 PM
Taximom5
The document was leaked to/by a Belgian group Initiative Citoyenne in Dec 2012.
https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/initiative-citoyenne-press-release-infanrix-hexa-6-12-121.pdf
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/prevenar-13-pneumococcal-vaccine-damned-in-belgian-media-reports.html
Posted by: John Stone | January 07, 2015 at 05:49 PM
What exactly does this (from the Glaxo "confidential" document) mean? "APPENDIX 3B : All serious attributable clinical trial cases which were received prior to the period of this PSUR but unblinded during the reporting period (no such case was received during the period)"
If no such case was received during the period, what the HELL are all the cases listed?
Also, how was this "confidential" document accessed, and by whom?
Mary Holland, THANK YOU.
Posted by: Taximom5 | January 07, 2015 at 05:42 PM
Mary Holland did an excellent job explaining the basis of this important decision.
It is interesting that in judicial proceedings where discovery is allowed, it is discovered that vaccines cause autism.
Posted by: Louis Conte | January 07, 2015 at 05:25 PM
Excellent!!! It goes to show the Italians are very smart people and the USA has Dumb and Dumber people pushing vaccines supported by a willing media, who aren't so dumb since they have their hands out for $$$$$$$.Why else would the media support something like vaccines that are unsafe? Comes down to getting their greedy hands on the $$$$$ (buckeroos).
Posted by: Ray Gallup | January 07, 2015 at 05:06 PM
Exemplary writing, analysis, and summary, as always, Mary. Thank you for the many hours you spent communicating with those in Italy, and elsewhere, so that you had the facts to write this important article. It is always so helpful to have your legal knowledge and insights to illuminate the legal aspects for us.
Note the "placebo" used. It was a pentavalent vaccine (5 vaccines combined into 1) PLUS the 6th component administered simultaneously in a separate single vaccine. In other words, the trial was comparing same to same!!! There was no placebo used! People need to really understand this...placebos are NOT used in vaccine trials! The "placebos" vaccine-making pharmaceutical companies use (and are allowed to use by regulating agencies) include another vaccine, or combinations of vaccines (like in this case), and/or adjuvants (the ingredients in vaccines that are often responsible for adverse reactions, such as neurotoxic aluminum!). To make an analogy that might be helpful, pharmaceutical "vaccine science" is the same as saying that crack is safe because it's no more dangerous or addictive than heroin, when in fact, both are dangerous and addictive, and neither is safe!
That GSK could state the following about this hexavalent vaccine is incomprehensible: “[t]he benefit/risk profile of Infanrix hexa continues to be favourable," despite GSK’s acknowledgement that the vaccine causes side effects including “anaemia haemolytic autoimmune,thrombocytopenia, thrombocytopenic purpura, autoimmune thrombocytopenia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, haemolytic anemia, cyanosis, injection site nodule, abcess and injection site abscess, Kawasaki’s disease, important neurological events (including encephalitis and encephalopathy), Henoch-Schonlein purpura, petechiae, purpura, haematochezia, allergic reactions (including anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions),” and death (see page 9).
Do you know any parent who, upon reading these side effects that occurred during the vaccine "safety" trials, would agree that the benefit/risk profile of this vaccine is favorable? I don't. And, I wonder if any parent has ever been told the truth regarding Infanrix's "risk" profile. Informed consent is clearly not happening in doctors' offices across the world, because if it were, parents would not be allowing these hazardous, destructive, and potentially-fatal vaccines for their children.
I hope that many will read and share Mary Holland's excellent article, plus readers' comments. Doing so might just help someone to realize what an absolute sham vaccines and our nation's vaccine program are...a dangerous, debilitating, potentially deadly, sham.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | January 07, 2015 at 03:38 PM
Very close to home. Same age as son. Same time frame of injury. March to October. Only difference is we live in the U.S. where pharma controls.
Posted by: tara | January 07, 2015 at 02:29 PM
"Presiding Judge Nicola Di Leo considered another piece of damning evidence: a 1271-page confidential GlaxoSmithKline report (now available on the Internet). This industry document provided ample evidence of adverse events from the vaccine, including five known cases of autism resulting from the vaccine’s administration during its clinical trials (see table at page 626, excerpt below)."
Was this 1271 page report .. now available on the internet for all to see .. compiled by GlaxoSmithKline .. that provided the Italian judge "damning evidence" .. including "five known cases of autism resulting from the vaccine's administration during its clinical trials" .. ever presented to Special Masters in USA Vaccine Courts since it was published?
If not .. why not?
If so .. what did the Special Masters rule upon reviewing it?
As I understand it .. the "rules of discovery" available in all state and federal courts are denied petitioners in Vaccine Court .. but .. shouldn't the fact that this particular report is now available to the public .. open GlaxoSmithKline representatives to petitioner's vigorous inquiry during a "sworn deposition" .. regarding the serious adverse reactions their own study revealed since it has been released?
Thanks Mary .. you are a beacon of light in a very dark world.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | January 07, 2015 at 01:47 PM
Thank you Ms. Holland.
Can you please post a link to the decision or related news article, preferably in English?
Posted by: Ottoschnaut | January 07, 2015 at 09:04 AM
Thanks Mary,
But it seems interesting that the Italian Ministry of Health have apparently chosen not to contest the Rimini MMR decision perhaps fearful of what more might come out.
John
Posted by: John Stone | January 07, 2015 at 06:08 AM