On 10 March 2007 I sent an addition to previously submitted proposals

How many other "victims of vaccine” will be reserved for this absurd treatment?

 Meeting at the Ministry of Health on May 10 2007

     

 Report of the Ministry of Health occurred on June 20 2007          

 

Was not given any specific response to the 32 points we proposed to the Minister of Health Hon. Livia and the Turco Undersecretary professor. Antonio Galione, were made useless discussions also outside the proposed themes, has spoken only of the deceased before the law 229/95 and also on this issue has not come to any conclusion. Everything has been postponed to the next table of negotiations.

In conclusion "Nothing done", in my personal opinion, the Department is postponing any decision at the next financial because they will know how to finish in meetings with other tables of negotiation (politrasfusi, hemophiliacs etc.) Does not have a ' precise idea is all still too rough. That is why I think we should organize ourselves for groped to make once again a big demonstration in front of the Parliament or in front of the Ministry of Health. In order for these gentlemen understand that it is time that the ending of "taking people around the patient as we were so far"

Ask that motivates my absence at the table of conciliation on 31/7/07

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 SUBJECT: Adding to the document sent on April 5 2007

 

 

Giorgio myself Tremante, having been instructed by the Director General Health Dr Programming. Filippo Palumbo, following the meeting between the various groups of "damaged by vaccination and transfusion", held in Rome in Lungotevere Ripa 1, at the Ministry of Health, which participated in addition to Secretary Prof. GAGLIONE Antonio, also Minister Livia Turco, has made a such a Ministry on 5/4/07 a document containing 29 proposals for amendments to L. 29/05, after having gained more opinions from some trade associations, and specifically by CONDAV, considers it necessary to reformulate the paragraph 14.

 

 14) Extension of the benefits of law 229/05 (and one-off compensation) to victims died before its entry into force.
This is to avoid creating serious discrimination among victims died because, currently, the law only provides for compensation to the families of the deceased after the entry into force.
As the number of deceased is not relevant, could be promptly launched an ad hoc legislative decree to close any litigation (ex L. 210/92) and reach a settlement to resolve a flagrant injustice and absurd or perhaps an unintended oversight , The legislator with the introduction of the Law 229/95.

 

 The document also must be integrated with the following three additional proposals.

 

 30) Establishing a document to be sent to the CMO, which takes into account the disease already recognized and compensated. This will make the same uniform can make judgments and avoid treatments uneven between various actors damaged.
For example, to date, only some individuals suffering from encephalitis caused by the Sabin vaccine are compensated, while at others the causal link is denied "because the Sabin vaccine can cause only 1 case of polio post-vaccination every 500,000 doses and not ' encephalitis. " Same thing applies to contracted polio after the administration of Salk vaccine, in some cases compensated, sometimes not. This treatment uneven has created and will continue to create the establishment of new courts and numerous additional burden on the administration.

 

31) A delivery check-off art. 4 L.229/05.
The law 229/05, paragraph 1 of art. 4, provides the full extent of provision: "... full extent of ten years of compensation referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 1 ..." and it identifies the period "for the period between the occurrence of 'Event to obtain same compensation ", which is paid by L.229/05 and not by L.210/92 as some people have suggested. Theory that, moreover, would open a new and larger dilemma: "What would be disbursed in the period between obtaining compensation under L.210/92 to obtain compensation of L.229/05, l ' full amount? In paragraph 2, however, explains in detail how it should be defined the previous years' annuities' previous tables are set with conversion to 50 percent (FOR WHAT?) For the period between the date of the occurrence of ' harmful event and the date of obtaining compensation.. "
So the only possible interpretation and confirmed by the reported of the Law On. Carla Castellani and the other signatories, is that application of the table conversion of 50% calculated in relation to the years between the actual occurrence of harmful el ' obtaining of compensation itself (2), for a maximum of 10 years, as provided in paragraph 1 and as desired by the legislature.

 

 32) Proposal to amend Art. 1 3 L.229/05 in that it mentions: "If because of mandatory vaccination is derived death ..." with "Where is derived death, the petitioner has provided assistance prevalent and persistent .. .. ". Only limit compensation to the families of those who died as a result of vaccination, it seems, as well as very limited, even unfair. In doing so, in fact, those who provide assistance to had to give up work, will face serious difficulties. In doing so, moreover, it would reduce exponentially in the cases brought by parents for being recognized the damage.

 

With these clarifications and additions to the document can be considered complete, and it remains waiting to be promptly convened to follow up the work.

 

                                                                                                                                  Giorgio Tremante

Verona 10 aprile 2007