One of our followers and readers just send me an article from the Italian https://www.ilgiornale.it/ written by Marco Leardi.
The link for the article is HERE and you can find English translation below.
Conclusions are yours.
“Invasive DNA vaccine”. And the judge reinstates the no-vax psychologist
“The doctor will be able to return to work despite not being vaccinated, as required by law. The reasons are astounding: “Up to now the components of the serums are not known”
He will return to work even without a vaccine and will be able to visit patients again. A Tuscan psychologist suspended from the professional order because she does not comply with the vaccination obligation will now have to be readmitted to exercise her job even in the absence of the anti-Covid sting required by law. This was decided by the judge with an emergency measure intended to cause a sensation. The reasons for the resolution, in fact, leave us astonished but are very clear: the woman – according to the court’s measure – cannot ” be forced, in order to support herself and her family, to these injective treatments experimental so invasive as to insinuate themselves into his DNA, altering it in a way that could be irreversible, with currently unpredictable effects on his life and health “.
According to the judge of the civil court of Florence, the psychologist will therefore be able to return to work ” in the same way as her vaccinated colleagues “. In the provision with which the appeal of the doctor was accepted, assisted by the lawyer Raul Benassisi, further and unsettling assessments are also read. ” To date, after two years, the components of the serums and the medium and long-term effects are still unknown, as written by the manufacturers themselves, while it is known that in the short term they have already caused thousands of deaths and serious adverse events “, states the provision. Furthermore, the judge wrote, “the suspension of the exercise of the profession risks compromising the primary assets of the individual such as the right to support and the right to work “.
In addition, the suspension revocation provision also includes considerations on the same ” injective treatment against Sars Covid “, the purpose of which is to prevent the spread of the disease and ensure safety conditions in the health sector. ” An unattainable goal ” reads. And to indicate this would be the same Aifa data that ” report a spread of the infection with the formation of multiple viral variants and the numerical prevalence of infections and deaths among the subjects vaccinated with three doses “.
In the motivations there are also references to the period of Nazi- fascism and to military secrets. On the vaccination obligation, in fact, it is added that article 32 of the Constitution ” after the experience of Nazi-fascism does not allow the individual to be sacrificed for a true or supposed collective interest, and even less does it allow him to be subjected to invasive medical trials on the person, without free and informed consent “. And again: ” An informed consent is not conceivable when the components of the serums and the mechanism of their functioning is, as in this case, covered not only by trade secret but also, incomprehensibly, by ‘military’ secret “.
On September 15 the judge will enter into the merits of the case also hearing the Order of Psychologists, which in the meantime has announced that it wants to defend itself through the most appropriate forms and in the appropriate offices, ” in compliance with the law and to protect the health of the community “. ” We will not accept this measure ob torto collo. Therefore we will oppose it “, the Order of Psychologists of Tuscany said.
Meanwhile, the court’s decision, certainly not the first in Italy to express itself in this sense, could pave the way for numerous other appeals throughout the country.”
Translated by Philosophyofgoodnews.com using Google translate plus some small changes.
To refresh the memory here are 10 points of Nuremberg Code
“1.The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2.The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3.The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4.The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5.No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6.The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7.Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8.The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9.During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10.During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.”
Taken from HERE.
14/7/2022
Philosophyofgoodnews.com
Connect and Respect
Philosophyofgoodnews 