Loris Palmerini – All rights reserved
The Dr.. Montanari, ( I had called the professor consistent Treccani as very learned person, and moreover he carries out an incessant activity of public scientific dissemination, but he did not like ) interviewed by Radio Range 5, It contested the analysis of the vaccines made by Corvelva, not result in, but in the method. I have no evidence he did before .
It is not for me to say where the scientific truth lies, but it should understand the question.
I first reported his words and then checked by listening to the interview. Montanari has shown that when you do an analysis, to have certainty of outcome, you have to repeat the tests over and over again. According Montanari this procedure and other measures were not complied with by Corvelva, and in particular contested the small number of vaccines used and the low number of analyzes. For Montanari number of vaccines (quattro) analyzed by Corvelva it is small, and the number of samples is insufficient. He reported that their lab has analyzed 35 for hundreds of samples vaccines. He did not talked (as I reported earlier), the fact that they have been analyzed by different laboratories.
The professor did not dispute the findings in itself, He said that more and more emerge similar results from different sources, but for the following method, the figure is not conclusive at 100% , there is a scientific contestability on the reliability of the results also for the international community .
Not being a biologist Montanari is not entered on the results in itself, It was a method of speech. Montanari, basically I wanted to comment on what I just reported, further confirming , http://www.stefanomontanari.net/il-professore-che-contesta/
I can not name names, but I must say that considerations of the same standard of I Montanari were made in private by a prominent lawyer, who claimed to have learned of these criticisms from his important acquaintances in the CNR . This lawyer stressed that the critical elements of the Corvelva investigation method do not imply that the results of the analyzes are incorrect, but that, unfortunately, the results could be considered to be unreliable by an eventual magistrate, especially as a magistrate could not help but turn to an industry expert who could not help but declare them insufficiently probative for a criminal complaint.
But remember that the analyzes made by the Corvelva the state should do as the Commission Uranium, and it is certainly very serious that Corvelva is compensating with its own funds and therefore insufficiently.
Unfortunately it seems that the state will not hear and does not protect public health, then the real reason the vaccine is simply a general savings in public spending downloaded on children affected families. It therefore seems that we will have to continue with the analyzes “private” refining the method by new research.
Unfortunately, the evidence is that our victory will not come easily from science alone (which it is also totally with us) nor by prosecution (simply formulation would change and would resume), although we also epidemiological statistics that give us reason.
I insist that our victory will come on the basis of principles instead, and it will consist in strongly affirming that the State not entitled to impose vaccinations because it is prohibited by Oviedo Convention, and for this reason we have already won as I have been saying since October 2017, but actually we win when we succeed in imposing the state respect for these our human rights . We can do it with a unified and strong action if we do not disperse into shares probably not productive or otherwise trench.
A victorious action is that which began in December 2017 when we sent to the President of the Republic a request that obliges him to deposit with the Council of Europe the ratification of the Oviedo Convention made with law no. 145/2001. We re-presented it again in June 2018 (via PEC) and March 1 2019 we sent a reminder that triggers the past 30 days.
In my opinion, it is no coincidence that after the reminder there was the turnaround of Minister Grillo who from being in favor of the obligation has become opposed, and the same DDL 770 Has drastically changed to the contrary of the obligation. How ever since there is an obligation in the government contract?
It seems then that miraculously all covers have been reached, that no longer exist tens of thousands of unvaccinated children (instead there are still) and that therefore it is possible to substantially exit the emergency. They are all masking of the truth designed to hide the fact that the Lorenzin law is completely unconstitutional and because of its pervasiveness and gravity it is subversive..
Through this legal action we can not only regain our rights, but proceed with their possible arrest against the Constitution, and if we are in the tens of thousands it will certainly not be a joke. We are on the side of the law and they are illegal for the law.
For this reason, it is essential to sign the Application to the President which obliges him to deposit with the Council of Europe the ratification of the Convention made with law no. 145/2001, is the same law that established the. The Oviedo Convention has actually been in effect since 1999, the very law n Â° 145/2001 has recognized. There is no vaccination requirement, only a blackmail abuse for children in state or state-owned infant-toddler centers and preschools. Get acquainted with your rights, sign the application and do not believe the television lies, well those are subversive of your rights.
Loris Palmerini – All rights reserved