SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An amendment from Italy's anti-establishment government that removes mandatory vaccination for schoolchildren is sending shock waves through the country's scientific and medical community.
It suspends for a year a law that requires parents to provide proof of 10 routine vaccinations when enrolling their children in nurseries or preschools. The amendment was approved by Italy's upper house of parliament on Friday by 148 to 110 votes and still has to pass the lower house.
The law had originally been introduced by the Democratic Party in July 2017 amid an ongoing outbreak of measles that saw 5,004 cases reported in 2017 -- the second-highest figure in Europe after Romania -- according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Italy accounted for 34% of all measles cases reported by countries in the European Economic Area, the center said.
Italy's Five Star movement and its coalition partner, the far-right League, both voiced their opposition to compulsory vaccinations, claiming they discourage school inclusion.
English Language Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/health/italy-anti-vaccine-law-measles-intl/index.html
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:54PM (1 child)
Suppose he is correct. Would "a plot to silence him" actually exist?
Hell yeah! All of the normal peer reviewers have their career at stake. They are as biased as they could possibly be.
So, in the above situation, what exactly should he do? I guess you think he should just shut up and be silenced? It should be clear that "a drooling climate change denier blog" is the only place where he won't be unfairly rejected. He might even be unfairly accepted. :-) There is no possible way for him to get normal peer reviewers to give an unbiased look at his work.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:12PM
Yes, it's possible that the entire scientific community is involved in a massive conspiracy against him. (Or more plausibly in my mind, that a large portion of the scientific community has been paid off by monied interests to *say* that he's wrong. But generally that's for covering up environmental damage and dodging regulation so more of a Republican maneuver which in this context doesn't make sense)
The much simpler explanation is that he is just wrong.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"