“Vaccines: Truth, Lies, and Controversies” is a resounding essay that is very useful to all physicians and those involved in evaluating health policies (Peter C. Gotzsche, https://twitter.com/pgtzsche1, 2020, http://www.fioritieditore.com/prodotto/vaccini-verita-bugie-e-controversie; 196 pages, euro 18).
Peter Gotzsche has a unique professional experience gained from a double degree in Chemistry and Medicine. Through his collaborations and writing of clinical studies together with pharmaceutical companies and hospital institutions in Copenhagen, he has had the opportunity to find himself evaluating the clinical realities of patients from various perspectives. The Danish professor participated in the founding of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993, and evaluated the validity of hundreds and hundreds of medical research studies (https://www.cochrane.org; https://www.cochrane.it/it/cochrane).
In extreme synthesis it can be said that Peter Gotzsche is in favor of the main basic childhood vaccinations, which, however, for various reasons, are very different in the various nations of the world. These are his precise words: “very few people know what it means to have mumps. I do, because there was no vaccine when I was a child. The pain from my enlarged salivary glands was so intense that I cried a lot. I couldn’t eat or smile without feeling unbearable pain. I also suffered tremendously from whooping cough; I looked like a sea lion. You never forget how horrible these diseases are once you have them, and I wish the vaccine deniers knew that” (p. 148).
However, there are also the “fundamentalists who can only see the positive consequences of vaccination” (p. 56). Fundamentalism is the extreme cognitive process of the “fallacy of the inclined plane … a reasoning with which, starting from a thesis, you draw a sequence of consequences presented as inevitable but, in fact, completely arbitrary” (p. 56). For this reason ASSET, an organization that investigates the effects of compulsory vaccinations in European countries, has been set up in Europe: http://www.asset-scienceinsociety.eu/reports/index.html; http://www.asset-scienceinsociety.eu/reports/page1.html. In general, ASSET experts have “argued that mandatory vaccination might solve a short-term problem, but it is not a long-term solution. Better organization of health systems and more convincing communication strategies may prove more effective.” (p. 58). In addition, adverse effects of vaccinations can occur even many months or years after a vaccination, at which point the cause of the adverse event becomes difficult to prove.
In any case, it is not easy to find information on scientific research not funded by pharmaceutical companies or organizations that depend on multinational drug companies. In fact, national and international drug agencies are funded by Big Pharma (the European Medicines Agency is 85 percent funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies). Even data from natural experiments are usually interpreted in an overly alarmist manner. For example, the Covid-19 disease mortality predictions were based on the mortality rate on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which “was 1 percent…but this was a largely elderly population in a crowded” and artificially ventilated environment (p. 172).
Regarding the Danish researcher’s thoughts on the SARS-Cov-2 outbreak, his position can be summarized in these lines: it was an overly alarmist health emergency caused by generalized panic, affecting ordinary people and health care workers. The pandemic of “Coronavirus has many similarities with the measles and flu epidemics… Therefore, when a vaccine is used, we will probably not be aware of any important side effects, such as transmission to others, hospitalization, serious illness and death. Remember, however, that none of these effects have been documented for flu vaccines, even though we have had them for many years now (p. 167 and read the entire chapter 4 carefully). Unfortunately, there are very few independent medium- and long-term studies of vaccines. A very recent study published in Nature, seems to show that co-infection with the A strain of the influenza virus develops greater infectivity to SARS-CoV-2 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-021-00473-1).
Thirty years ago, a vaccine against a coronavirus was developed, but when it was tested on cats, the condition was worse than in unvaccinated cats” (p. 167). And some studies have made it clear that flu vaccines “increase the risk of contracting influenza with other strains, compared with people who have not been vaccinated.” (Skoworonskj, p. 165). Unfortunately, long-term vaccine studies are very challenging and of no interest to pharmaceutical companies. However to evaluate the latest research on the new coronavirus you can also refer to this site: https://www.cebm.net/oxford-covid-19-evidence-service (www.cebm.net/home).
Billions of children and people are vaccinated every year, so “There is no excuse for not requiring much more rigorous trials, including adequate evidence on the safety of adjuvants. Large trials with long follow-up that allow for recording of longer-term harms should be done independently of the pharmaceutical industry, publicly funded. They need not be expensive, as they could be simple and pragmatic, with minimal administrative costs. They will likely be cost-effective as we find that some vaccines or combinations thereof should be avoided” (p. 166). Today’s digital tools can enable us to accomplish many miracles.
The pitfalls today related to the recording of the damage linked to the uncritical administration of some vaccines mainly concern the media and professional humiliation, or even the loss of work, something that even happened to Prof. Gotzsche, for having criticized “the prestigious but poorly executed Cochrane review of HPV vaccines”, examined in chapter 5 (Human Papilloma Virus; https://www.humanitas.it/malattie/infezione-da-hpv-papilloma-virus, private university, https://www.hunimed.eu/it; https://www.auxologico.it/malattia/hpv-papilloma-virus, some large scientific institutions in Lombardy dealing with very advanced treatments). In fact, the HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccine “is controversial. It is unnecessary because screening for cervical cancer is highly effective; authorities have been dishonest about the many uncertainties surrounding the vaccine and its adjuvant; and parents who have reported serious neurological damage have often been right” (p. 140). The two vaccinations most studied by the Danish researcher are the flu vaccination (p. 62 to p. 96) and the Papilloma Virus vaccination.
Apparently drug regulators “trust too much of what the pharmaceutical companies tell them, even though they know full well that fraud, bias, and failure to report serious drug harms are common in industry-sponsored trials…prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death, which shows that drug regulators are functioning poorly; they are not protecting us from lethal drug harms” (p. 165). In addition, “Another reason for healthy skepticism is that very few or none of the pivotal clinical studies of vaccines include an untreated control group. It is a requirement for drug registration purposes that they conduct randomized trials in which one group was given the drug and the control group received placebo or nothing…the regulatory requirements are much milder for vaccines” (p. 5).
“Since there does not appear to be much difference between COVID-19 and influenza in terms of infectivity and mortality, one might ask why draconian measures were not applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic and why are they being applied now instead? We must also remember that it’s always winter somewhere, and we can’t freeze the whole world more or less permanently.”
However, even the milder forms of coronavirus when they start circulating can cause about 8 percent of deaths in nursing and retirement homes (p. 175). And “Since there does not appear to be much difference between COVID-19 and influenza in terms of infectivity and mortality, one might ask why draconian measures were not applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic and why are they being applied now instead? We must also remember that it’s always winter somewhere, and we can’t freeze the whole world more or less permanently” (p 175). Surely they will not prevent freedom of movement to managers of large multinational banking and pharmaceutical companies. After all, conflicts of interest are the salt of the exaggerated growth of large corporations (https://forward.recentiprogressi.it/it/tag/barbara-mintzes; http://www.theguardian.com/profile/barbara-mintzes; https://theconversation.com/profiles/barbara-mintzes-247179).
Peter C. Gotzsche is a Danish researcher who has devoted his life to exploring the world of medical research, having graduated in Chemistry and Medicine, and now teaches Clinical Research Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. To evaluate some very deep scientific thinking I recommend some links: https://associali.it/notizie/confronto-di-opinioni-e-valori-il-caso-peter-gotzsche-tra-presente-e-futuro-della-cochrane; https://www.scienzainrete.it/articolo/libro-di-peter-g%C3%B8tzsche-e-alcune-riflessioni-sulla-cochrane-collaboration/eugenio-paci/2019; http://www.nograzie.eu/peter-gotzsche-espulso-dalla-cochrane. He currently directs a new institute based on the freedom of scientific research: https://www.scientificfreedom.dk/staff. During his life he has published more than 70 scientific articles that have been cited more than 30 thousand times. He has been published by the great medical journals: BMJ, Lancet, JAMA (https://jamanetwork.com; New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine (www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim). A video supporting Prof. Gotzsche can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbQNBla6aU (Dr. Marcia Angell, https://bioethics.hms.harvard.edu/faculty-staff/marcia-angell). In 2019 he published an essay on the problems arising from the over-medicalization of society (https://www.fioritieditore.com/prodotto/sopravvivere-in-un-mondo-ipermedicalizzato-cercate-le-prove-da-soli
Giovanni Fioriti is a highly qualified editor: He graduated with honors in Medicine from the Sapienza University of Rome, where he specialized in Psychiatry. From 1987 to 1990 he was an adjunct professor at the School of Specialization in Psychiatry of the University Tor Vergata of Rome (https://medicinaesocieta.it/giovanni-fioriti; https://medicinaesocieta.it/tag/peter-gotzsche).
Bureaucratic Medical Note – After numerous audits, Professor Gotzsche found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website “is a treasure trove of misinformation, worse even…than the websites of pharmaceutical companies” (p. 76). Moreover, the rationale for public health is highly ambiguous when it comes to prevention. In addition to various bonuses, “Howling with the wolves and pleasing the politicians, you can expect a rewarding career in public health” (p. 82). For example, regarding the Papilloma Virus vaccine, “The EMA’s responses have been disappointing” compared to the concerns raised (p. 102). After all, every year the European Medicines Agency is funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies up to more than 80% of the budget. The EMA is too trusting of the very few damages reported by the various drug manufacturers, and often makes the choice “not to share the results of its literature searches with its experts or with the public if access to confidential documents is required” (p. 114). On the other hand, “One of the major problems in health care is the many busybodies who like to tell others what they should do, even when no one asks them” (p. 59).
Non-Bureaucratic Medical Note – Generally, except in cases where the fever is really really high, “it is a bad idea to use fever-reducing drugs.” The use of antipyretics “correlates with a 5 percent increase in mortality in people with influenza and adversely affects the outcome of care for patients in the intensive care unit” (p. 94). Now we know why Italy’s politicians and their hired consultants have staked everything on maintaining the use of antipyretics to keep the number of hospitalizations high and thus benefit health care businesses. In the foreword of the book, the author states: “the conclusions I have drawn, after having studied the evidence, are personal; other researchers may come to different conclusions, since a personal element will always be involved in making a judgment” (p. 1).
International Note – Healthy life expectancy has been declining in recent years in the United Kingdom and the United States. Chronic disease and disability are increasing, and “the main reasons are increased privatization, increased specialization of health care, and increased use of screening tests, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment” (p. 144). Overview is not encouraged in the various health professions and in undergraduate and postgraduate courses of study. As far as the World Health Organization is concerned, the main problem is this: “people who have endorsed a vaccination program are also the ones who will consider whether there is a valid reason to change the recommendation they themselves have made. People tend not to change their decisions, regardless of the evidence of error (Kahneman, 2012; http://www.agoravox.it/La-psicologia-del-pensiero.html). Unfortunately, the numbers for increases in overall mortality in Europe, have been ignored: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps (recommended to journalists and researchers). Other very important numbers have been underestimated: https://www.nogeoingegneria.com/effetti/salute/le-reazioni-avverse-ai-vaccini-sono-fortemente-sottostimate. Here is a good international mathematician and researcher: https://www.mittdolcino.com/2021/08/31/la-nostra-intervista-al-professor-norman-fenton-non-ce-alcuna-logica-dietro-a-tutte-le-restrizioni/#more-50081. In any case the Immune System is the most complex thing after the brain and the true immunologists are able to confess even the limits of their knowledge: https://blog.ilgiornale.it/locati/2021/11/20/studio-iss-circolano-solo-varianti-ed-ecco-i-test-per-le-cellule-t-di-cui-non-si-parla-mai (Prof. Stefano Petti); https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(2100203-6/fulltext (the immune response very robust, very certified and little communicated of the healed by Covid). I also point out some links to the personal profile of Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the British Medical Journal: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff/fiona-godlee (colleagues are also there); https://twitter.com/fgodlee; https://www.thisinstitute.cam.ac.uk/about/people/dr-fiona-godlee. International summary of the effects of the latest vaccinations more or less experimental depending on the point of view: https://ilsimplicissimus2.com/2021/11/26/geografia-del-fallimento-vaccinale.
“Before laws, before the press, democracy is the word you can exchange with a stranger” (Arturo Ixtebarria’).
Damiano Mazzotti was born in 1970 in Romagna and lives in Romagna. He graduated in Clinical and Community Psychology in Padua in 1995. Throughout his life he has been involved in consulting, training and communication, working in the Emilia-Romagna Region, for companies in Milan and for the European Institute of Social and Health Management in Florence. In 2008 he became an independent scholar and a Citizen Journalist publishing hundreds of articles on the information platform Agoravox Italia (www.agoravox.it/Damiano-Mazzotti). In 2009 he published Libero pensiero e liberi pensatori, the first essay by an Italian participatory journalist.
INTERNATIONALIST 360° 