It was March 2020 when we launched Quoziente Humano. As we like to recall when we introduce ourselves, while Italy was closing down, we were setting up shop. Right from the outset, our goal was the encouragement of a dialogue between profit and non-profit organizations, institutions and communities. Over the months, the events have pushed us towards a further round of reflection. Today, more than ever before, we want to foster a constructive debate even in those spheres that seem less inclined to embrace it, to give a say to advocates of new paths towards a broader vision, in order to respond to common needs. For a co-existence between knowledge and solutions, between people and nature, between human beings.
This is why we met the oncologist and haematologist Patrizia Gentilini, a member of the Independent Scientific Commission on Covid, presented in Milan on 20th November last, by the Health Welfare Alignment Foundation, jointly with 15th October Coordination Committee. The mission is a tangible cooperation between the scientific world and ordinary people.
As to the reasons that drove the group of doctors to send a certified email (no answer to date, editor’s note) to the Ministry of Health, the Prime Minister’s Office and the National Health Institute, Ms. Gentilini states: “We have strongly felt the need of starting a debate between peers, based on the data provided by literature: science has always endeavoured in this direction. We are headed down a slope that we deem is not right. It is now evident how fragile our society is from all viewpoints. A change of pace is called for, you cannot rev up the engines with no clear goal in sight, each one of us must make choices”.
An independent medical-scientific commission: why now?
The Commission was appointed to answer the many queries that people have been wondering about, to shed light on the bigger picture of the pandemic that has been afflicting us for 2 years now. There is the need for a debate, because it is not true that science speaks without opposition. In the international sphere too, there are many authoritative researchers and scientists who have sought a different approach to solving the pandemic right from the outset. Their opinions have not only gone unheard, but have also been mocked at and derided. Just look at the mainstream media: your popular television shows or newspapers. As doctors who have had a critical view of the solutions that have been proposed to us, we feel the need to arrive at a comparison between peers, based on literature data. Science has always strived along this path, certainly not through majority rule.
Needs and questions that need to be probed
There may be different viewpoints that deserve respect. A case in point is what we have been saying – opinions stemming from a scientific medical world devoid of conflicts of interest. There are people, associations, communities who are demanding the truth. We have established this channel with the 15th October Coordination Committee, born with the strikes of the port workers in Trieste There was a need for the workers to have a beacon at the media level. There has been a union between the independent medical scientific world and the demands of a part of the populace. As doctors, we are at the service of the community, the Commission is independent and free. There is a push for a scientific debate worthy of the name.
What do you mean by ‘a scientific debate worthy of the name’?
A collective evaluation of theories implies a joint assessment and discussion of deduction and facts relating to results from the most vaccinated countries and matching them against other available figures. In 2021, in Italy, for example, the death rate from all causes in the 15-39 age group, unfortunately registers a surge not consistent with the previous trend, a worrying swing indeed.
From 1st May to 17th September 2021, England recorded a growth in the death rate from all causes in the 15-19 age group: +47% against 2020, and +16% over the previous five-year average (source https://www.hartgroup.org/recent-deaths-in-young-people-in-england-and-wales).
Israel too has a similar scenario in the 20-49 bracket, with deaths peaking at year 2014 levels when there was the war against Hamas (https://steve-ohana.medium.com/young-adult-mortality-in-israel-during-the-covid-19-crisis-ff7456cff74f).
EuroMOMO figures reveal a similar trend with an increase in the overall death rate also affecting the other European countries. In 2021, young people died much more than in 2020 when Covid was in full swing. The causes need to be investigated. It is a fact that we cannot sweep under the carpet. Why insist on vaccination between age 5 and 11, a range in which this disease is not a menace? Perhaps, very few people are aware that the study that led to the approval of the Pfizer vaccine at a one-third dose compared to the one for adults involved as many as 2268 children in the 5-11 age group: 1510 were given the vaccine and 746 the placebo and the entire sample group was followed on average for just over 2 months and for a maximum of 2.5 months
Jabs are proposed for children aged 5 to 11, fearing they may be afflicted by systemic multi-inflammatory syndrome, an ailment that affects very few cases. For example, studies reveal that Germany had 1.7 cases out of 10,000 positive; the U.S. had 3.16 per 10,000, mostly affecting black people, Asians and Hispanics. So what sense does it make to impose a treatment not tested for carcinogenicity or genotoxicity on children who have all their life ahead of them?
Why is it important to activate an ongoing debate at an institutional level? Which are the issues you’d like to discuss?
Here below are the main points in the certified email sent by Avv. Cappellari: total death rate trend in 2021 vs. 2020 and previous years (with reference to EuroMomo data, editor’s note). Total death rate in RCTs with mRNA vaccines; anti-Sars Cov-2 vaccines and infection prevention; the viability of vaccinating in a paediatric age; non-vaccinated kids and adults (vs. vaccinated) and risks related to the community; active vs. passive surveillance and causal link in the management of adverse events and reactions.
Why have an active pharmacovigilance?
The absence of an active surveillance is a very serious matter, Actually, the drugs being injected into people have a so-called conditional authorisation, and were quickly brought into the market over a very short span of time. The jabbed have to sign the consent form but are then left to fend for themselves. This holds good for every country, not only Italy. In the U.S., at least a part of the population is under the active V-Safe pharmacovigilance system; in addition there is VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system),based on spontaneous alerts. By matching the adverse reactions reported by AIFA with those reported by the V-Safe system, reporting in Italy has been over 500 times less compared to figures under an active pharmacovigilance system.
Another bone of contention is the vaccination of children…
Sure, this is a subject we are particularly keen on. We have prepared a paper based on 16 points wherein we explain why it is not appropriate to vaccinate children, unlike what government institutions and the Technical Scientific Committee have to say.
The AIFA website lists some of the paradoxical reasons why kids must be jabbed
“vaccination provides benefits such as the possibility to attend school and lead a social life full of recreational and educational activities that are particularly important for the psychic development of the child’s personality in this age group”.
I jumped on my chair.
Playing and socialising is a child’s basic right: subordinating it to a vaccination is a full-fledged blackmail
Two years of covid19 have unmasked the frailties of grassroots medical assistance. How can we empower the health system?
Unfortunately, the national health service, the pride of the country’s publicly funded healthcare, open to all, free of charge, is breaking at the seams. It’s evident when we look at the dismantling of the local services: from the reduction of beds, intensive care units or the more specialised departments to closure of some hospitals. The result is people have got to fend for themselves.
The flawed approach to medicine and health with its embedded maggots is coming to the fore: refund the illness but not safeguard the health.
This is the original vulnus. The more complex the services, the more they are paid. However, this leads to distortions that have now been laid bare. Instead of being oriented towards defending health and stimulating people to maintain a sound lifestyle, the health service focuses on the illness and the progressive “medicalization” of life.
This is where an association such as Health Welfare Alignment Foundation enters the fray. Its mission is to safeguard health by means of an efficient, effective and proper use of resources in the health sphere as well as gather all the main players operating in the health field under a single umbrella.
There’s an incongruency between the desire for treatment and the dismantling of the local health system over the years.
I’m not inventing anything new when I say that big business lies in considering all healthy people as patients and in “unearthing” new ailments. There are indicators – e.g. cholesterol levels, glycemia – that if you don’t fall under certain arbitrarily set limits without any scientific base, you must inhale drugs. It means a medicalization of life which does no good to anyone, except big pharma.
It looks like the pandemic has fractured our society. Even inside hospitals, it’s being said that lots of patients don’t enjoy any access to therapies compared to others. Are we grouping patients into first and second class citizens?
A thorough analysis is necessary here. Meanwhile, the intensive care units have not been arranged as they should have been, on the contrary, they have been shrunk. What I’m seeing is a manipulation of information aimed at creating a division and stigmatization of those who have freely and coherently opted not to take the jab. The strategy appears to be that of fuelling a climate of fear and make scapegoats of the so-called “plague-spreaders”. The goal is to divert attention away from the political mismanagement that is becoming evident day after day.
Among the objections that are made to those proposing an alternative to the prevailing narrative: you don’t heal covid. What are the answers, if any?
Over the past two years, I have seen the backbone of medicine collapse: people left to fend for themselves, asked to take paracetamol and keep an alert watch. Fortunately, ventilators have now also been included in the ministerial guidelines, but paracetamol is still being proposed
We have reliable literature available telling us that paracetamol opens the way to the virus. In turn, this aggravates the disease, by reducing the body’s defences and glutathione reserves that help fight the infection.
Never did I think I’d find myself with a disease deemed “incurable”, just as how cancer was treated at the beginning of my career! On the other hand, we know that the SARS -CoV2 infection must be treated, right from the outset, in a proper manner. Also that a series of drugs, even the low-cost ones, based on random studies have turned out to be effective.
The importance of prompt treatment is important for everybody
We spoke about it at a press conference on 23rd October in Milan. There are as many as 11 therapies we can count on (click article). But then the climate of fear, a state of mind that has been created is not conducive at all to facing the outbreak in a rational manner.
People feel paralysed in front of this epidemic that, just like all other illnesses that can infect us, must be managed and treated, without underestimating it, but also without being overwhelmed by it.
We know by now that Covid 19 mostly represents a risk for the weaker sections of the population that can be protected by the vaccine for a certain period of time. As doctors, we are not against the jab for the age group that can benefit from it.
So many doctors have seen people die, and it’s still happening. This is a fact…
Even those with a double dose are passing away, the vaccine offers only that much protection. We need to check how the infection is managed. If one just waits and keeps an alert watch without taking any drugs, any illness can lead to complications that may turn out to be fatal.
Relating to omicron, Big Pharma shareholders have pocketed a staggering 10 billion dollars. They got funds for their research on vaccines but they have ‘kept’ their rights and have been selling the jabs at 24 times their cost…
We live in a world where the rules are dictated by the financial giants, let’s accept it! The BlackRock Group, which holds the reins of the pharma companies, owns almost half of the world’s GDP. The big financial groups are able to steer not only the political, social and economic policies of the Governments, but also health care.
As a doctor, what do you think of the principle that an individual is the master of his own self?
No fundamental information of any sort is provided to understand how important individual choices are. Our behaviour affects our health, our well-being from the psychological, physical, relational viewpoint. A climate of terror has been created with regard to the pandemic, a widespread air of distrust reigns supreme, fundamental social values have been thrown out of the window.
What do the numbers tell us? For example, what’s the percentage of deaths vs. other illnesses?
According to the National Health Institute, owing to the lack of physical activity, it is estimated there are 88.000 premature deaths in Italy each year, due to bad air quality created by just three pollutants (PM2.5, NO2, O3), around 70.000 fatalities. The non-consumption of whole-grain cereals, according to the British Medical Journal in 2016, leads to as many as 100.000 deaths in Italy.
As far as Covid deaths among the young (0-19) are concerned, National Health Institute figures from the beginning of the outbreak have reported 34 fatalities. The same age bracket is plagued by a whooping 356 cancer deaths annually and 200 new tumour diagnosis every month. Wouldn’t these statistics be enough to show where our focus must be?
Covid doesn’t represent a problem of gravity and lethality for the young. However, I insist, there has been a surge in overall deaths in 2021 that worries us.
You have stated: “Thinking of getting rid of covid with the vaccine only is akin to stating that we can defeat cancer only through chemotherapy”. Can you tell us what you mean?
For those of us who have a wider view of the relationship between health and the environment, it’s unthinkable to believe that vaccines are the panacea for Covid. These are complex diseases that embed a series of factors at their origin: Covid 19, rather than a pandemic, is a “syndemic”, i.e. an interaction between an infectious illness and non-communicable chronic morbidities (obesity, diabetes, cardio-vascular ailments etc.) that exacerbate each other.
There are multiple factors at the base of every syndemic (environmental, social, economic, cultural, etc). In particular, we know that Covid-19, gets worse through environmental exposure. Factors range from bad air pollution (a 11% surge in COVID-19 deaths has been estimated in the U.S. for every increase of a mcg/m3 in the long-term exposure to PM2.5) to intensive agriculture. The ONE HEALTH concept is gaining increased currency: health is one and only, and human health cannot be separated from the ecosystems surrounding us. Medicine has forgotten to research the causes that have been favouring the propagation of microbes. Covid, just like tumours, have a profound relationship with the environment we live in. Polluting substances are able to wear down the normal physiological mechanisms that keep us healthy. Pesticides have shown how they impair DNA protection capability, or how our response to oxidative stress is reduced. So when an infective agent arrives, it is welcomed by a fertile terrain.
Which are the 5 pillars you propose in fighting covid?
The approach in really solving the pandemic ought to be all-encompassing. Here are the 5 “pillars”:
1. Primary environmental prevention (stop deforestation, intensive livestock farming, pollution…)
2. Primary individual prevention (no smoking, no sedentary life-style, healthy food habits, etc…)
3. Ok vaccination, but in a ‘targeted’ manner, the elderly and others who can actually benefit
4. No to inadequate or counterproductive therapies (paracetamol)
5. Yes to effective drugs, low-cost and easily available
Like I said, we are not contrary in principle to Covid-19 vaccines. However, we believe, they must be given where they can really be useful, for the age groups that are at risk. On the other hand, we must let the virus live freely among the young where there are no risks, in a manner that we create a “peaceful coexistence” between the virus and the host and therein achieve immunity. A mission impossible with mass vaccination which actually facilitates the thriving of variants of the virus, which already mutates by itself. The much talked about herd immunity is impossible to achieve , precisely because the virus undergoes mutations.
Is it possible to talk about a co-existence with this virus?
Scores of animal species, carriers of the virus, have been identified. Are we thinking of exterminating life around us? Life is “coexistence” between the species, a concept we need to absorb. Let’ stop making war, it doesn’t help, neither between people nor against the other living creatures.
We need to respect the environment and the biodiversity, and we must live in harmony with the rest. We can’t believe we are healthy, and be surrounded by a sick environment!
Virus and bacteria have existed much before humans set foot on this planet. Micro-organisms play an essential role by degrading the organic matter and allowing life to perpetuate itself. Each one of us carries about a kg. and a half to two kgs of microbes and bacteria inside the body, the famous “microbiome”. It provides essential capacities for our life in providing glucides, amino-acids to our metabolism, it contributes to the bio-synthesis of vitamins (folic acid, vitamin K, group B vitamin) and plays a fundamental role in the functioning of the brain and the proper development of our immune system.
Doctors who have opted not to take the jab have been suspended. So we’ll have a medical category selected on a choice made in relation to an illness …
I believe we are losing a valid part of our health workers, those who have retained their critical ability, who were not overwhelmed by absurd rules and have paid for their principles at a dear price. I think we will suffer this loss at a high cost.
What is the cost of what we call dissent in the scientific field?
A critical spirit is an imperative in every aspect of our daily life. Asking ourselves why, developing a spirit of curiosity that pushes us to analyse the situation is important. Even more so in relation to issues like in the field of health. Why mustn’t there be this debate? Why not listen to data and studies coming from researchers with no conflict of interest? How can you impose a vaccine on kids aged 5-11 at a planetary level? A parent must be able to access such information.
The public has the right to be informed. A discussion is ongoing on the role of information validated upstream, so that no false news gets through on covid? What’s your take?
Covid is the graveyard of science, democracy and civil life. The dogma ‘I believe in science’ has been reigning. However, science is not faith and if it becomes faith, it is no longer science but dogma. I feel we must believe in the “scientific method” i.e. a debate between opposing views, because this is the only path for science to evolve. On what grounds must we have this blind faith, why and in whom? We must believe in a debate to get to what, in that moment, is the truth. The history of medicine is paved with mistakes, beliefs taken for granted and then withdrawn. A small example: those of my generation… find one who has tonsils!
Have you felt any fear amidst this scenario? If so, what about?
I’m not underestimating covid and I’ve not been afraid of this illness. I wouldn’t be a doctor in that case. What I’m afraid of is the climate of intolerance that has been created. We no longer talk anymore or listen to one another. It’s not clear where we are heading for. There’s irrationality in the political decisions.
Whoever opts to become a doctor and an oncologist supposedly makes a life and work decision that puts you face to face with death. Yet, you also trace the path of recovery…
I have realised there are two gates in our life, the entrance that you take when you are born and the exit when you pass away. These are the fundamental moments of “passage” that each one of us has to go through. Having someone skilled by your side who can keep you company in such moments, silently on tiptoes, discreetly and with fondness, is something that, for better or for worse, leaves a mark in our life forever. Likewise, for those who are near us because these are the two “gates” that everyone has to pass through, undoubtedly. I deem it a privilege that I could accompany so many people in the difficult moments of their illness, often leading to recovery but never shying away in front of death. With age, I think I have reached a balance which enables me to live my life serenely. I could have made different choices but I have always been inclined to take the tougher road. The medical profession is something that touches you, that you embrace wholly, it enables you to live your life to its fullest meaning, with all its ins and outs. Forgetting about death is unnatural. Our society is the first to deny and conceal death. However, this way, I think we are increasingly in the claws of some fantastical beliefs where for fear of dying, we have stopped living, as would be natural. Serenity comes to me from leading a simple life as much as possible, in contact with nature, in synch with its rhythm. I would like to transmit this to my children and grandchildren.
Editor’s note: On January 14th 2022, the Lazio Regional Administrative Tribunal (T.A.R Lazio) has nullified the italian ministerial circular about ‘vigile attesa’ (‘vigilant wait’): the circular was imposing doctor’s to wait and not prescribe any of the medicines used by general practice doctors to cure Covid -19 patients, in the first days of the diseas.
The verdict states now that doctors can cure Covid-19 diseas as they decide in ‘science and conscience’. As a matter of fact the ministerial rule was considered by the Tribunal in conflict with doctors’ professionality.
It was so accepted the complaint of the italian ‘Comitato Cura Domiciliare Covid-19’ (Covid -19 Home Therapy Committee) lead by lawyer Erich Grimaldi.
On January 18th, with a twist, the ‘Consiglio di Stato’ (Council of State) has suspended the sentence of the TAR, accepting a motion of the italian Ministry of Health.And the war goes on…
Read here the Italian version of this article
Giornalista, consulente alla comunicazione positiva e allo sviluppo individuale e dei gruppi attraverso strumenti a mediazione espressiva. 20 anni di esperienza in comunicazione aziendale.