We publish an extract (in particular of the questions, originally very long) of the long interview granted almost a month ago by the president of the National Order of Biologists Vincenzo D'Anna, to the journalist Giorgia Guglielmi, science writer of "Nature". We have decided to publish it in this issue of the online journal of Biologists - waiting for "Nature" to strike a blow and let us know if and when it will publish it - with the hope of clearing the field of misunderstandings once and for all, and to clarify a chapter, the one related to vaccination, often at the center of free controversy and instrumental attacks fueled by those who want to limit themselves to reducing the topic to a sterile opposition No Vax-Pro Vax. A dichotomy, we say it clear and round, which we consider absurd and reductive, and which risks debasing a debate that is solely aimed at ascertaining the safety of the vaccine practice, certainly not at questioning its usefulness.
"The publication clarifies a topic often reduced to a topic of sterile controversy"
President D'Anna, what are the reasons that prompted the ONB Council to donate 10 euros to the Corvelva association?
"The aim is to help complete the analysis of vaccines, both from a biological and a chemical point of view. Analyzes made by definitely independent laboratories, that is, not directly or indirectly subject to influences and funding that, generously, the manufacturers of vaccines usually give to public laboratories and university researchers. It is worth remembering, in this sense, that the Chamber of Deputies Special Commission of Inquiry filed and made public its report on the damage caused by depleted uranium nanoparticles and on the vaccine prophylaxis administered to our soldiers, asking all institutions to continue the analytical assessment of the exact composition of the vaccines. None of the public institutions responded by dropping both the appeal and the report. Only Corvelva has accepted the invitation to carry out analyzes ».
Where in the report does the Commission ask "all institutions to continue the analytical assessment of the exact composition of vaccines"?
"Well, it seems obvious to me, doesn't it? At the point where he invites "the entire scientific community, of which the Higher Institute of Health is a part" to take note of the results of the survey, where this has shown that the nanoparticles (also present in vaccines in the form of heavy metals) and the plurality of vaccinations can produce adverse effects. I would like to add that the first analyzes (metagenomics) of Corvelva have been disclosed and highlight several aspects to be evaluated. Starting with a quantity of fetal DNA that apparently would have been 200 times beyond the set limit. That there are other types of genetic material besides those deriving from vaccine viruses, that is, pseudo mutated species of recombined viruses whose harmfulness must be investigated. But in any case I have no title nor intention to make statements that confirm or deny I say only what is emerging and that, in short, there is the very fact that the analyzes have been carried out, it opens up a front of debate ito and in-depth study that goes in the direction of the production of safer vaccines ».
Vaccines are subjected to analyzes before, during and after marketing by national and international bodies such as AIFA, EMA, FDA, etc. Which laboratories "subject to [...] influences and funding" from the vaccine manufacturers do you intend to refer to?
«Not before, only during (to ascertain the actual presence of antigen), nor after. There are a lot of untrue things out there. Some lots of flu vaccine, it is very recent history, have caused some deaths in Italy, so much so as to induce Aifa to block that vaccine. Are these the consequences of post production analyzes? As for the laboratories, go through the various lists published by the pharmaceutical industries that are members of the EFPIA (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Association): you will find out the names, surnames and size of the relative funding. »
Have the Corvelva scientific program and the approach used to conduct vaccine analyzes undergone peel - review by scientists independent of the ONB before the Order approved the funding? And how did the Order evaluate the scientific aspects related to the analyzes?
«The Order has not subjected the financing to any constraints other than that of being able to have a preview of the results of the analyzes even if they were pre-published in a scientific journal. The Order has no competence to validate the analyzes nor to credit them as incontrovertible. Our only purpose is to bring to all Biologists the different scientific opinions on the triad of vaccines or better, on the safety of the same, in reference to studies done by many parts of the world and already published. I would like to underline how unfortunately so far, despite the requests and our repeated appeals, no valid scientific work has come to ONB (we would have gladly published it on our website) that refuted the theses that credit some constituents of the vaccines as potentially harmful. Constituents, it should be reiterated, belonging to the four extra antigen categories present in the vaccine solutions, namely: adjuvants, preservatives, additives, production waste. On the other hand, only invective and offense have arrived. Our financing, like the remaining large part made available by the offers made by citizens, is entered in the Corvelva budget. I think it is regrettable that in a nation with health institutions full of employees, researchers and university professors, the analyzes must be financed by a contribution from private individuals ».
Forgive me, what does "pre-published in a scientific journal" mean? Will the Order disseminate the results of the analyzes before or after they are reviewed?
«It means that in these hours the meta-genomic analyzes have already been published in a scientific journal. As for publishing them on the Order's website, we will see after the appropriate evaluations of the case ».
But has the Council approved the funding unanimously?
«Of course, the Council has acted unanimously, as in all other decision-making circumstances. I was the only one absent for other commitments. The resolution has been on the electronic Praetorian Register for some time ».
Another criticism about the donation to Corvelva is that € 10 is not a sufficient amount to guarantee a scientifically solid and detailed study on vaccines ...
«I repeat, ours was a contribution among the many that allowed the analysis to be carried out. They decide: sometimes it is too much, sometimes it is little ... ».
The online petition launched by "Biologists for Science" asks Minister Grillo to remove her from the position of President of the ONB for having funded Corvelva ...
«The initiative by students of the University of Trento, founders of this association that boasts the title of" Biologists ", reserved instead for graduates enrolled in ONB after passing the state exam, I think it falls more in the goliardic category than in the scientific one. Public health is questioned by ignorance and superficiality, not by those who intend to ascertain whether the hundreds of biological and chemical impurities (from genetic material to antibiotics, from anti-malarial to anti-cryptogamic, from heavy metals to foreign proteins, from viruses modified compared to the "original wild" one for the continuous replications in the herbicide production process is so on) that are emerging from the first data of the "scandalous" analyzes carried out, which may or may not be harmful to the health of the children to whom we inject all this ».
Is the Ministry of Health aware of this funding and has it participated in any way in the decision?
"The Ministry of Health has high-level oversight duties over the ONB relating to the correctness and adherence to the founding law, but it cannot interfere in the sovereign decisions of the Orders that enjoy the principle of self-government".
And the Council? Are you aware of the type of analysis and how it will be carried out?
"The Board also has an expert pharmacologist and a dynamic drug specialist as consultant and is able to assess, in principle, the correctness of the standard procedures followed".
Who is the Council's consultant?
"Forgive me, but out of respect for privacy, I'm not allowed to reveal information about other people."
Scientists have criticized the ONB's decision to fund Corvelva's analyzes. There are those, for example, who said that further analyzes of vaccines are useless, since the vaccines in use are regularly checked by recognized national and international bodies. How does Dr. D'Anna respond?
"I turn the question around and answer that when asked about the limitations of some components released into the vaccines, such as aluminum or formaldehyde (both withdrawn from the market because they were toxic), Aifa did not respond and the EMA he circumvented the question by replying that vaccines have been practiced for a hundred years and are therefore a safe medical practice. RoMs is also based on the same principle of custom ... ».
On what data are these theses based? Her presence of aluminum in minimal quantities in vaccines has been shown to pose extremely low risks ...
«I remind you that the aluminum present in vaccines" in minimal quantities ", as you say, is inoculated not ingested, and as it is inoculated it is absorbed at 99% and not at 0,3% like that ingested. Toxicity must be assessed differently and studies on the matter affirm its toxicity. I can't understand why anyone who talks about the risks associated with the inhalation of nanoparticles in the so-called Terre dei Fuochi, should enjoy the praise and appreciation of the "scientific community" while those who pose similar questions about the presence of the same components in products such as vaccines, on the contrary, it must be exposed to the public playfulness ».
Who and how has verified, as you say, the missing limits of some components added to the vaccines? And what exactly were the responses from AIFA and EMA?
«Numerous studies published in prestigious journals by various authors have highlighted the excesses of certain components of the vaccines. The presence of human DNA is for example carcinogenic, as are formaldehyde and traces of mercury, so for the toxicity of the injected aluminum which has also been prohibited in cosmetic creams. There would be much to say and verify in this regard if those who ask such questions and make such studies were not considered as an enemy of science ... ».
But is Corvelva able to carry out an independent analysis activity, since it has shown on several occasions that it has prejudices against vaccines?
"You see, I don't answer for Corvelva, whose managers and purposes I don't know. I only know that people who take hundreds of thousands of euros out of their own pockets are certainly not willing to throw them away but rather want to use them. The security of vaccines must be provided by the state, experimental data in hand. Whoever imposes a vaccination obligation must also and necessarily guarantee its safety ».
So, President, do you believe that the Corvelva committee guarantees scientificity and autonomy?
"I believe that it has every interest in obtaining accurate analyzes from qualified and certified laboratories because they are certainly subject to critical evaluations".
But don't you find that by funding an association close to the no-vax and free-vax movement you risk making the ONB take an anti-scientific position?
«I reply that these are apodictic and generic statements. Nobody brings out analyzes performed by subjects and structures that are not funded by vaccine manufacturers! If they have them, show them !! In Italy we have laws that favor manufacturers and do not protect consumers of vaccines. It is very strange that those who produce vaccines do not also have the obligation to perform qualitative and quantitative tests on the finished product, except to demonstrate that it contains the indicated viral or bacterial fantigene. But do you know that the composition of a cheese is more detailed than that of a vaccine? Nobody would eat food without knowing its composition and the presence of additives and preservatives! let alone inject vaccines to newborn babies! This is the real problem: security. While I never questioned the effectiveness of vaccines »
But in doing so, by financing an association close to the no vax movement, the anti-vaccination campaign could also be rekindled ...
"Forgive me, but the vaccination campaign in Italy uses enormous economic means every day and also questionable methods of propaganda such as that which involves unvaccinated children described as unters, carriers of diseases. A kind of health McCarthyism that fears no comparison. Verbal and factual violence comes, if anything, from the so-called "vaccinists": they sparked a fire in a row, threatened with radiation by the doctors who object. Of the cash contributions distributed to doctors, paediatricians and universities, every year, in Italy, by pharmaceutical companies, only Glaxo has published lists for 40 million euros. The same applies to some media (not all of them, to be honest) that raise alarms on every occasion. An unequal fight that is not afraid of competition. The "No Vax" must be persuaded not converted with blows of crucifix on the head ».
If FONB raises doubts about vaccine safety, the consequences for public opinion could be disastrous, with a reduction in coverage and the possibility of potentially fatal epidemics ...
"I overturn the question: don't you think that the number of people who choose to vaccinate their children would increase if we could guarantee them the absolute safety of the vaccine? This is our goal ».
Dr Is D'Anna president of Federlab Campania? Do you own or do you hold administrative and / or technical and / or ownership positions in any analysis laboratory? Don't you think there may be a conflict of interest with the decision to finance a project that involves biological and chemical analyzes to be carried out in analysis laboratories?
«I have no other representation than that of ONB. I am retired, I no longer have laboratory fees. This of my alleged interest, I think it tastes more like a boutade than a slander. And then: it is laughable to think that a laboratory of clinical analyzes can try complex analyzes such as those on vaccines, but even if it were, I believe that the pre-vaccination analyzes must be done by the public structures where vaccinations are carried out. The real problem is understanding why you don't want to do these analyzes when they would be useful in the case of some hyper-sensitive subjects or with clinical and family histories of intolerances and reactivity. It is these absurd prohibitions that feed an external market that drains money from people's pockets. "
Yet, according to the information on the Federlab Campania website, you, dr. D'Anna is still president of the aforementioned association. So who is the new president of Federlab Campania and when was he elected?
«The regent is the vice president Gennaro Lamberti waiting for the elections. All of this can be verified by asking for a copy of the minutes of the meeting that appointed him ».
But you, President, are in favor of the vaccination obligation?
«In the absence of real dangers for the population, I am opposed to obliging healthcare treatment, to granting the State a power that goes against the Constitution. On the other hand, the ONB and Biologists are well aware of the merits of vaccines and well want to know the rest about safety ".
And what is the ONB's position regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccines?
«I repeat that I never questioned the effectiveness of vaccines. Neither I nor the Order can be defined in any way as "No Vax". But in order to spread the culture of the vaccine, we must guarantee the safety of the vaccines. And today on this point we have a incomplete regulatory framework that requires greater transparency, to repeat myself, for a cheese that for a vaccine, and a network of institutions that deal with vaccines that, as financed by the pharmaceutical companies, cannot offer the guarantee of third parties necessary to guarantee the impartiality of the results. We want to eliminate this golden of doubt and we are ready to finance any research activity that will guarantee scientificity and autonomy. The ONB, once again to underline it, has not uttered a word against the vaccination practice, has never participated in demonstrations of any kind: it is only concerned about the issue of security because it exists and is undeniable. And it involves tens of thousands of adverse events, even very serious and fatal. If Aifa publishes the statistics we would know more precise things. Keep in mind that the Lorenzin law also alters and conditions the statistics of adverse events, indicating in five days the maximum time to report them ».
Some scientists criticized the conference "New Frontiers of Biology" for the presence of speakers who cast doubts, directly and indirectly, on the safety and / or compliance of some vaccines. How do you respond to criticism?
«To tell the truth it had seemed clear and evident already in the immediacy of the facts: the conference did not deal in any way with the issue of vaccine safety and the only intervention in the field of epidemiology, with regard to vaccines, was that of a world-renowned vaccinator as the two-time Nobel Prize winner Giulio Tarro. Montagnier gave two lectio magistralis on magnetic fields and on immunizing theory. The speakers were scientists and professors from all over Europe, as well as Italians. Those who criticized them did not reach their knees. In a nutshell: small envy and cultural provincialism ».
You say that whoever imposes a vaccination obligation must also and necessarily guarantee its safety. Yet AIFA and EMA follow all the vaccine efficacy, safety and quality control phases, regularly publishing authorization dossiers ...
"Aifa does not answer any questions asked, EMA merely reminds us that vaccination practice has existed for a century and so much can even be enough".
The authorization dossiers published by the EMA contain the detailed composition of the authorized vaccines, as well as AIFA publishes the vaccine leaflets on its website. How is the composition of a cheese more detailed?
«You know all the ingredients contained in a cheese, you don't know everything that is contained in the vaccine. In the leaflets, you will find information limited to those that are convenient for the producer and even fatal adverse events. This is the real problem: security. While I have never questioned the effectiveness.
What are the facilities funded by the vaccine manufacturers to which it refers? And what analyzes would these structures carry out?
"Look at the lists of funded entities and researchers or funded teachers and find the answer."
But can you provide this data?
"I'll repeat it to you: see the EFPIA directories."
What do you refer to when you speak of "absolute vaccine safety"?
«To the fact that vaccines contain a quantity of biological and chemical impurities on whose damages by inoculation no third party has carried out controls. I remind you that vaccine manufacturers are under no obligation to test the finished product. This is our goal ».
What in particular does the ONB want to know about vaccine safety?
"It forces me to repeat myself. And to reiterate that there are a number of biological and chemical impurities in the vaccines on which no third party has carried out checks on the damage by inoculation. Hence our question. Do these micro-substances, such nano-particles, hurt? Aren't they bad? Are they harmful? Aren't they harmful? Do they cause adverse effects? Is it lawful to know, by grace? ».
What are the institutions financed by pharmaceutical companies? And how do they deal with vaccines?
"Just look at the lists published by the pharmaceutical industries that are members of the EFPIA (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associaton) for the last three years. The names of doctors, pediatricians and institutions appear there. With lots of funding and related amounts. We want to eliminate this aura of doubt and we are ready to finance any research activity that guarantees scientificity but above all autonomy and impartiality ».
AIFA statistics on post-marketing surveillance are available online. So what statistics are you referring to?
“I am referring to the fact that Aifa has so far never disclosed data on the adverse events of vaccines. The only data available were acquired through judgments of the Administrative Court through the activation of legal procedures for access to documents by Codacons (consumer protection) ".
Last question, president. The biology department of the University of Padua is considering discontinuing collaboration with the ONB for the organization of state exams for biologists. Are you aware of this initiative and how do you comment on it?
«In truth, we intend to move the examination center from Padua to Venice or elsewhere and in this regard we will be helped by decentralization towards the regional Orders. As far as I am concerned, I am only interested in the possible inconvenience caused to young collegues, otherwise it leaves me completely indifferent ».