The republic: 130 medical experts take a stand?

The republic: 130 medical experts take a stand?

Press release n ° 1/2019

Let's start the year well by learning from the pages of the national newspaper "La Repubblica" that as many as 130 "medical experts" would have taken a stand against the "false alarms" spread following our analyzes of some vaccine samples.

Curiously in the same hours we receive the official invitation to present our results to the Polish parliament in Warsaw (the appointment is for January 8 https://goo.gl/JDHsaq).
Already here the first doubts arise, since although our association has written to the national authorities responsible for health and drug control well before the media controversies that have erupted in the last few days, NONE of these institutions had deigned us to give a minimum acknowledgment; it is therefore inevitable to take note of a fact: in Poland, where certainly the regulatory situation is not better than ours, there is a semblance of democracy which allows public discussion and above all the dialogue of politics with citizens; in Italy, to date, all this is missing. The slightest interest in dialogue is lacking, answers to the requests (public or private) of its citizens are lacking, in short, the foundations of democracy are lacking.

But let's go back to the article of La Repubblica, which takes care to inform that 130 experts have taken a stand against the dissemination of analysis data.
According to the newspaper, these experts are made up of big shots from Italian universities, the ISS, and as many as 15 foreign institutions. Excellent, for our part we note that NOBODY of them had given any signal of interest to our emails (intended for Aifa, ISS, Ministry of Health, and also to the University of Padua following the latest controversies that broke out after the ONB donation to our Association).

To tell the truth, the only body to have given answers, albeit incomplete and unsatisfactory for us, had been Ema, which, moreover, in its reply asked Aifa most of the clarifications requested (link answers https://goo.gl/JZz3xm).

Well, what should we deduce from this? For example, that nobody cared about any of these results or even to give an authoritative opinion on them, before they ended up in the pages of a newspaper? Or that no one has been concerned or worried about the results in and of themselves, because evidently the only thing that causes concern is that the same results be disclosed? So it would seem that the most important thing for them is that nothing is known of what has emerged. Of course the justification for this state of affairs is given, according to them, by the fact that these analyzes of ours would have "nothing scientific, transparent, reproducible".

Heavy words, big words, but are they founded?
Is what is written true?
First of all, how can you say that these analyzes are not reproducible?
Did they try to reproduce them?

In fact, one of our requests is precisely that they are reproduced and for this purpose, for example, the methodologies concerning the metagenomic analyzes have been published, and the same will happen shortly for chemists.
Secondly, if it is not transparency to publish the results as soon as we have them, while also sending them to the national and European drug agencies, as well as to the ministry and other bodies in charge, what is it? But perhaps our heroes of modern medicine would have preferred that we had kept our doubts, without letting anything out, until we could find a scientific journal willing to publish us, and clearly at that point it would not have been enough because the magazine would not have had the appropriate "Impact Factor". No, the Corvelva association, this rascal, has disclosed the data, clarifying that it is first-level analysis, conducted by certified laboratories, whose name will be publicly declared only following the "coveted" - only by them - publications because you know, in these times of witch hunts and media fires it is better to be careful ... nobody would ever want these laboratories to pay the price of having accepted the work commissioned by the wrong customers ... nobody would want it, wouldn't they?

Third point: SCIENTIFICITY. We ask these gentlemen to give their definition of SCIENCE and then to clarify, following definition, how medicine can be considered an exact science, and how we can advance an ideology that does not allow replicas on a preventive health treatment that in a completely unscientific way it claims to pass off as "of proven safety and efficacy", and to make this ideology a legal obligation, and therefore a MANDATORY HEALTH TREATMENT.

To facilitate the task, we report an extract from the Treccani encyclopedia under the heading "science":

"It was conceived (mainly with G. Galileo - yes, the same who risked the stake because what he was professing was considered heretical, ed) as a conception of alternative knowledge to traditional knowledge and doctrines, as a synthesis of experience and reason, acquisition knowledge verifiable and to be discussed publicly (and therefore free from any principle of authority) ". "Acquisition of knowledge verifiable and to be discussed publicly" "free from any principle of authority".

It is quite comical therefore that we are accused of being against science, if it were not that we are faced with a worrying obscurantism that the regime media contribute to spreading, since the accusation comes precisely from those who refuse the confrontation and publish it discussion of results, not ideas, data, not beliefs.

We renew our invitation to everyone: bring out the analyzes that you say are routinely carried out (possibly not those of the manufacturers, but in the absence of anything else, we will also be satisfied with those) that refute the data of the analyzes we commissioned. Give your scientific evidence that what is reported is false. Repeat the analyzes with independent laboratories, or get in touch with the person who commissioned them and discuss the data.

If the only answers you are able to give are "nothing is true", we will resend shortly when everything will be published and your accusations strange denials, on a scientific level. By the way, how come no one has said anything and no one speaks about the amount of human fetal DNA detected in metagenomic analyzes? Yet, scientifically speaking, from 1.7 to 3.7 micrograms of human fetal DNA within the vaccine intended for the pediatric population, there are many. Any comments? On the mutations found in the measles genome? On those present in the antitifico? About the absence of Rubella? Any study that decrees harmlessness? Perhaps we only respond to what is easily "manipulated". Perhaps none of them really care to comment on THE RESULTS.

Answers to those who add "fallacy" in laboratory techniques will also arrive shortly, but in the meantime, WHERE ARE YOUR DATA?

One last question: these 130 names, do they put their faces with name and surname or do we have to be satisfied that a dozen experts are mentioned and for the others we go on trust? The doctors who dared to put their faces in front of their personal opinions unfortunately paid the price with radiation, while they have nothing to fear: where are the signatures?

Thanks, happy new year, Corvelva


Press release in response to this article: https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2019/01/01/news/vaccini_la_protesta_degli_scienziati_basta_con_gli_allarmismi_-215645993/