“I want the Johnson & Johnson vaccine back but the state obliges me to Pfizer.” Question and answer on the forcing of calls – Time

“I want the Johnson & Johnson vaccine back but the state obliges me to Pfizer.” Question and answer on the forcing of calls – Time
“I want the Johnson & Johnson vaccine back but the state obliges me to Pfizer.” Question and answer on the forcing of calls – Time

Dear Director, I am writing to you with reference to your article in question to represent the following, which I sincerely hope you want to publish, as I want to assume all responsibility.

I have chosen, in science and conscience, to vaccinate myself with Johnson & Johnson serum, as I have serious perplexities and concerns about mRna vaccines and medium and long-term side effects, perplexities and concerns that have not abated even after I documented .

As asserted by many scientists and, again this morning, by Undersecretary of Health Dr. Pierpaolo Sileri, the “Johnson & Johnson vaccine is” very effective “and” very valid “, so it is not true that whoever did it today is” a risk “” (source Il Tempo.it, Green light for Aifa to recall Johnson & Johnson, but with Pfizer or Moderna).

The question I ask you, in the hope that you want to investigate the matter, is why I should be forced – if I am willing to do it – if I am willing to do it – to undergo a third heterologous dose and cannot choose to make a homologous recall, as permitted. by the FDA in the United States.

This appears to be, quite simply, a disguised health dictatorship, put in place by those who first invested huge public resources in the viral vector vaccine (Astrazeneca), to then embrace the cause of mRna vaccines and impose it on everyone, always and in any case. , without going through the Parliament, as required by art. 32 of our beautiful Constitution, but pretending to do so by administrative act. Cui prodest? We all know the answer: because there is someone who earns it, as your newspaper explains well today in the article “Golden vaccine for Pfizer. The US company pursues profit, the scandal is conflicts of interest”.

What I ask you is to give voice to this battle for freedom for the million and a half vaccinated with Johnson & Johnson serum: to allow each of them the free choice about the third dose, homologous or heterologous, at the choice of the vaccinator, as is done in the United States. If we are adults and we can vote freely, then we can also choose the vaccine we want to have inoculated.

With respect and cordiality.
Lawyer Filippo Manca

Dear lawyer, I can only agree with you completely. You have every right to choose your vaccine from those authorized by EMA and AIFA, and Johnson & Johnson is. I am not a scientist and therefore I cannot tell you if you are making a good choice or not. But I must say that scientists are the ones who cause the most distrust of vaccines and the rhetoric that accompanies them, given that over the months they have said everything and the exact opposite of everything. Unfortunately, not even the reading of the minutes of the meetings of the Technical-Scientific Committee comes out of great certainties, within which scientific reasons have circulated very little, almost always defeated by reason of state or by political opportunity.

For example, the decision to move the timing of the second dose of Pfizer and Moderna was adopted by the CTS not for scientific evaluations (they had no literature or studies on the subject, because no one else had done so), but after having understood from the commissioner Francesco Paolo Figliuolo that the doses necessary to continue at that pace were not there also due to delays in deliveries from pharmaceutical companies. That was why the second dose was moved forward two weeks or more, and it had nothing to do with science. At the same CTS they know very well, having first received two Milanese analytical studies and subsequently also a similar study from Rome that on specific categories of fragile patients (which I do not mention in order not to increase their drama) the two mRna vaccines had very little effect, with much less than 50% protection.

In most of the vaccinated, the information that should have been transmitted with the Pfizer or Moderna dose did not reach the sign: the injection had the same effect as a glass of water drunk to quench one’s thirst. On the contrary, in the few cases in which those patients were given the AstraZeneca vaccine, the protection was there with an efficacy greater than 60%. Given those data, I was sure that they would consequently have imagined giving that audience a third dose of viral vector vaccine, which is at least twice as effective as those with mRna.

Instead they ran to give them the third dose of Pfizer or Moderna. In private, one of the most well-known virologists and often interviewed by TV and newspapers showed me all his bewilderment in this really scientist case: “I would like them to give me only one reason in the world why they think a third dose of the same vaccine can work. which had no effect with the first and second doses “.

If these are the scientific choices, then there is no doubt: everyone must be given the opportunity to choose the vaccine to make. If it is not the right one, at least they are mistaken on their own by taking responsibility for it.

Franco Bechis

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

PREV Chelsea-Juve: the probable formations | La Diretta – La Gazzetta dello Sport
NEXT Zerocalcare, “Netflix told me: ‘For 12 hours do as you like with our social networks'”. Then he asks (and gives) advice on the series to watch. Here are his eight choices