Mysteries and fears around the vaccine. Since their arrival in the world healthcare market, the products studied as a solution to the crisis by Covid-19 have received privileged treatment from the generalist narrative. Always raised to the role of the only possible solution, never really questioned for their experimental nature. However, over time, the shadows move aside and the facts emerge in all their clarity.

The data that animated our days throughout the pandemic period become the litmus test to discover the truth about the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Projecting our gaze towards the entire globe, the first cases of countries have already emerged that have seen their contagion curve bounce upwards, with the consequent return to phase 1 dell’emergencydespite the advanced state of the vaccination campaign.

Thus, the words of scientists and world famous people who have expressed their skepticism towards these products are back in vogue. The Nobel Prizes Honjo e Montagnier, respectively Japanese and French, the number one virologist in the world Didier Raoult, the distinguished Dr. Jar: all experts who have seen censorship drop from above because of their dissonant opinions.

A similar fate has befallen in the past, but also recently, to Dr. Giuseppe Di Bella who answered the questions of the director Ilario Di Giovambattista on these same topics. Here is the interview with Prof. Di Bella.

“How is the vaccine issue going?”

“It is an open problem that deserves to be investigated on a purely scientific level allowing, without political and ideological pollution, a vaccine management based solely on people’s health and advantage. That is, to bring the debate back to one level only, but strictly, on a scientific basis that must be documented and verifiable.

See the opinion of high-level personalities: Japanese Nobel Honjo, Montagnier, Tarro, the virologist number 1 Didier Raoult. Begin to enhance the opinions that until now have been completely disregarded. Debate means not having a single version, not having a single opinion, but also extending it to people who have scientific competence and clinical experience “.

“Does the vaccine protect health or not?”

“The vaccine does not repair, that is, many vaccinated have contracted the virus. Therefore, getting the vaccine does not mean being sure not to contract Covid. They support the thesis that if one gets the vaccine, one takes Covid in a lighter form, but this is not documented. Many vaccinated cases are hospitalized, even with quite important situations. People who get a vaccine are allowed to believe that if they get a vaccine they won’t get the disease. Instead many have contracted the disease and also in an important way. The thesis that those who make the vaccine does not spread the disease falls out. Vaccinators can spread the disease.

There are some aspects to clarify: such as the rather worrying amount of miscarriages and complications, of short and long term adverse events. They should be clarified, removing the censorship on all of them a series of situations. And opening a debate, which does not only have a political-ideological context ”.

“Why is there this feeling that those who ask themselves the problem should be marginalized?”

“There is an absolute uniformity of thoughts. We are facing an application of the politically correct single thinking. If there is a different opinion, even authoritative, it is not included in the circuit of great information: both in the printed media and on television. Fundamental and authoritative opinions of people who have a very high preparation. We are talking about Nobel and not just one: we have never heard of them on the big national networks, nor are they interviewed by journalists. It is a very serious aspect that people need to be informed about ”.