Below is the letter from Dr. Antonio Enrico Maria Attanasio addressed to the President ofOrder of Physicians and Surgeons from Lecco.
“Dear President, I have received your certified mail in which you inform me that I have been suspended from the Order. I don’t blame you as I know it’s a duty. There are, however, two other acts due that the orders of the Physicians and surgeons, not just that of Lecco, they omitted. The first is the obligation to become consultants of the State in health matters, and not just executors of state directors. When the matter is controversial, being consultants does not mean being the spokesperson for a single opinion, but informing of the existence of those differences of opinion and of those uncertainties in the scientific debate which do not allow the promulgation of read e decrees peremptory.
The second is the obligation to suspend, or even terminate, those medici who behave contrary to general principles of medicine. In this regard, I remind you that the professional oath includes the following points: ‘I swear to inspire the solution of any difference of opinion with mutual respect and I swear not to undertake or insist on clinically inappropriate and ethically disproportionate diagnostic procedures and therapeutic interventions, without ever abandoning the care of the sick‘
Apart from any consideration on how to register vaccines currently administered, I ask you: how would you rate a colleague who administered some intravenous penicillin to a perfectly healthy person, or the contraceptive pill to a 70-year-old woman in menopause for 20 years? You know, like all of us, that each drug, including vaccines, has one therapeutic purpose and has some effects sometimes severe. Our task and duty of doctors is to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the therapeutic purpose is benefits that we hope to obtain from the administration of a drug or vaccine compensate for risks.
In the specific case of a vaccine the aim is to induce the production of antibodies in subjects who do not have it. For this reason, vaccines have always been administered or when one has the serological test of the absence of natural antibodies, see the case of rubella vaccination in women planning to become pregnant, or when there is an almost certain presumption that there has not yet been a natural infection. See the case of vaccines administered directly in early childhood, or vaccines against infectious diseases absent in Italy which are also administered to people who intend to travel to countries where those diseases are endemic.
The same should apply to anti vaccines Sars The 2 that the directives of Government they made it mandatory explicitly for some categories and under blackmail for others. In this case the vaccination was not proposed before the arrival of theepidemic, such as usually happens with vaccination anti flu precisely when it is legitimate to presume that no one has natural antibodies yet and therefore needs a vaccination. The anti Sars Cov 2 vaccination was proposed and imposed when the epidemic had been underway for almost a year, so when it was presumed that a fair share of the population had already acquired the natural antibodies. It must be considered that, however low the risk of side effects of the vaccine, this risk must be compared with the benefit. It is clear that the comparison makes sense when the benefit exists. That is to say when the vaccinating does not possess natural antibodies.
Vaccinating a subject who already has natural antibodies, therefore, cannot make the vaccine obtain the benefits foreseen by the purpose of the vaccination. It means subjecting the subject to pure risk without any purpose or benefit. Even if the vaccine does not prove harmful to that subject, the medical act of vaccinating it is contrary to the fundamental principles ofmedical ethics and it should be sanctioned not even with suspension but even with radiation. These considerations could apply not only if they are not available serological tests to ascertain the presence of naturally acquired antibodies, but these tests are available. What makes the situation even more serious, casting heavy suspicions on the management of the vaccination policy, is that not only are these tests not reimbursed by the National Health Service but even validity is denied when the citizen presents them in order to obtain the green certification Covid-19.
So you understand, President, why I’m doing it civil disobedience? And you understand why, while accepting the suspension imposed by you as an institutionally obliged one, I have not accepted it since Law Decree which requires you to inflict it on me. And you understand why I formally ask you to sanction, even with the radiation, all those colleagues who lend themselves to vaccination people without checking in advance, with theserological examination, if they really need it. I greet you and cordially embrace you.
Antonio Enrico Maria Attanasio“
The European Matrix, the truth behind the power games – With Francesco Amodeo