Professor Marco Cosentino, professor at the Medical Pharmacology Research Center of the University of Insubria, has an extremely critical position on green certification; in the interview that we report to you he analyzes various elements of which he highlights the contradictions.
Cosentino was also heard as an expert by the Senate Constitutional Affairs Commission during the conversion of the decree law of the mandatory green pass also for work (HERE his hearing ).
Professor Cosentino, let’s start from the green pass and its diversified duration: to those vaccinated for twelve months (even if the protection offered by the vaccine as well as partial appears even more limited in time) but which could soon become nine or less; those recovered for only 6 months, twelve (for now) only if they agree to receive a dose of the vaccine; to those who make a tampon lasting 48 hours. How do you judge this choice?
«Green certification (so-called green pass) is first of all legally unsustainable since it violates various articles of our Constitution as well as a huge number of other national and international regulations. Above all, however, it should be made clear that it has no medical or scientific basis. In fact, his assumption is that those who are vaccinated cannot infect, and this is false: given the average probability of infecting an unvaccinated person at 100, a vaccinated person has an average probability of 10-30 in the first weeks after vaccination, which at six – seven months from vaccination it returns to 100, which is equal to that of those who have not been vaccinated. With the clarification that those who have not been vaccinated check their negativity almost daily by means of a rapid test, which in people without symptoms has a “negative predictive power” (ie a probability of giving a correct result when it is negative) of 99.9% . In other words, a single test with a negative result has a 0.01% margin of error. But the tests are repeated after a short time, and therefore a second negative test, which still has a margin of error of 0.01%, allows us to conclude for a probability of 0.01% x 0.01% = 0, 0001%, which is a negligible probability that that person may not be positive. In other words, stating “by law”, as the green pass would like to do, that a vaccinated person cannot get infected and therefore infect others is a scientific falsehood that is dangerous for public health, since it induces in people the deceptive belief that they cannot contract the covid. So in this climate, those who have been vaccinated and manifest symptoms are led to think that they have a simple cold or seasonal flu and do not undergo covid tests, leaving aside the recent news reports according to which the green passes would not always be disabled. in the face of positive covid tests. It should also be remembered that the most recent bulletins from England are showing how new infections are becoming more frequent among vaccinated than non-vaccinated (HERE – Table 2 and Figure 2) “.
How do you judge the continuous requests that come from the experts interviewed every day in newspapers and TV who are starting to say more and more insistently that the green pass must be removed from those who swab without being vaccinated? Does it make sanitary sense or not? If not, what sense does it make in your opinion? What does it imply, if it implies something?
“It is nonsense: those who support such positions do not know what they are saying and spread wrong and dangerous news for public health and safety. Rapid antigenic swabs performed frequently are today the best tool to quickly identify infected people and who can therefore potentially infect others, thus allowing them to recommend to self-isolate and above all to promptly initiate appropriate therapies without waiting for any aggravation. Among other things, I see that there is insistence on green passes of reduced duration, but it must be clearly said that it is a hypocrisy: vaccination protects those who do it, but without ever eliminating the risk of becoming infected and contagious, which there is. And. In a reduced form but always greater than in those who undergo tests, from the first weeks when the vaccine has the maximum effectiveness “.
We come to the reports of alleged adverse events, which should be carried out with rigor, promptness and promptness and then allow the bodies in charge to evaluate them, study them, deepen them using the data to verify the safety and effectiveness of the choices made. Unfortunately, it is now common knowledge that with passive vaccinovigilance systems these reports can be underestimated. Which orders of magnitude in your opinion? Are there any estimates in this regard?
«Impossible to make estimates. The literature in this regard speaks of different orders of magnitude for under-reporting, but refers to ordinary situations, where the only obstacle to reporting is the workload of doctors and therefore lack of time. Today, however, there is a climate contrary to the recognition of the possibility that these vaccines can cause even minimal problems. In this context, the possible role of the criminal shield granted to vaccinating doctors should not be underestimated either. As some jurists have recently pointedly observed , even the legal irrelevance of adverse effects can help to mask them. In short, this is an unprecedented situation, and if we add to this the new WHO_AEFI criteria in force for some years for the definition of the causal link between suspected adverse events and vaccines, it really becomes very difficult to define the safety profile of these products ” .
Why do you think there is this sort of resistance in making reports? If the alleged adverse events do not emerge with a complete picture, how is it possible to verify the safety and efficacy of vaccination policy choices and fully weigh the risks and benefits?
«The institutions have focused on vaccines as the only option, and this is a mistake. Which is still slow to be corrected. The strategy to get out of the crisis is lame: there is a lack of treatments, understood as the recognition of the usefulness and benefit of certain well-known, safe and cheap drugs such as minor and major anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, anticoagulants and antibiotics, but also understood as reorganization of a health system that today only treats the emergency in hospital, as if appendicitis had to be operated on only when they go into peritonitis. With treatment, prevention regains its correct role and vaccines are no longer in the condition of athletes who are asked for performances that they cannot give. And instead, not equipping ourselves to manage the treatment is as if we pretended to run the 4 x 100 with only one athlete: it could be the new Bolt, but the outcome is still obvious. I think the “resistance” arises from this misunderstanding: everyone around the unfortunate runner telling him that he can do it, it is obvious that in these conditions those who say that perhaps they could also have some problems are accused of defeatism ».
WHO has said that Europe is the continent where there is a new strong winter increase in covid cases around the world. How is this possible according to the approach followed so far which sees Europe with the highest rate of vaccinated population in the world?
«I don’t know the WHO data, but I have a recent study that clearly shows that there is no correlation between the spread of covid and vaccination rates. It seems obvious to me: as we said a little while ago, vaccination prevention is a component of a strategy which, to be effective, must include much more ».
What do you think of the reasoning (which informed different choices in other countries) according to which an effective approach is to protect the groups most at risk of the elderly and pluripathologists, letting the virus “endemic” producing widespread natural immunity in the rest of the population?
“Protecting the most vulnerable subjects, if necessary, also by offering vaccinations, is completely sensible, in the meantime equipping oneself to treat covid according to the best experiences already available today. Considering that the epidemiological data clearly indicate that there are groups of the population such as healthy young people, I would say at least thirty years old and below, for which covid very rarely constitutes a relevant risk, and whose acquisition of natural forms of immunity helps to protect even the most vulnerable groups “.
of Terra Nuova
Maybe you are also interested in:
.