Stefano Montanari and Atonietta Gatti
"The law is the same for everyone". So it is written behind the judge's back in the courtroom. Perhaps this is not always the case in its application. Likewise, "Science" (written with a capital letter) is coldly objective but, in fact, sometimes its interpretation is not. This is even more so if it is not "Science" that should be interpreted but it is what results from its practical application, namely "Technology".
It is now a popular subject in the media that the National Order of Biologists is involved in analyses carried out on a couple of vaccines, investigations that should be the routine for the many public bodies funded at the international and national level for the purpose.
Surprisingly, those analyses reveal how the samples analysed contain substances whose presence in vaccines is at least to be demonstrated: from DNA obviously foreign to those who will have to suffer the administration of the product up to pesticides, herbicides, active ingredients to say the least bizarre in that area (for example Sildenafil which is the active ingredient of Viagra), compounds passing through the synthesis of various drugs or something that comes no less than from helminths (!). It may be curious to see how in the vaccine, which should also be an anti-rosolia, there has not been detected trace of that antigen. This is related to that vaccine, but, in general, appear antibiotics, sometimes not really suitable for infants such as, for example, Neomycin, Polysorbate80 that opens the blood-brain barrier, pork gelatin, aluminum and many other substances on which more than one doubt regarding tolerability and safety seems legitimate.
It may be curious to note that the two batches of the same vaccine have given results that are not entirely identical, something that also happens to us, that those products we have been analyzing for more or less 16 years with a completely different method. Our results concern the content of inorganic micro and nanoparticles, i.e. something that cannot be contained even in the slightest trace in any injectable preparation. However, we find those particles regularly and we have duly warned the competent authorities about this several times since 2011, showing the results accompanied by unmistakable photographs of electron microscopy and elemental analysis performed with the spectroscopy system EDS.
As was the case in the past with asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons, tobacco, tetraethyl lead, doubtful vaccines, objections and questions are also unwelcome, and even more so are the investigations into their composition. It should be noted that the investigations carried out on vaccines do not concern their effectiveness but their composition, and on an analytical result there can be no opinions. What should surprise even more than the result of the analysis, however, is the reaction from some sources. Without knowing anything else but a few bits of preliminary information, there are those who said that those tests have no value, indeed, are false, indeed, are ridiculous.
We do not want to argue with anyone. As scientists by now of long experience, however, we allow ourselves to emphasize that anyone who deals with science does not risk statements, especially if so damaging, without having all the details relating to the investigation they intend to dispute. The next step is to redo the analysis yourself and compare the results.
Now, those two steps, though elementary or obvious, have not been taken and, therefore, it is impossible for us not to ask ourselves on the basis of which the reaction was triggered. But there is another obvious point to add. Not a few of the protests concern a sort of blasphemy claim committed against those who dare to analyse vaccines, which, if you are certain of their purity, should instead be welcome. The reaction, disjointed and outside the simplest rules of science as it has been, indicates the fear that something will emerge that should not emerge, which in a drug, moreover in a vaccine, is at least disconcerting. And, then, the only honest thing to do is to repeat the analysis in the presence of the institutions because, as is commonly said, the rest is idle chatter.
In conclusion, the Manichean juxtaposition of being in favour of vaccines or opposed to them appears totally out of place. Here it is very plainly a question of controlling what is in vaccines".