The beauty of science is that it only accepts facts based on empirical evidence, and does not allow debate based on unverified opinions. Whether the thing is there or not, there are no gray areas. Science Doesn’t Work Like This: Does the Boson Exist or Not? Let’s discuss it.” No, the boson does exist. Or: “Those who are vaccinated are as infected as those who have not been vaccinated, what do you think?”. No, those who have been vaccinated get much less.
Alternatively, there are many persons, even respectable intellectuals, more accustomed to political debate in which one may freely reveal opinions unchecked by empirical facts, and who may wish to take a third position, neither here nor there so as not to bother anyone It is believed to be able to apply the same method of discussion to science as well. One of these is Luca Riccolvi, the well-known sociologist and commentator on Repubblica at the head of the prestigious Hume Foundation in Turin.
A few days ago, as a guest on television, Professor Riccolvi said: “I realize that it is practically impossible to talk about the epidemic without raising extreme positions.” And yes, science is ugly as there is something or not, and he continued: “If we start from the idea that intellectuals like Massimo Cacciari and others say things that are absolutely baseless, there is no dialogue. I think we should also listen to the things we don’t like.” Thing?
According to the sociologist, when it comes to science, one should also listen to an opinion that you “don’t like” because it might be right? And since when does the “how much I like it” criterion define what is true and what is not true in the scientific world? I don’t like the third law of thermodynamics, which says that sooner or later I must die: do you want to see that it’s wrong and we’ll live forever?
Uncorrupt advertising
Apparently Professor Riccolvi was talking about Massimo Cacciari and other philosophers on the Committee on Doubt and Precautions (Dupré), who are against the Green Passage because they consider it discriminatory since vaccinated vaccines are like unvaccinated ones considered discriminatory. experimental and cause thousands of adverse events, deaths, etc. If these distinguished philosophers criticize the Green Passage because they consider it unfair from a moral point of view, I will understand, but if they base their criticism on scientific issues, then things change, because science is not a domain of opinions but of clarity.
Professor Riccolvi seems to be on their side. “When we say, for example, that vaccination is a risky act and that we haven’t finished the testing phase because it was done in space and not in time,” Riccolvi says, “In my opinion, that makes perfect sense, I think we have to listen to all points of view.” Scientific view.
And no, dear professor, not all points of view are “scientific”. Those that are based on scientific evidence are true, others are not. In this mist of words, thick as the mist of the Po Valley, Riccolvi’s thoughts could be seen like the image of a distant oak tree. He suggests that vaccines carry many risks (more than benefits? Poh?) and that their trial has been conducted in space (in galaxies?) but not over time. Does that mean that vaccines cause more harmful effects and deaths than they do good, and that their accelerated testing is far from over? If so, what Riccolvi claims coincides with the arguments – all without foundation – for the worst uncorrupted propaganda.
Mystery علم
But then Professor Riccolvi put his hands forward. Vaccines are required, but not sufficient. True, in fact, there is no scientist who says that a vaccine alone will guarantee you 100 percent, but it is certainly the most effective procedure. “Today, it is difficult to understand whether the vaccinated or the unvaccinated is more dangerous,” he continues. We are not here because all studies show that the unvaccinated spreads the infection much more than the vaccinated.
In short, if one takes Professor Riculvi’s ideas literally, one gets the idea that vaccines are useful but not helpful, they save lives but cause deaths, they are safe but experimental. A shot here and there, on a night where all the cows are gray. This is not science, it is a mystery.
lighting experts
On what does Professor Riculvi base his statements? Browsing the Hume Foundation website, I found heavy articletitled A realistic estimate of the adverse effects of anti-Covid vaccines and the risk-benefit ratioWritten by Professor Mario Menicella, a member of the same team. When I read it I was amazed, because it is a purely propaganda document, as there is not a single scientific claim.
Who is Mario Menicella? He defines himself as a “physicist, data analyst, and thinker”, and among his works he boasts of size LED lighting for the home: a do-it-yourself guide to how to spend less, so he knows about bulbs but maybe a little about vaccines.
His article begins: “An increasingly clear and coherent picture is emerging of the importance of the adverse effects of the anti-Covid vaccines used in major Western countries. The following highlights the number of excess deaths recorded in 2021 that largely coincide with the vaccination campaign.”
Scholars set themselves up
Therefore, for him, vaccines cause a lot of adverse events and deaths, which is apparently not true. But what are its sources? Menichella cites articles by two “scholars”. The first, by attorney Josh Gotzko, appeared on the website of Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Defense Organization, the famous American anti-vaccination educator.
The second, by Tal A. Tsiang, a member of the Environmental Health Fund, a conservative US think tank that denies global warming and claims 5G phones cause cancer, has appeared in the Epoch Times, a conspiracy newspaper founded by the far-right sect. Fallon.
“In the United States, the deaths reported by the virus in the 2019-2020 influenza campaign were about 45 out of the 170 million vaccinated, and the mortality rate from influenza vaccines was 0.26 deaths per million doses,” Menichella says. Conversely, since the deaths reported in connection with Covid vaccines were, from December 14, 2020 to February 19, 2021, 966 out of 419,77401 doses ingested, the infection rate was about 23.0 cases per million doses. Accordingly, the excess deaths resulting from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are estimated at 22.7 deaths per million doses.”
In short, the anti-Covid vaccines, he says, will cause many deaths. But Menichella forgets to explain that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, run by the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC and government authorities to oversee vaccines, warns: “Anyone can voluntarily report an adverse reaction or death after vaccination, but that does not mean that it has occurred.” due to vaccination.
If, as with Covid, if the entire population is vaccinated in just two months, then it is statistically inevitable that someone will die soon after taking it, but that does not mean that it is because of vaccination.
In all of his “study,” Menichella cites only the sources of a far-right conspirator or scholars whose authority is questionable. Like Professor Paolo Bellavite, a homeopathic doctor and retired professor at the University of Verona, the main guru of the Italian no-fax movement, who argues that “Pfizer itself in the first beta is talking about something like 3.8 percent of serious reactions every 100 doses of vaccine injected.” , which corresponds to 3800 serious events per 100,000 doses.” Do you know what these serious events are? Fever above 38 degrees.
When he cannot cite such sources, Menicella turns to his personal experience: “A friend of mine, Walter, who is fifty years old, received this summer the mRna vaccine and on the same evening the vaccination, while looking at TV with his partner he gradually began to not see with his eyes one ».
The day I got vaccinated, I engaged in a form: If you want, call them engagements.
© All Rights Reserved
“Infuriatingly humble social media buff. Twitter advocate. Writer. Internet nerd.”
