Corvelva press release, January 4, 2021
Some days ago we have read an interesting article that was published in the newspaper La Verità.1 The excellent piece by Antonio Grizzuti of January 3 dealt with an in-depth study published in the well-known scientific journal Science (2) which reported serious allergic reactions caused by the Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine.
We had already bought the article (written by the science journalist Job de Vrieze), because we considered it important, being it closely related to the vaccine analyses we commissioned in 2017. Let's try to explain: first of all we are not talking about problems with the anti-SarsCov-2 vaccine, but a possible omission by Italian and European control bodies concerning vaccines that have already been on the market for years.
The article published in Science refers to "severe allergic reactions in at least 12 people who received the COVID-19 vaccine by Pfizer and BioNTech" and to the fact that these reactions could be due to the vaccine's main ingredient: polyethylene glycol (PEG)."
This molecule called PEG,3 as Science reminds us, has never been used before in vaccines but it is present in many drugs, some of which have occasionally triggered anaphylaxis (a life-threatening reaction that can cause rashes, a drop in blood pressure, shortness of breath and altered heartbeat). Some allergists and immunologists believe that a small number of people who were previously exposed to PEG may have high levels of antibodies against it, putting them at risk of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine.
What if we told you that back in 2018 we had warned all the Italian control bodies, the Ministry of Health, the National Institute of Health - and even European bodies such as EMA - of a possible PEG contamination in the hexavalent vaccine Infanrix Hexa, by GlaxosmithKline and that nobody has never taken any action? Yes, on December 14, 2018 we alerted all institutions of the possible presence of PEG in the analysed vaccine, highlighting the fact that "it has been detected the presence of formic acid in the form of a sodium salt and a polymer derived from Poly Ethylene Glycol (PEG) contaminations which has an average molecular weight of 1340 Da."4
We were not suggesting whether it was good or bad, that is up to professionals in the field, but merely that there was a possible contamination (quite a lot, actually) that - if confirmed- would make this vaccine non-compliant.
Now let us try to briefly summarise the issue. When in 2017 the then Minister Lorenzin introduced compulsory vaccination under Law 119/2017, our Association Corvelva, which focuses only on freedom of choice in the therapeutic field and in vaccination in particular, decided to commission laboratory analyses on the main vaccines available in Italy. We will not go into the specifics of the analyses now, but we would like to remind you that the focus was to verify the compliance of such vaccines with the manufacturers' technical data sheets.
We not only published everything, but also asked all the Italian institutions to intervene; we also had a meeting at the Ministry of Health with the then undersecretary Bartolazzi, outlining all the problems encountered and always pointing out that our analyses were not conclusive, they did not put a full stop to anything but, as citizens and consumers, our role was to submit these data and ask for checks from those responsible for doing so.
Nothing has been done by the Italian institutions for two years. After many months of useless correspondence with those who should run the checks, we lodged a complaint with the Public Prosecutor's Office in Rome and just a few days ago, on December 28, 2020, following a request for closure made by the Public Prosecutor's Office and our subsequent opposition, the analyses we had commissioned were considered worthy of further investigation and the judge in charge issued an order stating to the Public Prosecutor's Office the need to proceed with the investigation.5
Of course, we are considered as illiterate troglodytes and what we reported has always been dismissed by public opinion as "Anti-Vax stuff". However, despite being labelled this way, we had already raised the alarm about a substance that should not be contained in those vaccines, and surprisingly, it is the same substance that is now pointed out as problematic in a new experimental vaccine, as written by Science.
Moreover, PEG was not the first anomaly to be reported, at first ignored and then hitting the headlines: just think about the massive withdrawal of numerous batches of medicines (not vaccines!) by the EMA due to the presence of nitrosamines, a molecule that we had highlighted as a possible contamination within the vaccines analysed, back in March 2019... without success. These products continue to be marketed and administered as if nothing had happened.
This situation is obviously leading to a certain mistrust of the institutions. In fact, 'the vaccine' has become something ancestral, dogmatic, a real form of religion, and the slogan 'an act of faith' has already been used publicly.
'The vaccine' is no longer seen a pharmaceutical or commercial product: anyone who dares to raise doubts is laughed at, hit, demolished. However, when people's health is involved, it is better to immediately investigate such issues, otherwise it may be too late. History is full of late interventions following warnings and complaints that have been received and deliberately ignored, even in medicine.
Maybe it is time to get back to focusing on the real issue, which is health, safety and protection of people, not only in the field of health, but also in other areas, abandoning this faith-based and obsessive narrative that seems to meet more the need for guarantees on the product which is presented as a saviour, rather than the real need for guarantees on its actual safety and effectiveness.
The health of the population must be protected, first of all by ensuring the functioning of independent checks and controls network that was originally established.
At the same time, it is essential to protect freedom of choice, i.e. the possibility of choosing whether or not to undergo a given health treatment, especially if it is in the experimental phase, and even more if it is authorised with reservations, or if it is to be administered not to cure but to prevent, therefore with a risk-benefit ratio that is necessarily more complex to define and certainly to be established on a case-by-case basis, which applies to all vaccines.
Perhaps the time has come to restore real politics and real medicine where it is needed, instead of trying to replace weak politics with coercive obligations. The legal requirements in the field of health are perhaps the most frightening and dangerous of all, because they affect the life and integrity of citizens: they are not tools to be used in ideological battles. We wish to see a forthright reflection on this issue.
Associazione Corvelva APS