@ Dr. Edd May 2, 2020 at 14:48
I made a longer more detailed reply a week ago, but it disappeared into the ether.
‘…Dr Loretta Bolgan’s claims shouldn’t be ignored or casually dismissed: they should be evaluated and investigated independently to verify that the safety of the vaccines falls within approved limits. The initial argument she ventures doesn’t fare well from the expert evaluation, however: Bucci highlighted 8 serious methodological flaws. In my opinion the matter is important enough to warrant a similar screening study to test the null hypothesis … not by anti-vaccination organisations (who are by their nature highly partisan) nor by pharmaceutical companies themselves (who have a record of concealing unprofitable data) but by universities who are answerable to a higher academic standard. The EMA has considered Dr Bolgan’s concerns, but has so far declined to investigate until her study is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Until then, her preliminary ‘findings’ are only useful for whipping up sentiment.’
Dr. Bolgan and Corvelva have stated all along that the tests are ongoing and these are incomplete tests, but they have been carried out by qualified laboratories. The full tests would take longer and doubtless cost more (Corvelva is presumably financed by public donations), but the main reason they haven’t waited until all the tests are done, is because the vaccines for the children are mandatory. That means the longer the delay, the more children would be exposed to whatever poisonous substances MAY be in them.
Yet the EMA and Italian government, as well as the vaccine manufacturers, just drag their feet, and haven’t responded to the requests for copies of the testing that has been done to show they are safe.
You agree that ‘…Dr Loretta Bolgan’s claims shouldn’t be ignored or casually dismissed: they should be evaluated and investigated independently to verify that the safety of the vaccines falls within approved limits….’ – so what’s the problem? That is all she and Corvelva want – copies of tests that should have been done (maybe they weren’t, or exposed things the manufacturers don’t want publicised), and retests given their preliminary lab findings.
Given the enormity of the possible consequences if only a fraction of Corvelvas’ tests are shown to be correct, the precautionary principal should ensure the government and regulatory bodies need to get moving on this, not procrastinate.
There should be no need for Corvelva to do any of these tests – the manufacturers and regulatory bodies should have done them, and shown the results, which they seem highly reluctant to do.
