The debate on “vaccines yes, vaccines no” does not arise today.
The dialectic that their introduction has always provoked in the scientific field and the conflicting opinions that have emerged over time should not be demonized, on the contrary. They can be professional if not exploited by party interests but even more so by the enormous financial interests of the large multinational drug companies.
Let us try to clarify this moment so difficult and full of unknowns.
Some things to know.
1 – Vaccination is not a cure but one prophylaxis. In other words, healthy people are vaccinated with the aim of protecting them from a possible disease, a disease that perhaps they would not catch or from which, perhaps, they would recover spontaneously without negative consequences. In this sense the possible advantages of vaccination must outweigh the possible disadvantages which do exist (rare or very rare), but obviously no less heavy and painful for those affected.
Each individual has his own defense system. This defense system (immune system) can be more or less efficient for multiple factors: genetics, concomitant diseases, drug intake, nutrition, age etc … never the same, apart from monozygotic twins), so the response of each to a vaccine and its components is never completely predictable. The individual conditions of each should therefore be evaluated before presenting and inoculating a vaccine.
2 – The natural response acquired after contracting some infection it is highly specific, effective and long-lasting. The unnatural response acquired after administration of a vaccine is less effective and less lasting, moreover it has been received by skipping the natural routes of intake (the vaccine is usually injected or taken by mouth), the expected defense systems and consequently immune different and in fact less predictable and less lasting.
3 – The immune defense it makes use of many systems: circulating blood which has a period of permanence in the blood of the order of months; lymphocytes (and other families of white blood cells) that persist for longer times (years) and in case of new contact with the virus or the heartbeat that activated them, they are able to rapidly produce specific in large quantities.
4 – There is a huge difference between the traditional vaccines we have been administering for over a century and the RNA and DNA vaccines. The latter are based on an innovative technology but not sufficiently tested as the times of their experimentation have been compressed or skipped under the pressure of the emergency.
5 – If she is immunized, because she was cured of an infection contracted or artificially with vaccines, at least 85-90% of the population, the virus is no longer able to circulate and therefore 10-15% of the unvaccinated population are also protected.
6 – Be cured or vaccinated does not exclude being carriers and therefore transmitters of a virus.
7 – For any type of infection exist completely asymptomatic healthy carriers and therefore able to infect their contacts.
8 – The asymptomatic or particularly trivial forms of SARS-COVID19 are those that affect the youngest and most especially children.
9 – Non vaccines cannot be given to children highly secure and that they have passed all the steps for their approval.
10 – Who, for individual selfishness, even in the face of a serious emergency intends not to get vaccinated must, in my opinion, consciously assume the economic honor and the practical consequences of his choice in the event of a contraction of Covid 19 infection, not weighing on the community and not subtracting health services from citizens who are vaccinated and suffering from other diseases.
And after the Decalogue, we come to us.
The appearance of the virus called SARS-COVID 19, unknown to the immune system of mankind, constitutes a formidable and devastating danger for those who have been impressed. It is also disaggregating complex economic and social systems such as ours with possible catastrophic consequences.
Faced with such a serious threat the use of mass vaccination campaigns was fully justified.
Being an unknown virus all available vaccines have been used – or should have been – being all, without they are any, provisionally authorized pending the overcoming of the foreseen procedure.
The much vaunted Pfizer has only recently obtained a definitive authorization, among other things on data relating to its effectiveness after three months (around 90%) and not on the one-year data that have no longer been calculated even if, in all evidence, its effectiveness decreased and at the same time they appeared variants towards which it is less effective.
San Marino was forced to buy the Russian Sputnik vaccine in the face of Italy’s refusal to provide the agreed doses in a reasonable time despite the high number of deceased and the small San Marino health system in collapse.
Vaccination predominantly with Sputnik it definitely worked with high levels of antibody response and very few side effects.
The Italian Ministry of Health has granted – his goodness – the free movement of San Marino citizens in Italy (as required by the friendship and good neighborly treaties between the two countries) with the use of our vaccination pass until 31 December 2021 which must be followed by vaccination with RNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) of one dose if within six months of completing the vaccination with Sputnik or two doses if over six months to get the green pass which will probably be kept for a long time.
There are no studies indicating the usefulness of a third dose without at least underestimating the residual antibody response. There are contradictory studies on heterologous vaccination.
There are no studies regarding the administration of a double dose of RNA vaccine after administration of a double dose of viral vector vaccine. in less than a year (this is the situation most vaccinated Sputnik would face).
There are no studies on possible negative effects (pericarditis-myocarditis, pancreatitis, immune diseases) after the third dose of an RNA vaccine for those who have vaccinated Pfizer.
It makes no sense to do a booster dose that is not effective on the variants: like the seasonal flu, the booster contains the more aggressive variant.
The conclusions of this necessarily long reasoning are simple and implicit:
- Only frail people are vaccinated with the third dose;
- The third dose must be homologous up to certain proofs of harmlessness by the heterologous;
- A statistically significant sample – or better still to all vaccinated people – must be measured in circulation to decide on a possible expansion of the vaccination strategy;
- It is good to buy a certain quantity of the new anti Covid 19 drugs to face the probable increase in cases in the cold months;
- The Government has a duty to explain the situation to Italy, to ask for help us instead of imposing scientifically groundless, risky and penalizing solutions.