I refer to the articles ‘Hotch-potch of senseless allegations in protest against Fearne, Gauci’ (November 19) and ‘The questions around COVID’ (Albert Cilia Vincenti, November 3). Both make a number of derogatory and misleading statements regarding the judicial protest filed on behalf of my clients.

The first article, covering statements by some associations, referred to the protesters as “a group of highly irresponsible persons… making senseless allegations that completely lack scientific basis”.

Had these doctors’ associations actually read through the judicial protest, it would have been clear that, rather than making allegations, it is actually built around the declarations made by the doctors’ very own peers outside Malta who now number over 50,000.

In light of their different expert opinion, the protesters have called upon the Department of Public Health to furnish the science to show that it is right and that the 50,000 medics signing the Great Barrington, Canadian and Belgian declarations are wrong. To date, this science has not been provided.

The protesters have every right in a free and democratic society to have such full disclosure, especially considering that their rights and civil liberties have been restricted as a result of some of the policies challenged by the 50,000 medics.

The doctors’ associations, for their part, should immediately put their ‘science’ where their mouth is and disclose all the peer-reviewed studies to support their own claims that our government should declare a state of public health emergency, which we are firmly against, especially since no epidemic has ever been declared in Malta, and rightly so.

Cilia Vincenti has accused the protesters of filing a time-wasting “frivolous objection”, in connection with what he referred to as the issues of “PCR test reliability” and “vaccine efficiency and safety”.

I challenge the good doctor to comment on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in its constitutional capacity in Portugal, of November 11, 2020, in the De Almaeda case for illegal detention based upon findings of the PCR test.

In this case, the health authority failed miserably to substantiate its claim of validity of this so-called gold standard test. In dismissing the authority’s appeal, the court quoted a study published in The Lancet on September 29, 2020, named ‘False positive COVID-19 results’, by Surkova et al, and another study by Rita Jaafar et al, which the court itself described as “carried out by a group that brings together some of the greatest European and world experts in the field”.

The doctors’ associations should immediately put their ‘science’ where their mouth is

The Court of Appeal concluded that “with so many scientific doubts expressed by experts in the field, which are the ones that matter here, as to the reliability of such tests… it would never be possible for this court to determine that (the person testing positive) had the SARS-Cov-2 virus”.

With all due respect to the local medi­cal opinions on the reliability of the PCR test, it is a court of law, presented with the evidence, that is the ultimate adjudicator of any claim of such reliability. If a case is filed in Malta challenging the PCR test, there is already case law to back it up.

But there is more. Following the said judgment, a peer review paper was submitted on November 27 by some of the most eminent scientists in their field, including the former vice president of Pfizer.

This peer review shows how seriously flawed on no fewer than 10 scientific counts the Corman-Drosten et al report of January 2020 is. It was this same flawed paper that formed the basis for policies to use the PCR test to try and detect COVID-19.

The peer review states that running the PCR test over 35 cycles results in a possible 97 per cent false positive rate. The peer review has requested that the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted.

I expect Cilia Vincenti and the doctors’ associations to submit a detailed analysis of this peer review paper. If they fail to do so, they could be seen as misleading the public on the science.

Cilia Vincenti also challenges the judicial protest’s request for the science to show the safety of vaccines.

Does he not know that the judicial protest quoted official US government sources that show that over 7,500 people were awarded damages for vaccine injuries in the US? Does he not know that some adverse reactions to vaccines surface several years later? Does he not know that, as seen on the WHO’s own website, some polio vaccines that had been cleared for distribution have been recently withdrawn after many children in Africa suffered paralysis as a result of the vaccine?

So how could it be argued that trials carried out over just a few weeks could dispel any doubts as to a vaccine’s safety?

And what about the safety trials? Can Cilia Vincenti, as a former delegate of the European Medicines Agency, please explain why placebos are so often not being used in the safety trials’ control groups of vaccines, as is the case with medicines?

And what does he think about vaccine companies dragging their feet on the much safer plant-derived ‘green vaccines’, which are made without toxins, like formaldehyde and aluminium?

According to the paper by Davoodi-Semiromi et al, these more natural vaccines, which are never mentioned, “could offer a safer approach because they… require no adjuvants or other chemicals”.

Could it possibly be that these more natural vaccines would be more difficult for the vaccine companies to patent and, thus, profit from?

The judicial protest has called for the publication on the public health website of all the contraindications and adjuvants in all vaccines. Is Dr Cilia Vincenti against this public access to such information?

Rodolfo Ragonesi, legal spokesperson to protesters filing judicial protest

Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.

Support Us