Pandemics: The consistency of Giorgia Meloni

An Italian perspective from a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Trieste

Guest Editorial from Dr. Renato Cristin, professor of Philosophy at the University of Trieste (Italy).

The University of Trieste (Italian: Università degli Studi di Trieste, or UniTS) is a public research university in Trieste in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region in northeast Italy. The university consists of 10 departments, boasts a wide and almost complete range of university courses and has about 15,000 students and 1,000 professors. It was founded in 1924.

I think that many readers will find that the words and perspective of Dr. Cristin are inspiring and entirely consistent with their own perspective, no matter where in the world they live. In this essay Dr. Cristin writes about universal issues of medical freedom and the need for accountability after all that we have been through.

This article was translated into English from the original Italian by Dr. Cristin. I have only lightly edited it, under the belief that is more important to allow his passion to come out rather than nitpick his grammatical style.

Many who follow this substack are aware that I have already published two prior essays concerning the recent groundbreaking electoral results which have thrust the forthcoming Italian Prime Minister Meloni and her party Fratelli d’Italia into the global spotlight. Those essays were composed by me, after speaking with many of the new Italian friends that I have developed during the COVIDcrisis. But they did not provide a true Italian perspective. I believe that we can all gain insight from this essay, which is quite hopeful and uplifting.

The Italian people have been affected by this infectious disease outbreak more than most, and as a consequence of the early wave of infection which appears to have spread out from a Milan fashion show, sadly a large fraction of their elders (particularly in Northern Italy) were lost. Italy and the Italian people have also been particularly kind to me, and coverage of my initial de-platforming from social media channels in the Italian press (early in the outbreak) was widely covered and seemed to have embarrassed the American social media companies involved into reinstating me. Then, at the invitation of an Italian “far right” Senator, physicians (including myself) from all over the world gathered in Rome for the First International COVID summit, which focused only on alternative treatment strategies. I will never forget speaking in the Italian Senate in Rome and visiting Cardinal Turkson in the Vatican to speak of the position of the Roman Catholic Church concerning early treatment and the genetic vaccines.

For these things, I will always be grateful, and will always look for any opportunity to help the Italian people and their alternative medical community.

---

Pandemics: The consistency of Giorgia Meloni

Dr. Renato Cristin

Italian politics has been, to a large extent and for many years, affected by the disease of incoherence and transformism, specific forms of generic opportunism, behind which there are often purely business intentions. Therefore, if inconsistency is a constant element that characterizes many politicians and their parties, a leader who instead stands out for consistency is certainly Giorgia Meloni, who has always combined the concreteness of action with the consequentiality of ideas, risking on her own to defend them.

A very recent example, which due to its basic content is of fundamental importance, comes to us from the position that the president of the party Fratelli d’Italia has taken on the so-called anti-covid vaccines and on the management of the pandemic caused by the Chinese virus. She has always expressed doubts about the appropriateness and efficacy of vaccination (denouncing the dictatorship of vaccinists: “whoever has doubts is treated as a terrorist”), caution towards an unverified fluid (“this is a vaccine in trial, which ends in 2023”), respect for the theories of Professor and Nobel Laureate virologist Dr. Luc Montagnier, total opposition to the vaccination of children, as well as an argued criticism of personal restrictions and forced closures of production activities. Unlike other self-styled liberal politicians, she and her party have always voted against bills that, in various forms, pushed for anti-covid vaccination, finally opposing the infamous decree of January 7, 2022, that required it by law.

And therefore, in full coherence, the forthcoming Italian Prime Minister Meloni announces now the establishment of a parliamentary commission of inquiry on what she calls “the disastrous management of the pandemic”, a commission in front of which “everyone will be called to assume their responsibilities”, and that fixed as “one of the first things we will do at the beginning of the next legislature”. With these premises, it will finally be possible to clarify omissions and reticence, superficiality and dogmatism, provisions and obligations connected with that mass vaccination that is increasingly revealed as a techno-bureaucratic ideology that has produced ascertained damage and which, unfortunately, will continue to occur. The need and urgency of a parliamentary inquiry of this type are given by the consistency of the context (the extent of the pandemic crisis), by the importance of the object (institutional, political, health and epidemiological management) and by the severity of the consequences (the tragic and impressive series of deaths, as well as the often equally tragic sequence of side effects, clinical and economic). It is therefore a question of ascertaining responsibility, at all levels and in all sectors.

And to answer disturbing questions:

• Were many of the deaths that plagued these two and a half years of pandemic avoidable?

• Why did the political and health authorities substantially inhibit the use, especially at home, of drugs that, evidence in hand as early as April 2020, cured the disease, saving lives and also avoiding hospitalizations?

• Why was the vaccine injected in the absence of genuine informed consent? Why has the state never assumed legal and legal responsibility for the mass inoculation that it was more or less imposing on citizens?

• Why have the data on the efficacy (or ineffectiveness) of vaccines not yet been made public?

• Or maybe that data hasn't even been scientifically collected?

• Why have vaccinating doctors systematically, stubbornly and a priori denied (with superficiality, arrogance and violence befitting bureaucrats and not doctors) the exemption from vaccination to people with health problems who advised against it?

• Why did the political-health institutions literally demonize those who, for clinical or other reasons, did not want to take this pseudovaccines?

• Why did those same institutions go so far as to impose – Italy as the unique case among Western countries – indiscriminate vaccination by law, and not only by type of work activity?

• And then, how much are the economic damage caused by the closures that have been imposed on entrepreneurs?

• What interests lie behind the exclusion of any early (and therefore home) therapy that did not provide for the useless "watchful wait" and the inevitable consequent hospitalization?

• And so why, if the main problem seemed to be the clogging of hospitals, did the state not favor any therapeutic attempt at home, rather than relying on the sequence that led to resuscitation and intubation?

• And again: how much will it cost the health system to treat the negative side effects caused by vaccines?

From now on it can be predicted that, in the medium term, they will be far greater than the costs of hospitalizations that public health bureaucrats (epidemiologists, politicians and administrators) said they feared to the point of administering a pseudo-vaccine as an attempt to limit those costs.

These questions are no longer circumventable, and the answers cannot be postponed: the truth cannot wait. If the governments of broad understandings (but with a narrow conception of freedom) have not even posed the problem, a government inspired by the principles of liberal conservatism must instead - as announced by Giorgia Meloni - definitively address the question, and lay the foundations so that those illiberal and lethal decisions are never repeated.

Let's start with an objective fact. Today it seems that the media have discovered the effectiveness (such as to avoid 100% intubation) of the anti-covid protocol that Prof. Giuseppe Remuzzi (and some others scientists like Dr. Robert Malone) had already published a year and a half ago, but which had never entered the infamous ministerial protocol. This is a sensational (although known for over a year) and shocking fact, which legitimizes the belief that the State management was catastrophic.

In fact, since spring 2020, hundreds of doctors (pharmacists, general practitioners, specialists of various pathologies, even primary hospital doctors), based on their direct and incontrovertible experience, and supported by some scientists not subservient to the dominant consortiums (such as for example the aforementioned Professor Dr. Luc Montagnier, Drs. Pierre Kory and Paul Merick, Dr. Robert Malone, and the physicians of Ippocrateorg.org), practiced effective home pharmacological therapies (analogous to the Remuzzi protocol) that the zealous ministerial-health officials even opposed with abuses, threats and punishments.

Why this vast, heterogeneous and authoritative,  spontaneous and heroic array of doctors and scientists has been systematically denigrated and boycotted by the institutions and their scientific reference group (in particular the one linked to the World Health Organization, on whose work we should finally open an international survey or investigation)?

Daniele Capezzone, one of the few center-right Italian intellectuals to have fought with courage and consistency for personal freedom and factual truth, had proposed to take the cue from the pandemic emergency to carry out a great,  choral and sincere reflection on science, on its essence and its limits, its political and moral implications. He went unheard, but he pointed a way. In fact, as a whole, the management issue of the pandemic is not only health and political, but it also represents a crack in the system of basic freedoms that we believed to be acquired, a distressing episode that broke the trust of citizens in the State and that forced very calm, respectful and respectable people, to react vigorously to a coercive violence perceived (rightly) as unfair and today ascertained as vexatious and useless.

Everything revolves around freedom and how it is understood. The freedom of a people is based on individual freedom; the reverse thesis, that is, that personal freedom is based on that of the people, is Marxism, as it corresponds exactly to the idea according to which society determines individual conscience: this is historical materialism, social determinism, positivism, social-communism. Instead, it is personal conscience that determines society: this is liberalism, conservatism, Christianity, Platonism and even, to a certain extent, Enlightenment (Kant).

The supporters of compulsory inoculation (and of the consequent blaming of those who rejected it) have made litter of this absolute foundation of Western civilization. The neo-Marxists and the leftists in general by applying their theories of reference; the self-styled liberals denying their theories of reference; the bureaucrats and medicians, devoid of any theory, simply exercising their sinister power. All this must be emphasized, so that the negation of true liberalism, conservatism and Christianity that was the hammering imposition on vaccination no longer reappears, and so that their proponents do not go unpunished and cannot repeat the crime of infringement of freedom and the error of injured civilization.

The epidemiologists who praised this mass "vaccination" from zero to one hundred years of age behaved in line with their dogmatic and positivistic theories, closed in their methodological dullness, and the same goes for the bureaucrats.  But the politicians who they imposed that indiscriminate inoculation with the experimental fluid, indelibly staining their public image, they broke the trust that the citizens of libertarian and conservative orientation had in them, in the place of which a profound mistrust took over, at best, and, at worst, an unshakable reproof.

Those politicians who, froth at the mouth, have sadistically and opportunistically forced the population into the hateful blackmail of having to undergo a vaccine that has proved useless and harmful in equal proportion, have torn up the personal freedom with which they had hitherto filled that one same mouth.

Now Giorgia Meloni and her party represent the condition of possibility that that fracture in liberty will never reappear. And it is the freedom that Meloni, still in full historical-political coherence, defends by supporting the West without hesitation or afterthoughts in Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Atlanticism as loyalty to the Western pact, which unites Europe and America (and Israel), and which is not only military, like NATO, but also geopolitical and cultural. Freedom, personal and of peoples, is always to defend: in the pandemic emergency as in international conflicts. This is coherence across the board, strategic consistency.

The fundamental thesis is therefore: freedom of choice in medical care is intangible, especially if, as has been shown in this pandemic case, the treatment (the so called vaccine) does not exclude harmfulness to others (that is, it does not prevent contagion, with all that follows). A person must be free to decide, responsibly, whether or not to take this vaccine (like any other drug); he must be able to choose how to cure himself of this virus (and any other disease) without submitting to bureaucratic protocols that have proved to be ideological and fallacious, deceptive and harmful. I must be able to be free to accept or not a drug (or therapy) that is proposed to me. This is the foundation of freedom of care and personal freedom in its broadest and most proper meaning, and it is also the principle that must regulate the relationship between patient and doctor, according to Hippocrates' vision. And a liberal democratic State must not only allow but also protect this freedom.

Institutions have instead acted in the opposite direction, misleading people and manipulating their choice. The deception was at the beginning: having equated the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic with a war, and having generated a consequent terror. Alongside a "great lie", a great fear has been spread. Even this intimidating system will have to be revealed in its motivations and interests: who and what is it good for? In any case, this was the big trick and from here all the rhetorical obscenities, moral forcing and legislative abuses descended: we are at war and therefore the State can take any measure it deems necessary to carry it out. Abuses, mockery, insults, threats, constraints, up to the final blackmail: if you don't get vaccinated, you don't work (and if you don't work, you don't eat). A review of prevarications whose proponents, under the pretext of avoiding deaths, have poured out the worst insults on dissidents.

A good psychoanalytic investigation would show how in weak minds (and even more so in sadistically perverse ones) emergencies become an opportunity to vent resentments and to subrogate frustrations, like that minister who gloated in front of the cameras for the restrictive measures that would have locked up the unvaccinated like mice , that virologist who called for an amnesty for the unvaccinated (as if they had committed a crime), that avid vaccinist politician, capable only of repeating like a mantra: science tells us (yes, the bureaucratized science that peddled nonsense for get to mass inoculation?) or that mayor of a north-Italian city who equated the unvaccinated even with deserters to be shot. This long sampling of mental horrors (and deviances) corresponds to a specific psycho-political-social typology, and is connected to the delirium of omnipotence of scientism (degenerative disease of science) as well as to the devastating arrogance of many politicians.

As the late great mathematician and scientist Giorgio Israel wrote, “the scientism will tell us that it is "evident" that "the brain is a machine of flesh"; or even that "the brain can be described by an equation". But on the path of this vulgar scientist metaphysics and the dogmatism of influential circles disguised as a critical spirit, scientific culture only meets discredit and pursues the miseducation of the people, with a profound contempt for everything that is not science in the narrowest sense of the word, proclaiming […] the reduction of the mind to a machine and of feelings to physico-chemical processes. These modest followers of science of past centuries have declared the death of the ethical and moral problem, also reducing it to a purely technical-scientific problem». It is from this point of view that the specialists-scientists who developed and fomented the ineffable vaccination campaign must be denounced, even in front of the court of science.

Returning to the political point, a thesis based on a wrong premise is a fallacious thesis: there was not a war in progress, but a serious health emergency, which a State of the Western World should have resolved without destroying freedom or without mystifying the concept of liberty. Giorgia Meloni had the courage to highlight this crucial aspect, with a few but decisive lines (January 7, 2022), denouncing the dictatorship of the vaccination obligation (and then there is still someone who accuses Meloni of fascism):

“or you sign the informed consent by taking responsibility for a vaccination that is in fact imposed on you, or they take away the bread from the teeth of you and your children. This is not an obligation: it is State extortion. Where have the libertarians of this Nation gone? Where have the champions of the Constitution gone? Is it possible that they are all silent, bent with fear? Because here the issue is no longer the vaccine: the issue is what kind of society we are going towards. I do not intend to live under a para-Chinese model and I want to fight because we do not intend to mediate with anyone on rights and principles”.

Do not mediate with anyone, neither with politicians nor with epidemiologists; on freedom (and on truth) there are no mediations or shortcuts, because the question of freedom is as essential as that of identity, and both must precede any action. This is the ethical and political knot that must be dissolved as soon as possible, so that it does not again become a noose on which to hang personal and civil liberties, and with which to blackmail the people.

---

Amen to that, shouts the choir!