A few days ago, Senator Mario Monti, guest at In Onda su La7, said about the Covid pandemic: “We did not use a communication policy appropriate to the war.

A system will have to be found which reconciles freedom of expression but which extracts information from above. With Covid’s constant rhetoric, only disasters happen. War communication means there must be a dose of information. We need to find less democratic means of communication.

Open the sky. The usual controversy among Italian fans immediately erupted: who accused him of wanting to censor information and who said he was kind and applauded. But the question is not strange.

It should be the moral duty of every good journalist to impartially convey all opinions on a particular issue. When it comes to a question of a political or social nature, impartiality, i.e. presenting the main arguments of each party on the ground to ensure that each side has an equal space , is the key.

But when applied to science, integrity can present problems: it can appear to require a journalist to present different competing views on an issue as if they have the same scientific weight, when ‘in reality they are not at all.

Rights and duties

So: How do we provide information in times of epidemic? Should we give everyone the floor? Should we only give the floor to those who claim that Covid is a fatal disease that kills millions, or even to those who say that Covid is like the flu? Just for those who claim that the Covid vaccines protect us from infection, disease and death, or even those who say that these are experimental gene therapies and cause long term side effects that are useless. unknown because the search was done too quickly?

“I don’t leave words unsaid because they support absurdity,” said Tg di La7 directors Enrico Mentana and Tg1, Monica Maggioni. Is this a control or correct information?

This question is fundamental because in times of epidemic, providing incorrect and unscientific information can lead many citizens to act in ways that put their lives and the lives of others at risk.

Many repeat a phrase like a mantra: “Science is democratic, scientists argue with each other and all their opinions should be respected.” This is not true. In science, there are no opinions but only “facts” which have been verified by experiments. The scientist first formulates a theory, then conducts an experiment to prove whether that theory is true or false, and if ultimately all goes well, he says, “These are the facts.

To undermine an earlier theory, you must produce facts, not opinions. This is the scientific method. Journalists need to know this, and they need to be able to distinguish between scientific fact and rumor.

Primary sources

Two extraordinary events occurred during this pandemic: all the countries of the world have decided to publish and make available online all the data relating to cases of illness and death caused by Covid, as well as the number of vaccinations ; Previously paying, all the scientific journals on the planet have decided to make all scientific articles related to Covid accessible to all, precisely because of the exceptional medical and human interest they arouse. Primary sources are readily available to everyone, the public and journalists.

However, during the Covid epidemic, we had to witness the sad spectacle of doctors and scientists who said in the press or on television: “The Covid is like the flu, the death toll from Covid-19 is much lower than what they tell us “, without a single journalist showing him the official data or thousands of scientific articles have been published and he is opposed to” No look, the Corona virus is killing millions, it is much more deadly than the flu ”.

who claimed that the virus did not exist because it had never been isolated, without a single reporter showing them hundreds of articles in which the virus had been isolated and sequenced; Who ruled that drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin treated Covid without anyone knocking under their noses dozens of articles that showed these drugs to be unnecessary and even dangerous.

After months of strict containment that reported almost no infections and no deaths, I was able to witness the sad spectacle of a doctor in power: “The virus is clinically dead, it may have changed” without that a journalist dares not oppose it. “No look, there isn’t a single scientific article that says this virus has mutated and got better, it’s still killing millions of people.”

Almost every day I hear experts describe themselves as repeating that “Covid vaccines are experimental gene therapies, they are dangerous, and they cause a huge number of side effects and deaths”, without the objection. from any journalist: “No, look at the data available to all, vaccines tested, safe and effective.”

What behaviors are caused by these unfortunate sentences? How many people left their homes without taking precautions while the virus was still spreading? How many have been persuaded not to get the vaccine? And what responsibility do these journalists bear, who have raised no questions or objections?

Recently, I have also heard experts say that the green corridor is an unfair measure because those who are vaccinated transmit the virus as well as those who have not, and those who deny it are lying.

However, no reporter objected that no scientist had ever said that a vaccinated person was not infected and could not become infected. But in order to infect someone else you have to be infected with the coronavirus first, that is, you have to have it inside your body, and hopefully it is clear to everyone now that if you are vaccinated you are less likely to get infected. sick, if you get sick you will recover early and you may die a little.

But if those who have been vaccinated get less sick and recover faster, they are less likely to have the coronavirus in their body, and so they can pass it on to someone else more difficult, and thus infect them less. . Do you think the anti-aircraft gun type vaccine kills the virus before it gets into our body?

However, all the scientific articles show that a vaccinated person infects and can be much less infected than an unvaccinated one because if the virus enters his body, the vaccinated person remains infectious for a few hours, because his immune system is immediately ready to take action. beat and defeat vaccination. , while the unvaccinated remain infectious for days or even weeks.

No journalist has recalled dozens of scientific articles showing that a vaccinated person is much less likely to be infected than unvaccinated people, because vaccinated people are able to clear the virus from their bodies much faster. than unvaccinated people. It can infect others for a shorter period. In practice, the vaccine can infect others for 24 to 72 hours, those who have not been vaccinated for weeks or even months.

When 99.9% of academics support a thesis that has been verified by empirical facts, and 0.1, on the contrary, is not verified, if you interview or invite an expert who supports the first place and a ” expert ”argues the opposite, you give the impression that there is no peer discussion and that you are playing with reality.

You’re hiding behind a level playing field, pretending to be neutral and rather one-sided, and you’re on the wrong side as well. And during a pandemic, giving a voice to nonsense that is not supported by empirical facts can also mean the death of your conscience.

© All rights reserved