Meloni promised and delivered: Italy creates a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the management of the pandemic

A year ago, during the Italian election campaign, Giorgia Meloni announced that in the event of victory, she would create a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the management of the pandemic. To many, it seemed like an electoral move, an unattainable goal; some mocked it, others praised it, and others (the Taliban of the political health protocols and mandatory vaccination) feared it and opposed it. Instead, it is a brilliant, circumscribed, but significant example of a promise kept.

Today in Italy, the climate has changed concerning the oppression with which the political, media and scientific majority handled the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic until the summer of 2022, but not due to the weakening of the virus, but to the mutation of the political approach. It changed because freedom of societal structures returned, as did people's minds. They can now consider COVID-19 without the oppressive mantle of scientific terrorism and political imposition, mandatory vaccination and a health pass.

The step forward taken by the Meloni government is enormous, even knowing that some aspects - which, however, do not depend directly on the executive power but on a set of actors and social factors - still need to be normalized, such as freedom of decision and individual expression against anti-covid vaccines and in favor of alternative therapies. Even today, the spokespersons for mandatory vaccination terrorize the population with tactically exploited data and forecasts. Questioning the effectiveness of vaccines today is labeled denialism by epidemiologists and their media.

The attempt to impose clearly anti-liberal and largely ineffective anti-covid measures demonstrates a totalitarian will on the part of science (and its political appendages) that has been transformed into a business and, therefore, is no longer a field of knowledge but a protagonist of power. The case of the virus produced in China and spread by it was one of the best test beds to examine the capabilities of this will to power. Science, in the form of technoscience, seeks to impose itself as the divinity of the 21st century, before which men should kneel themselves, erect totems and offer obedience.

In the management of SARS-CoV-2, the possibilities of getting out of this tight control all pass through a single point, divided into two branches: informing people about the effectiveness of alternative therapies to vaccination and defending individual freedom of therapeutic choice and, on the other hand, encourage national governments to escape the blackmail of a bulimic science of power. "Freedom of choice" means that one can decide whether to get vaccinated or not. You can choose what therapy and drugs to adopt based on your needs, pathologies and subjective inclinations.

In this perspective, a voice of hope currently comes from Italy in the face of the submission of many other countries to the brutal impositions of scientific groups. Prime Minister Meloni gave the impetus for the rapid approval of the parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, which will deal with the acts and misdeeds of the government and public health in the management of the pandemic until the summer of 2022. The Commission will examine specific issues regarding, for example, ministerial decisions regarding confinement, the purchase and use of protection and treatment devices (including vaccines), restrictions on the movement of people, adverse effects on health - physical and psychological - and on the economy in general, which the government decisions of those years caused. But the Commission also has the prerogative to address questions of principle and foundation and, therefore, of policy in the broad sense and of ethics in the narrow sense.

The implicit political premises on which the Commission was established will allow (and favor) the exploration of previously prohibited fields, like topics that the bureaucratic health dictate had prevented from even being mentioned and of theories that could not be expressed, under penalty of precisely the stigma of denialism. We should not demonize scientific reason; we should value it when it is authentic research and not instrumentalism, but we cannot become slaves to technoscience either. The time has come, then, to unmask the ideological-health rhetoric and affirm the truth of science, which does not consist of the odious impositions of scientism but instead of the humility of research and the openness to comparison with any alternative option. Science is not faith, and when it is transformed into dogma, as many parascientific epidemiologists did during the pandemic, intact degraded to scientists is the positivist-totalitarian pathology of authentic science. Therefore, to give a helpful example for the work of the Commission, the harm caused by vaccines should not be prescribed: the deaths caused by indiscriminate vaccination are irreparable and unforgivable.

Therefore, it is hoped that the Commission's work will be far-reaching and, given that some points formulated in the objectives allow it, it will dare to address central themes and issues previously untouchable. And since the margins of movement are wide at that level, those specialists who are marginalized and insulted by the official management system should also be included, such as Dr. Robert Malone, one of the leading scientific experts on vaccines and especially the technology of mRNA vaccines, and the cardiologist Dr. Fabrizio Salvucci, who has the merit of having refuted and corrected the interpretation of the pathology of covid, explaining that it was venous thromboembolism and not a respiratory syndrome (with the diagnosis of which thousands of intubated patients: and who will repair the memory and dignity of all of them?).

I also trust that the Commission will take the opportunity to promote a serious international debate on medical science, its peculiarities, and current state, the management of health emergencies, and, more generally, the limits of science itself, understood as internal limits and limitations that politics would have the right (and duty) to impose on its applications. A debate on the relationship between science and ethics, on the meaning of personal freedom with respect to the omnipresent technoscience that manages to give impetus to a philosophy of freedom that today is anthropologically more necessary than in any other historical era.

In this way, the promise fulfilled by Giorgia Meloni – even more welcome in this time of digressions – could, on the one hand, be an example for other countries with governments oriented towards the principles of freedom and, on the other, constitute the basis for a debate of international importance, which would see Italy position itself as a precursor of a new direction in the management of possible pandemic and health emergencies in general, a new orientation that claims a commendable potentially national and individual health sovereignty and that, therefore, free from the impositions of the World Health Organization even while maintaining an impeccable institutional relationship with it.