The precautionary stop to the use of the AstraZeneca anti-Covid vaccine “was in fact a political decision”, says the virologist of the University of Milan Fabrizio Pregliasco. And a series of more or less scattered initiatives was taken to ‘reset’ in some way, perhaps even more confusing than a single stop. A choice made with the aim of eliminating ‘leaks’ from vaccination. of the drug could not do anything else “, except to take the time to investigate the reports of suspected adverse effects received.
Heard by time.news Salute after Ema’s pronouncement on the serum produced by the Anglo-Swedish company and the statements made yesterday on the subject by Prime Minister Mario Draghi, the expert nevertheless makes a note on a “somewhat Pilates-like” mode of communication by the EU regulatory body. As the story turned out, he notes, “this story jeopardizes the perception of the quality and safety of the vaccine.”
“Perhaps – reasons Pregliasco – the EMA did not express itself at its best in leaving room for interpretation” relating to extremely rare thrombotic events for which the Agency has made it clear that it cannot currently exclude with certainty a causal link with the administration of the vaccine. A modality of information “perhaps a little Pilate – comments the virologist – which has determined” for example “the possibility for France to put an element of precaution” on the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, “reversing the limit of use” initially indicated also in Italy (among the criticisms of many) preferentially for the under 55 and now fixing it “from 55 years up”.
Overall, therefore, “this story risks ruining the perception of the quality and safety of the vaccine. They would have done better – specifies the doctor referring to the EMA – to write that these very rare episodes of rare thrombosis” after the AstraZeneca vaccination “were in in line with those observed for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which in the Anglo-Saxon series had similar data “.