Former Italian health minister Roberto Speranza and the head of the Italian pharmaceutical control body under investigation for covid vaccines

Former Italian health minister Roberto Speranza and the head of the Italian pharmaceutical control body under investigation for covid vaccines. 

Mario Giordano, a well-known Italian TV presenter, had announced in his programme ‘Fuori dal Coro’ that the former Italian Minister of Health Roberto Speranza was under investigation at the Tribunale dei Ministri, in Rome, for the adverse effects of vaccines. Then came a note from Ansa in which Speranza’s lawyer confirmed the news but hastened to add that it was ready to be archived at the request of the public prosecutor’s office. So the Italian minister and the former director of the Italian medicines control body, Nicola Magrini, would be under investigation by the Italian judiciary, the former at the ‘Tribunal of Ministers’, which judges members of the government, and the latter at the ordinary court

It therefore seems, as the newspaper ‘La Verità’ also rightly reports, that the judiciary does not have the independence and courage to investigate—I do not say condemn, but investigate—the darkest period for Italian freedom, that of lockdowns and virtually compulsory vaccinations.

Will this be the end of the affair, with a clean sweep? The charges were quite heavy, ranging from ideological perjury to murder. So at least there is a public prosecutor, that of Rome, with the signature of Francesco Lo Voi, who believes light should be shed on what happened during the vaccination campaign, that is, on the fact that they were hidden essential information on the adverse effects that emerged and were feared and on the effects of the vaccine on the healed, all together with Nicola Magrini, former director AIFA now moved to a well-paid post in the Emilia Romagna region.

Now, however, there is another little mystery: the registration of Speranza and Magrini appears to have taken place on 30 October, what sense does a filing make only after 25 days? If the complaints were empty, they might as well not have proceeded with the issue of notices of investigation and filed everything immediately. If, on the other hand, the report is considered well-founded and a file has been opened, why close it so soon?

Moreover, since the file is open, but access has not yet been granted to third parties, such as the offended parties. So how do Speranza’s lawyers know that it is going to be closed? Do they have a privileged information route or have they simply expressed their wishes, what the Anglo-Saxons call ‘Wishful thinking’? Incidentally, there seems to be no request to archive Nicola Magrini, for whom no authorisation from the Court of Ministers is required.

So the enquiry is there, it is currently, as we write, open, and it may even, at last, come to something, especially to clarify how certain decisions to impose vaccination were taken, who imposed them, what data was available, who lobbied and who gave in to the pressure. Many people are waiting for the truth, or at least a plausible version of it, especially after the parliamentary Commission of Inquiry was severely deprioritised, while in the UK a full-fledged enquiry into the matter has begun.