On August 5, 2025, the Ministry of Health appointed the new National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (Nitag), the technical consultative body called to lead national vaccine policies. A crucial passage, especially after crossing one of the greatest health emergencies of the last decades and while continuing to fight the challenge of an effective and shared vaccination campaign.

What should have represented a signal of professionalism and rigor has turned into a political and scientific case. The controversies arise from the appointment of Eugenio Serravalle, a pediatrician known for having expressed doubts about the vaccination obligation and for having spread scientifically unfounded theories, and Paolo Bellavite, a retired hematologist who has often supported critical positions towards vaccines. The Nitag, by its nature, must guarantee competence, rigor and independence from political or ideological pressures. It is the compass that directs public health towards decisions based on data, evidence and solid studies.

The Serravalle case is emblematic. In June 2025, on the Assis website, he published an article entitled “Children, measles and vaccines: beyond propaganda, in search of truth”, which minimizes the importance of vaccination and suggests that official information is manipulation tools. Among the most serious statements, the reference to VAERS data (the US System of reporting adverse events) as proof that MPR vaccines (Morbillo-Parotitis-Rosolia) would cause more deaths than measles. A misleading interpretation: the VARS is an open report system, not a verified database, while each data must be subjected to epidemiological investigation before establishing a causal link. Using these reports to insinuate non -existent dangers is not only incorrect: it is dangerous.

Moreover, the statements contained in the article minimize the importance of vaccinations in preventing serious diseases such as measles. Amply recognized scientific studies show that the benefits of vaccination far exceed risks, significantly contributing to the elimination of infectious diseases and the protection of public health.

Use the number of reports of deaths to infer that vaccines cause more deaths than the disease is scientifically incorrect. A lie. Scientific evidence demonstrates without a doubt that the benefits of vaccination far exceed risks by helping to protect public health. Disseminating misleading information can instead cause a drop in vaccination covers and the return of diseases now under control, with concrete and serious consequences. Vaccination represents one of the greatest successes of modern medicine, responsible for the prevention of millions of deaths and serious diseases in the world. Throw its effectiveness with suspicion and disinformation means putting everyone’s health at risk but in particular of those who are more fragile.

Scientific dialogue and the comparison of ideas are fundamental for the growth of knowledge but I believe that there is a clear border between the comparison based on rigorous data and the inclusion of non -slip positions. The Nitag must represent the scientific community, do not transform into an arena where marginal, dangerous and not demonstrated positions also find space.

As for Professor Paolo Bellavite, in one of his text entitled “Flying Bales”, those who criticize the homeopathy of fueling media campaigns “made of lies” accuses. But homeopathy, according to the international scientific community, has no effectiveness demonstrated and, if replaced with tests based on tests, can put public health at risk.

Naming two exponents in the Nitag notoriously close to pseudoscientific and antivaccinist positions is not only an institutional own goal but a real scientific Harakiri. In a historical moment in which trust in health institutions is fragile and must be reconstructed with rigor and transparency, leaving room for those who spread disinformation risks compromising everyone’s public health, especially of the most vulnerable.

It is not a question of censorship or to deny the comparison, but to recognize that the terrain of science is based on concrete tests, verified data and consolidated international consensus. Invite in the hearts of decisions those who feed unfounded doubts and dangerous theories are equivalent to questioning the foundations of research and scientific method. The challenge is clear: either the scientific rigor is defended or the doors are open to improvisation and chaos, with consequences that, as a reflection, we will pay everyone.