With the evolution of means of communication, the international scientific community has been able to easily access to international databases which have indeed accelerated the exchange of useful information for promoting a rapid and significant scientific progress.

As with science, we also have benefited from the means of communication and from the conclusions of scientific researches which are continuously disseminated to increase collective well-being and improve the quality of life of individuals.

The importance of food, sport, prevention, prophylaxis, vaccines, psycho-physical well-being, and relaxation; as well as the danger of smog, smoking, drugs, alcohol, and unprotected sexual intercourse are just some of the precepts that have accompanied us from birth and are expanded every time a new scientific discovery is disseminated; becoming public knowledge over time.

What makes us think about it, however, are the divergent conclusions that scientific researches sometimes reach on the same phenomenon under study.

A disconcerting alternation!

Actually, scientific researches sometimes reach diametrically opposite conclusions on the same phenomenon under study which is also often in the public domain, such as: eggs yes-eggs no, walnuts yes-walnuts no, coffee yes-coffee no, wine yes-wine no, chocolate yes-chocolate no, and so on… The list is long!

Hence we might ask: how is all this possible?

How is it possible that over the years scientific studies on a given topic can affirm, then deny, and then affirm again a specific mechanism of action? How can the international scientific community have such different conclusions and alternate with studies that first affirm, then deny, and finally affirm it again?

One of the most recent examples of what has just been described can be traced back to the COVID-19 pandemic that broke out at the end of 2019.

Infectious disease specialists, virologists, biologists, microbiologists, anesthetists, and other professionals of the sector have produced a series of information and prescriptions that are often divergent or, in some cases, even antithetical.

Not only!

International scientific organizations too, as even the WHO, have contributed to disseminating different information and protocols, thus fueling profound uncertainty both in the international scientific community and in the world population.

From statements, such as: it is a simple flu…, it will pass in a short time…, it will never come to us…, the mask is useless…, just one meter away…, and so on… we have gotten to the mandatory quarantine, to acute pneumonia, to intensive care, to the construction of new hospitals, to a distance of more than one meter, to the obligatory of mask, to sample tests, and finally to the lockdown!

Gradually, it was discovered that everything was the opposite of everything… but the most incredible thing is that even during the acute phase of the pandemic professionals of the sector had conflicting ideas and opinions… Total chaos…!

But how is it possible?

In a drama of biblical proportions with thousands of new infections and deaths a day it is not possible to witness such a clash of ideas and opinions…, asking us to respect a new protocol every time they made one as if we were proceeding by trial and error.

It is not possible!

It is not possible to witness a surreal clash of opinions in a situation of this magnitude. Every day that passes the economy loses pieces; generating one of the deepest and most dramatic crisis in the history of the last few centuries, from which it will not be easy to get out of it and above all in a short time.

But how was all this possible?

Who or what to believe in? Wouldn’t it have been better to collect more information or have done cross-studies before disseminating protocols that can positively or negatively influence public attitude and opinion? To whom can we attribute the responsibility for the dissemination of divergent or totally antithetical information that confuses the people?

There are many pending questions that should be answered and there are many critical issues that the international scientific community will have to face sooner or later to ensure that in the future there will be a greater uniqueness and certainty of information capable of guiding peoples in cases such as the one we are facing now.

One thing is certain though…: from this experience we all will come out more attentive and much more suspicious and cautious before literally taking what is brought down from above as an absolute truth to believe in!