This tendency toward uncritical adherence to dogma has manifested dramatically in recent times, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initial directives, which discouraged or prevented autopsies on patients who died from the virus and mandated the rapid cremation of bodies, are a clear example of how "protocol" can stifle the pursuit of knowledge [17].
In a moment of global uncertainty, the decision not to directly investigate the causes and manifestations of the disease through autopsy deprived the scientific and medical community of valuable data that could have accelerated understanding of the virus and the development of more effective therapies. This highlighted a dangerous subordination of scientific curiosity and investigative methods to the logic of "this is how it's done because it was said so." Even more problematic is the fact that this lack of critical thinking manifested despite the existence of numerous scientific publications [9, 18], World Health Organization (WHO) reports [12], and national pandemic plans (dating back to 2006, then updated) [10], which foresaw the risk of future pandemics (epidemics, moreover, have always existed in human history) and outlined precise strategies on how to address them. Recommendations on surveillance, stockpiling of protective equipment, and the need for a flexible response had been put forward for years. The failure to implement or the ignorance of these well-documented and accessible forecasts suggests a serious failing in the application of critical thinking, preferring blind adherence to emergency directives rather than activating pre-existing, evidence-based plans.
The challenge in these contexts is also that of effective risk communication, too often underestimated or inadequately managed, contributing to a sense of uncertainty and suboptimal responses [14]. Physicians, as human beings, are vulnerable to external influence and can be easily "instrumentalized." This isn't a conspiracy hatched in secret rooms, but rather a more subtle mechanism in which pharmaceutical multinationals and large institutions influence research, training, and clinical practice [6]. In this scenario, the general practitioner can resemble a modern Manzonian "Don Abbondio": diligent in duty, scrupulous in applying protocols, but often lacking the intellectual curiosity that would lead him to ask "why" behind every instruction. The phrase "They told me this is the right way!" resonates like a mantra, sometimes masking a combination of ignorance, intellectual laziness, and, in some cases, a form of stupidity in the inability to question dogma.
The risk of total conspiracy
However, the danger does not lie solely in excessive adherence to protocol. Criticism of medicine, though necessary and healthy, risks falling into a symmetrical
trap: that of total conspiracy. Many of those who oppose the dominant medical system tend to create a new, opposing "religion," where only two irreconcilable
realities exist: their own (always right) and that of the "enemy" (always wrong). This dynamic is often fueled by viral misinformation, which can spread
rapidly and compromise trust in scientific and institutional sources [14]. Recent debates, such as those on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and patented sequences,
also highlight the need for a methodical and unbiased approach to analyzing scientific evidence [5].
This binary approach, though understandable as a reaction to a system perceived as oppressive, is just as damaging as excessive adherence to dogma. Instead of
promoting constructive dialogue and a search for truth based on evidence, it ends up reinforcing polarization, undermining trust in science and individual
discernment.
The need for balanced critical thinking
How can we escape this vicious cycle? The key lies in promoting balanced critical thinking. This means:
• Educating physicians (and patients) in methodical doubt: Encouraging the questioning of protocols, the search for alternative evidence, and continuous updating that goes beyond sponsored presentations [16].
• Transparency in relations between industry and medicine: Making financial and interest ties public to allow for an objective evaluation of recommendations [6].
• Promoting independent research: Supporting studies that are not influenced by commercial interests [8].
• Training citizens in discernment: Teaching how to distinguish between verified information and misinformation, how not to fall for simplifications, and how to critically evaluate every statement, whether it comes from the "system" or from "counter-information" [11, 14]. Medicine is a fundamental pillar of our well-being. To ensure its integrity and effectiveness, it's essential that it remains anchored to scientific principles, free from dogmas, rituals, and instrumentalization, and that it fosters an environment where critical thinking is not only accepted but encouraged at all levels. Only then can we ensure that health is truly at the center of every decision, and not merely a battlefield between imposed "truths" and ideological "counter-truths."
*Board member SRSN (Roman Society of Natural Science)
Bibliography
1. CS ODM. Magi: "Paghiamo i tagli del passato, ora investire nella sanita'" 04 Nov 2020 Scienzaonline
2. CS OMCeO. 'Dottore ma e' vero che?', online sito medici contro 'bufale' 19 Feb 2018 Scienzaonline
3. CS OMCeO. Magi: "Test ingresso a Medicina sia a numero programmato. Contenuti dovrebbero essere psicoattitudinali e di cultura generale" 08 Set 2022 Scienzaonline
4. Donati, Guido. La coincidenza dei 19 Nucleotidi: Un'Analisi Critica della Sequenza Brevettata da Moderna e le Sue Implicazioni nel Dibattito sull'Origine del SARS-CoV-2. 13 Giugno 2025, Scienzaonline
5. Donati, Guido. "The 19-nucleotide coincidence: a critical analysis of Moderna's patented sequence and its implications in the SARS-CoV-2 origin debate." 13 Giugno 2025, Scienceonline.
6. Gotzsche, Peter C. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare. Radcliffe Publishing, 2013.
7. Illich, Ivan. Nemesi medica. L'espropriazione della salute. Bollati Boringhieri, 1976.
9. McKibbin, Warwick J., and Alexandra Sidorenko. "Pandemic risk: how large are the expected losses?" The Lowy Institute for International Policy, 2009.
10. Ministero della Salute (Italia). Piani Nazionali di Preparazione e Risposta ad una Pandemia Influenzale.
11. Novella, Steven. The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Full of Fake. Grand Central Publishing, 2018.
12. Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità (OMS). Piani di preparazione e risposta alle pandemie influenzali.
13. Pioneering Hand Hygiene: Ignaz Semmelweis and the Fight Against Puerperal Fever. PMC, National Library of Medicine.
14. Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2024). The Psychology of Misinformation. Cambridge University Press.
15. Sahin, U., et al. (2022). "Individualized mRNA vaccination in resected pancreatic cancer." Nature, 607(7920), 834-840.
16. Sackett, David L., et al. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
17. Società Italiana di Anatomia Patologica e Citodiagnostica (SIAPEC-IAP). Documenti e prese di posizione sulla gestione delle salme e delle
autopsie durante l'epidemia di COVID-19 in Italia. Per i documenti ufficiali e le linee guida, consultare il sito SIAPEC-IAP
18. Wolfe, Nathan. "Preventing the next pandemic." Scientific American, vol. 300, no. 4, 2009, pp.
