Bolsonaro’s speeches encourage crimes against Anvisa, says head of the agency

Previously an advisor to the government on the pandemic, the Rear Admiral and head of Anvisa (National Health Surveillance Agency), Antonio Barra Torres, has raised the tone of criticism of President Jair Bolsonaro (PL).

In an interview with leaf, he said the president’s campaign to undermine children’s immunizations spurs anti-vaccination groups and threats to the life of regulatory agency officials.

After Anvisa approved the use of doses of Pfizer against Covid for the group of 5 to 11 years, Bolsonaro promised to expose the names of the agency’s servers and said the decision was “unbelievable”.

“I have no doubt that the two statements contributed greatly to the approximate number of 170 death threats, physical aggression, violence of all kinds against servers and their families that Anvisa has received,” said Barra Torres.

He also considered the public consultation and the proposal of Minister Marcelo Queiroga (Health) to charge a prescription to immunize younger people to be inadequate. “It has no precedent in fighting the pandemic and is inexorably leading to a waste of time,” said Barra Torres.

The head of Anvisa stated that there is a feeling of “helplessness” at the agency, which is still awaiting a response from the Federal Police on the request for protection of employees. He declared that the servers work “at the limit” and said he feared the departure of technicians — out of a total of 1,600, 600 have enough time to retire, according to Barra Torres.

At the beginning of the health crisis, the military was used by the president as a counterpoint to the ex-minister of Luiz Henrique Mandetta and was, without a mask, in an act of coup and pro-government bias. After the threats, Barra Torres said he walked away from Bolsonaro, but maintained respect for the president.

How do you assess Anvisa’s work in 2021? It was a year that started very well, I would say [com aprovação das vacinas para Covid no Brasil]. In terms of hope that we have today [vacinas], at least to give some degree of comfort to the immense Brazilian population that massively adhered to the vaccination campaign. It was a year that, faced with a difficult scenario, began with a wave of hope and ended without this hope being blessed with the realization [aplicação da vacina em crianças]. That will be for 2022.

There are about 170 threats that Anvisa received because of the vaccine in children. What is the profile of these people? These are people who carry threats, both of death and of persecution, humiliation, violence, attacks focused on servers, directors, outsourced workers, employees, family members, anyone who has a relationship with Anvisa. As well as the building facilities. It’s clearly the profile of antivacin. Note that these are people who want to make people believe that Anvisa is solely responsible for an action that is not theirs, which is to vaccinate people. Who actually decides to incorporate the health system is the Ministry of Health.

Did Anvisa reiterate the security requests after the threats? these bodies [PF, PGR e Ministério da Justiça] have already received our initial notifications, have already been fed additional information. We’ve reached an approximate number of 170 threats, a number that grows every day. To date, there is no concrete measure of protection, at least ostensible and palpable, that we are aware of in relation to Anvisa, in relation to its servers and building facilities.

This creates a feeling of helplessness for those working at the agency. It is a worrying feeling because there is no police protection so far, worrying because it identifies the potentially dangerous scenario [variante ômicron] and worrying for not seeing the focus on facing a likely adverse scenario for the year 2022.

Mr. do you consider the open public consultation by the Ministry of Health on the vaccination of children to be appropriate? Public consultation is one of those measures that was not listed before when dealing with the same manufacturer and when dealing with vaccination for adults. So it is a measure that has no precedents in recent history, no precedents in the fight against the pandemic and that is inexorably leading to a waste of time, given that our analysis has already been concluded.

So, how to understand the motivation and what is useful will bring a consultation that, being public, obviously, allows the participation of all those who have technical knowledge on the subject and those who do not. It will be a very complex analysis of these results and I have doubts about the practical usefulness of this tool.

Minister Queiroga suggests a medical prescription for vaccinating children. What is your opinion? There is also no action by the regulator or the regulatory agency of this additional tool that Minister Queiroga pointed out would be a medical prescription for the vaccine. When a vaccine is incorporated into the National Immunization Program, the prescriber is the Ministry of Health, as it was for all other vaccines in the history of vaccination in Brazil. We are now facing a new tool, which has been receiving criticism from all Brazilian medical societies.

I understand that it is necessary on the part of the ministry to take a clearer stance on this need or to explain how the SUS will prepare to provide these prescriptions because a minimal portion of our population has access to private medicine. Another portion, a little larger, but still small, have access to health plans, health plans, and the vast majority will depend on the SUS. And now, what will be the SUS plan for the care of fathers, responsible mothers who will be there in SUS bodies, in hospitals, in UPAS, requesting a prescription for the vaccine? How will that be? Will it be safe? Are units focused solely on that?

Bolsonaro recently said he will not vaccinate his 11-year-old daughter and called the vaccine experimental. What mr. do you think of these statements? I do not comment on any statement made by a political agent or public manager. I say that in Brazil the vaccine continues to this day in voluntary mode. The decision is up to each citizen in the case of adults and it is up to the family or guardians in the case of children.

Do the president’s speeches encourage attacks on Anvisa and discourage the vaccination of children? I do understand that the first speech may have sounded like an encouragement to those who are not only anti-vaccination, because then it is a personal decision of each one, but those who decide to transcend the anti-vaccination position and enter the realm of crime, which is the crime of threat. Personally, I have no doubt that the two lines contributed greatly to the approximate number of 170 threats. I understand that this added a new, very serious, very serious problem to the vaccine issue in the country.

Even because we have to consider that among a number of people who know they are committing a crime by making the threat, there are other people who do not have complete control of their mental faculties. That they can be unimputable, under the law, even if they commit violent acts. Let’s remember the very attack that you, Mr. President, suffered, except in a better judgment, committed by someone who ended up being diagnosed with an exclusionary mental illness or mitigating guilt. So the stimulus to violence, however small, is capable of setting in motion uncontrollable forces, which are very difficult to prevent.

The government is responsible for the balance of the pandemic, could it have been better if Anvisa’s guidelines were followed? Regulatory agencies regulate the market and offer options to governments to make their decisions. I understand that in some issues related to borders, and in this issue about childhood vaccination, greater speed could have brought greater benefits, now it is not the agency’s role to analyze government action, whether in Brazil or any other country, in the face of the pandemic. It is very important, for our work to continue to have credibility, to resist attempts to drag us into political, ideological, partisan discussions, which have nothing to do with science.

Anvisa received criticism for its alignment with the government, at the beginning of the pandemic, even for its friendship with the president. Mr. walked away from the president? People can understand that friendship necessarily influences work, which I vehemently reject. On our part there has always been this separation. The president has never, never made any kind of pressure or request on me in relation to Anvisa.

this speech [ameaçando expor nomes de funcionários] it brought unnecessary difficulties, created an environment of insecurity, and made the work of dealing with the pandemic extremely difficult. This action ends up influencing the personal relationship.

Respect will always be maintained. Now, of course, in the face of recent events, there is a distance, yes, it could not be different. But there was never any kind of action, insinuation, influence on the part of the president on any of Anvisa’s decisions. And even if there were, it would have no effect. That’s not how I worked for 32 years in the Navy.