 So now let me move to Professor Roberto Buriani who is a professor at the University of Milano at the San Rafael University. You are not a psychiatrist but nevertheless you are very much interested in these issues we are talking about this afternoon. And I think if you have attended all the sessions this morning and I am sure that you have recognized some of your favorite topics in the discussion this morning. So in a way what you are going to say is also a way to wrap up some of the issues that have been raised all the day long. The floor is yours. First of all I would like to thank Thierry de Bonbrial for inviting me to such an exciting meeting and to have the chance to share my idea and my point of views with all the experts that are present. We are in an unprecedented moment where really all disciplines are converging and are crossing each other to face these pandemics, this emergency and to face also all the consequences that from this pandemic can come in many, many different fields. I am a medical doctor and a virologist so I should be formally involved in mental health and addictions but I had the chance in the last years to fight in Italy misinformation about vaccination. This gave me a good hint and a good experience on how to deal with fake news also in the moment that this pandemic started last January. First of all I am afraid that we are facing two kind of pandemics. One is a virus which is spreading very easily and very fast. The other one, the other pandemic is a make of false information and I think that this can be very dangerous. Why? Because first of all false information can be very attractive. People want to know that everything is fine, that everything is going well, that everything is not dangerous. And we know this since the very old time, since the work of Julius Caesar who wrote that people are very likely to believe what they want. And what people want is basically say that masks are not necessary, that the virus is not dangerous, it doesn't even exist. And unfortunately this kind of false information are providing then the ground for very dangerous behavior of the single person. And we have to remember that to face a pandemic is something that we have to do as single person and one everybody is really equal in front of the virus and everybody can be important for the spread or for the containment of the virus. The second thing which was very bad is at a certain point was diffused also by very important politicians, the idea that some drugs were effective without any proof indicating that. And this was once again dangerous, people were on one hand trying to buy these drugs, subtracting them from people who are needing them for real. And also generating sort of a frenzy like having the idea which was pushed at least in my country also by some politicians, pushing the idea that an effective treatment is withdrawn from the population for some reason, for some, you know, plot, international plot of something extremely powerful. And then I think that most dangerous issues can be that, you know, fake news can can really orient the public opinions in a very dangerous way. When you're telling your citizens that the virus is a Chinese virus, or that the virus, even the virus was on purpose constructed and fabricated and you know, synthesized in a Chinese laboratory and then spread voluntarily. You really put in the ground for people hating other people and this is extremely dangerous. We experienced in the past how bad this can be. And I think that this can really be a huge problem for, you know, scientific collaboration from the international point of view which is absolutely needed to advance quickly and speed it with the science, which is the only thing who can save us in a situation like this. Another huge problem that which is depending on the spread of this failed news is that erosion of trust. Trust on WHO, which is somebody pictures as political entities, which is not. Trust on institution like, you know, governments, Minister of Health, and also trust in doctors because, you know, in Italy we had people saying that, you know, everything was invented, everything was made up and that doctors were just killing people in the hospitals for, you know, creating this emergence, which is really incredible. And this is very, very dangerous because you have to rely on trust. We have to trust FDA for authorization of a new vaccine for, you know, authorization of new drugs or EMA in Europe. And I think that, you know, trying to push politically these very reputable institutions as happened, for example, in the US, for sure, with President Trump pushing for a prompt, you know, green light on some treatments or even the vaccine. Well, this is very bad because if people is losing trust, then it's very difficult to regain it. Well, these are the problems, but I think it's very important also to point out a few solutions. First of all, we need clear, crystal clear scientific data about safety and efficiency, but this is not enough. My experience on vaccines showed clearly that good data and clear scientific data are not enough. We are not anymore in the times where you really follow what the doctor was used to say without any discussion. Now people are trying to get informed themselves through the net, through the social media, and this information is very often incorrect. I mean, there is one example that really is clear for demonstrating how insufficients are the very good data, very good scientific data. We have one vaccine, which is against the human papillomavirus. This vaccine is actually protecting from cancer, which is not, let's say, a negligible clinical entity. Well, this vaccine is safe, this vaccine is extremely effective, it's wipe enough cancer where it's used widely like in Australia, and actually, at least in Italy, it's completely free. Well, in my country, almost 40% of the parents are refusing, actively refusing this vaccine for their children, and in Holland, the percentage goes close to 50%, and in Germany it's more than 50%, and in France it's even higher. People are refusing a vaccine, which is protecting from cancer, which is safe and which is effective. Well, it's clear that data are not enough. We have to realize that times are changing, and we have to go out of our universities and we have to speak to people. And to talk to people is very different than talking to patients that are coming to our offices, trusting us, or to our students that are in our universities because they want to learn, or to colleagues that are basically speaking our own language and they understand the process of, you know, scientific debate, of scientific confrontation and so on. We are basically talking to people that are not interested in what we talk and they are not very confident in what we say, so we need to be extremely convincing. Another problem is deriving from the fact that many doctors, scientists are talking to public audience with opposing views, which is absolutely normal, because in the initial phase of a pandemic, caused by a new virus that we never saw before January 2020, it's normal that, you know, the knowledge, the precise knowledge is not immense and there is room for scientific opinion. But this is very bad for the general public, because if this discussion, if this scientific discussion happens not in scientific conferences, you know, inside the universities or in scientific journals, if this scientific discussion, which is absolutely legitimate, happens in TV show in front of the public audience, this is going to generate a lot of confusion. And here we end the last point that I want to take to your attention. There is the need of a strong institutional voice. The reason why all these, you know, single voices often contract victory are, you know, heard is because there is a space, there is an empty space, which is left by the institutions. I think that in this moment we realize how important is to have an institution which is trusted, which is convincing, not only providing scientific data, which are correct, but also they need to have the skill to present them in a way that will convince people hearing them. I mean, in this case, the form becomes really the substance. So it's very important the way you talk to people, not only what you tell to people, which is obviously to be true and the correct scientific information. So I think that what we can learn from this very bad experience and what will be useful also in the next month when we hopefully will have a vaccine that could end all this, you know, terrible story of the pandemic that, you know, really impacted very badly on everybody's life and on the economy and all the aspects that we can imagine. Well, we need to be able to give people something to believe in, not only good data, not only, you know, optimistic, you know, let's say provisions, but really we need to convince them that they can trust authorities. They can trust FDA when it will approve the vaccine. They have to trust the government when the government is telling them stay home. The government has to be trusted also when it says you can go to school. And so I think that what we can learn from this terrible experience is that we have to build this trust in, let's say, peace time because it is something that will be very useful during the war. And for sure, from the biological point of view, I'm sure that in the future, I don't know when, but in the future we will need to face some other pandemics. I hope we will be ready with diagnostic tools, we will be ready with vaccines, we will be ready to with, you know, isolation and, you know, quarantine and personal equipment for protection, but we'll need to be ready also from the cultural point of view. And we'll need to be able, we'll need to be able to face with the, you know, worried people, with the scared people, with the very authority and trusted voice from the institutions. Thank you very much for the chance I had to speak to this conference and I look forward to hear the other panelists. Thank you very much Roberto. We are at the intersection of a number of problems, you know, somatic and mental, but also political and global governance in the following sense, which is that you show that fake news trust, but that you would also add manipulations of all kinds, make credible global governance extraordinarily difficult. And one of the issues I think related to this is the following one, you know, global, I take a more global approach here. You know, global governance has to do with coordination of policies among a number of states, of states, but, you know, states in the international system today are heterogeneous. You have democracies, you have orthocratic systems, you have authoritarian system, dictatorship sometimes. And to the problems you mentioned, you can add the classical issue of manipulation from governments, this time from governments, you know, for instance, during the, so far, since the beginning of this COVID-19 pandemic, China has been accused, particularly by former president, President Trump, because he is still president of the United States, of having manipulated data, the facts of maybe being that the origin of the whole crisis, directly or indirectly. And it is clear that some states use these kind of issues to manipulate the global scene. So here we have manipulation at various levels. You have manipulation, the kind of manipulation that comes in a natural way in social networks and others, and of course undermine credibility entirely. But you also have classical disinformation and manipulation from governments. And therefore that raises the whole issue, the whole question, because particularly sensitive in a time of pandemic, as we are living today, of credibility of global governance altogether, you know, how, what it is, what would be required, what would be the prerequisites for global governance that not the global public opinion that does not exist, but public opinions with an S could accept because they would trust those who are in charge of policy decisions. So that's a huge issue, which is related to this last session, as you clearly showed us in your interventions. But we come back to this when concluding in the final debate that will follow the presentations. And now I will give the floor to Jean-Pierre La Blanchie, who is a very well known psychiatrist in Paris.