The renewed debate in the United States over how the COVID-19 pandemic was managed has produced another sharp public clash between two well-known figures in Albanian medicine. This time, the focus is on Erion Dasho’s views on the role of doctors who opposed the dominant line during the pandemic and the harsh response from cardiologist Edvin Prifti.
What Erion Dasho wrote
Erion Dasho argued that during the pandemic there were doctors who raised concerns about protocols, measures and the need for greater scientific transparency, but also another category who, according to him, appeared in public with unsupported claims and in certain cases claims that were dangerous for patients.
In his position, Dasho defended the idea that limiting public space for doctors who promote dangerous treatments or oppose beneficial treatments does not amount to censorship, but rather a protective measure for public health. He also rejected the narrative that these doctors became “martyrs” persecuted by the system.
Edvin Prifti’s harsh response
Edvin Prifti’s reaction came immediately and in strong tones. He accused Dasho of insulting part of the medical community with his post and described him as one of the “spokesmen of the greatest global conspiracy.”
Prifti insisted that this is not about conspiracy theories, but about a debate that, according to him, has been supported by tens of thousands of doctors around the world. In his response, he rejected the claim that these voices have been blocked by society, saying that only one side of the discussion continues to dominate the public space.
Dasho: I did not have you as a personal target
In reply, Dasho clarified that his post was not aimed personally at Edvin Prifti, although he acknowledged that it had been prompted by an earlier interview by the cardiologist. He said his concern is linked to the promotion of ideas about the “killing,” “disappearance” or elimination of doctors considered to be against the establishment.
Dasho called the inclusion of these theses in the debate unacceptable and argued that the public also has the right to hear the position of the professional majority. He added that he is ready for an open debate on these issues.
A debate that highlights an old wound
The clash between the two doctors shows that the pandemic years continue to generate tension, accusations and opposing interpretations even today. In the background remains the confrontation between what one side presents as the defense of scientific standards and what the other side considers a deliberate shutting down of debate.
At the end of the public discussion, doctor Tritan Kalo also intervened, describing “self-martyrdom for protagonism” as harmful not only for the doctor, but also for the part of society that believes him.
The debate did not bring new facts about the management of the pandemic, but it showed how polarized this topic still remains even within the Albanian medical community.
Amid accusations of conspiracy, censorship and protagonism, what remains lacking is a calm, verifiable discussion free from personal labeling.