Apr 20·edited Apr 20

A minor semantic disagreement: "Science is a social endeavor that occurs within the scientific community through established processes and not in op-eds and white papers."

I don't agree with this statement. Science does not require peer review, or even disclosure to the community at all. I would call that something like peer reviewed mainstream science. I do not consider it correct to say that an unreviewed white paper is inherently not science, and would say that such an "excluding" characterization of what is science ,that deviates from the traditional definition of science, is an exclusion that should be discouraged.

This semantic disagreement doesn't imply any disagreement about the concept that there is a difference between peer reviewed science and non-peer reviewed science. Or more correctly, competently reviewed science versus its alternative.

Expand full comment

First, your piece begins disingenuously by not acknowledging all the empirical clinical evidence supporting the off label use of HCQ (https://c19hcq.org) and ivermectin (https://c19ivm.org ) as both safe and effective in the early treatment of COVID-19.

Second, though I agree that, “Science is a social endeavor that occurs …through established processes and not in op-eds and white papers,” this criticism applies to both sides of the current scientific debate regarding the safety and efficacy of these experimental synthetic mRNA ‘gene therapy’ products.

For example, while the Tampa Tribune’s op-ed on Surgeon General Lapado published his report along with earlier drafts, they didn’t fully disclose the University of Florida’s (UF) “task force” report (circulated only among UF faculty) that was critical of Lapado.

Instead, they only cheery picked certain quotes accusing Lapado of irresponsibly leaving out important comparative data suggesting that COVID infections posed a greater cardiovascular risk than the jabs.

The Tampa Tribune’s original “news” story and all those parroting it’s carefully crafted narrative was designed to leave the public thinking that Lapado has been charged and convicted of misleading the public by the court of the “scientific opinion”, but without providing the public with all the facts and context.

While I don’t have the secret UF task force report to consider all their arguments, based on reviewing Lapado’s final report along with his prior drafts, I would argue that he was fully justified in removing the flawed Patone et al., study (see Why a major study on myocarditis risk following COVID vaccination should not influence public-health policy) from from his FL COVID jab report for the same reason the @UF_EPI "task force" doesn’t want to be reminded how their Omnicron model over estimated COVID mortality by 10X in January of 2022!

You see, because Omnicron had rendered all prior pathogenic C19 variants nearly extinct(<5% world wide) by Feb 2022 along with their prior risks of myocarditis, there’s simply little if any empirical evidence post Omnicron that COVID infections today increase the risk of myocarditis over these risky experimental ‘gene therapy’ products being misrepresented to the public as “vaccines.”

Until someone provides compelling empirical evidence otherwise in a public forum that encourages open dialogue and scientific debate, this continued criticism of Lapado’s October 2022 report will be nothing more than an elaborate ad hominem attack parroted by talking heads pretending to be real scientists.

Frontiers | Why a major study on myocarditis risk following COVID vaccination should not influence public-health policy


Expand full comment
Apr 20·edited Apr 20

Ladapo is of course a DeSantis shill. He should have his medical license revoked.

DeSantis, through his COVID policies, his cruel attacks on LGBTQ+ people and on women's ability to control their own bodies, and his support for unlimited concealed carry of firearms, is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of untold numbers of Floridians. He is a mass murderer.

Expand full comment

Considering the ownership of the WSJ, their response to you was actually high praise. And Ladapo has been less than stellar throughout the pandemic on reflecting mainstream, well researched and peer reviewed (not necessarily reviewed in mainstream media or by the public) material. His "membership" in America's Frontline Doctors should have immediately raised questions of credibility to the Journal; that it didn't even slow 'em down tells me much.

Expand full comment