In defense of my friend Dr. Joseph Ladapo

 The LA Times called his study a threat to public health, flawed, and unscientific.

• The study was limited to a certain population, e.g., males 18 to 39.
• Despite the limitation, there was a serious signal there of an increase in cardiac deaths for 18-39 year-olds
• Science is all about fitting observations to the best hypothesis
• Even if there were higher cardiac deaths, the all-cause deaths were lower for vaccinated people in that age group
• This is a big lie

The ad hominem attacks

• The LA Times wrote: "Dr. Ladapo has been labeled a "quack" and a "COVID crank." If there has been any doubt that these labels are justified, they should be dispelled by his latest action."
• One tiny problem with that is that Ladapo wasn't involved in the execution of the study; it was all done by the professional staff who are pro-vax."

The one big flaw in the study: overall the vaccine kills more people outside the 28 day window than inside it

• The study showed a mortality benefit for the vaccine, but the death curve for the entire population in aggregate peaks 5 months out as noted in the article.
• This makes a case controlled study where everyone is vaccinated problematic. Nobody should take these vaccines.

Must Watch

• "There are 50 states; why is your state the only one telling us this?"
• Tucker Carlson, Fox News

All studies have limitations

• Science is all about open discussion of the limitations of the study and what you can learn from it so you can try to avoid mistakes the next time
• Comparing the vaccine against itself is problematic because all the death events are not clustered within 28 days of vaccination like they might be with other vaccines
• In light of this observation, the fact that there is close to a 2X elevation in the death rate in the first 28 days is very hard to explain.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-my-friend-dr-joseph?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=548354&post_id=76214698&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email