Empirical debate rather than destructive rhetoric

A very good discussion at Vinay Prasad's substack Sensible Medicine. The piece is A Level-Headed Look at The Florida Vaccine Study by Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD.  The subheading is Science Magazines EIC Holden Thorpe says it is dangerous misinformation: is it?  

Dr. Prasad sets the stage.  

Recently, Science magazine’s Editor in Chief Holden Thorpe wrote a blistering commentary criticizing Florida’s Surgeon General, Joe Ladapo. (Watch my video on it here.) Previously Dr. Ladapo was Associate Professor at UCLA, an MD PhD from Harvard, a practicing internist and health policy researcher. Dr. Thorpe writes that the University of Florida cannot be quiet about Dr. Ladapo. Why? Because he is guilty of the crime of misinformation. That peaked my interest, and this essay seeks to tackle the strengths and limitations of the particular study that led Dr. Thorpe to make that charge.

In the same essay, I noticed bizarre claims by Dr. Thorpe. He wrote that “Many assumed that Ladapo’s faculty appointment was the result of political pressure by the university’s administration as it aimed to please Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.” Dr. Ladapo is a black man, an MD PhD from Harvard, who was Associate Prof at UCLA. He would naturally be a sought after candidate to be full professor at the University of Florida. One does not need to evoke political favoritism to see why he would be a coveted hire. And claiming “many assumed” is sloppy for a scientific journal. What data support this claim? Who assumed it? Was there a survey of scientists? Or is this from a dinner party?

This line also surprised me: “It was unsurprising that anti-vax DeSantis wanted a surgeon general with anti-science views. But it was shocking that the medical school accepted Ladapo as a colleague.” — Am I reading the journal Science or am at at a Joe Biden rally? Is this sort of open partisanship appropriate for a top journal?

Finally, I also noticed this claim, “Ladapo has tried to initiate a scientific “debate” on Twitter about the study, saying “I love the discussion that we’ve stimulated.” This move is from page 1 of the anti-science playbook.” Wanting to debate is “anti-science”? Isn’t it also what scientists do?

Ultimately, I view Dr. Thorpe’s essay as problematic. It struck me as one-sided (where is the essay about the incorrect info Ashish Jha has been tweeting), and unnecessarily partisan for an institution like Science.

Yet, having been sufficiently intrigued by the claim of dangerous mis-information, I asked epidemiologist Tracy Beth Hoeg to walk us through the analysis that stirred up this hornet’s nest. She has a conflict, which she discloses within, but the reader can decide if her analysis is fair or not.

I don’t have a conflict. I am a far-left, Bernie Sanders Democrat, but my two cents is Tracy is fair and accurate. She is actually level headed. The editor of Science tarnished his journal to the level of political advertising. Now, see what the fuss is about.

Vinay Prasad MD MPH

Dr. Høeg then lays out a dispassionate and, indeed, level-headed discussion which is both useful and revealing.  

Dr. Prasad and Dr. Høeg are modeling the civic dialogue that we value in a modern, sophisticated Classical Liberal constitutional republic.  Dr. Thorpe is making the argument of a political and ideological partisan, pounding the desk with smears, innuendo, projection, and rhetoric rather than the empirical debate which is needed.