@ SA, May 2, 2020 at 09:27
Dr Loretta Bolgan is a qualified pharmaceutical chemist with some post-doctoral experience in genomic analysis. In her own words:
Dr. Bolgan, what is your professional training?
I have a degree in Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Technologies and I have a PhD in Pharmaceutical Sciences. I worked at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston as a molecular biologist, where I did genetic manipulations of viruses and studies on carcinogenesis. Later I worked in a company that deals with research and development of diagnostic kits. I published my studies in these first years of activity, to then dedicate myself to the study of vaccine toxicology. For over fifteen years I have been working as a partisan technical consultant for various law firms and I deal with scientific advice on vaccine damage, explaining if and which components have caused problems to those who have used it.
From the rest of the interview, which is relatively measured in tone, it’s clear she doesn’t agree with the principle of vaccination – so the term “partisan”, although an imprecise translation from Italian, is fairly apt in this case.
Here is an alternative perspective on her credentials from Dr Enrico Bucci in Cattivi Scienziati (Bad Scientists):
Not like that expert pharmacologist, Dr. Loretta Bolgan, who studied for some time at Harvard but evidently failed to produce anything but 4 articles on PubMed between 1997 and 2005, without even one article in which she appears as first or last name: that is a real expert.
So expert is she and so expert are the others from CORVELVA, not to notice a curious fact: the presence of manipulated images in two of the four Bolgan articles (precisely those made at Harvard). As it happens, I am an expert in the sector: here is a little help to understand what we are talking about.
I reproduce below two of the things found in the 4 works of CORVELVA’s favorite expert on pharmacology.
The first, below, shows how two lanes appear in two images of gel electrophoresis (blue and red arrows respectively), used to build a second image in the same work with what appears to be the most classic “copy and paste” aimed at manufacturing experimental data.
Make of it what you will. Unlike Bolgan, Bucci is a recognised expert in genomics, with over 80 peer-reviewed publications. He also has a sideline in exposing scientific charlatans.
Of course, these are authority arguments, which neither establish nor refute the veracity of her claims about vaccines. They do however give a strong indication of bias, which is certainly relevant to the interpretation of any inference she makes from uncertain data. Unfortunately, uncertain data is all she has to offer. Accordingly, her conclusions are shakier than a geriatric with Parkinson’s.
Dr Loretta Bolgan’s claims shouldn’t be ignored or casually dismissed: they should be evaluated and investigated independently to verify that the safety of the vaccines falls within approved limits. The initial argument she ventures doesn’t fare well from the expert evaluation, however: Bucci highlighted 8 serious methodological flaws. In my opinion the matter is important enough to warrant a similar screening study to test the null hypothesis … not by anti-vaccination organisations (who are by their nature highly partisan) nor by pharmaceutical companies themselves (who have a record of concealing unprofitable data) but by universities who are answerable to a higher academic standard. The EMA has considered Dr Bolgan’s concerns, but has so far declined to investigate until her study is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Until then, her preliminary ‘findings’ are only useful for whipping up sentiment.