Epoch Times - Dr. Ladapo Breaks Down His Florida Vaccine Decision

Oct. 4, 2025 - Epoch Times

40:19

Dr. Ladapo Breaks Down His Florida Vaccine Decision

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's bad policy to mandate that people put things in their bodies.
	Florida recently announced that they're going to eliminate all vaccine mandates in the state.
	If you own anything, you do own your body, just as you own your free will.
	In this episode, I sit down with Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Latipo, to understand why they're making this change, how it will take shape, and whether he foresees challenges in the legislature.
	I believe that parents provided with good information can make good decisions for the health and the benefit of their children.
	He's also working to stop the denial of medical care on the basis of vaccination status.
	This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Yanya Kelleck.
	General Joseph Latipo, so good to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
	Hey, thanks for having me.
	Always a pleasure to speak to you, Jan.
	So you and Governor DeSantis recently announced the intention of removing all vaccine mandates across the state of Florida.
	Just explain to me, you know, how you came to this decision, because I'm sure you didn't come to it lightly.
	Yeah, you know, it's interesting because uh we didn't come to it lightly, but it has the simplicity of something that would almost be something you'd come to lightly.
	And it was kind of an interesting thing.
	So we were scheduled to have a press conference about uh a number of different issues in the in the in the health freedom area.
	It occurred to me that uh this was an opportunity to do something that we really should do, which is to uh to to create an intention to end this you know really immoral practice of forcing people to put things into their body.
	It's just not the role of of some other person or some other entity to um just in in a general circumstance.
	Obviously, there are special circumstances like when people join the military, and I think you can think about that because that's a very special situation.
	But just in general, general everyday life, it's just not appropriate for for someone else to be able to, you know, kind of dictate or force you to put something into your body.
	I mean, it's just completely inappropriate.
	I mean, if you own anything, you do own your body, just as you own your free will.
	And even knowing that, and I've always been clear on that, but even knowing that, it just didn't seem like something that was possible or something we should even consider pursuing.
	And it occurred to me um the day before the event that in fact we should pursue it.
	And I I actually called Governor DeSantis and uh was able to speak with him.
	And um, and fortunately he was of a similar mind, and we made that announcement.
	So, you know, you say that this is you know immoral to force people to put things in their body in the general sense, but there's, you know, I think a lot of people that are arguing, you know, against what you're doing say it's immoral to not uh make you know sort of vaccines a kind of requirement or at least a mandate.
	So how how do you square that?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, you know, it's so interesting.
	It's like uh no, it's a very simple thing.
	And first of all, I think that that that argument, and I I have heard something similar to that, and I think that that argument is a bit of a confused argument.
	Uh people I think are conflating their desire to you know to see other people vaccinated with how that happens.
	And so those are very different things.
	I there's nothing wrong with wanting to see very high levels of vaccination.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	But uh, in terms of morality, I think as a first principle, um, you know, I some the way I describe it sometimes is the fact that people have different faiths.
	I believe that you know God sends us to this planet literally with two things.
	We come to this planet with our souls and our bodies.
	And those are the two things that we should have as much control over as possible.
	We have free will.
	Our bodies are something that we decide what we do with.
	We decide whether we, you know, Whether we exercise, whether we eat well, whether we smoke, whether we whether we sleep a lot, whether we sleep a little, I mean these are those are things that are really fundamental decisions that speak to our freedom as human beings, both our free will and our free body, and specifically in terms of our body, what we put into our bodies.
	You know, I'm gonna touch on this just a little bit more because I think that the concept that people would uh you know promote here is just simply the idea of a greater good, right?
	The idea that if you have a high level of vaccination against a particular disease or a particular series of diseases, then there's a kind of herd immunity that develops, and then the whole society then society is protected from that disease.
	I mean, that's the general argument that I hear.
	Um, and of course, that's at odds, right, with with this uh sovereignty, bodily sovereignty that you're describing.
	Um is there a way to reconcile these things?
	Yeah.
	Well, I you know, reconciliation, I don't think is is the goal.
	Um, but the point is a very good point.
	So, in terms of the the idea, of course, that um and you know, the the empirical fact that for some for some conditions, not for all conditions, pertussis is an example uh where mandates really have no relevance because there's already very good evidence that the vaccine against protussis is ineffective at preventing transmission.
	In fact, there's even evidence that in some ways it can promote transmission because people who contractes and have a history of protestis vaccination are more likely to not have symptoms and are therefore but but are essentially still as contagious as people who were not vaccinated.
	And in fact, in some cases can be more contagious if the person has recovered naturally from protussis and builds natural immunity.
	So there's some vaccines that it's it's really it's really a moot point.
	There are others that the argument that you know that there's an interest in uh in herd immunity, if you will, uh is a good one.
	Like we know that from example, for example, with the measles vaccine.
	It's uh it's very effective at at preventing transmission and um reducing the you know the likelihood that that someone who's exposed will will um will spread the virus to someone else.
	There's pretty strong consensus around that.
	There's some gray areas, but in general and in broad strokes, you know, I would say that that is a true statement.
	However, it's also possible to have that with the absence of of mandates.
	So something we've cited to help people understand that the sky will not fall if mandates are removed, um, include example countries like Sweden, like Norway, like Denmark, like the United Kingdom, like most providences in Canada, where there are no mandates for vaccines, and yet the rates of vaccine uptake are very high, and you know, in general, probably comparable to what we have here.
	So I think that you can have both.
	I think you can have uh you can have a moral uh a moral um environment for providing vaccinations, and you can have a high uptake of vaccines that are effective at preventing uh transmission to other people.
	I believe that parents provided with with good information can make good decisions for the health and the benefit of their children.
	So I think that's a much better place to be.
	Uh, this concern that you know that we're just gonna have this resurgence of all these diseases.
	I I don't think so.
	I mean, I don't think that that's what most parents want.
	Some parents may not feel the same about some vaccines.
	And you know, and and if they don't feel that way, then they do, they have a right to not feel that way.
	Um and I think that they should have a discussion with their pediatricians and and be sure that they're making an informed decision.
	I think that we're a better society by putting as much power as much as much decision making, personal responsibility in the hands of parents.
	So it's been, I'm I think it's about a month maybe since you announced this.
	And uh this is not uh from what I understand a very simple process.
	There's a whole bunch of statutes you have to look at.
	There's rulemaking that has to be changed.
	Uh, can you give me a picture of like what it will take to actually accomplish this?
	And also uh in the context of like what what you've actually managed to do thus far.
	Yeah, yeah, it's a great question.
	So in the Department of Health, which I lead here in Florida, we actually do have some vaccines that are mandated, and they are mandated through the department.
	So those are going to be gone.
	You know, so we control those fully.
	And it's again, it's not sort of a scientific debate.
	Um we're not saying that they're all bad vaccines or anything like that, but they shouldn't be mandated.
	I mean, it's just people should be able to be able to make a decision about a vaccine in an ethical environment with informed consent.
	So those include homophilus, pneumococcus, Varicellers auster or chickenpox, and the hepatitis B vaccine.
	Outside of the Department of Health, other vaccines are mandated in Florida law.
	So that's going to require legislative help.
	And we are currently working on both language, bill language, so sort of drafting a law, and um, and we'll be speaking with lawmakers about that and why this is an important issue, why this is you know an important moral issue, and why it's important to do the right thing and not let fear prevent you from really taking right action.
	Thank you for tuning in to American Thought Leaders.
	In a world where spin and agendas dominate the headlines, I'm proud to bring you unfiltered insights from the brightest minds in America from a relative outsider Canadian perspective to keep this possible and to access even more exclusive content, in-depth documentaries in our daily digital newspaper.
	Consider subscribing to the Epoch Times Today.
	It's your way to support independent journalism.
	Just hit the link in the description below to subscribe and unlock the full American thought leaders experience and so much more.
	You can try it today for just one dollar a week.
	So just hit the link in the description below, and now back to the interview.
	You know, I I think the Florida legislature meets in January of 2026.
	So it's actually quite a quite a ways out.
	So you have, I guess, a bit of time to work with the legislators on kind of you know preparing updates to the law and so forth.
	Do you think this is going to pass fairly easily or is this going to be contentious?
	Yeah, it's a great question.
	We have wonderful lawmakers here in Florida.
	I've had the opportunity to meet with many of them.
	And I mean, I'm a dreamer, that's the truth.
	I I think that it's going to pass.
	I think that you know, Florida, especially with with Governor DeSantis's leadership, which has just been immeasurably invaluable during the pandemic, particularly.
	I mean, just the the things that he was able to do, and oftentimes to both protect in terms of people's individual rights and to prevent in terms of medical hegemony with vaccine passports and kids out of school indefinitely and all the crazy stuff that um that we all remember very well during the pandemic.
	I think it's doable.
	I think it would be uh wonderful for you know Florida to make an ethical stand, to take an ethical stand, because it it really is.
	I mean, even though it's common, you know, I think pretty much every state has them, it's it's bad policy to mandate that people put things in their bodies.
	I mean, it's it's bad policy, it's immoral policy.
	And in my in my own opinion, uh for the preservation of those values that um have helped both create this country in terms of its greatness, uh, in terms of its deference for freedom as much as Possible and for the maintenance of those values, for the ability to, our ability to sustain those values, it's important that we have ethical policies.
	You know, I'm actually in uh the debt of Governor DeSantis because it was really through my working on this documentary with him called Deslantis Florida versus lockdowns, um, that that I was kind of introduced into the really the reality of the COVID pandemic in the first place.
	It was seeing his uh good leadership or leadership that seemed to be working, but that was against the grain that that prompted me to come to Florida and do this documentary and be introduced to Dr. Scott Atlas and Dr. J. Betacheria, who then were you know incredibly helpful in kind of guiding me to realize that that all sorts of things that that you know seemed a little crazy actually were a little crazy.
	Uh, and and that there were other ways to look at uh how to how to approach the pandemic.
	So, you know, to your point, I mean, he has a very, very good track record uh uh in in making decisions.
	And this is actually something I wanted to ask you earlier.
	Um, so you're saying like the day before your press conference, you said, hey, uh I'm thinking about making this massive announcement.
	What do you think, governor?
	Is that how it went down?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's exactly how it worked out.
	You know, so I'm I'm I'm a big fan of Governor DeSantis.
	I just I really like the man.
	And um, and it just turns out that um he's just a very good uh decision maker.
	And you can tell by the fact that he's been so successful as a governor.
	You know, obviously he's probably best known for all of the really bold and incredibly uh valuable and vanguard decisions that he made during the pandemic.
	But people who live here in Florida also see his leadership in many other really important ways that impact their lives.
	I'll tell you, I mean, you can you I you could walk around Florida and and just talk to random people who live on the coast, the East Coast or the West Coast, and I don't think they would ever pick anyone else to be governor during an emergency, like the hurricanes.
	He's just so great at taking on the problems that government has a role to address, but often fails to address.
	I mean, we see government government failures all over the place.
	And that just that doesn't happen with him.
	The problems that regular people face, you know, getting electricity back on, getting back in their homes, you know, dealing with uh local problems with say permitting and I mean these are these sound like mundane issues, but they make a big difference in the quality of people's lives.
	He's just really, really, really good and talented at decision making, even in with complex issues.
	And fortunately, he has a very strong natural orientation toward freedom.
	It's important to allow people to have as much freedom as possible.
	So starting from a place like that, the conversation, you know, did not need to be lengthy.
	It clearly is the right thing to do, and it's a worthy goal to pursue.
	And so in this vein, I understand that you're also looking at eliminating other types of health mandates.
	Maybe you can kind of lay that out for me a little further.
	One other area that I'm very interested in, and I know a lot of moms in Florida are very interested in, and I also know the governor is very interested in, is this denial of medical care because of people's vaccination choices.
	Stepping back for a moment, I mean, it's a it's a really repulsive policy stance.
	It's very common here in Florida, unfortunately in pediatrician offices, as it is in probably most parts of the country.
	Families, parents and their children are being told that in order to receive care, you must comply with these medical therapies in the way and at the time that I that I dictate.
	That already is completely against literally everything we learned about ethics in medical school.
	Because it is inherently coercive.
	And you cannot provide, you cannot provide Ethical, appropriate, proper medical care in the setting of coercion.
	It's impossible.
	And you know, my youngest kid is six years old, and he can explain to you after, you know, with a after a brief discussion, he would be able to explain why it is very clearly coercive to punish families by kicking them out of their your practice if they do not agree to taking a medication.
	That medication happens to be vaccines that we're talking about, but it doesn't matter what the medication is.
	It is a coercive policy.
	It's as bad as a policy can be.
	So on a practical level, what happens sometimes is that moms or dads may just want to, for example, spread some vaccines out, or they may not want to take particular vaccines because they have some concerns about their child sensitivity or their need for a particular vaccine.
	And for parents to be kicked out of pediatrician practices for that reason, it's just wrong.
	I mean, it's plain W-R-O-N-G wrong.
	And so we're going to be uh working on some bill language for that.
	We actually attempted to pass a bill, like a patient's bill of rights, that sort of bill in the last session, and unfortunately we weren't successful.
	But we're going to be doing that again.
	You know, President Trump recently suggested uh separating out the MMR uh vaccines uh into something well basically just separating them out.
	And your thoughts on that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	That was uh it was, you know, I frankly I it was it was beautiful to see President Trump be so impassioned and share share his feelings about you know about some of these health issues and whether people agree or not, you know, I really appreciate, I mean, honestly, I'm I'm just very appreciative when people are sincere.
	When folks are concerned about the combination vaccines, I I think that's a legitimate concern that you know that that needs to be respected.
	Um it's what what is awful is when a parent is concerned about you know whether the number of vaccines the child might receive in in uh in one at one time, for example, and that concern is dismissed.
	Oh, there's you know, the CDC says it's fine.
	You can have as many vaccines, you you know, you need five different vaccines or you need eight different vaccines today to get little Johnny caught up, you know, and and the parents, many parents will be uncomfortable with that.
	And to dismiss those concerns is just outrageous.
	Unfortunately, I don't believe that currently that's an option in this country.
	I just don't think there's a licensed product that would allow you to separate those out.
	But the safety of uh of vaccine combinations from from the literature I've reviewed is not nearly as solid or as uh uh clear and certainty as uh as many people uh present it as, um, which is not to say that there are issues, uh, but rather to say that we we know we know less than we than I think uh physicians and health officials often present.
	Um and I think that I think it's a reasonable concern if uh if parents have you know if if parents don't feel comfortable with these combination vaccines.
	Well, and this would presumably apply what you're saying to uh you know multiple individual vaccines being given in one session, as you were just mentioning that, and it occurred to me.
	Yeah, yeah, that's that's that's totally the case.
	I mean, part of the science culture, unfortunately, um, and uh I think Dr. Robert Malone sometimes refers to it as scientism, which I think is perfect.
	Uh part of the science culture or scientism is that um numbers and data, however limited those data may be, and that's often not acknowledged, but like science and data are all that matter, and things like parental intuition, things like you know, maternal concerns, uh things like experience, um, those things don't matter.
	And that road doesn't lead anywhere good.
	There is tremendous, infinite value in parental intuition.
	And if parents are concerned, they absolutely, In my opinion, you need to listen to that to that voice.
	Like our intuition is one of the gifts that God gives us.
	That is a gift from God.
	You know, that our intuition is part of our relationship with the universe and all that there is.
	So to just dismiss that is, you know, not only is it unwise, but it literally is an affront or an insult to our, you know, to our our existence as reflections of God, of God's love.
	You know, Dr. Ladapo, one of the things that is often discussed in this context, and is this idea of misinformation or disinformation, right?
	Because the idea, of course, is something like this, right?
	That there are some kind of special interest actors, sometimes bad actors, sometimes good actors, whatever, that are pushing certain narratives very hard, and they could, you know, misinform parents, for example, or uh doctors.
	And this flies kind of kind of in all directions, if you will, okay.
	And it's just that this is sort of the reason that it's often given for either actually, you know, complying with ideas that a doctor might have, or not complying with uh the ideas that a doctor might have, or that an agency might have about what should or should not be done.
	And so it's just kind of an information uh mess, information chaos.
	I think uh Secretary Bobby Kennedy described it as that, at least in terms of data.
	But I but I think of it this is just a very difficult thing to deal with.
	And uh how do we actually cut through that so we can get at what's actually known as reality?
	Or the best we've got.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah, it's a great question.
	It's a great question, Jan.
	And what I would say is that, you know, so Secretary Kennedy, he's doing a wonderful job.
	I I know him personally, he's a good man, and what he's doing, you know, he's not doing it for his benefit.
	I mean, he's doing it because he cares about the health of Americans.
	He cares about the health of our children.
	He cares about our future, he cares about our freedom.
	So you have him, and literally in just direct opposition, you have what we have constructed in the United States as major parts of our healthcare system.
	And specifically, it's a combination of scientism and tremendous dishonesty in some areas.
	Specifically, you know, what you described, Jan, how do we get there?
	Well, you must deconstruct all of the dishonesty, the propaganda, the suppression of debate and discussion that are pervasive with vaccines, more so than any other medication.
	To put it in context, statin medicin drugs are another drug that's nothing near the uh nothing near the amount of propaganda that um that surrounds vaccines.
	And by the way, I say that, and I don't want anyone to think, although people are welcome to think what they want, that I think that statins are bad or the vaccines are bad or something like that.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	In fact, you know, there's there's very good evidence for statins for reduction of cardiovascular illness, particularly for people who have a history of prior cardiovascular disease like strokes or or myocardial infarction.
	There's more debate for primary prevention, much more debate for primary prevention.
	But with vaccines, there is so much dishonesty.
	Here you have Secretary Kennedy working to dismantle that dishonesty.
	Here you have members of ACIP, this organization that's you know that advises the CDC about immunization practices with people, you know, terrific people like Dr. Retzef Levy, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Martin Kohldorf, other people Who are working to dismantle this dishonesty brick by brick.
	It wasn't built in a day and it won't be demolished in a day.
	And it's got to come down every last brick before you can get to a place where the concern about misinformation doesn't rule today because there's not this sense that is quite pervasive among many, many people that they are making decisions in the dark, and that it's dark because the lights have intentionally been dimmed.
	And that's the situation that characterizes vaccinology currently in the United States.
	It's people are not able to make fully informed decisions because there's just a tremendous amount of dishonesty in the field.
	When we can talk about vaccines the same way we talk about blood pressure medication, where you know doctors can talk freely about different medications, uh using them in different ways, the fact that some people choose not to take them.
	When we can talk freely about vaccines in the same way we talk in a very mundane way about other medications that don't have the same investment and propaganda, then we will be in a place where people will be able to feel like they can make like the decisions that they believe are best for them and their family.
	And until we get there, we're going to be in the mess that we currently are in.
	So let's jump into this Maha commission, which is being led by the first lady of the Florida First Lady, Casey DeSantis.
	And I understand that there's some very interesting work around cancer, which is, of course, something she's very familiar with as a survivor that's being done.
	Can you tell me a bit more about that?
	Yeah.
	So I'll I'll say that, you know, first lady Casey DeSantis has been really wonderful in this area.
	She is very passionate about a lot of these principles that are these Maha principles.
	And, you know, we've seen it.
	Secretary Kennedy has talked about this, and so has Dr. J. Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty McCary.
	We've gotten to a place in our society where poisoning our children poisoning ourselves with all of these additives that are not food and not good for us, not good for our health, not good for our immune systems, not good for our metabolism, not good for our mental health, not good for our longevity, pardon me, not good for our longevity, not good for our cardiovascular health.
	These things are pervasive in our food supply.
	And people ingest them knowingly or unknowingly to the to the harm of all of us.
	I didn't know, for example, that you know, this uh very popular sports drink literally has a petroleum-derived chemical to uh make it appear a certain color.
	That's that's sick that we consider that to be normal.
	And not only is it a sick concept, it's making people sick, putting these things in their bodies.
	And it's also really important to recognize that people are all different in terms of their sensitivity to these substances.
	I mean, there are kids whose behavior changes when they eat certain foods that have different dyes in them.
	And there's some kids who don't have a, don't have a behavior change from that same type of exposure.
	So there's a lot of variability out there.
	There are a lot of people out there that are very sensitive to different chemicals.
	And none of us, you know, whether we're really sensitive or not are benefiting from these chemicals, and none of us really should be ingesting it because it's not food.
	You know, they're chemicals.
	Uh so, you know, First Lady Casey DeSantis has been, she's been really passionate in this area.
	And we have a working group, and it's it's many fold, but one of the areas is in cancer treatment.
	And specifically, you know, the fact is in this country, currently innovation is driven by primarily the private sector.
	Now, a lot of the research, the foundational research happens in the public center in terms of being being funded by NIH or being happened being or being performed at public universities.
	But ultimately, uh many of these technologies are siphoned into the private sector.
	What that means is that is that the objective tends to be profit.
	It doesn't tend to be human health.
	So, you know, health is almost a bystander, if you will, or sort of a side product of the of this production uh mechanism we have in this country for medical innovation.
	And one of the things that First Lady Casey DeSantis announced last week is that we're going to be funding research through the Florida Cancer Innovation Fund that specifically will be targeting generic drugs, drugs that for which there may not be a financial incentive for the private sector to make investments in.
	And one of those that we've heard a lot about in terms of what people are saying in the in public, really a lot of lay people, some uh cancer physicians also is ivermectin and other antiparasitic drugs too.
	I mean, it's interesting.
	I actually had a conversation with Dr. Mattis uh from Canada over the weekend, and he shared with me his experiences treating thousands of patients.
	And it's definitely an area that that should be investigated further in terms of um patients that may benefit from adding, uh not not replacing, but adding something like ivermectin to their chemotherapeutic regimen.
	Uh, based on certainly from my conversation here, learning about his experience, it absolutely is something that should be studied further.
	And we'll we're hoping to be able to study uh some of that to fund some of that work through the Florida Cancer Innovation Fund, which is a Maha initiative.
	I'm very excited to learn of the outcomes of this because something I've come to learn through now, you know, four or five years of looking at our uh health system and uh and understanding it is that uh there's a huge disincentive to studying the efficacy of things that are not proprietary, that don't have a patent and so forth.
	So it's I'm very excited to find out uh what will come of these studies, which you're which you're going to be running.
	Um what about the reaction of various professional organizations to this uh Maha initiative and also to the elimination of uh vaccine mandates and health mandates initiative?
	Like, for example, the AMA is one that seems to have come out very, very strongly.
	Um how do you respond to these professional organizations, which are really challenging what you're trying to do?
	You know, it's been a puzzle for me, actually.
	It's a it's a really uh great question, Jan, because I struggle.
	I struggle because when you look at these organizations, and I I'm not maligning the organizations, I'm not maligning the people in them.
	I mean, I have no doubt there are lots of smart people who you know care about other people and things like that.
	Where I struggle, I just I'll just be honest here, where I struggle is that many of these organizations have supported terrible policies.
	Policies that in my mind should be the end of their credibility in the absence of some sort of Mia Culpa.
	What kind of policies is I'm what kind of policies am I talking about here?
	So I'll give you an example.
	The promotion of hormonal therapies for children to change sex, you know, or to or to have the experience or the belief of changing sex, the promotion of surgical procedures, removal of a of a child's sex organs for the for the purpose of assuming some other sexual identity.
	These are disqualifying positions.
	I mean, they are so deranged and so unmoored from sensibility and from morality, from where we ever want to end, where where we ever want to move as a society, as a human race, that they are disqualifying, disqualifying positions.
	Until there's some contrition, I just I can't take anything they say seriously.
	The American Academy of Pediatrics, literally, they were an organization that before the pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic, discouraged screen time for children.
	Highly sensible policy.
	I'm a father of three children, three small children, although my oldest is like six feet tall now, and he's 12 years old.
	But uh so he's not so small anymore.
	But um, but I'm the father of three three children.
	Most parents know like nothing good comes from sticking a kid in front of a screen.
	Uh and most parents who are at least my age, you know, remember those days of like, you know, we spend spend the day outside, you know, playing kickball, riding our bikes, doing all this stuff.
	That's how you have a healthy childhood.
	And for the the American Academy of Pediatrics, they recognize this before the pandemic.
	And they they literally flipped their position at the beginning of the pandemic, and basically said it was fine for children to sit in front of screens instead of being in a school, you know, where they might contract a virus that by and large was very of very, very little harm to them.
	And and they they did this.
	They they completely flipped their position.
	And they haven't addressed these, you know, completely wrong emoral positions that they've taken, not a little, but a lot, like very strong positions they've taken in the past.
	So I just I I just I can't take anything they say seriously.
	Well, General Ladipo, as we finish up, I want to just ask you a little bit about timelines.
	So, given what you know at this point, um, how long do you think it will take to get to that level of you know, all vaccine mandates having been removed in the state?
	That's one.
	And the other timeline is uh how quickly do you think we'll see some of the fruits of some of this research, for example, in the area of cancer.
	Yeah.
	So uh, in terms of the timeline for removing vaccine mandates, within the next three months, we will hopefully be complete with our process here at the Department of Health.
	So we would have removed the ones that we control here in the Department of Health.
	And, you know, the lawmakers meet in the new year, and the session usually lasts a few months.
	And my hope is that at the end of that, we would have removed the remaining ones.
	And then, you know, research is is usually not a super fast game uh in terms of investigating these uh medications that we know less about in terms of their potential effects on the health of patients with cancer.
	Uh that timeline is gonna be longer.
	Um we did just open up uh the funding opportunity.
	And you know, so I think we're probably talking one or two years before we have early results that are actionable.
	Uh, maybe, maybe faster.
	I mean, these things can happen faster, especially if you're able to recruit patients quickly and and you know, immediately start following them up.
	Um, so you know, with any luck, maybe closer to the one year mark, so it will take some time.
	But um, but these are important questions to uh to ask, and it's important that they be asked well.
	We have a peer review process for the research grants that we that we provide here in the Department of Health, and we'll be applying that.
	And I'm I'm hopeful, I'm certainly hopeful that we have good news because you know it would be incredibly meaningful for patients.
	I mean, there's there's so much suffering, tremendous suffering out there with cancer.
	So um, so that's what I would estimate is the timeline.
	Well, Dr. Joseph Latipo, it's such a pleasure to have had you on again.
	Hey, thanks so much for having me on, Young.
	If you enjoyed what you just watched, support our independent journalism by subscribing today to the Epoch Times and get access to all of our exclusive content.

▲