Okay, so you have a single example from the 1920s, well before the basic principles of molecular biology were discovered. Plus a couple of vague examples like this:
Ten years ago a colleague of mine working in epigenetics at a large genomic institution was told by the boss that epigenetics was not a real part of genetics and that he should change subjects to “something more serious”
This is a favorite ploy of pseudo-scientists: anonymous references to someone working in mainstream science whose revolutionary work is suppressed by the hostility of the rest of the faculty. I call bullshit. You can always dig up a few geriatric senior scientists, whose best work was done decades ago, willing to pooh-pooh some newer field of research. Most scientists have their own favorite examples. This is not evidence for an organized conspiracy of suppression. As I said before, epigenetics was already a well-established and growing field when I started - and people were already doing "epigenome sequencing" ten years ago.
And I repeat: the importance of "Lamarckian evolution" to the process as a whole has still not been demonstrated. Again, it is important not to conflate the role of epigenetics in organismal development and cellular regulation with the issue of inheritance. Clearly epigenetics is more important to inherited traits than was previously assumed, but we have a handful of examples versus a huge amount of evidence for Darwinian evolution. Presumably we will eventually converge on some new "modern synthesis" that incorporates elements of both, but anyone who argues for the primacy of Lamarckian evolution is grossly overstating the case.