• A Florida study co-authored by Dr. Joseph Ladapo found that Pfizer mRNA vaccine recipients had a 38% higher all-cause mortality rate within 12 months compared to Moderna recipients, with higher cardiovascular and non-COVID deaths (847 vs. 618 deaths per 100,000).
• The study analyzed 1.47 million matched pairs of vaccinated Floridians but faced criticism for excluding unvaccinated groups and comorbidities. Researchers defended the approach, arguing it better controlled for confounding factors.
• The findings clash with earlier studies showing mRNA vaccines reduced COVID-19 deaths but align with research linking Pfizer’s vaccine to higher cardiac risks. Some experts argue non-specific harms (e.g., heart issues) were overlooked in initial efficacy claims.
• Ladapo and health freedom advocates argue the public was misled about mRNA risks, while critics warn the study could fuel hesitancy. The lack of manufacturer responses to mortality data raises transparency concerns.
• The study highlights the need for rigorous safety reviews, challenging the assumption that mRNA vaccines are universally safe. Policymakers must weigh benefits against emerging risks as debates over vaccine choice intensify.

In a study announced April 29, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo co-authored research revealing that adults in Florida who received Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine were 38% more likely to die within 12 months than those who received Moderna’s vaccine. The analysis, which compared nearly 1.5 million vaccine recipients and found higher rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths and even deaths directly linked to COVID-19 among Pfizer users, adds to a growing but underreported debate about the unintended consequences of mRNA injections. The findings, shared as a preprint (not yet peer-reviewed), have reignited concerns about mRNA vaccine safety and efficacy, as proponents and critics clash over the implications for public health policies.

The study’s alarming findings and methodology

The study, led by Ladapo alongside researchers from the Florida Department of Health and MIT, analyzed 9.2 million vaccination records of non-institutionalized Floridians who received two doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine between late 2020 and mid-2021. The cohort was narrowed to 1.47 million pairs of individuals matched by age, sex, census tract and other demographic factors. Over the next year, Pfizer recipients experienced 847 deaths per 100,000 people, while Moderna recipients saw 618 deaths per 100,000—an increase driven largely by cardiovascular deaths (248.7 vs. 162.4 per 100,000) and non-COVID fatalities (791.6 vs. 588.4).

“Pfizer recipients had significantly higher mortality across nearly every category,” Ladapo told social media followers, emphasizing that this aligns with prior VA studies connecting the vaccine to heart issues. Critics, however, noted the study’s limitations, such as excluding co-morbidities and failing to directly compare vaccinated and unvaccinated groups—a point raised by University of Pennsylvania professor Jeffrey Morris. Levi, a co-author, defended the methodology, stating that comparing vaccines “controls for unobserved confounding factors” better than contrasting vaccinated/non-vaccinated populations.

The shifting narrative on vaccine safety

The findings reverberate against a backdrop of conflicting data released over the past three years. In 2023, a reanalysis of clinical trial data concluded that mRNA vaccines did not affect all-cause mortality but noted vaccinated individuals had higher rates of cardiac deaths, though offset by reduced risk of dying from severe COVID-19. Johnson & Johnson’s viral vector vaccine outperformed both in that assessment. Earlier studies using VA data also found Pfizer recipients faced higher risks of hospitalization and cardiac events, but the Florida analysis, with its larger sample and matched cohort, aims to strengthen claims of a causal link.

This context highlights a broader tension in public health. Initial vaccine efficacy claims of “over 90%” targeted only prevention mechanisms for severe illness, whereas non-specific effects—such as whether the vaccines could inadvertently harm other bodily systems — were largely ignored. Ladapo, a vocal critic of the mRNA platform’s long-term impact, has previously argued that these vaccines act more like gene therapies than traditional vaccines, which typically produce far greater protective immunity (around 99%) sustained for decades.

Implications for health freedom advocacy and policy

The study has galvanized health freedom advocates, who argue that the public was misled about mRNA vaccines’ risks. “The messaging early on painted these shots as near-miraculous, but the reality is murkier,” said one advocate. Ladapo’s social media post, stating the vaccine system is “rotten” and urging scrutiny of non-specific effects, reflects this sentiment. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Moderna were unresponsive to media requests, leaving unanswered questions about whether manufacturers have reviewed mortality data.

Critics of Ladapo’s work worry this could fuel vaccine hesitancy, while supporters counter that transparency is critical. The study’s exclusion of the unvaccinated cohort remains a contentious point. As healthcare workers note, mortality comparisons without this baseline risk misinterpret outcomes. MIT’s Levi acknowledged this gap but stressed that inter-vaccine comparisons address some confounding variables, such as age, comorbidities, or lifestyle factors.

A call for vigilance as debate intensifies

The Florida study underscores the urgent need for rigorous long-term monitoring of vaccine safety. While its claims of higher Pfizer-associated mortality remain preliminary until peer-reviewed, the findings cannot be dismissed. The policy implications are profound: it calls into question the very narrative that mRNA vaccines are universally safe and effective across populations.

For now, public health authorities must balance the use of vaccines for reducing severe disease from the virus against emerging evidence of collateral harm. “We owe it to the public to explore these risks further,” said one independent epidemiologist. As debates over health freedom and clinical ethics continue, conversations about vaccine choice and transparency may reshape pandemic preparedness for future health crises. The world watches closely, awaiting further clarity in the pursuit of science that serves, rather than risks, humanity.

Sources for this article include:

TheEpochTimes.com

NTD.com

MedRxIv.org

X.com