The Florida Pfizer-Moderna mortality comparison paper by MIT Professor Retsef Levi is now published in the peer-reviewed literature. The paper shows it is highly likely the Pfizer shots were deadly.
Executive summary
The easiest way to tell if you are talking to someone who is intellectually honest about the COVID vaccines is to ask them for their assessment of the Levi paper.
If they claim, like UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris does, that there is nothing to see here, then you are dealing with someone who is intellectual dishonest. The AI analysis of Morris’s attack on the Levi paper is absolutely devastating.
What the paper found
37% higher non-COVID mortality in people who got Pfizer.
That’s a train wreck.
There is no other way to spin this.
Possible explanations for the results:
- The Pfizer/Moderna groups weren’t really matched
- Moderna reduces non-COVID all-cause mortality by 37%
The problems:
- They were matched. Barbra Dickerman wrote 2 papers on COVID vaccines and VA data showing that crude demographic matching creates extremely good morbidity matching to nobody’s surprise. But Levi’s matching was MUCH stronger than what Dickerman did (more attributes and tighter matches). And he confirmed the matching by looking at the single most devastating statistic: prior cardiovascular hospitalization rates were matched. This is not a random marker — it's arguably the single most mortality-relevant clinical signal you can extract from administrative data. So we have no reason to believe the groups weren’t matched and every reason to believe they were.
- There is no mechanism of action that could possibly explain how a COVID vaccine can reduce non-COVID all-cause mortality by 37%. If that were true, this would be the most amazing drug ever created. Moderna would be marketing their COVID vaccine as a fountain of youth. Everyone would be taking it. We’d have seen dramatic reduction in all cause mortality all over the world after rolling out the drug. No such data exists. If you plot cumulative COVID deaths over time for the world, the rollout of the vaccine didn’t change the slope one bit which means the COVID shots didn’t really save any lives. But people who opt to taking vaccines have lower mortality in general, but it is NOT caused by vaccines; it is 100% selection bias. People who opt for vaccines tend to have better access to healthcare.
The full discussion is here and it’s worth reading.
Dr. Adrian Wong false claims there is nothing to see here
Here’s a link to Dr. Wong’s analysis which claims the paper is misleading.
His argument in a nutshell:
However, because it lacks an unvaccinated comparison group and cannot eliminate baseline allocation bias or pre-existing comorbidity differences, it cannot possibly prove that Pfizer caused excess deaths or that mRNA vaccines are inherently dangerous.
You don’t need an unvaccinated comparison group. In fact due to the healthy vaccine effect, such a comparison would be extremely problematic. The simple fact that Dr. Wong seems to ignore is that if the vaccines are safe, the non-COVID all-cause mortality differences between the groups should be small. They aren’t.
As far as the pre-existing comorbidity differences or differences in allocation, that was already established as neutralized because they looked at the pre-vaccine hospitalization records of the two groups and they were very similar.
Moreover, they controlled for any small differences in the regression.
Dr. Wong failed to point that out.
Morris claims I am using the wrong AI
Professor Morris claims other AI’s support his analysis.
I couldn’t look at the Claude analysis because he made the link private.
I did continue his ChatGPT thread to the conclusion which was that vaccine toxicity is the most likely explanation for the data.
The bottom line
The COVID vaccines were deadly.
They should be taken off the market.
It is absolutely appalling that businesses and schools forced people to take a vaccine that can increase mortality by 37%. But nobody is willing to talk about it, and no business has formally apologized for their mistake.
Those who want to talk about, like Professor Morris, cherry pick the evidence to support their point of view. The AI analysis of Morris’s attack on the Levi paper is devastating.
Where is the outrage?
Every member of Congress should be shocked by this paper.
There is simply no credible explanation other than vaccine toxicity. Even Professor can not identify a more likely explanation for the data.
They should be calling for replication of this study in all 50 states.
Don’t they want to know that they were likely responsible for over 500,000 American deaths?
Can you name one member of Congress doing that? With 535 members, you’d think that there would be at least one honest member speaking out asking for similar studies to be done, wouldn’t you?
Not one.
This is not some trivial issue. It’s likely we just killed 500,000 Americans and nobody wants to talk about it?
Summary
The Levi paper is clear: 37% higher mortality if you got Pfizer.
None of the critics can identify a more likely explanation than vaccine toxicity.
Yet nobody is calling for more studies to replicate the Levi study.
And the Levi study was rejected by around 12 journals before being published showing you just how corrupt “science” is.
