Four days ago, the most important covid shot study yet was published as a preprint on MedRxIV. It was blandly titled, “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida.” In a science-following world, this study would announce the beginning of the end, the great unraveling of the big “safe and effective” lie.
If there’s one thing —just one thing— a “safe and effective” vaccine absolutely shouldn’t do, it’s increase your odds of dropping dead. Death is not a side effect; that’s the reverse-opposite of vaccination. It’s like a parachute that “works great” until you pull the ripcord. Aieeeeeeee.
This week’s study was organized by co-author and Florida Surgeon General Joe Ladapo, a Harvard-trained M.D. and PhD. Impeccably credentialed MIT professor of statistics Retsef Levi also joined. They brilliantly scraped Florida’s Medicare database and compared the two jabs against each other, specifically, their risks of dying from any cause —“all-cause mortality”— and they found a statistically undeniable +40% risk of fatality following the Pfizer jab over Moderna.
In other words, hundreds of thousands more Floridians died in the 12 months following the Pfizer jab than Moderna, when there should have been no difference at all. Specifically, they found that +230 more people died after Pfizer for every 100,000 jabbed. Not only that, but Pfizer getters died from cardiovascular causes at a rate of +83 more often per 100,000.
The researchers were super careful to avoid leaving room for criticism. They started with known vaccinees, then excluded nursing home residents, the homeless, and people who died from violent causes (homicides and suicides). Then they took out people who got their shots more than six weeks apart (i.e., not as recommended), people who mixed shot types, people who got more than 2 shots, and people whose health records were incomplete (such as unknown gender). Finally, they separated people who died fromcovid.
Those left over included more than 9 million Floridians. I.e., it was a big sample. Then they matched recipients 1-to-1 based on their location (census tract), avoiding any potential regional differences.
It wasn’t even close.
The authors ultimately concluded that, “Florida adults who received the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer) in the initial series appear to have significantly higher risk of 12-month all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to mRNA-1273 recipients (Moderna).”
Pfizer’s Grim Reaper came most often for seasoned citizens. “When stratifying by age group,” the researchers wrote, “the increase in mortality risk was highest in adults 60 years and older.”
The genius of Ladapo’s study was to compare the two shots against each other. The data for those who were unvaccinated is completely unreliable, since doctors recorded anyone with “unknown” jab status as unvaccinated. But the state has very good data about who actually got the shots and then died, since hospitals and pharmacies were required to report detailed data for Medicare reimbursement, both for the original shots and then for the patients’ end-of-life care.
Simply put, comparing shots like-for-like surfaced a wide variety of deadly effects, at least for Pfizer. Though the study didn’t directly study the other shot, it remains reasonable to assume Moderna also increased death risk compared to non-vaccination, since the shots are so similar.
And as bad as these results are, the truth is probably much worse. It only tracked deaths in the 12 months following the second shot, so we don’t know how high the totals are now. And it excluded people who took three, four, or more shots. It’s fair to assume that more shots don’t decrease people’s risk of death.
In other words, when it comes to mortality risk, this study’s results likely represent a floor, not a ceiling.
Death is binary. It’s not a PCR cycle. Folks either died or they didn’t. All-cause mortality is immune to narrative manipulation. You might well ask, why hasn’t the FDA already required long-term all-cause mortality studies for these products? The data is readily available. Post-marketing all-cause mortality studies are not common, but the speed at which the covid jabs were developed at warp speed and government mandates to take them aren’t common either.
If the Levi–Ladapo study is right, it implies catastrophic failure by the FDA for not requiring long-term safety data, the CDC for continuing to push boosters with no mortality data, the NIH for funding everything except what might challenge the narrative, and Big Pharma for withholding or obscuring adverse event data.
I couldn’t find a single corporate media mention about this study. The silence was deafening. As you know, media loves running headlines about weird studies linking things like “too much joy” to heart attacks and strokes. But this? Crickets. If Levi-Ladapo’s results showed that both shots had reduced12-month mortality, that result would’ve been plastered across headlines within 24 hours and chirped three times on NPR before breakfast.
As I keep saying —and will keep saying— the steady drip of vaccine safety studies is pooling into a vast and rising lake of condemnation. At some point, that lake will be too deep for the guilty to wade across. They can tiptoe around the puddles now, but the water’s quickly coming up— and the truth will eventually drown them.
