Print
A Stark Difference in Survival Rates Emerges
In a groundbreaking analysis involving over 1.4 million adults, a joint study from MIT researchers and the Florida Department of Health has ignited new debate over mRNA vaccine safety.
The study—currently in preprint form and yet to be peer-reviewed—compared long-term all-cause mortality rates in individuals vaccinated with Pfizer’s BNT162b2 versus Moderna’s mRNA-1273. The outcome was striking: those who received the Pfizer shot faced a 37% higher risk of death from any cause over the next 12 months.
These findings, based on meticulously matched cohorts by age, race, sex, geography, and vaccination timing, go far beyond statistical noise. They reveal a widening mortality gap between the two vaccine products that begins within weeks of injection and persists over time. The implications of these findings challenge the assumption that the mRNA vaccines were ever truly interchangeable.
All-Cause Mortality: The Signal That Won’t Disappear
The most sobering metric in population health is all-cause mortality—death from any cause, for any reason. It’s an unambiguous, manipulation-resistant indicator that can reveal the real-world impact of any health intervention.
In this case, Florida’s state-wide data showed that recipients of Pfizer’s vaccine died at a rate of 847.2 per 100,000, while Moderna recipients died at a rate of 617.9 per 100,000—a difference of 229 deaths per 100,000.
This signal emerged early, diverging within 30 to 40 days post-vaccination, and never reversed. The cumulative mortality risk only grew with time. Importantly, this disparity wasn’t driven solely by COVID-19 fatalities. The Pfizer group also had more cardiovascular deaths and more deaths unrelated to COVID-19, suggesting broader systemic consequences tied to the vaccine.
The Cardiovascular Toll: A Silent Divide
When researchers looked deeper into specific causes of death, the pattern remained troubling. Pfizer vaccine recipients showed much higher rates of cardiovascular death—248.7 per 100,000 compared to 162.4 among Moderna recipients. That’s an excess of 86 cardiovascular deaths per 100,000, with an odds ratio of 1.54.
COVID-specific mortality was also higher in the Pfizer group—nearly double that of the Moderna cohort. Even deaths from other non-COVID causes were significantly elevated. What emerges is not a narrow risk signal, but a comprehensive one, cutting across multiple domains of health.
Timing and Waning Protection: The Delayed Risk Curve
One key insight from the Florida study lies in when these deaths occurred. Non-COVID deaths began to rise within the first month. But COVID deaths diverged much later—around 200 days post-vaccination—just as the Delta variant emerged in Florida.
This timing suggests Pfizer’s protection against COVID waned more quickly than Moderna’s, while long-term systemic effects, especially cardiovascular, were already at work early on.
Understanding the Biological Differences
Why would two mRNA vaccines targeting the same virus produce such different outcomes? The study points to several plausible explanations.
Moderna’s shot uses a higher dose—100 micrograms of mRNA compared to Pfizer’s 30 micrograms. Though Moderna showed more short-term side effects in trials, its long-term survival outcomes appear better for now.
Another factor is the difference in lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations used to deliver the mRNA. LNPs influence biodistribution in the body—how the vaccine particles travel and which tissues they impact. Animal studies have shown LNPs can reach sensitive organs like the heart, liver, and reproductive system. If Pfizer’s formulation favored wider or longer-lasting distribution, it might account for the higher cardiovascular toll.
The mRNA sequence structure, dose timing (21 days for Pfizer vs. 28 for Moderna), and storage stability may also have contributed. Even subtle biochemical differences can ripple into major outcomes across millions of people.
Ruling Out Confounding Variables
Could other factors explain the difference in death rates—like differences in the people who chose Pfizer versus Moderna? The researchers anticipated this objection and tested for it.
They compared suicide and homicide rates—outcomes unlikely to be biologically influenced by vaccines—as a “negative control.” There was no significant difference between the groups, indicating that both populations were socially and behaviorally similar.
Pre-vaccine infection rates were also nearly identical. Finally, using a statistical method called Rosenbaum bounds, researchers concluded that any hidden variable strong enough to invalidate the results would need implausible power—more predictive than cancer or end-stage kidney disease and more likely to occur in Pfizer recipients. In short, the difference is real.
When Vaccine Risk Exceeds Disease Risk
Perhaps the most provocative finding is that the death rate following Pfizer vaccination in some age groups was actually higher than the risk of dying from COVID-19 before vaccines existed. For instance, among young adults, the post-vaccine death rate reached 500 per 100,000. Among those over 80, it reached a staggering 30,000 per 100,000.
By contrast, the infection fatality rate (IFR) for COVID—even assuming 100% infection across the population—was far lower. This means that for many, particularly under age 60, the vaccine itself posed a higher mortality risk than the virus it was meant to prevent.
The Policy Breakdown: Assumptions That Cost Lives
The implications of this study are devastating for global vaccine policy. The CDC, FDA, and WHO repeatedly claimed the mRNA vaccines were safe, effective, and interchangeable. That messaging led to uniform mandates and mass deployment with little regard for age, sex, or health status.
Florida’s data show those assumptions were wrong. More tragically, they were avoidable. Had all-cause mortality been used from the outset as a core metric for vaccine evaluation, problems with Pfizer’s product could have been flagged early.
Instead, regulators relied on trial data from manufacturers, ignored safety signals in post-marketing systems like VAERS, and dismissed any evidence that questioned the narrative.
Restoring Trust Through Transparency
Institutional trust cannot be restored by censorship, PR campaigns, or credentialed denial. It must be earned by transparency, accountability, and course correction.
That starts with honest acknowledgment: these two vaccines were never interchangeable. Their long-term safety profiles are not the same. And the public deserved to know this before consenting to vaccination.
Urgent steps must now be taken. These include independent mortality audits, real-time tracking of vaccine safety outcomes, and withdrawal of claims about product equivalence. Agencies must reexamine how vaccines were monitored, how signals were dismissed, and how risk was communicated.
COVID-19 Vaccines Still a Threat
As of May 2025, the CDC claims an average of 350 Americans die each week from COVID. While that number has dropped dramatically from the pandemic’s early peaks, the issue remains dangerous, especially for older adults and those with chronic conditions. The majority of these deaths occur in adults aged 65 and older, who make up just 17% of the U.S. population but account for 80% of current COVID fatalities.
These numbers raise an important question: if so many people have been vaccinated, why are deaths still happening? Take a guess… why do most COVID-19 deaths now occur in people who are vaccinated? After reading the Florida study summary, it’s easy to figure this out.
Truth First, Always
Think about it, if these results had shown that Pfizer reduced all-cause mortality, they would have been promoted as headline news worldwide. But because the data point in the opposite direction, they’ve been met with silence, resistance, or suppression.
The numbers speak for themselves. This isn’t about political agendas. It’s about scientific integrity, public safety, and ethical responsibility. It’s time to follow the real data—wherever it leads.
Please ask your doctor if dangerous vaccines are right for you.
