May 23, 2025 09:00 AM PST
(PenniesToSave.com) – A viral claim spreading across social media and conservative platforms alleges that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine caused more American deaths than World War II. The figure cited, 470,000 deaths, is being shared widely and presented as evidence of a massive public health failure. For everyday Americans who trusted health authorities or chose not to get vaccinated, the claim raises real concerns. But does the data support it?
A recent study by MIT Professor Retsef Levi and Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo has been misinterpreted to fuel this narrative. In this article, we’ll break down where the number comes from, what the study actually found, and what the average American should take away from the controversy.
Quick Links
- What is the origin of the 470,000 death claim?
- What did the MIT study actually measure?
- Is it scientifically valid to scale Florida’s data to the national level?
- Why are Americans, especially conservatives, skeptical of vaccine safety?
- What does this mean for young, healthy adults today?
- Should there be more transparency and accountability?
What is the origin of the 470,000 death claim?
The claim that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine caused 470,000 American deaths originates not from a peer-reviewed journal or government source, but from an analysis posted by tech entrepreneur Steve Kirsch. Citing a new Florida Department of Health study, Kirsch extrapolated its findings to the entire U.S. population. His conclusion was that Pfizer’s vaccine may be responsible for more deaths than those incurred by the United States in World War II.
This estimate gained traction quickly in alternative media circles and on social media platforms. It was also boosted by fringe publications and influencers who have long questioned the safety and necessity of mRNA vaccines. While the number is shocking, it is not grounded in the methodology or conclusions of the original study. Kirsch’s approach involved multiplying a Florida-specific statistic by a national population figure, which fails to account for differences in age, health status, and vaccine rollout timelines.
In short, the 470,000 death claim is not part of the official study. It is a personal extrapolation built on assumptions that lack scientific consensus.
What did the MIT study actually measure?
The study in question, co-authored by MIT professor Retsef Levi and Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, examined all-cause mortality among adults in Florida who received either the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) COVID-19 vaccine. The authors found that recipients of the Pfizer vaccine experienced a 36 percent higher rate of non-COVID all-cause mortality compared to those who received Moderna.
This finding triggered concern and debate. However, it is critical to understand what the study did not measure. It did not compare vaccinated individuals to unvaccinated individuals. It also did not prove that Pfizer’s vaccine caused any deaths. Rather, it highlighted a statistical association that merits further investigation. The absolute excess risk amounted to about 229 additional deaths per 100,000 people, resulting in an estimated 1,686 additional deaths in the study sample of over 735,000 Pfizer recipients.
The study authors themselves stopped short of attributing causality, instead calling for more research into the potential risk difference between vaccine brands.
Is it scientifically valid to scale Florida’s data to the national level?
No, it is not. The Florida study was designed to compare outcomes in a single state with specific population characteristics. Florida has a higher percentage of elderly residents, distinct health trends, and a unique vaccine rollout strategy. Applying these findings to the entire U.S. population assumes uniformity that does not exist.
Steve Kirsch’s methodology assumed that all 150 million Americans who received Pfizer’s vaccine experienced a similar 36 percent mortality increase. This assumption ignores regional healthcare differences, prior infection rates, population density, and vaccine access disparities. It also wrongly assumes that all observed excess deaths were caused by the vaccine, which the study did not conclude.
Extrapolation of this kind is speculative at best and misleading at worst. Public health data must be interpreted with care, especially when informing large-scale policy or shaping public opinion.
Why are Americans, especially conservatives, skeptical of vaccine safety?
Distrust in vaccine safety, especially among conservatives, has grown due to several factors. During the height of the pandemic, public health authorities made sweeping claims about vaccine efficacy and safety. As evidence of rare but real adverse effects such as myocarditis and blood clotting emerged, the lack of initial transparency led many to feel misled.
Additionally, mandates for schoolchildren, military personnel, and workers in key industries created a perception of government overreach. For Americans already wary of centralized authority, this felt like forced compliance. When dissenting voices were censored or labeled as misinformation, skepticism turned into outright opposition.
For many, the question is not whether vaccines help some people, but whether public health institutions acted in good faith. The reaction to studies like the one from Florida reflects this deeper cultural tension.
What does this mean for young, healthy adults today?
Most public health experts now agree that COVID-19 vaccination should be risk-based, not universal. Young, healthy adults without comorbidities face an extremely low risk of severe COVID-19. At the same time, this group is where the rare side effects of mRNA vaccines, particularly myocarditis, have been most observed.
Several countries have updated their guidance accordingly. Scandinavian nations have paused or restricted mRNA vaccines for healthy youth. In the United States, states like Florida now recommend against COVID-19 mRNA vaccination for healthy young men altogether. The scientific consensus is evolving, but the trend is clear: one-size-fits-all vaccine strategies are being replaced by more individualized approaches.
For young Americans, the decision to vaccinate should involve personal risk assessment, not social pressure or outdated mandates.
Should there be more transparency and accountability?
Yes, and that is one area where public sentiment is increasingly unified. Whether one supports vaccination or not, there is broad agreement that public health decisions should be based on transparent data and open debate. Suppressing information or censoring dissent breeds mistrust and fuels conspiracy theories.
Calls for independent reviews of vaccine safety data have increased, and congressional oversight efforts are underway. Policymakers from both parties are demanding greater accountability from the CDC, FDA, and NIH. Transparency is essential not just for vaccine confidence but for restoring public trust in American institutions more broadly.
Americans deserve the full picture, not just curated soundbites. When science is used to justify policy, the data behind it must be made accessible and subject to rigorous scrutiny.
Final Thoughts
The claim that Pfizer’s vaccine caused 470,000 deaths is not supported by credible science. It is a speculative extrapolation based on a real study that found a difference between two mRNA vaccine brands in Florida, not a mass death toll. Still, the fact that so many Americans are willing to believe such a claim speaks volumes.
What this episode reveals is not just a debate over vaccine safety but a crisis of trust. Many Americans feel that public health institutions failed to be honest, fair, or consistent. Until those institutions commit to full transparency and open debate, skepticism will remain a dominant force in American life.
Works Cited
Levi, Retsef, et al. “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida.” medRxiv, 25 Apr. 2025, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.25.25326460v1.
Kirsch, Steve. “New Florida Brand-Differential Study.” Steve Kirsch’s Newsletter, https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-florida-brand-differential-study.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “CDC Recommends Updated COVID-19 Vaccines.” CDC.gov, https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html.