Florida health officials removed key data and statistics from a state analysis of the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, falsely making them appear unsafe for young men, according to draft versions of the analysis obtained by the Tampa Bay Times through public record requests .
The final analysis, widely criticized for its poor quality and dubious conclusions, was the basis for a nationwide recommendation by Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo last October that young men aged 18 to 39 should not receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The analysis – posted on the Florida Department of Health website with no authors listed – claimed to find “an 84% increase in the relative incidence of heart-related death among men aged 18-39 within 28 days of mRNA vaccination”.
Ladapo, who has a history of scaremongering about COVID-19 vaccines, praised the analysis, saying in a press release at the time that “these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians.”
But according to draft versions of the analysis, the state epidemiologists who worked on the report came to completely different conclusions.
The draft included data showing that getting COVID-19 carried a much greater risk of heart-related death than that of mRNA vaccines. Specifically, the incidence of heart-related deaths from infection was more than 10 times higher than that of the vaccine in people ages 18 to 24 and more than five times higher for people ages 25 to 39. This data is consistent with many peer-reviewed, published studies, but was completely omitted from the final analysis announced by Ladapo.
Also, a sensitivity analysis was omitted that showed that the risk of heart-related death in young men was not significant. The final version received flak for not including a sensitivity analysis, with the core conclusion of risk in young men hinged on just 20 deaths. A sensitivity analysis is a means of essentially evaluating the robustness of a finding, and was present in three versions of the draft analysis, but not in the final one.
“It’s a double check that didn’t confirm the finding” of risk in young men, said Jonathan Laxton, a physician and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Manitoba, who reviewed the designs for the Tampa Bay Times.
In general, the draft versions of the analysis are written by state epidemiologists supported the use of mRNA. “The risk associated with COVID-19 infection clearly outweighs the potential risks associated with mRNA vaccination,” one version states.
Matt Hitchings, an infectious disease epidemiologist and professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida who also reviewed the drafts for the Times, told the outlet that the excluded data was akin to academic dishonesty. “You can call it a lie by omission,” he said.
