Experts Challenge RFK Jr's Vaccine Advisor Over Questionable Research
Dr Retsef Levi, an MIT professor, has been appointed by Robert F Kennedy Jr to review the safety of Covid-19 vaccines, but his own research on the topic has been criticised by more than a dozen scientists and public health experts for failing to meet basic scientific standards. Levi, a member of the US health department's vaccine advisory committee (ACIP), is set to participate in meetings this month, where fears are mounting that recommendations on Covid-19 vaccine usage could be rolled back.
Controversial Claims and Committee Role
Levi, who holds Israeli and American citizenship, has publicly stated that Covid-19 vaccines are the "most failing medical product in the history of medical products," despite extensive research demonstrating their safety and efficacy. A modelling study published in The Lancet in 2022 estimated that these vaccines saved nearly 20 million lives in their first year of availability. His position on ACIP, once regarded as the international gold standard for vaccine decision-making, has drawn criticism after Kennedy dismissed 17 voting members, including doctors and epidemiologists, replacing them with individuals accused of undermining public trust in vaccines without factual basis.
Scrutiny of Levi's Research Record
A Guardian review revealed that numerous experts have labelled Levi's research papers as misleading. Some have suggested that Levi, who is not a physician or vaccine expert and now leads ACIP's special immunisations work group on Covid-19, approaches the subject with a pre-determined agenda rather than genuine scientific inquiry. In response, Levi defended his work, stating, "My papers are factual, balanced, rigorous and accurately contextualize their findings."
Specific Criticisms and Responses
Dr Sharon Alroy-Preis, former head of Israel's public health services, recounted reviewing a draft paper by Levi in 2021 that suggested a correlation between Israel's vaccination rate and emergency calls for cardiac arrest. She noted that during a meeting, Levi appeared unfamiliar with data collection methods and seemed uninterested in addressing professional questions, indicating he had an agenda. Levi did not comment on this specific criticism.
Nadav Davidovitch, an epidemiologist and public health physician, observed that Levi became more radical during the pandemic, particularly regarding child vaccinations, and gained attention on social media, attracting conspiratorial followers. Davidovitch emphasised that while Covid-19 vaccines saved millions of lives, transparency issues existed, but not due to conspiracies.
Peer Review and Publication Issues
Levi's research on Israeli emergency calls, which was criticised by the Israeli ministry of health, was later peer-reviewed and published in Scientific Reports in 2022. It became one of the most cited studies suggesting vaccine harm, but faced intense criticism. A paper signed by 10 scientists called for its retraction, citing inadequate methodology. Levi issued a correction for errors, but the paper was not retracted.
Lonni Besançon, an assistant professor in data visualisation, pointed out that the paper failed to distinguish between Covid-19 effects and vaccine effects, contributing to vaccine hesitancy. In 2023, Levi tweeted unsubstantiated claims about mRNA vaccines causing serious harm, which Besançon deemed harmful to science and public health.
Further Research and Expert Opinions
Another paper by Levi, co-authored with Florida surgeon general Joseph Ladapo and not peer-reviewed, found a 40% higher all-cause mortality in Pfizer vaccine recipients compared to Moderna over 12 months. Public health experts criticised it for lacking consideration of pre-existing conditions and being scientifically unsound. Elizabeth Jacobs, professor emerita at the University of Arizona, stated that Levi's biases are disqualifying for vaccine safety assessments.
Jess Steier, executive director of the Center for Unbiased Science & Health, noted a pattern in Levi's work of using study designs that generate associations but cannot establish causation, leading to findings being weaponised against vaccines.
Defence and Political Context
Levi disputes claims of lacking expertise, citing over two decades of experience at MIT in healthcare risk-benefit analysis. A spokesperson for HHS defended him, calling criticisms "politically motivated" and asserting his qualifications for ACIP, emphasising a need for hard questions to restore public trust.
Upcoming ACIP Meeting and Concerns
The agenda for ACIP's March meeting includes discussions on Covid-19 vaccine injuries, long Covid, and potential changes to vaccine recommendation methodologies. Dr Jake Scott, an infectious diseases specialist at Stanford, expressed concern that ACIP might use unpeer-reviewed data to justify vaccine restrictions, questioning whether the review is genuine or pre-determined. He highlighted the tragic loss of unvaccinated patients during the pandemic and the dangers of misinformation eroding trust in public health.
