New CDC vaccine advisor Retsef Levi says ‘It’s time for science, not ideology’

Professor Levi talks about mRNA safety concerns, media backlash, and reshaping vaccine policy

In the hours after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a sweeping overhaul of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, I sat down with one of the incoming appointees—MIT professor Retsef Levi.

Levi has extensive experience working with clinicians and analysing healthcare data, including in drug safety, signal detection, and biologics manufacturing. He specialises in data-driven tools for risk assessment and risk–benefit decision-making.

Now joining the CDC’s new advisory panel, Levi says he’s energised by the chance to help reshape vaccine oversight at the highest level.

In this interview, he addresses the backlash from critics, outlines his concerns about mRNA technology, and explains why much of the evidence supporting current vaccine recommendations may not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Professor Retsef Levi, appointed to ACIP

DEMASI: Appreciate your time, Retsef. The mainstream media is already criticising the panel, calling some of you antivaxxers. What do you think about that?

LEVI: I think the name “anti-vaxxer” is a way to gaslight people. There’s nothing uniform about vaccines—either in favour or against vaccines. It’s a medical intervention and you have to consider the benefits and the risks for each person—there’s no “one size fits all.”

I think that people who use the term “anti-vaxxer” do not have good intentions. It reflects an ideology or a religion rather than science. I just stay focused on the data and what is my best interpretation of those data.

I really believe in helping physicians and patients interpret the data and allowing them to make the best choices for their individual situation, according to the patient’s health condition, desires, beliefs, cultures. I believe that the physician-patient relationship is the core of medicine.

DEMASI: You called for the suspension of the mRNA vaccines…. it was quite provocative—you said there was “indisputable evidence that they cause unprecedented levels of harm, including the death of young people and children.”

LEVI: And I stand by that.

DEMASI: You do?

LEVI: Yes, it’s true, isn’t it?

DEMASI: Well, I believe it is true, but does that mean you will recommend against its use at the next meeting on 25 June?

LEVI: I don’t want to say too much before the meeting and I don’t want to pre-empt the materials and data I will receive, and I’m going to look at what I am presented with. From what I’ve seen so far, I think it's obvious that these mRNA vaccines should not be given to anybody young or healthy. It is also not at all clear to me that they should be given to anybody, based on the evidence.

DEMASI: Not even the elderly?

LEVI: Not at this point, but if they provide me with evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks, then I will keep an open mind. My sense at the moment is that there is no strong evidence why this should be given to anybody — in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

DEMASI: What concerns you the most about the mRNA vaccines?

LEVI: Well, it was first thought that you give someone a shot and the mRNA and the lipid nanoparticle stay in the local injection site and quickly disappear from the body. We now know that that's false.

You also have uncontrolled doses of spike protein being made, and the spike protein, mRNA and nano lipids can stay in the body—we now know—for months, if not years.

Then, we know that there is a phenomenon where you make unintended proteins—off-target proteins—you know, where the mRNA skips along the code and it transcribes unintended proteins?

DEMASI: Yes, I reported on that study [link]…

LEVI: So, basically, you have something that is making unintended proteins and you don’t know the dose, you don’t have control over the biodistribution of these products in the body—to me, that is a collapse in the safety paradigm.

Oh, and of course—you have the concerns about DNA contamination. Levels of DNA contamination have been found to exceed safety limits, so of course this is another serious concern to me.

Finally, you have a product on the market that is not the one they tested in the clinical trials. Do you know about the Process 1 and Process 2 issue?

DEMASI: Of course, you and Josh Guetzkow commented on that in the BMJ.

LEVI: Yes, the manufacturing of the vaccine for the trial was fundamentally different to the one that was given to the population.

So based on that, I don’t believe it should have passed approval. Put simply, there were fundamental assumptions on safety that were used to authorise these vaccines that turned out to be wrong.

DEMASI: You have been outspoken about the risks of the mRNA vaccines in pregnancy particularly.

LEVI: Well, the first thing is that there was no evaluation of pregnant women in the clinical trials. It was recommended based on no evidence regarding safety. I mean, we do not let pregnant women eat sushi, so why would we expose them to a vaccine that has not been evaluated in pregnancy?

DEMASI: Well, the argument was that they were at greater risk of getting ill from Covid-19?

LEVI: I don't think there was any strong evidence that this was true at any time, and it’s definitely not true now with much milder variants. Now, all women in pregnancy are more vulnerable to illnesses and to viruses, right? But I couldn’t justify the risk of recommending every woman take the vaccine, as they advised.

DEMASI: And now we know more about how the vaccine behaves in the body in pregnant women.

LEVI: Yes, we now know that the mRNA gets through the placenta, and even into breast milk.

DEMASI: Are there other aspects of the existing childhood vaccine schedule that concern you?

LEVI: I think that the US has a very aggressive schedule that even many other developed countries don't have… [like Denmark]. So I think that we need to start asking ourselves what is the appropriate number and spacing? But I think for these changes it will require a very careful analysis of each vaccine.

DEMASI: Anything stand out to you?

LEVI: Well, the fact that we give every baby the Hep B vaccine on the day when they’re born. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense to me—I don’t see how someone can justify this.

DEMASI: Stanley Plotkin suggested to me it was to ensure compliance early, so you don’t have to chase up the ones who choose to delay it until the child is older…

LEVI: I'm not sure I see why ‘convenience’ should be an argument to give a medical intervention to a one-day-old baby. I would not agree with that logic.

DEMASI: OK, well, there’s a lot to look forward to… what was your reaction when you first got the call about the position?

LEVI: I was honoured and humbled, of course. I felt that it's a unique opportunity to serve and do my best to inform and help understand what the data and science say about vaccines—to help inform and shape policy as well as the choices that patients make with the advice of their physicians. It’s also about rebuilding the trust that people and the public could have in the public health system and in academia and in science.

DEMASI: Well, congratulations again, we all look forward to seeing what happens.

LEVI: Thank you, have a good day.

---

NB: interview edited for brevity