The Newest Death Potion, Meant for Newborns! RSV shot killed 12 babies in trials - but now they plan to give it to EVERY new baby anyway. Is eugenics involved?
Pharma has set its murderous eyes once again on our most vulnerable. Newborn babies, pregnant women, and seniors are being readied for sacrifice to RSV “vaccines.” BUT YOU CAN SAY NO!
BS”D
This deadly new injection will be the test as to whether the people have learned their lessons from the covid vaccines - or not.
Dr. Meryl Nass MD posted on August 3:
“CDC's ACIP today voted unanimously to give a monoclonal antibody to newborns on day 1-7 of life to prevent RSV.
“MORE babies DIED who were TREATED than who got the placebo. Same story as Pfizer's initial COVID shot trial. This will almost certainly kill many babies.”
https://twitter.com/NassMeryl/status/1687282124150206464
Michael Nevradakis Ph.D. wrote for CHD:
Despite 12 Deaths During Clinical Trials, CDC Signs Off on RSV Shots for Newborns
Medical experts criticized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Thursday decision to recommend a “new immunization” for newborns to protect against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, calling the move unnecessary and not worth the known risks.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Thursday recommended the first-ever monoclonal antibody marketed as a defense for all newborns against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.
Beyfortus, also known as nirsevimab, is produced by pharma giants Sanofi and AstraZeneca.
In a press release, the CDC referred to the drug as a “powerful tool” and a “new immunization.” According to the agency:
“ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] voted to include nirsevimab in the Vaccines for Children program, which provides recommended vaccines and immunizations at no cost to about half of the nation’s children.
“CDC is currently working to make nirsevimab available through the Vaccines for Children program. Healthcare providers will be a key partner in CDC’s outreach efforts. Additional clinical guidance and healthcare provider education material will be provided by CDC in the coming months.”
According to The Associated Press (AP), the drug will be offered as a “one-time shot for infants born just before or during the RSV season and for those less than 8 months old before the season starts,” and for some high-risk 8-19-month-old infants.
Infants in the high-risk group include “immunocompromised children and those with chronic lung disease — as well as Native American and Alaska Native children, who have RSV hospitalization rates between four and 10 times that of the general population,” STAT News reported.
CDC’s ACIP approved the recommendations in a unanimous 10-0 vote. Although not bound by ACIP’s vote, CDC Director Mandy Cohen signed off on the recommendations later on Thursday, according to CNBC.
Beyfortus will be “broadly available for all infants regardless of whether they have a health condition,” CNBC reported, adding that it will be “administered as a single dose.”
Some medical experts criticized the recommendation, pointing to infant deaths that occurred during the clinical trial for Beyfortus and questioning the need for their widespread administration to this age group.
Source:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-beyfortus-nirsevimab-rsv-shots-newborns/
It is particularly disturbing to me that this “vaccine” for newborns is coming from AstraZeneca, a company with known ties to the eugenics movement.
See the December 2020 investigative article below. The authors found it highly suspect that the AstraZeneca covid vaccine was being deployed to the same areas of the world whose populations the eugenicists have expressed their desire to diminish. I feel the similarly at present, regarding AstraZeneca’s RSV shot, especially considering the curiosity of how “generously” it is being made available to Native American and Alaskan Native older babies. Eugenicists have a long history of seeking to decimate native populations.
I have taken screenshots of the most relevant parts of the lengthy article. (Note, my citation of this article does NOT imply my agreement with any other content the authors may have on their site.)
Link to article:
To click the sources in those excerpts, go to the article link above.
These are DEFINITELY things to think very hard about before allowing your baby to be injected with anything made by AstraZeneca - or any other Pharma company, actually.
But it’s not only newborns that are at risk from the new agent of death.
Daniel Horowitz wrote on Conservative Review:
CDC committee shockingly approves yet another RSV shot that had more fatalities in trial group than placebo
The RSV vaccine was the original poster child for negative efficacy of failed vaccines in the 1960s. Now officials want to take your newborn and, on top of the existing list of vaccines plunged into his body, administer a brand-new RSV shot that openly has safety concerns. Josef Mengele is smiling in hell.
…. despite no rationale to rush an RSV shot at pandemic speed, the FDA has already approved three versions. Officials have approved Pfizer’s shot both for seniors and for pregnant women and have approved GSK’s version for seniors. GSK’s shot for pregnant women was suspended because of safety concerns, but Pfizer’s was approved even though it has the same problems and is very similar.
According to FDA briefing documents, two people in the Pfizer RSV trial for those over 60 years old experienced the dangerous form of neuropathy known as Guillain-Barré syndrome. Also, in the Phase 1/2 trial for Pfizer’s RSV shot, among a younger cohort of 18- to 49-year-olds (which has not been approved yet), the trial reports one death among the 164 participants in the group getting 120 micrograms. As for GSK’s senior shot, members of the CDC’s advisory committee raised concerns that it “can overstimulate the immune system, which is why it is only used for the elderly or immunocompromised.” Gee, where have we seen that before? Autoimmune problems from a rushed vaccine?
Committee members also raised concerns about the efficacy and rationale because very few seniors get seriously ill from RSV, and as Dr. Steven Pergam observed, “These were very stable patients, very — selected to be healthy, that produce good immune responses but were really not the ones that have the efficacy endpoints that are so necessary for decision making.”
So the entire rationale for and safety profile of Pfizer’s and GSK’s RSV senior shots are built on a fallacy.
What about the pregnancy shot? GSK’s shot was pulled from the market after one woman died from acute disseminated encephalomyelitis 22 days after vaccination, which GSK conceded was likely from the shot. Testing also found a 6.8% rate of preterm births in the trial group compared to 4.9% in the placebo group. The rate of neonatal deaths was also double.
But Pfizer, which has more clout in the U.S. than British-based GSK, had its shot for pregnant women approved, even though it is a very similar formulation. As researchers in the British Medical Journal observed, Pfizer reported three out of 116 (2.6%) premature births in the placebo group and six out of 114 (5.3%) in the group that received the vaccine that was chosen as Pfizer’s final product.
Finally, within a few months, the FDA will likely approve Moderna’s version for seniors, which openly shows 200 adverse events and 10 serious ones per mild case avoided.
Monoclonal 'vaccine' for newborn babies
Which leads us to AstraZeneca and Senofi’s new monoclonal antibody shot, nirsevimab, for newborn babies. Without any understanding of the effect on babies from pregnant mothers already getting Pfizer’s dangerous RSV shot designed for the mother to convey immunity to the babies, the CDC just approved the antibody injection for newborns!
Although monoclonal antibodies have been given to treat an illness after it sets in, this is the first time they are proposed to be administered en masse as a preventive – and to newborns of all people! There have already been documented cases of antibody-resistant mutations forming within the RSV-F protein after prophylactic administration of nirsevimab, something observed in a previous attempt at RSV monoclonal treatments in 2010. Mass vaccination for a respiratory virus has always been associated with creating resistant mutations, as we painfully learned (or didn’t) with COVID.
But why are we even doing this in the first place? As Dr. Meryl Nass points out, although the rationale for fearing RSV in babies is not as unfounded as with seniors, there are about 25 babies who die on average every year from the virus. It is very treatable with a nebulizer. So it would be criminal to rush such a novel antibody, produced in hamster ovary cells, even if there were no problems with the trial.
But right off the bat, the company’s own trial shows more all-cause deaths during a 12-month observational period in the trial group than in the placebo group: 12 babies died in the trial group compared to four in the placebo! According to the FDA, the number of deaths in all the trials put together "exceeds what one would expect with the 2:1 randomization in Trials 03, 04, and 05." Relative to the size of each arm, there was roughly a 50% higher death rate in the trial arm.
Yet the manufacturer and government officials automatically are assuming that every one of them died of natural causes.
Four died from cardiac disease, two died from gastroenteritis, two died from unknown causes but were likely cases of sudden infant death syndrome, one died from a tumor, one died from COVID, one died from a skull fracture, and one died of pneumonia.
Gee, pneumonia, COVID, heart problems, “sudden infant death syndrome,” and “unknown causes,” yet we can conclude without autopsies that none of this is from a respiratory viral vaccine that has been known since the 1960s to result in negative efficacy?
… why is a monoclonal antibody, which is a therapeutic, being treated as a vaccine, even though it cannot stop infection? Well, of course, the companies treat it like a vaccine so they can place it on the child immunization schedule and enjoy the liability shield from all harm! At the same time, they are treating it like a drug in the sense that it will not be on VAERS reporting!
They are also planning to bomb all seniors and pregnant women with a triple whammy this fall – COVID, RSV, and flu shots – with no understanding of how all those pro-inflammatory antibodies interact with each other.
Source:
Relatedly:
Former police officer reveals that 50% of SIDS cases happen within 1 week of a vaccine
stkirsch, posted August 16, 2023
https://rumble.com/v383hl8-former-police-officer-reveals-that-50-of-sids-cases-happen-within-1-week-of.html
[See also related post:
"New police testimony + peer-reviewed literature both show vaccines ARE causing SIDS: No doubt about it!" by Steve Kirsch, August 17, 2023
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-police-testimony-peer-reviewed ]
TRANSCRIPT
JENNIFER: Hi. My name is Jennifer and I was asked by Dr. Ben Tapper, a dear friend of mine, to share briefly my story. And so I'm going to try to do that in about 2 minutes. We'll see what happens here.
I was a police officer in a medium-sized urban area, so was my husband, he's a retired sergeant, I was an officer, we were both assigned to the Child Victim Sexual Assault Unit. And what, what really sparked some surprise and shock in us was the amount of children that actually do died of, die of quote unquote SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome.
We, in our unit were in charge of investigating all child deaths whether they were suspicious or not, so any time a baby died of SIDS in the home, officers were called out to investigate, to rule out foul play. And I will tell you this, SIDS deaths occurred at about a rate of 3 to 4 a month in a city of about 350,000. So probably an alarming number when we're led to believe it's super, super rare.
One thing that we started to noice was a pattern of when these children would die. It would usually be within hours to a week of their immunizations. And, I would say, most commonly this would happen after the 6 month immunizations. They get a lot at 2 months and they get a lot at 4 months and we did see SIDS deaths at those periods, too, but primarily 6 months was kind of, that was kind of the threshold where we would see a lot of the SIDS deaths happening.
So one thing that I started to really notice was that the medical examiners would detail a lot of things on the death reports, like, you know, if the baby was eating solids or if it had had a bath, and had lotion on and what kind what was it, and was there smoking in the home, who was on the house. They left no stone unturned. They literally would mark everything down. And then they would stamp SIDS on it.
The one thing that they wouldn't ever put down was that the child had been recently vaccinated. And that really, I found that odd because if there was any other pharmaceuticals involved, like a round of antibiotics or Tylenol or whatever, that was certainly on the report. But not vaccines.
And so I started doing my own digging and I found out that because vaccines do not have liability, that the manufacturers do not carry liability, then the medical examiners are not obligated to put vaccines on the medical report.
And this is what really started my journey in investigating vaccines. Because I was expecting my child, my first child, when I was working in that unit and, you know, we were deciding who our doctor was going to be, and things like that, and this really opened my eyes to whether this was something I wanted to do for my kids, but it just seemed like, this was what you do, right? But I was raised to question everything, so when I saw these red flags I really started to go down this rabbit hole.
And I will tell you that I did not see a SIDS report that didn't have some sort of symptom on it. And, you know, people are led to believe that SIDS, there's no symptoms, the baby's just dead. But there was always symptoms. And those symptoms were pulmonary petechiae, meaning there was like broken blood vessels in the lungs, and petechiae in the brain. And those were also common with shaken baby, but for whatever reason the doctors could tell the difference between traumatic petechiae and nontraumatic and that would get marked on there, too. So I'm thinking, well, if it's just a sudden death and it's a mystery, why do we see these, these symptoms listed on the report?
So that also was just another way that I started down the rabbit hole. And you know, my husband and I were both led to the decision to not vaccinate our children.
But that's pretty much my short abbreviated version of my story. There's more to it but Ben told me 2 to 3 minutes and I've already gone over, so going to wrap this up.
I haven't told you my agency or my full name because, as you probably know, there's repercussions with speaking the truth and so because I have a family that I care about I'm going to refrain from that information for now, but thank you for listening.
4:55
[END]
Thank you for keeping us informed. This is life-saving information. The roots of the eugenics movement are at the bottom of all our mass murders. Starting with abortion.