Many researchers, writers, and medical professionals predicted the emergency use authorization and eventual approval of the modified mRNA CONvid-1984 injections would give rise to modified mRNA injections being developed for “routine” childhood and adult illnesses. This earned the predictors the labels “conspiracy theorists”, disinformation disseminators, and misinformation spreaders. As it turns out, these individuals were not wrong. On May 31, 2024, Moderna posted on its website, “Moderna Receives US FDA Approval for RSV Vaccine mRESVIA(R)”.
Moderna, Inc. (NASDAQ:MRNA) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved mRESVIA (mRNA-1345), an mRNA respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine, to protect adults aged 60 years and older from lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV infection. The approval was granted under a breakthrough therapy designation and marks the second approved mRNA product from Moderna.
“The FDA approval of our second product, mRESVIA, builds on the strength and versatility of our mRNA platform,” said Stéphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna. “mRESVIA protects older adults from the severe outcomes of RSV infection, and it is the only RSV vaccine available in a pre-filled syringe designed to maximize ease of administration, saving vaccinators’ time and reducing the risk of administrative errors. This approval is also the first time an mRNA vaccine has been approved for a disease other than COVID-19. With mRESVIA, we continue to deliver for patients by addressing global public health threats related to infectious diseases.”
At this point, anyone considering taking this new “vaccine” should take heed to remember the problems with the modified mRNA CONvid-1984 injection from both Pfizer and Moderna that have now been disclosed. Surely, no one will think this modified mRNA injection for respiratory syncytial virus will be any different. If you do, the information on Moderna’s website should cause at least a questioning of the injection.
The FDA’s approval of mRESVIA is based on positive data from the Phase 3 clinical trial ConquerRSV, a global study conducted in approximately 37,000 adults ages 60 years or older in 22 countries. The primary analysis with 3.7 months of median follow-up found a vaccine efficacy against RSV lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) of 83.7% (95.88% CI 66.0%, 92.2%). These results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine. A follow-up analysis of the primary endpoint was performed during FDA review, including cases that started before the primary analysis cut-off date but were not confirmed until afterward. The results were consistent with the primary analysis [VE 78.7% (CI 62.9%, 87.8%)] and were included in the U.S. package insert. An additional longer-term analysis showed continued protection against RSV LRTD over 8.6 months median follow-up. [Emphasis Mine.]
No serious safety concerns were identified in the Phase 3 trial. The most commonly reported solicited adverse reactions were injection site pain, fatigue, headache, myalgia and arthralgia. [Emphasis Mine.]
Moderna expects to have mRESVIA available for eligible populations in the U.S. by the 2024/2025 respiratory virus season.
There was only a 3.7-month average follow-up for “efficacy” and the “longer-term analysis” was only 8.6 months. Interestingly, the “mostly commonly reported solicited adverse reactions were injection site pain, fatigue, headache, myalgia and arthralgia.” It sounds suspiciously familiar, doesn’t it? And, these were the “solicited” adverse reactions. What about the unsolicited adverse reactions?
And, this new RSV-modified mRNA injection contains the same issues as the CONvid-1984 injection.
mRESVIA®is an RSV vaccine that consists of an mRNA sequence encoding a stabilized prefusion F glycoprotein. The F glycoprotein is expressed on the surface of the virus and is required for infection by helping the virus to enter host cells. The prefusion conformation of the F protein is a significant target of potent neutralizing antibodies and is highly conserved across both RSV-A and RSV-B subtypes. The vaccine uses the same lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) as the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
Just like the modified mRNA CONvid-1984 injections, Moderna’s modified mRNA RSV injection was approved without the standard 2–3-year observation for standard routine “vaccines” and the 5–15-year observation for potential genetic transfer (shedding). Moreover, there was no testing for genotoxicity, oncogenicity, or long-term side effects. It was the same with the CONvid-1984 modified mRNA injections. In case you missed it, this modified mRNA RSV injection uses the same lipid nanoparticle technology as the CONvid-1984 injections. If you don’t know the problems with this LNP technology, these LNP particles target major organs in the body, including the heart, liver, and reproductive organs, building up to cause health issues.
Rare illnesses that are mild should not be the target for mass vaccination. Because so few people get the problem, and in the case of respiratory syncytial virus, the illness is so mild and easily treatable with albuterol and budesonide nebulizers, it is hard to make the case for mass vaccination with a novel mRNA platform.
Nevertheless, Moderna conducted a large randomized trial in adults at “high-risk” for RSV reporting only 20 cases (with three symptoms such as nasal congestion, cough, fever) out of 35,541 subjects (rate=.056%). Safety grade 3 or higher events at 28 days were reported in 4.0% of Moderna and 2.9% of placebo patients, respectively. The most common solicited systemic adverse reactions were fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia. There was one case of Moderna mRNA pericarditis at 42 days. The short-term vaccine efficacy was 82.4%. [Emphasis Mine.]
…
I do not recommend adult RSV vaccination of any type since this is a very mild and rare infection in adults indistinguishable from the common cold. One serious side effect should be enough to kill interest in more clinical development.
So, in the Moderna trials for mRESVIA, a case of Moderna mRNA pericarditis occurred at 42 days [after vaccination]. This should be concerning considering the issue with the pericarditis and myocarditis surrounding the CONvid-1984 injections. Remember, myocarditis and pericarditis are progressive heart ailments.
McCollough highlights other issues in an additional article.
The press release does not tell the public the absolute risk reduction for clinically significant outcomes was far below 1%, meaning this product will not have a significant clinical impact. Consumers should know that at the bare minimum, the following safety concerns exists for any pseudouridinated, synthetic mRNA product including mRESVIA(R):
- Myocarditis because mRNA of all types targets the heart as shown by Krauson et al
- Auto-immunity because of the generation of foreign RSV proteins and frameshifted peptides as shown by Boros et al
- Genomic integration as shown by Alden et al
- Oncogenicity as shown by Seneff et al
It may turn out that uncontrolled production of stabilized RSV prefusion F glycoprotein is far more toxic than the Wuhan Spike protein causing an entire array of new problems that we will encounter as more get vaccinated over time.
If you recall, the absolute risk reduction for the modified mRNA CONvid-1984 injection Moderna product was 1.1%. And, with the possibility for this “stabilized RSV perfusion F glycoprotein to be more toxic than the Wuhan spike protein”, it should send up a red flag to everyone considering this injection for RSV. As a reminder, no one really knows what is in the CONvid-1984 injections since it has varied widely by vials that have been analyzed – there is no standardized product since Pfizer stated no FDA-approved Comirnaty will be manufactured, which is required for FDA approval.
But, McCullough in this Substack article “suggests” if anyone is going to take an RSV “vaccine”, individuals should “select an antigen-based product (ABRYSVO, AREXVY) and not genetic mRESVIA(R).” That’s a big change from not recommending any RSV injection because of the mildness of RSV to recommending vaccination with two products that have issues not disclosed to the public.
If you are not aware of problems with ABYSVO or AREXVY, please read my article on both of those so-called vaccines.
After conducting the research for my book, “Informed Consent: An Unalienable Right”, which included a deep dive into childhood vaccines approved by the FDA, there would not be any so-called vaccine, childhood or adult, that can be recommended due to the inadequate, almost non-existent, obtainment of informed consent by those injecting these products. Moreover, the pharmaceutical companies have routinely engaged in shady practices that were uncovered during the CONvid-1984 planned scam-demic – see the work of Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt – that have not been limited to modified mRNA injection technology.
Considering that no virus has ever been isolated or proven to exist, what are these pharmaceutical companies making to inject into our bodies, particularly where modified mRNA technology using LNPs is concerned? Healthy skepticism should be the norm at this point. You can bet this modified mRNA RSV injection is only the first in a long line of injections for every “imaginable”, “suspected”, “invented” so-called virus that (non)science can pass off to the public.
