RSV: More misleading claims!
And what we can do about it.
The headline of a BBC article dated 18th April reads Pregnancy vaccine reduces baby hospital admissions for RSV by 80%. The article refers to ‘a new study’. I looked for a link to the study so I could read it for myself. Although there is a link, it is not to a full study in the usual format I would have expected. Instead, the link opens a 2-page document entitled Maternal RSV vaccination and reduced risk of hospitalisation for babies in England, 2024/25
It’s interesting to note that the title of this document refers to a reduced ‘risk’ of hospitalisation, whereas the BBC article refers to reduced admissions, which is slightly different.
The most important part of any study paper is the ‘Methods’ section because that is where we can see the procedures that were conducted. Below is a screenshot of the entirety of that section in the study document, noting of course that it is merely the ‘abstract’.
It’s clear that this is purely an epidemiological study. The ‘results’ section that led to the claim of a reduced risk of hospitalisations is below,
One point to highlight in these ‘Results’ is the sentence that begins, “After adjusting for co-variates…”
It would be useful to see the full study to discover what the authors meant by the term ‘co-variates’ and how they ‘adjusted’ for them. This is not possible because I have not been able to find a full paper, not even on the UK government website on the page that refers to this study, which also claims RSV maternal vaccine cuts baby hospital admissions by up to 85%
The link on that web page is to the same document, in other words to the abstract. The point to note is that the UKHSA (UK Health Security Agency) was involved with the study. So was it an independent study? The answer is no, because the UKHSA is a government agency and therefore promotes the establishment view, as is obvious from the web page about the UKHSA on the UK government website, under the heading What We Do,
“UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) prevents, prepares for and responds to infectious diseases, and environmental hazards, to keep all our communities safe, save lives and protect livelihoods.
We provide scientific and operational leadership, working with local, national and international partners to protect the public’s health and build the nation’s health security capability.”
So why has RSV become such an important topic?
The BBC article makes the claim that,
“RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) is one of the main reasons young babies are admitted to hospital before the age of one.”
It continues,
“Half of newborns catch the virus, which can cause anything from a mild cold to a life-threatening chest infection because of inflammation in the lungs. Small numbers die from it every year.”
I must emphasise that I am not denying that children experience symptoms.
Instead, I’m questioning the mainstream claims about their cause(s).
First of all, inflammation is a healing process, not a harmful one.
Also, the medical establishment defines ‘viruses’ as ‘obligate intracellular parasites’ that cause various diseases, especially in humans. But the particles referred to as ‘viruses’ have never been proven to exist as described or cause disease as claimed.
Yet, we are constantly bombarded with media stories that claim our health is threatened by these ‘particles’.
But what is more urgent is that we’re told the health of the most vulnerable members of our human family - our babies and children - are the ones most likely to be harmed by these particles.
It’s natural that parents, especially first-time parents, will be worried by such stories and think their newborn babies might be affected and therefore want to protect them. But their concerns are what the medical establishment relies on so they can convince them their babies ‘need’ these vaccines.
The media use stories of tragic situations to support their fear-mongering, such as the September 2024 BBC article Mother’s RSV vaccine plea after baby’s virus death
The death of a baby is an absolute tragedy and my heart goes out to any parent who has faced this.
But these tragedies do not mean we should avoid raising questions about the alleged cause(s).
The article states,
“Three-month-old Rumer was born with a rare life-limiting condition, but died after catching respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a common respiratory condition, in 2015.”
In other words, the baby had other very serious health issues.
So how can the media report that hers was a ‘virus death’?
The vaccine that is recommended for pregnant women to allegedly ‘protect’ their babies from RSV is called Abrysvo, which is manufactured by Pfizer. The full vaccine ‘patient leaflet’ can be accessed from this link.
Below are the ingredients,
As you can see, the vaccine contains polysorbate 80, about which the leaflet states,
“One dose of Abrysvo contains 0.08 mg of polysorbate 80. Polysorbates may cause allergic reactions.”
Polysorbate 80 is known to cause serous reactions from its use, as can be seen in a study article Dessecting the toxicological profile of polysorbate 80 (PS80): comparative analysis of constituent variability and biological impact using a zebrafish model that states,
“Despite its utility, numerous reports suggest that PS80 in injectable medicines can cause adverse effects such as hemolysis and anaphylactoid reactions (Badiu et al., 2012; Coors et al., 2005; Mi et al., 2014; Qiu et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2011; Yuan, 2007), though the specific underlying mechanisms remain largely unclear.”
The first paper referred to above (Badiu et al., 2012) is a 2012 BMJ care report entitled Hypersensitivity reaction to human papillomavirus vaccine due to polysorbate 80 that states,
“A 17-year-old girl reported generalised urticaria, eyelid angioedema, rhino-conjunctivitis, dyspnoea and wheezing 1 h after third intramuscular administration of quadrivalent human papilloma virus vaccine (Gardasil)”
As the title indicates, her reaction was shown to have been due to the polysorbate 80 in the vaccine. So why is this substance considered safe to give to pregnant women?
It is admitted that there is a potential for harm from the RSV vaccine, as can be seen on the Pfizer web page about ABRYSVO, which, under the heading Important Safety Information, states,
Do not administer ABRYSVO to individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any component of ABRYSVO
The results of a postmarketing observational study suggest an increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome during the 42 days following vaccination with ABRYSVO
A numerical imbalance in preterm births was observed compared to placebo in 2 clinical studies. Data are insufficient to establish or exclude a causal relationship between preterm birth and ABRYSVO. To avoid potential risk of preterm birth with use of ABRYSVO before 32 weeks of gestation, administer to pregnant individuals at 32 through 36 weeks gestational age
Appropriate medical treatment must be available in case of an anaphylactic reaction
Syncope (fainting) may occur with administration of injectable vaccines, including ABRYSVO. Procedures should be in place to avoid injury from fainting
Immunocompromised individuals, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, may have a diminished immune response to ABRYSVO
Vaccination with ABRYSVO may not protect all recipients
Two of the above points require special attention:
The reference to an imbalance in preterm births before 32 weeks, which is followed by the advice to give the vaccine after 32 weeks. This would certainly reduce the number of preterm births. But why does this vaccine induce preterm births?
The admission that the vaccine may not protect all recipients.
On the basis that no ‘virus’ has ever been proven to cause disease, this vaccine cannot ‘protect’ anyone from a so-called ‘infection’.
The important point is that there is a clear potential for harm to both the mother and the baby from the vaccine’s toxic ingredients; and that’s before the baby has been born and starts to receive any of those on the standard childhood vaccination schedule.
What is even more important to highlight is that this vaccine is aimed at pregnant women, but, as I’ve shown in previous writings, the medical establishment does not understand the human body. It is so obsessed with ‘viruses’ and allegedly ‘infectious diseases’ that it pays no attention whatsoever to the fact that women have been carrying babies and giving birth since the origin of the human species (however long may be - which is a whole other discussion). And for the vast majority of that time, they have done so without vaccines.
Furthermore, the womb environment is - or should be - regarded as sacred, meaning inviolable. Yet this environment is violated every time the medical system insists that a pregnant woman receives a pharmaceutical product, whether a medicine or a vaccine.
These products are not ‘health-promoting’ nor are they ‘health-protecting’.
The endocrine system regulates the ability to reproduce. One very specific characteristic of this system is that hormones are present in the womb in extremely tiny concentrations. Dr Theo Colborn describes this in her powerful and poignant essay Peace,
“The endocrine system is so fine-tuned that it depends upon hormones in concentrations as little as a tenth of a trillionth of a gram to control the womb environment, as inconspicuous as one second in 3,169 centuries.”
Is it not reasonable to suggest that the ingredients of vaccines can (and do) adversely affect the condition of the womb environment and therefore can (and do) affect the health of the developing baby?
The effects may not always be obvious, which is how the medical system can claim that there are no effects. But there are examples of situations in which claims of safety were exposed as unsubstantiated.
The obvious and well-known examples are Thalidomide and DES, both of which demonstrated clearly the lack of understanding of the womb environment and the very real effects that can occur due to pharmaceuticals that had been claimed to be ‘safe’.
In the case of Thalidomide, the effects were obvious at birth. But in the case of DES, the effects did not manifest until the babies of mothers who had taken the drug became adults. Only then did they discover they were unable to have families of their own.
Even if the RSV vaccine were absolutely safe, which is highly unlikely for many reasons, the main question is whether it has the ability to prevent health issues, the answer to which is a resounding ‘no’. Because health issues are not random events that occur for no reason nor are they caused by any so-called ‘virus’.
It’s time to recognise that people need to change the health paradigm they support and move to one that is based on an understanding of how the body actually works.
This paradigm already exists and is referred to under the general heading of ‘terrain’, which understands that:
1) Symptoms are the body’s efforts to restore homeostasis when it is out of balance.
2) Acute health conditions are usually self-limiting, whilst the body eliminates the toxic buildup, and usually require no interventions except rest and ensure adequate hydration.
3) Chronic conditions are not self-limiting, but instead represent a deeper level of toxic buildup and require a little more attention.
Please share this article with anyone you know to help spread this information and especially with any pregnant woman who may be considering taking this vaccine but is unsure of its benefits or potential harms.
Dawn 🌹
For a deeper dive into the ‘terrain paradigm’, here’s my podcast conversation with Dr Marizelle Arce,
I am grateful for the kind support of paid subscribers and generous donations for coffees and/or books. [My preference is for the latter 😊]
If you wish to help me continue my work so more people can receive the information they need to make informed choices, please consider supporting me. Thank you 🙏
Resources:
Other Useful Resources:
If you are looking for ways to start or continue your journey of taking responsibility for your own health, below are some useful resources:
New Biology Clinic
“At New Biology Clinic, we prioritize your individual well-being with personalized holistic care rooted in the proven natural healing principles of the New Biology.”
Use code dawn18 for a discount on your activation fee
The Way Forward
“Within our private community, we provide a platform to connect with nearby natural health practitioners and like-minded members, join monthly virtual events, and receive deeper education on a journey towards health, freedom, and coherence.”
Link for details & to join the TWF community
Alfa Vedic
“Formulated by a physician with over four decades of clinical expertise, Alfa Vedic combines modern research and spagyric alchemy to activate energy, strengthen resilience, and elevate your health.”
Undo Meditation
“Matthew’s approach is ideal for those ready for genuine transformation who have grown weary of conventional therapies or quick-fix solutions. If you’re eager to develop a deeper understanding of yourself and implement lasting change in both your personal and professional life, Matthew is your next step.”
N.B. Use code DAWNL1 for one free month when you purchase a monthly subscription.
The claim the study does not make is that the RSV shot reduces the overall risk of hospitalizations. Overall health outcomes is all that matters. The same kid who was injected is more likely to get hospitalized due to the toxins from the shot. They just won’t call it RSV.
I've observed increase in preterm births by women who have taken this shot while pregnant...maybe it's just coincidental but I don't recommend women who are pregnant taking ANY injections.