Congress should treat Pfizer’s RSV shot like a chemical abortion

With the public’s appetite for Pfizer’s COVID shot lower than ever and Pfizer’s stock price in the toilet, the pharmaceutical giant is relying on new mothers to take its next poison: the respiratory syncytial virus shot. The White House recently made hundreds of thousands of doses available to unsuspecting doctors who are completely ignorant about the history of this shot.

What if I told you Pfizer’s own clinical trial data shows its new RSV shot for pregnant women will cause death for thousands of babies?

In a sane world, the shots would never have been approved. But we are living in a “Twilight Zone” of “Warp Speed,” where nothing can slow down anything stamped with the “vaccine” label. If thousands of studies and data points proving the COVID shots deadly and dangerous did not slow down their speed, then nothing about any new shots will convince the warped minds of the biomedical security state to slow things down.

As members of Congress continue to fund the FDA, CDC, and National Institutes of Health this fiscal year without any reforms to vaccine approval and recommendation processes, nearly all of them are unaware of the fact that Pfizer’s new RSV shot is so problematic that its twin sister was aborted before application for approval.

British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline was the first out of the gate with an RSV shot for pregnant women decades after other companies had abandoned their research. But the prolific vaccine developer abruptly suspended the phase 3 clinical trial after observing multiple safety signals.

GSK abandoned the project completely in 2022 after somebody died. The death was attributed to “acute disseminated encephalomyelitis 22 days after vaccination,” which the drug maker and the FDA concluded could be related to the vaccine. The trial investigators 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 that of the placebo group.

The entire premise of vaccinating pregnant women is to pass along immunity to babies, a venture that has failed for a half-century since RSV shots were first terminated in the 1960s. Back then, the shots made babies sicker. Now we see a sharp increase in preterm births correlated with the vaccine.

Given the woefully low standards nowadays for ending vaccination programs, it had to be pretty bad for GSK to concede defeat.

Ordinarily, that would have been the end of the story. But since we now live in a country “brought to you by Pfizer,” the nightmare continues. Pfizer in August received full FDA approval for a nearly identical formulation of the shot. The shot is so similar, in fact, that GSK is suing Pfizer in U.S. federal court for patent infringement.

And yet, despite the deadly and unmistakable safety signals with GSK’s vaccine, Pfizer’s knockoff version, Abrysvo, sailed through the CDC and FDA approval process.

Nearly every OB-GYN is pressuring patients to get the shot, despite their complete ignorance about its potential risks. In September, the American College of Gynecologists “unequivocally” endorsed the CDC’s recommendation that all pregnant women receive the RSV shots in addition to the many vaccines pumped into their bodies in such a short period of time.

In truth, we need not speculate about Pfizer having the same problem as GSK, given the similarity in composition. Pfizer’s own trial data revealed the same problem with premature births.

Although the sample size was smaller, Pfizer’s phase 2 trial reported three out of 116 (2.6%) premature births in the placebo group and six out of 114 (5.3%) in the trial group. Using the trial data, Igor Chudov estimated that the shots would cause 73,288 excess preterm deaths annually in the U.S. alone, leading to several thousand additional infant deaths a year.

One pharmaceutical researcher compared GSK and Pfizer’s RSV jabs to Coke and Pepsi. Yet one will never reach the market, while the other is in every pharmacy and doctor’s office in the country. Why? $cience^TM. Let’s not forget that the NIH helped develop it and will benefit from royalties on the patent.

All of this for a virus that is rarely deadly and almost always treatable with a nebulizer. Between 2005 and 2016, RSV was identified on death certificates as the underlying cause of death for 17 babies per year on average. The fact is that no RSV vaccine known to man has proven effective and may have negative efficacy — it might do more harm than good — just as we’ve learned about the COVID shots.

Knowing all of this, will Congress continue to fund these projects in the Health and Human Services appropriations bill when the February deadline comes around? If Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wants to show real leadership, he should pledge to fight for the following provisions in the bill:

• End all funding or marketing for the COVID and RSV shots;
• Ban on all direct-to-consumer advertising for COVID and RSV “vaccines”;
• Repeal the protections against liability for vaccine-makers for any COVID or RSV shot, particularly for pregnant women, a provision added to the 2016 Cures Act;
• Establish a congressional committee dedicated to researching the rationale, safety, and efficacy of all the shots the CDC currently recommends;
• Ban the NIH from receiving royalties from any vaccine recommended by the CDC.

Republicans focus incessantly on abortion but often forget there are other spheres of the pro-life cause. We now have incontrovertible data showing that the RSV shots can be deadly for pregnancies and, in some cases, should be regarded as a chemical abortion. They should be opposed with the same rigor as we oppose abortions. Let’s leave the RSV shots to the “pregnant men.”