They are Going After Pregnant Woman Again

Why are experimental injections being recommended for pregnant woman?!

First injections against SARS-CoV-2 were recommended for pregnant woman and now injections against RSV are being recommended.

I coauthored this article published by Children’s Health Defense in January 2022 after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended women who were pregnant, recently pregnant, who were trying to become pregnant now or who might become pregnant in the future get the COVID-19 genetic vaccine.

Source: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-study-wrongly-concludes-covid-vaccines-safe-pregnancy/

Including pregnant women in clinical trials

Pregnancy is a precarious time not just for the expectant mother but most importantly the developing fetus. Expectant mothers are advised not to drink alcohol or caffeinated beverages and not to eat raw foods such as sushi and deli meats.

A lot of medications are contraindicated during pregnancy including simple pain meds like non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Ibuprofen), antidiarrheals, decongestants, antihistamines, nasal sprays and expectorants.

Women are advised not to take these medications during pregnancy because they pose potential risks to the developing fetus.

For decades, expectant mothers have been considered a vulnerable group to be shielded from potential harms of research for the sake of their fetuses’ health.

In 1977, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines excluding pregnant women and women “with childbearing potential” from phase I and phase II clinical trials, where new drugs are tested for safety and efficacy.

This view stemmed, in part, from tragedies caused by two now-infamous drugs that were widely prescribed to pregnant women in the mid-20th century: thalidomide, which caused thousands of children around the world to be born with flipper-like limbs and other birth defects, and diethylstilbestrol, which was linked to higher rates of cancer in both mothers and the daughters born to them.

This view changed however in 1993, with the passage of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which sought to increase gender and racial diversity in clinical trials.

Federal regulations currently require any study involving pregnant women to meet 10 criteria, including that, “where scientifically appropriate,” data first be collected on pregnant animals and non-pregnant human subjects to assess risk, and that any risk to mother or fetus be “the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research.”

The CDC’s determination that COVID genetic vaccination was safe in pregnant women was unfounded.

CDC recommends another Pfizer product for pregnant women

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/p0922-RSV-maternal-vaccine.html

Abrysvo became the first RSV vaccine to be FDA-approved for pregnant women on August 21, 2023. And a month later it was recommended for all pregnant women by the CDC.

Today, CDC recommended the first respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine for pregnant people to protect their newborn from severe RSV illness. RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization for U.S. infants. This new vaccine, Pfizer’s bivalent RSVpreF vaccine (trade name Abrysvo ^TM), has been shown to reduce the risk of RSV hospitalization for babies by 57 percent in the first six months after birth.

Lets take a look at the possible side effects from this injection:

Source: https://www.drugs.com/abrysvo.html

Low birth weight is associated with early or pre-term birth. Their own information contradicts this injection as being safe for pregnant women. If the goal is to avoid the risk of preterm birth and the trial showed that those in the injection arm of the trial experienced higher rates of “low birth weight” (read as preterm birth) then how can they recommend this for pregnant women?! Abrysvo is clearly not doing what they proclaim the injection was developed to protect against.

Keep in mind the fact that the Abrysvo product, ‘designed’ for pregnant women, has no long term (or short-term) safety data. The phase III clinical trial for Abrysvo (NCT04424316) was only just completed on October 27, 2023, so it is impossible to commit to safety claims relevant to pharmacovigilance, or to the health and well-being of the infants.

You read that correctly, the clinical trial was completed two months AFTER it was approved by the FDA. How a regulatory agency can approve a product before the clinical trial is complete is beyond me.

There is already a safety signal in VAERS for Abrysvo

There have been ~7,816,892 doses administered in the U.S. as of December 16, 2023. Jessica does a great job at summarizing what has already been reported to VAERS in the context of Abrysvo and pregnant women.

RSV reports in VAERS (AREXVY and ABRYSVO)

VAERS is a functioning pharmacovigilance tool. It is telling us now that 137 WOMEN (not people) reported being exposed to RSV vaccines during pregnancy (MedDRA code: “Exposure during pregnancy”) and of these women, 20% experienced pre-term labor or birth, uterine contractions with or without hemorrhaging or an emergency Caesarean section.

VAERS ID 2718314 reported pre-term labor and delivery within 24 hours of vaccine administration. Her cramping and bleeding started 5 hours after injection.

Figure 2: VAERS ID 2718314 report of pre-term labor and delivery within hours of RSV vaccination.

Two women reported spontaneous abortions.

It is important that we pay attention to these signals. 20% pre-term births sounds high to me in the context of a vaccine. 33% of these pre-term births occurred within 24 hours of administration of the vaccine. Sound like causation to you? In addition, there is no follow-up and therefore we cannot know if these babies fared well or not.

JUST SAY NO TO INJECTIONS DURING PREGNANCY!!