Respiratory Syncitial Virus (RSV) is a common infection. Like any infection it can be more serious, and more dangerous in the very young and very old.
Novavax is attempting to develop a vaccine for RSV but apparently trials are showing it to be "safe" (come on, all vaccines are safe! Except when they are not) but not "effective". The crazy thing is they released actual data, though I can't imagine the release was full and complete - we can't have transparency ... and besides, if partial data and tortured data (#CDCWhistleblower) is good enough for the CDC, it should be good enough for everyone else, right?!
Dr. Glenn (Novavax President of R&D) states:
Gregory Glenn, M.D., said, “The rollover trial demonstrated immunogenicity in all active vaccine recipients. As shown in the table above, there was a 6-fold increase in anti-F IgG in the Placebo-Vaccine arm, consistent with the Phase 2 efficacy trial. There was higher anti-F IgG at baseline in the Vaccine-Vaccine arm compared to the Placebo-Vaccine arm. Further, the Vaccine-Vaccine arm showed a greater than 2-fold increase in anti-F IgG from the higher baseline. We observed similar low attack rates and absence of efficacy of a single immunization in this trial as was observed in Phase 3 Resolve trial, although we did observe that a second season immunization could provide efficacy. The event rate comparisons made to either placebo groups suggested that the second season immunization was protective, even in a year with a very low attack rate. Further understanding of these data may come forth with full evaluation of the immune responses.”
In vaccine-speak, a "suggestion" that a vaccine is "protective" is defined as "safe and effective" regardless of actual results. Those who love vaccines play fast and loose with their definitions of "safe" and "effective" in order to protect the paradigm at all costs. There is usually significant monetary motivation associated with this (but hey, we all know association is not the same as causation, right?!) I am sufficiently jaded to suspect that at some point they will shoe-horn this vaccine into being "safe and effective" regardless of actual performance.
Please don't be fooled by the presence of the word "placebo" in the boxes showing some of the data. Unless they provide a definition of what "placebo" meant or was used in the actual study you should not assume it was an genuine placebo (defined as a biologically inert substance, like normal saline - well, even that, in large enough quantities, is not biologically inert but it is far more inert than vaccine excipients!)
As big as the market in pediatric vaccination may be the big kahuna is adult vaccines (Healthy People 2020, anyone?) - in general, and specifically, pregnant women.
Apparently this vaccine is being tested in pregnant women - and there are no plans to stop these trials in spite of current evidence that it has not worked in adults! Why let facts and data stop anything, especially when it comes to vaccines! The end point will not be whether it is safe and effective - that is pre-determined. In today's reality of post-normal science the only thing that matters is motive - they want to "protect" "vulnerable" infants.
Yet we have so many parental reports of children dying or being damaged following routine vaccination - and these were children who were assessed to be strong, healthy, and developing normally prior to vaccination. But because of the paradigm that vaccines are "safe and effective" no one believes them. Or they are (for all intents and purposes) told to "shut up and go away" - the paradigm must be protected at all costs, including the health and well-being of your or your child! You must take the risk of vaccinating so others may receive some perceived benefit of "herd immunity". Besides, this product is sooooo effective it does not work unless it is used >100% of the time (because all must be vaccinated multiple times).
If there are any stillbirths or miscarriages among those who receive the RSV vaccine will these be explained away as being "no more than what would be expected anyway"? I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the grieving parents.
Currently two vaccines are recommended in pregnancy (but others are recommended before getting pregnant and certainly after as well):
But since vaccines are "safe and effective" the sky is the limit!! Why stop there? Of course, let's add the RSV vaccine! Why not start the whole pediatric schedule prior to birth?! And of course, continue it afterward! Our overlords successfully added a vaccine for a disease transmitted by sex and IV drug use for those who are at low risk - Hepatitis B is given at birth to all newborns even when their mother has tested negative for Hep B in pregnancy. There are now trials of HPV vaccine in infants as well.
We are all vulnerable in a variety of ways, pregnant women all the more so. There is a very necessary movement to stop the manipulation of pregnant women. But will pregnant women, let alone any of us, be "allowed" to decline a vaccination? With laws like SB277 (in California) on the books, it seems unlikely. With employment policies requiring vaccination to keep your job it is even more unlikely.