Moderna's only real "FDA approved" product, an RSV mRNA injection is a failure

Nobody is shocked...

It goes without saying that RSV is a made up “virus” and there is no need to inject anyone with any alleged vaccines for it. This will only cause damage - scroll down to the part of this article where I discuss the FDA approved labeling for these shots. Sadly some people are still in a coma missing the lessons of the past 4 years of “safe and effective” so I hope that this information will help you with your efforts to wake those people up.

Despite being fully approved by the FDA in 2024, NOT as an EUA countermeasure (as best I can determine), the total revenue for this miracle of science is $10M so far. It’s refreshing to see that most people did not fall for the bullshit of RSV. I am willing to bet that even the $10M came from obligatory purchases by HHS to “stockpile” and assassinate an occasional Native American grandma, some prisoners, or other unfortunate subjects of the government healthcare services. In other words, no real uptake is happening. (Screenshot from Sense Receptor News):

Moderna stock is where it belongs - in the toilet:

Let’s review the approved labeling of the “real” product, i.e. not-EUA countermeasure, not-under PREP Act declaration of emergency, but allegedly a real-deal product that Moderna finally eked out, after 14 years of failures since it’s founding. This is the best mRNA science they could do (mRESVIA full prescribing information).

Claimed mechanism of action of mRESVIA:

MRESVIA induces an immune response against RSV pre-F protein that protects against LRTD [lower respiratory tract disease] caused by RSV.

My astute readers understand that the above is a fiction - the “protection” that can be hoped for here is, at best, from a positive PCR test. Causation of LRTD by RSV or “pre-F protein” (whatever that means) has never been scientifically established.

The product contains the same LNP garbage as in the covid jab, including SM-102 and PEG - both very toxic:

Each 0.5 mL dose of MRESVIA also contains the following ingredients: a total lipid content of 1.02 mg (SM-102 (heptadecan-9-yl 8-((2-hydroxyethyl) (6-oxo-6-(undecyloxy) hexyl) amino) octanoate), polyethylene glycol 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol [PEG2000-DMG], cholesterol, and 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero3-phosphocholine [DSPC]), 0.25 mg tromethamine, 1.2 mg tromethamine hydrochloride, 0.021 mg acetic acid, 0.10 mg sodium acetate trihydrate, 44 mg sucrose, and water for injection.

It would be interesting to test the vials for all the toxic stuff previously found in mRNA jabs, like DNA plasmids, metals, proteins, broken RNA, etc., if anyone can get hold of the vials. My guess they will have the same garbage soup as the covid shots.

Efficacy:

The label says that the clinical trial is still “being conducted”, so no long term data of any kind has been collected. The participants are 60 yo+ “without underlying clinical conditions”, i.e. healthy elderly. Why would ANY healthy elderly person sign up for this nonsense - beats me. They are running the trial in 22 countries, allegedly. They screened out anyone with myocarditis and pericarditis, so if you haven’t been injured by the previous mRNA jab they will get you now! When reviewing these things, observe the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI):

The lower bound of CI for “vaccine efficacy” ranges from 34% to 62% . Well, that’s interesting. All vax manufacturers claim that they follow WHO guidelines (and FDA always agrees with them), even though WHO does not have jurisdiction for pharmaceutical law enforcement anywhere in the world. Remember that both Pfizer and Moderna claimed they did not need to study safety pharmacology, toxicology, carcinogenicity, etc. for covid shots because of “WHO guidelines”? WHO guidelines, while overall useless and dangerous, happen to state that all vaccines should have at least 50% “vaccine efficacy”. The label for mRESVIA says that the clinical trial was designed to achieve a “minimum of 20% vaccine efficacy”, and obviously, the FDA allowed this. Why? Who knows! Maybe the FDA desperately needs to pretend that Moderna is a real pharma company and not a one-trick pony DARPA-NIH-OTA laundromat, and so they get the “special needs” treatment to eke out a cover for themselves, a “non-Countermeasure” product. That would be my guess.

Now, about the “vaccine efficacy” metric. Of course, it’s based on the Relative Risk and not on Absolute Risk calculations, duh! If they told you honestly about the absolute risk, you would laugh. The absolute risk of RSV is zero, because it is a fake PCR test result. If you don’t take the PCR test, you will not have RSV-LRTD induced by F-protein!

However, if you want to play the high school science fair, I can point it for you from the available data in this label - look at the numbers in the parentheses: the absolute risk of getting a positive PCR test ranges from low of 0.03% in vaxxed to high of 0.7% in unvaxxed. The absolute vaccine efficacy from this data is at best 0.67%, i.e. zero. We knew this, because the ascribed viral cause for this illness is fake, and the illness itself (from whatever causes) is very rare. But now we know with math and science! There is no difference at all in “vaccine efficacy” in “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated”, the claimed efficacy in the FDA label is just data noise and statistical tricks.

Efficacy gets even funnier when they break it down by age subgroups. That’s because a teeeeeny-tiny N of “cases” is already noise (hovering at barely above zero rate in the studied population), and when divided into subgroups, gets completely meaningless and produces negative efficacy in the 80 yo group:

It’s a granny killer! You got that right…

Safety:

As usual, none of these things are studied for carcinogenicity or mutagenicity, because mRNA shots are known to cause cancer (because here Moderna and FDA cherry-pick and follow the WHO guidelines):

13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility: MRESVIA has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or impairment of male fertility in animals.

Let me translate this pharmaspeak for you: “Hasn’t been studied for impairment of male fertility” = definitely fks-up the female one, too! The product is approved for 60 yo+, but I am sure will be pushed by some $icko doctors on young people, pregnant women and babies, so please let your younger friends and family know about this, too.

Here is the information about pregnancy from the label in full:

8.1 Pregnancy Risk Summary

All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes. In the U.S. general population, the estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage in clinically recognized pregnancies is 2% to 4% and 15% to 20%, respectively.

MRESVIA is not approved for use in persons younger than 60 years of age.

There are no human data to establish whether there is a vaccine-associated risk with use of MRESVIA in pregnancy.

Why did they include the above language in the label for something that is approved only for the 60+ yo population? Also, the 20% miscarriage rate is BS, and this number includes the miscarriages due to the covid shots and all other vaccines as “background”. They never report the miscarriage rates from unvaccinated women. The same trick that they use for children - then all the injuries and deaths can be claimed “normal background rate”.

Then they talk about the “developmental toxicity” study in rats. I think I know which study! I am willing to bet this was the infamous DART study for the covid vax, where they found the skeletal malformations, and where the FDA lied on their behalf saying it’s not vaccine related. It is very likely they did not run a separate reproductive tox study for mRSVIA! I am collaborating with Children’s Health Defense colleagues on trying to FOIA the full report for Moderna’s DART study. It’s a long shot, but if we are successful, I will certainly update my readers.

A developmental toxicity study was performed in female rats administered a vaccine formulation that included approximately twice the amount of nucleoside-modified messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), encoding the same RSV fusion (F) glycoprotein stabilized in the prefusion conformation, as in MRESVIA. The vaccine formulation was administered twice prior to mating and twice during gestation. The study revealed no evidence of harm to the fetus due to the vaccine (see Data). Data Animal Data In a developmental toxicity study, 0.2 mL of a vaccine formulation containing 96 mcg of nucleoside-modified mRNA per dose (a full human dose of MRESVIA contains 50 mcg of nucleoside-modified mRNA) was administered to female rats by the intramuscular route on four occasions: 28 and 14 days prior to mating, and on gestation days 1 and 13. No vaccine-related fetal malformations or variations and no adverse effects on postnatal development were observed in the study. The developmental toxicity study revealed no evidence of impaired female fertility.

Adverse events:

As usual, only “solicited” adverse events were allowed to be reported in detail on the label. If anyone developed cancer, paralysis, anaphylactic shock, uncontrolled blood pressure, narcolepsy, dementia, brain fog, etc. - nobody needs to know! These reports exist, and the FDA has those, but they were not part of the published labeling. Don’t ask, don’t tell!

They give a vague statement about the unsolicited reports (emphasis added):

Unsolicited Adverse Events

Incidence of unsolicited adverse events, serious adverse events, and medically attended adverse events within 28 days of vaccination were similar in the groups that received MRESVIA or placebo. Unsolicited adverse events within 28 days considered related to the study vaccination were numerically higher in the recipients of MRESVIA (5.7%) than in the placebo recipients (4.4%), primarily attributed to events that were consistent with solicited adverse reactions.

There was a numerically higher incidence of urticaria in the MRESVIA group than the placebo group within 7 days post injection (8 and 2 participants, respectively) and within 28 days post injection (15 and 5 participants, respectively).

Nobody knows how the “primarily attributed” is determined. Why are they not listing “unsolicited” reactions so that the healthcare providers and patients can find whether perhaps that reaction (waived as unimportant by the FDA) may be important to them individually? This is a rhetorical question, we know why.

Serious Adverse Events

The median duration of safety follow-up was 311 days (range 1 to 585 days), and 96.6% of participants had at least a 6-month follow-up duration after vaccination. SAEs throughout the study were reported by 7.8% and 7.9% of participants in the MRESVIA group and the placebo group, respectively. One participant in the MRESVIA group had an SAE of facial paralysis with onset four days after vaccination assessed as related to MRESVIA. Within 28 days and 42 days post vaccination, there was no imbalance in reports of facial paralysis (including Bell’s palsy) between treatment groups. There were no other notable patterns or numerical imbalances between treatment groups for specific categories of serious adverse events that would suggest a causal relationship to MRESVIA.

Of course there are no deaths in the SAE paragraph, because all deaths (I am willing to bet, there were deaths) were waived as unrelated! Duh. These are healthy 60 yo+ we are talking about, of course, when they die, it’s just the Good Lord’s will. Not the injection. Uh-uh. Unrelated. um…uh…maybe it’s a “paradoxical reaction” (i.e. the deceased’s own fault). Move on. They couldn’t quite manage away that facial paralysis event in the vax group, but using hocus-pocus language about “numerical imbalances”, managed to make it sound like nothing to worry about!

Here are the “solicited” reactions, i.e. the cherry picked nothingburgers we are allowed to know in detail. Even so, they show concerning trends.

Solicited Local reactions:

I am very concerned with the underarm swelling, which was also typical of the mRNA covid shots. This is the inflammation of the lymph nodes, and it can signal carcinogenic potential. I am also confused by the high rate of it in the “placebo” group. It is likely that the claimed “saline placebo” is not actually a saline injection. The clinical trial summary states that the study was “observer blinded”. mRNA vaxes are semi-opaque gels, which look visually very different from saline solution. In order to blind the observer, something must have been done to that formulation, to make it look visually the same:

Solicited Systemic Reactions:

Same as above, I am not sure how to explain the relatively high rate of the flu-like symptoms in the “placebo” group. This to me does not look like the effect of just a saline injection. Clearly, the vax makes people quite sick.

But hey, folks! Saving the lives from a zero-risk illness requires taking SOME risks…

Finally, Moderna is still making practically all of its revenue from the covid jabs - $1.8B in 2024 vs $10M for mRESVIA). A product that generates $10M in a $2B company would be discontinued from the portfolio if this were a real business. This only confirms the fact that this is not a real pharma company, but a front for the government agencies and private interests laundering money while pushing garbage injections and keeping the killing factories warm…

Art for today: Composition with horses. Pastel on paper.