A study entitled “Efficacy and Safety of an mRNA-Based RSV PreF Vaccine in Older Adults” was published in NEJM on December 14, 2023. It reported on the results of clinical trials for a new mRNA vaccine being developed by Moderna to (allegedly) prevent the RSV virus from causing colds in adults. The study was funded by Moderna.
Half of the 35,541 participants (60 yo and older) received a shot of the vaccine while the other half received a shot of saline. The study was concluded when at least 50% of the anticipated cases of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease had occurred (379 days after the shots were administered).
Moderna proudly proclaimed that vaccine efficacy was 83.7% against RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs or symptoms (i.e., a mild cold) and 82.4% against the disease with at least three signs or symptoms (i.e., a more severe cold).
Igor Chudov notes that “signs or symptoms” did not even include hospitalization, never mind ICU care or death. So they’re talking about preventing cold symptoms such as cough, fever over 100°F, and sputum production. That’s the benefit.
So what are the risks? The study claimed “a single dose of the mRNA-1345 vaccine resulted in no evident safety concerns and led to a lower incidence of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease and of RSV-associated acute respiratory disease than placebo among adults 60 years of age or older.”
That’s right, folks! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! As noted above, “acute respiratory disease” means “bad cold”, not “potentially lethal respiratory infection.” In fact, the only mention I saw of any hospital contact by trial participants who got RSV were those who were x-rayed because the researchers were unable to “full assess other clinical parameters.”
Furthermore, “no evident safety concerns” does not mean “no adverse events.” In fact, there were a whole lot of adverse events, just none that the people who plan to profit from selling the vaccine found worthy of notice! The vaccinees who suffered through the misery of adverse events may not agree: 267 endured from fevers that lasted from one to 27 days. One could hope they were not among the 17 vaccinees who came down with a case of RSV that also involved a fever.
If I got the numbers right, we have about a 1.8% chance of catching RSV. So what if you (a) take good care of yourself in general and (b) take better care of yourself when you get sick? I googled “natural immunity to RSV” and found that it is lasting for most, but not all people. I also found that scientists apparently have no idea why some people don’t hang on to their immunity.
The one study I looked at tested participants only for “site-specific competitive antibodies, as well as IgA, IgG, and IgM RSV-binding antibodies,” not for nutritional factors that are known to be critical in preventing viruses from getting hold. E.g., zinc and Vitamins C and D. Let me grab my tinfoil hat and posit that, if they did that, they might find out we don’t actually need another expensive, highly profitable vaccine.
- “mRNA RSV Vaccine: 81 Adverse Reactions per Each Prevented Case of RSV (a cold)” @ https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/mrna-rsv-vaccine-81-adverse-reactions
- “Efficacy and Safety of an mRNA-Based RSV PreF Vaccine in Older Adults” @ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2307079
- “A prospective surveillance study on the kinetics of the humoral immune response to the respiratory syncytial virus fusion protein in adults in Houston, Texas” @ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X21000724?via%3Dihub
- https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/common-cold/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20351611
polination.blog 