It’s called AREXVY made by Glaxo Smith Kline. It is supposed to prevent severe LRTD (lower respiratory tract disease) in people over the age of 60 after they have been infected with the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Like all shots called vaccines, it absolutely can not prevent an infection. The shot is designed to stimulate the immune system to make an antibody against one protein that exists on the surface of the virus, the F glycoprotein. The idea is that AFTER the infection of the virus, the antibodies created from the shot will be able to attach to the F glycoproteins on viruses that would be circulating in the blood and lymph, blocking them from infecting other cells. If it works, the symptoms will be less severe and of shorter duration. The symptoms are the disease, and that is why they now advertise all shots called vaccines as “disease prevention”, not infection prevention.
GSK designed a trial to determine the safety and efficacy of the shot. Remember, the vaccine manufacturer sponsors and sets up the trial. GSK picked who was in the trial and where the trials would take place. The trial results were then tabulated by GSK investigators and pitched to the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) for the FDA to give approval to market their product. The trial was quadruple blinded. That means 4 parties did not know who got the real shot and who got the placebo. The four blinded parties were the participants, the care providers, the investigators, and the outcomes assessor. This is called an observer-blinded study, because the individuals who assess the study outcomes or endpoints are blinded to the treatment assignment of the study participants. This means that the investigators or observers who collect the data on the study outcomes are not aware of which participants received AREXVY and which participants received the placebo. This type of blinding is particularly important for studies where the study outcomes are subjective, such as assessments of pain, quality of life, or symptom severity.
As mentioned, GSK selects who will be in the trial. They admit doing blood tests to determine general health status, including immunodeficiencies. We should be asking if they test for T-cell reactivity to the viral antigen that will be in the shot or produced by the shot. If they do test for that, what’s to stop them from putting more subjects with T-cell recognition in the group that gets the real shot? That way the deck is stacked so that persons in that group are less likely to develop symptoms because they already have natural cellular immunity to becoming infected. I wouldn’t put anything past these cheating criminals. But, it would take an insider whistleblower to come clean on that.
Regardless, let’s examine their boasting of 82.6% efficacy of reducing the chances of getting symptoms of an RSV infection in the group that got AREXVY vs. the placebo group. How did they come up with that number? There were 12,494 people in the placebo group and 12,466 in the AREXVY group. 40 people in the placebo group developed confirmed RSV symptoms vs. 7 people in the AREXVY group. The relative difference between 40 and 7 is 82.6% and that is supposed to be the level of protection, but it is relative, not absolute. Absolute protection is not in the people who got sick, but in the people who did NOT get sick. 99.68% of the people in the placebo group did not get sick vs. 99.94% of the people in the AREXVY group. That is a real difference of less than a third of a percent. The relative percentage is impressive, so that number is sold to the public. Interestingly, the impressive relative percentage number will drop and become negative as people in the AREXVY group get infected and show symptoms after the short trial ends. Those are called “breakthrough cases”, and they always happen.
Whether you choose to believe the shot is effective or not, it is also supposed to be safe. Safety is tied to how the protein antigen in the shot interacts with the tissues of the injected person. The antigen in AREXVY is the F glycoprotein on the surface of the virus. The letter F stands for fusion and the F glycoprotein is the spikey part of the virus that will attach to receptors on cell surfaces, fuse with the cell, and allow the cell to accept the genetic material inside of the virus.
The primary receptor for RSV is the CX3CR1 receptor, which is expressed on the surface of certain cells in the respiratory tract, including airway epithelial cells and immune cells such as monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells. CX3CR1 is also expressed on the surface of cells in other tissues and organs of the body, including the central nervous system, the gastrointestinal tract, the kidneys, and the cardiovascular system.
Where do they get these F glycoproteins to inject into people? According to the vaccine package insert, “The RSVPreF3 antigen is expressed by culturing genetically engineered Chinese Hamster Ovary cells in media containing no antibiotics or animal-derived proteins. The RSVPreF3 protein is purified by several chromatographic and filtration steps, formulated with excipients, filled into vials, and lyophilized.” Lyophilized means freeze dried. So, it must be reconstituted prior to injection, and must look a certain way to the technician, or it is to be discarded. Good luck with that.
When the F glycoprotein antigens are injected into the body, the immune system needs time to react and build antibodies against them. This can take weeks sometimes. During this waiting time, the F glycoproteins that were injected are attaching to CX3CR1 receptors in the nervous system, the gastrointestinal tract, the kidneys, and the cardiovascular system. The cells of the immune system will naturally attack and destroy cells that have the F glycoprotein attached.
When will these pharmaceutical geniuses ever learn that when you inject proteins that attach to receptors on tissue cells, you will create pathologies? Pathologies showed up in the trial data in the form of adverse events involving all the tissues that have the receptors for the protein. For the central nervous system, they got acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and multiple sclerosis. For the cardiovascular system, vasculitis and atrial fibrillation showed up. Not only is the shot not safe, it is a bioweapon that will bring some of our beloved elderly to an early demise. Probably on purpose, because government programs can’t afford to keep them around anymore.
In fact, if you read the VRBPAC briefing document available at this link: www.fda.gov/media/165622/download you will see on page 6 that both the investigators and the FDA considered one death that occurred 22 days after being injected was due to AREXVY. They describe it as a potential immune mediated disease that resulted in acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. This is exactly what I have been warning about. The protein in the shot will bind to receptors in the central nervous system and the immune system will attack and destroy those cells. That is acute disseminated encephalomyelitis brought on by an autoimmune reaction to the antigens in the shot. It killed one person in the trial. One death is one too many, but the VRBPAC committee approved this shot to be put into the marketplace anyway.
The same page further describes cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, Bell’s palsy, and more acute disseminated encephalomyelitis that the investigators and the FDA considered to be related to the shot. In Fact, the Biological Licensing Agreement (BLA) available here: https://cacmap.fda.gov/media/167806/download that was issued to GSK requires them to track cases of all three of those syndromes and atrial fibrillation for eight years with periodic reports. Basically, this is an experiment to see if injected grandparents make it to the year 2031.
The vaccine package insert warns that AREXVY is not safe for children. Here’s the link: www.fda.gov/media/167805/download Section 8.4 for Pediatric use states “Evidence from an animal model strongly suggests that AREXVY would be unsafe in individuals younger than 2 years of age because of an increased risk of enhanced respiratory disease. Safety and effectiveness in individuals 2 years through 17 years of age have not been established.”
They didn’t even bother testing younger age groups because they know from previous experience exactly what will happen. They call it “enhanced respiratory disease”. This is classic ADE or Antibody Dependent Enhancement. In other words, the antibodies created from injecting AREXVY will increase the ability of RSV to infect cells and increase the severity of symptoms due to abnormal cytokine activation and secretion. And if you think those ADE mechanisms can’t happen in the elderly, you’re not using your God given intelligence.
They needn't try to convince me to take this, or any other so-called vaccine. I might be elderly, but I am not stupid.
We can make this discussion easy for most people to understand. Find out the risk reduction of the jab based on absolute risk reduction math. Relative reduction math is a scam. Fo example I was just given a drug the doctor said lowered stroke risk by 30 percent. Sounds good, But I researched the issue and it is actually a 48 percent relative risk reduction but only an 8 percent absolute risk reduction, but taking aspirin instead of the drug reduces the absolute reduction 1 percent. So the over-all benefit of the expensive and dangerous drug is only 7 percent and that doesn't include a subtraction of the possible harmful effects of the drug. If drug companies told the truth, they would go out of business. Don't believe anything a drug company says.