Claims That RSV Surge Due To Covid-19 Vaccines Take Clinical Trial Data Out Of Context

It’s easy to take things out of context. For example, saying that you “enjoy long walks on the beach” on your dating profile doesn’t mean that you are looking for a place to dispose of, you know, the bodies. Similarly, just because clinical trial documents indicate that those who received Covid-19 mRNA vaccines ended up having somewhat higher rates of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections doesn’t necessarily mean that the vaccines will make you more susceptible to RSV infections. Just because something comes after vaccination doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a cause-and-effect relationship. Yet, some folks or bots or both have been trying to blame Covid-19 vaccination of kids for the current surge in RSV infections without enough real scientific evidence to support their case.

One of these folks is someone who calls himself “The Vigilant Fox” and maintains a blog on Substack. It looks like “The Vigilant Fox” is a “he” because the Substack bio says, “he has dedicated his free time and effort.” This Vigilant Fox remains, surprise, surprise, anonymous, describing himself as “a citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience, focused on The Great Reset, world protests, and Covid-19.” Of course, “12 years of healthcare experience” doesn’t mean much without further elaboration since wearing Band-Aids here and there or putting a condom over your face periodically could, in theory, constitute “having healthcare experience.” The “Who am I” section of “The Vigilant Fox” Substack really doesn’t answer the question and doesn’t tell you who this person is and why you should be listening to him. So reading anything from “The Vigilant Fox” can be a bit like reading graffiti on a public bathroom stall.

“The Vigilant Fox” regularly posts anti-vaccination pieces with heartwarming, feel-good titles such as “Death Tsunami: “They Found a Way to Slow-Kill People With This” – Dr. Sherri Tenpenny” and “’Something Horrible Is Going On’: The Longer They Ignore It, the More Criminal It Is.” Yeah, those titles don’t sound like they are trying to stoke fear in anyone, do they? So, is it really that surprising that the Vigilant Fox would post on October 29 something with the rather alarmist title, “Evidence Suggests the COVID Shots Are Responsible for Soaring RSV Cases Throughout the U.S. & Canada?”

So what exactly is this evidence mentioned in the title of this post? Well the Substack post pointed to several selected passages from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents that described clinical trials results for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. One such passage indicated the following about the Moderna Covid-19 mRNA vaccine being administered to those from two to five years of age: “Within 28 days after vaccination, some respiratory tract-related infections were reported with greater frequency in the mRNA-1273 group than in the placebo group. Events of pneumonia were reported by 0.3% and 0% 0f mRNA-1273 and placebo recipients, respectively. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection was reported by 0.4% and <0.1% of mRNA-1273 and placebo recipients, respectively.”

Taken out of context, this passage may potentially make it seem like the Moderna Covid-19 mRNA vaccine (labeled as mRNA-1273) has been responsible for a higher incidence of RSV infections. However, 0.4% is still not that high, given how common RSV infections can be. Also, it is not clear whether those who had gotten the vaccine had engaged in other behaviors that may have put them more at risk for catching RSV such not wearing face masks, not social distancing, and not washing their hands.

In the same Substack post, “The Vigilant Fox” pulled a second passage, also without providing appropriate context, that described the following about those in the Moderna clinical trial who were six to 11 years of age: “Within 28 days after vaccination, some respiratory tract infection-related PTs were reported more frequently in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group, such as Respiratory syncytial virus infection (0.3% vs 0%) and Upper respiratory tract infection (3.9% vs 2.5%).”

Yeah, this was a similar situation to those who were two to five years of age in the Moderna clinical trial. While this difference in RSV infection rates shouldn’t be completely discounted, it alone is not enough to suggest that the vaccine made kids more susceptible to RSV. Instead, the next step would be to determine whether there were other differences between those who got the Moderna Covid-19 mRNA vaccine and those who got placebo. In other words, did those who get the vaccine by chance somehow end up having greater exposure to RSV? A true scientist would ask that question next.

Yet, “The Vigilant Fox,” whoever he may be, did not ask such a question. Rather, “The Vigilant Fox” only offered a third passage about the six month to four year-olds who got the third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 mRNA vaccine: “SAEs reported in the BNT162b2 group included RSV bronchiolitis (5 participants). SAEs reported in the placebo group included bronchiolitis or RSV bronchiolitis (3 participants).” In this case, SAE did not stand for Self-Addressed Envelope, Somebody Anybody Everybody, or Self-Absorbed Elephants. It stood for Severe Adverse Events.

Thus, “The Vigilant Fox” kept beating the same drum, which, in turn, deserved a similar response. As with the RSV results from the Moderna clinical trial, the RSV case counts from the Pfizer-BioNTech were still relatively small numbers considering how common RSV tends to be. There were only a total of eight RSV bronchiolitis with only a two bronchiolitis case difference between those who got the Pfizer-BioNtech Covid-19 mRNA vaccine (labelled as BNT162b2) and those who got placebo. Not exactly Earth shattering stuff. Should this difference be completely ignored? No. However, many things could explain such small differences.

Yet, Del Bigtree, the CEO of the anti-vaccine group Informed Consent Action Network who formerly worked behind scenes on the Dr. Phil and The Doctors shows, didn’t mention other possible explanations when referring to these trial results on an online show called The Highwire. Instead, he embraced the blame-Covid-19-mRNA-vaccines suggestions that “The Vigilant Fox” seemed to be trying to make. Here are some of those Bigtree-hugging statements made on The Highwire: “Why do we suddenly have outbreaks of RSV beyond anything we’ve ever seen before? Could it possibly be that injection that we know lowers the immune system and showed within 28 days an increase in RSV?”

Wait, hold on second. Who exactly said “we know lowers the immune system” about the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines? And what exactly is meant by lowering the immune system? Is it being lowered from a tree? From the top of a refrigerator? If you are going to claim that a vaccine “lowers the immune system,” you need to specify what exactly that means since the immune system is rather complex and has a lot of different way to respond to an infection. It’s not like gasoline in a tank or a latte in a cup.

All of this is an example of a classic anti-vaccination technique: taking one observation out of context and blowing it beyond what it really says. Sure, finding differences such as a higher RSV infection rate between those who got the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines and those who got placebos does deserve further exploration and studies. Sure, it’s important to keep studying the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines to make sure that no major risks are being missed. Sure, the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are not perfect and their benefits should not be overblown. Sure, pharmaceutical companies should not be the main ones making policies about vaccination. Sure, there are risks with taking the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines such as the rare side effect of myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscles.

However, there are also much greater risks when you don’t get vaccinated against Covid-19, such as suffering more severe outcomes from Covid-19 and long Covid. Studies have provided evidence that Covid-19 mRNA vaccines have helped decrease the risk of more severe Covid-19 outcomes and, in turn, been important in combatting the pandemic. Additionally, if folks like “The Vigilant Fox” want to learn more about the potential risks of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, why not call for more funding of independent and transparent studies of the vaccines and provide no-strings attached funding yourself?

Plus, there just is not enough evidence to blame the current RSV surge on Covid-19 vaccination. Just because RSV cases have gone up recently doesn’t mean that vaccination is to blame. Heck why not blame the vaccines for people hearing the word “erection” when a political candidate was supposed to say “election” because didn’t that come after many got vaccinated against Covid-19? Plus, as I have described previously for Forbes, there clearly are much stronger possible explanations for the current RSV surge. RSV surges have occurred in the past, long before Covid-19 mRNA vaccines reached the market. These surges have fluctuated from year-to-year. Covid-19 precautions such as face mask wearing and social distancing may have helped keep RSV at bay for the past two Winters. As a result, younger kids, meaning those less than two years of age, may not have been exposed to RSV before this current season, meaning that the cases being seen now may be more of an accumulation of cases that would have normally occurred over a two-year period. Moreover, people may be going a bit overboard with the social interaction stuff these days, abandoning Covid-19 precautions as if they were soiled underwear and doing things such as “revenge travel.”

Should the scientific community continue to study the safety of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines? Absolutely. Should everyone assume that pharmaceutical companies studies are enough? Certainly not. There needs to be more studies of Covid-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy that are not directly supported by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. But blaming the RSV surge on Covid-19 mRNA vaccines without much real scientific evidence to support such claims and trying to take a few passages from clinical trial documents out of context is wrong. Wrong as a bathroom gong.