On June 25, 2025, the majority of members of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) ignored risk warnings and voted for a recommendation that infants be given Merck & Co.’s monoclonal antibody, clesrovimab, marketed as Enflonsia. The committee advised using Enflonsia to prevent Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) lower respiratory tract infection in infants born during or entering their first RSV season, specifically those under eight months old who may not be protected by maternal antibodies.1 Breastfeeding is known to be protective against bronchial complications of RSV in infants.2
The committee voted 5-2 in favor of the recommendation, with Retsef Levi, PhD and Vicky Pebsworth, PhD, RN voting against it due to concerns about the monoclonal antibody shot’s safety profile. In a separate vote, the ACIP unanimously approved an updated Vaccines for Children (VFC) resolution to include Merck’s monoclonal antibody, Enflonsia, in the VFC program for uninsured children. The 7-0 vote, which included both Dr. Levi and Dr. Pebsworth, paves the way for Enflonsia to be offered through the federally funded VFC program, which has provided vaccines to uninsured children since 1993.3
Before the ACIP meeting, on June 9, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed Merck’s Enflonsia to prevent lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV in newborns and infants entering their first RSV season. Enflonsia is a monoclonal antibody designed to provide protection for up to five months, the length of a typical RSV season, with a single 105 mg dose, regardless of the infant’s weight.4
Safety Issues Identified in Clinical Trials of Enflonsia
According to Merck’s press release, clinical trials conducted by the company showed that babies who received Enflonsia were about 60 percent less likely to develop serious RSV-related lung infections that needed medical care, compared to those in the placebo group. The company also reported that Enflonsia reduced the risk of being hospitalized for RSV by more than 84 percent during the first five months of life. Merck stated that the safety profile of Enflonsia in these trials was generally similar to that of a placebo.5
Clinical trial results posted on the government website ClinicalTrials.gov showed several serious neurological adverse effects, which concerned Dr. Peter Selley, a general practitioner based in the United Kingdom closely following RSV drug development. These adverse effects, including febrile convulsions, seizures, facial paralysis, and brain injury, occurred about three times more frequently in babies who received the shot with 25 cases out of 2,409, compared to 4 cases out of 1,202 in the placebo group.6 7
Karl Jablonowski, senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, pointed out that the trials showed a serious adverse event rate of 11.71 percent. He reported that infants who received Enflonsia faced a 50 percent higher risk of death compared to those given a placebo (three deaths versus one). The vaccinated group also experienced a 350 percent higher risk of upper respiratory tract infections, a 63 percent higher risk of lower respiratory tract infections, and a 41 percent greater chance of febrile convulsions.8
Physician Questions One-Size-Fits-All Dosing of Enflonsia in Infants
Merck markets Enflonsia as a more convenient option than Beyfortus, a monoclonal antibody shot developed by Sanofi and AstraZeneca and approved by the FDA in 2023. Enflonsia is administered as a single 105 mg dose to all babies, regardless of their weight. By contrast, Beyfortus requires two doses and is given in either 50 mg or 100 mg amounts, depending on the baby’s weight.9
Dr. Peter Selley questioned this uniform dosing approach, warning that “more is not better.” He said:
The implications of this are that with only one dose of clesrovimab, tiny preterm babies under 5 kilograms are going to be injected with a relatively much bigger dose of the monoclonal antibody, leading to massive levels of the drug in their circulation. In most other fields of medicine, the aim is to find the lowest dose of a drug that is effective, as most side effects are dose-related.10
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view References:1 BioSpace. Thimerosal, mRNA Vaccines and More. June 27, 2025.
2 Mineva G, Philip r. Impact of Breastfeeding and Severity of RSV Bronchiolitis in Infants : Systematic Review. Pediatrics 2022; 149(1).
3 BioSpace. Thimerosal, mRNA Vaccines and More. June 27, 2025.
4 Merck. FDA Approves Merck’s ENFLONSIA™ (clesrovimab-cfor) for Prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Lower Respiratory Tract Disease in Infants Born During or Entering Their First RSV Season. June 9, 2025.
5 Ibid.
6 Merck. Efficacy and Safety of Clesrovimab (MK-1654) in Infants (MK-1654-004) (CLEVER). ClinicalTrials.gov May. 6, 2025.
7 Baletti B. FDA Greenlights Merck’s RSV Shot for Newborns — Clinical Trials Showed 11.71% Rate of Serious Adverse Events, Including Death. Children’s Health Defense June 10, 2025.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
2 Responses
Article quote; the majority of members of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) ignored risk warnings and voted for a recommendation that infants be given / Response; Well of course they did. They’re all on the take. Co conspirators in a grand racketeering effort that spans multiple generations and reaches through the near entirety of governments around the world. Anyone whom resists is immediately shut down.
Article quote; The committee voted 5-2 in favor / Response; How difficult is it to bribe or coerce seven individual people? There are over 350 million legal citizens in this country. When do we get a vote? These advisory committee persons function as a fourth branch of government, an extra judicial authority. Disband the CDC, cast the remnants to the four winds. They do more harm than good. Whatever reason for the formation of this governmental entity is long since forgotten and the institution has long since been co opted by the same companies they pretend to regulate.
Quote; safety issues identified / Response; And they voted for this anyways. Predictable. How many times do we need to spell out such a basic concept? They are paid and directed to vote in favor of the corporations. There is no actual objectivity, they only pretend to sometimes disagree in a game of musical chairs, then not mysteriously, the vote always falls in favor of expanded pharmasuetical industry racketeering. They don’t care about clinical trial results. They care about growing their company, increasing shares, profit. They have corporate responsibilities to answer to investors first. Patient care and product safety is not a priority, not anymore. There is too much centralization of the system. Central planning never works. Rather, it functions as a magnet to attract even more criminal behavior. Bastiat; How to identify plunder.
Quote; clinical trial results / Response; More money wasted. More tax dollar profits to the companies. To provide the illusion of performing science, the illusion of safety testing. When the predetermined approval is already agreed upon.
Quote; Physician Questions One-Size-Fits-All Dosing of / Response; You know I really don’t care what they have to say. They are right there complicit with everything, playing their part in the racketeering effort. They don’t object. They don’t sound the alarm. They don’t counsel the public to stop accepting dangerous products because of the egregious unethical actions and profound health consequence implications. No. What they do is go to work in the same places where this activity happens and cash big paychecks, week after week, month after month, year after year. They ignore or dismiss all alternative treatments, holistic care, preventative medicine, and new innovations. They are part of the problem, not the solution.
Controlled opposition, or the illusion of. Then you the citizen can experience cognitive dissonance, a form of purposefully applied confusion brought about by a never ending stream of complex and contradictory data. Coupled with a never ending propaganda messaging campaign of ‘safe and effective’ regarding subject matter you find too challenging to make sense of. They take simple science, basic principals, and confuse everyone by using complex terminology and convoluted overly complex methods of application. This stuns people and stifles their intellectual capacity to comprehend. They fall back on basic trust, not comprehending how the programs are purposefully run in this manner. The end result is your complacent agreement. The racket continues on for another day.
What they are doing is not science. They are not experts. The sad truth is the racket has grown so large, it now encompasses the same institutions whom were supposed to be in place to stop this sort of activity. How else can you explain it? Because everyone is in a constant fever and mania brought about by the impending fear of death and disease, all the time, every day, forever, without a break? Who’s still buying this? The same thing plays out in every major industry. The fix is in, no matter where you turn. Soon unless the people get better educated on resisting propaganda and recognizing what is ethical and what is not… This is why the founding fathers said our form of government could only work with a moral and righteous people and was wholly inadequate otherwise.
Don’t expect anything to change with mere factual disclosures of this issue or that. The problem is the fundamental structure of the centralized systems. That is where the real solution lies as well; De centralization.
Ask yourself if a system could have grown this large without the taxpayer subsidy? Grants, funding, appropriations. Obviously there is a little too much tax dollars up for grabs, floating around in the halls of government. And guess what; These institutions found ways to secure a constant stream. You may also refer to this as corporate welfare. The end result is a never ending stream of harmful practices and dangerous products. They are compelled out of the need to continue the funding procurement, to always come up with something new. Everything is always approved all the time by every party involved. And they’re not going to stop until we collectively find ways to cut off the taxpayer assistance and bring TORT liability back into the mix. It remains more profitable than not, to allow harmful products to market. As usual, fundamental solutions lie primarily in a better educated public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-110000-organized-crime-and-racketeering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
Babies and drugs. What could go wrong?
These people are not experts. What they are doing is not science.