Doctors Peter McCullough and Sherri Tenpenny criticized a study suggesting pregnant women receive the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine.
The study warned that the infection may threaten unborn babies, as it “highlights the potential importance of even subtle events occurring in pregnant women (e.g., apparently inconsequential head colds) for the future development and well-being of the offspring.”
A maternal infection may “damage” the unborn baby through the “activation of maternal inflammation and immunity, transfer of soluble inflammatory mediators, and mobilization of cellular effectors or by impairing placental function and limiting the passage of nutrients and other factors essential for fetal growth,” the researchers wrote.
A review of the study published in MedPage Today said that the findings “emphasize the importance of the new RSV vaccine for use in pregnant persons and monoclonal antibody for infants,” as suggested by Giovanni Piedimonte, MD, one of the study’s authors.
Researchers noted that maternal vaccination “holds promise not only as a protective measure against postnatal infections but also as a preventive strategy against prenatal exposures.”
The statement was condemned by the doctors.
Tenpenny wrote on X that the article was “nothing more than a SHAMELESS push to vaccinate pregnant women” against RSV.
“Maternal RSV vaccination carries a warning for the shot triggering premature delivery and the parents ending up with a neonate with all the complications of prematurity including neurological damage,” McCullough shared on social media. “Maternal vaccination not worth the risks. Most women decline RSV vaccination as we reported in Courageous Discourse.”
