Friday, January 4, 2013

Merck conspiracy to defraud and Study: 97 percent of children affected by 2009 mumps outbreak were vaccinated for condition

Friday, January 04, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer More evidence has emerged showing the complete failure of modern vaccines to provide any real protection against disease. A recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reveals that an astounding 97 percent of children affected by a mumps outbreak that swept the Northeast back in 2009 had already been vaccinated for the condition in accordance with recommended government guidelines. According to the study, 3,502 children of primarily Orthodox Jewish upbringing developed mumps between June 28, 2009, and June 27, 2010, as a result of an unusual "face-to-face" educational method used at certain all-boys Jewish schools throughout the New York and New Jersey areas. Among those affected by the outbreak, 97 percent were said to be Orthodox Jewish persons, and nearly one-third were between the ages of 13 and 17. After confirming 1,648 cases of infection using clinical specimens, the research team that compiled the study determined that 89 percent of all those who contracted mumps as a result of the outbreak had already been vaccinated at least twice for mumps, presumably with the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) combination vaccine that has been implicated in causing gastrointestinal disorders and autism. Another eight percent of the group had reportedly received only one dose of the mumps vaccine. When combined, these percentages translate into a 97 percent vaccination rate among all those affected by the mumps outbreak, leaving only three percent unconfirmed as having ever been vaccinated. What this means, of course, is that the MMR vaccine was essentially useless in conferring protection in this case, at least as far as mumps is concerned, and that parents would do well to think twice about administering this toxic vaccine to their children. "The epidemiologic features of this outbreak suggest that intense exposures, particularly among boys in schools, facilitated transmission and overcame vaccine-induced protection in these patients," wrote the authors in their conclusion, basically admitting that the mumps vaccine provides no real protection against the disease. You can read the study's abstract for free here: MMR vaccine actually damages natural immunity, increases risk of disease contraction But what exactly constitutes "intense exposure" anyway, and how is this really any different than common exposure? In an apparent effort to rationalize away the findings, some reports have suggested that because the group most affected was "boys in schools," this particular outbreak was somehow unusual and atypical, and not indicative of the effectiveness of vaccines on a larger scale. But in reality, the findings show quite the opposite -- that vaccines actually increase the risk of disease transmission. Only a very small percentage of those affected by the outbreak, eight percent, had received one vaccination dose for mumps, while the vast majority of the rest had received at least two doses. This suggests that those who received two doses of MMR were actually more likely than those who received just one to contract the disease. Next to that, only a very small fraction of the remaining cases were unaccounted for, which suggests unvaccinated individuals actually had the highest levels of immune protection during the outbreak. The takeaway from all this is that the "herd immunity" concept we are constantly told is necessary to prevent disease outbreaks is absolute bunk. If anything, vaccinated children are the ones most responsible for spreading disease during an outbreak, as the viral components delivered to their bodies through vaccines are shed onto primarily immunocompromised individuals, who just so happen to be other vaccinated individuals. There is simply no other way to validly interpret these and other similar findings in recent years, which only further prove that vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Sources for this article include: Former Merck scientists file suit against Merck under False Claims Act Tuesday, June 26, 2012 by: Rosemary Mathis, Vice President of Victim Support, SANE VAX, INC. Learn more: (NaturalNews) On April 27, 2012, a formal complaint was filed in the Eastern Pennsylvania Federal District Court accusing Merck of a longstanding scheme to mislead and defraud Government health authorities worldwide. Two of Merck's former employees have accused the pharmaceutical giant of marketing multivalent MMR vaccines under false pretenses. According to the complaint, these vaccines have been mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated and falsely certified as having a 95% efficacy rate. Before the lawsuit was filed, 21 doctors 1 added their voices to other groups of doctors who are calling for MMR vaccines to be used as a regular booster every 4 - 8 years, in order to control mumps outbreaks. These doctors all assume that the mumps component of all MMR vaccines have the 95 - 98% efficacy promised by Merck. However, the court documents filed by two Merck virologists meticulously detail how Merck ostensibly manipulated test results 2 for decades in order to create a false 95% efficacy rate for the mumps component of their multivalent MMR vaccines. The former Merck virologists contend that the multivalent mumps component has a vastly reduced efficacy which is directly responsible for mumps outbreaks during the last decade which prompted international calls for MMR booster shots every 4 - 8 years. Virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski describe how Merck had to recertify the mumps component in 2000, in order to comply with regulatory requirements in order for the mumps component to be included in two new multivalent MMR vaccines. The usual test, which had certified the mumps component's efficacy in the 60's, failed when used in 2000. They claim the results were so low Merck decided to change its own test protocol by testing the vaccine against the weakened mumps vaccine virus instead of the wild (naturally circulating) mumps virus. When that modification didn't result in the desired 95% efficacy figure, Merck's executive directors of vaccine research, Drs Alan Shaw and Emilio Emini, instructed Drs David Krah and Mary Yagodich to implement a vast array of modifications to testing procedures3, then, allegedly pressured both Krahling and Wlochowski to participate. When these modifications also failed to demonstrate the desired 95% efficacy rate, it is alleged that Drs Shaw and Emini instructed Drs Krah and Yagovich to abandon "gold standard" testing, and implement a new procedure, supposedly with the agreement of FDA, which included adding animal antibodies to human blood samples taken both pre and post vaccination4. By combining the very low levels of human antibodies with animal antibodies, a much higher total level of virus neutralization was obtained than could occur from human antibodies alone. The human antibody levels alone would never protect in the real world against wild mumps. But after adding animal antibodies, the human blood samples which had previously failed under the old "gold standard" testing were retested using the "enhanced" protocols and passed with flying colors. New 'enhanced' tests showed 100% efficacy, not against wild mumps virus, but against the mumps vaccine virus. However, combining the animal and human antibodies led to a new problem. In some of the tests more than 80% of pre-vaccine blood samples now showed up as immune. Usually, the highest number of pre-vaccine immune results any scientist could expect is 10%. Further manipulations of the animal antibody levels failed to bring the pre-vaccine blood test results down to the expected 10% levels. According to the complaint, Merck then implemented additional 'creative' strategies to show a lack of seroconversion in immune samples in an attempt to reduce the pre-vax level to the expected 10% because had the FDA seen the high numbers of "immune" pre-vaccine samples they would have easily detected the fraudulent test procedures. Krahling and Wlochowski worked with the same team conducting these tests, but were outraged at what they deemed to be gross scientific deception and fraudulent practices. When Drs Krahling and Wlochowski attempted to stop what they saw as, "wholesale fabrication of test data to reach its preordained 95% efficacy threshold," Merck allegedly made various attempts to prevent them, including threatening to jail Dr. Krahling should he inform the FDA. Despite these efforts, Dr Krahling made numerous calls to FDA. These calls remained unanswered until Dr. Krahling reported to the FDA that Dr. Krah had removed and/or destroyed Dr. Krahling's evidence. An FDA agent then came and interviewed Dr. Krah, who apparently told the agent whatever was necessary to allay their concerns. The agent made no attempt to interview any other personnel, check any facilities, laboratory notebooks, or samples to corroborate what had been reported to them. The lawsuit claims that to this day, Merck has consistently misrepresented the potency by simply quoting the 40 year old data from the pre-MMR monovalent mumps vaccine, thereby misrepresenting the efficacy of four multivalent vaccines: MMR, MMRII, Europe's MMRvaxpro, and ProQuad, which is MMR plus chickenpox. According to the two whistleblowers, not only have all the multivalent MMR vaccines been sold under false pretenses, but, as a result of this LACK OF EFFICACY, there have been numerous mumps outbreaks worldwide prompting calls for regular MMR boosters throughout life. These mumps outbreaks were predicted by Merck's Dr Krah 6in 2001, yet Merck allegedly 'willfully' withheld this information from multiple governments while consistently claiming there was no need for a new mumps component.8 The question is, "If the mumps component is actually 95% effective, as stated, would experts be calling for lifelong boosters every 4 - 8 years?" Has Merck turned over a new leaf since the recent Vioxx Scandal? Do they still put profit before people? Read the complaint, follow the court case, examine the evidence, and decide for yourself. References: 1. 2. Former Merck Virologists: suit against Merck under False Claims Act - 3. See pgs 10 and 11 - Former Merck Virologists: suit against Merck under False Claims Act - 4. See page 12 - Former Merck Virologists: suit against Merck under False Claims Act - 5. See page 22 No. 64 - Former Merck Virologists: suit against Merck under False Claims Act - 6. See page27/d82; 28/85 and page 40 first two lines - Former Merck Virologists: suit against Merck under False Claims Act - 7. See page 29/86 - Former Merck Virologists: suit against Merck under False Claims Act - 8. See page 29/87 - Former Merck Virologists: suit against Merck under False Claims Act - By Hilary Butler, Contributing Author from New Zealand. Please visit our site at About the author: THE SANE VAX MISSION is to promote Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices through education and information. We believe in science-based medicine. Our primary goal is to provide the information necessary for you to make informed decisions regarding your health and well-being. We also provide referrals to helpful resources for those unfortunate enough to have experienced vaccine-related injuries. We are demanding the HPV vaccines be taken off the market until an independent study on their safety and efficacy has been conducted. Until then, we are committing our efforts to an educational media campaign to alert the public about the dangers of the HPV vaccines. Merck Caught in Massive Scientific Fraud as In-House Authors were Disguised as Independent Scientists Learn more: Drug giant Merck has been caught red-handed in a scheme to deceive the FDA and the public over the integrity of its scientific studies, say top medical authorities. According to reports that were (amazingly!) published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and detailed in the Washington Post, Merck waged a "campaign of deception" to disguise its in-house study authors as independent scientists working for universities. This scheme made the studies appear independent and unbiased, allowing them to carry more apparent credibility to FDA officials, doctors and other scientists. This fraud was conducted to boost the apparent scientific credibility of the studies backing Vioxx, a drug that has caused well over 100,000 heart attacks and likely killed well over 50,000 Americans, according to Senate testimony by the FDA's own senior drug safety researcher Dr. David Graham. Vioxx earned Merck $2.3 billion in 2003 alone, and was one of the most lucrative drugs ever sold by any company. But since 2004, when some of the real dangers of the drug became known, a tremendous amount of evidence leading to fraud has surfaced. It now appears quite clear that Merck deliberately lied about the dangers of the drug, misrepresented the results of scientific studies, deceived the FDA to win drug approval, knowingly covered up evidence of the drug's dangers, and now it seems Merck even conducted a deliberate campaign of deceptive ghostwriting designed to attach independent-sounding names to in-house studies that were essentially pro-Vioxx promotional pieces disguised as scientific reports. NaturalNews has reported on many of the fraudulent actions conducted by Merck over the years. See our reporting on Merck here: ... and read our stories about Vioxx here: Why Merck wants to keep the truth hidden from the public What's interesting about this latest revelation of Merck fraud is that the documents revealing the depth of this fraud were only made public due to lawsuits filed by citizens who claim they were harmed by Merck's drugs. And yet at the same time, Merck and the FDA are arguing that such lawsuits should not be allowed at all -- that they should be "preempted" by FDA approval for drugs, thereby keeping Merck's dirty secrets buried forever, even as consumers harmed by Merck's drugs are denied any right to sue for damages caused by such drugs! It is now rather obvious why drug companies like Merck so desperately want immunity from lawsuits -- because the "discovery" phase of these lawsuits is causing Merck's dirty science to be publicly aired! It's allowing the public to have a peek at the skeletons in Merck's closet. Merck no doubt wants its secrets to remain secret so that nobody is really aware of the scientific fraud we're now learning so much about. I often wonder: What else is Merck hiding that it doesn't want to become public knowledge? Shouldn't Merck be brought to justice? Now, I have an important question to ask you. Given the magnitude of the scientific fraud being discovered about Merck, and the number of people who have reportedly been killed by Merck's products, why does Merck still manage to escape any real scrutiny from the Dept. of Justice and the FDA? Why does Merck seem to have an unlimited "get out of jail free" pass from the U.S. government? Even while it's arguing for immunity from public lawsuits, it seems Merck has already achieved a silent, practical immunity from U.S. government regulators and law enforcers. Can you think of any other corporation that, if caught engaging in widespread fraud that resulted in the death of over 50,000 Americans, wouldn't be hung out to dry by Congressional investigations and Justice Dept. arrests? It is flatly unbelievable to me that a corporation engaged in such massive campaigns of deception and death could be allowed to continue conducting business as usual in the United States. It's far worse than what Enron engaged in. We're not talking about simple white-collar crimes here; we're talking about an ever-expanding collection of body bags, corruption, bribery, secret payoffs, science fraud and, in my opinion, crimes against humanity. And yet the mainstream media keeps on running Merck's deceptive ads, holding their noses while they pocket Merck's illegitimately-earned cash. When individuals commit fraud and engage in deceptive practices that result in the deaths of other people, we charge them with crimes: Involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide or even murder. So why, then, does a powerful corporation get to go free for committing essentially the same crimes? In other words, shouldn't corporations be held to the same laws as the People? Why, in our nation, are individuals charged with murder or manslaughter when they kill people, but corporations are allowed to kill any number of people with absolutely no consequence? They are not arrested, not charged with crimes and not prosecuted. And on top of that, they have the audacity to argue that they should be granted legal immunity from ALL lawsuits that might be filed by the people their products harm or kill! It's truly astounding... Do not allow Merck to conduct further business in this country I believe that law enforcement authorities in America have both the right and the responsibility to arrest top Merck executives, seize Merck's inventory, and deny Merck the right to conduct any further business in this nation by cancelling its corporate charter. I believe Merck is engaged in serious crimes against the People and that its business practices are clearly being conducted in violation of federal law (not to mention in violation of basic business ethics and human compassion). If this was any other corporation we were talking about here -- and not Merck -- this company would be subjected to a massive campaign of media scrutiny and Congressional scrutiny. But not Merck. It's too powerful, too influential. Merck should be renamed "The Teflon Company" because even though it's pushing dangerous chemicals, nothing seems to stick. Let me break it down for you and tell you what's really happening here. It's the same old story, after all: Rich, powerful white-collar criminals get away with murder, while the poor, the disadvantaged and the sick get shafted. I pray for the day that Merck is put out of business, shut down by law enforcement authorities who finally decide to apply existing federal law and prosecute this dangerous, destructive corporation for its organized-crime-like operations. Americans would be far safer if Merck were shut down. In fact, the threat to Americans' health from Merck far outweighs any threat to national security by terrorists. Think about it: The current war in Iraq has killed 4,000 Americans. Just one drug from Merck has killed over 50,000 (and that's a conservative estimate). That's more than ten times the number of Americans killed in our current war! Is Merck a terrorist organization? No, it's a dishonest, corrupt corporation that pretends to be engaged in good deeds and genuine science. But if you peek behind the curtain, you find nothing but fraud, deception, and the complete disregard for human life. Merck isn't a terrorist organization, but it's killed far more Americans than any terrorist organization could. Even a dirty bomb set off at the Superbowl (which was one of the FBI's recent terrorist concerns) wouldn't kill as many Americans as Merck's drugs have in the last five years. That's no exaggeration. In my opinion, Merck is an evil, out-of-control corporation that's destroying lives and obliterating any remaining credibility of the pharmaceutical industry. One day, when the truth finally emerges about the totality of Merck's crimes against the People and the depth of its willful deception, the public will be stunned, frozen in a state of disbelief that they could have tolerated such heinous crimes right under their noses. They will think the same thoughts of Nazi supporters seeing Hitler's concentration camps for the first time... How could we have allowed this to happen right here, on our own soil? To our own children? To our own families? It's time to apply federal laws to Merck and start making arrests. Too many lives have been lost already, and the extreme fraud being routinely exhibited by Merck should not go unpunished. It's time to finally protect Americans from Big Pharma. Also worth reading: Merck Engaged in Blatant Scientific Fraud with Vytorin Cholesterol Study? Merck denied blood pressure screening services to doctors that did not prescribe its brand-name drugs FDA, Merck may have conspired to discredit whistleblower, says U.S. Senator Learn more: SANE Vax, Inc. is involved in the ground-breaking production of the One More Girl Documentary which will premier in 2012. Please join our cause by contributing to this project by contacting Ryan Richardson, Producer at Learn more: Learn more: Learn more:

No comments: