By Dr. Mercola
In 2010, two Merck virologists filed a federal lawsuit under the False Claims Act against their former employer, alleging the vaccine maker lied about the effectiveness of their mumps vaccine (which is part of the trivalent measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine).
The whistleblowers, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, claimed they witnessed "firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings."
They charged that Merck used improper testing techniques; manipulated testing methodology; abandoned undesirable test results; falsified test data; and failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine.
They also claim Merck falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling; falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA; falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract; and mislabeled, misbranded and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, among other violations.
Merck allegedly falsified the data to hide the fact that the mumps vaccine in the MMR shot has significantly declined in effectiveness.1
By artificially inflating the mumps vaccine efficacy, Merck was able to continue selling MMR vaccine in the US and maintain its monopoly over the mumps vaccine market in the US and other nations that purchase Merck's MMR vaccine.
This is the main point of contention of a second class-action lawsuit, filed by Chatom Primary Care2 in 2012.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has gone on record disputing Merck's apparently false assertions that DOJ previously investigated the issue and declined to join in the lawsuit because it found no wrongdoing by Merck.
Court Documents by Department of Justice Contradict Merck Statements
The Wall Street Journal5 initially published the following statement received from a Merck spokeswoman:
"This lawsuit is completely without merit. Merck has presented information that demonstrated to the US Department of Justice that these allegations are factually false, and after the department conducted its own two-year investigation, it decided not to pursue this lawsuit.
In addition, the FDA previously examined the issues raised in the lawsuit, and they were resolved to the agency's satisfaction. Merck intends to vigorously defend against the litigation filed by the plaintiff."
However, court documents filed by DOJ appear to refute Merck's insinuations that DOJ has already made a final determination in this case and sided with Merck. Kellie Lerner, a representative for vaccine purchasers, sent the Wall Street Journal the following statement:
"Contrary to Merck's assertions, the Department of Justice has submitted documents to the court affirming its 'strong interest in the outcome' of the case, and clarifying that its decision not to intervene 'should not be interpreted as a comment on the merits.'
More importantly, the government has preserved its right to intervene later in the proceedings. Based on the government's submissions to the court, we take issue with any assertion that the government has definitively concluded to not pursue this case." [Emphasis mine]
Does Faked Vaccine Efficacy Nullify Indemnification?
In order for a drug company producing and selling a in the U.S. to be indemnified from civil liability for vaccine damage, the vaccine must be licensed by the FDA as "pure" (safe) and "potent" (effective) and the CDC must have recommended the vaccine for universal use by children.
If in fact a drug company fakes or withholds information from the government about a vaccine's safety or effectiveness, does indemnification still apply? Likely not. And that could spell trouble for Merck.
This certainly isn't the first time vaccine effectiveness has been questioned. Even for vaccines that adhere to government standards for demonstrating effectiveness, while vaccine acquired "herd immunity" is thrown around like gospel, much of the protection vaccines offer has actually been shown to wane rather quickly. The fact is, vaccine-acquired immunity does NOT work the same way as the naturally-acquired immunity you get after recovering from the disease.
Besides that, a majority of the adult population never receives boosters, so most of the adult population is in effect "unvaccinated." This too puts a serious hole in the 85-95 percent requirement to achieve vaccine-acquired "herd immunity."
Whooping Cough Vaccine—Another Vaccine Failure
In 2010, the largest outbreak of B. pertussis whooping cough in over 50 years occurred in California. Around that same time, a scare campaign was launched in the California by Pharma-funded medical trade associations, state health officials, and national media, targeting people opting out of receiving pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the outbreak.
Research published in March 2012 painted a very different picture than the one hyped by public health officials and the media.6
In fact, the study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. Eleven percent had received at least one pertussis containing vaccine, but not the entire recommended series, and only eight percent of those stricken were unvaccinated. According to the authors:
"This first detailed analysis of a recent North American pertussis outbreak found widespread disease among fully vaccinated older children. Starting approximately three years after prior vaccine dose, attack rates markedly increased, suggesting inadequate protection or durability from the acellular vaccine." [Emphasis mine]
So, as clearly evidenced in this study, the pertussis vaccine likely provides very little, if any, protection from the disease. In fact, basic science research suggests those who are fully vaccinated can still get infected with pertussis and transmit infection without even showing any symptoms.
A 2013 baboon study busted a major hole in the argument that vaccines achieve herd immunity, because while the whooping cough vaccine was found to cut down on serious clinical disease symptoms, it doesn't eliminate transmission of the disease! With that in mind, vaccinated people may pose a far greater threat to others than unvaccinated people because they do not know when they're actively transmitting infection.
Merck Whistleblowers, CDC Whistleblowers–That's a Lot of Whistling...
In late August, the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) renewed its call for oversight of vaccine safety to be removed from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which is responsible for vaccine development, regulation, policymaking, and promotion and also serves as a legal respondent and administrator for the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).7
NVIC's call came after a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a public statement8 admitting he and CDC co-authors of a MMR vaccine safety study9 published in 2004 in Pediatrics "omitted statistically significant information" and that "the final study protocol was not followed." "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information," he said in his statement.
If you can possibly lose more confidence with our CDC officials—who both promote vaccines while also having the conflicting duty of monitoring safety—listen to investigative reporter Sheryl Atkisson's interview with CDC Director of Immunization Safety, Dr. Frank DeStefano.
DeStefano co-authored the MMR vaccine safety study in question with Dr. Thompson. Not surprisingly, Dr. DeStefano defends the study, and maintains the status quo position that there's no causal link between vaccines and autism. Attkisson did get him to concede that there is the possibility that vaccines may trigger autism in some children, however.
"It's hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities," he told Attkisson.
Study Questions Whether Autism and Cancer are Related to Human Fetal DNA in Vaccines
Despite the CDC's reassurances that all is well with vaccines, Dr. Thompson's confession coincides with the publication of a study10, 11 asserting there are significant correlations between autism and vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines contaminated with retroviruses. This includes certain MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), Varicella (chickenpox), and Hepatitis-A vaccines. Moreover, the human fetal contaminated vaccines were also associated with childhood leukemia and lymphomas.
According to the authors, autism rates rose sharply each time a vaccine manufactured with human fetal cell lines containing fetal and retroviral contaminants were released. The cell line in question is known as WI-38. In the US, autism rates jumped in 1980-1981 following the approval of MeruvaxII and MMRII, both of which are made with the human fetal cell line WI-38. Another jump in autism prevalence occurred in 1988, corresponding to three factors:
- The addition of a second dose of MMRII
- A highly successful measles vaccination campaign that raised compliance from 50 to 82 percent between the years 1987-1989
- The introduction of Poliovax in 1987
In 1995, autism rates jumped again in response to the introduction of the Varicella vaccine Varivax. In conclusion, the authors note that "rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells."
Pro-Vaccine Fundamentalists Targeting Anyone Questioning Safety
Many other whistleblowers have stuck their necks out in recent years, revealing widespread corruption in medical science—among researchers, drug companies, and government agencies. Many have also revealed that these agencies, organizations, and companies are not above using mafia-like tactics to maintain the status quo. For example, whistleblower Ronald Kavanagh was a drug reviewer for the FDA in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research from 1998 to 2008.
In a 2012 interview, he revealed how the FDA bypassed or ignored safety issues on major drugs approved during his employment. He also gave several examples of how he was intimidated by the agency, to the point of fearing for his life and the safety of his children.
While many refuse to believe a government agency or a pharmaceutical company or special interest groups connected with government and industry would resort to such extreme measures, history, and the experiences of many whistleblowers tells a different story. Fundamentalists and big pharma shills are now targeting everyone who disagrees with the vaccine agenda. NVIC is one target.12 And, recently, a State Farm insurance company television ad that featured comedian Rob Schneider ,who has publicly defended parental rights and informed consent to vaccination, was dropped by State Farm after a group of cyber bullies targeted Schneider for making pro- vaccine choice statements. According to MSN:13
"[I]t wasn't the content of the ad that created a problem for State Farm, it was the social media response focusing on Schneider's anti-vaccine stance. The company said the problem is that the ad became a platform for a discussion unrelated to the products and services provided by State Farm."
As reported by Jon Rappaport,14 the orchestrated social media campaign to pressure State Farm to remove the ad in which Schneider played a comic role included the creation of an attack video in which it was noted that: "State Farm provides health insurance, and nothing ensures public health more than getting vaccinated. It is time to end the anti-vaccination movement; with your help, we can elicit change." Schneider rebutted with a quote from George Washington, saying: "If the Freedom of Speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
If pro-forced vaccination proponents consider those who defend the ethical principle of informed consent to be anti-vaccine, and they say it's time to "end" anyone who questions the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, then that sounds an awful lot like a now familiar threat from a major vaccine manufacturer—Merck, which had a hit list of doctors who criticized the deadly drug Vioxx. The hit list came to light in 2009, following testimony in an Australian Vioxx class action case. As reported by CBS15 at the time:
"Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors who disliked using Vioxx. One email said: We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live..."
Health care workers are definitely on the hit list of those who would force everyone to get vaccinated – no questions asked and no exceptions. In 2012, Missouri health care workers were threatened with corrective action for refusing the flu vaccine and were told they'd be ineligible for pay raises. Last year, eight nurses in Indiana were fired for not complying with the hospital's new mandatory annual flu shot rule, announced in September 2012. This despite mounting evidence showing that the flu vaccine is not an effective way to prevent contracting and spreading the flu. One nurses' union is now fighting back. According to the Daily Hampshire Gazette:16
"The nurses' union at one of Boston's major teaching hospitals has sued to block a policy that would require nurses to get flu shots... Brigham and Women's mandated vaccinations because its worker vaccination rate of 77 percent is far lower than the city's other teaching hospitals. Efforts to boost the rate, including free shots available around the clock, have fallen short... The union, which represents 3,200 Brigham and Women's nurses, said in the suit that the hospital's yet-to-be-implemented mandate, which could lead to termination of employees who refuse vaccination, violates a state regulation that bars hospitals from requiring employees to receive a vaccine."