Protocol 007: Merck Denies Fraud, But Feds Seek New Mumps Vaccine as Cases Spread
By Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill
Scattered mumps outbreaks – possibly underreported by the CDC – are reinforcing longstanding concern that Merck’s mumps vaccine is failing far more often than it should.
The outbreaks come as Merck defends itself in federal court against a whistleblower lawsuit filed last year claiming it faked data to mask the low efficacy of the mumps component of its MMRII vaccine. Within the company, according to the suit, the effort was known as Protocol 007.
In a filing earlier this year, Merck denied wrongdoing and said it stands by its claim that the vaccine is 96 percent effective. It asked the judge to dismiss the claim and pointedly noted that U.S. Justice Department officials have so far not joined on the whistleblower's behalf -- a move that often spells the difference in court.
But the government seems anxious despite Merck’s reassurances – just as the whistleblower suit was unsealed, Age of Autism has learned, health officials awarded almost $2 million to a research team at the University of Georgia. The goal: Find a much better mumps vaccine, in a hurry. “The fact that outbreaks had occurred in populations with over 95% coverage of two-dose [mumps] vaccine strongly suggests that the current vaccine is not effective,” according to project information filed by Biao He, a researcher at the University of Georgia who received the $1.8 million grant.
According to a recent filing by the whistleblowers: "The government has not joined in Merck's current motion [to dismiss the case] and has made no decision on the current Complaint. Instead, it has taken a 'wait and see' approach requesting that it be served with all pleadings, motions and court orders in this case, and that its consent be obtained before the case is settled, dismissed or discontinued.
"While the Department of Justice has chosen to sit on the sidelines of this case for now, both the FDA and its sister agency, the National Institute of Health, have since the complaint was filed begun to take steps to address the failure of Merck's mumps vaccine. The FDA has initiated its own study to determine the vaccine's efficacy, acknowledging that the recent mumps outbreak 'indicat[es] lower vaccine efficacy than previously estimated.' The NIH has gone even further. It is funding the University of Georgia to develop a new mumps vaccine because the recent outbreaks 'strongly suggest that the current vaccine is not effective.'"
Merck continues to state that its mumps vaccine is highly effective, as shown in this ad filed with the court by the whistleblowers; it claims 96 percent efficacy for the mumps portion of the MMRII -- in other words, 96 out of 100 people who get the shot are protected from the mumps virus:
Also at risk is the health of anyone who comes down with mumps at a later age than the disease usually occurs in childhood. When contracted early it is usually benign, but caught later it can be far more serious. In males it can be excruciatingly painful and even lead to sterility.
As we predicted a year ago based on the three-to-four year cycle of infection, recent mumps outbreaks have occurred in several states, notably Massachusetts, Maryland, and Virginia. The cycle was identified by scientist Gustavo Dayan, who wrote in 2008, “In the pre-vaccine era, mumps activity followed three year cycles, so the current low activity rate may be transient while another critical mass of susceptible persons accrues.”
A table from the May 3 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC’s notifiable diseases tracking publication, clearly shows a spike in mumps cases in Virginia and Maryland, but contains no confirmed case reports at all from the Massachusetts cluster that was just reported at Boston College. We know they are missing a case in the Midwest.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6217md.htm?s_cid=mm6217md_w
|
Reporting area |
Mumps |
||||
|
Current week |
Previous 52 weeks |
Cum 2013 |
Cum 2012 |
||
|
Med |
Max |
||||
|
United States |
10 |
4 |
30 |
138 |
85 |
|
New England |
— |
0 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
Connecticut |
— |
0 |
1 |
3 |
— |
|
Maine |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
— |
|
Massachusetts |
— |
0 |
2 |
— |
2 |
|
New Hampshire |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
— |
|
Rhode Island |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
— |
|
Vermont |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
— |
|
Mid. Atlantic |
2 |
0 |
4 |
10 |
11 |
|
New Jersey |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
— |
|
New York (Upstate) |
— |
0 |
1 |
2 |
— |
|
New York City |
— |
0 |
3 |
4 |
10 |
|
Pennsylvania |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
|
E.N. Central |
1 |
1 |
3 |
12 |
23 |
|
Illinois |
— |
0 |
2 |
5 |
12 |
|
Indiana |
— |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
Michigan |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
4 |
|
Ohio |
1 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
|
Wisconsin |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
3 |
|
W.N. Central |
— |
0 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
|
Iowa |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
— |
|
Kansas |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
2 |
|
Minnesota |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
2 |
|
Missouri |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
Nebraska |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
1 |
|
North Dakota |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
— |
|
South Dakota |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
— |
|
S. Atlantic |
6 |
0 |
27 |
88 |
8 |
|
Delaware |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
— |
|
District of Columbia |
— |
0 |
2 |
— |
— |
|
Florida |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
Georgia |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
— |
|
Maryland |
— |
0 |
15 |
41 |
— |
|
North Carolina |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
1 |
|
South Carolina |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
— |
|
Virginia |
4 |
0 |
12 |
45 |
3 |
|
West Virginia |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
1 |
|
E.S. Central |
— |
0 |
2 |
2 |
— |
|
Alabama |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
— |
|
Kentucky |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
— |
|
Mississippi |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
— |
|
Tennessee |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
— |
|
W.S. Central |
— |
0 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
|
Arkansas |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Louisiana |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
— |
|
Oklahoma |
— |
0 |
3 |
— |
— |
|
Texas |
— |
0 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
|
Mountain |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
11 |
|
Arizona |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
3 |
|
Colorado |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
5 |
|
Idaho |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
— |
|
Montana |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
1 |
|
Nevada |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
— |
|
New Mexico |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
— |
|
Utah |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
1 |
|
Wyoming |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
1 |
|
Pacific |
1 |
1 |
3 |
13 |
16 |
|
Alaska |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
— |
|
California |
1 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
14 |
|
Hawaii |
— |
0 |
1 |
— |
— |
|
Oregon |
— |
0 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
Washington |
— |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Territories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Samoa |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
— |
|
C.N.M.I. |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
Guam |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
Puerto Rico |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
3 |
|
U.S. Virgin Islands |
— |
0 |
0 |
— |
— |
Overall, the numbers are up by more than 60 percent so far in 2013, a figure consistent with a spike but not a major epidemic. The situation in the South Atlantic region shows a bigger discontinuity, with more than 80 cases reported this year, tenfold the number for all of 2012.
WTOP in Washington reported May 3: “The college years seem to be a prime time for coming down with the mumps. This spring, outbreaks of mumps have been reported at three universities in Virginia: the University of Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University and James Madison University. Cases have also been reported at Loyola University in Baltimore.
“'The outbreaks at area college campuses are part of a national pattern,’ says Dr. David Hyun, an infectious disease specialist at Children's National Medical Center. 'The outbreaks that we have seen in the past few years tend to come from college students,' he says, adding the prime age for mumps now seems to be 15 to 24.
“No one is exactly sure why. But Hyun says the mumps vaccine could be losing its effectiveness over time.”
That, of course, is consistent with the claims in the whistleblower suit, which was unsealed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia last June. As we reported then, the alleged fraud was a multi-year effort to hide the fact that the mumps vaccine is no longer anywhere near as effective as Merck claims. Project 007 was widely known and approved within the company’s vaccine division, according to the two former Merck scientists who filed the suit under the federal whistleblower statute.
Virologists Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski claim they witnessed the fraud firsthand when they worked at the Merck vaccine laboratory in West Point, Pennsylvania, between 1999 and 2002, and were pressured to participate.
They describe a supervisor frantically changing test results that showed the vaccine wasn’t working; destroying garbage-bags full of evidence to keep the fraud from being exposed; and lying to FDA regulators who came to the lab after being alerted by the whistleblowers.
A top Merck vaccine official told Krahling the matter was a “business decision,” the suit says, and he was twice told the company would make sure he went to jail if he told federal regulators the truth.
The alleged fraud occurred because, in order to maintain its license for the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine, known as the MMRII, Merck needed to show that the mumps vaccine was still as potent as when originally approved in 1967 as a single vaccine, able to induce immunity in 95 percent of those vaccinated. That number, according to vaccine authorities, is crucial because it leads to “herd immunity,” protective against outbreaks even among unvaccinated people.
The problem with the mumps vaccine lay in the fact that by the late 1990s, after decades of producing it with the original strain of mumps virus, the vaccine’s effectiveness had steadily declined, the suit says.
Merck is the only company licensed in the United States to produce the individual mumps vaccine, as well as the MMRII and a newer shot called the MMRV or ProQuad, which also contains the chickenpox vaccine. That gives Merck an effective monopoly on the product line, which by our estimate has brought the company more than $10 billion in business since 2000. The complaint conservatively estimates MMRII purchases by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at $750 million.
We noted that weak efficacy could be triggering real-time, real-world health problems here and abroad, where a version of the MMRII is also used. Mumps outbreaks unexpectedly occurred in the United States in 2006 and in 2009-10, reflecting the three-year cycle in which younger children become exposed. A total of 6,500 cases were reported in a highly vaccinated population in the Midwest in 2006, according to the suit, and another 5,000 cases in 2009; in the years leading up to the first outbreak, the annual average had been 265 cases.
That three-year cycle could be repeating itself, judging from the recent reports in Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Despite the fact the CDC surveillance data is not showing large numbers, one possibility is the surveillance is actually missing a surge in mumps cases, many of which are not reported to health authorities.
The CDC acknowledges the difficulty of confirming mumps outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, stating that "persons with a history of mumps vaccination may not have detectable mumps ... antibody." (An Age of Autism reader who was vaccinated during childhood with MMRII, two weeks after spending time in one of the cluster areas reported to us the characteristic symptoms of mumps. By then, thousands of miles away from the cluster, this reader simply chose to stay at home sick and did not report the condition, seek testing or medical treatment.)
The whistleblower case is now subject to the usual blizzard of motions in federal court, with Merck demanding that the case be dismissed. The Justice Department has so far not joined the lawsuit on the whistleblower’s behalf, but that remains a possibility.
Merck has filed a motion to have the case dismissed; the whistleblowers, called "relators" in the suit, responded with a document explaining what they believe is at stake:
"This case involves Merck's efforts to conceal from the government and the public that Merck's forty-five year old mumps vaccine no longer provides adequate immunization. Relators know this because they were virologists in the Merck lab at the center of this fraudulent campaign. They were even pressured by their superiors to participate in the scheme, which included, among other things, falsifying test data; destroying evidence; lying to the FDA; and most importantly, continuously hiding from the government and the public over the course of a decade -- including through two unprecedented mumps outbreaks -- the significantly diminished efficacy of the vaccine.
"Relators know this not only because of their eyewitness account of the activity. They also know it because the Merck executives that led the campaign admitted it to them. They admitted that Merck's vaccine had significantly degraded through Merck's repeated passaging of it for what is now approaching five decades, to make more and more vaccine for the millions of children that take it every year. They admitted that this degradation would eventually lead to the reemergence of mumps outbreaks, which it has. Worst of all, they admitted that Merck engaged in this fraud and deception as a 'business decision' necessary to ensure that Merck maintained its exclusive license to sell the vaccine in the U.S. "
Shortly after the suit was filed, the government seemed to focus on the vaccine's effectiveness, as reflected in the $1.8 million grant to the University of Georgia, announced just days before the lawsuit was unsealed:
“Mumps may seem like a disease of a bygone era to many people in the U.S. who, thanks to immunization programs, have been spared the fever, aches and characteristic swollen jawline of the once common viral infection,” according to the university news agency.
“Biao He, a University professor of infectious diseases and a Georgia Research Alliance distinguished investigator in the College of Veterinary Medicine, worries that a new strain of the virus is spreading, and it could lead to the widespread reintroduction of mumps.
“Now, thanks in part to a $1.8 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, He and his team are working on a new vaccine to stop it.”
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor and Mark Blaxill is Editor at Large of AgeOfAutism.com. They are co-authors of The Age of Autism – Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-made Epidemic, published in 2010 by Thomas Dunne Books.
But, Lou, a lot of children who react to the MMR with autism have vaccine-strain measles virus in their brains, intestines, and spinal fluid. ... It would be better just to let all three diseases come back and not take the risk of the vaccines, either combined or separate, at all."
Yes, yes, yes. I completely agree.
The "childhood diseases" we "vaccinate" against are natures way of conferring lifetime IMMUNITY from a pathogen the individual must deal with for his/her entire life. "Vaccination" does NOT confer immunity.
One of the chief problems with "vaccination" is that this barbaric practice weakens your innate immune system as it supposedly, crudely and perniciously attempts to strengthen your adaptive immune system for a specific invader. A weak innate immune system allows invaders to establish a strong foot hold in your body. In the case of the seasonal flu like weak viral infections this allows the flu to put you in bed and can help kill you if you are old and infirm or young and over-vaccinated or in today's US "vaccinated".
http://healthyprotocols.com/2_natural_immunity.htm
These "childhood diseases" are designed by nature to be immunosupportive. The rare instances where the "childhood diseases" are harmful or deadly is IMO almost always due to a weakness in the individual so affected. For example the CDC is enforcing a REGIME of low vitamin D status in our population including mothers, fetuses and infants. These low vitamin D levels in our infants and mothers is a BIG cause of MANY serious childhood problems to include MANY of the "childhood diseases" Rectify the low vitamin and mineral levels in our population and MANY medical problems to include serious cases of "childhood diseases" and CVD et al, go away.
Posted by: Lou | May 21, 2013 at 01:14 PM
Linda,
Thank you very much for posting the link http://www.rescuepost.com/files/june-mumps-suit.pdf ...which keeps the memory of the beginning of the case in 2012.
In fact, while reading Dan's article, I had (mis)understood (?) that the case would have gone through more recent steps that could have left official written tracks.????
Is the case extinct ? Will it lead to an out of court agreement ( keeping the truth under the earth...)....
Posted by: Fièvre | May 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM
The people who doggedly insist that not vaccinating for any number of diseases would result in increased mortality fail to take into account the advances in our understanding of the role of hygiene, the immune system, inflamation and how to control it, the availability of rehydration methods & nutrition and it's role in controlling susceptibility to disease over the past 85 years. What might have once been considered life threatening might now be easily controlled and treated in a matter of days. The very children falling victim to autism today as a result of vaccination may be the the same children who might have died from the disease early last century (if we decide to ignore the natural process of attenuation) but that does not automatically mean that this would be the case now. Modern hygiene habits, detoxification, and improved nutrition might be all that is needed now to contain/control new disease outbreaks and the mortality numbers on the old diseases now may have naturally dropped so low and severe complications be so rare that there may be no need for vaccination campaigns anymore. It's isolated usefulness, if there was any to begin with, is outdated now - passe - in the face of new science.
Ironically, a lot of this information probably would never have been learned if it weren't for the utter nastiness of vaccines forcing us to rethink the entire paradigm. If they had actually put forth a minor effort to improve the safety & efficacy of vaccines back in the late 80's instead of demanding immunity, we may not have been forced to dig so deep, revealing how much worse they are than we ever could have imagined. They dug their own grave, now let them lie in it.
Posted by: Jenny | May 16, 2013 at 09:50 PM
Fièvre,
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/june-mumps-suit.pdf
Posted by: Linda | May 16, 2013 at 01:28 PM
But, Lou, a lot of children who react to the MMR with autism have vaccine-strain measles virus in their brains, intestines, and spinal fluid. Chidren have reacted just to the measles vaccine alone by developing autism. I would say that there are a number of factors causing the damage, and the results depend on the interaction of the environmental insult and the individual's genetic and epigenetic makeup. It would be better just to let all three diseases come back and not take the risk of the vaccines, either combined or separate, at all.
Posted by: cia parker | May 16, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Dan, you wrote : "The whistleblower case is now subject to the usual blizzard of motions in federal court, with Merck demanding that the case be dismissed. The Justice Department has so far not joined the lawsuit on the whistleblower’s behalf, but that remains a possibility."
Is there an official page - of the DOJ - where the procedure could be looked at ?
You wrote too : "the whistleblowers, called "relators" in the suit, responded with a document explaining what they believe is at stake:"
Would you give a link to this document ?
Thank you in advance.
Posted by: Fièvre | May 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM
"Merck continues to state that its mumps vaccine is highly effective, as shown in this ad filed with the court by the whistle blowers; it claims 96 percent efficacy for the mumps portion of the MMRII -- in other words, 96 out of 100 people who get the shot are protected from the mumps virus:"
Well that is what Merck and the CDC want us to believe. However it is not the case. Seroconversion refers to the antibodies produced as a result of "vaccination". It has NOTHING to do with preventing disease.
“Rates of seroconversion, defined as the percentage of subjects with either a pre-vaccination HI titer 1:40 or a pre-vaccination HI titer > 1:10 and a minimum four-fold rise in post-vaccination HI antibody titer.”
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Vaccines/ucm074794.htm
It has NEVER been shown clinically that antibodies produced by the artificial process of "vaccination" produce immunity. The vast body of evidence I have seen suggest that at best "vaccination" can prevent the targeted disease for months, perhaps two or three years.
"You have meddled in the primal forces of the Universe and YOU will atone."
The removal of the mumps "vaccination" would be a great first step back to reality. Without the mumps "vaccination" the resulting MR would contain a lower viral load and thus lower autism.
Posted by: Lou | May 15, 2013 at 01:55 PM
Thanks, Jenny, I'll have to google mBSA!
Posted by: cia parker | May 15, 2013 at 09:29 AM
...............Merck could face billions in punitive damages or even lose its license to manufacture the vaccine if it were convicted of defrauding the government,...........
If the litigation case does proceed and returns a positive outcome for the government, will this decision set a precedent for many parents with vaccine injured children to sue the pharmaceutical industry directly? (In an ideal world).
I was never told or explained about any side-effects of the vaccines, I was only told that they were essential and SAFE for my child! (What a lie).
Elizabeth Gillespie
Posted by: AussieMum | May 14, 2013 at 08:06 PM
"U.S. Justice Department" -- now there's an oxymoronic phrase. The DOJ is as dirty as Merck, betraying children and adults they're charged with protecting.
And what benefit do consumers receive from a rushed new vaccine? More adverse effects to ignore and deny.
Posted by: nhokkanen | May 14, 2013 at 04:24 PM
And Guys..rather have the pox
Shingles vaccination to be offered to over-70s
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/30/shingles-vaccination-over-70s
Posted by: ANGUS FILES | May 14, 2013 at 03:46 PM
Has not the same mumps exact virus been used in the vaccine for over ...40 years... ??? Of course we need a new flu shot every year as things are always changing...
As always, should things be getting warm in the White House...
the President could always make an executive order for a simple "vax/ unvaxed" Autism study and expose the three trillion dollar pharma fraud of the vaccine induced Autism epidemic.
The SIDS problem is probably also due to vaccines.
He would then likely be elected to a third term...
Posted by: cmo | May 14, 2013 at 01:52 PM
The paper posted yesterday on AoA talked about the benefits of natural infection:
"In addition, in a series of papers, Silverberg et al. have shown that wild type varicella zoster virus infection (WTVZV), but not varicella vaccine (VV), protects against asthma and atopic dermatitis (AD) in young children.
The protective effect of WTVZV was attributed to its beneficial effect on stimulating Th1-primed immune responses and suppressing allergy-promoting Th2 responses. According to Silverberg et al., ―The introduction of widespread varicella vaccination and resultant decline of WTVZV in the United States may be a contributing factor in the increased prevalence of AD [atopic dermatitis] over the past few decades.
Notably, other than not providing an effective stimulus for proper immune system development, recent research has shown that vaccines are actually capable of disrupting it. For example, annual vaccination against influenza has been shown to hamper the development of virus-specific CD8+T-cell immunity in children.
From the above observations it is clear that the proper functioning of the immune system involves a delicate balance between the two arms of the immune equilibrium (Th1/Th2), and its tilt to either side can be harmful for the body. Furthermore, it appears that the necessary Th1/Th2 balance is better provided by natural challenges (i.e., in a form of relatively benign childhood diseases such as chickenpox and mumps) rather than vaccination."
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/prog-health-sci-2012-vol-2-no1-neurologic-adverse-events-vaccination.pdf
Posted by: Carol | May 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Cia - recent research shows that mBSA (methylated Bovine Serum Albumin) can act as an inadvertent adjuvent, creating more intense inflamatory / cytotoxic response than just BSA.
I wonder what kind is in the MMR II? Would be interesting to compare the severity of adverse reactions in vaccines to see if the worst of them either contain the mercury, the aluminum, or the mBSA (if it's used at all in vaccines, which I don't know), and the next question being do the mercury and aluminum affect the same pathways in the same way as the mBSA appears to.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0063214
"The addition of positive electrical charges by methylation of the anionic native BSA has been speculated as the determinant factor in the chronicity of the inflammation induced [3]. In particular, the cationic mBSA was found retained for a longer time in articular connective tissues than negatively charged antigens, leading to a delayed release of antigens and favoring the in situ immune complex formation and deposition"
Posted by: Jenny | May 14, 2013 at 12:15 PM
It would be shocking if the US Govt actually pursues this case. I mean, really, how likely is it that they will...
1) do anything to undermine the already shaky ground on which the vaccine program is currently standing?
2) go after a partner who has made them millions through the Gardisil vaccine?
3) implicate themselves in an oversight failure?
4) implicate themselves as being the architects of the system that allowed this to happen?
Me thinks not likely. Not likely at all.
Just watch. They won't go after Merck. They won't alarm more parents. They won't undermine vaccine safety. They won't admit they messed up.
Instead? They'll pretend the failing effectiveness of the vaccine was an inevitable consequence, dump more money into a new product to look concerned and proactive, and let the "relators" deal with this themselves.
Posted by: Julie Obradovic | May 14, 2013 at 11:54 AM
The live vaccines like the MMR don't have ingredients like mercury or aluminum, as they would kill the live viruses. The MMR has the three dangerous viruses, gelatin (made from animal bones), human blood proteins, residual cow fetus serum, neomycin (reactive, and the manufacturer says it should only be used topically, not internally), and traces of chick embryo protein. All foreign proteins are highly antigenic and the immune system will often react to them with excessive and damaging inflammation when they are injected into the body.
Posted by: cia parker | May 14, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Heidi Stevenson has unearthed some interesting research that suggests that natural mumps infection may protect against ovarian cancer.
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-10-09/mumps-protects-against-ovarian-cancer-vaccine-steals-the-protection/
Posted by: Mark Struthers | May 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM
So the government is moving toward developing a new mumps vaccine but DOJ is sitting on their hands.
Hmnnn...
Could it be that DOJ doesn't want to participate because of their role defending the Secretary of Health and Human Services against vaccine injury claims in the VICP?
Posted by: Louis Conte | May 14, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Ohhh, and it is so aggravating that they cover up an uneffective vaccine by saying it is a new strain of mumps.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 14, 2013 at 09:50 AM
If you do look at the history of the MMR - it does appear that the mumps part has a lot to do with vaccine reactions. Just like John Stone said.
Does MMR have aluminium in it too?
Posted by: Benedetta | May 14, 2013 at 09:46 AM
I know where this is going.
Everyone is going to have to be revaccinated.
If they don't get your kids the first go around they will be back to get them later.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 14, 2013 at 09:39 AM
In Vaccine Epidemic, it said, p. 63, that in 1990 Merck quadrupled the amount of the mumps virus in the US MMR, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. In the wake of the MMR autism furor, it is said that Merck quietly reduced the amount again. Could that be what has caused its present ineffectiveness?
It would be better to let mumps come back: it is a benign disease when children get it, and before puberty the ovaries and testicles cannot be damaged by it. The testicular atrophy which can occur in mature males is usually one-sided, and does not cause complete sterility. There is a small risk of the disease causing diabetes, but the mumps vaccine carries the same risk. The risks of brain damage or deafness are very small, and can usually be avoided entirely by proper care, meaning that the patient should stay warm and quiet in bed throughout the illness. Warm or cold compresses on swelling, whichever feels better, soft foods, good hydration. When meningitis occurs, it is usually aseptic meningitis, which is self-limiting and rarely causes permanent damage.
Mumps is usually so mild that they wouldn't even have vaccinated for it (at least not several decades ago), except that it was so easy to piggyback it onto the measles and rubella vaccines.
Posted by: cia parker | May 14, 2013 at 09:25 AM
007 -- isn't that a license to kill?
Posted by: JerseyGuy | May 14, 2013 at 08:53 AM
Just to repeat my comment of a few days ago with Andy's video about mumps:-
'It is well said. Of course, it was also an issue with the abandoned Urabe version over Jeryl Lynn that it was thought to be more immunogenic as well as unfortunately being more reactive (Tomljenovic p.8)
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf
'Which may further show how inherently problematic vaccinating against mumps is. The Tomljenovic paper mentions that Elizabeth Miller's lab was supposed to be investigating this issue while a decision was being made about the future of the Urabe vaccine, though I can't find what conclusion was reached if any.'
It may simply be the case with mumps vaccine that the more effective it is, the less safe.
The other thing is that the problem that mumps vaccine would create a problem of late developing mumps was recognised even before the vaccine was introduced - in fact it was generally considered inadvisable (as Andy pointed out in his splendid video) before the commercial/bureaucratic imperative to introduce MMR was settled upon. So, they always knew that this would be the result of what was a mixture of greed and expedience.
Posted by: John Stone | May 14, 2013 at 06:41 AM
The whistleblowers claim:
"They were even pressured by their superiors to participate in the scheme, which included, among other things, falsifying test data; destroying evidence; lying to the FDA; and most importantly, continuously hiding from the government and the public over the course of a decade -- including through two unprecedented mumps outbreaks -- the significantly diminished efficacy of the vaccine."
Since a clear majority of the Supreme Court ruled that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe" .. we can expect someone to raise the "what difference does it make" response ... if the "superiors" at Merck demanded the whistleblowers "participate in the scheme"?
"They describe a supervisor frantically changing test results that showed the vaccine wasn’t working; destroying garbage-bags full of evidence to keep the fraud from being exposed; and lying to FDA regulators who came to the lab after being alerted by the whistleblowers ... A top Merck vaccine official told Krahling the matter was a “business decision,” the suit says, and he was twice told the company would make sure he went to jail if he told federal regulators the truth."
Wonder if that "top Merck vaccine official" has ever heard of Bernie Madoff .. sentenced to a very long time in jail for making "business decisions" .. exactly as described by the whistleblowers at Merck.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | May 14, 2013 at 06:36 AM
Muck Caught Red Handed , gotcha , you lying thieveing scoundrels and at the very highest levels !
So what else have you been lying about ?
The Pharma Harma brigade are sitting on a scandal so big , it will nake the recent banking financial scandals look like a tea party . Could be the end of empires (hopefully!)
Posted by: Farmer Geddon | May 14, 2013 at 06:01 AM