Autism, Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Anesthesia: A Deadly Dental Combination
New Study: Many Cases of Infantile Autism may Actually be Induced by Acetaminophen exposure shortly after birth

Dachel Wake Up: Lawyers Hanging Out Their Shingles for Shingles Vax Lawsuits

Dachel Morning Wake UoNOTE: Merck, accustomed to causing injury to babies via MMR, then teens via Gardasil, has set its sights on the elderly population! 

By Anne Dachel

March 14, 2017, Zostavax patients sue Merck, claiming shingles shot caused injuries and death

Merck & Co. could have a growing Zostavax problem on its hands. After several plaintiffs filed lawsuits claiming the drugmaker’s shingles vaccine caused serious injury and death, attorneys say more cases are on the way.

Plaintiffs have sued in state and federal courts in Pennsylvania alleging that Merck’s Zostavax—used to prevent shingles, the painful complication of varicella infection—caused serious side effects, including death.

“I think Merck has failed terribly … to warn about the very serious side effects and the failure of the vaccine to do what they claim it does,” attorney Marc Bern told FiercePharma.

Bern, founding partner at Marc J. Bern & Partners, said his firm has “thousands of complaints” yet to be filed in Philadelphia, with the injuries running “the gamut from contracting shingles as a result of the vaccine all the way to serious personal injuries such as blindness in one eye, individuals who have serious paralysis in their extremities, brain damage, all the way to death.”

In a statement, Merck said it “stands behind the demonstrated safety and efficacy” of the shot, which is licensed in 50 countries.

“Nothing is more important to Merck than the safety of our medicines and vaccines,” a spokesperson told FiercePharma. She said the company has distributed more than 36 million doses of the shot since its 2006 approval. Before winning a FDA nod, Zostavax’s safety and effectiveness were studied in more than 30,000 patients, and a CDC committee continues to recommend its use, she pointed out.

“The company has continuously provided appropriate and timely information about Zostavax to consumers and to the medical, scientific and regulatory communities,” according to Merck’s statement.

Bern said he believes the cases should be grouped for mass tort status. Speaking with the New Jersey Law Journal, Lopez McHugh attorney Michael Katz, who filed several Zostavax injury cases in federal court, said he believes hundreds more are yet to come. Katz also believes the cases should be grouped together.

Zostavax pulled in $749 million in sales last year for Merck.

Meanwhile, Merck’s vaccines rival GlaxoSmithKline has filed for FDA approval for its challenger to Zostavax, Shingrix, which is expected to significantly shake up the market upon launch.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

whyser

@Barry,

If vaccines truly are the life saving, 'science based' miracles that have been saving lives for decades, then shouldn't it be easy to verify that they've actually been doing that?

Like I said, this is completely subjective. They only consider it life-saving because it "protects" a person from being infected by the disease. There are a lot of other considerations that make this whole arguement complicated, especially since the world view doesn't share the idea that vaccines also cause immunological and neurological problems.

The masses are brainwashed into thinking that these diseases are deadly and therefore we need saving from them, but how many lives are lost to the vaccines themselves, through allergies and anaphylactic reactions, through severe neurological damage that is a significant financial, economical, and emotional burden for those who are left to care for them? How many of those accidently drown or get into accidents, are mistreated by the system, are mistreated by society, are suffering from excruciating pain from sensory overload, from severe gastrointestinal inflammation, from self-inflicted physical harm (head banging, severe scratching, etc)?

Vaccine save lives from very specific diseases, but is that tradeoff worth it?

I can't offer you proof. I can't prove the massive damages being caused by vaccines, so there's no real way of making proper risk assessments. The only thing we could probably demonstrate is whether the vaccine would protect the host from exposure to the wild type disease that it was meant to protect against, but that isn't saying much, considering that the mortality rate for many of these "vaccine-preventable" diseases were already on significant decline.

Science is purposefully ignorant of looking into vaccine-related damages. So if you're looking for proof that vaccines saves lives on an overall scale of disease prevention with consideration of immunological and neurological damage, it would be impossible for me to do so.

whyser

@Rtp,

I would have assumed that by being "dormant", that the virus would not be actively infecting cells, thereby, not causing any damage, thereby, over time, immunity would wane eventually.

I'll give you a clue - the germ theory is bullshit.

I'm not familiar with the germ-theory and any competing theories. I would like to understand it more if you don't mind explaining it.

You missed the point. According to your above explanation, immunity from harbouring the virus would be less than absolute ie that harbouring the virus reduces our susceptibility to it in the future but not by as much as it might

I'm not sure I understand what point I missed. I don't expect maintenance of immunity against a virus if the virus remains dormant (ie. not actively infecting). I only expect maintenance of immunity if the host is re-exposed to an active infecting virus. Because vaccines have taken the active virus out of circulation in the population, I would expect that general immunity against it would wane. The vaccine also injects an attenuated virus into the body, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that the vaccine version of the virus would remain dormant only to reactivate later when the immunity wanes.

But mainstream medicine claims harbouring the virus *increases* our susceptibility to the virus in the future compared to never having had the virus at all!

This is quite simply a logical impossibility.

If that's what mainstream believes, I think they are a little off in their explanation. Harboring a dormant virus that is not causing damage, and therefore not activating the immune system, will wane our immunity against that virus. This happens naturally when we are naturally infected with chickenpox.

Decreasing our susceptibility by never having had the virus at all makes absolutely no sense. I think the mainstream view is that by VACCINATING, it makes us less susceptible, but that also makes absolutely no sense either.

Vaccinating injects the live virus into our bodies, and most likely some of that virus remains dormant. The lack of boosting (either naturally or by vaccinating) will cause our immunity to wane faster than if we were to be occasionally exposed naturally. We already see the problem now, in which younger and younger adults are getting shingles, where this didn't happen before until people were quite old.

Barry

"... So help me out here, I need to understand what your standards are for whether you would consider behind to work or not...."

*********
My apologies Whyser, if my last reply seemed rude.

It wasn't meant to be a trick question. If vaccines truly are the life saving, 'science based' miracles that have been saving lives for decades, then shouldn't it be easy to verify that they've actually been doing that?

That's what I thought, around 10 years ago. When I first realized that vaccines were the most likely cause of a disabling cluster of injuries, that had mysteriously disabled my toddler. Injuries that his doctor had initially ignored, and then eventually labelled with some mysterious name that had been invented by the medical community.

The last thing that I wanted to believe back then, is that vaccines were the cause. Because the implication was that my defenseless toddler had been horribly let down, by a society that had the responsibility of protecting him. A society that included me.

So I started looking for the science that would prove me wrong, and verify that vaccines truly were the safe and effective miracles that I'd been led to believe they were.

You'll have to tell me what that scientific proof looks like. Because I still haven't found it.

Rtp

@rtp,

"If we had chronic infection from the virus, wouldn't we be in a chronic inflammatory state then?"

It's not my insane theory.

"I don't think this is the case, so I guess I would need to understand why the virus remains "dormant" in our nerve tissue for decades."

I'll give you a clue - the germ theory is bullshit.

"So as long as the virus no longer causes anymore damage that would instantiate an immune response"

Or it was never a problem in the first place.

"I can see how immunity would wane slowly over time, to the point where it is no longer protective against the virus."

You missed the point. According to your above explanation, immunity from harbouring the virus would be less than absolute ie that harbouring the virus reduces our susceptibility to it in the future but not by as much as it might.

But mainstream medicine claims harbouring the virus *increases* our susceptibility to the virus in the future compared to never having had the virus at all!

This is quite simply a logical impossibility.

The mainstream belief requires that harbouring the virus both increases and decreases our vulnerability to the virus.

"Just because it exists in our bodies doesn't mean that we should be getting continual boosting from it."

Evidently. But that completely destroys every tenet of immunity (natural or vaccine) we have ever been taught.

Whyser

@Barry,

Prove it

"Immunity" is very subjective. I don't know what you would constitute as proof, because I can turn that same question around and ask you to prove how you know natural exposure to disease imparts "immunity"

Is it measured by whether one would succumb to a disease upon rexposure?

Is it measured by antibody levels specific to the disease antigen(s)? I know some would argue that antibodies against a disease antigen doesn't necessarily equate to immunity. I also know that some people would argue that since vaccine-induced immunity is different than natural immunity, that the vaccine induced one isn't "true" immunity or the"true" response.

Is it measured by the decrease in disease incidence post-vaccine?

So help me out here, I need to understand what your standards are for whether you would consider behind to work or not.

Barry

@Barry,

I know there's a group of people amongst those against vaccines who believe that vaccines don't impart any immunity at all.... but I'm not one of them.

I do think vaccines work,

***************

Prove it

whyser

@John Stone,

Completely agree with your article there about the increase in shingles incidence, especially in younger adults.

" a shingles vaccine is recently recommended for older people"

I wonder what kind of data the government uses to assess the need for a shingles vaccine in the older population though...

In this article:

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/shingles/news/20120605/risk-shingles-recurrence-is-low

Nineteen people per 10,000 who had received the shingles vaccine had a shingles recurrence. In those who had not received the vaccine, recurrence occurred in 24 people per 10,000

Wow... per every 10,000 people, vaccinating the elderly would save 5 shingles recurrent cases. Doesn't sound like the health benefit that health authorities are making it out to be.

whyser

@Barry,

I know there's a group of people amongst those against vaccines who believe that vaccines don't impart any immunity at all.... but I'm not one of them.

I do think vaccines work, but to be clear, the immune response is different, and less optimal, than what natural disease can teach.

The basis of the danger model of immunology as postulated by immunologist Polly Matzinger shows that the damage caused by disease is what causes the immune system to respond to disease antigens, and vaccines work off of the same fundamental principle, except for one glaring difference.. that the damage being caused by the vaccine (via adjuvants) is very different from the damage being caused by the disease.

This is especially true for inactivated/dead viral vaccines and for toxoid vaccines such as the DTaP. Live attenuated vaccines are probably as close as you can get to mimicking the immune response of a wild version of it, but again, the limitation is that the vaccine-version of the disease replicates so slowly (attenuated), that one could argue that the immune response is weaker than what you would get from the immune response against the wild disease.

Now having said that, I agree with what you said here:

"to scare people into line ups where they are voluntarily injected with a cocktail of immune compromising poisons.
if you stop and think about it, which industry stands to benefit the most from selling things to an immune comprised population?
"

The manufacturers exaggerate the "deadliness" of the disease to sell the vaccine, and exaggerates the benefits of it. I wholeheartedly agree that vaccines can cause "immune-compromising" results, such as allergies and autoimmunity, as well as a host of other neurological issues.

People say that vaccines don't make big pharma money, but they're not looking at the big picture. If vaccines are capable of causing the immunological and neurological issues that we are saying, then big pharma stands to have SIGNIFICANT financial gain to TREAT all these issues (all of them together are worth hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of health problems in the US), under the guise of protecting us from these "deadly diseases".

So I agree with you on most part, I'm just having trouble grasping the idea that vaccines don't work AT ALL. If vaccines didn't work, then issues like vaccine-induced food allergies and vaccine-induced autoimmunity shouldn't work either, by extension.

John Stone

rtp, whyser

My understanding is that it has long been known that occasional re-exposure to the wild varicella virus protected people who had had chicken-pox against shingles. Although we cannot always commend British government vaccine advisers for good sense and integrity we have never had a chicken pox vaccine on the infant schedule, although a shingles vaccine is recently recommended for older people. In 2008 there was a report pointing to the dangers chickenpox vaccination:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/chickenpox-christmas-is-over-so-time-for-a-new-vaccine.html

Jeannette Bishop

@whyser, sorry sent that post without clarifying that I was imagining cases of vaccine virus shedding to the naturally immune, and the vaccinated I suppose. I wonder if the type of immune response to the attenuated virus might actually increase risk of developing shingles.

Barry

So I think what you said about the lack of boosting, thanks to the vaccine, is what is causing waning immunity in persons vaccinated for chickenpox. Add to the fact that the virus is live attenuated, the vaccine is also likely depositing the virus to remain dormant in our bodies until the immune system is weak/waned enough to allow varicella virus to reactivate.

******

This assumes that the vaccine imparts any immunity at all, which I personally think is nonsense.

I don't believe that any vaccine imparts any immunity whatsoever. In my opinion, that's just the lie that's been rolled out since the 50's, to scare people into line ups where they are voluntarily injected with a cocktail of immune compromising poisons.

if you stop and think about it, which industry stands to benefit the most from selling things to an immune comprised population?

I'll give you a hint.... they also manufacture vaccines.

Jeannette Bishop

@RTP, I don't have a reference, but I've heard something to the effect that all viruses the immune system deals with (or maybe that should be "deals with effectively?") are stored in the body, sort of "filed away" was the analogy I remember. Unfortunately I can't remember the source(s).

@whyser, thanks for considering my question. I'm certainly not inclined to dismiss the idea that repeated natural exposure to chickenpox infection prevented shingles and is perhaps a part of maintaining natural herd immunity for other illnesses.

whyser

@rtp,

If we had chronic infection from the virus, wouldn't we be in a chronic inflammatory state then? I don't think this is the case, so I guess I would need to understand why the virus remains "dormant" in our nerve tissue for decades.

So as long as the virus no longer causes anymore damage that would instantiate an immune response, I can see how immunity would wane slowly over time, to the point where it is no longer protective against the virus. Just because it exists in our bodies doesn't mean that we should be getting continual boosting from it.

whyser

@Jeannette Bishop,

You want to know whether the phenomenon of original antigenic sin, where the initial immune response learned (from a vaccine) is the one that is use to fight the wild form of the disease, applies in the case of live vaccine immune responses such as measles and shingles?

Actually, I think the real answer is what you mentioned earlier, "the idea that varicella vaccine possibly removes immune boosting natural exposure to chicken pox that prevents shingles".

We know that MMR antibodies decline, if not boosted naturally or by booster shots, over time:

Persistence of MMR antibodies after 20 years but levels declining
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/197/7/950/798890/Persistence-of-Measles-Mumps-and-Rubella

If you look at their chart that is in the study, you will see that Measles declined about 50% in antibody levels (still considered protective) over 15 years, while mumps is the worst at around 25% of the initial antibody levels, and 34% of them were considered to have equivocal mumps antibody levels (low positive, but the CDC considers that as "unprotected").

So I think what you said about the lack of boosting, thanks to the vaccine, is what is causing waning immunity in persons vaccinated for chickenpox. Add to the fact that the virus is live attenuated, the vaccine is also likely depositing the virus to remain dormant in our bodies until the immune system is weak/waned enough to allow varicella virus to reactivate.

rtp

It's funny how I seem to be the only person in the world who sees this.

The idea that chicken pox virus is harbored in our bodies for decades and becomes shingles later is proof that vaccines simply cannot work.

If being exposed to the virus all that time does not allow you to become immune to that virus how would temporary exposure to the vaccine virus help you?

It wouldn't of course.

If there is such a thing as chronic viral infection then it is logically impossible to have immunity.

Jeannette Bishop

Question regarding the idea that varicella vaccine possibly removes immune boosting natural exposure to chicken pox that prevents shingles...

...with the discussion of whether getting the measles vaccine may increase the risk of acquiring an atypical case of measles with higher risk of some devastating side effects in mind...

could exposure to the attenuated varicella virus be modifying the way the immune system deals with the natural virus that is supposedly stored away in the bodies of all those who've developed immunity to chicken pox?

IOW is there something about exposure to the vaccine virus itself (whether or not one has ongoing exposure to the natural virus) that increases the likelihood of developing shingles?

Jenny Allan

@ Bob Moffit "I think it plausible that a child can shed the chickenpox .. but .. I wonder if it would also be plausible that an adult can shed shingles?"

Oh yes!! I am aware of several cases of chicken pox caught from shingles. Also my husband contracted shingles via an office colleague with chicken pox. Several others also.

I think it's perfectly feasible varicella virus can be contracted from (live) vaccines, in both forms.

Maurine Meleck

Another drug lawsuit of interest: Hundreds of cases against J and J. for risperdal in a class action suit in Los Angeles court right now. Judge has ruled against those who used the drug after 2006 when the side effects for children were finally listed on the drug--for lawsuits claiming that they didn't know the side effects. Those that claimed against the bad side effects that harmed their children-no decision yet made. Attorneys refiling on the dismissed claims, however.

Maurine Meleck

They can sue out of vaccine Court because the shingles vaccine is not one on the Vaccine Court list?
Curious to see hpw fast they add that to the list now.
Side note: I got the shingles about 10 years ago, gave the chicken pox to my grandson, who actually had had the chicken pox vaccine. PS for anyone experiencing shingles: I had the worst case my doctor had ever seen. Got rid of it in 10 days with an anti-viral, vitamin B6 and a few other n atural goodies. Gotta start the stuff within 48 hours after getting it-very important. No side effects.

kws

I agree with you Barry. Until senior management is held responsible, like they are for financial improprieties after Enron, this carnage will continue in America.

Merck fought off the Vioxx disaster with their army of lawyers and now they will fight this off. Ken Frazier, Julie Gerberding, Roger Perlmutter, et al. will retire in luxury while Active Memory Centers are built across this country. It's not right to maim people. Jesus would not do that. Crimes perpetrated by corporations seem immune to prosecution because they are bribing our politicians and press. Powerful people have been affected but sometimes they don't know it or the opposing side is just too much.

Sorry to rant...time to make an organic breakfast and lunch for my 14 year old. have great day man

Gary Ogden

Bob Moffit: Same virus, so anyone of any age could be shedding it. As I understand it (from the Goldman interview on Vaccines Revealed) the shingles epidemic is caused by the fact that the vaccine has eliminated the immunity-boosting effect of circulating varicella virus.

Kim

Thanks! When my head is overloaded my words jumble and my homonyms go to pot! Classic sign of stress, for me! Kim

Introvert

A small type in the intro -- sights not sites

Bob Moffit

Anne notes:

"Merck, accustomed to causing injury to babies via MMR, then teens via Gardasil, has set its sites on the elderly population!"

There is quite a "gamble" between .. Merck's "customary injuries to babies via MMR" .. and .. setting their sites on the "elderly population".

Indeed .. I suspect LAWYERS would not be lining up to defend these latest .. older victims .. of Merck's dangerous vaccines .. if their new clients were Merck's "customary injured babies" .. who cannot give voice to what the hell happened to them.

Which is why I am encouraged to see that add every day .. for at least three months now .. wherein a LAW FIRM seeks clients who have suffered serious injuries following the SHINGLES vaccination. If lawyers know anything .. they KNOW how difficult and unprofitable it is to seek "damages" in that despicable VACCINE (kangaroo) court .. so they must be confident they have overwhelming numbers of victims .. who can TESTIFY under oath .. as conclusive evidence the Shingles vaccine is dangerous.

Being senior citizens .. my wife suffered SHINGLES recently .. and .. she suffered excruciating pain and discomfort .. for about a month .. still has remaining "scars" from the experience.

Her attack surfaced within days of attending a family celebration .. and .. I wonder if she had come in contact with someone.. an adolescent or adult .. in attendance who had recently received the SHINGLES vaccine? Or a child who recently received the chickenpox vaccine?

I think it plausible that a child can shed the chickenpox .. but .. I wonder if it would also be plausible that an adult can shed shingles?

Barry

NOTE: Merck, accustomed to causing injury to babies via MMR, then teens via Gardasil, has set its sites on the elderly population!

********

They did that a long time ago with flu vaccines, and statin drugs.

Ever visited an elderly person in a hospital ward, or in an elderly home? Dementia is everywhere now, and it's striking people in their 60's now.

It's a shameful way to treat another human being. And if no-one ever goes to jail for, it's just going to keep getting worse.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)