or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Say it isn't so! Merck accused of falsifying mumps vaccine efficacy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Say it isn't so! Merck accused of falsifying mumps vaccine efficacy

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/june-mumps-suit.pdf

 

I may be losing my faith in the pharmaceutical industry! winky.gif

post #2 of 23

and if it's true look what happened, not some massive coverup involving hundreds or thousands of scientists and government workers, but people speaking up and saying it's going on.  Just shocking.

post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 

Took 13 years, though.

 

I don't think anyone believes in a coverup of any kind involving hundreds of thousands of scientists and government workers. There would never be that many people in the top levels of knowledge and decision making, but rather a lot of people doing what they're advised or told to do and not knowing the whole picture. 

 

Wondering how much this will be reported on in the mainstream media.

post #4 of 23
This is nothing new to many of us. Merck has long been known as one of the most unethical companies and the bread crumb trail was leading up long ago to something like this. I saw the signs in research back in 2006 when I started researching articles that the mainstream media didn't like. Others said they have seen stuff long before this. It is going to keep happening. Always follow the money trail and cases of meds like Vioxx. Vaccines aren't untouchable ethics and scruples are few.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
post #5 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Took 13 years, though.

 

I don't think anyone believes in a coverup of any kind involving hundreds of thousands of scientists and government workers. There would never be that many people in the top levels of knowledge and decision making, but rather a lot of people doing what they're advised or told to do and not knowing the whole picture. 

 

Wondering how much this will be reported on in the mainstream media.

I don't think it will be reported at all in the mainstream media.

 

They never reported the recent admission by the Italian government that the MMR caused a case of autism.

 

They never reported that Dr. Walker-Smith won his case.


They never reported that Poul Thorssen was indicted for embezzlement.

 

They never reported that the "2012" autism rate is actually based on children born in 2000, nor that those children received the full load of thimerosal-preserved vaccines.

 

They never reported the recent studies linking aluminum in vaccines to autoimmune disorders.

 

They have never reported that 2000 cases of vaccine-induced brain damage have been admitted and compensated by the US government.

 

None of this is surprising when you remember that the CEO of Reuters is on the board of Merck, and that James Murdoch, son of news emperor Rupert Murdoch, is on the board of GlaxoSmithKline. The Murdochs own and operate their own vaccine research institute.

post #6 of 23

nm - link not working


Edited by purslaine - 6/23/12 at 1:28pm
post #7 of 23

Can't read the WSJ article in full unless you subscribe.

 

But the court case looks fascinating--claim filed by two virologists, formerly employed by Merck, who reported this ongoing fraud to the FDA many, many, many times--but it seems the FDA kept looking the other way...after their Vioxx debacle, one has to wonder what else they have lied about--and how many other times the FDA has looked the other way.

post #8 of 23

here, try this instead:

 

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/lawsuit-claims-merck-overstated-mumps-vaccine-effectiveness-20120622-00532

 

(It is the same story as the WSJ I linked to - but without the subscribers issues)

post #9 of 23

Well, this is hearsay of course - but I know someone who worked for a large, well-known print company for many years. Some of the biggest accounts were pharma accounts. He said he regularly printed reports on meds etc from these companies. After doing the initial print, the company would then "edit" the numbers and statements to make everything look better. Side effects such "death" were changed to "adverse reactions", efficacy rates were always improved, never reduced.

 

It's terrible that a case like this won't be printed in the media, b/c more people need to realize that these companies are not following the standards that they think they are. After taking a research course, I realized pretty quickly that scientific studies of any type can flaws - so why not vaccine studies too. Look at the vaccines that have been "approved" and "safe" according to studies, then pulled off the market.

 

I think more people would be able to make an informed decision regarding vaccines if these things were made public. 

 

Thanks for posting this.

post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by springmum View Post

Well, this is hearsay of course - but I know someone who worked for a large, well-known print company for many years. Some of the biggest accounts were pharma accounts. He said he regularly printed reports on meds etc from these companies. After doing the initial print, the company would then "edit" the numbers and statements to make everything look better. Side effects such "death" were changed to "adverse reactions", efficacy rates were always improved, never reduced.

 

 

Apparently, this is standard M.O. in the pharmaceutical world.

 

I had read--I think it was Discovery Science magazine?  I'll try and hunt the reference down--that in the initial safety trials of Lipitor, there were several patients who had such severe side effects (mostly severe muscle weakness), they had to drop out of the trial. But Pfizer never reported those side effects; they reported those particular patients as "non-compliant," because they did not continue to take the Lipitor.

 

On the other hand, 2 of the patients died of heart attacks during the trial--but they were reported as successes, because their cholesterol was successfully lowered at the time of death.

post #11 of 23

Nothing shocks me anymore when it comes to drug companies, but it sure is frustrating!

 

 

This is what confuses me about people who vax based on the facts the drug companies put out there (efficacies, side effects) For arguements sake, let's say that some vaccines do reduce the disease, but what about the long-term effects/side effects from the vaccines? If the drug companies are falsifying information - how can people trust that vaccines are "safe". 

 

Are the efficacy rates really true - I mean how long does immunity really last from a vaccine. The drug company says one thing, but they need to make the vaccine look good.  I read about the measles outbreak in Quebec Canada last year, and they were wondering why so many vaccinated kids (not adults) were getting measles. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/10/20/measles-quebec-vaccine-schedule.html So many parents vaccinate thinking their kids are falsely protected, b/c they believe the drug company wouldn't put something out there that wasn't safe and effective.

 

There is no informed choice when you don't have all the facts.

post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

and if it's true look what happened, not some massive coverup involving hundreds or thousands of scientists and government workers, but people speaking up and saying it's going on.  Just shocking.

It never requires a massive cover up by hundreds and thousands of people. These corporations are compartmentalized working on a need to know basis. Merck operates under culture of deceit. Does it not concern you as a parent who chooses to vaccinate -- and I am sure your child has or will get this vaccine, that Merck has misrepresented its efficacy, thereby putting your child at risk when you think they are protected? What about all the other vaccines, has Merck or any of the other pharmaceutical companies lied about those too? How can you be sure? It is obvious the FDA doesn't have the peoples' backs, they won't bite the hand that feeds them. If I were a parent of a child damaged by the MMR vaccine, I would be absolutely lilvid to learn that my child was harmed by a pretty much useless vaccine. What a waste. Yes it is shocking.

post #13 of 23

Saying the efficacy rate isn't as high as 95% doesn't mean the vaccine is useless. It can still be worth using - even at 50% efficacy (for example), a person exposed to mumps without the vaccine is twice as likely to get it than a person who has had the vaccine. 

 

Depending on what you think about side effects that can still be a choice worth taking. 

 

Does the accusation claim what the real efficacy of the vaccine is? 

 

If Merck have done this it was stupid and deceiptful. I hope they get in trouble for it. 

post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Saying the efficacy rate isn't as high as 95% doesn't mean the vaccine is useless. It can still be worth using - even at 50% efficacy (for example), a person exposed to mumps without the vaccine is twice as likely to get it than a person who has had the vaccine. 

 

Depending on what you think about side effects that can still be a choice worth taking. 

 

Does the accusation claim what the real efficacy of the vaccine is? 

 

If Merck have done this it was stupid and deceiptful. I hope they get in trouble for it. 

 

The point is not that it is worthless, but when people compare risks vs. benefits for individual vaccines for their children, such an overstatement of efficacy makes that comparison impossible.  MMR is known to be one of the most reactive vaccines.

post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Saying the efficacy rate isn't as high as 95% doesn't mean the vaccine is useless. It can still be worth using - even at 50% efficacy (for example), a person exposed to mumps without the vaccine is twice as likely to get it than a person who has had the vaccine. 

 

Depending on what you think about side effects that can still be a choice worth taking. 

 

Does the accusation claim what the real efficacy of the vaccine is? 

 

If Merck have done this it was stupid and deceiptful. I hope they get in trouble for it. 

 

Well, Merck doesn't have the best track record for this sort of shenanigans. As a vaxing parent you are putting great trust into an organization that defrauds and knowingly kills people (Vioxx). Does that not give you pause for thought? The FDA isn't going to protect you, they won't bite the hand that feeds them.

post #16 of 23
Thread Starter 

Emilio Emini, Vice President of Merck’s Vaccine Research Division, who ordered the whisteblowers not to go to the FDA, went on to become Executive Vice President of Vaccine Research and Development at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in 2005, and is now Senior Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer of Vaccine Research at Pfizer.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/06/protocol-007-merck-scientists-accuse-company-of-mumps-vaccine-fraud-that-endangers-public-ealth.html#more

post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Emilio Emini, Vice President of Merck’s Vaccine Research Division, who ordered the whisteblowers not to go to the FDA, went on to become Executive Vice President of Vaccine Research and Development at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in 2005, and is now Senior Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer of Vaccine Research at Pfizer.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/06/protocol-007-merck-scientists-accuse-company-of-mumps-vaccine-fraud-that-endangers-public-ealth.html#more

 

 

Quote:
Merck’s main advantage came from its superior safety reputation. One of the most troublesome adverse events for MMR vaccines, aseptic meningitis, is a serious and potentially fatal side effect of vaccination. According to a major textbook on vaccines, “the Urabe strain has been linked with aseptic meningitis wherever adverse reactions have been studied.” By contrast, according to another review cited in the complaint, “aseptic meningitis, the Achilles heel of mumps vaccines, has never been documented to be caused by Jeryl Lynn.” In country after country, introduction of Urabe-based MMR vaccines have spawned outbreaks of aseptic meningitis and prompted withdrawal of the suspect MMR vaccine. In several of these cases, Merck’s MMRII has been the primary beneficiary

See my post on the military testing of MMR

 

 Urabe-based MMR vaccines have spawned outbreaks of aseptic meningitis and prompted withdrawal of the suspect MMR vaccine.

 

Down the rabbit hole we go.....

 
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

and if it's true look what happened, not some massive coverup involving hundreds or thousands of scientists and government workers, but people speaking up and saying it's going on.  Just shocking.

 

Not all non-vaxers believe in the massive coverup theory.

post #19 of 23
Ok. I didn't think I said otherwise.
post #20 of 23
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Say it isn't so! Merck accused of falsifying mumps vaccine efficacy