Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Documents from Merck MMR (mumps) Whistleblower Lawsuit Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
09-06-2014 05:00 PM
samaxtics No quarter for that lot.
09-06-2014 03:48 PM
Taximom5 Interesting that you mention those "strong statements" made by so many pro-vaxxers. I can't help thinking that Orac, Dorit, Chris Hickie, and the rest of that gang are now wondering which among them might actually be considering being a whistle-blower, and rat them out on anything really damaging they've said amongst themselves...

Now that the writing is on the wall, at least some of that gang is going to realize that their only means of protecting themselves is to turn evidence...and I'm sure there is a ton of evidence...
09-06-2014 01:24 PM
Deborah This story actually has a lot of amusing moments.

Many pro-vaccine who discussed it claimed that it was just a nothing because the Department of Justice didn't join in the suit.

Then the DOJ filed against Merck's attempt to dismiss.

It might be sort of fun to compile (on another thread), the number of times various pro-vaccine bloggers made strong statements about something and turned out to be way wrong.

I suspect they are going to turn out to be way wrong about autism and vaccines...in the long run...the same way the lead industry turned out to be wrong about the dangers of lead in paint and gasoline.
09-06-2014 01:22 PM
Deborah Monday must be the official release date
09-06-2014 11:35 AM
Taximom5 It's online today! http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com...20140806142751

Oddly, it's dated September 8, 2014. Why do they date it ahead? Are they anticipating something changing this weekend?
09-06-2014 07:56 AM
Deborah I'm sure this will make it into the business news by Monday. Stock owners merit full disclosure, even if the general public does not.
09-06-2014 07:34 AM
Taximom5 Thanks! Actually, you can x out the registration bubble, and see this much:


Antitrust, FCA Claims On Merck Mumps Vaccine To Advance
Share us on: By Dan Packel

Law360, Philadelphia (September 05, 2014, 6:12 PM ET) -- Two lawsuits accusing Merck & Co. Inc. of lying about the efficacy of its mumps inoculation in order to keep competitors from bringing their own versions of the vaccine to market will move forward, after a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled in favor of whistleblowers and direct purchasers Thursday.

U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II ruled that the whistleblowers had sufficiently pled that Merck might have provided false statements to the government and that the direct purchasers had shown enough evidence to establish that these falsehoods...

But you do have to register with a "professional email" to read the full article. Private emails get rejected.
09-06-2014 06:55 AM
Deborah This is what I was sent. You have to register, but I guess that isn't a huge barrier. http://www.law360.com/classaction/ar...ine-to-advance

The story is a bit confusing, but basically, two different lawsuits were combined for the purpose of this analysis. The whistleblowers won on every point and their case goes forward unaltered. The other case lost on some points of geography, but their case also goes forward, just in a limited form.

Merck is in the soup.
09-06-2014 06:41 AM
Taximom5 Deborah, can you post the legal news link? Or is that not legally available to the public yet?
09-05-2014 06:30 PM
applejuice
Quote:
We also don't know the true incidence rate of mumps in recent years, because doctors don't usually test for it or even suspect it in the vaccinated,
EXACTLY.

That is THE CASE for all diseases that we vaccinate for. I have shared here the story of my youngest child and my niece getting measles and the overeducated intern did not have a clue! - "It is a viral infection. The fever is caused by the virus and is causing the skin rash." I had to wait for the older, more experienced pediatrician to get a proper diagnosis. I should have just left. I knew more than the intern. Imagine that.

Doctors like to say that vaccines are a victim of their own success. I like to say that doctors are a victims of their education. They pay a high price for spending their youthful years in medical school only to be taught wrongly that vaccines work and diet does not matter. Nutrition, if it is offered, is an elective course in most medical schools; if a doctor does take the elective nutrition course, the materials are provided by interests as the Kroc Foundation, so we lose anyway. Doctors are NEVER taught how to recognize a disease that the vaccine is supposed to prevent because they assume the vaccine works.

If doctors reported all of the real cases, we would know the truth, and the vaccine program would have been tossed.

I understand that doctors get in trouble by the local public health department, licensing board, and AMA if they report too many so-called VPDs too.
09-05-2014 06:19 PM
Deborah Someone sent me the legal news link.

If it doesn't turn up in the business news, I'll get the judgment when it is available and put it up somewhere so we have something to link to.
09-05-2014 06:17 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Just got word that this lawsuit against Merck got the go ahead from the judge. Merck was trying to get it dismissed. The Feds and the whistleblowers were arguing that it should go ahead. Merck lost this round.

So far the story is only on legal sites, but it may leak out into the business press by tomorrow. I don't think it will turn up in the general media, however.
That is WONDERFUL news! How did you find out?
09-05-2014 06:16 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
For those saying 60-something % is better than nothing, that would be true for a disease like tetanus (not transmissible) or whooping cough (most dangerous in infants). The problem with mumps is this:

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/co...ns_answers/en/



A vaccine with a 60-something % effectiveness rate will do the exact same thing as low levels of vaccine coverage in that respect. In fact, that's what we've seen in the US. We also don't know the true incidence rate of mumps in recent years, because doctors don't usually test for it or even suspect it in the vaccinated, and many cases are asymptomatic (even in the unvaccinated) or appear to be a normal viral cold (no jaw/throat or testicular swelling.)
A vaccine with a 60-something effectiveness rate means that, for every hundred people vaccinated, 60% more people would avoid the disease than the percentage of every hundred unvaccinated people.

Those numbers could be anything, as long as there is a 60% difference.

It could be 1 out of a hundred vaccinated people getting ill, vs 1.6 out of a hundred unvaccinated.

In the case of the flu shot, I think the actual numbers are something like 1.7 vs 2.4.
09-05-2014 05:04 PM
Deborah Just got word that this lawsuit against Merck got the go ahead from the judge. Merck was trying to get it dismissed. The Feds and the whistleblowers were arguing that it should go ahead. Merck lost this round.

So far the story is only on legal sites, but it may leak out into the business press by tomorrow. I don't think it will turn up in the general media, however.
09-05-2014 06:59 AM
samaxtics It is my understanding that Dr. Thompson was a Merck employee previous to being employed at the CDC.
09-03-2014 07:50 AM
d555
MERCK MMR CDC conflict

So I'm wondering if anyone has connected the dots between the CDC and Merck here. With the recent news of the CDC Scientist coming forward and admitting to Fraud on CDC study that was presented to Congress back in 2004 stating the safety of the MMR vaccine. Dr. Thompson said he omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. He said he was told to do so by superiors. Knowing the risks of this vaccine and now this Merck lawsuit which basically by the outbreaks and CDC reports finding that its being contracted by people who were in fact vaccinated makes it easy to connect the dots unfortunately. The two virologist's that said the falsified the efficacy by using animal antibodies to show a 95% efficacy which humans don't produce makes sense. I think parents should know this information now considering pediatricians are still administering this vaccine. I called my Pedi's office and they told me yes, they are using Mercks vaccine. The nurse I spoke with didn't know anything about the lawsuit against Merck. She also went on to say as a Nurse she has to be tested for antibodies and be revaccinated which is mandated by the government. She said to me, that she has had the MMR 5 times because each time she tested, she showed no antibodies. My jaw dropped. I know legally since the case is still pending they can and are still giving this to kids. I just feel that parents should know and have the choice considering all the risks vs benefits don't seem to be good enough odds to give kids. There should be laws about pharmaceutical drugs and if safety or efficacy is at question then they should be suspended pending further investigation. The FDA bases their approval of a drug based on the study that the Manufacturing company does and has the CDC check the study out as well. The criteria : Is it pure? Is it safe? Is it effective? Too much conflict of interest here with the CDC and big pharma scratching each others back at the expense of our babies. WTF!
08-29-2014 11:55 PM
TheCrunchyBrit Oh believe me, our wonderful government is really starting to understand! The pressure to vaccinate against anything and everything is really ramping up now. Despite the fact that no vaccines are mandatory in the UK, our Social Services Department (I think you guys call them Child Protective Services) can 'black mark' you for not vaccinating your children and in fact there have been several cases recently where children have been removed from their parents for 'neglect' and the court documents state 'failure to vaccinate'. I fail to see how preventing my child from receiving injections of poisonous heavy metals that may or may not protect against non-fatal diseases that I and all my peers survived perfectly well in childhood is a form of neglect.
I actually changed doctors because of this myself. My old gp was very pro-vaccine (previously worked with MSF in Africa vaccinating newborns against tetanus) and we lived in an area with a traditionally low vaccine uptake rate. Because of the low uptake, the gps at our practice were paid a bonus by the government for every patient they vaxxed. When I refused to have DS vaxxed at his 6 week check up, said doctor locked the door on our room and lectured me for 30 minutes straight. I threatened harassment charges and we left.
At 13 months DS caught rubella from a child who'd been recently vaxxed with MMR. I took him to the practice for a diagnosis as me and DH were TTC at the time and obviously that wouldn't be a good idea if DS had rubella. Unfortunately the emergency gp was that same doctor - well, he really had it in for me now. Refused to accept that DS had caught rubella from a vaxxed child, said I was socially and morally corrupt and threatened Social Services involvement if I didn't vaccinate DS. We left, changed gps and I reported him to the General Medical Council for bullying and intimidation but they refused to bring a case against him because he was totally in line with government and National Health Service Policy.
08-23-2014 06:23 PM
Deborah Good points, Mamakay. It seems quite likely, in fact, that a significant number of mumps cases in children under 12 or so are missed altogether, as it can be extremely mild. A day of fever? Slightly swollen glands? Nope, very unlikely that any of that would be recognized as mumps. Even if mumps is going around.
08-23-2014 05:05 PM
mamakay For those saying 60-something % is better than nothing, that would be true for a disease like tetanus (not transmissible) or whooping cough (most dangerous in infants). The problem with mumps is this:

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/co...ns_answers/en/

Quote:
For example, insufficient childhood mumps vaccination coverage (below 80%) may result in an undesirable epidemiological shift in the incidence of mumps to older age groups.
A vaccine with a 60-something % effectiveness rate will do the exact same thing as low levels of vaccine coverage in that respect. In fact, that's what we've seen in the US. We also don't know the true incidence rate of mumps in recent years, because doctors don't usually test for it or even suspect it in the vaccinated, and many cases are asymptomatic (even in the unvaccinated) or appear to be a normal viral cold (no jaw/throat or testicular swelling.)
08-13-2014 10:46 PM
OrmEmbar Still no "like" button on MDC's mobile version so I'm sending my likes in an old fashioned post: like like like like like!
Sending warm fuzzies to y'all.
: )
08-13-2014 10:11 PM
applejuice Measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, pertussis and flu survivor here.

No hospital or doctor made any money off of me or my siblings having these diseases, AND they never made any money off of us with vaccines either.

Quote:
What cannot be treated (so far) are the autoimmune disorders that are skyrocketing--and those may cause predisposition to complications to vaccines AND to viruses.
These conditions are being treated, analyzed, studied, researched, and "therapied" to death by "experts" at great expense to insurance companies, school districts, and to families who have endured them.
08-13-2014 08:42 PM
Deborah Those Brits just don't understand the necessity of vaxing against every possible childhood illness. If the MMR hadn't been put together they would probably still be using the single vaccines. Retrograde!
08-13-2014 08:31 PM
Mirzam Another mumps survivor here. I felt a tiny bit rough, but had my brother not had mumps at the same time (he always got things worse than I did), I don't think anyone would have known I even had it.

The UK health authorities didn't see the need for the mumps vaccine. The British Medical Association (‘BMA’) and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) descrived the mumps vaccination as "clinically inappropriate".

Quote:
Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine. British National Formulary (‘BNF’) 1985 and 1986
08-13-2014 08:27 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Treating the complications from mumps.

Mumps is a virus, so there is no "cure" or treatment. Just like there is no cure or treatment for measles since it is a virus. You can however treat complications from measles, like pneumonia.
You can treat complications from measles--but measles in healthy children with no underlying health issues rarely results in complications.

What cannot be treated (so far) are the autoimmune disorders that are skyrocketing--and those may cause predisposition to complications to vaccines AND to viruses.
08-13-2014 08:08 PM
Deborah I had mumps, too. No swelling. Probably about 24 hours of fever. I don't think I missed more than two days of school.

But okay, pharma would make more money out of treating the complications. Got it.

Poor pharma, losing money on every single vaccine they manufacture. Hard to believe they haven't rebelled at the continual drain on their income.

But, I think I've figured it out...the entire anti-vaccine movement is a pharma front-group, an astro-turf group, to get pharma out from under the burden of producing vaccines so they can go back to the days of really big bucks from treating the complications of mumps.

08-13-2014 07:04 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
Really? Please tell us exactly how Big Pharma would treat mumps, and what that might cost.

My understanding is that, like most viruses, you treat with rest and fluids.

Hey, look, medicine.net says, "The mainstay of therapy (regardless of age range) is to provide comfort for this self-limited disease."

Oh, my goodness, the CDC says, "Currently, there is no specific treatment for mumps. Supportive care should be given as needed."

So, teacozy, what is this expensive treatment for mumps?
Treating the complications from mumps.

Mumps is a virus, so there is no "cure" or treatment. Just like there is no cure or treatment for measles since it is a virus. You can however treat complications from measles, like pneumonia.
08-13-2014 06:56 PM
emmy526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
Really? Please tell us exactly how Big Pharma would treat mumps, and what that might cost.

My understanding is that, like most viruses, you treat with rest and fluids.

Hey, look, medicine.net says, "The mainstay of therapy (regardless of age range) is to provide comfort for this self-limited disease."

Oh, my goodness, the CDC says, "Currently, there is no specific treatment for mumps. Supportive care should be given as needed."

So, teacozy, what is this expensive treatment for mumps?
the 'treatment' i remember receiving was being waited on hand n foot, getting to watch tv, and the most expensive part was probably my father buying me toys to keep me amused.
08-13-2014 06:24 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Big pharma would make a lot more money treating mumps than they would giving a person a lifetime of two doses of a relatively cheap and inexpensive vaccine.
Really? Please tell us exactly how Big Pharma would treat mumps, and what that might cost.

My understanding is that, like most viruses, you treat with rest and fluids.

Hey, look, medicine.net says, "The mainstay of therapy (regardless of age range) is to provide comfort for this self-limited disease."

Oh, my goodness, the CDC says, "Currently, there is no specific treatment for mumps. Supportive care should be given as needed."

So, teacozy, what is this expensive treatment for mumps?
08-13-2014 05:20 PM
Deborah http://www.webmd.com/ovarian-cancer/...an-cancer-risk

For quite a number of years women were told that hormone replacement therapy was good, and reasonably safe and only crazy women turned it down.

As one of those crazy women I'm feeling relieved that by enduring hot flashes I may have successfully dodged chemotherapy. I certainly didn't get any support from mainstream medical practitioners back when I was saying no thanks.
08-13-2014 04:48 PM
samaxtics If having mumps provides a protective effect against ovarian cancer and if I had daughters, I would want them to have the mumps.

It frightens me to the core thinking about how much the medical community doesn't know about the human body and what problems they can be creating with such short term thinking.

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off