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)
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.

08-13-2014 02:24 PM
Deborah Continued outbreaks of mumps in vaccinated populations is evidence that the vaccine doesn't work well.

Published science discussing vaccine failure is evidence that the vaccine doesn't work well.

A whistleblower lawsuit is evidence that the vaccine doesn't work well.

How about a balanced consideration of the evidence?
08-13-2014 01:26 PM
beckybird If anything should be censored on this site, it should be that daggone seatbelt analogy!!! So tired of that one!!
08-13-2014 11:12 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
"May have" and "possibly" is not evidence that vaccine immunity is waning.
It is evidence the idea is on the table.
08-13-2014 11:11 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Not true.

Seat belts can have a negative effect (kill a person) and are also not anywhere near 100% effective in preventing death or injury, but that doesn't make them useless.

Antibiotics that are not 100% effective are not useless just because they can also have negative side effects.
Did I say vaccines were worthless? I did not.

However, when a drug efficacy is low, you need to weigh efficacy more closely againsts its risks and benefits.

Imagine they have found a cure for the common cold.

The drug is 95% effective, but will cause you to have a moderately high fever and vomit for 1 day. After that the cold poofs!

Now, consider this:

The drug is 10% effective, but will cause you to have a moderately high fever and vomit for 1 day. After that the cold poofs!

I can see people going for it if the efficacy is 95%. I see much fewer people going for it if the efficacy is 10%. Efficacy matter when weighing risks and benefits.
08-13-2014 11:04 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Now you have:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ty-mmr-vaccine

"Government advisers on vaccination have been monitoring the mumps part of the vaccine for some time. In January last year they noted that "a significant proportion" of infections were occurring in young people who had had jabs and that "it may be reasonable to assume that protection from infection falls to around 60% after 10-15-years."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64410X14008706

"Incomplete protection by two doses of mumps-containing vaccine, possible waning immunity and intense social contacts may have contributed to the occurrence of this outbreak in Flanders. Efforts to maintain high vaccination coverage with two doses remain essential. However, the reasons for low vaccine effectiveness must be further explored and additional immunological research for more immunogenic mumps vaccines is necessary."

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/4/13-1681_article

Most cases occurred in persons who had received 2 doses of MMR, which suggests inadequate effectiveness of the vaccine. Recent studies indicate the effectiveness of MMR against mumps is moderate and lower than the clinical efficacy estimates (1,18). Postlicensure studies of 2 doses (Jeryl-Lynn strain) of MMR have provided a median VE estimate of 88% (range 79%–95%) (2). A recent study of an outbreak of mumps at a student party in the Netherlands estimated a VE of 68% for 2 doses of MMR (6). …. The possible causes for lower than expected VE include secondary vaccine failure (waning immunity), intense exposure to high virus inoculum, and a possible mismatch between the vaccine genotype and circulating strains (1,2,18,20)…"

Now, you might say that is not enough evidence, but "waning immunity" is a viable hypothesis and backed up by some in the field.
"May have" and "possibly" is not evidence that vaccine immunity is waning.
08-13-2014 11:02 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
That would only hold true if an operation (in this case - a vaccine) has no negative side effects.
Not true.

Seat belts can have a negative effect (kill a person) and are also not anywhere near 100% effective in preventing death or injury, but that doesn't make them useless.

Antibiotics that are not 100% effective are not useless just because they can also have negative side effects.
08-13-2014 10:58 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

I have not seen any evidence that the vaccine immunity is waning, only that it is not as effective as other portions of the MMR vaccine. Those are two different things.
Now you have:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ty-mmr-vaccine

"Government advisers on vaccination have been monitoring the mumps part of the vaccine for some time. In January last year they noted that "a significant proportion" of infections were occurring in young people who had had jabs and that "it may be reasonable to assume that protection from infection falls to around 60% after 10-15-years."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64410X14008706

"Incomplete protection by two doses of mumps-containing vaccine, possible waning immunity and intense social contacts may have contributed to the occurrence of this outbreak in Flanders. Efforts to maintain high vaccination coverage with two doses remain essential. However, the reasons for low vaccine effectiveness must be further explored and additional immunological research for more immunogenic mumps vaccines is necessary."

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/4/13-1681_article

Most cases occurred in persons who had received 2 doses of MMR, which suggests inadequate effectiveness of the vaccine. Recent studies indicate the effectiveness of MMR against mumps is moderate and lower than the clinical efficacy estimates (1,18). Postlicensure studies of 2 doses (Jeryl-Lynn strain) of MMR have provided a median VE estimate of 88% (range 79%–95%) (2). A recent study of an outbreak of mumps at a student party in the Netherlands estimated a VE of 68% for 2 doses of MMR (6). …. The possible causes for lower than expected VE include secondary vaccine failure (waning immunity), intense exposure to high virus inoculum, and a possible mismatch between the vaccine genotype and circulating strains (1,2,18,20)…"

Now, you might say that is not enough evidence, but "waning immunity" is a viable hypothesis and backed up by some in the field.
08-13-2014 10:42 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I

This idea that if something doesn't work perfectly it's useless is known as the Nirvana Fallacy.
That would only hold true if an operation (in this case - a vaccine) has no negative side effects. If the vaccine is 100% safe, then even very, very low efficacy would not change whether a vaccine was worthwhile. If there are no side effects, then even a lousy 10% efficacy (especially if you are at the doctors anyways) might be worth it.

As that is not the case with any vaccine, but especially MMR, efficacy does come into play.
08-13-2014 10:24 AM
Deborah Make money treating mumps? In children?

Ah well, no use discussing this further.
08-13-2014 10:19 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Considering that undergoing mumps in childhood is almost never serious. Consider that undergoing mumps in childhood provides lifelong immunity for most people. Consider that the vaccine does not provide lifelong immunity. Consider that getting mumps as a teen or adult is, although rarely dangerous, painful and unpleasant.

This vaccine has always been borderline. The illness is one that is only called serious because there is a vaccine.

consider, finally, that the vaccine manufacturer MAKES MONEY out of vaccine failure, because every outbreak leads to additional doses of the vaccine being administered. What a great system.
Mumps is still a lot more dangerous than the vaccine.

The vaccine is a live virus vaccine and is also thought to provide lifelong immunity. I have not seen any evidence that the vaccine immunity is waning, only that it is not as effective as other portions of the MMR vaccine. Those are two different things.

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.
08-13-2014 10:09 AM
Deborah
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I hope people still would. I sure as heck would.

Even 70-80 percent effective is much better than not getting the vaccine at all.

This idea that if something doesn't work perfectly it's useless is known as the Nirvana Fallacy.

Remember that the incidence of mumps has gone down by 99% since the vaccine. That is far from useless.
Considering that undergoing mumps in childhood is almost never serious. Consider that undergoing mumps in childhood provides lifelong immunity for most people. Consider that the vaccine does not provide lifelong immunity. Consider that getting mumps as a teen or adult is, although rarely dangerous, painful and unpleasant.

This vaccine has always been borderline. The illness is one that is only called serious because there is a vaccine.

consider, finally, that the vaccine manufacturer MAKES MONEY out of vaccine failure, because every outbreak leads to additional doses of the vaccine being administered. What a great system.
08-13-2014 09:38 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by beckybird View Post
Too bad the MMR isn't separated, so people could choose. I wonder, would you get the mumps portion if it were separate, especially with these allegations against Merck?
I hope people still would. I sure as heck would.

Even 70-80 percent effective is much better than not getting the vaccine at all.

This idea that if something doesn't work perfectly it's useless is known as the Nirvana Fallacy.

Remember that the incidence of mumps has gone down by 99% since the vaccine. That is far from useless.
08-13-2014 09:24 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
The CDC lists the effectiveness of the mumps portion of the vaccine well below that of the measles portion. That's not a secret or hidden or covered up, it's right on their website.

"Two doses of mumps vaccine are 88% (range: 66-95%) effective at preventing the disease; one dose is 78% (range: 49%−92%) effective."

http://www.cdc.gov/mumps/vaccination.html

.
If you look at the parent hand-out for mumps, the VIS, it does not mention effectiveness at all! If you google "how effective is MMR?" the CDC says this:

"How effective is MMR vaccine?

"More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all 3 viruses. A second vaccine dose gives immunity to almost all of those who did not respond to the first dose."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/...-vac-risks.htm

The CDC needs to get its story straight.

I wonder if those outside vaccine warland know mumps efficacy rate? Probably not - but they should!

As an aside, and I am not going to back it up now (later, perhaps) but I suspect current estimates have the mumps portion of the vaccine sitting in the high 60's for efficacy. 88% according to your cdc link and 95% plus according to mine seems to be overstating the case by quite a bit.
08-13-2014 09:22 AM
beckybird Too bad the MMR isn't separated, so people could choose. I wonder, would you get the mumps portion if it were separate, especially with these allegations against Merck?
08-13-2014 09:08 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I'm bumping this up, because I find it curious that there have been many more cases of mumps than measles in the US, but lately we just hear about measles and mumps is rarely mentioned.

I'm wondering if the emphasis on measles is because mentioning mumps allows people to mention the whistleblower case.
The CDC lists the effectiveness of the mumps portion of the vaccine well below that of the measles portion. That's not a secret or hidden or covered up, it's right on their website.

"Two doses of mumps vaccine are 88% (range: 66-95%) effective at preventing the disease; one dose is 78% (range: 49%−92%) effective."

http://www.cdc.gov/mumps/vaccination.html

It doesn't get the kind of coverage that measles does because it's not as scary of a disease. Complications and death statistics from mumps pale in comparison to that of measles.
08-13-2014 08:48 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post

I'm wondering if the emphasis on measles is because mentioning mumps allows people to mention the whistleblower case.
I don't think so - but I could be wrong.

To a small degree, I think measles is mentioned more often because more people are scared of it than mumps (save for post pubescent males)

To a much larger degree, I think mumps outbreaks are not mentioned because mumps outbreaks are largely due to vaccine failure. They don't want that getting out

A whistleblower suit with mumps is not that damning, unfortunately. Corporations are always in trouble for one wrong-doing or another. For the most part, it is just background noise.
08-12-2014 07:44 PM
Deborah I'm bumping this up, because I find it curious that there have been many more cases of mumps than measles in the US, but lately we just hear about measles and mumps is rarely mentioned.

I'm wondering if the emphasis on measles is because mentioning mumps allows people to mention the whistleblower case.
06-27-2014 05:49 PM
Deborah It took a lot of years to make it to court.

I think somewhere in the docs (can't remember where), Merck dumps on the whistleblowers for being so slow to bring the case and BLAMES the whistleblowers for the outbreaks of mumps.
06-26-2014 10:21 PM
Turquesa I'm actually surprised that this is making it to court. I thought that something like this would be settled with a gag order in a corporate boardroom...
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