This is a legal filing by former Merck virologists who claim they were pressured by Merck management to participate in fraud by falsifying Merck's mumps vaccine efficacy rate in clinical trials. This filing claims that the mumps vaccine efficacy rate is significantly lower than the 95% that Merck has misrepresented to the government and the public. The mumps vaccine is a component of MMR. – The Refusers
Dominant Social Theme: Big Pharma has your best interests at heart.
Free-Market Analysis: With the Supreme Court's decision to validate major parts of "Obamacare," the paradigm of Western medicine is more firmly enshrined than ever, and thus the behavior of its component parts is even more important.
What has happened under the current system is that certain drugs are enshrined as "approved" medical treatments and assigned various prices the government will pay. But what if the drugs themselves are not actually efficacious or have considerable side effects?
Many pharmaceutical drugs actually may have side effects and certainly in the case of pharmaceutical giant Merck there are major questions as to the viability of some of the drugs it markets and the conditions under which regulatory conclusions were delivered.
Now Merck is reportedly involved in another tranche of litigation – aimed at the company's falsifying of vaccine data. It seems to be a significant lawsuit and may be worse than the last big case that involved Merck's horrible drug Vioxx.
Former Merck virologists filed this lawsuit, recently unsealed, claiming they had basically been forced to participate in fraud by falsifying Merck's mumps vaccine efficacy rate in clinical trials.
Commentary on the filing was posted at The Refusers website, along with the entire filing itself. The post notes that the mumps vaccine efficacy rate is "significantly lower than the 95% that Merck has misrepresented to the government and the public." Merck denies the charges.
What this may portend, were the charges to be found true, is that the vaccine's efficacy may fall below the threshold at which herd immunity is produced. This would lead to one of two possible conclusions: Either more children are at risk for mumps given the potential ineffectiveness of the vaccine, or vaccines such as this one don't make a substantial difference, anway.
The Vioxx promotion was especially horrible. While Merck executives managed to escape being personally accountable, there is little doubt that the flawed and deadly nature of the drug was known in advance of its public presentation. Here's an "AllGov" summary of the Vioxx troubles and subsequent litigation:
Despite knowing that Vioxx was potentially lethal, Merck put it on the market in 1999. Although a Food and Drug Administration study showed that perhaps 55,000 Americans died from heart attacks and strokes after using Vioxx, other sources indicated that upwards of 500,000 people—almost all of them older adults—may have died from the drug, which produced lawsuit after lawsuit against Merck. The company wound up settling for $4.85 billion …
Lawyer Peter Gordon, called the decision "a victory for justice," and added that Merck displayed absolute contempt for Australians when the drugmaker failed to include them in a US settlement. Merck … made no admission of guilt and was also criticized in the UK.
The issues are, of course, much bigger than any one case. Thanks to increasing availability of electronic information, what we call the Internet Reformation, more and more people are skeptical about pharmaceutical drugs in general. In the meantime, homeopathy, acupuncture and naturopathy are making inroads. The idea that one can treat a disease by disguising or attacking the symptoms is being increasingly questioned.
The vaccine issue is especially important. We've written numerous articles on the issue as we began to discover that at least for some, there seemed to be manifold side-effects as regards vaccines. Just Google "Dr. Andrew Wakefield" and "Daily Bell" for more on the issue.
It turns out that vaccines, at least in the past, may not have been fully vetted for efficacy for ethical reasons, supposedly. Meanwhile, there is a significant and evolving 'Net-based literature on problems that people have undergone from receiving vaccines, especially children.
Dr. Wakefield was pilloried for making an indirect linkage between vaccines and austism, (and ultimately lost his medical ilcense) but there certainly seems to be evidence along these lines no matter how Big Pharma attempts to conceal it.
What is clear to anyone who studies the issue with an open mind is that Big Pharma is an exceptionally important element of the power elite's world-spanning agenda. Pharmaceutical medicines are defended aggressively no matter how many problems they cause. The elites are surely determined to control every life-supporting resource, food, water, energy, etc. Medicines are an important part of the strategy.
It must be what we call a power elite dominant social theme, the idea that only pharmaceutical mediciines can effectively confront modern sicknesses. In fact, the whole concept of developing synthetic cures from natural sources such as the Amazon jungle is likely flawed.
When one creates synthetic substances to take the place of natural ones, trouble is surely in the offing. It is done because natural plants are not patentable. Thus the difficulties of the pharmaceutical industry are introduced by the necessity of making the sector, in aggregate, a going concern.
Because so many hundreds of billions – trillions of dollars – are at stake, the industry aggressively defends itself and has a history of threatening whistleblowers and others who would confront unethical practices. Yet from what we can tell, potential falsification of results of drugs that do not provide the requisite results may be a kind of business-as-usual.
Merck, as one of the biggest pharma conglomerates, is also one of the most aggressive. Another Big Pharma entity, Roche, has been investigated fairly recently for by the European Medicines Agency for ignoring 80,000 adverse reactions, including 15,161 deaths.
Nationalizing health care, as Obamacare does, will not change the fundamental realities of Western medicine – realities that are increasingly disturbing.