Research by Maddalena Cirignotta Daley
Here are a few documents that make it hard to ever trust the vaccine program again. These government docs are extremely long and a bit tedious so I included page numbers to speed up the research process. Evidence of CDC corruption undermines trust in CDC recommendations.
The findings (pages 16-21) of this Office of Inspector General report are particularly concerning.
This Majority Staff Report from the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives outlines numerous conflicts of interest. (P10 and P15 -20)
The United States Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management details many unethical behaviors. (Page 3) paints an unfavorable picture of CDC.
In addition, a group of 12 CDC whistle blowers called CDC Spider (CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research) has come forward alleging pervasive unethical conduct within the highest levels of the agency.
The highly censored documentary Vaxxed outlines allegations by Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the CDC who has provided evidence of data destruction and manipulation of the CDC’s 2004 article published in the journal of pediatrics regarding timing of MMR vaccine and autism outcome.
Pharmaceutical companies place profits above public health:
The United States government is in litigation against Merck for fraud regarding the efficacy of the mumps component of the MMR vaccine.
Furthermore, U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II has ruled to proceed with the case, “Plaintiffs have argued sufficient facts to sustain a claim for proximate causation”
Many pharmaceutical companies have been fined millions or even billions of dollars for knowingly injuring or killing people with deadly products such as Viox.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 shields vaccine manufacturers from liability for vaccine related injury or death effectively removing torte law in regards to vaccine safety.
A Pennsylvania federal judge agreed to hear a majority of the claims against Merck & Co. in a qui tam lawsuit and related antitrust putative class action case. U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion Friday in the two related lawsuits: United States v. Merck & Co. and Chatom Primary Care v. Merck & Co.
Two of Merck’s former virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, acting as relators, brought up claims against under the False Claims Act against Merck, the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine, according to the Legal Intelligencer. The two alleged that Merck became the only FDA approved company to manufacture a version of the MMR vaccine by falsifying efficacy results. Merck claimed the MMR vaccine had a 95 percent efficacy rate.
The putative class action lawsuit alleges “manipulation and misrepresentation” of the MMR vaccine’s efficacy and claimed the fraud allowed for Merck to maintain a monopoly on the market. Merck asked the judge to dismiss both actions, but he found that relators can plead a fraud-on-the-FDA theory through a False Claims Act lawsuit. The motions to dismiss were mostly denied.
The judge dismissed some of the state law claims in the class action suit.
The judge sustained the Sherman Act claim. The judge said that it was a “slightly novel theory of liability,” but that there was a basis for an antitrust claim there and he would hear the arguments against the vaccine manufacturer.
“Plaintiffs have argued sufficient facts to sustain a claim for proximate causation, detailing the significant barriers that other companies would face to enter the mumps vaccine market,” Judge Jones said.
Merck argued that the “95 percent efficacy” claim is a labeling issue that is between Merck and the FDA. Merck suggested that the label’s claim can not be disputed through a False Claims Act suit. The judge disagreed with Merck and agreed to hear the claims against Merck in the qui tam suit.
“Relators allege that [Merck] consistently and deliberately withheld pertinent information as to the safety and efficacy of a medication from the government,” Jones said. “It is this alleged omission that is the grounds for FCA liability.”
The judge said that the relators showed that there was enough information about the MMR vaccine that was not reported to the government, and that if the information had been made available, the government might not have purchased the vaccines from Merck, according to Law360.
Between the lawsuits and the CDC Whistleblower, it’s been a rough summer for Merck and the MMR vaccine.
[Photo by Danny Ayers]