Fraud in Vaccine Effectiveness: Mumps Whistleblowers

Updated: Jan 30

Chapter 3: Article 7

What if scientific truths are hidden from common public knowledge, using censorship, as well as illegal and fraudulent tactics.

The previous article quoted Cochrane, a highly respected and independent research group. They stated, "Conclusions favourable to the use of influenza vaccines were associated with a higher risk of bias. In these studies, the authors made claims and drew conclusions that were unsupported by the data they presented."

Why would the study authors lie?

So far in this book, the articles have explained how scientific truths are spun, distorted and magnified. The intent of vaccine messaging is to make vaccination appear incredible and life saving. Remember what FDA stated in their meeting minutes from 1984: 

…any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives.

The only way to ensure doubts don't exist and maximum use is achieved, is to broadcast and exaggerate successes, spin and downplay problems, and censor damaging information.

So let's touch on one of those censored pieces of information.

Two scientists came forward in 2010 alleging that they (and other staff) were forced by Merck to fraudulently manipulate the data for the mumps portion of the MMR and Proquad vaccines, to show a level of effectiveness that didn’t actually exist. The whistleblowers have filed lawsuit against Merck, on behalf of the USA, and the case is ongoing within the US court system.

For 10 years now this case has been active in the USA court system. Ten years! And yet you've NEVER heard about it through media. Think about that!

To provide you a summary from the court documents, the scientists explain that the FDA requires a 95% effectiveness rate for the mumps vaccine (mumps is a component within the MMR and Proquad combo vaccines). A threshold of 95% efficacy means that 95% of people vaccinated will develop adequate antibody levels. Remember that doesn't mean 95% will be immune to the illness if exposed, it simply means that 95% of people vaccinated will have antibodies in their body. The FDA insists on such a high efficacy rate because short of that, there remains a real risk of continued mumps outbreaks. When mumps outbreaks occur in a VACCINATED population, the illness often affects the older children. Adolescents and adults are the groups at greatest risk of developing complications from mumps, complications like infertility, and several recent outbreaks have affected this population. In contrast, outbreaks of mumps in the unvaccinated population usually occur in the pre-pubescent age groups who are then spared the risk of infertility.

The MMR vaccine was created in 1967, and back then it met the 95% efficacy threshold for producing antibodies. But since that time, the vaccine itself has been used to produce more vaccine. Creating vaccine by using the vaccine itself, further attenuates (weakens) the vaccine. Over the decades, the vaccine has been used to manufacture hundreds of millions of doses, and so the vaccine has weakened considerably over the years.

The whistleblowers state that in 1997, the FDA required Merck to again prove that their vaccine met the 95% threshold. Merck knew that the vaccine had weakened considerably and would no longer meet that threshold. As a result, Merck management decided that rather than produce a new vaccine to meet the 95% efficacy threshold, they would instead direct staff to manipulate the testing procedures and falsify the test results, to show an efficacy that didn’t actually exist. Management initially directed staff to measure efficacy of the vaccine against VACCINE STRAIN mumps virus, rather than the wild strain mumps virus which would actually be encountered in real life. Even with this deviation, the vaccine could only attain a 79.5% effectiveness rate, more than 15 percent shy of the 95% threshold. Merck management then directed staff to manipulate the testing again, by adding rabbit antibodies to BOTH pre-vaccination and post vaccination samples, again in hopes that they could make the vaccine appear to meet the 95% threshold.

The addition of the rabbit antibodies had the desired effect, but because the rabbit antibodies were added to the pre-vaccination samples as well, it made the pre-vaccination samples attain antibody levels also. Obviously, if the pre-vaccination samples had antibodies, that would reveal the testing procedure itself as flawed. So from there, Merck management directed staff to falsify the pre-vaccination samples, so that the pre-vaccination/post vaccination data would differ appropriately, the testing procedure would appear valid, and the vaccine would appear effective.

From the outset, Merck’s objective was not to measure actual vaccine efficacy, but to come up with a methodology that would yield a minimum 95% threshold, regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy.

In an interview, Dr. Suzanne Humphries has stated that in 2005, the mumps vaccine was tested again, and at that time it was shown to be only 69% effective. Recognizing that 15 more years have passed since then, and recognizing that during this time the vaccine has continued to be used to make more vaccine, that means that the vaccine effectiveness today is likely less than 69%. If the whistleblower allegations are true, Merck committed scientific fraud to maintain the monopoly that they've had on the mumps vaccine. Merck disregarded health and safety of the US public (and global population) to ensure continuance of their multimillion-dollar annual MMR/Proquad profits.

Though the original "mumps eradication" forecast was projected for the year 2006, there have been a number of mumps outbreaks in the past several years, which is to be expected given the vaccine is ineffective and vaccine induced antibody levels begin waning after 5 years. Although the whilstleblowers state that the vaccine is not providing an adequate level of protection, in mainstream media reporting, the only information you hear during all these outbreaks is that the vaccine is effective, and to protect yourself you must get vaccinated. Media almost never makes any mention of the mumps whistleblowers, or the ongoing legal proceedings. For 10 years, the whistleblower's lawsuit has been working it's way through the US court system, and yet you've never heard anything about it through mainstream media. This is censorship and propaganda in action.

CONTINUE to the next post here: Ch4: Article 1

Article Sources

  • Court Document –USA vs Merck Here

  • 2014 Huffington Post Article - The Merck Whistleblowers Here

  • Another Article on the Allegations Here

  • Credentials of Dr. Suzanne Humphries Here - bio from the 1:27 - 5:00 minute mark

  • Interview with Dr. Suzanne Humphries Here

  • Mainstream Media Reporting on the Mumps Outbreaks in 2016/2017: Here, here,herehere, here here and here

72 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Vaccines Work! But What Does That Mean?

Chapter 3: Article 2 If clinical testing shows a vaccine produces antibodies, it's deemed "Effective!" What’s lacking in that study though is a measurement of duration. How long does the body retain t

Measles: Contradictory Government Statistics

Chapter 3: Article 3 It is a common belief that robust life lasting immunity results from antibodies, antibodies derived from either the vaccine or illness convalescence. But what if antibodies aren't

Waning Vaccine Immunity - Measles & Mumps

Chapter 3: Article 4 Today, when people say "Vaccines work!" they believe that means "Vaccines create Immunity!" or herd immunity, etc. Those phrases have been used so often, interchangeably, and the 

  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Black Facebook Icon
  • Black YouTube Icon