In essence, society’s attention has become focused on vaccination, focused solely on this health treatment. But TREATMENT is not what creates health, treatment is what changes or manages a persons’ symptoms of poor health. Instead of focusing solely on the treatment, there needs to be a shift. We need to evaluate the treatment in the context of the whole - what is working about the treatment? What needs improving? What is failing completely? How does the treatment affect evolution of the species? And how can health be supported moving forward so that the treatment is no longer needed?
United States

May 18, 2018

March 30, 2017

Please reload

Recent Posts

Table of Contents

May 18, 2018

Please reload

Featured Posts

The Pharmaceutical Reach: Part 7 of 14 - Scientific Research Corruption


Feel free to jump to the heading "Safety Net #3" below, everything stated until then is a repeat of what was written on the first post.


When it comes to products that are available for purchase, there are many safety nets that are established, to protect consumers from dangerous products, and to ensure that products are designed, manufactured, and distributed in such a way that potential harms can be more easily minimized, and/or identified more quickly once in distribution. Unfortunately, there are shortcomings in many of these consumer safety nets, or industry has found a way to bypass some of those protective measures. As a result, unsafe products continue to be made and distributed widely. What’s more unique to vaccines though, is that every single safety net that was established to protect people and ensure product safety, all those protective measures have actually all been neutralized by the pharmaceutical industry. This neutralization has happened either by direct financial funding from pharma, or indirectly through Governmental conflicts of interest that affect internal policy, bureaucracy, and legislation. But before explaining how the consumer protective safety nets have been neutralized when it comes to vaccines, I’ll first list what those protective measures were, or should be. (Bolding in the list below denotes which topic point will be discussed in this article).


The consumer safety nets for vaccine products are:

  1. Government and our political leaders who represent the people

  2. Federal agencies that oversee vaccine regulation, research, safety, and distribution: These agencies include: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), The Institute of Medicine (IOM). Yes, these agencies are all based in the United States, however their policies are often adopted on a global scale.

  3. Scientific research and medical journals

  4. Our doctors and the institutions where they are educated and employed

  5. VAERS

  6. The media

  7. The legal system

Safety Net #3: Scientific Research and the Medical Journals

In this post, we will be discussing how scientific research plays a role in protecting the public, and how scientific research has been compromised by pharmaceutical financial influence.


This post speaks specifically to three whistleblower cases, which show how both pharma and Government commit scientific fraud, to hide from public knowledge unpleasant and

dangerous drug and vaccine side effects.


The FDA Whistleblower (Interview Here)

David Graham (a senior scientist within the FDA, and the FDA whistleblower) testified to congress that the FDA does not act to protect the public, instead, the FDA acts to protect industry. His testimony helped prove that the clinical trials conducted by the manufacturer Merck, for their drug Vioxx, showed that Vioxx was actually causing heart attacks and deaths. After Merck became aware of the harm, they manipulated the interpretation of the data, to conclude that Vioxx was not causing harm. They submitted this data to the FDA, and Graham, the senior scientist who was reviewing their application, didn't believe their conclusion. Graham approached his superiors with his suspicions that Vioxx was causing heart attacks. The FDA response to Graham was that he was expected to approve the drug Vioxx, and not stand in the way of way of industry profits. As a result, Merck continued to market and sell Vioxx to the maximum extent possible, for years.  Approximately 60,000 Americans died from the drug Vioxx, which is as many American's who were killed during the Vietnam war. Graham’s testimony helped prove that the FDA’s internal mindset and bureaucracy, in fact helped Merck contribute to the heart attacks and deaths being caused by this drug.


In 2007 Merck agreed to settle the 27,000 lawsuits which represented 47,000 sets of plaintiffs. They settled on paying the plaintiffs $4.85 billion, which works out to approximately $100,000 per plaintiff, before legal fees and expenses.


The Mumps Whistleblowers (Court Documents Here)

Two virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, who were formerly employed by Merck, have filed lawsuit on behalf of the US Government, against Merck. The virologists accuse Merck of threatening them and forcing them to conduct scientific fraud. They allege that they were forced to manipulate and falsify data in the clinical testing of the mumps portion of the MMR and Proquad vaccines. The virologists state that their superiors at Merck approached the clinical testing for the mumps vaccine, with the intent to show the vaccine was 95% effective, when it wasn't. When Merck was able to manipulate and falsify the data adequately, to make the vaccine appear 95% effective when it wasn’t, Merck then submitted that clinical testing data to the FDA, for approval and licensure. Based on the false data submitted, the FDA approved the vaccine for use.


As you've likely heard through media, there have been several mumps outbreaks in recent years. In that news reporting, you often hear that the only effective measure of protection against mumps is to get vaccinated. Media rarely reports that Merck has been accused of committing scientific fraud, or that the vaccine likely does not meet a 95% effective threshold, as is required by the FDA. 


The legal case against Merck began in 2010, and  is still ongoing in the US court system.


The CDC Whistleblower  (Watch the Documentary Here)

Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist employed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), came forward in 2014 stating that the safety research published ten years prior, in 2004, regarding the timing of administration of MMR, was fraudulently manipulated by the CDC. He states that he and his four fellow co-authors were required to falsify and destroy data, under direction from the CDC, to show safety for MMR vaccine when the original data showed that administration of the vaccine prior to 36 months of age is associated with causing autism.


Continue to the next post in this series: Here


More discussion about the FDA Whistleblower in Safety & Efficacy - Part 2


More discussion about he Mumps Whistleblowers in Safety & Efficacy - Part 8


More discussion about the CDC Whistleblower in Safety & Efficacy - Part 14


You are currently on Part 6 of a 14 Part Series.

View a Post in the Series Using the Links Below:

Part 1: Consumer Safety Nets Here

Part 2: HHS

Part 3: The FDA Here 

Part 4: The CDC Here 

Part 5: The DHHS & IOM Here 

Part 6: Scientific Research Here 

Part 7: Scientific Research Corruption (You are on this page)

Part 8: The Medical Journals Here 

Part 9: Our Doctors Here 

Part 10: Doctors Responsibility Here 

Part 11: Medical Institutions Here 

Part 12: VAERS Here 

Part 13: The Media Here 

Part 14: The Legal System Here 


Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us
Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square