Bombshell pharma revelation as details emerge about former Merck president’s involvement in human biowarfare programs

Image: Bombshell pharma revelation as details emerge about former Merck president’s involvement in human biowarfare programs
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
May 7, 2017

Merck may as well be a household name; the corporation is one of the world’s largest pharma companies and is known for manufacturing a variety of vaccines. Some of their products have garnered a lot of bad press lately, due to the damage they’ve done to people across the world. Their HPV vaccine has been particularly problematic, and has even caused some young women to become paralyzed. The company is also known for producing the MMR vaccine, which we all know has been the subject of many controversies.

To put it simply, Merck is a major pharmaceutical company that has produced products which have had a negative effect on many people’s lives. But is there an even darker secret that Merck is hiding?

A recent report has revealed that the pharmaceutical company we all love to hate may have deep ties to biological warfare. As Cassius Methyl writes for Waking Times, “Merck & Co. is not to be confused with the German ‘Merck KGaA,’ but they both originate from the original German Merck. Merck was founded in 1668, in Germany.” A U.S. division was founded in New York by 1887, thanks to George Merck. It was called Merck & Co. In 1891, George Merck had moved to New York as well.

Merck & Co was seized by the U.S. government in 1917 as the country entered WWI — after the federal government announced that companies with ties to Germany would be overtaken. However, George Merck and his partners formed the “McKenna Corporation,” and managed to buy their company back when it was put up for auction in 1919. From then on, it is thought that the company severed all its ties to Germany, and made great efforts to remain on the American side of the war. In 1925, George Merck passed the company on to his son, George W. Merck. And this is when the company started to take a more sinister turn.

George W. Merck ruled the corporation for 25 years and was president of Merck during the years of WWII — and he was a leader in the United States’ biological warfare program during the same time frame. Merck was the appointed head of the War Research Service. Reports indicate that the United States’ biological warfare “headquarters,” Fort Detrick, was constructed in the small town of Frederick, Maryland. The facility is said to have had “top secret” plants to engage in open-air testing of biological agents on the unsuspecting American people.

As sources report:

By the the end of World War II, the government had amassed a massive arsenal of biological weapons (using anthrax and other various bacteria) — all under the “strictest secrecy.” Soon, justification for continuing the research shifted to the “need for national defense.”

“Work in this field cannot be ignored in a time of peace,” Merck warned officials. “It must be continued on a sufficient scale to provide an adequate defense.” 

Unsurprisingly, the government was convinced, and so, the research and experimentation continued. George W. Merck was even the recipient of several awards and was featured on the cover of Time Magazine during the summer of 1952. Albeit, readers were totally oblivious to his involvement in the development of biological weapons and the experimentation of such weapons on innocent citizens.

Even after Merck left the War Research Service, Ft. Detrick went on to become the epicenter of experimentation on American civilians, and one the most recognized centers of biological warfare development in U.S. history.

To put it simply, Ft. Detrick — which was essentially Merck’s creation — was a place where very bad things happened. And to make matters worse, George W. Merck was running the nation’s biological warfare efforts at the same time as his pharmaceutical company.

The company’s ties to biological warfare are frightening enough even without their terrible track record of harming human beings with their products and lying about the efficacy and safety of their vaccines.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

WakingTimes.com

Priceonomics.com

Advertisements

Victims of vaccine damage can sue manufacturers in the US

vaccines
Source: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 7, 2017

(Note to our loyal readers: We’re working to restore NoMoreFakeNews.com. Meanwhile, this blog is fully operating. Posting continues. To join our email list, click here.)

Major media aren’t giving this story the coverage it deserves. I certainly am.

Short question: Can a person sue a US vaccine manufacturer?

Short answer: Under certain conditions, yes.

Note: I’m not framing this article as professional legal advice. I’m reporting what I’ve been able to dig up on a very explosive issue so far. I’ve communicated with two lawyers and a law professor. I’ve been pointed to an important passage on a federal web page.

Right now, lawyers and their clients are suing Merck, the manufacturer, for injuries incurred from Merck’s shingles vaccine, Zostavax.

Among the claimed injuries: contracting shingles; blindness in one eye; partial paralysis; brain damage; death.

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys told me he has already filed two cases in California. Each case has 50 plaintiffs. He states he has 5000 clients waiting in the wings. There are other attorneys with other plaintiffs.

But wait. Isn’t there a federal law that bars people from suing vaccine manufacturers?

Isn’t that law the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? Doesn’t it demand that people go to a special federal “vaccine tribunal/court” and plead for compensation from the government?

Aren’t vaccine manufacturers shielded from liability for causing injury?

Well, it turns out there are exceptions to the rule.

Adult vaccines are not part of the 1986 federal law.

The law shielding vaccine companies only applies to childhood vaccines.

The Merck shingles vaccine is only for adults.

The special federal “vaccine tribunal/court” is established as part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This is where parents who claim their children were injured by vaccines must go, to ask for compensation from the government—not from vaccine manufacturers.

But on a web page of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, under “Health Resources and Services Administration,” we see “Frequently Asked Questions.” And we read this rather opaque statement:

“In order for a category of vaccines to be covered, the category of vaccines must be recommended for routine administration to children by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…” [Note: On this clumsy FAQ web page, you have to click on “View Answer” under the following question to see it: “If a new vaccine product is licensed, what needs to occur before the vaccine will be covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)?”]

What does “covered” mean? It means “covered exclusively by the federal compensation program.” It means a parent who believes her child has been injured by a vaccine goes to the special federal “court.” The vaccine must be FOR CHILDREN. However, an adult seeking compensation for vaccine injury, FROM AN ADULT VACCCINE, would, with a lawyer, argue his case in ordinary state or federal court. That adult would sue the vaccine manufacturer.

This message from the federal government is clear. The ban against suing vaccine manufacturers only applies to vaccines recommended for children (and pregnant women). The ban does not apply to adult vaccines.

Naturally, adults are going to be interested in seeing a list of adult vaccines, because in the case of vaccine-injury, these people can and must go to ordinary state or federal courts and sue the vaccine manufacturer. And they can sue for punitive damages. This is what scares vaccine manufacturers. Punitive-damage money can soar into the stratosphere.

Here, from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is the list of adult vaccines: Influenza; Td/Tdap; MMR; VAR; HZV (shingles); HPV Female; HPV male; PCV13; PPSV23; HepA; HepB; MENACWY/MPSV4; MenB; Hib.

However, some of the vaccines on this list are recommended for both adults and children. When a vaccine is recommended by the CDC for both adults and children, adults seeking compensation for vaccine-injury would not be permitted to argue their cases in ordinary courts and sue the manufacturer. Instead, they would have to go to the special federal vaccine “court” and try to obtain compensation from the government.

It will be very important to see what happens as these lawsuits against Merck and their shingles vaccine move forward. Many tactics will be deployed. Right now, in one suit filed in Philadelphia, Merck is arguing for a change of venue. Change of venue often signals an attempt to find a more friendly court.

We’re in the beginning stages of a struggle.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have high hurdles to climb. Among them: causation. How do you prove a vaccine “caused” an injury? I’m not talking about truth, common sense, or even conventional medical standards. I’m talking about legal proofs, and what is admissible in court. That territory is a Twilight Zone of complexity.

Stay tuned.

Lawsuits for vaccine injury, against one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world (Merck), are sprouting like weeds. Will judges find a reason to cut them off, or will they proceed to trial? Will these lawsuits inspire other attorneys and their clients to sue vaccine manufacturers for injury from other adult vaccines?

Is this going to build to a tsunami?

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE

Image: American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE
Source: JeremyHammond.com
Jeremy Hammond
May 7, 2017

When asked whether it could provide studies to support specific claims it made about vaccine safety, the American Academy of Pediatrics ultimately declined.

On January 10, 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a press release to express its opposition to a federal commission that has been proposed by the Trump administration to examine vaccine safety and efficacy. The AAP argues that since we already know that vaccines are safe and effective, therefore there is no need for further examination into their safety and efficacy.

This argument, however, begs the question — it presumes in the premise the proposition to be proven (the petitio principii fallacy). And the press release itself illustrates why, apart from the question of whether there should be a federal commission, critical examination of public vaccine policy is very much warranted.

In its press release, among other things, the AAP stated that:

  • Vaccines prevent cancer.
  • Claims that vaccines are linked to autism “have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.
  • Claims that vaccines “are unsafe when administered according to the [CDC’s] recommended schedule” have likewise “been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.

According to the AAP, its own claims are backed by solid science. Yet when asked whether it could provide citations from the medical literature to support its claims, the AAP first failed to do so, then essentially offered a “No comment” when pressed for a comment about its failure to do so.

With respect to the claim that vaccines prevent some forms of cancer, the AAP was asked:

  • Can you please direct me to any studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature showing any vaccine prevents cancer?

With respect to the other two, the AAP was asked the following questions:

  • Can you please direct me to the studies you are referring to in this body of literature that took into account the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation?
  • Can you please point me to the studies in this body of literature that have compared health outcomes, including but not limited to developmental regression (i.e., autism), for children who’ve receive the CDC’s full schedule of vaccinations with children who’ve remained completely unvaccinated?

An initial email to the AAP containing these questions went unanswered.

The email was followed up with a phone call. Lisa Black, the AAP’s Media Relations Manager, assured that she would get back with answers to the questions. In a subsequent email, Ms. Black replied, “Please see information that AAP has posted for parents on this page”, which was followed by a link to a list of studies on the website HealthyChildren.org.

However, none of the listed studies on that page supports the AAP’s claim that “vaccines prevent … forms of cancer”.

None apparently considered the possibility of a susceptible subpopulation with a genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions to vaccines.

And none compared health outcomes of fully vaccinated children with completely unvaccinated children.

The list provided does contain numerous studies finding no association between vaccines and autism, but even the listed safety review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) doesn’t go so far as to say that the hypothesis has been “disproven”.

On the contrary, the IOM acknowledges that it is biologically plausible that vaccines might cause autism in a genetically susceptible subpopulation, but characterizes this hypothesis is still “speculative” and “unsubstantiated”.

That is a world apart from saying it has been “disproven”.

One would think that the IOM’s conclusion, if its inquiry was a scientific one, would be that since this is such an important question and this specific hypothesis is plausible and not well studied, therefore there should be further study into this question of whether vaccines could trigger autism at least in some children with a genetic predisposition to vaccine injury.

But rather than calling for more research into this area, the IOM actually advocated that no further studies to test this hypothesis be done. Its stated reason for this was partly medical, but at least equally political — and certainly favorable to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. The IOM’s reason was:

Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.

In other words, since studying this hypothesis further would undermine public vaccine policy with its one-size-fits-all approach to disease prevention, therefore no further research to test the biologically plausible hypothesis should be done.

The AAP was sent a follow up email noting that none of the studies listed appeared to support the claims it made in the press release. The AAP was welcomed to correct the record, but did not dispute the observation that none of the studies listed showed that vaccines can prevent cancer, considered genetic susceptibility to vaccine injury, or compared health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The additional follow up questions were also asked:

  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that considered the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?
  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that compared health outcomes between children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule and children who remained unvaccinated, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?

The AAP did not reply via email to the follow up questions.

In a second phone call requesting the AAP to produce such studies to support its claims, Ms. Black replied that she had provided everything the AAP was going to provide.

When confronted with the observation that none of the studies provided supported the AAP’s claim that vaccines can prevent cancer, she repeated that the AAP was not going to provide any additional information.

When asked whether the authors of the press release, AAP President Fernando Stein and Executive Vice President Karen Remley, would like to comment, Ms. Black abruptly ended the phone call by saying she was going to hang up and then doing so.

Questions Unanswered

The questions seem pertinent, particularly given the fact that the government has acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage resulting in developmental regression.

In 2008, then director of the CDC Julie Gerberding offered the following carefully worded acknowledgment:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

The context in which she was speaking was with respect to Hannah Poling, a child with a mitochondrial disorder who developed autism after receiving numerous vaccines on the same day and whose family was awarded compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

The VICP was established in the mid-1980s under a law that granted broad legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers. The government’s reason for doing so was that vaccine injury lawsuits were threatening to undermine public policy by putting vaccine manufacturers out of business.

The Supreme Court has upheld that legal immunity on the grounds that certain adverse reactions are “unavoidable” and “design defects” are “not a basis for liability.”

Around the same time as Gerberding’s admission, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, the late Bernadine Healy, criticized the refrain that any link between vaccines and autism has been debunked. She pointed out the kinds of studies that would be necessary in order to confidently draw that conclusion hadn’t yet been done.

Specifically, she noted the lack of studies taking into consideration a genetically susceptible subpopulation.

Ms. Healy also slammed the IOM for advocating that no further research be done and noted that as a potential cause of autism, “vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility”.

Similarly, in contrast to the AAP’s claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”, one of the CDC’s lead researchers on that very question, CDC Director of Immunization Safety Dr. Frank DeStefano, admitted in an interview in 2014 that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could trigger autism in genetically susceptible individuals.

“It’s hard to predict who those children might be”, DeStefano observed, and trying to determine what underling conditions put children at risk of vaccine injury is “very difficult to do”.

Acknowledging the lack of studies in this area, he added that, “if we ever get to that point, then that kind of research might be fruitful.”

The AAP’s list of studies includes one or more for which DeStefano was an author.

The CDC also admits the need for further study in this area. Its website at the time of this writing acknowledges that “More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.”

So how can the AAP claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven” when the studies that would be necessary to invalidate the hypothesis haven’t been done?

No comment.

That’s the AAP’s answer to the question, anyway.

The AAP’s attitude should perhaps come as no surprise, given its close relationship with the vaccine industry.

As CBS News reported in 2008, “The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters.”

A Discussion to Be Had

The AAP argues in its press release against the formation of a federal commission, but its argument would apply to any public debate about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. By the AAP’s logic, like the IOM’s, also unnecessary are any discussion about it in the media and any further scientific inquiry.

But as Daniel Sarewitz observes, “as science approaches the cutting edge, it tends to raise as many questions as it resolves, so there is always room for debate about what the science is actually saying.”

Parents dubbed “anti-science” by the media are naturally curious why that label doesn’t seem to apply to those calling for no further inquiry into pertinent questions.

Parents aren’t just asking legitimate questions about vaccines. They’re doing what most doctors haven’t and spending a lot of time researching vaccines themselves. And they’re not just going to “anti-vaccine” websites to research it. They’re organizing, sharing information, and digging into the medical literature for themselves.

Parents can see the fundamental contradiction between public health officials and the media constantly insisting that vaccines are harmless even while the government grants legal immunity to the vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and while the government manages a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in order to shift the costs for damages and keep the vaccine manufacturers profitable — all to maintain public policy.

Parents understand how government and industry funding influences the direction and findings of scientific research, and how the medical establishment that has given us soaring costs and a population in which nearly 40 percent are chronically ill will tend to justify itself despite its abysmal performance and a long history of being wrong time and again, from tobacco science (older generations may remember how the industry used to get product endorsements from doctors) to the USDA recommended high-carb diet (which has contributed to the obesity epidemic and is more about satisfying food industry lobbyists than providing science-based advise) to the role of cholesterol in heart disease (scientific research no longer supports the hypothesis that dietary cholesterol contributes to blood cholesterol and heart disease risk).

Parents are aware of how government agencies like the FDA and the CDC serve the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. They see the corruption and the “revolving door” of Washington, such as how Julie Gerberding left her government job pushing vaccines as head of CDC to become president of the vaccine division for the pharmaceutical giant Merck.

They see how the AAP, too, has an incestuous relationship with “Big Pharma”. They understand how willful ignorance goes beyond the individual operating within the system and becomes institutionalized. And they watch as an organization that influences how their child’s pediatrician practices medicine accepts money from an industry they feel the AAP ought to be protecting them from.

They can witness how the AAP makes statements it claims are solidly backed by science, but which it is unwilling or unable to provide any studies to support. They understand that the truly “anti-science” position is the one that says no further scientific inquiry into an admittedly biologically plausible hypothesis is necessary.

Parents know there are many studies that have found no association between vaccines and autism. They don’t need the AAP to point this out to them. But they wonder why the AAP ignores all the studies that do support the hypothesis.

They wonder how the AAP can claim that the vaccine-autism hypothesis has been “disproven” when the most any of the studies it cites have concluded is that those particular studies, with their own particular focus, designed around their own particular assumptions, using a particular methodology, did not find an association between vaccines and autism.

And parents are asking questions like: What was the actual purpose of the study? What were the underlying assumptions made by the authors? What vaccines were being studied, and what outcomes? Who were the study groups? What were the criteria for their selection? What was the study’s methodology? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Do the conclusions drawn follow from the actual findings? How conclusive is it? What does the study actually prove, if anything?

Parents can see for themselves the huge disparity between what they are told science has to say about vaccines  — by public health officials, the medical establishment, and the mainstream media — and what science actually has to say about it.

The parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children aren’t doing so because they are uneducated or unintelligent. On the contrary, studies show that they tend to be wealthier and more highly educated than the general population.

They aren’t choosing not to vaccinate because they are ignorant of the science. They are choosing not to vaccinate because they are digging into the medical literature (which can be searched via PubMed.gov) and awakening to the deceit they see coming out of the government and the mainstream media.

They see how mainstream journalists, rather than seriously investigating what the science actually says, rely on statements from agencies like the CDC and industry-funded organizations like the AAP to “inform” the public about the subject.

They see how the establishment is seeking to stifle debate not by respectfully addressing their legitimate questions, but by bullying them into silence and conformity, and they understand how such a phenomenon can arise because institutions with a life of their own feel threatened by the truth and act to preserve the status quo.

The AAP and other actors interested in preserving the public vaccine policy so far seem to have assumed that they can end the discussion by declaring authoritatively that there is no need for further discussion.

But if they ever hope to truly end the discussion, they are going to have to start taking parents’ concerns seriously and answering their legitimate questions with more than disingenuous public relations talking points that might as well have been written by the vaccine industry.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Julie & The Boys: CDC, Merck, Vaccines

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 24, 2017

I write this story now to remind people there are several titanic unresolved issues surrounding research fraud at the CDC, involving the MMR vaccine.

We all know about CDC whistleblower William Thompson, a long-time researcher at the CDC. Thompson still works there.

On August 27, 2014, he released a statement through his lawyer, Rick Morgan, in which he admitted research fraud.

Thompson confessed he and his CDC co-authors cooked the data in a key 2004 study, thereby exonerating the MMR vaccine from any blame in causing autism.

Thompson has never been subpoenaed by Congress to confess what he knows about this case.

But what about Stephen Kraling and Joan Wlochowski?

Who?

They’re two former Merck virologists who filed a qui tam suit against Merck, the manufacturer of the very same MMR vaccine.

The suit claims Merck defrauded the US government by selling the vaccine, under a federal contract, when Merck knew the mumps component of the vaccine was far less effective than advertised.

Of course, Merck disputed this claim, but on September 5th, 2014, Judge Jones, of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, gave the green light for the suit to move forward.

Kraling and Wlochowski assert several levels of Merck fraud:

To achieve a slam-dunk success, Merck tested the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine against the version of the virus in the vaccine, rather than against the natural mumps virus a person would catch in the real world.

Merck irrelevantly and deceptively added animal antibodies to the test results, thus giving the false appearance of strong human immune response to the vaccine.

On top of that, Merck faked the quantitative results of the tests to which the animal antibodies had been added.

Here is where these two Merck whistle blowers and Thompson, the CDC whistle blower, intersect:

In 2004, according to a report I have seen, Thompson wrote a letter to CDC Director, Julie Gerberding, warning her that he was about to present troubling and sensitive data about the MMR vaccine at an upcoming conference on vaccines and autism.

Thompson’s meaning was clear. He had found a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Gerberding never answered his letter, and Thompson’s presentation at that conference was canceled.

Gerberding left the CDC in 2009.

She moved on to become…

The president of Merck Vaccines, the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine.

Major media consider this a non-story, on the level of a can of overflowing garbage on a quiet street corner.

Well, they have to consider it a non-story. If they reported it and pressed it and dug deep into it, they could fracture the pillars of the entire vaccine establishment.

In order to get at the whole truth (or refute any of the charges raised in this article), Congress needs to hold hearings, and competent committee members need to question, at length, William Thompson, the two Merck whistle blowers, and Julie Gerberding.

I say the chance of that happening is close to zero. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I see no sign Congress is willing to step up to the plate.

Too many drug-company lobbyists, too much campaign money from the drug companies, too much fear of going up against entrenched “scientists” who keep claiming all vaccines are safe and effective.

We’ve heard, from sources other than President Trump, that he is going to order a task force to investigate vaccine safety. We’ll see if it happens.

Earlier this year, I wrote about a group of CDC employees who are anonymously chomping at the bit to expose criminal behavior at their agency.

They call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

Since this initial explosion, I have heard nothing from the Spider Group. Perhaps they are waiting for a signal from President Trump that it is safe to proceed.

There is too much waiting. Whistle blower William Thompson is waiting for Congress to subpoena him. Congress is sitting on its hands, waiting. The two Merck whistle blowers are waiting for their law suit to move forward.

Children’s futures and lives are on the line.

Every day that passes brings new vaccine damage.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Merck in hot water over dangerous shingles vaccine that caused numerous injuries, deaths

Image: Merck in hot water over dangerous shingles vaccine that caused numerous injuries, deaths
Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan Huff
April 5, 2017

Commercials for the jab showing happy people free of shingles are a common feature of television advertising. But Merck & Co’s “Zosatavax” vaccine to prevent varicella, the adult version of chickenpox, is causing the international drug giant some serious headaches after numerous people who got the shot suffered injuries and/or death.

Multiple lawsuits are making their way through the court system alleging that Merck’s blockbuster vaccine for shingles isn’t safe, and could cause serious adverse effects. Plaintiffs in the state of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, allege that Zostavax isn’t safe, and are taking to both the state and federal court system to seek justice.

According to Marc Bern of Marc J. Bern & Partners, there have been “thousands of complaints” about Zostavax in Pennsylvania alone. Patient injuries from the vaccine, he says, range from shingles itself, which the vaccine is supposed to prevent, to serious personal injuries such as blindness and paralysis. Other reports of adverse effects from Zostavax include brain damage and death.

“I think Merck has failed terribly … to warn about the very serious side effects and the failure of the vaccine to do what they claim it does,” Bern told FiercePharma.

Merck vehemently defends Zostavax, just like it does all of its deadly drugs and vaccines

Merck, which also manufactures the deadly Gardasil vaccine for HPV and cervical cancer, is taking to usual form in full defense of Zostavax. The multinational drug corporation says it “stands behind the demonstrated safety and efficacy” of the shot, which the company has paid tens of millions of dollars to get approved in 50 countries. (RELATED: Find more news about vaccines at Vaccines.news)

More than 36 million doses of Zostavax have been injected into people’s bodies since the vaccine first hit the market in 2006. Merck claims that most of these vaccine injections didn’t cause any problems, and thus constitute a full and complete record of safety, for which the public should be assured.

But the thousands of people who took the shot and are now permanently injured or dead tell a much different story. So many people are filing lawsuits against Merck over Zostavax that Bern would like to see them grouped for mass tort status. Attorney Michael Katz, from the law firm Lopez McHugh, has likewise filed several injury cases in federal court concerning Zostavax, and anticipates hundreds more in the near future.

According to data compiled by the Philadelphia-based law firm, Zostavax is only effective in about 51 percent of people who get the shot. And many of those who receive the vaccine end up getting shingles anyway, based on the numbers, which suggests that the vaccine is neither safe nor effective in the majority of people who receive it, contrary to what Merck continues to claim.

“There is some indication that the vaccination is linked to death,” the Lopez McHugh website contends. “NCIV (The National Vaccine Information Center) analysis indicates that there were more than 1,100 serious adverse event reports made to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System from 1990 until September 2015 related to shingles-containing vaccinations. Of these reports, 90 were for deaths associated with the shingles vaccine.”

Merck must have missed this important data, as it usually does when billions of dollars in profit are on the line. Just in the last year alone, the drug and vaccine behemoth raked in $749 million in sales from Zostavax, so there’s a whole lot to lose from the vaccine potentially losing its approved status due to being a deadly threat.

Sources for this article include:

FiercePharma.com

LopezMcHugh.com

Ready To Inject Your Child With “Safe” Vaccines From China?

vaccines

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 5, 2017

I’ll put it to you this way. Your child is about to get vaccinated. You believe in the efficacy of vaccines. In the doctor’s office, there is a large wheel. It has two sections. One is marked: “this injection for your child comes from the US or Germany.” The other section is marked: “this injection for your child might come from China, or if not the raw ingredients in the shot might come from China, and keep in mind that even if the injection and the raw ingredients don’t come from China, in a pinch, because the Chinese vaccines are cheap, the US might buy the injection or the ingredients from the China—now spin the wheel…and let’s see where the arrow stops…for your child.”

In the spring of 2016, a vaccine scandal erupted in China.

Time Magazine reported:

“Furious parents and health care professionals in China are demanding to know how almost $90 million of improperly stored and potentially fatal vaccines were distributed across some two-thirds of the country over the past five years, in the latest public-health scandal to raise serious questions over the efficacy of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule.”

“According to state media, a mother and daughter from eastern China’s Shandong province have been caught peddling 25 kinds of unrefrigerated vaccines — including for polio, mumps, rabies, hepatitis B, encephalitis and meningococcal diseases — to medical facilities across 24 Chinese provinces since 2010.”

“Inflaming the public backlash, authorities had apparently known about the case since last April, though only publicized the news late Friday in a belated attempt to trace potential victims. Moreover, the elder suspect, a 47-year-old woman surnamed Pang, had apparently been convicted of the same offense in 2009 but only received a suspended sentence. State media admitted the compromised inoculations could have resulted in paralysis and even death.”

“’Twenty-four provinces, five years already, and how many children! It’s been nearly a year and then they reveal this! Isn’t this genocide? Words cannot express how angry I am!’ posted one user of China’s Twitter-like microblog Weibo, reports the BBC.”

“’This is a matter of life and death,’” one Beijing-based doctor told Radio Free Asia. ‘They should make an announcement about this as soon as possible … so we can locate these items and cut off the supply, so no more people are harmed.’”

Just to show how panicked the vaccine establishment is about the current wave of public awakening—sparked in part by revelations in the movie Vaxxed—major media couldn’t even keep their stories straight.

The NY Times, reporting on the China scandal, and relying on the World Health Organization (a PR front for the vaccine industry) took an assuring tone:

“Despite such fears, the tainted vaccines are more likely to be ineffective than harmful…The World Health Organization has said that outdated or poorly stored vaccines rarely if ever trigger illness or toxic reactions. Chinese government investigators said last week that they had not found any cases of adverse reactions or spikes in infections linked to ineffective vaccines.”

Really?

Perhaps editors at the NY Times and the World Health Organization would like to prove their faith and confidence by taking shots in the arm of those spoiled vaccines.

Now, here are quotes from an excellent article by Marco Caceres at thevaccinereaction.org (4/13/16). The article points up the uncertainty about whether processed and/or raw vaccine ingredients are entering the US from China:

“The past few weeks, there have been a series of news reports coming out of China revealing that thousands of doses of improperly stored and expired vaccines for children and adults were illegally sold for millions of dollars on the black market by more than 100 people associated with Chinese companies and vaccination centers.”

“Most Americans do not understand that many pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, are not made in the United States and foreign pharmaceutical companies are not subject to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quality control regulations.”

“It is unclear what percentage of the vaccines currently used in the United States are made by Chinese pharmaceutical companies in China or by Western companies with manufacturing facilities in China. We do know that major U.S. and European vaccine makers such as Merck & Co., GlaxoSmithKline plc, and Sanofi Pasteur SA maintain vaccine manufacturing operations in China, that this activity is on the rise, and that Western vaccine makers are also establishing joint venture partnerships with Chinese vaccine companies.”

“Consequently, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish which vaccines are manufactured by American and European firms and which are produced by the Chinese. A 2012 article in USA Today, however, did report that…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Mumps outbreak in Long Island likely caused by vaccine-resistant virus; majority of those affected were immunized

Mumps outbreak

Source: NaturalNews.com
Isabelle Z.
August 6, 2016

Long Beach has been hit with a mumps outbreak that is vaccine-resistant. According to health officials in the Long Island town, almost two dozen individuals are believed to have contracted the virus, with four confirmed cases and at least 14 suspected ones.

All of the cases involve people in their 20s, and the outbreak is being attributed to a new vaccine-resistant strain of the virus. In fact, most of those who have contracted mumps in this case have been vaccinated against it. Despite this, officials are actually urging people who have been in contact with those who are infected to get a mumps booster shot! If this strain of the virus is vaccine-resistant, and those who have been vaccinated are getting it anyway, why should people get yet another vaccine?

It’s also worth noting that none of the people currently affected are seriously ill. The symptoms of mumps tend to be mild, and include swollen cheeks, a headache, body aches and low-grade fever. There is no treatment, and it usually clears up on its own in just a few days.

Mumps is, however, highly contagious. It can be transmitted through the transfer of saliva, sneezing or coughing. As beach season continues in full swing, some Long Beach restaurants are even supplying diners with plastic cups as a means of stemming the outbreak. People who have symptoms of the illness are being advised to stay home for five days to avoid spreading it.

Controversy over mumps component of MMR vaccine

As some Natural News readers may recall, two Merck scientists filed a False Claims Act complaint back in 2010 saying that the Big Pharma firm knowingly falsified mumps vaccine data in order to come up with an efficacy rate of 95 percent. They achieved this by spiking the blood test involved with antibodies taken from animals.

This not only allowed them to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S. government, but also helped them crush the competition and monopolize the vaccine market.

The complainants said that Merck never tested the vaccine against actual mumps viruses out in the real world, and alleged that senior management was aware of this and allowed it to happen. That’s why it’s so important to seek out studies that are free from industry collusion.

Mumps outbreaks becoming fairly common among the vaccinated

Mumps outbreaks seem to be occurring a lot lately. Earlier this year, for example, the illness broke out at Harvard and a handful of other Boston colleges. More than three quarters of those afflicted had been vaccinated.

Dozens of university students in Illinois came down with mumps last year, despite the majority of them having previously been administered two rounds of the MMR vaccine. Do you spot a trend here?

It’s important to note that not only does the MMR vaccine not actually prevent mumps, but it might actually be responsible for spreading it. That’s because the injection contains a weakened version of the live virus, which causes an infection in the body. It can then be “shed” to other people, such as those who have not been vaccinated, or those who have compromised immune systems. That’s why it makes absolutely no sense that authorities are urging people who have been exposed to get yet another vaccine.

Of course, there are other reasons people might want to avoid the vaccine besides the fact that it doesn’t protect against mumps. The MMR vaccine has been linked to a number of harmful effects, including neurological damage, autism, developmental delays, seizure disorders, asthma and autoimmune dysfunction, to name just a few.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

NBCNewYork.com

NaturalNews.com

NewYork.CBSLocal.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Science.NaturalNews.com