If you put ‘Merck Vaccine Fraud’ into your search box on Google and click, guess what.
No pages come up from Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Times etc. On the first page you will only see ‘alternative’ sites giving us the news. The mainstream boys are conspicuous by their absence (but I’ve checked no further than the first page of results). It is certain that is not just because the case is sub judice. The press comments on all sorts of issues that are sub judice. We hear about evidence from courtrooms on national radio news and national television news. Why, then is this news not widely disseminated among the ‘mainstream’ press? I don’t have the answer but I can guess.
For some reason, the FDA haven’t gone for Merck, nor has the U.S. Government, who have paid for millions of doses of mumps vaccine. It’s taken a False Claims Act complaint (filed in 2010) by two Marck scientists and a federal antitrust class action brought by Chatom Primary Care in Alabama to bring them to court to explain themselves. We have yet to hear the outcome of all this, so ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
However . . . .
We do know that medical research fraud is rife in the industry
We do know that medical publication fraud is rife in the industry.
For example: the largest pharmaceutical industry settlement yet was when GlaxoSmithKline LLC agreed to pay $3 billion in fines and plead guilty to marketing drugs for unapproved uses and failing to report drug safety information to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
For example: a new cancer treatment protocol based on genetic typing was exposed as a fraud: http://www.gaia-health.com/articles451/000488-cancer-treatment-fraud-university.shtml and http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57376073/deception-at-duke-fraud-in-cancer-care/
Still we are told about the much-vaunted evidence base of drug medicine. What is that evidence base?
Even before the latest stream of scandals that have broken over the industry, the BMA came up with a figure of, from memory, about 15% to 18% of medical interventions in the UK were ‘evidence-based’.! What would that figure be now, when we KNOW we can’t trust the so-called evidence?
Our main website is at: www.alternativevet.org