Mumps outbreak at Harvard – because the vaccine is apparently a fraud

swine-flu-vaccine-cp-687721

KP Stoller, MD  www.incurable-me.com

For more than three decades Merck has had the exclusive license from the FDA to manufacture mumps vaccine in the USA. It was first approved in 1967 and the same strain used then is being used today. Originally, it was in a single dose vaccine but after 1971, it was incorporated in the MMR vaccine and seven million doses a year are sold in the USA.

In order to obtain that original license, Merck had to prove to the FDA that the vaccine had at least 95% efficacy. That means that over 95% of those getting the vaccine will show an adequate antibody response. This antibody response is assumed to be the same as being immunized, but that is not always the case – just having an antibody response to  a vaccine does not mean one is immunized, but that is a minor point that gets ignored. Be that as it may, that is not what this post is about.

Without 95% efficacy then there is no “herd immunity” and you also just end up kicking the disease to an older population where there are more complications and risk infecting infants that can’t be vaccinated yet. This is why the FDA requires 95% efficacy.

The CDC predicted mumps would be eradicated by 2010, but starting in 2006 mumps started breaking out, the most recent break out is now taking place at Harvard. The reason is obvious… the vaccine doesn’t have 95% efficacy. In 1997, the FDA required Merck to prove their vaccine still had 95% efficacy, which they did show by manipulating data and falsifying test results as claimed by two former Merck virologists who filed a False Claims lawsuit against Merck.

The gold standard, called the PRN test,  reveals the effectiveness of the vaccine (seroconversion) against the wild mumps virus. That is what one is supposed to do, but Merck apparently didn’t do that. They reportedly tested the vaccine against the stock mumps virus that was used to create the vaccine. Even then… the seroconversion rate was less than 80%. What they reportedly did then was come up with an enhanced PRN test by adding in rabbit antibodies that would enhance the activity of any human antibodies for the sole purpose of getting past the 95% benchmark. Apparently, the rabbit antibodies alone neutralized the 4aa272_f4b589fa20a948c4ae69d4f6ad89278avirus and no human antibodies were required to be present. The test would show 95% efficacy even if the vaccine had 0% effectiveness.

This “007” protocol, as it was called, was not just the result of rogue scientists wanting to keep their jobs, Senior Management were reportedly in on the whole scheme. The CDC purchases almost $100 million dollars worth of MMR from Merck every year so this apparent fraud has allowed Merck to bilk the US Government out almost a hundred million of dollars every year for a vaccine that does not work.
The lawsuit is ongoing…

One thought on “Mumps outbreak at Harvard – because the vaccine is apparently a fraud”

  1. Well USA got MMR 15 or so years before Australia, so our outbreaks will begin in about 10 years, as this is just another abysmal failure vaccine.

    As for whooping cough the aP vaccine, Australia got this 9 years before USA, UK, and the charts on the rise, all vaccine failures, and the fact aP vaccine protected still spread the illness, no symptoms, until it fails, well how interesting, UK and USA, just starting to get the epidemics of vaccine failures. In Australia, we dont even bother to report whooping cough anymore, it is just a nasty, 8 week cough in kids, they still go to school, all vaccines have done now, is make the newborn babies, catch it from fully vaccinated symptomless siblings, and they get real sick.

    All MMR has done, is shift the disease away from 6 year olds, where it is a minor annoyance, to Adults, where yes it is really serious.

    How do we sue Merck? And CDC? And GSK? Now the world communicates, they cant hide the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *