According to two whistle blowing former Merck virologists who filed a 2010 Federal False Claims Act complaint two years ago in 2010 when the Act first passed, as of June 28, 2012, the scientist's complaint at last has been unsealed. The complaint reports allegedly that the corporate pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturer, Merck "knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test data, spiked blood samples with animal antibodies, and sold a vaccine that actually promoted mumps and measles outbreaks."
The complaint allegedly accuses Merck of ripping off governments and consumers who bought the vaccine thinking it was "95% effective, according to the June 28, 2012 Natural News article, "Merck vaccine fraud exposed by two Merck virologists; company faked mumps vaccine efficacy results for over a decade, says lawsuit," by Mike Adams. Also check out a June 27, 2012 Forbes article, "Merck Whistleblower Suit A Boon to Vaccine Foes Even As It Stresses Importance of Vaccines."
Of course Merck denies all alleged accusations to today's breaking news report. Readers may want to know about a study published in 1998 in the medical journal Lancet by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that reported a link between the MMR vaccine and the incidence of autism in children.
There are two sides to the vaccine debate. Today you have breaking news focused on the sudden unsealing of a whistleblower suit against Merck, filed back in 2010 by two former employees accusing the drug maker of overstating the effectiveness of its mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine. What's a fresh new angle on the news is that another company, Chatom Primary Care, also is suing Merck for monopolization of the vaccine industry at the same time as the whistleblowing scientists allegedly are accusing Merck of falsifying its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate.
In the June 28, 2012 article by Natural News, readers are referred to the False Claims Act document site which contains a PDF file article, "Merck False Claims Act." NaturalNews is continuing to investigate further news about Merck and the vaccine industry.
Locally, in the past two years Sacramento, San Francisco, and Berkeley, CA have experienced growing mumps outbreaks, including a mumps outbreak on the UC Berkeley campus, among Sacramento children, and on several San Francisco college campuses. But what happens when the vaccine doesn't work, as court claims have recently been made?
Check out the news reports, Mumps Outbreak Reported On Cal Campus « CBS San Francisco, Mumps outbreak may be spreading to L.A. - latimes.com, and UC Berkeley hit by mumps, students receive vaccinations - Los Angeles Times.
Courthouse news reports that the virologists complained Merck allegedly spiked the vaccine with animal antibodies
Adams reports in the June 28, 2012 Natural News article that virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, who formerly worked for Merck, blew the whistle and revealed how Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate." How the alleged falsification happened, according to the virologists, focused on Merck allegedly spiking the blood test with animal antibodies.
Those animal antibodies artificially inflated the appearance of immune system antibodies. You can read the original case which is reported in Courthouse News. Merck, of course, denies it ever happened.
The main point that the virologists emphasize of this alleged accusation is that the laboratory antibodies never corresponded to real life situations such as the way viruses 'neutralize' in people getting vaccinated. Read the virologist's complaint filed in Court House News.
The Court House News also reports that Merck's scientists added antibodies to blood samples. This alleged faking of data produced results showing more favorable test results. The alleged problem is that human immune systems don't produce those types of antibodies.
The news report by Adams revealed that Merck used the falsified trial results to (the article actually uses the word 'swindle' and report to the U.S. government the results. The measurable result of the incident meant that the U.S. government spent "hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization."
Did the alleged fraud contribute to outbreaks of mumps across the USA between 2010 and the present?
Then Adam's article reports that Merck's vaccine fraud has actually contributed to the continuation of mumps across America, causing more children to become infected with mumps. The issue with this conclusion when examined is that consumers are going to believe that outbreaks are caused by contaminated and/or problematic vaccines.
Years ago, you heard in mainstream and niche health media about the monkey virus found in polio vaccine during the late 1950s. Now in 2012 it's the mumps vaccine that's allegedly problematic and/or contaminated causing more cases of mumps.
The average consumer is more likely to conclude that vaccines keep outbreaks happening in order to make more money. If a disease is entirely wiped out such as smallpox was in the 1940s, then nobody's going to buy the vaccine for a particular disease anymore, and a company can't make money unless a new outbreak appears of other diseases or old diseases come back again.
Is one company trying to allegedly monopolize the vaccine market?
Whether this idea is urban myth or real, it's only known by virologists who develop the vaccines. On one hand you have Merck claiming 95% effectiveness of it's vaccines. The company, after all makes a living developing vaccines that work. On the other hand, consumers may be saying that one company is trying to monopolize the vaccine market so there will be fewer competing companies.
According to the former Merck virologists, the alleged 'fraud' began in the late 1990s. The virologists report that tests were falsified. But before any scientists can allegedly point a finger at Merk, it has to be proven that testing of Merck's vaccine was never done against "real-world" mumps viruses in the wild. You can read the court case report to see whether in a court of law any test results were actually proven to be falsified to achieve the desired outcome.
Senior management testified they were never aware of what the tests revealed
On the other hand, Merk's senior management were never aware of what the tests revealed and had no idea about the alleged fraud accusation. The Adams article reported that it was the Merck scientists who knew about the testing and data and whether or not anything was falsified.
The motive, according to Adam's article notes that Merck allegedly inflated the vaccine's test results. The source for the June 28, 2012 Natural News article is court documents. You can check out the court documents yourself at the Court House News site.
The 2010 False Claims Act is a federal consumer protection law
Federal contractors are not allowed by law to defraud governmental programs. Consumer protection laws exist at the federal level. Consumers need to know what the 2010 False Claims Act reports about liability for specific claims and acts, persons, and companies that defraud governmental programs.
Check out the sites, False Claims Act Cases - Department of JusticeTAF- Federal False Claims Act. The Act is about liability. The False Claims Act, also known as 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, is sometimes referred to as the Lincoln Law. The Act is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies (typically federal contractors) who defraud governmental programs.
There's also another law suit filed against Merck by Chatom Primary Care, which is mentioned at the Natural News site. Check out the article, "Chatom Primary Care sues Merck for Sherman Act monopolization, breach of warranty, violation of consumer protection laws." Check out the original article on the Chatom Lawsuit against Merck.
What the Qui Tam provision covers
You can file actions on behalf of the government as a whistleblower even if you're not working for the government or affiliated with the goverenment. Also called the whistleblower law, the 2010 False Claims Act is a law that includes a "qui tam" provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file actions on behalf of the government (informally called "whistleblowing").
Persons filing under the 2010 False Claims Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15–25 percent) of any recovered damages. Readers need to be aware that claims can affect both sides, and usually it's about following the money.
You can check out the Fraud Statistics Overview
Claims under the law have typically involved health care, military, or other government spending programs. The government has recovered nearly $22 billion under the False Claims Act between 1987 (after the significant 1986 amendments) and 2008, according to the Fraud Statistics Overview 1986-2008 website. Comprehensive information regarding FCA statistics may be found at the False Claims Act Legal Center site. Check out the "One Click Statistics Sheet."
The site shows a simple one-page presentation of official Department of Justice False Claims Statistics for the years 1987-2011. To see the statistics for false claims from the Dept. of Justice, click here. But this table doesn't include recoveries to the states in Medicaid cases. You can also see the Department of Justice False Claims Statistics including information regarding recoveries in individual cases for thoses years.
There's also a site you can check out to see a discussion of GSA Best Price Qui Tam claims, in which government contractors violate the False Claims Act by failing to give the Government the “best price” they charge private sector purchasers, according to the False Claims Act - Wikipedia, website explaining the 2010 False Claims Act.
To know both sides of the issue, Merck has denied all allegations. You really need to hear or read both sides of the issue to know all the facts and evidence, since the senior executives at Merck testified that they did not know of any alleged fraud going on in the company.
The conclusion will come with validated evidence and weighing both sides of the issue, hearing fairly and equally from both sides. This is a case that is not relative to opinions, just to the facts presented as evidence and to the credibility of the evidence. In the meantime, whistleblowers do have legal recourse if they have reliable evidence.
NaturalNews derived its data from CourthouseNews.com that covered the alleged Merck information about the complaint of the two whistle blower scientists. Check out the original article at CourthouseNews.com.