Yesterday, TV3 treated New Zealand parents to a massive dose of ignorance with a story about a boy called Boston, who had a nasty superinfection in chickenpox spots on his back.
His mother is urging New Zealand parents to pay $50.00 so that their children won’t suffer like her son did.
This story is a top class example of the elephant in the room ignored by ignorant TV journalists today.
Boston’s complication has been known, for over two decades, to be a complication of immune fragility - one cause of which is using PAMOL to reduce chickenpox fevers.
Read this: (That blog addresses pamol generically, not specifically relating to chickenpox, but maybe a blog on pamol and chickenpox will be my next job.)
Given that this boy got the chickenpox from his 3 year old sister, who plainly did okay, why did the journalist not ask the doctors WHY the boy had trouble and his sister did not?
The mother’s comment might have provided one blindingly obvious answer: “We couldn’t control his temperature” Apparently this child just kept falling asleep all the time. Which reminded me of another TV3 documentary of Allan Smith where he wife commented that the paracetamol knocked him out just about stone cold. Viruses, bacteria and paracetamol are not a good mix and never have been. Not that most parents would know, because doctors themselves appear to be ignorant about what is in their own medical literature.
So, did Boston’s parents pile in pamol dose after pamol dose, and when that didn't bring down his temperature, give yet more pamol????
I’m guessing – and it’s only a guess – that that is what those parents did, because that’s what most parents do with fever.
Like I said, chickenpox is notorious for doing exactly what Boston’s chickenpox did when anti-pyretics are used to control fever.
Why does pamol do that? Because PAMOL disables the arm of the immune system which deals with the secondary bacterial infection which has set up in the spots and THAT is why some children given fever reducers can land up with Group A streptococcal infection complications.
And if Group A streptococcal infection is what this boy had, ….and if those parents used constant pamol doses to try to reduce the fever, then PAMOL is one reason why Boston landed up in trouble.
If that is the situation in this case, then the real story SHOULD have been to warn parents NOT to use PAMOL for fever, during any infection. If that is not the situation, then questions should have been asked about Boston's immune system, because normal children do not respond to chickenpox this way. His sister had no problems, so why did he?
The medical profession needs to educate all parents, that using pamol during any infectious fever is child abuse because they know that pamol can increase the duration, illness severity and the likelihood of dying from many infections. For example, if that fever is related to any meningococcal infection, then pamol increases the chance of Boston getting the disease more seriously, and increases his chances of dying.
There will come a day when Pamol is banned as an over the counter medicine in this country. It's already banned in many European countries. But that won’t happen while Johnson and Johnson meticulously pulls the chains of the Ministry of Health, so that J & J can extract the maximum dollar from Pamol for as long as possible.
Until that time, there will be more Bostons in this world, simply because doctors and hospitals refuse to educate parents about the immunological threat posed by Pamol when used during any infectious fever. Continue Reading
Yesterday, TV3 treated New Zealand parents to a massive dose of ignorance with a story about a boy called Boston, who had a nasty superinfection in chickenpox spots on his back.
Anyone who has read my whooping cough resource section, will know that since the introduction of all whooping cough vaccines in this country, there has been ZERO impact on incidence and a slight increase recently in death rates.
Seemingly in a desire to catch up to the rest of us, the Ministry of Health this week, showed how much they value thoroughness, by putting out an advert (pdf uploaded here for posterity) with a three week deadline.
Why are they not also looking for the presence of the new mutant pertussis bacteria, which has been caused by using the acellullar vaccine? Why have they not told the public that acellular pertussis vaccine ( Otsuka 12 ) have been the driver for this new mutant, and that the new strains infected vaccinated people better with higher growth rates? Why have no health officials admitted that they have known since 2009 ( Stephanelli 09 ), that these new strains have a five times greater ability to invade the body than the old wild strains? Why are they not asking for a study on the mechanisms whereby pertussis vaccination REDUCES herd immunity because the vaccinated become carriers ( Warfel 13 ) ? Why do they not admit that natural immunity is 30 years, and vaccine immunity is about 3 years?
Why aren't they looking at the fact that neither the whole cell vaccine, or the accellular can create herd immunity - and never have - because on re-exposure, the vaccinated become carriers. The naturally immune do not, because they have a cellular based immunity which effectively repels bacteria and stops any carriage.
In 2003, Korobeinikov's study had shown them that the NZ vaccine had an effective vaccination rate of 33%.
Applicants for this long overdue cud-chew, are required to file before 12 pm, on 20th October, for "rapid application and assessment process".
The Public Health Surveillance Reports have been discussing this "problem" long before the website - from the days when their reports were printed on paper. Yet they are incapable of admitting what has been blindingly obvious for since 1960 - and that is that the whooping cough vaccine has been a waste of money. It hasn't reduced disease incidence or deaths compared to before vaccination, and now the vaccines have spawned a new variant with teeth and seemingly nastier claws.
So, eleven years later... why the need for a rushed application periods? And what will be achieved with only $130,000?
Does the Ministry of Health already have their own "experts" lined up ready with proposals prepared months ago?
Will Dr Cameron Grant, be the lead author?
With the result be more eminence based edicts from the same people who told us how high the protection rates would be from all previous vaccines?
As in.... ... "More vaccine, more often, and on time Continue Reading
Yes, It’s me again. Peter Butler. IT has gone, not me! For this to make sense you’ll need to read on!
I have no idea how many people read these “words of wisdom”, but I do know there is at least one person who does, because I have been asked why the writings in Out of the Mould, seem to have tailed off a bit.
I shall endeavour to rectify this deficiency!! This post will also be in Out of the Mould here, but this is just a head's up that I'm up and running again. Continue Reading
Christmas! (By Peter. Also in OUT OF THE MOULD)
That so-called festive season. Weeks of clamouring voices persuading all and sundry that this, that and the other thing is essential to celebrate Christmas in the approved way; to eat, drink, and be merry, and when it’s all over and the hang-ups have dissipated sufficiently, to finally count the cost and the consequences and make the appropriate New Year’s resolutions!
What lies behind the lead up to the 25th December? Is there a documented story which can be followed?
Yes there is!
But you’ll have to go to the Bible to check it out!
At the beginning of Matthew’s gospel there are 1 ½ chapters and at the beginning of Luke’s gospel there are another 1 ½ chapters, - brief and clear. There is also a verse in Galatians chapter four, which says in part: “But when the right time came, the time God decided on, He sent His Son, born of a woman… to buy freedom for us.”
Contained in those few chapters there are some key elements:
angels – God’s messengers.
Mary and Joseph,
a baby born to a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit,
a decree by the Roman Governor, which told the people where to go to be taxed,
a stable and a manger (feeding trough),
some wise men (or magi),
King Herod and the slaughter of boys 2 years and under.
To this list we could add other characters such as an inn keeper, a midwife and a donkey.
The birth of Jesus took place according to God’s perfect timing and provision. Let’s focus on a few practical specifics.
The Roman Governor’s decree had to be obeyed. That meant a lot of travelling on rough, winding, dusty roads by a lot of people.
Mary and Joseph had to travel 75 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Remember that Mary’s time to give birth was very close. Days of travelling on a donkey would have been far from comfortable.
The town of Bethlehem was crowded with hundreds – possibly thousands – of other people. Most of them probably crammed together outside. Where could Mary find shelter and privacy? Imagine Joseph’s concern for his wife.
Think about the urgency, and the offer of a stable in which Jesus could be born: the physical conditions, the animal occupants, the smell, the lack of cleanliness, the rearrangement of straw to make things more comfortable.
Think about the finding of a midwife and the amazement of delivering the baby of a virgin; the pains of child birth.
Think about Joseph’s protective instincts for his wife and this unusual baby boy, and then the sudden appearance of a group of excited shepherds who had been told by angels to seek out this child who had been born in a stable.
Think about the practical needs of this family and the provision of those needs day by day. Did Joseph have to find work? What were Mary’s thoughts every time she looked into the face of Jesus?
And then there was the arrival of the Wise Men. Strangers from another country, who had been led to a very special child by a special star. A newly born king? Their gifts were exactly right for future needs.
Think about King Herod’s anger and jealousy at the Wise Men’s failure to report back to him. Now how could he deal with any threat to his throne?
Think of the speed at which Joseph, Mary with the baby Jesus, were told to pack up and go to Egypt. Think of the anguish suffered by the parents whose baby boys were slaughtered, by order of Herod in a cruel attempt to safeguard his own kingship.
The joy of Jesus’ birth was tempered by considerable discomfort, pain and real everyday learning experiences. God in human flesh began tasting daily life just as we do. The Creator God identified with us in every way.
Think about the facts that:
Christmas is not a Bible word.
No exact date is given for His birth.
There is no mention in the Bible that it was to be a day to be especially remembered.
Contrast what you and I are subjected to at “Christmas” time, with the details above. There’s not much similarity. The more deeply you think, the more questions there are that need answers.
Why is there so much difference?
Humankind is very good at changing things if it results in gaining “advantages” from those changes. By manipulating dates, pagan festivals and commercial activities with a range of traditions from various cultures, etc, it is possible to create new mindsets and new societal attitudes, especially if you make this an on-going strategy.
One of the first things to do is to eliminate God altogether or to introduce substitutes that neutralise Him. Using Santa Claus, the character with the red suit and the white-whiskered face, his sack of goodies and all the other tinsel and glitter, new technology and keeping up with the Joneses, has been very successful. The fact that parents (and others) have to lie to their children to retain the secret of Santa’s identity is unacceptable. Surely this is hypocrisy. If a foot is allowed in the door, what will follow? So much more could be added on this subject!
Another person who has publicly said something similar is Frank Haden, who said this in 1995, and this in 2001. You might find his views interesting.
For many people Christmas is a sad time.
The following is an example that illustrates this:
Author Jon Walker writes:
“I am sitting in a fast food restaurant observing a young girl celebrating an early Christmas with her mother. Her presents are spread out across a table and she just said, “I miss you Mummy.”
“I miss you too, baby,” her mother says. Beyond the table a woman casually, but carefully watches them. Using my journalist’s eye I put it all together. The watching woman is a social worker supervising a structured visit for a mother and child who are doing their best to celebrate Christmas. A few minutes later foster parents arrive and take the little girl home. The mother leaves alone. There’s a darker side to Christmas we rarely acknowledge.
We create this fantasy which seldom matches reality, even in the best of homes.
Many Christmas memories are full of tension – not tinsel. The holiday is just another excuse for Mummy to get drunk, or Daddy to be with his new family … yet another reminder that the one we love is far away or perhaps is never coming back. The suicide rate is extraordinarily high in December. Depression is as common as “Joy to the World”. More people hurt at Christmas than we initially imagine. For those tired of the hollow hope and false fantasies of Christmas, the good news is that God loves us.”
(Source not known) Continue Reading
On the 27th of November, the Malaghan Institute put out a press release, which reads in part:
Professor Graham Le Gros, Director of the Malaghan Institute, says immunology is a field in which there is still much to uncover.
“Your immune system does so much more than simply fighting infection. It scrutinises all cells in the body for signs of imperfection, and eliminates those not working properly. Our immune system also detoxifies and harmonises our body with the environment, the bugs that grow on us, and the toxins in the food that we eat. And it does so with minimal interruption to our daily lives.”
However, Professor Le Gros says it is becoming clear that the human immune system needs to be educated from the early months of life to know what it should, or shouldn’t, be attacking.
“Our team of scientists at the Institute are working on applying this knowledge to the development of natural therapies that educate the immune system to stimulate the right type of immune responses for the treatment of cancer, asthma, allergy and other inflammatory diseases,” he says.
The assumption is that the immune system isn't being educated in the early months of life.
Medical articles on neonatal immunity, habitually refer to a baby’s immune system as "defective"; "impaired"; "slow"; "inadequate"; "compromised" or "deficient". Usually they end with the suggestion to add exogenous compounds to “correct X defect”. Even better, to manipulate and correct them all, making a baby’s immune system “perfect” in their human understanding.
Arstechnica editorialised on a letter in Nature, in which doctors had figured out that, “ Keeping the immune system in check helps the development of healthy gut bacteria.”
The authors were surprised to find that….
“For their part, the infants seem to be tamping down their immune response to allow the beneficial bacteria to establish themselves. Obviously, this also makes them more susceptible to infection from dangerous bacteria as well, so developing a healthy microbiome is a bit of a tradeoff. The authors of the Cincinnati hospital study call it "unfortunate by-product of the greater benefits of active suppression during this crucial developmental period, when tolerance to commensal microbes is more uniformly advantageous."
Having realised there is a good reason for this immune system tamping down, they swept on to a new grand fallacy that hyporesponsiveness to infection is itself, still a defect!
A quote from an article in a Canadian magazine, "Alive".
"A carefully controlled media has established "science" in our minds as fact... Science is merely an investigation, logically arranged and systematized. Science changes it's mind regularly and no-one seems to care. We believe the new hypothesis just as devoutly as we followed the first."
Pertussis (whooping cough) is a good example. In 1981, the brochure said, three jabs would make you immune for life. Then as time went on, they dropped to two. Then suddenly went back to three jabs. Then the next brochure decreed four, .... then five, .... then six, ....and in some countries, seven.
Now the “truth” adds on to that, "every pregnancy" and everyone around the new baby, "every pregnancy".
Next it will be your dog as well. Continue Reading
Merck’s next problem - Japan. A culture that is very much into compliance and obedience in many ways... is the first country whose parents have had the guts to ..... say......
Cervical cancer vaccine victims urge permanent halt to vaccination
TOKYO, August 24, 2013. KYODO.
Eight teenage sufferers of severe side effects of cervical cancer vaccines and their parents called on Health Minister Norihisa Tamura on Friday, to permanently end the Government’s subsidy program for the vaccines.
The schoolgirls aged between 14 and 18, including four in wheelchairs, and their parents, are members of the Nationwide Liaison Association of Cervical Cancer Vaccine Victims and Parents. They made the request in a meeting with the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, at the Ministry Building, Association Chief Mika Matsufuji told a news conference.
Sotaro Sato, a medical doctor who has examined many cervical vaccine victims, told the news conference that the convulsions, inability to walk, and involuntary movements of the hands and toes were caused by encephalomyelitis, or inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.
“Cervical cancer vaccines, which are chemically bound to special types of adjuvants, often trigger encephalomyelitis,” he said.
“since the vaccine caused autoantibodies against the brain’s neuronal fibers to be produced in many cases, they have triggered demyelinating disorders,” he said, adding, “They have also induced many cases of cerebral vascultitis”.
In a cerebral Vasculitis, the body’s immune system attacks blood vessels in the brain, often leading to brain hemorrhage”, said Sato, who runs a hospital in Osaki, Miyagi Prefecture.***
____ for more information go to SANEvax.
I wonder if The New Zealand Coroner, Judge Ian Smith, will be told the findings of a Japanese doctor given at a news conference a few days ago? After all, many of the Japanese victims had exactly the same symptoms as Jasmine, and other New Zealand girls whose parents have ALL had the doors slammed on their backsides, as they walked out of the doctor’s surgery.
What is the difference between New Zealand and Japan?
First up, Japan seems to be one of the few countries where parents are still listened to by doctors, and scientists don’t appear to have been bought out by Merck. Parents in Japan have not had quite the same problems as New Zealand parents have when they girls have reacted to Gardasil. As a society, Japan is very different. While the Japanese are generally compliant, honesty and integrity are held in much higher regard than in New Zealand, and parents are not “flicked off” by doctors, there, to the same extent as they are in New Zealand.
The Japanese medical profession doesn’t treat childhood vaccines like a compulsory religion, so there is not the intense pressure to vaccinate like there is in New Zealand. Japanese parents are taken seriously, and have contacted each other, organised themselves and they are determined to get something done to have the Government halt all HPV vaccinations. Both Gardasil and Cervarix have caused reactions in Japan. Remember too, that Japan also banned MMR I, and MMR II, because in their populations, both resulted in unacceptable reactions. That fact alone will result in some people saying something like, "That must mean there is something about Japanese genes that means they are "susceptible".....". Except for one thing. There is nothing different to what is happening in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand, than there is happening in Japan in terms of reactions. What is different, is the attitude of the medical profession.
In New Zealand, when a child has a reaction to a vaccine, children and parents are rarely listened to. Excuses abound, and it requires monumental determination to get anywhere. What’s worse, is that we KNOW there are children in New Zealand who have had serious reactions to Gardasil, who are now on the streets. More on that later....
On 7th August, 2012, Rhonda Renata went for a haircut to look respectable for the Coroner’s hearing on 8 – 9th August 2012. She was sitting in the chair talking to the hairdresser about who was going to be giving evidence, and the testing results etc. Leaning on the reception desk listening was a young girl looking very upset. She spoke to Rhonda and told her that she was very scared, because she had had two Gardasil vaccines, and while she hadn’t had warts after them, everything else Rhonda described as symptoms that her daughter Jasmine had, was what was happening to her. She also said that her mother wouldn’t listen to her, and she didn’t know what to do. Rhonda was so beside herself, she rang me up in tears…. What happened to the girl? She couldn’t find out.
Over the next week, as Rhonda spoke to more people, yet more cases of problems after Gardasil, came out of the woodwork. Girls in the Wellington region “suddenly” developing seizures. And their parents being told that of course, they aren’t related to Gardasil. Girls whose periods just… stopped. Girls complaining of headaches… inability to sleep, nausea, extra heart beats... incredible arm and leg pain... the list just gets longer all the time.
And then, there are all the girls complaining of massive “pain” throughout their bodies. “Hypochondriacs” one and all, appears to be the view of most New Zealand doctors.
I caught up with the family of one of the girls who first complained of intense whole body pain amongst a constellation of symptoms, only to find that she was now a street kid, in a drug and alcohol induced stupor. She hated her family and the doctor because they couldn't help her. Only street drugs bury the pain, but they also bury her brain. Yet, when her parents went to CYPS for help, they were told that they were bad parents – of a model kid who before Gardasil, had no previous social, behavioural or academic issues.
Parents of a vaccine injured girl in the heart of the North Island told me of their adolescents' friends who were now having horrendous issues post Gardasil, which are, just the “usual teenagers going off the rails” issues – according to their family doctors. A few of those children were now with gangs and on the streets. Never anything to do with vaccines, least of all Gardasil! .... Yet guess what? The kids who hadn’t had Gardasil, weren’t having the same sorts of issues. Yes, they were having the usual stupid brainless NZ adolescent peer rubbish relating to alcohol etc, but none of the pain, the headaches, chest pains, heart issues, brain-fog and gut aches.
While the Renata family waits an eternity for a coroner’s decision on the case of Jasmine Renata, it’s just as well for New Zealand girls that there is such a low Gardasil vaccine uptake in this country.
Not that that helps the girls who have already received the vaccine. Particularly those girls who have not been helped by the medical profession. Their parents are distraught and broken people - their hopes for their children dashed.
One of the big problems in New Zealand – which Japan does NOT appear to suffer from, is that the medical profession here has preconceived ideas of what are “normal” issues when it comes to adolescents, and utter disregard for parents who say, "But this is NOT my child!"... Japanese doctors don't do that.
Nine years ago, I took an adolescent who was living with us, to a doctor because she had health issues, but didn’t know where to go with them. I could plainly see it wasn’t an adolescent issue. I’d sat back and watched, and this was different. A local doctor, supposedly very good with the elderly, listened to her with a pan face, and then told her to “pull your thumb out, your socks up, and get on with life.” The girl and I were shocked.
The appointment was immediately transferred through to my (non-NZ) doctor. We sat down with him, detailing the story again, and he took the girl seriously. Blood tests then revealed that the young girl had hemochromatosis, so the whole family had to be tested and counselled.
What is it like today in 2013? The telephones tell me the same thing as in 1987. Mention the phrase, “it started after the vaccine” and the eyes glaze over, and the trite words run off the tongue like froth off a sheep dog's tongue while rounding up stubborn renegade sheep.
At least the Japanese doctors have listened and are attempting to investigate AND find out why. Which is more than you can say for the New Zealand sheep dogs. Continue Reading
These are important thinking points which come out of this case, which readers with an indepth knowledge of Merck's litany of lies in the past will appreciate.
There are the main issues:
1) The more you investigate the legal history of Merck, you wonder how anyone can have any faith in medical articles, data sheets or information presented by Merck to the public. As far as I’m concerned Merck has never had any ethics, and the way their top staff is ‘selected’ is proof of that. Jobs for the boys who ring the tills. Or girls, as it is in the case of Dr Julie Gerberding, responsible for fast-tracking Gardasil, and now head of Merck’s vaccines division. You scratch my back, I’ll pay you handsomely.
Question: When is a legal case really newsworthy?
Answer: When it’s never covered by the mainstream media. Yet the on-going Merck MMR case - which no-one is being told about - is even more important than VIOXX was.
I wonder how Merck has managed to so skillfully keep it out of mainstream media....
So let’s update the news, …. that isn’t being told.
An article planted recently in the pro-corporate website Law360 says pretty much what Merck’s lawyers wanted it to say. Naturally, it was ignored by mainstream media. It said:
‘Eric Sitarchuk of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP emphasized that the suit brought by two former employees of the company does not hold up because they failed to demonstrate that the label of its mumps vaccine was false and that the FDA was misled about the efficacy of the vaccine….. “They’re asking the court to muscle the FDA out of the way and decide on the science,” Sitarchuk said. “It’s precisely that problem that’s why an Fair Claims Act case can’t be based on the alleged falsity of the label.”….. Sitarchuk argued that for the pair to succeed in their case they would have to allege that the government was the victim of active misrepresentations by Merck and show that the efficacy of the vaccine was less than what the company claimed.’
In two previous blogs about this case, I outlined the primary issues, and uploaded the original complaint:
Part 1: June 23, 2012. Former Merck Scientists File Suit Against Merck Under The False Claims Act
Part 2: June 24, 2012. Merck's Money Racket
What’s happened since then?
SRKW LAW is the co-lead counsel for the class action lawsuit which runs parallel to the core case.
It took a while to find all subsequent relevant documents, which I will not upload here, for obvious reasons - but here are my summaries from the three documents which provide the Judge with core arguments from relevant parties:
On 31st August 2012, Merck filled a 50 page “Motion to dismiss.” (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 45) which simply attempted to rewrite the original complaint with willful inaccuracies, disregarding all allegations, while inventing new circuitous ones. Here are key omissions, and highlights:
1) Merck does NOT deny that they crossed out the numbers and wrote in new ones.
2) Merck does NOT deny that they committed the alleged multiple acts of fraud, but instead try to pretend that the allegations merely involved a misbranded label.
3) Merck attempts to argue that the case is only alleged to be a fraudulent label. Were the issue a fraudulent label, that would remove the case from the False Claims Act to another act laying blame on the FDA, not Merck.
4) Merck then takes another tack, bizarrely arguing for an illegal application of the False Claims Act, limiting or barring cases for fraudulent conduct which violates FDA or federal laws and regulations, and legally requiring whistle-blowers to FIRST exhaust all administrative remedies stating in exhaustive detail, who, what, where, when and how - ignoring the fact that in cases of corporate fraud it’s impossible for plaintiffs to have full personal knowledge of malfeasance occurring further up the hierarchy, where sophisticated means of concealment are used. This judicial demand, would rip the heart out of the statute’s application, and make the False Claims Act pointless.
5) Merck then argues that the case should be dismissed because the False Claims Act doesn’t allow private citizens to challenge the FDA’s determination.
6) Merck indulges in pure make-believe by asserting that allowing the case would unduly interfere, usurp and intrude on the FDA’s expertise, judgment and discretion to enforce its own rules and regulations.
7) Merck tries to claim that the relators are first required to file a citizen’s petition with the Fda and exhaust all administrative remedies that might have been available even though there is no requirement for any such legal pre-requisite.
8) Merck asserts that the case should be dismissed because the relators waited nine years to lodge a case, and in that time, never utilized any processes with the USA FDA. So Merck is insinuating that because the two scientists should have complained harder, and they didn’t, there can’t possibly be a case.
9) Merck also infers that because the FDA let Merck get away with it, they couldn’t have done anything wrong.
10) Merck says is that the case has no merit because the DOJ decision not to intervene proves Merck’s innocence. (I said at the end of this blog in June 2012, that Merck couldn’t be silly enough to claim this but obviously Merck’s lawyers are sillier than I thought.)
Merck’s lawyers wasted 74 pages filled with incredibly weirdly wending waffle, constant obfuscation, with a shot gun approach for various differing reasons, and in the process, repeatedly used dismissive phrases like, “minor shortcomings” “relator’s speculate” or “sleight of hand”.
Every possible attempt was made to shoot the messenger and not address any actual issues. Perhaps they thought if they were lucky, the Judge would be sleeping on the job.
Merck’s stated on page 35 of their “Motion to Dismiss” that “…relators must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistakes, including the “time, place and substance of the defendant’s alleged conduct. This they failed to do.”
At this point you’d think that Merck’s lawyers would clearly realize the ridiculous paucity of their case – but in reality, what else could Merck lawyers do, if Merck is actually unable to deny any of the original allegations? Their only course of action was to hope that the judge was dumb enough to be easily confused by their illogic.
Which of course played right into the hands of the relators.
On 9th October 2012, the relators handed to the court, a 74 page “Memorandum to oppose Merck’s motion to dismiss” (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 47) in which they restated their original complaints, and listed clearly how they had actually fulfilled all Merck’s page 35 criteria, and more besides.
The relators gave a brief history and gave blow by blow evidence showing that the case against Merck centred around provable:
1) Improper efficacy testing.
2) Falsifying efficacy test data.
3) Destroying evidence of the fraud.
4) Lying to the FDA.
5) Putting fraudulent labeling on datasheets and bottles.
6) Making fraudulent Government submissions, fraudulent CDC purchase contracts, false certification of compliance, thereby fraudulently inducing CDC to enter into contracts.
7) Violating Merck’s subsequent multiple ongoing duties of government and public disclosures in order to maintain its marketing monopoly with CDC, while foreclosing the government from access to high quality and less expensive vaccines.
8) Subsequently lying to the European Medical Agency in 2004, stating that mumps component had more than 95% efficacy with the label stating 96.7%.
9) Merck lied to the FDA regarding MMRII, saying that it would actually reduce the amount of virus in the vaccine and maintain it’s 95% efficacy.
10) Merck did not tell its own funded puppet (Immunisation Action Coalition) these facts.
11) Merck did nothing to stop any third party repeating what Merck knows to be lies.
12) Merck continues to tell USA healthcare professionals in its websites that vastly outdated studies put the mumps component at 96% seroconversion rate.
13) Merck’s actions render false all certification by Merck since at least 1999.
On 25th May, 2013, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a 54 page document, (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 54) delivering a swift winkle-picker up the backsides of Merck’s lawyers, by incisively demolishing Merck’s arguments. The highlights of this document are:
1) The DOJ continues to remain a real party in interest with a strong interest in the outcome.
2) Merck's argument that suits by private citizens are not allowed, “is not supported by statutory text or case law and is inconsistent with the purposed of the False Claims Act”.
3) That the relators stand in the “government’s shoes”
4) That Merck’s illegal application interpretation of the of the False Claims Act, seeking to limit or bar cases for fraudulent conduct which violates FDA or federal laws and regulations, is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.
5) That “it is no surprise that Merck cites to no decisions that only the Government and not a relator can litigate this type of False Claims Act suit” and that” the government is aware of no such holding in a False Claims Act”.
6) DOJ successively trashes the use of the cases argued by the Merck lawyers, making the Merck legal team look like a bunch on bunnies caught in headlights.
7) DOJ then took apart the other spurious arguments of Merck, in such a way that pretty much backs up the relators, stating “allowing relators to prosecute such False Claims Act suits (as long as sufficiently pleaded) serves the primary purposes of the qui tam provisions”.
8) And finally, the DOJ, opposed all Merck’s reasoning to dismiss the case.
For those with eyes to see, what this case is about is blindingly obvious.
The DOJ is practically telling the judge that Merck is guilty. Continue Reading
- October 2014 (2)
- May 2014 (1)
- December 2013 (2)
- November 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (3)
- July 2013 (10)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (6)
- February 2013 (3)
- January 2013 (1)
- October 2012 (6)
- August 2012 (3)
- July 2012 (3)
- June 2012 (14)
- May 2012 (11)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (2)
- February 2012 (2)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (1)
- November 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (6)
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (6)
- May 2011 (15)
- April 2011 (8)
- March 2011 (3)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (5)
- December 2010 (1)
- November 2010 (7)
- October 2010 (8)
- September 2010 (21)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (3)
- June 2010 (9)
- May 2010 (15)
- April 2010 (17)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (2)
- January 2010 (19)
- December 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (10)
- October 2009 (1)
- September 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (2)
- June 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (2)
- April 2009 (13)
- March 2009 (1)
- February 2009 (2)
- January 2009 (2)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (8)
- September 2008 (10)
- August 2008 (17)
- July 2008 (11)