Hilary's Desk

There is no place for pro/anti vaccine divides, when it comes to allegations of corporate fraud.

Yet all across the media, the focus of the discussion about the Merck lawsuit is not to really discuss the issue, but to slap the "vaccine foes". The first example came out loud and clear in Forbes magazine. You don't have to read further than the title, to know where Gergana Koleva is heading.  She is hoping Krahling and Wolchowski lawsuit is all lies, and so she plants a decoy story.   Her article title was  “Merck Whistleblower suit a boon to vaccine foes even as it stresses the importance of vaccines.” The URL, reads, "Merck whistleblower suit a boon to anti vaccination advocates though it stresses importance of vaccines." 

 Continue Reading

Way back in 2004, a group of New Zealanders learned what it meant to be hit over the head by Big Pharma. Pfizer to be precise. While IAS was Pfizer's actual target, in reality, I was the bull's eye, because the information was written by me, and therefore, I had most of the references in order to defend the complaint. I had written, and made comments based on the very well documented FACTS that the use of paracetamol to reduce fever during infection, downgrades the very part of the inate immune system that triggers the fever, which then sends out cytokine signals, which then release a series of armies which attack invading pathogens.  Turning this part of the immune system off, can make diseases much more serious, AS WELL AS increase the likelihood of death.
 Continue Reading

So what's the big deal, if as alleged in my previous blog, Merck did actually seriously muck around with the efficacy test, cook the books, invent figures, and produce MMR with a dud Mumps component? After all...when did you last hear of anyone dying from Mumps?  (I never did even before the MMR was introduced in 1991, but that's another story.) 

Will this court case succeed? I don't think so, because it's all about MONEY. (<--- MP3 file just for us oldies!)

 Continue Reading

On April 27, 2012, a formal complaint was filed in the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court accusing Merck of a longstanding scheme to mislead and defraud Government health authorities worldwide. Two of Merck’s former employees have accused the pharmaceutical giant of marketing multivalent MMR vaccines under false pretenses. According to the complaint, these vaccines have been mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated and falsely certified as having a 95% efficacy rate.

Before the lawsuit was filed, 21 doctors added their voices to other groups of doctors who are calling for MMR vaccines to be used as a regular booster every 4 – 8 years, in order to control mumps outbreaks. These doctors all assume that the mumps component of all MMR vaccines have the 95 – 98% efficacy promised by Merck.
 Continue Reading

On 31 May, 2012, the New Zealand Ministry of Health made the astonishing decision to change the diagnostic criteria for whooping cough. 

These were the old criteria for a confirmed or probable case:

 Continue Reading

You have got to love it when Canadian scientists spend taxpayers money to come up with "science" like this:

PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36880. Epub 2012 May 30.

Mentalizing deficits constrain belief in a personal god.
 Continue Reading

Predicting the future of whooping cough is pretty simple. It will follow the mantra of the past, because to do otherwise would involve massive loss of face.

 Continue Reading

Mainstream medical treatment of whooping cough is using antibiotics and "palliative" care. 

First up...., it doesn't work.  They know that..., I know that..., but they won't tell you that, for the simple reason that... they have NOTHING else to offer you.

 Continue Reading

You will better understand these blogs if you study each link.  In a letter dated 18 May 2012, the Ministry of Health wrote:

The pertussis containing vaccines are effective but do not protect all babies. The pertussis vaccine currently used in New Zealand and other developed countries offers protection of around 84 percent after three doses….. Adults immunisation is recommended for those who have contact with babies or someone who has an underlying respiratory condition.

Pertussis incidence and mortality have declined in the last 50 years in many places around the world mainly as a result of immunisation activities. However, the incidence of pertussis disease has increased in countries where pertussis immunisation rates decreased in the past for example Japan, Sweden and United Kingdom. When immunisation programmes were re-established the rates of disease decreased again.

Has the whooping cough vaccine stopped whooping cough in Australia?

No.  Here is all the proof you need of that.  Two documents: Continue Reading

(You will better understand these blogs if you study each link).  In a letter dated 18 May 2012, the Ministry of Health wrote:

The pertussis containing vaccines are effective but do not protect all babies. The pertussis vaccine currently used in New Zealand and other developed countries offers protection of around 84 percent after three doses….. Adults immunisation is recommended for those who have contact with babies or someone who has an underlying respiratory condition.

Pertussis incidence and mortality have declined in the last 50 years in many places around the world mainly as a result of immunisation activities. However, the incidence of pertussis disease has increased in countries where pertussis immunisation rates decreased in the past for example Japan, Sweden and United Kingdom. When immunisation programmes were re-established the rates of disease decreased again.

So lets look at the comment about Sweden, because the Ministry of Health's insinuation is that before Sweden dropped the vaccine in 1979, things were great; ....after they stopped, cases rose, .... and after they started the vaccine again in 1996, things went back to 'wonderful'. 

Sweden used no whooping cough vaccines from 1979 to 1996 on the basis that the vaccines had a ZERO efficacy for a very long time. Fine 87 . Yet the Romanos 87 graphs show that from 1959 until they dropped the vaccine, there was a decrease in whooping cough. If ....that decrease is going to be attributed to a vaccine – (any vaccine), why did Sweden not replace their "useless" vaccine, with another vaccine from another European country, which was - according to all other the surrounding countries.... “supposedly” efficacious for them? Continue Reading