“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

Fake bait on a plate.

Hilary Butler - Sunday, June 18, 2017

You know, Lance, initially as I read your latest Stuff.co article, I thought, “My, this man has finally learned some grammar and vocabulary of excellence". But then, as I read on, and compared it to the style used in your book, it dawned on me that you can’t have written this all on your own. Someone with a bit of science, and better grammar than you, added key stuff in here. But that someone didn’t realise how badly they have just shot themselves in the foot. And you wouldn’t have picked that up, because … well… you don’t know the facts or science in order to spot the mistakes, do you?

So let me show you a few bloopers which escaped your bullshit radar.

First up, in 1996, IAS never wrote a pamphlet with “Netherlands” in it, and sure never left anything in a lecture room at any medical school in this country. Second up, most vaccine studies used to justify past and current vaccines aren't studied in communities that look like ours either. Since there was nobody else doing anything in 1996 where did you get this mythical pamphlet from, Lance?

And later you say:

Causing illness and misery? In vaccinated children? Again, seeding minds that the unvaccinated are walking germ cesspits.  You . . . "wanted to believe"? Are we talking about someone training to evaluate fact? No Lance. Now, you are really insulting the intelligence of those who know. You never signed up for the IAS quarterly magazine, because if you had, you would have been far too well-educated to come out with moronic statements like the above. We don’t “believe”. We KNOW. We don’t not vaccinate on the basis of a non-existent pamphlet, and even if there is a pamphlet, those who place a premium on truth view any pamphlet as suspicious, and look deeper afterwards.

Why? Because immunisation is so complicated, that the issue can't be told in a pretty coloured folded piece of paper. That is why most of us think that the Department of Health vaccination pamphlets aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

You never found a brochure in a medical school lecture room, because there was no “Netherlands” pamphlet, and IAS were always “personas never gratis”. In 1990 I had delivered a talk on smallpox to the medical school academics which made them realise that I knew the science from their own medical library, and FOR that reason, I was, and continue to be a threat to their sound bites.

Furthermore, in all the years that I settled into solid study in Auckland Medical school’s Philson medical library, between 1982 to now, once key personnel knew what my mission was, the ONLY time I was treated with any respect was in the holidays when medical students manned the facility to give the fire-breathing desk dragons time off. To certain librarians, I was 'the enemy', and help was often refused. However, that was all to the good, because it meant that on my own, I learned what was in every nook and cranny of the then three floors of that information resource.

Now, the NEW Philson medical library is not nearly as useful a resource. Barriers have been erected to make it very hard for members of the public to find what they need, which means that it’s also not quite so easy for medical students. But that just means everyone has to be more resourceful.

Next, you resort to the lies of emotional blackmail.  Using inflated language you say (cue in victorious violin music): "In the FACE of SUCH overwhelming evidence of the BENEFIT of immunisation and the DRAMATIC REDUCTION in life-ending, or life-altering medical conditions . . .

The only problem is that the wool-pulling-over-the-eyes writer above, chose the wrong disease. Listen well, Lance. NO whooping cough vaccine in this country hast made any difference in terms of circulating bacteria. How did you miss out reading Professor Grant’s 2013 expert review on pertussis or the Immunisation Handbooks from 1993 to now? Haven't you kept up with the ESR whooping cough reports? Don't you know all the other published papers and Department of Health Graphs which prove that the whooping cough incidence in this country, is worse than before a vaccine was used? Where is your data showing that the vaccine has DECREASED the death rates in babies? You don't have it, do you? But I do, and you're wrong. Even worse, among the Department of Health graphs here, the 6th graph down shows an 8-fold increase in hospitalisations of babies under one year old between 1966 and 1996, a trend which has not diminished. And it's the failure of the whooping cough vaccines to achieve their stated aim, which has fuelled the idea of vaccinating every pregnant women with a Tdap every pregnancy. We wouldn't be vaccinating pregnant women, supposedly to protect newborn babies from whooping cough, if there WAS decades of  overwhelming evidence of the dramatic reduction in life-ending or life-altering medical conditions. Or can't you see that? 

Then you say that one year after your daughter was fully vaccinated….

So . . . fully vaccinated, and despite your “pride” here is your daughter . . . sick. If it wasn't Haemophilus Influenza that caused her periorbital cellulitis, what did Lance? Starship should have told you. It’s notable that you did NOT tell US. It is also notable that this seminal incident is nowhere to be found in your book and yet, here you tell it as if it is a landmark of self-validation.

Now we come to your biggest scientific blooper of all:

So, up until now . . . .

You’ve told all your Northland patients the LIE, that the reason Merck's Gardasil is given to a 12-year old, is that little’ole HPV sits there silent with a sign on its forehead, saying, “I won’t do anything until Dick puts his whatsit in Jane.” Right?

Oh, but now . . . you introduce CHILDREN dying from an obstructive warty mass in their throats from childbirth . . . ? Presumably from MOTHERS who have genital warts? How frequent is that? Aren't warty throat masses supposed to be a disease of older people who get HPV from kissing or oral sex? You’ve let the cat out the bag Lance. THAT little admission of yours above, is a major major OOPS. How are you going to explain to parents with no genital or vaginal warts, how the HPV 16 and 18 got into their children’s warty throat growths, when up to now, everyone has been told HPV isn’t an issue until adolescents have sex?

From One Prick to Another (2008) has several chapters on HPV and Gardasil in it, clearly laying out that HPV can be transmitted vertically from Mother to baby, horizontally from father to child and from sibling to sibling, and detailing the Finnish research which shows that HPV is spread in families. Yes, the anti-vaccine already knew this and more, before the vaccine was licensed.

We also know that the HPV strains 16 and 18 are regularly detected from the removed TONSILS of toddlers, when pathologists bother to look for it. Yes, Lance it’s ALL THERE, in the medical literature, that HPV can hit any age group.

There are at least three PMID numbers of studies published before Merck's Gardasil was marketed, warning that the use of cherry-picked incomplete data as public propaganda, was a potential recipe for disaster.

There was one comment under the Stuff.co article from another of your colleagues who didn’t know about vertical transfer. She probably doesn't know about the Finish family research either.

To people like me, that’s no shock.

In fact, it's not even the WHOLE story, is it? How is Merck's Gardasil going to eradicate HPV strains already in children?  Particularly when Merck's Gardasil does not have life-long efficacy, and causes an immunological problem termed original antigenic sin, which encourages other HPV strains to take over? Yes, that's in the medical literature as well.

Moving on….

So now the silencing, threatening or bribing of scientists or doctors doesn't exist? Will you tell me that Merck creating and using a hit list to harass clinical researchers, and silence doctors speaking out against Vioxx, is the only example of Merck's lack of ethics? At this point it’s useful to deal with an issue that neither you, nor your cloned colleague Helen Petousis-Harris appear to understand. And that is that sometimes it IS only one scientist who stands between the public and a nasty something . . . This woman below is Dr Kelsey:

But Helen Petousis-Harris, in a recent interview said this:

So much bull here too. But I will deal with her bull, another day. Helen considers this to be "the success of the FDA". An example of how the system always works. She is wrong, and she is dangerously ignorant. So let me re-educate her, and you in the process.

If the FDA had been a group of heroes, they would all have been awarded medals.

The TRUTH is that Dr Kelsey was one of 12 assessors, working under the head of the FDA. But regarding thalidomide, Kelsey stood ALONE. None of the other eleven FDA co-workers thought she was reasonable, because she was going on 'gut instinct' and not fact. Every other country considered thalidomide research to be impeccable. It had been studied in so many different animals. Dr Kelsey was seen by the industry as totally unreasonable. Why should one woman in the USA be an outlier? How DARE she buck the rest of the world??!!!??!!!!!

The manufacturers put inordinate behind-the-scenes pressure on her through her colleagues and through her boss, but she refused to buckle. How do I know? Well, I’m an old biddie, Lance, who happened to know some of Dr Kelsey’s FDA colleagues from the 1970s and 1980s. Dr Kelsey was always modest, and she also knew that if she wanted to keep her job at the FDA she had to suck up the fact that the MEN around her were not as supportive as they should have been. To her credit, she didn't stick the knife in them. As your article and Helen’s blog admirably illustrate, just because you have a name doesn’t mean your assumptions hold water. You assume that doctors and scientists can’t be silenced. They can be, and they are.

I do use Dr Kelsey as an example of ONE scientist who stood against collegial and peer pressure. Like Thompson, she could have caved. Conversely, William Thompson COULD have been a 'Kelsey', but instead he allowed himself to be roped in, tied up and silenced. Today, there can be no 'Dr Kelsey' in either the FDA or the CDC. Medico-politics of today leave little room for that kind of individual scientific integrity.

This is why the secret recordings upon which the film VAXXED is based are important. This is why police put decoy prisoners in the slammer. The police know that often, people only talk when they think no-one that matters, is listening.

Seems to me that both you and Helen Petoussis-Harris have a lot of real history and medical science to catch up on. Perhaps you should start here, with this series.  You will find the outlier scientists in part 3.

So Lance, when it comes to silenced scientists:

What about those people in Honesty vs Policy, Part 3? What about the Bernice Eddy’s, the Tony Morris’s, and the fact that Sir Graham Wilson could never have written the book, “The Hazards of Immunisation” had it not been for the Director of Wellcome's Physiological Research Laboratory, who handed him a large set of documents on his deathbed? You think those people don't exist either? Go have a listen to the the doctors interviewed by the VAXXED bus. They all talk about their many colleagues who don’t like vaccines, but are silenced, threatened and bribed. What about Dr Humphries? Do you think there was no attempt to silence and harass her? 

All these doctors can’t all be wrong. Better still, even though we know, and you’ve confessed that you don’t read books, perhaps you might make the effort to read “Rising from the Dead”.     

Then you might discover why doctors are silenced, and why some rise from the dead. Not that it’s likely that you would rise from the dead. Because you speak before you think or research, your mana and personal pride is now locked up in the words continually spouting from your mouth.

Your next comment:

"Partly due"?  Hedging your bets? No Lance. Ask any teacher on the cusp of retiring after a 45 year career of teaching. They will tell you that autism today, is NOTHING LIKE what was previously put under the term of “intellectual disability”. Ask any doctor past retirement and they will tell you that “intellectual disability” is nothing like what we are seeing in children today.  What teachers are seeing today, is more akin to functional and intellectual death.

Then you say:

Early childhood infections Lance? Ummmm… do you mean… INFLAMMATION? Has it occurred to you that because of adjuvants, vaccines hit the immune system of some people in different ways, but just as hard, if not harder than an infection? Congratulations though. You are one up on Paul Offit, Lance, admitting to brain changes, but what you fail to notice is that those changes are actually inflammation, and if or when that inflammation happens in utero, everyone knows it from the start, because the baby starts life in regressed mode. As to your suggestion that there is a genetic component you’re trying to shift the goal posts. It’s either epigenetic or genetic, Lance. Which do you think? Every time someone tries to prove “it’s this gene”, they fall flat on their faces.  In the face of clear evidence?  No.  In the face of the same sort of Merky evidence that saw Vioxx which was similarly polluted with jacked up data and a galaxy of conflicts of interest, survive its full patent period.  It is amazing how regularly medical journals write editorials about the myriad of shortcoming in peer-reviewed science, while the sacred cow of vaccine research glows under a get-home-free card.

Next comment:

Actually the complete insult isn’t caused by the parent, who is bullied into vaccinating their child by dictators like you, who do not provide fully informed consent. The person who bullied parents into vaccinating and helped create a chronic inflammatory disorder is the PERSON who is responsible for creating an inflammation in that baby that could have been prevented.

You can argue as does Gregory Poland, that the pregnancy flu vaccine prevents the strong inflammation from the flu that can theoretically cause autism. The problem is that influenza infection only creates strong inflammation in a FEW people who catch it. The vast majority of people who get the flu often don’t even know they have had it. Yes, that is in the medical literature. But if you say that, then Gregory Poland, and you, might have missed one thing: ONLY a tiny minority of pregnant women will ever get the flu in the winter. You know what SHIVERS is, right? It's an influenza research programme funded primarily by USA's CDC. Poke around and you will see that only a tiny percentage of the people thought to have flu, actually get flu types which match the vaccine. 

Ironically then, you tell us that it's a fantastic idea to vaccinate every pregnant woman, every pregnancy, all year around, with the potential to cause varying degrees of inflammation in every vaccinated pregnant woman. Given that most pregnant women would never have got the flu anyway, how is vaccinating every pregnant mother a rational decision? And what happens when you toss aluminium from the obligatory Tdap vaccine that same woman is coerced into getting with every pregnancy — along with the flu shot?

You can't even assure at-risk obese people that the flu vaccine will give them any protection, since Neidich has found that, "Despite robust serological responses, vaccinated obese adults are twice as likely to develop influenza and influenza-like illness compared to healthy weight adults. This finding challenges the current standard for correlates of protection, suggesting use of antibody titers to determine vaccine effectiveness in an obese population may provide misleading information." 

The DOCTOR who did the core work behind the theory of in-utero inflammation, Dr Patterson, specifically said that vaccination in pregnancy could be equally as dangerous in any mother who also responded to the vaccine with strong inflammation. Some do, some don’t. And you should also know that because the flu vaccine makes some people more susceptible to other viruses, those OTHER viruses can also cause severe inflammation in people who don’t respond well to them either. And IF a flu vaccine can cause strong inflammation in some mothers which it can   that could also affect the baby.

Vaccinating a pregnant mother is simply another form of Russian roulette, which Patterson advised against, because strong inflammation after a vaccine can also affect the baby.  But Dr Patterson was just another 'outlier' who didn't fit the dogma . . . who, fortunately for vaccine stakeholders, died of cancer before he became outspoken enough to stop that sherman tank on autopilot.

This load of fake bait, had me laughing for hours, Lance. How indignant you sound! Didn't you know that court cases forcing Merck to pay out for death and disability from the drug Vioxx, nearly broke the back of Merck?  What did Merck look to, to Help Pay for Vioxx?  HPV.  In 2006 Dr Philip Broker, the HPV guru, said this at about Gardasil, at a meeting:

A vaccine isn’t the foundation and saviour of a company facing court actions against a drug, if the income from vaccines is a drop in the ocean, and it is all the drugs that keep them afloat financially. Vaccines are a HUGE $take in the ground, and trying to beat that fact into dust, Lance, defies what anyone can find from the business mouthpieces themselves on… yes…. DR GOOGLE.

But on a more serious note, my favourite myth buster website is FIERCEPHARMA. There you discover that because profits from meds are falling so short, vaccines are bigpharma’s saviour. You discover how many millions Gardasil earns for Merck. You discover how badly Pfizer will feel now that their NZ Prevenar 13 contract has been chopped. You realize how one minute, the Swine flu vaccine is lucrative, then five years later, narcolepsy from the vaccine, threatens the company’s reputation and future profits. Oh yes, vaccines are all about big money. As for you Lance, what are you doing about lifestyle excesses? Just carry on prescribing these drugs you say are so profitable?

Then comes your lowest  blow, where you say:

Well done Lance. I can hear another haka . . . while Lance . . .  drops the ball yet again . . . instead playing the MAN, then the conspiracy, then the WOMAN, then THE RACE CARD, topping it all off with the filthy lucre icing!  Even managed to mention politics!

Trump? . . .  What's that they said about Trump? Sexist, rhetoric, rigged elections, misogynist, racist . . the list goes on . . .? Your own regular media circus road show scripts, do indeed give the nod to the tactics from the new monkey see, monkey do Ministry of Health psychology manual, describing shooting the messenger while NOT discussing science.

Then you say:

Actually, that F grade is right on your doorstep Lance.

All you and your colleagues seem to care about is needling kids. You don’t really care about the things you SAY matter, like tight families, good housing, breastfeeding, not smoking, not boozing, great nutrition, reducing drug use, high standards of ethical behaviour, etc . . .

The only ethical behaviour you want to talk about, is that everyone should  be made to vaccinate themselves, or their children for someone else’s sake. You don't want or even care about informed consent, or personal choice! What do you say to anyone who has been vaccine injured, just to supposedly protect the too young, your patients who are immune compromised from the drugs you prescribe, and the elderly? Or will you tell me, you've never seen a single vaccine side effect? 

The reality is that persuading people to improve their lifestyle choices is in the doctor’s 'too-hard' basket. It takes too much time. There is no ten minute quick-buck-turn-around while educating people . . .  is there . . . Lance?  You want to redeem yourself? Then stop doling out lifestyle drugs, and get the basics of numbers one to four sorted out in your community.

Because guess what.

People like me who actively, intelligently CHOOSE NOT to vaccinate ourselves and our children, have made Numbers 1 – 4 our compulsory lifestyle, as described here in "Hands off my family". The people who REALLY get the basics right voluntarily in this country, are the educated, well-read parents of all races, whose children rarely see a doctor, and who you disparage, instead of 'playing the ball'.  We actively CHOOSE not to vaccinate BECAUSE of the science.  We actively CHOOSE our lifestyles, because we play the ball, Lance. We are not the chronically sick, fully vaccinated people who line the corridors of hospitals and cost the taxpayer millions of dollars, nor are we running around constantly spreading diseases on everyone else. 

I challenge your ignorance, and your right to demand compulsion by playing people, conspiracy and race CARDS, instead of promoting fact-based decision making.

 Continue Reading

Merck's next problem - Japan

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, August 28, 2013

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.

 Continue Reading

Merck's MMR murk - where to from here?

Hilary Butler - Thursday, August 22, 2013

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.

 Continue Reading

Merck's illegal MMR smokescreen continues

Hilary Butler - Tuesday, August 20, 2013

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

The high cost of protection

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The Supreme Court in USA, in a case called Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-142. has just ruled that drug companies are now exempt from lawsuits  even when the adverse reaction (toxic epidermal necrolysis)  was one of several hidden by the drug makers, and later forced to be included on all warning labels.

As this blog says, the Supreme Court “cited the fact that all generic drugs and their manufacturers, some 80% of all drugs consumed in the United States, are exempt from liability for side effects, mislabeling or virtually any other negative reactions caused by their drugs,” and “that the FDA has ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals in the US. And if the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedent over actual facts….”

The court ruled “that the original inventors and manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs, also known as ‘name brand’ drugs, are the only ones that can be sued for mislabeling, fraud or adverse drug reactions and side effects. If the generic versions of the drugs are made from the exact same formula and labeled with the exact same warnings as their brand name counterparts, the generics and their manufacturers were not liable.”

As the blog said, “Immediately upon the Supreme Court’s ruling, both drug manufacturers and Wall Street investors were celebrating. As one financial analyst pointed out, drug company profits should skyrocket going forward. Not only do the pharmaceutical companies no longer have to worry about safety or side effects, they are exempt from the multi-million dollar court-imposed settlements awarded to victims of their drugs.”

Remember this, the next time your doctor wants to give you a cheap generic.

Read the Reuter’s news item on this topic which amongst other things said:

"The generic industry dodged a bullet on this one," BMO's Maris said. "Had it gone against them it would have put a big cloud over the industry."

(BMO stands for Banque d’Montreal, which is a huge conglomerate industry with fingers in more pies than you can imagine…)

And even more important, remember THIS: If the companies don’t care about you, (even though they murmur platitudinous words to the contrary….,) and neither does FDA, ....  shouldn’t you be looking at other ways to fix “shoulder pain” -  or whatever the problem is that you have, instead of slapping a “band-aid” on, to simply suppress the symptoms accompanying a problem?  

Shouldn’t you be asking yourself, why it is, you would WANT to even take any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory? Particularly the drug this girl took, sulindac, which has been known since 2003, to carry a high risk of liver damage? Sulindac causes decreased kidney filtration with transient and permanent kidney problems  If you read the left column of this book page, you will see it causes proteinuria.  All red flags for anyone who thinks.

So why is it that people and doctors, reach first for a toxic drug like sulindac just for shoulder pain?  

And there is one more issue here: Sulindac, is the generic version of Merck & Co Inc's Clinoril, and we all know about the ways and means that Merck has, of weaselling out of drug and vaccine reactions!  Make no mistake… Merck took more than a passing interest in the outcome of THIS drug, since according to the extract above it is implied that Merck is really the one who should have been slapped with this court case, since apparently, they were the ones to first hide the nasty outcome data.

So why is anyone surprised that the Supreme court has yet again, conspired to protect Merck et al? The huge and varied vested interests know how to pull all the strings of protection: to manipulate and hide data, twist motives and the interpretation of “legal safeguards” so that the “justice system” covers their butt for them. Continue Reading

Forbes Magazine backs Merck despite corporate fraud allegations

Hilary Butler - Friday, June 29, 2012

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

How Big Pharma stacks the deck against any lawsuits

Hilary Butler - Monday, June 25, 2012

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

Former Merck Scientists File Suit Against Merck Under the False Claims Act

Hilary Butler - Saturday, June 23, 2012

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

Gardasil, fairywands and bulldust.

Hilary Butler - Monday, September 12, 2011

Sitting back watching the medical and political system defending Gardasil is quite amusing. First, the usual bloggers who fall under the “anti the anti-vaccine people” catagory, take uneducated speculative ranting swipes (and I’m not providing URLs because their ignorance is worse than their insolence), and then, as usual, the media doesn’t understand the significance of this issue.  Either that, or they have been told to shut up. None of them lived through the polio/SV40 debacle, and ants have longer institutional memory than journalists living under high pressure situations where the motto is “write, present and forget”.

Part of what they face are the fairy-wands or bulldust waved by manufacturers and government officials, to try to persuade journalists not to run the story. After all, most journalists have no idea that this is the latest in a long history of vaccine contaminants. The manufacturers’ and authorities’ intent, is that journalists will think the issue a big yawn, and not put pen to paper (“Mustn’t scare the public, eh?!” Pass the bean dip, please...).
 Continue Reading

FDA questioned about genetically engineered HPV DNA in Gardasil worldwide.

Hilary Butler - Monday, September 05, 2011

All New Zealand samples contaminated.

A few days ago, an American organisation put on their website a copy of a letter sent to the FDA, in which they stated that thirteen samples of Gardasil from Poland, France, Spain, USA, New Zealand and Australiamade in four different Merck factories (USA, Holland, France and CSL Australia) had been tested, and found to contain genetically engineered dna fragments which the purification process failed to remove.  Yesterday, a more detailed press release was put onto SANE-Vax's site, which showed samples contaminated with HPV DNA 11 and 18.  The New Zealand results can be seen here.

One of the genetically engineered particles found is said to be  a genetically engineered syntheticaly constructed gene designed to instruct the yeast or baculovirus cells, to make the HPV-11 outer capsid protein (virus-like particles) for the Gardasil vaccine.  

This is the Pubmed site for GenBank Locus SCU55993, which is the picture below, of ONE of the alleged contaminants:

Wavy lines mean nothing to me, and probably nothing to you.  

SANE-vax's letter doesn't specifically say what the other contaminants are, but say that the rest of their proof is available for review provided that FDA provides " appropriate safeguards ... to protect the proprietary processes and information utilized by our laboratory to test the samples."

To me, no platitudes and fob-offs on this issue are acceptable.

The first question that comes to mind is,

"Is  this  a  big  deal?"

This isn't a quality issue in one factory.

The problem, according to the testing done by SANE-vax shows;

A global manufacturing fault.


A global manufacturing issue relating to vaccine design, process and purity - IS - a big deal.

The next question is:

Are  the  "genetically  altered  HPV  DNA  fragments"  a  big  deal?

 Continue Reading