Forbes Magazine Tilts at IMCV and Gives Merck a Free Pass, by Hilary

[Guest guest]

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/30/forbes-magazine-tilts-at-imcv-and-gives-merck-a-free-pass-by-hilary-butler/

Forbes Magazine Tilts at IMCV and Gives Merck a Free

Pass, by

Posted: 30 Jun 2012 10:19 PM PDT

– June 30, 2012Posted in:

Articles

Print

PDF

Link directly to ’s blog HERE

http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/_blog/%27s_Desk/post/Forbes_Magazine_backs_Merck_despite_corporate_fraud_allegations/

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 loud and clear from Forbes Magazine. You

don’t have to read further than the title, to where Gergana Koleva is

heading. She is desperately 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.”

Nothing like hanging out provaccine bias for all to see. But the problem

is, Gergana is blind to her own message, yet insists that those who are

calling out her bias, are guilty of “baseless criticisms”. Medical

history from 1988, state that there was something badly amiss with the

Merck Mumps vaccine. These two 2007 medical articles BRUNELL and

PETOLA are compulsory reading.

When journalists like Gergana, who claim to write on corporate fraud,

bioethics and health publish an article, readers would expect to enjoy a

competent fleshing out of facts; a time line; the medical literature; the

legal process; the facts about the Department of Justice; the history of

the company including history of previous corporate frauds, and how

corporate fraud affects us all in day to day life. Yet what they got was

primarily a fingering of the “vaccine foe”, which is particularly

noticeable if you ANALYZE THE ADJECTIVES she used when describing

the two “sides”; dripping doubt about the case, and dripping sarcasm,

aimed at the “vaccine foes”….

After glossing over the case as fast as possible, Gergana launches into

her main mission, incorrectly stating that the “Department of Justice

refused to rule on the case.” This was done in my opinion, to link her

incorrect comment about the Department of Justice, to Merck’s statement

that the case is “without merit”. A perception is thereby created in the

reader’s mind, that if the DOJ’s investigation has found the case to be

true, they would have joined with the whistleblowers. The slant of the

article infers that because the Department of Justice did not join the

case, and Merck said that the case is “without merit”, ….there must be

nothing to the case.

But is that what the Department of Justice said, and did? No.

In case anyone is wondering, THIS DOCUMENT sets out the procedures

which the DOJ should take:

“At the conclusion of the investigation, or earlier if so directed by

the Court, the Department of Justice must choose one of three options

named in the False Claims Act:

1) intervene in one or more counts of the pending qui tam action. This

intervention expresses the Government’s intention to participate as a

plaintiff in prosecuting that count of the complaint. Fewer than 25% of

filed qui tam actions result in an intervention on any count by the

Department of Justice.

2) decline to intervene in one or all counts of the pending qui tam

action. If the United States declines to intervene, the relator and his

or her attorney may prosecute the action on behalf of the United States,

but the United States is not a party to the proceedings apart from its

right to any recovery. This option is frequently used by relators and

their attorneys.

3) move to dismiss the relator’s complaint, either because there is no

case, or the case conflicts with significant statutory or policy

interests of the United States.”

The above quote makes it clear the DOJ could have recommended

dismissal and should have recommended dismissal if they believed there

were no case. From the available evidence, it can be safely assumed the

DOJ did not choose option 3. That contradicts any who say that the DOJ

believes the case has no merit.

Another quote:

Upon intervention approval, the Department of Justice files

1) a notice of intervention, setting forth the specific claims as to

which the United States is intervening;

2) a motion to unseal the qui tam complaint filed by the relator and the

notice of intervention. All other documents filed by the Department of

Justice up to that point remain under seal.

Who does the unsealing? The Department of Justice. The investigation

by the Department of Justice, took two years to not only complete, but

would also have collectively considered the IMPLICATIONS of all the

evidence they gathered. They would have looked at who was involved; any

FDA involvement; any CDC collusion… and then they would have made a

decision based on the likely ripples and fall-outs of what they

found.

The DOJ has not stated anywhere, that they found the allegations false,

or that they REFUSED to join the case.

If the DOJ had actually found the case “was entirely without merit, and

had absolutely no basis in fact”, they would not have wasted two years.

Wouldn’t they have taken up option 3 above, and filed a motion to dismiss

the case? Then there would have been none of the following actions from

the second quote. Wouldn’t the Department of Justice have then clearly

stated to the media, that the case had no merit?

We’d have heard about it by now, if the case had no merit.

What did they do? The Department of Justice reserved the right to join in

the case at any time in the future, and then allowed the complaint to be

unsealed so that it could then go to trial.

Which by the way, is where the LEGAL merits of the case will be decided.

We already know the medical merits of the Merck Mumps vaccine, because as

I have detailed in ANOTHER BLOG, the lack of efficacy of the mumps

vaccine has been pointed at in the medical literature since 1988.

The beauty of the Department of Justice’s decision, is that they are

actually hunting with the hounds, while trying to protect the hares at

the same time, but if the case starts to look really bad for Merck, in

order to create a public impression of “doing it’s duty”, they can jump

in later and accumulate acclaim and “brownie points” along the

way.

Which is the nature of medical politics.

The DOJ does NOT EVER…. reserve the right to JOIN any case in the future,

which it knows is a bag of hogwash.

……..The ONLY thing that lack of DOJ participation indicates but does not

say…., is that the FDA is severely exposed on the issue.

A clear example of Gergana’s inability to fully discuss corporate fraud,

and her deliberate wish to concentrate on fingering “vaccine foes” is

quickly seen:

If Gergana knew her history and had read the complaint properly, she

would know that Krahling and Wlochowski were accusing Merck of

systematically, and serially over a long period of time commiting both

corporate fraud as well as defrauding the government and misinforming

parents. Gergana should also know that this isn’t the first time Merck

have done this, either with vaccines or drugs. (And it won’t be the last

either.) There is a raft of proof in the USA Senate records themselves.

Here is just ONE example: 1972 SENATE HEARING discussing 32

useless vaccines still on the market at that time which also discussed

the “useless” flu vaccine, which anyone reading the COCHRANE REVIEW

DISCUSSION POINTS or SIMONSEN’S MEDICAL ARTICLES, will know is

still useless, but the best money fountain a vaccine manufacturer can

manage to sell.

Those journalists with a longer memory and better research skills might

also remember (or chose to forget) another senate hearing, devoted to the

fact that the efficacy of the injectable SALK vaccine was misrepresented

in a similar manner to the Krahling and Wlochowski case. How many

journalists today, even wonder why it was that the Salk vaccine was

replaced with the Sabin vaccine in the early 60 s or question why those

who had been injected with the old Salk vaccine were then told to go and

have three doses of the Sabin vaccines? Shouldn’t that “known fact” raise

questions as to the validity of the “myth” that the Salk vaccine

vanquished polio from the USA?

The underlying focus of Gergana’s story is to give Merck a glowingly

provaccine free pass. Which is what all the provaccine media are doing

right now.

Everyone is defending Merck, yet when the CEO of Merck volunteered to

lead Penn State’s inquiry into the Sandusky allegations, media as well as

ordinary people were unilateral in their condemnation that an

ethically-challenged company like Merck would consider it appropriate

that their CEO, could LEAD AN INVESTIGATION into somebody else’s

wrongdoing.

The irony is that if this corporate fraud case was about some other

pharmaceutical product than a vaccine, … like another “Vioxx”, or any one

of the other many other drugs that the FDA has to scratch over the years

because of corporate fraud, the pro-vaccine tribe would be jumping all

over Merck crying foul. (Particularly if one of their own had been maimed

or killed as a result.)

The pro-vax argument at any fraud, should be outrage. If it were just

“alleged” fraud, none of the long string of medical articles questioning

Merck’s vaccine would exist. The message to Merck should be that those

who wish to vaccinate their children, deserve to be able to make an

informed choice based on fact, not to be mislead for decades, by fraud.

Mind you, the same argument can be applied to the flu vaccine.

Journalists world wide, ignore the fact that all vaccine manufacturers

have consistently, since 1950, committed serial corporate fraud for

decades, by alleging that the flu vaccine is wonderfully efficacious when

it is not. That too is not only clear in the medical literature, but

expanded on, in USA senate hearings. Why do journalists continually

ignore the fact that the flu vaccine isn’t what it’s advertised to be? In

that light, Gergana’s article, and all the other provaccine

misinformation slants are predictable.

Most publicly provaccine people have fallen into the same trap as

Gergana. The pro-vaccine people on facebook are defending the

indefensible, and telling the same lies about the Department of Justice

as well.

Here are two different examples of false arguments from Facebook. This

first example tries to defend the vaccine because Merck then found

“efficacy” using the ELIZA test:

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start July 12