In Southeastern Pennsylvania, where I live, a recent ‘pandemic (?)' of sorts seems to have broken out regarding the infectious disease known as MUMPS. Twenty-some cases!, and everyone is just about going bonkers, specifically one of the universities where the outbreak has been more prominent.
Parents, according to radio news reports, are very upset about the Mumps outbreak. What would those parents have done when Mumps was prevalent when I was a kid in the 1940s? Surprisingly, everyone got well; no deaths, either; Mumps was a child's "rite of passage," which "tuned" up the child's immune system. And, more frightening than anything for current fear-mongered parents to ponder, there was no MMR vaccine doctors could recommend then, since that vaccine did not come on the market until 1971, as Wikipedia points out:
The MMR vaccine was developed by Maurice Hilleman. It was licensed for use by Merck in 1971. Stand alone measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines had been previously licensed in 1963, 1967, and 1969 respectively.
However, what most parents, the university involved, and the Philadelphia media talking heads obviously don't know, nor want to factor into the equation of vaccine safety and efficacy - especially regarding Merck's MMR vaccine - is that for close to ten (10) years Merck falsified the Mumps active in the MMR vaccine as having a 95 per cent efficacy rate, which was a bold face fraudulent, scientific lie reported to CDC and FDA, and in turn to the entire globe, since CDC/FDA ‘vaccine theology' is regarded as an apparent ‘gold standard'?
Those college students who presently have contracted Mumps apparently received the MMR vaccine of the 1990s false efficacy rating for the Mumps active. What impact did that have upon those children's immune systems?
How incredible those parents deliberately were deceived into believing their children were vaccinated against the Mumps!
But that's not the only deception(s) regarding vaccines and their politics in medicine and population control methods, which the CDC and FDA are responsible for promoting! Many whistleblowers have come forward over the years about deceit, deception, fraud, consensus science collusion [RICO crimes?] (see the movie VAXXED) and a qui tam whistleblower lawsuit filed in Philadelphia Federal Court, which is discussed below, so gung-ho vaccine acolytes, uneducated MDs and parents can understand how they really are being duped when it comes to vaccines and immunity, especially "community immunity," aka "herd immunity."
The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck "fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].
According to the whistleblowers' court documents, Merck's misconduct was far-ranging: It "failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment describe herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing.
These fraudulent activities, say the whistleblowers, were designed to produce test results that would meet the FDA's requirement that the mumps vaccine was 95 per cent effective. To the whistleblowers' delight, the judge dismissed Merck's objections to the case proceeding, finding the whistleblowers had plausible grounds on all of the claims lodged against Merck.
So, how did Merck allegedly produce 95 per cent effectiveness in the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine results - for almost ten yearsduring the 1990s?
According to two Merck employee mumps vaccine whistleblowers qui tam lawsuit filed in Philadelphia, PA Federal Court, UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Stephen A. KRAHLING and Joan A. Wlochowski, Relators,v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant, :
Merck added animal [rabbit] blood antibodies to raise the mumps active in the MMR vaccine to the FDA's required 95 per cent effective rate, in order to keep Merck's apparent ‘monopoly' on the MMR vaccine sales globally.
Here's what CaseText.com has to say about that case, which the Judge would not dismiss:
Relators claim that the use of animal antibodies created a high number of pre-vaccinated results, which Defendant systematically destroyed or falsified in order to legitimize the use of animal antibodies.
The problems with vaccines only grow more complicated the longer the U.S. Congress does not provide an investigation into the fraud in vaccines, which Rep. Bill Posey had requested in 2015; it's now 2019?
If you've never heard Rep. Posey's opening remarks in the video below, you need to, as they provide a factual reality check with regard to the irresponsible fraudulent vaccine science that has overtaken federal government agencies; counterfeited medical science; and still no one in Congress is concerned about doing anything to correct the destructive "tail wagging the dog."
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.