Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims

[Celebration]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, is facing a slew of controversies over its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine following numerous allegations of wrongdoing from different parties in the medical field, including two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers. A third whistleblower, this one a scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, also promises to bring Merck grief following his confession of misconduct involving the same MMR vaccine.

The controversies will find Merck defending itself and its vaccine in at least two federal court cases after a U.S. District judge earlier this month threw out Merck's attempts at dismissal. Merck now faces federal charges of fraud from the whistleblowers, a vaccine competitor and doctors in New Jersey and New York. Merck could also need to defend itself in Congress: The staff of representative Bill Posey (R-Fla) -- a longstanding critic of the CDC interested in an alleged link between vaccines and autism -- is now reviewing some 1,000 documents that the CDC whistleblower turned over to them.

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]."

...................................

The third whistleblower -- a senior CDC scientist named William Thompson -- only indirectly blew the whistle on Merck. He more blew it on himself and colleagues at the CDC who participated in a 2004 study involving the MMR vaccine. Here, the allegations involve a cover-up of data pointing to high rates of autism in African-American boys after they were vaccinated with MMR. In what could be high-profile House hearings before Congressman Posey's Science Committee -- hearings made all the more explosive given the introduction of race into the mix -- Merck could find itself under unprecedented scrutiny. The CDC still stands by its study although Frank DeStefano, the CDC's Director of Immunization Safety and a co-author in the CDC study, also stated that he plans to review his notes with an eye to reanalyzing the data.

[Celebration]

1. just a coincidence

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/21/us-merck-gerberding-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221

Guess who now works for Merck?

Former CDC head lands vaccine job at Merck

Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was named president of Merck & Co Inc's vaccine division, the company said on Monday.

Gerberding, who led the CDC from 2002 to 2009, stepped down when President Barack Obama took office.

She had led the agency from one crisis to another, including the investigation into the anthrax attacks that killed five people in 2001, the H5N1 avian influenza, the global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, and various outbreaks of food poisoning.

"As a preeminent authority in public health, infectious diseases and vaccines, Dr. Gerberding is the ideal choice to lead Merck's engagement with organizations around the world that share our commitment to the use of vaccines to prevent disease and save lives," Merck Chief Executive Officer Richard Clark

[hedgehog]

2. Half the article is good, the other half is an antivaxxer

screed attempting to piggyback on credible charges of attempts to build a monopoly market via fraudulent date.

[CanSocDem]

3. Which is the "good" half...???

This:

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]."

Or that their fraud was OK since it was just following a good business practice of 'cornering the market'.




.

[Celebration]

4. Speaking for myself I am concerned with both halves

Or thirds, or whatever.

It is NOT appropriate scientific protocol to exclude a subgroup of subjects in a clinical trial after the results come in and are known, and not disclose it and the reasons for it in the published study. That is a HUGE no no, and any attempt to sugar coat it by trying to associate insistance on standard scientific protocol with some sort of antivacc movement is completely bogus. We need hearings on exactly what happened. We, the taxpayers are paying the CDC to conduct scientific experiments with appropriate protocols, not to skirt around appropriate scientific protocol in order to ensure that the Director ends up with a cushy job at Merck.

I am thankful for at least one top CDC researcher with a conscience that disclosed this travesty of science. He tried to do it anonymously but that didn't fly after his conversations were tape recorded and disclosed. I wish him well. He won't talk to reporters but he is willing to testify at Congressional hearings. If by some miracle those happen, then we hopefully will get to the bottom of what happened and why, rather than just speculation. He was one of the authors of the study, and must have felt pressure to agree to exclude this group. Why, and by whom? He has a whistleblower lawyer of course.

If there was intellectual honestly on this subject (vaccines), the whole study would be retracted.

[hedgehog]

5. Allow me to re-phrase - half the article is factual reporting - Merck cherry-picked data.

the other half piggybacks on that with the claims of one person which are unsubstantiated by other scientists presented as fact.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp

[Celebration]

6. Actually

The CDC admits to everything I stated. They claim they hid oh excuse me left out a large subgroup of subjects because they lacked birth certificates. But birth certificate information was not part of the original design of the study. It was decided to exclude the subgroup (African American children) after it was discovered that the timing if their MMR vaccines was statistically related to autism. No mention of this in the study. The CDC agrees with these facts. This is not science. This is hiding data and rigging the results. Thousands of pages of documentation have been turned over to a House committee. Put them all under oath.

[CanSocDem]

7. Yes.

It's a never-ending source of annoyance that the 'common citizen' refuses to see the big picture. They would rather discuss the merits of the messenger, than consider the implications of entrusting a private industry to maintain a public interest.

The goals of a private company are different than the goals of a community. And in the tradition of American Free Market ideology, lying to the community is permissible. No where is this more evident than in the Med-Pharm industry.


.

[Celebration]

10. totally correct

As you can see from this thread, there is constant deflection of the issue to try to suggest that nothing improper was done.

CNN was one of the few truly mainstream articles about this issues, and all they could say was Wakefield, Wakefield, Wakefield? WTF? Are you kidding me? I suppose Wakefield made the CDC throw out the data? LOL.

Then you even get Snopes in on the act by throwing out the "fraud" word. Did the whistleblower prove fraud? No the whistleblower never even used the word fraud. All the whistleblower said was that against appropriate scientific protocols, data was left out of the study without being revealed.

Deflect, deflect, deflect, that is all they do. Because NOBODY can actually defend throwing out the data with no mention of it in th study, under any circumstances.

[HuckleB]

8. Hogwash. Debunked. Long ago.

Did a high ranking whistleblower really reveal that the CDC covered up proof that vaccines cause autism in African-American boys?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did-a-high-ranking-whistleblower-really-reveal-that-the-cdc-covered-up-proof-that-vaccines-cause-autism-in-african-american-boys/

[Celebration]

9. that is so the wrong question to ask

Of course a high ranking whistleblower did NOT really reveal that the CDC covered up proof that vaccines cause autism in African American boys.

I agree.

Why not as the RELEVANT question.? The question above is a deflection of the real issue.

Did a high ranking whistleblower reveal that the CDC improperly excluded and hid data regarding African American boys and the timing of MMR vaccines, against proper scientific protocol?

The answer is a resounding YES!

All we know is that the data raised questions, and the data was hidden from the public, against every appropriate scientific protocol ever imagined.

[HuckleB]

11. You posted this BS.

You know it's BS. You know it has nothing to do with anything.

And you still continue to press the anti-vaccine mantras.

Why would anyone do that?

[Celebration]

12. deflection, deflection

Not addressing the issues, because throwing away data without disclosing it in the study is completely indefensible. It is not addressed in any of the articles, because it is so easy to attack something else (anti vaccers, conspiracy theory, Wakefield etc.). All irrelevant.

[HuckleB]

15. I see that continue to fail to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

Boring.

[CanSocDem]

13. Why are you insisting....

...that this is about "anti-vaccine" issues?

Is this it...??

"When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

If you entrust a private industry to manage a public service, it should concern the citizens how that private industry arrives at their 'management' decisions.

Why aren't you concerned?

My Industry----Right or Wrong.

[HuckleB]

14. You just couldn't help yourself.

You just had to say something even though you had nothing to say.