Sunday, August 17, 2014

FDA, mainstream media denounce nano silver as 'bogus cure' for Ebola virus


by Mike Adams 

(NaturalNews) There's a very interesting showdown taking place right now in the realm of Ebola treatments and cures. At stake is billions of dollars in potential vaccine profits as well as potentially tens of millions of lives of an Ebola pandemic outbreak takes place.

Here's a summary of what's happening so far, as best I can tell:

• The world of conventional medicine currently has ZERO proven treatments, vaccines or cures for treating Ebola.

• The recent Ebola media panic resulted in tremendous FDA pressure to authorize Ebola vaccine trials run by a company called Tekmira, whose stock price skyrocketed nearly 100% after the announcement.

• As Ebola news continued to spread, some websites began to claim they had various cures or treatments that could treat or prevent Ebola. For example, this web page claims something called "Monolaurin" is the answer to Ebola.

• The New York Times published an article explaining that the FDA had "issued warnings over Ebola cures." This article specifically named Dr. Rima Laibow for asserting that nano silver can kill Ebola.

• At the same time, however, the New York Times also published this highly speculative article which ridiculously asserts that statin drugs might treat Ebola, even though there is no evidence of such a claim.

• Interestingly, the New York Times did not warn its readers about the New York Times promoting bogus ebola cures in the form of statin drugs. The pattern that's emerging from the NYT is quite predictable: All experimental pharmaceuticals from the world of western medicine are assumed to be of value, while all experimental treatments from the world of holistic medicine are assumed to be fraud. This stance is, of course, wholly unscientific from the outset.

It also brings up the question: "What's the difference between an unproven drug treatment and an unproven holistic treatment?" The answer is "faith." Western culture has faith in western medicine, so drug treatments and vaccines are assumed to always work. Who needs proof when irrational faith in western drugs is sufficient?

• As all this was happening, Dr. Rima Laibow of the Natural Solutions Foundation published this page which asserts that a 2009 Dept. of Defense study "finds nano silver inhibits ebola virus." Since this page was published, Dr. Laibow has apparently sought to alert scientists and political leaders of many different countries about this treatment, explaining that an Ebola outbreak may be part of a population reduction plan.

Dr. Laibow's actions really set off alarm bells across the FDA and the mainstream media, both of which seem to be spinning up their torpedoes to fire away at anyone who claims anything other than a drug or a vaccine might treat Ebola.

So what's the real story on nano silver? Honestly I don't know yet

If you're wondering my take on all this, I simply haven't researched nano silver and Ebola enough to render my own view on the matter. Yes, I'm a scientifically trained food researcher who runs an atomic spectroscopy laboratory and has made numerous scientific breakthroughs in the realm of food contamination research. But I am not a virologist and the closest I've ever come to doing any lab work on pathogens is running the microbiology food testing lab that tests our raw materials for salmonella, e.coli, total plate counts and so on.

So I personally don't know whether nano silver can treat Ebola. I simply haven't done the research to render a well-informed opinion on this specific subject. Am I buying nano silver in the mean time? Yes I am, on a personal level, but I can't recommend everyone else do the same. I'm stocking up on it because I'm also a "prepper" with a just-in-case attitude about all sorts of things. I fully recognize that western medicine currently has zero treatments available, so there's no harm in me personally acquiring a few things that might turn out to be useful. Along those same lines, I'm also fully stocked on antiseptic liquids, povidone iodine, bleach, first aid medicine, herbal tinctures, antibiotics for my ranch animals and organic storable preparedness foods.

Besides, if it turns out that nano silver is useless against Ebola, I can always use it for a topical antiseptic liquid for scrapes or burns.

Western medicine has an extensive history of suppressing legitimate natural treatments

Like most Natural News readers, I'm also fully aware of the true history of western medicine suppressing all sorts of natural cures and holistic treatments, going back to the very formulation of the American Medical Association. In addition to waging a relentless attack on chiropractic medicine in first half of the 20th century, the western medical system has unquestionably and systematically sought to suppress nearly all truthful information about the disease prevention and treatment potential of foods, medicinal herbs, healing arts treatments, nutritional therapies and more.

For example, the truth about simple nutrients such as vitamin C and vitamin D has been deliberately oppressed for over 75 years. Vitamin D supplementation, in fact, may turn out to be the single most affordable and effective defense against all sorts of viral pandemics, yet vitamin D is so cheap to produce and distribute that there's no profit in it. So there's no one touting the astonishing science behind vitamin D. (See Science.NaturalNews.com for some of the research that's already been published.

We also know that western medicine has indeed suppressed the truth about colloidal silver or nano silver for use in hospitals and burn wards. Silver-impregnated wound bandaging could be saving countless lives right now all across America, but the FDA's deliberate suppression of silver technology in emergency medicine has prevented many lifesaving products from ever making it to market. Topical nano silver is simply outstanding and preventing skin infections in burn victims. So why isn't nano silver a standard topical medicine at emergency rooms across America? The answer, of course, is because it isn't a high-profit drug.

So the idea put forth by Dr. Laibow claiming there is a deliberate cover-up of nano silver's ability to treat Ebola is not as zany as it might sound at first glance. The true history of medicine is steeped in the suppression of natural treatments. This doesn't automatically mean all natural cures work, of course, but it's at least a starting point for critical thinkers and skeptics of the FDA-Pharma moneymaking machine to begin asking legitimate questions about things we are not being told.

FDA routinely colludes with powerful corporations to keep Americans in the dark

We just learned recently, for example, that the FDA colluded with a large toothpaste manufacturer to hide the truth about triclosan from the public. As Bloomberg.com reported just last week (4), "The chemical triclosan has been linked to cancer-cell growth and disrupted development in animals... Colgate's Total application [to the FDA] included 35 pages summarizing toxicology studies on triclosan, which the FDA withheld from view. The agency released the pages earlier this year in response to a lawsuit over a Freedom of Information Act request."

This is just one small example of the FDA colluding with powerful corporations to withhold crucial information from the public -- information that holds huge implications for public health. If you want more examples of deliberate FDA censorship of critical information, look up the history of Vioxx and Rezulin drugs. The idea, then, that the FDA deliberately colludes with corporations to bury information they don't want the public to see isn't even debatable. It's a well-documented fact.

Again, all this doesn't automatically mean nano silver kills Ebola. But it's more than sufficient to get intelligent people thinking about what else the FDA might not be telling us that we really need to know.

There are bogus cures, and I've exposed many

All this being said, there really are bogus cures being sold on the internet, and in fact Natural News has been instrumental in exposing several of them.

I was the whistleblower to expose a bogus detox cure that duped the public into thinking they could remove heavy metals from their bodies by chugging an aluminum-laced liquid imported into the U.S. as battery acid.

In 2011, I was also instrumental in exposing the fake acai berry scam websites which the FTC later shut down.

I'm also the food researcher and whistleblower who discovered and exposed the heavy metal tungsten in organic rice protein "superfood" products sold everywhere.

I've also scientifically documented and announced findings of mercury in flu vaccines and toxic heavy metals in municipal fluoride materials. Those are two findings the mainstream media absolutely does not want the public to ever learn about, which is why they refuse to cover these findings.

The bottom line here is that Natural News has repeatedly blown the whistle on bogus cures as well as contaminated medicine. If I see someone hawking something that I think is dishonest or dangerous, I will call them out regardless of whether they operate in the world of pharmaceutical medicine or natural medicine. I despise hucksters, and I especially seek to stop anyone who is selling something truly dangerous to the public (such as contaminated products or mercury-laced vaccines given to pregnant women).

Why all experimental treatments should be available on a voluntary basis

With nano silver and Ebola, however, I think this needs to be urgently approved as an experimental treatment for Ebola victims in exactly the same way the experimental drug serum was recently approved. The fact that no one in a position of medical authority will even TRY nano silver on Ebola patients is highly suspect.

Remember, these are the same "authorities" who approved an experimental, unproven western medicine even though they had no idea of its efficacy and safety. Their argument was that since "people are dying," there's no harm in offering an experimental medicine.

And they are right. Except they are too limited in their thinking. Why not open up the experiments to a larger and more diverse array of voluntary experimental treatments, including nano silver?

Furthermore, if the medical industry really wanted to discredit nano silver once and for all, why wouldn't they allow it to be used in Ebola patients so that they could "prove" it to be a failure?

My guess -- and this is only a guess at this point -- is that they're afraid it just might somehow work. And then all their hoped-for vaccine profits would evaporate overnight.

Join my call for medical freedom of choice

That's why I join the call to demand freedom of medical choice for Ebola victims who want to try experimental medicines from all realms. If medical ethicists have declared it "ethical" to experiment on Ebola victims with an unproven pharmaceutical serum, then how can it be any less ethical to allow those same victims to volunteer for experimental treatments like nano silver?

It is irrational and contradictory to proclaim it is "ethical" for patients to be treated with an experimental, unproven drug serum while simultaneously claiming it is "unethical" for patients to be treated with an experimental, unproven natural substance. If western medicine is to be based on any science at all, it must apply scientific thinking with consistency, not with predetermined bias and "faith" in drugs.

What do YOU think is really happening?

I'm curious to find out what Natural News readers think about all this. If you want to review the information Dr. Rima Laibow has put together, click here to read it yourself.

As for myself, I'm too busy working on a breakthrough lifesaving technology to be announced in 2015, so I have zero time to really delve into this nano silver question. But as a journalist who has written hundreds of articles about the deceit and criminality of the pharmaceutical industry, I must remain extremely skeptical of any medical system which blocks the testing of nano silver as an experimental medicine while aggressively pushing experimental drugs and vaccines. If we really want to get to the truth about what works and what doesn't, why not test them all? Wouldn't that actually be the most scientific approach of all?

Sources for this story include:
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/science/ag...

Friday, August 15, 2014

CDC Issues Precautionary Health Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation



Once again – a hearty thanks to Joel Moskowitz for sending this gem!

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and provide tips on how to reduce one’s risk from exposure.

PRLog - Aug. 13, 2014 - ATLANTA – The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated the Frequently Asked Questions about cell phones and health on the CDC web site.
CDC now asserts that “Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use.” As the lead Federal health action agency, CDC provides tips to the public on how to “reduce radio frequency radiation near your body.”
Health authorities at the Federal, state, and local level should follow CDC’s lead and disseminate precautionary health warnings to ensure that the public is adequately informed about the potential health risks of cell phone use and has the know-how to reduce exposure to the radiofrequency radiation emitted when carrying or using cell phones.
Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission should review CDC’s new position in light of the Commission’s obsolete regulatory standard for cell phone radiation that was adopted in 1996 when few adults used cell phones.
CDC’s latest recommendations represent a considerable improvement in our Federal government’s position regarding cell phone radiation health risks and the need for precaution.
CDC indicates that more research is needed to understand the health risks of exposure to cell phone radiation. Unfortunately the U.S. has been negligent in supporting research on wireless radiation health effects. A major government research funding initiative could be launched with as little as a nickel-a-month fee on wireless subscriptions. This research initiative should be conducted independent of the wireless industry as we have considerable evidence that the industry has undermined much of the research it has funded in the past.
For additional information about how to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation see the tips available on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety web site at https://docs.google.com/a/berkeley.edu/file/d/0B14R6QNkma….
–
CDC: Radiation and Your Health
Frequently Asked Questions about Cell Phones and Your Health
Most of us depend on cell phones every day. Some people wonder if cell phones can cause health problems. Here’s what you should know about cell phones and your health.

Can using a cell phone cause cancer?
There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question. Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know for sure if using cell phones causes cancer.

Do cell phones give off (emit) radiation?
Yes – cell phones and cordless phones use radiofrequency radiation (RF) to send signals. RF is different from other types of radiation (like x-rays) that we know can be harmful. We don’t know for sure if RF radiation from cell phones can cause health problems years later. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as a “possible human carcinogen.” (A carcinogen is an agent that causes cancer.)

Should people stop using cell phones?
Scientific studies are ongoing. Someday cellphones may be found to cause health problems we are not aware of at this time. However it is also important to consider the benefits of cell phones. They can be valuable in an urgent or emergency situation– and even save lives.
If you are worried about cell phone use, follow the tips below.

Cell phone tips
To reduce radio frequency radiation near your body:
• Get a hands-free headset that connects directly to your phone.
• Use speaker-phone more often.
• If you have a pacemaker, keep cell phones at least 8 inches away from it.


Do cell phones cause health problems in children?
It’s too soon to know for sure. Children who use cell phones – and continue to use them as they get older – are likely to be around RF for many years. If RF does cause health problems, kids who use cell phones may have a higher chance of developing these problems in the future.

What research is being done to learn more about cell phones and health?
Scientists are continuing to study the possible health effects of cell phone use. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) is currently looking into how cell phones may affect:
• Some types of tumors (a lump or growth)
• Our eyes
• Sleep
• Memory
• Headaches

In the News: Acoustic Neuroma
Scientists are looking into a possible link between cell phone use and certain types of tumor. One type is called an acoustic neuroma (“ah-COOS-tik nur-OH-ma”). This type of tumor grows on the nerve that connects the ear to the brain. It doesn’t cause cancer, but it may lead to other health problems, like hearing loss. Another type scientists are looking into is called a glioma (“glee-OH-ma”). This is a tumor found in the brain or central nervous system of the body.

Where can I get more information about cell phones and health?
For more information, visit:
The Federal Communications Commission
World Health Organization
The Food and Drug Administration

Page last reviewed: June 9, 2014
Page last updated: June 9, 2014
Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html
–
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
http://www.saferemr.com/
Media Contact
Joel Moskowitz
jmm@berkeley.edu

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

29 brain tumor lawsuits move toward trial in Washington, DC


by Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force, Aug 11, 2014
 
 
  Another Step …
Twenty-nine high-profile lawsuits brought by people whose brain tumors were caused by their cell phones are finally moving toward trial. Six of these cases were originally filed in 2001 and 2002. Many of the plaintiffs are no longer alive.On Friday, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg, in the D.C. Superior Court, admitted the testimony of five expert witness for the plaintiffs, and the 12- and 13-year-old cases will now move into the discovery phase. Each of the plaintiffs is asking for more than $100,000,000. There are 46 defendants including Motorola, Nokia, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Cellular One, Cingular Wireless, SBC Communications, Verizon, Vodafone, the Telecommunications Industry Association, the IEEE, ANSI, the CTIA, and the FCC. The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey B. Morganroth of Morganroth & Morganroth, a law firm in Birmingham, Michigan.For over a decade the industry and the plaintiffs have played tug-of-war with the oldest cases, sending them back and forth between federal and state courts, and fighting over whether the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

In 2009 the D.C. Court of Appeals, in Murray v. Motorola (982 A. 2d 764), ruled that the telecommunications companies could not be sued over brain tumors caused by cell phones manufactured after 1996. But since all of these plaintiffs had used pre-1996 phones, their lawsuits were allowed to go forward. They were also allowed to go forward on their claims that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose information about the dangers of cell phones. These claims were brought under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

In December 2013 and January 2014, testimony was heard from:

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

July 31, 2014 – Let's Have Lunch – John Fund and the Tape



by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

“John Fund?! He never sent us the autographed book we paid him for,” Monique said, with some heat. They reminded him several times but never received a response. I was not surprised, but suggested a short article about the incident might elicit a long awaited response and apology.

The book Monique bought from John was not his original, Stealing Elections, but the new version full of new disinformation titled, Who's Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk, by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky at the Glen Beck - Free PAC Conference in Dallas from July 26 - 28 in 2012.

John really didn't want to write about elections but it was his consolation prize when he blew the opportunity to be a speech writer for Bush Jr. in 1999. The scandal over his relationship with Morgan, my much strange daughter, reminded them they had to stand up for family values.
Monique was delighted to meet John - at the time.

Monique and I get together when our schedules allow, at Casa Capelli on Main Avenue. Over lunch we chatted on about our families, the economic prognosis, and politics. It was the conversation on family which caused Monique's mouth to drop open, over a story about John Fund.

Since Sex, Lies, and the Tape, the article by John Connolly from Vanity Fair is still up on line at American Political Journal it was easy for her to hear for herself. That tape got John bounced from the 700 Club.

Looking back, it is now easy to see John and Morgan had a lot in common. No conscience. Desperate need for drama. Less decency than the real people portrayed in the book, Fifty Shades of Gray, now shocking readers and headed for the big screen.

John got the boot from the Wall Street Journal finally not over the scandal but because no one told Murdoch, when he purchased the WSJ, John is not paid for his writing but because he is a useful political operative. John's first such job was in 1978, working for the Kochs on taking over the Libertarian Party.

And today John is at National Review, a real step down. And he still needs to make Monique happy. But he doesn't need to send the book, just a refund. And if he has lost her address he can just contact me and I'll provide it. 

Find out more about John Fund at JohnFund.blogspot.com 



New Map Shows Dramatic Time Lapse of Tar Sands Deforestation


From:  DeSmogBlog 

Kevin Grandia's pictureby  Kevin Grandia







A time-lapsed map released recently by the World Resources Institute using satellite imagery from Global Forest Watch shows how much forest is being lost in Northern Alberta to make way for major industrial operations, mainly to extract oil from the tar sands.  
According to the data compiled by Global Forest Watch, industrial development and forest fires in Canada's tar sands region have cleared or degraded almost 2 million acres (775,000 hectares) of boreal forest since 2000.

The pink regions depict forest loss. Watch what happens at year 2010:

The World Resources Institute and Global Forest Watch have been researching the world's boreal forests since 1990. According to their research, Canada holds the vast majority, 54 per cent, of the world's total boreal forest across a region of 500 million hectares or 14 times the size of California. Boreal forests hold twice as much carbon dioxide as tropical forests. 
Another map shows tree loss in the tar sands region between 2000 and 2012. 

81 Congressmen To Visit Israel In Coming Weeks

From:  Jerusalem Post 

by Herb Keinon

Eighty-one congressmen, or about 20 percent of the US House of Representatives, will visit Israel over the next three weeks during Congress’s summer recess, with the first group of 26 Democrats scheduled to arrive on Monday.

The Democratic delegation will be followed by two Republican ones, bringing a total of 55 Republicans.


Most of the representatives are freshmen congressmen, with 47 – or fully half of the freshmen Republicans voted into office in 2010 – making the trip.

For many of them, this will be their first trip to Israel.

The week-long trips are sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, a charitable organization affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which brings large delegations of congressmen here every other August.

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) will head the Democratic delegation, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) will lead one of the Republican groups.  MORE
 
 
 

Ebola vaccine to be manufactured by criminal drug company with felony record; rushed to market with near-zero safety testing


by Mike Adams 

 vaccine

(NaturalNews) While the world of conventional medicine lines up to profit from the Ebola panic, there is no mention anywhere in the mainstream media of the criminal corporation behind the Ebola vaccine.

GlaxoSmithKline, now being celebrated by the pro-pharma press, is the same company that also has a proven criminal record of bribing physicians and knowingly distributing misleading information about the safety of their drug products.

Just two years ago, GSK plead guilty to felony crimes in the United States and was forced to pay an historical $3 billion fine for committing those crimes. After paying the fine, GSK was then exempted from normal rules regarding criminal enterprise, allowing it to continue conducting business with the federal government.

"Global health care giant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company's unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices, the Justice Department announced today," says a U.S. Department of Justice press release.

It goes on to explain, "GSK agreed to plead guilty to a three-count criminal information, including two counts of introducing misbranded drugs, Paxil and Wellbutrin, into interstate commerce and one count of failing to report safety data about the drug Avandia to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."

As Natural News reported in 2012:

A roughly nine-year federal investigation has exposed GSK's rampant abuse of the law by illegally marketing drugs, forging drug safety data, bribing doctors to promote dangerous and expensive drugs, ripping off Medicare and Medicaid, and lying about the effectiveness and safety of drugs. And all this deception has generated tens of billions of dollars in profits for GSK over the years, while thousands of patients who used the drug products involved have suffered horrific side effects and even death.

Criminal drug company to spearhead Ebola vaccine with U.S. scientists

Now this same company that admitted committing multiple felony crimes is going to lead the development of the Ebola vaccine.

As CNBC reports: (1)

"A clinical trial of an experimental vaccine against the deadly Ebola virus is set to start shortly, according to British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline, which is co-developing the product with U.S. scientists."

Vaccine to be "rushed through" with very little safety testing

We also know that the vaccine will not be tested for anything other than short-term side effects. This is all part of the "rush to market" for Big Pharma to profit from Ebola as quickly as possible.

As CNBC says:

A company spokeswoman said on Sunday that the trial should get underway "later this year", while GSK's partner the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) said in a statement on its website it would start "as early as fall 2014", implying a potential September launch of testing.

A headline in the Daily Mail declares "World Health Organisation says vaccine could be 'rushed through' for 2015." (2)

That same story goes on to report, "the WHO said a potential vaccine for the Ebola virus is being tested on humans and could be ready for widespread use by early 2015."

Doing the math here, if the Ebola vaccine clinical trials start in September of 2014 and the vaccine is manufactured and distributed to the public by "early 2015," this leaves virtually zero time for observing vaccine side effects.

Manufacturing the vaccine in large quantities, after all, takes many months. If this vaccine is to be available to the public in early 2015, they will have to start manufacturing it as early as October 2014, roughly just one month after the vaccine trials begin.

Zero liability; total immunity for faulty products

Keep in mind that in the United States, vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for the damage and death caused by their products. Due to a literal Act of Congress, all vaccine manufacturers are able to abandon all safety testing and knowingly sell faulty, deadly products with zero risk of liability.

This was all set up by design to make sure vaccine manufacturers could enjoy record profits while having zero liability for producing faulty products that harm children and adults. This is the reason why mercury is still used in flu vaccines which are injected into children -- a fact which I have scientifically proven in the Natural News Forensic Food Labs using ICP-MS instrumentation.

This total immunity means there is no incentive for adequate safety testing of an Ebola vaccine. The company has the same liability (zero) whether they test the vaccine or not. Their goal is to SELL the vaccine, not to make sure it's safe and effective. Time spent on conducting rigorous clinical trials with long-term observations simply isn't part of the "Sell! Sell! Sell!" business plan of today's vaccine manufacturers. Their current business slogan? "Every pandemic is an opportunity for profit." And with blanket immunity from all product liability, who needs safety testing?

Vaccine manufacturers routinely rely on scientific fraud

Here's additional information you need to know about vaccine fraud, originally published in this article on Natural News:

According to two Merck scientists who filed a False Claims Act complaint in 2010 -- a complaint which has just now been unsealed -- vaccine manufacturer Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test data, spiked blood samples with animal antibodies, sold a vaccine that actually promoted mumps and measles outbreaks, and ripped off governments and consumers who bought the vaccine thinking it was "95% effective."

See that False Claims Act document at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents...

According to Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, both former Merck virologists, the Merck company engaged in all the following behavior:

• Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate."

• In order to do this, Merck spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies. As reported in CourthouseNews.com:

Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that "did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life ... virus neutralization in vaccinated people," according to the complaint.

• Merck then used the falsified trial results to swindle the U.S. government out of "hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization."

• Merck's vaccine fraud has actually contributed to the continuation of mumps across America, causing more children to become infected with mumps.

• Merck used its false claims of "95 percent effectiveness" to monopolize the vaccine market and eliminate possible competitors.

• The Merck vaccine fraud has been going on since the late 1990's, say the Merck virologists.

• Testing of Merck's vaccine was never done against "real-world" mumps viruses in the wild. Instead, test results were simply falsified to achieve the desired outcome.

• This entire fraud took place "with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior management."

• Merck scientists "witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings," according to court documents.

Sources for this article include:
(1) http://www.cnbc.com/id/101909486

(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721...

(3) http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/July/12-c...