MMR Whistleblower, Stephen Krahling, tried to alert regulatory agencies about falsified data on MMR efficacy in 2001.
and most people STILL don't know
In 2001, Merck scientist, Stephen Krahling, told the FDA that Merck was falsifying documents and destroying data to make the MMR vaccine look more effective.
They didn’t seem to mind.
In 2010, Krahling and another former Merck scientist filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Merck alleging that the company misled the CDC, the largest purchaser of vaccines, and defrauded taxpayers by “omitting, concealing and misrepresenting material information regarding its mumps vaccines.”
Fourteen years later, in 2024…
The District Court held that, even assuming the representations were false, none were material to the CDC's purchasing decision, and thus granted summary judgment in Merck's favor. We agree and will affirm.
In short, no reasonable jury could conclude that Merck's alleged misrepresentations were material to the CDC's purchasing decision because the Government (1) had actual knowledge of the facts concerning potency, shelf-life, and the like; (2) satisfied itself as to the effectiveness of the vaccine based on real world studies, which it acknowledged showed lower effectiveness rates than the efficacy that Merck reported from clinical trials; (3) entered into contracts with Merck that required the product to have only a twelve-month shelf-life (and there is no evidence that Merck's vaccine did not meet this condition); and (4) continued to purchase Merck's vaccine, even when another option became available. Thus, for the reasons set forth herein and those set forth by the District Court, summary judgment was properly granted in Merck's favor.
Basically, fraudulent or not, MMR efficacy data was irrelevant to the CDC when it made its decision to purchase, promote and distribute them.
You can read the decision here and review other case documents here.
Business decisions all the way down.
And here’s one of the ways that shows up in the real world (which tells you this is NOT about health)…
All those mumps outbreaks in fully vaccinated populations… they knew.
They know.
And they’re still pulling the same nonsense.
A third dose of the mumps vaccine, if given early during an outbreak, might reduce transmission and prevent the disease in some people who are most at risk, according to mathematical models1.
“might reduce transmission”… “according to mathematical models.”
Still… most people have no idea about Protocol 7.
This week, as MMR vaccine campaigns occurred nationwide, Sharyl Attkinson interviewed Stephen Krahling about what he learned while working on Merck’s Protocol 7 project (partially transcribed below). It’s maddening that people still have no idea about about this. You can watch here.
We begin today with an incredible story that spans 25 years, so far. It involves the MMR vaccine against Measles, Mumps, and Rubella given to most American babies in two doses. Yet you probably never heard about this controversy. It’s brought to us by a scientist named Stephen Krahling who worked on a project at Merck called “Protocol 7” and was uniquely positioned to blow the whistle on what he learned. In the bigger sense, his account raises questions about what can go on unknown to most of us about products injected into nearly all children.
Krahling: So when I showed up to start at Merck they were dealing with a potential product recall... It was the end of the world for them. I mean, can you imagine? If they have to recall that, they have to go to the millions of parents whose kids got out-of-specification vaccine, let them know… they have to take the MMR vaccine off the shelves. And they didn’t have a solution, so they would have to stop selling it, stop distributing it…
Attkinsson: So the MMR vaccine is one of the vaccines that contains live virus. Not all vaccines do. But this functions… with some live virus in it that triggers an immune response.
Krahling: Yeah. All three viruses are live viruses… that upper limit, the maximum amount of virus, live virus, that might be in it has to be safe. And the lowest amount has to be efficacious. But within those parameters is where those have to fall, so you can’t have a lower amount of live virus and you can’t have a higher amount of live virus.
Though MMR was given out widely in the 1970’s, the 1980’s saw measles, mumps and rubella outbreaks among many vaccinated children and young adults. For example, in 1985, 69 measles cases at an Illinois high school with a 99.7% vaccination rate. Ultimately, the CDC recommended all children get a second dose of MMR. But the tricky part for Merck came in the mid-90s when the FDA began a review of vaccines and found the potency of MMR were off as it sat on shelves.
So the FDA instructed Merck to start putting more virus into the vaccine upfront - that’s called “overfilling” - so it would stay potent for its two year shelf life. Merck started doing that in early 2000 and told us it’s still doing that today.
Krahling: So the problem was that these viruses degrade over time and Merck had to calculate backwards and say we need to add more virus so that the stuff doesn’t degrade because the FDA was adamant. You cannot keep distributing that vaccine if it’s out of specification. They had to do this thing called and “overfill”… They added more virus to the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella…
Attkinsson: So that when it degraded on the shelf over time it would still meet the lowest threshold it had to meet?
Krahling: Exactly.
Attkinsson: But what if someone got that vaccine one week into it being on the shelf before it degraded?
Krahling: They’re getting a very high amount of vaccine virus.
Attkinsson: If there’s too much live vaccine in a shot, what are the sorts of problems that can occur? That’s a potential safety risk?
Krahling: Of course.
Internal documents suggest Merck was concerned that its vaccine was only potent for a year… The FDA also smacked Merck with warnings for failing to report that it had put 23 million doses of MMR vaccine on the market that might not be potent when given. Merck risked losing its license to make the shots, and future government contracts worth billions of dollars.
But even with the overfilling, Krahling says the mumps virus was still dying off too fast. So Merck launched a case study called Protocol 7. It aimed to show that the MMR vaccine still worked, even with less mumps virus, so Merck wouldn’t have to recall those millions of doses already out there…
Krahling was assigned to Protocol 7. But he says no matter what he and his fellow Merck scientists tried, they just couldn’t make the vaccine with less mumps virus stand up to FDA standards. The big shocker came when Kahling says a Merck lab official started telling them to change the data to make it look better.
Krahling: He says whenever you find the stuff, you have to cross em out and write new numbers.
Atkinson: So, to be clear, falsifying documents.
Krahling: Oh absolutely. In the laziest way ever. I mean just crossing them out. I mean, who can get on board with that? So I was like I’m not doing that. It wasn’t like some rogue whistleblower. It was a mutiny. There were six of us. And they just wouldn’t do it. And if the boss came around and just made them change data, two of these interns from Villanova, they would just go and copy the original accounts and just hand them to me and say “he changed our data, here’s the original copy.” I’m like, alright, so we’re collecting this…
Narration: In 2001, Kahling notified the FDA that data was being destroyed and Merck was instituting a policy to fraudulently make the MMR vaccine look more effective. He was surprised when he heard nothing back from the FDA for weeks. While he was waiting, he got a meeting with a high ranking Merck official who didn’t yet know he’d already contacted the FDA once.
Krahling: I told him I was going to contact the FDA unless he could tell me what was going on. I said I want a scientific reason for what’s going on. And he just said it’s a business decision. It’s not of your concern… When I left, the Human Resources guy was standing right outside the door telling me, you’re going to jail. If you call the FDA, you’re going to go to jail. And then the next day when I come in, the lab director got there early and he was just taking all these viral plates, which the FDA should have the right to see, and he was just autoclaving them and destroying them. They were just destroying evidence. And then I’m like, I’ve got to call the FDA immediately. I told them, get your effing asses in here. Do your effing job.
As a result of Krahling’s calls, the FDA did conduct and inspection. It confirmed that Merck’s “spreadsheets used to determine questionable results and retesting had not been validated” and “raw data was being changed with no justification.”
To Krahling’s surprise, none of that seemed to shake the FDA’s confidence in Merck’s ability to tell the truth about its vaccine. But he had sealed his fate. He was removed from Protocol 7 and soon resigned.
In 2010, Krahling and another former Merck scientist filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Merck. They alleged the company misled the CDC, the largest purchaser of vaccines, and defrauded taxpayers by “omitting, concealing and misrepresenting material information regarding its mumps vaccines.”
Dr. David Kessler, who headed up the FDA under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, served as an expert witness in support of the case against Merck. In 800 pages of testimony, Kessler repeatedly states that Merck and its MMR vaccine label had been “misleading” and the vaccine was “adulterated.” And he raised the question of whether the MMR’s lack of potency is to blame for mumps outbreaks among vaccinated people.
The case took 14 long years and finally concluded last year. In the end, the court dismissed the case stating that the CDC knew about allegations of fraud and potency, but bought the vaccine anyway, so there had been no fraud committed on taxpayers.
Merck’s representations as to potency and its Protocol 7 testing did not impact the CDC’s decision to buy MMR vaccines, said the Court. The CDC, through its own studies, was aware that the vaccine proved less effective in the real world than in the clinical trials, yet [CDC] continued to purchase and recommend it, therefore government and taxpayers weren’t defrauded.
Merck wouldn’t agree to an interview or answer questions, but told us “Merck was transparent with FDA and acted appropriately at all times. Merck’s MMR-II vaccine was appropriately labeled. Merck has disputed and continues to dispute the plaintiff’s claims… Merck worked with the FDA to ensure that all of the FDA’s concerns had been addressed. Most significantly, Merck raised the potency of the MMR vaccine such that the potency was assured to be met throughout the shelf life.”
Meantime, mumps outbreaks have continued. For example in 2020, the CDC said the vast majority of those infected in a six state outbreak were fully vaccinated. This raises concerns about waning immunity from childhood mumps immunizations, concluded on analysis. Fortunately, mumps is typically mild, CDC says, and resolves within two weeks. Rare complications include deafness, encephalitis, a potentially fatal inflammation of the brain. Those are also, by the way, potential complications of the MMR vaccine.
Today Krahling says there’s no way for parents or even doctors to know exactly how much live virus is really in Merck’s MMR vaccine at the time it’s given.
Krahling: So, if you want informed consent, what should you be allowed to know? You should be allowed to know what’s in it, how much is in it, and that those amounts and ingredients have been tested in a clinical trial and shown to be safe and effective. And for this one vaccine, nobody can say that’s true. Maybe it’s the greatest vaccine ever made. Maybe it’s perfectly safe and effective, but if I ask you how much is in it and you can’t tell me, that’s a problem. I think it’s a problem.
It’s definitely a problem.
Last year, Andy Wakefield directed Protocol 7, a corporate thriller based on the events around this case.
You can watch the preview here. I highly recommend watching the film.
So as you watch the next chapter of the measles narrative playing out on headlines and across mainstream media, please consider the chapters of inconvenient history that lurk in the shadows.
Among other inconvenient data that’s likely relevant to current measles outbreaks, MMR sheds…
Since this vaccine contains live, weakened viruses, viral genetic material (RNA) can be “shed” into the body, making case classification difficult. Recently immunized individuals may have side effects from the vaccine that look like symptoms of wild-type infection, as well as detectable levels of measles vaccine RNA. It may be especially challenging to differentiate true measles cases from cases of recent vaccination in individuals with overlapping respiratory symptoms from another viral illness.
… So btw does Ebola vaccine
The shedding Ebola vaccine is another "it could have been worse" solution.
Studies suggest that the Ebola vaccine is better than nothing. I mean, assuming it didn’t cause people to get sick in the first place.
Does a “live Ebola vaccine for preventative measures” sound like a good idea?
The first question that comes to my mind is, Does it shed?
Turns out it does. From the manufacturer insert :
“Transmission of vaccine virus is a theoretical possibility. Vaccine virus RNA has been detected in blood, saliva and urine for up to 14 days after vaccinataion. The duration of shedding is not known…”
Maybe we need to start getting ahead of the narratives that are coming down the pike so we can break the cycle…
Brilliant & informative article ATR. It is with deep gratitude I thank you for continuing to speak TRUTH to medical tyranny. I need to believe the Light of Truth will come to pass, because of whistleblower doctors/scientists/journalist who uncover hidden evidence. In GOD we Trust ...