Yep, they are trying to catch us any way they can in whatever lies they have to tell in order to pimp their sorceries (Rev. 18:23) on the unsuspecting populace and now, the lies are being exposed. This time it’s mumps and Merck.
Willow Tohi has the story at Natural News.
- Merck’s mumps vaccine, part of the MMR shots, is confirmed to be far less effective than claimed, with courts acknowledging intentional fraud to maintain a monopoly and avoid admitting failure.
- Whistleblowers exposed Merck’s practice of “overfilling” vaccine doses with excess live virus to artificially boost efficacy test results, which was neither safety-tested nor disclosed.
- Despite evidence of data falsification and misconduct, Merck faces no repercussions, while the FDA continues to endorse the vaccine, perpetuating public health risks.
- U.S. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s criticisms of the vaccine’s efficacy are sidelined by critics who question his motives due to his previous legal career targeting pharmaceutical firms.
In a surprising reversal, MedPage Today admitted the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine “never worked” as promoted, validating years of accusations by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Merck whistleblowers. The acknowledgment, published in May 2025, arrives amid a cascade of revelations about pharmaceutical giant Merck’s systemic fraud, including fabricated safety data, court rulings confirming misconduct, and the company’s monopoly over U.S. mumps vaccine distribution for decades.
Kennedy, in an April interview, asserted plainly, “The mumps part of the MMR vaccine has never worked,” citing evidence from two federal lawsuits that demonstrated Merck’s manipulation of vaccine trial data. Yet MedPage Today and health officials like Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia dismiss Kennedy’s claims, suggesting his critique is rooted in his past as a personal injury lawyer rather than scientific merit.
Fraudulent practices and the Merck whistleblowers
The scandal traces back to the late 1990s, when Merck faked efficacy data for its mumps vaccine, MMRII, to circumvent FDA regulations. Internal whistleblowers Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski exposed the company’s “overfilling” of vaccine doses with excess live virus to meet arbitrary efficacy targets. Despite FDA inspections confirming data falsification in 2004, Merck continued its practices under a legal loophole allowing companies to self-certify drug potency.
In 2010, Krahling and Wlochowski filed a whistleblower lawsuit under the False Claims Act, alleging Merck unlawfully maintained its monopoly by using rigged trials to suppress competition from rival drugmaker GSK. A 2024 federal court ruling later cited Merck’s “misrepresentations” to the FDA but absolved the company of liability under unclear jurisdiction rules. The court document admitted, “[Merck] sought to extend its apparent monopoly by misrepresenting facts about its mumps vaccines on FDA-approved labeling,” yet left the ineffective vaccine untouched.
Failed safety testing and public health risks
Merck’s manipulation extended beyond efficacy claims. The overfilled mumps vaccine was never tested for safety against an inert placebo, despite the government’s purchase of millions of doses for the Vaccines for Children Program. Internal trial data, obtained by whistleblowers, revealed:
One-third of vaccinated children in early MMRII trials suffered gastrointestinal issues, while another third developed respiratory problems.
GSK’s competing vaccine, Priorix, had similarly alarming adverse event rates, including emergency room visits and chronic diseases.
Dr. David Kessler, former FDA chief, detailed the fraud in an 800-page report for a 2024 whistleblower case. He exposed Merck’s reliance on unscientific “passive surveillance” (parental self-reporting of post-vaccination reactions) to justify the problematic live-virus overfill. “This was a brand experiment that they foisted on the public,” stated Brian Hooker of the Children’s Health Defense, adding that such practices expose systemic corruption between regulators and pharmaceutical corporations.
The clash over transparency and public trust
MedPage Today’s reluctant confirmation of the mumps vaccine’s flaws sparked debate over why it’s taken decades for the truth to surface. Pro-vaccine advocates like Offit minimize concerns, citing reduced historical mumps cases (from ~150,000 in 1968 to ~1,000 in 2024) to argue “mumps has dramatically reduced… by about 99%.” But critics counter that lower incidence may reflect waning public trust in vaccines and shifting priorities, not inherent efficacy. Many of the diseases of yesteryear are less prevelant today because of improved hygiene and nutrition.
Kennedy’s critics, including Offit, target his legal background, suggesting his concerns are self-serving. “He’s still in the personal injury lawyer business,” Offit declared, dismissing legitimate claims by implying ulterior motives. Yet Kennedy remains unapologetic, framing the issue as a crisis of integrity: “The American people deserve honest science and transparency — not deceptive labels promoting a substandard product.”
A wake-up call for health freedom
The Merck scandal underscores a broader failure in pharmaceutical accountability, where corporate interests override public health. With the FDA continuing to endorse MMRII and no vaccines tested against placebos, millions remain at risk of adverse reactions and ineffective protection.
As parents, healthcare providers, and policymakers confront vaccine mandates and rising outbreaks, people are uncovering the truth. The American people are owed answers: Why did Merck escape consequences after admitting fraud? And why do public health agencies cling to corrupted data?
As Dr. Hooker warns, “We’re in no-man’s-land” — a sentiment echoing far beyond the mumps vaccine. The battle for transparency is as much about reclaiming autonomy over our health as it is about holding power to account.
The unraveling of Merck’s mumps vaccine cover-up lays bare a system where profit and secrecy eclipse public safety. With courts enabling corporate misconduct and experts debating “cui bono” motives, the real question remains: Where do we go from here? The path forward demands rigorous transparency, dissenting voices in science, and a renewed commitment to health freedom — one shot at a time.
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media