Specifically, the suit claims Merck manipulated the results of clinical trials beginning in the late 1990s so as to be able to report that the combined mumps vaccine, known as MMR-II (a revised version of the 1971 MMR shot containing a different strain of the rubella virus), is 95 percent effective, in an effort to maintain its exclusive license to manufacture it. This percentage is the benchmark used by the FDA to grant Merck approval to sell its original mumps vaccine in 1967. It is believed by vaccine authorities to guarantee herd immunity for people who have skipped on the shots.

However, instead of reformulating the vaccine whose declining efficacy Merck itself has acknowledged, the company reportedly launched a complicated scheme to adjust its testing technique so that it would yield the desired potency results. The virologists say they witnessed firsthand the fraud and were asked to directly participate in the dishonest testing, which was dubbed “Protocol 007? and is outlined in great detail in the complaint.

I would have thought Merck, who has been able to hide from everyone on the planet the "fact" that their shot causes autism, is somehow vulnerable to two whistleblowers when it comes to the actual function of the vaccine.

But seriously, glad there is a system in place to bring these things to light - and a good reminder to everyone, get your boosters regularly to protect not only yourself but those around you. Because we as liberals and progressives care about others!

Honestly, there may be good reason to remind everyone to get vaccines, but this thread doesn't exactly have quite the same marketing impact as another one might.

Your article has precious little actual info. If the efficacy was 99%, but dropped to 95%, that's not quite as alarming as dropping from 99% to 50%. When you learn more facts about this case, can you post them? Thanks!

My 24 year old daughter had the standard rubella titer when she was pregnant and was determined to be non-immune. She got her MMR shots in 1987-1988 (3 shots at 2,4, 6 months) and had a booster upon entering kindergarten in 1991. So I don't know how the hell she ended up not immune.

My 20 year old was, however, determined to be immune when they did her pregnancy work up and she had her MMR shots in 1990 with a booster in 1995. Maybe it's just the length of time since the last shot... who knows.

A company that is caught fudging the data once most likely has done it before and gotten away with it.

In addition, my husband also had a serious case of measles, also in spite of being fully vaccinated. And, given every outbreak of X, is supposedly traced to an unvaccinated child, no one will appropriately question vaccine makers. It's the perfect racket.

vs. the company who knowingly sold a bad product.

"MMR Outbreak traced to single child who traveled to XYZ." ... Statistics demonstrating that vaccine compliance rates in children, are at record highs be damned! It's them damn Waldorf kids!!!