Dr. Toni Bark: “For those of you who don’t “get” what’s going on, the Federal hearings on vaccinations
and exemptions will impact you whether you have children or not. This is about setting the stage for
the adult mandates which will roll Out with “healthy people 2020.” By staying silent and uninvolved
you are complicit in your own demise of bodily freedoms, choice and likely health outcomes. You will
be asked to roll up your sleeve every ten years for repeated shots since they now admit, vaccine
immunity doesn’t last. Each shot is a step closer to autoimmunity, allergy and encephalopathy.
Good luck with that!”
“...Now I know too much, that’s my curse, I read this stuff and I can’t unthink it...Merck lied about this
vaccine, it deceived the regulators, it deceived the public. The vaccine, there is no proof that the vaccine
does anything to solve the problem of cervical cancer. There’s indications that the vaccine actually gives
you cancer and if I am misstating anything, I know what I’m talking about and I’m saying this not on
belief but because it’s true and I’m saying it that way so that Merck will sue me if I’m saying something
wrong. And they won’t.” RFK, Jr.
“Until you can prove vaccines do not cause DNA mutations, I do not consent.
Until you can prove vaccines do not carry cancer causing retroviruses, I do not consent.
Until you can prove vaccines do not impair fertility, I do not consent.
Until you can prove vaccines are safe using the gold standard in medicine with an inert placebo, I do not consent.
Until you can prove it’s safe and effective to inject 8 different viruses at one time, I do not consent.
Until you can prove it’s safe to inject 18 times the “safe” limit of Aluminum into day 1 old babies, I do not consent.
Until you can prove none of the 16 vaccines and their components do not cause autism, I do not consent.
Until you can prove vaccines are not permanently harming the immune system and creating an epidemic of autoimmune diseases, I do not consent.
Until you can prove vaccines do not contribute to SIDS, I do not consent.
Until you can prove vaccinated individuals are healthier, live longer or thrive more so than their non vaccinated counterparts, I do not consent.
Unless you carried, loved and cared for MY child, I do not consent.” Jamie McGuirehttps://www.naturalblaze.com/2019/03/bes...VFQUb0fGV5wR7V8
Ongoing case against Merck…
Former Merck Scientists Sue Merck Alleging MMR Vaccine Efficacy Fraud
Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski, former Merck virologists blew the whistle by filing a qui tam action lawsuit — U.S. v Merck & Co. — in August 2010. The scientists allege that the efficacy tests for the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR) were faked. The document was unsealed in June, 2012.
This is a major federal case alleging fraud in vaccine testing; it encapsulates how medical research can be manipulated to achieve desired results, and why it may be wise to question the integrity and the validity of “science-based medicine.”
The suit charges that Merck knew its measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was less effective than the purported 95% level, and it alleges that senior management was aware and also oversaw testing that concealed the actual effectiveness. According to the lawsuit, Merck began a sham testing program in the late 1990’s to hide the declining efficacy of the vaccine. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to “report efficacy of 95% or higher regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy.”
According to Krahling and Wlochowski’s complaint, they were threatened with jail were they to alert the FDA to the fraud being committed.
In January 31, 2016, the court ordered that discovery, the process of gathering evidence, must be completed by 1 March 2017, over a year from now. The court also ordered that expert discovery needs to be completed by 31 October 2017.
Other motions must be filed by 20 December 2017. A motion for class action certification must be filed by 1 March 2018; and Merck must file its opposition to class certification by 5 April 2018.
The plaintiffs charge that Merck defrauded the U.S. for more than a decade by faking a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% even though the real rate was significantly lower.
Two other class action lawsuits against Merck were filed in 2012.
One was filed by a clinic, the other by two physicians claiming Merck violated the Sherman Act – with monopolistic, anti-competitive practices – and various violations of state laws. The two suits are being handled together. (U.S. v. Merck and U.S. v Merck and Chatom v. Merck). Courthouse News Service, July 2012:
Civil Cover Sheet, Class Action Complaint - 2012
2. This lawsuit is brought as a proposed class action against Merck for unlawfully
monopolizing the U.S. market for Mumps Vaccine by engaging in a decade-long scheme to
falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine.
3. Specifically, Merck fraudulently represented and continues to falsely represent in
its labeling and elsewhere that its Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 95 percent or higher.
In reality, Merck knows and has taken affirmative steps to conceal -- by using improper testing
techniques and falsifying test data -- that its Mumps Vaccine is, and has been since at least 1999,
far less than 95 percent effective.
7. First, Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a
less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck's desired efficacy,
Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study's findings.
8. Second, Merck designed an even more scientifically flawed methodology, this
time incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results, but it too failed
to achieve Merck's fabricated efficacy rate. Confronted with two failed methodologies, Merck
then falsified the test data to guarantee the results it desired. Having reached the desired, albeit
falsified, efficacy threshold, Merck submitted these fraudulent results to the Food & Drug
Administration ("FDA") and European Medicines Agency ("EMA").
9. Third, Merck took steps to cover up the tracks of its fraudulent testing by
destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator that questioned
Merck about its ongoing testing. Merck also attempted to buy the silence and cooperation of its
staff by offering them financial incentives to follow the direction of the Merck personnel
overseeing the fraudulent testing process. Merck also threatened a relator in the Qui Tarn
Action, Stephen Krahling, a virologist in Merck's vaccine division from 1999 to 2001, with jail
if he reported the fraud to the FDA.
12. Sixth, Merck continued to conceal what it knew (or should have known) about the
diminished efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine even after significant mumps outbreaks in 2006 and
44. Even with a deviation that could only overstate how well the vaccine worked, the
results from Merck's preliminary testing (which involved testing blood samples of
approximately 60-100 children) yielded seroconversion rates significantly below the desired 95
percent threshold. Krah admitted as much to Relator Krahling. He also admitted to Krahling
that the efficacy of Merck's vaccine had declined over time, explaining that the constant
passaging of virus to make more vaccine for distribution had degraded the product and that
because of this, mumps outbreaks would increase over time.
45. Krah further admitted to Krahling that he and Yagodich tried numerous other,
often undocumented, techniques to modify the PRN test to improve the seroconversion results
they could measure, including trying different virus dilutions, different staining procedures and
even counting plaques more liberally. These other techniques -- like using the vaccine strain
rather than a wild-type strain of the virus -- subverted the purpose of the PRN test. In the end,
however, none of it mattered. Merck had to abandon its methodology because no matter how
Krah and Yagodich manipulated the procedures, they could not reach the 95 percent
46. So, Merck abandoned the PRN methodology that yielded unsatisfactory results
and worked towards developing a new, rigged methodology that would allow Merck to report its
desired seroconversion results.
47. The new methodology Merck devised and ultimately used to perform the mumps
efficacy testing under Protocol 007 was an "enhanced" PRN Assay. It was again led by Krah
and approved by Shaw and commenced in 2000. Relators Krahling and Wlochowski
participated on the team that conducted the testing using this supposedly enhanced methodology.
Each of them witnessed firsthand the falsification of the test data in which Merck engaged to
reach its 95 percent seroconversion threshold. In fact, each was significantly pressured by Krah
and other senior Merck personnel to participate in this fraud.
49. To reach the stated objective for its "enhanced" test and increase the measured
seroconversion rate to the predetermined 95 percent threshold, Merck continued to use its
scientifically flawed PRN methodology -- that tested against the vaccine strain rather than a
wild-type strain -- but with one additional material change. Merck added animal antibodies to
both the pre and post-vaccination blood samples. The use of animal antibodies in laboratory
testing is not uncommon. They can serve as a highlighter of sorts to identify and count human
antibodies that otherwise might not be identifiable on their own. When used in that way, animal
antibodies make it easier to see the human antibodies. They do not alter what is being measured.
However, Merck added animal antibodies for the singular purpose of altering the outcome of the
test by boosting the amount of virus neutralization counted in the lab.
(Natural herd immunity!)
55. Pre-positives ordinarily occur in a small percentage of the child population that is
immune to mumps even without vaccination. This immunity would principally come from a
previous exposure to the mumps virus, or from immunity transferred to a child from the mother
in utero. However, the incidence of this immunity is small, generally measured by the scientific
community at around 10 percent of the child population.
56. The problem for Merck was that with the addition of the animal antibodies to the
pre-vaccination blood samples it was seeing a significantly higher percentage of pre-positives
than the 10 percent industry recognized occurrence of such immunity. In the results of one test
that Relators Krahling and Wlochowski both witnessed in the summer of 2001, the pre-positive
rate was more than 80 percent. Krah instructed Wlochowski to throw out the results and the
actual experimental plates of that particular test, thereby destroying all traces of the unwanted
60. The problem was that no amount of tinkering with the amount of animal
antibodies added would produce a pre and post-vaccination virus neutralization for Merck's
vaccine within the desired range. Without the animal antibodies, Merck could not support a
sufficient level of post-vaccination neutralization. Conversely, by adding the animal antibodies,
Merck could not avoid having too high a level of pre-vaccination neutralization (i.e., too many
pre-positives). This left only one way for Merck to reach its desired seroconversion outcome --
falsify the test results.
*Krah also engaged in the destruction of evidence to minimize the chances of
detection. He not only employed the excel spreadsheet which left no paper trail.
He also destroyed test results, substituted original counting sheets with "clean"
sheets, and ordered the staff in the lab to do the same.
64. Relators Krahling and Wlochowski engaged in numerous efforts to stop the fraud.
They questioned and complained to Krah about the methodology being employed, particularly
the manipulation of pre-positive data. They attempted to dissuade others from participating.
They initiated numerous calls to the FDA to expose the fraud. And they attempted to document
the fraud, even as evidence of it was being destroyed. But Relators' efforts were to no avail. For
every effort they took to stop the fraud, Merck adapted the scheme to assure the falsification
continued. For example, when Relators objected to changing their own plaque counts, Krah
appointed other staff, as so-called auditors, willing to falsify the data.
65. In July 2001, Relators Krahling and Wlochowski secretly conducted their own
audit of the test results to confirm statistically the fraud that was occurring with the "enhanced"
testing. They reviewed approximately 20 percent of the data that Merck had collected as part of
the "enhanced" test. In this sampling, they found that 45 percent of the pre-positive data had
been altered to make it pre-negative. No pre-negatives were changed to pre-positives. No postpositives were changed to post-negatives. No post-negatives were changed to post-positives.
The statistical probability of so many changes occurring in just the pre-positive data and in no
other data was more than a trillion to one. And that is a conservative measure given the
likelihood that an even greater number of pre-positives were changed but remained undetected
because the changes were not recorded in Merck's files.
(d) The Complicity of Merck's Senior Management
66. Krah did not act alone in orchestrating the falsification of the "enhanced" PRN
test results. He acted with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior
67. For example, in April 2001, after Merck cancelled the planned outsourcing of the
remainder of the Mumps Vaccine efficacy testing, Emilio Emini, the Vice President of Merck's
Vaccine Research Division, held a meeting with Krah and his staff, including Relators Krahling
and Wlochowski. Emini was clearly on notice of protests that had been going on in the lab
because he directed Krah's staff to follow Krah's orders to ensure the "enhanced" testing would
be successful. He also told the staff that they had earned very large bonuses for the work they
had completed on the project so far. He was going to double the bonuses and pay them once the
testing was complete.
72. The next morning, Krah arrived early to the lab and packed up and destroyed
evidence of the ongoing Mumps Vaccine testing. This evidence included garbage bags full of
the completed experimental plates, containing the cell sheets with plaques, that would have (and
should have) been maintained for review until the testing was complete and final. The
destruction of the plates would make it difficult to compare the actual plaque counts in the test
with what was documented and changed on the counting sheets, as Krahling had done the day
before in Emini's office. Despite the threats he received from Suter and Emini, Krahling called
the FDA again and reported this latest activity in Merck's ongoing fraud.
76. The entire FDA interview with Krah and Shaw was short, probably less than half
an hour. The FDA agent did not question Relators Krahling or Wlochowski or other members of
Krah's staff in order to corroborate what Krah and Shaw said. As far as Relators witnessed, the
FDA agent did not attempt to substantiate Krah's or Shaw's responses by reviewing any of the
testing samples or backup data that had escaped destruction. And the FDA agent did not address
the actual destruction of evidence that Krah had already facilitated.
77. The FDA issued a one page deficiency report identifying a few relatively minor
shortcomings in Merck's testing process. These principally related to flaws in Merck's recordkeeping and in its validation/explanation of changes to the test data.
78. The report did not address or censure Merck for any issues relating to Merck's
improper use of the animal antibodies or Merck's wide-scale falsification of pre-positive test
data. The FDA did not discover this fraudulent activity in the course of the perfunctory visit
because of Krah's and Shaw's misrepresentations to the FDA.
80. After the FDA visit, Relator Krahling was barred from any further participation in
the Protocol 007 Mumps Vaccine testing project. He was also prohibited from accessing any
data related to the project. Shortly thereafter, he was given a poor performance review and
barred from continuing to work in Krah's lab on any matter. He was offered a position in a
different lab within Merck's vaccine division, but it involved work for which Krahling had no
prior experience or interest. In December, 2001 Krahling resigned from the Company.
81. Relator Wlochowski continued to work at Merck, though she was transferred out
of Krah's lab at the end of September, 2001. She spent an additional year working at Merck in a
different lab before she too left Merck.
82. Before Relators Krahling and Wlochowski left Krah's lab, Merck conducted the
internal audit Emini had promised Relator Krahling would take place. However, as Krahling had
warned against, the audit was anything but independent. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Merck
completed its Protocol 007 testing in late summer or early fall 2001 and Merck reported the 95
percent seroconversion it had targeted from the outset. What no one knew outside of Merck --
not the FDA, the CDC or any other governmental agency -- was that this result was the product
of Merck's improper use of animal antibodies and the wide-scale falsification of test data to
conceal the significantly diminished efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine.
83. Notably, while Relators Krahling and Wlochowski were immediately removed
from Krah's lab for their protests against and efforts to stop the fraudulent testing, those that
facilitated the fraud remained. Indeed, Krah, Yagodich and other members of Krah's staff who
were instrumental in the fraud continue to work jn vaccine development at Merck today and are
still working together in Krah's lab.
97. In 2006, more than 6,500 cases of mumps were reported in the Mid-West in a
highly vaccinated population. This was the largest mumps outbreak in almost twenty years and a
significant spike from the annual average of 265 cases that had been reported for the years
leading up to the 2006 outbreak. Astoundingly, 84 percent of the young adults who contracted
the disease had been vaccinated with two doses of the Mumps Vaccine.
98. The CDC, FDA and Merck publicly worked together to determine the cause of
this 2006 outbreak. Of course, only Merck knew that outbreaks would occur because its vaccine
had degraded over time and was weaker than what Merck represented. Nonetheless, Merck
continued to represent its inflated efficacy rate while government and private health care
providers continued to believe that there was no problem with the vaccine. During the
investigation of the outbreak, the CDC's then Director, Julie Gerberding, reaffirmed the CDC's
view that nothing was wrong with the Mumps Vaccine, a belief fed by Merck's continued
misrepresentations: "We have absolutely no information to suggest that there is any problem
with the vaccine." Director Gerberding and the CDC emphasized that "[tlhe best protection
against the mumps is the vaccine."
101. At the same time Dr. Dayan published his study questioning whether it may be
time for a new vaccine, Merck publicly proclaimed that its Mumps Vaccine had not been
changed since its introduction in 1967 and that Merck had no plans to change it. So, while Dr.
Dayan questioned whether it "may" be time for a new vaccine, Merck attempted to reassure the
public that there was no need for any such change. The vaccine worked just fine.
104. Currently, Emory University is conducting a clinical trial of its university students
in yet another attempt to explain the cause for the 2006 mumps outbreak among college-age
students who had received both doses of the vaccine. However, Merck is listed as a collaborator
on that study and is providing funding, thus continuing to exert its influence to perpetuate its
fraudulent efficacy findings.
107. In August 2009, another mumps outbreak began just as Dr. Dayan predicted. As
with the 2006 outbreak, the 2009 outbreak occurred despite high vaccination coverage among the
U.S. children's population. In total, roughly 5,000 cases were confirmed by the CDC during the
2009 outbreak. This outbreak reaffirmed Krah's prediction that mumps outbreaks would
reemerge and increase over time.
109. Because of the 2006 and 2009 outbreaks, the CDC has also pushed back its target
date for eradicating mumps from its original 20 10 goal to no earlier than 2020. But no amount
of extra time or dosages will be enough to eliminate the disease when the vaccine does not work
as represented in the labeling. It will merely allow Merck to continue to misrepresent the
vaccine's efficacy and thereby maintain its exclusive hold on the Relevant Market with an
110. To date, the government has not acted on Dr. Dayan's conclusion that it "may" be
time for a new Mumps Vaccine. Instead, it continues to build its strategy around the existing
vaccine. Nor is Dr. Dayan likely to pursue his own conclusion. He left the CDC to take a
position in the Clinical Department of Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine division of the Sanofi Aventis
Group, Merck's partner in manufacturing and selling M-M-RVaxpro and ProQuad in Europe.
Dr. Gerberding has also left the CDC. In January 2010, she became the president of Merck's
Vaccine Division, a position she holds currently.
1 13. Merck also provides funding to the IAC. The IAC asserts that Merck's Mumps
Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 97 percent. This comes from the following Mumps Vaccine
"Question and Answer" information sheet posted on the IAC's website: "How effective is this
vaccine? The first dose of M-M-R vaccine produces good immunity to .. . mumps (97%)"
120. Merck's unlawful conduct has harmed competition by foreclosing other
manufacturers from entering the Relevant Market. Without such competition, Merck has been
able to unlawfully maintain and profit from its monopoly in this Market even though it is
manufacturing and selling a sub-par vaccine. In the absence of this illegal market foreclosure,
other manufacturers would have entered the Relevant Market with a higher quality andlor
cheaper vaccine. This competition, or the threat of such potential competition, would have
forced Merck to respond by either selling its existing vaccine at a lower price or developing a
122. Given the absence of any competition in the Relevant Market, Merck has used its
unlawful monopoly power to charge artificially inflated prices for its Mumps Vaccine. During
the Class Period, Merck increased the prices it charged private health providers such as Plaintiff
for M-M-RBII vaccine by an astounding 85%. See Figure 1.http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/chatom-v-merck.pdf
Catie Clobes: “After weeks of calling and trying to get updates, having awful conversations with the medical examiner, being denied a full and proper autopsy, and getting nowhere with that office, I was told today that her initial autopsy is officially finalized and I will have the report in a couple of days. 🙌 This means we can go forward in seeking the truth and discovering the real reason as to why my 15 lb., "well nourished", perfectly healthy, beautiful best friend 😇 died a day and a half after receiving 6 "necessary" vaccinations.
I also received Evee's medical records (and death reports from the ambulance and ER and it's something you should never have to go through). 😰 On each vaccination visit it says the same thing in her chart: "Counseled parents about risks and benefits of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, pneumococcal 13-valent and polio vaccinations today." HA!
Moms and dads, please do you and your children the biggest favor you could ever do 🙏 and just do your research about these vaccinations. Maybe you think you've been counseled on the risks and benefits but I was NOT. The risks are significant and they definitely outweigh the benefits, and I get to say that and be absolutely right given my situation!! 🤬 Ask for the "inserts" of the vaccinations that are going to be given to your child. Please do this! It's their job to give them to you, and read them over beforehand! Here is the Pediarix insert online, cripes just bookmark and do it later even‼️
This is STRAIGHT from the PEDIARIX insert itself : 👉 "By chance alone, some cases of SIDS can be expected to follow receipt of pertussis-containing vaccines." 👈
And by chance alone, MY baby had to be 1 in 8000 who probably died because of this damn vaccination. If my pediatrician had really done her job and told me all of the risks and the benefits of what her nurse was about to stick into my child, I would have said HELL NO. 👊 Because there isn't an odd great enough to put my child's life at risk. I'm not some crazy mom trying to force things onto anyone. I found my baby blue and cold one morning, a day and a half after she was given this shot. I held her lifeless body in my arms and screamed over and over because I knew she was gone. 😔 I will never be the same person again, and I don't wish this pain on anyone.
Make the decision you want, but please do the research first. And check out my baby's hammies in this picture!! 😍😋 #justiceforevee”
Evee's original story: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156775852212420&id=510082419
Are vaccines profitable? According to the 2012 World Health Organization report:
“Global Vaccine Market Features and Trends”
Regarding the global market for vaccines:
(1) It has a “spectacular growth rate” of 10-15%, versus only 5-7% for pharmaceuticals.
(2) It has tripled in value from USD $5 Billion in 2000 to almost USD $24 Billion in 2013.
(3) It is projected to rise to USD $100 Billion by 2025.
(4) There are More than 120 new products in the development pipeline.
(5) It is becoming an engine for the pharmaceutical industry.
It is noted that important growth factors for the global vaccine market involve a combination of making cost effective vaccines, obtaining funding from government, increasing demand, accelerating uptake, raising prices, and improving profitability for the industry (including marketing “blockbuster” vaccines).
Future trend is toward more active marketing of vaccines, with an increased presence of sales forces and multinational corporation representatives using a “pharma like model”.https://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_p...75XzBChDzVRIdao
Public Health Officials Know: Recently Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease
Washington, D.C., March 3, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Physicians and public health officials know that recently vaccinated individuals can spread disease and that contact with the immunocompromised can be especially dangerous. For example,the Johns Hopkins Patient Guide warns the immunocompromised to “Avoid contact with children who are recently vaccinated,” and to”Tell friends and family who are sick, or have recently had a live vaccine (such as chicken pox, measles, rubella, intranasal influenza, polio or smallpox) not to visit.“1
A statement on the website of St. Jude’s Hospital warns parents not to allow people to visit children undergoing cancer treatment if they have received oral polio or smallpox vaccines within four weeks, have received the nasal flu vaccine within one week, or have rashes after receiving the chickenpox vaccine or MMR (measles,mumps, rubella) vaccine.2
“The public health community is blaming unvaccinated children for the outbreak of measles at Disneyland, but the illnesses could just as easily have occurred due to contact with a recently vaccinated individual,” says Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A.Price Foundation. The Foundation promotes a healthy diet, non-toxic lifestyle and freedom of medical choice for parents and their children. “Evidence indicates that recently vaccinated individuals should be quarantined in order to protect the public.”
Scientific evidence demonstrates that individuals vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella),rotavirus, chicken pox, shingles and influenza can shed the virus for many weeks or months afterwards and infect the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.11.12
Furthermore, vaccine recipients can carry diseases in the back of their throat and infect others while displaying no symptoms of a disease.13,14,15
Both unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals are at risk from exposure to those recently vaccinated. Vaccine failure is widespread; vaccine-induced immunity is not permanent and recent outbreaks of diseases such as whooping cough, mumps and measles have occurred in fully vaccinated populations.16,17 Flu vaccine recipients become more susceptible to future infection after repeated vaccination.18,19
Adults have contracted polio from recently vaccinated infants. A father from Staten Island ended up in a wheel chair after contracting polio while changing his daughter’s diaper. He received a 22.5 million dollar award in 2009. 20,21
“Vaccine failure and failure to acknowledge that live virus vaccines can spread disease have resulted in an increase in outbreaks of infectious disease in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals,” says Leslie Manookian, producer of The GreaterGood. “CDC should instruct physicians who administer vaccinations to inform their patients about the risks posed to others by those who’ve been recently vaccinated.”
According to the Weston A.Price Foundation, the best protection against infectious disease is a healthy immune system, supported by adequate vitamin A and vitamin C. Well-nourished children easily recover from infectious disease and rarely suffer complications.
The number of measles deaths declined from 7575 in 1920 (10,000 per year in many years in the 1910s) to an average of 432 each year from 1958-1962.22 The vaccine was introduced in 1963. Between 2005 and 2014, there have been no deaths from measles in the U.S. and 108 deaths reported after the MMR vaccine.23