New York Times confirms Natural News investigation: Mumps now spread mostly by vaccinated children

Image: New York Times confirms Natural News investigation: Mumps now spread mostly by vaccinated children

(Natural News) The New York Times is now confirming that Natural News has been right all along about the real cause of mumps outbreaks in America. In a bombshell article entitled, “Mumps Makes a Comeback, Even Among the Vaccinated,” the NYT admits that vaccinated children are spreading mumps. Via the NYT: (bolding added)

Most of the recent cases occurred in outbreaks, including a large one in Arkansas, rather than as a sporadic here-a-case, there-a-case disease. And most of the outbreaks were among people 18 to 22 years old, most of whom had had the requisite two doses of mumps vaccine in childhood. “We are seeing it in a young and highly vaccinated population,” Dr. Routh said.

New York Times in 2017 confirms what Natural News has been reporting for a decade

Natural News, of course, has repeatedly warned that mumps outbreaks occur predominantly among children who have been vaccinated against mumps, thereby proving that mumps vaccines don’t work. This realization is fully aligned with the shocking science discovery publicized last week that solved the riddle of why flu shots don’t work, too.

Earlier this year, Natural News scooped the New York Times, reporting, “Mumps outbreaks reported among vaccinated children … Is the vaccine causing the outbreaks?

Even before that, Natural News has been trailblazing truth-based journalism on the topic of vaccines with all the following stories that further support what the New York Times has only now discovered… that mumps vaccines don’t work. Some of the stories we’ve published over the last decade include:

Once again, the news you read on Natural News five or ten years ago is now today’s news in the New York Times. (If you want to stay 5 – 10 years ahead of the game, read Natural News daily.)

When the first vaccine doesn’t work, try a second or third shot, vaccine quacks insist

Pathetically (and predictably), the New York Times is pushing the same old quackery the vaccine industry has historically invoked to try to cover up the fact that their products were only approved based on systematic scientific fraud (see below for details). Essentially, they’re all claiming that the way to stop vaccinated people from spreading mumps is to vaccinate them over and over again with the same vaccine that didn’t work the first time.

Via the NYT: (bolding added)

Dr. Patricia Quinlisk, the medical director and state epidemiologist for the Iowa Department of Public Health, dealt with an outbreak at the University of Iowa and surrounding area in 2015 to 2016 of more than 450 cases of mumps. The students involved had all had their childhood M.M.R. shots, she said, as required by the university, and the decision was made to hold a series of clinics offering a third dose of vaccine.

Indeed, when the first round of mumps vaccine quackery doesn’t work, the answer from the corrupt and scientifically inept vaccine industry is to push a second vaccine, a third vaccine and soon even a fourth mumps vaccine. This, we are told, will magically make them work if we only have ourselves injected enough times.

Mumps vaccines, in other words, generate their own repeat business by not working. This would be the equivalent in the car industry of a car dealer selling you a lemon vehicle that breaks down on the highway, then claiming you need to buy a second or third vehicle to “reinforce” the first car you bought, because that first car was a total piece of junk. In no other industry, by the way, are people so frequently pushed to buy and consume failed products based on such obvious quackery and junk science.

Remember, too, that the whole idea of immunization is that once your body is exposed to the virus, it builds antibodies for life. But in an attempt to explain why mumps vaccines don’t work, the vaccine industry has fabricated a whole new concept rooted in complete fiction: The idea that vaccines “wear off” and need to be repeated over and over again to make sure they “stick.” This anti-science bunk is, of course, peddled for the sole purpose of selling more vaccines even when they don’t really work as claimed.

Here’s the real reason why mumps vaccines don’t work

The real reason why vaccinated people keep spreading the mumps, of course, is because the mumps vaccine is a complete fraud. This fact has been openly admitted by two virologists who worked for Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. As detailed in the Natural News article, “Merck vaccine fraud exposed by two Merck virologists; company faked mumps vaccine efficacy results for over a decade, says lawsuit“:

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.”

The PDF document detailing this False Claims Act is posted here.

From the Natural News story:

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.(http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/478…)

• 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. (Gee, really? This is what NaturalNews has been reporting for years… vaccines are actually formulated to keep the outbreaks going because it’s great for repeat business!)

• 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 (see below).

Following the unsealing of this 2010 False Claims Act, Chatom Primary Care, based in Alabama, smelled something rotten. Three days ago, Chatom filed a lawsuit against Merck. That lawsuit record is available here.

It alleges, among other shocking things:

[Merck engaged in] …a decade-long scheme to falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine.

Merck fraudulently represented and continues to falsely represent in its labeling and elsewhere that its Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 95 percent of 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.

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.

…incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results…

…destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator…

…threatened a virologist in Merck’s vaccine division with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA…

…the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with an adequate level of protection. And while this is a disease that, according to the Centers for Disease Control (‘CDC’), was supposed to be eradicated by now, the failure in Merck’s vaccine has allowed this disease to linger, with significant outbreaks continuing to occur.

Chatom Primary Care also alleges that the fraudulent Merck vaccine contributed to the 2006 mumps outbreak in the Midwest, and a 2009 outbreak elsewhere. It says, “there has remained a significant risk of a resurgence of mumps outbreaks…”

Read Vaccines.news to stay years ahead of the mainstream media

What all this proves is that if you really want to stay informed and ahead of the curve on why vaccines fail — and the total science fraud and medical quackery behind them — you need to get your news from independent media sources that aren’t funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

Vaccines.news is one of the best sources on the ‘net to get accurate, honest information that keeps you informed about vaccines. We also cover disease outbreaks at Outbreak.news.

 

The Rise of Super-Stealthy Digitally Signed Malware—Thanks to the Dark Web

dark-web-digital-signature-malware

Guess what’s more expensive than counterfeit United States passports, stolen credit cards and even guns on the dark web?

It’s digital code signing certificates.

A recent study conducted by the Cyber Security Research Institute (CSRI) this week revealed that stolen digital code-signing certificates are readily available for anyone to purchase on the dark web for up to $1,200.

As you may know, digital certificates issued by a trusted certificate authority (CA) are used to cryptographically sign computer applications and software, and are trusted by your computer for execution of those programs without any warning messages.

However, malware author and hackers who are always in search of advanced techniques to bypass security solutions have been abusing trusted digital certificates during recent years.

Hackers use compromised code signing certificates associated with trusted software vendors in order to sign their malicious code, reducing the possibility of their malware being detected on targeted enterprise networks and consumer devices.

The infamous Stuxnet worm that targeted Iranian nuclear processing facilities in 2003 also used legitimate digital certificates. Also, the recent CCleaner-tainted downloads infection was made possible due to digitally-signed software update.

Stealthy Digitally-Signed Malware Is Increasingly Prevalent

However, separate research conducted by a team of security researchers have found that digitally signed malware has become much more common than previously thought.

The trio researchers—Doowon Kim, BumJun Kwon and Tudor Dumitras from the University of Maryland, College Park—said they found a total of 325 signed malware samples, of which 189 (58.2%) carried valid digital signatures while 136 carry malformed digital signatures.

“Such malformed signatures are useful for an adversary: we find that simply copying an Authenticode signature from a legitimate sample to an unsigned malware sample may help the malware bypass AV detection,” the researchers said.

Those 189 malware samples signed correctly were generated using 111 compromised unique certificates issued by recognized CAs and used to sign legitimate software.

malware-digital-certificate

At the time of writing, 27 of these compromised certificates had been revoked, although malware signed by one of the remaining 84 certificates that were not revoked would still be trusted as long as carry a trusted timestamp.

“A large fraction (88.8%) of malware families rely on a single certificate, which suggests that the abusive certificates are mostly controlled by the malware authors rather than by third parties,” the trio said.

The researchers have released a list of the abusive certificates at signedmalware.org.

Revoking Stolen Certificate Doesn’t Stop Malware Immediately

Even when a signature is not valid, the researchers found that at least 34 anti-virus products failed to check the certificate’s validity, eventually allowing malicious code to run on the targeted system.

The researchers also conducted an experiment to determine if malformed signatures can affect the anti-virus detections. To demonstrate this, they downloaded 5 random unsigned ransomware samples that almost all anti-virus programs detected as malicious.

The trio then took two expired certificates that previously had been used to sign both legitimate software and in-the-wild malware and used them to sign each of the five ransomware samples.

Top Antivirus Fail to Detect Malware Signed With Stolen Certificates

When analysing the resulting ten new samples, the researchers found that many anti-virus products failed to detect the malware as malicious.

The top three anti-virus products—nProtect, Tencent, and Paloalto—detected unsigned ransomware samples as malware, but considered eight of out ten crafted samples as benign.

Even popular anti-virus engines from Kaspersky Labs, Microsoft, TrendMicro, Symantec, and Commodo, failed to detect some of the known malicious samples.

Other affected anti-virus packages included CrowdStrike, Fortinet, Avira, Malwarebytes, SentinelOne, Sophos, TrendMicro and Qihoo, among others.

“We believe that this [inability in detecting malware samples] is due to the fact that AVs take digital signatures into account when filter and prioritize the list of files to scan, in order to reduce the overhead imposed on the user’s host,” the researchers said.

“However, the incorrect implementation of Authenticode signature checks in many AVs gives malware authors the opportunity to evade detection with a simple and inexpensive method.”

The researchers said they reported this issue to the affected antivirus companies, and one of them had confirmed that their product fails to check the signatures correctly and they had planned to fix the issue.

The researchers presented their findings at the Computer and Communications Security (CCS) conference in Dallas on Wednesday.

For more detailed information on the research, you can head on to their research paper [PDF] titled “Certified Malware: Measuring Breaches of Trust in the Windows Code-Signing PKI.”

Swati - Hacking News
Technical Writer, Security Blogger and IT Analyst. She is a Technology Enthusiast with a keen eye on the Cyberspace and other tech related developments.

The Tor Project to Beef Up Privacy with Next-Generation of Onion Services

tor-onion-service

The Tor Project has made some significant changes to its infrastructure by improving the way the ‘onion’ network protects its users’ privacy and security.

Since the beginning, the largest free online anonymity network has been helping users browse the web anonymously, and its onion service provides a network within which encrypted websites can be run anonymously.

However, the infrastructure design and encryption behind the service has become little outdated, eventually leaving it vulnerable to potential and resourceful attackers.

Tor network has become such a potential target that even Zerodium, a company that acquires and resells zero-day exploits, is ready to pay $1 million for Tor zero-day exploits.

Keeping these concerns in mind, the Tor Project has been working to upgrade its infrastructure over the past four years, and the good news is…

A few weeks ago, the Tor Project announced the release of Tor 0.3.2.1-alpha that includes support for the next generation onion services, with the integration of new cutting-edge encryption algorithms and improvement of overall authentication into its web service.

The directory system has also been designed entirely to “defend against info leaks and reduce the overall attack surface,” George Kadianakis from the Tor Project said while discussing the cryptography used in the new implementation.

The alpha release also addresses recently discovered security issues in the protocol including the potential for rogue nodes to learn about the network, eventually reducing anonymity.

The Tor Project has announced a few more security features for the upcoming update, which will make it much harder for attackers to unmask the real identity of the Tor users.

“As the current code stabilizes further, we plan to add features like offline service keys, advanced client authorization, a control port interface, improved guard algorithms, secure naming systems, statistics, mixed-latency routing, blockchain support, AI logic and a VR interface (j/k about some of these),” The Tor Project’s blog post reads.

This new implementation of the onion service for now also supports the current onion network, but it will soon replace the whole network and become the default implementation.

The updates are available for the alpha release, which can be found here.

Mohit Kumar - Hacking News
      
Entrepreneur, Hacker, Speaker, Founder and CEO — The Hacker News and The Hackers Conference.

Warning: Critical Tor Browser Vulnerability Leaks Users’ Real IP Address—Update Now

tor-browser

If you follow us on Twitter, you must be aware that since yesterday we have been warning Mac and Linux users of the Tor anonymity browser about a critical vulnerability that could leak their real IP addresses to potential attackers when they visit certain types of web pages.

Discovered by Italian security researcher Filippo Cavallarin, the vulnerability resides in FireFox that eventually also affects Tor Browser, since the privacy-aware service that allows users to surf the web anonymously uses FireFox at its core.

Dubbed by the researcher as TorMoil, the vulnerability affects Tor browser for macOS and Linux and not for Windows, but keeping in mind the security and privacy of Tor users, details about this flaw has not been yet publicly revealed.

Cavallarin, CEO of the security firm We Are Segment, privately reported the security vulnerability to Tor developers on Thursday (October 26), and the Tor developers have rolled out an emergency update Tor version 7.0.8.

According to a short blog post published Tuesday by We Are Segment, the TorMoil vulnerability is due to a Firefox issue in “handling file:// URLs.”

TorMoil is triggered when users click on links that begin with file:// addresses, instead of the more common https:// and http:// addresses.

“Due to a Firefox bug in handling file:// URLs it is possible on both systems that users leak their IP address,” the blog post reads.

“Once an affected user [running macOS or Linux system] navigates to a specially crafted web page, the operating system may directly connect to the remote host, bypassing Tor Browser.”

The Tor Project has currently issued a temporary workaround to prevent the real IP leakage.

So, macOS and Linux users may found the updated versions of the Tor anonymity browser not behaving properly while navigating to file:// addresses, until a permanent patch becomes available.

“The fix we deployed is just a workaround stopping the leak. As a result of that navigating file:// URLs in the browser might not work as expected anymore. In particular entering file:// URLs in the URL bar and clicking on resulting links is broken,” the Tor Project said in a blog post published Friday.

“Opening those in a new tab or new window does not work either. A workaround for those issues is dragging the link into the URL bar or on a tab instead. We track this follow-up regression in bug 24136.”

According to the Tor Project, users of both the Windows versions of Tor, Tails and the sandboxed-tor-browser that’s in alpha testing are not affected.

The Tor Project also said there’s no evidence the TorMoil vulnerability has been actively exploited by hackers to obtain the IP addresses of Tor users.

However, lack of evidence does not prove the bug was not exploited by nation-state attackers and skilled hackers, given the high-demand of Tor zero-day exploit in the market, where Zerodium is ready to pay anyone $1 Million for its exploit.

In an attempt to keep its users’ privacy protected, the Tor Project has recently announced the release of Tor 0.3.2.1-alpha that includes support for the next generation onion services, with the integration of new cutting-edge encryption and improvement of overall authentication into its web service.

Mohit Kumar - Hacking News
      
Entrepreneur, Hacker, Speaker, Founder and CEO — The Hacker News and The Hackers Conference.