MMR: why not allow the single vaccine option, in use elsewhere and widely accepted in ‘60s & ‘70s Britain?

30 Apr


As Dr Michael Jarmulowicz (FRCPath, MBBS) wrote in the BMJ:

“What I find puzzling is the adamant refusal of the authorities to facilitate the availability of the single measles vaccine, to the point that the Department of Health has banned its use within the NHS. How does this fit with the growing acceptance of patient autonomy and patient
choice? . . .

“Other countries with equivalent medical and ethical standards make them freely available.”

Other countries with equivalent medical and ethical standards do indeed make single vaccines freely available – indeed, Japan, a country with an excellent child health record, completely stopped using the MMR vaccine in 1993 after 1.8 million children had been given two types of MMR and a record number developed non-viral meningitis and other adverse reactions

The Merck measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is a mixture of live weakened viruses of the three diseases. The first dose is generally given to children around 9 to 15 months of age and a second dose at 15 months to 6 years of age, with at least 4 weeks between the doses, according to PubMed (US government document – though the country’s National Center for Biotechnology Information (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) states that the vaccine is only licensed for use in children who are 12 months old.

The scientific argument for immunising infants against measles is to establish a good herd immunity, protecting unvaccinated babies, children and adults who could not be given the vaccination.

Doctors and parents are urged to acquire and carefully read the information leaflets relating to whatever vaccine they are considering and an online search of medical journals finds material which would make a thoughtful parent pause before agreeing to have their baby injected with the MMR vaccine.

The World Health Organisation (a UN affiliated body) reports that Live Attenuated Vaccines (LAVs) raise some general safety and stability concerns and lists six. A snapshot of the measles section follows:

Mass measles immunization campaigns – reporting and investigating adverse events following Immunization – notes that seizure risk is age-dependent, and lower for children over six years, who are unlikely to have febrile seizures. Allergies (especially to gelatine) and general illhealth is a contraindication to vaccination with MMR vaccine.

The most common programme error is an infection as a result of non-sterile injection. The infection can manifest as a local reaction (e.g., suppuration, abscess), systemic effect (e.g., sepsis or toxic shock syndrome), or blood-borne virus infection (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B).

Establishing a profitable monopoly

In the U.S. more than a million dollars has been paid in compensation over the last ten years to parents alleging their children were harmed by the MMR jab, Merck and Co USA. Despite this, the manufacturers of Mumpsvax (Jeryl Lynn strain) announced in January 2010 that it would no longer provide mumps vaccines as single doses. The single dose rubella vaccine has also been halted. Single measles vaccines and a combined measles/rubella vaccine are still available.

Prolonged legal action in its tenth year against Merck, the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.

The Wall St Journal and many other news outlets have reported that Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski, former Merck virologists, filed a lawsuit in 2010, accusing the drug maker of falsifying data about its mumps vaccine. The case has not yet been settled nine years later and the virologists complain that the company is not making some documents available to the court.

Single vaccines are used privately in Britain

Although separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella are now unlicensed in Britain, it is not illegal for doctors and clinics to import the vaccines as long as they inform the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) that they are bringing the vaccine into the country.

Dr Richard Halvorsen, a GP with over 20 years’ experience and the author of OK Vaccines: Making the Right Choice for Your Child (2017), has written widely on the subject. He runs an immunisation service in Britain that offers parents a choice of buying single and small combination vaccines which includes the single measles and measles/rubella vaccines.

Should not all parents have the right to request the single vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella under the NHS system?





One Response to “MMR: why not allow the single vaccine option, in use elsewhere and widely accepted in ‘60s & ‘70s Britain?”

  1. Richard Bruce May 1, 2019 at 3:54 pm #

    By coincidence I sent the following email the other day – something similar sent earlier to the BBC, which continues to report the government line, as do the press.
    I suspect our news is always being controlled for political purposes, with any science ignored if it counters the preferred line.
    Incidentally. On advice from the late toxicologist Dr Dick van Steenis our grandsons and granddaughter were given individual vaccines rather than the MMR.
    All that is but the youngest for whom the individual vaccines were purchased but the mumps vaccine was banned by government after payment.
    He did not receive that vaccine as a result and is one of those whose immune system is easily compromised, possibly due to other chemical exposures.
    That is why the advice was to avoid the MMR vaccine, which at the time was linked to triggering illness – and appears still not to give true lifelong immunity.
    The parents were never refunded for the cost of the mumps vaccine…..
    Seems to me that once again the government allows experiments on the most vulnerable in society, while children of the rich can avoid the same fate.
    The measles problem is the result not of the anti-vaccination campaigners but of government and pharmaceutical company policy.

    Begin forwarded message:

    Subject: The censorship of science
    Date: 25 April 2019 at 14:17:46 BST
    To: ITV News

    Good Afternoon,

    It is interesting to see that the government intends to prevent people accessing information about the adverse effects of vaccines.
    There have been a couple of reports recently which are extremely concerning.
    The first I noticed was when government ordered homeopaths not to claim to be able to treat autism or to suggest that toxins could cause it.
    However the British Medical Journal itself reported on scientific evidence showing that autism was directly linked to pre-natal exposure to pesticides used within 2000 meters of the mother’s residence. At least two court cases (USA and Italy) had also linked autism to vaccination due to mitochondria damage.

    Now it is suggested that the government will block any information questioning the safety of vaccination.
    It has long been accepted in science that some children are uniquely susceptible to the potential harm caused by vaccines.
    This is why the vaccine compensation system was introduced in the knowledge that some children would be harmed in the pursuit of “herd immunity”.
    We humans are not all the same and some will have serious reactions so there should be an option to decline administration for susceptible groups.
    The government only has itself to blame for the current confusion over vaccination safety.
    It deliberately abandoned proven efficacious individual vaccines for Measles, mumps ad Rubella in favour of the MMR. (See information below)
    In the controversy over what is called “The MMR” it is carefully forgotten that there have been several forms of the MMR vaccine and that some of those versions have been withdrawn for safety reasons. Reports even suggest that the Thatcher government guaranteed protection from liability to the manufacturers of one form of MMR which was known to pose serious health risks. Is this why the government insists on censoring science?

    Governments have done the same with the organophosphorus poisoning issue involving farmers, pilots, air crew and passengers, but also many other occupations. In fact we are all at risk. The Committee on Toxicity has warned that those exposed to the cumulative and irreversible organophosphates should be wary of vaccination because of the induced changes to the immune and hormone systems.
    We are ALL exposed as the poisons are deliberately add-mixed with our staple foods and are not declared as additives on food labels.

    The government deliberately created this MMR vaccination controversy because it banned the use of the proven individual vaccines for Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Those vaccines had been used successfully for years. Why then did the government ban proven vaccines and replace them with the MMR which does not induce true immunity – and requires at least one booster injection to be effective? The immunisation programme has become a vaccination bonanza.
    Basic & Clinical Pharmacology by Bertram G. Katzung MD, PhD. 6th Edition 1995 ISBN: 0-8385-0619-4 Lists all the vaccines and their effectiveness.
    Page 978 – Measles – measles virus vaccine, live attenuated (chick embryo) given one dose at age 15 months or earlier if risk is high and provides permanent immunity and only requires second dose if given before 15 months. May prevent natural disease if given less than 48 hours after exposure.
    Page 979 – Mumps – Mumps virus vaccine, live, Jeryl Lynn strain (chick embryo) given one dose which provides permanent immunity and a second dose required only if given before 1 year of age.
    Page 980 – Rubella – Rubella virus vaccine, live (human diploid) given one dose after 15 months of age provides permanent immunity but must not be given to pregnant women and women must prevent pregnancy for three months after immunisation. Prevents disease but not infection.

    So why did they ban the use of the individual vaccines in favour of the MMR? If the MMR is so good why have those vaccinated still had the diseases?

    As with glyphosate and the other organophosphates, radiation risks, vaccines etc there must never be censorship of scientific information.
    This is especially the case when that information demonstrates the failure of government to protect its people.
    Perhaps this is the real reason why the government is determined to censor the truth?

    Richard Bruce. Isle of Wight. UK.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: