On December 3, 2013, UK newspapers reported that in the future, doctors will be given the power to lecture any parent who refuses to have their child vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. This move is a part of a government campaign to boost falling vaccination rates in the UK. 
Critics argue that the move will intimidate parents, stating that parents want more choice. They feel that instead of bullying parents and making them feel as if big brother is watching them, the government should reintroduce the single vaccinations as an alternative to the MMR.
Parents Want Information and Choices
The Daily Mail reported:
“Under Department of Health plans, parents who refuse MMR would receive a general practitioner’s letter.
Doctors or nurses would then use an information pack sent by the Department of Health to 35,000 staff to make the case for the vaccine, says a report in theNursing Standard journal.
A Department of Health spokesman said the plan was just one of a range of options being discussed in a move to get the message across.
He said, ‘Our research shows that parents want more information about MMR and that is what we are intending to provide.’”
Jackie Fletcher, from the vaccination campaign group JABS, whose son was awarded £90,000 after suffering severe brain damage as a result of the MMR, told the Mail that:
“Parents don’t trust the government’s advice on this, so why are they going to trust a doctor who is just going to read out what he’s been told to say?”
Mrs. Fletcher joins the growing number of parents calling for single vaccines and told reporters that parents want choice, not lectures.
I agree. However, does this choice also include choosing not to vaccinate?
Single Rubella Vaccine Includes Fetal Bovine (Cow) Serum and Numerous Side Effects
Mounting evidence suggests that the single measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations are no safer than the three-in-one MMR and are packed full of gruesome ingredients.
First, let us discuss MERUVAX® II (rubella live virus vaccine), the single rubella vaccine. 
The list of ingredients is enough to put anyone off. It includes:
- RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus
- Fetal bovine serum
- Human serum albumin
- Hydrolyzed gelatin
- Rubella virus
- Sodium phosphate
- Sodium chloride
Fetal bovine serum, for those parents who are not sure, is a common component of animal cell culture media. It is harvested from calf fetuses taken from pregnant cows during slaughter. To use this in vaccines, the serum has to be harvested by means of cardiac puncture. The procedure takes place without any form of anesthesia, which has to be not only cruel but also inhumane. 
Human serum albumin is the most abundant protein in human plasma and it is produced by the liver.
I felt that the first section of the rubella single vaccine leaflet was so unsavory that I would include it in full:
“MERUVAX® II (Rubella Virus Vaccine Live) is a live virus vaccine for vaccination against rubella (German measles).
MERUVAX® II is a sterile lyophilized preparation of the Wistar Institute RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus. The virus was adapted to and propagated in WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts.
The growth medium is Minimum Essential Medium (MEM) [a buffered salt solution containing vitamins and amino acids and supplemented with fetal bovine serum] containing human serum albumin and neomycin. Sorbitol and hydrolyzed gelatin stabilizer are added to the individual virus harvests.
The cells, virus pools, fetal bovine serum, and human albumin are all screened for the absence of adventitious agents. Human albumin is processed using the Cohn cold ethanol fractionation procedure.
The reconstituted vaccine is for subcutaneous administration. Each 0.5 mL dose contains not less than 1,000 TCID50 (tissue culture infectious doses) of rubella virus.
Each dose of the vaccine is calculated to contain sorbitol (14.5 mg), sodium phosphate, sucrose (1.9 mg), sodium chloride, hydrolyzed gelatin (14.5 mg), human albumin (0.3 mg), fetal bovine serum (
Before reconstitution, the lyophilized vaccine is a light yellow compact crystalline plug. MERUVAX® II, when reconstituted as directed, is clear yellow.”
According to the fact sheet, adverse reactions to this vaccination appear extensive and include:
- Regional lymphadenopathy
- Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
- Sore throat
- Stevens-Johnson syndrome
- Erythema multiforme
- Burning/stinging at injection site
- Wheal and flare
- Redness (erythema)
- Nerve deafness
- Otitis media
- Optic neuritis
- Retrobulbar neuritis
Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions have been reported, as well as related phenomena such as angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm in individuals with or without an allergic history.
Death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes has been reported rarely following vaccination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines.
These are the adverse reactions that Merck will actually admit to; of course, the real list of side effects is probably far longer. As the list was so extensive, I copied it directly from the fact sheet. I particularly loved the way that Merck added ‘death’ at the end under the heading entitled ‘other’ as if they thought they had better add it in as an extra to cover themselves.
The upside to all this, of course, is if your child does come through this vaccination unscathed, then according to our governments, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, your children are unlikely to catch rubella. But then again, there is no guarantee.
Single Measles Vaccine Has Been a Major Safety Concern for Decades
The ingredients of the single measles vaccine manufactured by Sanofi are as impressive as the ingredients of the rubella vaccine and include hyperattenuated live measles virus, human albumin, neomycin, lactose, and others. 
The single measles vaccine fairs no better as far as adverse reactions are concerned, either. The list of reactions seems endless and includes:
- Local pain
- Swelling at the injection site
- Allergic reactions such as rash and urticaria
- Anaphylactic shock
- A rise in temperature to around 38-39 degrees C
- A temporary rash may occur 5-12 days after vaccination
- Erythema multiforme
- Inflammation of the throat
- Eye infection: may occur 5-12 days after immunization
- High fever (over 103 degrees F/39.4 degrees C)
- Transient convulsions
- Thrombocytopenia up to two months after vaccination
- Optic neuritis
- Retrobulbar neuritis
- Ocular palsies
- Guillain-Barre syndrome
- Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE)
There have been major safety concerns surrounding the single measles vaccine for decades. In 2010, I discovered secret government documents revealing that the UK government had been aware from as far back as 1972 that the measles vaccine was causing children to suffer from the debilitating neurological disorder subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE).
SSPE is a degenerative neurological condition which affects a person’s behavior, memory and coordination, leading to fits, blindness and eventually death.
To read about the secret group that the UK government set up to deal with the growing problem and exactly what information the leading professionals sitting on that group revealed and much more, it is advisable to read my article on the subject, titled At Last! Government Documents Locked Up for 30 Years Proving This Vaccine Unsafe Finally Revealed. 
At Least Two Single Mumps Vaccines Have Been Banned
Early in 2012, I wrote an article stating that the single mumps vaccine Medi-Mumps was available in private clinics from June 2012. 
Medi-Mumps, manufactured by Almac Pharma, was said to be cultured on canine kidney cells instead of chick embryos, making it suitable for those children allergic to eggs, but sadly, my research found that instead it appeared to be less suitable for those children allergic to dogs.
For those of you who are unaware, although the mumps vaccine was available in private clinics until 2009, it was only being offered as an unlicensed product. This was because if a parent specifically requests a single vaccine, a private clinic needs to apply to the MHRA for permission to use an unlicensed product in the patient’s name.
Ms. Blears referenced this in the Hansard document dated December 4, 2002:
“Single mumps vaccines being prescribed and administered, as part of single measles, mumps and rubella vaccination programs such as MMR SepVax, are unlicensed imported medicines. Medicine legislation allows a doctor or dentist to prescribe an unlicensed medicine to meet the special clinical needs of his individual patients, on his direct personal responsibility.” 
Medi-Mumps has since been banned.
Was Medi-Mumps Banned Due To VacTruth’s Intervention?
Interestingly, since VacTruth’s intervention and a letter sent to the MHRA by an interested party, Medi-Mumps is no longer available at private clinics. [8, 9]
This is probably because our article mentioned the fact that Medi-Mumps was extremely similar to the banned mumps vaccine Pavivac that had also been cultured on canine kidney cells and manufactured in the Czech Republic.
However, Pavivac had been rejected by the CSM (Committee on the Safety of Medicines) in 2002 due to safety concerns. 
Shortly after the VacTruth article was published and the letter was sent by an interested party, it appears that the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) carried out an investigation into the MediMumps vaccine. In September 2012, they released the following statement:
“13 September 2012
The MHRA was made aware of information presented on the Children’s Immunisation Centre (CIC) website about Medi-Mumps and a related press release. The MHRA was concerned that the information provided an unbalanced view of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine because it did not mention the MHRA’s concerns and previous CSM advice or that the product was unlicensed.
We understood that the Medi-Mumps vaccine is manufactured from the same stock and processed in the same way as Pavivac mumps vaccine. The MHRA, acting on advice from an independent advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), has for a number of years objected to the importation of the Pavivac product because there is insufficient information available to assure its safety, quality and efficacy. See statement from the committee on safety of medicines for more details.
CIC amended the websites to remove the information about Medi-Mumps.
Date case raised: 3 April 2012
Date action agreed: 2 May 2012
Date of publication: 13 September 2012” 
Since Medi-Mumps and Pavivac vaccines were banned, single mumps vaccines have become thin on the ground.
Therefore, I have been unable to give a long list of adverse reactions, but that does not mean that single mumps vaccines do not produce any.
It is apparent that our vaccinations include some very strange and unsavoury ingredients. The three single vaccines were certainly not the only vaccines I came across containing parts of animals, humans and insects. In fact, I found a huge list of them on a PDF which I have included as extra research.
For some reason, many parents are perfectly happy to have their tiny babies vaccinated with everything from insect cells to pigs’ gelatin, without a moment’s hesitation, arguing that the vaccines are to protect their children and keep them strong and healthy. Others remain totally unaware of the vaccines’ contents and may have religions banning abortions and the consumption of many of the vaccines contents.
I believe that:
1. Parents should be given the product insert to read in full before they have their child vaccinated.
2. Parents should be made fully aware of what the vaccine contains before vaccination.
3. Parents should be made fully aware of all possible adverse reactions the vaccine can cause.
4. Parents should sign a consent form before their child is vaccinated.
Like Jackie Fletcher, I believe that parents should be allowed to have choices, not only between the MMR vaccine or the single vaccines, but also whether or not they wish to have their child vaccinated at all.
Additional research: http://vaclib.org/docs/BibleFlyer.pdf
Provided by Christina England