"80% of pregnant women who catch rubella in the first trimester do not have babies with congenital deformities."----Hilary Butler
From 1966 to 1968, before the rubella vaccine was licensed, just 23 percent of all cases occurred in persons 15 years of age or older. By 1975, just a few years after the rubella vaccine was introduced, 62 percent of all rubella cases were in the 15-or-older group. In 1976 and 1977, this figure rose to more than 70 percent. By 1990, 81 percent of all rubella cases occurred in this older age group. From 1994 to 1997, 85 percent of all rubella cases were in persons 15 years of age or older. Source: CDC MMWRs. Government figures show that cases of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) increased after the rubella vaccine was introduced. Source: CDC, MMWR (October 25, 1996). Vaccine Safety Manual by Neil Z. Miller. p178 [See]
"The main fear that is propagandised with regard to rubella is the rubella embryopathy. What we are not told is, for example, that there were 4 cases of RE in Switzerland between 1995 and 2001 of which two women were fully vaccinated against rubella30. The only protection a pregnant woman has from rubella is that she contracted rubella during her childhood. We should therefore offer our girls the chance to contract rubella."---Anita Petek-Dimmer
"Vaccination stops children having their childhood diseases at the beneficial age (3-4yrs). Children are now susceptible to Rubella and Mumps at just the age when girls can conceive and boys can be made sterile. Antibodies from vaccination do not cross the placenta to make very young babies immune with the result that children of less than one year old are more likely to get them. In the case of Whooping cough this is just the time that the disease is likely to cause neurological damage."---Dr Jayne Donegan
"Although she is the adverse party to the claimant, a Federal Court of Appeals has found she is free to do unconditionally as she pleases in changing the vaccine table, thereby making her case against the claimant much easier in many cases. ......although the plaintiff had three experts opining that her fibromyalgia (FMS) was caused by an MMR vaccine, it was deemed by the Special Master that a causal connection between the rubella vaccine and chronic arthropathy is tenuous and has not been medically established.......this author personally knows as he sits here typing this paper that, with absolute certainty, the MMR vaccine does cause FMS."----Stan Lippmann
The medical literature states that the introduction of the rubella vaccination has resulted in the virtual elimination of congenital rubella. This "opinion" ignores the fact that since the last major outbreak in 1965, routine abortion was, and is, offered to all women who acquire rubella when they are pregnant. Most women accept. To say that all congenital rubella cases have been eliminated by vaccination ignores the fact that abortions routinely offered to women exposed to rubella also eliminate all those babies who would not have had congenital abnormalities. Therefore the question needs to be asked: What has eliminated congenital rubella – routine abortion or the use of the rubella vaccine? RUBELLA by Hilary Butler
"After contracting measles and other childhood illnesses (e.g.. chickenpox, scarlet fever, whooping cough, rubella, mumps and may be others), it has been widely accepted by many health practitioners, including experienced orthodox paediatricians that this is often beneficial for the general health of many children. Specifically it has been shown that children contracting measles naturally were less likely to suffer from allergic conditions such as asthma, eczema and hayfever, (Lancer June 29 1996)."---Trevor Gunn BSc
"Something curious has happened to the "official" perception of the childhood diseases which are the subject of the MMR or MR vaccines (Measles, Mumps, Rubella). They have all officially become more serious since vaccines were introduced."---Richard Barr & Kirsten Limb Setting the illnesses in context by Richard Barr & Kirsten Limb
The threat posed by rubella is the possibility that it may cause damage
to the fetus if a woman contracts the disease during the first trimester of her pregnancy.
This fear is used to justify the immunization of all children, boys and girls, as part of
the MMR inoculation. The merits of this vaccine are questionable for essentially the same
reasons that apply to mumps inoculations. There is no need to protect children from this
harmless disease, so the adverse reactions to the vaccine are unacceptable in terms of
benefit to the child. They can include arthritis, arthralgia (painful joints), and
polyneuritis, which produces pain, numbness, or tingling in the peripheral nerves. While
these symptoms are usually temporary, they may last for several months and may not occur
until as long as two months after the vaccination. Because of that time lapse, parents may
not identify the cause when these symptoms reappear in their vaccinated child.
The greater danger of rubella vaccination is the possibility that it
may deny expectant mothers the protection of natural immunity from the disease. By
preventing rubella in childhood, immunization may actually increase the threat that women
will contract rubella during their childbearing years. My concern on this score is shared
by many doctors. In Connecticut a group of doctors, led by two eminent epidemiologists,
have actually succeeded in getting rubella stricken from the list of legally required
immunizations.
Study after study has demonstrated that many women immunized against
rubella as children lack evidence of immunity in blood tests given during their adolescent
years. Other tests have shown a high vaccine failure rate in children given rubella,
measles, and mumps shots, either separately or in combined form. Finally, the crucial
question yet to be answered is whether vaccine-induced immunity is as effective and long
lasting as immunity from the natural disease of rubella. A large proportion of children
show no evidence of immunity in blood tests given only four or five years after rubella
vaccination.
The significance of this is both obvious and frightening. Rubella is a
non threatening disease in childhood, and it confers natural immunity to those who
contract it so they will not get it again as adults. Prior to the time that doctors began
giving rubella vaccinations an estimated 85 percent of adults were naturally immune to the
disease.
Today, because of immunization, the vast majority of women never
acquire natural immunity. If their vaccine-induced immunity wears off, they may contract
rubella while they are pregnant, with resulting damage to their unborn children.
The Medical Time Bomb of Immunisation
Against Disease by Dr Robert Mendelsohn MD
Rubella vaccination provides doubtful protection of limited duration when compared with the natural infection, and this may be the source of disaster. Protection from rubella by vaccination is not synonymous with prevention of re-infection, and this destroys the entire basis upon which the argument in favour of rubella vaccination is built. Even this ‘second-rate’ protection from rubella vaccination is statistically no greater among vaccinees than among non-vaccinated boys.. What is even more ludicrous is that the ‘protective’ sero-conversion found in boys may be more effective against re-infection than that induced by vaccination in girls. To be of any value the vaccination for rubella would need to be given in the form of boosters at varying intervals. The dangers and impracticability of such a programme make it inadvisable and virtually impossible. Rubella vaccination may be the source of infection to a pregnant female in the same family, thus creating the very problem it is designed to eliminate. Rubella Vaccination: a failure by Michael Nightingale
"Being a skeptical soul, I have always believed that the most reliable way to determine what people really believe is to observe what they do, not what they say. If the greatest threat of rubella is not to children, but to the fetus yet unborn, pregnant women should be protected against rubella by making certain that their obstetricians won't give them the disease. Yet, in a California survey reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, more than 90 percent of the obstetrician-gynecologists refused to be vaccinated. If doctors themselves are afraid of the vaccine, why on earth should the law require that you and other parents allow them to administer it to your kids?"--Dr Mendelsohn MD
"In October, 1972. a seminar on rubella was held at the Department of Pathology, University Department, Austin Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Dr. Beverly Allen, a medical virologist, gave overwhelming evidence against the effectiveness of the vaccine. So stunned was she with her investigations that it caused her, like a growing number of scientists, to question the whole area related to herd immunizations. Dr. Allen described two trials: the first trial concerned army recruits who were selected because of their lack of immunity as determined by blood tests. These men were given Cendevax, an attenuated rubella virus that is supposed to protect. They were then sent to a camp which usually has an annual epidemic of rubella. This occurred three to four months after they were vaccinated, and 80% of the so-called immune recruits became infected with rubella virus. A further trial shortly after this took place at an institution for mentally retarded people with similar effects. Additional disturbing evidence was sent to us by a Melbourne GP who was in the United Kingdom at the time that Chief Health Officer Sir Henry Yellowlees, had released a press statement (February 26, 1976) informing doctors that, in spite of high vaccination figures, there had been no detectable reduction in the number of babies born with birth defects."--Dr Archie Kalokerinos & Glen Dettman "Does Rubella Vaccination Protect?," Australian Nurses Journal, reprinted in The Dangers of Immunisation p54
"It is interesting to note the changes in ‘incidence’ of these (Rubella) complications over the years. In 1980, the incidence of encephalitis was 1/100,000 clinical severe cases (NZ Med. J. August 13, 1980, p. 104), by 1985 it had climbed to 1/50,000 (J. Inf. 1985, p. 240), in 1989 it was 1/20,000 (NZ Med. J. 26 April 1989, p. 202). Now it is supposedly 1/6,000 (Krugman, 1998)..As with measles and mumps, the risk statistics of each era seem to alter to suit the medical opinion of the moment, dependant on whether there is a perceived need to further promote a "fix-it"."--Hilary Butler