There are thousands of sources dedicated to giving
the most convincing rebuttal possible for vaccines. A particular one that stands out
was recently posted by the Times
Recorder Newspaper on the use of aborted babies for the manufacturing of the Rubella
vaccine.
The advertisement in the
April 24 Times Recorder regarding the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is devoid of
pertinent factual information. The advertisement refers to the rubella vaccine as
"unethical" and states that the manufacturing of the vaccine contributes to the
exploitation of aborted babies.
The advertisement further implies that using human cells to
manufacture vaccines is analogous to using human body parts as ingredients in food.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, during 1964 and 1965 a rubella epidemic in
the United States caused an estimated 12.5 million cases of rubella and 20,000 cases of
congenital rubella syndrome. This led to more than 11,600 babies born deaf, 11,250 fetal
deaths, 2,100 neonatal deaths, 3,580 babies born blind and 1,800 born mentally retarded.
As a result of the rubella vaccine, licensed in 1969, only nine rubella cases were
reported in the United States in 2004. This dramatic decline is due to effective
immunization.
According to the
National Network for Immunization Information, the rubella vaccine is made from human cell
strains that have been growing under laboratory conditions for more than 35 years. These
cell cultures have been used to prepare millions of doses of vaccines and prevent millions
of cases of rubella and other diseases. There is no need to obtain additional cells from
aborted fetuses to sustain the supply of rubella vaccine for the future.
All people are entitled to their opinions regarding complex ethical issues. The facts
speak volumes regarding the efficacy of the vaccine and its ability to prevent death,
disability and human suffering. The vaccine has prevented thousands of spontaneous and
induced abortions as well as preventing thousands of babies being born with birth defects.
Epidemics will return if we stop immunizing. Immunizations protect the children of today
and those of future generations. How can this be considered unethical?
The only unethical component in this whole scenario is the intentional withholding of
this lifesaving vaccine by health-care professionals for the sake of propagating
misleading, unfounded, emotionally charged information.
Christine and Michael Drake
Nashport
Originally published May 11, 2005
The author of would have readers
to assume that the cell "strains" obtained for the manufacturing of the rubella
vaccine came from an ethical source and not one child was aborted for their cell
line. Then there is a slight admission that cells from aborted fetuses were used in
the last highlighted sentence"There is no need to obtain additional cells
from aborted fetuses to sustain the supply of rubella vaccine ..."
So, you have the denial followed by a conveniently
placed admission which is then followed by a falsehood that the authors may have
obtained from sources such as CDC or others. To this day, the pharmaceutical
industry is trying to find a replacement for the RA273 and the WI-38 which are both used
for the manufacturing of the Rubella vaccine. Unlike what CDC would have the public
believe, the cell lines obtained by abortion are NOT immortal. Just like any other
life form, they do have a shelf life which they appear to be approaching the end thereof.
The pharmaceutical industry, as we know, is not looking to resort to currently used
alternatives that they make available in other countries. They are currently
experimenting with new cell lines from aborted babies.
“The cell line developed at Coriell, identified as IMR-90 was the first of
several lines planned in support of NIA research programs...IMR-90 was developed and
characterized in such a way as to parallel WI-38 as closely as possible to minimize
the variables in replacing WI-38 within ongoing laboratory programs ... The IMR-90 cell line, like WI-38 was derived from the lung tissue
of a human female embryo following therapeutic abortion ...Since the goal
of establishing this cell line was a replacement for WI-38 in vaccine production, virus
yields were compared for IMR-90, WI-38 and MRC-5 for a number of different viruses
including varicella zoster, herpes simplex, vesicular stomatitits virus and
cytomegalovirus.” -Dr. Christine Beiswanger, PhD, Assistant Director and
Associate Professor for Coriell
Does
Rubella Vaccination Prevent Congenital Rubella Syndrome?
Vaccination is known to
result in a subclinical
or mild case of the disease for which one is being vaccinated against.
Rubella (German measles) is a
disease for which there is a widely used vaccine. (It is generally administered via
the MMR vaccine.) It is, in itself, a mild, often even subclinical
disease. The reason it is recommended/mandated is to protect
the developing fetus, which if it is exposed to the virus during a critical period
while still in the womb, can develop a serious condition called congenital
rubella syndrome.
There is evidence that the rubella
vaccinated, including pregnant
women, are getting subclinical cases of rubella, just as is the rest of the
population. What does vaccination accomplish if all it does is result in a
subclinical case of an already mild or subclinical disease?
Moreover, what does vaccination
accomplish if previously vaccinated pregnant women not only can get subclinical
cases of rubella, but that such a cases can result in congenital
rubella syndrome (CRS)?
Unfortunately rubella vaccine
immunity also appears to wane over
time. On the other hand, natural
immunity to rubella is thought to generally be lifelong.
Would it not be better to
expose children, particularly non-immune teenage girls, to rubella in order to increase
the likelihood that one would be immune during pregnancy, rather than to risk the
possibility of getting rubella while pregnant? As Dr. Hugh Paul stated in
"The Control of Diseases", which was written in 1964, before formulation of the
rubella vaccine, "The disease (rubella) cannot be prevented, and in view of its very
mild character, and the possibility that it may have catastrophic effects if contracted by
an expectant mother, it is questionable if it should be prevented in childhood and
adolescence even if this were possible. It has been suggested that female children
should be deliberately exposed to infection in order to achieve a life-long immunity from
the disease and possibly from malformation in the offspring in later life. This
idea is not an unreasonable one... Rubella does not kill, and even complications are
uncommon."
And if rubella during pregnancy
is often subclinical among the vaccinated, how diligent are we being in evaluating
newborns for congenital rubella syndrome since serological
testing is necessary to confirm CRS and often even rubella itself?
There are a number
of symptoms associated with the condition. Two of the possible symptoms are
"developmental delay" and hearing loss, both of which might not be noticed
immediately. Are we assuming something isn't congenital rubella syndrome simply
because the mother was vaccinated? Are we testing every infant or child who shows
"developmental delay" or hearing loss for CRS?
Some of these conditions,
including autism and diabetes, are even thought to be on the rise. The question was
just raised whether we might be assuming conditions cannot be related to
pregnancy-acquired rubella merely because of widespread rubella vaccination. Are
we even doing this with conditions thought to be increasing?
Could these increases possibly
even have something to do with rubella vaccine causing more women of child-bearing age to
be vulnerable to the disease, now that they no longer achieve natural immunity during
childhood?
Are we conducting laboratory
testing of every infant or child who shows one or more of the numerous symptoms associated
with CRS? If not, isn't it possible that we have been overestimating rubella
vaccine's success in eliminating congenital rubella syndrome? Of even more concern,
might rubella vaccine be at least partly responsible for the rising incidence of some
CRS-associated conditions?
