Christine Colebeck RPN – Kitchener
Monday May 16, 2005
I am the mother of five healthy children and one infant daughter died after adverse vaccine reaction.
Before a vaccine was available for rubella, it was considered only a mild disease. There was no public panic during an outbreak and the majority of the population was naturally immune to rubella through past exposure. With the advent of rubella vaccination, the cycle changed. The majority of the population is no longer exposed to natural rubella, and the vaccine immunity is not life-long. In fact, the vaccine immunity is not 100 per cent effective at any time.
Rubella is a disease that is very mild, often showing limited or no symptoms in children. Rubella is a disease that is of no risk to men. There really is no reason to vaccinate children or men. The only potential risk of rubella is when a woman contracts it during the early weeks of pregnancy. Unfortunately, that is precisely when the rubella vaccination (given at childhood) begins to wear off, when a woman reaches child-bearing age. This really begs the question, why? Why are we mass vaccinating an entire population of children and men for a disease that is of no consequence to them?
The answer is this. The rubella vaccine is known to cause adverse reactions, such as causing arthritis. These reactions are particularly high in women of child-bearing age. So in fact, the very age group that this vaccine is targeted for has the highest rate of risk from the vaccine. Pregnant women cannot use the vaccine because the vaccine itself is capable of causing the disease, since it is a live vaccine.
Essentially we are vaccinating an entire population that is not at risk from the disease, to hopefully provide some type of protection for a group that is at risk of disease. The potential for adverse vaccine reactions may be slightly lower in children, but there is still a very real risk of negative consequences from the vaccine.
To make matters worse, there is no single rubella vaccine available in Ontario so during this outbreak, we are giving children-women-men a triple vaccine called MMR (Measles mumps rubella) This significantly increases the risk, now injecting three live vaccines.
I do not understand why we need to vaccinate people for measles and mumps during a rubella outbreak.
The measles vaccine carries the risk of causing SSPE (encephalopathy) and can cause vaccine strain of measles. Do we really want to risk getting measles (or brain injury) while trying to prevent rubella?
None of these vaccines are appropriately tested for safety or for their potential to cause cancer. Yet we are expected to inject them into our children, for a disease that is not even dangerous to them. Why not just let our children catch natural rubella, so that they gain life-long immunity to prevent them from catching rubella during their child-bearing years?
I just question how we can be told the benefits outweigh the risks for a disease with zero risk and a vaccine with very real risks. I also question if it is ethical, that we be asked to sacrifice our healthy children, for the potential well being of others. I am appalled that people are suggesting forced vaccination. I don’t think they seriously understand the magnitude of that suggestion. The Canadian charter was not built on ignorance, it is there for a reason so maybe think twice before we throw it away.
We can be told that statistics may show Congenital Rubella Syndrome has decreased since the advent of vaccination, but has it really or did we just broaden the diagnoses from CRS, to developmental delay? Another important hidden factor in the decline of CRS is the frequent use of therapeutic abortions by women who have been exposed to rubella in early pregnancy.
What about all those children injured by vaccines, or born with CRS caused by vaccines? Who is taking accountability for these children?
I can tell you from experience…no one is.
Educate before you vaccinate.