{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031049250535331904, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029978586723768737, 'mean_word_length': 4.993589743589744, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rubella vaccines: past, present and future

The association between rubella in pregnancy and congenital anomalies was first reported 50 years ago, by N. McAlister Gregg, an Australian ophthalmologist [1]. During the next 20 years his findings were confirmed by others (reviewed in [2]). However, the first reports of the isolation of rubella virus in cell cultures and development of tests for neutralizing antibodies were not published until 1962 [3, 4]. Subsequent studies conducted in the UK and North America during a pandemic of rubella in 1963–4, were therefore able to make a more accurate estimate of the risks of maternal rubella at different stages of pregnancy. It was estimated that about 30000 rubella-damaged babies were born in the USA alone in 1963–4 [5]. This emphasized the importance of developing a vaccine to prevent infection in pregnancy and thereby, the birth of babies with rubella-induced congenital defects.