OMG - teen dies after being given cervical cancer vaccine

[GirlsAreLOud]

here

(apols for DM link)

yes because

"schoolgirl dies an hour before she was due to have vaccine" would be more of a Daily Mash headline than one that would help sell the Daily Mail to the hard of thinking

Thankyou Avril.

I read a post from mum whose child regressed into autism the week she was due to have her MMR, but obviously, she hadn't had it yet.

It got me thinking about how so many of these coincidences do happen "after" : how the worst age for SIDS is the age of infant vaccines : how the age of MMR vaccination is now the accepted age for autism regression, something that no one knew about until the 90s, and now it's part of our everyday lexicon.

It's all happened so gradually, and, because it happens bit by bit, it's as if the whole picture passes people by.

It doesn't mean that there is no such thing as SIDS, or that all autism is caused by MMR, but until adequate studies are carried out, no one can know the "contribution" they make.

Cervarix is an unknown: the risks and benefits are both hazy. It isn't just parents saying it. But thank goodness in the UK we can say no.

stuffitllllama - that is because it is not seen as coincidence otherwise. This tragedy would not have been linked to the vaccine, and Natalie Morton would not now be known in the media as "cervical cancer jab girl" , if she had collapsed a couple of hours earlier, because there would have been no coincidence.

I am also so glad, and grateful, that we have freedom of speech, but I think the media have been making a mockery of it. Stirring up nonsensical frenzies just to shift more of their product, never mind the ethics and the unnecessary anxiety caused.

two issues:

Just because the government are saying a vaccine is ok doesn't mean we must blindly follow without question. And if there appears to be evidence that the vaccine has had some adverse reaction in some individuals we should take note of that evidence surely, and assess for ourselves whether we feel that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the potential risks. A child is about as likely to be abducted by a paedophile as they are to react to a vaccination, and yet most people do not see any issue with not allowing young children out to play for fear of the "stranger danger" they may encounter. So why should people be judged for making the same decisions about whether to have their children vaccinated?

Secondly, it must have been a horrible way for that girl's parents to find out that she was so tragically ill. I really don't think that we should be expressing about whether she really did have a tumour. It's bad enough that this girl's illness and death is public knowledge, without questioning whether it's been made up to back up the need for vaccination.

AvrilH so what do you think should have happened then?

This girl collapsed and died within hours of receiving the vaccine. It was not known that she was seriously ill. Therefore it was also not known that there wasn't a link between this particular girl's death and the vaccine.

So should the media have reported nothing? Should girls have been continued to be vaccinated until the cause of death had been confirmed? Even though there could have been a link? And what if there had been a link? More girls' lives could have been being put at risk while they tried to find out. And what then if someone else had died or fallen seriously ill and it was known that this had happened before?

This was not media hysteria. A seemingly healthy girl collapsed and died within hours of receiving a relatively new vaccination. The responsible thing to do was to halt the vaccination programme and to inform people. The irresponsible thing to do would have been to keep it quiet.

wannabe - I agree with you

But, Natalie Morton is still, today, being called the "cervical cancer jab girl". She was much more than that.

From the Daily Mail piece linked to above, the headline is

Cervical cancer jab girl died from unrelated chest tumour as researcher calls vaccine plan a 'mass experiment'

it still links the two

Agree that they could have worded the headline with her name instead but this is the Daily Mail. I personally don't read it just as I don't do my research on Utube.

It was of course the responsible thing to do to withold the batch of vaccine until her death could be investigated. This could however have been achieved without plastering her name and details all over the place.

Avril that's not right. That headline identifies the story and what what the cause of her death. Note the word "unrelated". And there are two parts to the story.

You write a headline with fewer words incorporating every aspect of the story in the fewest words possible.

Talbot "plastering her names and details" -- what? This is infomation. What do you think newspapers do?

"Personaly I'll be keeping an eye on this one as I am very hmm at the idea that this poor girl had a mortal tumor of which she could have died at literally any moment and nobody knew anything about it beforehand. "

I'm not - I had a very close friend at school who collapsed suddenly with no indication of previous illness. She was rushed into hospital where a massive tumour was discovered on her brain. They managed to stabilise enough to operate and she survived. but they said then that she could have died at any moment. She still has a lot of ongoing health problems as a result of it over 20yrs on.

Just throw in another angle here ,how about instead of vaccinating girls ,we circumscise all boys at birth ? Circumscised men are much less likely to harbour the HPV virus ,as there is no nasty skin fold for them not to clean properly under .

'as there is no nasty skin fold for them not to clean properly under . '

how is it 'nasty'?

mass-genital mutilation and mass-innoculation of an experimental vaccine instead of hammering home safe sex messages . . . yeah.

Stuffitlllama - my headline would have been: "Cervical cancer jab ruled out as cause of teen's death"

Talbot - I hate to disagree with you, but if Natalie Morton's name and details had not been plastered all over the place, the conspiracy theorists would have had a field day. I am really gobsmacked that they are even now about her cause of death. The poor girl will now be forever remembered as "cervical cancer jab girl" and her grieving family have been at the centre of a media maelstrom.

Hi

I've read the whole thread and have to say - its made me think! (I'm a first time poster)

My daughters school is telling them they have to go to the GP surgery to get it - she's 17.

Now at the moment I'm thinking about telling her she shouldn't have it. She's not keen on the idea herself. We have a very open relationship, and so I know that she has had sex, and not all the time with a condom. (Please don't start judging, she's been dating her lovely boyfriend since she was 13 years old) However, they have split up at several points for a couple of months at a time and he admits to being promiscuous in those times. So honestly, its fairly likely that she's already been exposed to the HPV strains.

So, in light of the shaky things that have been shown up on here, I'm fairly tempted not to expose her to the risk, since it would probably not vaccinate her!

However, whats making me consider telling her to have it done is that, say we wait a year till we have more information, she'll be eighteen years old, and eligible for it, we've been told we have to pay for it...which we cannot afford.

What would you all do in my shoes?

*not eligible for it

Sorry!