Vaccines and our kids

[Dirk]

Cancer jab 'unlikely' death cause

 

Natalie Morton died in hospital following a cervical cancer jab at school

 

A girl who died shortly after being given a cervical cancer vaccine had a "serious underlying medical condition", an NHS Trust has said.

 

NHS Coventry said the vaccination was "most unlikely to have caused the death" of Natalie Morton, 14.

 

She was given the Cervarix jab at Coventry's Blue Coat School on Monday and fell ill a few hours later.

 

Earlier the government said a national cervical cancer immunisation programme should continue.

 

Dr Caron Grainger, joint director of public health for NHS Coventry and Coventry City Council, said the results of a preliminary post-mortem examination had "revealed a serious underlying medical condition which was likely to have caused death".

 

"We are awaiting further test results which will take some time," she said. "However indications are that it was most unlikely that the HPV vaccination was the cause of death."

 

The injection - part of a national immunisation programme - protects against the human papilloma virus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease linked to most cervical cancers.

 

The Department of Health has ordered the batch of vaccine to be quarantined as a precaution, but insists there is no reason to stop the programme.

 

Meanwhile, the vaccine manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, announced it was recalling the batch - AHPVA043BB - for testing.

 

Headteacher Dr Julie Roberts and the Bishop of Coventry on the death of Natalie Morton

 

The Department of Health said it was working with the NHS and regulatory bodies to thoroughly investigate Natalie Morton's case.

 

A department spokesman said: "No link can be made between the death and the vaccine until all the facts are known.

 

"Results of tests on the batch of vaccine will be announced as soon as they are known.

 

"The HPV vaccination programme can continue as planned - there is no reason for the campaign to be suspended or interrupted."

 

He added that minor delays may occur in the next day or so while some areas await fresh supplies of HPV vaccine to replace quarantined stock.

 

NHS Coventry has not suspended its HPV programme but has decided to reschedule catch-up clinics planned for Tuesday and Wednesday.

 

Natalie's death has left schoolmates and staff shocked and saddened, headteacher Dr Julie Roberts said.

 

She described Natalie as a "happy, easy-going child who worked hard".

 

A routine programme of vaccinating 12- and 13-year-old girls started in September 2008 using the Cervarix vaccine. A catch-up campaign is now under way for older girls.

 

It is thought about a million girls have already safely received the jab.

 

More than 1.4 million doses have been given out, of which there have been 4,657 suspected reactions reported, according to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency.

 

There are more than 100 types of HPV but only 13 of them are known to cause cancer.

 

Cervarix, licensed for use in Europe since September 2007, protects against two strains of HPV that cause more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.

 

In the UK, about 3,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year and about 1,000 die from it.

 

Vaccination is not compulsory and consent is required before it is administered to the under-16s.

 

Parents or young people concerned about the safety of any vaccine are being advised to speak to their GP, visit NHS Choices Homepage - Your health, your choices or call NHS Direct on 0845 46 47.

 

BBC NEWS | Health | Cancer jab 'unlikely' death cause

[She Knows It]

Cancer jab 'unlikely' death cause

 

Natalie Morton died in hospital following a cervical cancer jab at school

 

A girl who died shortly after being given a cervical cancer vaccine had a "serious underlying medical condition", an NHS Trust has said.

 

NHS Coventry said the vaccination was "most unlikely to have caused the death" of Natalie Morton, 14.

 

She was given the Cervarix jab at Coventry's Blue Coat School on Monday and fell ill a few hours later.

 

Earlier the government said a national cervical cancer immunisation programme should continue.

 

Dr Caron Grainger, joint director of public health for NHS Coventry and Coventry City Council, said the results of a preliminary post-mortem examination had "revealed a serious underlying medical condition which was likely to have caused death".

 

"We are awaiting further test results which will take some time," she said. "However indications are that it was most unlikely that the HPV vaccination was the cause of death."

 

The injection - part of a national immunisation programme - protects against the human papilloma virus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease linked to most cervical cancers.

 

The Department of Health has ordered the batch of vaccine to be quarantined as a precaution, but insists there is no reason to stop the programme.

 

Meanwhile, the vaccine manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, announced it was recalling the batch - AHPVA043BB - for testing.

 

Headteacher Dr Julie Roberts and the Bishop of Coventry on the death of Natalie Morton

 

The Department of Health said it was working with the NHS and regulatory bodies to thoroughly investigate Natalie Morton's case.

 

A department spokesman said: "No link can be made between the death and the vaccine until all the facts are known.

 

"Results of tests on the batch of vaccine will be announced as soon as they are known.

 

"The HPV vaccination programme can continue as planned - there is no reason for the campaign to be suspended or interrupted."

 

He added that minor delays may occur in the next day or so while some areas await fresh supplies of HPV vaccine to replace quarantined stock.

 

NHS Coventry has not suspended its HPV programme but has decided to reschedule catch-up clinics planned for Tuesday and Wednesday.

 

Natalie's death has left schoolmates and staff shocked and saddened, headteacher Dr Julie Roberts said.

 

She described Natalie as a "happy, easy-going child who worked hard".

 

A routine programme of vaccinating 12- and 13-year-old girls started in September 2008 using the Cervarix vaccine. A catch-up campaign is now under way for older girls.

 

It is thought about a million girls have already safely received the jab.

 

More than 1.4 million doses have been given out, of which there have been 4,657 suspected reactions reported, according to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency.

 

There are more than 100 types of HPV but only 13 of them are known to cause cancer.

 

Cervarix, licensed for use in Europe since September 2007, protects against two strains of HPV that cause more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.

 

In the UK, about 3,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year and about 1,000 die from it.

 

Vaccination is not compulsory and consent is required before it is administered to the under-16s.

 

Parents or young people concerned about the safety of any vaccine are being advised to speak to their GP, visit NHS Choices Homepage - Your health, your choices or call NHS Direct on 0845 46 47.

 

BBC NEWS | Health | Cancer jab 'unlikely' death cause

 

Quelle surprise! They're hardly going to admit it, are they?

[Dirk]

Quelle surprise! They're hardly going to admit it, are they?

 

The truth is often more mundane than the imagination.

[stringvest]

HPV vaccine for girls aged 12?? Anyone here with a girl that age looking at this..

 

 

My daughter is due to have it Thursday. I've weighed up pros and cons an said no.

 

My head says anything preventing any form of cancer is great... but my heart says if a doctor cant answer your questions adequetly then fuck off.. mini me is my sole responsibility and way way to precious to risk on public health propoganda....

 

Its days like these when having sole responsibility for your child weighs heavily on your heart!!!

 

mmmmmm. My daughter is 12 and she had it a few weeks ago. She did appear to react to it a few days later - she returned from horse riding in the morning, threw up, and almost collapsed. The doctor recommended that she should be closely monitored for a few hours, and she gradually settled down and within 6 or 7 hours, she was as right as rain. She wasn't the only one in her class to suffer side effects on the same day.

[She Knows It]

The truth is often more mundane than the imagination.

 

Well that's as may be, but with how many million vaccines a year riding on it, it's a massive business. If this girl did die because of the jab, they'll cover it up. This is exactly what I meant when I said the government constantly lie about vaccines and refuse to admit they could be responsible for any ill-effects, until in the end you question everything they say on the matter. Gulf War Syndrome? Doesn't exist... and so on.

[stringvest]

Well that's as may be, but with how many million vaccines a year riding on it, it's a massive business. If this girl did die because of the jab, they'll cover it up. This is exactly what I meant when I said the government constantly lie about vaccines and refuse to admit they could be responsible for any ill-effects, until in the end you question everything they say on the matter. Gulf War Syndrome? Doesn't exist... and so on.

 

Next you'll be telling us that bloating your face with collagen doesn't necessarily make a woman more attractive. You're practically an enemy of the state. Be careful, your IP address and whereabouts are known to sinister forces, and I'm not just talking about Paddyberger.

[Dirk]

Well that's as may be, but with how many million vaccines a year riding on it, it's a massive business. If this girl did die because of the jab, they'll cover it up. This is exactly what I meant when I said the government constantly lie about vaccines and refuse to admit they could be responsible for any ill-effects, until in the end you question everything they say on the matter. Gulf War Syndrome? Doesn't exist... and so on.

 

What if she was killed as a direct result of the vaccine and let's say, hypothetically speaking, one in a million die from administration of the vaccine but the vaccination programme cuts deaths from cervical cancer hugely, which is the correct procedure to follow? The one that prevents one in a million deaths or the one that prevents thousands?

Edited September 29, 2009 by Dirk

[RedinSweden]

What if she was killed as a direct result of the vaccine and let's say, hypothetically speaking, one in a million die from administration of the vaccine but the vaccination programme cuts deaths from cervical cancer hugely, which is the correct procedure to follow? The one that prevents one in a million deaths or the one that prevents thousands?

 

I spoke to Mrs RiS about the vaccine last night and she said there is no way our daughter is having it. Apparently the vaccine only guards against certain types. Condom use and regular smear tests would reduce the dangers of cervical cancer greatly.

[She Knows It]

What if she was killed as a direct result of the vaccine and let's say, hypothetically speaking, one in a million die from administration of the vaccine but the vaccination programme cuts deaths from cervical cancer hugely, which is the correct procedure to follow? The one that prevents one in a million deaths or the one that prevents thousands?

 

Well on the face of it, you'd weigh up a one-in-a-million death against the hundreds of lives per year it would save. But can you trust that 1/1,000,000 figure? How many deaths are we unaware of? What about the girls who developed blood-clots, Guillain-Barre and other serious disorders?

 

Remember that this vaccine only protects against 70% of HPV strains, which in turn causes only 70% of cervical cancers. There were 941 deaths from cervical cancer in the UK in 2007, the vast majority of these in elderly women. Only 6% of these deaths were women under 35. Going by those figures the vaccine will save 500 lives a year.

 

It's also quite pricey at over £300 (the MMR, in comparison, cost £12 for the 2 jabs).

 

I agree with James. Far more lives would be saved by improved education and screening. Smear test should be routine at a younger age. If a woman wants to be screened for HPV and vaccinated then fair dues, but forcing it on our kids when we don't know the effects seems risky to me.

[Dirk]

Well on the face of it, you'd weigh up a one-in-a-million death against the hundreds of lives per year it would save. But can you trust that 1/1,000,000 figure? How many deaths are we unaware of? What about the girls who developed blood-clots, Guillain-Barre and other serious disorders?

Remember that this vaccine only protects against 70% of HPV strains, which in turn causes only 70% of cervical cancers. There were 941 deaths from cervical cancer in the UK in 2007, the vast majority of these in elderly women. Only 6% of these deaths were women under 35. Going by those figures the vaccine will save 500 lives a year.

 

It's also quite pricey at over £300 (the MMR, in comparison, cost £12 for the 2 jabs).

 

 

Age shouldn't really be a factor. The vaccination could have secondary effects on throat and mouth cancers. HPV has been implicated in roughly half of all incidences of oropharyngeal cancers and HPV-16 has been implicated in 90% of those cases. It's a myth that only women are at risk from HPV.

[kelster]

Quelle surprise! They're hardly going to admit it, are they?

 

I was going to post on this last night, how people instantly jump to cause and effect conclusions. And I think I was going to say something like it doesn't matter what you say, people will see what they want to see and won't be budged.

 

People die unexpectedly all the time. Apparently 1.4 million people have had these vaccines and one girl has unfortunately died after having it. That means she is either unique in the 1.4 million sample in having a biological makeup that put her at extreme risk or it was just unfortunate that she happened to die at that moment from another cause as people do.

 

What are the odds of that? About a million-to-one?

[She Knows It]

Age shouldn't really be a factor. The vaccination could have secondary effects on throat and mouth cancers. HPV has been implicated in roughly half of all incidences of oropharyngeal cancers and HPV-16 has been implicated in 90% of those cases. It's a myth that only women are at risk from HPV.

 

Exactly, so why give it to women who are more at risk of thrombosis, spontaneous abortion and other side effects? Why not give it to the men, the dirty wart-spreading bastards!

 

Edited to add: That last comment was tongue in cheek. Also, I'm not saying the vaccine caused this girl's death. I just don't think they'd admit it even if it did.

[She Knows It]

This article pretty much sums up my argument.

 

Dr Richard Halvorsen: I'm not opposed to jabs but there are serious worries

By Dr Richard Halvorsen

Last updated at 8:30 AM on 30th September 2009

 

Evangelists for mass vaccination like to claim that these programmes are of universal benefit to public health. Indeed, so zealous is their enthusiasm for vaccines that, through a cocktail of scaremongering and propaganda, they attempt to suppress all debate.

 

The result is that people, especially parents, feel bullied or patronised if they dare to challenge the official drive to vaccinate against every possible risk of disease. Moreover, this climate of fear is ruthlessly exploited by the big pharmaceutical companies, which see vast profits in exaggerated health concerns.

 

Yet the sudden death of Coventry schoolgirl Natalie Morton after a jab against cervical cancer highlights the reality that vaccination programmes are not without their risks.

 

The tragic irony for Natalie was that the injection may have triggered a reaction far more lethal than any future, distant threat of a comparatively rare disease.

 

And this exposes a fundamental problem about the Government's growing obsession with vaccinating children and teenagers.

 

We have to be absolutely sure that the medical and political establishment's growing reliance on vaccines does not ultimately do more harm than good.

 

As a doctor, I have been concerned for some time about this issue. I should stress that I am not in any way opposed to vaccinations.

 

Indeed I run an immunisation clinic which offers a wide range of vaccines as a protection against various diseases. But I am increasingly disturbed by the lack of any debate either about long-term vaccine safety or about the excessive influence of commercial interests.

 

Contrary to what Government officials and pharmaceutical giants pretend, the health of future generations could be compromised if we are not allowed to question this official fixation with mass vaccination.

 

In the research for my recent book on this subject, I discovered that not only are inoculations being introduced with less and less research on their safety, but, just as worryingly, they are being promoted for diseases which do not represent a widespread danger to the public.

 

The cervical cancer jab that Natalie Morton was given shortly before she collapsed is a classic case in point.

 

For all the hysteria that the Government and big business generated in support of the vaccine programme for teenage girls, cervical cancer only comes in 19th place on the list of cancers that kill women in modern Britain.

 

In 2005, just 911 women died of the disease. Though every death was obviously a terrible blow to the victim's family and friends, this figure pales beside the 12,000 who died from lung cancer or the 11,000 who succumbed to breast cancer.

 

Indeed, cancers of the brain and the kidneys proved more deadly to women than those of the cervix, yet there is little publicity about these diseases.

 

The fact is that the huge nationwide programme - which has already led to the vaccination of a large number of young women against cervical cancer - has partly been driven by naked commercial pressure.

 

For decades, vaccines were the Cinderella sector of the medical industry, neglected because there was little money in them.

 

But all that is changed. Vaccines are now the fastest growing part of the pharmaceutical business so the giants, such as GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, which manufacture the two leading anti-cervical cancer drugs, have a vested interest in deliberately whipping up public anxieties.

 

In this world of cynicism, there is no sense of genuine proportion. Everything is geared towards the bottom line. Indeed Merck, which produces the anti-cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, openly boasted in 2006 that its marketing campaign was 'proceeding flawlessly'.

 

The company even won the industry award for 'the Pharmaceutical Brand of the Year' for creating 'a market out of thin air'.

 

In 2007, Merck made $1.5billion from the Gardasil vaccine and the same vast sum in 2008. GlaxoSmithKline is also doing well out of Cervarix, the drug used in the British vaccination programme.

 

One of the insidious ruses of the pharmaceutical companies - in which the medical establishment colludes - is to heighten the pressure for vaccines by drawing a false comparison between the present and the past.

 

In the Britain of the late Victorian age, tens of thousands of children died of tuberculosis, measles and whooping cough, but today such fatalities are almost non-existent.

 

This is taken as evidence of the effectiveness of vaccines and is therefore used as an argument for an extension of programmes.

 

But such a claim is historically false. In fact, the death rate from measles and TB had fallen dramatically during the mid-20th century, well before any vaccines were introduced. This decline was mainly due to social factors, such as improvements in diet, housing and hygiene, as well as the discovery of antibiotics.

 

For all the noisy public relations campaigns, it is not clear that these vaccines even work anything like as effectively as their proponents claim. For instance, the jabs Cervarix and Gardasil only prevent a fraction of the number of viruses that can lead to cervical cancer. In truth, by suppressing those particular viruses they may encourage the growth of others in their place.

 

Given that these two drugs have been introduced in such haste with such limited testing, it will be 20 years before we know whether they are truly effective in achieving their primary purpose: that of fighting cervical cancer.

 

Nor should we be dismissive of the side effects of all these vaccines. It is now normal for a British child to be given no fewer than 25 vaccines by the age of 15 months. The Government's advisers, led by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, say they are relaxed about this figure. Indeed, they have implied that there may be no upper limit to the amount of vaccines that a young child can take.

 

As their defence, they point out that children constantly swallow lots of bugs and bacteria in their daily lives.

But that goes to the heart of the issue. When a child crawls around on all fours and takes in bacteria by licking hands, that is just part of natural human activity. Indeed, it is essential for strengthening of the immune system, the body's own vital defence network.

 

But that is very different from chemical injections, which completely by-pass the whole immune system.

 

There is mounting evidence that, by artificially stimulating the body's immune system, a barrage of vaccines can actually promote auto-immune disorders such as multiple sclerosis in susceptible people. Furthermore, some vaccines contain toxic metals such as aluminium and mercury. The fact is that the human body is a finely balanced eco-system, which overzealous vaccination can upset.

 

What this all means is that we have to be more careful about vaccines. Colluding with the pharmaceutical giants, the Government has become far too cavalier about their use, promoting them as a risk-free solution to all sorts of medical conditions, no matter how low the incidence.

 

It has been madness, for example, to talk of vaccinating the entire population against swine flu, when the number of deaths from this illness is tiny compared to the annual toll for ordinary flu.

 

Vaccines cannot be used to build some medically controlled utopia, in which all disease has been banished. Indeed, the attempt to do may end up undermining the health of future generations.

 

Dr Richard Halvorsen: I'm not opposed to jabs but there are serious worries | Mail Online

[Dirk]

I was going to post on this last night, how people instantly jump to cause and effect conclusions. And I think I was going to say something like it doesn't matter what you say, people will see what they want to see and won't be budged.

 

People die unexpectedly all the time. Apparently 1.4 million people have had these vaccines and one girl has unfortunately died after having it. That means she is either unique in the 1.4 million sample in having a biological makeup that put her at extreme risk or it was just unfortunate that she happened to die at that moment from another cause as people do.

 

What are the odds of that? About a million-to-one?

 

The initial reports mentioned that other girls had symptoms following vaccination, primarily nausea and dizziness. Needle phobia, which has a prevalence of 10%, can produce nausea and dizziness. Furthermore, if you had just had an injection, phobic or not, and one of your friends had too and had then subsequently collapsed, it wouldn't be extraordinary for you to feel a little bit sick and dizzy. The vaccine might produce symptoms of nausea and dizziness but it's difficult to tease apart the variables to uncover the true cause.

 

Liz, some doctors have been calling for men to be vaccinated but there's opposition because it's even less cost effective in males. Of course Big Pharma exploits people's fears, it's a problem in medicine but I don't think that it is instructive in this case because statistically the risk might be about one in a million, possibly even lower. Where it is instructive is in drugs like atypical antipsychotics which have a 70% discontinuation rate and a list of highly prevalent, undesirable side effects.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Dirk

[She Knows It]

The initial reports mentioned that other girls had symptoms following vaccination, primarily nausea and dizziness. Needle phobia, which has a prevalence of 10%, can produce nausea and dizziness. Furthermore, if you had just had an injection, phobic or not, and one of your friends had too and had then subsequently collapsed, it wouldn't be extraordinary for you to feel a little bit sick and dizzy. The vaccine might produce symptoms of nausea and dizziness but it's difficult to tease apart the variables to uncover the true cause.

 

Liz, some doctors have been calling for men to be vaccinated but there's opposition because it's even less cost effective in males. Of course Big Pharma exploits people's fears, it's a problem in medicine but I don't think that it is instructive in this case because statistically the risk might be about one in a million, possibly even lower. Where it is instructive is in drugs like atypical antipsychotics which have a 70% discontinuation rate and a list of highly prevalent, undesirable side effects.

 

The risk of what? Death? Immediate life-threatening side effects? Serious long-term side effects? The truth is this vaccine is 3 years old. We have no idea what the effects are. At the moment, every girl who receives this jab is still a guinea pig.

[Dirk]

The risk of what? Death? Immediate life-threatening side effects? Serious long-term side effects? The truth is this vaccine is 3 years old. We have no idea what the effects are.

 

You have no idea whether you are about to be knocked down or not. It doesn't stop you crossing the road. If all clinical trials required highly longitudinal data to support their safety then there'd probably be no medicine that was ever given a safety certificate, by virtue of the fact it would probably require a study with huge statistical power to be definitive given how rare certain side effects can be; the data could probably only be acquired from widespread use of the pharmaceutical.

 

Having no idea of what the effects are is having no idea what the effects are, it's not implying they are bad, nor good.

[mattyq]

This is another Daily Mail "We're all going to die from immigrant Aids" scare story just like the MMR thing.

I hate those fuckety fooks

[Rico1304]

I wonder if a school kid who is prevented from having the jab could sue her parents at a later date if she got the cancer?

[She Knows It]

I wonder if a school kid who is prevented from having the jab could sue her parents at a later date if she got the cancer?

 

Of course, it would all be our fault.

 

A schoolkid would be legally entitled to choose to get the jab themselves on their 16th birthday. I don't think I've ever heard of a case of cervical cancer in a girl under 16.

[RedinSweden]

Of course, it would all be our fault.

 

A schoolkid would be legally entitled to choose to get the jab themselves on their 16th birthday. I don't think I've ever heard of a case of cervical cancer in a girl under 16.

 

That isn't why they have the jab early though, is it? To stop them getting it before they are 16. Isn't it intended to stop them from causing it before they are 16?

[She Knows It]

That isn't why they have the jab early though, is it? To stop them getting it before they are 16. Isn't it intended to stop them from causing it before they are 16?

 

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the majority of 15 year olds are promiscuous. Perhaps they are and I'm an old fuddy-duddy. I still think they should be being taught to use condoms, which would protect them from a lot more than warts.

[kelster]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the majority of 15 year olds are promiscuous. Perhaps they are and I'm an old fuddy-duddy. I still think they should be being taught to use condoms, which would protect them from a lot more than warts.

 

Maybe not, but they all want it.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*© Roman Polanski

[Rico1304]

But it could happen.

 

Would you have it?

[RedinSweden]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the majority of 15 year olds are promiscuous. Perhaps they are and I'm an old fuddy-duddy. I still think they should be being taught to use condoms, which would protect them from a lot more than warts.

 

Nor do i, i was just saying what the thinking is behind it. i am not against vaccines at all, but i think there is a tendency to see them as the answer to everything.

[She Knows It]

But it could happen.

 

Would you have it?

 

Personally no, I wouldn't need it because I'm having a hysterectomy. If I was 15 years younger I probably would if I was reassured that it had been thoroughly tested.

 

Would I let my 12 year old daughter have it? No.