Natalie Morton died from large chest tumour, NOT hpv vaccine

[uppityperson]

RIP Natalie

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6856774.ece

Cervical cancer jab girl Natalie Morton died from large chest tumour

Natalie Morton, the schoolgirl who died after receiving a vaccine as part of a national immunisation campaign, died from a large malignant tumour in her chest. Her sudden death was unconnected with her cervical cancer jab, an inquest in Coventry was told today. A spokesman for NHS Coventry said that a preliminary hearing was held this morning at Coventry Magistrate’s Court as part of the inquest into the schoolgirl’s death.

(clip)
Dr Caron Grainger, joint director of public health for NHS Coventry and the city’s council, said: “The pathologist has confirmed today at the opening of the inquest into the death of Natalie Morton that she died from a large malignant tumour of unknown origin in the heart and lungs.

“There is no indication that the HPV vaccine, which she had received shortly before her death, was a contributing factor to the death, which could have arisen at any point.”

Schools across the country had postponed or cancelled their vaccination clinics as the batch of up to 200,000 doses of Cervarix used at the school and distributed throughout England and Scotland was quarantined after the death.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. anti-vaccers: GARDASIL CAUSES LARGE CHEST TUMORS!11!

[uppityperson]

3. within HOURS!!!!! must've been the fast acting vaxxcinn

[cliffordu]

121. Well....

:rofl:


Soopervaccine!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. You have the logic of them pegged.

[AngryAmish]

2. oooh, did Big Pharma get to the NHS people too?

the anti-vax nutters are so stupid and dangerous.

[Warpy]

4. Antivaxers were too quick to leap on this one

and really should have waited for the autopsy results.

Cancer is rare in the young, but it can happen at any age. So can hidden heart disease.

I don't expect them to admit they've got egg all over their faces, though. They'll probably say they planned it that way.

[KittyWampus]

17. who are you calling "anti-vaxers"? I'm just curious. Do you mean those DU'ers with an issue

with this particular vaccine being marketed heavily to young teenage girls?

[kimmerspixelated]

25. Oh Kitty, don't you know?

There seems to be a consensus around here that people that actually think about what they allow to be put/injected in their bodies, are somehow dumb ol'-anti-pharma buffoons!! They are made out to be total idiots, and kicked in the dungeon if they talk about natural remedies, blag, blah...BLAH!

IT's completely sad.

[uppityperson]

31. Oh kimmer, don't you know? There's a lot of people involved with dichotmous thinking, some of us see

shades of grey.

IT's completely sad that those of us who see shades of grey are accused of being pro-pharma by those who can only see black and white.

[kimmerspixelated]

39. Well, my experience has been that some of you

can be terribly mean. My bottom line is: If you believe in Gardisil-Go for it! Don't make myself and others feel stupid for refusing it!

[uppityperson]

85. I understand that people have concerns about this vaccine. However, there are those

who are so quick to jump on something that happens like this without waiting to find out the facts. As Warpy said here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6675147&mesg_id=6675878

Especially after the last 8 yrs, and even before, of course it is difficult to know whom and what to trust. Sometimes the internet is a good thing, other times rumors can be spread so fast and far that it is hard to tell what is real. Also, esp with health matters, people tend to post when something goes wrong or they aren't happy with a treatment, or medicine, or some such, not when they are. So there gets to be a lot of negative things posted, making it seem like it is all negative.

I find this when researching about thyroid issues, since that is something that affects me. Lots posted on what doesn't work, hard to find things that do work since people who are satisfied are less likely to write about it.

It's not easy, figuring out what is real, esp when the outcome can be so bad. Hard to tell what is real to fear and what isn't.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Yup

[joeybee12]

40. Yeah, and it was approved under Bush's FDA...

...I'm sure they did a thorough job.

[Warpy]

56. Antivaxers are fanatics who jump on a sudden death after a vaccination

as proof that the vaccination kills people.

I'm not talking about the people who feel all icky about vaccinating the sweet flower of virginal young girlhood against STDs she might encounter when she grows up--and yes, she will grow up and experiment with sex.

I'm also not talking about people who are deeply suspicious about anything approved during the last, dismal 8 years. However, education is the cure for that. This vaccine had an uphill battle to get approved, at all, during the years the fundies were in control of the country. It's been tested out the wazoo and there is nothing wrong with it.

I'm talking about antivax crazy people who are so desperate to find evil where none exists that they leap to a ridiculous conclusion immediately, without waiting to find out what really happened.

[uppityperson]

74. Thank you, that is a very good definition. eom

[joeybee12]

75. Well, I have trouble with the vaccination mainly because it was approved

during the Bush administration...tell me how the FDA was so well run back then.

[Warpy]

82. It was barely approved

and only after a slew of suits. The fundies didn't want their daughters to screw, and if their daughters let some man do that to them, they deserved to die slowly and horribly.

The vaccine really did have an uphill battle to be approved. The fundies in the administration fought it every step of the way.

[joeybee12]

89. But you also had an FDA owned by Big Pharma...did they ignore

science...probably, we saw it before...I just think anything approved and done in those 8 years iss uspect because of the corruption in that administration.

[Warpy]

123. At some point you need to realize the testing has been done

and that the vaccine has been approved here and abroad as safe and effective.

Continuing to whine that you don't trust the fundies and drug company hacks who were in control of the FDA is counterproductive. The fundies weren't in charge of regulatory agencies abroad, and some of those agencies are more stringent than the FDA.

The bottom line is that the vaccine has been in general use for months now, and no serious side effects have been found.

[joeybee12]

139. I'm sorry if any questioning is construed as whining...

...but there are plenty of cases where drugs have been on the market only to be pulled later...there's a lot of money involved in all this.

[Warpy]

158. Odd how you seemed to miss a few things

1. Rigorous testing was done
2. The vaccine was approved by offshore agencies more strict than the FDA
3. Wide use has turned up no problems.

Continuing to ignore the salient points and reiteration of "concern" that has been laid to rest is whining.

[LeftishBrit]

118. This is about the UK; the Bush administration and FDA were not involved here

[joeybee12]

142. Did I say anything here...did you see me post anything about that

death previously...there is a lot of money involved in all this, so I will always mainatain a healthy skepticism...and if someone asked me if I thought they should get the vaccine, i would say I saw no hamr in it...but think about all the drugs that were marketed for years and then eventually pulled due to deaths.

[LeftishBrit]

162. My point was...

that this thread is about the UK, and your post was about the vaccine being approved during the Bush administration. However, the Bush administration has nothing to do with what drugs or treatments are approved in the UK (and incidentally it's a slightly different vaccine from the one used in the USA).

Any treatment or preventative that is strong enough to work can also have risks, and people should decide for themselves whether they wish to take the risk - just as with any other activity in life. I don't take every vaccine or other treatment that I *could* get. On the other hand, a lot more people have died from being denied access to vaccines and treatments than from having them. There is also a lot of money involved in denying people access to medical treatment, and making it unaffordable to many; and I think that this is the greatest danger.

[kestrel91316]

98. Who should it be marketed to? The elderly??

[KittyWampus]

117. Women over twenty. The ones who would actually benefit from it.

[LeftishBrit]

119. For most of them, it would be too late to benefit. by then

The vaccine only works to any extent if given *before* women are exposed to HPV.

[KittyWampus]

125. the FACT is younger women's bodies spontaneously rid themselves of the virus.

How ignorant can DU'ers be?

This is the FACT.

[LeftishBrit]

129. ALL of them? Then why do so many women get cervical cancer?

[pnwmom]

147. Actually, cervical cancer is a rare disease now, thanks to the success of pap smears.

And it would be reduced even further if annual pap smears were available to all women .

[LeftishBrit]

161. They are available to all women in Britain...

and the rate has certainly gone down dramatically as a result. However, even with pap smears, over 2000 women a year in the UK get cervical cancer, and about 750 a year die from it. Even those who survive require painful and damaging treatments.

So while the incidence is much lower in countries that do have pap smears than those that don't, I would hardly call it 'rare' anywhere.

[uppityperson]

169. "There are 9 billion bicycles in Beijing, that's a FACT". Link to proof of assertion?

Except there aren't. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_bicycles_are_there_in_Beijing says only 8 billion.

I would like to see link to your assertion.

[boppers]

187. Kitty, No, Not true. Sorry.

Women's bodies spontaneously remove the papiloma cells, and thus, the cells don't show up as often (if ever) in future pap smear tests. This leads to some confusion.

The virus stays in the body for longer, sometimes for life, *depending on which one of the 130 viruses they have*. This isn't "a virus", it's many. Gardasil protects against type 16 and 18, which sometimes *never* leaves a person's system. Type 5 can cause a lifelong infection (and spread) without *ever* showing symptoms in some carriers. There's lots of variation, some kill, some make bumps, some go asymptomatic, etc.

"younger women's bodies spontaneously rid themselves of the virus" Is only true in some cases, but certainly not true in all cases, as most of the time, what is removed is the *symptoms*. They're still infected.

It's like herpes. It can hide, but it never truly "goes away", and it often comes back as cancer.

[uppityperson]

188. Thank you. There is a lot of confusion about all this, coupled with fears

It is good to know true things, and be able to counter the fears. thank you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. Women under twenty don't have sex in your world?

[KittyWampus]

126. How ignorant can any DU'er be? It's been posted ad naseum that younger women DO NOT NEED THE VACCINE

It's a medical fact.

Younger women's bodies rid themselves of the virus.

It's been posted again and again and yet you and a handful of other DU'ers decide to willingly ignore that medical FACT.

[LeftishBrit]

130. Then why do YOUNG women sometimes get cervical cancer?

Jade Goody recently died of it in her 20s. So do many others who are less well-known.

[uppityperson]

171. link to that "fact"?

[Warpy]

124. Excuse me?

Kids are experimenting with sex before they're into their teens.

WAKE UP!

[KittyWampus]

128. YOU are the one who is totally ignoring reality. YOUNG WOMEN"S BODIES RID THEMSELVES OF THE VIRUS

how many times do I have to post that medical FACT?

I've posted it time and again and a small number of DUers willingly ignore it.

There is something wrong with you if you are so unwilling to accept what is a medical FACT.

[Warpy]

131. Screeching in all caps doesn't do you any good

and what you posted is a stinking, dirty lie that has the potential to kill young women.

[Maru Kitteh]

132. All women's bodies will rid themselves of the virus some percentage of the time.

The vaccine is indicated because no age group will rid themselves of the virus all the time. It is a tragedy for a young person to be exposed to a cancer when it is so easily made preventable with a simple, safe vaccine such as this.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

134. What percentage and of which strains?

[uppityperson]

170. LINK

[boppers]

189. There is no such thing as "THE VIRUS".

Repeatedly posting this shows that you don't understand the topic.

[uppityperson]

191. aw, come on, it's a "medical FACT"!!!1111

thank you for your patience

[valerief]

5. I guess you can't pay a pathology dept. to say she died from a tumor.

I'm not saying the cause of death is a lie. I'm just saying we never know what the truth is when big money is at risk.

[uppityperson]

6. If it's not a lie she died from a large chest tumor, then it's.....unclear?

[valerief]

58. pls put me on ignore

[uppityperson]

76. Naw, you can just ignore us instead. "fingers in ears, lalalalalala" Best of luck.

[LeftyMom]

8. Oh geez.

[valerief]

59. pls put me on ignore

[LeftyMom]

113. No.

Please stop posting things that defy rational thought.

[kestrel91316]

9. Are you accusing the pathologist of accepting a bribe to fake the postmortem

results??????

Good thing you aren't in the UK. That doctor would sue the pants off you and win in a heartbeat.

[uppityperson]

10. he/she is not calling it a lie, just saying doesn't believe it is the truth, see?

ai yi yi yi yi, eh?

[valerief]

62. pls put me on ignore

don't know how you got off mine

[uppityperson]

86. I think you have it backwards. If you ignore us, then you don't have to see us anymore

we can still see you and reply to you. see?

[Ian David]

109. He just doesn't want us calling him on his crazy bullshit anymore. n/t

[valerief]

60. pls put me on ignore

[kestrel91316]

93. Kindly bite me. Your outrageous statements will NOT get a pass from me.

[Ian David]

12. You need help. n/t

[valerief]

61. pls put me on ignore

[Ian David]

108. No. I want to observe your self-destruction out of morbid curiosity. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

64. And so works the mind of a conspiracy theorist. Assume everything is a lie.

And assume that anyone telling you it isn't a lie is either lying or ignorant.

[Robb]

102. Those were some quick-moving goalposts. nt

[LeftishBrit]

122. Oh FFS, you sound just like the birthers.

If any evidence is put forward against your theory, there must be something that invalidates it.

And you can put me on ignore if you like.

[kestrel91316]

7. that tumor NEVER would have killed her if she hadn't got the vaccine.

:sarcasm:

[northzax]

163. Yes, apparently guardasil should now be contraindicated

With large malignant lung tumors.

[Ian David]

11. You know, Rick Perry's cousin was also vaccinated.

:sarcasm:

[Posteritatis]

13. Of course, the goalposts will be moved to claim this either isn't the case or doesn't matter. (nt)

[mzmolly]

14. "THE schoolgirl who died after ..." I've never heard of her. However, she's not THE only person

to have been injured or worse, shortly following this questionable vaccine.

[uppityperson]

15. link?

[mzmolly]

20. Sure.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/story?id=8356717

[uppityperson]

28. "The vaccine has been linked to 32 unconfirmed deaths". Oh Kay.

Rather like the other poster here who says there is a 79% a vaccine can cause a large malignant chest tumor within hours of being given.

I betcha that someone tripped and bumped their leg hard enough to bruise within hours of being given this vaccine. OMG!

[mzmolly]

32. More importantly ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6675147&mesg_id=6675486

[pnwmom]

111. But the bottom line seems to be this (from the same link):

"Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients," said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

[uppityperson]

115. So more women are having "serious adverse events" than get cervical cancer?

quotes taken out of context are wonderful things

[pnwmom]

116. Read the whole article then. That is what she's saying. n/t

[Liquorice]

16. Just because something happens, and then a little later something else happens, doesn't

mean the first thing is related to the second. In other words, correlation does not equal causation. I've noticed that most people who have issues with vaccinations often make this mistake.

[mzmolly]

19. Gosh, I've never heard that before. Does that apply to the fact that this isolated case may not be

related to others?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/story?id=8356717

A government report released Tuesday raises new questions about the safety of the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil. The vaccine has been linked to 32 unconfirmed deaths and shows higher incidences of fainting and blood clots than other vaccines.

:eyes:

I don't think anyone should assume anything prior to a full investigation. However, I also don't believe that vaccines should be dismissed as a potential issue in cases where we see an increase in particular symptoms following a particular vaccine.

"Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients," said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

[Liquorice]

22. There are some risks with all vaccines, but the risk is very low. nt

[mzmolly]

26. Apparenlty you missed the quote from Diane Harper?

"Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients," said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

That quote says it all. In fact it's worthy of a thread. Diane Harper worked for years to develop this particular vaccine. She never approved of using it in young girls. Her warnings were ignored by MERCK.

[Liquorice]

34. Is this the same Diane Harper who said

this:

"However, Diane Harper, MD, professor of community and family medicine/obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth Medical School, in Hanover,New Hampshire, and director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, is more circumspect. Dr. Harper, who was involved in clinical trials with both HPV vaccines, commented during an interview, "Serious adverse events reported do happen, but in small numbers of women being vaccinated, and some of these events may be so rare that they will never be directly linked to the vaccine."

Dr. Harper notes that she has received money from both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline for consultation about and conducting clinical trials on the HPV vaccines. "This is a good vaccine and it is generally safe," she said."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578110

[uppityperson]

36. I wonder if it is the same person. Quotes taken out of context or???

[mzmolly]

43. Same person,

evolving opinion.

[mzmolly]

42. Yes in July of 2008 she's quoted as saying what you note. And, In August of 2009

she indicated what I pointed out.

[uppityperson]

81. Looks like in 2007 she was not for it either.

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/503/27/
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Dr. Diane M. Harper, a lead researcher in the development of the humanpapilloma virus vaccine, who says giving the drug to 11-year-old girls "is a great big public health experiment."

[mzmolly]

84. Right. She NEVER approved it for use in that age group.

I agreed with her then, and now.

[uppityperson]

90. More of what she wrote...8/8/08

One of the links is to a mediscape article, Liquorice posted. Just registered so can pull it up.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578110

However, Diane Harper, MD, professor of community and family medicine/obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth Medical School, in Hanover,New Hampshire, and director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, is more circumspect. Dr. Harper, who was involved in clinical trials with both HPV vaccines, commented during an interview, "Serious adverse events reported do happen, but in small numbers of women being vaccinated, and some of these events may be so rare that they will never be directly linked to the vaccine."
(clip)

However, there is also another very important part to the cervical cancer prevention story, Dr. Harper said, and that is regular Pap tests. Even women who are vaccinated need to have regular Pap testing, as otherwise they are still at risk of developing cervical cancer. And women who decide not to have the vaccine can still protect themselves by undergoing Pap testing.

Dr. Harper feels this message has not been made clear to the general public and that it has been overshadowed by what she considers to be aggressive and inappropriate promotion of Gardasil. As a gynecologist dealing with the general population, her advice on the HPV vaccine is that "if you are at all concerned, then don't have the vaccine — have regular Pap smears and you will be equally protected from cervical cancer."

She continued, "Whether or not to get vaccinated with Gardasil is a personal choice by each girl/woman and/or her parents." Each individual must weigh her family health history and whether it may put her at any possible risk for an adverse event that Gardasil might trigger (not even necessarily cause). As examples, Dr. Harper mentioned family history of motor neuron disease or autoimmune diseases, which could affect how the person reacts to the vaccine. She illustrated this point by saying: "Salt does not usually kill anybody, but for a person with congestive heart failure, it could lead to fatal pulmonary edema, so you could say that salt caused their death, as it was the last straw that broke the camel's back."
(clip)
With circumspection, Dr. Harper added: "It is unlikely that there will ever be a statistically associated relationship between peripheral neuropathies (GBS, etc) and Gardasil because the occurrence is rare — this does not mean that Gardasil is not involved in triggering these diseases; it means that we will never have enough evidence to prove absolutely no association in any subgroup of the population."

[mzmolly]

91. I can't think of a thing I disagree with. I always find her reasonable in her

statements. She's not a sales person for MERCK and GKS, she's a scientist. Unfortunately too many people here act like they are getting a commission from big pharma on vaccine sales. :)

[uppityperson]

95. Trying to wade through the fun snark here, from all sides.

[uppityperson]

99. HPV Vaccine Deemed Safe and Effective, Despite Reports of Adverse Events

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578110

Editor's note: This article replaces "HPV Vaccine Adverse Events Worrisome Says Key Investigator," which was posted on July 26, 2008, and was removed after editorial review.

[mzmolly]

101. I can't open the link.

:hi:

[uppityperson]

103. I had to register to do it, but figure it will serve me good in the long run

getting back into nursing and seems a good resource. I hesitated, then registered so I could copy/paste.

[mzmolly]

107. I think I have an account

as well. But I don't recall the password.

Good luck getting back into nursing. My sis, an RN, is studying to be a nurse educator. I think she wants better hours? ;)

[pnwmom]

45. Yes. She revised her opinion after obtaining new information.

Something that seems to be difficult for many people to do.

[uppityperson]

87. Exactly. This thread shows that. Even when proven the shot didn't kill her, some don't believe it.

thanks for pointing that out

[trotsky]

100. Bingo!

Nice one. :thumbsup:

[pnwmom]

112. I believe it, for what it's worth. In fact, I expected that some of those

deaths would prove to be unrelated.

Unfortunately, Merck is making no effort to follow up on the VARS reports, as it should be doing. We need to find out exactly what the real risks are.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

137. Here is a quote about the real risk.

"There are 772 serious problems identified in 23 million doses of vaccine," said Dr. Kevin Ault, associate professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Emory University. "I usually tell my patients that these serious events are tragic, rare and likely unrelated to the vaccine."

[pnwmom]

141. Cervical cancer cases are also very rare, thanks to annual pap smears.

And, according to the developer of the HPV vaccine, serious adverse effects from the vaccine are more common than cervical cancer cases.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

143. The developer is ignorant or lying then. 772 adverse reactions total vs. 4000 deaths a year.

Those deaths are just in the US I should add.

[pnwmom]

146. You're comparing apples and oranges. The 23 million doses were received

by about a third that many women (since it is a 3 dose series). And the cancer deaths are based on the total number of women in the U.S. population.

[uppityperson]

174. "serious adverse effects from the vaccine are more common than cervical cancer cases."? No

That is your writing. 400>772.

[pnwmom]

176. Yes, according to Diane Harper, the developer of the HPV vaccine.

As was cited in several previous posts.

"Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients," said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

[uppityperson]

180. ah. And since she therefor says 4600

If someone states 4600 is less than 722, it makes everything else they say suspect. It also makes their supporters suspect.

[uppityperson]

183. 4600 is less than 722 is what it said, html code canceled last bit

[pnwmom]

198. 4600 can't be simply compared to 722 without taking into account the different

denominators. (4600 is a fraction of all women, 722 is a fraction of doses.) Fractions don't work that way.

That would be like saying that 4600/9200 is greater than 722/723.

Also, referring to the 722, the correct denominator is closer to 8 million than to 22 million (total number of women divided by 3 doses each).

Of course, we don't know what numbers of adverse effects Dr. Harper was referring to. I don't see the 722 referred to in her quotes: she might be seeing more recent data that puts the number of serious adverse effects higher than that.

Another point: the number of cancer deaths has been on a steady decline for decades: the number isn't fixed. By and large, the women dying now are older, and haven't had annual pap smears. (Yes, there are exceptions, of course.) There is no reason to think that as the population ages (and more women will have had a lifetime of pap smears) this number wouldn't have continued to decline -- all on its own. And there would be a further decline if the government funded universal pap smears.

I trust Diane Harper more than others on this because she is the leading researcher on Gardasil. She has no vested interest in questioning the relative safety of her own vaccine -- except for scrupulous honesty.

But let's assume Diane Harper IS wrong and you are right. Why would you trust a vaccine developed by anyone who doesn't know 4600 is more than 722?

[uppityperson]

204. And there would be a further decline if cancer didn't happen at all.

Which is why vaccinating females before they become sexually active will make sure they are protected against HPV 6, 11, 16, & 18. That will also decrease the rate of cancer. Not just of surviving it, but of not getting it in the first place.

[pnwmom]

206. Pap smears catch the vast majority of cellular changes in the cervix before

they reach the stage of cancer -- whether the changes are caused by an HPV virus or any other cause.

And HPV virus, in the vast majority of cases, is eliminated from the body with no treatment.

[uppityperson]

210. and wouldn't it be nice if those cellular changes were decreased?

Wouldn't it be nice if there were fewer positive PAPs?

"And HPV virus, in the vast majority of cases, is eliminated from the body with no treatment." Link to assertion or else it is another of those random statements.

[pnwmom]

211. I'm sure you know that links to that assertion have been provided dozens of times

in various threads on the topic. I'm feeling lazy this time.

[uppityperson]

213. Being a mind reader is difficult and you are wrong.

Not providing a link is lazy and gives no support for the assertion so it can be discounted.

[pnwmom]

214. I still can't believe that someone as well informed as you are

doesn't know this. Fine, here's a source. (Ever hear of a friend being told that they had a Class 2 pap smear, but to wait for another pap or two before doing anything? That's because so often they just return to normal within a couple years.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_virus

Most HPV infections in young females are temporary and have little long-term significance. 70% of infections are gone in 1 year and 90% in 2 years.<[br />
(From the New England Journal of Medicine)
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/13/1337

[uppityperson]

217. hahahahahaha. you slay me. As a nurse who does paps, & has had a class 2 myself,

sometimes you can have a class 2 pap from simply an irritation. It isn't always from HPV or precancerous things. Often they revert to normal within a week.

Thank you for the wiki link, and for the NEJM "must register" link. Unfortunately wiki isn't adequate source, and don't want to register for nejm. Try again.

[Maru Kitteh]

202. She is not "the developer" of the vaccine. You attempt an appeal to authority that doesn't exist.

[uppityperson]

172. 4070 deaths, 11,270 new cases 2009 is "very rare"? Bull. 12/day is "rare"?

http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/types/cervical
Estimated new cases and deaths from cervical (uterine cervix) cancer in the United States in 2009:
New cases: 11,270
Deaths: 4,070

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/
In 2005, 11,999 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer, and 3,924 women died from the disease.

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/cervical_cancer/deaths.htm
Deaths from Cervical Cancer: approximately 4,600 women will die in 2001 (DSTD)

Death rate extrapolations for USA for Cervical Cancer: 4,599 per year, 383 per month, 88 per week, 12 per day, 0 per hour, 0 per minute, 0 per second. Note: this automatic extrapolation calculation uses the deaths statistic: approximately 4,600 women will die in 2001 (DSTD)

Deaths information for Cervical Cancer: In 2001, approximately 4,600 women will die from cervical cancer
. (Source: excerpt from HPV: DSTD) ... In 1998, an estimated 4,800 American women will die of cervical cancer.

[uppityperson]

94. I see that quote in that article, wonder where they got it from.

I found the same quote in NewsMax and other blog, leading me to be suspicious it is taken out of context. I'd like to see where it was from directly, another source. I'm suspicious and cynical.

Only other quote by her in that article is this: "Harper said that the next step in determining the severity of the risks associated with the Gardasil vaccine would be for the CDC to investigate the reported adverse events and verify a causal relationship. But this may prove a difficult task, she said, because many of those events were reported by Merck and did not include sufficient information to perform an investigation. "

Back to that Medscape article, I find this:
"However, Dr. Harper counters that a direct comparison of these percentages is an invalid metric to use, as the population may not have been as motivated to report less serious events in other vaccines (eg, targeted at infants or the elderly) that have been less actively promoted, and this could artificially elevate the proportion of serious adverse events reported.

The nonserious adverse event reports include syncope, pain at the injection site, headache, nausea, and fever. The agencies note in their statement that fainting is common after injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents, and say that they have reminded immunization providers about the recommendation to watch individuals carefully for 15 minutes after vaccination. Falls after fainting can cause injury and can be prevented by keeping the individual seated during the observation period, they add. This recommendation was added to the Gardasil prescribing information, and so far this is the only change that has been made to the product's labeling."

[mzmolly]

106. Looks to me like ABC got the quote directly from her? They interviewed several medical pros.

directly - Newsmax and others may have picked up various quotes?

Here is what Diane Harper is quoted as saying in 2007 -

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/503/27/


She believes the ideal way of administering the new vaccine is to offer it to women ages 18 and up. At the time of their first inoculation, they should be tested for the presence of HPV in their system. If the test comes back negative, then schedule the follow-up series of the three-part shots.

But if it comes back positive?
"Then we don't know squat, because medically we don't know how to respond to that," Harper said.

She said that vaccinating little girls now is not going to protect them later. Since it can take a decade or more to even manifest itself as dysplasia, the HPVs against which this vaccine works may infect a little girl at the age she needs the vaccine most - meaning she will have to have a booster at the right point in time or she will not be protected. And, remember, it won't work at all if she was positive for the virus when she was inoculated in the first place.

Merck knows this, Harper said. "To mandate now is simply to Merck's benefit, and only to Merck's benefit," she said.

Dr. Harper said, she's been trying for months to convince major television and print media to listen to her and tell the facts about the usefulness and effectiveness of this vaccine. "But no one will print it," she said.

More interesting quotes from the August 2009 ABC article:

The overwhelming consensus regarding Gardasil use is that physicians who are not well versed in the risks of HPV and cervical cancer and the side effects of the vaccine cannot adequately counsel patients whether or not to be vaccinated.

Dr. Joseph Zanga, chief of pediatrics at the Columbus Regional Healthcare System in Columbus, Ga., pointed out that Gardasil does not prevent women from contracting HPV in every instance, that many people who are infected will spontaneously rid themselves of the virus, and that routine pap smears are still the best prevention against cervical cancer.

"Perhaps the most important, currently missing 'warning' is that the vaccine may not be forever," Zanga said. "We know that it protects for 5-7 years so that a girl getting the series at 11-12 will enter the time of her most likely sexual debut unprotected but believing herself to be."

These are the same issues many HERE raised when mandates for 11 years olds were first rolled out. Those who did so, were called anti-vaccine lunatics.

I think the more important issue is that people need to be reasonable, on both sides of this debate. I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm anti-white wash in the name of profit. I believe vaccines have a risk and a benefit and that both sides are to be explored honestly. Unfortunately all to often, all we here is the "MERCK" side of the argument.

Dr. Harper, Dr. Zanga and others are doing the right thing in being honest with the public.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

136. This is the most accurate quote in the article.

"There are 772 serious problems identified in 23 million doses of vaccine," said Dr. Kevin Ault, associate professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Emory University. "I usually tell my patients that these serious events are tragic, rare and likely unrelated to the vaccine."

[mzmolly]

148. So says you.

I happen to disagree.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

151. You are free to.

[mzmolly]

153. Thank

you. All to uncommon in these discussions I might add. :hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

154. I agree that real concerns should be investigated.

[mzmolly]

155. As do I. And any death

is a real concern. Perhaps most will be coincidental, but we need to know...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

160. The girl in the story died 18 days after the vaccination.

The cause of her death was undetermined. I'd be willing to listen to a guess on how the vaccine killed her but I haven't heard anything other than her death was linked to the vaccine because she died and she had been vaccinated.

[mzmolly]

166. As I've indicated

the OP is the first I'd heard of the poor young lady in question. Certainly deaths shortly after any vaccine, should not automatically be attributed to vaccination, nor should they be dismissed b/c vaccines are safe, in the short term, for most. All should be investigated thoroughly. Whether a 2 month old child dies in his/her sleep, or an 18 y/o collapses within weeks.

The article attempts to communicate "THE girl who died after her HPV shot died of other causes, thus anyone asserting there is an issue with this vaccine, for any individual is incorrect."

It's misleading.

It's not ok to assume in any case.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

178. Who said it should be assumed in any case?

[mzmolly]

181. Those who call anyone who discusses

any potential reaction related to vaccination, lunatics who don't understand the science?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

182. Where was that in the article, I missed that?

[mzmolly]

184. It's the overwhelming

sentiment of many in this thread, as has been demonstrated by various posts on this subject, time and time again.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

185. You said the article not this thread. That explains the confusion.

[mzmolly]

186. I'm sorry you were confused.

eom

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

190. I wasn't confused. I was excusing your mistake in a nice way.

[mzmolly]

196. Had I made a mistake,

I'd say thank you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

197. Post # 166 you said the article, then in post # 184 you said the threads here.

166
The article attempts to communicate "THE girl who died after her HPV shot died of other causes, thus anyone asserting there is an issue with this vaccine, for any individual is incorrect."

It's misleading.

It's not ok to assume in any case.

184
It's the overwhelming

sentiment of many in this thread, as has been demonstrated by various posts on this subject, time and time again.

[mzmolly]

205. The conversation evolved.

Again, I'm sorry that you and I had a misunderstanding.

Peace. :hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

207. Take care.

:toast:

[mzmolly]

209. You as well

FMD. :)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. I never have understood how there is a confirmed link that is an unconfirmed death.

[mzmolly]

149. And I don't understand

your point.

[StarryNite]

173. You can bet the vaxers

will use this one instance to point at and make the claim that it must be perfectly safe because this particular girl actually died of a tumor. Therefore, all of the other questionable deaths must have other causes than the vaccine. :eyes:

[uppityperson]

179. Show where that has happened. One case here. Can't, can you

on the other hand,elsewhere in this topic, you DO find a poster using this one instance to point out that even though the cause of death was a large chest tumor, the pathologist must have been bought off since this vaccine is never safe.

[kimmerspixelated]

18. Exactly!

The tragedy is three-fold. One she died. Two she got the vaccine. Three, if the vaccine was the culprit, and from what I've read about it, I would say 79% chance it is, regardless of what THEY say,
it was SO unnecessary! Cervical Cancer is one of the most treatable and mostly preventable (with Pap smears) of any cancer out there. It makes me sick the way Big Pharma has targeted young girls, this is a holocaust in it's own right. Furthermore, the vaccine does not protect against all cervical cancers in the long run. It's absolute and total madness. HELL let's all shoot ourselves and our children up with totally questionable, toxic crap especially because we have no idea what will happen in several years, because it is SO inconvenient to work on vamping up our own nutrition and immune systems!!!:mad: GRRRRR!!!!

[uppityperson]

21. a vaccine can cause a "large malignant tumor in the chest" within hours? Seriously?

[mzmolly]

23. No but given she had a pre-existing condition,

it may have been a factor. That said, obviously her situation was very, very rare.

[kimmerspixelated]

29. I didn't say anything about the tumors being caused by anything.

[uppityperson]

33. My apologies. Please clarify what you mean by "Three, if the vaccine was the culprit, and from what

"Three, if the vaccine was the culprit, and from what I've read about it, I would say 79% chance it is, regardless of what THEY say,"

Thank you.

[kimmerspixelated]

37. The vaccine might've been the culprit

in her death, but didn't cause the tumors...

[uppityperson]

38. What do you mean?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. The cause of death was the LARGE MALIGNANT TUMOR.

[REP]

24. Pap smears detect cancer; they don't prevent it

Ever had cervical cancer? I have. I was lucky; mine hurt and was caught at Stage I; I had some unpleasant surgeries and I'm going on 17 years cancer-free. Others aren't as lucky, and even though mine was caught early, there are few people i'd wish that fear on.

[kimmerspixelated]

35. Good for you.

17 years-great! I knew a woman that had it. She hadn't had a pap smear in 9 years. She got it taken care of and is doing fine. There aren't so many cases as to risk a young girl's life for IMO.

[REP]

41. Really. Love to see your facts on that

Oh, and I was in my 20s when I was Dx'd.

[mzmolly]

44. But the vax is being mandated for girls

as young as 11.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Yes.

The point of the vaccine is to give it to them before they get exposed to HPV.

[mzmolly]

49. You should really inform yourself a bit before commenting.

"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment," said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire. (Diane Harper helped develop the HPV vaccine)

"It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls. There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."

"This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," she reiterated. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer.

"Also, the public needs to know that with vaccinated women and women who still get Pap smears (which test for abnormal cells that can lead to cancer), some of them will still get cervical cancer."

The reason, she said, is because the vaccine does not protect against all HPV viruses that cause cancer - it's only effective against two that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers.

For months, Harper said, she's been trying to convince major television and print media to listen to her and tell the facts about the usefulness and effectiveness of this vaccine.

"But no one will print it," she said.

"To mandate now is simply to Merck's benefit, and only to Merck's benefit," she said.

Harper has also said we don't know how long the vaccine will offer protection.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. I've heard it all before.

It's still a load of bullshit.

[mzmolly]

53. I'm sure the scientist will be moved by your highly intelligent, evidence based

rebuke.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. Maybe.

More then I am with your argument from authority.

Again.

[LeftishBrit]

48. Because once you've been exposed to HPV, the vaccine isn't effective any more.

So for it to work, you have to have it early.

And at least in the UK, it is not mandatory, just universally available.

[mzmolly]

51. The researcher who developed the vaccine never agreed that it

should be used in eleven year old girls. Here are some quotes from Dr. Harper:

"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment," said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.

"It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls. There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."

"This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," she reiterated. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer - they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer.

"Also, the public needs to know that with vaccinated women and women who still get Pap smears (which test for abnormal cells that can lead to cancer), some of them will still get cervical cancer."

The reason, she said, is because the vaccine does not protect against all HPV viruses that cause cancer - it's only effective against two that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers.

For months, Harper said, she's been trying to convince major television and print media to listen to her and tell the facts about the usefulness and effectiveness of this vaccine.

"But no one will print it," she said.

"To mandate now is simply to Merck's benefit, and only to Merck's benefit," she said.

My position mirrors that of the primary researcher involved in developing the vax.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Wrong vaccine.

Also- Diane Harper didn't develop gardasil. She was just one of many scientists (hundreds, if not thousands) who worked on it. And she was only involved in some of the clinical studies.

Studies which show it's perfectly safe.

[mzmolly]

63. Wrong vaccine my arse!

You've apparently taken to making up your own facts?

"Dr Diane M. Harper, a lead researcher in the development of the humanpapilloma virus vaccine, says giving the vaccine to 11 year old girls "is a great big public health experiment" The lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine forDr Diane Harper humanpapilloma virus says the HPV vaccine is not for younger girls as it has not been tested for effectiveness in younger girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as 9 may not even protect them all. And, in the worst-case scenario, instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, such a vaccination crusade actually could cause the numbers to go up.

"There is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue".

http://www.offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/34-merck-hpv/53-researcher-diane-harper-blasts-gardasil-hpv-marketing.html

As long as you don't LIE again, goodbye. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. Harper worked on gardasil.

OP's about cervavix.

Both are HPV vaccines.

But different strains.

Different vaccines.

[mzmolly]

71. And she worked on CERVARIX.

eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. link?

[mzmolly]

79. Sure.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101956

Diane Harper involved in the testing Cervarix when GSK conducted safety trials, has very different views and questions the vaccines safety. The director of the Gynaecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at Dartmouth Medical School, New Hampshire, in the USA, firmly believes more should have been done before the vaccine was implemented. She feels more testing should have taken place to establish to efficiency of Cervarix. She said We can't tell you it is 100% safe because we don't know that In five years it will be pretty clear how safe it really is because 70% of adverse events occur within five years.

You may also wish to see this:

http://www.cynthiajanak.com/United_Kingdom_Concerns_Regarding_HPV_doc20-05-09.doc

It would be a shame if a potentially effective vaccine was tainted due to the fact that profits were put before science. IF either vaccine had been rolled out in the manner that Ms. Harper suggested, we might not be debating this right now.

[HipChick]

199. It's mandatory in the US, if you are trying to get citizenship

and are in the applicable age group..

[pnwmom]

69. My best friend had cervical cancer, but she didn't encourage her daughter to get the vaccine.

The vaccine was too new and there were too many unknowns. Also, the virus only protects against about 2/3 of HPV viruses, and there are other causes of cervical cancer besides HPV. An annual pap smear is still the best protection against cervical cancer.

[northzax]

164. This is a good point

Yes, regular pap smears have significantly reduced the likliehood of death from cervical cancer. Just as regular mammograms have significantly reduced deaths from breast cancer. These are great things. Of course those people STILL HAD CANCER. It's not like that's a pleasant experience, even with a successful outcome.

[trotsky]

72. A "holocaust"? Really?

6 million murdered Jews versus not a single death traced to an HPV vaccine?

A "holocaust," huh? What a horrible, insensitive, totally wrong comparison to make. You SHOULD be ashamed, but since you are absolutely committed to your anti-vaccine agenda, you'll insult the memories of 6+ million people. Way to go!

[uppityperson]

77. I missed the "this is a holocaust in it's own right" statement. thanks for pointing it out

maybe it is like gassing them reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly
slowly?

What a stupid comparison. Killing 6+ million people is comparable to.... giving a vaccine that some people are in hysterics about?

[LeftyMom]

114. 79% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[redqueen]

27. Butbutbut...the Daily Fail said...! (nt)

[pnwmom]

47. Great! Now what about the other 31 deaths? And the other unexplained

side effects?

I am very happy for the parents that they will not have to live with the horrible idea that the vaccine they approved for their daughter caused her death. This must be a great relief for them, in the midst of their tragedy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Wrong vaccine.

This is cervavix, not gardasil.

And there's no indication those 32 deaths following gardasil injections were because of gardasil.

"I am very happy for the parents that they will not have to live with the horrible idea that the vaccine they approved for their daughter caused her death. This must be a great relief for them, in the midst of their tragedy."

As if the anti-vaccers who tried to exploit this kid ever cared about her or her family.

[Chemisse]

65. What exactly does someone stand to gain

By being against vaccines if each and every type of vaccine is perfectly, 100 percent safe?

What is the motivation behind this giant anti-vaccine conspiracy you see in every thread?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. Lots of woo woos like to sell books, snake oil, and other paraphenalia.

Others are just suckers.

Why are some people suckers for conspiracy theories? Some psychologists believe conspiracy theorists feel powerless in their miserable little lives, and phony conspiracy theories (anti-vaccine theories are a fine example) give them some sort of power.

"What is the motivation behind this giant anti-vaccine conspiracy you see in every thread?"

Conspiracy? Oh, it's not a conspiracy. Conspiracy involves a few people secretly acting towards some plot. This is just a bunch of people being openly stupid.

[Chemisse]

80. So you see no shades of gray here?

You would simply accept and trust any vaccine ever offered to you? Without any question or concern or research? You would just have faith that all parties were acting to make the safest vaccine possible without any monetary influences, marketing or time pressures?

Certainly there are a lot of people who are eager to believe things without any scientific evidence or even logic, and it can be frustrating and annoying trying to get through the hype with them. But people who are simply questioning and curious about such issues should not have to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer with words like 'woo woo' (what the hell does that even mean?) or suckers or labeled as 'anti-vaccine'.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. Not really, no.

"You would simply accept and trust any vaccine ever offered to you? Without any question or concern or research? You would just have faith that all parties were acting to make the safest vaccine possible without any monetary influences, marketing or time pressures?

Certainly there are a lot of people who are eager to believe things without any scientific evidence or even logic, and it can be frustrating and annoying trying to get through the hype with them. "

Without scientific evidence? Chemisse, vaccines are thoroughly tested and found to be safe before they're ever released.

Anti-vaccers don't rely on scientific evidence, in fact they rely on the opposite: paranoia, hysteria, and ignorance.

"But people who are simply questioning and curious about such issues "

Ah, yeah. That's the thing. They're not really curious. They've already made up their minds and stick with it regardless of the evidence.

'woo woo' (what the hell does that even mean?)

It refers to pseudoscience. 9-11 twoofers. Creationists. Holocaust deniers. Scientologists. Indigo children. People who spin around and wave their hands over their heads going "woo woo woo."

[pnwmom]

68. Indeed.

I'm not anti-vaccine, by the way. I managed to get my whole family inoculated with the seasonal flu vaccine in September. And as soon as it's my turn, I'll be happy to have the swine flu vaccine.

But I am aware that not every vaccine is as safe as any other, and that some people are more susceptible to adverse effects than others, and that -- under the Bush administration -- the FDA loosened the rules and sped up the process for approving both drugs and vaccines. I think every parent should be a well-informed consumer of medical products and, at the very least, discuss each of the vaccines their child receives and the child's personal and family medical history with their doctor. In the unlikely event something does go wrong (as it did with my sister, who died after a DTP shot), then at least you will know that you did your best to make a good decision.

[Chemisse]

70. That's exactly how I feel - about being well-informed consumers

And cautious in the wake of the careless Bush years. As part of being informed, I enjoy reading and talking about it here on DU.

But some people turn each thread into a bizarre and polarizing argument, which really blunts the discussion.

[joeybee12]

83. I pointed that out about the Bush FDA approving this...

...and everything they did is suspect and suddenly to so many here those 8 years never existed.

[LeftishBrit]

168. The Bush FDA weren't involved in this at all - because it wasn't in America.

Bush and his admin had NOTHING to do with UK health care decisions. As demonstrated by the fact that we still, in spite of everything, have single payer universal health care. Our defence policies were carried out in tandem with Bush; our health policies were not.

The eight years of Bush are not a good reason for suspicion of vaccines and other treatments in countries *not* ruled by Bush.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. Self-righteousness and an irrational distrust of science.

People distrust vaccines for exactly the same reason they resort to things like homeopathy and crystal healing - the vague idea that anything endorsed by "authority" must be suspect, whereas being "independent" is good.

One can't provide rational explanations for the motivation of the anti-vac movement, because it's an entirely irrational movement; it can only be explained in terms of human foibles.

[uppityperson]

78. What "31 other deaths"? And yes, I agree that this may help them not feel so guilty.

hugs to you

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. There were a few that involved embolisms.

And other nonsense unrelated to the vaccine.

[uppityperson]

97. Were these "deaths after vx so must be from vx" type things? Wonder if any ate pickles.

pickles after vx=death

Edited to add that people die all the time, sometimes it is expected, other times not. It can be very heartbreaking to those involved. As I know well. Not trying to make light of deaths here, just of those who confuse correlation with causation.

[pnwmom]

110. Correct, they have only been associated with, not proven to have caused

the deaths. But the fact that one of the 32 deaths has now been proven to have a different cause doesn't mean that applies to the other deaths. That is why the doctor who developed the vaccine is calling for further research -- but is also calling for caution in administering the vaccine, and is opposed to giving it to 9 - 11 year olds.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

140. Hard to investigate.

Anyone can report to VAERS. The cause of death of the girl in the ABC story that died 18 days after the vaccination was never determined.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/Story?id=8356717&page=1

So we have a parents speculation and that's enough to link a death and a vaccination.

[pnwmom]

145. It could be investigated if necessary.

My experience with VAERS is that doctors under-report reactions as much as over-report. When my son had a week-long reaction (a type of seizure) after his DPT vaccine, the doctor wouldn't report it or tell me how to report it (this was before the internet made researching things much easier). He said the reaction couldn't be due to the vaccine. Why? Because vaccine reactions, in his opinion, only last for 2 days! So if my son was still reacting after 2 days, it had to be something else, maybe a "virus."

After that, I found out that my sister had developed encephalitis and died the day after receiving the same vaccine, and that my mother's cousin had also died after getting the DTP. None of those deaths were ever reported at the time, because there was no system in place then.

Fortunately, that vaccine was finally replaced by a safer version, in large part because of pressure brought by the people that many DUers derogatorily refer to as the "anti-vax crowd" -- other parents who had lost children due to the old DPT vaccine. I will always be grateful to them.

[mzmolly]

150. Anywhere from 1 - 10% of vaccine reactions are reported to VAERS

according to the CDC.

"Fortunately, that vaccine was finally replaced by a safer version, in large part because of pressure brought by the people that many DUers derogatorily refer to as the "anti-vax crowd" -- other parents who had lost children due to the old DPT vaccine. I will always be grateful to them."


Absolutely! Lives have been spared due to reasonable scrutiny. I'm so sorry once again, about your Sis.

[pnwmom]

157. Talking to my internist's nurse about vaccines today, I was happy to hear

that they are as cautious as I am. My internist doesn't want her elementary school daughters to get an unnecessary dose of thimerosal in their flu vaccine -- neither would I.

Have you heard about the latest research about the hepatitis vaccine given to newborns? That's going to be the next big controversy. During my son's birth year, he was one of only 8% of newborns that got one, because I trusted my doctor. So it really galls me that I'm so often accused of being anti-vax.

[mzmolly]

167. I'm glad your Dr. is reasonable. It seems many medical pros are? I've heard about HepB.

Don't know if my child had one b/c I was rushed to surgery immediately after the delivery. I'm considering requesting medical records to find out.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

152. How would we investigate this woman's death and come to a indisputable conclusion?

[pnwmom]

156. Autopsies determine the cause of death every day.

I suppose there could always be someone disputing one.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

159. THIS woman's death was undetermined. Do you propose exhuming her body?

[pnwmom]

175. How did they find out about the large chest tumor then? They must have done

an autopsy. And now they know the cause of death.

Merck should be following up every death with an offer to pay for an autopsy. But they probably want to retain plausible deniability.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

177. Please follow along. We are talking about the woman in the ABC story post #140.

[pnwmom]

195. Merck should be following up every death with an offer to pay for an autopsy.

But they won't, unless they're forced to. They prefer not to know.

[uppityperson]

201. If you repeat something often enough in a reply to yourself, does it become true? nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

138. The 31 unconfirmed deaths?

[rocktivity]

54. Did ANYONE know about this tumor beforehand?

Not a good selling point for socialized medicine!

x(
rocktivity

[alarimer]

104. A clear case of post hoc reasoning.

The logical fallacy, post hoc eergo propter hoc, comes into play here because most people assumed that her death hours after the vaccine means the vaccine causes her death, when in fact it had nothing to do with it. Not that the anti-vaxxers will stop making the accusation. Logic has never stopped anti-vaxxers before. I believe they are entirely divorced from reality.

We need to realize that just correlation of two events in time does not imply causation.

[uppityperson]

105. betcha if I posted "hpv causes death" would get a lot more recs also.

insert gratuitous whine about rec/unrec issue with vague generalities about stalkers and no one likes me I'll go eat worms song

Indeed. Correlation does not equal causation.

[boppers]

208. "Parents neurotically worried about kids cause a diagnosis of autism."

You'll totally have more fun with that one, it has a lot more twists and turns.

[JonQ]

127. It's good that this has come out

but I worry the damage is already done.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mind_your_head]

192. *sure* she did ....uh-huh......

:eyes:

[uppityperson]

193. Are you accusing the pathologist of lying?

:eyes::smoke: :rofl:

[Mind_your_head]

194. Very 'scientific' of the pathologist to just say she "had a large chest tumor"

where? what kind? what type?

Sounds like ppl "in the know" and 'scientific types' are "reading between the lines" that the pathologist is just being PRESSURED to say what "the powers that be" want him/her to say.

Don't want a whole career and YEARS spent on an edjumacation to go down the (republican?) toilet now, do we????

edit: read: "major kow-tow to the powers that be"

Gardisil is "good"! Good, I say!!!

[uppityperson]

200. Have you ever noticed that they often don't give specifics, perhaps due to privacy considerations?

Sounds like "you" are "using" too "many" quotation "marks" to "try" and "get" some "sort" of "point" across. I guess simply writing "it is a conspiracy" is too "simple".

[Maru Kitteh]

203. !

:spray:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

212. Where? In the chest.

What kind? One of them big fuckers.

What type? The cancerous type.

[LeftyMom]

215. How would one's education go "down the (republican?) toilet" in the UK?

And why are you arguing this if you didn't RTFA well enough to at least place the incident on the correct continent?

[LeftishBrit]

216. Down the Republican toilet?

What is this all about? This happened in Britain. We don't have the Republican party here.

And the vaccination was not Gardasil, but a different one (Cervarix).

And the NHS does not operate in the way that you're implying!