More nonsense about HPV vaccine

[Pebble]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...as-the-cancer-

Madness really.

Take some old articles by Prof Diane Harper who has provided some patients for a few trials (note her concerns specifically relate to failure to have cervical smear testing after vaccination)

http://fairness.com/resources/relati...ation_id=81910


pretend that these are new ideas and related to the death of natalie Morton.

Then throw in the views of a complete lunatic (Richar Halvorsen) and you get to create the impression that there is a body of expert opinion that Natalie died as a result of the vaccine and that cervical cancer may well be less dangerous that the vaccine.

Press complaints commission notified on the basis od inaccuracy.

[bobdezon]

It is difficult to believe, that medically qualified doctors can still make idiotic statements like this. Surely they would be aware of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? It must be part of medical training, I mean it is integral to examination and diagnosis right?

[bishbashbong]

On what basis is the Express article 'nonsense'?

The HPV jab proved to be very much deadlier to Natalie Morton than a cancer she most likely would never have contracted.

The controlled main stream media were very quick to report that Natalie had died from a "serious underlying medical condition", the very next day after reporting that she had died as a result of the jab.

The postmortem examination was carried out with unprecedented speed. That and the unusual step taken by Grainger in making a public announcement of the early results, not much more than a day after Natalie's death, are a clear indication of the anxiety among public health officials over the potential threat to the national teenage vaccination programme.
Natalie was given the HPV jab, which protects against cervical cancer, on Monday, along with other girls in her year. She was taken to Coventry University hospital and died at lunchtime. Three other girls from the school were reported to have experienced dizziness and nausea after vaccination, but their symptoms were described as mild and they were not taken to hospital.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...natalie-morton


Please tell me that you do not seriously believe that a girl is vaccinated, dies within hours, has a postmortem completed after only 24 hours and the conclusion has completely elliminated the vaccine as the cause of death.


Even if the story of the tumour is true, why say "serious underlying medical condition"?
When someone dies suddenly and a postmortem reveals a serious underlying medical condition, it would be a heart attack, cancer or whatever.


Also if it was true that a tumour was the cause of death, then elliminating the vaccine as the trigger after only 24 hours (that is 24 hours after Natalie died, not 24 hours of examination and tests) is basically, professional incompetence of the highest degree.

[Admin]

Bishbashbong,

Given the details of the case, I think a more pertinent question is: why do you still want to blame the vaccine when all the evidence points to other causes?

[tolman]

The HPV jab proved to be very much deadlier to Natalie Morton than a cancer she most likely would never have contracted.

In hindsight, it does seem unlikely she would have contracted HPV, let alone cervical cancer, since she wouldn't have lived long enough.

Please tell me that you do not seriously believe that a girl is vaccinated, dies within hours, has a postmortem completed after only 24 hours and the conclusion has completely elliminated the vaccine as the cause of death.

So you don't believe it's possible to do at least a preliminary examination in under a day?
How long does your amazing medical experience suggest it should take in a case where response time is obviously important?

Even if the story of the tumour is true, why say "serious underlying medical condition"?
When someone dies suddenly and a postmortem reveals a serious underlying medical condition, it would be a heart attack, cancer or whatever.

It seems to be a fairly common thing to say when a condition has been identified, the authorities don't want to be specific in public before notifying family, etc, but they want to give some indication as to what the cause wasn't, to avoid people jumping to conclusions.
Sometimes, it is decided that it isn't necessary to go into details (such as with various people who died after contracting swine flu, but who had other medical problems) if details wouldn't give useful information but might infringe on privacy.
It's called being sensitive to people's feelings.

Also if it was true that a tumour was the cause of death, then elliminating the vaccine as the trigger after only 24 hours (that is 24 hours after Natalie died, not 24 hours of examination and tests) is basically, professional incompetence of the highest degree.

If a young person with a heart condition collapses and dies when playing football, it's not usual to consider football as the cause of death.
My grandmother didn't die as a result of ballroom dancing, she died from a heart attack, the precise timing of which was influenced by the physical effort of ballroom dancing.
If some event (exam stress, laughing at the telly, whatever) influences an underlying condition which was just waiting to go off, it's not normal to say that that event is what killed them.

However much you may want to package the vaccine up as responsible for the death, it doesn't seem that it was in any honestly meaningful sense.

If instead she'd collapsed after arguing with a friend, would you be haranguing that friend on the internet and blaming them for the death?

Of course you wouldn't, since that would clearly be stupid.

[Cuddles]

When someone dies suddenly and a postmortem reveals a serious underlying medical condition, it would be a heart attack, cancer or whatever.

And in this case it was. What exactly is the problem here?

Also if it was true that a tumour was the cause of death, then elliminating the vaccine as the trigger after only 24 hours (that is 24 hours after Natalie died, not 24 hours of examination and tests) is basically, professional incompetence of the highest degree.

So you're claiming they're incompetent because they did their work quickly? Strange, that's usually called pretty much opposite of incompetence.

When it comes down to it, the vaccine didn't really need eliminating at all. As soon as they found out she had an advanced cancer spread through several major organs it was obvious that the vaccine could not have been the cause, since tumours that large and advanced cannot appear within a couple of hours.

[dougie]

The controlled main stream media were very quick to report that Natalie had died from a "serious underlying medical condition", the very next day after reporting that she had died as a result of the jab.

The media obviously need more controlling if they report that Natalie died from the jab, before knowing the facts.

[tolman]

The media obviously need more controlling if they report that Natalie died from the jab, before knowing the facts.

bishbashbong should think themselves lucky that the press are still reporting in English.

According to a bloke down the pub, next year, the lizard people running the EU are going to require that everything is in French.

[Matt]

On what basis is the Express article 'nonsense'?

The HPV jab proved to be very much deadlier to Natalie Morton than a cancer she most likely would never have contracted.

The controlled main stream media were very quick to report that Natalie had died from a "serious underlying medical condition", the very next day after reporting that she had died as a result of the jab.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...natalie-morton


Please tell me that you do not seriously believe that a girl is vaccinated, dies within hours, has a postmortem completed after only 24 hours and the conclusion has completely elliminated the vaccine as the cause of death.


Even if the story of the tumour is true, why say "serious underlying medical condition"?
When someone dies suddenly and a postmortem reveals a serious underlying medical condition, it would be a heart attack, cancer or whatever.


Also if it was true that a tumour was the cause of death, then elliminating the vaccine as the trigger after only 24 hours (that is 24 hours after Natalie died, not 24 hours of examination and tests) is basically, professional incompetence of the highest degree.

Haha. Look at what I wrote sarcastically a few days ago.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/sho...mour#post73813

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/sho...mour#post73828

Then someone comes along with a real world version of this crazy, even more stupid than the most daft parody I could come up with. I mean for goodness sake, your reason for rejecting this tumour as to explanation boils down to it being too convincing.

Damn right they put a high priority on investigating this. Firstly if the vaccine really was to blame they might need to act fast to prevent further harm. Secondly they knew that irresponsible anti vax/pro disease morons like yourself would be quick to exploit this poor girls and her family and put their life saving efforts at risk.

I think acting fast to reduce the number of people killed by misinformation peddled by you and other pillocks like you is entirely reasonable.

[tolman]

Press complaints commission notified on the basis od inaccuracy.

I'd wonder why the doctors involved don't sue Dr Richard Halvorsen for libel, or report him to the BMA, for effectively accusing them of making up the tumour story, which unless he was misquoted by the Express (surely not!) is what he did.

“If you have cancer you have symptoms. Clearly public health doctors are desperate to turn the debate away from the vaccine as a possible cause.”

If you have cancer you have symptoms -> if she didn't have symptoms, she didn't have cancer -> doctors are lying.

[Cuddles]

If you have cancer you have symptoms -> if she didn't have symptoms, she didn't have cancer -> doctors are lying.

Of course, that also assumes that she didn't actually have symptoms. Maybe she did, but they just hadn't been serious to see a doctor about and hadn't been diagnosed as caused by the cancer.

Incidentally, I've known at least 5 people with cancer. Only one of them ever had visible symptoms.

[Croydon Bob]

Incidentally, I've known at least 5 people with cancer. Only one of them ever had visible symptoms.

Indeed. I knew someone who died of cancer without ever being aware that they had a problem. Not unlike this case, but older.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Of course, that also assumes that she didn't actually have symptoms. Maybe she did, but they just hadn't been serious to see a doctor about and hadn't been diagnosed as caused by the cancer.

Incidentally, I've known at least 5 people with cancer. Only one of them ever had visible symptoms.

I thought I read somewhere that she had been suffering breathlessness but doctors hadn't managed to diagnose anything yet. I could be wrong however.

It isn't stopping morons like this alleging conspiracy either:

http://www.naturalnews.com/027151_ca...ie_Morton.html

Today, the mainstream media is reporting an obviously-fabricated explanation for her death. A pathologist is declaring that Natalie died from a "malignant chest tumor" that just coincidentally and suddenly killed her within hours after she received the cervical cancer vaccine.

This explanation is obviously a cover story to protect the vaccine industry; and it's not even a convincing cover story at that. Natalie Morton had never been diagnosed with a chest tumor before, and she showed absolutely no symptoms of a cancer tumor. Chest tumors don't just "lash out" and attack their hosts all of a sudden, without warning. A typical death from a cancer tumor is more often a slow, painful wasting away that can take months or years. Natalie Morton was killed in hours, and the description of her symptoms exactly matches what might be expected from an inflammatory reaction to a chemical vaccine.

But why would a pathologist cover up the true cause of Natalie Morton's death? It's simple: There are billions of dollars in profits at stake. Natalie's death threatened to put the entire first-world cervical vaccination program on hold. "News of Morton's death came shortly before U.S. health regulators again delayed a decision on whether to allow Glaxo to sell Cervarix in the United States where a panel of specialists has recommended its use," reports Reuters.

The continuation of global cervical cancer vaccination programs -- which generate billions in profits -- absolutely required blaming Natalie's death on something other than the vaccine. Blaming it on cancer is very easy to do, since every person living today has cancerous micro-tumors in their body right now. All the pathologist had to do was locate such a micro-tumor in Natalie's body, then dismiss the vaccine altogether.

[Pebble]

Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1998 Mar;19(1):69-71. Links
Sudden death due to undetected mediastinal germ cell tumor.

Sanchez-Hermosillo E, Sikirica M, Carter D, Valigorsky JM.
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Berkshire Medical Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Pittsfield, USA.
A 32-year old man, apparently asymptomatic, was found dead in his apartment. Autopsy revealed a large necrotic mediastinal mass with liver and occipital brain metastases, the latter having produced acute intraparenchymal and intraventricular hemorrhage with cerebellar tonsillar herniation. Histologically, the mediastinal mass and metastases were consistent with immature extragonadal teratoma, with malignant transformation of the intestinal-type epithelium. Undiagnosed neoplasms as causes of sudden death are quite rare and usually reported in older age groups; however, in one study of autopsies in a 25-to 46-year-old age group, a significant 3.2% was reported. Germ cell tumors of the mediastinum are the most common extragonadal primary site, accounting for approximately 50%-70% of extragonadal germ cell tumors (EGCTs) and primarily affecting 20- to 35-year-old men. EGCTs are usually symptomatic at the time of diagnosis, although a large proportion may be asymptomatic. This case represents one the few reported cases of sudden death as a result of mediastinal EGCT; it also demonstrates the natural course of this disease and underscores the importance of medicolegal autopsies in cases of sudden death.


Cancer certainly is a cause of sudden death in asymptomatic individuals. It is however a relatively speaking, uncommon cause of 'sudden death'. Rapid death within hours of days of first diagnosis is quite common, but if you are not dead within 2 hours of first symptoms it is not classified as 'sudden death' and therefore not specifically recorded for analysis. I get the impression from that which was published in the media (reliability level too low to quantify) that this was rapid death rather than sudden death.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

It very nearly got John Hartson recently as well. He was reputedly minutes from death after his undiagnosed testicular cancer had spread.

Closer to home, I have a rugby team mate who had a runaway undiagnosed testicular cancer as well. By the time it was diagnosed, it had overtaken half his body. He survived but it was touch and go for a long time.

It's such a horrible diseases, it really does anger me to see idiots claim things about cancer that are quite plainly untrue. I don't think they realise the potential damage they are doing to people's understanding of cancer.