Posted on 09/28/2009 3:02:15 PM PDT by originalbuckeye
A 14-year-old girl has died after being given a cervical cancer jab as part of a national immunisation programme, but the exact cause of death is unknown. The pupil took ill shortly after she received the Cervarix vaccine. A routine programme of vaccinating 12- and 13-year-old girls started in September 2008 across the UK using the Cervarix vaccine made by GlaxoSmithKline. A catch-up campaign is now under way for older girls. "The incident happened shortly after the girl had received her HPV vaccine in the school. No link can be made between the death and the vaccine until all the facts are known and a post-mortem takes place. "We are conducting an urgent and full investigation into the events surrounding this tragedy." In a statement posted on the school's website, headteacher Dr Julie Roberts said during the immunisation, "one of the girls suffered a rare, but extreme reaction to the vaccine". "A number of other girls also reported being unwell and some were sent home," she said. "If your daughter has received a vaccine today we ask that you are extra vigilant regarding any signs or symptoms." She listed possible reactions as mild to moderate short-lasting pain at the injection site, headache, muscle pain, fatigue and a low-grade fever. It is thought about a million girls have already safely received the vaccine. When the national immunisation project was announced, there was some controversy about the selection of Cervarix over Gardasil, which is used by the majority of vaccination programmes worldwide. In the UK, about 3,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year and about 1,000 die from it. The department said Cervarix had a strong safety record. Vaccination is not compulsory and consent is required before it is administered to the under-16s.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Ping!!
Did you see this?
: )
I’d wait to see what the autopsy says before going nuts over this.
Modern medicine has a lot of shortcomings, but the concept of a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer is the most asinine, outrageous, ludicrous and downright criminal activity ever foisted by medical “science”.
National healthcare at its worse! Ccoming soon to a state near you! Yuor safety guaranteed by the democrats!
Socialized medicine murder by cheap third rate vaccine (unapproved due to quality issues in the US).
There is not a day that goes by without murder by the British NHS.
Total news blackout by the US mainstram media.
ditto what you said...
Total news blackout because our Big Media wants the same for us.
RIP.
Exactamento 100% accurate!
Great minds.... :)
That's all the further you need to read.
In their socialized country, parents probably had no choice but to submit their daughter for this shot or face steep fines and/or jail. If you read the DailyMail Online from the UK, it reports stories about government outrages every day. In the last month I have read of people fined $750 for not bringing their trash can back from the curb in time, women having to pay a huge tax to be qualified as "childminders" in order to babysit their closest friends' children whom they have known since birth, a woman in labor told by the hospital that an ambulance would not be sent to bring her to the hospital because she lived within a mile and should walk (and she ended up giving birth on the sidewalk) -- on and on it goes.
Acceptable casualties in the Great War to Reform Society.
Coming soon to a Health Care plan for Everyone! (Except Congress, of course)
Don’t be concerned that drug companies have lobbied governments into passing laws requiring school children to take the company’s drugs.
It’s too bad someone died, but to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.
GlaxoSmithKline lobbyists and their pals in government (UK in this case) have important work to do so that your children will safe. And whatever they decide is best will be forced on you and your child, at gunpoint if necessary.
Could you explain what you mean please? When I read this stuff;
International Journal of Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0215 (Online)
ISSN: 0020-7136 (Print)
Volume 111, Issue 2, 2004.
Pages: 278-285
quote:
In conclusion, a vaccine containing the 7 most common HPV types would prevent about 87% of cervical cancers worldwide, with little regional variation.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...66144/HTMLSTART
it appears to be saying that it’s more than just possible to create a vaccine for a cancer that’s caused by a virus, it’s probably about the best possible plan.
So exactly what is your disagreement with cancer vaccines?
I just clicked this thread to find out what a “Cancer Jab” was!!
“So exactly what is your disagreement with cancer vaccines?”
Simple: viruses do not cause cancer. If viruses caused cancer, the population of the US would be about 20 million.
I’m angry at Merck because they’ve stopped making their single disease vaccines for the components of the MMR to force people to use the MMR. The Rubella vaccine is made with fetal cell lines.
“Simple: viruses do not cause cancer. If viruses caused cancer, the population of the US would be about 20 million.”
You know that all viruses aren’t the same right? If all viruses caused cancer and that cancer was deadly then the US population wouldn’t be 20 million, it would be 0 wouldn’t it?
Could you pass on a link or something backing up that statement? Just trying to compare what you base your statement on to what I see online!
As the parent of a [then] teenage daughter, I started researching HPV vaccines and was not impressed. It only covers some of the HPV strains, is NOT recommended if the patient [victim] already HAS HPV [which can occur at birth]- yet patients are NOT tested prior to the vaccine, which has led to some ultra aggressive growths, loads of adverse reactions...all for a disease that is rather rare and highly curable.
Methinks this is a massive sterilization programme. I DO NOT wear a tin foil hat, btw.
I have the same concerns with the H1N1 vaccine. Too much activity on the vaccine front with a lot of efforts to mandate them. Scary.
Vaccine Ping..
In before the vaccine apologists.
Hey, is FR lagging bigtime, or is it my computer?
I don’t know. It’s working fine for me.
This article succinctly addresses the issue.
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/215
Dreadful. RIP.
This is a 34 year old paper.
Can’t find anything newer to back your point?
That was 1975, this article updates that opinion to the state of the art in 2007;
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17940621
where it concludes that;
“The viruses reviewed here illustrate the diverse biological pathways to malignancy and the challenges of treating the resulting diseases. Yet the presence of the viral gene products in cancer and precancerous cells present attractive targets that may be exploited in novel therapies that distinguish these cells from normal cells. Antivirals such as lamuvidine used in heptatitis B and ganciclovir for Kaposi sarcoma specifically target the viral replication machinery. Targeting cancer cells specifically would have advantages over traditional modalities such as chemotherapy and radiation, which can include significant toxicities. Cervical cancer, because it retains HPV viral oncoproteins E6 and E7 and requires their continued expression for proliferation, provides an ideal model for cytotoxic immune therapies against these known antigens.”
Some viruses cause some cancers.
I hope I’ve shown that at least in some cases, viruses cause cancer. I think that there are perfectly valid questions concerning vaccines brought to the market too rapidly though. H1N1 may be an example of that. That said, the cervical cancer vaccine covers all of the important viral types and should be considered for use.
The issue is one of (incorrectly) interchanging association with causation. Note the verbiage in your reference:
“The viruses reviewed here illustrate the diverse biological pathways...”
“Yet the presence of the viral gene products in cancer...”
“Cervical cancer, because it retains HPV viral oncoproteins...”
“Illustrates”, “the presence of”, “retains”, . These are not words that describe causation. Show me a reference that says viruses cause cancer.
Some viruses are associated with some cancers. They may treat the associated virus. I do not believe that is helpful in recocery.
Except she didnt die of the vaccine. The media here is now reporting that she died of a pre-existing medical condition.
At worst it seems the vaccine may have inadvertienly triggered the pre-existing condition.
Lets be clear: more than 1.4 million girls in Britain have been given the vaccine, of which there have been 4,657 suspected reactions reported, and that includes any reaction even minor.
And this girl is the only one to die.
Carcinogens are what oncologists should be focusing on, not viruses!
http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/63009612.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.