The Kintyre Forum

Sad news that a young girl has died after her jab.....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8279855.stm

It is extremely sad indeed.
However the actual cause of death is still to be established. All the media reporting on the case (that I have heard) have more or less said she died as a result of having the vaccine.

katya wrote:It is extremely sad indeed.
However the actual cause of death is still to be established. All the media reporting on the case (that I have heard) have more or less said she died as a result of having the vaccine.

Really sad if it was a direct reation to the vaccine as you are giving consent for your child to have the injection to help prevent developing cervical cancer in later years..
It didnt say if was the girls 1st jab as they get 3 jabs over quite a short period...
Reading the news article there seems to have been quite a few bad reactions...
my daughter had her 1st jab last week and was ok her arm was sore for a while... next jab Nov and then Jan... its always a worry when your child has had injections..and you can not tell if they are allergic to something until they have had it

The preliminary postmortem examination has revealed the girl had"a serious underlying medical condition".The local health authorities have stressed that further tests needed to be carried out to establish how Natalie Morton died, they said the (HPV) vaccine was "most unlikely" to have been the cause of her death.

I don't agree with the shots and I would not allow it to be given to my daughters.

In the US, there will be 4000 deaths from cervical cancer compared to 40,000 from breast cancer. Cervical cancer is more preventable and more curable than breast cancer.

"This disease is almost 100 percent curable when it is diagnosed in its early stages and treated promptly."
http://www.healthsquare.com/fgwh/wh1ch38.htm

Does it make sense to cut off the breasts of young women because they might be one of those 40,000 women some day? Probably a lot safer and makes no more sense than injecting young daughters with questionable substances when we don't even know the long-term effects.

bill wrote:The preliminary postmortem examination has revealed the girl had"a serious underlying medical condition".The local health authorities have stressed that further tests needed to be carried out to establish how Natalie Morton died, they said the (HPV) vaccine was "most unlikely" to have been the cause of her death.

If this is indeed the case then surely every child should have a full health check before being vaccinated .

The vacine had nothing to do with the death so why should they need a health check before it ?

Mr.Everready wrote:The vacine had nothing to do with the death so why should they need a health check before it ?

I would have thought if the girl had underlying health issues then a check would have made common sense .And if it was not known she had underlying health issues the only way to have found out is to have checked .These young women are going to be terrified by this now ,it's going to be like russian roulette for them.

But hey the vaccine had nothing to do with her death .Well if that is the case then why did they destroy the batch that the young girl was given

.Bit like saying the accused was not guilty but we hung him just the same.

According to the Guardian:

"Opening and adjourning the inquest at Coventry magistrates court, she said: "It appears that Natalie died from a tumour in her chest involving her heart and her lungs." The condition, it is understood, had become progressively disabling.

The inquest heard that the tumour had "heavily infiltrated" her heart and extended into her left lung. The Home Office pathologist, Alexander Kolar, explained to the hearing that Natalie's condition was "so severe that death could have arisen at any point". He gave the official preliminary cause of death as tumour of the chest, type to be diagnosed."



I'm sorry, I just don't get it. Her condition was so severe she could have died at any point, but they want to protect her from something that the chances of her dying from are miniscule if she has safe sex, gets pap smears regularly, and has taken care of as soon as there is a problem? But they want to jab her with something that they don't know the long-term effects from, that others have died from?

I'm telling you, the world is crazy.

You get the Guardian in Texas Wow

Bobbie En Tejas wrote: ....but they want to protect her from something that the chances of her dying from are miniscule if she has safe sex, gets pap smears regularly, and has taken care of as soon as there is a problem?

There are around 2,800 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in the UK every year. and just over 1000 deaths. That doesn't seem minuscule to me. Also many young women don't get regular smears so can miss out on early diagnosis which is why so many still die. I personally think the vaccine is a good thing.

History wrote:You get the Guardian in Texas Wow

Perhaps Bobbie was reading the online version at http://www.guardian.co.uk. It also has a very good US section at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa.

blueboyno1 wrote:But hey the vaccine had nothing to do with her death .Well if that is the case then why did they destroy the batch that the young girl was given

I thought they just took it out of circulation

It was on the news yestyerday that it was destroyed.

Malky wrote:

Bobbie En Tejas wrote: ....but they want to protect her from something that the chances of her dying from are miniscule if she has safe sex, gets pap smears regularly, and has taken care of as soon as there is a problem?

There are around 2,800 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in the UK every year. and just over 1000 deaths. That doesn't seem minuscule to me. Also many young women don't get regular smears so can miss out on early diagnosis which is why so many still die. I personally think the vaccine is a good thing.

I'm with Bobby, Educate don't vaccinate. There is little evidence that this vaccine works and it is only aimed at SOME of the causes. Screenings are likely to go down because of vaccination (in my opinion), as inflated assumptions about the vaccine are made.

Young girls are very un-educated on smears and why women have them, and the possible complications and undetected illness and serious implications that may lie. And this injection is a small way to protect them from this.

I would rather my 11 year old when she reaches the age has the injection and has a better chance of protection than others who don't. SOME of the causes are better than none. If you had the chance of something that may better your chance , would you not take it?