14-year-old girl dies. Cervical cancer vaccine not to blame.

The_Minister

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8279656.stm
http://www.imt.ie/blogs/irish-Medical-Times-Blog/2009/09/death-followed-hpv-vaccine-in.html

I wonder if this will produce a backlash against the vaccine, despite its high safety factor, similar to that which is found around the MMR vaccine?

dlofnep

Very sad. I guess it's the risk of life saved versus life lost. How common is death with the vaccine? And is there a holding period that they can keep patients to do something for them if something goes wrong?

General Zod

for those who haven't read the link

"but the exact cause of death is unknown.The pupil was taken ill at Blue Coat CofE School in Coventry shortly after she received the Cervarix vaccine. She died in the town's University Hospital.
The local NHS said there would be a "short pause" in the vaccination programme but it would then continue.
The batch of the vaccine used has been placed into quarantine."

seamus

Well, assuming that the vaccine had anything to do with it, this is the only death out of about 1,000,000 jabs. By contrast, statistically of those million women, 13 would have acquired cervical cancer before they were 25, and 4 of those 13 women would have died. Incidence/death rates after 25 are harder to come by, but they are much higher.

So, although it's tragic and no-one wants to see it like that, her death was necessary for a lot of other women to survive. It's the age-old moral conundrum - Do you prefer to kill one person by taking action and save a lot of people, or simply take no action and allow those other people to die?
For me it's a no-brainer, but many people have difficulty with it.

chopperbyrne

seamus wrote: »

Well, assuming that the vaccine had anything to do with it, this is the only death out of about 1,000,000 jabs. By contrast, statistically of those million women, 13 would have acquired cervical cancer before they were 25, and 4 of those 13 women would have died. Incidence/death rates after 25 are harder to come by, but they are much higher.

So, although it's tragic and no-one wants to see it like that, her death was necessary for a lot of other women to survive. It's the age-old moral conundrum - Do you prefer to kill one person by taking action and save a lot of people, or simply take no action and allow those other people to die?
For me it's a no-brainer, but many people have difficulty with it.

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

genericguy

chopperbyrne wrote: »

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

definitely.

it stands to reason that this vaccine, like essentially all other meds will adversely affect somebody, due to an allergy/genetic polymorphism or even batch variation.

there'll still be little declan ganleys running around telling people their children will die if they get it now though.

funk-you

chopperbyrne wrote: »

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

"...or the one"

-Funk

tallaght01

We have to be careful assigning a cause of death until we know what it is.

The PR battle in the world of vaccination is being fought on a very thin line at the minute. There's a lot of very irresponsible people out there, who are very quick to discourage people from getting vaccinated.

She may well have died from the vaccine, but we don't know that yet. I don't know how many of these vaccines have been give out worldwide, but it's still rare to die from being vaccinated. This would be a HUGE deal in the vaccine world if it's linked to the vaccine.

The thing is, though, regardless of the outcome of her autopsy, this will be popping up in the anti-vaccine rhetoric for donkeys years.

God love her, though, the poor kid was just a teenager.

norrie rugger

tallaght01 wrote: »

We have to be careful assigning a cause of death until we know what it is.

The PR battle in the world of vaccination is being fought on a very thin line at the minute. There's a lot of very irresponsible people out there, who are very quick to discourage people to get vaccinated.

She may well have died from the vaccine, but we don't know that yet. I don't know how many of these vaccines have been give out worldwide, but it's still rare to die from being vaccinated. This would be a HUGE deal in the vaccine world if it's linked to the vaccine.

The thing is, though, regardless of the outcome of her autopsy, this will be popping up in the anti-vaccine rhetoric for donkeys years.

God love her, though, the poor kid was just a teenager.

Of course it will, when you have people posting
"14-year-old girl dies from Cervical Cancer vaccine" randomly and without waiting to see the results of tests.

Also, they will neglect to mention the 1.4Million people, who have suffered no effects (or limited to known effects).

Regardless, this will cause big ripples within GSK. Vaccine related death is not something anyone wants

CuLT

Jesus, that is heartbreaking

thomond2006

RIP

Overheal

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE BIGGINS?!? WHAT HAVE YOU DOOONNNNE!!!!!!!


/KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!




/rip

brummytom

Yeah heard about this last night; Coventry's not too far from here.

The girls in our year were meant to have their vaccines today, but they've been postponed for the time being.

It's a terrible terrible shame a girl died, but they do save the lives of millions of women around the world.

Cuddlesworth

seamus wrote: »

Well, assuming that the vaccine had anything to do with it, this is the only death out of about 1,000,000 jabs. By contrast, statistically of those million women, 13 would have acquired cervical cancer before they were 25, and 4 of those 13 women would have died. Incidence/death rates after 25 are harder to come by, but they are much higher.

So, although it's tragic and no-one wants to see it like that, her death was necessary for a lot of other women to survive. It's the age-old moral conundrum - Do you prefer to kill one person by taking action and save a lot of people, or simply take no action and allow those other people to die?
For me it's a no-brainer, but many people have difficulty with it.

But if it was a choice between me and those 13 people, its a no brainer. **** em.

VinnyTGM

As above,probably for the greater good, but would be very difficult for her family all the same.

amacachi

Saw the mother on Sky News today calling for the vaccine program to be stopped. The usual responsible, sensitive journalism I've come to expect from Sky.

seamus

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

But if it was a choice between me and those 13 people, its a no brainer. **** em.

Yeah, but you don't get to make that choice.

Pygmalion

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

But if it was a choice between me and those 13 people, its a no brainer. **** em.

Fair enough, you choose a 1 in 250,000 chance of dying rather than a 1 in 1,000,000.

Probably won't matter for any one individual making the decision, but a bit irresponsible if you force an entire nation's teens to accept a 4 times greater risk of dying from related things.

IvySlayer

amacachi wrote: »

Saw the mother on Sky News today calling for the vaccine program to be stopped. The usual responsible, sensitive journalism I've come to expect from Sky.

The usual knee-jerk reaction.....

Tragic, but these things happen.

Kipperhell

amacachi wrote: »

Saw the mother on Sky News today calling for the vaccine program to be stopped. The usual responsible, sensitive journalism I've come to expect from Sky.

This one reason why victims of crime should be removed from sentencing. Grief and emotions can overrule logic.

What would be truly tragic is if this girls death actually causes people to put children at risk.

Elliemental

This is very sad news for the family and friends of the girl. But, all the parents and teenage girls (who`re the ones getting vaccinated), they have to keep in mind that no one knows yet, what truly caused this girl`s death. The vaccine may have triggered an underlying problem (sorry, i`m no medical expert). It may even have had nothing to do with the vaccine itself.
This vaccine seems to be a medical breakthrough in the fight against Cervical Cancer, and the vast majority of girls receiving the vaccine seem to suffer no more than dizziness and mild nausea (in terms of side effects). I believe there have been over a million vaccinations so far, so this seems to be a very rare, freak case.

Spore

Has it been mentioned yet that the girl had serious underlying medical conditions and that the vaccine had almost nothing to do with her death?
Just heard this on the news on the 10 o clock news on Todayfm so don't have a linky...

Should put paid to any misinformed argument against the vaccine.*

*damn reactionaries

Elliemental

BTW, this has just come up on Sky news...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Natalie-Morton-Cervical-Cancer-Vaccine-Teen-Most-Unlikely-To-Have-Died-After-Injection/Article/200909415395384?lpos=Home_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15395384_Natalie_Morton%3A_Cervical_Cancer_Vaccine_Teen_Most_Unlikely_To_Have_Died_After_Injection

Splendour

This is extremely sad and I can only imagine what this girls family are going through...

However, whatever the cause of this girls death, I am not a fan of recent inoculations as I don't think they are around long enough for us to know of the side effects. I am more interested into the reason WHY we need to inoculate against cervical cancer now when we didn't have to years ago? What has changed? Surely we would be better off pumping money into the cause rather than the these jabs...

tallaght01

Splendour wrote: »

This is extremely sad and I can only imagine what this girls family are going through...

However, whatever the cause of this girls death, I am not a fan of recent inoculations as I don't think they are around long enough for us to know of the side effects. I am more interested into the reason WHY we need to inoculate against cervical cancer now when we didn't have to years ago? What has changed? Surely we would be better off pumping money into the cause rather than the these jabs...

We did "need" to vaccinate against cervical cancer years, ago, but the vaccine has only just become available.

But, it's been through really rigorous long term safety checks, which is why I'd be surprised if it was dangerous.

The problem is you can't test every vaccine and every drug perfectly. If something happens in 1 in 5 million people, then you;d have to test 5 million girls to find one episode of that side effect, and even then you're relying on the law of averages to work perfectly.

But the bottom line is vaccines are very safe. If you ignore all the balls about autism and MMR, there are very very few serious reactions to vaccination nowadays. I work in paediatrics an public health (where vaccine stuff is all coordinated) and I've never seen, or heard of, a vaccine related death first hand.

Calibos

Splendour, I think you should be upfront about your agenda in relation to this story. The reason why we need this innoculation now when we didn't years ago is that the population isn't under the yoke of the church with its repressive views on sex anymore. Yes that means more chance of STD's and yes it is this 'immoral' lifestlye choice that more of us are making that has lead to an increase in cervical cancer(caused by an STD) which necesssitated the need for this vaccine.

However by 'treating the cause', I presume you mean we should all live like good little catholics like the olden days :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, even as an Ammoral hedonistic devil worshipping atheist I am appalled by the promicuous current generations. Theres being more liberal by having sex before marriage in a relationship and the odd one night stand and then theres taking the piss like more and more young people who drop the knickers and boxers with anyone and everyone etc etc We are probably in agreement in that its gone to far in the opposite direction.

However, I don't think a virginity ring or religious lecturing is going to stop them. Its going to happen so we might as well protect them.

Splendour

Calibos wrote: »

Splendour, I think you should be upfront about your agenda in relation to this story. The reason why we need this innoculation now when we didn't years ago is that the population isn't under the yoke of the church with its repressive views on sex anymore. Yes that means more chance of STD's and yes it is this 'immoral' lifestlye choice that more of us are making that has lead to an increase in cervical cancer(caused by an STD) which necesssitated the need for this vaccine.

However by 'treating the cause', I presume you mean we should all live like good little catholics like the olden days :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, even as an Ammoral hedonistic devil worshipping atheist I am appalled by the promicuous current generations. Theres being more liberal by having sex before marriage in a relationship and the odd one night stand and then theres taking the piss like more and more young people who drop the knickers and boxers with anyone and everyone etc etc We are probably in agreement in that its gone to far in the opposite direction.

However, I don't think a virginity ring or religious lecturing is going to stop them. Its going to happen so we might as well protect them.

Whaaa.....?!! Dunno if it was meant to, but your post made me smile

I would look upon the cervical vaccine the same way I would view any other vaccine. Your above comments never even crossed my mind when I was posting! Having said that, if abstaining from sex reduces the incidents of cervical cancer then I'm all for it!
Btw-I'm not Catholic.

Splendour

Splendour wrote: »

This is extremely sad and I can only imagine what this girls family are going through...

However, whatever the cause of this girls death, I am not a fan of recent inoculations as I don't think they are around long enough for us to know of the side effects. I am more interested into the reason WHY we need to inoculate against cervical cancer now when we didn't have to years ago? What has changed? Surely we would be better off pumping money into the cause rather than the these jabs...

The vaccine wasn't developed ten years ago! There never used to be vaccines for measles, mumps or anything else - does that mean we don't need them now? As for your 'abstaining from sex' comment - that would mean humanity would die out, as almost everyone who is sexually active has HPV. It has absolutely nothing to do with being promiscuous. I lost my virginity at 21, with protection, and now have cervical abnormalities which need to be checked every six months. It really has almost nothing to do with your sexual choices.

Calibos - it might be an idea to educate yourself before commenting. I'm really sick of all the crap people write about HPV and cervical cancer without having a clue. I could get married at 30, marry a man with one previous partner, and get cervical cancer. That's all it takes. I have talked to many doctors about this. Whether or not a woman develops cervical lesions is to do with luck, not sexual behaviour. Most women will manage to clear the virus from their bodies without it causing any harm, whether they're promiscuous or not.

Riskymove

I think we should also be clear that this is not a vaccine for cervical cancer, its a vaccine for HPV

while it will reduce the amount of HPV contracted and therefore an amount of cervical cancer, it is still possible to develop cancer after having this vaccine (although chances reduced significantly)

Calibos

[quote=[Deleted User];62325197]

Calibos - it might be an idea to educate yourself before commenting. I'm really sick of all the crap people write about HPV and cervical cancer without having a clue. I could get married at 30, marry a man with one previous partner, and get cervical cancer. That's all it takes. I have talked to many doctors about this. Whether or not a woman develops cervical lesions is to do with luck, not sexual behaviour. Most women will manage to clear the virus from their bodies without it causing any harm, whether they're promiscuous or not.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't so much linking it with promiscuity as assuming that Splendour would. He would have a Christian bias towards the solution being abstinance before marriage and I was pointing out that even if promiscuity was the reason for the need for the vaccine, that the solution in this day and age was not abstinence. I didn't word it very well. Sorry.

norrie rugger

Just to bring this to the fore, maybe the OP could change the thread title
I know that technically the OP is right, she did die after the jab but it had nothing to do with it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8284517.stm

BBC wrote:

A girl who was vaccinated against cervical cancer died from a malignant tumour and not from a reaction to the jab, it has been revealed.

Natalie Morton, 14, died after being given the Cervarix jab at the Blue Coat Church of England School in Coventry.

Deputy coroner for Coventry, Louise Hunt, said the vaccine was not thought to be a contributing factor, but the inquest would look into it.

A pathologist said the cause of death was a malignant tumour of the chest.

It affected both her heart and lungs.

'Wonderful daughter'

The pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination on the girl said the tumour was so severe that death could have arisen at any point.

The inquest was opened and adjourned at Coventry Magistrates' Court.

Natalie collapsed less than two hours after being given a cervical cancer vaccination.

Natalie's mother Elaine Bullock and stepfather Andrew Bullock, paid tribute the 14-year-old outside the court.

They said she was a "kind and fun-loving teenager with a beautiful smile".

Mr Bullock said: "We now know that Natalie's death was the result of a serious underlying medical condition and most probably nothing to do with the vaccine that she had at school on Monday."

Her stepfather said Natalie was "a wonderful daughter, sister and granddaughter".

He said: "Natalie had a strong personal faith in God. We know that she has gone to heaven to be with her saviour, Jesus."

Nate--IRL--

I was watching BBC 24 earlier, and I couldn't help getting the distinct impression they were disappointed that they couldn't continue a panic about dodgy vaccines for little girls now.

It would have been MMR all over again.

Nate

mike65

Originally Posted by BBC
A girl who was vaccinated against cervical cancer died from a malignant tumour and not from a reaction to the jab, it has been revealed.

Natalie Morton, 14, died after being given the Cervarix jab at the Blue Coat Church of England School in Coventry.

FFS.

smk89

im tempted to go over to the conspiracy theories forum but i can already predict the posts and i dont want to catch the anti-establishment virus they spread

Thats what they want you to think, It was the flouride in the water and Giant ants are eating my head and such would sum it up.