Cervical cancer jab girl died from unrelated chest tumour as researcher calls vaccine plan a 'mass experiment'
They can't call her Natalie, or teenager; no, she's still 'cervical cancer jab girl' despite the fact the cervical cancer jab had nothing to do with her death. Yes, they say the tumour was unrelated, but they can't help putting some criticism of the vaccine into the headline - as if to say, yes, we were wrong, but the vaccine's still a bad thing: we've managed to dig up an expert who backs us up!
Also, once again the URL tells us about the story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217280/Cancer-jabs-programme-mass-experiment-says-researcher-health-officials-insist-vaccine-teenagers-safe.html
So, there you have it. They can't just leave their story as saying that they were entirely wrong and unjustified in linking the HPV vaccine to the tragically early death of a teenager - who, it now turns out, had a fatal tumour. You'll remember from yesterday's post that the Mail was determined to cling on to links with the vaccine. And still today.
Teenager Natalie Morton died from a malignant tumour in her chest and not from a reaction to the cervical cancer jab, it was revealed today.
Not today, yesterday. But you decided to plough on ahead with your disgraceful linking of her death to the vaccine yesterday; you were too busy scaremongering to care about the facts.
The findings come as the cervical cancer vaccination programme was branded a 'public health experiment' by a senior researcher who helped develop the drug.
Not really. The Mail was desperately looking for someone to slag off the vaccination programme, and they found someone. It didn't coincide with the findings at all - findings which make their panic-porn attitude all the more irresponsible.
And, under the story, a torrent of antivaxx nonsense in the comments box, with people claiming that it's too much of a coincidence that the girl should die at the same time as being vaccinated. People claiming that there's no need for mass vaccination. And the Mail washes its hands of it all, and looks the other way, and walks off whistling.
My favourite comment is this, written I think without irony:
"Yesterday the Department of Health said it had 'great confidence' in the safety of its cervical cancer vaccination programme."
MMR Mark2 or what??
- Vivienne, Newcastle UK, 1/10/2009 7:30
Yes, MMR mark 2 indeed. A safe vaccine branded as dangerous by irresponsible fools.
For the backstory on the jab: NHS Choices on the HPV vaccination.
8 comments:
absolutely brilliant dismantling of another hideous hack-job from the Daily Fail!
They're still running their "Should the cervical cancer vaccination programme be suspended?" poll:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/polls/index.html
:-D
Loath as I am to defend the shit-stirring hate rag that is the Daily Mail, I think it's pretty reasonable to refer to Natalie as "Cervical cancer jab girl" in the headline - if they had called her by name I'm sure I wouldn't have had a clue what the story was about.
The Beeb has also used "cancer jab girl" in their headline http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8284517.stm.
(The original Daily Mail URL now redirects to the more accurate http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217280/Cervical-cancer-jab-Natalie-Morton-died-chest-tumour-vaccine.html)
I wonder if I can lay the blaim of my daughters brused to at the door of the HPV vaccine (she dropped a can of soup on her foot the day she was vaccinated.
Glad to see the Daily Mail are up to their usual standards, I cant post comments, apparently my email address is registered with them already (which I'm not)
Perhaps the comment stating a pornographers product rarely reflect truth or fact.
Keep up the good work.
Y'know what this continued nonsense is really all about? The Mail, deep down, cannot contemplate those girls enjoying glorious, screaming, joyous, sweaty sex when they grow up...without the risk or worry of getting cancer from their bold bad fun.
Sarah
The weird thing is that even the researcher who slags it off (who is actually a doctor - don't know why they didn't refer to her as such, as it would surely make her sound more important than just a "researcher"), doesn't really slag it off.
"Even if the jab is only dangerous for one person in a million, women should be told the risks, she said".
She's playing the normal DailyMail game of going "how can we be sure every man isn't a pedo?" or "the exact number of deaths isn't known", where they take a figure that isn't provable either way, or something they haven't looked up because it suits their story not to.
It isn't even 1 in a million, obviously. Over a million girls vaccinated, and nobody has died from it. Less than 1% even have any side effects.
She also said: "Patient trials have only been running for seven and a half years - not long enough to show whether it continues protecting women into their late 20s and 30s"
And it doesn't matter. Death happens to all of us eventually - all we can do is delay it. Cancer is an especially nasty way to go, and if you can stop it for 15 years, then it's surely worth doing.
*Sigh*
Having just read those articles, I feel a bit sick. Typical Mail - distasteful, immoral, and idiotic.
Bravo on completing two excellent blogs on the two dreadful articles without filling your keyboard with puke.
Strictly speaking, of course, it ISN'T a 'cervical cancer jab'. It's a jab against HPV which is one of the (most common) causes of cervical cancer. Calling it a cervical cancer jab can give the wrong impression and has caused some people to complain that it 'only' protects against 70% of cervical cancers. That's because it 'only' protects against those caused by HPV!
Post a Comment