"It is not yet known whether Natalie had an extreme - and very rare - reaction to a standard vaccine, or whether the particular dose she was given was from a rogue contaminated batch. A number of her classmates have reported alleged side-effects from the jab."
Or even that she actually died from something else. Please people, wait until it's conformed before you start the hysteria. Regardless of what happens, if this was due to the shot, it's a case of human negligence anyway, and still helps more people than it hinders.

Now watch as the anti-vaxxers spillout spreading their venomous paranoid bullshit trying to set the field of medicine back 150 years.

Correlation != causation. Not that the anti-vax fanatics won't use this for their propaganda, but I'm just saying... People die every day. People get seizures, and aneurysms, and allergic reactions, and all sorts of spontaneous medical problems. Sometimes, these problems happen shortly after they get a vaccine.

It's irresponsible to spread hype about a vaccine's supposed effects in a single person and feed the brushfire, if the vaccine isn't in some way implicated yet. A single death? A tragedy, yes, but not cause to avoid the vaccine.

Questions have also been raised about Merck's HPV vaccine, Gardasil -- even by one of its researchers.
*Gardasil Researcher Speaks Out*, CBS News, Sharyl Attkisson
http://tiny.cc/31lwT ---

A California teen died in March of this year. Her parents wonder if the vaccine had anything to do with her illness and death.
From the family's blog: *Vaccination, like national defense, is a public good. Society asks citizens to make small sacrifices for our collective safety. Occasionally, some pay a horrific price. As in war, we should honor the fallen, including those fallen to friendly fire. But, by accident or design, our government has made it unduly difficult to identify the fallen in the war against infectious diseases. Without good data, we cannot have a serious policy debate—and we will never know how many Jennys are out there.

Author Note: Barbara Mellers and Philip Tetlock, the parents of Jenny Tetlock, are professors at the University of California - Berkeley. Barbara Shapiro, M.D., Ph.D. is an associate professor of neurology at Case Western University.*

http://jenjensfamily.blogspot.com/

Vaccines are drugs, they should be treated as such. We have the ability to learn much from these young ladies' deaths, but will we? What a waste, if we don't.

Thank you for posting this, Philip

"Please people, wait until it's conformed before you start the hysteria"

"It's irresponsible to spread hype about a vaccine's supposed effects in a single person and feed the brushfire"

Opinion:

I think we all have been waiting long enough for drug companies and medicine as a whole to clean up their act. Trust is an earned commodity that has been long lost by blatant outlandish greed and corruption.

When you (PhARMA)/medicine/believers) stop the assembly line of poisons, and admit guilt for generations of crimes committed against humanity; you then can cry out how unfair this criticism might be.

Just maybe at that juncture you can come out in public and ask people not to point fingers and doubt all your ghost written lies, tainted research, pimped toxins, and greed mongering.

Until that time you are all held in constant ridicule and contempt; while viewed always with great suspicion.

Now go tout your magic vaccine to people that don't know better. This is not the only death related to this vaccine that was marketed as a forced safeguard on both young girls and boys with no real proof of long term effectiveness.

I clearly see how PhARMA plays this deadly game. It's always profits first and foremost; then we (PhARMA) might pay a small pittance for the dire and severe consequences later if they can ever make it to court.

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/index.php/2009/09/24/guard-your-girls-or-gardasil-or-guard-your-girls-against-gardasil/

This is all about drug company profit fueled hysteria created by a marketing scheme. Gardasil and Cervarix will be head to head battle for the top seller once Cervarix comes to the US.

In the meantime it is not hard to find data confirming actual deaths and convulsions as side effects that have already happened.

This is about SEX and prevention of CANCER.

This is not about a vaccine for prevention of a transmittable STD, this is about a vaccine without long term studies on efficacy for a prevention of cervical cancer.

Telling young women at age 12-13 you are required to take this vaccine before entering a certain grade in school is a violation of rights, and an invasion of privacy, telling them they will be having sex, so protect against a rare form of cancer.

How insulting.

This is a pharmaceutical company ability to fearmonger at best, create profit off of innocent young women.

Who is to say what age to presume a young woman has sex? I find this appalling that a company has gotten such a grip in this profit making scheme, for a prevention of cancer....does anyone stop to ask yourself why?

We are not talking about small pox or measles here. Cervical cancer is not an epidemic!

"Telling young women at age 12-13 you are required to take this vaccine before entering a certain grade in school is a violation of rights, and an invasion of privacy, telling them they will be having sex, so protect against a rare form of cancer."

So don't tell them it's for cervical cancer. Or tell them that but don't mention it's sex related. Just tell them it's "a vaccination". Do you really think most kids know what they get vaccinated for? As far as they're concerned it's just a jab in the arm.

"Just tell them it's "a vaccination". Do you really think most kids know what they get vaccinated for? As far as they're concerned it's just a jab in the arm."

Wait a minute. Isn't that what PhARMA does. Why tell them the truth, what it's for, or the risk involved; after all, we ("PhARMA") know better, and it's great for the bottom line.

Should we also hand every 12-13 year old kid anti psychotics without informed consent. Just say "take this"; it's just another pill.

I wouldn't recommend not telling teens what they are getting vaccinated for, if they don't know they need informed consent, meaning all side effects and reason drug/vaccine is being given. I would hope they know what they are getting vaccines for, otherwise the parent failed in my opinion, and the person giving the shot should have paperwork there to inform them of what's in the vaccine, in the base, all of it.

Because of their age, is exactly why they should be informed, they have the right!

So what your saying is that kids don't have rights to know. No wonder parents get away with drugging their children with psych meds, this is prime example of that train of thought.

Girls at age 12-13 are entering puberty with menstruation happening to many, how about not telling them what that is? or what a vagina is ?

I agree with Stephany, this is preventive medicine for money.
Authority is assuming they (every kid) will have unprotected sex .
I read there are several types of HPV cancer, the vaccine protects only against one, balanced against the risk of adverse effects from the innoculation.

What is the percentage rate of cancers per thousands to bad health effects from the vaccine per thousands?

RANT
Infant boys are assumed to have unprotected sex, so are circumcised without their (the baby as a person)concent.
BABIES HAVING SEX.RIGHT. They don't.
" Uncircumcised men are about twice as likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) and pass it along to sexual partners, resulting in higher cervical cancer rates in regions where the majority of men are uncircumcised [source: Infectious Diseases Society of America]. It also appears that circumcision helps protect against infection from chlamydia and syphilis [source: JAMA].
Recent studies have shown that circumcision can dramatically reduce the rate of HIV infection. According to these studies, a circumcised man is 60 percent less likely to contract HIV than an uncircumcised man [source: Timbert]. (This holds true only in the case of female-to-male transmission -- circumcision hasn't been seen to influence the rate of male-to-male HIV transmission"