The news is everywhere this morning. Natalie Morton, the 14 year old girl who died tragically such a short time after her Cervarix (HPV) vaccine, has had an incredibly quick autopsy done and the doctors have found a massive tumour on her heart and lungs. It was only a matter of time, really, before this poor child passed away and it was just a total coincidence that it happened immediately after receiving a vaccine. A vaccine that has been involved in other sudden deaths in which the pathology reports have returned no cause of death. The difference is, with the other girls, their deaths did not make front-page news nor were theyused to halt - even temporarily - a nationwide vaccination campaign.
It seems that no matter what the evidence is, nothing must ever be allowed to draw into disrepute - even for a very short time - the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations.
Where does the truth lie?
Our buddies from the scumbags organisation (well, if Paul Keating can say it, I can too!) have been emailing me all morning to demand that I take down the article I posted a couple of days ago in which I stated that I didn't believe that Natalie's death was coincidental to the Cervarix vaccine.
I won't do that. Because I still don't believe in coincidence. Not when it comes to vaccines.
Perhaps there are some cardiologists on this list who might want to answer the following question.
How likely is it that a 14 year old girl can have a massive heart / lung tumour of the type which the coroners claim she had - and still be totally asymptomatic?
This is a girl who was described by her family and by those around her as being perfectly healthy. She certainly looked to be the picture of health.
Shouldn't she have had problems with extreme tiredness? With breathing? Shouldn't she have been pale and wan looking - I mean, a tumour large enough to cause sudden death should have been impeding her blood-flow for quite some time. Even the most aggressive tumours do, when they affect major organs like the heart and lungs, produce some symptoms even though they may not be specific enough to require exploratory surgery.
My aunt, Sheila, who smoked for many years though she had stopped some time in her 40s, passed away several years ago in her early 60s. She had developed a tumour in her lungs which had spread to her heart. She had months of feeling a pressure on her chest, being unaccountably tired and progressivley getting worse until she had to see her doctor. And even then, she did not just drop dead on the floor. She died slowly in hospital whilst being given massive doses of chemotherapy.
It all seems too convenient to me - this sudden diagnosis of a perfectly health girl who has died almost immediately after receiving one of the most toxic vaccines we have today.
If I were her parents, I would be asking for a second opinion - for an independent pathologist to review the autopsy results or perhaps, if I had a good relationship with my family doctor, I would ask them to actually veiw Natalie's body and see if there truly is a tumour.
We will probably never know the truth about the death of this tragic child. But her passing leaves more questions then it does answers. And while deaths from vaccines continue to be minimised as coincidental, blamed on the parents or put down to just plain bad luck, these questions will remain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How likely is it that a 14 year old girl can have a massive heart / lung tumour of the type which the coroners claim she had - and still be totally asymptomatic?
ReplyDeleteAlmost a certainty. The five year survival rate for lung cancer is about 7%, this is because you don't have the same nerves internally as you do externally and you are entirely asymptomatic until the cancer is so far advanced and so massive that care options are just palliative. Read a book.
This is a girl who was described by her family and by those around her as being perfectly healthy. She certainly looked to be the picture of health.
Are her family and those around her medically trained to assess her health? Or did they just see her go for a swim and not drown? Yet more rhetoric and summation from the anti vaccination lobby that has no factual basis at all.
Shouldn't she have had problems with extreme tiredness?
She may have found it harder to do some things than you or I do (well, than I do, I'm vaccinated and healthy), but how would you know? How would she realise it was harder to walk up stairs than it was four years ago? Do you notice when your height increases when you are growing?
Is there an objective measurement for tiredness over time?
With breathing?
You said the tumor was on the lung, not in the lung. It would not have interfered with respiratory function.
Shouldn't she have been pale and wan looking - I mean, a tumour large enough to cause sudden death should have been impeding her blood-flow for quite some time.
This is full of lose. Tumors very rarely cause any sort of palour, largely because they don't restrict blood flow. If they do restrict blood flow, the tumor may die because it doesn't have nutrients that it needs to continue to grow.
A tumor can be the size of a pea and kill someone, or the size of a football and be safely removed. Big does not equal deadly, but then you're an expert at taking things that can't be compared to each other and declaring one thing to be the cause of the other, right?
You challenged us to answer your question" How likely is it that a 14 year old girl can have a massive heart-lung tumour of the type the coroners claim she had and still be totally asmyptomatic?"
ReplyDeleteAnswer: very likey. Teratomas frequently occur in young feamale adults and children. They can be completeyl asymptomatic and have a high risk of sudden death. ("Cancer and the Heart" Ewer, Yeh).
What I thought was the MOST fascinating about autopsy report--even more than the 20 hour turn around-- was when the report said "tumour of unknown origin."
ReplyDeleteWow! Isn't this just a covert statement that it wasn't Natalie's tumour?!
Despite the assurances given by health professionals no independent verification of the vaccine’s efficacy has yet been established and research trials on the GSK drug Cervarix (funded by GSK) continue. This vaccine contains HPV proteins, Aluminium monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL), aluminium hydroxide, sodium chloride, sodium phosphate-monobasic and water which is administered by injection three times. This unwarranted and invasive assault on our children's natural health is of great concern. The incidence of Cervical cancer is falling not due to this vaccine but instead preventative screening. I for one will ensure my kids are not subjected to these toxic vaccination 'programmes' which in the long run will damage their health.
ReplyDelete>The news is everywhere this morning. Natalie Morton, the 14 year old girl
ReplyDelete>who died tragically such a short time after her Cervarix (HPV) vaccine, has
>had an incredibly quick autopsy done and the doctors have found a massive
>tumour on her heart and lungs.
You don't need a long autopsy to find the type of growth she is reported as having died from.
>It was only a matter of time, really, before this poor child passed
> away and it was just a total coincidence that it happened
> immediately after receiving a vaccine.
Sadly that is so. The truth can be a real blow when you were working up to a "campaign".
>A vaccine that has been
>involved in other sudden deaths in which the pathology reports have returned
>no cause of death.
The number of reports of sudden deaths in the USA with a temporal link to vaccination is, as has been explained before, the same number you
would expect to see in the same time from sudden cardiac death syndrome.
>The difference is, with the other girls, their deaths did
>not make front-page news nor were they used to halt - even temporarily - a
>nationwide vaccination campaign.
That's probably because they were not caused by vaccination.
>It seems that no matter what the evidence is, nothing must ever be allowed
>to draw into disrepute - even for a very short time - the safety and
>effectiveness of vaccinations.
You don't think evidence of the malignant tumour which caused the death of this girl should be mentioned?
>I won't do that. Because I still don't believe in coincidence. Not when it
>comes to vaccines.
"My mind is made up - stop confusing me with facts".
>Perhaps there are some cardiologists on this list who might want to answer
>the following question.
>How likely is it that a 14 year old girl can have a massive heart / lung
>tumour of the type which the coroners claim she had - and still be totally
>asymptomatic?
Firstly, she wasn't asymptomatic. Her parents stated she was already in the early stages of the process of medical investigations for
shortness of breath and poor lung capacity.
Secondly, the likelihood of such a tumour is very low, which was probably why it wasn't suspected earlier.
>This is a girl who was described by her family and by those around her as
>being perfectly healthy.
She wasn't and that isn't how her parents have described her.
>Shouldn't she have had problems with extreme tiredness?
No
>With breathing?
She did.
>Shouldn't she have been pale and wan looking
Why?
>It all seems too convenient to me
It would, it doesn't suit your closed mind or fit your preconceived ideas.
>We will probably never know the truth about the death of this tragic child.
We know the truth, you just can't accept it.
>But her passing leaves more questions then it does answers.
No it doesn't.
Once again, fscts refute an anti-vaccination liar.
Why do you feel a need to label people whose views disagree with your own. Is it wrong to hold a differing viewpoint? I do not call those who believe that vaccines are safe and effective - a viewpoint I personally don't agree with due to the vast quantity of medical research showing it is anything but - anti-choice liars. So why the need to call people names? Can't we treat this issue and each other with the respect we all deserve? There is something wrong when people have to rely on name-calling to try and prove their point. Perhaps the facts aren't enough for you?
ReplyDelete