Friday, 2 October 2009

The tragic case of Natalie Morton

This just shows up the morons at JABS for the evil bloodsuckers they are.

In case you're not aware, Natalie Morton was a UK teenager who died several hours after receiving her Cervarix vaccine. Naturally the anti-vaccination lobby on the web and in the press leapt on this, and assumed correlation meant causation - that the vaccine caused her death. "Look at us" they gloated, "we told you all along that vaccines were dangerous!"

Quite properly, a post mortem examination was carried out, which showed that Natalie had a previously undiagnosed, large, malignant tumour on her heart and lungs, which could have killed her at any point. Any connection to the vaccine has been ruled out.

This, of course, isn't good enough for the JABS crew.

Suba quotes the school's chaplain:

"I have seen Natalie's file and there is nothing on it to suggest that she had any underlying health problems."

There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, the man's the school chaplain. Not actually any kind of health professional. Suba will no doubt be quoting the lollipop lady outside the school next. Or the bloke who runs the sweetshop down the road. Both are equally well placed to give a professional opinion on health as a bloody vicar. (And what's he doing looking at health records any way??)

Assuming that the chaplain did actually say this (and I've seen it quoted in a couple of papers), it seems Suba is unaware of the meaning of the word "undiagnosed". So here's a little lesson for you Suba. "Undiagnosed" means that no-one was previously aware of it. So the health records wouldn't have shown an underlying health problem, because no-one knew about it.

"Jacquia" chimes in, linking to that well known organ of truth and level headedness, the Daily Mail, pointing out that Natalie had

"a rare and grave underlying health problem"

and then dives in with this gem:

I am sick of all our Government's lies, and propaganda!

Ah - conspiracy theories… Just what's needed at this point.

Fortunately, there's a voice of sanity at JABS - "Phoenix", who points out the tumour, and a quote from Natalie's parents:

"We now know that Natalie's death was the result of a serious underlying medical condition"

This, however, isn't good enough for Suba, who is by now trying to assume a rôle as some kind of medical professional:

Nonsense, she would have been in real pain and discomfort if it affected both her chest and lung


Everyone is saying that she had a smile from ear to ear and that she had a smile all the time. Not someone you would associate with late stage lung and heart tumour

Oh really Suba? Do you have evidence to back up this assertion of yours?

She (or is Suba a he?) drags the chaplain back into it, and then plays the trick beloved of all anti-vaxers, asking for "independent" verification:

The chaplain of the blue coat school said there was no underlying health conditions. We need a totally independant inquiry from another pathologist.

How is the original pathologist not independent? What you mean, by "independent", Suba, is "someone who agrees with ME!" And obviously, that's just what Natalie's parents would want, isn't it?

(At this point, Truth Seeker chimes in, and uses the opportunity to plug his favourite "I'm not allowing my children to have vaccines unless you accept full responsibility" form - no point in letting a good opportunity for self promotion get away.)

Now it's jennyr's turn - remember jennyr? The one with fluffy bunnies working her brain - it's the only explanation, no-one can really be as vacant as she manages.

She too decides that since it's been demonstrated that there was an underlying cause for Natalie's death, it must be a cover-up.

Be interesting to get a little more information on the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination. What is his background, how independent is he from government influences. Will the results be verified by a second/third opinion?

One thing's for certain jennyr - he's not a school chaplain.

Perhaps our health officials should listen to someone who knows what they are talking about for a change

Again, Jenny dear, why not say what you mean? You want them to listen to you.

While this has been a terribly sad incident, it has been investigated quickly and efficiently, and despite the scaremongering of the idiots at the Daily Mail and at JABS, it's been resolved. Stop trying to score points, and let Natalie's parents mourn their daughter in peace.

Orac has blogged about this, as ever, far, far more eloquently than I ever could. As you probably know, he's a cancer specialist, and has this to say:

Cancer doctors know that it's amazing how large tumors can sometimes grow without causing much, if anything, in the way of symptoms. In sudden death cases like this, moreover, quite frequently in retrospect it is noted that there were symptoms before the death, often for weeks or months beforehand, symptoms such as easy fatigue, vague aches and pains, or other relatively nonspecific symptoms. (Pancreatic cancer is notorious for growing to a deadly extent while producing few, if any, symptoms.) While it is true that many advanced tumors do cause a slow wasting away, there are a number of complications from tumors in the chest that can cause rapid death. The most obvious example that comes to mind is for the tumor to erode into a major blood vessel, resulting in massive internal bleeding. Another mechanical effect that can result in cardiac failure and sudden death is pericardial tamponade, which is what occurs when the sack surrounding the heart fills with fluid and compresses the heart. This fluid can be serum (from a reaction due to the tumor) or blood (from a bleed). Because the pericardial sac is fairly stretchable, a tamponade can develop slowly but then, once the capacity of the pericardium to stretch is exceeded, quite rapidly result in critical right heart failure leading to death. Then there's the fact that the blood in cancer patients often clots too easily; i.e., it's hypercoagulable, due to factors secreted by the tumors That means cancer patients are prone to deep venous thromboses and, worse, to pulmonary embolus, large ones of which can quite easily cause sudden death.


millipede said...

You have to admit it has been a tough week for the jabberwocks. I am sure they felt a sense of righteous indignation when poor Natalie Morton died after her HPV vaccination.

Their world view was affirmed, they were right and medical science had been proved wrong. Then it all falls apart after the post-mortem.

Do they react by admitting they were wrong? Of course not, it merely affirms their beliefs. Cover-up, vaccines kill, it couldn' t have been a tumour..etc.


skepticat said...

Nice post. You wanna get some links to good info in there. See my latest blog post for details.