#1 of 1
04-05-2009, 08:40 PM
- Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In light of Jade Goody's funeral I'm glad the newspaper is highlighting adverse reactions to make people think...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ancer-jab.html
When a reported reaction is worse than would be considered normal, it is most likely to be a coincidence. And if the agency that monitors these reactions considered problems were occurring more often than normal, it would consider stopping the vaccine programme.That would be good if they would admit adverse reactions when they were reported and not blow it off as a coincidence! Also I wonder what they define as 'normal'?
Many other parents have seen their daughters fall ill within days of receiving the jab. And, like Amanda, they know how difficult it is to report a suspected adverse reaction to this vaccination.
Their stories beg the question of how many girls may have been ill as a result.
The Pharma are so vague...
While GlaxoSmithKline says that 'Cervarix had to undergo rigorous testing with large numbers of people in numerous studies
' and was 'found to be generally
well tolerated', questions over the safety and efficacy of Cervarix remain.
What does that mean? 99% of people dont react? (I think they would publish that if that was the case) Is 51% safety 'generally well tolerated?
I find the whole thing scary....AND now they're moving on to boys! As if they havent made enough money.