Claim That Girl Did Not Die from Cervarix—Is It Credible?

by Heidi Stevenson

1 October 2009

Today's news reports tell us that Natalie Morton's tragic death shortly after receiving the Cervarix vaccine was not caused by the jab. However, on reading reports of the claim, I find it difficult to believe. Here's why.

The deputy coroner in Coventry, Louise Hunt, said, "It appears that Natalie died from a tumor in her chest involving her heart and her lungs." Home Office pathologist, Alexander Kolar, stated that her condition was "so severe that death could have arisen at any point." Her heart had been severely infiltrated by the tumor, which also extended into her left lung.

According to reports, Natalie's condition had been poor. She was becoming more and more disabled. If that's true, why was she given the vaccination? How could it possibly make sense to inject a person who was so ill with aluminum, a neurological poison? When it's well known and accepted that dizziness and nausea are common reactions to Cervarix, how can it make any sense to give the injection to a girl so sick, one who already suffers from a form of cancer?

Natalie collapsed about 75 minutes after receiving the immunization. She died shortly after being taken to hospital.

If someone suffers from advanced cancer, then it's easy to claim that cancer caused the death. It hardly matters what other trauma might have been received shortly beforehand. If a person that ill is subjected to two hours of freezing temperature and dies shortly after, what would be blamed? The cold weather or the illness?

Carefully Worded Statements

Dr. Caron Grainger, NHS Coventry's joint director of public health, stated, "There is no indication that the HPV vaccine, which she had received shortly before her death, was a contributing factor to the death, which could have arisen at any point." This statement is revealing. No claim is made that the vaccination did not cause Natalie's death. Instead, only a claim of no evidence is made.

Is this a modern version of doublespeak? Notice that no official is making a definitive statement that the vaccination had nothing to do with it. Only very carefully worded statements are being used, ones clearly designed to soothe the public, to convince people that there's nothing to worry about—but no one is saying that the vaccine is innocent.

Perhaps this seems like too fine a point. It is, though, obvious that all official statements made to the public are worded in a way to allow the speakers to later deny that they ever claimed there wasn't a connection.

Comfortable with Cervarix?

The public is being heavily pressured into submitting to a vaccine that contains the neurotoxin aluminum and has not been proven to prevent the disease it's being sold to stop. No cause and effect between any herpes virus and cervical cancer has ever been documented. Any claim that a connection exists is equivalent to a claim that most Americans in prison eat potatoes; therefore potatoes cause crime. The cost of the vaccine is enormous, £80.50 per dose. Who is benefitting from this campaign? What conditions may be incurred over time because ot it? We don't know—but we do know that enormous sums of money are being pocketed.

The claims that Natalie Morton's death had nothing to do with the Cervarix vaccination are worded in a suspicious manner. No official statement has been issued claiming that there is no connection with the vaccination—there have only been carefully turned phrases: "no indication that," "appears that," "death could have arisen at any point."

Why is it that caution is being cast to the wind? The Cervarix vaccination campaign hasn't even been slowed by this incident. It's difficult to believe that anything but money—truly filthy money—is driving this campaign. I, for one, am unconvinced that there is no connection between Cervarix and Natalie Morton's death.