"Cervical cancer vaccine may be riskier and more deadly than the cancer"

[minestrone]

From linkoids

The gf just seen this headline on SKY news and went mental, wants them to be held accountable for putting that on the front page, she has a point, she already has people refusing to take the swine flu jag.

[cojak]

I wouldn't take the swine flu jag either...

[Sysman]

I wouldn't take the swine flu jag either...

Would that be a squeal eater Jag?

IGMC

[TykeMerc]

What the hell's a jag in relation to an immunisation?

Jab I can understand, Jag makes no sense to me at all.

If I had daughters instead of sons I would want to see the science behind the alleged risk before I made a decision to not have them vaccinated.

It's far too easy for the press to stir up panic over vaccinations with awful side effects.

[minestrone]

"If I had daughters instead of sons I would want to see the science behind the alleged risk before I made a decision to not have them vaccinated. "

Jade Goody?

[TykeMerc]

"If I had daughters instead of sons I would want to see the science behind the alleged risk before I made a decision to not have them vaccinated. "

Jade Goody?

Erm????

[Bagpuss]

I heard on Radio 4 a statement of the post mortem which said she had underlying health problems. The express seems to have papered over this. Newspapers don't do science for two main reasons
a/ They are never objective
b/ Most Journalists have no scientific training


Dr Diane Harper doesn't seem so concerned here
http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/fall06/...s.php?movie=06

The only concern she may have is the extrapolation of results to pedriaric populations. But then that is a medical decision, most medicines are not tested on children (the population under study was 15+). It's at the discretion of the medical profession(s) to prescribe. Always has been.

[minestrone]

Erm????

I'll take that one. reading and posting on my crappy phone in a car.

[minestrone]

I heard on Radio 4 a statement of the post mortem which said she had underlying health problems. The express seems to have papered over this. Newspapers don't do science for two main reasons
a/ They are never objective
b/ Most Journalists have no scientific training


Dr Diane Harper doesn't seem so concerned here
http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/fall06/...s.php?movie=06

The only concern she may have is the extrapolation of results to pedriaric populations. But then that is a medical decision, most medicines are not tested on children (the population under study was 15+). It's at the discretion of the medical profession(s) to prescribe. Always has been.

Gf was involved in the trials of the drug and went fruit loop when she seen this, all that work done and some journalists go and piss all over it.

She told a woman with "underlying health problems" to get an appointment for the swine flu jag but her daughter had told her that she was not to take it. Gf was asking if her daugher was a doctor and what reason she had for saying that, "she read it in the paper" was the answer.

[Platypus]

swine flu jag.

"jag" - you're either Scottish, from Corby, or both