Dangerous Nonsense In The Sunday Express

October 4, 2009 at 4:51 pm (Anti-Vaccination, Richard Halvorsen) (, , , , , , , , , )

Following the Daily Express’s spectacularly misleadingly-headlined article on the death of Natalie Morton (PARENTS’ REVOLT AFTER GIRL DIES IN CANCER JAB HORROR – a headline written, believe it or not, after it became apparent from a preliminary post mortem that Natalie Morton had actually suffered from an underlying health problem), the Sunday Express have surpassed themselves by writing a new article on the HPV vaccine. This article, despite being written after further facts on the sad death of Natalie Morton were made available, is headlined JAB ‘AS DEADLY AS THE CANCER’.*

We now know that Natalie Morton had a tumour. Despite this, the Sunday Express include a picture of the schoolgirl and caption it thus: “Natalie Morton died shortly after being given a cervical cancer vaccine jab”, implying that a connection exists despite the facts in their possession. While this is disingenuous, it actually gets worse as I read on.

Dr Diane Harper, portrayed as a “leading expert who developed the drug” in the introduction to the article, is alleged by the Sunday Express to have given them the following opinions:

the jab [is] being “over-marketed” and parents should be properly warned about the potential side effects

Authorities in the UK should be on the alert because its sister vaccine, Gardasil, used in America, has already been associated with 32 death

the risks – “small but real” – could be worse than the risk of developing cancer itself

All this jab will do is prevent girls getting some abnormalities associated with cervical cancer which can be treated. It will not decrease cervical cancer rates at all. Parents need to know this and that in a small number of cases there are serious side effects

Having been quoted in a previous story in the Daily Mail as saying that the HPV vaccination programme was a “mass experiment in public health”, Evidence Matters made contact with Dr Harper and she made the following comments:

I remain a vaccine supporter; and am grateful that GSK and merck have developed the vaccines.

The autopsy report clearly indicates that Cervarix had no part in Natalie’s death

It remains to be seen whether Dr Harper will provide further clarification of her position in light of the Sunday Express article* and I note that the article seemed to provide a summary of Dr Harper’s views in most cases, with only a few direct quotes. For now, I shall comment simply on this view attributed to Dr Harper by the Sunday Express: “the risks – “small but real” – could be worse than the risk of developing cancer itself”; on the face of it, this statement seems to me to be almost certainly incorrect. Nobody has died in the UK because they received the Cervarix vaccine. Hundreds of women die every year of cervical cancer. The way the Express is reporting on the HPV vaccine, it almost seems as if they would be happy to see women die unnecessarily from a cancer caused by infection with HPV.

It gets even worse. The Sunday Express also print the views of Dr Richard Halvorsen. Having been allowed column inches in the Daily Mail and airtime on Radio 4’s Today programme, the Sunday Express become the latest media outlet to invite comment from Dr Halvorsen. The Express article notes that “Post mortem results last week blamed Natalie’s death on a rare cancer but Dr Richard Halvorsen, author of The Truth About Vaccines, said…” [My italics.]

One minute Natalie is an apparently healthy girl, she has the vaccine and within two hours she is dead. We are told she had a terrible cancer inside her that killed her but this is implausible. If you have cancer you have symptoms. Clearly public health doctors are desperate to turn the debate away from the vaccine as a possible cause.

I find this scaremongering and conspiracy theorising sickening. Characterising the doctors involved in the case as being ‘desperate to cover up’ a non-existent link to the HPV vaccine is a despicable slur.

What of Halvorsen’s contentions that “We are told she had a terrible cancer inside her that killed her but this is implausible. If you have cancer you have symptoms”? This abstract comments on lipomatous hypertrophy of the interatrial septum, which “…represents 0.6% of all benign cardiac tumours. Generally asymptomatic, it frequently constitutes an incidental post mortem finding. The disorder may at times lead to a pumping deficit associated to congestive heart failure or determine an abnormal heart rhythm leading even to sudden death.” [Note: this type of cardiac tumour is rare in yong people. An unusual case is described here: link.] If a benign, asymptomatic cardiac tumour can lead to sudden death, is it really so implausible that a schoolgirl could die suddenly due to an asymptomatic tumour? This paper has an abstract which discusses papillary fibroelastomas, “a rare form of benign cardiac neoplasm”:

While the majority of these lesions are asymptomatic and found incidentally via echocardiography or cardiac catheterization, those occurring on left-sided structures may become clinically important producing symptoms of syncope, angina, myocardial infarction, and sudden death.

Cardiac rhabdomyoma? According to the abstract of this paper, “The primary cardiac tumors are [unusual], the incidence varies in all the ages between 0.005 to 0.05%. In pediatrics patients the incidence is 0.27%. The more frequent tumors during the childhood are the cardiac rhabdomyomas. These tumors are considered benigns. The clinical expression is wide, in the most the cases, the patients are asymptomatic and are detected by murmurs. In the prenatal age are manifested by arrhythmias or hydrops fetalis. The neonates and children may be show cardiac arrhythmias, low cardiac index and sudden cardiac death.”

It seems that, while rare, it is not implausible that an asymptomatic tumour could cause sudden death. So Dr Richard Halvorsen would appear to be wrong on this point. What of his second part of the quoted remark that “if you have cancer you have symptoms”? Well, this is clearly untrue. There are thousands of results on Pubmed for the search terms asymptomatic and cancer (over 16,000 hits – of which over 2,000 are free full text and nearly 3,000 are reviews). If you use Google to search for the phrase “asymptomatic cancer”, you will find articles titled “Estimating Distribution of the Age of Onset of Detectable Asymptomatic Cancer” and “Finding cancer in asymptomatic people. Estimating the benefits, costs and risks” among the 12,100 pages that Google claims to have found. I would suggest that if Halvorsen truly believes that “if you have cancer you have symptoms” then he must be rather ignorant to have come to this conclusion – and either lazy or foolish to have spouted his ill-informed opinions on the subject in a medium that reaches thousands of people without having even attempted a cursory search using Google or Pubmed.

Remarkably, it seems that Halvorsen’s assertions that Natalie Morton was apparently healthy and free from symptoms may not even be true. It has been reported elsewhere that Natalie’s step-father has said that “she had been unwell for “some time” and that the family now believed the vaccine had not caused her death” and that Natalie’s mother had said that “Natalie has been poorly for some time. She had not been to hospital but she was receiving medication and doctors have been involved.” It appears that as well as being ignorant of cases where asymptomatic tumours [note: not necessarily cancerous tumours] have been linked with sudden death and ignorant of the existence of asymptomatic cancer, Halvorsen may also be ignorant of the facts of the case being discussed.

Having written an appalling article with a dreadful headline, gone to the usual suspects JABS and Richard Halvorsen for comment, scaremongered about a vaccine, and generally given a shockingly one-sided and inaccurate view of the HPV vaccine, the Sunday Express have taken the unusual step of making the comment facility unavailable for this article. Perhaps they were worried that their inaccurate, misleading, and distorted version of events would be challenged?

Richard Halvorsen and media outlets such as the Daily Mail, and the Daily Express and Sunday Express are proving to be a menace to public health. With no facility for feedback on the article, a toothless regulator of the press, and no real sanctions to face, it seems that the authors of dangerous nonsense need not fear the consequences of peddling dangerous nonsense. The only people who will suffer will be those who are misled by the people who disseminate such irresponsible and ignorant opinions into refusing potentially life-saving vaccines due to the ill-founded fears fomented in organs such as the Sunday Express.

Edit 9th October 2009

The Sunday Express article that this post is based on has now been deleted. A cached copy is available here.

Edit 10th October 2009

*Dr Diane Harper’s position on Cervarix has now been clarified. Read more here at Bad Science.

Edit 15th October 2009

Links: cervical cancer jab information and cervical cancer vaccination and Q&A about cervical cancer vaccine

22/03/2010: Odd petition asking for all vaccines to be banned, and recommending people “Visit also Truth About Gardasil (.org)” (link via the excellent RatbagsDotCom). A quote:

Proposed Legislation: “ALL VACCINES ARE BANNED” unless they can be scientifically proven to meet these two criteria: FIRST: DO NO HARM and SECOND: ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE RECIPIENT’S HEALTH.

So… only vaccines with zero side-effects (serious or trivial) would be allowed – with no consideration of the risks versus the benefits of vaccination.

Ahem:

Another way to state it is that “given an existing problem, it may be better to do nothing than to do something that risks causing more harm than good.” It reminds the physician and other health care providers that they must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do. It is invoked when debating the use of an intervention that carries an obvious risk of harm but a less certain chance of benefit.

About these ads

34 Comments

  1. Richard Burnham said,

    Richard Halvorsen apparently is a registered and practising GP.

    He claims that the cancer as a cause of the death was ‘implausible’ but he apparently has no direct knowledge of the case or expert knowledge in this field.

    Isn’t this a breach of medical ethics, like the consultant who was sanctioned for his misleading intervention in a case of sudden infant death?

  2. draust said,

    I thought Halvorsen’s remarks were an utter disgrace. As jdc has set out, they were also factually incorrect.

    I sincerely hope someone will report Halvorsen to the GMC for misconduct.

    PS The consultant Richard Burnham was referring to was David Southall, in the Sally Clark case. And at least there Southall had the excuse (not much of one) that he was an acknowledged expert on fabricated illness in children. See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Southall

  3. Felix said,

    This comes from the GMC Complaints FAQ:

    “These are examples of the types of cases where we may need to act:

    * serious or repeated mistakes in carrying out medical procedures or in diagnosis, such as prescribing drugs in a dangerous way
    * failure to examine a patient properly or to respond reasonably to a patient’s needs
    * fraud or dishonesty
    * serious breaches of a patient’s confidentiality
    * any serious criminal offence”

    http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/making_a_complaint/faqs.asp#3

    Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that a complaint should be made, I do not see immediately that it would fit within these guidelines.

    “Fraud or dishonesty” would appear to be the closest to my eyes, however giving bad and uniformed advice is not necessarily dishonesty.

  4. draust said,

    I am pretty clear that Richard Burnham is correct and that publicly commenting on things concerning the case of a patient about whom one knows nothing (i.e. who is or was the patient of other doctors) is a serious beach of medical professional ethics. It has a certain amount in common with the phenomenon of psychologists who happily speculate about the mental health of celebrities while not knowing anything about them beyond what is in the public domain, something that Petra Boynton has written about several times – e.g.

    http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/?p=873

    Anyway, while Halvorsen’s Mail article on vaccines was a bunch of shit, but said nothing specific, his quoted remarks about the Natalie Morton case in the last article jdc is writing about were way out of line. The analogy Richard Burnham made with David Southall’s case (where the analogous action did form part of a misconduct case) strikes me as quite to the point.

    I’m not sure that the kind of misdeed immediately fits to one of the examples Felix quotes, but that is perhaps because they are the commonest categories where complaints come from patients of individual doctors, or from professional colleagues.

  5. Teek said,

    What a cracking post jdc – a really good analysis.

    As for breach of medical ethics, leaving aside whether it’s a technical breach or not, there’s clearly a major issue with doctors with no professional expertise in a field being presented in teh meeja as figures of authority on a huge public health importance. I wonder whether a better route may be to speak to the press complaints commission – if what Halvorsen said can be shown to be demonstrably false, surely there are grounds to complain about journalists continuing to quote him…?

  6. jdc325 said,

    Thanks for commenting everyone. I think I might start by contacting the Sunday Express. Will think over possible PCC and GMC complaints and consider Sunday Express response before making any further decisions.

  7. Karen Woods said,

    Hello bloggers

    I appreciate that you take issue with Dr Halvorsen. But can I point that he says what he says based on the 6 years study of the relevant medical research for his book The Truth about Vaccines, and over 25 years as a GP. In the interest of science, and fairness, you may want to read his full arguments first. He is one of the few people who has reservations about vaccines that pro-vaccine experts are happy to debate the issue with.

    Kind regards, Karen Woods
    Gibson Square Publishers

  8. Richard Burnham said,

    Karen Woods:

    Halvorsen’s expertise or otherwise on vaccines has no bearing on the issue here, which is: he made an assertion about the cause of death of a patient, based on apparently no knowledge other than what was published in the media, and he claimed that her death from asymptomatic cancer was ‘implausible’, although he apparently has no particular expertise in cancer and death from asymptomatic cancer is certainly a possibility.

    You don’t need to be a medic to see that this is way out of line. If you have evidence that his comments were better informed than I’ve just described, then please present it.

  9. jdc325 said,

    Hi Karen,

    I would like to echo Richard Burnham’s remarks: whatever Halvorsen’s experience as a GP and regardless of any amount of research he has done for his book, his comments on the Natalie Morton case were demonstrably wrong. I think I was perfectly fair in characterising his view of the case as ignorant. I would hope that a GP who was diligent enough to spend six years researching vaccines for a book would be willing and able to spend a few minutes researching the basic facts of the Natalie Morton case before commenting. Sadly, it appears that he failed to do so. Halvorsen’s ignorance not only of the facts of the Natalie Morton case, but also of the plausibility or otherwise of sudden death due to an asymptomatic tumour and of the existence of asymptomatic tumours is frankly inexcusable.

    Having said that, I can tell you that I fully intend to read his full arguments and have borrowed a copy of his book from my local library. I am now considering writing up a review of the book.

    Thank you for commenting,
    James.

  10. Stephen Tunley said,

    Wonderful words by true believers!

    Reality is Gardasil and Cervarix use a common ingredient to prevent HPV (2 out of 127 strains). Both vaccines are linked to high levels of severe adverse reactions (tyes including death). Also its not widely know but Merck and GSK jointly own the patent!

    Both vaccines have been released following small and narrow trials – that excluded “certain at risk groups”, despite being a wide use vaccination. Inthe case of Gardasil it was 90% efficaceous in these “narrow” trials. If the broad community is considered, efficacy declines to circa 17%! Tell me again why this is a good vaccine? – believe in the first world we are better of with the existing program of pap smears and follow-ups. Both from a health and financial view point. In the 3rd world it maybe different, but I guess there aint enough profit inthat market!

    Diane Harper has some serious “balls” to come out and say what she has said. I believe it incredible that she can be criticised especially when you compare the less than illustrous track record of Merck in representing its product honestly – Vioxx anyone?

    Do yourself a favour and research the core subject not the person and then make your comments!

  11. Richard Burnham said,

    Stephen Tunley:

    “Wonderful words by true believers!”

    So you kick off with an ad hominem and then complain (incorrectly) further down that other people are using them?

    I can honestly say I’ve never posted or written anything in my life about the efficacy or safety of vaccines, so you have no knowledge about my views on this matter.

    “Do yourself a favour and research the core subject not the person and then make your comments!”

    You claim to have done the research, so cite your sources for your statements.

  12. Neuroskeptic said,

    Both vaccines are linked to high levels of severe adverse reactions (tyes including death).

    Evidence, or shut up.

  13. Neuroskeptic said,

    Karen – The issue here is his comments on the case of the girl who died from a tumor : “If you have cancer you have symptoms”.

    Until he retracts this statement he shouldn’t be a doctor, since he has clearly forgotten everything he learned about oncology, maybe he spent a little too long reading conspiracy websites about vaccines and not enough time reading actual science.

    As for his book, I know people who spent decades researching and writing long books about all kinds of things. They send me them unsolicited. I work at a psychiatric hospital. They’re mentally ill. Dr Halvorsen’s years of research don’t impresss me.

  14. jdc325 said,

    Both vaccines are linked to high levels of severe adverse reactions (tyes including death). Also its not widely know but Merck and GSK jointly own the patent! […] in the first world we are better of with the existing program of pap smears and follow-ups. Both from a health and financial view point.

    Could you provide some evidence for these claims, please?

    Diane Harper has some serious “balls” to come out and say what she has said. I believe it incredible that she can be criticised especially when you compare the less than illustrous track record of Merck in representing its product honestly – Vioxx anyone?

    If you read what I have actually written, I think you’ll find that I haven’t criticised Diane Harper. I have criticised the comments made by the Sunday Express journalist that claim to be based on the views of Dr Harper.

    Do yourself a favour and research the core subject not the person and then make your comments!

    Again, if you read what I have actually written I think you’ll find that what research I have done has focused on the subject rather than the person. This isn’t a profile of Diane Harper or Richard Halvorsen – it is a critique of the article in the Sunday Express and the incorrect statements made within. Halvorsen was wrong to state that Natalie Morton was apparently healthy, wrong to claim that cancer is symptomatic, and wrong to claim that sudden death from a tumour is implausible.

  15. John said,

    We shouldn’t even try to argue with people like you anymore.

    Take your vaccines, your pills, your chemicals.
    Believe in the altruistic (yet coincidentally profitable) nature of the pharmaceutical companies. If you want to think they are just trying to help you, then help them, buy their products and poison you bodies.

    We can choose for ourselves, atleast at the moment, I think we need to stop trying to save people who don’t want to be saved. Make the decision for yourself and let others do as they wish with their lives and the lives of their families.

    I think we need a “leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone” policy. Given enough time, and enough drugs, there’ll will be more of us than of you. Until then enjoy your blogs, and your strong opinions of dubious origin. And we’ll enjoy long and healthy lives.

  16. Richard Burnham said,

    John:

    You haven’t even begun to present an argument.

  17. Patrick said,

    Oh for god’s sake! Ian Tomlinson undoubtedly had serious underlying health conditions, and yet no sane person would rule out that a good few blows to the head from a police baton helped him on the way to the afterlife. And yet with vaccines, they are never to blame. They never contribute. It’s anything else – take Harry Clark, who died within 24 hours of a DPT shot. Rather than consider the vaccine might just be to blame we locked up his poor mother Sally instead for three and half years.

  18. Patrick said,

    correction: few blows, not blows to the head.

  19. Tim said,

    Well said, John. Why doesn’t the guy who runs this site go off and have an HPV jab – “just in case”, of course – and while he’s about it I’m sure he’d want to have the annual flu vaccine, and two jabs of the swine flu vaccine. Maybe a few other vaccines as well, because you never know ……. and then when the contaminations in the vaccines, the squalene and the thimerosal have churned around in his system a bit and the dementia and a few other nasties start to appear years down the track he can reflect in what time is left to him on all the balderdash and baloney he has spouted here. And at least there will never be much chance that the UK Govt will feel itself obligated to compensate him.

  20. jdc325 said,

    @John: what a strange comment. I do not believe that pharmaceutical companies are altruistic – I think that they are businesses like any other. You seem to think that refusing conventional medicine will ensure a long and healthy life, I suggest you visit the website “What’s the Harm” and read through a few of the examples they give. Your comment about my “strong opinions of dubious origin” seems to be some kind of insinuation that I am a Big Pharma stooge. For the record: I am not (and never have been) paid any money by Big Pharma; I write this blog for free in my spare time; I currently earn my money by working in a Social Club in the North of England (hardly a position that qualifies as a competing interest).

    It seems all you have to offer are odd assertions about the longevity of those who refuse conventional medicine, comments about the nature of Big Pharma, and insinuations about my motivation for writing this blog. As Richard Burnham points out, you haven’t even begun to present an argument.

  21. jdc325 said,

    @Patrick: it seems plausible that there was a link between the injuries Ian Tomlinson received and his subsequent death. For this reason, I find it odd that you think there are parallels between his case and Natalie Morton’s. Can you tell me how the HPV vaccine contributed to her death from a tumour?

  22. jdc325 said,

    @Tim: as the guy who runs this site, I can tell you that I have been quite happy to receive vaccines when they have been offered to me. I look forward to the H1N1 vaccine being made available, as I would like to protect myself from swine flu. You suggestion that I should go off and have the HPV vaccine is an interesting one. If you are well-informed about vaccines then you will be aware that the HPV vaccine is not currently being offered to males – so I am afraid that if you want me to have the HPV vaccine you will first have to campaign for it to be given to men and boys.

    Also – I’m not sure why you think that squalene is so dangerous. Would you care to expand on this point?

  23. Richard Burnham said,

    Neuroskeptic:

    ‘The issue here is his comments on the case of the girl who died from a tumor : “If you have cancer you have symptoms”.’

    I’m not a doctor, but as I understand it it’s possible to have symptoms that would permit a trained practitioner to make a diagnosis, but if they don’t bring the patient to the surgery (‘signs’) that diagnosis won’t be made. For all we or Halvorsen know, the young woman may not have been the complaining kind.

  24. John said,

    Richard, JDC, please read my first line again.
    I am not here to argue with you, I’m done arguing.
    You will not persuade me of your beliefs just as I will not persuade you of mine.

    I am happy for you and your trust in mainstream medicine, I fully believe you should be free to do whatever you want with your body and your health.

    All I ask in return is to be given that same freedom. My issue is that blogs like these (whether influenced or not) stoke the fires of for-profit, disease mongering, big pharma lobbying legislation that may one day take away my choice and freedom over my body and health. That may force me, or my daughter or my son or my parents to undergo procedures, injections or treatments against their will.

    Is that too much to ask? That we both maintain our respective freedoms to live the kind of healthy lives we choose?

  25. Richard Burnham said,

    John:

    As I said before, you haven’t presented any arguments that I have seen, and you have no idea what my ‘beliefs’ on vaccines are because I’ve never expressed them! So I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    What’s more, I’ve never suggested that you should be forced to take any treatment whatsoever! I understand that it is both law and medical practice that patients who are capable of making a decision should be given as much information as possible about their conditions and potential treatments, and are free to accept or reject any course of treatment. If anyone has tried to force you to take a treatment then I am entirely on your side about that.

    The case of children who cannot make informed decisions is a more difficult matter. I tend to think that parents who fail to allow treatments that can reasonably be expected to succeed should face legal sanction, like that recent case of homeopaths in Australia whose daughter died in agony that could easily have been alleviated.

  26. jdc325 said,

    @John: I’m a little confused as to why you would post a comment on a blog if you have no interest in debate.

    You state that you will not persuade us of your beliefs and that we will not persuade you of ours. I have to point out that if you can provide good-quality evidence that my current view on vaccination (or any other subject) is wrong-headed then I am happy to change my position. I wonder if the same is true of you and your views?

    You also seem to believe that I am somehow in favour of, or contributing to the case for, compulsory treatment. I must be clear on this point: I am equally opposed to ignorant refusal and ignorant consent. Informed choice would be my preference.

  27. b90john said,

    @john
    I think you may well have a point John: the big Pharma is indifferent to our well being as long as it makes money; and, they may well bend their research and trial evidence to falsely convince us of their products’ safety.

    Regrettably, unless you are prepared to undertake the painstaking activity of collecting evidence that has credibility within the scientific community, your views, while possibly true, will be regarded by most of us as ungrounded personal opinion. No matter how many attacks you mount on the integrity of individuals contributing here they will do little to change that view of your opinion. It may even lead to you being dismissed as just a crank which would be unfortunate when you obviously feel you have something to contribute.

    I am sure you will be pleased to allow us all to share the information upon which your argument is based. I look forward to having the opportunity to evaluate your evidence.

  28. Neuroskeptic said,

    “And yet with vaccines, they are never to blame. They never contribute.”

    Damn straight.

  29. Neuroskeptic said,

    By the way John if you want to see someone bash Big Pharma, read my blog. You see people like us know about Big Pharma rather better than you, we criticize them all the time, when they are actually in the wrong, and vaccines are one of the few cases in which they’re usually not.

    Do pay attention, son.

  30. Swine Flu, Squalene, and Gulf War Syndrome « Stuff And Nonsense said,

    […] Daily Express article was written by Lucy Johnston, author of the appalling (and now deleted) Sunday Express article on HPV vaccination. It is every […]

  31. Jacqueline said,

    Big Pharma rather better than you, we criticize them all the time, when they are actually in the wrong, and vaccines are one of the few cases in which they’re usually not.–

    Ha! That is quite funny!

    Blogging expert

    That’s a good one

    Fortunately or unfortunately you don’t have to be an expert at anything but common sense to know that vaccines are filled with toxic crap – read the product insert.

    Gardasil- Cervarix will be taken off the market eventually.

  32. A History of Anti-Vaccine Campaigns « Stuff And Nonsense said,

    […] VAN: http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/. The Vaccine Awareness Network reported on a death following Gardasil (you have to scroll down quite a way to find this case – see also this PDF). This death will be familiar to those who read my post on the Sunday Express story on Natalie Morton. […]

  33. Another Sunday Express Article On Vaccination « Stuff And Nonsense said,

    […] look at some of Johnston’s previous articles on vaccination. There was the infamous piece on HPV and Natalie Morton. There was also an article on Swine Flu, Squalene and Gulf War […]

  34. Hitler and Vaccines « Stuff And Nonsense said,

    […] vaccine scare stories. In particular, the articles I wrote about in the following posts: dangerous nonsense in the Sunday Express; Daily Mail on HPV […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 408 other followers

%d bloggers like this: