Yup.
There is a lot of pain from
cervical cancer if untreated (it is highly curable)
and from strokes,infertility,etc from the vaccine.
These risks of the vaccine and the disease it
is meant to prevent are also shared by the families
of these women. With the vaccine that might involve
large fractions of the population.
There is something in logic that is a 'classic' fallacy, and it goes like this:
A follows B; therefore B caused A (in latin 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' I think).
Some lady has a vaccine and then 2 weeks later dies of 'coronary artery thrombosis' with changes highly suggestive of a chronic heart condition...and the vaccine is necessarily to blame? It might be, but it wouldn't be first on my differential diagnosis.
Vaccines all have risks...if you want the vaccine to try and get the protective benefit, you have to accept the risks (like possible Guillan-Barre with an attenuated/live virus base). For something like this that is not a public health menace the government should have no business dictating it's necessity...but still, people need to accept that NO vaccine is 100% safe.
The evidence that the vaccine caused the deaths listed in this case is circumspect at this point to say the least...but that doesn't keep those opposed to the vaccine (and the lawyers) from trumpeting the association in the furtherance of their agenda.
Be careful people...there may come a time that a vaccine is needed (and everyone will be clamoring for assuming the associated risk as the disease will be far worse)...and running the vaccine businesses out of business is not a prudent course.