Is The HPV Vaccine Safe? v 2.0

Thursday, July 21st, 2011

Remember a couple years ago when there was a big kick-off about the safety of the HPV (Human Papillomavirus) Vaccine?

The virus causes 99.7% of all cases of cervical cancer – the second deadliest for women, after breast cancer.

But some concern sprang up around the safety of the jab. This was inflamed by the fact that it’s most effective when given to girls aged 12-13. Stories of girls fainting and other health scares snowballed the concern into full-on fear. Tabloids branded the jab “as deadly as the cancer”. Parents stone-walled the vaccine.

We did a graphic at the time to show the chances of a nasty or fatal outcome were miniscule (you had more chance being struck by lightning).

This week we noticed, via Dr Jen Gunter’s site, that detailed new data has appeared on the vaccine and its safety.

Inevitably, I’ve graphickised® the essence for easy injection into your mind.

As ever, all our data, sources and calculations:

Is the HPV vaccine safe? - Information is Beautiful - David McCandless

There’s that data link if you want to check our sources:

I’m refreshing and redesigning a selection of our diagrams over the next week. So stay tuned.

Books and Store

Our Beautiful Books - Information is Beautiful Information is Beautiful Store

Show Comments ( )

  • Budd

    But, Jenny McCarthy said that it would make my child autistic. I think Jenny McCarthy is more reliable than scientific/medical evidence.

    • Tracey

      Jenny McCarthy obviously has never HAD Cervical Cancer or known anyone with it!!! Grrr..I have had it and no someone fighting for their life cause of it…if this vaccination was around when I was 13 my Mum DEFF would have got me it….autistism is a condition was is born with (I know this for a fact I have a son with it) so what a whole lot we say in NZ..Kaka!

      • anarchic teapot

        @Tracey I think your sarcasm detector might be on the blink…

    • John

      i think Budd was being ironic, hope soo

  • CharonPDX

    What I would like to see is a circle in the same scale as the opening set showing the percentage of women who get cervical cancer, and what percentage of those die from it.

    You list numbers later, but seeing graphically that the percent of women that would die from cervical cancer is HIGHER than the percent who get even the most minor of side effects from the vaccine (which are almost all, as you later say, ‘needle’ effects, not vaccine effects,) would be a good sobering add.

  • Cynthia

    I attended the University of Google and the internet said that vaccines were deadly! Nevermind the fact that none of these sites were professionally done or had any sources.

    Regardless, this is a great graphic. I love just getting a jab freaks people out.

    • Connie

      Dr Professor Jenny McCarthy at the University of Google told me during my GED in Medicine that vaccines make indigo children.

      • Jane Doe

        I don’t want to laugh at that, but that is funny.

  • Almost Mum

    As a mum-to-be researching the vaccination issue, I *really* loved the way this information was set out and backed up by scientific research, it summarised the information so well! I wish someone would do this for all childhood vaccines!!

    • Jessica

      I would recommend the World Health Organization ( or the CDC ( You can find great information about vaccines at either site, and they’ll also get great information about the actual disease and thus all the reasons to vaccinate your children right there. Also, if you’re trying to evaluate how good a website is, see if you can find what organization is associated with it, who wrote it, and when it was last updated. Usually a .gov or .org are reputable sites — also anything associated with a hospital or research facility. If you see advertisements for cars, weight loss supplements….maybe a trash mag or two…probably a load of horse —p.

  • John

    Its very nice done, you should also include the new data of Gardasil safety with men, and the risk of men of having genital warts caused by HPV; anal cancer, oral cancer and genital cancer.

    Itsa pity soo many groups around internet sites want to discourage people from taking a vaccine that works very well against, not cancer wich can be a bit missleading, but HPV a virus that does not generate normal immune response by itself, that is prevalente in almost 60-70% of thwe whole population, that is mainly trasmited sexually but not only, that is related scientifically proven to 70% of cervical cancers, almost 90% of anal cancer, and 98% of genital warts and condilomas.

    Your article is in part right, its important to notice that the only surveillance system in the USA for vaccines, VAERS, is open to anyone, you can even reffer a case of someone that you heard form someone talking on the train that reffers he knew someone that died of it, without any proof, that sayd most of the reported cases are missleading and definetly not scientificlly correct nor proven. VAERS is an open source data base, even if you ar enot a health professional, you can go and read all reports, if you go a read the 90 deaths attributed to gardasil you will realise almos all dont need a doctor to be explained as not related, imaginary, not from reliable sources to be considered related to the vaccine.
    So many anti gardasil groups still talk, and show data dated before 2007, on 2011 there are lots but lots of even long term studies (more than 8 years) that proof how effective the vaccine is, why only 4 types of HPV protection is needed to protect more than 150 types, its safety tested in thousends of woman, on the world more of 90 million doses have been distributed. Also more serious reporting systems, the ones that actually demands a doctor to report a followed case, and it actually is reviewed by a scientific team, like german surveillance system, show that no case is related to gardasil neither of death as of severe adverse event. all substances, even natural ones can cause adverse reactions, allergies etc, the same with vaccines, but benefits outnumber adverse reactions, the same apply to most antibiotics, some cure you from bacteria but at the same time destroy your liver or other organs, but you dont stop taking them. apple seeds have small amounts of toxic substances, you can actually die from an overdoes of seeds, FIsh contain a well known high amount of toxic mercury, but still its eaten by everyone as its benefits outnumber the risks of dying from it.

    Autism, as you sayd before, it is a born disease thats for sure, not related to a vaccine for sure, but if you follow well history, it has not only been attributed to gardasil but to other vaccines. Allumium contained on the vaccine is used on other vaccines, quatities are way way lower than toxic amounts and is perfectly safety to use, many tests show it.
    Many stars support anti HPV vaccine organisation, first of all they are not scientist, second no scientific evidence even with all the money they make has been ever produced to support their theorys, if they are so sure about something they can actually study it and produce a serious research paper, third, not because something is famous he is right, or are you all going to become scientologists because tom cruise is a member?

    so please, if you have something negative to say prove it! by scientific means! vaccines are proven by scientific means to work and we have a great vaccine that prevents HPV infections! even if cervical cancer incidence is higher around 30 years old or more, girls need to get vaccinated against it before coming into contact with the virus, as this is a vaccine not a treatment (it doesnt cure from infection, it might prevent reinfection as HPV is a tricky virus) so that when they get to 30 they are protected and no cancer will develope…of course they will need a recall shoot, probably 10 years after the frist three doses… no date is still available, studys up to 8 years prove its still effective atfter 8 years, so here i am hypothisizing that maybe a recall shoot 10 years after would be wise, but the same situation is seen with tetanus, hepatitis B, etc. total valid point if you want to be protected. yes cervical cancer wont dissapear, a small amount is caused by not vaccinating types, almost 30%, second vaccines are not effective in everyone to generate a response, let say from 100 people 1-2 wont respond to the vaccine, so they will not be protected… (this is the case for all vaccines)non responders is a problem that is solved by vaccinating a high percentage of the population that way making difficult for the virus to travel between subjects (herd immunity!)

    hope i gave some interesting insights

    • David Pim

      Actually around 100% of cervical cancers are due to HPV infection, not 70% as stated here, and furthermore 30-35% of a subset of oral cancers are also associated with HPV infection.

  • G-Man

    I always thought the deadliest form of cancer for women is actually lung cancer? Followed by breast and supposedly cervical.

    Not that I doubt the rest of the information to be inaccurate, but I would fix this little bit because it does detract from what is an excellently laid out graphic.

  • michele

    information IS beautiful. unfortunately, you won’t find any useful information here.

    • John

      What do you mean? useful? useful to who? why beleive in not proven allegations than on the scientifically proven truth?
      one thing though, gardasil should be cheaper, appart from that its quite usefull for HPV infection, and hopefully for related cancer.

  • Kim

    what about the possible connection between the HPV Vaccine and MS?

    • david

      not come across that – but do you have any studies etc you can point us too? thanks! D

      • Kim

        The only info I have is my niece who, at age 17, was diagnosed with MS. She mentioned to me that she was in a study that was researching a possible link between the HPV Vaccine and MS. I was hoping maybe you had some info or insight to this.

        • John

          There was no link proven, no results where ever produced as it is more convenient to dont say anything than proving there was no link

  • Cindy

    “cervical cancer – the second deadliest for women, after breast cancer.”

    You destroy your credibility when you say this. In the United States, the leading cause of cancer death for women is lung cancer, by a wide margin. Breast cancer is second and colon cancer is third. (see

    Back in the 1930s cervical cancer was a leading cause of death, but mortality from that type of cancer has fallen dramatically, partly due to the widespread use of Pap smears. Let’s hope that with the HPV vaccine the rates will drop even further. (

    Worldwide, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for women, with lung cancer second. The trends suggest that lung cancer will soon become number 1 worldwide, as it already is in the US.

    • david

      Sorry Cindy – perhaps our wording is ambiguous.

      Cervical cancer is the second deadliest ‘cancer of women’ (i.e. cancers only women can get)

      Breast is first with 458,503 worldwide deaths
      Cervical is next with 253,000 worldwide deaths

      • e

        Men *do* get breast cancer. Not often, b/c they don’t have as much tissue, but breast cancer is not a disease only women get.

      • Craig

        Except men can actually get breast cancer too. So with that taken into account cervical cancer would be the most deadly ‘cancer of women’. I think the wording is somewhat misleading and should be clarified, but on the whole the information is outstanding.

      • jon

        Men can and do get breast cancer. It’s far less common than in women by a huge degree, but “cancer of women” can only refer to body parts that only women have. Breasts just don’t fit that definition.

        But if you say “cancers only women can or tend to get” the point stands. Minor quibble, really. But someone better point it out before it is suggested that such a misstatement undermines everything ever said ever and the entire scientific community. And Gallileo, too, just to be safe.

        • david

          thanks for this correction and suggestions for new wording – I’ll fix the graphic – ta! D

    • Stephen

      People, please don’t get hung up on the semantics and miss the big picture. The primary message here is that the vaccine is as safe as placebo, has NEVER been proven to kill anyone despite decades of reserach, studies and clinical trials, and could save almost 160,000 lives EVERY year. Lung cancer, colon cancer and pancreatic cancer are all more fatal than cervical cancer. See published paper at . Therefore, the statement about cervical cancer being the 2ndm most deadly cancer was probably looking only at female cancers (breast, uterine, cervical etc).

  • MadADDer

    Excellent graphic, well done.

    I’m going to bookmark this and show this to anyone who is “on the fence” about vaccinating their girls. You can be damn sure that mine will get her shot when she’s old enough!

    • Roxie

      I surely hope you will research beyond this pretty graphic set up “trying” to prove that Gardasil is safe. There are over 22,000 injured, 97 dead – including 3 boys, after receiving this untested vaccine. It nearly killed our daughter following her second of the three injections – we have 5 doctors who will vouch that this is as a result of GARDASIL! This chart is super biased and their are more accurate ones available displaying that Gardasil ranks the highest in emergency room visits, hospital stays compaired to any other vaccines on the market. Pretty diagrams are nice but they do not show the truth.. Seizures, loss of/blurred vision, Gastroparesis, brain fog, exhaustion, 24/7 migraines (atypical), nervous system disorders, immune system disorders/failures, Guillain-Barre syndrome, epilepsy, ALS, and the list goes on – these are just a few of the symptoms/diseases that young girls/boys have following Gardasil injections – and they had been very healthy, active, high academics before. And another thing not mentioned in this pretty diagram is the fact that cervical cancer effects only about .7% of the populous with pap smears being the best, early detectors of abnormal cells – which is treatable. Most HPV’s (over 100 types) can be erradicated from the body by our own immune systems. And a pap smear never killed anyone – quote from Dr Diane Harper, chief researcher on Gardasil and Cervarix. She now tells a very different story – but I suppose that won’t be shown on a pretty graphic anywhere, even if she ends up being blacklisted by the medical community, Merck, the FDA, CDC, etc. Educate yourself before harming your child by forcing them to get an unproven vaccine.. we really won’t know the total truth about it for about 20 – 30 years!

      • anarchic teapot

        Quick nurse, the screens! This patient’s tinfoil hat has come off.

        In related news, no deaths from Gardasil have been confirmed.
        Teenage girls reported to overdramatise, Pope rumoured to be Catholic.

        • d

          some of these people need to watch youtube. and in my research for an essay I’ve come across the point “why are the deaths listed if they aren’t involved?” something to think about. and sveral of course state there is a correlation, studies and the ability to print have just been unallowed.

      • Festus

        I am sorry for your pain and confusion. A sick child is one of the worst forms of suffering that I have experienced. And chronic illness and chronic pain are absolutely life-destroying for parents.

        But please don’t extrapolate your child’s (possibly totally unrelated) reaction to this vaccine to a rejection of the vaccine for everyone.

        As the graphic powerfully demonstrates, and as the numbers behind it prove, the HPV vaccine is far, far safer than NOT VACCINATING AT ALL.

        Your cobbled-together anecdotes reinforce the point that the medical community has tried to make again and again: Vaccines work because they provide herd immunity. We are however motivated by scary stories more than by reason. Your case may have nothing to do with the HPV vaccine. But you’d like to use it to deny life to tens of thousands of people each year, and more than two thousand in the US.

        • hmm

          I wonder how many people here in the comments are paid by Gardasil or other pharmaceutical companies hmm??

          It is wise to use caution and do research – I agree the graphs and info here are pretty but somewhat misleading!!
          I expected more from this site!!

          I wonder who is behind Gardasil PR campaigns – the same people who promoted the infamous ‘anti-flu’ shots?? (That now many countries don’t know what to do with??)

    • cathy

      And when you are searching for answers for your children’s mysterious symptoms that don’t make sense and the medical professionals deny any correlation, remember the graphics were great, and your kid is now the one who is the tiny speck whose life is forever changed by Gardasil. I am not anti-vaccine, I am the mom of a once healthy athlete whose life is being challenged daily by health problems caused directly by Gardasil. So when you spread the word to all those fence sitters and you are making the decision to get Gardasil, you remember that speck and know that your daughter could be the next “Gardasil Girl”. Only about 5% of adverse side effects are ever reported. A pap smear never killed anyone…Gardasil has.

      • Keely

        Actually gardisil never has killed anyone.

      • Festus

        And of course what other events or latent problems might have caused those undiagnosable symptoms? When did the real harm occur?

        So many of the extremely passionate and deeply wounded parents who attack vaccines project their pain onto what seems like an unnatural and easily identifiable cause–that shot my child got.

        This is most obvious with autism, where the immunization schedule coincides with the appearance of symptoms–thus misleading parents into associating the vaccine with the symptoms, when in fact they have no relationship.

        We can identify a date for the vaccine but not the dose of airborne toxins our child got that we never saw nor smelled; the final straw of excess chemicals they got one meal that invisibly tipped them past a point of no return; the sudden, random triggering of genetic damage from previous mutations that went unseen and unrecognized… So we blame the vaccine instead.

  • John

    i have some intesting articles about gardasil, safety in MEN population also. do you want some information to improve your graphics, how can i send it ? they are all scientific articles published on well known journals and pretty new too.
    DR Gunter information is interesting and accurate but not the newest. it would be interesting to see a post dedicated only to MEN as there are so many questions arising over the internet related to men.

  • alice

    i’ve been told too that the vacination against hpv is not necessary if you are not coming into contact with HPV (ie. you abstain from sex or use condoms consistantly)

    • John

      Alice, this is not completely true, HPV can infect any tissue, some normal hand and feet warts are actually caused by HPV, each wart is constantly producing new infecting viruses! it will just need an open door (a micro wound) to enter and infect. its also true that most infections are limited by you own immune system, some will never come to be (the same as non HPV warts). obviously unless you masturbate after touching someones wart, it will be really difficult to infect your genitals especially your cervix.
      Thats why its considered an STD. It is much easier for mucosa to suffer microwounds, it has a perfectly stable acquos enviroment, and sex is the perfect agression for microwounds. thats why HPV is more commonly found in genitals. so in a way cervical cancer from HPV if you are a virgin will be quite impossible. Condoms are another story, they dont protect 100% of anything actually to even pregnancy!, sexual intercourse even using a condom involves many things ( like touching yourself and your partner) wich in the of infection of any, will promote HPV dissemination and infection. so yes if you are a virgin and totally stay away from any type of sexual interocurse you will be quite safe. Latelly most anal cancers and even oropharyngeal cancers have been related to HPV too.
      Condoms should be used, especially when you dont know your partner as it will protect you in great degree against many other STD (like HIV) and pregnancy.

      hoped it cleared any doubts

      • hmm

        HPV is not considered ‘STD’ by all – some consider eg hot tubs or dirty laundry or such a possible source of ‘contamination’ too.. so in theory even a virgin or someone faithful to their partner could possibly get infected…

        However, most cases do get cleared by immune system alone…
        But pharmaceutical companies don’t get big bucks from promoting healthy living and jogging and fresh air, do they??

        • Andrew

          “Hmm” – Is it the chemotherapy companies that pay you to promote cancer, or do you just enjoy the thought of people suffering? You must have some motive for wanting women to have cancer – what is it? Your answer or lack of an answer will tell us a lot about your ethics – if you have any.

  • John

    The truth is out there! follow the truth about gardasil safety! hahahaha, appart from joking, for anyone interested this is the real, official truth reported by the CDC and the FDA using all registered VAERS about gardasil real safety in the USA, updated to june 2011!
    this is the link:
    thats to show that the real truth is out there ! it explains clearly VAERS, how it works, and the studied relation between the reported adverse events around Gardasil.

    obviously it states that no death was considered related to Gardasil, that Guillain-Barre syndrome (the most common syndrome some girls say was caused by Gardasil) present usually in teen girls on a rate of 1-2 /100,000 people, and incidence of it is comparable to normal population and no relation was found for gardasil beeing the cause, the same with blood clots as patients that presented them had more than one real blood clot risk factors.
    32 million doses only in the USA (over 90 million worldwide) its a good number to say the vaccine is actually safe!
    hope it is of some help for the real truth seekers!

    • DFE

      John, I’m sure you won’t mind answering this. Can you tell me who you work for? Who your employer is?


      • Festus

        Wow, that is some serious paranoia. You get a response you don’t like, and you go straight for corruption. Bummer, there goes faith in public discussion.

        • hmm

          It’s interesting that he didn’t answer though :)

          That answers more than someone immediately attacking a questioning mind, doesn’t it? (:

  • KindaTeenMom

    So why do girls have to get the vaccine at age 12-13? My daughter’s 14 and I know she’s not sexually active (I’m not naive, she prefers books to boys right now.) So is it a big deal if I wait ’til there’s a boy learing from around the corner?
    You know there were lots of things that were safe until a few years later when we found out they weren’t so safe and this is my kid.
    Doctors and scientists get really excited about the numbers but this is my kid. Don’t get mad if I’d like to wait. I got her all her baby shots I swear.

    • Keely

      you don’t take the flu shot AFTER you get the flu. The truth is that the majority of young women become sexually active during these ages. you want the vaccine to be in place BEFORE she becomes active, not after. While you and your daughter may have a great relationship and you may believe that she will not become sexually active until she is a “responsible adult,” the rates of teen pregnancy are astonishing.
      Teens have sex. Not every last one of them. But the ideal time to immunize your daughter is BEFORE she becomes sexually active.

      • KindaTeenMom

        OK. I’m not one of those conspiracy theory people and I’m also not an idot so I don’t need the bold letters and that didn’t answer my question.
        There are some intelligent girls out there who choose not to have sex until they are older. I didn’t until I was almost 22. A couple of my nieces were over 18. Right now my 14 year old daughter is not interested.
        So my question remains, is it important to get the shot when she’s just starting to get her period or can we wait a few years until she might be interested in having sex? I realize we want to do it before she’s sexually active but if she’s not going to be sexually active for a few years, is there a hormonal reason why she shouldn’t wait?

        • Festus

          Good question. I asked my daughter’s pediatrician the same question (with my daughter in the room, since we’ve been honest with each other for years and I want that to continue). The pediatrician pointed out that girls who get the vaccine around 12-15 will “take” the vaccine slightly better. That is, the immunological response in her body is slightly better if taken at the younger age. So actually, the vaccine works better if taken by a younger person.

        • Jupiter


          No, there is no hormonal reason for your daughter to get the vaccine at 12-13yrs as opposed to 14-16yrs. However, it bears stating that whatever your daughter may or may not do during those years, it is unlikely that the information on this vaccine will drastically change by 2013, given that it has already been on the market a while. It is also unlikely that in 1-2 years the anit-vaccine people will be settling down, either. While I understand that you are not one of them, you are probably at least a little scared by their claims, since she is your baby. All the personal anecdotes sound bad, because they’re so personal. But bear with me: that’s why they’re insidious. You can relate to them in a way that you can’t relate to a statistic. That’s the sad part about preventative medicine–you don’t hear about the crises that it averted. But in my mind the numbers on cervical cancer are really worse when you think about it. Several people here have stated that pap smears don’t kill, Well they may not technically do harm, but they also have to be scheduled, remembered. Not always something that young people are great at–I’m horrible about it, to tell the truth.
          And for what it’s worth, it’s not just what your daughter decides to do and when, it’s who she decides to do it with. Let’s say she was born 20 years ago, no vaccine available, and her first partner (at the age of 20) was a 25 year old man with a wild past–you know the type, crazy teen years, but nice person, wanting to grow up a bit, maybe settle down. Every person that he slept with before her would increase his chances of exposing your daughter to HPV.
          Or take my scenario, I would have felt a lot safer as a teen having had the vaccine–I would have asked for it–because I have a sort of paranoia about being raped, and well, I don’t want to go into THAT because it’s your daughter and it’s a truly horrible thing to think about. Which, speaking of, have you asked her opinion on the vaccine? Maybe you could make your mind up together?
          Anyway, shouldn’t you choose the option with the least amount of risk associated with it? I mean you’ll do what you want because she’s your kid, but I know that if it was me, I would feel good knowing that I assessed the risks and went with the least likely one.

        • Jupiter

          Eep, I meant 20 years earlier than whenever she was actually born!

  • DFE

    There is actually stats and medical research findings against the safety of Gardasil at and fascinating interviews with Dr Diane Harper herself putting straight what she did/did not say in interviews. I think you will find her comments very interesting. Also, I would take this article with a grain of salt. The stats posted here are inaccurate and biased. For example, did you know (and this is a fact) Merck put aluminium in the so-called placebo – no, this is not done, but they did it this time. WHY did they do that? Why do you think? Let’s see… might it have been to distort the findings in favor of the vaccine because they knew the placebo would also make people sick?

  • DFE

    Here is some info re the use of aluminium in vaccines (which has been linked to the adverse vaccine side effects and also should send alarm bells to anyone when they learn Merck deliberately put it in the Gardasil PLACEBO which is why you cannot take any notice of the stats showing the side effects during the trial period) – the following was taken from this link:

    Aluminum-based adjuvants (aluminum salts or alum) are widely used in human vaccination, although their mechanisms of action are poorly understood. Here we report that, in mice, alum causes cell death and the subsequent release of host cell DNA, which acts as a potent endogenous immunostimulatory signal mediating alum adjuvant activity. Furthermore, we propose that host DNA signaling differentially regulates IgE and IgG1 production after alum-adjuvanted immunization. We suggest that, on the one hand, host DNA induces primary B cell responses, including IgG1 production, through interferon response factor 3 (Irf3)-independent mechanisms. On the other hand, we suggest that host DNA also stimulates ‘canonical’ T helper type 2 (TH2) responses, associated with IgE isotype switching and peripheral effector responses, through Irf3-dependent mechanisms. The finding that host DNA released from dying cells acts as a damage-associated molecular pattern that mediates alum adjuvant activity may increase our understanding of the mechanisms of action of current vaccines and help in the design of new adjuvants

  • DFE

    Have since heard that others who have posted (or tried to) here have also not seen their comments appear. It looks like a deliberate attempt to withhold information that shows the other side of the coin about Gardasil. It makes one wonder why you are so biased in favor of propogating the info that only Merck wants people to know and not allowing information that proves Gardasil does have very real dangers. I have links I’d like to share – information from medical doctors and scientists who also know exactly what they’re talking about… why won’t you let me share it here?

    • miriam

      Hey DFE,

      Nope, no deliberate attempts – we just don’t moderate comments at the weekend! :) Feel free to share links, there just might be a little delay before they appear.

      Researcher, Information is Beautiful

    • JTK

      Paranoia and conspiratorial thinking are closely associated. If you had links to share you would have shared them. Oddly, you have not.

    • Festus

      Thank you for undermining your own weak case with this paranoid response. I really hope you are not typical of vaccine alarmists, because we need a rational discussion so people can arm themselves with facts, not hysterical anecdotes.

  • Bridgett

    Since the vaccine focuses on HPV cervical cancer. I was wondering about 2nd generation fertility issues. When I questioned the doctor she said by the time those studies came out, it would be too late for my daughter to get the vaccine, we opted out.

    • anarchic teapot

      Of course, if she gets cervical cancer there might not be a 2nd generation anyway. Poor logic.

      • hmm

        oh, and grandmothers (or mothers) don’t get cervical cancer after having kids and grandkids?? grow up please

        hmm, that would be an interesting statistics actually… (with graphics, ideally)

  • Anna Ross

    To David McCandless & Miriam Quick.
    I would love to see charted information like this about the vaccinations that are recommended for children. I did not vaccinate my own children but have completely reversed my opinions and am recommending vaccinations for my grandchildren. I have not seen the dire predictions, I listened to as a young mother, come to fruition. People who are concerned should read very carefully the explanations about the scientific method. For example, the illness of a particular child after a vaccination must be understood in terms of the prevalence of that illness in the larger population. The anxiety & grief of parents when their child becomes ill or dies is of cosmic proportions (I have just seen the film Tree of Life), but responding to their grief should be carefully separated from a clear understanding and assessment of medical procedures.

  • Marilynn

    Anyone who posts a mocking response to people whose daughters have suffered after being vaccinated ought to be tied down and injected with massive doses of this toxin if you think it is so wonderful. SHAME on you, anarchic teapot.

    As for Keely, do not make ignorant comments like “Actually gardisil never has killed anyone” because there is evidence that it HAS in the U.S. and U.K. For something as invasive as an injected substance, into a CHILD no less, there should be huge safeguards and long-term studies in place. For Gardasil, there are none.

    These diagrams were drawn up, no doubt, for people who don’t want to take the time to do research on the subject. Score another one for Big Pharma. Here are a couple of facts that are completely overlooked:

    1) There have been horrific physical reactions, lasting anywhere from days to seemingly permanent disability, within hours of the HPV injection. The diagram refers to deaths within a year after injection, but the true story is more compelling when we look at what happens in the next day or two after the shot is given.

    Even the lowest number on the diagram—32 deaths—is 32 too many, especially when you consider that the victim is a young healthy girl. (I am assuming that the diagram excludes deaths directly attributable to other causes, such as auto accidents or leukemia.) Think about it. We are not talking about older women or sexually active adults or women who have been diagnosed with cancer. THAT NUMBER REPRESENTS 32 FAMILIES WHO HAD TO BURY THEIR BEAUTIFUL TEEN-AGED DAUGHTERS!

    And 1500 suffering serious “side effects” attributed to needle-phobia?!! There appears to be a gaggle of Merck shills on this site, which might be laughable if we were only talking about dental caries. However, this is about life and death. The diagram showing POTENTIAL lives “saved” conveniently overlooks the ACTUAL fact of lives lost or permanently impaired.

    2) There is absolutely NO guarantee that this inoculation will work against cervical cancer, or if it does, that the dose given as a teenager will be in effect years later. Again, the “Potential Lives Saved Per Year” stats are a sham, with NO medical validity—unless you consider the collusion between the FDA and Big Pharma to be acceptable. Look up the “revolving door” history of the FDA and the food and drug industries for some disturbing revelations. These corporations are virtually self-regulated—that is to say, not at all.

    Use your God-given brains, people! How long has this crap been on the market and how long does it take to develop cervical cancer after becoming sexually active? How can any responsible medical “expert” make claims as to the efficacy of this vaccine? YOUR DAUGHTERS ARE BEING USED AS GUINEA PIGS! WAKE UP!

    • miriam

      Hi Marilynn,

      The diagram includes all deaths evaluated by a doctor within the 32 – including deaths directly attributable to other known causes (car accidents, suicides and so on).

      Researcher, Information is Beautiful

      • Marilynn

        Miriam, the diagrams on this site are woefully inadequate, simplistic and misleading.

        Does the 35,000,000 (35 million) figure represent doses already administered or total doses distributed to doctors, whether administered or not? If it refers to the latter, then the number of deaths (and related percentages) within the year are obviously irrelevant.

        If it represents the number of doses already administered, do you honestly believe that in a population of 35,000,000 individuals given the injection, only 68 of them have died from ALL possible causes within the year? In my community of less than 14,000, I can think of several deaths from various causes in the past year of individuals under the age of 24. Let’s give a lowball figure of three. Extrapolating 3 in 14,000 works out to 7500 in 35,000,000.

        Regardless of the figures—and good luck sorting out the stats—the pharmaceutical industry is NOT to be trusted. Their track record is abominable, preferring to rake in profits over patient health and safety. Vioxx springs to mind, but there are many more drugs that have reluctantly been pulled when it became impossible to ignore the adverse effects, all the while companies like Merck and Glaxo-SmithKline continue to insist that their toxic garbage has a proven safety record. The FDA is in the hip pocket of these corporations. As Roxie indicated above (for which she was ridiculed as a tin-foil hat wearer) we don’t find out the truth until it is too late for so many victims of corporate greed and apathy.

        Well, this is about all the time I plan to fritter away on this web site. I just hope that anyone looking for cogent information about the risky and unpredictable Human Papillomavirus vaccination will use their good sense before subjecting innocent children to the very real possibility of lifelong debilitation or premature death. And any politician who advocates enforced vaccination should be tarred and feathered!

        • JTK

          Conspiratorial thinking like yours reveals a great deal about how your mind works.

          You believe that the pharmaceutical industry, which includes hundreds of thousands of people, is trying to kill people for profit. That they must be hiding information on a grand scale over many many years. To do that, to hide the information that must inevitably be risking the lives of their children and loved ones, would make them psychopaths.

          In order for you to truly believe in a conspiracy of that scale you must be willing to claim hundreds of thousands of people in the pharmaceutical industry are deranged killers who want their own family members to die from this vaccine. That willingness to see psychopathy in others on such a grand scale implies that you see others are perfectly capable of harming their own loved ones, which in turn implies that you would be capable of doing those things. People often see their own flaws in others.

          Conspiratorial thinking is so often linked to psychological issues that I have to recommend you go to a doctor.

    • Jeff

      “Even the lowest number on the diagram—32 deaths—is 32 too many, especially when you consider that the victim is a young healthy girl. (I am assuming that the diagram excludes deaths directly attributable to other causes, such as auto accidents or leukemia.) “

      If you aren’t even going to take the time to read the information within the graphic (which clearly states those 32 deaths include ALL deaths even those which were a result of car accidents or suidicde) who can you be expected to be taken seriously?

      It is also obvious you never bothered to read the source data nor have you reviewed the actual studies from which this information was obtained. None of those 32 deaths have been shown to be related to Gardasil, so your comments are without merit.

      Seems you focus upon 32 deaths, but you ignore the thousands saved. Why is that? What ulterior motive do you have that makes you want to remain intellectually dishonest about the data?

    • Festus

      I think you are mistaking the uncommon but proven cases of anaphylactic shock in reaction to any injection–water, blood, vaccines–with reactions to the vaccine itself. Further, if you actually read the reported cases, you’ll find most of the serious reactions were not reactions at all–but rather cases where a very sick person had a predictable symptom of a pre-existing condition.

      Look at it this way. If I am morbidly obese and I go in for a check up and I get a tetanus shot, and then the next day I have a heart attack, did the vaccine cause the heart attack? A reasonable person might say, “Sure. I didn’t have the heart attack until after I had the vaccine.” If you carefully read the data on reactions, you’ll find most are variations on this theme.

  • Sharon Summer

    HPV vaccines are gaining popularity lately. And despite this vaccine being expensive, many women are still willing to buy in. Yes, cervical cancer among women is a very rampant disease and to protect the lives of many women, including myself, we must be vaccinated.
    Now i wonder, i’ve been hearing news, say, rumors or a theory perhaps that say “it is okay not to take an HPV shot” as long as you are not sexually active. Sexually active women are only those who MUST take an HPV shot. Is that true? And do teenage girls (though not into sex) but having menstruation regularly should get a vaccine already? Is there a specific brand that is confirmed safe?

  • Cyberquill

    Information is Beautiful indeed, provided it happens to align with our preferred beliefs. Otherwise it ain’t so beautiful.

  • Dave X

    How about another graphic on lives improved: Applying the 1:147 versus 1:400 lifetime risk of contracting cancer to the same 80% vaccinated pop. and get something like

    150,000,000/147 = 1,000,000 cancers w/o vaccination

    150,000,000/147*.2 +150,000,000/400*.8 =500,000 cancers with 80% vaccination

    So, with the vaccine, there’s about 500,000 lifetime risks of cervical cancer avoided, divide by 70 years or so to get maybe 7000 cancers avoided.

    In addition to the “Potential Lives Saved Per Year” graphic, there’s about twice again as many who wouldn’t have to fight cervical cancer. I guess that also makes sense from the “fatality rate” graphic. In simpler terms, you could triple the numbers in the “potential lives saved per year” graphic to make a “potential lives not at all disrupted by cervical cancer”: ~1200 annually in the UK, ~300,000 in the world, and ~7500 in the US.

    The corresponding second most deadly cancer in males is prostate cancer. I’d bet that if there was a similar vaccine which worked for prostate cancer, it would be more popular than viagra, and we’d mandate vaccination to save medicare costs.

    • miriam

      Hi Dave,

      Thanks! We actually did a similar calculation on our datasheet here: (see row 74) – it didn’t quite make it into the final graphic though.

      We simply applied the predicted 63% reduction in cervical cancer cases to the original number of sufferers. This translated into 7,686 fewer cases in the US, 1,851 in the UK and 334,046 worldwide.

      Researcher, IiB

      • Dave X


        I was looking for more positive side impacts, since ameliorating a 9/11-sized risk of death every year doesn’t seem worth it to some folks.

        1) Lives saved in the US on the order of a 2500 per year,
        2) About 3 times as many as that wouldn’t have to go through cancer treatment
        3) Potential reduction in genital warts of maybe 10% of USPop * 80% of vaccinations/70years ~ 350,000 less new cases/year.
        4) ~ 160 cases of infant Laryngeal papillomatosis avoided each year

        Thanks again for the graphic.

    • Festus

      Outstanding point about gender. My daughter’s pediatrician told me that after the data came out showing that gardasil could be given to males to prevent HPV and therefore genital warts, parents in her practice were delighted to give their teenaged boys the vaccine–without question. But they remained resistant to vaccinating teenaged girls, despite the fact the vaccine is far more important for girls because of the risk of cervical cancer!

      Double standard about teenaged sex, anyone?

      • hmm

        Or worries about any 2nd generation influences?

        People do worry about HPV.
        But I think that all this advertising has also been making lots of people already infected (or possibly infected) very miserable and paranoid. I would like to see some graphics about how many times the immune system clears out an infection vs. not.

  • Suzanna N

    Don’t get me wrong; I’m all down for drugs that cure cancer. What I don’t approve of is misleading data. Watch this documentary done by Aljazeera which does in-depth reporting on clinical trials in India. About 2/3s way through, there is a section that discusses Gardasil trials on girls, without their consent, and ended up causing some major damage including death.

    I love the graphics and I love but information can only be beautiful when all the information is presented, and is accurate.

  • Bruce Fisher

    The side effects for some woman have indeed been horrific. One should never get any vaccine. Having an alkaline system from eating healthy is far superior. A person’s immune system is called that because that is what it does, if you eat properly and avoid GMO food and flourided water and damnable shots.

    • freddy

      Do they tell that to the kids in Sudan? “No vaccines, no GMO food for you mate, and make sure any water you get is not fluoridated”

      Then you can watch them die from vaccine preventable diaseses and starvation. Or amybe no, you say, because without the vax and GMO they have robust immune systems!

  • Michelle
    THIS IS IMPORTANT, statistically, but isn’t included in your graphing. ALSO, not included in your statistical information is the disclaimer that actual testing on 12-14 year old girls is insufficient. I believe the vaccine to be dangerous because it uses “live” recombinant DNA, which CAN NOT be predictable in mutation and interaction with other living systems.

    • miriam

      Hi Michelle,

      Thanks for the link, but can you clarify its relevance? I assume you’re referring to the fact that 90% of HPV infections clear naturally within 2 years? This would mean 10% don’t – and it’s these long-term infections that cause cervical cancer, and against which the vaccine is 95% effective (that this will eventually cause a drop in cervical cancer cases is suggested by the similar 95% reduction in pre-cancerous lesions). If I’ve misunderstood your meaning, please do correct me! Also, insufficient testing, live recombinant DNA – sources always welcome.


      • freddy

        The HPV vaccine is not a “live” recombinant vaccine.
        Some antivax groups have spread the myth that the vaccine “virus” will magically reawaken and start to cause problems. (They strangely can’t explain why they are not worried about ordinary HPV though, yet consider vax strain HPV a big deal)

        Fact is the HPV vax consists of “virus like particles”, merely bits of proteins from the coat of HPV. There is no viable virus. It is not “live” and replication and mutation are impossible.

        It’s like saying a “Honda Integra” vaccine (consisting only of a mock combustion chamber, a handbrake and a steering wheel) will suddenly race off down the road at twice the top speed of a normal Integra.

  • rama

    Interesting graphic. If I understand it, we have to vaccinate 80 percent of the ENTIRE WORLD to save 159,000 lives. At $300 a pop? I mean, that seems like a ridiculous thing. What’s the World’s population? 6.8 billion?

    And this, from a Merck researcher

    • freddy

      I think you’ll find that the vaccine when spun out globally will cost a fraction of what it costs at the moment.