It turns out she died of an unrelated tumour. But Google's results will give parents second thoughts about letting their daughters be vaccinated, even though the injection will save 00s of lives a year.

YOU can help do something about this.

If you can publish a web page ...

The results Google shows are heavily influenced by two things - the number of links to a page, and the text that's used for a link.

So, please, if you have any way to publish a web page (you have a blog, say, or you work somewhere that publishes online), then link to these URLs:

• http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/hpv-vaccination/Pages/Introduction.aspx
• http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/HPV
• http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/09September/Pages/Cervical-cancer-vaccine-QA.aspx

Ideally, use some link text like cervical cancer jab or cervical cancer vaccine to link to those pages, like this: cervical cancer jab information and cervical cancer vaccination and Q&A about ervical cancer vaccine.

The more of us who link to it, the higher in Google's results that page will appear, counteracting the ill-informed media scaremongering. My aim is to get these NHS pages into the top 10, and preferably top 3, of a search for relevant terms.

If you can tweet, or you have a friend with a blog

Why not publicize this plan? You can tweet this blog post using the button at the top. Or if you know someone with a blog, why not ask them to add a link to the relevant NHS site.

If you've already blogged about this

Already published something about this online? Why not go back to that post / story and add a link to the NHS page. If you've linked to a misleading news story in your outrage over the media's reporting, why not add rel = "nofollow" to your link? That will stop Google counting your link as a 'vote' for the page.

Look in the HTML view and change something like this:

<a href="http://tabloid.com/misleadingstory">cervical cancer jab</a>

to this:

<a href="http://tabloid.com/misleadingstory" rel="nofollow">cervical cancer jab</a>.

At the moment, many outraged bloggers have linked to the scaremongering tabloid stories, giving them a boost in google's results. Adding nofollow like this will avoid this problem.

If you are in the NHS

Er, I think you need some SEO advice. The page I've suggested you link to is the one recommended by NHS Choices. However, it doesn't have cervical cancer jab in the title - I suggest you change this.

If you need any help

Leave a comment if you want some advice on the best way to help deal with this. You can see all my posts charting the history of this media scaremongering here.

The news stories Google shows

Anyone turning to Google to look into the issue is unlikely to be reassured. Although the results are generated algorithmically, Google's results are anti-jab. There is very little in the way of balance in the results, with a mixture of old and new scare stories, and only a couple of positive stories.

[I'm not suggesting Google should be fixing its results - the fault lies with the media for its slant on the story and the way that the negative fears are given more weight than the follow up stories which find no evidence of a link]

According to Google Insights, the most commonly searched-for term is 'Cervical cancer jab' with a 7 fold increase from the weekend to Tuesday (the latest day for which Google gives figures).

What Google's showing

Search for 'cervical cancer jab' today, Thursday, and you see:

News results at the top

• Facts behind school cervical cancer jab? The death this week of 14-year-old schoolgirl Natalie Morton just hours after receiving the cervical cancer jab sent shockwaves around the ... [The Sun]
• Cervical cancer jab is 'harming a generation' says mum [Mirror.co.uk]
• Dr Richard Halvorsen: I'm not opposed to jabs but there are serious worries [Daily Mail]

The first story is a short, cursory Q&A which doesn't help much.

The second news result is a scare story linking the vaccination to paralysis with no evidence.

The third one is a Daily Mail anti-vaccine story with little basis in fact, and which hasn't been updated in the light of evidence that the vaccination didn't cause the girl's death.

Web results

Under the news results are the web ones. Here are the top 10 (I've shown the headline, any date Google shows and the source).

• How safe is the cervical cancer jab? Five teenagers reveal their alarming stories - 5 Apr 2009 - Daily Mail
• Revealed: The serious health concerns about the cervical cancer jab - 2 Sep 2008 - Daily Mail
• Girl dies after cervical cancer jab - Yahoo! News UK
• Cancer jab alert after girl dies - 29 Sep 2009 - BBC news
• Cervical cancer jab 'in a year' - 7 Oct 2005 - BBC news
• Schoolgirl dies after being given cervical cancer jab - 29 Sep 2009 - Times
• Mystery illness paralyses girl given cervical cancer jab - 14 Dec 2008 - Times
• Two girls die after cervical cancer jab - 25 Jan 2008 - Telegraph
• Cervical cancer vaccinations postponed - 29 Sep 2009 - Guardian
• Most mums want cervical cancer jabs for their daughters - 24 Jan 2007 - Cancer Research UK

Anyone responsible for the vaccination program, or who is concerned about cancer deaths, must be in despair at this. Faced with this choice of things to read, it's no surprise that many of the comments on newspaper sites are from parents saying they are pulling their daughters out of the program.

NHS advert

The NHS is attempting to provide some balance with a paid-for advert at the top of the page. But the copy is too generic to encourage that many clickthroughs.

Cervical Cancer Jab
www.nhs.uk/HPV For more information on the HPV jab Visit the official NHS site here.

I suspect many people won't trust the official site, and the ad doesn't address the current scare.

If you are covering this story, try to provide a link the NHS site. Maybe with a bit of SEO we can get the NHS page in the top 10 results ...

So, how are the papers covering the news that, as the BBC news site puts it in its 3rd most important story:

• "Cancer jab 'unlikely' death cause: A girl who died shortly after being given a cervical cancer vaccine had a 'serious underlying medical condition', an NHS Trust says"?

This list is in order of how irresponsible I judged them yesterday. Unsurprisingly, the worst offenders are still whipping up hysteria.

Let's be clear. The only reason parents are worried, boycotting the vaccine, and demanding suspensions of the vaccination program is because the media whipped up a storm with no evidence whatsoever.

Mail Online

Still scaremongering and putting lives at risk

The Mail is leading its website with "Health Trust claims cervical cancer jab girl could have been killed by 'underlying health condition'". But note the two caveats - claims and could. Also, it is still linking her death with the jab in the headline.

Immediately under this headline is a link to another story that says "Dr Richard Halvorsen: I'm not opposed to jabs but there are serious worries". There aren't - he's a scaremonger too.

Express

Still scaremongering and putting lives at risk

Half way down the home page we have "Parents' revolt after girl dies in cancer jab horror".

The story does concede half way down that "it was most unlikely that the HPV vaccination was the cause of death". This doesn't quite tie in with cancer jab horror, does it? And they are only revolting because you, and the other papers, misled them.

The Mirror

Backtracked in a low-profile way

This led its front page with 'Jab death' yesterday. No sign of a follow up on the home page, although the main news page does lead with "Cervical cancer vaccine 'unlikely' to have killed girl".

Independent

Backtracked but published new misleading Q&A page

Three quarters of the way down the home page is "Cancer jab girl 'had health problem'".

It has another article on questions around the vaccine which asks "Haven't there been thousands of side effects".

The answer of "Yes. There have also been reports of deaths" is wholly misleading as it concedes that none of these deaths show any link to the vaccine.

And the 'reports' are just part of the monitoring of things that occur at around the same time. There are no reports which show that the vaccine is linked to any deaths.

The Sun

Explicit about no link

The home page has no coverage, but the main news page has a large headline near the top that says "Natalie wasn't killed by vaccine". This story is also featured in the top stories box.

Times

Explicit about no link

The headline near the top of the home page is "Cancer jab 'was not to blame for girl's death'". The comments are frightening though ...

Guardian

Fairly explicit about no link

Headline in the more news section says "Cervical cancer jab 'unlikely' to blame for death".

I have to ask, however, what the hell this is. Part of the Comment is free section, but highlighted high up on the Guardian's main cervical cancer page, it says "I had no truck with MMR fears, but the death of a schoolgirl given the HPV vaccine makes me hesitate".

Don't hesitate - don't contribute to encouraging others hesitating. Not having this vaccine puts your daughter's life at risk.

Telegraph

Explicit about no link

I had the Telegraph down as the least irresponsible coverage yesterday. Today, however, their 2nd most important story is "Cervical cancer vaccinations suspended" with "Cancer jab unlikely to have caused girl's death" in a much smaller font.

Headline on Mail's story

They are continuing their habit of undermining public-health initiatives with their latest scare story about the safety of the cervical cancer jab, after the tragic death of a schoolgirl who had the vaccine the same day.

I've given each of the mainstream media an irresponsibility rating below - the Mail and Express are the worst scaremongers, followed by the Mirror and Times.

It's calculated as follows:

• A headline suggesting a causal link between the vaccine and the girl's death - there is no evidence of this so far, the two events just occurred on the same day: 20 points
• The use of a photo or words in the headline casting doubt on the safety of the vaccine itself (as opposed to, say, this being a one-off allergic reaction): 20 points
• Calls for the vaccine to be banned: 20 points
• No mention of how many lives the vaccine will save: 20 points.
• Separate comment piece doubting the safety of the vaccine, or emphasis of other stories about vaccine problems: 10 points
• Ill-informed user comments adding to the suggestion of unsafety. 10 points

Daily Mail: 90% irresponsible

Headline: First picture of girl, 14, who died after being injected with cervical cancer jab from 'rogue batch' (The Mail has subsequently updated its headline and story).

• The headline suggests a causal link. It makes claims of a 'rogue batch' in quotes where the only use of those words in the story are the journalist's own.
• It's running a poll: "Should the cervical cancer vaccination be suspended".
• There are a lot of figures about side effects - no mention of actual lives saved.
• The best rated comment is currently "Chemical experiments on our children." The worst rated is "Many more deaths may occur without the vaccine to guard against HPV." The comments section is appalling, frankly - full of ill-informed anti-vaccine scaremongering.

Express: 80% irresponsible

Headline: Girl, 14, dies after taking cervical cancer vaccine

• The story, illustrated with a picture of someone being vaccinated, says the death comes after "months of concern over the vaccine".
• It quotes a "campaign group for safe vaccinations" calling for immediate withdrawal of the vaccine.
• Terrible, irresponsible journalism. I hope the two journalists, Natalie Fahy and Sara Dixon, are ashamed of themselves.

The Mirror: 60% irresponsible

Mirror: jab death

Headline: 14 year old girl dies after cervical cancer jab

• The Mirror's story is fairly short. The headline suggests a causal link, but the story is fairly balanced although the number of lives saved isn't given.
• However, the story is described as 'jab death' on the Mirror home page. Given we are talking about a young girl's death, this is tabloidese at its most nauseating.

Independent: 50% irresponsible

Headline: Teenage girl dies after cervical cancer jab

• The headline suggests a causal link, although the story makes clear there isn't one. It doesn't say how many lives the vaccine will save, however.
• One of the two user comments (from someone who is clearly deluded about the media's position) says: "In my opinion vaccinations are NOT benign & injecting our children with 35 different vaccinations before the age of 5 is very foolish. The media are complicit in the 'vaccinations are perfectly safe' mantra."

The Sun: 40% irresponsible

Headline: Girl, 14, dies after cervical cancer jab

• Again, a causal link is suggested by the headline, although the story is fairly balanced, even though it doesn't mention the number of lives saved.
• The user comments are restrained and even, can I say, thoughtful.

Times: 30% irresponsible

Headline: Schoolgirl dies after being given cervical cancer jab

• The headline suggests a causal link, even though the story makes it clear there isn't one established. The piece is, however, fairly factual about the benefits and risks.
• However, the story is linked to another case where a girl suffered a mystery illness after the jab, with the mother claiming there is 'a serious problem with these injections'.
• There is one comment that says: "What is in this vaccine as they never say?? The h1n1 vaccine has squalene and mercury in it FACT !! This causes cancer and brain damage and the government have made the makers immune to prosecution WHY??". Another comment from a father whose daughter has developed pre-cancerous cells age 14 says "The press are attributing the tragic death of this young girl to the HPV vaccine. Scare mongering and speculation. It is for the coroner to determine the cause of death not Fleet Street. I wouldn't wish our last year on my worst enemy, so please parents, don't let this tragic incident cloud your judgement, sign the consent forms."
• I've edited this to make the Times only 30% irresponsible (rather than the original 50%) as it also ran a piece called "Benefits of cervical cancer vaccinations will far outweigh the risks".

The Guardian: 30% irresponsible

Headline: Schoolgirl dies after cervical cancer vaccination

• Despite this headline, the Guardian story makes it clear that there is no link yet between the vaccine and her death, and points out its benefit.
• However, it has run a separate comment piece claiming 'confidence will plunge if no answer is found'. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy if the media report the story like this.

Telegraph: 20% irresponsible

Headline:  Tributes to 14-year-old schoolgirl who died after being given cervical cancer jab

• The headline suggests a causal link, but otherwise the story is fair and mostly concentrates on reaction to the young girl's death.

If you're all appalled by this as me, why not vote in the Daily Mail's poll to keep the vaccine program going?