Cervical cancer, vaccines and social SEO
The press coverage of the cervical cancer jab has been unpleasant to watch and brought back memories of the MMR vaccine hysteria.
Although the press may regret the damage they have (once again) done, the Google results could remain filled with flawed information for a long time because of this.
Some of the dangerous articles have been exceptionally popular and, of course, those people who believe in a big pharma conspiracy have been linking to them and driving them up in the search engine results pages.
Well, one SEO professional has had a pretty good idea. Writing for Econsultancy (an industry source Kevin often writes for), Malcolm Coles suggests we try to boost the NHS’s ranking by linking to it within posts like this.
I don’t know if a few SEO bloggers can make enough of a difference and I urge the NHS to review its optimisation efforts. However, if linking to official pages using phrases like cervical cancer immunisation has a chance of helping, then I’m happy to try.
Do take Malcom’s suggestions on board and link to these pages using relevant phrases, as I have done here.
Let’s not see another wave of youngsters missing out on an important preventative treatment.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I’m not really sure about that. There have been at least several deaths related to HPV vaccines over the years.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/71918.php
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07100507.html
etc.
So be careful.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:29 am
@Tad:
The HPV vaccine is question has been passed as safe after multiple double blind trials. The death in question was not caused by the vaccine.
Your comment that the vaccine might not be safe, citing other isolated incidents as evidence, is scaremongering. If you can cite peer reviewed studies showing that the risk of death from blood clots is higher in those receiving the HPV vaccine and that this makes the disadvantages of the vaccine outweigh the benefits then I will admit that you are right and edit this comment to say so.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Also, whether or not the vaccine is safe (and it is – there is no evidence it isn’t, and it is estimated to save 700 lives a year in the UK), the google results are awful. They are all newspaper stories spreading fear and doubt.
Stuart – up until yesterday, this wasn’t having much effect – but today I notice the targeted NHS page for ‘cervical cancer jab’ has jumped from not-in-top-150 to number 11 (plus they’ve edited it to add ‘cervical cancer jab’ to the copy – but not the HTML title). So thanks for linking – maybe yours will get it in top 10! I’m aiming for top three …
malcolm
October 8th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Thanks for the comments. I think the point of the current debate, and one taken up very well by Malcolm is not about letting it descend into an argument about whether the vaccine is or isn’t dangerous, but to help provide the people interested in the subject with the information to make an informed choice and not just the views of journalists. The NHS and the doctors who are in a position to give an informed opinion should be given the opportunity to do so.
I personally feel that the MMR controversy, something that seems to have similarities to the current debate, should have been handled much better. I can remember discussing it with my sister, who was at the time working at Great Ormond Street Hospital, she was worried that three potentially deadly viruses (http://bit.ly/psooZ) might reemerge. At the time, the information available gave a very one sided view and mainly focused on the potential risks. This resulted in the reduction in the take-up of this vaccine (from 92% to 80%) and the risk of the viruses that had largely been contained reappearing (further information – http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/MMR/FAQs & http://www.badscience.net/category/mmr/).
I think this debate has some distance to go, but I hope there is the opportunity to provide all the facts related to it.