HPV, Hysteria, and Half-Truths: Why Your Daughter Deserves Better Than Anti-Vaxx, 'WhatsApp University' Propaganda

Your daughter’s HPV shot is not the problem. Our love for misinformation is.

By Rachael Alphonso & Satyen K. Bordoloi

What is that one thing bitter rivals – the BJP and Tamil Nadu's DMK - agree upon? The HPV vaccination! So much so, that within six weeks of launch, the Tamil Nadu government’s Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme achieved 81% coverage in its four-district pilot, following the central government’s decision to give free HPV vaccines to all 14-year-old girls.

But perhaps this emerging “dosti” is bothering some, or maybe it’s just part of the general anti-vaxx movement spreading in an unscientific India, but some of the responses to this GoI move have been nothing short of baffling. Confident social media threads run by ultraconfident ‘influencers’, anxious WhatsApp forwards, and now, a widely shared article in The News Minute (TNM) titled “Before your daughter gets the HPV shot, ask these five crucial questions” cast doubt on this government initiative. The problem is not that these posts and articles ask questions, but that they supply answers based on cherry-picked science and half-understood statistics.​

First, let’s just understand what is being offered. Actually, let’s take a step further back and understand the ‘why’: Cervical cancer is the second most frequent cancer among Indian women, especially those aged 15–44. It is mostly caused by HPV, and up to 40.6% of women in the general population carry HPV at any given time. Now, 83.2% of invasive cervical cancers in India are linked to HPV types 16 or 18, and HPV vaccines (targeting HPV 16, 18, and other strains) can prevent most cervical cancers, which is the reason why the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends vaccination for girls aged 9–14 years before their sexual life begins.

Now, what the GoI is offering is a targeted response to exactly this! GoI’s programme is using a vaccine that protects against HPV types 16 and 18, which cause most of the cancers. This vaccine also protects against types 6 and 11, which cause most genital warts. So, when the government is so proactive, the question you need to ask as a parent of a female child is this: “Do I want my daughter to be protected against one of the most preventable cancers we know?” Yet the TNM article attacks this with some ridiculous arguments and selective picking of data.

The Karnataka study that says the exact opposite of what’s claimed

One of the centrepieces of the TNM article is a study from Karnataka, presented as proof that “most infections are not HPV 16/18” and therefore the vaccine “doesn’t match Indian reality.” The sleight of hand here is subtle but dangerous.

The study indeed shows that, in the population they studied, many HPV infections are from types other than 16 and 18. That’s true – and also largely irrelevant to the actual question: which types cause cervical cancer? When you look at women in the same study who actually have cervical cancer, the picture changes dramatically - HPV 16 and 18 were found either singly or together in 76%-86% of cervical cancers, and in some analyses, even higher. That is precisely why vaccines that cover 16 and 18 are the global standard for cancer prevention.

The Karnataka paper’s own conclusion aligns with this: vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 would substantially reduce the cervical cancer burden in the region. In other words, the very paper used in TNM’s piece to cast doubt on the vaccine actually supports the policy! This is what happens when people misquote a statistic from the “healthy population” part of a study and ignore the cancer data and the authors’ conclusions.​

If you’re a parent, here’s the simple translation: most HPV infections are harmless and clear on their own, but the dangerous ones – the types that sit quietly for years and then reveal themselves as cancer – are overwhelmingly 16 and 18. And thankfully, the vaccine that India’s daughters are being offered targets those at high risk. That’s the whole point of a vaccination drive.

“Only 70% protection” is not a failure; it’s a miracle

Another favourite anti-vaxx trick is to pretend that anything less than 100% protection is basically useless. That’s not how public health works.

Long-term international data show that vaccines containing HPV 16 and 18 can prevent nearly 90% of cervical cancers and a very large proportion of high-grade precancerous lesions. Some studies of long-term follow-up in Indians show over 90% efficacy against persistent HPV 16/18 infection across one, two, or three doses – especially when given before any sexual encounters begin.

Think of it this way: if someone told you a seat belt only prevents about 70% of serious injuries and deaths in car crashes, would you say, “Ah, then what’s the point, I’ll skip it”? Or would you put it on anyway, because 70% less chance of dying is a huge deal?

Yes, there is also a nine-valent vaccine (Gardasil-9) that covers more HPV types and prevents an even higher percentage of HPV-related disease – in some studies, around 96% of disease caused by the nine targeted types. But it is far more expensive and not currently feasible to roll out for free at scale in a country of over a billion people. Let’s not forget that public health policy is about maximising benefit for the greatest number with finite resources, not about providing the utmost care for a small minority who can pay high prices. For the latter, the option to buy other vaccines is already on the table.

So, the real-world choice for most Indian girls is not “96% vs 70%.” It is “70% vs 0%.” And “0% protection” is exactly what we are gifting anti-vaxx discourse if we abandon this programme.

“India can’t handle cold chain” – have you met India?

The TNM article also leans on the claim that HPV vaccines require a cold chain that India supposedly cannot manage in rural areas. This would be startling news to anyone who knows the absolute miracle of wild polio eradication in India, or those who know how India ran one of the largest vaccination campaigns in human history during COVID-19.

HPV vaccines are stored at 2–8°C — the same temperature range used for many routine childhood vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. India already has a functioning cold-chain infrastructure that reaches deep into rural areas; that is how we managed to declare polio eliminated in 2014 and deliver hundreds of millions of COVID-19 doses across states and districts. To suddenly claim that this same system is incapable of handling HPV is not just an insult to decades of public health work, but smacks of ignorance, sinister intent, or worse – horrible Googling skills.

Then there’s the casual swipe at ASHA workers and ANMs: the suggestion that training “state-level officials” is easy, but training frontline women workers who actually vaccinate your child is an insurmountable problem. Anyone who has actually worked in rural health knows these women are the backbone of India’s public health system – they’ve led polio campaigns, maternal health efforts, TB treatment follow-up, and COVID vaccine mobilisation. To claim they can’t be trained to give a two-dose vaccine that’s been used globally for years sounds reflects the author’s elitist patronisation and prejudice against rural health workers.

And no, teenage girls are not uniquely prone to fainting at the sight of a vaccine needle in a way that should scare you away from HPV vaccination. Anxiety around injections is a known, minor, and manageable issue in all age groups and among all genders; vaccination guidelines already tell providers how to handle them. Turning that into a dramatic “your daughter may collapse” narrative without evidence says more about the author’s stereotypes against women than adolescent biology.

Adverse events: reading the fine print like an adult

Another recurring anti-vaxxer motif is to treat the mere mention of “adverse events” in a trial as proof that vaccines are dangerous. In reality, the entire point of reporting adverse events is transparency and safety monitoring.

When you actually read HPV vaccine studies – not just the scary bits in someone’s blog – you’ll find that the vast majority of reported adverse events are minor and short-lived: pain at the injection site, mild fever, fatigue, headache, or temporary joint pain. These are similar to what many people experienced after most vaccinations and are manageable at home.

What about serious events and deaths? Serious events are investigated carefully. The infamous PATH trial controversy in India is often brandished as a “vaccine scandal,” but independent investigations and reviews have repeatedly found that the deaths reported in those cohorts were not caused by the vaccine itself – they were due to conditions like snakebite, suicide, underlying illness, and unrelated diseases. The ethical issues raised in that study concerned consent, communication, and study procedures, not the intrinsic danger of the HPV vaccine.

Since then, HPV vaccines have been rolled out to millions of girls globally, with surveillance showing an excellent safety profile. If they were as dangerous as anti-vaxx influencers imply, we would see that in population-level mortality and morbidity data after more than a decade of use. We don’t! What we see instead is a steep decline in precancerous lesions and cervical cancers where vaccination coverage is high.

Hence, if we’re going to talk about risk, let’s talk about the real one: going unvaccinated in a country where cervical cancer remains the second leading cancer among women.​

Does my daughter really “need” this now?

Parents are often told, “There’s no rush, cervical cancer takes years to develop.” That part is technically true, yet profoundly misleading. Yes, cervical cancer develops slowly – but HPV infection often happens early, especially in contexts where girls marry or become sexually active in their teens or early twenties.

The HPV vaccine works best when given before exposure, which is why countries like Scotland vaccinate girls at 12–13 and have seen spectacular results. Public Health Scotland recently reported that since their programme began in 2008, there have been no cases of cervical cancer among women who were fully vaccinated at age 12–13. Did you get that: NO CASES OF CERVICAL CANCER IN VACCINATED POPULATION! Other data from Scotland and similar programmes show major reductions in cervical cancer incidence in vaccinated groups and lower rates even among older age groups who got catch-up doses.

In India, where screening coverage is patchy and access to quality oncology care is unequal, preventing infections early is one of the few truly scalable tools we have to reduce future cancer cases. Yes, screening (like Pap smears or HPV DNA tests) remains important, and no serious doctor will tell you otherwise. But relying only on screening is like relying only on fire brigades and refusing smoke detectors because “firefighters are there if something happens.”

Ask yourself: if you could dramatically reduce your daughter’s risk of a cancer that often strikes in the prime of her working and parenting years with a vaccine that’s been used globally for over a decade, why would you let misread statistics and online fear-mongering make that decision for you?

Consent, autonomy, and not weaponising “choice”

On consent, let’s be unequivocal: vaccination in India is voluntary. Parents and, ideally, adolescents themselves have the right to be informed and to say yes or no. That includes HPV. No one should be vaccinated secretly or coercively.

But there is a difference between informed consent and misinformed consent. When media platforms publish pieces that mix genuine questions with distortions, far from protecting autonomy, they end up sabotaging it. A parent scared into declining the vaccine because they were misled that India has no cold chain or that trials were stopped due to vaccine deaths is not exercising free choice; they are reacting to inaccurate information, misinformation and disinformation.

Good consent is when a person is explained what the vaccine does and doesn’t do, the common side effects and the extremely rare, serious ones, the real risk of the disease it prevents, and gives the person a chance to ask questions to qualified medical professionals. That’s what we should be demanding from health authorities and media – not drama-laced columns and Instagram reels that leave parents anxious and none the wiser.

Mansplaining women’s health, with footnotes

Social media posts aside, you’d think that when a news outlet wants to guide parents on a vaccine that primarily protects women’s reproductive health, they might, maybe, consult a gynaecologist, an oncologist, or at least a public health doctor. Instead, TNM chose to publish a piece by a non-medical “Dr” – a PhD in policy, not a clinician – who in his misleading piece confidently wanders through epidemiology, immunology, and health systems as if Google searches will compensate for his lack of medical expertise.​

This is not a personal attack; it’s a structural one. Women’s health has been mansplained for generations – from dismissing menstrual pain to gaslighting menopausal symptoms. Now we have upgraded to “quantitative mansplaining,” in which statistics are twisted and weaponised to undermine life-saving interventions. When non-specialists with an agenda selectively quote scientific papers, they do real harm: they plant doubt in parents’ minds, delay vaccination, and ultimately increase the number of women who will be diagnosed and many dead with avoidable cancer in their 30s and 40s.

If you have a plumbing problem, you call a plumber, not a baker. For something as serious as cancer prevention, parents deserve advice from people who actually treat patients or conduct biomedical research – not from people misreading abstracts.

So, whom should you trust?

To protect yourself from “hot takes” on HPV in your timeline, use these simple filters to call out the fakes.

First of all, check who’s speaking. Are they an oncologist, gynaecologist, epidemiologist, or paramedical professional? Or a non-medical PhD with strong opinions and weak reading of the data? Titles can mislead; “Dr” does not always mean 'clinician'.

Secondly, check how they use data. Do they present whole studies and conclusions, or cherry-pick one alarming statistic from a general population segment to make claims about cancer? Rely on that famous joke: statistics are like bikinis - what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

And thirdly, check whether their narrative matches what multiple large studies and health agencies are saying. Global public health bodies, national research institutes, and independent researchers across the world converge on the same broad conclusion: HPV vaccines are highly effective at preventing HPV-related cancers and are extremely safe.

If you enjoy consuming health content on social media (no judgement, we all do), at least follow sources where the primary identity is “doctor” first, “influencer” second – for instance, gynaecologists, paediatricians, and public health doctors who consistently cite evidence and explain nuance. These people spend their days treating actual patients, and conducting real research, not debating inside tweet threads.

And most importantly, do not forget that HPV vaccination is not about making girls “promiscuous,” “Western,” or “experimental subjects,” as the more conspiratorial corners of the internet suggest. It is about giving them a quieter future – one less likely to involve biopsy reports, chemo chairs, and radiation schedules.

So, by all means, ask questions before your daughter gets the HPV shot. Just make sure the people answering them can tell the difference between an infection rate in the general population and the viral types that actually cause cancer – and that they respect your daughter’s health more than their own need for online relevance.

Finally, remember: if HPV vaccination can bring two warring political factions at the opposite side of the ideological spectrum together, it has to mean something, doesn’t it?

About the authors:

Rachael Alphonso is a Dietician and an award-winning Researcher with experience working in public health, both rural, and urban. She has both national and international research publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Satyen K. Bordoloi is an award-winning scriptwriter and journalist based in Mumbai. His work have appeared in multiple Indian and international publications.

For trusted, accessible medical information on social media, we recommend following qualified medical practitioners:

Dr Tanaya Narendra, Gynaecologist (@dr_cuterus), Dr Santoshi Nandigam, Gynaecologist (@birthtoremember), Dr Mike Varshavski, Family Physician (@doctor.mike), Dr Danielle Jones, Gynaecologist (@mamadoctorjones)

References:

Basu, P., Malvi, S. G., Joshi, S., Bhatla, N., Muwonge, R., Lucas, E., Verma, Y., Esmy, P. O., Poli, U. R. R., Shah, A., Zomawia, E., Pimple, S., Jayant, K., Hingmire, S., Chiwate, A., Divate, U., Vashist, S., Mishra, G., Jadhav, R., … Sankaranarayanan, R. (2021). Vaccine efficacy against persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 infection at 10 years after one, two, and three doses of quadrivalent HPV vaccine in girls in India: a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. The Lancet Oncology, 22(11), 1518–1529. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00453-8  

Burki, T. (2024). HPV vaccination programme success in Scotland. The Lancet Oncology, 25(3), 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00074-3

Donthi, N. R. (2026, March 9). Before your daughter gets the HPV shot, ask these five crucial questions. The News Minute.

Jaxx Artz. (2024, March 27). 10 Years Ago, India Was Declared Polio-Free. Here’s Where We Stand in the Fight to Eradicate Polio Today. Global Citizen.

Josephine, S. M. (2026, March 11). HPV vaccination drive sees 81% coverage in four T.N. districts. The Hindu.

Kjaer, S. K., Nygård, M., Dillner, J., Brooke Marshall, J., Radley, D., Li, M., Munk, C., Hansen, B. T., Sigurdardottir, L. G., Hortlund, M., Tryggvadottir, L., Joshi, A., Das, R., & Saah, A. J. (2018). A 12-Year Follow-up on the Long-Term Effectiveness of the Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in 4 Nordic Countries. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 66(3), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix797  

Kulkarni, S. S., Kulkarni, S. S., Vastrad, P. P., Kulkarni, B. B., Markande, A. R., Kadakol, G. S., Hiremath, S. V, Kaliwal, S., Patil, B. R., & Gai, P. B. (2011). Prevalence and distribution of high risk human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 16 and 18 in Carcinoma of cervix, saliva of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma and in the general population in Karnataka, India. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention: APJCP, 12(3), 645–648.

Lehtinen, M., Lagheden, C., Luostarinen, T., Eriksson, T., Apter, D., Harjula, K., Kuortti, M., Natunen, K., Palmroth, J., Petäjä, T., Pukkala, E., Siitari-Mattila, M., Struyf, F., Nieminen, P., Paavonen, J., Dubin, G., & Dillner, J. (2017). Ten-year follow-up of human papillomavirus vaccine efficacy against the most stringent cervical neoplasia end-point—registry-based follow-up of three cohorts from randomized trials. BMJ Open, 7(8), e015867. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015867  

Martínez-Lavín, M., & Amezcua-Guerra, L. (2017). Serious adverse events after HPV vaccination: a critical review of randomized trials and post-marketing case series. Clinical Rheumatology, 36(10), 2169–2178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3768-5  

Mathur, P., Sathishkumar, K., Das, P., Santhappan, S., Sankarapillai, J., Nath, A., Baburao Vishwakarma, M., Swaminathan, R., Pitchaimuthu, S., Deo, S. V. S., Manoharan, N., Deshmane, V., Koyande, S., Gupta, S., Budukh, A., Thejaswini, B., Vijay, C., Mathew, A., George, P. S., … Jerang, K. (2025). Cancer Incidence and Mortality Across 43 Cancer Registries in India. JAMA Network Open, 8(8), e2527805. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.27805  

NB, S., Srinivasan, S., Y, M., S, S., & Shenoi, A. (2010, November 27). The HPV Vaccine: Science, Ethics and Regulation. Economic & Political Weekly.

Partha, D., S, R. G., Hui, W. Y., & Isaya, S. (2025). Systematic Literature Review on the Burden of Human Papillomavirus Infection and Related Diseases in India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21(5), 474–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14181