That last link makes some extraordinary claims against a UK government agency deliberately falsifying data in a way which would harm millions of young women without providing very much proof..... If it's true it would be shocking, but I cannot be convinced by the article which is linked to (or the many other non-vax sites online which copy it).
Take this statement from the linked article:
"In the UK the disease is so rare there are just 3 deaths in every 100,000 women of all ages as figures from Cancer Research UK show."
I followed the link to download an excel file and find this figure:
That average of 3 deaths per 100,000 including data on under 24s in the UK, who in 2008 (the year of the data) had just 6 deaths from cervical cancer (and none for girls under the age of 19). For women 25+ in the UK, the rate was actually 5 deaths per 100,000. I admit it's not a huge difference, but it is a bit misleading, and it also doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the rest of the article.
The article also questions the policy of HPV vaccine at age 12 to protect from a disease which only starts affecting women in their 20s and is most common in older women. That seems to completely misunderstand the mechanism by which a vaccine against the HPV virus protects against cervical cancer. No-one here I think would claim that the minute a girl becomes infected with HPV she will die of cervical cancer. The vaccine needs to be in place to give girls immunity from HPV during the time period they are most likely to be exposed to the virus (and before they have every been exposed to it, as it cannot cure a HPV infection already in place), not when they are most likely to die from cancer if they have previously been exposed to it. So it's a bit of a straw man to grumble about that in my opinion, and the vaccine needs to be given to girls before they are likely to have been exposed to HPV to be effective at all...
In fact from the NHS info on HPV (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/why-is-hpv-vaccine-needed.aspx):
"If you become infected with one of the high-risk strains of HPV, and your immune system does not deal with it, the infection can lead to cell changes and the growth of pre-cancerous cells in your cervix. This is known as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).
CIN is not cancer but, if left untreated, it can develop into cancer in some women. This can take up to 10 years."
The article linked by Mirzam also states this:
"Professor Woods then advised medical professionals not to report an adverse reaction if it “may” be psychogenic. "
However if you follow the link they give, the letter from Prof. Woods actually says this (I have extracted all sentences with the word "may" in them (there were four instances):
"Please report via the Yellow Card Scheme ADRs that you suspect may have been caused by Cervarix."
"Please report only reactions that you suspect may be related to the vaccine and not those associated with the injection process or procedure"
"If having considered this advice, you wish to report an episode which may have been psychogenic, please include only the main diagnosis or event as the suspected reaction"
"We may need to contact you for confirmation."
Further more the letter ends:
"Remember, every Yellow Card report matters. Thank you for your help in monitoring the safety of this important new vaccine."
which I think we can all agree is an important message - that reporting an monitoring of adverse events is really essential to continue to assess the safety of vaccination programs.