Iceland is drilling the hottest hole in the world to get electricity from magma.

It’s time to go deep.

A new project in Iceland is drilling down into the molten magma that flows through volcanoes, in the hopes of establishing a powerful new sustainable energy source.

The initiative involves drilling a 5-km (3.1-mile) deep hole in the south-west corner of Iceland, which by the end of this year is predicted to become world’s hottest hole, hitting temperatures anywhere between 400 and 1,000 degrees Celsius, Fred Pearce reports for New Scientist.

That’s enough to generate supercritical steam that experts estimate could generate up to 50 megawatts of electricity – making it 10 times more efficient than traditional geothermal wells.

Geothermal energy has been around for decades, and involves drilling into the natural heat stored inside Earth to power turbines and generate electricity.

Particularly in Iceland, which is famous for its geologically active hot springs, more than a quarter of the country is powered by geothermal energy wells, which tap into hot rocks below Earth’s surface. (The rest of the country’s electricity needs are powered by hydroelectric plants.)

But there are limitations to how efficient geothermal can be, so the Iceland Deep Drilling Project (IDDP) is taking things up a notch, by attempting to bypass rocks altogether and drill into the source of Earth’s heat – the magma oozing into volcanoes.

The idea for the new project actually came from a mistake back in 2009, when the IDDP accidentally drilled into a magma reservoir about 2 kilometres (1.25 miles) below the surface, while trying to construct a traditional geothermal well.

As an experiment, they poured water down the hole to see how much energy it could generate, and they ended up creating the most powerful geothermal well ever, producing some 30 megawatts of power.

The project was short-lived, seeing as it was only ever set up as an experiment, but the team is hoping this new attempt will be more sustainable.

The drilling of the new hole began on August 12 in the geologically active Reykjanes region of Iceland. The researchers are hoping to reach the Mid-Atlantic Ridge – a major boundary between Earth’s tectonic plates – where magma heats seawater to temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Celsius.

“People have drilled into hard rock at this depth, but never before into a fluid system like this,” one of the team, Albert Albertsson, assistant director of an Icelandic geothermal-energy company called HS Orka, told New Scientist.

Not only would the water down there be super hot, it’s also under a lot of pressure (200 times atmospheric levels), which the team expects will generate ‘supercritical steam’ – a state of matter that’s neither liquid nor gas, and holds way more heat energy than either.

That type of steam could have an energy capacity of up to 50 megawatts – around 10 times more than the 5 megawatts capacity of a typical geothermal well.

To put that into perspective, that means 50,000 homes could be powered, versus 5,000 from just one geothermal well.

“If they can get supercritical steam in deep boreholes, that will make an order of magnitude difference to the amount of geothermal energy the wells can produce,” Arnar Guðmundsson from Invest in Iceland, a government agency that promotes energy development, told New Scientist.

But before you get too excited, for now, this is all purely theoretical – we need to actually get the new well up and running first. The hole should be drilled by the end of the year, and in the months that follow, we’ll get an idea of how much electricity such a set-up can generate.

If it works, it will be exciting for other regions around the world that have their own bevy of young volcanoes, such as Japan and California.

And, with Earth continually getting hotter, we’re in desperate need of more powerful alternatives to fossil fuels, so we’ll be watching the results closely.

4 Reasons Why Pregnant Lady/Women Need To Have Sex Almost Every Day.

If you ask any woman what is the biggest gift in the world, they would all reply that it is the motherhood. But even though most of the women see the bearing of a child as a blessing and enjoy the changes their bodies go through, some of them do not find it as quite an amazing experience. They sort of see it as a task they must fulfill.

This is why pregnancy is one of the most difficult things a woman can go through. Carrying a child for nine months can often be stressful. But that is why the men can help. There are plenty of things they can do in order to relieve their wives from all the stress of the pregnancy.

Most of the women choose to believe that having intercourse during the pregnancy would be uncomfortable or do some harm to the fetus. Make sure you remember that this is not true. Having sex during the pregnancy may be the best thing you could do to relax you and strengthen the muscles for the delivery. In addition we give you some of the perks of having sex during pregnancy:

  • Firstly, it will lower your blood pressure. The love hormone which is released during the sex, called oxytocin, is the one that helps you relieve from all the tension and stress. This way, the level of your blood pressure will always be within the normal boundaries. Sex during pregnancy will not only take care of that, it will also lower your risk of a heart attack.
  • It will keep you more comfortable during the night and will enable you to sleep better. Of course, every pregnant woman goes through this process – frequent urination, back pain and trouble finding the right sleeping position, so they get very little hours of sleep as the fetus grows inside. This is why having an orgasm will make you fast asleep and you will not have any troubles during the night.
  • As we previously mentioned, having sex during the pregnancy is somethig most of the women avoid. But in fact, indulging in a little romance making with your partner during your child bearing days will only increase the intimacy between you two. You can create an amazingly strong bond. The hormones which are released during the sex make the woman more trusting, supportive and sympathetic. You will be closer with your partner now more than you will ever be.
  • Finally, by having sex you can reduce your pain. Again, the hormones are involved here. Oestrogen, progesterone and prolactin enable the flow of blood to the vagina and the pelvic area, increasing the lubrication and sensitivity and decreasing the pain.


One of the biggest questions modern day science seeks to answer about human consciousness has to do with its origin — whether it is simply a product of the brain, or if the brain itself is a receiver of consciousness. If consciousness is not a product of the brain, it would mean that our physical bodies are not necessary for its continuation; that awareness can exist outside our bodies.


Asking these questions is fundamental to understanding the true nature of our reality, and with quantum physics gaining more popularity, questions regarding consciousness and its relationship to human physicality become increasingly relevant.

Max Planck, the theoretical physicist credited with originating quantum theory — a feat that won him the Physics Nobel Prize in 1918 — offers perhaps the best explanation for why understanding consciousness is so essential: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”(source)

Eugene Wigner, also a theoretical physicist and mathematician, stated that it’s not possible to “formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

Does Consciousness Move on After Death?

In 2010, one of the most respected scientists in the world, Robert Lanza, published a book titled Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding The True Nature of the Universe

An expert in regenerative medicine and the scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company, Lanza is also very interested in quantum mechanics and astrophysics, an interest that led him on a path to developing his theory of biocentrism: the theory that life and consciousness are fundamental to understanding the nature of our reality, and that consciousness comes prior to the creation of the material universe.

His theory implies that our consciousness does not die with us, but rather moves on, and this suggests that consciousness is not a product of the brain. It is something else entirely, and modern science is only beginning to understand what that might be.

This theory is best illustrated by the quantum double slit experiment. It’s is a great example that documents how factors associated with consciousness and our physical material world are connected in some way; that the observer creates the reality.

Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe could be a mental construction, or at the very least, that consciousness plays a fundamental role in the creation of matter.

R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University  wrote in a 2005 publication for the journal Nature:

According to [pioneering physicist] Sir James Jeans: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter… we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” . . . The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.

(“The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29,2005) (source)

Lanza’s theory implies that if the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle. This is an example that’s commonly used to describe the enigma of consciousness.

The double slit experiment has shown repeatedly that “observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it. . . . We compel [the electron] to assume a definite position. . . . We ourselves produce the results of measurement.”  (source)

The idea that we could be living in a holographic-type of universe is not so far-fetched, and if the observer is required for physical matter to manifest, then the observer must exist before the physical body.

The hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness dominates the mainstream materialistic world of science, despite the wealth of evidence showing that the brain (and our entire physical reality, for that matter) could be a product of consciousness.

Below is a great quote to illustrate what is meant by “material” science.

“The modern scientific worldview is predominantly predicated on assumptions that are closely associated with classical physics. Materialism—the idea that matter is the only reality—is one of these assumptions. A related assumption is reductionism, the notion that complex things can be understood by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things such as tiny material particles.”

 Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science

Examining the neurochemical processes in the brain that occur when one is having a subjective experience is important, and does offer certain insights. It tells us that when ‘this’ type of experience is happening, ‘that’ is going on in the brain. But it does not prove that the neurochemical processes are producing the experience. What if the experience itself is producing the neurochemical processes?

Determining how consciousness causes matter to materialize is our next step. One thing is for certain, however; with all of the information out there postulating the existence of consciousness as  independent from the brain, it’s time to push the boundaries of our current accepted framework of knowledge and question what we think we know.

The implications of this theory are immense. Just imagine if life after death were confirmed by the mainstream scientific community — how much would this impact not only our understanding of science, but also philosophy, religion, and many other areas of our lives?

A Great Lecture

Below is a great video from Dr. Gary Schwartz, a professor at the University of Arizona, discussing whether consciousness is the product of the brain or a receiver of it. It’s a little overview of a subject that is full of peer-reviewed  scientific research that not many people have the time to go through. It would actually be almost be impossible to go through all of it.

Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favored theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed a priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.

– Dr. Gary Schwartz, Professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona (1)

What About Near Death Experiences?

Below is a video of Dr. Bruce Greyson speaking at a conference that was held by the United Nations. He is considered to be one of the fathers of near death studies, and is a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Science at the University of Virginia.

In the video he describes documented cases of individuals who were clinically dead (showing no brain activity), but observing everything that was happening to them on the medical table below at the same time. He describes how there have been many instances of this — where individuals are able to describe things that should have been impossible to describe. Another significant statement by Dr. Greyson posits that this type of study has been discouraged due to our tendency to view science as completely materialistic. Seeing is believing, so to speak, in the scientific community. It’s unfortunate that just because we cannot explain something through materialistic means, it must be instantly discredited. The simple fact that “consciousness” itself is a non-physical “thing” is troubling for some scientists to comprehend, and as a result of it being non-material, they believe it cannot be studied by science.

Near Death Experiences (NDE’s) have been documented and studied for a long time. For example, in 2001, international medical journal The Lancet, published a 13 year study on Near Death Experiences (NDEs):

Our results show that medical factors cannot account for the occurrence of NDE. All patients had a cardiac arrest, and were clinically dead with unconsciousness resulting from insufficient blood supply to the brain. In those circumstances, the EEG (a measure of brain electrical activity) becomes flat, and if CPR is not started within 5-10 minutes, irreparable damage is done to the brain and the patient will die. (2)(3)

Researchers monitored a total of 344 patients, and an astounding 18% of them had some sort of memory from when they were dead or unconscious (no brain activity), and 12% (1 out of every 8) had a very strong and “deep” experience. Keep in mind that these experiences have occurred when there is no electrical activity in the brain following cardiac arrest.

Another study comes out of the University of Southampton, where scientists found evidence that awareness can continue for at least several minutes after death. In the scientific world this was thought to be impossible. It is the world’s largest near death experiences study ever published, and it was published in the journal Resuscitation: (4)

In 2008, a large-scale study involving 2060 patients from 15 hospitals in the United Kingdom, United States and Austria was launched. The AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation) study, sponsored by the University of Southampton in the UK, examined the broad range of mental experiences in relation to death. Researchers also tested the validity of conscious experiences using objective markers for the first time in a large study to determine whether claims of awareness compatible with out-of-body experiences correspond with real or hallucinatory events. (source)

Concluding Comments and Video

Nikola Tesla said it best: “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

There’s a reason why every year, internationally recognized scientists continue to push this commonly overlooked topic into the mainstream scientific community. The fact is, matter (protons, electrons, photons, anything that has mass) is not the only reality. If we wish to understand the nature of our reality, we cannot keep examining physical reality while ignoring the fact that the ‘unseen’ makes up most of it.

Perhaps the most imperative question is, what is the role of non-physical system, such as consciousness, in relation to physical systems (matter)?

“Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger.” (T. Folger, “Quantum Shmantum”; Discover 22:37-43, 2001)

This is what’s known as post-materialist science, and in my opinion, it’s clearly the next area of study to further understand the nature of our universe. And the study of ‘consciousness’ is right at its heart.

I’ll leave you with one last discussion between Dr. Greyson (mentioned earlier in the article), and the Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Dr. Dean Radin.


No, the Universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate, say physicists.

This could change everything.

Back in 2011, three astronomers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery that the Universe wasn’t just expanding – it was expanding at an accelerating rate.

The discovery led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that our Universe is dominated by a mysterious force called dark energy, and altered the standard model of cosmology forever. But now physicists are questioning the conclusion, and they have a much larger dataset to back them up.

For a bit of background on the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, it was shared between cosmologists Saul Perlmutter from the University of California, Berkeley; Adam Riess from Johns Hopkins University; and Brian Schmidt from the Australian National University.

During the 1990s, these three scientists were part of competing teams that were measuring distant Type 1a supernovae – the violent end of a type of star called a white dwarf.

White dwarf stars are made from one of the densest forms of matter in the known Universe – surpassed only by neutron stars and black holes.

While a typical white dwarf will only be slightly larger than Earth, it will have around the same amount of mass as our Sun. To put that into perspective, you could fit roughly 1,300,000 Earths inside the Sun.

Now imagine that incredibly dense, dead star collapsing under the weight of its own gravity. We’re talking about a luminosity level that’s about 5 billion times brighter than the Sun.

Because each Type 1a supernova explodes with roughly the same brightness, the amount of light they give off can be used as an indication of their distance from Earth – and slight shifts in colour can also be used to figure out how fast they’re moving.

When Perlmutter, Riess, and Schmidt measured all the data for known Type 1a supernovae, recorded by the Hubble space telescope and a number of large ground-based telescopes, they found something incredibly strange.

As the Royal Swedish Academy explained on the morning of the Nobel Prize announcement in Stockholm:

“In a Universe which is dominated by matter, one would expect gravity eventually should make the expansion slow down. Imagine then the utter astonishment when two groups of scientists … discovered that the expansion was not slowing down, it was actually accelerating.

By comparing the brightness of distant, far-away supernovae with the brightness of nearby supernovae, the scientists discovered that the far-away supernovae were about 25 percent too faint. They were too far away. The Universe was accelerating. And so this discovery is fundamental and a milestone for cosmology. And a challenge for generations of scientists to come.”

The find was backed up by data collected separately on things like clustering galaxies and the cosmic microwave background – the faint afterglow of the Big Bang.

And earlier this year, NASA and ESA scientists found that the Universe could be expanding around 8 percent faster than originally thought.

By all accounts, the discovery was a solid one (Nobel Prize solid) but it posed a very difficult question – if the collective gravity from all the matter expelled into the Universe by the Big Bang has been slowing everything down, how can it be accelerating?

As Brendan Cole reported for us in May:

“There’s something pervading the Universe that physically spreads space apart faster than gravity can pull things together. The effect is small – it’s only noticeable when you look at far-away galaxies – but it’s there. It’s become known as dark energy – ‘dark’, because no one knows what it is.”

Since scientists first proposed dark energy, no one’s gotten any closer to figuring out what it could actually be.

But now an international team of physicists have questioned the acceration of the Universe’s expansion, and they’ve got a much bigger database of Type 1a supernovae to back them up.

By applying a different analytical model to the 740 Type Ia supernovae that have been identified so far, the team says they’ve been able to account for the subtle differences between them like never before.

They say the statistical techniques used by the original team were too simplistic, and were based on a model devised in the 1930s, which can’t reliability be applied to the growing supernova dataset.

They also mention that the cosmic microwave background isn’t directly affected by dark matter, so only serves as an “indirect” type of evidence.

“We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over 10 times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call ‘3 sigma’,” reports lead researcher, Subir Sarkar, from the University of Oxford.

“This is far short of the ‘5 sigma’ standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.”

Instead of finding evidence to support the accelerated expansion of the Universe, Sarkar and his team say it looks like the Universe is expanding at a constant rate. If that’s truly the case, it means we don’t need dark energy to explain it.

“A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the Universe is not exactly homogeneous, and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas – two key assumptions of standard cosmology – may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy,” he says.

Now, to be clear, this is just one study, and it’s a big, extremely controversial claim that a Nobel Prize-winning discovery is fundamentally wrong. (Because I don’t have to tell you that Nobel Prizes aren’t given out lightly.)

But replication of results is everything in science, and if we have a larger dataset to go on than we did five years ago, we should use it to support – or correct – previous discoveries.

The question now is whether Sarkar’s team applied their new statistical model to the data in a way that best reflects the science, and it will likely spur on a whole lot of physicists to figure out which is right – accelerating Universe, or constant Universe.

“Naturally, a lot of work will be necessary to convince the physics community of this, but our work serves to demonstrate that a key pillar of the standard cosmological model is rather shaky,” says Sarkar.

“Hopefully, this will motivate better analyses of cosmological data, as well as inspiring theorists to investigate more nuanced cosmological models.”

First Ever GMO Animal Approved by FDA for Human Consumption.


The FDA has just recently approved the sale and consumption of GMO salmon, despite public outrage and insufficient testing. This is the first ever genetically modified animal to be allowed onto our dinner plates. This GMO salmon, otherwise known as “frankenfish”, poses many risks to consumers and an already threatened salmon population. This will be the first ever GMO animal to enter into our food system.

The frankenfish can grow twice as fast as its wild counterpart and was designed by AquaBounty Technologies. Because the FDA and AquaBounty have failed to perform sufficient studies on the fish, the consumption of this genetically modified creature could have extreme health risks. The review process by the FDA failed and lacked comprehensive analysis that would examine how this salmon will impact consumer health and consumer futures. Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director of Center for Food Safety, says that, “this decision sets a dangerous precedent, lowering the standards of safety in this country.”

The FDA has only considered two studies, both submitted by AquaBounty. One of the studies was so poorly conducted that the FDA even admitted it demonstrated “no reliable conclusions.” The studies show a dramatic increase of hormone levels and allergens in these GMO salmon.

It is scary to think about what affect these hormone levels and allergens could have on their consumers. The salmon will be produced in Panama, and brought to the United States for consumption.

Growth hormones are injected into fertilized eggs to create a sterile salmon that will grow four times larger and four times faster. Researchers at Purdue University have published a paper citing the possible threats and environmental risks associated with GMO salmon.

This fish could have a huge negative impact on other fish populations if and when it ever escapes into the wild. The eventuality of this happening is considered a certainty, given past evidence of other farmed salmon populations.

What’s the worst part? This GMO salmon will not be labeled. Scott Faber, executive director of pro-GMO labeling group Just Label It, thinks this is an outrage. “The decision to approve GMO salmon without a mandatory disclosure is yet another example of how FDA’s outdated policy keeps consumers in the dark.”

The FDA decision is a major victory for genetically modified foods, and a huge loss for the health of our nation. This will be a huge experiment and battle that will take place right on our dinner plates. It is our duty to bring light to this unfair situation and demand that GMO salmon be labeled.


‘Hexagonal’ Clouds Over Bermuda Triangle Are Like Bombs, Can Cause Plane Wreck, Claims Meteorologist.

The mystery around Bermuda Triangle seems to have got a new assumption attached to it. According to the new theory, clouds over the Bermuda Triangle are like “air bombs” strong enough to cause ship and plane wrecks. The strange “hexagonal” shaped clouds were discovered using radar satellite imagery, which were between 20 and 50 miles wide forming over the water. The research was revealed by a Science Channel’s, “What on Earth” series.

Meteorologist Dr. Randy Cerveny said, “The satellite imagery is really bizarre … the hexagonal shapes of the cloud formations.”

“These types of hexagonal shapes in the ocean are in essence air bombs. They’re formed by what is called microbursts and they’re blasts of air.”

And the blasts of air are very powerful – so powerful that they can reach 170mph, capable of sinking ships and downing planes.

The Bermuda Triangle is one of the most enigmatic places on Earth, and perhaps, even one of the most feared. Legend has it, as you must already know, those who enter never return. The mystery though may have finally been solved according to scientists who say strange clouds forming over Bermuda Triangle is the reason behind years of apparent disappearances dating back to the 1400s.


It’s located between Miami, Puerto Rico and the Island of Bermuda and has been notoriously linked to a vast number of unexplainable disappearances in the region of ships and planes

Some people on social media though weren’t wholly convinced with this finding:

On Facebook, Juliett Evildruid wrote, “One problem with this theory is, where is the debris? If the planes and ships were hit with “air bombs”, there would still be wreckage, but they are not finding any wreckage from these missing crafts. This is just another one of the odd weather phenomenon that are known to occur there. And just like with the freak storms, waterspouts and rogue waves common to the area that could be responsible for downing aircraft and sinking ships, there would be pieces of these vessels, and there is no trace of them. So “air bombs” can’t possibly be the answer here anymore.”

And Sarah Fuller wrote “Still doesn’t explain why nothing is ever found. No debris. No trace. All the weird things that happen, time that goes missing, equipment that malfunctions, and most of all how a ship can be found floating perfectly intact with no people on board.”

Brian Dressler wrote on Facebook, “Theory after theory without proof…let me know when you have this nailed down solid.”

The mystery of the Bermuda Triangle has been going on for centuries and one of the spookiest stories is of Ellen Austin’s. She was on a ship going to New York in 1881. The crew on board this voyage saw an empty sail ahead and transferred some of its members on that ship to sail it to NY with them. Reportedly, the other ship suddenly disappeared, reappearing shortly after though without a single soul on board. Ellen Austin apparently turned around for London after seeing that.

Meanwhile, in yet another twist in the Bermuda tail, the scientist who was said to have revealed the findings, said that he did not say that Bermuda Triangle mystery has been solved. According to him, his point was misrepresented due to the wrong editing of the original interview that re recorded.

The “What’s On Earth” series mis-quoted Randall Cerveny, director of the meteorology department at Arizona State University, who says he was shocked when he saw the video.

In fact, he has no interest in the Bermuda Triangle.

“The editing [of the show] on this was horrendous,” Cerveny told The Washington Post. “I was really upset when I saw this.”

The “air bombs” Cerveny was talking about were actually just to explain microbursts, which can cause substantial damage and sink shapes and planes in the Bermuda Triangle, but they do not explain or solve the apparent mystery.

HPV vaccine works even better than expected, study finds.

University of Miami pediatrician Dr. Judith L. Schaechter gives an HPV vaccination to a 13-year-old girl in her office at the Miller School of Medicine on Sept. 21, 2011 in Miami, Fla.


The vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, which doctors believe causes most cases of cervical cancer, appears even more effective than believed, a new study finds.

“After eight years of vaccination, the reduction in the incidence of cervical neoplasia [abnormal growth of cells], including pre-cancers, have been reduced approximately 50 percent. This is greater than what was expected – that’s pretty exciting,” said lead researcher Cosette Wheeler. She is a professor of pathology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque.

The study also showed that the protection appears to occur even when only one or two of the recommended doses of the vaccine are given.

“Right now, the recommendation is three doses for girls and boys before the 13th birthday, so that you are protected before you become exposed,” Wheeler explained.

“People thought that three doses of vaccine were necessary, but there’s a lot of people who are getting one and two doses, and people are getting protection from one or two doses,” she said.

On average, 40 percent of girls aged 13 to 17 in New Mexico had received all three doses in 2014, the researchers found. But, Wheeler said, “It may be that two doses are sufficient.”

Protection from HPV is also coming from what’s called herd immunity , which increases as more people are vaccinated and reduces the spread of HPV, Wheeler said. “Herd immunity means that the probability of getting infected decreases for everybody, even the people who aren’t vaccinated ,” she explained.

Moreover, the vaccines protect against more types of HPV than they were designed to do, she added.

Although this is not the first report to show the effectiveness of the vaccine, it’s the first to show declines in precancerous lesions across a large population, Wheeler said. The researchers also found that the reductions in the number of precancerous lesions were greater than anticipated.

This study even took into account changes in Pap test screening over the last 10 years.

In 2009, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said most women under 21 do not need Pap test screening and recommended longer times between screening. In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said women, regardless of age, do not need to get screened more than every three years, Wheeler said.

If these changes were not taken into account, the effect of the vaccine would appear even greater than it already is, because it would assume that more women were being screened than actually were, she said.

“Parents and doctors should pay attention. These vaccines are highly efficacious,” Wheeler said.

It’s up to doctors to be sure kids are vaccinated, she said. “It’s their job, just like other vaccines, to provide them to their patients. They are the key to get this done,” Wheeler added.

In addition to cervical cancer, HPV can cause genital warts in men and women, and some head and neck cancers.

Although cervical cancer can take decades to develop, it’s important to protect children before they become sexually active and risk getting infected with HPV, which is why Wheeler strongly recommends: “Get your kids vaccinated – both your boys and your girls – before their 13th birthday.”

For the study, Wheeler and colleagues collected data on young women tested for cervical cancer with Pap tests from 2007 to 2014, who were part of the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry. New Mexico should be considered representative of the whole country, Wheeler said.

One expert said the findings make the case for HPV vaccination even stronger.

“These data highlight and provide even more evidence as to the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing HPV infections and related diseases,” said Fred Wyand, a spokesman for the American Sexual Health Association/National Cervical Cancer Coalition.

Increasing HPV vaccination rates “goes back to the importance of health care provider’s recommending the vaccine to parents and patients,” he said. “Provider recommendation carries much weight, and parents are far more likely to have their child vaccinated if the provider encourages it.”

Another approach to increasing vaccination rates is to “normalize” HPV vaccines, he said. “Rather than treat it as something exotic, it should just be offered as part of the routine adolescent vaccine program,” Wyand said.

Dr. Metee Comkornruecha, an adolescent medicine specialist at Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami, agrees that the vaccine “is effective, and parents should have their sons and daughters vaccinated.”

The report was published online Sept. 29 in the journal JAMA Oncology.