HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
If you take it in terms of absolute risk rather than relative risk, even though it's very clearly the latter as always, sure.
Sometimes it's not on the writer, but the reader. Important context, sure, but it was plenty clear what was being meant.
It can happen elsewhere but it hasn't happened yet! Or who knows!
If you know any women (which is obviously not a given for HN) then you know multiple women who have had cervical cancer scares or worse.
Given that the youngest vaccinated women are ~31 now, we would expect rates in that cohort to remain lower than in prior cohorts. But, crucially, we have to wait for this cohort to age to know for sure.
Treat this as a check-in as part of a 50-year longitudinal study that will keep yielding new data for another 40 years or so. (I don't know if it will be the same actual study, but the data will be there.)
Correct. These data are more a preview of what we can expect to see as the vaccinated cohort (in countries that aren’t pro-disease) advances in age.
Two decades to get here, one to go.
https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-rebecca-white-mp...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13036706/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009829972...
It has never been zero between 1970 and 2019. It has been completely 0 between 2020 and 2024.
My understanding of it is that this is extremely freaking common as far as medical issues go, because women, much more so than men, are more likely to go in for routine screening when they’re suppose to, and these these get frequently found before they become major issues.
One could reasonably argue that nearly every ablation treatment for cervical dysplasia is a cancer treatment, just a very early one that isn’t drastically life-affecting. And if so, the number of cervical cancer incidents would be ginormous higher than deaths from it.
And ask any woman who’d gone through and paid for cervical ablation, and I bet 99 of 100 would choose to have gotten a preventative shot, except for the 1 idiot in every group.
Not just a reduction in trauma but freeing up Drs to treat other cancers too.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/24/health/hpv-men-vaccine-cancer...
If the rate is 50%, I'd also expect MSM to be overrepresented there, which would make the difference of risk between heterosexual sex even more imbalanced.
Not one of them did anything wrong, but all got it. Yes, not everyone who’s sexually active has HPV, but even people abiding by what I assume are the Biblical principles we’re discussing here (because abstinence is nearly only a religious thing and we’re talking about it on a heavily American website) can be affected, even without disobeying the laws they try to follow.
the things you can get are either
A) benign when caught early. Test 3 weeks after every partner. Take a medication for a week if positive, your next test will be negative
B) can be vaccinated against in advance
or C) condoms don't prevent at all to begin with
D) new HIV infections is faaaar more rare to a hetero man, compared to women and people doing anal. And Prep/Pep has essentially solved that too.
the landscape is different for people being receptacles and their risk profile just has to be different.
devs left this unpatched
I can understand why districts wouldn't want teenagers to know it this way. That has nothing to do with you.
There's also not really great tests for it, so you do not know if you have it or not.
It may have been true, but would still have liked to get the vaccine since it covers many multiple strains.
Please forgive others who are insensible in this community and downvote you in spite of the terrible situation you had to deal with.
The math doesn’t math on the decision not to get the vaccine unless you know for a fact that you’re going to have an anaphylactic reaction. The risk of cancer is far higher if you choose to take the alternative risk.
Why? At what point did you say “I know a better vaccine schedule than highly trained specialist doctors who have done decades of research on hundreds of thousand of children”? You don’t find this incredibly naive to think you know better than them?
I hope I don't have to explain the fallacy in that to the crowd here.
I know for the Covid vaccine I had to sit for an hour to make sure of something not happening.
And this is not the first time doctors in leading Southern California medical groups have completely ignored what's on the form! My son was going to have a minor surgery, so they asked me: "Oh, we give an anesthetic before we actually administer the actual one, because some kids are afraid of shots." I told them he's one of those kids and always liked, actually, even watching when they administer the shot, and never cries. This is given he's already on IV! Another doctor came a minute later and started changing the IV. I asked him, "What are you doing?" He said he was administering the pre-anesthetic. And I said that we declined it on the form, but it was too late. Then another doctor came and started to apologize - they don't read, they assume what people want! And this was at CHOC, the most prestigious children's hospital! Of course, as I said, we didn't sue.
So, I know that you should double-check and ask exactly what they are doing. Unfortunately, you can do this only if you're present. And you should always require them to repeat what they plan to do to your kids if they are taking them away from you. And... you should sue, as commercial entities, just like people, learn best when it hurts.
[0]: https://www.immunize.org/official-guidance/state-policies/va...
They don't usually give it to older people because the more you have been exposed to the virus the less effective the vaccine is. But it protects against 9 variants and I think it is very unlikely I've encountered them all.
I paid for it out of pocket as well with a cursory understanding of the data and why it wasn’t given to men at all at the time, and then not to men in my age range before expanding to far beyond my age range
This affected it being covered by insurance
Even to help protect women was good enough, but I had predicted the throat cancer link as well
On the self serving side, it was also a supporting reason to pursue relations with younger women going forward since they would have received the vaccine and older would more likely be carriers. The situation with men being that there is no test for men to tell if exposure occurred already and like the above person said, the vaccine doesnt work if youve already been exposed. I didnt really need a reason to date specific age range its a timeless tale, but now I can adapt it to herd immunity.
If you are a young man not vaccinated yet and sexually active, you should get the vaccine if you can.
Role: You are an expert in the clinical detection and medical treatment of cervical cancer in human females over the course of the 20th century.
Objective: Review the totality of evidence for the cause of these cancers, including but not limited to environmental exposure, viral infection, or any other factor whatsoever that has been reputably liked to the incidence of cervical cancer in human females over the 20th century timeline as reflected in the reputable medical literature.
And when I saw them, they said it wouldn’t be covered under insurance and would be like $1.2k. I intended to just get it on my next visit to India but ended up not traveling.
I don’t get it. Is this like those Internet memes “don’t mess with the postal police” and stuff or is it a real thing? Any guy in their late 30s in the US who managed to get it?
Ask your doctor, get a quote, if you’re unsure what the cost might be. Your insurance may cover it with no cost to you.
https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2018posts/fda-approves-hpv-vac...
The reason insurance does not pay for it at that age is because it makes no sense.
Even if you’re monogamous, life is long and divorce common. I walk through cheap optionality doors whenever possible, and recommend others do to. YMMV.
8 facts about divorce in the United States - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/16/8-facts-a... - October 16th, 2025
> Divorce is an important aspect of family life in the United States that shapes living arrangements, financial well-being and parenting. In 2023, over 1.8 million Americans divorced. Additionally, a third of Americans who have ever been married have also experienced divorce.
> Many adults who divorce go on to form new families through cohabitation, remarriage or having more children. For instance, most adults who have divorced (66%) have gone on to remarry. And among those who have divorced and are currently remarried, 46% have had a child with their new spouse.
But know that your lifestyle is outside the norm (I had to Google your description to make sure I understood aka open marriage) so your assumptions are slanted through that lens.
A lot of posters here and their families live very different lives and their choices likewise represent that, so their opinions are equally valid. Their needs are different.
If you’ve made a good choice based on the data, you win, well done. If you haven’t, “we win or we learn.” Better luck next time. Try to win more than you learn. Reality and outcomes are the test. They do not concern themselves with opinions and feelings importantly. And so, decision fully informed from a place of logic and rationality.
> The vaccine is still helpful even if you have already tested positive for HPV or have been sexually active for a while. Most HPV transmission happens when people first become sexually active. But women who have already tested positive for HPV usually aren’t positive for all nine types that we vaccinate for. So in some cases, we’ll recommend those patients get the vaccine if they haven’t already. And if you’re older – midlife age, and new on the dating scene and sexually active – you should ask your doctor about the vaccine too.
>[Note: The HPV vaccine can also be an important part of treatment for the cell changes caused by HPV infection. After the abnormal cells have been removed or destroyed, the HPV vaccine may help prevent abnormal cells from coming back. Read Human Papillomavirus (HPV): Infection and Vaccination for more information.]
The fact that they leave this out is a bit weird, sloppy journalism I guess.
Some back-of-the-napkin math puts the price tag per life saved in the 8 digit range.
This doesn’t make you seem like a good person. It makes you seem like you don’t trust public health officials.
I had this conversation with my doc. He said dont get it. Going around that doesn’t make me a good person, it makes me dumb.
Don’t listen to what a forum says. Listen to your doctor.
If you think your doctor has screwed up talk to another doctor or the pharmacist. That’s legit.
But deciding you need a vaccine the guidelines say you don’t is a different matter. That’s just drug seeking.
People close to me have died from cervical cancer, so I’d love to be part of abolishing it. And by following vaccine guidelines that’s exactly what I’m doing.
I encourage everyone else to follow the guidelines too - don’t home brew this shit!
For a man above 45 the answer is simply, “no.” Very few people understand why. It’s complicated, requires lots of math, and most doctors don’t care.
You trust them or don’t. Take it or leave it. Yes or no.
This was long before COVID.
Where are you seeing "a ton of old guys bragging"?
Though you've noticed a real thing: for some reason during and after the pandemic publications outside of the UK started saying it too and I don't know why.
> I don't know why
My guess is because it has a negative connotation (the pre-2020 definition of jabbing someone was to hit someone, not inject someone).
Asked and answered, ty.
The term was popularized the US during the pandemic as well. It seemed like it was used by conservative media in the US to try to further politicize vaccination as something being inflicted on them.
Edit: and the politicalization of it continues... sigh
> Asked and answered, ty.
Yes, the person I responded to asked, and yes, I was the only person who answered. You're welcome?
I don't think you understand what's happening. I accepted that I lacked the proper context. You want to keep arguing about related details.
> Edit: and the politicalization of it continues... sigh
You felt the need to politicize it by intentionally phrasing that it was "inflicted" to get an optional vaccination because there were consequence to opting out. This is not adding to the discussion, so here you are. Hope this helps.
True: There are shots which aren't vaccines, and vaccines which aren't shots.
False: "The COVID 'vaccine' isn't actually a vaccine! It's a jab!"
- not a brit so idk
I mean, vaccinations and cancer prevention are both great, but this headline is ridiculous.
From the article:
“We estimate that since its introduction [in 2008], HPV vaccination has prevented nearly 200 young women from dying from cervical cancer in England.”
This is an estimate of 200 total of any age total across 18 years. The article doesn't say 3300 die each year, 3300 are diagnosed each year.
> Between 2020 and 2024, no cervical cancer deaths were recorded in women aged 20 to 24 - the first time that had happened over a five-year period.
> Without vaccination, around 23 deaths would have been expected.
Note the first chart in the link showing the historical trend for the 20-24 cohort since 2000 plumetting from 25 to 0.
The CDC mentions that not smoking and wearing condoms also lower the risk.
https://www.cdc.gov/cervical-cancer/prevention/index.html
Anecdotally people smoke less thant they uses to. Don't know what condom usage rates have done in the past quarter century.
> I assume that this particular shot is not the only thing that has reduced cervical cancer deaths in women under 30.
Why would you assume that when presented with a study that tracks with long standing belief in the medical community that the HPV vaccine works?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Because cancer interventions have moved forward in general?
If we multiply 3.1e-5 by 50 years that's about a 0.15% chance of dying of this cancer. The HPV shots cost $500-1000 for the three shots, so the cost per life saved is about $650K. With the statistical value of a human life being about $12M this is quite cost effective.
I'm assuming the reduction in death continues to later in life after 30, but that's a reasonable assumption, IMO.
Beyond death, it can also cause sterility and people may end up with extremely expensive IVF surrogacy pregnancies etc.
herd immunity: Vaccines benefit even those that don't take the vaccine now. eradication effects: vaccines benefit those that don't take the vaccine in the future.
fertility increase: non lethal cervical cancer can cause inability to get pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term. I don't know if it can cause birth defects.
Life Years: Early deaths save more Life Years than diseases that protect against later disease.
Quality Adjusted Life Years: Very nuanced, and I don't know how HPV cancers compare against the baseline of QALY. But being a vaccine that prevents, the Quality of life gained should be 100%, which would compare positively to treatments that do not cure completely
Cervical cancer disproportionately affects older women, even moreso than other cancers. The average age of diagnosis is 50 [1] and so the years of lost life due to cervical cancer is both going to be extremely low and going to disproportionately be very late life years lost. Rates in U30 are already near zero with an extremely high survival rate for those that do get it.
[1] - https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/cervical-cancer/about/ke...
You also need to factor in the efficacy of the vaccines, which will not be 100%. The years of life lost/saved will end up most likely being in the days or weeks at most, and so the $12 million figure you pulled out of thin air, for a full lifetime, is highly inappropriate.
This also generalizes to many medical issues. For instance, contrary to what most people think, early cancer screening achieves very little in terms of life extension. Prostate cancer screening, for example, adds about 37 days to one's life expectancy. [1]
[1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
Yes, I understood what you are saying. I was making a crude argument, but the crude argument showed benefit something like 18-36x the cost. The points you are making would reduce the benefit, but not by a factor anywhere close to 18.
- Years of life lost per death = 17 [1]
- Mortality rate = 2.2/100k
- Life lost per person per year = ~3.3 hours (derived from 17 years * 2.2 cases / 100k people)
- Total change in life expectancy if completely eliminated = ~3.3 hours/year for ~50 years = 1 week
My argument is lowballing everything (or in other words working against me) since you used extreme ends for your argument, and I'm simply accepting them. I also used years of life lost data from 2000 when cancer survival rates have significantly improved since then, assumed 100% perfect efficacy and so on. It doesn't matter, because it's not even remotely close.
From these data we can see that your argument implies implies that a person would be willing to pay about $20,000 (midpoint of your 18-36 = 27 x $750 cost of vaccine) for an increase of 7 days of life expectancy. That's nonsensical, by orders of magnitude, unless you're only polling multi millionaires to determine a statistical value of life.
And more generally, I think converting this issue into weeks starts to emphasize how broken a metric statistical value of life is. Nobody, again outside of millionaires, is paying thousands or even hundreds of dollars for one more week of life expectancy. Even if they wanted to, the overwhelming majority of people just don't have that degree of disposable wealth. It's akin to you ask people how much they'd be willing to pay to e.g. deal with climate change, and they give some ridiculously large number. But then when it comes time to really pay, and not hypothetically pay, that number suddenly becomes quite close to $0.
This is a quibble that does not substantially alter the conclusion.
> And the shots only matter during the window of your life where cervical cancer is remotely relevant, which is during a typical sexual window where somebody may have multiple partners.
Already taken into account in your "save 1 week" conclusion. No double counting please.
> And this is again before we even get into real efficacy, side effects, and other issues which matter quite a lot
This argues in favor of the shots, as I have been ignoring the real cost of cancers to those who don't die of them, or who suffer before they die.
> And more generally, I think converting this issue into weeks starts to emphasize how broken a metric statistical value of life is.
You're calling it broken because it's showing you're wrong.
Something like the statistical value of a life is necessary because tradeoffs between different options must be made. If those tradeoffs are made consistently, a value of life naturally falls out.
“Approximately 0.6 percent of women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer at some point during their lifetime, based on 2021–2023 data” [1].
Given “reports of serious health issues after HPV vaccination were consistently rare—around 1.8 per 100,000 HPV vaccine doses, or 0.0018%” [2], a woman suffers a 300x higher hazard (assuming we measure a serious vaccine reaction as being equivalent to cancer, which is silly) from going unvaccinated.
> How many people actually die of cervical cancer before age 30?
4,462 young women under the age of 30 died of cervical cancer in 2022 worldwide [3].
[1] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html
[2] https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2021...
[3] https://gco.iarc.who.int/today/en/dataviz/pie?mode=populatio... Mortality, cervix uteri, females, 0 to 29
4,462 out of the whole population (of women etc.).
Would you subjectively describe that number as "almost zero"?
Sure. If the only effect were on under-30s, this wouldn’t be a great vaccine. What 5,000 people is good for, however, is confidently measuring decline in a cohort. Zero deaths, even against a baseline of tens, strongly implies this should cross into the tend or hundreds of thousands over the next decades in populations that keep vaccination rates up.
Oddly enough I can't find exact death rates from cervical cancer paired amongst those who had HIV/AIDS but this [2] hints at it, with 90% of all cervical cancer deaths coming in low/middle income countries, and with the "highest burden" (plurality I guess?) coming from sub-Saharan Africa where rates of HIV are the highest. [2]
[1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7815633/
[2] - hhttps://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestori...
It's not zero deaths though, it's "almost zero".
Also, no need to post snarkily about LMGTFY. TFA should have included the base rate, and the fact that it didn't signals that it's not much of a reduction. It also signals that the journalist who wrote it is more in it for clicks than conveying accurate information.
They will downplay that number or exaggerate it.
I had no idea HN had so many cookers.
I really wish the left would respond to the rights idiocy with by actually following science. Science like: “not recommended for men over … whatever it is now.”
As a parent, I'd rather my child wait until their immune system is more developed, with the idea being that if they're getting STDs at age 9, then there's a bigger problem.
If kids are getting HPV before their teens, the solution is not vaccination ...
I completely understand there are some parents who will ignore this idea out of ideology or other non data and risk driven mental models, but am confident this cohort continues to shrink generation over generation. The cost of this will be cancer incidents that could’ve been avoided, but humans will human, so it is what it is. “Better luck next generational cohort.”
(day job is risk management, I get paid to assess and quantify risk, this is just another risk exposure to quantify and manage; my kids get all of their vaccines as soon as they’re eligible for them, no hesitation, no regrets)
It's not entirely out of your control, even though you can't control it entirely.
Also, giving your kid vaccines that are only relevant for sexually active people sends a message, which is that you expect that they may be sexually active. That's not a message that some people want to send to their tweens.
edit: when people downvote this, is it because they think it is untrue, or they just don't like it?
--
> "Unfortunately, the modern-day parental rights movement is predicated on a belief that children are the property of their parents, and therefore parents, “should be able to do anything they want to them."
is a quote I read today in https://www.404media.co/are-public-libraries-becoming-childr... that perfectly encapsulated this problem space, which linked to
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
https://archive.org/details/hfvemhgahusmfvqxur73qccoumjmqg6z...
> The illusion of control is obviously not working and will have devastating consequences for the rest of us, which people do not want and vehemently reject. This means the answer likely lies somewhere between meeting your kids where they’re at, even when where they’re at bears no resemblance to the Devil You Know. Which is scary and sucks, but that’s also what parenting is, and which a lot of parents don’t seem to get. “We talk about parents’ rights, but what we really need is parent remedial education,” Magnussun added.
(while in the context of parents prohibiting access to library materials a parent may disagree with, I believe the concept transfers and holds to this situation as well)
> Also, giving your kid vaccines that are only relevant for sexually active people sends a message, which is that you expect that they may be sexually active. That's not a message that some people want to send to their tweens.
Various studies show this to be false. If you think this is the message it sends, this is not borne out in the data. Update your priors.
HPV vaccination status is not associated with increased risky sexual behavior - https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/hpv-vaccination-status-is-...
> The consistent, replicated findings across the 20 studies examined in our systematic review provide strong evidence refuting the proposed association between HPV vaccination and risky sexual behavior. The 20 studies, which utilizing at least four distinct study designs and included a total of 521,879 participants, found no evidence for increased numbers of sexual partners, younger age of sexual initiation, decreased use of contraception (including both condoms and hormonal contraceptives), increased STI diagnoses, increased pregnancy rates, or increased history of abortion among those vaccinated against HPV. In fact, some studies found that vaccinated women engaged in fewer risky behaviors than unvaccinated women. The findings from our systematic review should alleviate any parental concerns that HPV vaccination will lead to risky sexual behaviors.
Kasting, M. L., Shapiro, G. K., Rosberger, Z., Kahn, J. A., & Zimet, G. D. (2016). Tempest in a teapot: A systematic review of HPV vaccination and risk compensation research. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 12(6), 1435–1450. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2016.1141158
HPV Vaccine Doesn't Make Teens More Promiscuous, Says Study - https://www.christianpost.com/news/hpv-vaccine-doesnt-make-t... - October 15th, 2012
> "The takeaway here is that this vaccine is safe and effective, and it's not associated with any risk of … outcomes related to sexual activity," Benarczyk explained. "This is reassuring to physicians and the parents that the concern doesn't need to be there."
> I'd rather my child wait until their immune system is more developed
At what age is the immune system fully developed?
Also, it takes 3 jabs and about 8 months (increasing intervals) so it's important to do it early for that reason too.
The thought that a 9yo would need protection from STDs is very upsetting which I would guess makes it a talking point. It is better to mass vaccinate at whatever age is publicly acceptable than not at all so I would concede that to critics.
Anyone exposed to sexual activity at such an age is clearly a victim of abuse. Penalising victims of abuse, whether it be forcing them to attempt to carry a baby to term, against medical advice, or forcing them to deal with the consequences of STDs is a very peculiar and nasty attitude. When societies start justifying denial of care and treatment along lines of class, politics, age, race, religion, gender or perceptions of "morality" there's a bigger problem.
I thought it was because the vaccine is most effective for people before sexual activity begins.
Recommended for victims of sexual assault. Rather revoltingly one conservative objection to giving it to 9 years olds was that it would “increase risky behaviour” in that cohort, despite knowing that the biggest risk of sexually transmitted disease to children that age is rape by family member.
Over a period of 30 years, approximately 400 women died of the disease under age 25 in the USA. [1] So many women's deaths were reported to VAERS in relationship to the HPV vaccination that it exceeded the death rate of the disease itself in the United States after approval. In the safety systems setup in 1986 in exchange for immunity for the vaccine manufacturers, the death rate from the HPV vaccine itself exceeds the death rates of cervical cancer, and that says nothing about the tens of thousands of other adverse events.
Dr. Harper was responsible for the phase 2 and phase 3 safety and effectiveness studies and made a speech and said she was making it so she could "clear her conscience so she could sleep at night" On October 2, 2009 in Reston Virginia at the 4th International Conference on Vaccination.
She specifically said that the vaccination was unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States. If it would not reduce in the United States, why would it reduce it elsewhere? Most reportage since that time frame relates to total cancer cancers and treats the injections as risk free.
The approved vaccination received approval for 4 strains out of more than 40 known.
And while studies are retracted related to fertility -- the hard data from fertility services providers is not. Gravidity (the number of times one is pregnant) is about halved for the HPV vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.
There have also been large scale studies indicating the same, but when politics retracts something, many believe that one should ignore that document. The raw gravidity counts on the other hand, are a observable fact. The vaccinated patients were even older, which makes it even worse, because those are older women who have had more time to be pregnant. [2]
Gravidity is a fact. So is cutting it by half via HPV correlation Read link two. Look at those gravidity numbers for vaccinated women and unvaccinated women. HPV vaccination may not be caused by eugenics but it is certainly correlated with it.
1. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2827212
2. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(23)00478-8/full...
In particular, you've mistaken the result of the second study.
> The vaccinated patients were even older, which makes it even worse, because those are older women who have had more time to be pregnant.
^ this is incorrect. Indeed according to the study, the vaccinated patients are younger (33.1) than the unvaccinated patients (37.4), which could easily explain the difference in gravidity. The authors do not report having controlled for age when computing the gravidity effect.
Note also that the entire study was conducted with a population of patients seeking fertility care, so the study can't support the general claim "gravidity is halved for the HPV vaccinated" even were the significance level to survive age-controlling statistics (which it likely would not).
Here's an a pair of articles on the mental model called inversion, which is about avoiding stupidity. [2] [3]
An example of inversion "If going down Route A in the dark in the rain is correlated with traffic accidents, take Route B, regardless of the fact that one's super tires or eagle eyesight might supposedly negate causation."
The same reality holds up at scale, and not just at the one university clinic, but they retracted it for political reasons. [4]
That is a very serious math situation if one wants more babies. Most parents would simply tell the young driver to stay off Route A in the dark or rain.
I did misread the ages between the two, and I have removed the age references.
3. https://www.theengineeringmanager.com/growth/invert-always-i...