HPV jabs cut risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30 to almost zero

HPV jabs cut risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30 to almost zero(theguardian.com)

148 points by toomuchtodo 4 days ago | 75 comments

alistairSH 2 hours ago |

Reducing deaths is great, but shouldn’t they also mention the reduction in treatment (which is usually surgical or chemo, both of which are massively expensive, traumatic, and life altering in negative ways).

zeristor 1 hour ago | |

The people that died there's the numbers for that, but the people that didn't need treatment in the first place.

Not just a reduction in trauma but freeing up Drs to treat other cancers too.

apparent 2 hours ago | |

They could do that, but given how low the base rate is, the reduction in number of procedures (and the resulting negative impacts on the women) would be incredibly low. It seems the base rate for cervical cancer deaths under 30 was already near zero.

Arodex 2 hours ago | | |

>the base rate for cervical cancer deaths under 30 was already near zero.

It has never been zero between 1970 and 2019. It has been completely 0 between 2020 and 2024.

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | | |

> given how low the base rate is, the reduction in number of procedures (and the resulting negative impacts on the women) would be incredibly low

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.

AngryData 2 hours ago |

Glad to see it, except it is still a sensationalist headline IMO because HPV deaths, and specifically below 30 years old, is already extremely low.

pfdietz 1 hour ago | |

The vaccine presumably also protects those getting it when they are older, but the data doesn't show that yet. Still, if it does (as seems reasonable) then the benefit is even larger.

Arodex 2 hours ago | |

As mentioned already several times in the comments, there is also a long tail of people who survive but after a grueling and costly treatment that disrupt their lives.

giantg2 1 hour ago | | |

What are the numbers on that post vaccine vs pre vaccine?

arjie 2 hours ago |

Every time HPV comes up, someone says “guys should get the vaccine too” but I’ve never managed to succeed. Even after last time someone mentioned it I tried and I got the absolutely worst result where they recorded me as being given it but then said it wasn’t meant for men my age. Had to get it removed from the record by the One Medical people I saw next.

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?

ggm 1 hour ago | |

American experience. It's free in Australia for people aged 12-25 and men who have sex with men (increased risks) and nothing like that price for private script.

jrgoff 54 minutes ago | |

I got it in the US in my late 30s or early 40s - I think it was even at One Medical (though I assume One Medical may be fairly different now after Amazon took it over). It was covered by my insurance.

iknowstuff 1 hour ago | |

Yes I got Gardasil 9 for free in San Francisco.

cmrdporcupine 1 hour ago | |

Here in Ontario it's just offered to all grade 7s, boy or girls.

toomuchtodo 1 hour ago | |

I (male, 40s) paid Planned Parenthood in Florida for the three Gardasil doses out of pocket after the male age limit was raised to 45 circa October 2018 (as I wanted to ensure I was vaccinated before exiting the permitted age limit). Insurance covered it for my kids with no cost at their pediatrician.

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...

eek2121 2 hours ago |

Just a note: the article focuses on the ladies, but men should absolutely get it as well because it cuts risk for other types of cancers. I was looking for a better link, however this is the only one I found (I had an older one saved, however I can't find it):

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/24/health/hpv-men-vaccine-cancer...

m101 2 hours ago | |

yes! Apparently the rate of penile and throat cancer occurs at only half the rate in men as it does as cervical cancer in women, but the harm caused by the male versions of the cancer are worse, so in actual fact it may overall cause more harm in the male population.

TZubiri 2 hours ago | | |

My bet is that it has to do with the mechanics of receptive vaginal and oral sex, the penis just reaches deeper and causes more lesions. Compared to insertive vaginal sex and oral vaginal performance, those lesions would be less frequent and on more distal parts of the body.

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.

blcknight 2 hours ago | |

For some reason not really talked about in mainstream medicine for straight men. It makes no sense. Very safe vaccine and you're eligible into your 40's to get it. Everyone sexually active probably has some strains but not all.

chasely 35 minutes ago | | |

I was denied the vaccine by my healthcare provider as a man in my mid-20s. Their reasoning being that I was likely already exposed.

It may have been true, but would still have liked to get the vaccine since it covers many multiple strains.

Avshalom 2 hours ago | | |

the reason is no one realized hpv was connected to much more than cervical cancer until fairly recently.

apparent 2 hours ago | | |

Yeah, not everyone.

ls612 1 hour ago | | |

This was the case a decade ago but now the US recommendation is that all children, boys and girls, get the vaccine.

Supermancho 2 hours ago |

Why is a this news headline using the slang "jabs"?

graeme 2 hours ago | |

In the UK it's commonly said, and the Guardian is a UK paper.

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.

rationalist 1 hour ago | | |

> outside of the UK

> 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).

redwall_hp 1 hour ago | |

Commonwealth countries say "jab" instead of "shot."

cmrdporcupine 1 hour ago | | |

Canada is a Commonwealth country but we say shot.

moralestapia 1 hour ago |

What's the rate for the unvaccinated group? So a comparison can be made vs. the vaccinated one.

The fact that they leave this out is a bit weird, sloppy journalism I guess.

WorkerBee28474 19 minutes ago | |

Looking at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11733696/ it seems like the base rate was 0.04 per 100,000. So ~70 female deaths per year in a population the size of the USA. That link suggests the mortality rate was reduced by a factor of 2-4, so vaccinating 2 million (?) girls per year saves 30-50 lives.

Some back-of-the-napkin math puts the price tag per life saved in the 8 digit range.

apparent 1 hour ago | |

Sloppy or because the base rate is so low that it would undercut the narrative.

Taniwha 10 minutes ago | |

This is a vaccine that does contribute to herd immunity, if enough people get it then transmission goes to 0 and it dies out, even unvaccinated people wont get it, because of the vaccine. The article says "0 cases" in the entire population, in this case the people who get vaccinated are carrying the unvaccinated

SanjayMehta 21 minutes ago | |

It's The Guardian. Typical.

SanjayMehta 23 minutes ago |

Is this the Bill Gates shot? The same one which caused the deaths of Indian tribal girls?

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/bill-gates-laboratory-remark...

nikolay 1 hour ago |

My oldest daughter almost died from the first Gardasil, so you may not die from cervical cancer, but die from something else. I am not against vaccines; my kids are all fully vaccinated on a spaced-out schedule and not taking more than one shot in at least 2 months, and so am I, but the HPV vaccine was not mandatory, so, given the experience and the similar genetics, we didn't do it for the other two kids. Yeah, there's a risk of cancer, which might be curable 5-10-15 years from now, but the risk of side effects is here now... for some. So, it's not always a win-win, and we've got no interest from health authorities in assessing the risk for my other two kids, so they also seem very risk-averse and want us to assume all the negatives.

apparent 1 hour ago | |

Yeah I thought about mentioning the fairly rare but awful cases that seem pretty clearly linked to the shot. It may be not very common, but it is a thing, and it's worth considering in the cost-benefit analysis.

ourmandave 16 minutes ago | |

When you got the shot didn't they tell you about the possible side effects and what to watch for?

I know for the Covid vaccine I had to sit for an hour to make sure of something not happening.

bluedevil2k 30 minutes ago | |

> my kids are all fully vaccinated on a spaced-out schedule and not taking more than one shot in at least 2 months

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?

naturalmovement 24 minutes ago | | |

Because it's his kid and he can raise her however he wants.

Vaccines represent a calculated risk.

Maybe he's raising his daughter in a culture that doesn't celebrate hedonism and massive numbers of casual sexual partners, effectively reducing the risk of HPV-induced cervical cancer to near-zero, no magic potion needed.

mullingitover 54 minutes ago | |

Anaphylaxis is going to happen something like 3 per million Gardasil doses.

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.