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...
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.
HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
51–60 of 188 posts
Re: HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
#52Glad to see it, except it is still a sensationalist headline IMO because HPV deaths, and specifically below 30 years old, is already extremely low.
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.
Re: HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
#53Re: HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
#54Glad to see it, except it is still a sensationalist headline IMO because HPV deaths, and specifically below 30 years old, is already extremely low.
Re: HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
#55I remember this vaccine being part of political discourse, so I everyone should be extremely skeptical of any news about it.
At one point, it was encouraged that 9-year-olds get the vaccine. 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 ...
Re: HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Your source doesn't say what you think it says, as evidenced by your other mistaken comments in this thread. I was referring to other sources (other than the one you posted, which doesn't say what you think it does) because I wanted to know if anything supported your claims. Please stop with the ad hominem business, which is frowned upon by the HN guidelines (I see you're new here).
It is not ad hominem to point out you don't search and you don't understand.
Re: HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
#57Why is a this news headline using the slang "jabs"?
Re: HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
At one point, it was encouraged that 9-year-olds get the vaccine. 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.
Completely agree. 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)
Re: HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
#59What'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.
Re: HPV vaccine cuts risk of dying from cervical cancer before 30
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your source doesn't say what you think it says, as evidenced by your other mistaken comments in this thread. I was referring to other sources (other than the one you posted, which doesn't say what you think it does) because I wanted to know if anything supported your claims. Please stop with the ad hominem business, which is frowned upon by the HN guidelines (I see you're new here).
I see you didn't go down the page to "trends by age". It is not ad hominem to point out you don't search and you don't understand.
This is specifically against the guidelines, notably these lines:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please stop registering accounts to break the guidelines with. You know what is expected here.