HPV vaccines 'substantially' reduce cervical cancer risk: study

Unsurprisingly once more the scientific predictions of efficacy and safety of a vaccine are confirmed, antiscientific people (usually the same that negate everything else science have concluded when it goes contrary to their purposes) endlessly claimed the vaccine was unsafe, inneffective, dangerous. 13 years later the complete opposite (and what doctors and scientists said from the beginning) is clearly evident.

Lets hope against hope that the numerous pieces of evidence of the HPV vaccine efficacy can turn again the Japanese government attitute against it and supports it as it is doing with the COVID vaccines, thousands of completely preventable deaths happen every year between Japanese women because of irrational fears against it. It is time to make it completely free and easy to get.

virusrexToday  08:09 am JST

Unsurprisingly once more the scientific predictions of efficacy and safety of a vaccine are confirmed, antiscientific people (usually the same that negate everything else science have concluded when it goes contrary to their purposes) endlessly claimed the vaccine was unsafe, inneffective, dangerous. 13 years later the complete opposite (and what doctors and scientists said from the beginning) is clearly evident.

Who is claiming this vaccine is unsafe?

It's been used in the US for what, 15 years? No story here.

Lets hope against hope that the numerous pieces of evidence of the HPV vaccine efficacy can turn again the Japanese government attitute against it and supports it as it is doing with the COVID vaccines, thousands of completely preventable deaths happen every year between Japanese women because of irrational fears against it. It is time to make it completely free and easy to get.

Yep--Japan is full of antiscientific people since this country has stopped administering this vaccine the past several years. So it is agreed about the irrational fears---in Japan.

Who is claiming this vaccine is unsafe?

There was ridiculous opposition to the vaccine in the US based on the fact that it had to be given to girls at a young age to be effective. Religious types claimed it would lead to promiscuity because girls would know they could not become infected with herpes after receiving the vaccine and therefore would go hog wild having sex.

Really??? Didn't we already know this 30 years ago?

Desert TortoiseToday  08:42 am JST

There was ridiculous opposition to the vaccine in the US based on the fact that it had to be given to girls at a young age to be effective

Was. Not now, And obviously not strong enough opposition to stop the administering of it, or of people getting the inoculation.

Religious types claimed it would lead to promiscuity because girls would know they could not become infected with herpes after receiving the vaccine and therefore would go hog wild having sex.

Well, this strays from my statement about the vaccine being safe or not.

Anyway, the vaccine does not prevent herpes.

You can still get it in Japan if you want it - you just have to find the hospital near you that has it and book one. For people over the age of 26 that want it, it's 35,000yen per shot and requires 3 shots. The second 2 months after the first, and the 3rd six months after the first. Not sure how much it is if you're younger - but I think it's cheaper.

The name of the vaccine is Gardasil 9. It protects against 9 strains of HPV

I thought only kids could be vaccinated against HPV.

In many countries such as NZ, you can only get it for free under the age of 26, although before the age of 16 is ideal. That's because the vaccine only protects you against strains of HPV you haven't already been exposed to. But you can still get the vaccine in adulthood.

If you have the vaccine in your 30s, you've probably been exposed to at least a couple of HPV strains already - but the vaccine will still protect you against any you haven't been exposed to - so why not? (other than the cost)

Unsurprisingly once more the scientific predictions of efficacy and safety of a vaccine are confirmed,

I don't think the efficacy is fully confirmed. According to the article here, the study notes some limitations. But it looks promising.

@virusex,

A further point. The study doesn't touch the subject of the safety of the vaccine. I don't want to stir up another pro-anti vax debate, but it's best to be accurate about what has been researched.

Well, were you correct?

My wife and I investigated getting the vaccine but the ground rules here in the US is no one over 26 benefits from it. The best results, we were told, is when given kids between ages 11 and 16.

This is what I was talking about earlier:

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1206813,00.html

https://www.mamamia.com.au/hpv-vaccine-promiscuity/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4940938/amp/Catholic-bishop-said-HPV-vaccine-promote-promiscuity.html

Only in America ...........

Desert TortoiseNov. 9  08:42 am JST

. ..because girls would know they could not become infected with herpes...

Totally wrong. The vaccine does not protect against herpes. Kind of common knowledge, but simple research shows the same.

Desert TortoiseToday  02:34 am JST

My wife and I investigated getting the vaccine but the ground rules here in the US is no one over 26 benefits from it. The best results, we were told, is when given kids between ages 11 and 16.

Wrong and potentially dangerous information.

The ground rules in 2021 US (and a simple investigation) show:

*GARDASIL 9 is a vaccine (injection/shot) given to individuals 9 through 45 years of age to help protect against diseases caused by some types of Human Papillomavirus (HPV). *

https://www.fda.gov/media/90070/download

A further point. The study doesn't touch the subject of the safety of the vaccine. I don't want to stir up another pro-anti vax debate, but it's best to be accurate about what has been researched.

I never said this (or any) single study was responsible from proving safety and efficacy, but that by this point, way over a decade after it began to be used, the situation is completely clear. The irrational fears and catastrophic predictions of the antivaxers never became real and the opposite (a safe and up to this point very effective vaccine) is what has been proved. There are many reports investigating alleged negative effects of the vaccine, and the overwhelming conclusion is that the vaccine is safe.

The comments made by the "scientists" are always right.

virusrexNov. 9  08:09 am JST

Unsurprisingly once more the scientific predictions of efficacy and safety of a vaccine are confirmed,

This article says nothing about "efficacy and safety of a vaccine" as you mistakenly write; instead it reads of the direct evidence of the effect of the vaccination. Seeing how you terribly confused the terminology it is understandable how you reach mistaken conclusions so easily in a thinly-veiled attempt to promote the liberal narrative based on fear-mongering.

virusrexNov. 9  08:09 am JST

Lets hope against hope that the numerous pieces of evidence of the HPV vaccine efficacy can turn again the Japanese government attitute against it and supports it as it is doing with the COVID vaccines,

The dangers in making an analogous argument of this type are too many to list, but if you look at what the science says, you will see that the HPV vaccine and the "COVID vaccines" (another mistaken term you use--there are COVID-19 vaccines) are used for vastly different purposes and in totally different age groups.

Scientists initially approved Gardasil (the HPV vaccine) for females ages 9-26, to be given a 3-dose vaccination series.

This dosage was the result of studies involving only girls and women.

The COVID-19 vaccines were initially approved to be given to both males and females in either 2-dose, or 1-dose vaccination series (now boosters are recommended).

Also, the HPV vaccine prevents precancerous lesions that often develop into cancer. The COVID-19 vaccines, in the case of breakthrough infections lead to less sickness overall. Two vastly different results.

This article says nothing about "efficacy and safety of a vaccine" as you mistakenly write; instead it reads of the direct evidence of the effect of the vaccination

So, you fail to see the relationship between direct evidence of effect, with the efficacy? no relationship between the words at all? And as I already clarified, the claim that the vaccine is safe do not depend on this study but a solid conclusion from the literature related to this topic obviously.

If you try to make a point of terminology it would be better if you at least try to understand it better yourself, the whole point of showing the effect is clear is that this proves the efficacy of the vaccine.

The dangers in making an analogous argument of this type are too many to list, but if you look at what the science says, you will see that the HPV vaccine and the "COVID vaccines" (another mistaken term you use--there are COVID-19 vaccines) are used for vastly different purposes and in totally different age groups.

Which is completely irrelevant because the point is that scientific conclusions coming from well validated data is the the one that supports the conclusions of safety and efficacy of both medical interventions, and this is what keeps being showed to be correct time after time after time. Your argument would be the same as saying both vaccines come in boxes of different color, that can be the case, but it has absolutely no relevance for the argument.

(now boosters are recommended).

Scientifically only for people with immunologic problems and conditions that confer special vulnerabilities, not for the general population (in spite of what antivaxxer propaganda tries to misrepresent) this is also the case with many other vaccines for which extra boosters are recommended but only to a segment of the population.

Now, how are the differences pertinent to the argument that science as a method was correct in qualifying a vaccine as safe and efficient with evidence and studies running for more than one decade, while the antivaxxers that predicted countless victims and complete lack of protection were again proved wrong? Do the differences in populations make the antivaxxers right? obviously not. That is why those differences have no relevance.

virusrexToday  06:29 am JST

So, you fail to see the relationship between direct evidence of effect, with the efficacy? no relationship between the words at all?

I fail to see the word "efficacy" mentioned in this article.

If you try to make a point of terminology it would be better if you at least try to understand it better yourself, the whole point of showing the effect is clear is that this proves the efficacy of the vaccine.

Well, if I understand that the terminology you are using is different than the terminology used in the article, it would mean I have a pretty good grasp of the actual point of the article. Feel free to add your own terms, throw in a premise to fit your narrative, and then you get a sound conclusion ---albeit one that strays from what is the actual point of what is written.

And as I already clarified, the claim that the vaccine is safe do not depend on this study but a solid conclusion from the literature related to this topic obviously.

And the article does not mention if the vaccine is "safe" either.

Here is a nice nugget that did not get the mention it deserves:

The authors of the study also noted several limitations, including that cervical cancer rarely appears in the age group they surveyed -- individuals who today are no older than 25 -- **even in the absence of vaccines.**

I fail to see the word "efficacy" mentioned in this article.

Why would it be? you are criticizing the word used in my comment, which obviously relates to the effect, which you have already recognized is being shown in the article, if you lose so easily your own train of though it may be better if you re-read everything you are replying to, otherwise you will keep contradicting yourself.

Well, if I understand that the terminology you are using is different than the terminology used in the article,

It is the same, its just that you keep mssing it, the same as when you confuse between being infected by SARS-CoV-2 and being sick of COVID, which are very different things.

And the article does not mention if the vaccine is "safe" either.

And again I already said this is a situation that is not written in the article but related to the topic, and easy to see from the literature, what do you think it means when people write " never said this (or any) single study was responsible from proving safety and efficacy, but that by this point, way over a decade after it began to be used, the situation is completely clear.", how did you understood this means it was mentioned in this article?

Here is a nice nugget that did not get the mention it deserves:

Why would it need to be, the vaccines are already showing efficacy at this point, the limitation is not that the determination is impossible or even difficult to make, just that it still do not reflect the full effect of the vaccines, which will be true (and easy to understand as such) until the people vaccinated in general reach the end of their natural life many decades from now and the comparison between them and unvaccinated people can be done for the complete accumulated risk.

At this point the vaccine is showing a substancial effect (thus proving its efficacy) which completely contradicts the opinion of antivaxxer propaganda that endlessly repeated this would not be the case.