Promoting regular cancer screening and HPV vaccination, as well as campaigning against smoking, could help reduce the economic burden.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, there is no particularly good evidence that regular cancer screening reduces number of deaths across the board, though there may be some efficacy in a very few types of cancer, and it may even raise the economic burden.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, there is no particularly good evidence that regular cancer screening reduces number of deaths across the board, though there may be some efficacy in a very few types of cancer, and it may even raise the economic burden.

There is plenty of evidence, but it comes out to the appropriate level of screening. All medical procedures come with risk and that includes tests, so a lot of studies are done about what is the best way to conduct screenings, maximizing the benefits for the patients while reducing the risks and costs. Mammograms for example are not something that gives best results limiting the age and frequency of the tests instead of doing it indiscriminately, the same for screenings of digestive tract, cervical or endocrinous cancer.

It is just that "regular" do not have to be the same as "annual" nor include everybody.

But adults can't be vaccinated against HPV; it only works on minors. Also, how does the virus add to the economic burden? Cancer, I understand.

Also, how does the virus add to the economic burden? Cancer, I understand.

HPV vaccine protects againstcancer

simple solution.dont smoke.problem solved.

Remind me again how much of Japan Tobacco that the Japanese government owns?

Australia has the best cervical cancer prevention program in the world, and has had success with the HPV vaccine, unlike the WHO, which has given conflicting advice to poorer nations.

unlike the WHO, which has given conflicting advice to poorer nations

What conflicting advice are you talking about? the WHO is one of the most important supporters of the HPV vaccines even including their development Not to mention that the WHO is one of the permanent members of GAVI which is responsible for the support given globally to many vaccines including against HPV. The own Australian recommendations are based on the guidelines formulated by the WHO itself.

I'm not sure using economic benefits is the best way to measure the problem. Some might argue that allowing people to live longer creates a greater economic burden. Maybe best to focus on the health benefits.

What conflicting advice are you talking about? the WHO is one of the most important supporters of the HPV vaccines even including their development

The conflicting advice to use, and then not use the vaccines, as is well-known in the global world of medicine nd science.

Not to mention that the WHO is one of the permanent members of GAVI which is responsible for the support given globally to many vaccines including against HPV.

Not related.

The own Australian recommendations are based on the guidelines formulated by the WHO itself.

Wrong, and Australia was the first country to implement an HOV vaccine program and its success against The WHO's is not even measurable, because the WHO's vaccine program failed again like its many others.

There is no conflicting advice from the WHO about HPV vaccines, it is always supported by the best available science at the time which is why even Australia use their directions. Thanks to research supported by the WHO a lower number of vaccinations was even proved effective, letting developing countries vaccinate double the amount of people with the same amount of vaccines. GAVI is definetely related to the vaccination efforts against HPV, and even the Australian government recognizes their role and their actions as example of a very successful campaign supported by international medical organizations including the WHO,

https://www.dfat.gov.au/news/news/Pages/gavi-and-ausaid-saving-lives-through-immunisation

Saving literally millions of lives is not a "failure" but the opposite.