Data from the USA suggests that rates of the human papilloma viruses associated with cervical cancer have dropped by more than 80% compared to before the vaccine. Cervical cancer rates are also dropping, partly because of the decrease in human papilloma virus and partly due to better screening. But the link between getting vaccinated and lives saved is not obvious, because we don't know who would have got cancer if they caught the virus and who would have recovered from the virus and never got cancer.
Cervical screening (Pap smears) have decreased Cervical cancer death by 80%, why is this procedure not subsidised while the HPV vaccine that has not proved to save any life subsidised?
I don't have any knowledge about funding policy decisions. However there is an important difference between screening and vaccination. Screening detects cancer, or pre-cancer cells, early so that treatment has the best chance of success. People still catch the virus and it still starts the process of causing cancer. People still go through having abnormal smears and getting treatment.
Vaccination stops them getting the virus that causes 95% of cervical cancers in the first place. Not only that, it reduces the prevalence of the virus in the overall population, which provides protection for those who either can't be vaccinated, or those can be vaccinated but who have compromised immune systems so the vaccine might not be effective.
The HPV vaccine is saving lives. It's just that it's less obvious that it is doing so because it's basically preventing the cancer earlier.
Such good, clear information - thanks again, Melanie! Even though I was aware of HPV, it still caught me by surprise to think of a virus as a cause of cancer. It's a startling association. Thank you for gathering together such reliable information.
Has the HPV vaccine been proven to save any life from cervical cancer so far?
Data from the USA suggests that rates of the human papilloma viruses associated with cervical cancer have dropped by more than 80% compared to before the vaccine. Cervical cancer rates are also dropping, partly because of the decrease in human papilloma virus and partly due to better screening. But the link between getting vaccinated and lives saved is not obvious, because we don't know who would have got cancer if they caught the virus and who would have recovered from the virus and never got cancer.
Cervical screening (Pap smears) have decreased Cervical cancer death by 80%, why is this procedure not subsidised while the HPV vaccine that has not proved to save any life subsidised?
I don't have any knowledge about funding policy decisions. However there is an important difference between screening and vaccination. Screening detects cancer, or pre-cancer cells, early so that treatment has the best chance of success. People still catch the virus and it still starts the process of causing cancer. People still go through having abnormal smears and getting treatment.
Vaccination stops them getting the virus that causes 95% of cervical cancers in the first place. Not only that, it reduces the prevalence of the virus in the overall population, which provides protection for those who either can't be vaccinated, or those can be vaccinated but who have compromised immune systems so the vaccine might not be effective.
The HPV vaccine is saving lives. It's just that it's less obvious that it is doing so because it's basically preventing the cancer earlier.
Such good, clear information - thanks again, Melanie! Even though I was aware of HPV, it still caught me by surprise to think of a virus as a cause of cancer. It's a startling association. Thank you for gathering together such reliable information.
Thanks Heather.