[estebank]

The BBC article had that more comparable information: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c621z28z138o

> Between 2020 and 2024, no cervical cancer deaths were recorded in women aged 20 to 24 - the first time that had happened over a five-year period.

> Without vaccination, around 23 deaths would have been expected.

Note the first chart in the link showing the historical trend for the 20-24 cohort since 2000 plumetting from 25 to 0.

[apparent]

Out of curiosity, have there been any other advances in medicine that would make it less likely that women would die from cervical cancer before hitting 30? I don't keep up on oncology developments, but I assume that this particular shot is not the only thing that has reduced cervical cancer deaths in women under 30. If they were looking at rates of acquiring cancer, that would be more focused on this intervention.

[estebank]

I'm not a doctor and certainly not an oncologist.

The CDC mentions that not smoking and wearing condoms also lower the risk.

https://www.cdc.gov/cervical-cancer/prevention/index.html

Anecdotally people smoke less thant they uses to. Don't know what condom usage rates have done in the past quarter century.

> I assume that this particular shot is not the only thing that has reduced cervical cancer deaths in women under 30.

Why would you assume that when presented with a study that tracks with long standing belief in the medical community that the HPV vaccine works?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

[apparent]

> Why would you assume that when presented with a study that tracks with long standing belief in the medical community that the HPV vaccine works?

Because cancer interventions have moved forward in general?