Within “cervical cancer” theres are many types, in case you didn’t know, bruh.
People who get “lung cancer” can get various forms. The article isn’t taking about eliminating cervical cancer entirely, not even the one caused by HPV.
Which if you hadnt read, the article is arguing these deaths are mostly preventable in poorer countries as HPV has had a long awareness (and effective) campaign already, it’s not even primarily about cancer. The headline sucks.
I do understand that this helps eliminate some of the variants. That’s not what the headline is saying.
Why not make it an article about HPV that would help with cervical cancer instead of a cancer article about HPV? Because clicks. It still wouldn’t eliminate 94, or 99% of cervical cancers, only HPV ones… Eliminate HPV doesn’t sound as good, we can’t even eliminate measles.
It says 94% of cancers occur in those countries. That’s a far cry from what youre implying.
Edit: I wouldn’t call bitching about cancer titles being blown of out proportion “contrarian” either
Lmao, HPV is not the only way you get cervical cancer. “Elimination of a cancer” is just not true. Maybe one specific type of cervical cancer.
It’s like saying we can cure colon cancer if we just stopped eating at McDonald’s. It’s simply not true.
I didn’t use the word “cure” in my comment.
Edit: Lmao was for the dwight level “Wrong” like youre unidan or something.
bruh
Within “cervical cancer” theres are many types, in case you didn’t know, bruh.
People who get “lung cancer” can get various forms. The article isn’t taking about eliminating cervical cancer entirely, not even the one caused by HPV.
Which if you hadnt read, the article is arguing these deaths are mostly preventable in poorer countries as HPV has had a long awareness (and effective) campaign already, it’s not even primarily about cancer. The headline sucks.
Then you do understand that this will element all the HPV variants. Which isn’t nothing. 95% of all cervical cancers.
You are trying to sound smart by being a pedantic contrarian.
You broke the code lol.
95% is the low estimate, the WHO says it’s 99%.
Edit: I am wrong, the WHO also says 95%. I don’t know why I thought they said 99%. Regardless, almost everyone says 95% or more.
I do understand that this helps eliminate some of the variants. That’s not what the headline is saying.
Why not make it an article about HPV that would help with cervical cancer instead of a cancer article about HPV? Because clicks. It still wouldn’t eliminate 94, or 99% of cervical cancers, only HPV ones… Eliminate HPV doesn’t sound as good, we can’t even eliminate measles.
It says 94% of cancers occur in those countries. That’s a far cry from what youre implying.
Edit: I wouldn’t call bitching about cancer titles being blown of out proportion “contrarian” either