Just to nit-pick (not so much you as the report), it proved 100% effective against cervical cancers caused by HPV 16 and 18, which cause 70% of all cervical cancer (according to the article). That means it was less than 100% effective at blocking all cervical cancer. (They didn't say whether it had any impact on non-HPV-16/18 cancers at all, only that such cancers did occur in vaccinated women.)
Not complaining, still good news, but that 100% number seems misleading to me.
no subject
Just to nit-pick (not so much you as the report), it proved 100% effective against cervical cancers caused by HPV 16 and 18, which cause 70% of all cervical cancer (according to the article). That means it was less than 100% effective at blocking all cervical cancer. (They didn't say whether it had any impact on non-HPV-16/18 cancers at all, only that such cancers did occur in vaccinated women.)
Not complaining, still good news, but that 100% number seems misleading to me.