We aren't talking about different kinds of cancer that aren't preventable. Why not reduce the chances of one type? Those 500 women are glad they reduced their chances. I'm not missing the point. I know people die of different kinds of cancers. I never said they didn't. Can you please stop twisting my words?

Are you saying that we shouldn't immunise because only a small amount of people will be saved? That seems crazy to me. If the cost outweighs the benefits then sure, but does it? What is the cost of life to those 500 women? And that's when measuring life or death. What about all the women out there saved from colposcopies and biopsies and laser on their cervix? Because we know there's something so effective, why not treat it?

By your logic, because more women died of breast cancer (therefore those 500 women, in a statistical sense, are insignificant), does that mean we shouldn't treat diseases that don't kill many people? Hell, should we do away with treating people for cancer because more people die of starvation in Africa?

Actually, I give up. You've stopped calling me names but you're making up things I've said and not reading my posts properly. Which makes this whole thing rather redundant.