That's the exact opposite of the point of the article. Men and boys don't get the vaccine because they and their parents perceive it as a female-only problem (cervical cancer induced by HPV). The article is trying to get apathetic men and boys to realize that not only are they acting as carriers of HPV that can kill their wives and partners, but they themselves can die from HPV induced cancers.
When I wrote my comment, the headline was something along the lines of "Why we should vaccinate boys against HPV too". The headline has now been changed, and my comment seems really odd.
The meaning of the title hasn't changed much though. Is it too much to expect people to read the article before making inflammatory MRA style comments? Looks like a common problem in this thread.
The headline for the STAT article was “New evidence shows why the HPV vaccine is as important for boys as girls” and I shortened it to its current form in HN. I hope this hasn’t caused any confusion.
