Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

eurosurveillance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 383 posts

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#171

Post by samus »

pyuser583 wrote: post #133
elric wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, a male, got vaccinated with the Gardasil 9 vaccine shortly before turning 40. Convincing my doctor to prescribe it wasn't terribly difficult, I told them a few things about my sexual history and explained some of my sexual plans, and that was that. I wish more people would get vaccinated.

I feel very uncomfortable trying to talk my doctor into doing something they don't recommend. I know too many people who buy into fake medical stuff. Why is this different? Why is pestering a doctor to give me a medicine they don't recommend a good idea?

The doctor likely didn't recommend it because GP is 40 years old. Most people's sex lives is comparatively... boring at that age.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#172

Post by Der_Einzige »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
spiderfarmer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, no matter how good the data is, some societies will value opinions of uninformed celebrities above facts and reason, leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases.

These celebrities should serve some jailtime. Quackery is criminal, it kills people.

As bad as many celebrities/politicians are (I'm waiting/fantasizing for "cheeto in chief" to sit in the same jail cell as "bubba"), the real quacks are organized groups like Chiropractors, "Naturopaths", Multi-level-marketers, etc.

My medical insurance will pay for several literally fake/quack treatments because of this crap. If you want to wage war against Quackery I better see you going after "big Chiropractor" first.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#173

Post by analog31 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #165
terminalshort wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is terribly difficult. Why the hell do I have to make an appointment weeks in advance, then take time out of my day just to get permission from some asshole who asks about my sexual history? Why can't I just walk up to the counter, say "I'll take one HPV vaccine please" and pay the money? If you want me to get vaccinated make it easy.

This is why you have to go to the grey market for medical stuff in the USA anymore. Every rich celebrety, and women with body dysmorphia knows how easy it is to get GLP-1s right now. Good and thank goodness for it. Deregulating medical systems regarding patient choice and access to drugs is good, but you'll eventually get some bootlicker claiming that "we can't do that because SOMEONE WITH A VIRUS MIGHT USE AN ANTIBI…

Not to mention farm animals being the source of most if not all flu strains.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#174

Post by prirun »

bboygravity wrote: post #148
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This statistic seems to be used by some people to avoid the vaccine The FDA itself restricted access to the vaccine on the basis of age. Given that virions aren't even involved in the production process, its safety should have been deemed good enough for the entire population early on.

The reason it's not recommended for all ages is money. Not safety concerns. Same reason you can't get Shingrix under a certain age.

I think the main reason it isn't recommended for all ages is that it wears off. If you get it before 50, when your immune system starts declining, you might end up getting shingles when you're 60 or 70.

Insurance companies used to only pay for the vaccine at 60. They've reduced it to 50 now because people (like me) were getting it in their 50's. I got it in my left eye and because my immune system is kinda shit, I still have it, though it doesn't give me too much grief now. But it did trash my cornea in that eye, so it's messed my vision up pretty good. And since there's still an active infection (after 8 years), I can't get a cornea transplant.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/two-dose-shin...

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#175

Post by toomuchtodo »

pyuser583 wrote: post #133
elric wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, a male, got vaccinated with the Gardasil 9 vaccine shortly before turning 40. Convincing my doctor to prescribe it wasn't terribly difficult, I told them a few things about my sexual history and explained some of my sexual plans, and that was that. I wish more people would get vaccinated.

I feel very uncomfortable trying to talk my doctor into doing something they don't recommend. I know too many people who buy into fake medical stuff. Why is this different? Why is pestering a doctor to give me a medicine they don't recommend a good idea?

Because doctors are human and fallible operating in suboptimal systems. Don't want to provide me with a low risk, potentially high reward, low cost intervention? I'll shop until I find a doctor who will, or source it myself. Suboptimal systems and practitioners of various quality require advocating for one's self. I had to twist Planned Parenthood's arm to get Gardasil before it was approved for older adults, even though I was paying cash out of pocket, but had no problem with a trusted PCP providing me Metformin, GLP-1 prescriptions, etc simply by arguing my case and meeting sufficient criteria it would not come back to bite them.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#176

Post by wang_li »

shevy-java wrote: post #55
alecco wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But we should also stop enabling celebrities when they push popular agendas even if they are correct. For example, climate change.

Celebrities in general are quite dubous. See a certain actor suddenly promoting Palantir spysniffing on mankind. I decided that guy won't get a dime from me for the rest of my life - when actors suddenly become lobbyists for Evil, they need to not get any money from regular people really.

This is just normal not supporting things you disagree with. It's not a rule of thumb you can quickly use to discount an opinion. Ignoring actors is a pretty handy rule of thumb. Their main skill is repeating someone else's words and emoting. There is no reason to consider them smart, knowledgeable, informed, or competent.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#177

Post by whimsicalism »

terminalshort wrote: post #152
elric wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, a male, got vaccinated with the Gardasil 9 vaccine shortly before turning 40. Convincing my doctor to prescribe it wasn't terribly difficult, I told them a few things about my sexual history and explained some of my sexual plans, and that was that. I wish more people would get vaccinated.

That is terribly difficult. Why the hell do I have to make an appointment weeks in advance, then take time out of my day just to get permission from some asshole who asks about my sexual history? Why can't I just walk up to the counter, say "I'll take one HPV vaccine please" and pay the money? If you want me to get vaccinated make it easy.

Because we over-rely on insurance for routine medical care, when really insurance should just be reserved for the catastrophic and everything else out of pocket (and/or directly subsidized).

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#178

Post by whimsicalism »

nerdjon wrote: post #115
formerly_proven wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Sooner is better, but vaccination can be done at any age. Guidelines often lag behind, but vaccination makes sense even if you are currently HPV-positive. However, the vaccination is expensive (~1k) and it is difficult to find doctors who will do non-recommended vaccinations for self-payers. YCMV

Are there insurance plans that won't cover it? I know that a lot of plans love not paying for things but vaccines seem to be the one thing that they all at least seem fairly good at (at least in my experience). I am currently getting the HPV series and I only had to pay my copay for the first appointment have nothing for the second one (I am assuming it will be the same for the third)

are you under the age of 27? this is the key difference in cost of HPV vaccination

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#179

Post by jacquesm »

sneak wrote: post #125
jacquesm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These celebrities should serve some jailtime. Quackery is criminal, it kills people.

Telling lies should never be criminalized, because there is no single trustworthy arbiter of truth. This has nothing to do with vaccines. There is a very good reason that misinformation is, and should remain legal. This simply allows the person or group who gets to define what is or is not misinformation to arbitrarily imprison anyone doing publishing they don’t like. You really need to think through the implications…

> You really need to think through the implications and consequences of censorship laws before advocating for them.

Maybe I did?

It is possible that we just disagree on this. Clearly misinformation about medical stuff is so damaging that many places have found it necessary to have laws on the books. I'm just elevating this from a misdemeanor to an actual crime based on the outcomes.

Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark

#180

Post by [deleted] »

michaelrpeskin wrote: post #89
phkahler wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. This statistic seems to be used by some people to avoid the vaccine - they figure they've already had it at some point. The biggest problem with that logic is that not all strains are as dangerous and they probably have not contracted 16 or 18 specifically. The other problem is there's still a good number of people…

Yeah, I only read the abstract and looked at the plots, but this is what I hate about public health papers: They say the prevalence of virus is down. They don't say that the cancer rate is down (granted too early to tell), nor do they talk about any adverse events or all cause mortality differences (again, probably too early to tell) The only thing they can conclude is that the treatment given to stop the virus, stop…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN