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

321–330 of 383 posts

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

#321

Post by c-c-c-c-c »

Spone wrote: post #257
silvestrov wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

e-boks sends a text message to the phone, so I see it much faster than a paper mail. e-boks is like gmail (and others) in that it keeps your old mail. So you can easily find old stuff, a great improvement on paper mail. I don't even check my physical mailbox once a week. Denmark is one of the very most digital countries. Physical mail is very much on the way out. We no longer has mailboxes to send mail, you have to g…

Didn't Danish postal service just ended operations? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/30/world/europe/denmark-lett...

A Danish postal company, they wont stop receiving mail lol.

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

#322

Post by refurb »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #135
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…

> 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.

That’s not how drug approvals work. You don’t make assumptions about safety, you make decisions based on data.

The original trials were for a specific population - no prior HPV infection, young women. Hence the approval was for that population.

Additional trials have been run expanding the population, but the decision was based on data not “yeah, I’ll bet this is safe/works for this other group”

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

#323

Post by refurb »

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.

If by “money” you mean “spending limited health dollars on treatments where the benefit justifies the amount spent” then you’d be correct.

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

#324

Post by Slava_Propanei »

arjie wrote: post #288
apparent wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I decided years ago I’d do this because I was going to have girls and I wanted to minimize my daughters’ risk of cancer. I don't understand: how would your daughters be more/less likely to get cancer based on whether you were vaccinated? There's obviously the (hopefully extremely) roundabout way in which there is a direct path of sexual partners leading from you to your future daughters, but is there something else…

The vaccine is likely to do very little damage to me, but cervical cancer is a big bad. I think I'm just accounting for some risk that we discover a non-sexual mode of transmission.

[dead]

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

#325

Post by strideashort »

Title is misleading

> Among the 859 unvaccinated women, HPV16/18 prevalence was 6%, 5%, and 6%

and

> However, about one-third of women still had HPV infection with non-vaccine high-risk HPV types, and new infections with these types were more frequent in vaccinated than in unvaccinated women.

so… real summary is “hpv vaccination correlates with lower infection for vaccine specific HPV strain, but does not impact / potentially worsens overall high-risk HPV infections”

so what exactly is solved here, supposedly?

not to mention, the study does not compare helth outcomes, which is the only meaningful measure.

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

#326

Post by miroljub »

andrepd wrote: post #228
miroljub wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Chastity is 100% effective at preventing STDs exactly like living in a plastic bubble is 100% effective at preventing the flu (incidentally, it's also 100% effective at preventing humanity from existing within 80 years...). The fact that people throughout history, even in the most repressive times when "adulterers" were stoned or forced to marry rapists, have had much higher rates of STDs than we do today, shows that…

> Seriously? Your argument is "damn those slut whores"

No. Now calm down and try to understand what I wrote. It's not that hard.

> There's a whole range of behaviors and HPV risk profiles between celibate and being a slut.

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

#328

Post by coreyh14444 »

wojciii wrote: post #255
coreyh14444 wrote: post #5

Just a quick point as an American living in Denmark, one of the reasons government programs like this work so well is everything is delivered digitally. We have "e-boks" https://en.digst.dk/systems/digital-post/about-the-national-... official government facilitated inboxes so when they need to notify you of vaccinations or whatever else, it arrives to your inbox. And basically 100% of residents use these systems.

This HPV vaccine was part of the children vaccination program (børnevaccinationsprogram) which kindly asks the parents to vaccinate their children. While we have some anivaxxers here in DK, most people (90%, I believe) are sane and follow the recommendations. The vaccinations start while the children are small and continue while they grow up .. the last one is when they are 12.5 years old. The notifications are deliv…

This is why I posted it from the perspective as an American. We don't have anything remotely comparable. Vaccinations are delivered by private doctors and public schools often require vaccinations or exemptions but the system works entirely differently. If you homeschooled your kids and if your doctor didn't mention it, you'd never even know that vaccinations were available.

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

#329

Post by SA128009 »

First hand experience here, 6 years ago I had tonsil cancer from HPV16. It SUUUCKED. Doing well now though thank god. I’ve had a hard time getting decent info even from my oncology team in the years since as to whether I should even consider getting the vaccine now. I am 45, married and my wife of 5 years (yes we went through all of that while engaged) has gotten her series of shots 3 years ago. I have heard from my Drs that as obviously I have already had at least the one strain, there isn’t really a point in getting the shots now. Is there any newer info regarding this semi specific situation that anyone is aware of?

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

#330

Post by throwwartsaway »

odie5533 wrote: post #231
downrightmike wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foot warts are HPV, like from the Gym locker room

But they are not HPV16/18 and so not covered by this vaccine.

I successfully treated a persistent hand / feet / knee warts infection with 3 shots of Gardasil-9. The common warts are supposed to clear on their own within 2 years, but it was not the case for me. They all cleared out about a 1 year after the first shot, never to return. Including a deep plantar one that was completely immune to cryotherapy

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277270762...

Post reply on HN