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

HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 147 posts

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#111

Post by LorenPechtel »

londons_explore wrote: post #45
pazimzadeh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why they recommend against it. I guess the monetary costs don't outweigh the benefits, but that's only if you care more about saving money than potentially preventing cancer. It's not like the vaccine going to hurt you. But the HPV vaccine is not particularly cheap, so it sounds like the insurance companies have lobbied against it or something. In my opinion men should also be vaccinated for it sin…

Since nearly everyone is infected with HPV, if you've had sex with a few people you're almost certainly already infected and therefore the vaccine will be of no benefit. I guess if you were 50 and still a virgin, and planning to change that, it might be worth it.

It's not approved above age 45 and thus insurance isn't going to pay. But that's simply a matter of not testing. It was intended to be used before exposure and the pool of people >45 who aren't exposed and might be is pretty low.

However, there is a case where it makes sense: Someone who went into a monogamous relationship early and it has now ended. I'm not a sex-only-in-marriage type but I ended up taking my first partner down the aisle--chances are I was never exposed. I'm still with her, but all relationships end eventually.

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#112

Post by kolinko »

ceejayoz wrote: post #26
Moldoteck wrote: post #24

Does it make sense to get a vaccine for older ppl, like 30y, does this still apply for men?

The CDC doesn't recommend it. By that age, you've probably been exposed already. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html > HPV vaccination is not recommended for everyone older than age 26 years. Some adults ages 27 through 45 years who were not already vaccinated might choose to get HPV vaccine after speaking with their doctor about their risk for new HPV infections and possible benefits of vaccination…

doesn’t recommend ≠ recommends against

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#113

Post by kolinko »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #39
ceejayoz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC doesn't recommend it. By that age, you've probably been exposed already. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html > HPV vaccination is not recommended for everyone older than age 26 years. Some adults ages 27 through 45 years who were not already vaccinated might choose to get HPV vaccine after speaking with their doctor about their risk for new HPV infections and possible benefits of vaccination…

I don't understand why they recommend against it. I guess the monetary costs don't outweigh the benefits, but that's only if you care more about saving money than potentially preventing cancer. It's not like the vaccine going to hurt you. But the HPV vaccine is not particularly cheap, so it sounds like the insurance companies have lobbied against it or something. In my opinion men should also be vaccinated for it sin…

doesn’t recommend ≠ recommends against

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#114

Post by LorenPechtel »

londons_explore wrote: post #52
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #2

It's so crazy/impressive to me that some vaccines are actually "prefect".

Many vaccines become 'perfect' by causing the disease they treat to die out in the local community. It doesn't need to be perfect at the individual level to cause that - and in fact many vaccines at the individual level actually have pretty bad metrics - like for example only preventing half of cases.

This is how vaccines are expected to operate. You don't need perfection, just enough to drive the reproduction rate below 1.

However, note that this is in a population where there will no doubt be leaks. Even if everyone in the area got the jab that doesn't mean they won't have sex with people who didn't. Thus an infection rate of zero is a good showing.

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#115

Post by alfor »

kstrauser wrote: post #85
alfor wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> We assume the cost is zero but it's not. Please share. What's the health cost of getting this vaccine?

I don't know, we don't know, that's the point.

They claim a victory (no cancer in some conditions) But don't show the all cause mortality for same sample.

You should be skeptical of a study not showing all causes mortality on their own sample. It's very easy to do, you count the dead and living for both samples at the end of the experiment. Yet, they don't. Weird isn't?

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#116

Post by prepend »

inasio wrote: post #6

Reminder that HPV in men has a similar association to oral/anal cancer, and this vaccine (ideally the quadrivalent version) prevents it too [0]. HPV vaccine campaigns often emphasize vaccinating only girls, but boys should be vaccinated too. [0] https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article-abstract/doi/1...

The incidence of these cancers is much lower than cervical cancer.

I think a more practical benefit to boys is the prevention of many strains of general warts and general herpes.

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#117

Post by alfor »

ahazred8ta wrote: post #109
mensetmanusman wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$300 per dose * 100,000:1, so about $30 million per cancer cure that has a 70% survival rate. Up to the voters I guess.

The lifetime risk of ever getting cervical cancer is about 1%. So, $30,000 per prevention if you just count the girls, or $60k if you vaccinate the boys as well.

*Assuming the vaccine has zero risk and don't cause other problems.

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#118

Post by prepend »

ksenzee wrote: post #65
londons_explore wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since nearly everyone is infected with HPV, if you've had sex with a few people you're almost certainly already infected and therefore the vaccine will be of no benefit. I guess if you were 50 and still a virgin, and planning to change that, it might be worth it.

Or you’ve been monogamous but are now getting divorced, or whatever. Not that uncommon.

It’s actually kind of frustrating how expensive that vaccine is (>$1000) as there’s no incentive to reduce cost.

And if you’re 45, then insurance won’t cover. Even if you test negative for hpv.

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#119

Post by thedailymail »

ceejayoz wrote: post #26
Moldoteck wrote: post #24

Does it make sense to get a vaccine for older ppl, like 30y, does this still apply for men?

The CDC doesn't recommend it. By that age, you've probably been exposed already. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html > HPV vaccination is not recommended for everyone older than age 26 years. Some adults ages 27 through 45 years who were not already vaccinated might choose to get HPV vaccine after speaking with their doctor about their risk for new HPV infections and possible benefits of vaccination…

It's a bit confusing, but often when a government agency issues a statement about something being "not recommended" it is intended to mean the government is not strongly encouraging people to do [whatever]. This is very different from the government recommending against people doing [whatever]. So here the CDC is basically saying we don't say people over 26 should definitely get an HPV vaccination, but we don't say they shouldn't either.

Re: HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14

#120

Post by burnished »

rootusrootus wrote: post #51
jeffbee wrote: post #10

This is one of the many reasons that "parental rights" people are dead wrong. People as young as 12 should have the absolute right to seek and get, in confidence, this vaccine and other health care. Nobody should give any weight to whether their parents want them to not have this vaccine.

> as young as 12 Why the arbitrary line at 12?

Probably because they felt the need to draw the line somewhere to prevent hypothetical five year olds from demanding a dangerous cocktail of innoculants from every pharmacy in town, and probably the sense that at 12 you've developed enough for your sense of agency to be respected.

Why does 12 sound arbitrary to you?

Post reply on HN