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

241–250 of 383 posts

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

#241

Post by nextos »

shevy-java wrote: post #47
nextos wrote: post #6

Lots of viruses are really oncogenic. The real success here is the ability of Denmark to track effectiveness. It sounds crazy but most countries do not have electronic health record capability to measure the effect of many interventions at population scale. Once good EHRs are rolled out, we will be able to double down on effective interventions, like this one, and vice versa.

"Lots of viruses are really oncogenic." Hmm. Compared to what measurement? Most viruses are actually not oncogenic. From cancer causes, oncogenic viruses are thought to be responsible for about 12% of human cancers worldwide: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/7/797 From what I remember, most viruses are not oncogenic in nature, so I am unsure whether the statement made is correct.

15-20% cancers are caused by viral infections, probably more.

E.g. EBV is strongly associated with several lymphomas.

There are other significant clinical associations for HPV, HBV, HCV, HTLV-1, HHV-8, and many others.

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

#242

Post by samus »

terminalshort wrote: post #211
Der_Einzige wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Antibiotics are actually an exception to my general opinion that all medications should be available without prescription. Unlike most drugs, their use has major externalities which means there is a role for larger societal regulation of their use. Also, are farms actually the major vector for antibiotic resistance in the human population? I was under the impression that the majority of antibiotic resistant infection…

I'd ask the opposite: are hospitals the places where the immunities develop or are they merely the places where the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is most deadly and therefore investigated?

The dangerous thing about antibiotic immunity is that it can transfer also between bacteria species.

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

#243

Post by 1121redblackgo »

koolba wrote: post #209
1121redblackgo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and in the same breathe, the risk is closer to zero than not.

Sure but specifics count. 49% is also closer to zero than it is to a 100%.

Complications from vaccines are not anywhere close to 49% if that is what you are insinuating.

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

#244

Post by osakasake »

stared wrote: post #40

I would like to add: - HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. Unless you plan to remain completely celibate, you are likely to contract a strain. - 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. While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects…

What are the chances that you develop cancer if you get infected by the worst HPV strain?

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

#245

Post by pfannkuchen »

stared wrote: post #40

I would like to add: - HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. Unless you plan to remain completely celibate, you are likely to contract a strain. - 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. While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects…

I’m confused why it won’t clear an existing infection while still working on future infections.

Here is what I know (which may be limited, I’m not a biologist) and also what I’m assuming:

1) The body apparently doesn’t eliminate the virus on its own when it picks up the virus unvaccinated. I’m assuming that this is because it isn’t registered by the immune system as being harmful, for whatever reason.

2) The attenuated virus in the vaccine would not produce an immune response without the adjuvant, because even viruses that are registered as harmful are not reliably registered as harmful when attenuated. This is where the adjuvant packaged with the attenuated virus comes in - it is registered by the body as harmful, and in its confusion the immune system also adds the virus to the registry.

So, naively, if the immune system previously didn’t register the natural infection as harmful, and if it does register the virus in the vaccine as harmful, why doesn’t the registry entry for the vaccine also get applied to the natural infection, the same way as it does for a person who wasn’t previously infected?

Is there some kind of specificity hierarchy, along with a “not harmful” registry alongside the “harmful” registry, such that the natural infection continues to get its previous classification of “not harmful” because the “not harmful” registry entry is more specific than the “harmful” registry entry? That’s the only explanation I can (naively) think of.

And if that’s the case, could we first wipe out the registry by infecting the person with measles, and then give them the HPV vaccine? Just kidding about this part!

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

#246

Post by derbOac »

jorvi wrote: post #27
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #4

Everyone already knows! HPV vaccination leads to massive reduction in nasopharyngeal, penile and rectal cancer in men. The focus of messaging around HPV vaccination on ovarian cancer, female fertility and the age limitations for recommendations / free vaccination in some places are nothing short of a massive public health failure and almost scandal. Just truthfully tell the boys their dicks might fall off and see how…

> Just truthfully tell the boys their dicks might fall off and see how all of them quicklky flock to the vaccine. Every male above the age of 26 is locked out of the vaccine unless you pay out of pocket, which will be €300-€500 (or even higher). It's led to this really weird situation, where HPV vaccination for men is now recommended up to 40s but only covered up to 26yr old, and that recommendation upgrade happened…

I'm in the US and have wanted to get it but perpetually have been older than the recommended cutoff. They have raised the age over and over again but I've always been older than it. I'm not sure why they don't just get rid of the age limit recommendations altogether.

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

#247

Post by vaxthrowawayy »

gardasilotc wrote: post #214
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.

You can make an appointment at eg Walgreens (and probably also CVS) and pay out of pocket for the Gardasil-9 HPV vaccination without any consultation with or referral from a GP (General Practitioner) or a Specialist. Gardasil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil https://www.google.com/search?q=gardasil+shot+cost https://www.goodrx.com/gardasil-9/how-much-is-gardasil-witho... : > When you have your first shot is the…

You’re not kidding! I read your comment and literally just went and got the vaccine. Thank you! I had no idea.

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

#248

Post by vaxthrowawayy »

terminalshort wrote: post #208
whimsicalism wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I agree with that, and I don't have a problem with insurance companies demanding a doctor's approval before paying. What I have a problem with is that I can't even pay my own way without a doctor.

You can, see sibling comment by another poster. I also didn’t know, but literally just went and got vaccinated all in under an hour.

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

#249

Post by stocksinsmocks »

afarah1 wrote: post #39

A comment with an article citing published medical literature on risks associated with this type of vaccine was flagged and hidden. Why? I don't know the author nor am I a medical doctor to understand the topic at depth, so it's a genuine question. Was it misleading? If so, how? That's what the comment was asking, actually, if there were counter-points to the text, which was favorable to live vaccines (e.g. shingles)…

You see, my lad…

In this house we believe Love is love Black Lives Matter Science is real Feminism is for everyone No human is illegal Kindness is everything

Signaling your alignment to the public-facing opinions of your social betters is the modern ersatz religion for atheists. The television is the temple, the pundits the priests. Apostates and heretics are not welcome here. Now, my child, you would not want your words to inadvertently cause the faithful to stray. Would you? Just think of what the late night comedians would say if they could hear you cast doubt on their sponsor Pfizer? Perhaps you would rather join our hate session on the pagans in flyover country?

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

#250

Post by anderber »

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.

They also did it by gender in the US when I was in college. Boys could not get it. At the same time that Europe was vaccinating everyone.
Post reply on HN