Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medium 3-figure at most. $400-600 for the full two-dose series.
Worth it.
I think my insurance covered it, even though I was 33. But yes, I would have happily paid $400-600.
HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
271–280 of 383 posts
Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
[deleted]
Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually am pro vaccine. But the HPV vaccine discussion seems politicized to me. As someone who is monogamous and over fifty, I had trouble following the risk vs reward discussion. The CDC says it is only recommended for young adults so I interpret that for my case the answer is negative.
Same, what is the risk/reward for someone who is and plans to be monogamous. Young or old. Cost not a concern. Give me the info and let me decide for myself, my kids, my parents.
I don't want to assume, so I'll ask if you're willing to share - are you making the implicit assumption that your kids are and/or will be monogamous, and is that assumption a key factor in your decision on their vaccinations?
Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
#274I don’t get it. Everyone online gives advice like “Ask your doctor to get the vaccine even if you’re male” but the pharmacies here in SF refused to give it to me. They said that it’s not indicated for a 35+ yo male. So I get the theory of this thing. But has anyone actually tried this? Finally I got OneMedical to prescribe it for me for some $1.2k at which point I decided I’ll just get it abroad during some planned t…
The FDA has approved it for men up to age 45. I myself got it in my late thirties at a pharmacy. For one of the shots, the pharmacist hassled me a little, asking if I was high risk, but acquiesced when I told them I was. For the other two, they just gave me the shot. It was also covered by my insurance.
Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually am pro vaccine. But the HPV vaccine discussion seems politicized to me. As someone who is monogamous and over fifty, I had trouble following the risk vs reward discussion. The CDC says it is only recommended for young adults so I interpret that for my case the answer is negative.
Same, what is the risk/reward for someone who is and plans to be monogamous. Young or old. Cost not a concern. Give me the info and let me decide for myself, my kids, my parents.
And herein lies the problem--you are trying to decree their sexuality. Not your choice.
Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
#276I 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 would like to add:
Weaknesses / Counters:
1) Surrogate endpoint only — HPV PCR positivity is not a clinical outcome; no CIN2/3, no cancer, no mortality measured
2) Correlation ≠ causation — HPV-cancer link is epidemiological association; Koch's postulates not fulfilled in traditional sense; detecting DNA doesn't prove pathogenic activity
3) PCR detection ≠ disease — Transient HPV infections are common and clear spontaneously; most HPV-positive women never develop lesions or cancer
4) Type replacement signal ignored — 66% higher incidence of non-vaccine HR types in vaccinated group is dismissed rather than investigated as potential clinical concern
5) No long-term clinical follow-up — Cervical cancer takes 15-30 years to develop; this 7-year study cannot assess actual cancer prevention
6) Confounding in vaxxed vs unvaxxed comparison — Unvaccinated group is small (n=859), likely differs in health behaviors, screening adherence, socioeconomic factors
7) Circular reasoning — Vaccine "works" because it reduces detection of the types it targets; says nothing about whether those types were actually causing disease in this population
8) Assumes HPV16/18 reduction = cancer reduction — Untested assumption; clinical benefit must be demonstrated, not inferred from PCR
9) High baseline HR-HPV in vaccinated group unexplained — 32% prevalence of other HR types suggests substantial ongoing oncogenic exposure despite vaccination
10) Genome validity unestablished — HPV reference genomes are in-silico constructs assembled computationally; never validated by sequencing purified, isolated viral particles; PCR/sequencing performed on mixed clinical samples where true origin of amplified fragments is indeterminate
Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 attenuat…
I am assuming they meant it won't clear one strain that you already have but may protect against another one you don't
Yes, I understand that. Would you mind reading my comment above? The thing I’m confused about is why it won’t protect you against one you already have.
Like for viruses that have a vaccine, normally you wouldn’t vaccinate someone who had the virus already because the vaccine would be redundant - they already have natural immunity.
But in the case of HPV, apparently they don’t have effective natural immunity, the immunity naturally acquired is worse than the vaccine one. So why can’t the vaccine one take effect after the absent (or at least ineffective one) natural one isn’t (or is slightly) in place? That’s what I don’t understand. It seems like the natural immunity prevents the vaccine induced immunity from developing, but the natural immunity in this case doesn’t seem to work, while the vaccine induced immunity does work. Why…?
Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anything unless you were vaccinated as a child (and are a biological woman). This guidance is changing. Vaccinating men protects women. Also just because you were infected with one strain, that doesn't mean you can't contract another, possibly oncogenic one. Get vaccinated, it protects against the most common cancer-causing strains. I did, why would I want to unknowingly…
>> 4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anything unless you were vaccinated as a child (and are a biological woman). > This guidance is changing. Vaccinating men protects women. Yeah, it was fucking like pulling teeth getting my HPV vaccine as an adult male. "It's for teenage girls" comments from multiple health care professionals. I only took the first fucking dose in the regime, and none of my health care p…
It's a relatively new vaccine, this commonly happens for a few reasons:
1. They start with a cautious roll out to the highest lifetime risk population (teenage girls in this case)
2. They may be limited by vaccine stocks as it does take time to build up product. There's an entire world to vaccinate, billions of doses needed
3. They need time to prove that it will be useful to give to other populations - in this case, adults
There's no conspiracy here, you had to push to get it because you were going against the existing recommendations, which were reasonable. Not because of your gender.
Those recommendations have likely changed recently because when I went in for shots last month (male, 40s) they immediately recommended that me and my partner both get it.
Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
#279I 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…
> Unless you plan to remain completely celibate,
Or you (and your future partner) practice abstinence until you're ready to commit to a lifelong monogamous relationship.
Re: HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn’t you have gotten the vaccine after your divorce if you wanted?
Consider that it's possible that the person's partner may have exposed them to their then-unknown extra partners, creating one of the conditions for the divorce.
There are other STDs that you'd still be at risk of getting/giving in the case of infidelity, so getting this one vaccine doesn't actually make things all good. I imagine for some people, the thought of possibly bringing home a disease would actually be a sufficient deterrent to prevent infidelity. Not just because they wouldn't want to infect their partner, but because they know it could lead to them getting caught.