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

291–300 of 383 posts

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

#291

Post by apparent »

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.

Seems unlikely that there's a way for fathers to accidentally give HPV to their daughters and we haven't figured it out yet.

I would think that kissing a baby on the lips would be the best chance, and if that were the case it'd be super obvious because there'd be a bunch of toddlers with HPV, which would cause alarm.

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

#292

Post by LorenPechtel »

perlgeek wrote: post #11
garbawarb wrote: post #3

> Infection with HPV types covered by the vaccine (HPV16/18) has been almost eliminated. Before vaccination, the prevalence of HPV16/18 was between 15–17%, which has decreased in vaccinated women to I wonder if we'll those non-vaccine strains will eventually become the most prevalent.

Sounds like in countries like Denmark, they are already on their way to becoming the most prevalent. Hope we'll develop vaccines against those too.

The thing is there's not much incentive to develop a vaccine against something that's just a nuisance.

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

#293

Post by LorenPechtel »

nephihaha wrote: post #12
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…

Promiscuity is not a healthy lifestyle and we need to stop presenting it as one. The AIDS crisis of the 1980s should have been enough of a warning. If people don't sleep around then HPV's spread will be much reduced and they will be much less likely to catch other STIs.

The AIDS crisis happened because it was unknown and very stealthy--nobody knew there was a risk to be guarded against. And it certainly didn't help that because of the association with gays the government response was slow-rolled. Same thing we saw with Covid--the US response was slow-rolled because at first it looked like it was selecting for blue areas.

Without the gays it might have gone a long time as a blood vector without being identified. When it was a "gay" disease it was busy killing old people who got transfusions but were never identified as having AIDS.

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

#294

Post by LorenPechtel »

bluGill wrote: post #16
matthewmacleod wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This adds nothing. It has been repeatedly shown that stupid abstinence-driven approaches to public health do not work. It’s equivalent to saying “maybe the obesity crisis would be solved if we all just ate less”. Moral crusades have zero place in public health and are actively harmful.

This isn't an abstinence driven approach it is a marry 'young' and then only that one partener for life.

Except it doesn't work very well.

Those who marry younger are more likely to divorce. Or lead unhappy lives because they don't divorce to save face, but the marriage is dead.

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

#295

Post by LorenPechtel »

nephihaha wrote: post #56
tpm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not talking about 'sleeping around' at all. Just by the look at the divorce rates around the world it is very clear that 'marry young and then never change partners' is an advice divorced from reality.

Divorce is horrible for sure but that is mainly down to interpersonal relationships. It is a simple fact that unprotected sex with large numbers of people is very risky. We should have learnt that lesson in the eighties.

Strawman--nobody's suggesting unprotected sex with many people.

Simple data point, though: my wife is from China, grew up in a culture where divorce is basically unheard of. At first she was horrified at what she saw here--but over time she's come to see the marriages of her culture weren't any more successful. It just they turned into unhappy people staying together for reasons of face. Just about everyone she was close enough to to know about their marriage was no longer having sex.

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

#296

Post by LorenPechtel »

nephihaha wrote: post #54
ulfw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a truly sad life

Not as sad as catching something which will damage you physically, sterilise them or even kill them. People don't want to hear this obviously. But it is a fact STI transmission has skyrocketed since the so called sexual revolution of the late sixties. Within fifteen years, we has an AIDS epidemic.

It's not that STDs exploded, it's that they weren't hidden away.

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

#297

Post by jacquesm »

terminalshort wrote: post #212
jacquesm wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quackery is already illegal in many places, it did not lead to a 'ministry of truth' or equivalent.

Quackery in what sense? It is my understanding that to be a quack in a legal sense one must first be a licensed doctor, and malpractice is covered by freedom of speech. But you referred to celebrities practicing "quackery" which I assume means that they were saying the same nonsense that could get a doctor's license pulled, and that is absolutely covered by freedom of speech. Also, you have already admitted there is…

Quackery:

Dishonest practices and claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field, typically medicine.

The legal definition does not require one to first be a licensed doctor.

And malpractice is definitely not covered by freedom of speech.

Not everybody lives in the USA.

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

#298

Post by LorenPechtel »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #161

The only thing I've never understood about the HPV vaccination is that for some reason after a certain age as an adult in the United States, no primary care provider appears to recommend you get it in addition to your regular vaccination schedule. Is the idea that you're married and have a single partner and the risk factor has dropped below a certain percentage of the population where there's little reason to recomm…

It wasn't tested in those over 45, thus it is not approved over 45. Doesn't stop off-label use, but means it's not going to be on any schedules.

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

#299

Post by andrewmcwatters »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #230
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #161

The only thing I've never understood about the HPV vaccination is that for some reason after a certain age as an adult in the United States, no primary care provider appears to recommend you get it in addition to your regular vaccination schedule. Is the idea that you're married and have a single partner and the risk factor has dropped below a certain percentage of the population where there's little reason to recomm…

Here's the CDC's most recent recommendations (from 2019) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6832a3.htm The justification for 27-45 year olds heavily references a meeting. Based on time, author and title, I think either https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/78082/cdc_78082_DS1.pdf or https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10395540/ should be a fair summary of the meeting (I hope...). I don't really have time to read…

[dead]

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

#300

Post by pm90 »

arjie wrote: post #166

I 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…

I'm over 30 and got it from CVS. No questions asked, and my insurance fully covered all the doses.
Post reply on HN