HPV vaccination reduces oncogenic HPV16/18 prevalence from 16% to <1% in Denmark • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by audunf » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 2:37 AM UTC

Anecdote time (and some info from real life EMTs and Oncologist). I just recently “won” the cancer lottery related to this. Never had the HPV vaccine. Honestly thought it was only for young girls (didn’t spare topic a thought, zero time investigating).

80-90% of adults gets some form of HPV during lifetime. Often several strains. Each have different risks of cancer. Even if you’re married - if you or your partner experience a severely stressful period- it might reactivate. Most people’s immune systems clears HPV, and makes it dormant. (Mine likely doesn’t see HPV as a threat. Long term (10y+?) exposure to active HPV cause cancer.

If you can, at least do your very best to avoid the cancer nightmare. Take the vaccine. Worst case it protects you from being a vector. It’s an imperfect insurance from 3-4 months in/out of hospitals, scans, blood work, from chronic dry mouth,all food tasting very bad, issues with energy, possible bone death (that you suddenly have to monitor every day for the test. Oh, and any alcohol or smoking after having had this increases risk of recurrence by 30-50%

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

#302

Post by electriclove » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 2:38 AM UTC

daveungerer wrote: post #240

electriclove wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Did I read this correctly? You are going to decide for your children based on their plans to be monogamous? And you’re also going to decide for your parents? I can only assume you’re in the unfortunate situation where your parents are no l…

My wife and I are definitely going to decide for my kids while they are under 18. Not you, not the state

If there is a benefit for my gen and my parents, then why wouldn’t we consider it?

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

#303

Post by electriclove » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 2:48 AM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #273

electriclove wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The CDC recommendation to get it at 11 or 12 does not make sense to me. I know they aren’t having sex - and I know that some kids do. We will discuss, together, the pros/cons as they get older to see if it makes sense. As they get older, they’ll make these decisions themselves. Until then, I’m weighing the pros/cons and in our case, it doesn’t seem they are at risk in the near future.

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

#304

Post by electriclove » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 2:50 AM UTC

LorenPechtel wrote: post #275

electriclove wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you a parent? We might just be raised differently. And I can accept that you might raise your kids differently.

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

#305

Post by electriclove » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 2:53 AM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #203

electriclove wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t you have gotten the vaccine after your divorce if you wanted?

You are presuming that people are monogamous up until their divorce when infidelity is one of the top reasons for divorce.

Is it that uncommon for people to be monogamous?

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

#306

Post by electriclove » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 2:54 AM UTC

fn-mote wrote: post #218

electriclove wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t you have gotten the vaccine after your divorce if you wanted?

Think about your future health while your mind is clear. After the trauma of divorce is not the time. Also, I think these questions are in bad faith. It is actually hard to get people to change any behavior. The public health benefits should be a primary concern. Avoid vaccination if there is a downside to you personally, but that isn’t what I’m hearing from your comments.

If you assume the divorce was due to infidelity, then I understand. But I didn’t not glean that from the post.

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

#307

Post by DerekL » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 3:04 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #42

im3w1l wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk the Danish approach of opennnes seems to be working for them. They acknowledge it isn't fully effective. They acknowledge that there may be a small risk of side effects. And they tell people it's worth it and to go take it. "Since HPV vaccination was implemented in the Danish childhood vaccination programme in 2009, we have received 2,320 reports of suspected adverse reactions from HPV vaccines up to and includin…

> They acknowledge it isn't fully effective. They acknowledge that there may be a small risk of side effects. And they tell people it's worth it and to go take it. Those are basic bits of knowledge that apply to most vaccinations. The problem is that the quacks diminish the positive effects, exaggerate the negatives and engage in a campaign of fear mongering that costs some people (and in some cases lots of people, s…

You probably mean Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., not John. JFK Jr. died in 1999, and was not anti-vaccine, as far as I know.

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

#308

Post by timr » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 3:22 AM UTC

jgerrish wrote: post #236

tehjoker wrote: post #220

Earlier 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 “like pulling teeth” because the guidance isn’t changing (at least not because of evidence).

There seems to be a very motivated contingency who want to spin a story that male vaccination for HPV has benefits for women. The problems with this story are:

1) Efficacy of the current vaccines for women are incredibly high. Vaccinating young women, alone, is basically enough. Whatever benefits you're imagining must therefore be marginal.

2) Efficacy of current vaccines for men are (surprisingly) low [1], so it’s hard to claim secondary benefits for other people without substantial additional evidence.

It’s perfectly OK to acknowledge that the HPV vaccine is an overall good, should be on the schedule for young women, and yet does not need to be administered to men. Giving it to men (particularly older men) is not supported by data at this time, which is why your doctors don’t make it easy for you to get it.

[1] Again, refer to https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706722/

See table 4. In a naive population of men, the efficacy against DNA detection of HPV runs around 50%, and in men who may or may not have the virus, the number is lower. Efficacy against persistent infection is similar. Compare to tables 1-3 for women, where efficacy nears 100% in some populations.

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

#309

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 3:29 AM UTC

DerekL wrote: post #307

jacquesm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They acknowledge it isn't fully effective. They acknowledge that there may be a small risk of side effects. And they tell people it's worth it and to go take it. Those are basic bits of knowledge that apply to most vaccinations. The problem is that the quacks diminish the positive effects, exaggerate the negatives and engage in a campaign of fear mongering that costs some people (and in some cases lots of people, s…

You probably mean Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., not John. JFK Jr. died in 1999, and was not anti-vaccine, as far as I know.

Indeed, typo on my part. Anyway, the conspiracy idiot, in case there was any ambiguity left.

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

#310

Post by timr » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 3:35 AM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #268

timr wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed three very important caveats that complicate the story you’re trying to tell: 1) not every strain of HPV causes cancer (iirc, the bad ones are rare). 2) many people (in fact, most people) who are active in the world have been infected with at least one strain of HPV. 3) it’s common to have asymptomatic HPV infections. you probably have one now. one more: 4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anythin…

The situation is pretty clear when you're a woman who got cancer from her boyfriend who knew he had HPV and didn't tell her, or didn't get vaccinated because he didn't feel like it. I think most people would want to avoid that situation. The genital warts thing is just embarrassing but another good-enough reason to get vaccinated early. On Permanence: 10-20% of HPV infections either don't go away, or go dormant and r…

> The situation is pretty clear when you're a woman who got cancer from her boyfriend who knew he had HPV and didn't tell her

You can make up “just so” stories to justify anything.

The point is, the story you’re telling isn’t likely to occur if the woman is vaccinated.

The vaccine is incredibly effective in young women, and only borderline effective if administered in older men and women who have never been infected. Long-term efficacy in young men is less certain than for young women.

> Low-risk ones cause genital warts that continue causing warts throughout your lifetime.

Again, no. Most infections clear on their own. You are correct that rarely some infections are persistent or dormant, and that these sometimes lead to cancer. But these are the minority.