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

#311

Post by timr » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 3:42 AM UTC

LorenPechtel wrote: post #285

timr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects against different strains and reinfection (typically body removed HPV in 1-2 years). See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/ The study you've quoted here is not definitive evidence of the claim you're making, and that claim is...let's just say that it's controversial. Conventional wisdom is that you're unlikely to benefit from HPV vaccination unless you…

The age 45 bit isn't actually a guideline. Rather, finding naive but at risk individuals over 45 is quite difficult. They did not test it on anyone over 45, thus the FDA approval cuts off at 45.

That’s definitely true, but if you look at the RCT data, there’s also a question of efficacy in older recipients.

For whatever reason the vaccine just doesn’t seem to work as well when administered to adults, even if they’re naive to the viruses.

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

#312

Post by briHass » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 3:45 AM UTC

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…

Insurance, if it covers it, will cover it at CVS, no doctor needed.

Many insurances do. I asked if the pharmacist could check last time I was at CVS, and it did. I'm turning 46 before I can sneak in the 3rd dose, but 2 doses seems to be all that's needed for most of the benefit.

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

#313

Post by NedF » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 4:18 AM UTC

shevy-java wrote: post #46

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…

> Unless you plan to remain completely celibate You can get HPV without sex too. https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/about-genital-hpv-infection.ht... "HPV is most commonly spread during vaginal or anal sex. It also spreads through close skin-to-skin touching during sex" This focuses on sex, but any virus that can be found on skin, also has a chance to be transmitted without sex just as well. Admittedly the chance here for…

[dead]

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

#314

Post by andsoitis » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 4:27 AM UTC

shevy-java wrote: post #46

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…

> Unless you plan to remain completely celibate You can get HPV without sex too. https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/about-genital-hpv-infection.ht... "HPV is most commonly spread during vaginal or anal sex. It also spreads through close skin-to-skin touching during sex" This focuses on sex, but any virus that can be found on skin, also has a chance to be transmitted without sex just as well. Admittedly the chance here for…

> also has a chance to be transmitted without sex just as well. Admittedly the chance here for HPV infection is much higher with regard to sex, but not non-zero otherwise

So, NOT in fact “just as well”.

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

#315

Post by samus » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 4:48 AM UTC

apparent wrote: post #281

samus wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The doctor likely didn't recommend it because GP is 40 years old. Most people's sex lives is comparatively... boring at that age.

The bigger issue is that someone who is 40 has likely already been exposed. I know women who had to ask to get it in their late 20's, and only succeeded after convincing the doctor they had been celibate up to that point. Apparently such a thing is relatively rare.

In either case this neither means that they are now immune against that specific strain, nor that they can't or won't get infected by another. Therefore that reasoning is flawed.

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

#316

Post by tjpnz » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 5:18 AM UTC

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…

How 40s?

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

#317

Post by cwillu » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 5:22 AM UTC

electriclove wrote: post #303

NikolaNovak wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You know “sexual contact” is not the same thing as sexual intercourse, right?

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

#318

Post by 0xbadcafebee » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 5:28 AM UTC

sailingparrot wrote: post #284

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those men wondering whether they should get vaccinated: - HPV causes genital warts, HPV is permanent, doctors won't test you for HPV unless you demand it, and the tests aren't reliable, which is why they literally won't diagnose you unless you already have genital warts. - Once you are confirmed HPV positive (again, you won't be confirmed without getting genital warts), you need to inform your partners, as it cau…

You are giving some honestly really bad and dangerous info. The HPV strains that cause cancer and the ones that cause genital warts are different. The strains that cause cancer do not cause warts. So you can very much have HPV without genital warts. And conversely, while having genital warts tells you you are infected with the low risk strains, it does not guarantee you that it is the only strain you are carrying. Th…

You're putting words and assumptions in my mouth that I never said in my comment. My comment includes different facts about different strains, in one comment, which some people might misinterpret. Your reply is re-stating the facts in more detail, so that's fine, I am happy for anyone to clarify information. However, the assigning of bad faith and action to me just because you don't like the way I presented the facts, is pretty rude. If you want to get really specific, we should probably clarify to the readers these statements you made:

> The cancer-causing strains cause no symptoms and can only be detected by getting tested for them

Cancer-causing strains can still cause the following symptoms: persistent sore throat, lumps, pain when swallowing, earaches (one-sided), swollen lymph nodes in the neck (painless lump), painful/difficult urination or bowel movements, unusual lumps or sores, or unexplained weight loss, in addition to others I have not listed here. However, early cancers often do not present symptoms.

> and can only be detected by getting tested for them

There is no test that covers all strains. You would need to get penile brushing, urethral brushing, semen samples, and anal pap smear. So "getting tested" is not the only solution, and getting regular scans for cancer is the best detection method. Therefore there is more involved than you have indicated, making your own comment as ;really bad and dangerous' as mine.

Perhaps we should trust people to do their own research and ask their doctor, rather than only listen to randos on the internet?

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

#319

Post by zerocrates » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 5:41 AM UTC

electriclove wrote: post #303

NikolaNovak wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The early recommendation age just falls out of the data that shows the vaccine is substantially more effective if you haven't been infected yet, together with the fact that it's a multi-dose vaccine where the second dose comes months later, and realistically for many that's going to mean a year or more before completing the series.

I think there's truth to the idea that the specific 11-12 range is somewhat arbitrary: as much as anything it's that because there was a preexisting "slot" in the vaccine schedule at 11-12. The American Academy of Pediatrics differs from the CDC's panel on this... but on the earlier side: they would start the recommendation at age 9. I think to a significant degree the thinking there is that if you go earlier the messaging and reaction is more "your child will probably eventually have sex and this is an effective time to give the vaccine" and less "your child will be having sex like, tomorrow."

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

#320

Post by sailingparrot » Sat, Jan 03, 2026, 5:52 AM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #318

sailingparrot wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are giving some honestly really bad and dangerous info. The HPV strains that cause cancer and the ones that cause genital warts are different. The strains that cause cancer do not cause warts. So you can very much have HPV without genital warts. And conversely, while having genital warts tells you you are infected with the low risk strains, it does not guarantee you that it is the only strain you are carrying. Th…

You're putting words and assumptions in my mouth that I never said in my comment. My comment includes different facts about different strains, in one comment, which some people might misinterpret. Your reply is re-stating the facts in more detail, so that's fine, I am happy for anyone to clarify information. However, the assigning of bad faith and action to me just because you don't like the way I presented the facts…

Which words am I putting in your mouth?

> HPV causes genital warts

False. Not all do. And more importantly, the ones that cause cancer do not!

> Once you are confirmed HPV positive (again, you won't be confirmed without getting genital warts)

Again false. You can be tested without genital warts and be positive to a strand of HPV that simply does not cause wart. You might have had (or heard about) a bad experience with a health professional that refused to test without warts, but the presence or absence of warts has absolutely nothing to do with the strands that matter.

> you need to inform your partners, as it causes cancer in both men and women (but mostly women).

False again. Since you were specifically talking about the strands of HPV causing warts, then it does not cause cancer. You can still inform them if you care about no propagating warts, but the fact that you have wart-strand HPV does not make you more at risk of getting/causing cancer than someone with no symptoms whatsoever.

Your comment clearly says that someone with cancer-causing HPV will have warts, thus someone reading this might feel confident they are not carrying a cancer-causing strand since they do not have warts, which is dangerous because again, it is 100% false. It might also needlessly worry someone that recently noticed genital warts on themselves into thinking they might have gotten/propagated a dangerous disease, while the wart causing strand are in fact harmless and are just unpleasant aesthetically.

So tl;dr, you should get vaccinated if you can, and if you want to be sure you do not have a cancer causing strand, you need to get tested for it, that's the only way. Warts or no warts is completly unrelated.

> Perhaps we should trust people to do their own research and ask their doctor, rather than only listen to randos on the internet?

On that we agree!