If you're living in the US: please consider getting the vaccine, ragardless of your age. It was covered by my (rather shitty) health insurance. It consists of just 2 (EDIT: 3 for adults!) doses. It is recommended for both Males and Females.
rtaylorgarlock · 55m ago
And note i believe they just increased the recommended age of administration up to ~40yo? Throat cancer sucks. Get the vax.
sillyfluke · 46m ago
Why is there an age limit on an all encompassing vax, wasn't the famous posterchild for this disease Michael Douglas?
ZeroGravitas · 41m ago
This is mostly guesswork but I think you need to get the vaccine before you catch it and lots of people have it as they get older.
If you have a limited supply the greater bang per buck would be to start with the young people who almost certainly haven't caught it yet and then work your way up.
JumpCrisscross · 44m ago
> Why is there an age limit on an all encompassing vax
Vaccines are subject to stringent safety standards since they’re administered to healthy people. The age limit may suggest that at the time of the recommendation, in the relevant jurisdiction, the manufacturer had not studied its safety and efficacy in >40 year olds.
(I also don’t think it’s an age limit as much as the upper end of a recommendation.)
JohnTHaller · 42m ago
It's likely that they haven't tested it as thoroughly in older folks and that most older folks have already been exposed to HPV.
Fomite · 24m ago
To be blunt: Cost-effectiveness.
rogerrogerr · 39m ago
If you’re not sexually active, is it still worth doing?
JumpCrisscross · 14m ago
Yes.
“The route of HPV transmission is primarily through skin-to-skin or skin-to-mucosa contact. Sexual transmission is the most documented, but there have been studies suggesting non-sexual courses.
The horizontal transfer of HPV includes fomites, fingers, and mouth, skin contact (other than sexual). Self-inoculation is described in studies as a potential HPV transmission route, as it was certified in female virgins, and in children with genital warts (low-risk HPV) without a personal history of sexual abuse. Vertical transmission from mother to child is another HPV transfer course” [1].
The protection from the vaccines lasts (probably) a lifetime, and HPV is quite widespread because it is: very easily communicable, and infections linger for potentially long periods of time without any obvious symptoms
Something like 80% of people are sexually active at all will be infected with HPV at some point. You may not have been sexually active, but your future partners may have been. I personally have a friend who went through stage 4 cancer contracted from her (now ex) husband.
So, of course not literally everyone needs to take it, assess your own risks, but it's quite an easy, highly effective vaccine: don't overthink it.
toomuchtodo · 20m ago
Life is long and unpredictable, while the cost is very low.
Fomite · 25m ago
If you ever intend to be, yes.
hedora · 38m ago
Yes.
CGMthrowaway · 32m ago
Why?
vhcr · 25m ago
Rape, you might become sexually active in the future, and although sexual transmission is the most common way, there are some other ways to get infected.
yladiz · 28m ago
Unless you're never sexually active (meaning, you eventually do have sex), it's worthwhile getting since there is a risk to yourself if you get infected.
bdangubic · 24m ago
rape
agons · 5m ago
Huh.
comrade1234 · 1h ago
Any way to test for previous exposure? I'd be pretty surprised if I didn't already have antibodies. I suppose it doesn't matter though.
toomuchtodo · 52m ago
HPV tests are of low value (as an adult, if ever sexually active, you likely have it but can do nothing about it); a new biomarker test that can detect the cancers is being developed [1]. Ongoing cancer surveillance is all you can do once exposed without having been vaccinated (and if cancer occurs, immunotherapy).
As pm90 wrote, I strongly recommend getting vaccinated [2] unless a doctor tells you otherwise, even if you already have HPV or have had previous potential exposure.
(had three doses in my 30s via Planned Parenthood)
Insanity · 40m ago
Doctor recommended it to me when I was almost 30. So yeah, I'd say still go for it.
tonfa · 57m ago
Note that the modern vaccine covers 9 different strains.
Obscurity4340 · 1h ago
Not sure but theres zero downside to getting it
hedora · 39m ago
I went to my local megacorp pharmacy out here in California, and asked about the COVID vaccine that’s no longer recommended by our anti-vaxxer overlords.
Apparently, it’s about as easy to get as an old-school medical marijuana card.
Results vary by state though. No need to travel to Canada or Mexico (yet).
arcticbull · 28m ago
Kaiser is continuing to cover it for everyone.
slaw · 49m ago
If you live outside of the US, you should get vaccine too. Even one dose is effective.
The goal wasn't to eliminate the HPV strains, it was to decrease cervical cancer. Has Denmark encountered a drop in cervical cancer? If so, that's a great outcome!
JumpCrisscross · 16m ago
> it was to decrease cervical cancer
HPV can cause cancers in the cervix, vulva, vagina, penis, anus and back of the throat [1].
Potentially, yes. HPV infections are cleared over time, and there are many strains of HPV.
everdrive · 22m ago
That's really interesting, and from that I would assume that the risk of cervical (or other cancers) from HPV is associated with how often someone is reinfected? ie, someone who got HPV once in college doesn't have HPV their whole life? And potentially has a lower cancer risk than someone who is repeatedly re-infected?
Am I understanding that correctly?
Fomite · 17m ago
> someone who got HPV once in college doesn't have HPV their whole life?
Doesn't necessarily have HPV their whole life - time-to-clearance is somewhat variable.
And yes, both slower clearance and just more infections are both associated with increased risk.
tialaramex · 1h ago
In a sense no, hence the choice to vaccinate younger children who will mostly not be sexually active yet.
But because the modern versions of these vaccines cover many strains (initial vaccines were two, Denmark chose a 4 way vaccine, now a nine way) it's very possible that you get a meaningful benefit by being protected from say six strains your body has never seen, even though the three it has already seen wouldn't be prevented.
Fomite · 1h ago
It should be noted that the decision to vaccinate younger children is a combination of disease prevention and cost, not just vaccine effectiveness.
giantg2 · 1h ago
I've heard of it being administered post exposure as a way to help the body fight the existing infection. Seemed a little odd when I first heard it as HPV should clear on it's own.
Fomite · 1h ago
The key is you want it to clear as quickly as possible.
boxerab · 24m ago
key quote here
"Despite this good news, roughly one third of women screened during the study period still had infection with high-risk HPV types not covered by the original vaccines – and new infections with these types were more frequent among vaccinated women, compared to unvaccinated ones."
Not to mention the unavoidable side effects that every injection causes.
Is there a net positive benefit to this shot, other than to GAVI and the manufacturer's bottom line ? Nobody knows.
> Other vaccines, for example DTP, have been shown to cause higher long term mortality rate
Sure. This one hasn’t.
That said, I frankly think people should be free to vaccinate as they please, and cities, states and private businesses free to include and exclude folks based on vaccination status as they please. (I’m also in favor of letting insurance companies choose if they want to cover diseases someone chose to get by going unvaccinated.)
perihelions · 1h ago
By way of contrast, America's current top "doctor" organized a class-action lawsuit against the HPV vaccine.
> "Details of the Gardasil litigation show how Kennedy took action beyond sowing doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines in the court of public opinion and helped build a case against the pharmaceutical industry before judges and juries."
> "Kennedy, a longtime plaintiffs' lawyer, became involved in the Gardasil litigation in 2018 in collaboration with Robert Krakow, an attorney specializing in vaccine injury cases, Krakow said"
unethical_ban · 23m ago
I remember this being a big controversy in Texas in the 2000s. Our Republican governor, forcing girls to get the vaccine! What does he think Texan girls are, lusty?
Not like disease prevention is a universally good thing and some people tend to have sex.
At the end of the day, religious radicals like STDs because it enforces their worldview that having multiple sexual partners in a lifetime is a sin.
etchalon · 1h ago
We have the first leaders.
api · 24m ago
It's okay, he'll have us treat cervical cancer with a juice cleanse and vibes.
YeahThisIsMe · 1h ago
And I can't get the shot in Germany because I'm "too old" and just assumed to be infected with it already, anyway.
What a great system.
n1b0m · 1h ago
Can you pay for it?
riggsdk · 1h ago
In Denmark you can. I was in my mid thirties when I went to my doctor to ask them to prescribe it. Before each shot I would go to the pharmacy and buy one dose and go to the doctor to have them administer it for me (if I wanted to). At that time I think it was free for teenage girls, now it's free for teenage boys as well.
Fomite · 56m ago
The evolution of who gets HPV vaccines is really interesting. At first it was young women, as vaccinating young men had a very marginal decrease in cervical cancer rates via indirect protection (which itself is a function of how many young women are vaccinated). Then as HPV infection was linked to more cancers, vaccinating young men crossed the cost-effectiveness thresholds many governments use.
Vaccinating older populations is similarly just a less clear-cut case, but it's a cost-effectiveness argument, not one purely driven by if the vaccine offers protection.
bartman · 1h ago
Generally yes. I asked my primary care physician and would have been able to get the vaccine dose from the pharmacy (paying for it myself) and she would have administered it.
NooneAtAll3 · 1h ago
Cervical cancer (uterus), not skin cancer from a bad papillomas as I thought after looking up what HPV meant
mitb6 · 1h ago
Also throat, mouth, tongue, anal and penile cancers.
No comments yet
tialaramex · 43m ago
It turns out a human body has a lot of surfaces facing the "outside" in some sense and we forget about the parts we can't see. Most of this surface is not covered in what we'd conventionally consider skin. It's bit like if you were looking at surfaces in a house and forgot the walls and ceiling.
Fomite · 23m ago
Humans (and most animals) are just tubes with extra bits.
inglor_cz · 1h ago
Good news.
Bad news is that many countries came close to wiping out measles et al. too, but it takes sustained effort to keep things like that.
chris_wot · 1h ago
Amazing how badly the United States is regressing. Literally measles is making a comeback due to idiots like RFK.
_moof · 55m ago
And even before the antivax nutters here went from fringe to a significant social force, HPV vaccines were already being decried for "promoting casual sex." Our culture is so broken in so many ways.
Fomite · 52m ago
"Why haven't you cured cancer yet?"
"We have a vaccine to prevent some very serious cancers."
"But it might turn my daughter into a hussy."
tialaramex · 28m ago
Also, forget "She might die of cancer" just exactly how bad is it if your daughter is a whore ? What else are we ruling out, independent business owner, politician ?
What happened to "I just want my children to be happy" ?
Fomite · 25m ago
I always thought "Cervical cancer is a just punishment for my daughter's mistakes" (leaving aside if it is a mistake) was horrific.
Spivak · 33m ago
Of course, I for sure held off on having casual unprotected sex with multiple partners as a teenager because I was worried about contracting HPV, but thanks to Gardasil my slut era was legendary and enduring.
Fomite · 29m ago
Teenagers are notorious for making decisions based on consequences that are decades away from manifesting.
JumpCrisscross · 8m ago
Maybe we’re seeing selection pressure against those prone to addictive cycles of social-media influenced misinformation?
Like, anti-vaxers died at higher rates in Covid [1]. This will continue across disease outbreaks, particularly ones for which we have near-comprehensive vaccines like measles. And given antivax sensibility is heritable (through parenting, not genes), one would expect this to stabilize the population over several generations to one that doesn’t have this defect.
This is now a global problem. The guy who started it, Andrew Wakefield, is British, and we have long had antivaxxers in Europe too.
Prior to Covid, the antivaxx scene was vaguely left-and-green oriented, biomoms, vegans and other "very natural" people; you would expect them to vote for Greens or even more alternative parties. This changed abruptly and now the antivaxx scene is mostly rightwing, but the common base is still the same distrust.
I wonder if this is the price we pay for radical informational transparency. Nowadays, democratic countries with reasonable freedom of press cannot really prevent their own fuckups from surfacing in the worst possible way. Some people react by complete rejection of anything that comes from "official" channels and become ripe for manipulation from other actors.
squigz · 1h ago
> I wonder if this is the price we pay for radical informational transparency. Nowadays, democratic countries with reasonable freedom of press cannot really prevent their own fuckups from surfacing in the worst possible way. Some people react by complete rejection of anything that comes from "official" channels and become ripe for manipulation from other actors.
Such people have always existed, unfortunately. I don't think it's a result of anything particularly new.
inglor_cz · 1h ago
The people existed, but a portable always-running conveyor belt of bad news that is addictive enough to make them glued to the screen did not.
In the 1990s, you had maybe 15 minutes a day on average to consume news, either from a paper newspaper, or from an evening TV relation. Now, quite a lot of people spend 20 times as much time doomscrolling. Of course the impact will be much more massive.
SoftTalker · 18m ago
Back then we had the National Enquirer and Weekly World News and similar for all the obscure conspiracy news you wanted.
inglor_cz · 4m ago
I think that the social media is much more capable of turning various fence sitters and borderline cases into full blown conspiracy believers.
Unlike the paper products, which just lie around when not actively seeked for, the algorithms determining your feed have a lot more agency.
squigz · 58m ago
Sure, but this implies the only source of "manipulation from other actors" is the news, media, or government. Churches, cults, and just other ignorant people existed to cause distrust in authority.
macintux · 49m ago
Those organizations didn't have instantaneous global reach. Now everyone does.
squigz · 44m ago
I'm not denying that there's a difference - obviously technology has enabled the scale of things to grow quite a bit, both good and bad - but it's beside my point, which is that, given that it's not a new phenomenon, blaming it on technology seems doomed to failure. Without solving for the underlying issues, people will continue to mistrust authority, whether they're being told to by news or their neighbor.
brewdad · 9m ago
People have had a mistrust in authority as far back as when nomadic tribes were the norm but somebody had to decide where to hunt or gather that day or to move on. Good luck changing human nature.
brewdad · 12m ago
Chatty Kathy could only share her moonbat ideas with a couple people at a time. Now she has a TikTok and the ability to go viral. Even folks sharing her video to mock it are spreading her message.
skdhhdj · 41m ago
> Literally measles is making a comeback due to idiots like RFK
The more likely explanation is the massive amounts of immigration from 3rd world countries. But yes, he’s not helping any.
tchalla · 32m ago
Sorry, can you explain how this relates to immigration?
Fomite · 22m ago
Especially ironic given how hard a number of South American countries are having eliminating the MMR diseases due to import cases from Europe and the U.S.
giantg2 · 1h ago
Unlike the measles, HPV is not a good eradication candidate due to the existence of non-human reservoirs.
AnimalMuppet · 1h ago
I think you said that backwards. HPV does not have non-human reservoirs, per Wikipedia. (Do you have evidence that it's wrong?)
russdill · 1h ago
Hence the "H"
serial_dev · 23m ago
Although you are (as I understand) right, the question itself is valid, lots of diseases spread to species other than the one that is in the name… Chickenpox, monkeypox, swine flu, or even the Spanish flu.
giantg2 · 1h ago
Ah, looks like I might have read the paper wrong. It's theorized that some HPV strains could also be carried by non-human primates.
If you have a limited supply the greater bang per buck would be to start with the young people who almost certainly haven't caught it yet and then work your way up.
Vaccines are subject to stringent safety standards since they’re administered to healthy people. The age limit may suggest that at the time of the recommendation, in the relevant jurisdiction, the manufacturer had not studied its safety and efficacy in >40 year olds.
(I also don’t think it’s an age limit as much as the upper end of a recommendation.)
“The route of HPV transmission is primarily through skin-to-skin or skin-to-mucosa contact. Sexual transmission is the most documented, but there have been studies suggesting non-sexual courses.
The horizontal transfer of HPV includes fomites, fingers, and mouth, skin contact (other than sexual). Self-inoculation is described in studies as a potential HPV transmission route, as it was certified in female virgins, and in children with genital warts (low-risk HPV) without a personal history of sexual abuse. Vertical transmission from mother to child is another HPV transfer course” [1].
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7579832/
Something like 80% of people are sexually active at all will be infected with HPV at some point. You may not have been sexually active, but your future partners may have been. I personally have a friend who went through stage 4 cancer contracted from her (now ex) husband.
So, of course not literally everyone needs to take it, assess your own risks, but it's quite an easy, highly effective vaccine: don't overthink it.
As pm90 wrote, I strongly recommend getting vaccinated [2] unless a doctor tells you otherwise, even if you already have HPV or have had previous potential exposure.
[1] Circulating tumor human papillomavirus DNA whole genome sequencing enables human papillomavirus-associated oropharynx cancer early detection - https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article-abstract/doi/1... | https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf249
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine
(had three doses in my 30s via Planned Parenthood)
Apparently, it’s about as easy to get as an old-school medical marijuana card.
Results vary by state though. No need to travel to Canada or Mexico (yet).
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/ivac/the-power-of-a-single-dose...
Wasn't it 3 doses before?
HPV can cause cancers in the cervix, vulva, vagina, penis, anus and back of the throat [1].
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/about/cancers-caused-by-hpv.html
There's a chart about 2/3 down the page that shows a drop in several age groups, and a particularly striking drop in the 20-29 age group: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/fd3e820c-4610-4c4e...
Those monsters. Don't they know those viruses have a right to live?
from https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/by_th...
Am I understanding that correctly?
Doesn't necessarily have HPV their whole life - time-to-clearance is somewhat variable.
And yes, both slower clearance and just more infections are both associated with increased risk.
But because the modern versions of these vaccines cover many strains (initial vaccines were two, Denmark chose a 4 way vaccine, now a nine way) it's very possible that you get a meaningful benefit by being protected from say six strains your body has never seen, even though the three it has already seen wouldn't be prevented.
"Despite this good news, roughly one third of women screened during the study period still had infection with high-risk HPV types not covered by the original vaccines – and new infections with these types were more frequent among vaccinated women, compared to unvaccinated ones."
Not to mention the unavoidable side effects that every injection causes.
Is there a net positive benefit to this shot, other than to GAVI and the manufacturer's bottom line ? Nobody knows.
Yes
https://ourworldindata.org/hpv-vaccination-world-can-elimina...
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/3/e000707
Sure. This one hasn’t.
That said, I frankly think people should be free to vaccinate as they please, and cities, states and private businesses free to include and exclude folks based on vaccination status as they please. (I’m also in favor of letting insurance companies choose if they want to cover diseases someone chose to get by going unvaccinated.)
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... ("Kennedy played key role in Gardasil vaccine case against Merck")
> "Details of the Gardasil litigation show how Kennedy took action beyond sowing doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines in the court of public opinion and helped build a case against the pharmaceutical industry before judges and juries."
> "Kennedy, a longtime plaintiffs' lawyer, became involved in the Gardasil litigation in 2018 in collaboration with Robert Krakow, an attorney specializing in vaccine injury cases, Krakow said"
Not like disease prevention is a universally good thing and some people tend to have sex.
At the end of the day, religious radicals like STDs because it enforces their worldview that having multiple sexual partners in a lifetime is a sin.
What a great system.
Vaccinating older populations is similarly just a less clear-cut case, but it's a cost-effectiveness argument, not one purely driven by if the vaccine offers protection.
No comments yet
Bad news is that many countries came close to wiping out measles et al. too, but it takes sustained effort to keep things like that.
"We have a vaccine to prevent some very serious cancers."
"But it might turn my daughter into a hussy."
What happened to "I just want my children to be happy" ?
Like, anti-vaxers died at higher rates in Covid [1]. This will continue across disease outbreaks, particularly ones for which we have near-comprehensive vaccines like measles. And given antivax sensibility is heritable (through parenting, not genes), one would expect this to stabilize the population over several generations to one that doesn’t have this defect.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10123459/
Prior to Covid, the antivaxx scene was vaguely left-and-green oriented, biomoms, vegans and other "very natural" people; you would expect them to vote for Greens or even more alternative parties. This changed abruptly and now the antivaxx scene is mostly rightwing, but the common base is still the same distrust.
I wonder if this is the price we pay for radical informational transparency. Nowadays, democratic countries with reasonable freedom of press cannot really prevent their own fuckups from surfacing in the worst possible way. Some people react by complete rejection of anything that comes from "official" channels and become ripe for manipulation from other actors.
Such people have always existed, unfortunately. I don't think it's a result of anything particularly new.
In the 1990s, you had maybe 15 minutes a day on average to consume news, either from a paper newspaper, or from an evening TV relation. Now, quite a lot of people spend 20 times as much time doomscrolling. Of course the impact will be much more massive.
Unlike the paper products, which just lie around when not actively seeked for, the algorithms determining your feed have a lot more agency.
The more likely explanation is the massive amounts of immigration from 3rd world countries. But yes, he’s not helping any.