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.
It is actually not straightforward to do. Safeway Pharmacy refused to actually give me the vaccine when I showed up saying I'm not in a group that's eligible. One Medical told me that it would be a $400/shot 3-shot regimen. I'll probably just travel to India some time to visit family and get Cervavac there instead of Gardasil here. It's about $20/shot.
I'm male and read about this exposure vector back in 2012 when it was only rolled out to 12 year old girls, with a further guideline that nobody over 26 should take it.
this was pre- antivaxxer anxiety, and just run of the mill 'is the government condoning sex' anxiety, and it was controversial for that reason alone
the issue was that if you've been exposed already then the vaccine doesn't work. they had a test for women that can prove they've been exposed or not, and most adults have. they don't have a test for men that can prove they've been exposed or not, and most adults have. At the time, they had also only considered males to be carriers, with no cancers themselves.
so for the US government to recommend a limited stock and get insurers on board, it was all based on probabilities of exposure and utility.
I was younger at the time, naturally, I paid $600 out of pocket to get it across 3 doses because I figured it was worse than that, or I could get some 'male ally' brownie points from women. I wasn't wealthy then but figured this experience couldn't be taken from me even if I went bankrupt.
Since then, they've further linked it to throat cancers in males, because of our mouth's contact with genitals, and insurers are told to cover it across all genders and up to mid 40s. that's not really much of a difference now though, since the checkpoint is basically the same group of people, 13 years later.
They're still assuming older people are not worth bothering with, due to likely exposure.
There is an amusing side of this if you are male and not vaccinated yet, since nobody can tell if you've been exposed still: keep your sexual relationships with younger women. lol. in case you needed an excuse - higher probability they're vaccinated.
It's not approved for those over 45. (AFIAK, simply because so few people in that age group would have risk without having had prior exposure. Basically only those who had divorced or lost their long time partner.)
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).
That is a truly naïve way of thinking about a pharmaceutical product.
Would you say the same about any other drug? What about blood pressure medicines, should everyone "consider getting it"?
Completely ignorant, you have to consider multiple factors for the individual before taking any pharmaceutical drug and then you have to consider the risk from the drug, yes, low and behold, even vaccines can give side effects! The level of ignorance of the comments is staggering!
Good stuff. Australia has a target for eliminating cervical cancer by 2035 and ofcourse HPV is responsible for a large proportion of penile, mouth, throat and anal cancers as well. All my kids got free vaccinations at school.
It is shocking that there are still places in the world where this is controversial. You can tell a lot about the qualities of a society by the way they care for their own.
You should think about how you would react to “you can tell a lot about the qualities of a society by the way they [detain people on Nauru | reject asyl seekers | don’t care for indigenous populations]”.
I feel your comment is a generalisation and could be construed as provocation/trolling. Probably not your intention, but just so you are aware how this is coming over.
Better maybe: “societies that have good health care thrive” or something like this. Sounds less judgmental and it doesn’t put all US Americans in one basket.
I fully agree on the content though, only criticising the form here.
RFK Jr may be a bit biased, his opposition has been profitable
> Kennedy for years has earned referral fees from Wisner Baum, a Los Angeles personal injury law firm that is currently suing Merck, alleging the pharmaceutical giant failed to properly warn the public about risks from its vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, according to financial disclosure documents filed by Kennedy with the Office of Government Ethics.
There is recent research showing that it can (slightly) help even during HPV infection, see "Effect of HPV Vaccination on Virus Disappearance in Cervical Samples of a Cohort of HPV-Positive Polish Patients", J Clin Med (2023) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/.
Also, the eligibility criterion of not vaccinating people above certain age is NOT valid. I mean, sooner better. But if you are adult and there is any chance that you ever get a new sexual parter, get a vaccine.
90% people with get at least one HPV strain in their life.
10-30% people have at least one HPV strain right now.
(I recommend doing PCR test with strains genotyping. I do it periodically.)
Sure, our organism usually gets rid of such on 1-3 years, with no consequences. Yet, vaccine boosts your immunity.
Also, over 50% of cases of throat cancer are HPV-lead. So if you have male body, also vaccinate - both to protect others and yourself.
Ideally for 9 strains, but HPV 16 and HPV 18 are by far the most important.
> Also, the eligibility criterion of not vaccinating people above certain age is NOT valid. I mean, sooner better. But if you are adult and there is any chance that you ever get a new sexual parter, get a vaccine.
The eligibility criterion has primary been about controlling cost to focus about the groups where the societal effect is greatest.
I expect it may gradually get broadened, but most places you can also get it privately even if you fall outside those ages.
E.g. in the UK, most private providers will vaccinate you up to 45, and at least some private providers will give you the vaccine with no upper age limit (and a lower age limit of 9) at a relatively reasonable cost (~180 pounds per dose - 2 to 3 doses)
Thanks! I wanted to talk about the effect on already infected individuals in my comment, but I couldn't find the study so I didn't say anything just in case I was misremembering it...
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!
The lead time from infection to cancer is very long, we would not expect to see too much of a drop *yet*. But testing for those strains seems to be as useful for screening as a pap smear.
The Danish center for disease control's webpage for the vaccine links to a recent (5 year old) Swedish study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1917338 , but I couldn't find any Danish studies.
Wasn’t this also the same conclusion for Australia? Cervical cancer plummeted to record rates. Men should still get it so they don’t effect their partners and HPV causes all sort of cancer too.
Yes, Michael Douglas had a throat cancer he said was from "oral sex" meaning HPV infection, and I remember social media berating him for saying that as if it were impossible, but it really is.
Random anecdote: with whole genome sequencing, which is fairly common among the rich with cancer, you can sometimes find the exact cancer driving genes that the HPV has amplified. I remember looking at one case where the HER2 gene was amplified with many copies, and you could see it attached to chunks of HPV genome. Fortunately there's now many drugs that specifically target amplified HER2, originally developed only for breast cancer, where there are diagnostic test to find the subset of breast cancers with the amplification.
Australia rolled out the HPV vaccine for girls in 2007. Boys were included in the program in 2013. Modelling says that "elimination" depends on both the vaccine and a screening program [3].
Many doctors in Germany stick very closely to the recommendations of the Stiko (standing committee on vaccinations) and take a lot of convincing to vaccinate more, or they outright refuse. It's really annoying.
Depends on your health insurance. My previous insurance company paid back the full cost when I was 30 years old. I can recommend checking https://www.entschiedengegenkrebs.de/vorbeugen/kostenerstatt... (and then also confirming that with the insurance company over text, just to be safe)
- it was therefore initially introduced to women as a cervical cancer thing
- HPV however hits men at around half the cancer rate of women but through throat cancer
Or something like that. So actually the benefit to men is of a similar order of magnitude as that to women but it was just given to women to save money. Every child should be given it.
Edit:
Total Rate (of HPV caused cancers) in Women: Approximately 15.9 cases per 100,000 females per year.
Total Rate in Men: Approximately 9.3 cases per 100,000 males per year.
Edit 2:
Severity-Adjusted HPV Cancer Burden:
When adjusted for the severity and impact on life, the relative burden of HPV-related cancers shifts. Cancers with higher mortality rates and more debilitating treatments, like oropharyngeal cancer, carry a heavier weight.
Total Burden in Men: Approximately 135 DALYs per 100,000 males per year.
Total Burden in Women: Approximately 125 DALYs per 100,000 females per year.
The HPV vaccine became part of the government vaccination program for boys/men 6 years ago (almost to the date) precisely for the reasons you mention. Personally really happy to see this as there was some initial fear mongering related to the HPV vaccine some years 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.
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.
It’s insane to think that someday humanity will finally find a cure for cancer, and then after all this money and research and struggle people will just… choose not to use it.
A cure is a treatment, a vaccine is a prophylactic. The most dangerous, by far, cancer that this would help mitigate is cervical cancer which makes up about 0.7% of cancer deaths in the US, exclusively amongst women. The overwhelming majority of cervical cancers occur in Africa due to the fact that HIV/AIDS dramatically increases your susceptibility to developing it.
> "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"
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.
Denmark is in a chronic baby shortage [1] and people in Western democracies are having less sex generally [2]. So, yay, less HPV. Go get vaccinated [3]. Unfortunately, there are some pretty significant (and sad, yes, sad) confounders.
Do you mean there is a causality between less sex and HPV vaccination, when you write “confounder”? I can’t find any study supporting this, hence double checking.
Reminded me that I'm due for my second dose, provided temporarily for free in Quebec for people between 21 to 45 years old who didn't get it when they were young because it wasn't a thing back then.
That's great to hear! Here where I am, Ontario, Canada, I just barely missed out on getting the HPV vaccine for free in high school. At the time, they were only vaccinating girls, but added boys a year or two after me.
It could still protect you from one or more strains that you haven’t been exposed to through sexual partners and avoid contracting or passing it along to a future partner. There’s no practical way for a man to be tested for HPV (I asked and the doc said “it’ll be very painful and the result will be the same: get the vax”)
I experienced zero side effects when I got HPV vaxxed at 38yo.
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.
This site is full of people perfectly capable of reading most studies. I would much rather see these links go to studies than endless clickbait articles about studies.
The conclusion of the study show that about 30% of the women in the study from 2017-2014 tested positive for one of several types of HPV infection. This does appear to be a reduction from an earlier 2013 study but the earlier study was by different authors with different methodology so gauging the scale of the reduction is not straightforward. My opinion is that a safe conclusion of the study is that HPV prevalence has not increased.
> 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 < 1% by 2021. However, about one-third of women still had HPV infection with non-vaccine high-risk HPV types, and new infections with these types were more frequent in vaccinated than in unvaccinated women.
The conclusion seems to be that the vaccine is extremely effective at preventing infection by the strains included in the vaccine. One might reach a stretch conclusion and infer that the 9-valent vaccine would be even better as it would (probably) dramatically reduce the risk of several of the remaining “high-risk” variants.
The study is linked early in the article and is fairly dense, the article summarized it well and is a lot more readable.
16/18 are the most carcinogenic strains, they have been close to eradicated in Denmark. "Denmark close to wiping out leading cancer-causing HPV strains after vaccine roll-out" is the full headline and 100% accurate.
Those were the only two high risk strains covered by the vaccine used in the time frame studied. The study covers the first cohort of girls given the 2008 version of the vaccine when they recently reached age to start screening. It is expected to not see other strains affected in this study, even though current vaccines are broader. The total number of high risk HPV cases in the study went down post-vaccination.
The notion of numbered strains of HPV is about diverging lineages going back hundreds of thousands of years in a highly conserved, slowly mutating virus. They are not comparable to things like seasonal COVID or flu strains.
> about 30% of the women in the study from 2017-2014 tested positive for one of several types of HPV infection.
That number was referring to different strains not covered by the vaccine. The study says the rate of infection dropped to less than 1% among those strains the vaccine protects against.
If i have no memory/record of getting this vaccine (but there was a possibility that i could have already gotten the vaccine years ago), is it okay to take it again?
Here's why we should be wary of the "wonder drug" being touted by GAVI:
RFK Jr.: "Gardasil is probably the single worst mass vaccine that we've ever seen. This vaccine targets millions of preteens and teens for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is zero. Nobody in their right mind would ever take this vaccine if they actually read the clinical literature."
"Death rates in the Gardasil trials were 37 times the death rates for cervical cancer. Children who take that vaccine, the Gardasil vaccine, are 37 times more likely to die from the vaccine than they are to die from cervical cancer. The problem with Gardasil, like most vaccines, is it was never tested against a true placebo, an inert placebo."
"And the CDC and HHS say, if you don't test it against a true placebo, it's not science. You have no way of gauging whether the injuries you're seeing from the product are being caused by that product, or whether they're just bad, sad coincidences. The entity that is actually performing the study is, and paying for the study, is Merck."
"Merck got to decide which injuries were being caused by Gardasil and which were just bad coincidences. And because it had that power, it just wrote them all off as bad coincidences."
"You can do that when there's no placebo, because the injuries they were seeing in the control group, where the girls were getting aluminum neurotoxins, were identical to the injuries they were getting in the Gardasil group."
"So they said, well, we don't have to report any of these as vaccine injuries. They were able to license something that is insanely dangerous."
There are people who will do the right thing, there will be people who you can teach to do the right thing, and there will be people who will ignore you no matter what. Optimize for the first two. "Pick better parents" is unfortunately unactionable advice.
Australia has almost eradicated cervical cancer through HPV vaccination efforts, other countries will get there as a function of uptake and cohort replacement. There is a recently developed blood test that can detect the biomarkers from HPV related cancers years before they would traditionally be diagnosed, but prevention via vaccination remains key.
That's because other strains weren't covered by the original vaccines: Strains 16 and 18 were the high risk strains covered in the 2008 roll-out, the roll-out to young girls of the broader vaccine covering other high risk strains didn't start until 2017.
“In 2017, one of the first birth cohorts of women in Denmark who were HPV-vaccinated as teenage girls in 2008 reached the screening age of 23 years,” Nonboe explained."
It will take several more years to see the effects on other strains. It seems to have been wildly successful so far.
1. There's still overall fewer infections from high risk HPV types in these women.
2. It needs to be confirmed in ~10 years, but it seems very likely that women given the shots that protect against all high risk HPV types will see almost no infections from them.
Some comments were deferred for faster rendering.
pm90|5 months ago
arjie|5 months ago
xkbarkar|5 months ago
So please don’t get it regardless of age. Its not really considered effective for women who have been sexually active for some time.
Which is why its only recommended for girls, not women.
https://www.ssi.dk/vaccinationer/boernevaccination/vaccinati....
Tldr; Dont rush to get a vaccine that is probably not effective for you. Make an appointment with your doctor and discuss it with her first.
rtaylorgarlock|5 months ago
yieldcrv|5 months ago
this was pre- antivaxxer anxiety, and just run of the mill 'is the government condoning sex' anxiety, and it was controversial for that reason alone
the issue was that if you've been exposed already then the vaccine doesn't work. they had a test for women that can prove they've been exposed or not, and most adults have. they don't have a test for men that can prove they've been exposed or not, and most adults have. At the time, they had also only considered males to be carriers, with no cancers themselves.
so for the US government to recommend a limited stock and get insurers on board, it was all based on probabilities of exposure and utility.
I was younger at the time, naturally, I paid $600 out of pocket to get it across 3 doses because I figured it was worse than that, or I could get some 'male ally' brownie points from women. I wasn't wealthy then but figured this experience couldn't be taken from me even if I went bankrupt.
Since then, they've further linked it to throat cancers in males, because of our mouth's contact with genitals, and insurers are told to cover it across all genders and up to mid 40s. that's not really much of a difference now though, since the checkpoint is basically the same group of people, 13 years later.
They're still assuming older people are not worth bothering with, due to likely exposure.
There is an amusing side of this if you are male and not vaccinated yet, since nobody can tell if you've been exposed still: keep your sexual relationships with younger women. lol. in case you needed an excuse - higher probability they're vaccinated.
LorenPechtel|5 months ago
comrade1234|5 months ago
rogerrogerr|5 months ago
abeppu|5 months ago
justin66|5 months ago
Wasn't it 3 doses before?
hedora|5 months ago
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).
VoodooJuJu|5 months ago
[deleted]
fuckyah|5 months ago
[deleted]
baldr333|5 months ago
[deleted]
DaSHacka|5 months ago
[deleted]
slaw|5 months ago
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/ivac/the-power-of-a-single-dose...
p1dda|5 months ago
pyuser583|5 months ago
I don't take medical advice from internet strangers, especially when it contradicts my doctors'.
I'm not particularly interested in discussing the how's and why's. My doctor said he doesn't recommend I get it, so I don't.
shirro|5 months ago
It is shocking that there are still places in the world where this is controversial. You can tell a lot about the qualities of a society by the way they care for their own.
illiac786|5 months ago
I feel your comment is a generalisation and could be construed as provocation/trolling. Probably not your intention, but just so you are aware how this is coming over.
Better maybe: “societies that have good health care thrive” or something like this. Sounds less judgmental and it doesn’t put all US Americans in one basket.
I fully agree on the content though, only criticising the form here.
fifilura|5 months ago
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2008/press-releas...
fuckyah|5 months ago
[deleted]
Animats|5 months ago
dmix|5 months ago
> Kennedy for years has earned referral fees from Wisner Baum, a Los Angeles personal injury law firm that is currently suing Merck, alleging the pharmaceutical giant failed to properly warn the public about risks from its vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, according to financial disclosure documents filed by Kennedy with the Office of Government Ethics.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-confirmation-robert-f-ke...
oulipo2|5 months ago
[deleted]
stared|5 months ago
Also, the eligibility criterion of not vaccinating people above certain age is NOT valid. I mean, sooner better. But if you are adult and there is any chance that you ever get a new sexual parter, get a vaccine.
90% people with get at least one HPV strain in their life. 10-30% people have at least one HPV strain right now.
(I recommend doing PCR test with strains genotyping. I do it periodically.)
Sure, our organism usually gets rid of such on 1-3 years, with no consequences. Yet, vaccine boosts your immunity.
Also, over 50% of cases of throat cancer are HPV-lead. So if you have male body, also vaccinate - both to protect others and yourself. Ideally for 9 strains, but HPV 16 and HPV 18 are by far the most important.
A few more links: https://pinboard.in/u:pmigdal/t:hpv
JayStavis|5 months ago
Not only that - I learned recently that you can contract certain strains from a shower floor [1]
[1] https://dermnetnz.org/topics/non-sexually-acquired-human-pap...
vidarh|5 months ago
The eligibility criterion has primary been about controlling cost to focus about the groups where the societal effect is greatest.
I expect it may gradually get broadened, but most places you can also get it privately even if you fall outside those ages.
E.g. in the UK, most private providers will vaccinate you up to 45, and at least some private providers will give you the vaccine with no upper age limit (and a lower age limit of 9) at a relatively reasonable cost (~180 pounds per dose - 2 to 3 doses)
tecleandor|5 months ago
blindriver|5 months ago
JumpCrisscross|5 months ago
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
sjsdaiuasgdia|5 months ago
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...
LorenPechtel|5 months ago
jakobnissen|5 months ago
justin66|5 months ago
[deleted]
olivia-banks|5 months ago
syntaxing|5 months ago
epistasis|5 months ago
Random anecdote: with whole genome sequencing, which is fairly common among the rich with cancer, you can sometimes find the exact cancer driving genes that the HPV has amplified. I remember looking at one case where the HER2 gene was amplified with many copies, and you could see it attached to chunks of HPV genome. Fortunately there's now many drugs that specifically target amplified HER2, originally developed only for breast cancer, where there are diagnostic test to find the subset of breast cancers with the amplification.
femto|5 months ago
[1] https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/news/australian-success-sto...
[2] https://www.ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-07/HPV%20F...
[3] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
YeahThisIsMe|5 months ago
What a great system.
perlgeek|5 months ago
My health insure only covers HPV vaccines for 26 year olds and younger: https://www.sbk.org/beratung-leistungen/vorsorge-und-praeven...
dTP90pN|5 months ago
unknown|5 months ago
[deleted]
odiroot|5 months ago
n1b0m|5 months ago
m101|5 months ago
- it was an expensive vaccine
- it was therefore initially introduced to women as a cervical cancer thing
- HPV however hits men at around half the cancer rate of women but through throat cancer
Or something like that. So actually the benefit to men is of a similar order of magnitude as that to women but it was just given to women to save money. Every child should be given it.
Edit: Total Rate (of HPV caused cancers) in Women: Approximately 15.9 cases per 100,000 females per year.
Total Rate in Men: Approximately 9.3 cases per 100,000 males per year.
Edit 2: Severity-Adjusted HPV Cancer Burden:
When adjusted for the severity and impact on life, the relative burden of HPV-related cancers shifts. Cancers with higher mortality rates and more debilitating treatments, like oropharyngeal cancer, carry a heavier weight.
Total Burden in Men: Approximately 135 DALYs per 100,000 males per year.
Total Burden in Women: Approximately 125 DALYs per 100,000 females per year.
holm|5 months ago
everdrive|5 months ago
abirch|5 months ago
from https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/by_th...
Fomite|5 months ago
giantg2|5 months ago
tialaramex|5 months ago
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.
deadbabe|5 months ago
somenameforme|5 months ago
thfuran|5 months ago
perihelions|5 months ago
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"
unethical_ban|5 months ago
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.
api|5 months ago
etchalon|5 months ago
passing_by_and|5 months ago
[deleted]
sandGorgon|5 months ago
killjoywashere|5 months ago
[1] https://www.sdu.dk/en/nyheder/faldende-fertilitet
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=western+democracies+decreasi...
[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10399474/
illiac786|5 months ago
m-p-3|5 months ago
https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advice-and-prevention/vaccin...
Now they're offering it to children as part of the standard regimen, which is great.
0xTJ|5 months ago
hylaride|5 months ago
v3ss0n|5 months ago
navi0|5 months ago
I experienced zero side effects when I got HPV vaxxed at 38yo.
egorfine|5 months ago
[1] The list has just a single entry for now.
spwa4|5 months ago
NooneAtAll3|5 months ago
mitb6|5 months ago
tialaramex|5 months ago
duffpkg|5 months ago
This site is full of people perfectly capable of reading most studies. I would much rather see these links go to studies than endless clickbait articles about studies.
The conclusion of the study show that about 30% of the women in the study from 2017-2014 tested positive for one of several types of HPV infection. This does appear to be a reduction from an earlier 2013 study but the earlier study was by different authors with different methodology so gauging the scale of the reduction is not straightforward. My opinion is that a safe conclusion of the study is that HPV prevalence has not increased.
amluto|5 months ago
> What have we learnt from this study?
> 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 < 1% by 2021. However, about one-third of women still had HPV infection with non-vaccine high-risk HPV types, and new infections with these types were more frequent in vaccinated than in unvaccinated women.
The conclusion seems to be that the vaccine is extremely effective at preventing infection by the strains included in the vaccine. One might reach a stretch conclusion and infer that the 9-valent vaccine would be even better as it would (probably) dramatically reduce the risk of several of the remaining “high-risk” variants.
pitpatagain|5 months ago
16/18 are the most carcinogenic strains, they have been close to eradicated in Denmark. "Denmark close to wiping out leading cancer-causing HPV strains after vaccine roll-out" is the full headline and 100% accurate.
Those were the only two high risk strains covered by the vaccine used in the time frame studied. The study covers the first cohort of girls given the 2008 version of the vaccine when they recently reached age to start screening. It is expected to not see other strains affected in this study, even though current vaccines are broader. The total number of high risk HPV cases in the study went down post-vaccination.
The notion of numbered strains of HPV is about diverging lineages going back hundreds of thousands of years in a highly conserved, slowly mutating virus. They are not comparable to things like seasonal COVID or flu strains.
atombender|5 months ago
That number was referring to different strains not covered by the vaccine. The study says the rate of infection dropped to less than 1% among those strains the vaccine protects against.
floppiplopp|5 months ago
born2web|5 months ago
inglor_cz|5 months ago
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|5 months ago
giantg2|5 months ago
boxerab|5 months ago
RFK Jr.: "Gardasil is probably the single worst mass vaccine that we've ever seen. This vaccine targets millions of preteens and teens for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is zero. Nobody in their right mind would ever take this vaccine if they actually read the clinical literature."
"Death rates in the Gardasil trials were 37 times the death rates for cervical cancer. Children who take that vaccine, the Gardasil vaccine, are 37 times more likely to die from the vaccine than they are to die from cervical cancer. The problem with Gardasil, like most vaccines, is it was never tested against a true placebo, an inert placebo."
"And the CDC and HHS say, if you don't test it against a true placebo, it's not science. You have no way of gauging whether the injuries you're seeing from the product are being caused by that product, or whether they're just bad, sad coincidences. The entity that is actually performing the study is, and paying for the study, is Merck."
"Merck got to decide which injuries were being caused by Gardasil and which were just bad coincidences. And because it had that power, it just wrote them all off as bad coincidences."
"You can do that when there's no placebo, because the injuries they were seeing in the control group, where the girls were getting aluminum neurotoxins, were identical to the injuries they were getting in the Gardasil group."
"So they said, well, we don't have to report any of these as vaccine injuries. They were able to license something that is insanely dangerous."
Kalanos|5 months ago
uvas_pasas_per|5 months ago
mancerayder|5 months ago
MisterTea|5 months ago
nixosbestos|5 months ago
sprytny|5 months ago
sincerely|5 months ago
mariaerica|5 months ago
[deleted]
mariaerica|5 months ago
[deleted]
curtisszmania|5 months ago
[deleted]
tempera|5 months ago
[deleted]
huflungdung|5 months ago
[deleted]
gigatexal|5 months ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo|5 months ago
Australia has almost eradicated cervical cancer through HPV vaccination efforts, other countries will get there as a function of uptake and cohort replacement. There is a recently developed blood test that can detect the biomarkers from HPV related cancers years before they would traditionally be diagnosed, but prevention via vaccination remains key.
https://www.who.int/news/item/17-11-2023-global-partners-che...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article-abstract/doi/1... | https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf249
mkfs|5 months ago
boxerab|5 months ago
[deleted]
pitpatagain|5 months ago
“In 2017, one of the first birth cohorts of women in Denmark who were HPV-vaccinated as teenage girls in 2008 reached the screening age of 23 years,” Nonboe explained."
It will take several more years to see the effects on other strains. It seems to have been wildly successful so far.
vhcr|5 months ago
Yes
https://ourworldindata.org/hpv-vaccination-world-can-elimina...
ekelsen|5 months ago
2. It needs to be confirmed in ~10 years, but it seems very likely that women given the shots that protect against all high risk HPV types will see almost no infections from them.
attila-lendvai|5 months ago