15 ms·

The HPV vaccine is as important for boys as it is for girls

222 points by vo2maxer 7y ago

a2tech 7y ago
Because boys are carriers and infection vectors? It seems pretty self-evident that if you want to stamp out an infection you need to take out its infection carriers.
- epmaybe 7y ago
  It's just absurd to me that a completely preventable cancer with this vaccine is shunned by groups across this country, because of the implication. Also, a PSA for young adults and parents of children in the age groups - the HPV vaccine is usually covered (free) with insurance if you're in the recommended age groups, regardless of sex.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I'm mid 30s and paid the ~$750 (using my FSA) for the three doses of Gardasil 9 post FDA approval but before the CDC has finished updating their guidelines that would prompt insurance coverage. There are few reasons you shouldn't get it if you have not yet been immunized, as it pays for itself if you prevent even one case of cancer that would've occurred from HPV transmission (whether that be a case you would've experienced, or a partner experienced). Agree parents need to get over it (disclaimer: am parent, kids getting HPV vaccination as soon as they're old enough). Your kids are eventually going to have sex. BFD. Protect them from possible future harm with a cheap vaccine.
    - a2tech 7y ago
      Ouch, thats pricey. I guess there's a price for being an early adopter. I work with one of researchers that was involved in developing the HPV vaccine and even I didn't realize it was so pricey.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - radicalbyte 7y ago
        It's dirt cheap if you're pretty sexually active. My kids are 100% going to get it along with any other vaccine which is available and effective. Some vaccines just half the risk of infection so need high coverage in the population.
        journalctl 7y ago
        It’s certainly cheaper than cancer, although as always it’s a pity people have to pay out of pocket for it.
      - epmaybe 7y ago
        completely covered by insurance if within the CDC guidelines for recommended age groups (around 11-21 for both males and females, but double check first!)
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Yes! Get it (or get it for your kids) while you're covered!
    - blahblahblogger 7y ago
      Hmm I was also told that I didn't need to bother getting this done b/c I'm in my mid-30s. But I haven't been that sexually active in my life :( so I know the stat about most ppl having some form of HPV but it may not apply to me. Do you have to get it earlier in life?
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Ideally, you get the vaccine before you're sexually active, as it won't inoculate you against strains of the virus you have already been infected with [1]. I recommend it to everyone who will listen. Cheap risk mitigation (comparatively speaking). Australia made it compulsory, and they will have eliminated cervical cancer in a few decades because of it [2] (and my hunch is that gene therapy will pick up the remainder until then [3]). It's literally a vaccine that prevents cancer [4]. Who says no to that? [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/by_the_way_doctor_should_i_get_the_hpv_vaccine_if_im_already_infected https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/by_th... (Harvard Women's Health Watch | By the way, doctor: Should I get the HPV vaccine if I'm already infected?) [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/world/australia/cervical-cancer-hpv-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/world/australia/cervical-... (In Australia, Cervical Cancer Could Soon Be Eliminated) [3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-09/cervical-cancer-cure-research-gene-technology-qld/11583158 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-09/cervical-cancer-cure-... (Cervical cancer 'cure' closer with gene-editing breakthrough, scientists say) [4] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/p0822-cancer-prevented-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/p0822-cancer-prevent... (An Estimated 92% of Cancers Caused by HPV Could be Prevented by Vaccine)
        masonic 7y ago
        they will have eliminated cervical cancer in a few decades False. Not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2818%2930183-X/fulltext#%20 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... "In 2007, Australia was one of the first countries to introduce a national human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme, and it has since achieved high vaccination coverage across both sexes. In December, 2017, organised cervical screening in Australia transitioned from cytology-based screening every 2 years for women aged from 18–20 years to 69 years, to primary HPV testing every 5 years for women aged 25–69 years and exit testing for women aged 70–74 years. We aimed to identify the earliest years in which the annual age-standardised incidence of cervical cancer in Australia (which is currently seven cases per 100 000 women) could decrease below two annual thresholds that could be considered to be potential elimination thresholds: a rare cancer threshold (six new cases per 100 000 women) or a lower threshold (four new cases per 100 000 women), since Australia is likely to be one of the first countries to reach these benchmarks."
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Wouldn't you already be almost certainly infected by mid-30s? Does it work if you're already carrying the virus?
      - technofiend 7y ago
        There are multiple strains of the virus. Even if infected with one wouldn't you like protection against the rest, particularly as Gardasil 9 is the vaccine you'll get in the US and covers the most strains? https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-vaccine-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/i... From the link above: Three vaccines that prevent infection with disease-causing HPV types are licensed for use in the United States: Gardasil®, Gardasil® 9, and Cervarix®. All three vaccines prevent infection with HPV types 16 and 18, two high-risk HPVs that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and an even higher percentage of some of the other HPV-caused cancers (1, 2). Gardasil also prevents infection with HPV types 6 and 11, which cause 90% of genital warts (3). Gardasil 9 prevents infection with the same four HPV types plus five additional cancer-causing types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) that together account for 10 to 20% of cervical cancers. Gardasil 9 is now the only HPV vaccine available for use in the United States. Cervarix and Gardasil are still used in other countries.
      - vo2maxer 7y ago
        At a minimum, it may augment “both the magnitude and quality of natural immunity” in sexually active persons. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5006801/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5006801/
        m0zg 7y ago
        Good to know. Will ask my physician about getting it then.
        masonic 7y ago
        Out of a grand total of five subjects, two showed a response. Not much of a study.
      - burfog 7y ago
    - epmaybe 7y ago
      Cdc guidelines don't include your age group so it's doubtful that insurance would cover it even today.. And it's not even that they're going to eventually have seen as kids, what if you get married and want to have kids? You don't know your partner's sexual history.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- brighteyes 7y ago
  No, the article focuses on something completely different: That more men are diagnosed with HPV-associated cancer than women, these days. That's because of a huge increase in mouth and throat cancer among men, likely caused by an increase in oral sex. Boys getting the vaccine can prevent them from getting cancer decades later, basically.
  - a2tech 7y ago
    Thats really interesting. I was looking at HPV as a cervical cancer only, not a male oral cancer. I'm going to chat with a researcher I work with that was involved in the development of the HPV vaccine and see what she thinks about it.
    - berberous 7y ago
      Michael Douglas publicly blamed his cancer on giving oral sex, raising a lot of awareness of the issue: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas-oral-sex-cancer https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas...
  - burfog 7y ago
    Not everybody does that. Getting the vaccine because you might decide to sleep around (oral or otherwise) is like carrying a weapon because you might decide to get in a fight. Rape exists, but so do murderous assaults. The logic that says you need this vaccine is the same logic that says you need to carry a weapon.
    - isbwkisbakadqv 7y ago
      Fair point. I don't think you need to bring in the gun analogy. If you're definitely not going to have sex, you don't need any STD prevention.
      - manthedudeguy 7y ago
        Seems like they definitely won't need the vaccine.
- eldavojohn 7y ago
  Nowhere in the article does it mention the cost to the healthcare system per innoculation. It's also an article written to make it sound like Merck just wants to save lives but you need to also consider the billions off dollars this would net them. Also, buried in the article was this gem: "Though most experts have little doubt that the vaccine prevents HPV infections anywhere in the body and therefore the resulting cancers, technically, this has not been proven."
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I wouldn't put much concern on that not proven thing. Most vaccines aren't technically proven to work in the way we think about proving things in other areas of science. For starters, vaccines are not required to go through double blind studies. We give you the vaccine and if antibodies show up we say it works.
    - chaosite 7y ago
      And this isn't a big conspiracy, it's just that a study suggesting we expose healthy people to infectious diseases will never pass an ethics board.
      - tialaramex 7y ago
        That isn't the problem. The problem is it takes too long to run this hypothetical study from "Vaccinate 12 year old boys" to "These 50 year olds didn't die of cancer at the expected rates". Nobody wants to wait 40 years to run a study that says this thing we suspect is a good idea is, in fact, a good idea. 40 years is a long time. If you follow a patient for six months, they're easy to find. Maybe a handful of them move city once, but they remember they were in a medical trial, "Oh yeah, sorry, I will come in for the follow-up appointment". If you try 40 years it's hopeless. They move ten times, they leave the country, they've forgotten all about your medical trial. So you start with 100 patients and 40 years later you can only trace eight of them, and now your trial is statistically invalid. The existing efficacy demo for HPV vaccination against cervical cancer relies on the fact that Pap smears are a thing to get answers in just a few years not decades. The smear test gets us a bunch of cells that a pathologist can look at under a microscope and inspect to see if they're normal or maybe "pre-cancerous" meaning they aren't normal but they are not yet cancer. And we know (from having tried it) that if we just ignore it some of that not-yet-cancer turns into cancer and kills people. So if we see that in a smear today you'll get called back and they'll treat it, even though you haven't got cancer. This means they could give girls an HPV vaccine and then not only show that those girls didn't get the strains of HPV vaccinated against as often as unvaccinated peers, but further show that they don't get as much not-yet-cancer. And _by implication_ that means it protects against cancer. There is no smear test for these less common cancers in men. If there are pre-cancerous cells we don't see them. We only find out about the cancer, years and often decades later.
- roxioman 7y ago
  Why does it matter? Most men don't get to have sex and have no choice. Just look at tinder, women have all choice and so why most men should foot the bill for those enjoying sex the most? My friends and me aren't having sex - we get no matches on tinder. Prostitute is illegal in my state. We are choosing to be monk and most men are experiencing same. So why should we foot the bill?
- tialaramex 7y ago
  The ethical constraint is that the _patient_ must directly benefit from any medical intervention. Doctors are not supposed to do things that have a negative result for their individual patient even if they have some hypothetical big picture benefit for society. So for this reason the story isn't about how it's be great for women if more men were vaccinated, that's an interesting public health statistical consideration but it can't help doctors decide whether to vaccinate men. Maybe it'd be way more convenient for sixteen family members if Granny dies this week not next week, but the doctor looking after Granny needn't care about that, he's only considering what is best for her.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    I wonder if we read the same article.
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      The article which explains how this vaccination results in a personal benefit for male patients? And so therefore we should vaccinate boys? Yes, I'd assume so. The parent I'm replying to suggests it's appropriate to vaccinate boys in order to achieve herd immunity. Herd immunity is something public health officials are interested in, but as I explained ethically individual doctors are obliged to focus on the direct benefit to their patient. "Now you are less likely to get cancer" is a direct benefit, whereas "Now somebody else you may not even have met is less likely to get cancer" is pretty hazy.
- dmurray 7y ago
  No, from a "herd immunity" perspective just vaccinating the girls should be pretty effective. Assuming girls only transmit the virus to boys and boys only transmit it to girls (I know, not PC, but a good first approximation), then if you only have resources to vaccinate half the population, it's much better to vaccinate all the girls than a random sample of the population. The article is specifically arguing that boys should get vaccinated for their own benefit - not a herd immunity argument.
- dbdjfjrjvebd 7y ago
  No because they die of throat cancer at the same rate as women die of cervical cancer.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - belltaco 7y ago
    I don't think I have ever seen another Hacker News thread where half the commenters and the upvoters actually haven't read the article and are basing their comments on the title.
    - kick 7y ago
      It happens pretty frequently. See any thread where any publicly listed company is involved.
    - mrfusion 7y ago
      Are you saying that’s more or less than usual?
heyflyguy 7y ago
Does it do anything for you if you're already infected but not cancerous? or is it merely prevention from infection?
- sfblah 7y ago
  I want to know this too.
- dnsco 7y ago
  There are many strains of HPV, the vaccine prevents several of the worst but not all strains. Even if you are already infected with one strain it makes sense to get the vaccine to not become infected with the others.
- maxander 7y ago
  Gardasil is described as a prophylactic vaccine, rather than therapeutic, so no- it sounds like you would have to be vaccinated prior to infection in order for it to be effective. However, it sounds like there are therapeutic vaccines in development [0, 1]. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586871/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586871/ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30955915 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30955915
- antoviaque 7y ago
  "In those already infected, the vaccines are not effective." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine#cite_note-WHO2017-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine#cite_note-WHO2017-...
  - monkeycantype 7y ago
    I've often wished I retained where I read it, but I read that in human trials in China, that in some test subjects, all warts on their body cleared. Also the researcher who developed the vaccine was my step-son's grandmother's next door neighbour.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
nikanj 7y ago
Because we need to get over the idea that boys and men are expendable, and only women and children deserve protection
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  That's the exact opposite of the point of the article. Men and boys don't get the vaccine because they and their parents perceive it as a female-only problem (cervical cancer induced by HPV). The article is trying to get apathetic men and boys to realize that not only are they acting as carriers of HPV that can kill their wives and partners, but they themselves can die from HPV induced cancers.
  - nikanj 7y ago
    When I wrote my comment, the headline was something along the lines of "Why we should vaccinate boys against HPV too". The headline has now been changed, and my comment seems really odd.
    - throwaway5752 7y ago
      Sorry, changed headlines here have caught me, too. I understand.
    - belltaco 7y ago
      The meaning of the title hasn't changed much though. Is it too much to expect people to read the article before making inflammatory MRA style comments? Looks like a common problem in this thread.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - thrower123 7y ago
jdavis703 7y ago
Looking at my HMO's website it seems like the vaccine is not recommended for males over 26. The CDC also backs this up. Does this mean those of us over 26 are screwed? Is there anything we can do to check for cancers to catch an infection early?
- dannypgh 7y ago
  It is approved but not recommended, which means insurance doesn't have to cover it to satisfy the ACA. I'm 35 and one dose in (about due for the second dose) - what this has meant for me is that it's no trouble to get my doctor to give me the vaccine (but the county's vaccination lab refused) but insurance didn't cover the vaccine. For me it's worth the $600 or so it'll end up costing, just for the peace of mind that I'm doing what I can to minimize the risk.
- bendauphinee 7y ago
  FDA guidance has recently (within the last year) extended this out to age 45.
- dnsco 7y ago
  If you are going to have intimate contact with more than a few people (perhaps even just a few) the doctors I have talked to recommend getting the vaccine.
- lainga 7y ago
  Does it mention why? Is it because the adverse reaction rate for (e.g.) Gardasil is higher than the probability of catching one of the HPV strains it targets after 26?
remote_phone 7y ago
I’m a firm believer in vaccines, but HPV for boys is where I draw the line. I get why sexually active females would benefit from it but having every single child, boys and girls alike, reeks of institutionalized pharmaceutical fear mongering, and trying to profit from every single citizen taking the vaccine. I don’t believe 360M Americans need to all be vaccinated for HPV such that 0.01% of the population avoids cancer. I would rather do things like get rid of pollution that poisons our food supply that causes more incidents of cancer than HPV.
- belltaco 7y ago
  I don't think we read the same article, assuming you have actually read it.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  You clearly have not read the article, so I suggest doing so before making conclusions that are directly contradicted by the information presented.
- dbdjfjrjvebd 7y ago
  Why do you want males to get preventable cancer?
- castratikron 7y ago
  You know HPV is what gives you genital warts, right? I'm going to assume you're male for a moment – imagine if you developed genital warts, and then found out it could have been prevented if you had gotten the HPV vaccine when you were 9. Wouldn't that motivate you to make sure the next generation of youth doesn't have to go through the same experience?
- vo2maxer 7y ago
  Diagnosis of HPV-positive oropharyngeal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is increasing in males. It is mostly in the 4th through 6th decades when these malignant neoplasms are discovered. It hit home recently when my best friend, a physician, was diagnosed with it and underwent surgery followed by debilitating radiation therapy. We both agree that our children and grandchildren, both male and female, should have the vaccine. We suspect that the recommended age for getting the vaccine will continue to expand.
pazimzadeh 7y ago
"HPV vaccination is also recommended for everyone through age 26 years, if not vaccinated already. Vaccination is not recommended for everyone older than age 26 years." https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine.html Does anyone know why? Is it because most sexually active people would already have HPV at that point?
- MauranKilom 7y ago
  They seem to imply so: > However, some adults age 27 through 45 years who are not already vaccinated may decide to get HPV vaccine after speaking with their doctor about their risk for new HPV infections and the possible benefits of vaccination. HPV vaccination in this age range provides less benefit, as more people have already been exposed to HPV.
kd3 7y ago
Looks like big pharma wants to cash in from the other half of the population now.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  You clearly mean this as a bad thing, but...why? The vaccine actually works. If it lowers your risk of fairly nasty cancers (and other less debilitating—-but embarrassing—-conditions), while earning them a few bucks, isn’t that a solid win-win scenario? At least it’s not the usual trope about how Big Pharma is hiding all the cures....
  - kd3 7y ago
    Does it work? How many trials have they done? Like actually following people for 40 years to check the effects.
    - mattkrause 7y ago
      ClincalTrials.gov lists 118 completed trials, and another 45 in various stages. Not all of these are relevant, but that's still a great deal of clinical data. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=HPV+vaccine&cond=HPV+Infection&recrs=e&age_v=&gndr=&type=Intr&rslt=&Search=Apply https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=HPV+vaccine&cond... There's no 40 year record, obviously, since the vaccine itself is only about 25 years old. However, the extant data shows a giant drop (30-50%, depending on age group), in HPV infections. That's already a huge win for everyone but genital warts, and we haven't even gotten to cancer. The link between HPV infection and cancer is also well established. There's good quality observational data: one clever study looked at cancer incidence in the spouses of HPV patients (Mirghani et al., 2017). The molecular mechanisms are at least partially understood and seem to overlap with what we know about other kinds of cancer too. Maybe it "works" but the actual benefit is minuscule? Nope. Even estimates based on the older, less effective versions of the vaccine find that it's cost-effective. See, for example, Sanders and Taira (2003): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12533280 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12533280 In short, all of the available evidence suggests it's a highly effective intervention, with minimal risk to individuals and big gains for their own health and the population's. You don't have to take my word for it either. You can look at the CADTH reports (Canada; CADTH.ca), NICE (UK; https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=HPV https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=HPV) and basically every other set of guidance on the topic, which all recommend vaccination. EDIT: Ok, sorry about the snark, but I do think this is actually a constructive comment.
didibus 7y ago
Can you get the vaccine as an adult? For some reason I always thought if you didn't get it young it was too late to get it.
- homero 7y ago
  They keep increasing the age, i think it's 26 now. That's only to get insurance to pay, you can get it off label at any age
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jt0 7y ago
    It's 45 now. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/HPV-adults-etr.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/HPV-adults-etr....
bbsimonbb 7y ago
[HPV vaccine is systematically given](https://www.health.gov.au/news/protect-your-kids-against-hpv?gclid=Cj0KCQjw9fntBRCGARIsAGjFq5FhBzOBX5Uwkbt3g1VQ9wQfBCPAg4qb7PyRJkpEaj--ow-FGSZwmNUaAldfEALw_wcB https://www.health.gov.au/news/protect-your-kids-against-hpv...) to all 12 year olds, boys and girls, for free through school vaccination programs.
- bbsimonbb 7y ago
  ...in Australia
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    And a bunch of other countries with routine vaccination programs. These programmes make extra sense in a country with universal healthcare because the country is paying for cancer treatment if its people get cancer, so preventing cancer actually saves the whole country money.
  - mg794613 7y ago
    And the Netherlands. I got it when I was 18 as the girls were getting it, the government decided it would be cheaper and more effective to do boys at the same time. HPV effects have plummeted, but this is hard to prove. What shocks me is that a lot of comments show a understanding of the average Facebook-mom. (misinterpreting workings of herd immunity, whilst the article doesn't even mention that, it clearly is about direct effects.) This is HN!
sm4rk0 7y ago
On the other hand (edit: an outdated article, see vo2maxer's comment below) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gardasil-researcher-speaks-out/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gardasil-researcher-speaks-out/ "The risks of serious adverse events including death reported after Gardasil use in (the JAMA article by CDC's Dr. Barbara Slade) were 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The rate of serious adverse events on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- homero 7y ago
  You mean adverse events like a rash? Or headache?
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
    The comment explicitly states "serious adverse events", which is well-defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_adverse_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_adverse_event
- vo2maxer 7y ago
  We have another 10 years of evidence since this was posted in 2009 [1]. That article quotes Diane Harper quite bit, and has also been discussed since [2]. [1] https://infectagentscancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-9378-8-22 https://infectagentscancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118... [2] https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/16/yet-another-antivaccine-meme-rises-from-the-grave-again-no-diane-harper-doesnt-hate-gardasil https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/16/yet-another-an...
  - sm4rk0 7y ago
    Thanks! Those are good arguments I was looking for (downvote accepted).
buss 7y ago
I'm a 33 y/o male and just found out last week that the eligibility range has been expanded, so I opted to get the vaccine. It's a three dose course over a few months. Everybody should do it!
dandare 7y ago
> HPV gives 34,800 Americans cancer every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those, 20,700 are women and 14,100 are men. > the burden of HPV positive oropharynx cancer in men in the United States now exceeds the burden of cervical cancer diagnosed each year 41% of all cancer victims of HPV are men and there is almost no public awareness.
- ajuc 7y ago
  This is often the case in society's reaction to problems of men and women, and the result is that there's 4 years (5%) life expectancy gap between the sexes. And it's completely ignored while salary gap (where the discrepancy is the other way) is a hot topic for decades already. It's ironic, that the response for male problems is "whatever, you're an adult, deal with it", and for female problems it's "we need to help you".
- danw1979 7y ago
  After reading this article and a quick search, I was pleased to find that the NHS in the UK has recently decided to extend Gardasil vaccination to boys too - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/hpv-human-papillomavirus-vaccine/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/hpv-human-papillo...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- drallison 7y ago
  When a friend died of oropharynx cancer a while back, I explored the possibility of HPV vaccination only to be rejected because of age (now 78).
newnewpdro 7y ago
Getting this vaccine especially for your kids is a no-brainer. HPV is everywhere and it is not benign.
root_axis 7y ago
Another aspect to this that is not often discussed is that HPV-16 and HPV-18 increase the risk of penile cancer, no oral sex required.
rolltiide 7y ago
I paid for this vaccine out of pocket while I 25 and the treatments lasted till after I was 26. I would not be salty if insurers covered men and future people didnt have to pay for it.
jt0 7y ago
Also, if you or your partner are having receptive anal sex, ask your doctor about getting an anal pap smear. 90% of anal cancers are caused by HPV. They are slow growing and treatable. Screening is quick and easy. http://www.colonrectal.org/services.cfm/sid:7580/Abnormal_Anal_Pap_Smear,_Anal_Dysplasia_and_Anal_Cancer/index.html http://www.colonrectal.org/services.cfm/sid:7580/Abnormal_An...
- aaron695 7y ago
  Ha, had to google receptive anal sex. Obvious I guess. It's a bottom not a top. (Antonym is insertive)
rolltiide 7y ago
The reason that insurers dont cover it is because there isnt a test to see if men have been exposed, the vaccine doesnt work if men have been exposed already, and after a certain age you can assume that men have been exposed and function as carriers. The cancers men get from hpv are either due to cunnilingus or smoking, and there is no way to tell
Yuval_Halevi 7y ago
I saw this comment on Reddit: >HPV in men causes a significant number of anal and mouth cancer, it is not symptomless. And of course, vaccinated men can't pass it on to unvaccinated women.
adultSwim 7y ago
So is screening. Men can be carriers of HPV.

222 points by vo2maxer 7y ago

Because boys are carriers and infection vectors? It seems pretty self-evident that if you want to stamp out an infection you need to take out its infection carriers.

epmaybe 7y ago
It's just absurd to me that a completely preventable cancer with this vaccine is shunned by groups across this country, because of the implication. Also, a PSA for young adults and parents of children in the age groups - the HPV vaccine is usually covered (free) with insurance if you're in the recommended age groups, regardless of sex.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  I'm mid 30s and paid the ~$750 (using my FSA) for the three doses of Gardasil 9 post FDA approval but before the CDC has finished updating their guidelines that would prompt insurance coverage. There are few reasons you shouldn't get it if you have not yet been immunized, as it pays for itself if you prevent even one case of cancer that would've occurred from HPV transmission (whether that be a case you would've experienced, or a partner experienced). Agree parents need to get over it (disclaimer: am parent, kids getting HPV vaccination as soon as they're old enough). Your kids are eventually going to have sex. BFD. Protect them from possible future harm with a cheap vaccine.
  - a2tech 7y ago
    Ouch, thats pricey. I guess there's a price for being an early adopter. I work with one of researchers that was involved in developing the HPV vaccine and even I didn't realize it was so pricey.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - radicalbyte 7y ago
      It's dirt cheap if you're pretty sexually active. My kids are 100% going to get it along with any other vaccine which is available and effective. Some vaccines just half the risk of infection so need high coverage in the population.
      - journalctl 7y ago
        It’s certainly cheaper than cancer, although as always it’s a pity people have to pay out of pocket for it.
    - epmaybe 7y ago
      completely covered by insurance if within the CDC guidelines for recommended age groups (around 11-21 for both males and females, but double check first!)
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Yes! Get it (or get it for your kids) while you're covered!
  - blahblahblogger 7y ago
    Hmm I was also told that I didn't need to bother getting this done b/c I'm in my mid-30s. But I haven't been that sexually active in my life :( so I know the stat about most ppl having some form of HPV but it may not apply to me. Do you have to get it earlier in life?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Ideally, you get the vaccine before you're sexually active, as it won't inoculate you against strains of the virus you have already been infected with [1]. I recommend it to everyone who will listen. Cheap risk mitigation (comparatively speaking). Australia made it compulsory, and they will have eliminated cervical cancer in a few decades because of it [2] (and my hunch is that gene therapy will pick up the remainder until then [3]). It's literally a vaccine that prevents cancer [4]. Who says no to that? [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/by_the_way_doctor_should_i_get_the_hpv_vaccine_if_im_already_infected https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/by_th... (Harvard Women's Health Watch | By the way, doctor: Should I get the HPV vaccine if I'm already infected?) [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/world/australia/cervical-cancer-hpv-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/world/australia/cervical-... (In Australia, Cervical Cancer Could Soon Be Eliminated) [3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-09/cervical-cancer-cure-research-gene-technology-qld/11583158 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-09/cervical-cancer-cure-... (Cervical cancer 'cure' closer with gene-editing breakthrough, scientists say) [4] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/p0822-cancer-prevented-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/p0822-cancer-prevent... (An Estimated 92% of Cancers Caused by HPV Could be Prevented by Vaccine)
      - masonic 7y ago
        they will have eliminated cervical cancer in a few decades False. Not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2818%2930183-X/fulltext#%20 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... "In 2007, Australia was one of the first countries to introduce a national human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme, and it has since achieved high vaccination coverage across both sexes. In December, 2017, organised cervical screening in Australia transitioned from cytology-based screening every 2 years for women aged from 18–20 years to 69 years, to primary HPV testing every 5 years for women aged 25–69 years and exit testing for women aged 70–74 years. We aimed to identify the earliest years in which the annual age-standardised incidence of cervical cancer in Australia (which is currently seven cases per 100 000 women) could decrease below two annual thresholds that could be considered to be potential elimination thresholds: a rare cancer threshold (six new cases per 100 000 women) or a lower threshold (four new cases per 100 000 women), since Australia is likely to be one of the first countries to reach these benchmarks."
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Wouldn't you already be almost certainly infected by mid-30s? Does it work if you're already carrying the virus?
    - technofiend 7y ago
      There are multiple strains of the virus. Even if infected with one wouldn't you like protection against the rest, particularly as Gardasil 9 is the vaccine you'll get in the US and covers the most strains? https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-vaccine-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/i... From the link above: Three vaccines that prevent infection with disease-causing HPV types are licensed for use in the United States: Gardasil®, Gardasil® 9, and Cervarix®. All three vaccines prevent infection with HPV types 16 and 18, two high-risk HPVs that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and an even higher percentage of some of the other HPV-caused cancers (1, 2). Gardasil also prevents infection with HPV types 6 and 11, which cause 90% of genital warts (3). Gardasil 9 prevents infection with the same four HPV types plus five additional cancer-causing types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) that together account for 10 to 20% of cervical cancers. Gardasil 9 is now the only HPV vaccine available for use in the United States. Cervarix and Gardasil are still used in other countries.
    - vo2maxer 7y ago
      At a minimum, it may augment “both the magnitude and quality of natural immunity” in sexually active persons. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5006801/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5006801/
      - m0zg 7y ago
        Good to know. Will ask my physician about getting it then.
      - masonic 7y ago
        Out of a grand total of five subjects, two showed a response. Not much of a study.
    - burfog 7y ago
  - epmaybe 7y ago
    Cdc guidelines don't include your age group so it's doubtful that insurance would cover it even today.. And it's not even that they're going to eventually have seen as kids, what if you get married and want to have kids? You don't know your partner's sexual history.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
brighteyes 7y ago
No, the article focuses on something completely different: That more men are diagnosed with HPV-associated cancer than women, these days. That's because of a huge increase in mouth and throat cancer among men, likely caused by an increase in oral sex. Boys getting the vaccine can prevent them from getting cancer decades later, basically.
- a2tech 7y ago
  Thats really interesting. I was looking at HPV as a cervical cancer only, not a male oral cancer. I'm going to chat with a researcher I work with that was involved in the development of the HPV vaccine and see what she thinks about it.
  - berberous 7y ago
    Michael Douglas publicly blamed his cancer on giving oral sex, raising a lot of awareness of the issue: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas-oral-sex-cancer https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas...
- burfog 7y ago
  Not everybody does that. Getting the vaccine because you might decide to sleep around (oral or otherwise) is like carrying a weapon because you might decide to get in a fight. Rape exists, but so do murderous assaults. The logic that says you need this vaccine is the same logic that says you need to carry a weapon.
  - isbwkisbakadqv 7y ago
    Fair point. I don't think you need to bring in the gun analogy. If you're definitely not going to have sex, you don't need any STD prevention.
    - manthedudeguy 7y ago
      Seems like they definitely won't need the vaccine.
eldavojohn 7y ago
Nowhere in the article does it mention the cost to the healthcare system per innoculation. It's also an article written to make it sound like Merck just wants to save lives but you need to also consider the billions off dollars this would net them. Also, buried in the article was this gem: "Though most experts have little doubt that the vaccine prevents HPV infections anywhere in the body and therefore the resulting cancers, technically, this has not been proven."
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I wouldn't put much concern on that not proven thing. Most vaccines aren't technically proven to work in the way we think about proving things in other areas of science. For starters, vaccines are not required to go through double blind studies. We give you the vaccine and if antibodies show up we say it works.
  - chaosite 7y ago
    And this isn't a big conspiracy, it's just that a study suggesting we expose healthy people to infectious diseases will never pass an ethics board.
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      That isn't the problem. The problem is it takes too long to run this hypothetical study from "Vaccinate 12 year old boys" to "These 50 year olds didn't die of cancer at the expected rates". Nobody wants to wait 40 years to run a study that says this thing we suspect is a good idea is, in fact, a good idea. 40 years is a long time. If you follow a patient for six months, they're easy to find. Maybe a handful of them move city once, but they remember they were in a medical trial, "Oh yeah, sorry, I will come in for the follow-up appointment". If you try 40 years it's hopeless. They move ten times, they leave the country, they've forgotten all about your medical trial. So you start with 100 patients and 40 years later you can only trace eight of them, and now your trial is statistically invalid. The existing efficacy demo for HPV vaccination against cervical cancer relies on the fact that Pap smears are a thing to get answers in just a few years not decades. The smear test gets us a bunch of cells that a pathologist can look at under a microscope and inspect to see if they're normal or maybe "pre-cancerous" meaning they aren't normal but they are not yet cancer. And we know (from having tried it) that if we just ignore it some of that not-yet-cancer turns into cancer and kills people. So if we see that in a smear today you'll get called back and they'll treat it, even though you haven't got cancer. This means they could give girls an HPV vaccine and then not only show that those girls didn't get the strains of HPV vaccinated against as often as unvaccinated peers, but further show that they don't get as much not-yet-cancer. And _by implication_ that means it protects against cancer. There is no smear test for these less common cancers in men. If there are pre-cancerous cells we don't see them. We only find out about the cancer, years and often decades later.
roxioman 7y ago
Why does it matter? Most men don't get to have sex and have no choice. Just look at tinder, women have all choice and so why most men should foot the bill for those enjoying sex the most? My friends and me aren't having sex - we get no matches on tinder. Prostitute is illegal in my state. We are choosing to be monk and most men are experiencing same. So why should we foot the bill?
tialaramex 7y ago
The ethical constraint is that the _patient_ must directly benefit from any medical intervention. Doctors are not supposed to do things that have a negative result for their individual patient even if they have some hypothetical big picture benefit for society. So for this reason the story isn't about how it's be great for women if more men were vaccinated, that's an interesting public health statistical consideration but it can't help doctors decide whether to vaccinate men. Maybe it'd be way more convenient for sixteen family members if Granny dies this week not next week, but the doctor looking after Granny needn't care about that, he's only considering what is best for her.
- belltaco 7y ago
  I wonder if we read the same article.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    The article which explains how this vaccination results in a personal benefit for male patients? And so therefore we should vaccinate boys? Yes, I'd assume so. The parent I'm replying to suggests it's appropriate to vaccinate boys in order to achieve herd immunity. Herd immunity is something public health officials are interested in, but as I explained ethically individual doctors are obliged to focus on the direct benefit to their patient. "Now you are less likely to get cancer" is a direct benefit, whereas "Now somebody else you may not even have met is less likely to get cancer" is pretty hazy.
dmurray 7y ago
No, from a "herd immunity" perspective just vaccinating the girls should be pretty effective. Assuming girls only transmit the virus to boys and boys only transmit it to girls (I know, not PC, but a good first approximation), then if you only have resources to vaccinate half the population, it's much better to vaccinate all the girls than a random sample of the population. The article is specifically arguing that boys should get vaccinated for their own benefit - not a herd immunity argument.
dbdjfjrjvebd 7y ago
No because they die of throat cancer at the same rate as women die of cervical cancer.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- belltaco 7y ago
  I don't think I have ever seen another Hacker News thread where half the commenters and the upvoters actually haven't read the article and are basing their comments on the title.
  - kick 7y ago
    It happens pretty frequently. See any thread where any publicly listed company is involved.
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    Are you saying that’s more or less than usual?

heyflyguy 7y ago

Does it do anything for you if you're already infected but not cancerous? or is it merely prevention from infection?

sfblah 7y ago
I want to know this too.
dnsco 7y ago
There are many strains of HPV, the vaccine prevents several of the worst but not all strains. Even if you are already infected with one strain it makes sense to get the vaccine to not become infected with the others.
maxander 7y ago
Gardasil is described as a prophylactic vaccine, rather than therapeutic, so no- it sounds like you would have to be vaccinated prior to infection in order for it to be effective. However, it sounds like there are therapeutic vaccines in development [0, 1]. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586871/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586871/ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30955915 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30955915
antoviaque 7y ago
"In those already infected, the vaccines are not effective." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine#cite_note-WHO2017-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine#cite_note-WHO2017-...
- monkeycantype 7y ago
  I've often wished I retained where I read it, but I read that in human trials in China, that in some test subjects, all warts on their body cleared. Also the researcher who developed the vaccine was my step-son's grandmother's next door neighbour.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

nikanj 7y ago

Because we need to get over the idea that boys and men are expendable, and only women and children deserve protection

throwaway5752 7y ago
That's the exact opposite of the point of the article. Men and boys don't get the vaccine because they and their parents perceive it as a female-only problem (cervical cancer induced by HPV). The article is trying to get apathetic men and boys to realize that not only are they acting as carriers of HPV that can kill their wives and partners, but they themselves can die from HPV induced cancers.
- nikanj 7y ago
  When I wrote my comment, the headline was something along the lines of "Why we should vaccinate boys against HPV too". The headline has now been changed, and my comment seems really odd.
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    Sorry, changed headlines here have caught me, too. I understand.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    The meaning of the title hasn't changed much though. Is it too much to expect people to read the article before making inflammatory MRA style comments? Looks like a common problem in this thread.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - thrower123 7y ago

jdavis703 7y ago

Looking at my HMO's website it seems like the vaccine is not recommended for males over 26. The CDC also backs this up. Does this mean those of us over 26 are screwed? Is there anything we can do to check for cancers to catch an infection early?

dannypgh 7y ago
It is approved but not recommended, which means insurance doesn't have to cover it to satisfy the ACA. I'm 35 and one dose in (about due for the second dose) - what this has meant for me is that it's no trouble to get my doctor to give me the vaccine (but the county's vaccination lab refused) but insurance didn't cover the vaccine. For me it's worth the $600 or so it'll end up costing, just for the peace of mind that I'm doing what I can to minimize the risk.
bendauphinee 7y ago
FDA guidance has recently (within the last year) extended this out to age 45.
dnsco 7y ago
If you are going to have intimate contact with more than a few people (perhaps even just a few) the doctors I have talked to recommend getting the vaccine.
lainga 7y ago
Does it mention why? Is it because the adverse reaction rate for (e.g.) Gardasil is higher than the probability of catching one of the HPV strains it targets after 26?

remote_phone 7y ago

I’m a firm believer in vaccines, but HPV for boys is where I draw the line. I get why sexually active females would benefit from it but having every single child, boys and girls alike, reeks of institutionalized pharmaceutical fear mongering, and trying to profit from every single citizen taking the vaccine. I don’t believe 360M Americans need to all be vaccinated for HPV such that 0.01% of the population avoids cancer. I would rather do things like get rid of pollution that poisons our food supply that causes more incidents of cancer than HPV.

belltaco 7y ago
I don't think we read the same article, assuming you have actually read it.
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
You clearly have not read the article, so I suggest doing so before making conclusions that are directly contradicted by the information presented.
dbdjfjrjvebd 7y ago
Why do you want males to get preventable cancer?
castratikron 7y ago
You know HPV is what gives you genital warts, right? I'm going to assume you're male for a moment – imagine if you developed genital warts, and then found out it could have been prevented if you had gotten the HPV vaccine when you were 9. Wouldn't that motivate you to make sure the next generation of youth doesn't have to go through the same experience?
vo2maxer 7y ago
Diagnosis of HPV-positive oropharyngeal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is increasing in males. It is mostly in the 4th through 6th decades when these malignant neoplasms are discovered. It hit home recently when my best friend, a physician, was diagnosed with it and underwent surgery followed by debilitating radiation therapy. We both agree that our children and grandchildren, both male and female, should have the vaccine. We suspect that the recommended age for getting the vaccine will continue to expand.

pazimzadeh 7y ago

"HPV vaccination is also recommended for everyone through age 26 years, if not vaccinated already. Vaccination is not recommended for everyone older than age 26 years." https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine.html Does anyone know why? Is it because most sexually active people would already have HPV at that point?

MauranKilom 7y ago
They seem to imply so: > However, some adults age 27 through 45 years who are not already vaccinated may decide to get HPV vaccine after speaking with their doctor about their risk for new HPV infections and the possible benefits of vaccination. HPV vaccination in this age range provides less benefit, as more people have already been exposed to HPV.

kd3 7y ago

Looks like big pharma wants to cash in from the other half of the population now.

mattkrause 7y ago
You clearly mean this as a bad thing, but...why? The vaccine actually works. If it lowers your risk of fairly nasty cancers (and other less debilitating—-but embarrassing—-conditions), while earning them a few bucks, isn’t that a solid win-win scenario? At least it’s not the usual trope about how Big Pharma is hiding all the cures....
- kd3 7y ago
  Does it work? How many trials have they done? Like actually following people for 40 years to check the effects.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    ClincalTrials.gov lists 118 completed trials, and another 45 in various stages. Not all of these are relevant, but that's still a great deal of clinical data. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=HPV+vaccine&cond=HPV+Infection&recrs=e&age_v=&gndr=&type=Intr&rslt=&Search=Apply https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=HPV+vaccine&cond... There's no 40 year record, obviously, since the vaccine itself is only about 25 years old. However, the extant data shows a giant drop (30-50%, depending on age group), in HPV infections. That's already a huge win for everyone but genital warts, and we haven't even gotten to cancer. The link between HPV infection and cancer is also well established. There's good quality observational data: one clever study looked at cancer incidence in the spouses of HPV patients (Mirghani et al., 2017). The molecular mechanisms are at least partially understood and seem to overlap with what we know about other kinds of cancer too. Maybe it "works" but the actual benefit is minuscule? Nope. Even estimates based on the older, less effective versions of the vaccine find that it's cost-effective. See, for example, Sanders and Taira (2003): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12533280 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12533280 In short, all of the available evidence suggests it's a highly effective intervention, with minimal risk to individuals and big gains for their own health and the population's. You don't have to take my word for it either. You can look at the CADTH reports (Canada; CADTH.ca), NICE (UK; https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=HPV https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=HPV) and basically every other set of guidance on the topic, which all recommend vaccination. EDIT: Ok, sorry about the snark, but I do think this is actually a constructive comment.

didibus 7y ago

Can you get the vaccine as an adult? For some reason I always thought if you didn't get it young it was too late to get it.

homero 7y ago
They keep increasing the age, i think it's 26 now. That's only to get insurance to pay, you can get it off label at any age
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jt0 7y ago
  It's 45 now. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/HPV-adults-etr.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/HPV-adults-etr....

bbsimonbb 7y ago

[HPV vaccine is systematically given](https://www.health.gov.au/news/protect-your-kids-against-hpv?gclid=Cj0KCQjw9fntBRCGARIsAGjFq5FhBzOBX5Uwkbt3g1VQ9wQfBCPAg4qb7PyRJkpEaj--ow-FGSZwmNUaAldfEALw_wcB https://www.health.gov.au/news/protect-your-kids-against-hpv...) to all 12 year olds, boys and girls, for free through school vaccination programs.

bbsimonbb 7y ago
...in Australia
- tialaramex 7y ago
  And a bunch of other countries with routine vaccination programs. These programmes make extra sense in a country with universal healthcare because the country is paying for cancer treatment if its people get cancer, so preventing cancer actually saves the whole country money.
- mg794613 7y ago
  And the Netherlands. I got it when I was 18 as the girls were getting it, the government decided it would be cheaper and more effective to do boys at the same time. HPV effects have plummeted, but this is hard to prove. What shocks me is that a lot of comments show a understanding of the average Facebook-mom. (misinterpreting workings of herd immunity, whilst the article doesn't even mention that, it clearly is about direct effects.) This is HN!

sm4rk0 7y ago

On the other hand (edit: an outdated article, see vo2maxer's comment below) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gardasil-researcher-speaks-out/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gardasil-researcher-speaks-out/ "The risks of serious adverse events including death reported after Gardasil use in (the JAMA article by CDC's Dr. Barbara Slade) were 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The rate of serious adverse events on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year."

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
homero 7y ago
You mean adverse events like a rash? Or headache?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
  The comment explicitly states "serious adverse events", which is well-defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_adverse_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_adverse_event
vo2maxer 7y ago
We have another 10 years of evidence since this was posted in 2009 [1]. That article quotes Diane Harper quite bit, and has also been discussed since [2]. [1] https://infectagentscancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-9378-8-22 https://infectagentscancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118... [2] https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/16/yet-another-antivaccine-meme-rises-from-the-grave-again-no-diane-harper-doesnt-hate-gardasil https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/16/yet-another-an...
- sm4rk0 7y ago
  Thanks! Those are good arguments I was looking for (downvote accepted).

buss 7y ago

I'm a 33 y/o male and just found out last week that the eligibility range has been expanded, so I opted to get the vaccine. It's a three dose course over a few months. Everybody should do it!

dandare 7y ago

> HPV gives 34,800 Americans cancer every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those, 20,700 are women and 14,100 are men. > the burden of HPV positive oropharynx cancer in men in the United States now exceeds the burden of cervical cancer diagnosed each year 41% of all cancer victims of HPV are men and there is almost no public awareness.

ajuc 7y ago
This is often the case in society's reaction to problems of men and women, and the result is that there's 4 years (5%) life expectancy gap between the sexes. And it's completely ignored while salary gap (where the discrepancy is the other way) is a hot topic for decades already. It's ironic, that the response for male problems is "whatever, you're an adult, deal with it", and for female problems it's "we need to help you".
danw1979 7y ago
After reading this article and a quick search, I was pleased to find that the NHS in the UK has recently decided to extend Gardasil vaccination to boys too - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/hpv-human-papillomavirus-vaccine/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/hpv-human-papillo...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
drallison 7y ago
When a friend died of oropharynx cancer a while back, I explored the possibility of HPV vaccination only to be rejected because of age (now 78).

newnewpdro 7y ago

Getting this vaccine especially for your kids is a no-brainer. HPV is everywhere and it is not benign.

root_axis 7y ago

Another aspect to this that is not often discussed is that HPV-16 and HPV-18 increase the risk of penile cancer, no oral sex required.

rolltiide 7y ago

I paid for this vaccine out of pocket while I 25 and the treatments lasted till after I was 26. I would not be salty if insurers covered men and future people didnt have to pay for it.

jt0 7y ago

Also, if you or your partner are having receptive anal sex, ask your doctor about getting an anal pap smear. 90% of anal cancers are caused by HPV. They are slow growing and treatable. Screening is quick and easy. http://www.colonrectal.org/services.cfm/sid:7580/Abnormal_Anal_Pap_Smear,_Anal_Dysplasia_and_Anal_Cancer/index.html http://www.colonrectal.org/services.cfm/sid:7580/Abnormal_An...

aaron695 7y ago
Ha, had to google receptive anal sex. Obvious I guess. It's a bottom not a top. (Antonym is insertive)

rolltiide 7y ago

The reason that insurers dont cover it is because there isnt a test to see if men have been exposed, the vaccine doesnt work if men have been exposed already, and after a certain age you can assume that men have been exposed and function as carriers. The cancers men get from hpv are either due to cunnilingus or smoking, and there is no way to tell

Yuval_Halevi 7y ago

I saw this comment on Reddit: >HPV in men causes a significant number of anal and mouth cancer, it is not symptomless. And of course, vaccinated men can't pass it on to unvaccinated women.

adultSwim 7y ago

So is screening. Men can be carriers of HPV.