11 ms·
HPV vaccine study finds zero cases of cervical cancer among women vaccinated <14
- fwungy 3y agoIt's funny how people who are afraid to click a link with a unknown domain will take any vaccine they're offered. A computer can be fixed or discarded if it's damaged by software, not an option with your body. The USA has the most aggressive vaccine schedule for children in the world. If Vaccines are so effective we should see either lower per capita health care costs and/or superior aggregate health statistics. However US pee capita health cost are substantially higher than any other country and the health indicators are poor. If you regressed health level on vaccination it would likely come out a non-factor. The mania around Vaccines is profit driven; greedy pharma bullies and scares everyone into buying their product, because it's the only class they have that doesn't require waiting for someone to get sick.
- tick_tock_tick 3y agoIt's so crazy/impressive to me that some vaccines are actually "prefect".
- SomeoneFromCA 3y agoNever seen vaccines employed as prefects. Well, I've hears about cat prefects in Japan, but not vaccines.
- tick_tock_tick 3y agoAhh you're really missing out then they let you get away without a hallpass.
- davrosthedalek 3y agoWhere is your towel?
- londons_explore 3y agoMany vaccines become 'perfect' by causing the disease they treat to die out in the local community. It doesn't need to be perfect at the individual level to cause that - and in fact many vaccines at the individual level actually have pretty bad metrics - like for example only preventing half of cases.
- TylerE 3y agoYou're seeing this in vivo with polio - POLIO!! - starting to make a reappearance in some of the more extremist Hassidic communes in NYC. Those groups do not get vaccines.
- orangepurple 3y ago[dead]
- bigbillheck 3y agoPolio's complicated because of the differences between the vaccines meaning that external vigilance will be needed even with 100% coverage.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoThis is how vaccines are expected to operate. You don't need perfection, just enough to drive the reproduction rate below 1. However, note that this is in a population where there will no doubt be leaks. Even if everyone in the area got the jab that doesn't mean they won't have sex with people who didn't. Thus an infection rate of zero is a good showing.
- alfor 3y ago[flagged]
- kstrauser 3y ago> We assume the cost is zero but it's not. Please share. What's the health cost of getting this vaccine?
- alfor 3y agoI don't know, we don't know, that's the point. They claim a victory (no cancer in some conditions) But don't show the all cause mortality for same sample. You should be skeptical of a study not showing all causes mortality on their own sample. It's very easy to do, you count the dead and living for both samples at the end of the experiment. Yet, they don't. Weird isn't?
- alfor 3y ago[flagged]
- inasio 3y agoReminder that HPV in men has a similar association to oral/anal cancer, and this vaccine (ideally the quadrivalent version) prevents it too [0]. HPV vaccine campaigns often emphasize vaccinating only girls, but boys should be vaccinated too. [0] https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jnci/djad189/7274817?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article-abstract/doi/1...
- MrDresden 3y agoMany European nations have started vaccination of boys too.
- prepend 3y agoThe incidence of these cancers is much lower than cervical cancer. I think a more practical benefit to boys is the prevention of many strains of general warts and general herpes.
- saintfire 3y agoMales not contracting HPV stymies the transmission to unvaccinated females, if cervical cancer is the only concern for some reason.
- groestl 3y ago5-year survival rate of throat cancer is 82%, 5-year survival rate of cervical cancer is 92%, and incidence of HPV-related throat cancers among men is higher than cervical cancer on it's own and rising (probably due to changes in sexual behavior) [0]. While total incidence of HPV related cancers is higher in women than in men and that's bad enough, there is not a lot of difference. It's a problem on its own. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/cancer.html https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/cancer.html
- prepend 3y agoIt’s the incidence that is important here. So while there’s higher survivability for cervical cancer, there are many more deaths. (At least until this vaccine) So people are concerned with the risk of having throat cancer more than the risk of death if they get it. And this seems reasonable. As I have a very high risk of death in many improbable situations and I care more about lower risk of death in very common situations. 10k cases of throat cancer in men each year in the US [0]. Although HPV-related cancer, oropharynx, is less than that and harder for me to find a good incident rate. Almost 14k cases of cervical cancer in women each year in the US [1] [0] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/laryngeal-and-hypopharyngeal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/laryngeal-and-hypopharyn... [1] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/cervical-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/cervical-cancer/about/ke...
- belltaco 3y ago[flagged]
- 0ckpuppet 3y agoWas that the wife of Marcus "jazz-hands" Bachman ?
- ericmcer 3y agoWhy did she believe that? I like to believe are politicians aren’t completely insane so what pseudo/bad whatever studies led her to believe vaccines cause mental retardation?
- ceejayoz 3y agoIt's incredibly charitable of you to assume this was based on some sort of good-faith investigation of reputable medical research on her part.
- ericmcer 3y agoWell there is research around it, it isn’t robust enough to make stupid claims like that, but you could make a decent case that older vaccines contained things (Thimerosal) which could be causing problems. Maybe she doesn’t understand most new ones don’t?
- ceejayoz 3y ago> you could make a decent case that older vaccines contained things (Thimerosal) which could be causing problems No, not really; there's no case to be made there. Long and conclusively debunked, and the removal of it from most vaccinations didn't change autism etc. rates at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines > Maybe she doesn’t understand most new ones don’t? Little in Michele Bachmann's career gives me reason to give her that much benefit of the doubt.
- sokoloff 3y ago
- horacemorace 3y agoAs somebody who lost a dear friend from hpv associated cervical cancer, this is such good news.
- jeffbee 3y agoThis is one of the many reasons that "parental rights" people are dead wrong. People as young as 12 should have the absolute right to seek and get, in confidence, this vaccine and other health care. Nobody should give any weight to whether their parents want them to not have this vaccine.
- NotGMan 3y ago[flagged]
- kstrauser 3y agoI always love the presumption that "big pharma" is the same worldwide, and therefore non-US countries' health organizations are in on the "big lie".
- rootusrootus 3y ago> as young as 12 Why the arbitrary line at 12?
- burnished 3y agoProbably because they felt the need to draw the line somewhere to prevent hypothetical five year olds from demanding a dangerous cocktail of innoculants from every pharmacy in town, and probably the sense that at 12 you've developed enough for your sense of agency to be respected. Why does 12 sound arbitrary to you?
- rootusrootus 3y ago> Why does 12 sound arbitrary to you? Because it is? > they felt the need to draw the line somewhere to prevent hypothetical five year olds > probably the sense that at 12 I think you get the point. 12 is entirely arbitrary. Some children might well be able to make sound choices like this at that age. Some definitely will not. You're advocating for a line at which parents lose their right to be parents while maintaining the rest of the responsibility for raising the child. You want to put the government in control. I think you need more than a sense before taking that step. This is one of those ideas that sounds good mostly to people who don't have the responsibility of being parents.
- Traubenfuchs 3y agoThe continuing focus on cervical cancer and women’s sexual health in the context of HPV (vaccination) is my biggest pet peeve ever. HPV causes penile, anal, mouth-throat and cervical cancer. I‘d argue that all of those cancers are much, much worse than cervical cancer. After all, they can cause permanent disfigurement, chronic pain, inability to ever speak again and loss of the penis. Infertility? Woe is me! Anyone who is not celibate should really get the HPV vaccines. Tell a teenager he‘s risking to lose his dick and he‘s gonna get vaccinated tomorrow.
- LiquidPolymer 3y agoMany, many women have died from cervical cancer.
- tick_tock_tick 3y agoThey are offering the HPV vaccine for boy too. Hell my doctor suggested it, and I got it, a couple of years ago as a late 20s male.
- mac-mc 3y ago10 to 20 years ago, you got a lot of pushback if you wanted this vaccine as a male, with some insinuations about gayness, or it being "too late" if you wanted it in your early 20s when you heard about this benefit. To this day I don't have it as a result. Maybe today that has been fixed.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> Infertility? Woe is me! Well, and a couple hundred thousand deaths annually worldwide. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-cancer https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-ca...
- acdha 3y agoI agree it should be more broadly recognized as not being only for women but cervical cancer causes something like 340k deaths vs. the other ones being 1-2 orders of magnitude lower so it’s not surprising that attention has been focused there. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21660 https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac...
- lancebeet 3y agoIt seems a little strange to me that the people interviewed in this article find this is so remarkable. Only 40,000 people belonged to the group that got the vaccine before 14. If the incidence rate were the same as for the unvaccinated (8.4 per 100k) you would have expected roughly 4 in the group to have gotten cancer. If the incidence rate were the same as for those vaccinated after 14 (3.2 per 100k), you would have expected only ~1 to have gotten cancer. Maybe I'm missing something here?
- nerdponx 3y ago> Maybe I'm missing something here? Statistical literacy is difficult to develop, statistical intuition even moreso, even among well-intentioned and very intelligent people.
- logicchains 3y agoThat's why papers get away with making big claims that are unsupported by the data.
- dekhn 3y agoAs demonstrated by the original comment we're all replying to (see the other replies).
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoThe article says that all participants were eligible for screening, but it doesn't say how many were screened or tested. Also, this cohort would be age 28-36 years currently. The lowest median age for HPV cancer diagnosis is 50. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/age.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/age.htm
- bigbillheck 3y agoI believe that's "8.4 per 100k PER YEAR".
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
- Moldoteck 3y agoDoes it make sense to get a vaccine for older ppl, like 30y, does this still apply for men?
- Moldoteck 3y agothanks for replies, will get one with my gf, even if we have a strain, looks like vaccine could be beneficial anyway
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe CDC doesn't recommend it. By that age, you've probably been exposed already. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html > HPV vaccination is not recommended for everyone older than age 26 years. Some adults ages 27 through 45 years who were not already vaccinated might choose to get HPV vaccine after speaking with their doctor about their risk for new HPV infections and possible benefits of vaccination for them. HPV vaccination of adults provides less benefit, because more people in this age range have been exposed to HPV already.
- kolinko 3y agodoesn’t recommend ≠ recommends against
- chimeracoder 3y ago> The CDC recommends against it. The CDC does not recommend against getting vaccinated for people in their 30s. They don't issue a general recommendation for vaccinating people in their 30s. That's an extremely important distinction.
- gnicholas 3y agoI recently heard a doctor mention that cervical cancer typically crops up around age 40. As a result, a study like this is a bit premature. It's not bad news, of course, but it's also not exactly good news.
- alfor 3y agoStudy like this are very good to push government to pay vaccination to all kids as early as possible. In Québec they did the vaccination to all the kids at 12yo, boys and girls.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago$300 per dose * 100,000:1, so about $30 million per cancer cure that has a 70% survival rate. Up to the voters I guess.
- fwungy 3y agoA policy simply doing -some- good is not sufficient justification given a finite amount of resources to implement it. You need to compare policies against the alternative uses of the resources. Neither is the fact that "lives will be saved" a sufficient justification. You need to compare that against the lives saved with the alternative policy options available with the given resources.
- ahazred8ta 3y agoThe lifetime risk of ever getting cervical cancer is about 1%. So, $30,000 per prevention if you just count the girls, or $60k if you vaccinate the boys as well.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago0.00001% of the US population dies each year of cervical cancer. The cost to vaccinate all americans is on the order of $100B.
- 3y ago
- temptemptemp111 3y ago[dead]