5 ms·

I don't understand why they recommend against it. I guess the monetary costs don't outweigh the benefits, but that's only if you care more about saving money th

I don't understand why they recommend against it. I guess the monetary costs don't outweigh the benefits, but that's only if you care more about saving money than potentially preventing cancer. It's not like the vaccine going to hurt you. But the HPV vaccine is not particularly cheap, so it sounds like the insurance companies have lobbied against it or something. In my opinion men should also be vaccinated for it since they are often carriers and can be affected too.

londons_explore 3y ago
Since nearly everyone is infected with HPV, if you've had sex with a few people you're almost certainly already infected and therefore the vaccine will be of no benefit. I guess if you were 50 and still a virgin, and planning to change that, it might be worth it.
- ksenzee 3y ago
  Or you’ve been monogamous but are now getting divorced, or whatever. Not that uncommon.
  - prepend 3y ago
    It’s actually kind of frustrating how expensive that vaccine is (>$1000) as there’s no incentive to reduce cost. And if you’re 45, then insurance won’t cover. Even if you test negative for hpv.
    - ksenzee 3y ago
      Ugh, I didn’t realize that. I got in just under the wire at 44—guess I’m glad my ex left when he did?
- pazimzadeh 3y ago
  How can you be sure there would be no benefit? When my mom was diagnosed with stage four HPV-positive cancer, they still gave her the vaccine on the off chance that it would induce an immune response.
- volkl48 3y ago
  Yes, but being infected with one strain isn't the same as being infected with all of them in terms of the risks. You are unlikely to have all the strains known to cause problems already. ------- Additionally (something I only became aware of from knowing a person dealing with it) - there's a modest body of clinical research suggesting that vaccinating for HPV in someone who already has it and is symptomatic (warts) can significantly lessen or eliminate their symptoms. It was recommended for the person I know on that basis by their doctor as a thing to try, and they've noticed significant improvement. Anectdata, but mentioning anyway. These are very small studies and I won't claim that this is definitive (nor that I've put that much effort into a review of all literature), but to provide some support for my claims that this is a thing being suggested/investigated in research: - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6541142/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6541142/ - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38068369/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38068369/ --------- I believe that it's too early in the research for that to be factoring into the analysis going into current CDC recommendations, but it's an additional possible upside of vaccination (reducing symptoms/likelihood of symptoms, even if already infected) if the research continues to pan out.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > Since nearly everyone is infected with HPV Not quite, though the messaging on this is muddy. The CDC simultaneously says: > HPV is so common that nearly all sexually active men and women get the virus at some point in their lives. [1] and > During 2013–2014, any genital HPV prevalence among adults aged 18–59, was 42.5% in the total population, 45.2% among men and 39.9% among women; high-risk genital HPV prevalence was 22.7% in the total population, 25.1% among men and 20.4% among women. [2] 1: https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stats.htm https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stats.htm 2: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db280.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db280.htm
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  It's not approved above age 45 and thus insurance isn't going to pay. But that's simply a matter of not testing. It was intended to be used before exposure and the pool of people >45 who aren't exposed and might be is pretty low. However, there is a case where it makes sense: Someone who went into a monogamous relationship early and it has now ended. I'm not a sex-only-in-marriage type but I ended up taking my first partner down the aisle--chances are I was never exposed. I'm still with her, but all relationships end eventually.
jliptzin 3y ago
I don’t understand either. My doctor recommended I get it despite being older, because it’s possible there are strains of HPV it protects against that I have not yet been exposed to. He also said it could theoretically help clear an existing infection faster.
chimeracoder 3y ago
> I don't understand why they recommend against it. I guess the monetary costs don't outweigh the benefits, but that's only if you care more about saving money than potentially preventing cancer. It's not like the vaccine going to hurt you. All vaccines have a nonzero risk of adverse outcomes. That can be as simple as the risk of physical injury due to incorrect administration of the needle. That's weighed against the risk of nonvaccination. In almost all cases, the balance is so extremely skewed that it's safe to issue general recommendations in favor of vaccination. For HPV, the issue is that there's literally zero benefit after exposure, and it's difficult/infeasible to test for exposure, but from epidemiological data we know that most people over the age of 25 have already been exposed. > In my opinion men should also be vaccinated for it The recommendation is for all genders, and has been for well over a decade.
- logicchains 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - snakeyjake 3y ago
    > It's still the riskiest pharmaceutical product the average young person will take. Acetaminophen is the riskiest pharmaceutical product the average young person will take. It's so risky that EMS and ED staff are extremely well attuned to detecting and deploying effective interventions so that even when one doesn't die due to the entire scientific might of medicine being thrown at them, about a third of people who overdose and survive will have kidney and stomach problems for the rest of their (quite frankly, miserable) lives. The antivax morons would be better served by being antiaceta.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > It's still the riskiest pharmaceutical product the average young person will take. That'll almost certainly be Tylenol. > No other pharmaceutical product has been deemed so risky that it couldn't exist unless people were prevented from suing its manufacturers. That's not why the program exists. It was deemed risky for the national security of the United States to lose its ability to manufacture vaccines because twelve lay people in a jury room decide to bankrupt a drug company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen... "The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP or NVICP) was established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress in response to a threat to the vaccine supply due to a 1980s scare over the DPT vaccine. Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity."
kolinko 3y ago
doesn’t recommend ≠ recommends against

londons_explore 3y ago

Since nearly everyone is infected with HPV, if you've had sex with a few people you're almost certainly already infected and therefore the vaccine will be of no benefit. I guess if you were 50 and still a virgin, and planning to change that, it might be worth it.

ksenzee 3y ago
Or you’ve been monogamous but are now getting divorced, or whatever. Not that uncommon.
- prepend 3y ago
  It’s actually kind of frustrating how expensive that vaccine is (>$1000) as there’s no incentive to reduce cost. And if you’re 45, then insurance won’t cover. Even if you test negative for hpv.
  - ksenzee 3y ago
    Ugh, I didn’t realize that. I got in just under the wire at 44—guess I’m glad my ex left when he did?
pazimzadeh 3y ago
How can you be sure there would be no benefit? When my mom was diagnosed with stage four HPV-positive cancer, they still gave her the vaccine on the off chance that it would induce an immune response.
volkl48 3y ago
Yes, but being infected with one strain isn't the same as being infected with all of them in terms of the risks. You are unlikely to have all the strains known to cause problems already. ------- Additionally (something I only became aware of from knowing a person dealing with it) - there's a modest body of clinical research suggesting that vaccinating for HPV in someone who already has it and is symptomatic (warts) can significantly lessen or eliminate their symptoms. It was recommended for the person I know on that basis by their doctor as a thing to try, and they've noticed significant improvement. Anectdata, but mentioning anyway. These are very small studies and I won't claim that this is definitive (nor that I've put that much effort into a review of all literature), but to provide some support for my claims that this is a thing being suggested/investigated in research: - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6541142/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6541142/ - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38068369/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38068369/ --------- I believe that it's too early in the research for that to be factoring into the analysis going into current CDC recommendations, but it's an additional possible upside of vaccination (reducing symptoms/likelihood of symptoms, even if already infected) if the research continues to pan out.
gnicholas 3y ago
> Since nearly everyone is infected with HPV Not quite, though the messaging on this is muddy. The CDC simultaneously says: > HPV is so common that nearly all sexually active men and women get the virus at some point in their lives. [1] and > During 2013–2014, any genital HPV prevalence among adults aged 18–59, was 42.5% in the total population, 45.2% among men and 39.9% among women; high-risk genital HPV prevalence was 22.7% in the total population, 25.1% among men and 20.4% among women. [2] 1: https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stats.htm https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stats.htm 2: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db280.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db280.htm
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
LorenPechtel 3y ago
It's not approved above age 45 and thus insurance isn't going to pay. But that's simply a matter of not testing. It was intended to be used before exposure and the pool of people >45 who aren't exposed and might be is pretty low. However, there is a case where it makes sense: Someone who went into a monogamous relationship early and it has now ended. I'm not a sex-only-in-marriage type but I ended up taking my first partner down the aisle--chances are I was never exposed. I'm still with her, but all relationships end eventually.

jliptzin 3y ago

I don’t understand either. My doctor recommended I get it despite being older, because it’s possible there are strains of HPV it protects against that I have not yet been exposed to. He also said it could theoretically help clear an existing infection faster.

chimeracoder 3y ago

> I don't understand why they recommend against it. I guess the monetary costs don't outweigh the benefits, but that's only if you care more about saving money than potentially preventing cancer. It's not like the vaccine going to hurt you. All vaccines have a nonzero risk of adverse outcomes. That can be as simple as the risk of physical injury due to incorrect administration of the needle. That's weighed against the risk of nonvaccination. In almost all cases, the balance is so extremely skewed that it's safe to issue general recommendations in favor of vaccination. For HPV, the issue is that there's literally zero benefit after exposure, and it's difficult/infeasible to test for exposure, but from epidemiological data we know that most people over the age of 25 have already been exposed. > In my opinion men should also be vaccinated for it The recommendation is for all genders, and has been for well over a decade.

logicchains 3y ago
[flagged]
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  > It's still the riskiest pharmaceutical product the average young person will take. Acetaminophen is the riskiest pharmaceutical product the average young person will take. It's so risky that EMS and ED staff are extremely well attuned to detecting and deploying effective interventions so that even when one doesn't die due to the entire scientific might of medicine being thrown at them, about a third of people who overdose and survive will have kidney and stomach problems for the rest of their (quite frankly, miserable) lives. The antivax morons would be better served by being antiaceta.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > It's still the riskiest pharmaceutical product the average young person will take. That'll almost certainly be Tylenol. > No other pharmaceutical product has been deemed so risky that it couldn't exist unless people were prevented from suing its manufacturers. That's not why the program exists. It was deemed risky for the national security of the United States to lose its ability to manufacture vaccines because twelve lay people in a jury room decide to bankrupt a drug company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen... "The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP or NVICP) was established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress in response to a threat to the vaccine supply due to a 1980s scare over the DPT vaccine. Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity."

kolinko 3y ago

doesn’t recommend ≠ recommends against