7 ms·

I would like to add: - HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. Unless you plan to remain completel

by stared 9mo ago

I would like to add: - HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. Unless you plan to remain completely celibate, you are likely to contract a strain. - Sooner is better, but vaccination can be done at any age. Guidelines often lag behind, but vaccination makes sense even if you are currently HPV-positive. While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects against different strains and reinfection (typically body removed HPV in 1-2 years). See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/ - HPV16 is responsible for a large number of throat cancers (around 50% in smokers and 80% in non-smokers!). This affects both men and women. Vaccinating men is important for their own safety and to reduce transmission to their partners.

shevy-java 9mo ago
> Unless you plan to remain completely celibate You can get HPV without sex too. https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/about-genital-hpv-infection.html https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/about-genital-hpv-infection.ht... "HPV is most commonly spread during vaginal or anal sex. It also spreads through close skin-to-skin touching during sex" This focuses on sex, but any virus that can be found on skin, also has a chance to be transmitted without sex just as well. Admittedly the chance here for HPV infection is much higher with regard to sex, but not non-zero otherwise. The HeLa cells also contain a HPV virus in the genome, though this was probably transmitted via sex: "The cells are characterized to contain human papillomavirus 18 (HPV-18)" HPV-18. I think HPV-18 may in general be more prevalent than HPV-16.
- downrightmike 9mo ago
  Foot warts are HPV, like from the Gym locker room
  - odie5533 9mo ago
    But they are not HPV16/18 and so not covered by this vaccine.
    - tiahura 9mo ago
      There is some clinical evidence of other strain effect. See pediatric dermatology article from a year or two ago.
    - throwwartsaway 9mo ago
      I successfully treated a persistent hand / feet / knee warts infection with 3 shots of Gardasil-9. The common warts are supposed to clear on their own within 2 years, but it was not the case for me. They all cleared out about a 1 year after the first shot, never to return. Including a deep plantar one that was completely immune to cryotherapy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772707624001577 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277270762...
  - Qem 9mo ago
    Armpit skin tags also seem to be related to some HPV strains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_tag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_tag
- NedF 9mo ago
  [dead]
- andsoitis 9mo ago
  > also has a chance to be transmitted without sex just as well. Admittedly the chance here for HPV infection is much higher with regard to sex, but not non-zero otherwise So, NOT in fact “just as well”.
formerly_proven 9mo ago
> - Sooner is better, but vaccination can be done at any age. Guidelines often lag behind, but vaccination makes sense even if you are currently HPV-positive. However, the vaccination is expensive (~1k) and it is difficult to find doctors who will do non-recommended vaccinations for self-payers. YCMV
- elric 9mo ago
  > However, the vaccination is expensive (~1k) Depends entirely on where you are and what your healthcare situation is. Mine cost me ~100eur.
  - oblio 9mo ago
    This is ultimately an American site so you can assume 80%+ of comments come from a US background (I'm not American, I've just been here longer than I should have). (even for rest-of-the-world topics)
    - sroussey 9mo ago
      It’s $169 at CVS with GoodRx coupon and no insurance.
- nerdjon 9mo ago
  Are there insurance plans that won't cover it? I know that a lot of plans love not paying for things but vaccines seem to be the one thing that they all at least seem fairly good at (at least in my experience). I am currently getting the HPV series and I only had to pay my copay for the first appointment have nothing for the second one (I am assuming it will be the same for the third)
  - whimsicalism 9mo ago
    are you under the age of 27? this is the key difference in cost of HPV vaccination
elric 9mo ago
I, a male, got vaccinated with the Gardasil 9 vaccine shortly before turning 40. Convincing my doctor to prescribe it wasn't terribly difficult, I told them a few things about my sexual history and explained some of my sexual plans, and that was that. I wish more people would get vaccinated.
- mostin 9mo ago
  I did the same at 34. There's a dermatology/STI clinic in Budapest where I live that gives the shot at cost (about 130 euros) because they think people should get it.
- EE84M3i 9mo ago
  How much did it cost? I've considered it but it seems the only option for me is to pay for it out of pocket (~$1000 for the full course), which seems kind of not worth it at this point.
- yieldcrv 9mo ago
  Best of luck, the reason it took so long for males to be approved for Gardasil use and they slowly keep pushing it up by age is two fold: 1) if you've ever been exposed to HPV already, then the vaccine is useless 2) there is no test to determine if a male has been exposed, although there is one for females so they just push the ages up by probability, over time. As the probability of a man being with an older and therefore unvaccinated woman decreases - since with women is the most probable - the age can rise
  - codesnik 9mo ago
    this is what I don't understand, why is it useless? there're multiple variants, vaccination could create reaction to a different part of the virus, etc.
  - elric 9mo ago
    > 1) if you've ever been exposed to HPV already, then the vaccine is useless This is patently incorrect. The vaccine protects against 9 variants. Having been exposed to all 9 before vaccination sounds like really bad luck. > 2) there is no test to determine if a male has been exposed, although there is one for females The female HPV tests, as I understand, only test for the presence of HPV in the cervix. It can be present in many other areas. No one is testing women for the presence of HPV on their hands or in their throats. Most places now offer HPV vaccines to young boys as well. People over 40 more or less missed the boat, but they can still get vaccinated. How useful it is depends entirely on their personal circumstances and risk profiles.
phkahler 9mo ago
>> HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. This statistic seems to be used by some people to avoid the vaccine - they figure they've already had it at some point. The biggest problem with that logic is that not all strains are as dangerous and they probably have not contracted 16 or 18 specifically. The other problem is there's still a good number of people who have never had it and shouldn't assume they have because its common.
- michaelrpeskin 9mo ago
  Yeah, I only read the abstract and looked at the plots, but this is what I hate about public health papers: They say the prevalence of virus is down. They don't say that the cancer rate is down (granted too early to tell), nor do they talk about any adverse events or all cause mortality differences (again, probably too early to tell) The only thing they can conclude is that the treatment given to stop the virus, stops the virus. But they don't mention any tradeoffs. Not trying to be an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist, but good science needs to talk about the whole picture.
  - gizmo686 9mo ago
    Research papers are not literature reviews. This paper reports on the results of this study. And that study only investigated what it investigated. In the case of public health, there are a bunch of organizations that keep on top of the research and maintain a more comprehensive view of their perception of the current consensus. For day to day guidance, individuals should be referring to either those sources, or healthcare professionals. If people are looking at individual studies like this to make decisions, something has gone very wrong.
  - wat10000 9mo ago
    You can’t talk about the whole picture unless you have all the parts. There’s no reason all of those parts have to come from the same study. The first thing on your list of complaints is something that by your own admission cannot yet be determined. If you’re not trying to be an anti-vaxxer, you’re doing a bad job of it.
torben-friis 9mo ago
Is there any issue for adult males vaccinating ? I seem to remember some mention of risk by my doctor when I asked about it, but I might be misremembering.
- hammock 9mo ago
  There is currently no vaccine that is zero risk
  - isodev 9mo ago
    Life is generally not zero risk :)
    - hammock 9mo ago
      I believe you are right. Including amorous congress and vaccines
  - 1121redblackgo 9mo ago
    and in the same breathe, the risk is closer to zero than not.
    - koolba 9mo ago
      Sure but specifics count. 49% is also closer to zero than it is to a 100%.
      - 1121redblackgo 9mo ago
        Complications from vaccines are not anywhere close to 49% if that is what you are insinuating.
  - wolvoleo 9mo ago
    What's the risk of a vaccine? What could happen?
timr 9mo ago
> While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects against different strains and reinfection (typically body removed HPV in 1-2 years). See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/ The study you've quoted here is not definitive evidence of the claim you're making, and that claim is...let's just say that it's controversial. Conventional wisdom is that you're unlikely to benefit from HPV vaccination unless you have not already seroconverted for at least one of the 9 strains (6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58) in the current vaccine. There's not much hard evidence to suggest that vaccination for HPV has strong ability to protect you from a strain after you've already been infected with that strain [1], as the best available data shows a substantial decline in efficacy for women over age 26 and for women of any age who had prior documented infection [2]. This study is small, unrandomized, and the measured primary outcome (anti-HPV IgG) doesn't really tell you anything about relative effectiveness at clearing an infection. The only real evidence they advance for this claim is: > Persistent HPV infection after vaccination was significantly less frequent in the nine-valent vaccinated group (23.5%) compared to the control group (88.9%; p < 0.001). ...but again, this is a small, unrandomized trial. We don't know how these 60 people differ from the typical HPV-positive case. You can't rely on this kind of observational data to claim causality. Vaccination is great, but let's not exaggerate or spread inaccurate claims in a fit of pro-vaccine exuberance. The HPV vaccine has age range recommendations [3] for a reason. [1] For the somewhat obvious reason that your immune system has already seen the virus. [2] See tables 2 and 3 here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706722/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706722/ It's also worth calling out table 4, which shows the (IMO bad) efficacy data for biological men, which is why I only talk about women, above, and why anyone who recommends vaccination without mentioning this factor is not being entirely forthright. Few people are rushing to give older men the HPV vaccine because it's not really supported by data! [3] I believe the current guideline is under age 45 in the USA.
- cassepipe 9mo ago
  I understand why it wouldn't be recommended in policy but individually, provided you are rich enough to waste a hundred bucks, worse case is it's useless, best case you are 1-5% likely to spread a bad strain dangerous to yourself or to your partners, right ?
gnerd00 9mo ago
[flagged]
- hiddencost 9mo ago
  Who is feeding you this? Vaccines are some of the most unambiguously positive things ever developed, they're an easy win.
- stared 9mo ago
  "I know no-one who died from hunger, therefore hunger does not exist, famine is a scam." A quick find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_from_throat_cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_from_throat_ca...
- wat10000 9mo ago
  Almost zero? So you have seen throat cancer cases? And you don’t think it would have been good for those people not to have had throat cancer? Did they seem to enjoy the experience or something?
miroljub 9mo ago
[flagged]
- andrepd 9mo ago
  You're replying on a post that shows a literal >16x reduction in prevalence, with "just don't be a slut, worked for thousands of years". I'd invite you to look up the prevalence of STDs during the most puritanical eras and places, maybe you'd change that stupid take.
  - miroljub 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - andrepd 9mo ago
      Chastity is 100% effective at preventing STDs exactly like living in a plastic bubble is 100% effective at preventing the flu (incidentally, it's also 100% effective at preventing humanity from existing within 80 years...). The fact that people throughout history, even in the most repressive times when "adulterers" were stoned or forced to marry rapists, have had much higher rates of STDs than we do today, shows that reality, rather than an abstract ideal case, is what matters in terms of public health. Put another way: a "slut" practicing safe sex today will have fewer chances to contract an STD than a regular married woman in Victorian times. > stupid man without any arguments Seriously? Your argument is "damn those slut whores" and you're pretending to have an intellectual high ground...? Have a good weekend.
      - miroljub 9mo ago
        > Seriously? Your argument is "damn those slut whores" No. Now calm down and try to understand what I wrote. It's not that hard. > There's a whole range of behaviors and HPV risk profiles between celibate and being a slut.
    - wat10000 9mo ago
      Why is a marginal benefit bad?
GlibMonkeyDeath 9mo ago
> Unless you plan to remain completely celibate Uh, monogamy of both partners is also an option, not just celibacy. Not common in these times, I know, but you don't have to completely abstain from sex to be safe.
0xbadcafebee 9mo ago
For those men wondering whether they should get vaccinated: - HPV causes genital warts, HPV is permanent, doctors won't test you for HPV unless you demand it, and the tests aren't reliable, which is why they literally won't diagnose you unless you already have genital warts. - Once you are confirmed HPV positive (again, you won't be confirmed without getting genital warts), you need to inform your partners, as it causes cancer in both men and women (but mostly women).
- timr 9mo ago
  You missed three very important caveats that complicate the story you’re trying to tell: 1) not every strain of HPV causes cancer (iirc, the bad ones are rare). 2) many people (in fact, most people) who are active in the world have been infected with at least one strain of HPV. 3) it’s common to have asymptomatic HPV infections. you probably have one now. one more: 4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anything unless you were vaccinated as a child (and are a biological woman). Overall, it’s a situation where you’re asking that sexual partners “disclose” something that the partner probably already has, if they bothered to be tested for it to begin with. Moreover, nobody does these tests (in men, at least), because there’s no point to doing them, other than creating anxiety. I will leave the nuances of bioethics to other people, but it’s not as clear a situation as you’re making it out to be. One final thing: these infections aren’t “permanent”. They generally clear naturally in a few years.
  - downrightmike 9mo ago
    #4, anything that reduces cancer risk is a plus in my book, regardless to time and gender
  - tehjoker 9mo ago
    > 4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anything unless you were vaccinated as a child (and are a biological woman). This guidance is changing. Vaccinating men protects women. Also just because you were infected with one strain, that doesn't mean you can't contract another, possibly oncogenic one. Get vaccinated, it protects against the most common cancer-causing strains. I did, why would I want to unknowingly give someone cancer?
wolvoleo 9mo ago
Yeah I just did it at 50. Only got 2 gardasil shots though. They're so expensive because only young people get them subsidized. I heard 1 shots already conveys a lot of protection so I'm wondering whether to take the third. I'm a bit late with it too
- cassepipe 9mo ago
  How much did it cost you ?
  - wolvoleo 9mo ago
    200 euro per shot (so 400 in total but the recommended amount is 3 shots) Here in Spain that's a lot of money.
stefantalpalaru 9mo ago
[dead]
osakasake 9mo ago
What are the chances that you develop cancer if you get infected by the worst HPV strain?
pfannkuchen 9mo ago
I’m confused why it won’t clear an existing infection while still working on future infections. Here is what I know (which may be limited, I’m not a biologist) and also what I’m assuming: 1) The body apparently doesn’t eliminate the virus on its own when it picks up the virus unvaccinated. I’m assuming that this is because it isn’t registered by the immune system as being harmful, for whatever reason. 2) The attenuated virus in the vaccine would not produce an immune response without the adjuvant, because even viruses that are registered as harmful are not reliably registered as harmful when attenuated. This is where the adjuvant packaged with the attenuated virus comes in - it is registered by the body as harmful, and in its confusion the immune system also adds the virus to the registry. So, naively, if the immune system previously didn’t register the natural infection as harmful, and if it does register the virus in the vaccine as harmful, why doesn’t the registry entry for the vaccine also get applied to the natural infection, the same way as it does for a person who wasn’t previously infected? Is there some kind of specificity hierarchy, along with a “not harmful” registry alongside the “harmful” registry, such that the natural infection continues to get its previous classification of “not harmful” because the “not harmful” registry entry is more specific than the “harmful” registry entry? That’s the only explanation I can (naively) think of. And if that’s the case, could we first wipe out the registry by infecting the person with measles, and then give them the HPV vaccine? Just kidding about this part!
- cassepipe 9mo ago
  I am assuming they meant it won't clear one strain that you already have but may protect against another one you don't
  - pfannkuchen 9mo ago
    Yes, I understand that. Would you mind reading my comment above? The thing I’m confused about is why it won’t protect you against one you already have. Like for viruses that have a vaccine, normally you wouldn’t vaccinate someone who had the virus already because the vaccine would be redundant - they already have natural immunity. But in the case of HPV, apparently they don’t have effective natural immunity, the immunity naturally acquired is worse than the vaccine one. So why can’t the vaccine one take effect after the absent (or at least ineffective one) natural one isn’t (or is slightly) in place? That’s what I don’t understand. It seems like the natural immunity prevents the vaccine induced immunity from developing, but the natural immunity in this case doesn’t seem to work, while the vaccine induced immunity does work. Why…?
fuckyah 9mo ago
[dead]
benmarten 9mo ago
I would like to add: Weaknesses / Counters: 1) Surrogate endpoint only — HPV PCR positivity is not a clinical outcome; no CIN2/3, no cancer, no mortality measured 2) Correlation ≠ causation — HPV-cancer link is epidemiological association; Koch's postulates not fulfilled in traditional sense; detecting DNA doesn't prove pathogenic activity 3) PCR detection ≠ disease — Transient HPV infections are common and clear spontaneously; most HPV-positive women never develop lesions or cancer 4) Type replacement signal ignored — 66% higher incidence of non-vaccine HR types in vaccinated group is dismissed rather than investigated as potential clinical concern 5) No long-term clinical follow-up — Cervical cancer takes 15-30 years to develop; this 7-year study cannot assess actual cancer prevention 6) Confounding in vaxxed vs unvaxxed comparison — Unvaccinated group is small (n=859), likely differs in health behaviors, screening adherence, socioeconomic factors 7) Circular reasoning — Vaccine "works" because it reduces detection of the types it targets; says nothing about whether those types were actually causing disease in this population 8) Assumes HPV16/18 reduction = cancer reduction — Untested assumption; clinical benefit must be demonstrated, not inferred from PCR 9) High baseline HR-HPV in vaccinated group unexplained — 32% prevalence of other HR types suggests substantial ongoing oncogenic exposure despite vaccination 10) Genome validity unestablished — HPV reference genomes are in-silico constructs assembled computationally; never validated by sequencing purified, isolated viral particles; PCR/sequencing performed on mixed clinical samples where true origin of amplified fragments is indeterminate
porjo 9mo ago
> Unless you plan to remain completely celibate, Or you (and your future partner) practice abstinence until you're ready to commit to a lifelong monogamous relationship.
- apparent 9mo ago
  Yeah, one downside to giving this vaccine to your kids is you're basically telling them you expect they won't do this, even if they plan to (and you planned to, and in fact did). But pediatricians talk about how you really have to do it young, before they're going to be sexually active, and how it's hard to get later (not entirely true, as demonstrated by the comments here).

by stared 9mo ago

shevy-java 9mo ago

> Unless you plan to remain completely celibate You can get HPV without sex too. https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/about-genital-hpv-infection.html https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/about-genital-hpv-infection.ht... "HPV is most commonly spread during vaginal or anal sex. It also spreads through close skin-to-skin touching during sex" This focuses on sex, but any virus that can be found on skin, also has a chance to be transmitted without sex just as well. Admittedly the chance here for HPV infection is much higher with regard to sex, but not non-zero otherwise. The HeLa cells also contain a HPV virus in the genome, though this was probably transmitted via sex: "The cells are characterized to contain human papillomavirus 18 (HPV-18)" HPV-18. I think HPV-18 may in general be more prevalent than HPV-16.

downrightmike 9mo ago
Foot warts are HPV, like from the Gym locker room
- odie5533 9mo ago
  But they are not HPV16/18 and so not covered by this vaccine.
  - tiahura 9mo ago
    There is some clinical evidence of other strain effect. See pediatric dermatology article from a year or two ago.
  - throwwartsaway 9mo ago
    I successfully treated a persistent hand / feet / knee warts infection with 3 shots of Gardasil-9. The common warts are supposed to clear on their own within 2 years, but it was not the case for me. They all cleared out about a 1 year after the first shot, never to return. Including a deep plantar one that was completely immune to cryotherapy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772707624001577 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277270762...
- Qem 9mo ago
  Armpit skin tags also seem to be related to some HPV strains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_tag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_tag
NedF 9mo ago
[dead]
andsoitis 9mo ago
> also has a chance to be transmitted without sex just as well. Admittedly the chance here for HPV infection is much higher with regard to sex, but not non-zero otherwise So, NOT in fact “just as well”.

formerly_proven 9mo ago

> - Sooner is better, but vaccination can be done at any age. Guidelines often lag behind, but vaccination makes sense even if you are currently HPV-positive. However, the vaccination is expensive (~1k) and it is difficult to find doctors who will do non-recommended vaccinations for self-payers. YCMV

elric 9mo ago
> However, the vaccination is expensive (~1k) Depends entirely on where you are and what your healthcare situation is. Mine cost me ~100eur.
- oblio 9mo ago
  This is ultimately an American site so you can assume 80%+ of comments come from a US background (I'm not American, I've just been here longer than I should have). (even for rest-of-the-world topics)
  - sroussey 9mo ago
    It’s $169 at CVS with GoodRx coupon and no insurance.
nerdjon 9mo ago
Are there insurance plans that won't cover it? I know that a lot of plans love not paying for things but vaccines seem to be the one thing that they all at least seem fairly good at (at least in my experience). I am currently getting the HPV series and I only had to pay my copay for the first appointment have nothing for the second one (I am assuming it will be the same for the third)
- whimsicalism 9mo ago
  are you under the age of 27? this is the key difference in cost of HPV vaccination

elric 9mo ago

I, a male, got vaccinated with the Gardasil 9 vaccine shortly before turning 40. Convincing my doctor to prescribe it wasn't terribly difficult, I told them a few things about my sexual history and explained some of my sexual plans, and that was that. I wish more people would get vaccinated.

mostin 9mo ago
I did the same at 34. There's a dermatology/STI clinic in Budapest where I live that gives the shot at cost (about 130 euros) because they think people should get it.
EE84M3i 9mo ago
How much did it cost? I've considered it but it seems the only option for me is to pay for it out of pocket (~$1000 for the full course), which seems kind of not worth it at this point.
yieldcrv 9mo ago
Best of luck, the reason it took so long for males to be approved for Gardasil use and they slowly keep pushing it up by age is two fold: 1) if you've ever been exposed to HPV already, then the vaccine is useless 2) there is no test to determine if a male has been exposed, although there is one for females so they just push the ages up by probability, over time. As the probability of a man being with an older and therefore unvaccinated woman decreases - since with women is the most probable - the age can rise
- codesnik 9mo ago
  this is what I don't understand, why is it useless? there're multiple variants, vaccination could create reaction to a different part of the virus, etc.
- elric 9mo ago
  > 1) if you've ever been exposed to HPV already, then the vaccine is useless This is patently incorrect. The vaccine protects against 9 variants. Having been exposed to all 9 before vaccination sounds like really bad luck. > 2) there is no test to determine if a male has been exposed, although there is one for females The female HPV tests, as I understand, only test for the presence of HPV in the cervix. It can be present in many other areas. No one is testing women for the presence of HPV on their hands or in their throats. Most places now offer HPV vaccines to young boys as well. People over 40 more or less missed the boat, but they can still get vaccinated. How useful it is depends entirely on their personal circumstances and risk profiles.

phkahler 9mo ago

>> HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. This statistic seems to be used by some people to avoid the vaccine - they figure they've already had it at some point. The biggest problem with that logic is that not all strains are as dangerous and they probably have not contracted 16 or 18 specifically. The other problem is there's still a good number of people who have never had it and shouldn't assume they have because its common.

michaelrpeskin 9mo ago
Yeah, I only read the abstract and looked at the plots, but this is what I hate about public health papers: They say the prevalence of virus is down. They don't say that the cancer rate is down (granted too early to tell), nor do they talk about any adverse events or all cause mortality differences (again, probably too early to tell) The only thing they can conclude is that the treatment given to stop the virus, stops the virus. But they don't mention any tradeoffs. Not trying to be an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist, but good science needs to talk about the whole picture.
- gizmo686 9mo ago
  Research papers are not literature reviews. This paper reports on the results of this study. And that study only investigated what it investigated. In the case of public health, there are a bunch of organizations that keep on top of the research and maintain a more comprehensive view of their perception of the current consensus. For day to day guidance, individuals should be referring to either those sources, or healthcare professionals. If people are looking at individual studies like this to make decisions, something has gone very wrong.
- wat10000 9mo ago
  You can’t talk about the whole picture unless you have all the parts. There’s no reason all of those parts have to come from the same study. The first thing on your list of complaints is something that by your own admission cannot yet be determined. If you’re not trying to be an anti-vaxxer, you’re doing a bad job of it.

torben-friis 9mo ago

Is there any issue for adult males vaccinating ? I seem to remember some mention of risk by my doctor when I asked about it, but I might be misremembering.

hammock 9mo ago
There is currently no vaccine that is zero risk
- isodev 9mo ago
  Life is generally not zero risk :)
  - hammock 9mo ago
    I believe you are right. Including amorous congress and vaccines
- 1121redblackgo 9mo ago
  and in the same breathe, the risk is closer to zero than not.
  - koolba 9mo ago
    Sure but specifics count. 49% is also closer to zero than it is to a 100%.
    - 1121redblackgo 9mo ago
      Complications from vaccines are not anywhere close to 49% if that is what you are insinuating.
- wolvoleo 9mo ago
  What's the risk of a vaccine? What could happen?

timr 9mo ago

> While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects against different strains and reinfection (typically body removed HPV in 1-2 years). See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/ The study you've quoted here is not definitive evidence of the claim you're making, and that claim is...let's just say that it's controversial. Conventional wisdom is that you're unlikely to benefit from HPV vaccination unless you have not already seroconverted for at least one of the 9 strains (6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58) in the current vaccine. There's not much hard evidence to suggest that vaccination for HPV has strong ability to protect you from a strain after you've already been infected with that strain [1], as the best available data shows a substantial decline in efficacy for women over age 26 and for women of any age who had prior documented infection [2]. This study is small, unrandomized, and the measured primary outcome (anti-HPV IgG) doesn't really tell you anything about relative effectiveness at clearing an infection. The only real evidence they advance for this claim is: > Persistent HPV infection after vaccination was significantly less frequent in the nine-valent vaccinated group (23.5%) compared to the control group (88.9%; p < 0.001). ...but again, this is a small, unrandomized trial. We don't know how these 60 people differ from the typical HPV-positive case. You can't rely on this kind of observational data to claim causality. Vaccination is great, but let's not exaggerate or spread inaccurate claims in a fit of pro-vaccine exuberance. The HPV vaccine has age range recommendations [3] for a reason. [1] For the somewhat obvious reason that your immune system has already seen the virus. [2] See tables 2 and 3 here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706722/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706722/ It's also worth calling out table 4, which shows the (IMO bad) efficacy data for biological men, which is why I only talk about women, above, and why anyone who recommends vaccination without mentioning this factor is not being entirely forthright. Few people are rushing to give older men the HPV vaccine because it's not really supported by data! [3] I believe the current guideline is under age 45 in the USA.

cassepipe 9mo ago
I understand why it wouldn't be recommended in policy but individually, provided you are rich enough to waste a hundred bucks, worse case is it's useless, best case you are 1-5% likely to spread a bad strain dangerous to yourself or to your partners, right ?

gnerd00 9mo ago

[flagged]

hiddencost 9mo ago
Who is feeding you this? Vaccines are some of the most unambiguously positive things ever developed, they're an easy win.
stared 9mo ago
"I know no-one who died from hunger, therefore hunger does not exist, famine is a scam." A quick find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_from_throat_cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_from_throat_ca...
wat10000 9mo ago
Almost zero? So you have seen throat cancer cases? And you don’t think it would have been good for those people not to have had throat cancer? Did they seem to enjoy the experience or something?

miroljub 9mo ago

[flagged]

andrepd 9mo ago
You're replying on a post that shows a literal >16x reduction in prevalence, with "just don't be a slut, worked for thousands of years". I'd invite you to look up the prevalence of STDs during the most puritanical eras and places, maybe you'd change that stupid take.
- miroljub 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - andrepd 9mo ago
    Chastity is 100% effective at preventing STDs exactly like living in a plastic bubble is 100% effective at preventing the flu (incidentally, it's also 100% effective at preventing humanity from existing within 80 years...). The fact that people throughout history, even in the most repressive times when "adulterers" were stoned or forced to marry rapists, have had much higher rates of STDs than we do today, shows that reality, rather than an abstract ideal case, is what matters in terms of public health. Put another way: a "slut" practicing safe sex today will have fewer chances to contract an STD than a regular married woman in Victorian times. > stupid man without any arguments Seriously? Your argument is "damn those slut whores" and you're pretending to have an intellectual high ground...? Have a good weekend.
    - miroljub 9mo ago
      > Seriously? Your argument is "damn those slut whores" No. Now calm down and try to understand what I wrote. It's not that hard. > There's a whole range of behaviors and HPV risk profiles between celibate and being a slut.
  - wat10000 9mo ago
    Why is a marginal benefit bad?

GlibMonkeyDeath 9mo ago

> Unless you plan to remain completely celibate Uh, monogamy of both partners is also an option, not just celibacy. Not common in these times, I know, but you don't have to completely abstain from sex to be safe.

0xbadcafebee 9mo ago

For those men wondering whether they should get vaccinated: - HPV causes genital warts, HPV is permanent, doctors won't test you for HPV unless you demand it, and the tests aren't reliable, which is why they literally won't diagnose you unless you already have genital warts. - Once you are confirmed HPV positive (again, you won't be confirmed without getting genital warts), you need to inform your partners, as it causes cancer in both men and women (but mostly women).

timr 9mo ago
You missed three very important caveats that complicate the story you’re trying to tell: 1) not every strain of HPV causes cancer (iirc, the bad ones are rare). 2) many people (in fact, most people) who are active in the world have been infected with at least one strain of HPV. 3) it’s common to have asymptomatic HPV infections. you probably have one now. one more: 4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anything unless you were vaccinated as a child (and are a biological woman). Overall, it’s a situation where you’re asking that sexual partners “disclose” something that the partner probably already has, if they bothered to be tested for it to begin with. Moreover, nobody does these tests (in men, at least), because there’s no point to doing them, other than creating anxiety. I will leave the nuances of bioethics to other people, but it’s not as clear a situation as you’re making it out to be. One final thing: these infections aren’t “permanent”. They generally clear naturally in a few years.
- downrightmike 9mo ago
  #4, anything that reduces cancer risk is a plus in my book, regardless to time and gender
- tehjoker 9mo ago
  > 4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anything unless you were vaccinated as a child (and are a biological woman). This guidance is changing. Vaccinating men protects women. Also just because you were infected with one strain, that doesn't mean you can't contract another, possibly oncogenic one. Get vaccinated, it protects against the most common cancer-causing strains. I did, why would I want to unknowingly give someone cancer?

wolvoleo 9mo ago

Yeah I just did it at 50. Only got 2 gardasil shots though. They're so expensive because only young people get them subsidized. I heard 1 shots already conveys a lot of protection so I'm wondering whether to take the third. I'm a bit late with it too

cassepipe 9mo ago
How much did it cost you ?
- wolvoleo 9mo ago
  200 euro per shot (so 400 in total but the recommended amount is 3 shots) Here in Spain that's a lot of money.

stefantalpalaru 9mo ago

[dead]

osakasake 9mo ago

What are the chances that you develop cancer if you get infected by the worst HPV strain?

pfannkuchen 9mo ago

I’m confused why it won’t clear an existing infection while still working on future infections. Here is what I know (which may be limited, I’m not a biologist) and also what I’m assuming: 1) The body apparently doesn’t eliminate the virus on its own when it picks up the virus unvaccinated. I’m assuming that this is because it isn’t registered by the immune system as being harmful, for whatever reason. 2) The attenuated virus in the vaccine would not produce an immune response without the adjuvant, because even viruses that are registered as harmful are not reliably registered as harmful when attenuated. This is where the adjuvant packaged with the attenuated virus comes in - it is registered by the body as harmful, and in its confusion the immune system also adds the virus to the registry. So, naively, if the immune system previously didn’t register the natural infection as harmful, and if it does register the virus in the vaccine as harmful, why doesn’t the registry entry for the vaccine also get applied to the natural infection, the same way as it does for a person who wasn’t previously infected? Is there some kind of specificity hierarchy, along with a “not harmful” registry alongside the “harmful” registry, such that the natural infection continues to get its previous classification of “not harmful” because the “not harmful” registry entry is more specific than the “harmful” registry entry? That’s the only explanation I can (naively) think of. And if that’s the case, could we first wipe out the registry by infecting the person with measles, and then give them the HPV vaccine? Just kidding about this part!

cassepipe 9mo ago
I am assuming they meant it won't clear one strain that you already have but may protect against another one you don't
- pfannkuchen 9mo ago
  Yes, I understand that. Would you mind reading my comment above? The thing I’m confused about is why it won’t protect you against one you already have. Like for viruses that have a vaccine, normally you wouldn’t vaccinate someone who had the virus already because the vaccine would be redundant - they already have natural immunity. But in the case of HPV, apparently they don’t have effective natural immunity, the immunity naturally acquired is worse than the vaccine one. So why can’t the vaccine one take effect after the absent (or at least ineffective one) natural one isn’t (or is slightly) in place? That’s what I don’t understand. It seems like the natural immunity prevents the vaccine induced immunity from developing, but the natural immunity in this case doesn’t seem to work, while the vaccine induced immunity does work. Why…?

fuckyah 9mo ago

[dead]

benmarten 9mo ago

I would like to add: Weaknesses / Counters: 1) Surrogate endpoint only — HPV PCR positivity is not a clinical outcome; no CIN2/3, no cancer, no mortality measured 2) Correlation ≠ causation — HPV-cancer link is epidemiological association; Koch's postulates not fulfilled in traditional sense; detecting DNA doesn't prove pathogenic activity 3) PCR detection ≠ disease — Transient HPV infections are common and clear spontaneously; most HPV-positive women never develop lesions or cancer 4) Type replacement signal ignored — 66% higher incidence of non-vaccine HR types in vaccinated group is dismissed rather than investigated as potential clinical concern 5) No long-term clinical follow-up — Cervical cancer takes 15-30 years to develop; this 7-year study cannot assess actual cancer prevention 6) Confounding in vaxxed vs unvaxxed comparison — Unvaccinated group is small (n=859), likely differs in health behaviors, screening adherence, socioeconomic factors 7) Circular reasoning — Vaccine "works" because it reduces detection of the types it targets; says nothing about whether those types were actually causing disease in this population 8) Assumes HPV16/18 reduction = cancer reduction — Untested assumption; clinical benefit must be demonstrated, not inferred from PCR 9) High baseline HR-HPV in vaccinated group unexplained — 32% prevalence of other HR types suggests substantial ongoing oncogenic exposure despite vaccination 10) Genome validity unestablished — HPV reference genomes are in-silico constructs assembled computationally; never validated by sequencing purified, isolated viral particles; PCR/sequencing performed on mixed clinical samples where true origin of amplified fragments is indeterminate

porjo 9mo ago

> Unless you plan to remain completely celibate, Or you (and your future partner) practice abstinence until you're ready to commit to a lifelong monogamous relationship.

apparent 9mo ago
Yeah, one downside to giving this vaccine to your kids is you're basically telling them you expect they won't do this, even if they plan to (and you planned to, and in fact did). But pediatricians talk about how you really have to do it young, before they're going to be sexually active, and how it's hard to get later (not entirely true, as demonstrated by the comments here).