4 ms·

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 bee

by yieldcrv 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.
stared 10mo ago
> 2) there is no test to determine if a male has been exposed, although there is one for females It is incorrect. I had it tested multiple times. It is done less routinely, usually under assumption that since it is women who are mostly at risk, why bother testing men. Which is horrible mindset in anything related to epidemiology. See: - https://www.droracle.ai/articles/607248/what-methods-are-used-to-test-males-for-human https://www.droracle.ai/articles/607248/what-methods-are-use... - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12256477/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12256477/ - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2024.2313848 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2024.2... > 1) if you've ever been exposed to HPV already, then the vaccine is useless Also no. See other comments.
- timr 10mo ago
  > It is done less routinely, usually under assumption that since it is women who are mostly at risk, why bother testing men. Which is horrible mindset in anything related to epidemiology. No. The general reason that people don't do the test for men is that DNA testing is extremely sensitive, and produces a lot of false positives for a virus that is widespread. It's also not actionable. You can't treat an asymptomatic infection, and a positive leads to the same outcome they would give anyway: use physical barriers and abstinence. (Edit: hilariously, your first link says exactly what I just wrote, at the very top of the page. Did you read it?)
  - stared 10mo ago
    The claim I refuted is that there are no test for men (there are). Not sure why you want to get needlessly argumentative here, repeating things I already linked (sic!). Sure, test from penis has lower specificity and sensitivity that for cervix, but it is not binary "works or not" (as side note, just measuring from urethra is rarely enough [1]). Life is probability, and it is a huge fallacy to believe that things work 100% or 0%, nothing in between (rarely the case in medicine). Results are actionable on many ways. Most important, screening for female partners, informed risk for partners or your on safety for ones partners (condoms BTW reduce infection rates, but do not fully protect, as HPV can be on other parts of skin). [1] > The overall prevalence of HPV was 65.4%. HPV detection was highest at the penile shaft (49.9% for the full cohort and 47.9% for the subcohort of men with complete sampling), followed by the glans penis/coronal sulcus (35.8% and 32.8%) and scrotum (34.2% and 32.8%). Detection was lowest in urethra (10.1% and 10.2%) and semen (5.3% and 4.8%) samples. Exclusion of urethra, semen, and either perianal, scrotal, or anal samples resulted in a <5% reduction in prevalence. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3904649/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3904649/
    - yieldcrv 10mo ago
      no reliable test for men, then and even if it is reliable, its utility is limited all leads to focusing solely on probability of exposure(s)
    - 10mo ago
anderber 10mo ago
Europe approved it for males at the same time as for females.

codesnik 10mo 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 10mo 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.

stared 10mo ago

> 2) there is no test to determine if a male has been exposed, although there is one for females It is incorrect. I had it tested multiple times. It is done less routinely, usually under assumption that since it is women who are mostly at risk, why bother testing men. Which is horrible mindset in anything related to epidemiology. See: - https://www.droracle.ai/articles/607248/what-methods-are-used-to-test-males-for-human https://www.droracle.ai/articles/607248/what-methods-are-use... - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12256477/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12256477/ - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2024.2313848 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2024.2... > 1) if you've ever been exposed to HPV already, then the vaccine is useless Also no. See other comments.

timr 10mo ago
> It is done less routinely, usually under assumption that since it is women who are mostly at risk, why bother testing men. Which is horrible mindset in anything related to epidemiology. No. The general reason that people don't do the test for men is that DNA testing is extremely sensitive, and produces a lot of false positives for a virus that is widespread. It's also not actionable. You can't treat an asymptomatic infection, and a positive leads to the same outcome they would give anyway: use physical barriers and abstinence. (Edit: hilariously, your first link says exactly what I just wrote, at the very top of the page. Did you read it?)
- stared 10mo ago
  The claim I refuted is that there are no test for men (there are). Not sure why you want to get needlessly argumentative here, repeating things I already linked (sic!). Sure, test from penis has lower specificity and sensitivity that for cervix, but it is not binary "works or not" (as side note, just measuring from urethra is rarely enough [1]). Life is probability, and it is a huge fallacy to believe that things work 100% or 0%, nothing in between (rarely the case in medicine). Results are actionable on many ways. Most important, screening for female partners, informed risk for partners or your on safety for ones partners (condoms BTW reduce infection rates, but do not fully protect, as HPV can be on other parts of skin). [1] > The overall prevalence of HPV was 65.4%. HPV detection was highest at the penile shaft (49.9% for the full cohort and 47.9% for the subcohort of men with complete sampling), followed by the glans penis/coronal sulcus (35.8% and 32.8%) and scrotum (34.2% and 32.8%). Detection was lowest in urethra (10.1% and 10.2%) and semen (5.3% and 4.8%) samples. Exclusion of urethra, semen, and either perianal, scrotal, or anal samples resulted in a <5% reduction in prevalence. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3904649/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3904649/
  - yieldcrv 10mo ago
    no reliable test for men, then and even if it is reliable, its utility is limited all leads to focusing solely on probability of exposure(s)
  - 10mo ago

anderber 10mo ago

Europe approved it for males at the same time as for females.