- 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/
- 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.
"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.
Just a quick point as an American living in Denmark, one of the reasons government programs like this work so well is everything is delivered digitally. We have "e-boks" https://en.digst.dk/systems/digital-post/about-the-national-... official government facilitated inboxes so when they need to notify you of vaccinations or whatever else, it arrives to your inbox. And basically 100% of residents use these systems.
I fail to see how e-boks makes this work. Younger people check their e-boks less frequently than average, so sending a physical letter to their address would work just as well if not better.
Okay, well Ireland has similar vaccination rates, broader childhood vaccination coverage, and no central medical records at all, so while e-boks may assist administration, it's certainly not necessary.
Yeah, but muh freedoms and muh privacy! Allah forbid the goverment will know where I live. And what if tomorrow they would block you from this service?
In high-trust societies these things work, yes. Not all societies are high-trust. Often, they once were high-trust but are no longer thanks to sociopathic, non-empathetic actors.
I do think people put too much stock in how many things RCV would fix in the US, but I am a big fan of it and it would certainly be a big first step improving representation in this country. Unfortunately, multiple states (all Republican dominated) have already outlawed RCV as an option. So in order to do it you would have to overturn the existing ban as well. It’s ridiculous.
Go and look around in former high-trust societies where this trust has broken down or is breaking down - my points of reference are the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and to a lesser extent the UK - and you'll get your citations. What you'll probably find is that in 'marginalised areas' people have trust in governmental institutions - those which provide social welfare, healthcare, schools and such - while they have little trust in 'other (groups of) people'. In other words they trust the state but distrust their neighbours, especially those from different ethnic groups. If you look in more well-to-do areas you'll find the opposite: people mostly trust their neighbours but they have lost trust in the higher echelons of the state which in their eyes has been instrumental in the dissolution of their former high-trust society. They'll still mostly trust their local police and fire brigade but they see academia and the social workers and soft-on-crime judicial institutions it produces as part of the problem. Any articles produced by academia which claim to provide proof of the opposite are seen in the light of the severe political bias in those institutions - sociology as a discipline has lost nearly all trust due to this - so citing those only feeds the fire.
Sweden is not a society were trust has broken down. Neither is Germany. Maybe the Netherlands can be argued to have a breaking down of trust. Go look at actual data, and don't rely on racist internet memes to form your arguments.
I know you said or is breaking down. I'm telling you that its only for Netherlands you can argue a drop in trust. I'm sorry that you take the racist label as an insult. But the Sweden has fallen talking point is a racist lie, so don't perpetuate it if you don't want to be called out on it. Again I invite you to look at data on trust, and stop making stuff up.
Trump rode to the White House pitching that the government is broken/corrupt and as an outsider he would fix it. A significant part of his appeal is that he was a big middle finger to the establishment and current system writ large. This is well studied, documented, and easy to see in our daily lives. How many campaign ads begin with “the system is broken” or “Washington is out of touch”? Nobody ever lost voters for saying the government isn’t doing enough for them and isn’t trustworthy.
You can look at any Gallup or Pew poll or whatever sources you prefer and you will likely see that Americans have been steadily losing trust in their government. It has been in steady decline since the post-war era with some notable brief increases, but they don’t last.
>citation needed
I disagree as it is incredibly easy information to track down. But here you go anyway:
Obviously social trust in the US has declined and Trump benefited from that. But this is not evidence that the primary cause is sociopathic, non-empathetic actors. Theoretically it could also be things such as increased diversity, loss of shared identity, people acting in good faith but failing to adapt to social media.
In the 1960s, more than 900 people were diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, corresponding to more than 40 cases per 100,000 Danes.
Today, that number is below 10 per 100,000 nationwide – and among women aged 20 to 29, only 3 out of 100,000 are affected. This is below the WHO’s threshold for elimination of the disease.
A comment with an article citing published medical literature on risks associated with this type of vaccine was flagged and hidden. Why? I don't know the author nor am I a medical doctor to understand the topic at depth, so it's a genuine question. Was it misleading? If so, how? That's what the comment was asking, actually, if there were counter-points to the text, which was favorable to live vaccines (e.g. shingles) but critical of those developed with other methods. Is there no merit to that? I genuinely don't know, and since it seems impossible to discuss the topic, it's hard to say.
Lots of viruses are really oncogenic. The real success here is the ability of Denmark to track effectiveness. It sounds crazy but most countries do not have electronic health record capability to measure the effect of many interventions at population scale. Once good EHRs are rolled out, we will be able to double down on effective interventions, like this one, and vice versa.
Sadly, no matter how good the data is, some societies will value opinions of uninformed celebrities above facts and reason, leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases.
The numbers are quite solid. People who don't want to accept the numbers, need to come up with an explanation why the data can not be trusted. With regard to oncogenic HPV, I think the data is very convincing. To me it was a lot more convincing than the SARS covid datapoints (e. g. the media constantly shifted; I noticed this with regard to Sweden, which had a bad early data due to barely any protection of the elderly, but lateron it still had better data than e. g. Austria which went into lockdown - so Austria had worse data points than Sweden overall. Japan or Taiwan had excellent data points, so the respective governments were much better than either Sweden or Austria. The most incompetent politicans acted in Austria during that time, replacing facts with promo and propaganda. The data points, though, were always solid. I remember I compared this about weekly and it was interesting to me when Austria suddenly surpassed Sweden negatively; the media here in Austria critisized Sweden early on, but once Sweden outperformed Austria in a better, more positive manner, suddenly the media no longer reported that. Private media simply can not be trusted.)
Celebrities in general are quite dubous. See a certain actor suddenly promoting Palantir spysniffing on mankind. I decided that guy won't get a dime from me for the rest of my life - when actors suddenly become lobbyists for Evil, they need to not get any money from regular people really.
Idk the Danish approach of opennnes seems to be working for them. They acknowledge it isn't fully effective. They acknowledge that there may be a small risk of side effects. And they tell people it's worth it and to go take it.
"Since HPV vaccination was implemented in the Danish childhood vaccination programme in 2009, we have received 2,320 reports of suspected adverse reactions from HPV vaccines up to and including 2016. 1,023 of the reported adverse reactions have been categorised as serious. In the same period, 1,724,916 vaccine doses were sold. The reports related to HPV vaccination that we have classified as serious include reports of the condition Postural Orthostatic Tachycardi Syndrome (POTS), fainting, neurological symptoms and a number of diffuse symptoms, such as long-term headache, fatigue and stomach ache."
"The risk of cervical changes at an early stage was reduced by 73% among women born in 1993 and 1994, who had been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine compared with those who had not been vaccinated."
"The Danish Health Authority recommends that all girls are vaccinated against HPV at the age of 12. The Danish Health Authori-
ty still estimates that the benefits of vaccination by far outweigh any possible adverse reactions from the vaccine."
Its not like it wasn't without issues. You had the documentary from a state funded tv station that uncritically let people claim all kind of issues after getting the vaccine. It drastically lowered the uptake of the vaccine.
> They acknowledge it isn't fully effective. They acknowledge that there may be a small risk of side effects. And they tell people it's worth it and to go take it.
Those are basic bits of knowledge that apply to most vaccinations.
The problem is that the quacks diminish the positive effects, exaggerate the negatives and engage in a campaign of fear mongering that costs some people (and in some cases lots of people, see COVID) their lives. They are not only clueless, they are malicious.
From Gwyneth Paltrow, JFK Jr, all the way to Donald Trump and a whole raft of others the damage is immense. I have a close family member who now is fully convinced of the healing power of crystals and there isn't a thing you can do to reason with people that have fallen into a trap like that.
The data is IMO quite convincing. Harald zur Hausen pointed this out decades ago already; this is another data point that adds to the theory which back then he proposed was fairly new (not that viruses cause cancer, that is much older knowledge, but specifically the role of some HPV strains; Harald died about 2 years ago).
> Infection with HPV types covered by the vaccine (HPV16/18) has been almost eliminated. Before vaccination, the prevalence of HPV16/18 was between 15–17%, which has decreased in vaccinated women to < 1% by 2021. However, about one-third of women still had HPV infection with non-vaccine high-risk HPV types, and new infections with these types were more frequent in vaccinated than in unvaccinated women.
I wonder if we'll those non-vaccine strains will eventually become the most prevalent.
In my EU country Gardasil 9 is the most common HPV vaccine nowadays. This protects against 9 most common strains. I would assume the same is true in other countries. We have gone from HPV 16/18 -> +6/11 -> +31/33/45/52/58 protection with 2/4/9-valent vaccines.
HPV vaccination leads to massive reduction in nasopharyngeal, penile and rectal cancer in men.
The focus of messaging around HPV vaccination on ovarian cancer, female fertility and the age limitations for recommendations / free vaccination in some places are nothing short of a massive public health failure and almost scandal.
Just truthfully tell the boys their dicks might fall off and see how all of them quicklky flock to the vaccine.
> Just truthfully tell the boys their dicks might fall off and see how all of them quicklky flock to the vaccine.
Every male above the age of 26 is locked out of the vaccine unless you pay out of pocket, which will be €300-€500 (or even higher).
It's led to this really weird situation, where HPV vaccination for men is now recommended up to 40s but only covered up to 26yr old, and that recommendation upgrade happened relatively recently. Which means there's a whole generation of men who are told they should get the vaccine, who would have had covered access to the vaccine in the past, but are now expected to go out of pocket.
Yep, I paid for mine. male/43/Spain. Almost €400. Two shots of the nonavalent vaccine, ~€190 each.
For younger people it's three shots (second after two months, third after 6 months of the first one), now for older (over 30s or 40s, I can't remember exactly) it's recommended to get two shots (second after six months).
That is what's known as a category error. Some people have to drive for work or because they are disabled. You don't need to sleep around. Most of promiscuity is just someone scratching an itch... and risking getting diseases that can kill them or even drive them insane (syphilis).
I know some people get STIs from sexual assault or catch it off their one sexual partner, but they tend to be the exceptions.
This adds nothing. It has been repeatedly shown that stupid abstinence-driven approaches to public health do not work. It’s equivalent to saying “maybe the obesity crisis would be solved if we all just ate less”.
Moral crusades have zero place in public health and are actively harmful.
It's not a "moral crusade". If people don't sleep around this problem is going to diminish. Instead we have mass media telling people they need to hump everything that moves.
Disease transmission becomes prevalent if people keep doing the things which spread it. This is a case in point. It's a medical issue. We have unprecedented levels of chlamydia in the west now because this lifestyle is so prevalent. This shot will prevent HPV but not all the other things you can catch.
Not as sad as catching something which will damage you physically, sterilise them or even kill them.
People don't want to hear this obviously. But it is a fact STI transmission has skyrocketed since the so called sexual revolution of the late sixties. Within fifteen years, we has an AIDS epidemic.
And countless couples followed this path in life and are not happy at all, and countless individuals can't for a variety of reasons follow this path. But public health advice should also be available to them.
Psychology is a whole other matter, but if you're talking about sleeping around like Bonnie Blue then it is a form of Russian roulette and is likely to result in physical health trouble. Especially if people are having unprotected sex.
I am not talking about 'sleeping around' at all. Just by the look at the divorce rates around the world it is very clear that 'marry young and then never change partners' is an advice divorced from reality.
> Despite this being clearly shown within the HPV vaccine trials, since testing before vaccination would reduce vaccine sales, it was never recommended within the prescribing guidelines (some groups even said to not test before receiving the vaccine).
Citation needed. In Germany, the HPV vaccine is recommended only to below 14 year olds, so as to reduce precisely that risk.
- 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/
- 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.
You can get HPV without sex too.
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.
What makes it work is the public registers.
If you want full privacy you’d get no notifications and would have to go and ask for various things which you many not know exist.
We all need something like ranked/list voting and incorporate invalid votes into the result so urgently.
Citation needed.
First answer and you directly go to 'racism', that's a rather poor effort. Put some more thought into your replies if you want to be taken seriously.
You can look at any Gallup or Pew poll or whatever sources you prefer and you will likely see that Americans have been steadily losing trust in their government. It has been in steady decline since the post-war era with some notable brief increases, but they don’t last.
>citation needed
I disagree as it is incredibly easy information to track down. But here you go anyway:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/04/public-trust...
In the 1960s, more than 900 people were diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, corresponding to more than 40 cases per 100,000 Danes.
Today, that number is below 10 per 100,000 nationwide – and among women aged 20 to 29, only 3 out of 100,000 are affected. This is below the WHO’s threshold for elimination of the disease.
Hmm. Compared to what measurement? Most viruses are actually not oncogenic.
From cancer causes, oncogenic viruses are thought to be responsible for about 12% of human cancers worldwide:
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/7/797
From what I remember, most viruses are not oncogenic in nature, so I am unsure whether the statement made is correct.
I'm a proponent of EHRs, but the key value is at patient-level, not population level where other approaches perform equally well.
"Since HPV vaccination was implemented in the Danish childhood vaccination programme in 2009, we have received 2,320 reports of suspected adverse reactions from HPV vaccines up to and including 2016. 1,023 of the reported adverse reactions have been categorised as serious. In the same period, 1,724,916 vaccine doses were sold. The reports related to HPV vaccination that we have classified as serious include reports of the condition Postural Orthostatic Tachycardi Syndrome (POTS), fainting, neurological symptoms and a number of diffuse symptoms, such as long-term headache, fatigue and stomach ache."
"The risk of cervical changes at an early stage was reduced by 73% among women born in 1993 and 1994, who had been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine compared with those who had not been vaccinated."
"The Danish Health Authority recommends that all girls are vaccinated against HPV at the age of 12. The Danish Health Authori- ty still estimates that the benefits of vaccination by far outweigh any possible adverse reactions from the vaccine."
https://laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk/en/sideeffects/side-effects-...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6288961/
Those are basic bits of knowledge that apply to most vaccinations.
The problem is that the quacks diminish the positive effects, exaggerate the negatives and engage in a campaign of fear mongering that costs some people (and in some cases lots of people, see COVID) their lives. They are not only clueless, they are malicious.
From Gwyneth Paltrow, JFK Jr, all the way to Donald Trump and a whole raft of others the damage is immense. I have a close family member who now is fully convinced of the healing power of crystals and there isn't a thing you can do to reason with people that have fallen into a trap like that.
I wonder if we'll those non-vaccine strains will eventually become the most prevalent.
Hope we'll develop vaccines against those too.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine
HPV vaccination leads to massive reduction in nasopharyngeal, penile and rectal cancer in men.
The focus of messaging around HPV vaccination on ovarian cancer, female fertility and the age limitations for recommendations / free vaccination in some places are nothing short of a massive public health failure and almost scandal.
Just truthfully tell the boys their dicks might fall off and see how all of them quicklky flock to the vaccine.
Every male above the age of 26 is locked out of the vaccine unless you pay out of pocket, which will be €300-€500 (or even higher).
It's led to this really weird situation, where HPV vaccination for men is now recommended up to 40s but only covered up to 26yr old, and that recommendation upgrade happened relatively recently. Which means there's a whole generation of men who are told they should get the vaccine, who would have had covered access to the vaccine in the past, but are now expected to go out of pocket.
For younger people it's three shots (second after two months, third after 6 months of the first one), now for older (over 30s or 40s, I can't remember exactly) it's recommended to get two shots (second after six months).
I know some people get STIs from sexual assault or catch it off their one sexual partner, but they tend to be the exceptions.
Moral crusades have zero place in public health and are actively harmful.
Disease transmission becomes prevalent if people keep doing the things which spread it. This is a case in point. It's a medical issue. We have unprecedented levels of chlamydia in the west now because this lifestyle is so prevalent. This shot will prevent HPV but not all the other things you can catch.
People don't want to hear this obviously. But it is a fact STI transmission has skyrocketed since the so called sexual revolution of the late sixties. Within fifteen years, we has an AIDS epidemic.
HPV spreads through oral sex as well by the way.
It is a simple fact that unprotected sex with large numbers of people is very risky. We should have learnt that lesson in the eighties.
Citation needed. In Germany, the HPV vaccine is recommended only to below 14 year olds, so as to reduce precisely that risk.
https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQs/DE/Impfen/HPV/FAQ-Liste_H...