Because boys are carriers and infection vectors? It seems pretty self-evident that if you want to stamp out an infection you need to take out its infection carriers.
That's because of a huge increase in mouth and throat cancer among men, likely caused by an increase in oral sex.
Boys getting the vaccine can prevent them from getting cancer decades later, basically.
can prevent them from getting cancer
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas...
Getting the vaccine because you might decide to sleep around (oral or otherwise) is like carrying a weapon because you might decide to get in a fight. Rape exists, but so do murderous assaults. The logic that says you need this vaccine is the same logic that says you need to carry a weapon.
Sex is a normal part of life, but even if it wasn't this is a ridiculous analogy.
If I get this vaccine I protect both myself and any future partners I may have. There is no downside (barring potential vaccine side effects).
Your statement is essentially equivalent to:
Buying condoms because you might decide to sleep around (oral or otherwise) is like carrying a weapon because you might decide to get in a fight. Rape exists, but so do murderous assaults. The logic that says you need to use a condom is the same logic that says you need to carry a weapon.
Hopefully it's clear how damaging that thinking can be?
Getting this vaccine is cheap and effective, and in no way similar to carrying a gun.
The worst part, of course, is that you can contract the virus (and the cancer) through kissing! I guess if you make sure you only ever kiss one person, and you know for sure that they have only ever kissed you, and will only ever kiss you in the future, and you and they both have never performed oral sex on anyone, or had sex with anyone else - maybe then you don't need the vaccine.
Deriding the suggestion that we should prevent easily preventable cancer (you call up images of rape and murder!) is way off base.
Not that I specified "gun", but I know people who regularly carry one. It is cheap and effective, and it will protect partners too, just like condoms.
Assuming both are as common, but they aren't. Most people will have multiple sexual partners and engage in oral sex, few people get murdered.
Then there's herd immunity which is great at protecting everyone, but carrying around weapons seems to have the opposite effect in makes you more likely to be murdered.
Also, a PSA for young adults and parents of children in the age groups - the HPV vaccine is usually covered (free) with insurance if you're in the recommended age groups, regardless of sex.
Agree parents need to get over it (disclaimer: am parent, kids getting HPV vaccination as soon as they're old enough). Your kids are eventually going to have sex. BFD. Protect them from possible future harm with a cheap vaccine.
But I haven't been that sexually active in my life :( so I know the stat about most ppl having some form of HPV but it may not apply to me.
Do you have to get it earlier in life?
Correction: Gardasil 9 covers 9. Prior version withdrawn.
... three vaccines prevent infection with HPV types 16 and 18, two high-risk HPVs that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and an even higher percentage of some of the other HPV-caused cancers (1, 2). Gardasil also prevents infection with HPV types 6 and 11, which cause 90% of genital warts (3). Gardasil 9 prevents infection with the same four HPV types plus five additional cancer-causing types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) that together account for 10 to 20% of cervical cancers.
"off-target" effects on other strains too
The WHO report, linked above, mentions that the bivalent vaccines also have limited effects on other strains, but they're mostly covered by the newer 4/9-valent ones. I'm pretty certain I saw another report suggesting it can hit other strains too, though again, not very effectively. This was the rationale for some of the ancedotes about people's warts disappearing and all that.
They're definitely intended to provoke an immune response, but the new ones don't use virus products. Instead, they contain particles (made by yeast) that assemble themselves into something that closely resembles the virus's structure. The immune system raises antibodies against that, priming it for dealing with future infections. More here (including a picture of the virus, which is quite pretty): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23800545
I recommend it to everyone who will listen. Cheap risk mitigation (comparatively speaking). Australia made it compulsory, and they will have eliminated cervical cancer in a few decades because of it [2] (and my hunch is that gene therapy will pick up the remainder until then [3]). It's literally a vaccine that prevents cancer [4]. Who says no to that?
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/by_th... (Harvard Women's Health Watch | By the way, doctor: Should I get the HPV vaccine if I'm already infected?)
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/world/australia/cervical-... (In Australia, Cervical Cancer Could Soon Be Eliminated)
[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-09/cervical-cancer-cure-... (Cervical cancer 'cure' closer with gene-editing breakthrough, scientists say)
[4] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/p0822-cancer-prevent... (An Estimated 92% of Cancers Caused by HPV Could be Prevented by Vaccine)
they will have eliminated cervical cancer in a few decades
"In 2007, Australia was one of the first countries to introduce a national human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme, and it has since achieved high vaccination coverage across both sexes. In December, 2017, organised cervical screening in Australia transitioned from cytology-based screening every 2 years for women aged from 18–20 years to 69 years, to primary HPV testing every 5 years for women aged 25–69 years and exit testing for women aged 70–74 years. We aimed to identify the earliest years in which the annual age-standardised incidence of cervical cancer in Australia (which is currently seven cases per 100 000 women) could decrease below two annual thresholds that could be considered to be potential elimination thresholds: a rare cancer threshold (six new cases per 100 000 women) or a lower threshold (four new cases per 100 000 women), since Australia is likely to be one of the first countries to reach these benchmarks."
And it's not even that they're going to eventually have seen as kids, what if you get married and want to have kids? You don't know your partner's sexual history.
My kids are 100% going to get it along with any other vaccine which is available and effective.
Some vaccines just half the risk of infection so need high coverage in the population.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/i...
From the link above:
Three vaccines that prevent infection with disease-causing HPV types are licensed for use in the United States: Gardasil®, Gardasil® 9, and Cervarix®. All three vaccines prevent infection with HPV types 16 and 18, two high-risk HPVs that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and an even higher percentage of some of the other HPV-caused cancers (1, 2). Gardasil also prevents infection with HPV types 6 and 11, which cause 90% of genital warts (3). Gardasil 9 prevents infection with the same four HPV types plus five additional cancer-causing types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) that together account for 10 to 20% of cervical cancers.
Gardasil 9 is now the only HPV vaccine available for use in the United States. Cervarix and Gardasil are still used in other countries.
"Though most experts have little doubt that the vaccine prevents HPV infections anywhere in the body and therefore the resulting cancers, technically, this has not been proven."
Here's an old analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12533280, which puts its effectiveness on-par with MMR vaccines and cost-effectiveness significantly better than the median $/QALY for existing interventions (~$42k, I think).
It's on the WHO list of recommended vaccines, and there are a ton of country-specific ones too; I linked to some elsewhere in the thread. Wikipedia has a giant list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine#Vaccine_implementa...
Today I learned do not talk about money when it comes to healthcare initiatives on ycombinator.
In reality, the vaccine has beneficial effects for the men themselves, as the article points out. It also contributes to "herd immunity", which benefits vaccinated men and women alike. Increased demand for the vaccine could also drive down the unit cost (most drug-related costs are fixed, rather than marginal). These three factors all suggest it's even more cost-effective than my naive analysis above.
Also, definitely talk about stuff like this. It's important and interesting; I'm actually surprised there's less interest in the pharmoeconomic modelling itself, as it's a very HN-friendly topic. That said, it is a little frustrating when people assume everyone involved in something biological is an innumerate dummy. A lot of this stuff has been analyzed, often by fairly clever people.
To give the whole quote in context:
"Merck, its maker, wouldn’t be likely to mention the potential benefit in advertisements. Though most experts have little doubt that the vaccine prevents HPV infections anywhere in the body and therefore the resulting cancers, technically, this has not been proven."
It's not exactly calling Merck out, but the author is clearly not giving them a pat on the back over it either.
A typical jab costs like £50 and lasts a decade
By contrast, we don't routinely vaccinate against chickenpox.
The existing efficacy demo for HPV vaccination against cervical cancer relies on the fact that Pap smears are a thing to get answers in just a few years not decades. The smear test gets us a bunch of cells that a pathologist can look at under a microscope and inspect to see if they're normal or maybe "pre-cancerous" meaning they aren't normal but they are not yet cancer. And we know (from having tried it) that if we just ignore it some of that not-yet-cancer turns into cancer and kills people. So if we see that in a smear today you'll get called back and they'll treat it, even though you haven't got cancer.
This means they could give girls an HPV vaccine and then not only show that those girls didn't get the strains of HPV vaccinated against as often as unvaccinated peers, but further show that they don't get as much not-yet-cancer. And _by implication_ that means it protects against cancer.
There is no smear test for these less common cancers in men. If there are pre-cancerous cells we don't see them. We only find out about the cancer, years and often decades later.
I think the "anywhere on the body... technically, this has not been proven." is also an infelicitous bit of wording. The links to anogenital cancers have been studied pretty thoroughly. There's less data on the head/neck/throat ones and virtually none at all on the vaccines' possible effect on warts elsewhere on the body. It's presumably all the same mechanism whereby HPV infection stresses cells and eventually causes cancer, but it's much further from "proven".
Of course they are. So much vaccine misinformation in the world.
The article is specifically arguing that boys should get vaccinated for their own benefit - not a herd immunity argument.
So for this reason the story isn't about how it's be great for women if more men were vaccinated, that's an interesting public health statistical consideration but it can't help doctors decide whether to vaccinate men.
Maybe it'd be way more convenient for sixteen family members if Granny dies this week not next week, but the doctor looking after Granny needn't care about that, he's only considering what is best for her.
The parent I'm replying to suggests it's appropriate to vaccinate boys in order to achieve herd immunity. Herd immunity is something public health officials are interested in, but as I explained ethically individual doctors are obliged to focus on the direct benefit to their patient. "Now you are less likely to get cancer" is a direct benefit, whereas "Now somebody else you may not even have met is less likely to get cancer" is pretty hazy.