Hacker News Reader

Comment by pengaru | Hacker News Reader

We should prioritize development and population-wide administration of effective broad-spectrum HPV vaccines, regardless of how marijuana interacts with HPV-caused cancers. HPV is basically the cause of cervical cancer, work towards eradicating this long ignored as benign virus already.

View on HN

I recently also learned HPV is the cause of the common skin warts!

FWIW, Italy, not the most sex-liberal country, started recommending the HPV vaccine for both boy and girls at the 12th year of age a few years back.

As per the latest data, 50% of the female 2008 cohort had been vaccinated in 2020, older cohorts sit at 75% (boys at ~40%).

Seems it didn't take much to push the numbers up, other than telling people "don't die of cancer".

I am a younger (24) man and I was HPV vaccinated in the US in my public middle school. It should be rolled out more broadly.

Gardasil 9 hits enough of the HPV variants that the rate of cancer-causing HPV infections has fallen by 90% in the US. And that's with the fraction of folks who are anti-vaxxers taken into account. This is one of those diseases where the means to prevent being infected is already in hand.

Why do they only offer it to teens (in the US , from what I've seen)?

You can get it up 'til you're 45 (after that it's not approved), but you have to ask. My understanding is most adults have already been infected, so it is not considered very important to vaccinate them. If you haven't had any or many sexual partners, I reckon it could make sense to get it even if you're not a teen any more. On the other hand, if you've been with more than a handful of people, you've probably already been infected.

It will still provide immunity towards other versions of the virus - I've been told it still makes sense even if you have been infected

I don't think you should be advising people to NOT do things unless it is actively unsafe.

I did not advise inaction at any point in my comment. I conveyed some information about why health policy has the configuration it currently does.

Until they opened it up to 45 year olds I was always a year or two too old (or just male when it was approved only for females). I’m to get my third dose in a few weeks. I’m married but it just makes sense to guard against preventable illness. I’ve only been with a few partners total so it’s likely that I’m gaining some level of protection from getting a head and neck cancer.

There are some reports of gaining some immune response to HPV strains not targeted directly by Gardasil 9. This makes sense since there are hundreds of strains and while it may not have a practical affect on me, it’s a nice feeling to know that I’m gaining some protection.

When you start having sex you’ll likely be exposed to the virus. Once you have been exposed, the vaccine doesn’t do you any good. The number of people in an age cohort that haven’t had sex rapidly approaches 0 as that cohort ages into adulthood. Therefore, it is almost entirely offered to teens to try and vaccinate before they’re naturally exposed.

Do you have a source for the 90% reduction?

It can only be given to teens so most people haven’t gotten Gardisil and if you already have HPV (most do) it doesn’t make it go away.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/i...

Under the “Preventing HPV” section.

You can also be vaccinated as an adult. I’m half way through my series.

That’s not the same stat.

https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html

"Among teen girls, infections with HPV types that cause most HPV cancers and genital warts have dropped 88 percent."

This isn't exactly the same statistic as what I said, since not all HPV infections occur during teenage years. But this is the statistic I was referring to. Apologies for my imprecision.

Not going to be easy.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/conservatives-raise-red-f...

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/sep/16/michele-ba...

Children of such people have been dealt an awful hand.

If only life were simple enough to make such statements.

On the facet of risk towards a particular form of cancer, it might be an awful hand.

On the fact of mental health, it might be a better hand than others: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/religious-u...

At the moment, since mental health seems to be a bigger issue than cancer (according to the media), it’s not trivial to define what an awful hand is :)

Your article is about religiousness in general, while the problem with HPV prevention is specific to a few specific denominations.

That "(according to the media)" bit of hand-waving is doing a lot of work.

This is about as worrisome as the crunchy liberals in Sonoma who make their children wear healing crystals.

The groups have a strong overlap.

What are the comparative lifetime risks of being exposed to healing crystals vs. not getting the vaccine?

When you don’t give your child access to western medicine but instead to crystals, the risk is pretty fuxking high.

Ah, okay, I didn’t realize that you meant using healing crystals instead of vaccines. I read it as: parents using healing crystals at all is as worrisome as not vaccinating their children.

It also is, children shouldn't be misled by their parents about scams like healing crystals because they will believe it as they are children. Later in life they might resort to crystals instead of getting medical attention.

I'm far more worried by children being misled by their parents about scams like stimulants instead of meditation. I've never heard of someone developing a dependancy on a crystal.

Depends on the crystal. Crystal meth, for example.

Kids who get healing crystals instead of vaccines, also don't get the vaccine?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com