The rationale is that if you’re 45, you probably already have HPV. But that assumes that you’ve been sexually active all that time. It doesn’t take into account people who were monogamous until their 50s and then started having sex with new partners.
- It targets multiple HPV strains, and even though I've been sexually active, I'm probably unlikely to have all of them, so there is some future protection
- It helps prevent reinfection
- There is evidence that it helps reduce the risk of progression to a cancerous state, which is also something that can happen for males
I didn't even bother to talk to a doctor, I just called a women's clinic, made an appointment, and paid for it myself. They were surprised, but super happy and supportive.
All three injections cost me the equivalent of 160 US$.
Some studies have suggested that even one dose of Gardasil 9 is enough:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
I have not been able to find this. Do you happen to have a link to a paper?
This seems to indicate that the vaccine reduces the risk of finding abnormal cells and precancerous lesions for people who already have HPV.
Oh wow in Germany it's 180€ a pop.
Planned Parenthood is great for this kind of thing in the US. I don't know what they charge but just checked and at least the one I've gone to in the past has it.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10....
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00908...
HPV functions by cloaking itself from your immune system. The reason why treatments like freezing work is not by removing the HPV -- it's by stimulating your immune system to look at the area around the wart. Then your immune system can get past the cloaking, and recognize the HPV, and then it destroys it.
So functionally, it makes total sense that the HPV vaccine would clear existing infections, and anecdotally, lots of patients (such as myself) have seen HPV clear after getting the vaccine. It's a shame that our bureaucracy doesn't have the incentives to run the studies to acknowledge it institutionally.
My bias is climbing the hill of convincing on this front 5 years ago and being on the receiving end of a pretty dismissive attitude. But I got my way and think it was the right choice.
While I allow for myself just being ignorant, wrong and vulnerable to working myself up into health scares, I couldn’t help but wonder if men looking into HPV vaccines are brushing up against a doctrinal problem, in that whatever protocols and literature exist for the med field don’t study and don’t mention male-HPV interactions enough to warrant action (or even interest) from GPs as a group.
Best of luck with it!
More couples are divorcing after age 50 than ever before, so this is not just abstract theory.
Also last time I checked the statistics for HPV strains like HPV-6 or HPV-16, only 5% or less of males were infected by that specific strain. So on a single-strain basis it's not quite "you probably already have it". Cumulatively, it is no doubt higher considering all strains, but the argument against vaccination for all strains on the basis that recipients may already have a few of those strains seems flawed.
There are two reasons: one is for personal protection (and most throat cancers are caused by HPV, odds which are likely much more skewed if one does not smoke), and the other is epidemiological - protecting other people, dear ones directly, and the rest of the population by extension.
The myth that it is "only for teenagers" or "before sexual interactions" is a myth. I mean, the ideal scenario is to vaccinate before any potential for infection. Yet, plans to have any sex life it is beneficial. AFAIK, it even helps to clear out existing infections (and well, 80% of men and 90% of women get HPV at least once in their lifetime).
If it makes you feel any better I live in an EU country with one of the best healthcare systems, or so we keep hearing, and here the public health insurance only covers it for those under 30. What a joke.
And Europeans keep saying how much worse the American system is.
> And Europeans keep saying how much worse the American system is.
There's a reason the comparison is always the average/median situation in the EU vs. the worst possible situation you could be in the US.
I'm not going to start a fight with the local healthcare call center to let me pay the 200-300 euros for a vaccination they think I shouldn't be getting according to every piece of information they publish about it. I know the government is trying to cut costs on healthcare and all, but the resistance the idea that someone without a cervix may benefit from a HPV vaccination annoys me to no end.
Out of all possible healthcare cost cutting measures, charging hundreds for vaccines against diseases that are widely present within the borders of the country must be the stupidest.
That said, I'd much rather take the annoying European healthcare system over the American one. I can get every vaccine out of pocket twice a year and still be cheaper off than with your average American health insurance.
You’ll have to pay for it yourself, though.
Info: https://www.rivm.nl/hpv-humaan-papillomavirus/vaccinatie-hpv...
That cheap? In Austria it's 600 Euros. We're being ripped the fuck off.
In most of Europe you can also still get increased private cover on top of the public cover if you choose and still end up paying a fraction of what the average American pays - you're just always guaranteed a baseline cover.
Like with anything in American healthcare, it’s complicated:
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/health-insur...
45 may be young enough to be worth it if the treatment was free, but at ~1,000$ the net benefit is more questionable.
Anyway, at 45+ we are talking something in the range of 10’s of million dollars per cancer case prevented depending on assumptions. That doesn’t mean it’s a terrible idea, just that there’s probably somewhere more productive to do with those resources.
Who’s to say? Maybe I’m a swinger? Maybe I’m divorced? Maybe I’m dating a few people? Maybe that relationship will run its course?
HPV isn’t an STD that condoms address from a risk mitigation perspective. If I’m an adult and identify a risk to my doctor, why shouldn’t a cheap safe and reliable preventative measure not be accessible?
It’s a bizarre proposition to be tabulating the potential future value in this conversation. I can casually ask my doctor for a cialis prescription, which has a similar cost and it will be covered, no problem. If i have a wart caused by an HPV variant, it will be frozen off for a few hundred bucks, no problem.
I think the reality is that the age ranges were picked because for the purposes of the trial process, it was the most convenient.
I wouldn’t call it cheap, but it is available unsubsidized. Which makes sense from the perspective of society in terms of cost vs benefits. Your personal income and risk profile may mean spending money on this is worth it to you, but society is just focusing on averages.
You may think it bizarre but consider this logic.
Let’s suppose for the average 12 year old the number works out to 1 million dollars per cancer prevented. But for 60 year olds it’s 100 million dollars prevents a single cancer on average. The difference coming from reduced future partners, prior exposure, and reduced remaining lifespan. (By reduced future partners, I mean most people have partners between the ages of 12 and 60, so a 12 year old is taking those risks plus the risks from partners after 60.)
Now a billionaire may be happy at even 100 million per prevented cancer, but I think the general public would prefer lower premiums/taxes instead. 45 years old isn’t some magic number it’s just somewhere between extremes. Other countries are using much younger ages.
We don’t apply this logic for most other conditions. I was able to get vaccinated for pneumonia in my 30s because I was a caregiver for my ailing father. It’s not a requirement to get that vaccination, but it made sense given the risk to my father.
So I guess I don’t understand why risk to my 80 year dad was worthy of preventative vaccination, but cancer risk to my current or future partners (or their partners) is not. It’s not cost, as given his health at the time, my dad would be dead in days with pneumonia.
It is allowed, however it isn’t subsidized because there is a high cost and minimal benefit. The pneumonia vaccine on the other hand is cheap and has a much larger benefit.
People over 45 are very likely to already infected with one or more strains at which point the vaccine does almost nothing. It’s far better to give that shot to the younger partner in such relationships because they are at risk either way.
Your argument is logical, but isn’t the logic used for this purpose.
Many vaccines such as for rabies fall into that category for the general public. Rabies is one of the deadliest diseases on the planet and the vaccine works just fine, but not enough people get infected each year to be worth it without some other risk factor.
- There are 200+ HPV strains, the vaccine is directed against the worst 9 but even provides cross protection to some more. You might have some of the magnificent 9, but not all.
- HPV strains can be overcome by the immune system and leave your body. You might get the vaccine while you currently have none of them.
- There is tentative evidence that the vaccine has curative effects.