I wish more people would get vaccinated.
Deregulating medical systems regarding patient choice and access to drugs is good, but you'll eventually get some bootlicker claiming that "we can't do that because SOMEONE WITH A VIRUS MIGHT USE AN ANTIBIOTIC INCORRECTLY" while ignoring the mass consumption of antibiotics by farm animals as a vector for super bugs.
Also, are farms actually the major vector for antibiotic resistance in the human population? I was under the impression that the majority of antibiotic resistant infections occur in places like hospitals rather than among farm workers, which would seem to indicate farm animals are not the main problem (I 100% support banning the practice anyway).
The dangerous thing about antibiotic immunity is that it can transfer also between bacteria species.
Gardasil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil
https://www.google.com/search?q=gardasil+shot+cost
https://www.goodrx.com/gardasil-9/how-much-is-gardasil-witho... :
> When you have your first shot is the main factor that determines whether you will need 2 doses or 3 doses
> Without insurance, the average price of 1 dose of Gardasil is $368.82. But you could pay as little as $169.50 with a GoodRx coupon at certain pharmacies
A prescription is only required for insurance reimbursement fwiu
Many insurances do. I asked if the pharmacist could check last time I was at CVS, and it did. I'm turning 46 before I can sneak in the 3rd dose, but 2 doses seems to be all that's needed for most of the benefit.
Why is this different? Why is pestering a doctor to give me a medicine they don't recommend a good idea?
Doctors are not all knowing, infallible oracles. They are human beings you can have a conversation with about your health. If you think something makes sense for you, you can run it past them. No one is suggesting randomly asking doctors to prescribe random shit.
Doctors/medical associations don't agree with each other on much, even at the very highest levels. For example, the USA and EU have totally different recommendations related to digital rectal exams for aging men. One believes that finding cancer in old men is important, the other claims it's bad because most of those cancers are benign and sticking a finger up an old mans butt often causes its own complications.
Kind of hurts my pride, but seeing as I'm older than 40, and my wife and I are pretty freaking boring, the vaccine is better spent on someone with more opportunities ahead of them.
I really hate these vaccine specific awareness campaigns. Not only do they hurt my vanity, but I know too many people who are anti-vaxers, or into weird fake medicines.
I just go with what my doctor says. If social media says something different, social media is wrong.
But really, don’t get your vaccine schedule from Hacker News.
The activists on these threads should probably be pushing folks to get their kids vaccinated.
Even when I live in Europe, which I do occasionally, I’m told to follow the vaccine schedule of my home country.
My kids have all received all recommended vaccines, including the one discussed. So I’m not in any way opposed.
It’s just not appropriate to go around vaccines not recommended.
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
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.
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-use...
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12256477/
- 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.
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?)
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.
and even if it is reliable, its utility is limited
all leads to focusing solely on probability of exposure(s)
You keep saying things in these sub threads that are factually incorrect in some important way that hides nuance, or otherwise seems calculated to provoke outrage. This was another example, which I why I replied here.
I think the most insightful thing is that there are 9 HPV variants some of which someone wouldn't have exposure to so its worthwhile to get the vaccine anyway
but other than that, the situation is the same. for men's age the utility of the vaccine is based on probability alone, as its a waste of resources to even attempt checking for prior/current exposure