Cervical Cancer incidence drops 65% in women who benefited from HPV vaccine(nbcnews.com)
nbcnews.com
Cervical Cancer incidence drops 65% in women who benefited from HPV vaccine
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/hpv-vaccine-cervical-cancer-rising-women-research-rcna134224
51 comments
It's not often brought up, but there's several cancers caused by HPV that also affect men, like oral and penile cancer. I've long thought that the vaccine shouldn't just be marketed towards women.
It isn't. Does the US not vaccinate boys? Most advanced countries began routinely vaccinating boys in the same cohort as girls. In the UK certainly "Men who have sex with Men" is the next most significant group targeted for vaccination, up to age 45.
The reason this didn't happen from the outset is that you can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit to the patient, the early data was specifically for cervical cancer and if you don't have a cervix that isn't a benefit.
The reason this didn't happen from the outset is that you can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit to the patient, the early data was specifically for cervical cancer and if you don't have a cervix that isn't a benefit.
They vaccinate boys. Our doctor recommended it, but I suspect it largely depends on the doctor.
Europe vaccinated boys way before in the US. When I tried to get the vaccine back in college, I was denied. I argued that in Europe they were vaccinating boys, but to no avail.
In other words, at the time they knew the direct benefits for boys, but that wasn't a concern because girls had a higher rate of cancer from HPV. So they were prioritized.
In other words, at the time they knew the direct benefits for boys, but that wasn't a concern because girls had a higher rate of cancer from HPV. So they were prioritized.
> can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit
Medical ethics doesn't allow a procedure which is good for society, but doesn't directly benefit the patient.
However, I think that is wrong. Elsewhere in society we frequently do that - for example we put people into prison, which is of very little benefit to the prisoner. We stand up to let an old person take a seat on a train, which is of no benefit to the person standing up. We send bailiffs, which is of little benefit to the debtor. We pay taxes, which is of little direct benefit to the taxpayer.
Why does the medical world have a stricter ethical standard when there are clearly benefits to society that cannot be realised because of the different approach?
Medical ethics doesn't allow a procedure which is good for society, but doesn't directly benefit the patient.
However, I think that is wrong. Elsewhere in society we frequently do that - for example we put people into prison, which is of very little benefit to the prisoner. We stand up to let an old person take a seat on a train, which is of no benefit to the person standing up. We send bailiffs, which is of little benefit to the debtor. We pay taxes, which is of little direct benefit to the taxpayer.
Why does the medical world have a stricter ethical standard when there are clearly benefits to society that cannot be realised because of the different approach?
None of the examples you cite require the person to take something into their body that they do not want. You need an example where we effectively force people to ingest something or make a modification to their body without their explicit consent.
While searching i found that this could apply to people in psychiatric wards to force them to take their medication (https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatm...).
While searching i found that this could apply to people in psychiatric wards to force them to take their medication (https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatm...).
Consent is a separate issue. Medical ethics make it unethical to do something good for society but with no benefit to the patient, even with the consent of the patient.
Note that there are a few cases where these medical ethics are violated for historic reasons. For example, donating a kidney (no benefit to the donor). Another example: Taking a vaccine for an almost eradicated disease (at that point, you are taking the vaccine for the social purpose of eradicating the disease, not for the personal benefit of not contracting the disease).
These things are grandfathered into medical ethics, but would no longer be allowed if proposed today.
Note that there are a few cases where these medical ethics are violated for historic reasons. For example, donating a kidney (no benefit to the donor). Another example: Taking a vaccine for an almost eradicated disease (at that point, you are taking the vaccine for the social purpose of eradicating the disease, not for the personal benefit of not contracting the disease).
These things are grandfathered into medical ethics, but would no longer be allowed if proposed today.
I'm a man and got the HPV vaccine in another country.
USA is very strange in this regard. Last summer, 4 out of 4 pharmacies refused to provide me a shingles vaccine, even if I paid them cash and had a doctor's prescription. They said that they would get into trouble. I am 49 years old. Had I been 50, any pharmacy would provide the vaccine.
This is simply retarded.
USA is very strange in this regard. Last summer, 4 out of 4 pharmacies refused to provide me a shingles vaccine, even if I paid them cash and had a doctor's prescription. They said that they would get into trouble. I am 49 years old. Had I been 50, any pharmacy would provide the vaccine.
This is simply retarded.
A huge health win, that was opposed by the religious right because preventing cervical cancer encourages teen sex. This is 13 years ago. The very women the GOP was arguing shouldn’t get vaccinated while campaigning for president.
Elections matter.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1800969/
Elections matter.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1800969/
The fact that vaccines have become politicized is testament to how off the rails things have gone. There's other subjects too, but vaccines had bipartisan support until recently.
If people antagonize their outgroup members excessively, it can turn disagreement into total war.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
"It shouldn't be this way"...
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7374580-frodo-it-s-a-pity-b...
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
"It shouldn't be this way"...
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7374580-frodo-it-s-a-pity-b...
This shifts the blame away from where it ultimately lies. Being right politically has always meant anti-intellectual. The act of using scientific evidence to support a position in and of itself gives them justification to fight it.
This is victim blaming. I do not mock or humiliate the uninformed, but we cannot meet in the middle to coddle malicious ignorance.
This is victim blaming. I do not mock or humiliate the uninformed, but we cannot meet in the middle to coddle malicious ignorance.
rswskg(1)
> This shifts the blame away from where it ultimately lies.
Do you state this as an objective fact regarding causality, or are you more so describing the norms of the (sub-)culture you were raised in, perhaps without serious scrutiny?
If the former, then I would expect there to be some sort of a widely agreed upon proof you could link to.
> Being right politically has always meant anti-intellectual.
Are you genuinely serious when you say this?
> This is victim blaming. I do not mock or humiliate the uninformed, but we cannot meet in the middle to coddle malicious ignorance.
You overlook nothing?
And if I happen to know you are overlooking something, does it follow that me being rude to you necessarily has no negative consequences?
To what degree should death be taken seriously? Seriously enough that everyone should question their faith, or only some people (coincidentally...)?
Do you state this as an objective fact regarding causality, or are you more so describing the norms of the (sub-)culture you were raised in, perhaps without serious scrutiny?
If the former, then I would expect there to be some sort of a widely agreed upon proof you could link to.
> Being right politically has always meant anti-intellectual.
Are you genuinely serious when you say this?
> This is victim blaming. I do not mock or humiliate the uninformed, but we cannot meet in the middle to coddle malicious ignorance.
You overlook nothing?
And if I happen to know you are overlooking something, does it follow that me being rude to you necessarily has no negative consequences?
To what degree should death be taken seriously? Seriously enough that everyone should question their faith, or only some people (coincidentally...)?
If you keep posting these cross-examination style comments, we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to ban you, but we've already asked you several times.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38936441
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38921687
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38936441
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38921687
Your rhetorical stance is too obtuse for me.
If someone can't follow the scientific method, it isn't on the person who can to validate the opposing parties broken worldview. Discussion should be science vs science, let the truth win. Not feelings, emotions and ungrounded theories vs science.
Your style might be better suited to a lesswrong forum.
If someone can't follow the scientific method, it isn't on the person who can to validate the opposing parties broken worldview. Discussion should be science vs science, let the truth win. Not feelings, emotions and ungrounded theories vs science.
Your style might be better suited to a lesswrong forum.
I think this might be one of those cases where how it is is a function of how you look at it, or the respective perspectives each of us is taking on the situation.
The perspective I am taking is that while it is clearly sub-optimal that a non-trivial percentage of the population "has issues" with taking vaccines, it is also sub-optimal to not think strategically about how to act when one finds oneself trapped in an environment (Planet Earth) with such people. I don't disagree at all that something is "on" anti-vaxxers to educate themselves about vaccines, but understanding the metaphysics of how to respond to such people, and the consequences of one's response, is also "on" everyone. You may not like the emotions of the people in your outgroup, but don't forget that some people do not like your and your ingroups emotions either - like many things, it is a two way street, even though it seems otherwise.
> Discussion should be science vs science, let the truth win. unfortunately a 2 way street.
I am not a fan of artificially constraining methodologies, or relevant causal variables - generally speaking, science does not take phenomenology into consideration when considering vaccines, whereas (proper) philosophy would take science and everything else causally relevant into consideration. I strongly oppose those who insist on suboptimal thinking methodologies (as you strongly oppose those who you believe are acting suboptimally), especially when it is enforced.
> Your style might be better suited to a lesswrong forum.
It might also be more suited to optimizing interactions between not entirely rational humans of all psychological tribes. I think dialogue and (attempts at) understanding are more suited than presumption and antagonism. I can acknowledge that it is plausible that I am wrong on this, but I suspect I am not - as you say: "let the truth win".
Here is something that I believe is very interesting and relevant: I propose that if abstract instances of such topics come up (say, a psychology study on logical fallacies, interpersonal communication, etc), most commenters on HN tend to align more with my take here, but when controversial, object level instances arise, people tend to act otherwise.
The perspective I am taking is that while it is clearly sub-optimal that a non-trivial percentage of the population "has issues" with taking vaccines, it is also sub-optimal to not think strategically about how to act when one finds oneself trapped in an environment (Planet Earth) with such people. I don't disagree at all that something is "on" anti-vaxxers to educate themselves about vaccines, but understanding the metaphysics of how to respond to such people, and the consequences of one's response, is also "on" everyone. You may not like the emotions of the people in your outgroup, but don't forget that some people do not like your and your ingroups emotions either - like many things, it is a two way street, even though it seems otherwise.
> Discussion should be science vs science, let the truth win. unfortunately a 2 way street.
I am not a fan of artificially constraining methodologies, or relevant causal variables - generally speaking, science does not take phenomenology into consideration when considering vaccines, whereas (proper) philosophy would take science and everything else causally relevant into consideration. I strongly oppose those who insist on suboptimal thinking methodologies (as you strongly oppose those who you believe are acting suboptimally), especially when it is enforced.
> Your style might be better suited to a lesswrong forum.
It might also be more suited to optimizing interactions between not entirely rational humans of all psychological tribes. I think dialogue and (attempts at) understanding are more suited than presumption and antagonism. I can acknowledge that it is plausible that I am wrong on this, but I suspect I am not - as you say: "let the truth win".
Here is something that I believe is very interesting and relevant: I propose that if abstract instances of such topics come up (say, a psychology study on logical fallacies, interpersonal communication, etc), most commenters on HN tend to align more with my take here, but when controversial, object level instances arise, people tend to act otherwise.
Of course this live and let live approach completely breaks down when you need a critical mass of collective action to prevent collective harm.
Vaccine refusal is quantitatively antisocial behavior. It isn't a personal choice. It endangers everyone. This is scientific fact.
Vaccine refusal is quantitatively antisocial behavior. It isn't a personal choice. It endangers everyone. This is scientific fact.
I'm not suggesting "live and let live", I am suggesting we approach the topic seriously - and if one is serious, one takes into consideration causality (that which causes things to happen as they do, which is sometimes other than how it seems).
Everyone likes to privilege their ingroup's form of unseriousness, but that doesn't make the consequences vanish.
Everyone likes to privilege their ingroup's form of unseriousness, but that doesn't make the consequences vanish.
What was opposed was forced vaccines on teens using a new vaccine. Our own family doctor recommended we wait until a few years had passed. A few years later - we got the recommendation.
> What was opposed was forced vaccines on teens using a new vaccine
Maybe in part, but there was a very large contingency that outright opposed it due to its perceived encouragement of "amoral" behavior. Exact same thing is happening now in the courts with Mifeprestone.
Maybe in part, but there was a very large contingency that outright opposed it due to its perceived encouragement of "amoral" behavior. Exact same thing is happening now in the courts with Mifeprestone.
This is ahistorical. While it may have been true for you, it was not the argument put forth at the time. I knew this projection would happen, and that is why I linked to a contemporaneous article.
Teen pregnancy was the most vocal reason at the time.
Teen pregnancy was the most vocal reason at the time.
Or, the media fanned a flame that was an edge case for advertising dollars.
What evidence would it take to change your mind?
Countries are “imagined communities.” Would you really care about what happened in Washington D.C. or some flyover state if it weren’t for newspapers and national TV news?
nerpderp82(1)
How many HPV vaccine producers exist besides Merck ? Are there any independent evaluation of those vaccines ? I only saw Merck literature on this topic.
>Are there any independent evaluation of those vaccines ?
In the section of the linked statistical report from the American Cancer Society that covers HPV there are seven citations, none of which appear to be papers funded by Merck.
In the section of the linked statistical report from the American Cancer Society that covers HPV there are seven citations, none of which appear to be papers funded by Merck.
olliej(2)
In case anyone here knows someone with high-risk HPV who was too old to benefit from these vaccines... this is my favorite medical study: a combination of Reishi and turkey tail mushrooms boost the body's clearance rate from 5% to 88% in a 2-month period [0].
I firmly believe this would have been 100% if they'd continued past 2 months.
A friend of mine had a positive pap test for high-risk HPV, and I sent her this study. She started on this combo of mushrooms and at her followup the next month she was clear.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25271984/
I firmly believe this would have been 100% if they'd continued past 2 months.
A friend of mine had a positive pap test for high-risk HPV, and I sent her this study. She started on this combo of mushrooms and at her followup the next month she was clear.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25271984/
Is 5-88% the range or progression?
HPV was "cured" (cleared) by the human body itself within 2 months in 5% of the control subjects (n=20) and in 88% of the test group (n=41).
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1615/intjmedmushrooms.v16.i5.80
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1615/intjmedmushrooms.v16.i5.80
The abstract indicates that there was no control group without treatment, but two groups given two different mushroom combos. As such, the "baseline" clearance is not revealed by this work.
I noticed the same thing, FWIW (and I believe it's a valid concern), but section II.B. says "One control group (20 patients) received LS (Laetiporus sulphureus) (400 mg/d; two capsules) for 2 months."
I think they were concerned that various tree bark needed to grow the fungus could itself influence the outcome and wanted to "control" for any effects of the bark. Part IV says "LS grown on the same barks as TV or GL was chosen as a control since no anti-HPV property has yet been reported with this mycelium and because the influence of barks should be excluded."
Perhaps there are more studies out there with different "controls" that would add to this research to help rule out any influence from unknown properties of Laetiporus sulphureus.
I think they were concerned that various tree bark needed to grow the fungus could itself influence the outcome and wanted to "control" for any effects of the bark. Part IV says "LS grown on the same barks as TV or GL was chosen as a control since no anti-HPV property has yet been reported with this mycelium and because the influence of barks should be excluded."
Perhaps there are more studies out there with different "controls" that would add to this research to help rule out any influence from unknown properties of Laetiporus sulphureus.