Hpv Vaccination Reduces Oncogenic Hpv16/18 Prevalence From 16% to <1% in Denmark

Hope we'll develop vaccines against those too.

Every male above the age of 26 is locked out of the vaccine unless you pay out of pocket, which will be €300-€500 (or even higher).

Statistically nobody even knows a guy who knows a guy who's dick fell off. Serious HPV problems for men are not even common enough to be viable urban legend. The nanosecond someone who took your bait shows up to be interviewed by some Youtube talking head about side effects the already severely damaged (compared to, IDK a decade ago) credibility of the medical establishment will go up in flames.

Statistics are useless and/or misleading without context.

What makes it work is the public registers.

While we have some anivaxxers here in DK, most people (90%, I believe) are sane and follow the recommendations.

The vaccinations start while the children are small and continue while they grow up .. the last one is when they are 12.5 years old.

The notifications are delivered in eboks or by mail if you don't want to use eboks. Everything from the state is delivered like this. There is nothing special about how the information is delivered. The SMS/e-mail notifications are just about how sent you something and not about what it is. At least for me.

I don't see how the use of eboks makes this work better. It would work just as well without eboks. People listen to doctors and the MAGA like shitheads we do have don't have a lot of influence.

Hmm. Compared to what measurement? Most viruses are actually not oncogenic.

From cancer causes, oncogenic viruses are thought to be responsible for about 12% of human cancers worldwide:

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/7/797

From what I remember, most viruses are not oncogenic in nature, so I am unsure whether the statement made is correct.

Citation needed. In Germany, the HPV vaccine is recommended only to below 14 year olds, so as to reduce precisely that risk.

https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQs/DE/Impfen/HPV/FAQ-Liste_H...

For the HPV section specifically, there were at least two major omissions.

First, in his table showing autoimmune adverse effects, he has chosen to crop out the next column in the table containing the control conditions - which show very similar rates of adverse effects to the vaccine condition.

Secondly, when discussing negative efficacy in the case of existing persistent infection, he only quotes the data from one of three studies that the linked report covers. The linked report indeed covers the negative efficacy in study 013 as an area of concern. However, study 015 (which had roughly twice the number of total participants as study 013) showed no real evidence of negative efficacy. When all 3 studies are pooled together, the point estimate still says negative efficacy, (at ~-12%), however the error bars are quite wide.

Why this is tragic, is because these two omissions do actually point to failures in public communication about the vaccine. For example, the control condition in the Merck trials were a mix of saline injections (this is the traditional placebo), as well as injections with just the adjuvant (AAHS). This is less standard, and raises legitimate questions about why Merck used an adjuvant as the control, instead of just saline. There a cynical/conspiratorial angle to this question, which I think would be directionally correct.

The second omission is because I think there is a reasonable question of "are there extra risks associated with getting the HPV vaccine while having an active persistence infection", even when taking into account the different and larger study populations within the original trial data. Once again, I think the idea that both companies and public health agencies don't want to deal with a vaccine that requires testing before hand is true. I also believe that on a population level, even if there was a modest increase in risk in that specific subgroup, it makes sense to implement broad vaccination campaigns.

That said, I think the unwillingness of public health agencies to engage with this tricky area of communication and education creates these types of opening for anti-vaccine messaging. If you want a sense of "conspiracy" - here's a random review study - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706722/

Notice that when reporting results, the groupings for HPV status at enrollment time are "naive" and "irrespective" - the "test positive" grouping isn't broken out.

So I'm fine with it being flagged and decline to vouch for it.

In this house we believe Love is love Black Lives Matter Science is real Feminism is for everyone No human is illegal Kindness is everything

Signaling your alignment to the public-facing opinions of your social betters is the modern ersatz religion for atheists. The television is the temple, the pundits the priests. Apostates and heretics are not welcome here. Now, my child, you would not want your words to inadvertently cause the faithful to stray. Would you? Just think of what the late night comedians would say if they could hear you cast doubt on their sponsor Pfizer? Perhaps you would rather join our hate session on the pagans in flyover country?

You can get HPV without sex too.

https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/about-genital-hpv-infection.ht...

"HPV is most commonly spread during vaginal or anal sex. It also spreads through close skin-to-skin touching during sex"

This focuses on sex, but any virus that can be found on skin, also has a chance to be transmitted without sex just as well. Admittedly the chance here for HPV infection is much higher with regard to sex, but not non-zero otherwise. The HeLa cells also contain a HPV virus in the genome, though this was probably transmitted via sex:

"The cells are characterized to contain human papillomavirus 18 (HPV-18)"

HPV-18. I think HPV-18 may in general be more prevalent than HPV-16.

However, the vaccination is expensive (~1k) and it is difficult to find doctors who will do non-recommended vaccinations for self-payers.

YCMV

I wish more people would get vaccinated.