- HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. Unless you plan to remain completely celibate, you are likely to contract a strain.
- Sooner is better, but vaccination can be done at any age. Guidelines often lag behind, but vaccination makes sense even if you are currently HPV-positive. While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects against different strains and reinfection (typically body removed HPV in 1-2 years). See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/
- HPV16 is responsible for a large number of throat cancers (around 50% in smokers and 80% in non-smokers!). This affects both men and women. Vaccinating men is important for their own safety and to reduce transmission to their partners.
"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.
> 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
I successfully treated a persistent hand / feet / knee warts infection with 3 shots of Gardasil-9. The common warts are supposed to clear on their own within 2 years, but it was not the case for me. They all cleared out about a 1 year after the first shot, never to return. Including a deep plantar one that was completely immune to cryotherapy
>> HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives.
This statistic seems to be used by some people to avoid the vaccine - they figure they've already had it at some point. The biggest problem with that logic is that not all strains are as dangerous and they probably have not contracted 16 or 18 specifically. The other problem is there's still a good number of people who have never had it and shouldn't assume they have because its common.
But this misunderstands how HPV works. First, there are many strains. Typical tests for oncogenic variants measure around 30 types. The vaccine I received (Gardasil-9, which I took as a male at age 35) protects against nine specific strains.
Second, the body normally clears HPV naturally after 1-2 years. However, natural infection often does not provide immunity, so reinfection can easily occur (even from the same partner or a different part of your own body).
People often assume that HPV is either a lifetime infection or that recovery guarantees immunity - neither is the case!
Parent is overstating the case. Neither infection nor vaccination provides sterilizing immunity [1], but the general reasons to prefer vaccination are (in order of descending quality of evidence & reasoning):
1) you probably haven't had all N strains yet.
2a) you likely haven't been infected with the ones that cause cancer, because they're relatively rare.
2b) ...that is especially true if you're young and not sexually active.
2) being infected with one strain does not provide sterilizing cross-immunity against the other strains.
3) even if you've been infected with a strain, some of the vaccines have been shown to prevent reinfection and reactivation better than natural infection alone.
4) in general, the vaccination-mediated immunity might last longer or be "stronger" than the natural version, since the vaccines are pretty immunogenic, and the viruses are not.
But for point 4, it's well-known that vaccine efficacy is lower for people who have already seroconverted (cf [1]), so there's clearly some amount of practical immunity provided by infection.
[1] The vaccines are roughly 90% effective for the major cancer-causing strains, but it's not a simple answer, and varies a lot by how you frame the question. See table 2 here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706722/
Also be sure to see table 4 if you're a man. The data for biological men and women are surprisingly different!
A question for your doctor and your partner (and of course, you can read the data in the link I posted above and use that to influence your conversation and decision!)
I'm not being avoidant here -- medical decisions are always subjective and multi-factor, and I can't begin to tell you what you should do. (But I also sincerely believe that propagandists try to reduce nuanced data to talking points, which is equally wrong.)
Please note the caveat about gender that I just added. The data for biological men and women are very different. Also, I haven't discussed risks at all, which is the other side of the ledger -- these vaccines are pretty darned safe, but everything comes with risk, and only you can decide what level of risk is appropriate for your life.
I usually am pro vaccine. But the HPV vaccine discussion seems politicized to me. As someone who is monogamous and over fifty, I had trouble following the risk vs reward discussion. The CDC says it is only recommended for young adults so I interpret that for my case the answer is negative.
All vaccination is now heavily politicized in the US. HPV vaccination was an obvious focal point initially because of why we'd do it when we do.
The initial data says you should vaccinate somewhere around 12-14 year old girls because most of them will be HPV naive but if you wait longer they won't be any more. But too many US parents cannot imagine their little girl ever having sex and if they never have sex they almost certainly won't contract HPV so, why are we vaccinating them? Are you trying to make my daughter a slut?
If you've been a teenage American this should strike you as very silly, and doubly so if you understand biology. Teenage girls are not, in fact, celibate by default, so some of them will get horny. And if you understand biology the viral infections aren't caused by the same mechanism as pregnancy "sexual activity" is a shorthand, you can easily get infected while steering clear of anything that would get somebody knocked up. A peck on grandma's cheek is unlikely to work, but if you're sucking face for most of a Stranger Things episode that's definitely enough that you might contract HPV.
> recommended for young adults so I interpret that for my case the answer is negative.
You need to be careful making assumptions.
Previously that recommendation was due to limited vaccine production and trying to prioritize young women.
There were CDC recommendations during covid that were not about what was best for you individually.
As always with health, the right answer is to seek professional advice. But also to take personal responsibility for your own choices (that depend on your specific circumstances).
Same, what is the risk/reward for someone who is and plans to be monogamous. Young or old. Cost not a concern. Give me the info and let me decide for myself, my kids, my parents.
> Same, what is the risk/reward for someone who is and plans to be monogamous. Young or old. Cost not a concern. Give me the info and let me decide for myself, my kids, my parents.
Did I read this correctly? You are going to decide for your children based on their plans to be monogamous?
And you’re also going to decide for your parents? I can only assume you’re in the unfortunate situation where your parents are no longer capable of making decisions?
I don't want to assume, so I'll ask if you're willing to share - are you making the implicit assumption that your kids are and/or will be monogamous, and is that assumption a key factor in your decision on their vaccinations?
The CDC recommendation to get it at 11 or 12 does not make sense to me. I know they aren’t having sex - and I know that some kids do. We will discuss, together, the pros/cons as they get older to see if it makes sense. As they get older, they’ll make these decisions themselves. Until then, I’m weighing the pros/cons and in our case, it doesn’t seem they are at risk in the near future.
The early recommendation age just falls out of the data that shows the vaccine is substantially more effective if you haven't been infected yet, together with the fact that it's a multi-dose vaccine where the second dose comes months later, and realistically for many that's going to mean a year or more before completing the series.
I think there's truth to the idea that the specific 11-12 range is somewhat arbitrary: as much as anything it's that because there was a preexisting "slot" in the vaccine schedule at 11-12. The American Academy of Pediatrics differs from the CDC's panel on this... but on the earlier side: they would start the recommendation at age 9. I think to a significant degree the thinking there is that if you go earlier the messaging and reaction is more "your child will probably eventually have sex and this is an effective time to give the vaccine" and less "your child will be having sex like, tomorrow."
I am a parent who vaccinated my daughter at 9 for HPV, and my son will be vaccinated as soon as he’s old enough, without delay or hesitation. It is my opinion you are doing a disservice to your children with a suboptimal mental model, potentially driven by emotion instead of data.
Your children will have sexual contact with another human eventually as they grow into adults, and there is very low risk with an HPV vaccine. There is, in my opinion, no reason not to vaccinate as soon as possible (considering the material reduction in future cancer risk, and that there is no cure once infected, only prevention via vaccination). You might have feelings, as many have strong feelings, but they won’t matter once your kids are 18 and you no longer control them. Google the stats on parental estrangement.
Try to do better, you are a guardian of your children, not an owner, and your values will potentially not be their values. I don’t care with who or when my children have sexual experiences with once they are old enough to consent, what matters is they are respected, as well as protected from harm and poor health outcomes from these experiences they will certainly have eventually during their lifetimes. If you don’t think your kids are going to have sex when they’re older, or think you can control it, you are lying to yourself. So, protect them from what you can, which in this case is HPV.
Let me start by saying I am mostly in agreement with what you've written. But I do not understand why there is the urgency to vaccinate them when they are 9 (as you did).
Because the United States is rapidly devolving, including around vaccine recommendations and what availability and access might look like because of that, and my child and I were already at the pediatrician that day. Administering the vaccine and me asking the pediatrician “can we do it today?” cost me nothing beyond the time. If I need to find them their second dose elsewhere six months after the first (unlikely, but possible), I am prepared for that, but once they have that second dose, they have the persistent health benefit with very little effort required (regardless of what the future looks like). I’ve just lowered their future cancer risk, with no more than an hour or two of time.
I work in risk management, and have for almost a decade, so that’s how my brain is wired to evaluate and manage risk. I understand others may decision and action differently. Low cost, low risk, high reward choice? That’s a damn good deal, I’ll take that deal.
Pretty sure this line never convinced anyone of anything. We all want to do "better" but have different definitions of what that constitutes.
> If you don’t think your kids are going to have sex when they’re older, or think you can control it, you are lying to yourself.
I don't think anyone thinks this. Some people do hope and expect their children not to have sex outside of a monogamous marriage. If you give your kid a vaccine that is primarily meant for people who do not do this, you are letting your kid know that you don't really have faith in them.
That sends a strong message that some people do not want to send. As GP said, you're free to raise your kids different, and if you don't place value on reserving sex for marriage, it would make sense that you would do differently.
"Sending a message" is generally a cover term for evil.
And there is no issue of having faith in them--you are trying to make a decision you have no right to make. You're a parent, not a slavemaster.
The real world data is that the "good" girls are more likely to get pregnant, more likely to get STDs. And more likely to end up in bad marriages.
And lets add another data point. I used to have a bunch of coworkers from a very conservative background. An unmarried person would not be able to buy a condom in town type conservative. Over the course of many years I became aware of many marriages--and every single marriage was either arranged or due to pregnancy. Every single one. Remember, one of the definitions of insanity is keeping trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
Neither does a parent, based on all available evidence, and multiple jurisdictions make vaccination compulsory without exception. Parents aren’t special, and they are failing in this regard by believing they should have a right to say no, simply for being a parent. Anyone, broadly speaking, can have children. That does not make them good or qualified parents unfortunately. It just makes them temporary guardians (until their children are adults) with an opinion.
~54% of Americans read below a sixth grade reading level, for example. We would trust your average American’s judgement on vaccination need or schedule, especially for their children, why?
> based on all available evidence, and multiple jurisdictions make vaccination compulsory without exception
Can you share which jurisdictions mandate the HPV vaccine and have no exceptions? I am aware of only a few jurisdictions where it is required, and all such jurisdictions have exceptions.
They also only require it for kids in schools, so any kid who is homeschooled is not subject to the mandate in the first place.
More importantly, the vast, vast majority of jurisdictions have no mandate whatsoever, so any parent can also choose to move to one of those, in addition to the homeschool option.
Ah ok I'd be curious to know what those are, though I would find them to be less persuasive/relevant from a policy perspective. There are countries that have no freedom of speech, outlaw non-govt schools, etc., and I don't want to be taking cues from such countries.
Regardless, I would imagine that very few jurisdictions, and a relatively small percentage of the world, lives somewhere that mandates these vaccines and has no opt-outs.
No, you have an obligation to do the best job you reasonably can with raising children. We generally do not permit parents to do things which pose an undue risk to their children, and most of the exceptions to this involve religion being given a weight it shouldn't get.
Trying to make sex more dangerous to me falls squarely in the realm of child abuse.
For a 9, 10, or 11 year old? I'm definitely not encouraging them to have sex.
I surely hope we go after actual child abusers than parents who delay or opt-out of this OPTIONAL vaccination for their kids.
The problem here is the do-it-later crowd is going to wait too long. Same thing as we see with sex-ed, knowledge is treated as encouraging when reality says it's exactly the opposite. Honest sex ed leads to later sex and fewer problems.
Well, hope and faith are not effective strategies. Good luck to those who operate from this perspective, they will face disappointment, which is theirs to own. Monogamous marriage is a shrinking minority of potential outcomes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], and ~40% of first marriages end in divorce [7] (rates are higher for second and third marriages).
The kids of these people get a chance to do better when they become adults, and that's all we can hope for: that they make better choices than their parents. Better luck next generation I suppose.
[1] How has marriage in the US changed over time? - https://usafacts.org/articles/state-relationships-marriages-... - February 11th, 2025 ("In 2024, US adults were less likely to be married than at almost any point since the Census Bureau began tracking marital status in 1940. The percentage of households with a married couple peaked 75 years ago: in 1949, it was 78.8%. That percentage has been below 50.0% since 2010, when the rate was 49.7%. In other words, less than half of American households have included a married couple for over a decade.")
[2] Charted: How American Households Have Changed Over Time (1960-2023) - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-american-households-hav... - November 6th, 2024 ("More Americans today are delaying or forgoing marriage altogether, with just 20% of women and 23% of men aged 25 being married—the lowest on record. Projections indicate that by 2050, one-third of Americans aged 45 may remain unmarried.")
[3] Morgan Stanley: Rise of the SHEconomy - https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/womens-impact-on-the-eco... - September 23rd, 2019 ("Based on Census Bureau historical data and Morgan Stanley forecasts, 45% of prime working age women (ages 25-44) will be single by 2030—the largest share in history—up from 41% in 2018.")
> Well, hope and faith are not effective strategies. Good luck to those who operate from this perspective, they will face disappointment, which is theirs to own.
Hm, worked great for many people I know. I can imagine it would depend on a number of factors.
But looking at your links, they don't seem especially relevant to the question of whether more people are having sex before marriage than before. They don't even mention the word "sex" in fact. And of course, the relevant question isn't whether people in general are having sex before marriage less, it's whether people raised in families where abstention is valued are upholding that value in their lives.
But congrats on sharing lots of links, which makes it look like evidence is on your side!
As to whether "hope and faith are not effective strategies", it probably makes sense to listen to the experience of people who rely on such hope and faith in their lives, and who have many friends/family who do. People who express outward disdain for such things are probably not the best source of reliable info on the matter.
I understand that religiosity (faith and hope) is negatively correlated to intelligence, so I also understand faith driven mental models are an uphill climb to better health outcomes at scale. "It is what it is." As I mentioned, perhaps we'll have better luck next generation, when systems have improved in this regard.
(edit: facts and data are not unkind, they just are, and I feel like I have been very polite in my delivery of all facts and data presented; if you are unhappy about the facts and data presented, that is an internal issue to reconcile)
That's a pretty longwinded ad hominem you've got right there.
Forgive me for not digging into your links again...fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
You're entitled to your opinion, but when you go around spouting about faith not being a good strategy and then cite a bunch of unrelated articles, you've shown that you are yourself not very intelligent (or kind).
"Faith" is fundamentally belief without knowledge. Thus you by definition have no reason to rely on it. (Although the word also gets used in situations where there is a track record to rely on but no specific evidence in the particular case.)
And you're using the wrong yardstick. What you should be looking at is the number of adverse events. STDs. Unintended pregnancies.
Everyone hopes for and has faith in their kids with regard to some actions. It could be going to class, staying out of gangs, not drinking/doing drugs. We don't know for a fact our kids will do what we hope, but we act in a way that shows we have faith in them, so as to avoid undermining their confidence.
I don't need to use the yardstick you propose. There are many confounders in aggregate data, and there are not public polls that capture the demographics and beliefs of my family. It would be a fool's errand to pretend that publicly available data is somehow more important than my own understanding of my kids.
It's funny how you think I shouldn't be able to make decisions for my children, but you seem to think that you know better than me what is right for them.
The available data indicates that you're wrong. You *think* you know, you don't.
Would it be acceptable to not belt your kids because you have faith in your driving skills? (And never mind that the one time in my life where a seat belt mattered was when I was essentially PITted by someone who didn't look left. I walked away with nothing but a pulled muscle and because I was belted my foot correctly found the brake pedal while I was spinning around and totally disorientated.)
Or how about the woman from ~30 years back that said that DUI doesn't really matter if your faith is strong enough as god will protect you.
Not belting your kids when you put them in the car is unsafe and is illegal. However, not getting your 9 year old a vaccine for STDs is not unsafe if that kid is not sexually active, and therefore not at risk for contracting the STD. As the kid gets older, the calculus changes because they are more independent. But pretty much any responsible parent has a very accurate sense of whether their 9 year old is having sex.
And the parents who have a sexually active 9 year old that they do not realize is sexually active are probably not taking them in for their regular doctor appts and vaccines.
It's not that they'll be active at 9. Rather, that you don't know when they'll be active and the ones who see this as encouraging sex will delay too long. Thus it's better to do it early.
I'll never understand how differences of opinion can make people so extreme. Child abuse is a serious issue and you have gone through some mental gymnastics to conflate child abuse with my decision to not vaccinate my 9, 10 or 11 year old child for HPV.
You get to make your own health choices here, but as someone who got the vaccine in my 30s, I am glad as I didn’t know about my future divorce when I got vaccinated.
Consider that it's possible that the person's partner may have exposed them to their then-unknown extra partners, creating one of the conditions for the divorce.
There are other STDs that you'd still be at risk of getting/giving in the case of infidelity, so getting this one vaccine doesn't actually make things all good. I imagine for some people, the thought of possibly bringing home a disease would actually be a sufficient deterrent to prevent infidelity. Not just because they wouldn't want to infect their partner, but because they know it could lead to them getting caught.
I'll elaborate: if you are worried about being unfaithful, or your spouse being unfaithful, then protecting yourself against one STD might seem like a good idea. And if the risk of unfaithfulness is very high, then it is better to mitigate one STD rather than none.
But the fact remains that you are still at risk of many other STDs, so you can still bring home (or have brought home) plenty of other diseases.
The last point, which I knew some people here would dislike, is that the possibility of HPV transmission could, on the margin, discourage some people from being unfaithful. This is because it would be a telltale sign of infidelity, and would cause the spouse to investigate.
Granted, this is only the case where the spouse knew he/she did not have HPV before (mostly people who remained celibate before marriage). If you had many partners before marriage, this advice probably doesn't resonate, but for people who did it makes perfect sense. It acknowledges the risk of infidelity and creates additional accountability by not shielding one's self from a likely telltale sign.
Think about your future health while your mind is clear. After the trauma of divorce is not the time.
Also, I think these questions are in bad faith.
It is actually hard to get people to change any behavior. The public health benefits should be a primary concern. Avoid vaccination if there is a downside to you personally, but that isn’t what I’m hearing from your comments.
Ha, we had this conversation with our doctor and they said not to worry about the vaccine if you are married and monogamous. It would likely have zero benefit to us at that point in time.
Now maybe that changes if you get divorced and get a new sexual partner.
It's never a guarantee in practice, the CDC says "More than 98% of recipients develop an antibody response to HPV types included in the respective vaccines 1 month after completing a full vaccination series"
> This statistic seems to be used by some people to avoid the vaccine
The FDA itself restricted access to the vaccine on the basis of age. Given that virions aren't even involved in the production process, its safety should have been deemed good enough for the entire population early on.
I think the main reason it isn't recommended for all ages is that it wears off. If you get it before 50, when your immune system starts declining, you might end up getting shingles when you're 60 or 70.
Insurance companies used to only pay for the vaccine at 60. They've reduced it to 50 now because people (like me) were getting it in their 50's. I got it in my left eye and because my immune system is kinda shit, I still have it, though it doesn't give me too much grief now. But it did trash my cornea in that eye, so it's messed my vision up pretty good. And since there's still an active infection (after 8 years), I can't get a cornea transplant.
My PCP actually recommended holding off until later in the 50s for this reason. There's not currently a booster so his suggestion was to play the odds & delay a bit in order to get longer protection in my elderly years.
Beg for forgiveness, don't ask permission. I got Shingrix when I was under the age of 40, and at no cost to myself even, simply by scheduling a Shingrix vaccine at CVS. It wasn't until I went back for the booster shot months later that the nurse was like "Wait, aren't you too young for this?", but they nevertheless gave me the second dose to complete the vaccine course. You can just so things.
I was unable to get a first dose just by asking the pharmacy -- they were happy to enforce the arbitrary 50 year age rule. But my PCP was happy to just prescribe it off-label. Do it; shingles is terrible and there's no reason to suffer it under 50.
Your average HN reader can absolutely afford paying a few hundred bucks to avoid getting a potentially life-changing disease, and should. I know multiple young adults who got messed up by shingles.
That’s not how drug approvals work. You don’t make assumptions about safety, you make decisions based on data.
The original trials were for a specific population - no prior HPV infection, young women. Hence the approval was for that population.
Additional trials have been run expanding the population, but the decision was based on data not “yeah, I’ll bet this is safe/works for this other group”
>>>>> HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives.
>> This statistic seems to be used by some people to avoid the vaccine - they figure they've already had it at some point. The biggest problem with that logic is that not all strains are as dangerous and they probably have not contracted 16 or 18 specifically. The other problem is there's still a good number of people who have never had it and shouldn't assume they have because its common.
As people cite these statistics, it would be useful to distinguish exposure to HPV causing foot warts, etc from the much more dangerous variants. I rarely see any statistics do this sort of segmentation.
> I rarely see any statistics do this sort of segmentation.
There are multiple publications. THe easiest way to find is Gemini 3 Pro or ChatGPT Thinking + find for publications (go to link, not just rely on summary).
They differ by population and methodology. For example, here is "Age-specific and genotype-specific carcinogenic human papillomavirus prevalence in a country with a high cervical cancer burden: results of a cross-sectional study in Estonia", 2023,
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10255022/
Yes. It would still protect you from the other strains and reduce risks of reinfection by the strains you already have, which is the main issue preventing your immune system from clearing the infection up by itself
Yeah, I only read the abstract and looked at the plots, but this is what I hate about public health papers:
They say the prevalence of virus is down. They don't say that the cancer rate is down (granted too early to tell), nor do they talk about any adverse events or all cause mortality differences (again, probably too early to tell)
The only thing they can conclude is that the treatment given to stop the virus, stops the virus. But they don't mention any tradeoffs.
Not trying to be an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist, but good science needs to talk about the whole picture.
Research papers are not literature reviews. This paper reports on the results of this study. And that study only investigated what it investigated.
In the case of public health, there are a bunch of organizations that keep on top of the research and maintain a more comprehensive view of their perception of the current consensus.
For day to day guidance, individuals should be referring to either those sources, or healthcare professionals.
If people are looking at individual studies like this to make decisions, something has gone very wrong.
You can’t talk about the whole picture unless you have all the parts. There’s no reason all of those parts have to come from the same study.
The first thing on your list of complaints is something that by your own admission cannot yet be determined. If you’re not trying to be an anti-vaxxer, you’re doing a bad job of it.
For those men wondering whether they should get vaccinated:
- HPV causes genital warts, HPV is permanent, doctors won't test you for HPV unless you demand it, and the tests aren't reliable, which is why they literally won't diagnose you unless you already have genital warts.
- Once you are confirmed HPV positive (again, you won't be confirmed without getting genital warts), you need to inform your partners, as it causes cancer in both men and women (but mostly women).
You are giving some honestly really bad and dangerous info.
The HPV strains that cause cancer and the ones that cause genital warts are different. The strains that cause cancer do not cause warts.
So you can very much have HPV without genital warts.
And conversely, while having genital warts tells you you are infected with the low risk strains, it does not guarantee you that it is the only strain you are carrying.
Thus you cannot rely on the presence of genital warts to know if you are or are not infected with the high risk strains, they are completely uncorellated.
The cancer-causing strains cause no symptoms and can only be detected by getting tested for them.
You're putting words and assumptions in my mouth that I never said in my comment. My comment includes different facts about different strains, in one comment, which some people might misinterpret. Your reply is re-stating the facts in more detail, so that's fine, I am happy for anyone to clarify information. However, the assigning of bad faith and action to me just because you don't like the way I presented the facts, is pretty rude. If you want to get really specific, we should probably clarify to the readers these statements you made:
> The cancer-causing strains cause no symptoms and can only be detected by getting tested for them
Cancer-causing strains can still cause the following symptoms: persistent sore throat, lumps, pain when swallowing, earaches (one-sided), swollen lymph nodes in the neck (painless lump), painful/difficult urination or bowel movements, unusual lumps or sores, or unexplained weight loss, in addition to others I have not listed here. However, early cancers often do not present symptoms.
> and can only be detected by getting tested for them
There is no test that covers all strains. You would need to get penile brushing, urethral brushing, semen samples, and anal pap smear. So "getting tested" is not the only solution, and getting regular scans for cancer is the best detection method. Therefore there is more involved than you have indicated, making your own comment as ;really bad and dangerous' as mine.
Perhaps we should trust people to do their own research and ask their doctor, rather than only listen to randos on the internet?
False. Not all do. And more importantly, the ones that cause cancer do not!
> Once you are confirmed HPV positive (again, you won't be confirmed without getting genital warts)
Again false. You can be tested without genital warts and be positive to a strand of HPV that simply does not cause wart. You might have had (or heard about) a bad experience with a health professional that refused to test without warts, but the presence or absence of warts has absolutely nothing to do with the strands that matter.
> you need to inform your partners, as it causes cancer in both men and women (but mostly women).
False again. Since you were specifically talking about the strands of HPV causing warts, then it does not cause cancer. You can still inform them if you care about no propagating warts, but the fact that you have wart-strand HPV does not make you more at risk of getting/causing cancer than someone with no symptoms whatsoever.
Your comment clearly says that someone with cancer-causing HPV will have warts, thus someone reading this might feel confident they are not carrying a cancer-causing strand since they do not have warts, which is dangerous because again, it is 100% false. It might also needlessly worry someone that recently noticed genital warts on themselves into thinking they might have gotten/propagated a dangerous disease, while the wart causing strand are in fact harmless and are just unpleasant aesthetically.
So tl;dr, you should get vaccinated if you can, and if you want to be sure you do not have a cancer causing strand, you need to get tested for it, that's the only way. Warts or no warts is completly unrelated.
> Perhaps we should trust people to do their own research and ask their doctor, rather than only listen to randos on the internet?
You missed three very important caveats that complicate the story you’re trying to tell:
1) not every strain of HPV causes cancer (iirc, the bad ones are rare).
2) many people (in fact, most people) who are active in the world have been infected with at least one strain of HPV.
3) it’s common to have asymptomatic HPV infections. you probably have one now.
one more:
4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anything unless you were vaccinated as a child (and are a biological woman).
Overall, it’s a situation where you’re asking that sexual partners “disclose”
something that the partner probably already has, if they bothered to be tested for it to begin with. Moreover, nobody does these tests (in men, at least), because there’s no point to doing them, other than creating anxiety.
I will leave the nuances of bioethics to other people, but it’s not as clear a situation as you’re making it out to be.
One final thing: these infections aren’t “permanent”. They generally clear naturally in a few years.
> 4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anything unless you were vaccinated as a child (and are a biological woman).
This guidance is changing. Vaccinating men protects women. Also just because you were infected with one strain, that doesn't mean you can't contract another, possibly oncogenic one. Get vaccinated, it protects against the most common cancer-causing strains. I did, why would I want to unknowingly give someone cancer?
>> 4) the vaccines likely have little effect on anything unless you were vaccinated as a child (and are a biological woman).
> This guidance is changing. Vaccinating men protects women.
Yeah, it was fucking like pulling teeth getting my HPV vaccine as an adult male. "It's for teenage girls" comments from multiple health care professionals.
I only took the first fucking dose in the regime, and none of my health care providers now offer low cost or covered options. I had to spend Covid money when I had it. I still need the rest of the regime.
It’s “like pulling teeth” because the guidance isn’t changing (at least not because of evidence).
There seems to be a very motivated contingency who want to spin a story that male vaccination for HPV has benefits for women. The problems with this story are:
1) Efficacy of the current vaccines for women are incredibly high. Vaccinating young women, alone, is basically enough. Whatever benefits you're imagining must therefore be marginal.
2) Efficacy of current vaccines for men are (surprisingly) low [1], so it’s hard to claim secondary benefits for other people without substantial additional evidence.
It’s perfectly OK to acknowledge that the HPV vaccine is an overall good, should be on the schedule for young women, and yet does not need to be administered to men. Giving it to men (particularly older men) is not supported by data at this time, which is why your doctors don’t make it easy for you to get it.
See table 4. In a naive population of men, the efficacy against DNA detection of HPV runs around 50%, and in men who may or may not have the virus, the number is lower. Efficacy against persistent infection is similar. Compare to tables 1-3 for women, where efficacy nears 100% in some populations.
It's a relatively new vaccine, this commonly happens for a few reasons:
1. They start with a cautious roll out to the highest lifetime risk population (teenage girls in this case)
2. They may be limited by vaccine stocks as it does take time to build up product. There's an entire world to vaccinate, billions of doses needed
3. They need time to prove that it will be useful to give to other populations - in this case, adults
There's no conspiracy here, you had to push to get it because you were going against the existing recommendations, which were reasonable. Not because of your gender.
Those recommendations have likely changed recently because when I went in for shots last month (male, 40s) they immediately recommended that me and my partner both get it.
The situation is pretty clear when you're a woman who got cancer from her boyfriend who knew he had HPV and didn't tell her, or didn't get vaccinated because he didn't feel like it. I think most people would want to avoid that situation. The genital warts thing is just embarrassing but another good-enough reason to get vaccinated early.
On Permanence: 10-20% of HPV infections either don't go away, or go dormant and recur throughout your lifetime. These strains are the ones likely to cause cancer. Low-risk ones cause genital warts that continue causing warts throughout your lifetime. High-risk ones may cause cancer.
The vaccine is available up until 45 years old. Worst case it does nothing, best case it prevents genital warts and cancer.
> The situation is pretty clear when you're a woman who got cancer from her boyfriend who knew he had HPV and didn't tell her
You can make up “just so” stories to justify anything.
The point is, the story you’re telling isn’t likely to occur if the woman is vaccinated.
The vaccine is incredibly effective in young women, and only borderline effective if administered in older men and women who have never been infected. Long-term efficacy in young men is less certain than for young women.
> Low-risk ones cause genital warts that continue causing warts throughout your lifetime.
Again, no. Most infections clear on their own. You are correct that rarely some infections are persistent or dormant, and that these sometimes lead to cancer. But these are the minority.
I, a male, got vaccinated with the Gardasil 9 vaccine shortly before turning 40. Convincing my doctor to prescribe it wasn't terribly difficult, I told them a few things about my sexual history and explained some of my sexual plans, and that was that.
That is terribly difficult. Why the hell do I have to make an appointment weeks in advance, then take time out of my day just to get permission from some asshole who asks about my sexual history? Why can't I just walk up to the counter, say "I'll take one HPV vaccine please" and pay the money? If you want me to get vaccinated make it easy.
You can make an appointment at eg Walgreens (and probably also CVS) and pay out of pocket for the Gardasil-9 HPV vaccination without any consultation with or referral from a GP (General Practitioner) or a Specialist.
> 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
Insurance, if it covers it, will cover it at CVS, no doctor needed.
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.
Because we over-rely on insurance for routine medical care, when really insurance should just be reserved for the catastrophic and everything else out of pocket (and/or directly subsidized).
I agree with that, and I don't have a problem with insurance companies demanding a doctor's approval before paying. What I have a problem with is that I can't even pay my own way without a doctor.
My GP just offered it during my physical along with the flu and COVID booster. I declined the COVID booster since I had just gotten a mild case a couple months back. Got two shots in the left arm, was sore for a day and that was that.
This is why you have to go to the grey market for medical stuff in the USA anymore. Every rich celebrety, and women with body dysmorphia knows how easy it is to get GLP-1s right now. Good and thank goodness for it.
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.
Antibiotics are actually an exception to my general opinion that all medications should be available without prescription. Unlike most drugs, their use has major externalities which means there is a role for larger societal regulation of their use.
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).
I'd ask the opposite: are hospitals the places where the immunities develop or are they merely the places where the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is most deadly and therefore investigated?
The dangerous thing about antibiotic immunity is that it can transfer also between bacteria species.
I did the same at 34. There's a dermatology/STI clinic in Budapest where I live that gives the shot at cost (about 130 euros) because they think people should get it.
How much did it cost? I've considered it but it seems the only option for me is to pay for it out of pocket (~$1000 for the full course), which seems kind of not worth it at this point.
Your own doctor is as likely to be a quack/have quack-like beliefs as you are. Unironically this is true! Better learn to start reading Pubmed!
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.
Doctors don't have the time or capacity to know their patients well enough to make personalized recommendations in most cases. If you show up with symptoms of X they can recommend Y and will probably ask you whether you have Z which can impact the treatment. But virtually no doctor is going to ring you up proactively and say "hey, I noticed you haven't had a HPV vaccine yet, and I think it might make sense for you because I know this and that about your risk profile".
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.
Because doctors are human and fallible operating in suboptimal systems. Don't want to provide me with a low risk, potentially high reward, low cost intervention? I'll shop until I find a doctor who will, or source it myself. Suboptimal systems and practitioners of various quality require advocating for one's self. I had to twist Planned Parenthood's arm to get Gardasil before it was approved for older adults, even though I was paying cash out of pocket, but had no problem with a trusted PCP providing me Metformin, GLP-1 prescriptions, etc simply by arguing my case and meeting sufficient criteria it would not come back to bite them.
The bigger issue is that someone who is 40 has likely already been exposed. I know women who had to ask to get it in their late 20's, and only succeeded after convincing the doctor they had been celibate up to that point. Apparently such a thing is relatively rare.
In either case this neither means that they are now immune against that specific strain, nor that they can't or won't get infected by another. Therefore that reasoning is flawed.
Yeah that’s the way I take it - “you’re probably not going to convince many people to sleep with you.”
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.
Best of luck, the reason it took so long for males to be approved for Gardasil use and they slowly keep pushing it up by age is two fold:
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
> 1) if you've ever been exposed to HPV already, then the vaccine is useless
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.
> 2) there is no test to determine if a male has been exposed, although there is one for females
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.
> 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.
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?)
The claim I refuted is that there are no test for men (there are). Not sure why you want to get needlessly argumentative here, repeating things I already linked (sic!).
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.
I quoted you, and responded specifically to the quote. The reason doctors don’t offer the test is not because of some straw man arguments (“a horrible mindset…”) involving their diminished judgment of importance of the virus in men, as you assert.
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.
so far the comments are adding more vectors to understanding the situation, but nothing that fundamentally changes the user experience
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
this is what I don't understand, why is it useless? there're multiple variants, vaccination could create reaction to a different part of the virus, etc.
I’m confused why it won’t clear an existing infection while still working on future infections.
Here is what I know (which may be limited, I’m not a biologist) and also what I’m assuming:
1) The body apparently doesn’t eliminate the virus on its own when it picks up the virus unvaccinated. I’m assuming that this is because it isn’t registered by the immune system as being harmful, for whatever reason.
2) The attenuated virus in the vaccine would not produce an immune response without the adjuvant, because even viruses that are registered as harmful are not reliably registered as harmful when attenuated. This is where the adjuvant packaged with the attenuated virus comes in - it is registered by the body as harmful, and in its confusion the immune system also adds the virus to the registry.
So, naively, if the immune system previously didn’t register the natural infection as harmful, and if it does register the virus in the vaccine as harmful, why doesn’t the registry entry for the vaccine also get applied to the natural infection, the same way as it does for a person who wasn’t previously infected?
Is there some kind of specificity hierarchy, along with a “not harmful” registry alongside the “harmful” registry, such that the natural infection continues to get its previous classification of “not harmful” because the “not harmful” registry entry is more specific than the “harmful” registry entry? That’s the only explanation I can (naively) think of.
And if that’s the case, could we first wipe out the registry by infecting the person with measles, and then give them the HPV vaccine? Just kidding about this part!
Yes, I understand that. Would you mind reading my comment above? The thing I’m confused about is why it won’t protect you against one you already have.
Like for viruses that have a vaccine, normally you wouldn’t vaccinate someone who had the virus already because the vaccine would be redundant - they already have natural immunity.
But in the case of HPV, apparently they don’t have effective natural immunity, the immunity naturally acquired is worse than the vaccine one. So why can’t the vaccine one take effect after the absent (or at least ineffective one) natural one isn’t (or is slightly) in place? That’s what I don’t understand. It seems like the natural immunity prevents the vaccine induced immunity from developing, but the natural immunity in this case doesn’t seem to work, while the vaccine induced immunity does work. Why…?
> - Sooner is better, but vaccination can be done at any age. Guidelines often lag behind, but vaccination makes sense even if you are currently HPV-positive.
However, the vaccination is expensive (~1k) and it is difficult to find doctors who will do non-recommended vaccinations for self-payers.
This is ultimately an American site so you can assume 80%+ of comments come from a US background (I'm not American, I've just been here longer than I should have).
Are there insurance plans that won't cover it? I know that a lot of plans love not paying for things but vaccines seem to be the one thing that they all at least seem fairly good at (at least in my experience).
I am currently getting the HPV series and I only had to pay my copay for the first appointment have nothing for the second one (I am assuming it will be the same for the third)
Yeah, one downside to giving this vaccine to your kids is you're basically telling them you expect they won't do this, even if they plan to (and you planned to, and in fact did). But pediatricians talk about how you really have to do it young, before they're going to be sexually active, and how it's hard to get later (not entirely true, as demonstrated by the comments here).
Is there any issue for adult males vaccinating ? I seem to remember some mention of risk by my doctor when I asked about it, but I might be misremembering.
No vaccine is without risk, but the vaccine approach is based on that risk being so low (but not zero) in comparison to the risk of not vaccinating that it is vastly the better choice.
Ok that was a bad question, let me rephrase: isn't there something particularly bad about this one for males that are already adults that makes it not recommended by doctors by default?
The benefits may be statistically lower, since you may have been infected by some of the variants already, older males may have fewer sexual partners in the future, and cancer takes a while to develop.
In the USA, it is recommended by default for adults up to 26 and kinda for 27-45.
Any infection risks sensitizing the immune system against some aspect of the human body. More likely with more severe infections, but not even a pseudo-infection is completely immune from it as it's a property of the immune system, not of the vaccine. The risk is very low, not zero.
(And dengue fever has the nasty property of making subsequent infections worse--and the vaccine does the same thing. Thus you get the really weird risk balance of only vaccinating those who have already had it. Also, Covid is prone to causing myocarditis--and the vaccine carries a small risk of doing the same thing. AFIAK no vaccine caused case is serious, though.)
> While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects against different strains and reinfection (typically body removed HPV in 1-2 years). See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/
The study you've quoted here is not definitive evidence of the claim you're making, and that claim is...let's just say that it's controversial. Conventional wisdom is that you're unlikely to benefit from HPV vaccination unless you have not already seroconverted for at least one of the 9 strains (6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58) in the current vaccine.
There's not much hard evidence to suggest that vaccination for HPV has strong ability to protect you from a strain after you've already been infected with that strain [1], as the best available data shows a substantial decline in efficacy for women over age 26 and for women of any age who had prior documented infection [2]. This study is small, unrandomized, and the measured primary outcome (anti-HPV IgG) doesn't really tell you anything about relative effectiveness at clearing an infection. The only real evidence they advance for this claim is:
> Persistent HPV infection after vaccination was significantly less frequent in the nine-valent vaccinated group (23.5%) compared to the control group (88.9%; p < 0.001).
...but again, this is a small, unrandomized trial. We don't know how these 60 people differ from the typical HPV-positive case. You can't rely on this kind of observational data to claim causality.
Vaccination is great, but let's not exaggerate or spread inaccurate claims in a fit of pro-vaccine exuberance. The HPV vaccine has age range recommendations [3] for a reason.
[1] For the somewhat obvious reason that your immune system has already seen the virus.
It's also worth calling out table 4, which shows the (IMO bad) efficacy data for biological men, which is why I only talk about women, above, and why anyone who recommends vaccination without mentioning this factor is not being entirely forthright. Few people are rushing to give older men the HPV vaccine because it's not really supported by data!
[3] I believe the current guideline is under age 45 in the USA.
I understand why it wouldn't be recommended in policy but individually, provided you are rich enough to waste a hundred bucks, worse case is it's useless, best case you are 1-5% likely to spread a bad strain dangerous to yourself or to your partners, right ?
It's your body, and you can do whatever you want (assuming someone will consent to give it to you), but the worst case is that you have a bad reaction. It's rare, but not impossible, and things like GBS do happen -- though it must be emphasized that these vaccines are extremely safe by any reliable form of measurement [1].
But that's the general response to any question of this form. Medical treatments carry risk, however small. There is no free lunch.
> best case you are 1-5% likely to spread a bad strain dangerous to yourself or to your partners, right ?
I don't know where you're getting this number. I don't think anyone knows the actual answer to this question.
The age 45 bit isn't actually a guideline. Rather, finding naive but at risk individuals over 45 is quite difficult. They did not test it on anyone over 45, thus the FDA approval cuts off at 45.
1) Surrogate endpoint only — HPV PCR positivity is not a clinical outcome; no CIN2/3, no cancer, no mortality measured
2) Correlation ≠ causation — HPV-cancer link is epidemiological association; Koch's postulates not fulfilled in traditional sense; detecting DNA doesn't prove pathogenic activity
3) PCR detection ≠ disease — Transient HPV infections are common and clear spontaneously; most HPV-positive women never develop lesions or cancer
4) Type replacement signal ignored — 66% higher incidence of non-vaccine HR types in vaccinated group is dismissed rather than investigated as potential clinical concern
5) No long-term clinical follow-up — Cervical cancer takes 15-30 years to develop; this 7-year study cannot assess actual cancer prevention
6) Confounding in vaxxed vs unvaxxed comparison — Unvaccinated group is small (n=859), likely differs in health behaviors, screening adherence, socioeconomic factors
7) Circular reasoning — Vaccine "works" because it reduces detection of the types it targets; says nothing about whether those types were actually causing disease in this population
8) Assumes HPV16/18 reduction = cancer reduction — Untested assumption; clinical benefit must be demonstrated, not inferred from PCR
9) High baseline HR-HPV in vaccinated group unexplained — 32% prevalence of other HR types suggests substantial ongoing oncogenic exposure despite vaccination
10) Genome validity unestablished — HPV reference genomes are in-silico constructs assembled computationally; never validated by sequencing purified, isolated viral particles; PCR/sequencing performed on mixed clinical samples where true origin of amplified fragments is indeterminate
Venereal diseases have been a significant cause of human mortality for ages. The first outbreak of Syphilis in Europe killed ~7% of the population. The only thing that broke up that state of affairs was the advent of antibiotics.
And if it turns out you weren’t a perfect judge of character and your partner cheats on you, then fuck you, right? I guess you deserved to die from cancer because you couldn’t read your fiancé’s mind. Or maybe it’s your fault for not being a good enough spouse.
I’m so confused. “…don't blame me for your partner being a slut.” This implies that I would otherwise have some reason to hold you responsible for this, like your advice not to get vaccinated would prevent it, but since I’m acting against your advice the outcome is no longer your fault.
Chastity is 100% effective at preventing STDs exactly like living in a plastic bubble is 100% effective at preventing the flu (incidentally, it's also 100% effective at preventing humanity from existing within 80 years...). The fact that people throughout history, even in the most repressive times when "adulterers" were stoned or forced to marry rapists, have had much higher rates of STDs than we do today, shows that reality, rather than an abstract ideal case, is what matters in terms of public health.
Put another way: a "slut" practicing safe sex today will have fewer chances to contract an STD than a regular married woman in Victorian times.
> stupid man without any arguments
Seriously? Your argument is "damn those slut whores" and you're pretending to have an intellectual high ground...? Have a good weekend.
Almost zero? So you have seen throat cancer cases? And you don’t think it would have been good for those people not to have had throat cancer? Did they seem to enjoy the experience or something?
Uh, monogamy of both partners is also an option, not just celibacy. Not common in these times, I know, but you don't have to completely abstain from sex to be safe.
- HPVs are extremely common: 80% of men and 90% of women will have at least one strain in their lives. Unless you plan to remain completely celibate, you are likely to contract a strain.
- Sooner is better, but vaccination can be done at any age. Guidelines often lag behind, but vaccination makes sense even if you are currently HPV-positive. While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects against different strains and reinfection (typically body removed HPV in 1-2 years). See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/
- HPV16 is responsible for a large number of throat cancers (around 50% in smokers and 80% in non-smokers!). This affects both men and women. Vaccinating men is important for their own safety and to reduce transmission to their partners.