Comments
If you're living in the US: please consider getting the vaccine, ragardless of your age. It was covered by my (rather shitty) health insurance. It consists of just 2 (EDIT: 3 for adults!) doses. It is recommended for both Males and Females.
It is actually not straightforward to do. Safeway Pharmacy refused to actually give me the vaccine when I showed up saying I'm not in a group that's eligible. One Medical told me that it would be a $400/shot 3-shot regimen. I'll probably just travel to India some time to visit family and get Cervavac there instead of Gardasil here. It's about $20/shot.
The Walgreens pharmacist scolded my 35 year old girlfriend for getting it, saying that it was useless at her age. She insisted and he reluctantly administered the first dose (and later got the rest at another location). He even questioned her motives for getting it once she was in the room. I was appalled by the whole interaction.
Maybe I could have understood if I had said she was my wife. But it is still stupid to assume that there will be no other sexual partners ever again in her life.
With the prevalence of HPV, it's likely that we have one or more strains already, but who knows. Maybe the strain of a future partner is what will trigger cancer.
If anyone here can enlighten me about the pharmacist's attitude, I would be grateful.
I got vaccinated way before I met her, and even as a male I didn't get any comments from the pharmacists that gave me the shots.
Gotta love the logic of telling adults not to get the vaccine because its probably too late and you're already infected, while also telling parents not to give it to their kids because it's only for "prostitutes and promiscuous gay men" (per RFK)
By lostlogin 2025-09-1717:16 > it's only for "prostitutes and promiscuous gay men" (per RFK)
It’s almost as though he has had a brain injury.
I believe you are referring to comments made about the hepatitis B vaccine, not HPV.
By perihelions 2025-09-1716:13 That's right; that particular HHS Secretary comment was about Hepatitis B.
> "“Hepatitis B vaccine was made for prostitutes and for promiscuous gay men,” Kennedy said in an interview on his Children’s Health Defense show in 2022."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/06/25/rfk-jr-vacc...
The WaPo article doesn't bother to refute RFK's lies, but here's /r/medicine responding to them (in the context that's topical this week—RFK ordering the removal of the Hepatitis B vaccine from the children's schedule):
> "Let's be even more clear about this. If you contract Hep B in the first year of life, more than 90% develop the chronic form, and the need for liver transplant is much higher.... Worldwide, the second most common route for children under 5 to catch HBV is from other children, and that's not by doing IV drugs or having sex. (First most common is vertical, through mother.)"
https://old.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1niml9d/kennedys_...
By jimkleiber 2025-09-1713:39 My heart goes out to you and your family :-(
By abustamam 2025-09-1720:36 I'm so sorry you and your family are going through that. My condolences, from an internet stranger with family members with cancer as well.
I don't condone violence or wish ill upon anyone... But there are certainly some people that I'm just like, fuck that guy. And yeah, fuck RFK.
By starlust2 2025-09-1715:00 Even if you're married, you might not be married forever, could be in an open relationship, or a partner may cheat. None of which is the pharmacist's business.
MY partner also had a hard time getting it, at the age of 26. I also had a hard time getting it, at age 26.
People read the recommendation guideline, and brainlessly follow it without care of why it's in place. If you haven't had a reason to be exposed by 30, 30 is as good of a time to get the shot as 9.
One of the few times I can say the majority of medical practitioners don't know what they are talking about when they spit dogma instead of life-saving sense.
By lazide 2025-09-1713:21 I think it’s more that people judge and then look at the guidelines and get even more judgey and feel justified in doing so.
HPV is approved up to age 45 with “shared clinical decision making”. Above age 26 it may be more difficult without a clinician due to unimportant bullshit. Try a Planned Parenthood.
By Varelion 2025-09-1721:31 PP is where we managed to do it. Anyone who hasn't had the Gardesil-9 — which actively targets cancerous strains — please don't hesitate. It's byad.
By alsetmusic 2025-09-1716:37 I'm 44 and didn't catch any gruff from the staff. I'd complain to the head pharmacist.
Depending on the state you’re in, you likely have to get a prescription from a doctor, not a pharmacist, due to the wording of the law.
Simplest route would be to call your primary doctor and ask if they can give it to you at your next annual checkup.
By WarOnPrivacy 2025-09-175:542 reply My Dr doesn't give me stuff. But that's only because I'm one of the millions of Americans who has no healthcare beyond what can paid out of my pocket. Not his fault.
By epcoa 2025-09-1712:41 Maybe try Planned Parenthood, they do stuff like this.
By WarOnPrivacy 2025-09-1720:18 He could but then I'd still need to pay for the vaccine - which is the issue. Specifically, I would be adding the vaccine onto the long, long list of medical stuff (vaccines, tests, procedures) that I need to buy if the funds ever come available.
By BobAliceInATree 2025-09-170:19 as far as I can tell, pharmacists cannot give vaccines off-label (this is an issue for the new covid guidelines and some states fell back to an Rx if no longer eligible for the covid booster).
Your PCP may give a vaccine off-label though, which is how I got my Shingrix, though I had to pay out of pocket.
By rishikeshs 2025-09-171:441 reply What’s the procedure of getting Cervavac in india?
By unmole 2025-09-173:54 You can pretty much walk into any decent clinic and just ask for one.
In Denmark its not recommended for women over a certain age.
So please don’t get it regardless of age. Its not really considered effective for women who have been sexually active for some time.
Which is why its only recommended for girls, not women.
https://www.ssi.dk/vaccinationer/boernevaccination/vaccinati....
Tldr; Dont rush to get a vaccine that is probably not effective for you. Make an appointment with your doctor and discuss it with her first.
There is many different strains of HPV, the likelihood of already have contracted them all is small. It will still protect you against strains you don't have. It also protects against genital warts. The vaccionation program targets young girls because thats the most efficient time to take it and has highest benefit/cost. You will still reap benefits of taking it later.
I dont see any reason not to take if you get it for free and you are planning to be sexually active with multiple different partners.
By tecleandor 2025-09-1710:30 This. Protects against strains you don't have, reduces the spreading. We (male that have sex with females, and haven't been vaccinated) are a huge infection vector.
My doctors have generally refused vaccinating me for years (Male/43yo), but finally a new (female) doctor told me it's a good idea. I'm not in a risk group, so I have to pay for the vaccine: Gardasil 9, 3 doses, 3 months away of each other, ~€200 each, although studies say that 2 doses might be enough.
In reality, you can pay to a private doctor so they write you a prescription, but I feel more validated if my doctor says it's OK :)
just keep in mind that not all kinds of HPV vaccines protect against all the strains causing warts! Some do, but not all, check the specific brand you're getting! Obviously cancer is worse, but the extra protection is nice to have.
By throw738488 2025-09-178:42 [flagged]
Even if there's a small chance that it would make a difference, wouldn't it be worth it if you have the money and you feel like it's your duty to protect others ? At worst, it's useless and you have contributed to make a vaccine more profitable (which, IIUC is a problem for vaccines ?)
At worst, it's harmful!
From top of my layperson head: bruised insertion sites, tainted needles, tainted vaccine supply, customer capacity crowding for the pharmacy, squeezing supply capacity for actual target demographics, etc etc etc.
Things have tradeoffs, even if they are subtle. Relentless follow-through on marginal protocols should generally be treated with suspicion.
Stranger danger advocates brush off the criticism that most abductions occur among family with the "if there's a small chance it would make a difference" argument, but this ignores the real harms of teaching children to fear everyone by default.
By attila-lendvai 2025-09-246:06 the proper lesson is not to fear every stranger, but to be suspicious of people who approach them.
if e.g. they are in trouble, then you don't want them to be afraid of strangers and not ask for help from the 99% of the people who would be happy to help them.
By gblargg 2025-09-1720:56 Thank you for a sane comment in this discussion.
By rtaylorgarlock 2025-09-1620:073 reply And note i believe they just increased the recommended age of administration up to ~40yo? Throat cancer sucks. Get the vax.
By sillyfluke 2025-09-1620:157 reply Why is there an age limit on an all encompassing vax, wasn't the famous posterchild for this disease Michael Douglas?
By ZeroGravitas 2025-09-1620:211 reply This is mostly guesswork but I think you need to get the vaccine before you catch it and lots of people have it as they get older.
If you have a limited supply the greater bang per buck would be to start with the young people who almost certainly haven't caught it yet and then work your way up.
By OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2025-09-1623:531 reply It's less that and more "we just haven't tested it in older populations yet".
Sure you are more likely to have it the older you are but even then you are unlikely to have all the strains. The vaccine covers like 9 or 10 different strains so it can protect you from the other strains even if you already have one of them.
It's generally only when you get into the 60s and up that the justification for not recommending the vaccine changes. Once you get into those later years the immune response changes a bit and you get new concerns.
An example being herpes zoster (chickenpox) where after a certain age you are recommended to get the shingles vaccine instead of the chickenpox vaccine since the way the disease presents and how the body reacts to it changes with age (technically shingles can happen at any age but generally herpes zoster presents as shingles instead of chickenpox the older you get).
> you are recommended to get the shingles vaccine instead of the chickenpox vaccine since the way the disease presents and how the body reacts to it changes with age (technically shingles can happen at any age but generally herpes zoster presents as shingles instead of chickenpox the older you get).
If the underlying virus is the same, what is different between the vaccines? How it presents shouldn't matter as much?
By OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2025-09-181:26 > what is different between the vaccines?
The shingles vaccine is a larger/more aggressive dose than the chickenpox vaccine.
And nowadays chickenpox vaccine uses live attenuated viruses (i.e. modified to be non-infectious but still look the same) whereas the shingles vaccine uses recombinant proteins. This allows the shingles vaccine to deliver the higher viral load that they want for inoculating against shingles without putting a bunch of live viruses into the body.
It's also worth noting that the recombinant vaccine is more effective for shingles compared to the equivalent viral load live vaccine by a significant margin. It's something like 90% reduction in incidence vs 50%.
----------
> How it presents shouldn't matter as much?
It's not an all or nothing thing but it's a matter of percentages.
And the big reason why they present differently is that chickenpox kind of attacks every part of the body since it's new. It of course does best at infecting the skin and nerves but it mildly affects every part of the body. But then it goes dormant in the nerves because that's where it's most "compatible" and the body is the worst at fighting it.
So then with shingles your body still has the immunity but the reactivated virus is able to out-compete your immunity in the nerves and it wakes up in whatever specific nerve and spreads along that nerve. This is why shingles generally presents in a band on the body. It's spreading along a specific nerve "line" rather than spreading throughout the whole body, blood, and all.
And so the because the infection can't spread broadly throughout your body it ends up concentrated in that location and presumably the higher viral load combined with focusing on the specific proteins rather than the whole virus increases the body's sensitivity to these flair ups, catching them before they can reach momentum. And then that focused immune training sits on top of the body's existing immunity for the initial "whole body" presentation of the virus.
By JumpCrisscross 2025-09-1620:182 reply > Why is there an age limit on an all encompassing vax
Vaccines are subject to stringent safety standards since they’re administered to healthy people. The age limit may suggest that at the time of the recommendation, in the relevant jurisdiction, the manufacturer had not studied its safety and efficacy in >40 year olds.
(I also don’t think it’s an age limit as much as the upper end of a recommendation.)
E.g., the Shingles vaccine simply hasn't been tested in <50 populations. But if you're under 50 and you've had the chicken pox, you should ask your PCP to prescribe the shingles vaccine off-label and go get it, because shingles sucks and the vaccine definitely works.
By _heimdall 2025-09-174:05 I don't follow your logic here. The GP comment is saying that the vaccine isn't available for populations it hasn't been tested for. Why are you recommending people ignore the fact that safety and efficacy testing isn't available for their population?
And how can you say the vaccine definitely works for populations it hasn't been tested on?
By LorenPechtel 2025-09-1621:15 It's an age limit to the approval caused by a lack of studies. To study it in over 45s you need suitable over 45s--but there aren't a lot of over 45s with risk but not prior exposure.
By colingauvin 2025-09-170:45 A lot of replies that are mostly true, or somewhat true, or simply missing the real reasons.
There are two factors here:
1) Vaccine-derived immunity is a function of the individual's immune response, which in general, weakens significantly with age. It is not unrealistic for a vaccine to simply fail to elicit any response in someone old enough.
2) It is very, very difficult to recruit folks without HPV that are over 40 for a clinical trial. Most people of that age, who were never immunized, most likely have had it. This significantly convolutes the signal.
3) This is all especially confounded once something becomes "standard of care". Every year there are fewer and fewer people age 40+ with HPV.
For these reasons, the vaccine is currently officially ??? in people over 40. Most doctors will prescribe it anyways if you ask. It may or may not infer immunity. It almost certainly will not harm you.
By BjoernKW 2025-09-170:43 The rationale is that most sexually active people have already been infected with HPV anyway, so the largest benefit of administering the vaccine is at a young age.
In the US, recommendations come from the United States Preventive Services Task Force. They explicitly do not consider cost in their decisions. They look at harm vs benefit, usually with a focus on mortality reduction. Most insurance companies will base their coverage on the USPSTF.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/hcp/recommendations.htm...
By Fomite 2025-09-173:00 Decisions as to whether or not to pursue regulatory approval for, example, expanded coverage of the HPV vaccine to men, or older age groups, is very commonly informed by cost-benefit calculations. I've worked on those projects, seen presentations by my colleagues, etc. There was a good two years of my life where this was what I worked on (mostly strain replacement post-vaccination).
It's a level of evidence that's generated (usually) prior to ACIP, and it is presented to them, while there is not necessarily a bright line threshold.
if you suspect that the cdc has been captured by big pharma, "and we don't care about cost of these recommended drugs" should pretty much seal the deal for you :)
Oh wow how the conspiracy theories change.
There used to be fears of "death panels" controlling access to medical care when Clinton tried to propose universal health care.
The CDC and FDA are about safety, not cost management. And they get significant complaints about how much they regulate pharma and are impediments to pharma for that!
Now the conspiracy theorists of the other side seem to be having their day in the public mind.
This isn't a conspiracy theory - I worked on projects around that during graduate school, and talked to my colleagues who worked on them. Cost-effectiveness thresholds are a consideration that goes into how widely a vaccine will be rolled out, etc.
That was, for example, why boys were originally not part of the recommendation for the HPV vaccine. It would double to cost, while doing very little to prevent cervical cancer via indirect protection. Once the evidence accumulated that it was associated with other cancers, that stopped being true.
Similar logic applied to older women and men.
Cost considerations would be more from the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, not the mentioned above United States Preventive Services Task Force. (Oh, and I see that another comment parallel to mine up there now mentions ACIP too...)
In any case, somebody thinking that evaluating safety and efficacy aside from cost considerations means that there's collusion with pharmaceutical companies would be a conspiracy theory.
have you ever wondered if it's a great idea to have former generals populate the defense department, procurement, and revolving door employment with defense contractors? what could go wrong? what could go expensive?
you are one of the generals in this scenario, thinking that evaluating safety and efficacy aside from cost considerations couldn't possibly lead to higher costs because you yourself and everybody in your industry are so darn smart, clever and by god ethical.
what did you do before this? work on creating the covid 19 virus, or just calling people who questioned it "conspiracy theorists"? what's that, you were in caves tracking down the zoonotic transfer, which you'll find any day now, scientific consensus and all, peter daszak assured you you'll find it and he's beyond reproach!
and I resent you saying that I'm a conspiracy theorist because I have not said any of this is happening, I am pointing out the vector where it could happen (go back, look, where did I say any of this was happening?)
it's simply, methinks the lady doth protest too much
By potato3732842 2025-09-1713:01 >have you ever wondered if it's a great idea to have former generals populate the defense department, procurement, and revolving door employment with defense contractors? what could go wrong? what could go expensive?
The real question is why are people who are capable of identifying the problem when it's generals sitting on the board of Lockheed or a telecom industry insider heading the FCC suddenly unable to do so when it's someone who's made their career engineering stormwater solutions taking a position at the EPA or the pharma industry funding research that the CDC will base its policy on.
The CDC, the DOD, etc, etc, these are all symptoms of the problem and a distracting sideshow.
As usual, the real evil is in the minds of the people who peddle double standards and the fact that we have architected society such that this behavior is mainstream and those who engage in it are not marginalized.
clear financial incentives are never conspiracy theories: always follow the money.
thinking that they are conspiracy theories? that's a conspiracy theorist.
There's no clear financial incentive on the decisions here. If there were, it would be collusion, and not in the open, and therefore not clear.
the cdc decides to make recommendations no matter how expensive, and big pharma collects the expensive, and the expert community works for the cdc and big pharma? do you even understand what regulatory capture is? do you understand how framing something as saving lives no matter the cost draws attention away from funneling money to big pharma no matter the deficit?
let me guess, you work in this area too.
Since you already replied to my other comment, hopefully you understand now that ACIP takes into account cost as part of its recommendations, but the independent group we were talking about in this thread does not.
Even with CDC its recommendations, it's not the final word.
The reasoning you're highlighting here is highly conspiratorial
By Fomite 2025-09-185:39 There's also a much less pronounced revolving door at the CDC as compared to the DoD I would argue.
By JohnTHaller 2025-09-1620:201 reply It's likely that they haven't tested it as thoroughly in older folks and that most older folks have already been exposed to HPV.
By user432678 2025-09-171:041 reply Finally, affordable housing!
Yeah, screw those old people with their houses! We should deliberately kill them off so that we can have cheaper houses! But please, don't let the next generation do that to us when housing turns out to be expensive for them too!
Brilliant.
By robocat 2025-09-179:02 I have yet to see my government subsidise dangerous recreations based on a cost benefit analysis.
I think government costs for a retiree are about NZD27000 a year.
A government should be subsidising a good deadly recreation for say NZD10000 a year. Assume expected life remaining is 10 years, assume recreation has a 10% chance of clean death, assume low chance of expensive ongoing chronic outcomes.
Suggestions: Car racing, climbing, fentanyl habit, boat racing, ocean sports, Russian roulette, foreign legion soldiering, free climbing, wingsuiting.
Maybe a better way would be to allow people to gamble with their lives to win a few tens of thousands (need to balance costs against expected savings). Pay out to winners, but saves the government their expected lifetime of expenses for the losers. Let the old and unhappy roll-the-dice and the winners get to live it up a little . . .
By user432678 2025-09-176:39 Fun fact, that’s what happened in my country of birth, which is USSR. To some extent.
By attila-lendvai 2025-09-246:11 we're joking here... but GAVI is bill gates, who is saying very similar things in his "there are too many of us" talks... makes one wonder...
By vidarh 2025-09-179:22 In the UK, the recommendation is up to 45, but there are providers that offer it without an upper limit.
I'm male and read about this exposure vector back in 2012 when it was only rolled out to 12 year old girls, with a further guideline that nobody over 26 should take it.
this was pre- antivaxxer anxiety, and just run of the mill 'is the government condoning sex' anxiety, and it was controversial for that reason alone
the issue was that if you've been exposed already then the vaccine doesn't work. they had a test for women that can prove they've been exposed or not, and most adults have. they don't have a test for men that can prove they've been exposed or not, and most adults have. At the time, they had also only considered males to be carriers, with no cancers themselves.
so for the US government to recommend a limited stock and get insurers on board, it was all based on probabilities of exposure and utility.
I was younger at the time, naturally, I paid $600 out of pocket to get it across 3 doses because I figured it was worse than that, or I could get some 'male ally' brownie points from women. I wasn't wealthy then but figured this experience couldn't be taken from me even if I went bankrupt.
Since then, they've further linked it to throat cancers in males, because of our mouth's contact with genitals, and insurers are told to cover it across all genders and up to mid 40s. that's not really much of a difference now though, since the checkpoint is basically the same group of people, 13 years later.
They're still assuming older people are not worth bothering with, due to likely exposure.
There is an amusing side of this if you are male and not vaccinated yet, since nobody can tell if you've been exposed still: keep your sexual relationships with younger women. lol. in case you needed an excuse - higher probability they're vaccinated.
"this was pre- antivaxxer anxiety" - It was really, really not.
Another thing to keep in mind was that the initial trials were only using cervical cancer endpoints - the association between HOV infection and cervical cancer is really strong. At that time, vaccinating boys provided only indirect protection (you couldn't infect a female partner), rather than direct protection (you won't be infected) in the context of cervical cancer.
Women prior to sexual debut were the biggest "bang for the buck" and the obvious first recommendation target.
Researchers both at universities and in private industry then started working on other populations based on alternative endpoints.
> Women prior to sexual debut were the biggest "bang for the buck" and the obvious first recommendation target.
It was a stupid decision to leave out the boys. I mean hindsight is 20/20, but if heterosexual women were getting cervical cancer from HPV, and HPV is spread by sexual activity, then vaccinating the boys along with the girls would have been the logical thing to do in order to stop the spread.
I assume this wasn't done because they didn't do any studies on boys at first, because they were looking for cervical abnormalities to gauge vaccine effectiveness, and maybe it would have been hard to recruit a bunch of boys for a vaccine study that would probably not benefit them.
With that same hindsight we now know that HPV vaccination also prevents some oral cancers, and that leaving out the boys was a very stupid decision indeed.
These days most places do seem to also vaccinate boys. I got an HPV vaccine at some point in my 30s, and I pretty much had to wrestle my doctor into submission in order to get a prescription.
By yieldcrv 2025-09-177:13 They had and still have no test for males.
So this is more about the inflexibility of our recommendation process and how insurers are tied to the regulatory agencies.
The logic makes sense but its about who is paying for administering to the carriers. Or what was initially seen as just carriers.
By mgiampapa 2025-09-171:56 The current recommended cutoff is 45 (well, pre the current US administration). So I think it was a question of we tested this at the time in these high risk age groups and we were still waiting on the results for other cohorts that were less important.
By LorenPechtel 2025-09-1621:113 reply It's not approved for those over 45. (AFIAK, simply because so few people in that age group would have risk without having had prior exposure. Basically only those who had divorced or lost their long time partner.)
This is not true any more. The vaccine has been shown to lower cancer risk for those who already carry the virus, so it is recommended even for people who are HPV positive
That's interesting and I would like to take, can you give me a link/ ref for citation?
By cornholio 2025-09-1716:48 This is a totally predictable result, there are dozens of HPV strains and the vaccine will immunize against 9 of them that are high risk.
So, unless you are a sex worker or similar, it's unlikely you "have" all of them to the point where the vaccine is completely useless. You might later get infected with a strain that you didn't yet have, and it's precisely the one that kills you.
By jjtheblunt 2025-09-1716:49 so how would one in the US go about getting it? gardasil?
That feels like a wild assumption to me - we really think people 45+ aren't having casual sex? less casual sex maybe, but I would imagine still a decent amount, statistically.
If you’re having casual sex at 45+ you probably already carry HPV.
By phkahler 2025-09-170:00 There are over 30 strains of HPV with just 2 causing the majority of cancers. So sure, most people may have had some strain of it, but that's not really relevant unless immunity is broad across strains.
By TurboHaskal 2025-09-179:531 reply Or, you could have been suddenly cheated on and exposed, or divorced and recently entered the dating market, or thinking about opening up your relationship after decades of monogamy.
By LorenPechtel 2025-09-1716:58 But the number of such people is low, it would not be easy to find candidates for the trial. Just because there are some doesn't mean there are enough to make it worthwhile for the drug company to do the testing to be able to market it to such groups.
By tehjoker 2025-09-1623:40 Maybe, but all 9 cancer causing strains covered by the vaccine? HPV also clears on its own usually after some time afaik.
By pcthrowaway 2025-09-170:10 Sure, but you probably don't already have all the strains which can cause cancer.
By p1necone 2025-09-1623:06 Yeah that makes much more sense as an explanation than OP.
By LorenPechtel 2025-09-1716:56 The original criteria was for people who had not already been exposed.
And over 45s that engage in casual sex have almost certainly been exposed. Those who don't have prior exposure probably have few or one partner in a marriage or marriage-like situation and thus are not likely to be exposed. Yes, they could be cheated on or the like but exposure is not expected so effectiveness can not be measured.
It's not "recommended" but your PCP can prescribe it off-label if you ask -- just ask.
By al_borland 2025-09-1622:09 I met with a new PCP a few weeks ago and it was recommended to me (at age 43). I got the first shot with the 2nd and 3rd scheduled for the coming months.
The issue is getting it covered by insurance. Otherwise it can cost over $1,000 for the full course of shots.
You can get costs down somewhat (half that) even uninsured with GoodRx.
By pimlottc 2025-09-1715:55 Thanks for the recommendation! It seems like a good option, but afaict you still need to get your doctor to write you a prescription, and they may have to administer the shots as well:
https://support.goodrx.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000707483-Ho...
I'm sorry, but you sound like the people who try to get me take ivermectine for Covid. "just get it off label" or "tell the doctor you just got back from pauea new guinea and saw worms in your stool."
I know you are very well intentioned, but American's actually have very good doctors.
This is very different from recommending horse dewormer; if you can't tell the difference, I'm sorry.
In case you aren't aware, horse de-worming is just one use of ivermectin. The fact that it's used for that doesn't make it merely a horse de-wormer.
> Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug. After its discovery in 1975, its first uses were in veterinary medicine to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis. Approved for human use in 1987, it is used to treat infestations including head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis and lymphatic filariasis. It works through many mechanisms to kill the targeted parasites, and can be taken by mouth, or applied to the skin for external infestations.] It belongs to the avermectin family of medications.
By attila-lendvai 2025-09-246:16 ...and even a Nobel was given to its inventor (for its benefits for humans).
When I'm in my doctor's office, and the doctor is saying "don't do that" it is quite hard to tell the difference.
Did you actually ask your doctor and receive that guidance, or is this purely a hypothetical?
Multiple times. I’ve specifically asked about this vaccine again and again.
I’ve had a few GPs in the past 20 years. They’re consistent.
I admit it’s weird. And ideologically I feel like a bit of a laggard.
But I’ve had both the conversation with my doctor, and the conversation with online “smart people who know better than my doctor” many times.
By loeg 2025-09-172:52 Ok, great. I'm just asking people to have that conversation.
By mensetmanusman 2025-09-173:311 reply Ivermectin is also used by dermatologists to fight face parasites that cause bad acne.
By pyuser583 2025-09-1717:04 Ivermectin is also used to treat COVID in countries that have endemic parasite outbreaks. COVID responds well to steroids, but so do parasites. Giving steroids to someone with parasites causes the parasites to become much stronger, and trigger reactions from the immune system: fever, etc.
I ideally you could test for parasites, but time and resources don't allow for that in many countries. So if it's generally safe to just give ivermectin along with steroids when treating COVID - in countries where parasites are common.
Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe I'm making it up. Don't listen to what I say. Listen to your doctor.
By Spooky23 2025-09-170:02 It more like “I’d rather not have a current or future partner go through a painful LEEP procedure or cervical cancer because I exposed her to HPV”
By iamtheworstdev 2025-09-1623:221 reply > American's actually have very good doctors
Doctors aren't setting the rules on who gets what vaccine and when. RFK Jr is. Health insurance companies are.
RFK Jr wasn't doing anything worth talking about during the multiple times in the past 15 years my doctors have told me it wasn't recommended.
Please do not turn mainstream medical advice into a fringe position.
By strictnein 2025-09-1623:521 reply It's a standard vaccine for preteen/teen boys now too. If your doctor has been telling you not to get it for the past 15 years, they've been doing you a disservice.
I got 3 doses of gardasil at 37 in Norway. I do not want to expose women to a potentially deadly virus (plus I’d also like to avoid having penile cancer and mouth/throat cancer myself). If your doctor is seriously advising you against taking the vaccine, you should consult another doctor for a second opinion.
I trust my doctor ... he's not some quack. I've looked online (multiple times over the years) and he's simply applying federal guidelines.
Family members have died from cervical cancer so I get it. I also made sure my younger children received this vaccine.
There a ton of vaccines I could seek out. Why HPV specifically?
> There a ton of vaccines I could seek out. Why HPV specifically?
Assuming you are not commenting in bad faith, my reasons are in my original comment: "I do not want to expose women to a potentially deadly virus (plus I’d also like to avoid having penile cancer and mouth/throat cancer myself)."
By pyuser583 2025-09-201:39 And I really don’t either. Close relatives have died from cervical cancer. I care about it a lot.
Ideologically it feels weird, but when the doctor says it’s not recommended, what do I say?
I’ve never fallen in the recommended categories. I’ve been to doctors overseas where I do fall in the recommended categories, but even they say to follow the advice off my “home practitioner.”
And while I’m at it, how do I generalize the ethics behind this? Which medicines should I ignore doctors advice and take anyway?
By comrade1234 2025-09-1619:534 reply Any way to test for previous exposure? I'd be pretty surprised if I didn't already have antibodies. I suppose it doesn't matter though.
By toomuchtodo 2025-09-1620:102 reply HPV tests are of low value (as an adult, if ever sexually active, you likely have it but can do nothing about it); a new biomarker test that can detect the cancers is being developed [1]. Ongoing cancer surveillance is all you can do once exposed without having been vaccinated (and if cancer occurs, immunotherapy).
As pm90 wrote, I strongly recommend getting vaccinated [2] unless a doctor tells you otherwise, even if you already have HPV or have had previous potential exposure.
[1] Circulating tumor human papillomavirus DNA whole genome sequencing enables human papillomavirus-associated oropharynx cancer early detection - https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article-abstract/doi/1... | https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf249
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine
(had three doses in my 30s via Planned Parenthood)
> previous potential exposure.
Isn't that basically everyone who's had sex with someone who had sex before the vaccine was common? I was denied when I asked my last doctor, on that logic. I'll ask my current doctor.
By toomuchtodo 2025-09-173:04 Yes.
By Insanity 2025-09-1620:21 Doctor recommended it to me when I was almost 30. So yeah, I'd say still go for it.
By dashundchen 2025-09-173:02 Right. And a few years ago my doctor's office had orders for both the the quadvalent vaccine and the nonavalent vaccine in the system and almost ordered only the quad for me.
Definitely ensure you're requesting the 9 strain version.
By Obscurity4340 2025-09-1620:012 reply Not sure but theres zero downside to getting it
Information from the CDC [1], indicates Adverse Reactions are similar to administration of a placebo, which is not zero. Any vaccine administration has potential for negative adverse reactions, it's reasonable not to get a vaccine if you judge the upside is not worth the downside, even if the downside is small.
The CDC says:
> Like all medical interventions, vaccines can have some side effects.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/hcp/recommendations.htm...
By freedomben 2025-09-172:001 reply If it's similar to placebo, doesn't that imply that it's pretty much non-existent?
By toast0 2025-09-172:48 No, the CDC says (at my previous link):
> A temperature of 100°F during the 15 days after vaccination was reported in 10% to 13% of HPV vaccine recipients. A similar proportion of placebo recipients reported an elevated temperature.
If you take some research subjects, do nothing to them, and then ask how they did 15 days after, I would be surprised if 10-13% reported a 100F fever during that time. But, that's a reasonable result from a saline or hpv injection.
By attila-lendvai 2025-09-246:20 there's no zero downside (risk) of anything that makes a permanent state change in your immune system.
By rogerrogerr 2025-09-1620:226 reply If you’re not sexually active, is it still worth doing?
By JumpCrisscross 2025-09-1620:471 reply Yes.
“The route of HPV transmission is primarily through skin-to-skin or skin-to-mucosa contact. Sexual transmission is the most documented, but there have been studies suggesting non-sexual courses.
The horizontal transfer of HPV includes fomites, fingers, and mouth, skin contact (other than sexual). Self-inoculation is described in studies as a potential HPV transmission route, as it was certified in female virgins, and in children with genital warts (low-risk HPV) without a personal history of sexual abuse. Vertical transmission from mother to child is another HPV transfer course” [1].
By toasterlovin 2025-09-1621:451 reply Right, but do the vaccines help against the strains of HPV that are transmitted via non-sexual contact? The vaccine being 9-valent implies (to me, a layman) that strains need to be targeted fairly specifically in order for vaccination to be effective.
By bluGill 2025-09-172:08 Unclear. There are reports that warts (a form of hpv - but not one the vacine is directly for) are also reduced - but I'm not aware of formal studies
By Modified3019 2025-09-1621:02 Yes. While direct genital contact is the highest probability way to spread it, any skin-skin, skin-mucosa, skin-object-skin contact can potentially spread it. Consider how much you trust others to wash their hands after using the restroom. Low probability, but possible.
You’ve got a low probability of getting polio, but there’s no reason not to be vaccinated if you can.
Even if you already have a strain, there are multiple types. In fact, people who got a vaccine early on, should consider an updated shot for more complete protection.
By pitpatagain 2025-09-1620:47 The protection from the vaccines lasts (probably) a lifetime, and HPV is quite widespread because it is: very easily communicable, and infections linger for potentially long periods of time without any obvious symptoms
Something like 80% of people are sexually active at all will be infected with HPV at some point. You may not have been sexually active, but your future partners may have been. I personally have a friend who went through stage 4 cancer contracted from her (now ex) husband.
So, of course not literally everyone needs to take it, assess your own risks, but it's quite an easy, highly effective vaccine: don't overthink it.
By toomuchtodo 2025-09-1620:42 Life is long and unpredictable, while the cost is very low.
By Fomite 2025-09-1620:37 If you ever intend to be, yes.
By CGMthrowaway 2025-09-1620:294 reply Why?
Rape, you might become sexually active in the future, and although sexual transmission is the most common way, there are some other ways to get infected.
By airstrike 2025-09-1623:25 Probably in reverse order
By yladiz 2025-09-1620:34 Unless you're never sexually active (meaning, you eventually do have sex), it's worthwhile getting since there is a risk to yourself if you get infected.
By analog8374 2025-09-1620:32 [flagged]
By abeppu 2025-09-1619:44 ... did you finish the series? I think for adults it should be 3 doses. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/hcp/administration.html
By pm90 2025-09-1619:49 you're right its 3, updated message
I went to my local megacorp pharmacy out here in California, and asked about the COVID vaccine that’s no longer recommended by our anti-vaxxer overlords.
Apparently, it’s about as easy to get as an old-school medical marijuana card.
Results vary by state though. No need to travel to Canada or Mexico (yet).
By arcticbull 2025-09-1620:33 Kaiser is continuing to cover it for everyone.
By insane_dreamer 2025-09-174:53 You might not have the same experience in OK or FL
By OrvalWintermute 2025-09-1621:251 reply [flagged]
1) If your wife was having a high risk pregnancy and couldn't get vaccinated, she really shouldn't have been working on the front lines during Covid, anyway.
2) Take a look in the mirror and try blaming the people who have made "getting a vaccine" a culture war political statement rather than something routine and uncontroversial. If vaccines were uncontroversial, medical exemptions from them would also be rare and uncontroversial.
By OrvalWintermute 2025-09-1623:121 reply A percent of people have allergies to multiple vaccine ingredients.
One of her friends likewise in the medical field with allergies was forced to get a vaccine or lose her job, and then proceeded to have significant medical issues afterwards from the allergy attacks
The vaccine regime has lost many supporters, myself included.
By OrvalWintermute 2025-09-1823:14 Seriously, some of you do not understand and comprehend this issue
My wife with her medical allergies isn't flexible ON TAKING KNOWN ALLERGENS WHILE PREGNANT
Read the room!
The vaccines neither stop you from contracting covid nor stop you from spreading it if you did contract it.
More generally why should anyone be forced to take any vaccine? The controversial idea here is thinking it’s okay to mandate someone else do something to their body.
> The controversial idea here is thinking it’s okay to mandate someone else do something to their body.
Meanwhile you're trying to mandate exposing other people to covid because you don't want a vaccine.
By mensetmanusman 2025-09-173:35 Your priors are 5 years old. Everyone is exposed to sarscov2 regardless of vaccination.
By habinero 2025-09-170:40 None of that is true, my dude. Don't fall for that victim mentality.
By VoodooJuJu 2025-09-180:22 [dead]
By fuckyah 2025-09-1712:32 [dead]
By baldr333 2025-09-1619:41 [flagged]
By add-sub-mul-div 2025-09-1619:58 Once the libs chose the anti-disease side I suppose the right had no choice but to be pro-disease.
By buellerbueller 2025-09-1619:561 reply >I'd rather take my chances with the actual disease at this point..
Gross, @DaSHacka. Absolutely vile.
Not as vile as having sex with someone who's already infected, whether protected/vaccinated or not.
By buellerbueller 2025-09-1716:18 In a world of perfect information, you might have a point.
By slaw 2025-09-1620:13 If you live outside of the US, you should get vaccine too. Even one dose is effective.
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/ivac/the-power-of-a-single-dose...
That is a truly naïve way of thinking about a pharmaceutical product. Would you say the same about any other drug? What about blood pressure medicines, should everyone "consider getting it"? Completely ignorant, you have to consider multiple factors for the individual before taking any pharmaceutical drug and then you have to consider the risk from the drug, yes, low and behold, even vaccines can give side effects! The level of ignorance of the comments is staggering!
By dreamcompiler 2025-09-177:101 reply Apples and oranges. Blood pressure medicine is for people who have hypertension, and not everyone does. And hypertension is not contagious.
Conversely, almost every adult over 45 is carrying some form of HPV and a few of those forms cause cancer. If any of those adults has unprotected sex with someone without HPV who is unvaccinated, they almost certainly will transmit the virus. Even if condoms are used, HPV can still be transmitted. This is a much more contagious virus than HIV.
The HPV vaccine is both extremely safe and extremely effective. Suggesting that every human consider getting the vaccine -- with appropriate consultation with their healthcare provider -- is sound advice.
By robocat 2025-09-179:36 > hypertension is not contagious
Common causes of hypertension are "contagious". Summary:
spousal concordance: one partner’s chronic disease raises the odds the other has it too. If one spouse has hypertension, multiple studies suggest the other spouse’s risk is about 1.3 to 1.5 times higher than their cohort. Genetic causes can easily double risk over baseline cohort for children. However there is a strong environmental/lifestyle effect in children. Studies in Scandinavia show that children adopted into hypertensive households carry an elevated risk compared to the general population. A hypertensive parent with an adopted child nudges the child’s later-life risk by about 20–30% higher than baseline.
By boxed 2025-09-175:58 Sweden is also on the verge of eradicating this disease. How many deaths you ask? Zero of course.
You're very confused about the statistics here.
I've been through this with medical providers, and they say it's not recommended for me.
I don't take medical advice from internet strangers, especially when it contradicts my doctors'.
I'm not particularly interested in discussing the how's and why's. My doctor said he doesn't recommend I get it, so I don't.
By SchemaLoad 2025-09-1623:051 reply In most countries it's recommended for everyone. It just isn't in the US because they don't want to pay for it.
From what I have heard, that is true for many, many vaccines.
I think it's weird and creepy people are selectively opting into vaccines that are not recommended for them.
It feels a bit like those ads that say "bring up Expedia with your doctor!"
This isn't a good PSA.
Should I be vaccinated against smallpox too? How about anthrax?
By OkayPhysicist 2025-09-170:051 reply If we had as trivial of vaccinations for smallpox, anthrax, and rabies as we have for HPV, I'd collect them all. One fewer risk in my life, and a finite reduction in the risk of everyone around me's life, with no downside at all.
1 pin prick * 340,000,000 people > 340,000,000 people * 6.1 cases of cervical cancer * 0.9 efficacy / 100,000 people
Your world view assigns equally negative utility to at most 18,214 shots as 1 case of cervical cancer.
Put another way: If you were told you had to either take a shot every day, or you are guaranteed to get cancer, would you really choose the cancer?
By pyuser583 2025-09-172:12 If I was told by my doctor I shouldn’t get the vaccine I wouldn’t get it.
By dreamcompiler 2025-09-176:43 There is no human alive who has smallpox that you could catch it from, so getting vaccinated for it is pointless unless you think it's likely that some samples in a lab somewhere might escape.
Good stuff. Australia has a target for eliminating cervical cancer by 2035 and ofcourse HPV is responsible for a large proportion of penile, mouth, throat and anal cancers as well. All my kids got free vaccinations at school.
It is shocking that there are still places in the world where this is controversial. You can tell a lot about the qualities of a society by the way they care for their own.
You should think about how you would react to “you can tell a lot about the qualities of a society by the way they [detain people on Nauru | reject asyl seekers | don’t care for indigenous populations]”.
I feel your comment is a generalisation and could be construed as provocation/trolling. Probably not your intention, but just so you are aware how this is coming over.
Better maybe: “societies that have good health care thrive” or something like this. Sounds less judgmental and it doesn’t put all US Americans in one basket.
I fully agree on the content though, only criticising the form here.
By shirro 2025-09-174:56 Australian indigenous women do in fact have a higher risk of HPV and cervical cancer than the general population. We do need to do better but we also face some challenges in delivering quality services to rural and remote communities. Achieving a consensus amongst millions of people on how to run a country isn't simple and stupid shit often happens.
Anyway, well done Denmark. We are trying to do the same thing here in Australia with some success. Not sure how it became about the US but good luck to you all as well.
By shirro 2025-09-177:25 It might be a cultural misunderstanding. It isn't a big deal. It's tricky because while we are using the same language we don't all share the same culture and influences.
Perhaps it is less common to say positive things about other countries in the US unless you are making some point about domestic politics. Sometimes I am deeply critical of the USA but this wasn't one of those times.
So just to be really clear eradication of HPV and by extension elimination of some forms of cancer is a really noble thing for humanity to be doing and is being pursued by many countries, including ones that aren't as privileged and wealthy as Australia and Denmark. It's a group that historically included the USA which clearly means there are people there who deeply care about this stuff as well.
The people who oppose public health programs like this are just evil in my opinion wherever they are.
By illiac786 2025-09-176:08 I don’t understand your point. Why would my critic (of the form, to be clear again) not apply anymore if the parent comment meant the french?
This discovery, and generally the ground breaking connection between a virus and cancer, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2008/press-releas...
By fuckyah 2025-09-1713:17 [dead]
