Thoughts:
1. This is an odd (but not entirely unsuspected) development. 27-45 years old? Men? Why? It is very, very uncommon for an individual to suddenly become seriously sexually active at 30+. That is, it is not likely there are many people who are not sexually active until the age of 27 (or 30, or 35) and then begin sleeping with a bunch of people. This is important, as your number of sexual partners has a direct affect on your odds of picking up one of the "bad" strains of the virus. Yes, you can be a virgin who settles down with some retired superslut and pick up all 18 bad strains, but that is both unlikely and your fault (unless you didn't know). In any case, my point is that it baffles me that anyone would think recommending vaccination to people who are leaving or have already left their peak sexual partner years is an effective method of combating transmission. As was pointed out in the linked article, this is not the Herpes Zoster vaccine - it doesn't work if you already have it.
2. There are over 40 subtypes of HPV. Approximately 18 of them are suspected to be oncoviruses. Something like 10 are, more or less, considered oncoviruses. None of these vaccines protect against all of the "bad" strains. Further, an overwhelming majority of sexually active people will both be exposed to (perhaps many strains of) HPV and pass the virus in to dormancy.
3. HPV is a listed cancer-causing virus. But, HPV causes cervical cancer much the same way pickled food causes stomach cancer. A large portion of the world's population are exposed to the carcinogen, and then a certain subgroup develop the related cancer. In the case of HPV, it is a minuscule fraction that go on to develop cancer. Despite this, HPV is said to be "responsible" for something like 5% of all cancers worldwide. I question this. And, I question whether they are grouping precancerous lesions (which are quite common in women) in this finding.
4. Multiple governments have (often quietly) stopped promoting the HPV vaccines on their vaccine schedules. As almost no credible information is available on this (from any said of the debate), it makes one wonder why they would do that.
5. Finally. Years ago, I did some work with a group of scientists and doctors who were at the gates during the height of the AIDS crisis. They were all fairly black pill on HIV/AIDS, in that they thought it was, essentially, nature kicking in and "correcting" the error of thousands of men having semi-anonymous, unprotected sex with thousands of other men. I fear some of that thinking rubbed off on me. We are seeing an increase in severe and, often, quasi-untreatable STDs. This is due to antibiotic abuse (scripting and failure to follow directions) and promiscuity. I have scant compassion for the second cause. I am aware I'm posting on RVF and I make that statement with "certain recent threads" still in my mind. But, still, I question why governments spend billions of taxpayer dollars researching, developing, and promoting drugs to prevent and treat diseases that are both entirely avoidable and self-limiting (that is, they essentially cure themselves - patients die or enter a state as in syphilis in which they can no longer convince other people to have sex with them). I know this is a black pill view. But, there are kids with bone cancer, and people with ALS, MS, and a host of other diseases that (as far as we know) they did not bring upon themselves. If the governments must insist on using our money for R&D grants, why not focus on those diseases?
1. This is an odd (but not entirely unsuspected) development. 27-45 years old? Men? Why? It is very, very uncommon for an individual to suddenly become seriously sexually active at 30+. That is, it is not likely there are many people who are not sexually active until the age of 27 (or 30, or 35) and then begin sleeping with a bunch of people. This is important, as your number of sexual partners has a direct affect on your odds of picking up one of the "bad" strains of the virus. Yes, you can be a virgin who settles down with some retired superslut and pick up all 18 bad strains, but that is both unlikely and your fault (unless you didn't know). In any case, my point is that it baffles me that anyone would think recommending vaccination to people who are leaving or have already left their peak sexual partner years is an effective method of combating transmission. As was pointed out in the linked article, this is not the Herpes Zoster vaccine - it doesn't work if you already have it.
2. There are over 40 subtypes of HPV. Approximately 18 of them are suspected to be oncoviruses. Something like 10 are, more or less, considered oncoviruses. None of these vaccines protect against all of the "bad" strains. Further, an overwhelming majority of sexually active people will both be exposed to (perhaps many strains of) HPV and pass the virus in to dormancy.
3. HPV is a listed cancer-causing virus. But, HPV causes cervical cancer much the same way pickled food causes stomach cancer. A large portion of the world's population are exposed to the carcinogen, and then a certain subgroup develop the related cancer. In the case of HPV, it is a minuscule fraction that go on to develop cancer. Despite this, HPV is said to be "responsible" for something like 5% of all cancers worldwide. I question this. And, I question whether they are grouping precancerous lesions (which are quite common in women) in this finding.
4. Multiple governments have (often quietly) stopped promoting the HPV vaccines on their vaccine schedules. As almost no credible information is available on this (from any said of the debate), it makes one wonder why they would do that.
5. Finally. Years ago, I did some work with a group of scientists and doctors who were at the gates during the height of the AIDS crisis. They were all fairly black pill on HIV/AIDS, in that they thought it was, essentially, nature kicking in and "correcting" the error of thousands of men having semi-anonymous, unprotected sex with thousands of other men. I fear some of that thinking rubbed off on me. We are seeing an increase in severe and, often, quasi-untreatable STDs. This is due to antibiotic abuse (scripting and failure to follow directions) and promiscuity. I have scant compassion for the second cause. I am aware I'm posting on RVF and I make that statement with "certain recent threads" still in my mind. But, still, I question why governments spend billions of taxpayer dollars researching, developing, and promoting drugs to prevent and treat diseases that are both entirely avoidable and self-limiting (that is, they essentially cure themselves - patients die or enter a state as in syphilis in which they can no longer convince other people to have sex with them). I know this is a black pill view. But, there are kids with bone cancer, and people with ALS, MS, and a host of other diseases that (as far as we know) they did not bring upon themselves. If the governments must insist on using our money for R&D grants, why not focus on those diseases?
Currently out of office.