Skip to main content

View Diary: Gardasil (HPV vaccine) coverage and safety in the United States (38 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My personal opinion is (2+ / 0-)

    that everyone, of any age, and of both sexes, should get this.  It may be more effective for younger people, but it is likely to be quite effective at any age.

    Does anyone have data or references to suggest otherwise?

    •  You know, I've been wondering that too (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SkepticalRaptor, PeterHug

      and at least why not run a clinical trial on older folks. I'd get in line to test it.

      What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

      by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:33:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it is assumed... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smileycreek, PeterHug

        most adults are or have been sexually active and are already exposed.  I believe the number is something like 80%.

        •  I'm not sure this is the case - (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          smileycreek

          I found this:

          J Adolesc Health. (2008) 43, S25.e1-41.
          doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.009.

          Age-specific prevalence of infection with human papillomavirus in females: a global review.
          Smith JS, Melendy A, Rana RK, Pimenta JM.

          From the abstract:

          Consistently across studies, HPV infection prevalence decreased with increasing age from a peak prevalence in younger women (< or =25 years of age). In middle-aged women (35-50 years), maximum HPV prevalence differed across geographical regions: Africa (approximately 20%), Asia/Australia (approximately 15%), Central and South America (approximately 20%), North America (approximately 20%), Southern Europe/Middle East (approximately 15%), and Northern Europe (approximately 15%).
          I certainly think it would be worth taking a look at efficacy in older people (provided it hasn't already been done).
          •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PeterHug

            If I were in my 40's and I had no clear signs that I had HPV (like a genital wart, which may not be visible), I would get the shot, because it won't hurt and it may protect. I don't think there's any valid scientific reason to think that the vaccine wouldn't be useful up until you were 50 or 60 years old, although I have no real evidence to support that. I just have a really good understanding of the immune system, and the immune response is adequate for most people beyond 60.

            ON the other hand, insurance will probably not pay for it, so it will be out of pocket. And if you work for Hobby Lobby, probably not, because you should have been a virgin when you got married to another virgin.

            Oops. I went off track.

            Skepticism is evaluating the quality and quantity of evidence to reach a conclusion. It is not gathering evidence to support a closed minded conclusion.

            by SkepticalRaptor on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:44:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. The smaller we can make the reservoir (0+ / 0-)

      of infection, the better off everyone is.

      Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
      ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

      by FarWestGirl on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 05:13:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Environment (38)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Media (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Education (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site