The new research underscores the importance of vaccination for both sexes, experts say.
The HPV vaccine is linked to a drastic reduction in head and neck cancers in adolescent boys and men, new research finds.
HPV, or human papillomavirus, is a sexually transmitted infection responsible for virtually all cases of cervical cancer. But the virus is also linked to a number of other cancers, including penile, anal and vaginal cancers.
It also accounts for the majority — up to 70% — of head and neck cancers, which affect the throat and mouth. Men are about twice as likely to develop these cancers than women, according to the National Cancer Institute.
The HPV vaccine, initially approved for adolescent girls, protects against strains of the virus linked to cervical cancer and has been found to significantly reduce rates of the cancer. But there’s growing evidence that the vaccine also protects against other HPV-related cancers.
My takeaway is that HPV, which probably the most common STD on the planet, causes cancer. It turns genitals into a cancer delivery system. Just look at the cancers reduced by the vaccine.
- Cervical - Vaginal sex
- Colon - Anal sex
- Mouth - Oral sex
- Throat - Oral sex and can I get your number
@MicroWave That’s cool. I got the HPV vaccine a few years back (because why not) and I’m glad to hear that it might actually be preventative. It was a “can’t hurt, might help” kinda thing. Plus you don’t want to spread it to other people.
They’re always looking for alternate uses to medications. The incentive is because the development costs are paid. Things is, it makes them say a very small % improvement is acceptable as an indicator that the drug is having an effect on something else. To me, it’s gaming the system in a way.
I’m not saying that’s necessarily going on here, but it’s made me distrustful of statements like the title.
This isn’t a drug which has an effect on cancer itself. This is a vaccine that prevents infection by the Human Papilloma Virus. The virus has been mostly known for leading to cervical cancer, (and therefore suffered from the general lack of research on women’s medical issues) but has more recently found to lead to other cancers in areas of the body associated with sexual behaviors, for men as well as women. In other words, it just took awhile for researchers to think about men giving head, but once they looked they found it. So instead of only vaccinating girls, they’re saying boys should be protected as well. Before, they didn’t feel it was worth vaccinating boys/men just so they wouldn’t go around infecting girls/women.
Yes, I’m not anti-vaccine at all (quite the contrary). I was making a statement about how a lot of drug companies are looking for “other uses.” I will absolutely have all my kids get it, regardless of gender.
“The researchers compared the rates of HPV-linked cancers — including head and neck, anal, penile, and cervical cancers — in people who had received the HPV vaccine to those who hadn’t. They found being vaccinated reduced the overall risk of HPV-related cancers in males by 54%, a decrease driven primarily by a drop in head and neck cancers.“
What are you talking about? Why did you feel the need to tell us this? 🤣
They’re always looking for alternate uses to medications.
You’re arguing against medicines (given to treat conditions).
What this article is about is a vaccine (given to avoid every having the conditions).
You’re arguing against medicines (given to treat conditions).
Nope, I was making a statement about what pharma does these days, not necessarily this specific drug.
I’m not anti medicine at all. If you follow what pharma does, you’d see I’m not wrong in my statement either.
Nope, I was making a statement about what pharma does these days, not necessarily this specific drug.
You said this in your first post:
I’m not saying that’s necessarily going on here, but it’s made me distrustful of statements like the title.
You’re absolutely leaving the door open for your statements to apply to this specific vaccine. You’re not excluding the vaccine from your statements, and even calling into question the title of the post about the vaccine.
I don’t know any other interpretation which would make a reader of your post think you’re talking about anything else except this vaccine in a thread about this vaccine.
That’s true, I should have phrased that better. To me, it’s like click bait. Articles are phrased a certain way and you know what you’re looking at.
There have been a lot of new uses found for drugs because it costs pharma a lot to research and bring it through trials, etc. That leads to a lot of “This drug also helps with X” kind of titles.
I’ll just leave commentary out of these kinds of threads in the future.
