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.

▲

finghin 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you’re having casual sex at 45+ you probably already carry HPV.

▲

phkahler 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

TurboHaskal 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

	▲	LorenPechtel 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

tehjoker 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe, but all 9 cancer causing strains covered by the vaccine? HPV also clears on its own usually after some time afaik.

▲

pcthrowaway 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure, but you probably don't already have all the strains which can cause cancer.

▲

p1necone 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah that makes much more sense as an explanation than OP.

▲

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

LorenPechtel 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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.