HPV - help
lisa
five children.
Last week I found out I have HPV which is a sexually transmitted
disease. At least
that is what the doctor said but I dont know where i could have
got it. I have never
messed around and my husband has not either. I am going crazy
with this.
Does anyone know is you can catch this in another way?
Please help. I know this is not a medical site but I thought
nurses may know more
about this than the doctors do.
thank you.
Elsie
> transfusion or by using a dirty needle or
> similar ways.
I think you are thinking of HIV. HPV, human papillomavirus is the most
common sexually transmitted disease in North America. It is estimated
that between 50% to 80% of all woman harbor the HPV dna within one year
of becomming sexually active. The virus may remain dormant for years,
or may be active but asymptomatic. This is a serious disease for women
because of the strong association between HPV and the development of
cervical cancer. HPV is contracted through direct, and occasionally,
indirect physical contact, and may be passed to the infant during the
birth process. It is _not_ transmitted through blood or dirty needles.
To Lisa: You should discuss your questions and concerns with your
doctor. It is important to know how your doctor diagnosed HPV. Were
genital warts seen, or did you have abnormal pap smear results? What
are the treatment plans and long term follow-up plans? Should your
husband be checked? You should have the answer to these, as well as the
other questions you asked, and your doctor will be very happy to address
your concerns.
pirhanna
needles,much less dirty ones.
thank you
"Thomas F. Unke" wrote:
> lisa <li...@cs.com> writes:
>
> > I have a big problem. I have been married for 20 years and have five
> > children. Last week I found out I have HPV which is a sexually
> > transmitted disease. At least that is what the doctor said but I dont
> > know where i could have got it. I have never messed around and my
> > husband has not either.
>
> You could have caught it from a blood transfusion or by using a dirty
> needle or similar ways.
>
> --
> Unix: The Solution to the W2K Problem.
pirhanna
rooms on the internet. it looks like everyone has a different answer. i have
not had sexual contact with anyone but my husband and he is faithfyl to me.
this is really a serious thing. are you saying that it HAS TO be that he
slept around?
thank you
sorry for going on.
Elsie wrote:
> >You could have caught it from a blood
> > transfusion or by using a dirty needle or
> > similar ways.
>
Elsie
The information I have posted is medically accurate. As stated, HPV can
be transmitted through _indirect_ physical contact, such as picking up
virus on the hand and transferring it from hand to genitals, but this
is not the usual mode of infection. Also, since HPV can remain dormant
for years, if either you or your husband were not virgins before you got
together it is possible one of you may have been harboring the virus for
some time. I agree, an internet discussion group is probably not the
proper venue for having you questions answered. I urge you to take your
concerns to your doctor and give him the chance to address them.
This is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the
association between HPV and cervical cancer. Also, if any treatment is
planned, as with most sexually transmitted diseases, it may involve both
partners, so you might want to consider having your husband accompany
you as he may also wish to ask some questions.
Mike Radcliffe
may not have had it for many years and perhaps you or your husband were born
with it or caught it prior to marriage. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
MIKE
pirhanna <pirh...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:39AAA6F3...@bellsouth.net...
> the two answers i got from here are just like what happened in other chat
> rooms on the internet. it looks like everyone has a different answer. i
have
> not had sexual contact with anyone but my husband and he is faithfyl to
me.
> this is really a serious thing. are you saying that it HAS TO be that he
> slept around?
research dept
studies
that attempt to show that HPV may lie dormant in the human body. We are writing
an article that addresses this subject which includes those agencies and private
facilities
that falsely make this claim. We are also looking at the reasons these entities
might be
motivated to perpetuate this postulation. I can tell you that it is all about
money.
Possibly you can read between the lines.
Have a noce day.
Regards,
st
Elsie
they infected you with a dirty instrument during a sigmoidoscopy? If
you have research results to post then please post it. Otherwise, we
have enough medical disinformation posted already. I have read between
the lines and it contains what the lines contain -- nothing.
pirhanna
pirhanna
'Attacking the messenger' is nothing new, of course, and, in this case, I
am sure that your intentions are not readily ascertained by the
unsuspecting
reader.
Making vague assertions and relating half-truths aimed at a person's
character
is fast becoming a well known strategy on the Internet. Such tactics have
been
rampant, with the ease of assuming a new pseudonym within 60 seconds.
There simply cannot be accountability or responsibility without
assignability.
You, of course, can be anyone, representing any entity, with any agenda.
Please state the "medical disinformation posted".
Your statement the "I have read between the lines and it contains what the
lines contain -- nothing." is not informative, but certainly argumentative
-
which is definitely where you are headed.
But, why not try something. Just post the "medical disinformation posted".
(I am sure you will not do that, because that would put you in an almost
intelligent discussion, instead of just name calling and aspirations - for
which
you are apparently well trained)
So, we talk about medical facts and non facts - or we talk about things
that are
of no value to anyone reading this forum. If you have a personal problem
with
me, or wish to question me personally, just e-mail me, or I will be glad to
give you
my telephone number. Why bore everyone else with all of this dribble? ...
unless
attempting to defame another poster is the primary motive. Your call.
Lbucc
>The two answers i got from here are just like what happened in other chat
>rooms on the internet
First off, the original post came from "li...@cs.com" (no relation to me) and
subsequent messages, which I'm assuming are from the same person, came from
pirh...@bellsouth.net. Are you the same person?
Second, this is a cancer newsgroup. If you want to know about sexually
transmitted diseases, you might have more luck in another newsgroup that has a
broader reader base. We're all pretty much cancer survivors, their family,
friends, and care givers.
Third, why don't you ask your doctors? They gave you a diagnosis, perhaps they
are the people to which you should be talking.
Just my two cents.
...lisa
pirhanna
I do not understand your apparent hauty attitude here. (That is how you *sound* to
me. Tell me I'm wrong.)
Second, you are also apparently unaware of the proven, well documented association
of cervical cancer and the human Papillomavirus, which is the fastest spreading
virus in the world, with an estimated 20 million infected in the U.S. alone.
You may run into a real buzz saw if you suggested there is no relationship between
an "STD" and cancer to some of the women who have gone through years of suffering
with cervical cancer because of an HPV infection.
If you wish, I will post some of the ref to sites where you can learn about this
cancer causing virus. And, please. Let us not get into an argument over the word
"cause". That would be pointless. Rather, use your own description. But, on the
other hand, I just do not understand why some people have an aversion to saying
that this virus "causes" cervical cancer. I wish someone would explain it to me in
an intelligent, logical manner.
Be well.
Lbucc
>I do not understand your apparent hauty attitude here. (That is how you
>*sound* to
>me. Tell me I'm wrong.)
It's haughty and yes, you are wrong. If you re-read your postings, you will
notice that you came here to ask a question. People tried to help. You
started fighting with them. Now who has an attitude problem?
In addition pirhanna wrote:
>You, of course, can be anyone, representing any entity, with any agenda.
As can you.
In addition pirhanna wrote:
>Please state the "medical disinformation posted".
I believe Elsie was not responding to your message but the one posted by
rese...@sigmoidoscope.com.
In addition pirhanna wrote:
>Your statement the "I have read between the lines and it contains what the
lines contain -- nothing." is not informative, but certainly argumentative
which is definitely where you are headed.
Again, you come here with a question. Apparently people who were trying to
help did not give you an answer that you wanted. Now who's being
argumentative?
Pirhanna also wrote:
>But, why not try something. Just post the "medical disinformation posted".
(I am sure you will not do that, because that would put you in an almost
intelligent discussion, instead of just name calling and aspirations - for
which
you are apparently well trained)
Man, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Elsie did not call anyone
names. You did. In fact, if you re-read *my* message, I recommended that you
talk to your doctor and/or post to a group that might have more knowledge about
sexually transmitted diseases than we do in a cancer group. You replied by
calling me haughty.
That's no way to get help.
...lisa
Elsie
> old, a bit worn and quite boring.
> 'Attacking the messenger' is nothing
> new, of course, and, in this case, I am
> sure that your intentions are not readily
> ascertained by the unsuspecting
>reader.
>Making vague assertions and relating
> half-truths aimed at a person's character
>is fast becoming a well known strategy
> on the Internet. Such tactics have been
>rampant, with the ease of assuming a
> new pseudonym within 60 seconds.
> There simply cannot be accountability or
> responsibility without assignability.
>You, of course, can be anyone,
> representing any entity, with any
> agenda.
>Please state the "medical disinformation
> posted".
>Your statement the "I have read between
> the lines and it contains what the lines
> contain -- nothing." is not informative,
> but certainly argumentative
-
>which is definitely where you are
> headed.
>But, why not try something. Just post the
> "medical disinformation posted". (I am
> sure you will not do that, because that
> would put you in an almost intelligent
> discussion, instead of just name calling
> and aspirations - for which
>you are apparently well trained)
>So, we talk about medical facts and non
> facts - or we talk about things that are
>of no value to anyone reading this forum.
> If you have a personal problem with
>me, or wish to question me personally,
> just e-mail me, or I will be glad to give
> you
>my telephone number. Why bore
> everyone else with all of this dribble? ...
> unless
>attempting to defame another poster is
> the primary motive. Your call.
I am neither "Attacking the messenger", or "making vague assertions and
relating half truths aimed at a person's character", in my answer to the
person posting from rese...@sygmoidoscopy.com. My first sentence is a
question, one which has not been answered, BTW. It is a relevant
question, because if this is the person in question then we must know
this in order to determine what "entity" and what "agenda" he is
representing and what bearing this has on the quality of the information
he is posting. I accepted "sigmoidoscopy"s" invitation to read between
the lines. My assessment is that
the "medical disinformation"
is his assertion that HPV cannot lie dormant in the body, which is
contrary to current accepted medical understanding and
has about as much value as the space "between the lines". And the only
thing I see between the lines is empty space. I invited "sygmoidoscopy"
to post his research proving his statements, something which he has not
done, BTW.
I went to his site looking for the research he used to back his
assertions, and I could not find any. As far as someone "assuming a new
pseudonym within 60 seconds", well, I have always posted from the same
address, with the same name. Are you and research@sygmoidoscopy one in
the same person? If you are not he, then why are you answering my reply
to his post and using some of his same language?
As far as "questioning you personally", e-mailing you or speaking to you
on the phone, no thank you. And I have no interest in engaging in a
flame war with you either. Life is too short to waste it on such
nonsence. I gave medically accurate information to a distraught woman
and encouraged her to return to her physician for the additional help
she needed. Most of us come to this group for an honest exchange of
information, help and support. The medical disinformation
"sygmoidoscopy" posted could very well have impacted negitively on the
original poster to this thread, and I could not let it
stand, unchallenged. As for "all of this dribble", anyone who wishes
may read the entire thread and all of the posts contained in it and draw
their own conclusions about who is posting "dribble".
research
THERE ARE NO STUDIES THAT SHOW HPV
LIES DORMANT IN THE HUMAN BODY.
(It is a rumor manufactured by the medical
community and defended vigorously by their defenders.)
Re: HPV - help
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:04:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: el...@webtv.net (Elsie)
<in part>
“The information I have posted is medically accurate. … since HPV can remain
dormant for years, if either you or your husband were not virgins before you
got
together it is possible one of you may have been harboring the virus for
some time.”
Re: HPV - help
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:18:15 –0400
From: research dept rese...@sigmoidoscope.com
<in part>
”The advice you have given is actually only a rumor. There are no articles
or
Studies that attempt to show that HPV may lie dormant in the human
body. We are writing an article that addresses this subject which includes
those agencies and private facilities that falsely make this claim.
Re: HPV - help
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:50:14 +1000
From: "Mike Radcliffe" mikera...@one.net.au
<in part>
The fact that you have just been diagnosed with HPV does not mean that you
may not have had it for many years and perhaps you or your husband were born
with it or caught it prior to marriage. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
MIKE
Re: HPV - help
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:03:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: el...@webtv.net (Elsie)
<in part>
Aren't you the person who is suing the Mayo clinic because you think
they infected you with a dirty instrument during a sigmoidoscopy? If
you have research results to post then please post it. Otherwise, we
have enough medical disinformation posted already. I have read between
the lines and it contains what the lines contain -- nothing.
Re: HPV - help
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:14:14 -0400
From: pirhanna pirh...@bellsouth.net
<in part>
There simply cannot be accountability or responsibility without
assignability.
You, of course, can be anyone, representing any entity, with any agenda.
Please state the "medical disinformation posted".
Re: HPV - help
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:48:50 -0400
From: pirhanna pirh...@bellsouth.net
<in part>
“ … you are also apparently unaware of the proven, well documented
association
of cervical cancer and the human Papillomavirus, which is the fastest
spreading
virus in the world, with an estimated 20 million infected in the U.S. alone.
You may run into a real buzz saw if you suggested there is no relationship
between
an "STD" and cancer to some of the women who have gone through years of
suffering
with cervical cancer because of an HPV infection.
If you wish, I will post some of the ref to sites where you can learn about
this
cancer causing virus. And, please. Let us not get into an argument over the
word
"cause". That would be pointless.
Re: HPV - help
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 16:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: el...@webtv.net (Elsie)
<in part>
“My assessment is that the "medical disinformation" is his assertion
that HPV cannot lie dormant in the body, which is contrary to current
accepted medical understanding and has about as much value as the
space "between the lines". And the only thing I see between the lines is
empty space. I invited "sygmoidoscopy" to post his research proving his
statements, something which he has not done,
Re: HPV – help
Date: 30 Aug 2000 16:52:03 GMT
From: lb...@cs.com (Lbucc)
<in part>
“ … this is a cancer newsgroup. If you want to know about sexually
transmitted
diseases, you might have more luck in another newsgroup that has a broader
reader base. We're all pretty much cancer survivors, their family, friends,
and care givers.”
research
please say so, and I will post all of the references. If you want to argue the
meaning of *cause*, I will also entertain that frivolity.
In the meantime, those of you involved in cancer support need to 'study up'
on this. Now...
RE: The theory that one may carry HPV for
decades w/o showing any symptoms, then suddenly, seemingly
from nowhere ...
THEY GOT IT !!
(Please do not confuse this with the scenario of one who
contracts HPV, the virus becomes regressive with no
symptoms for several months (years?), then returns.)
My apologies if I was not clear on this premise earlier.
The underlying query here is:
Hypothetical 1: A 27 year old female virgin complains of
internal itching. She also has never allowed
herself to be touched. She is healthy and receives a Pap
annually with a checkup. HCII test is HPV+.
Hypothetical 2: A 48 year old female, married 25 years,
three children, annual Pap with checkup, suddenly
shows symptoms of burning and itching. Has never "fooled
around" and neither has her husband. She had sex
with one person before marriage and the hubby had two intimate
affairs. HCII test is HPV+. But husband is symtomless and tests negative.
Hypothetical 3: A 15 year old female virgin - same
scenario... as Hypothetical I.
What are the probabilities of the mode of transmission?
Is it accurate to simply say that all of these women were
somehow infected at some time earlier in their lives?
Is it reasonable to tell the 48 year old that she or her
husband have been carrying the virus for 27 years - or her
husband has been unfaithful and simply hasn't shown symptoms.
These scenarios are real. Peoples' lives are literally
being destroyed by an unproven theories that claim:
1. HPV is only contracted sexually or by way of infected,
broken skin to broken skin and
2. A person can become infected with HPV, and the virus
can lie dormant, without any symptoms for decades,
then suddenly symptoms appear.
So, what is missing here?
Consider this scenario:
1. Each of these women visited her doctor regularly.
2. Each of the doctors examines at least 20 women per
week who are HPV+.
3. The doctors haven't been keeping up with current
studies and, therefore, aren't aware of the relationship
between HPV and Cervical Ca.
4. The doctors consider HPV to be simply "genital warts".
After all, that's what they are called by everyone.
So why should (s)he treat this as a level 4 (or 3 or 2...)
5. So, the gowns are not disposed of or changed between
pts (and more importantly, after
the examination of the pts who were HPV+)
AND, BTW, some appreciable % of those pts (s)he
examined were HPV+, but unknown to the doctor or the pt...
because the symptoms have not kicked in.
6. In addition, the speculums aren't disposable and the
assistant (or the *office maid*) hasn't been cautioned lately
as to the importance of sterile procedures. In fact, they
have only stressed disinfection, not sterilization.
So, they only autoclave those items that invade the broken skin (ie.
knives).
7. I will stop here. Though I have probably already lost
all readers at this point.
So, again, simple question:
Are there studies (or even one single study) that show
(prove?) that HPV can lie dormant in a human body for
years (10, 20, 30 ????)?
PLEASE. Do not tell me that : That is just the way it is or it is
"COMMON KNOWLEDGE AMONG MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS"
because that insults my intelligence.
Now. You can poke fun at this and pick out things about which you can attack
me or criticize me, but what the hell good does that do? My writing style IS NOT
what is important here. I have been yelling and screaming these messages for
over
two years and I am just short on patients. Sorry. You would be too. Just come on
over and walk a mile in my sandals (I live on the beach).
Lbucc
search on the internet provided a wealth of knowledge.
First, I owe lisa (or pirhanna) an apology. A cancer group *is* the correct
place to inquire about HPV, since HPV is a major cause of cervical cancer. I
do however stand by the suggestion that she talk to her doctor about her
questions and concerns. She also might want to do some research on her own...a
simple search, as I said, generates many, many, reliable sources of
information.
At the end of this message is some interesting stuff from the NCCC (National
Cervical Cancer Coalition).
In reading thorugh their site, I would think that lisa (or pirhannah) might be
more concerned with treating this problem than with how she may have gotten it.
...lisa
HPV and HPV Testing
16. What is human papillomavirus (HPV)?
HPV is a group of viruses with at least 70 different types. At least 23 types
infect the cervix, and more than a dozen of these have been linked to cervical
cancer (some other types cause warts). The cancer-associated types of HPV are
called high-risk types. Both high-risk and low-risk types can cause
abnormalities in the cervix, but it appears that abnormalities associated with
high-risk types progress more often to cervical cancer.
17. Who is at risk for HPV infection?
HPV infection is more common in younger age groups, particularly in women in
their late teens and twenties. Because HPV is spread mainly through sexual
contact, risk increases with number of sexual partners. Women who become
sexually active at a young age, who have multiple sexual partners, and whose
sexual partners have other partners are at increased risk. Nonsexual
transmission is also possible. The virus often disappears but may remain
detectable for years after infection.
18. What HPV types are linked to cancer?
HPV-16 is the type most frequently found in precancerous and cancerous lesions
in all geographic areas around the world that have been studied. Next in
prevalence is HPV-18. Other types considered high-risk are HPV-31, 33, 35, 39,
45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68. Together these account for nearly 90 percent of
HPV infections in cases of HSIL and cervical cancer.
19. Does HPV cause cervical cancer?
Yes. The NIH Consensus Conference on Cancer of the Cervix and the World Health
Organization have concluded that there is a cause and effect relationship
between HPV and cervical cancer. Scientists continue to study other factors
that may also be required for the development of cancer, such as changes in the
immune system.
20. Does infection with a cancer-associated type of HPV always lead to a
precancerous condition or cancer?
No. Most infections appear to go away on their own without causing any kind of
abnormality. However, infection with cancer-associated HPV types may increase
the risk that mild abnormalities will progress to more severe abnormalities or
cervical cancer. With regular follow-up care by trained clinicians, women with
precancerous cervical abnormalities should not develop invasive cervical
cancer.
research
contacted us (me) for information recently. I was curious as to the responses I
might receive from this forum. Frankly, I was a bit surprised. But just a bit.
We have been posting this information in NGs and other forums for several years
and, for the most part, have been attacked for mentioning it. The reason for the
negativity was/is a matter for another discussion. Some of our earlier 'stuff' is
at "www.sigmoidoscope.com".
RE the NCCC info. I would like to comment on a couple of statements:
They say:
Nonsexual transmission is also possible.
I am happy they are finally admitting this; however, I think they should mention at
least a few of the more prevalent non sexual modes of transmission.
They say:
The virus often disappears but may remain detectable for years after infection.
(the operable word here is "MAY")
Many people - esp in the medical community - become confused by this statement.
They read it to say that "it is possible to become infected without symptoms and
for the virus to become dormant in the body and many years later (possibly decades)
it can become 'active'.
Actually, their statement, even in its purest form, has not been proven, and is
only speculation, which has been bantered around long enough that it has a life of
its own. IOW, "Accepted in the medical community", a phrase you should watch out
for.
They ask, rhetorically:
What HPV types are linked to cancer?
They name numerous strains; however, they fail to mention HPV-77. Call the CDC and
ask about HPV-77 and if they have ever used that strain to experiment on pregnant
women.
They say:
The NIH Consensus Conference on Cancer of the Cervix and the World Health
Organization have concluded that there is a cause and effect relationship
between HPV and cervical cancer. Scientists continue to study other factors
that may also be required for the development of cancer, such as changes in the
immune system.
We attempted to have a full page notice printed in USA Today which informed the
public of this fact, however, the CDC and others stopped it by saying HPV DID NOT
CAUSE CANCER. (Which was the point of the notice.)
So now they are slipping it into their documents by using the term "cause and
effect relationship". Sneaky pete.
Then, after another rhetorical question:
Does infection with a cancer-associated type of HPV always lead to a precancerous
condition or cancer?
They say:
No. Most infections appear to go away on their own without causing any kind of
abnormality. However, infection with cancer-associated HPV types may increase
the risk that mild abnormalities will progress to more severe abnormalities or
cervical cancer. With regular follow-up care by trained clinicians, women with
precancerous cervical abnormalities should not develop invasive cervical
cancer.
Instead of giving some women false hope, why not deal with reality and give the
important facts, which are:
90+% of women with cervical cancer were HPV+, according to numerous studies. Some
percentages were much higher.
Therefore, their recommendation that "With regular follow-up care by trained
clinicians, women with precancerous cervical abnormalities should not develop
invasive cervical
cancer." is simply not accurate.
Women MUST insist on have an HCII DNA test. Most 'trained clinicians' still are not
familiar with this test.
If I come across as being upset, it is because I am upset. I have been personally
effected by the fact that 'clinicians' ignored information that had been readily
available in the public forums - or had simply not kept up with the specific area
of their practice. (and we are not talking about data that is only a week or two
old)
Cheers.
The
DestinyZero00000
no one is particularly good at giving answers, even my GYN. I know I can
research this....and I have been doing so extensively for the past 8 months. I
am simply hoping someone has some information, or another information source
that I have not found. I find there is a such an overwhelming amount of
information, and disinformation, that it has simply made it hard to know what
is fact or fiction. I realize this is lengthy, please bear with me.
Research wrote:
>Women MUST insist on have an HCII DNA test. Most 'trained clinicians' still
>are not
>familiar with this test.
What is this test? I don't mean to sound stupid here, but what is its purpose?
I started on this rollercoaster in Jan of this year with a pap that was
returned as "ASCUS, Cells suggestive of the HPV infection." The GYN said that
this sometimes happens and we should wait and see if it resolves itself.
OK....we did. In April, my next pap returned as "Epithelial Cell
Abnomality: Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance, Few Atypical
Cells Present." We waited until the end of June and she did a colposcopy. The
biopsied samples came back as "Mild Squamous Dysplasia". It seems to be
progressing right along. The fact that it is still changing worries be and so
did this statement by "Research" :
>Therefore, their recommendation that "With regular follow-up care by trained
>clinicians, women with precancerous cervical abnormalities should not develop
>invasive cervical
>cancer." is simply not accurate.
All I am hearing is that is takes 2 to 5 years for this to progress to a
life threatening stage, and that as long as it is monitored they can catch it
in plenty of time before it turns to invasive cancer. I am told the wait and
see attitude is appropriate at this point. If anyone knows anything to the
contrary, please post it and tell me. I simply cannot find anything anywhere
that is specific about what treatment should be at this point. My PCP did tell
me that if it went to CIN II then the LEEP procedure would be the way he would
go. He also told me that at this point, some GYN's would go ahead and do the
procedure, but it was also safe to wait. This is enough to drive anyone over
the edge. I am so unsure of what to do. Do I need to pursue this more
aggressively, or is it really safe to adopt that wait and see attitude? My
GYN wants to wait until December, and do another pap and coloposcopy. She has
not said where we would go from here, based on whatever was found then.
As far as the HPV diagnosis, I have been very upset as to where the HPV
came from, just like anyone else who has been told they have this. I did have
my GYN do a ThinPrep Pap to make sure that the HPV was there. She did not want
to do this test, and I had to request it. It did not specify exactly which
type of HPV I have, only that what I have is in the"high risk group" for
cervical cancer. (HPV types 16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/69/68.) Just to
set things straight here....I am a 33 year old that recently divorced her
husband of 12 years. I never "slept around" and had not been with anyone prior
to our marriage. Supposedly the same was true for him on both counts also. I
started a relationship, (after my divorce) and have been seeing him for about
a year now. So that gives me two sexual partners in my lifetime. Now, we are
both stumped as to where this could have came from. He has never had any kind
of symtoms, and his ex never did either. So I am at a loss as to where I
contracted this from. I would like to think that it was so easy to pick
up....like what "Research" was saying in her post, but like I said, alot of
contradictions. I have been told it takes sexual contact, but then I have also
read that it can be transmitted by inanimate objects.
How I got it is besides the point now. Now I simply want to know how to get
rid of it and what my GYN should be doing to make that happen.
Thank you for reading this if you made it this far, any comments appreciated.
Take care,
Destiny
Without Risk, there is no Life
DestinyZero00000
>Women MUST insist on have an HCII DNA test. Most 'trained clinicians' still
>are not
>familiar with this test.
>
OK I was just sitting here going over my lab reports again and I caught the
name of a test that I had done. "Hybrid Capture II" is this the HC II that
you are saying we should request? If so, what is the point? The only
information that I received from this test is yes I have HPV and that it is one
of the cancer causing types. Be that as it may, the question still is what is
the appropriate treatment at this stage?
research
Thanks for the reminder... I really needed that.
Uh, I don't know where to start and I have a really bad tooth ache and it's late
and I'm an old man - compared to you.
So, for now I will be very brief. I was infected 3 1/2 years ago with HPV during a
medical exam by a non sterile instrument. The med prof. does not believe that it is
necessary to sterilize an instrument that is being used to examine orifices that
are already not sterile.
Is that scary or what?
HC II is the Hybrid capture II DNA test by Digene. However, unless I read
incorrectly, I believe you have been diagnosed HPV+. Yes, I'm sure I read that
(really tired).
I actually think it is VERY important that you determine the source of your
infection. It is not really that difficult to nail down.
I am passing out.
Later.
Elsie
This site is a fairly complete summary of what is known, to date,
through main stream research, and clinical studies and experience:
www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpvrc/educate.html
As you have no doubt already realized, medical knowledge is very often
incomplete, and is based on an evolving process. My advice is that you
get a second opinion, and even a third opinion from other physicians.
Some of the HPV and cervical cancer groups, either locally, or on the
Web, might provide you with names of physicians in your area. Another
source for physicians might be your local public health department STD
clinic. Even after you do this you might still have to make a choice,
just like anyone facing any kind of surgery or medical treatment,
between differing opinions about how, best, to treat your situation. If
you want someone to tell you what is absolutely the best thing for you
to do, that will give you the absolute best outcome, I don't think
anyone can do that.
That is because the absolute knowledge is not known, and because each
person is a unique biological entity, not a machine. As consumers of
medical care, I believe each one of us has a responsibility to gather as
much information as we can from physicians and other sources, and then
make the best decision we can about the course we want to persue.
As for "research@sigmoidoscope", he has posted his story before. He has
suffered greatly, and I have compassion for his suffering, and I
apologize to him if I treated him harshly. He believes he has been
harmed by a medical proceedure and he is on a crusade against those who
he believes have harmed him. He also sincerely believes he can help to
prevent others from being harmed. But he_ is_ on a crusade, and this,
plus his lack of scientific, medical, and clincal training and
experience, effect how he perceives and interpretes the knowledge he
reads and passes on to others. If you go to his site you see alot
of quotes taken out of context, alot of assertions, but no original
research, no clinical study. Maybe "research@simoidoscope" has
something of value to bring to the table. I don't know, because he
hasn't presented any data. Current accepted medical doctrine may not be
exact, and it certainly is not definitive, but it is based on the latest
information that science, clinical study, and clinical experience can
provide.
In the end, as I have said, it is your responsibility to make the
decision. It may not be what you want to hear, but, IMHO, it is the
most honest advice anyone can offer.
research
> incomplete,
You are exactly correct. And for the bucks they make, it should not be that
way.
Here are just a few of my thoughts that are a part of a book I am writing
that looks at the
inappropriate and undeserved reasons for the idolization of physicians in
today's society.
If our CPAs made the errors and mistakes those in the Medical Profession
made, they would all be wearing PJ's with stripes. Our electricians,
plumbers and auto repair engineers are held to higher standards.
Incomplete knowledge is simply not acceptable if one assumes the moniker
of "Doctor" of anything, esp. if the designation refers to a title that
identifies one as a health provider, one
whose answers and decisions often determine whether a person will live or
die, become pain free or suffer indefinitely, continue with their normal
life or accept the life of a toad stool.
Sorry, I've just had it with the protectionism surrounding these people.
They do not wear
white gowns, they wear Teflon jumpsuits, manufactured by them and their
cohorts and
issued by the legal system, those in power in federal and state government,
and the public at
large who have been slowly but surely propagandized over the last several
decades
But do not be fooled, for there is a ray of hope in all of this lunacy,
and the optimism of
this writer is indicated with two words: "have been".
It is this writer's belief that the introduction of human vaccines swung
the pendulum into
the 'Zone of Worship'. Those agents or contractors who participated - and
continue to
participate - in the distribution of those vaccines were, by proxy, elevated
to the highest
level of respect and reverence.
The perceived value of this 'doctor' franchise was substantiated and
escalated by the
explosion of the pharmaceutical industry. The medical schools participated
greatly, as did
the manufacturers of medical instruments.
In short, those who pay the huge tuitions to the medical schools, which
are operated by
those who are a part of this franchise scheme, and qualify properly, are
allowed a franchise.
The tuition fees, which are much higher at those institutions that issue
franchises that are
worth more money - such as Harvard Medical School, are not the only
franchise fees. Other
fees are collected under the name of association fees, which also raise the
value of one's
franchise.
There is much more to be said, and it is indeed said - in the book, but
as an end to this
shameful, self-serving blurb, I summarize with a single thought.
The sine qua non of these valuable franchises are the designated power
to dispense those vaccines and drugs that aid in sustaining the life of
those who are willing to or are able to pay the price. If these essentials
were removed, there would not be a 'doctor in the house'.
> and is based on an evolving process.
Sounds like the excuse given for the guy who has been in college for 20
years.
> My advice is that you
> get a second opinion, and even a third opinion from other physicians.
But why stop there? Is there something magic about the number 2 or 3? Could
all three of these people be behind the curve. Sorry, but the answer is yes.
> Some of the HPV and cervical cancer groups, either locally, or on the
> Web, might provide you with names of physicians in your area.
But, be careful. Many of them are controlled by those who have agendas
that are very bias toward the medical profession. One of the 'worst' is
Yahoo's HPV chat room. I am convinced it is absolutely controlled by
those who are paid to defend against any negative conversation aimed at
the medical institutions in general or one physician in particular if the
complaint might apply to physicians or institutions in general.
> Another
> source for physicians might be your local public health department STD
> clinic. Even after you do this you might still have to make a choice,
> just like anyone facing any kind of surgery or medical treatment,
> between differing opinions about how, best, to treat your situation. If
> you want someone to tell you what is absolutely the best thing for you
> to do, that will give you the absolute best outcome, I don't think
> anyone can do that.
> That is because the absolute knowledge is not known, and because each
> person is a unique biological entity, not a machine. As consumers of
> medical care, I believe each one of us has a responsibility to gather as
> much information as we can from physicians and other sources, and then
> make the best decision we can about the course we want to persue.
Well said.
> As for "research@sigmoidoscope", he has posted his story before.
What is the point of saying "he has posted his story before"? This is one of
the common, illogical accusations spoken by those who have no other basis
for objection. (This is my take, because I see no other logical reason for
pointing this out. Have you not posted you thoughts or your story before.
Haven't
most of those in these public forums? And, is it possible that one's story
has
evolved or otherwise altered by events which may have cause the story to be
even more helpful or even interesting to possibly two or three people who
may
happen across this chatter? (Sorry. I am even more grochy than usual this
AM.
The damn Starbuck's cappuchino was flat this morning and it's difficult for
me to overcome such dour happenstance. Thank God almighty it's Friday...
hey, that would be a good name -
nah, too corny.)
~~~~ that was called a self spoken "Lighten the f--- up, Bill ~~~~
> He has
> suffered greatly, and I have compassion for his suffering, and I
> apologize to him if I treated him harshly. He believes he has been
> harmed by a medical proceedure and he is on a crusade against those who
> he believes have harmed him. He also sincerely believes he can help to
> prevent others from being harmed. But he_ is_ on a crusade, and this,
> plus his lack of scientific, medical, and clincal training and
> experience, effect how he perceives and interpretes the knowledge he
> reads and passes on to others. If you go to his site you see alot
> of quotes taken out of context, alot of assertions, but no original
> research, no clinical study. Maybe "research@simoidoscope" has
> something of value to bring to the table. I don't know, because he
> hasn't presented any data. Current accepted medical doctrine may not be
> exact, and it certainly is not definitive, but it is based on the latest
> information that science, clinical study, and clinical experience can
> provide.
>
> In the end, as I have said, it is your responsibility to make the
> decision. It may not be what you want to hear, but, IMHO, it is the
> most honest advice anyone can offer.
I think you are sincere with your advice.
I will admit to being biased against ignorant, arrogant, sloppy,
insensitive, fraudulent, money hungry people who operate in the
realm of medicine...
if
you will admit to being prejudice in favor of the medical profession.
(This is not a fishing line. And there is no bait.)
(And I abhor smiley faces, <g>'s, hug's and such. So I suppose that
causes me to appear as though I have an edge. so what else is new.)
research
out of date.
They are "EVOLVING". ok, ehy not..... :)))
Elsie
> posted his story before"? This is one of
>the common, illogical accusations
> spoken by those who have no other
> basis for objection. (This is my take,
> because I see no other logical reason
> for pointing this out.
It was not my intent to offend or accuse you. I do not know Destiny, or
if she has been reading this group long enough to have read your story.
I said, "he has posted his story before" as a way of explaining the
sentences that followed. Otherwise Destiny would have no way of knowing
how I knew anything about you.
My training is in science and I weigh evidence. I am biased in favor of
medical science because my experience tells me it is effective, not
perfect, not definitive, but alot of times it works. I feel I am a
reasonable and honest person. I am willing and eager to consider any
good evidence and I await its presentation.
research
And that, IMO, is more important than your bias.
Because the first two premiss dictate the third.
I am willing and eager to test your certitude...
~~~~ if not your patience.
Cheers
(and thanks)
(for the patience already granted)
bbj
> I have a big problem. I have been married for 20 years and have five
> children. Last week I found out I have HPV which is a sexually transmitted
> disease. At least that is what the doctor said but I dont know where i
> could have got it. I have never messed around and my husband has not
> either. I am going crazy with this. Does anyone know is you can catch this
> in another way? Please help. I know this is not a medical site but I
> thought nurses may know more about this than the doctors do. thank you.
Uh, oh..
Sounds like Bill Lewis has a new pseudonym.
So howya doing, Bill, - I mean Lisa?
Lost the court case against the Mayo clinic, huh?
Thought you would, no sane jury would buy your paranoid ranting...
bbj
bbj
> please tell me what similar ways means. i havent had a transfusion and no
> needles,much less dirty ones.
> thank you
>
Ooops, Bill /Lisa forgot to stick to the same phoney email address..
Lbucc
Ohhhh! We might be able to make some connections here. I'm a lisa at I'm at
cs.com. And, I've also been quite skeptical of a number of our visitors with
miracle cures (William Samueli, Bill Burke).
I'm williing to bet a pretty penny (shiny new 200) that Bill Burke and William
Samueli share more than a passing acquaintance. And here I am, imortalized
with a spanking new email address in my honor.
D'ya think? (Or is this perhaps because I didn't sleep last night - aren't
teenagers wonderful?)
...lisa