Already a member? Sign in
What - Inspire is a place where you can connect with people who share your health concerns and find information and advice in groups sponsored by organizations you know and trust.
Why - As a member you can use Inspire to let friends and family know how you're doing, contact others who share your health concerns, receive personalized updates and information about participating in surveys and clinical trials, and more.
How - Joining Inspire is completely free and usually takes less than a minute. Join now!
Hello, 3 weeks ago I underwent cone biopsy. The tests from the cut issue have shown that some ill issue still remained in me - CIN II. After my talks to physicians, I feel quite desperate- it seems that there is nothing I can do, just wait 2-3 months for next cytology.
My gynaecologist tries to convice me to take the HPV vaccine - but does it make any sense, is it not just a waste of money?
I think it is a very personal decision. I've seen a few different doctors who have all pressured me to get the HPV vaccine despite already having HPV, because it can protect against any strains you don't have. I declined for two reasons. One being that I am in a committed relationship (and would consider the vaccine if it ended). The other is this: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf which says, "The results of exploratory subgroup analyses... suggested a concern that subjects who were seropositive and PCR-positive for the vaccine-relevant HPV types had
a greater number of CIN 2/3 or worse cases as demonstrated in the following table..."
It sounds like there is a possibility that, if you already have one of the HPV types that the vaccine targets, it can increase your risk of developing dysplasia. Not sure if there have been more studies to confirm or deny that, but it was just too risky for me.
I saw that same statistic as you, Indigo9, but I also heard that the difference in CIN progression between the group of women seropositive for HPV who received Gardasil and the seropositives who received the placebo was statistically insignificant. (seropositive = some prior exposure to HPV)
Now I can't seem to find the link to the analysis of this Gardasil data, but I do find one about a study involving Cervarix that calls the difference between the vaccine recipients and the placebo recipients who were HPV + at the outset "a statistical dead heat." This study shows that over 12 months, 48.8% of the HPV + vaccine recipients cleared their infections, while 49.8% of the HPV + placebo recipients cleared their infections.
See paragraphs 14 & 15:
http://sexualhealth.e-healthsource.com/index.php?p=news1&id=607328
It's a 1% difference but it's not supposed to mean much mathematically. Still, it did make me worry! But I talked to various doctors and finally decided to get the vaccine despite my prior exposure. It's definitely always a personal decision.
Good luck, Miriamka. You might try asking other doctors who know about HPV what they think.
And in the meantime, try to take care of yourself as best you can so that your body has as good a chance to heal as possible. It doesn't always work, of course, but it can't hurt. Consider looking at discussions of dietary supplements on this site for more tips, too.
Sophie
Add to the discussion