Male, 47, married, monogamous, unprotected sex relp for 12 years. Wife’s never had warts. She’s had Gardasil vac. I was diagnosed with warts in 1991. Treated multiple times freezing/burning, before excising. Scar remains. I scar/keloid easily. In 2011, warts diagnosed. Again, multiple rounds freezing/burning, then Aldara worked. Scars/permanent change in skin color remain. December 2013 wart in same area treated successfully with Aldara, but with further change in skin color, likely permanent. January 2014 doc thought 4 warts present in new locations. I didn’t agree. Past warts were hardly noticeable, this time, I couldn’t even see at first what she was referring to. Looked more like very small pimples or razor burn (past warts were in the hairline on side of penis so a pre-visit shave is necessary). Within 24 hrs, these 4 bumps mostly disappeared, confirming to me a misdiagnose. During self-exams since, still doesn’t look like warts—they are all around a hair follicle and they look no different to me than other microscopic bumps not remarked upon. I’m reluctant to begin Aldara. 1) I think there’s >50% chance these aren’t warts. 2) treatment for me is worse than the virus, in that area looks better now than it will post-treatment with permanent scaring/discoloration. January 2014 issue is in new, unblemished area. 3) even if warts, my history suggests they’ll come back anyway. 4) HPV virus type causing warts (6, 11) is not type that becomes cancerous (16, 18). So why treat in my case? I always suspected the diagnosis of warts was arbitrary--various net forums confirm there’s common misdiagnose. I suspect out of 100 docs, half would say I had warts, half wouldn’t. So 2nd opinion may not clarify things, especially with to treat first and not worry about side effects, given high rates of general population infection. I know it’s hard to diagnose without a visual exam, but even if I do have microscopic warts, why trade an immaterial, benign mark for a material scar?