Lead Researcher for Gardasil Vaccine Speaks Out

Dr. Diane Harper, the lead researcher involved in developing the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines, is continuing her efforts to warn the public about the potentially harmful  effects of the vaccinations.  In a series of attempts to get the message out, Dr. Harper’s most recent effort is very revealing:

“Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States . . . So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverse side effects from Gardasil alone to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (V.A.E.R.S.), and this number only reflects parents who underwent the hurdles required for reporting adverse reactions. At the time of writing, 44 girls are officially known to have died from these vaccines. The reported side effects include Guillian Barré Syndrome (paralysis lasting for years, or permanently — sometimes eventually causing suffocation), lupus, seizures, blood clots, and brain inflammation. Parents are usually not made aware of these risks. Dr. Harper, the vaccine developer, claimed that she was speaking out, so that she might finally be able to sleep at night.”   http://www.realfarmacy.com/the-lead-vaccine-developer-comes-clean/#ov8bWkFI0AwGy8ZM.01

Thank you Pamela for sharing this information 2013/07/03 at 4:16 pm

Undisclosed adverse effects of vaccines:

About forwomenseyesonly

Hi. My name is Sue and I am interested in promoting holistic and respectful health care.
Gallery | This entry was posted in cervical cancer, Gardasil vaccine, health, pap test, STD's, women's health and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Lead Researcher for Gardasil Vaccine Speaks Out

  1. Kleigh says:

    Why was this shot pushed on woman so fast before
    it was properly evaluated. Its like the makers were cashing in on the cervical cancer obsestion.

    • Alice (Australia) says:

      It looks like the revenue from HPV vaccination was to compensate the loss of revenue from the declining numbers of women willing to summit to pap smears. Just money, as per usual.

      The medical system didn’t want let the successfully created fear of cervical cancer go, and it tries to squeeze out of it as much as possible. If they waited another 10 years while the vaccine was properly tested, they could have lost the momentum of public fear of this cancer. Not good for business, you know.

      • Ro says:

        I wasn’t so sure that the number of women screening was in decline because it seemed like so many women were set on it, but I have to agree with your statement. They seem to be trying harder to make money now. Since I started having open conversations about the topic, I’ve realized that they do seem to be putting more pressure on women about HPV and/or cervical cancer and screening. I don’t know if they’ve been showing this advertisement in Australia, but in the US there’s some sort of medication and they have different women saying who recommended it. One woman mentions her doctor, the other I believe mentions her dentist, and the final mentions her gynecologist as if a gynecologist is a person every woman consistently sees. I view gynecologists as specialists. Sort of like ear, nose, and throat doctors (although far more women probably have a need for ENT specialists based off of evidence, but I was just comparing for the sake of explanation). Anyways, they’re trying harder to normalize the idea of having a gynecologist as a normal part of every day life. So it seems as though, for some reason, they’re working harder to make sure the practice of screening and being examined is such. It’s a shame that all of this is about misogyny and money-making, rather than having an evidence based program which offers screening to women who need and it and leaves women who wouldn’t benefit unharmed. Where is the actual compassion and care for people? It’s sad, really.

      • Kleigh says:

        Ro, I leave in the US and i have seen that comercial you are talking about. I think the medication was for bones. and it kind of erkt me when they said that about her gyn. I notice alot and i mean alot lately hear in the US on tv they are shoving gynocology down are throught as tho all woman go to one. I see this in movies and T.V shows, woman joking and happy about there gyno and showing pictuers of woman up in stirups and the charectors always seem comforatble in thises seens. its almost like an attempt to brain wash all woman that not going to a gyn is not normal and wrong. on MTV there is these show called girl code. they joke about having pap smears and going to the gyno. They make it look like these exams are normal and all woman are comforatble with them. But they never show the woman who are blackmaled into exams or feel presuerd and uncomforatble. it implys not going is not an opption.

      • Kleigh says:

        And it makes it apper as tho all woman go to gyns.

      • Ro says:

        Yes! It was for bones, that’s the one I was talking about. It irked me as well. I had to go back and watch it again to make sure I’d heard right. The implication behind the advertisement was absurd.

        I agree. I try to stay away from it, but it is often discussed in a light manner and not talked about in a serious fashion. I’ve seen more of it in reality shows than anything, I’ve only ever seen one film where a gynecologist was ever brought into it, but I’m sure that it’s in more. I think the reason why it’s being showcased so often in reality shows is because a lot of teenagers try to emulate and live like those people, so it’s sort of leading by example. Whereas scripted shows and films are seen more as just entertainment. I think a lot of women assume that just because they have a good or acceptable experience with being screened or examined, every other woman has the same. You cannot invalidate another person’s experiences with your own though. Whenever women complain about it being painful or feeling humiliated, they’re usually told that they went to the wrong doctor. A person could go to 20 different gynecologists and every single experience might be terrible. Everyone responds to things differently and it shouldn’t be assumed that all women are okay with this just because a few are. I sometimes wonder if these women aren’t being paid extra or contractually obligated to talk about screening in this way? Surely, there are those out there who have had bad experiences and yet they aren’t speaking out. The only thing I ever hear about are women in the public eye who had precancerous cells or a scare and then they suggest that every woman go get checked immediately.

      • Alex says:

        They did something similar with the Guy Code, too. One of them said something to the effect of a doctor grabbing your balls was a “rite of passage” (actual wording for that part). They did the same thing with prostate exam/colonoscopy-type stuff. It is interesting that they never make the point about having bodily autonomy- but they want to act like they’re not these down-trodden women from the 50s. It’s gotten pretty horrendous for women in the past, how far do they really want to backslide? I don’t figure a lot of women actually feel this way, but they counterintuitively argue the other way.

        Maybe bringing this stuff up when discussing the topic or if it comes up on TV? Sometimes this exact topic doesn’t come up, so you might “springboard” from one to another (making a point about something not working as advertised or having a bunch of side-effects is a pretty common conversation, but that’s usually where it ends- drawing a parallel between these subjects would be pretty easy at that point). Same with “You know what I heard about?” conversations.

        It might be easier with men (because I figure most men are completely baffled as to why women do stuff like that, but it’s kind of an hard subject to broach- especially if he’s worried about coming off like he’s a control-freak or something). It’s not being creepy to take exception with a woman not being functionaly free to manage her own situations (in general, but especially if this is going to impact someone he’s close to like his wife/girlfriend/whatever or his daughter). It also makes a point about shady situations & what you’re dealing with in terms of overall quality with medical things- doesn’t have to be this exact subject. Making a point of approval of men who do things like that would help immensely.

        Here’s a scenario: Something comes up on TV, then you say something to the effect of: “That’s bullsh#@, it’s actually massively unsafe & inaccurate- but, either way, a woman acting like she has absolutely no issue with it is either lying her ass off or she has some serious issues.” I realize that has the taste of ostricism to it, but it’s most likely true. I figure that since those women get that way with someone for looking out for their well-being (and even if the methodology was completely different, all the problems that stem from this situation are still there), maybe they deserve a bit of it. Getting yelled at for it would probably draw attention to the situation (and maybe get some information flowing around, even if it is through argument). You can trace blame back for quite a distance, but eventually you’ve got to start worrying about the situation you’re involved in.

      • Ro says:

        Why would anyone ever consider some sort of invasive exam a “rite of passage”? That seems to be the general way of thinking for both women and men then, I guess. Perhaps it makes it seem less taboo than it actually is. I don’t understand how men’s exams work, but from what I learned in health class, the prostate exam sounds like it would be, not only very invasive, but pretty painful as well. Furthermore, there are lots of risk with the prostate exam too. I heard that men do get the option of a more informed consent, but it still seems like most men deem it necessary for all. When like everything else, there are only some who would actually benefit. Why is any of this made light of? I think a lot of the reason why women don’t consider bodily autonomy is because, from what I’ve read, feminists were the ones who wanted screening available to everyone in the first place and then coercion started and here we are. Maybe some women feel like being screened is a feminist ideal and that going against it would be backsliding? Also, as I mentioned in my previous comment, I think a lot of women make assumptions based off of their own personal experiences. There are some women who don’t experience any pain or humiliation during these exams. Most of these women have the mindset that because their experience wasn’t a bad one, other women are just being overdramatic or had a “rough” doctor. I’ve actually been told that “whenever you finally go for your exam, it won’t be nearly as bad as you think it is” and “it’s not even a big deal”. Which never made sense to me. Sure, in theory (as I don’t plan on getting screened unless it’s an emergency situation/necessity), it might not be as painful for me personally as I thought it might be, but that does not change the facts (the invasiveness, possible unnecessary follow-ups because of the unreliability factors, etc). So that could also be the reason why more women aren’t so set on fighting against the system. However, that does seem a bit defensive to me, now that I think about it. Perhaps nearly all women are affected negatively, but they try to mask it by making it sound like it was no big deal. No one will really know the truth aside from those individuals, though.

        That is a very good idea, sort of use it as a conversation starter in order to talk about these things in a realistic, non-romanticized way. I feel odd using words like romanticized to describe how people think of these procedures, but to an extent it’s true. There is some good news, though, about screening. There was an article just published on Yahoo! today about some major changes being made to colon cancer screening (obviously, personal interests might get in the way, but the way it’s being talked about it seems like a certainty). Soon, as in the next year or two, they’re going to start to switch over to a blood testing method. It is more accurate and they can identify those at risk with a prior blood test to see if they carry the gene before doing further blood testing which actually catches cancer. It’s been stated that this method is far more accurate and would benefit those actually at risk, and those not at risk would not have to undergo the second blood test. This information has all been released at this point, so it could easily be argued that population screening (screening everyone instead of only those who would benefit) and invasive screenings are unnecessary, seeing as we have the technology available for alternative methods and to find out who is actually at risk. I did a search and there are many articles that have been posted. So this isn’t like trying to get facts about the CSA test where you might be lucky to find a few articles about it here or there, information about this is being published on multiple news and medical websites. It’s being verified by multiple doctors and one of them even stated that “this method is far more accurate” and “hopefully ALL invasive screening will become a thing of the past within the next 10 years”. We can hope. Unfortunately, I believe there’s still too much tied up in the current screening programs, but that would be great if it actually happened. Anyways, my point was that perhaps now that it’s gotten out to the public that non-invasive technology exists and that population screening saves some but harms many, maybe people will begin questioning all of the screening programs and start demanding they all be switched over to this type of method . If nothing else, at least some honest information has been released very publicly.

      • Alex says:

        Ro- I hadn’t heard anything about that. Pretty suprising (since they don’t really publicize that sort of thing). I haven’t heard anything else about it, but over-the-counter birth control was a maybe in America. I’ve noticed a lot of incontinence commercials, lately. I guess it’s similar as far as area of focus/fixation (and it seems to have a related theme of loss of control over those areas, too). There was a commercial for men’s “panty shields”! It was that guy that was supposedly an NFL coach/trainer/whatever acting like it was a “tough guy” thing to not be able to hold their water. Ever seen that one? It was saying “guard your manhood” a bunch of times.

        There’s a lot about colon health & regularity, too. Someone on this site mentioned “bikini medicine” (only focusing on the areas covered by a bikini). A lot of these things are such specialty situations that only the people that actually had these problems would even know the specifics in such detail (and would have plenty of access to new things- when they went to buy whatever it is they need, it would be right there). Maybe making these things come off so common is also another form of guilt-trip (not wanting to ostricize or marginalize the people that have these problems)? It would definitely have the other aspects that were mentioned earlier, but maybe that’s an extra angle. There’s also a heavy attitude of “just talking about something plainly”- like someone is immature for thinking it’s weird to mention these things. It’s not exactly a public service announcement about bodily autonomy & unreliability of suggested/imposed things.

        P.S.- I think it was Tanya that coined the term “bodily autonomy.” That’s such a great way of phrasing it! I know she didn’t invent the words, but she put them together so aptly! I love how it’s so easy to phrase the overall concept conversationally (and not everything would really be mild enough for “dinner table conversation”). I always had a problem mentioning things like that without getting detailed (self-governance or self-determination were both good, but the particular dimensions weren’t always clearly implied). Whoever it is, great job!

      • Ro says:

        Alex: I know! I was nearly overjoyed. Not because they were still talking about screening, but because honest facts were being publicly released for once. It’s a step forward. Yes, I have noticed quite a few incontinence commercials as well and know many older people who’ve gotten bladder tucks or something similar. In fact, I can say that pretty much all of the older people I know would agree that a loss of bladder control is a normal part of aging. I don’t know much about biology or if that’s true, but it certainly seems very common. Not even just for those who would be considered elderly, but for middle-aged people as well. It’s interesting that it’s so publicized. It does seem like it may be another form of guilt-tripping, though. There’s been a lot of that in the media lately.

        Bikini medicine is the perfect term. They seem to focus and reproductive health more specifically than other issues (even in low or no-risk patients). I had an idea about this though: maybe the reason why there is so much focus on these issues is because they’re thought to sort of be “forbidden body parts”, if you will, and we can only see the external part of them. I mean obviously the medical industry places the focus on these issues for even low or no-risk patients because of their own personal interests, but speaking from a societal point, maybe that’s why there’s so much focus, because we don’t see these parts of our body and they’re generally considered to be “off-limits” (except to those we choose to be intimate with). So there’s mystery surrounding them and as humans, we tend to fear the unknown.

  2. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    It’s so frightening…I know the man who invented the PSA test is also, appalled at the damage the test is causing, it was never intended to be a screening test. At least men get risk information though and are not being pressured/coerced into testing. In fact there is no formal program because so many doctors voiced their concerns about the testing. It’s not really satisfactory though, as men are getting mixed messages about testing.
    I know GPs here were warned to get informed consent if a man wants to test. I’ve read men are harder to screen generally, more likely to be cautious/suspicious of the medical profession and take legal action. Some say men react differently to medical pressure, but I think they’re less likely to face rudeness, orders, coercion etc. IMO, the profession seems far more respectful and careful when it comes to men.
    Anyway, when Gardasil was released here, I wasn’t surprised, millions more spent fighting a rare cancer. The side effects of the vaccine probably means more girls are harmed than helped, but as long as it “looks” okay and they can convince everyone it’s worthwhile and working, they’ll carry on. Huge profits come first. It’s insidious….I wouldn’t accept a word coming from the Govt or doctors on Gardasil or screening. As I said earlier, I wouldn’t accept much risk at all to cover a rare cancer, these girls (and their parents) are not making informed decisions in most cases, they’re just being urged to get (their daughter) vaccinated AND reminded they STILL NEED regular pap tests. Don’t forget the precious program, don’t want to jeopardize the target and profits. How much more money can they make off the back of this rare cancer and the poor cervix? What’s next? They’re working on a pap test for uterine and ovarian cancer…they know the days of population pap testing are numbered and so need to find another way of getting women in for screening and securing future profits. In my opinion, women are being used to generate huge profits, it’s as simple as that.

  3. Sue:I have been concerned about HPV vaccines for some time now. You can find an article I wrote about why HPV Vaccines should be avoided at http://patientmodesty.org/hpvvaccine.aspx.

    Elizabeth (Aust): You made a good point. I do think that many doctors do unnecessary pap smears to make money.

    Misty

    • Misty, I was pleased to see you were on top of this already. Thank you for linking your excellent article here. From your article: “By January 2011 (more than 4 years after the vaccine was approved by FDA), the FDA received 20,000 reports of injury and death following this vaccine.” Very disturbing.

  4. Femininism says:

    The scary thing is only 38% of women got the second or third shots…

    • Alex says:

      Why? It seems these shots aren’t good ideas. This cancer is massively rare, in itself- whatever the cause. Nobody gets fanatical like this over liver or thyroid cancer. Plus, the conditions are what swings the cancer potential in a major way (chemicals, radiation, bad diets, lack of exercise, etc…). The lifestyle someone leads & the things that get interjected into it are what causes problems.

      • Femininism says:

        What I’m saying is, if the negative effects are this common and this numerous among girls who probably aren’t even getting the full dosage, these shots are DECIDEDLY not good ideas.

        I’m not arguing in favor of them, as a young woman myself I had to fight my doctor tooth and nail to prevent myself from getting the shots.

        Gardasil is dangerous.

  5. Ro says:

    The HPV vaccine is still being pushed as a back-to-school-shot prior to the beginning of this school year (they’ve started vaccinating boys as well now). Despite the new evidence, they continue to talk it up. Furthermore, I felt as though there was an over-exaggeration, and they certainly were not telling the truth in explaining severity or the fact that most HPV cases clear up on their own. http://t.healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/ask-a-doctor/vaccinations-what-parents-should-know#image=2

    • Alex says:

      You know, I had thought that situation was basically gone? It’s caused a lot of problems, and a lot of issues have come up because of vaccines but maybe someone thinks they’re getting something special? I guess they just don’t want their previous opinion of medical employees or treatment to die.

      What is the hardship in believing there’s nothing to take care of? I guess maybe it’s like people buying tools? They feel their agency/ability is increased?

      • Ro says:

        I thought so as well. However, many people trust everything they’re told by those in the medical profession. Since a pediatrician was speaking in that article, there are probably a slew of parents rushing to get their child/children vaccinated. There was a video I saw where a doctor from India (I think) was speaking about HPV vaccines and he thinks that it has a lot to do with population control, more than anything. Apparently along with all of the other side effects, it can cause infertility. If it is a case of wanting population control, it’s going to be pushed more and more aggressively. As I was typing that, I just remembered that article I shared about doctors pro-longing lifespans, anti-aging, extending lives at an extreme rate, etc. Perhaps this goes along with that? In order to keep everyone young longer and alive for hundreds of years, they’d have to put an end to or at least slow down population growth somehow. Anyways, I think a lot of it probably is pride within the medical system. Nobody ever likes to admit they’ve done harm to someone because they didn’t do enough research – and “yes, those girls do have issues which were inflicted by us when we knew that we did not know near enough about the possible effects of this vaccine which may help reduce the risk for HPV which, by the way, over 90% of the cases clear by themselves. Oh, and cervical cancer – not all HPV leads to it. In fact, it’s very rare and worldwide, throughout the entire use of pap screening, we’ve only caught a little over 44,000 cases some of which may have cleared on their own as a medical accident once proved”. (In regards to the “medical accident” there was a doctor somewhere in Europe who withheld information from her patients, because she thought all abnormal smears would lead to cancer and was too emotional to deliver such devastating information. One of the patients who had a severe acute case of cervical cancer [actual cancer, not pre-cancerous cells] went for a follow-up once the results were released five years later when that doctor was fired and it turned out that the cancer was gone and had cleared itself.)

        There seems to be a lot of dishonesty in admitting that there isn’t necessarily anything to be taken care of. I’ve heard that doctors tell women they can see the cancer on their cervix when they go in for a colposcopy (not in all cases obviously, but some). A couple of concerns about this: if it’s visible, then why take a smear in the first place? Is it because the doctor performing the smear will know a follow-up is necessary, but still wants to make their money by sending it off to the lab? Second of all, is it truly visible? If not, then is it just another lie to get in more follow-up treatments? I’d love to believe that a doctor would not lie in that matter, but after all I’ve read, I can’t help but be a little bit skeptical. That was slightly off topic, but it’s the same concept. In specific regards, though, to the statement “What is the hardship in believing there’s nothing to take care of?”, society as a whole has been taught to fear their own body without the help of professionals stepping in and taking preventative action.

      • Ro says:

        I just realized that parts of my above comment seemed slightly insensitive, but that was not my intention. I’m just doubtful of things after all that I’ve learned. It doesn’t mean that I believe all doctors are inherently dishonest or that they care more about their own interests than patients. I do believe that doctors help a lot of people and there are those who are honest and provide the best information for their patients. Like I said in the comment, I’ve just become very skeptical as a general view.

      • Alex says:

        That doctor in Europe (I read about that, too- but can’t remember the article) accidently helped a lot of people out.

        Personally, I do believe all that about doctors (I figure even if there are a few exceptions, the general rule still applies- the fact that it’s an exception is pertinent, too). Their doctrine/style/methods/whatever are aligned a certain way (never mind all the unofficial stuff). They’re enemies by occupation, in my view (seeing as their body of information is deceitful & hazardous). Also, a lot don’t push toward overhaul, they don’t give people an angle around all these things, and they don’t get bothered by it & leave. I know there are instances where that occurs (for instance: my mom’s boyfriend had a friend that was going to become a prison guard & he quit the schooling for it after three days- he said “What are you, crazy? I’m not doing this kind of stuff to people.”), but it’s not the style of the people that go for that sort of thing.

        I figure a polarized view is useful, too (no “flipping the coin”). There are some things that are true, but so many are mixed with lies that I just throw out the whole thing (I don’t presume things & say that it is that way, but so many things being that way…). A lot of claims are true in isolation, but not in integration (ex: an active ingredient isn’t harmful, but everything else is- something’s fine on it’s own, but it’s not on it’s own- some things are okay for short-term use but are prescribed for long-term use- something works for the specific situation, but has a slew of side-effects). All this speaks of deliberately aiming things, not accidents. They also act like their assessments are based something concrete, but it’s actually whatever they interpret things to be (and whatever ulterior motives they might have are a factor).

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        Alex, I think doctors often share the same attitudes toward their female patients, with a few even more controlling/aggressive and some the other way as well, gentle, patient etc. I found a doctor in the latter camp and don’t “feel” the power dynamic in the consult room and I can work with her reactions to anything I might say…she knows me at this point and probably expects me to challenge her on some things. I think that’s so important, I know some women feel like powerless lambs in the consult room, that’s bad…on one forum a young woman said she didn’t feel she could object to anything in the consult room, she became a body and sent her mind elsewhere. That says to me, find a new doctor, FAST.
        I think doctors sense the level of control they have over the patient, that’s why opportunistic screening is inappropriate.
        We have a right to say if or when we test and who takes the test.

        I think attitudes are a major problem in women’s healthcare, that comes down to the history of medicine, (all male) the training, the general lack of respect for the female body, our bodily autonomy, right to self determination and our legal rights. I think that’s why some women don’t feel in control…medicine is done to them. For a very long time this all-male group could do as they liked, women were viewed as something less than men, couldn’t vote, get a loan etc. So I think these attitudes are now well-entrenched and sadly, they’re rarely challenged.
        One example: the medical profession felt it was fine to tie the Pill to elective screening, yet would not dream of linking Viagra to a prostate check.
        Only now are we seeing discussion on informed consent in women’s cancer screening, mainly in the UK, incredible it’s taken this long to see the clear violation of our rights and bodies. IMO, even when informed consent is discussed in women’s screening, it’s largely academic, there’s not much evidence of a change at the surgery level.
        With the UK call and recall system we see nurses, receptionists and doctors “chasing” and pressuring (to the point of tears) women, I doubt you’d ever see that level of disrespect in men’s healthcare. (and lack of proper ethical
        standards) We even see extreme rudeness, now why is it those involved see this as appropriate conduct?

        Interesting the thought that certain types of people may be attracted to medicine….I’ve always believed predatory types are attracted to medicine because of the easy access to women and the profession protecting them, a bit like rogue priests and the Church.
        I agree with the system “playing” with words and it’s often what they don’t tell us that misleads us, “cervical cancer kills women”….but no mention is made of the likelihood of death, if women knew the cancer was rare they may feel differently about screening. Also, many of us would not be prepared to accept a lot of risk with screening for a rare cancer, so they don’t mention risk….so often they’ll mention false negatives, but not false positives, (which are common) so I believe even women keen on screening, or most of them, have been misled. They’ll say that cc is the second most common cancer in women, but forget to mention that’s undeveloped countries. HPV is very common and it causes cc, ummm, HPV IS common, but almost all women clear the virus in a year or two, and that alone is not enough to develop cc, it’s HPV and something else, maybe, an impaired immune system, smoking, multiple high risk strains of HPV….research continues.

      • Ro says:

        Alex – Here’s the link for the article, in case you wanted to see it again or if someone else sees this comment and would like to read it: http://womenagainststirrups.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gynmyths&action=display&thread=139. All of the patients thanked her, saying that she ended up saving them from unnecessary treatment so she did indeed help many by preventing unnecessary treatment.

        That is my general belief about the medical/pharmaceutical industry (that lies are told, coercion is used, less-than-good motives, etc.), but I’ve seen people with severe health issues helped by doctors, so I try to be careful in talking about doctors as a whole or referring that way in regards to specific individuals. I do believe there are some in the medical industry who are there for the sole purpose of wanting to help others. I do know that certainly some have other motives, some with absolutely no good intention whatsoever. I just don’t want to generalize and make it sound as though all doctors are inherently terrible people who don’t care about their patients. I think a lack of care or ill-intentioned “care” is probably more prevalent in specific fields centered around screening and making money off of the population (or personal interest involving medical intimacy), rather than tending to those who need care. That is a good point about some of those with the best intentions not necessarily being “cut out” for the business, if you will.

        That’s a good way to look at the situation. I think a recurring theme seems to be that a specific interpretation is the way things must be, when in fact, it’s nothing more than one person’s view on the matter.

      • Ro says:

        Elizabeth – I know your comment wasn’t directed towards me, but in regards to the last paragraph of your comment, there’s a pattern of sorts that I’ve noticed. A lot of half-truths. They do tell the truth so it isn’t necessarily easy to detect the lies involved. For example, I did my own research because I was wanted to know if CC could be genetically inherited. I asked on here, but no one knew for sure as no direct statements have ever really been made. I did a google search, read some articles, and I found out that it can’t. Genetics only increase your risk for this particular cancer, but they aren’t a cause. So a person with a family history of it would still have to contract HPV or whatever else may cause the few rare strands that have not been linked to HPV. However, doctors will say that a family history increases your chances of ending up with CC, and so they have more of a need for screening. It isn’t a lie, persay, but it isn’t the whole truth either. If a person with a family history has never been sexually active or is in a monogamous relationship, then they would still be at fairly low risk. That goes along with what you were saying about false negatives being discussed, but not false positives or overtreatment.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        Ro, I looked at that Q many years ago and found there is no genetic component to cervical cancer. As you pointed out, you must be infected with a high grade strain of HPV to be “at risk” (usually 16 or 18) and most of these women never develop cervical cancer anyway. When women say cervix cancer “runs” in the family, I’m always suspicious because usually it means they’ve all been over-treated. Now if a woman has a false positive and is over-treated at age 20, then she and doctors are likely to stress the importance of vigilance on the part of the mother and her daughter…and we know 1 in 3 pap tests in women under 25 WILL be abnormal, sometimes highly abnormal. Why? Because the pap test picks up normal changes in the maturing cervix as abnormal and some of these women have transient and harmless HPV infections. So you see how it’s easy for a “family history” to develop, especially with early and over-screening.

        In cases where ACTUAL cervical cancer affects mother and then daughter, (and this would be VERY rare indeed) it may be due to similar risk factors that make the women higher risk for the cancer, things like very early sexual initiation, multiple partners, smoking etc. So it’s not a genetic thing, it’s the same high risk factors shared by mother and sister/daughter.
        Some very rare cases of cervix cancer are apparently, not linked to HPV…not sure about that, I know clear cell carcinoma is often said to be caused by something else, but my reading suggests some/many believe it’s also, linked to HPV 16 and 18.
        Regardless, I would not be accepting a lot of risk with screening for a cancer that affects maybe 100 or 200 women in America every year. (that’s for clear cell carcinoma of the cervix)

        It was the aggressive and coercive promotion of pap testing that prompted me to do my own research, it frightened me and I strongly objected to the message, “all women must have pap tests”. Also, I saw so many distressed young women during my University days…after a forced exam (to get the Pill) or performed opportunistically, and many also, suffered traumatic biopsies and treatments. (almost all doctors were male back then and these treatments were usually done at the nearby women’s teaching hospital…gulp, it still makes me shudder to this day)

        It didn’t add up…and of course, after doing my own research I saw very clearly what it was all about…an unreliable test used recklessly and excessively, and a rare cancer…IMO, a BAD population screening test. It was not the cancer I needed to feared, just as we don’t obsess and test for other rare cancers, it was the testing itself that I should fear. (and certainly the way it was done here, excessively from the start)
        It was a revelation and I left the Medical Library all those years ago feeling enormously relieved..that research has protected me for over 30 years. (not a bad investment of my time)

        If you found any decent information suggesting cc has a genetic link, I’d be grateful for the references. (I know that “DES daughters” have an increased risk of vaginal and other cancers, but they’re a separate category)
        If only more women your age did some reading, they’d have healthier and happier lives

      • Ro says:

        Elizabeth – That’s what I was referring to in my statement – that genetics could create similar risk factors, like a weakened immune system that has a more difficult time fighting off disease/infections (in which case, it would still have to be contracted through other means and have no direct relation to genetics) or similar factors such as you listed. That’s interesting that all strands of CC may in fact be linked to HPV. Something else I thought of while reading that, apparently, around 4,000 – 5,000 women in the US still end up with CC every year. I’m sure at least half of those women participated in regular screening based off of the overall number of women who screen, so that’s another statistic that just isn’t adding up. If the point of screening is to prevent, then it’s missing an awful lot of cases. Probably around 30%-40%. Considering that prior to screening, the rates had dropped down from anywhere around 6,000 something to 7,000 something. I haven’t seen any solid statistic, but nearly every number I’ve seen has been within that range. It would appear a lot of cases are being missed or that treatment does not always cure everything as we have been led to believe. More misinformation.

        I’m very thankful for modern-day technology, as I don’t know if I would have thought of going to a medical library to do my research. Thankfully, most of the facts and statistics are online, you just have to dig for them.

        I didn’t find any information suggesting that there was a genetic link for the cancer itself, only a possible genetic link to risk factors. I’ll admit that I almost gave in to screening without doing research. I heard quite a few stories involving 16-18 year old girls who supposedly had CC. I won’t go into details as those are their personal stories, and I never want to discredit anyone and say they didn’t have it – I don’t know for sure. It isn’t my place to say. Only the doctors who performed those exams and treatments know the actual truth. However, as you already know, false positives are very common for that age group and that’s what I will leave it at. Anyways, despite the fact that I was starting to feel like my body was a ticking time bomb and that nearly every woman had this disease, I still had a strong sense of modesty. I could not handle even the thought of the invasiveness. It gave me nightmares and I had anxiety once I realized I’d “have to have these exams”, which I now know isn’t true but I thought so at the time. I’ve always been the type to believe that the body is a temple. You take care of it. Thinking of my body in that manner, I did not want any invasive medical procedures involving the most intimate parts unless it was absolute emergency. That’s why I started reading. However, I think a lot of women my age feel as though they don’t own their body and that it belongs to society or other people. That’s the message being taught. “Dress this way so men notice you.” “Look this way and you’ll be more likely to be hired for that job”, and so forth. Those are not directly related, but it does wear on the way you view yourself and your body. So accepting an invasive or uncomfortable situation that could bring great benefit (as it’s advertised) just seems like “part of being a woman”, as these exams have been coined. The innaccuracy, half-truths, and evidence/statistics were all things I never expected to come across, but I’m certainly glad I found that information and have been able to make an informed decision. Another thing, when I first started researching, I remember checking to see if I could be medicated/be put under anesthesia for the exam (back when I thought I had to have it and had horrible anxiety, I thought if I was medicated I wouldn’t remember it or think about it so I’d feel less anxiety over it). All of the medical sites said no. However, when I started to get into more of the facts and stumbled across blogcritics (I believe the link was there), I found a link for a site where medical students were discussing the exam. They said it was easier to perform the exam and detect abnormalities while the patient was under anesthesia. There’s so much contradictory information. That was something that bothered me quite a bit. If it’s more accurate and easier to perform the exam, why force women to stay awake/go unmedicated? Especially in emergency situations (ex. symptomatic patients) that are psychologically traumatic to begin with. I think that probably goes back to some of what Alex has said in regards to personal interests, especially in a male dominated industry.

      • Ro, the thought of being anesthetized for a pelvic exam fills me with horror. Not only is there additional risk from the side effects of anesthetic: http://patientmodesty.org/versed.aspx, there would also be increased risk for predation at the hands of the doctor: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/05/22/sexual_abuse_college_of_physicians_revokes_licence_of_hamilton_emergency_room_doctor.html or of being filmed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-21785282

      • Ro says:

        FWEO – I wasn’t aware of the side effects of anesthesia. Also, I wasn’t taking medical predation into account when I made that statement. It was more or less a point of wondering if keeping women awake/alert was a form of predation in and of itself (malice, as Alex has referred to it), and a method in order to produce more inaccuracies. Not necessarily saying that women should be drugged up prior to the procedure, but that performing the procedure on women who are awake causes more inaccuracies and would be much more painful for some. Those are all really good points that you listed, though, and I probably should have worded my statement better. As an overall view, I feel as though the entire procedure and how it is carried out is absolutely medieval and other methods should be utilized or invented (ex. external ultrasounds, CT scans, etc) and drugs are not the answer to the problems at hand.

      • Ro, you had worded your statement very well and I did understand what you were getting at. But it gives me the heeby jeebies to think of women helpless and unconscious while they are naked, feet up and legs wide apart (see links from my previous comment). Especially when you consider how women are treated when fully aware and awake. I do not think being unconscious would increase the accuracy of the test as most of the false positives and false negatives are a result of the poor specificity of the test itself and not due to the manner in which the smear is collected.

    • Anonymous says:

      I read about a mother that took her daughter for a tecnus buster. the doctor keep pushing her to have gardacille. the mother and daughter both refused. thin she said the doctors started to yell at them and told the girl she could be raped when the girl said that she was not sexually active. to me that is insane. the doctor had no right scaring that lil girl that she could be raped and trying to force it on her. don
      t these doctors get kik backs from the makers of Gardacille?

      • Alex says:

        Pretty sure they do. I wonder if someone takes less of an approach of trying to explain themselves to the doctors & more of one that what they say is final (“don’t try to appeal my decision”) would be useful. The say one thing, they get a refusal, then ask “why?” and get “I’m not answering that” might be useful.

        There’s a lot of screwy mental things with doctors (they seem to feel attacked when the patient comports their own medical situation & act like they got knocked down if someone refused an action- it’s like they figure their going to get right back up & try again, basically that they’re going to outfight the patient). What might have been really funny is if the mother or the kid asked if that’s why the doctor got that shot (that they might get raped). Now they’d have to acknowledge vunerability (or come off as not credible- obvious delusion since they think it’s impossible for that to happen to them).

        I remember reading about numerous attempts to mandate this vaccine for school (maybe they’d try to make it contingent on getting all kinds of exams- whatever that would mean, specifically). Again, them saying one thing & it being shot down. No consideration, no compromise, no happy doctor.

      • Ro says:

        That’s disgusting and terrible. It makes me wonder why doctors are so set on scaring patients into doing what they want them to do. If you have to be frightened into doing something, then chances are it’s probably not the best decision and certainly not the best decision to make in a high-pressure situation. In the link FWEO just shared, it essentially stated that doctors are being paid by pharmaceutical companies to promote their products. So in on way or another, the doctors likely are getting kickbacks.

  6. I’m not sure if I’m reading this right, but according to this article the supreme court has recently ruled that drug companies can not be sued: http://novemberyankeechronicle.blogspot.ca/2013/07/supreme-court-rules-drug-companies-cant.html

    • Ro says:

      I can’t believe that. It’s disgusting. In any other job field, if you mislead someone and end up causing them harm, you get sued. Drug companies being exempt from that is ridiculous and dangerous. Also, it sounded to me like drug companies admitted paying doctors to promote products which may not be safe for patients. “They wine and dine doctors and pay them consultant fees to ghost write on their behalf and become their front-line sales force.”

  7. Jola says:

    Ro said:
    ”That’s disgusting and terrible. It makes me wonder why doctors are so set on scaring patients into doing what they want them to do.”

    Ro, this is just for money. The money is the basic and only reason for which they are doing so in such an importunate way. To me, the majority doctors are deprived of ethics. They know that they must earn money somehow, and, of course, because they are doctors they ”must” be rich. Medicine is a disgusting business which is going on, I presume, everywhere. It’s their / doctors’ job to make you believe, to convince you that you are ill, that you are suffering from this or that and it needs treating.

    We have to, it is our duty!!!, to question just ANYTHING they tell us.

    (Just by the way – those who know that on 21.12.2012 the ”dark world” ended – know very well what I mean :) – so just question everything before you take it for granted, doubt it, explore it on your own, don’t let anybody fool or manipulate you – especially don’t let these crafty people wearing white or blue (or whatever) aprons do it!).

    • Ro says:

      I know that money is a big part of it, but scaring people into doing something is just so wrong. Obviously, any type of coercion is wrong but playing off of fear just seems especially so. I wish holistic health was considered as primary care and then medical doctors were consulted in emergency situations. There would be far less over treatment. Less medication being pumped into our bodies as well, considering holistic health relies mostly on natural supplements and cures.

      I’m a little lost about the whole “on 21.12.2012 the ‘dark world’ ended” thing, but I want to know! I know that people were saying the world was going to end on December 21st or something, but that’s the extent of my knowledge on it. I fully agree with your statement “We have to, it is our duty!!!, to question just ANYTHING they tell us.” It applies to many different situations in life, not just the medical scenario.

    • Alex says:

      Very true! I was curious, Jola: Are birth control pills over-the-counter in Russia & Ukraine? I heard some things about that recently & figured you might know. It seems it’s illegal to force these exams on women to get birth control in Poland (it’s wrong any which way, but I remember you saying something to the effect that it wasn’t legal in Poland, at least in that situation- probably all, but you only deal with actions no matter what).

      You ever notice how a lot of the people that are looking to cash in on somebody trusting them are wearing blue or white, mostly? There’s a book on things like that called Drunk Tank Pink that I’ll probably get soon (like different color wall paint to try an effect mood & things like that). I’ll add in useful info if I find any. Same with this book In Sheep’s Clothing that I have on order (that one’s about manipulative people, tactics, and counter tactics). That one had mentioned getting someone to repeat what they said to give yourself time to figure out a good response & because they may not want someone overhearing what they’re trying to pull (plus, it can burn them out- maybe they don’t have the nerve for a sustained effort & plenty of predatory people like an easy win, not a fight).

      I wonder why people “home-in” on things like this as a modesty concern- it’s an inflicted action, so it would be more of a self-defense thing. Someone may or may not show off certain amounts to someone that she’s not with (whether that’s a casual relationship or a serious one) as her own inclination- so why does someone get contradictive about that? I also don’t get how it’s independant to have other people making your decisions for you or imposing their own (substitution is infliction, so I guess that’s splitting hairs except for the specific tact). Some of these women seem to think having bodily autonomy is being downtrodden! This includes whatever effects these things have in terms of injuries, miscarriages or useless surgeries. How is it “smarter” to have something ineffective done as a means to an end? I know I’ve mentioned before about how medical quality is determined by patient satisfaction, not academic value (so a “failing grade” doesn’t mean anything).

      • Jola says:

        Hi Alex
        I think that women in Russia and Ukraine don’t have contraceptive pills sold over the counter. I have a Russian friend living in Poland for more than 20 years and her attitude towards contraceptive pills is the same as that of millions of Polish women in Poland – to get a prescription, they believe that only a gyno can do it and that a yearly examination is ”necessary”. I think, however, that it’s easier for Ukrainian or Russian women to have contraceptives than for Polish women because, unfortunately, Catholicism rules in Poland and believe me that there are some doctors who refuse to prescribe contraceptives to women for ”religious reasons” – insolence! Yes, it’s true. Well, as this is happening, women are buying contraceptives ”illegally” on the Internet – much more expensive that they would normally buy using the prescription.

        Hm…to be honest I don’t remember what I wrote about illegal exams to get birth control. I might have mentioned that it is totally against the law in case a woman doesn’t wish to have an exam, especially for her own philosophical or religious reasons. She has the right to refuse, but then she knows that a doctor may be against her and so she may not be given anything. Some women go to GPs instead of gynos and they are given prescriptions with no unnecessary exams or even stupid questions. It all depends on a GP – look how terrible it is – like a lottery – will he/she agree to prescribe the birth control to me if I don’t agree to have an exam or not?

        There are very few women in Poland who don’t want to have any exams during pregnancy, just because they don’t want to and so they don’t go to doctors at all and it is absolutely their choice and meddling in it is unethical. I know there are such cases but just a handful.

        Probably when I was writing a comment some day, I meant that many women, and generally many patients – great numbers of them – don’t know their basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution – one of them is inviolability. The horrible lack of knowledge that society represents lets doctors make use of their position.

        I still can’t believe that in the country, in the heart of Europe, Poland, the former ministry of health (a woman – a stupid woman herself!) wanted to impose the disgusting and humiliating intimate exams on women before they start work (the exams were to be repeated every two or three years!). Plenty of people (of women!), as I wrote before, were for these exams as they said ”they were for their health” – how disgusting! Why did they say so? Basically, they had no idea that the Constitution doesn’t let anybody impose anything relating to your private parts. And look, how much the vicious former health minister and, of course, her gynaecological lobby consisting of men, wanted to dodge the Constitution – they wanted to do it knowingly as they realised that so many people in Poland don’t know their rights (different rights, in general). And, obviously, the second reason for so many women approving of the planned humiliation was that they thought (they still think) that a yearly smear test exam and mammography are necessary for their health. An absurd!

        Anyway, Poland is not the same as Ukraine or Russia. Forget the cheeky and deceitful Catholicism which treats women as machines giving birth. Here, I mean that in Poland women and patients can refuse this or that exam (lots of them, of course, are not aware of it), but in Ukraine or in Russia people are not so free – I think, though I don’t know what it is like now, I mean how much it has changed recently and if it has changed at all.

        Alex, the main reason for such humiliating things happening especially to women, but also to all patients, regardless of their sex, is that people don’t bother to read what their basic rights are, that people are too scared when they contact their doctor about any symptoms – they still consider the doctor a guru (here I agree with what you wrote about the colours which make people feel so)…Anyway, it’s a huge topic. To my way of thinking, we all have to dig deep – as much as time allows – for information telling us about negative aspects of medical exams. Without our knowledge about the subject very little can be done.

        This is the petition Against compulsory intimate examinations of women in Poland (written in 2009) from http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/intimate/
        The perverse Polish government should have hanged their heads with shame then! (by the way, the petition written in Polish is very impressive and if I find some time, I can translate it and paste it here).

        The Petition

        Against compulsory intimate examinations of women in Poland
        We are a group of Polish women who want to file a complaint against Poland concerning treating us by the Polish government, politicians and doctors.
        As we all know, the European Union has joined in the prevention of cervical cancer. Poland has to do it as well as other European countries do. We all accept this and agree with it entirely. However, the Polish government wants to give an order so that women would be forced to undergo cytological, gynaecological examinations (also called cervical smear tests). In other words, the Polish government intends to make such examinations obligatory. The Polish Minister of Health wants to make women devoid of their work if they refuse to undergo these cytological, gynaecological examinations.
        This bill is against the international human rights. In every civilized country that unfair idea would be rejected very quickly but in Poland such a thing has plenty of followers.
        Our Minister of Health Ewa Kopacz is determined to force this bill at once. Ewa Kopacz is highly associated with Polish gynaecologists and oncologists who want to enforce that bill to earn money for themselves. These Polish doctors who are lobbyists in Polish parliament demand so that every woman ranging in age of 25 and 59 would undergo the compulsory cytological examination. If any woman refuses to do so – she will be made redundant. Polish doctors and government do not care about women’s feelings, emotions and their mental health. They do not care about women who are virgins, or women who are victims of sexual violence, or just women who do not agree on such an examination because it is humiliating when imposed upon them. They do not care about women’s will and right to choose. They do not have any respect for women. But the most important thing is that they do not care about women’s health because women in Poland who have cervical cancer have to wait so long for medical treatment that they often die though they could survive. (!)
        The cytological compulsion will seize women’s right to choose and ability to make any decisions about their own body.
        The cytological compulsory examinations transgresses precepts of the Polish Law. According to the Polish Law, women and men are of equivalent genders and they have the same rights to be treated with respect for their autonomy, self – determination and dignity. Besides, the Polish Law gives all Poles the right to choose a doctor if they must undergo any medical examination and the right to refuse such an examination entirely. Unfortunately, this law only works in relation to Polish men, not to Polish women. In Poland compulsory medical examinations are used only in relation to homicidal people but even such people are treated better than the Polish government is treating working women. In the Polish Law there is a ban imposed on discrimination in every place of work, regarding sex. The compulsory examinations of private parts of women’s body as a part of suitability tests for performing work is just disgusting. There is no analogous compulsory examination for working men because the government and doctors respect their rights. Polish men do not undergo examinations at all though prostate cancer is much more occurring than cervical cancer ! In Poland we hear every day pressing and noisy propaganda – doctors claim that Polish women do not undergo the cytological examinations and they are not health conscious – that is not true! In Poland the public gynaecological surgeries are sleazy and doctors are boorish and gauche so women prefer to undergo cytological examinations in private surgeries. The public, boorish doctors can not earn enough money and that is the reason why they demand cytological compulsion in their surgeries. This blackmail – the obligatory examinations made by insensitive and boorish doctors or otherwise making women redundant is a scandal !
        We have many women who even have trauma after being treated badly in the public surgeries in Poland.
        We, a group of women who are writing this complaint, ask Your Organization for help. Could you broadcast our problem in Europe or even in the whole world and influence the Polish government to regard women and their rights for personal inviolability as essential? We are helpless because the government and Polish oncologists know well about our disagreement on such examinations forced upon us but they do not care about our rights and consult only their own interests.

      • Jola says:

        Alex, I’d like to add something. As far as I know the Czech Republic introduced emergency contraceptives without prescription in 2011. They planned it for a year and I have no idea what it is like now. I know that virtually thousands, many thousands of Polish women went to the Czech Republic then to get the pills.

        In Poland, some pharmacists even refused to sell condoms to people for religious reasons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        In Poland women are forbidden to have abortion because of religion!!!!!!!!!!!!
        The ill Polish government even wanted to introduce a law forbidding raped women to have abortion (if pregnancy is because of a rape they still can have abortion but they have to go through very humiliating questions). Actually, women in Poland have a hard life regarding their sexuality, their family planning. The abortion underground is enormous in Poland where women have to pay a lot of money for abortion. In Poland doctors are not allowed to perform tubal ligation so women usually go to Slovakia or the Czech Republic to have their ovarian tubes ligated. The last thing I want to say concerns men in Poland. They can’t have vasectomy done in Poland, of course :) – because of religious reasons!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and again, like women, men go to Slovakia or the Czech Republic to have it done.

        It is dramatic, isn’t it? And now, every woman beyond Poland should sigh with relief and whisper to herself: ”How great I don’t live in Poland”. (By beyond Poland, I don’t mean any Catholic or Islamic country, of course!)

        By the way, I am totally against abortion, but I can understand people’s choices and I think that in some life circumstances women have no other choice but this. It is absolutely their business!

  8. Jola says:

    Dear Ro

    My reply will be very brief as this site is not about the Great Change after 21.12. 2012. But, when we think about people’s mind, it concerns the field of medicine as well – it is holistic in every aspect of life. Medicnie directed so aggressively towards women comes from the era of Kali Yuga. Generally, Kali Yuga is the Iron Era (which has already lasted for over 5000 years and and which is full of social inequalities and wars and so on…) but fter 21.12.2012 the so called Golden Age came which is going to last for 10.000 years and during which people will be awakening. Believe it or not, everything around you is much more spiritual than we’ve thought so far. All that was predicted in the Slavic Vedas (Veda means Wiedza = Knowledge) which Slavic people (Aryans) brought to India around 2000 BC (that’s why there are so many Slavic words in the Sanskrit) – a lot, a lot, a lot to say about this. By the way, according to the Slavic ( = Indoeuropean) calendar it’s 7521 now, not 2013 (which comes from Christianity – what a shame). Anyway, that’s all because it’s not the subject for this site. Look at this, please and I DO encourage you to discover, to search all over, to open your mind – WHICH CONCERNS MEDICINE AS WELL – and good luck during the enlightenement times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9ViGAFlQMY

    • Alex says:

      That’s interesting. Had no idea about Slavic vedas. I’ve heard different things about forces in the universe & energy shifts (not an end of the world, just things getting different). Don’t know what I believe in that subject, but it’s pretty cool if true. I’m pretty austere religiously: I figure fairness is, basically, reciprocation & there exists both good AND bad quality things in existance. I believe in God as a force & it certainly seems God has enemies.

      Reality is what it is & it’s not wrong to fight back- that’s pretty much everything in my religion. I have a bit of a good & bad wolf style of ethics.

      • Alex says:

        Replying to my own comment but this is to Jola:

        Thanks for your reply. I know in Ukraine & Russia things are a bit more “iron-fisted” with a lot of things (although a little money or violence or both goes a long way in those parts). I’d imagine a man having issues with his wife or daughter getting bullied into these things might very well figure that something of a symetrical nature is perfectly fair, as well as useful (could be dangerous for people that deserve it, for a change).

        Your ferocity is outstanding & very applaudable! I’d love for women in general to have your style for an example of a good role-model. If I have a daughter, I’ll raise her to be protective of herself & her children (which she might very well not get with these procedures inflicted, no one fixates on it still being just as much of a miscarriage if it’s iatrogenically caused as it is with getting kicked in the belly). It’s not some kind of downtrodden thing to deflect an something of this nature being imposed on you (she’d duck a punch, wouldn’t she?).

        That’s appalling what they put raped women through if they’re trying to get an abortion! You know there are herbal ways of doing that (yarrow tea as an example)? Alcohol & cigarettes might do it (I’ve even heard something about Vitamin C- strong pine needle tea, perhaps?). Someone very close to me was in that situation & the methodology (which, I’m sure, includes numerous arbitrary exams) was an added twist of the knife (it would have been a problematic methodology, anyway- given mechanics). Just figured I’d add some information that might be useful (it might be useful to keep it somewhat secret, though- legislation can cause problems).

      • OverItAll says:

        Black cohosh and blue cohosh will induce abortion IF done as soon as you get a positive pregnancy test. You can also use it as a contraceptive. I’m told it can help “flush” endometriosis. But do your research, it may have undesirable side effects. I have not tried these, so I can’t offer an opinion it.

      • Jola says:

        Just very briefly Alex as this site is not devoted to religion. Slavic Vedas were developed later on by Hundus. Thanks to the Hindus the Vieda (Wiedza = Knowledge) contained in the Slavic Vedas has survived and the Hindus contributed a lot to it and enriched it later on. I am full of admiration forthem for keeping the Vedas and not destroying them. Great people. Brahmins in India – the highest caste – are of R1a haplogroup (60% of Polish people are of haplogroup R1a and great numbers – the majority of – of Slavic people are of the same haplogroup; hence there happen to be people in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan with green or blue eyes – Aryans). And that’s all about the topic, as I said before, this site is not for it.

        And thank you Alex for the good words. I have a son and a daughter and I will do my best to teach them respect for their own body and privacy. Of course, the boy will not have to face the same situations as the girl, but he must be aware of what is done especially to girls and women by people called doctors. My daughter is very little now, but time goes by very quickly and sooner or later she will be said at school to get the anti HPV vaccine – never will I let the brainless guys even touch her. And I know that I am going to fight against this devilish vaccine. Now I warn my friends who have daughters against it – I will se what they decide later on. They’ve never heard what gardasil is – true!

        In Poland, in the case of rape, women can have abortion – the brainless government with perverted catholic church wanted to introduce a ban on abortion in the case of rape but the degrading bill hasn’t been passed. nevertheless, it will be brough up again by the fanatical idiots.

    • Kleigh says:

      How do people not see that a pap smear forced on woman is rape. You can not work for money unless you let a doctor put hands and tools inside your vagina. I will not treat you for the flu unless you have a pap smear. my question is how in the world is this not rape? it involves genital penitration and they are taking away the womans right to refuse? how is this legal? I herd some doctors say its not sexuall bc its not a penis how can they say that? it is penitration with an object. Its almost as tho bc its a medical screeing it makes it not rape in doctors eyes.

      • Alex says:

        It is, it’s an iatrogenic variation. It’s an instance of complusion consisting of a penetrative interface. There’s no wrestling or fighting (potentially), but the lack of rapid movement & loud screaming doesn’t change the composition of the situation. It’s an imposed situation of that nature. I’ve said it numerous times because it illustrates it perfectly: It’s still murder if they poison someone with a needle- a situation is what it consists of. It likely IS that in the doctor’s eyes, they just lie afterward. How are they going to take strides to impose this situation in contradiction to someone & not be aware of going against them? If someone snatched someone else up to play doctor, that’s definitely an attack. They force this interface to occur- obviously not an accident.

        A point: Someone merely HAVING that particular body isn’t an attack in that scenario, what they DO with it is. It’s not something that’s anatomically-based (that would be like saying “it’s not murder if a knife wasn’t used”). Technically, no attack is a “sexual situation” because it’s not a collaboration- sexual attack denotes the nature of attack. It’s a delineation in dynamics (a punch in the face is an attack, too- but a different kind).

        What’s interesting is that if a male is saying that, some other male sticking something where the sun don’t shine isn’t rape, either (if it’s anything other than a distinctly male body part, it’s their own reasoning- if it is, well it’s not that way because it wasn’t in a distinctly female body part). Same goes for any other arrangement of genders. If a woman runs another woman over with her car, it’s still murder (same theme as earlier). Doesn’t matter if she’s aroused or not, either (but it seems the situation of a woman being a lesbian or bi is completely omitted).

      • Kleigh, the program keeps limping along even though there is a growing body of evidence that continues to highlight the harms of the antiquated pap, and to point to alternative and more effective methods. The program is kept up and running and protected by governing bodies that are comprised of mainly men. Maybe we need something like this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/20/india-rape-vigilantes/2480491/ to help put an end to the harms being done to women and children. It might be effective to show up for a dr’s appointment with 6 women as backup when you want your choice to not screen to be respected.

        On Yazzmyne’s site the latest comment is very well put and ends with “Women’s Wellness will be changing. Women can accelerate this change by educating themselves and not allowing tough questions to go unanswered. The only real question left at this point is whether women will let ACOG’s old guard slither off unmolested or raise hell.” http://womenagainststirrups.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=recent

  9. Kleigh says:

    Ill never forget what a nurse told me that “womans bodies are so complex because we mensrturate we need these exams.” So the idea with all these invasive exams and screening pushed on all healthy woman is that are bodies are differant than men and more pron to disfuction. we might be diffrent than men but i dont think are bodies were ment to have problems. How can they back these clams up with facts . its like all these exams were ment to control the female body also alot of gyns are pushing all woman to take birth control to prevent a natural cycel. it just seems like all of woman health is based on fear of womans bodies and child birth . it makes no since to me. and I know of three men in my fameliy that have had and infection in there male body parts. why does the meadical comunity act like only female organs can have problems.

  10. Jola says:

    Sorry, Alex, not ”Hundus” but ”Hindus” – just a silly mistake.

  11. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Ro, over the years I’ve heard of women (online) who’ve had a GA for a pap test, some were victims of sexual assault who couldn’t face the exam. Of course, no one explained to these women how unlikely it is for an individual woman to benefit from a pap test, that cc is actually rare, and no mention of the risks with testing, the risk of a false positive and excess biopsy etc. The risks of a GA and false positive would be MUCH higher than the risk of cc. (some of these women were very young so the risk of a false positive was very high)
    Women have been brainwashed to believe they MUST have this test and so MUST find a way. The risk of the cancer has been exaggerated and the “real” benefit of a pap test. The fact is they can only help about 5% of women aged 30 to 60 and most of them will simply clear the virus, they won’t be “saved” by a pap test. When the lifetime risk is 0.65%, you can’t “save” huge numbers, it’s impossible.

    Even more disturbing these women were not offered HPV self-testing, Tampap has been around for quite a few years. Many of these women would have been HPV-…and that fact should take them out of pap testing. Also, many of these women were under 30, so testing is not even recommended in an evidence-based program. Lots of risk for no benefit.
    It’s another example of the skewed thinking in this area…a pap test at all costs, no matter the risk to the woman or the futility of the procedure.

    We wouldn’t “go under” to have any other “routine” search for a rare cancer…some people have colonoscopies to screen for bowel cancer, but the lifetime risk of bowel and rectum cancer is 4.82%
    Even so I doubt I’ll agree to one, the risks with the procedure concern me and the actual number who benefit is uncertain. (some say very few “actually” benefit) Most of the polyps that are removed would never have turned into invasive cancer. (about 3% become invasive cancer)
    Of course, many who have a polyp removed assume it would have taken their life at some point, when that’s simply not true. Others believe a colonoscopy would have saved a non-screener who dies from bowel cancer, not true either, this procedure misses some bowel cancers, especially those in the ascending colon, and the flat adenomatous polyps.

    Dr Gilbert Welch is doing a large randomized trial comparing colonoscopy and the FOBT, the results won’t be IN for years, but it will be interesting to see…
    Anyway, a GA for a pap test fills me with horror…

    I’m not surprised you thought about it though, some women feel cornered, can’t face the exam and look for a way out…there is a way out, it’s called informed consent, we can say NO for any reason.
    Some women might choose HPV self-testing, but remember, MOST women (95% of those aged 30 to 60, and the evidence does not support testing those under 30 or over 60) can’t benefit from pap tests, it’s a pointless exercise that risks their health and well-being.
    Rise above the hype is my message to women, the facts are FAR less scary.

    • Ro says:

      Elizabeth – That’s very disturbing that those women were not offered non-invasive alternatives. As I said in my previous comment, pap screening isn’t even helping as many as they’d like us to believe. Before screening began, the rate of death caused by CC was between 6,000 and 8,000 a year in the US (I haven’t found an exact number, but everything I’ve seen has been within that range). Now it’s down to 4,000 (or slightly upward of that number). That means, give or take, it’s been reduced by less than or very close to 50%. I’m sure the claim is that those women are not particpating in screening, however, close to 95% of the population in the US participate in screening, 90% on a regular basis. So statistically speaking, the greater percentage of that number would likely have been screened, and screened regularly.

      In regards to screening for bowel cancer, do you have any unbiased information about it you could share? It’s very common in my family and it apparently IS hereditary/genetic. After watching that panel video you shared, I learned that the colonoscopy business makes a lot of money, and I’ve found articles saying that people with a family history should start having colonoscopies at my age (or younger!) and that they should have them more often (I know it’s entirely different from CC as far as risk and relativity to age goes, but bowel cancers don’t seem to be very common in people under 40, and more screening in general seems to only lead to more problems, regardless of what the patient is being screened for). Also after watching that panel, apparently there is a non-invasive alternative. I don’t know much about that particular screening program, as I haven’t done much research. All I know is that within the next few years, they’re planning on hopefully switching over to a non-invasive blood test method. A lot of things have been said, though, in regards to different programs so I’m not likely to believe anything will actually change any time soon until it happens Anyways, what I’ve come across has been very pro-screening and I just want to make the most informed decisions I possibly can for myself rather than jumping into anything.

      After what you and FWEO said about GA, I understand why it’s so disturbing and why it isn’t good practice. It’s also quite terrifying that they would offer GA before informed consent. Surely, informed consent is cheaper than the money spent on GA, but they make too much money off of the screening itself so I guess that makes up for the lost money.

      “Rise above the hype is my message to women, the facts are FAR less scary.” That is very, very true.

      • Alex says:

        You notice how that colonoscopy thing is something that would effect women AND men? See, I’d think that a man would be absolutely furious if someone was trying to bully his woman or kids into something of this nature (which, of course, includes the risks & ramifications of this situation- regardless of methodolgy).

        I’ve referenced this before, but if you go to mayamassage.org there’s some information about uterine massage (it’s something self-performable, it’s basically a stomach rub type of thing). Just something to add to overall self-sufficiency (plus, no need to get within the sphere of influence of questionable doctors/nurses/hospitals/etc…).

        Just to let people know, I have a bunch of time on my hands, if there is something you’d like to know I could try to hunt it down for you. I live in America (currently), but I do sometimes come across things from other countries. Keep in mind: What’s legal & what’s wrong can be two entirely different beasts. I’d suggest to just act entitled to things going in a non-abusive way. Whatever the laws are, the concern is how the situation goes.

    • Alex says:

      There’s a lot of “grading.” Some people mindlessly go for the A-1 standard like it’s some kind of accomplishment, regardless of what it consists of. There’s also a lot of fixation on possible luck (oddly enough, instead of deliberate assessment- which is what would generate the more desired situation better in the first place).

      The idea that “it could have been caught, boo hoo hoo” is so prevalent, but the concept of hindsight doens’t seem to be as prevalent with iatrogenic detriment. If someone hadn’t trusted a doctor with both a motive & a massive history of lying, they wouldn’t have died in surgery. If someone hadn’t trusted them, they wouldn’t have gone though all these problems. If they’d picked up on these things as problems, they could have been factored in as warning signs. If someone hadn’t put up with their overall antagonism, neither of these things would have been so easy to pull off.

  12. Kleigh says:

    Wow I cant belive that 95% of american woman have pap smears. I wonder if that is really acurate if they are going by woman just saying they screen when I know some woman lie about pap dates to get doctors off there back. but I know alot of woman are on birth control and doctors force most of those woman to have pap smears. I wonder how many of those 95% actually concented to the paps? I just think its mass rape.

    • Ro says:

      Kleigh – Only 90% screen regularly (as part of the program, every year/every 3 years depending on whether or not their doctor follows the guidelines), so the other 5% of the total 95% statistic could be women who had smears done when they went in for surgery, or prenatal care, etc (all disgusting situations, but it happens). Either way, it’s a high number. I agree with you – without the correct information, it most definitely is an invasion of that kind. The ironic thing about the statistic, though, is that based off of the program in Finland, only 5% of women would actually have any sort of possible benefit. 95% of women will have no benefit (based off of the evidence) and so they aren’t screened there.

      • Kleigh says:

        Ro thats intersting. I hear they aim to screen almost all woman. I think they use prenatal care, birth control and other vistits to trap woman into having paps that normaly do not go for them. That is sick. I am alomst 29 and I never have used birth control or gone for a well wman exam. I guess im rare. that nurse acted as tho she had never hers of a woman at my age that had never had a pap smear. it must be that im am the only woman that she had incounterd that had never screened. Its hard for me to belive that so many woman let doctors do paps on them . it makes me feel like a freak.

      • Alex says:

        I wouldn’t really believe those statistics (I’ve heard everything from 50% to 100% as presumptions). Overall, they make up information on everything (look at safety: You don’t screw with the seal on something you don’t want to leak- it’d stand to reason that deforming an area of the body that does exactly that during pregnancy can cause problems with that). Again, it might be hard to know what’s going to cause a problem & what doesn’t, but at the end of the day medical quality is determined by patient satisfaction (and you’re eventually going to die at some point, anyway- so it’s a question of whether you want to include this kind of thing in your life).

        Take all the other subjects: Prescription medication either doesn’t do anything or it does bad things, a lot of surgieries are for nonsense reasons (the problem may not even be an issue, it might just be something that’s THERE- if there WAS anything there to begin with), the surgeries are dangerous & if the doctor’s too arrogant to catch their own mistakes or they have a drive to detriment someone (well, we’ve talked about that plenty). I know it comes off as unfair to say “them” and “they” but there is a common theme (plus, there is the fact that they are certified & this is what passes certification).

  13. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    I’m always cautious with “their” statistics, I read somewhere last year that 80% of women follow our program. Sounds like another whopper to me…
    I knew that wasn’t right because Papscreen have been frantic about the fall in the screening rate. It’s more like 57%…the rest have worked out it’s excessive and screen 3 or 5 yearly, others choose not to screen. (I think the 5 yearly figure was about 78%)
    Of course, they blame Gardasil, women are confused (we seem to be constantly confused or that’s the conclusion when we don’t do as we’re told…) and think they don’t “need” pap tests any more. They’d never admit women are getting to the evidence and making informed decisions.

    http://www.6minutes.com.au/news/latest-news/women-skipping-pap-smears-after-hpv-vaccine

    I think some groups inflate the number of screeners to make non-screeners feel nervous, like outcasts…get with the herd.

    Also, Ro, I think you’re referring to the new Dutch program, they’ll only offer pap tests to the roughly 5% who test HPV+…of course, very few of those women will “actually” benefit, most will just clear the virus. (but they are at risk and have a small chance of benefiting)
    As you correctly point out though, 95% of those currently being tested here, in the States etc. would be HPV- and cannot benefit from pap testing.
    The Finns still have their 6-7 pap test program, 5 yearly from 30 to 60, the same program they’ve had since the 1960s. I understand they’ll probably also, move to HPV primary testing in a year or so.

    Of course, if you don’t give women the information they need or make HPV testing available, nothing changes. In the States they’re using the HPV test, but as another way to make huge profits, they’re ADDING it to population pap testing, this leads to the most over-investigation. So a test that could really help a few of that 5% and take the other 95% out of pap testing, is being misused to maximize medical profits.

    Be careful with early figures for cervical cancer too – in the early days they rolled uterine cancer in with cervical cancer, so the numbers are inflated.
    I found the best information on bowel screening in Dr McCartney’s book, “Patient Paradox” and Dr Gilbert Welch covers the topic in his books as well. I’ll look through my files and post a few references for you.

  14. Ro says:

    Kleigh – I feel like a freak at times too. Even though screening is no longer recommended for women under 21, most women my age I know have already participated in screening from a younger age. That’s probably their point though – to try to make women feel alienated so they choose to participate.

    Alex – I wasn’t aware that they made up percentages, however it doesn’t surprise me. If only there was more honesty involved.

    Elizabeth – I’m curious to know how they go about padding percentages of those who screen? Surely, there has to be some method aside from throwing some random number around. I suppose that’s possible, but the number must have come from somewhere. (Perhaps a specific year in a specific area, and then applied to the entire population?) Yes, the Dutch program is what I was referring to. I thought it was already being used in Finland, but I stand corrected. I did a search on Dr. Gilbert Welch and he has publicly discussed lots of great information. I found a video online where he was talking about how survival rate statistics are padded. He said that the survival rate may not have had much increase at all – meaning that there are very few who live longer, but because more people are being grouped into the total number with the disease, even those who were misdiagnosed or over-treated, it changes the percentage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7QNhE59s9Q So in particular regards to screening for CC, the mortality rate was improved by 70% (I think that’s the number I’ve seen people saying), however you have to factor in how many more cases were being diagnosed. The mortality rate may have had very little improvement. It specifically was discussing the PSA program, but the same applies for all screening, I’m sure.

    • Alex says:

      Neither one of you are freaks. There are numerous reasons for not doing this and any one on it’s own is enough, but combining them does exactly that (like someone getting cut with a dity razor & getting a diesease is more than one problem- a disease potential is a point, too).

      Something being against your alignment is an impetus in itself. I’d highly suggest using deliberate assessment instead of trusting the first thing you hear, regardless of what it is. There’s also something called an information cascade (where someone, basically, goes where other people go because there’s people there & that’s all they know- they have no background information on the situation). There can be a kind of presumption of honesty & accuracy with people right off the bat, but there isn’t necessarily a groundwork of truth to everything someone says. Just because something was said, doesn’t mean there’s that foundation of it actually being that way (not everyone is lying all the time, but it happens- even if it’s not something you’d do in the same situation).

      I think women spend far too much time trying to justify their decisions (oddly enough, to people that seek to circumvent them, anyway). That just being how things line up for you is enough. Someone can “why?” to death somebody else ducking a punch, too. You eventually hit a ground floor, even if you can’t articulate it (which is not an ability I’d suggest depending on, since some things are hard to put into words, especially in the heat of the moment with people rushing you around or being confrontational). Keep in mind: some people see agreement as defeat, so you’re not going to convince them or whatever it is, anyway. It’s a rigged game of getting them to give up at their own, non-existant desire to.

      Personally, I wonder if women have a harder time with confrontation because of not wanting to destroy & kill, but maybe it’s supporting a different situation (like a mother bear supporting her cub’s life by mauling something to death that’s trying to eat it). Strength might have something to do with it, too (a lot of women don’t realize that she won’t get all big & man-ish looking from working out for strength, unless she takes testosterone supplements- a lot of men don’t know that, either). Having that physical strength might make her feel a bit more confident in her ability to handle herself & things wouldn’t as daunting. It feels like the gun is loaded, if you will. Would be happy to give advice on that, if any of you would like to know more (there’s a site called Dragondoor.com, that has books & forums on all kinds of stuff like that- just to give a starting point).

  15. Jola says:

    I’m pasting a link to an article: ”Worried Parents Balk At HPV Vaccine For Daughters” http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/18/174617709/worried-parents-balk-at-hpv-vaccine-for-daughters
    I reccomend you read the comments under the article.

    • Ro says:

      Jola – The comments were disgusting, especially with all of the evidence out there that these vaccines can cause a lot of harm. I hope and pray that the children of those parents giving consent for their child to get the vaccine do not end up with any of the horrible side effects. Furthermore, if they want to have the opinion that the shot is a miracle worker and that it prevents cancer, then more power to them; but they should not criticize other parents for making a decision to not get their child vaccinated. I couldn’t even get through half of the comments.

  16. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    http://able2know.org/topic/166140-6

    This thread is an eye-opener and shows how the brainwashing of women ensures medical abuse and excess continues into the future.
    This American mother was told by UK doctors that her 16 year old sexually active daughter did not need a routine pelvic exam. This mother was determined to find a way, her mother took her for her first gyn exam, and she’d do the same for her daughter. I posted initially and then went off to a conference, I return to the thread much later, delighted to see another female poster had taken up my position and continued to challenge this warped and dangerous thinking in my absence.
    Brainwashing means these women won’t accept a refusal or medical advice advising against the exam, they simply consider it second rate medical care and find a way.

    Sadly, the start of your teen years or menstruation or of sexual activity FOR A GIRL so often triggers the gyn talk….time to go. In fact these exams are unnecessary and carry risk to our physical and emotional health. All routine pelvic exams are unnecessary and most pap tests…the respect shown for the male body needs to extend to the female body.

    The things these life stages should trigger for both sexes, is education on safe sex and contraception. Birth control options should be freely available, not tied to excess and unnecessary pelvic exams, and STi testing should be available using non-invasive methods. (blood and urine test or self collected swab)
    We should offer things that educate and protect….lead the individual to value and control their own health, body and life.

    • Ro says:

      I read the thread and what was interesting to me is that even in symptomatic patients, they always use other non-invasive methods first in the UK. That should be the case everywhere, otherwise it is excess harm, even if only psychologically. If there are other means to detect and diagnose, then in my opinion, those should be used first. Invasive exams should be a last resort and even then, always optional to the patient and left up to her own discretion.

      A lot of parents seem to push their children into these sorts of exams. It’s happening now with boys, as well. Obviously, there exams are different but genital exams are being considered part of a back-to-school physical for both genders now, and especially college/university students. It’s truly sickening. There’s very, very little about informed consent and very little honest information shared – especially in the US. As you referred to it in another post, I believe, we have a problem with excess “care” and many believe that more is better when it only leads to more harm. Oh, and let’s not forget that the ACOG is telling parents that their daughter is probably lying about sexual activity if she says she isn’t having sex. I apologize for all of the anger behind this comment but I am truly angry about all that’s going on. Especially when you compare it other countries that are getting along just fine without all of the excess and invasive procedures..

      • Alex says:

        Speaking of which, look up Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. They ambushed 59 girls (6th graders- so 11 years old) with genital exams (Google “genital exams back to school”- that’s what I did). A bunch of them said it was internal. They were denied the ability to opt out or call their parents (who had no notice of the exam, much less the genital portion). The school said it was external with some touching (which is an issue, anyway). They were talking one minute about STDs (which blood & urine test work for & genital warts would not be detectable externally- which contradicts their saying that it was external), the next they’re saying it was also for detecting abnormalities & child abuse. ABUSING CHILDEREN TO DETECT CHILD ABUSE!

        The doctor (who, by-the-way, is a woman) also said that “even a parent doesn’t have the right to say what’s appropriate for a physican to do when they’re doing an exam.” There was a massive amount of support for this situation (their branch of the National Education Association, the school board, the teachers, as well as the district & state police- which proves my pre-existing view of them). The school receives $25,000 from the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (which encourages public schools to provide free, health-related services to all students).

        Listen: If it says “provide” it means “force.” If it says “encourage” it either means “impose” or “incentivize” (depending on who is being “encouraged”). If it says “provide access” it means “impose what this access would be to.” If it says “care” it means “harm.” If it says “help” it means “harm.” If it says “protect” it means “attack.” If it says “serve” it means “dictate.” If it says “support” it means “destroy.”

      • Alex says:

        One more thing I just read (this time, a more positive one): Google “women’s rights violations not just developing nations issue.” It mentioned challenges to realizing their rights when seeking out reproductive health care (sounded like a mention of various medically-generated problems).

  17. Jola says:

    Alex wrote: ”The doctor (who, by-the-way, is a woman) also said that “even a parent doesn’t have the right to say what’s appropriate for a physican to do when they’re doing an exam.” ”

    Never ever before have I heard about such breaking of the law! It was SHEER CHILD ABUSE – like in Romania during the beastly Causescu’s times.

    Why does the government let such things happen?! Why aren’t parents’ voices listened to?
    From what I’ve read about what’s going to in the U.S. towards women: paps during pregnancy!(in Europe they are not accepted during pregnancy), giving birth in stirrups!, epidural as a norm! pitocin while labour as a norm! internal exams! – I gather there is just gynaecological terror in that country! Sounds like experiments on girls / women are so widely accepted there!

    • Alex says:

      I just go with plain evil as a reason. Also, plenty boils down to action, not talking- they “veto” whatever someone says here. There’s a lot of “thinking by adjucation” in this country (“reality is what I say it is” kind of thinking). They don’t judge a situation by it’s properties.

      Causescu went after children, too? What I already heard was pretty horrendous, but that makes that bullet in the head he got all the more deserved (doesn’t seem like enough, though- given all that he put people through).

      • Jola says:

        That rotter Causescu imposed the mandatory gynaecological exams on women, but here on the forum in an article there is a citation from a Romanian woman who, as a student, was forced to undergo gynaecological exams with other girls (could she be 17 or 18 then, or more – I don’t know) – the student girls were standing in a line and went in the surgery one by one to be examined by a male gyno! They were suddenly taken from class and driven like a flock of sheep to ”have their health checked”.

  18. Jola says:

    Alex, this is the article written by the Romanin woman I mentioned: http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_ocr9.php

    • Alex says:

      Thank you. That reminds me of something Diane (on this site ) said about what happened to her in America (them saying something about graduationg high school & getting into college). That’s absolutely appalling & it’s foul that medically-imposed things have a non-antagonistic designation (at least sometimes).

      Did you hear about that Tunisian topless protestor (Amina Tyler)? She had her virginity checked by two old women of her family! She had said “That was horrible & against my freedom.” I wonder what would have been said here? “Well- it was two women doing it & they were just trying to find out if she was a virgin,” would be my bet. The components of a methodology don’t cease to exist in their own right! The people here act like if it’s a piece to doing something, it’s fine no matter what it is (means or goals, actually).

      On a different note: I just found out about a book Every Woman’s Herbal (it’s actually more like a family herbal book- because there’s more general use stuff in there, too). It’s by John R. Christopher & Cathy Gileadi. Don’t know if I’d suggest it over the Rosemary Gladstar book, but it seem good. Maybe it’s something to look into for increasing overall self-sufficiency?

  19. Jola says:

    I haven’t heard about the Tunisian topless protestor.
    I dare say what is still being done to women, to their sexuality, is the question of religion – the religion which has distorted people’s approach to women, to their body and generally to the body.

    People, especially young people, both boys and girls should be said from their childhood that they are fully allowed to refuse any examination. Nobody has the right to touch anybody (I mean in medical terms) without their consent.

    • Alex says:

      I agree with you about hearing these things from an early age (it might very well apply at that age, too). I guess religion could be part of it, although I seems like a bit of a contradiction (which happens with some religions). Overall, how would it not be sinful to attack someone in this way? I don’t exactly know what “marionism” is, but it seem to have something to do with not treating women badly (I guess because of Jesus’s mother?).

      I don’t trust philosophies that are okay with baseless attack (what kind of a chance would you have with a god like that, anyway?). Someone like that is sure to attack you, whether you consider them a friend or not (actually, it would be especially if you were a friend- there’s even less, and by their reasoning, MORE reason to attack you because of that).

      I wonder if it has to do with a contradiction of things, maybe they feel that altering/deforming/contradicting/destroying things is a measure of success? Like going against something is always a good situation? Isn’t, then, their philosophy something to be destroyed? Isn’t their drive to be counter-intuitive something to be countered?

      I just figure some people’s compass points backward- they’re of a bad alignment & it’s what they are. Even if someone felt “pushed around” by their inclinations not to do something unfair, why wouldn’t that drive be overcome by the other? A little cynical, perhaps, but it definitely seems to apply. Someone has to know what they’re doing is a bad thing in order to aim in that direction.

  20. Jess says:

    As a nurse, it is frustrating to hear that so many people feel pap tests are wrong. Cervical cancer is extremely preventable- that is what these tests are aiming to achieve. Abnormal cell devision is a warning sign that cancer is on it’s way, and paps give doctors the opportunity to intervene beforehand. I don’t personally believe in the vaccine, but I do believe that pap tests are an important tool in preventing cervical cancer. If we can take preventative measures against cancer, why wouldn’t we? Chemo, surgery and radiation are FAR worse than undergoing a pap smear every 2 years.

    • Si says:

      Jess, why do you believe that you could contact a cancer as rare as cervical cancer? As a nurse you would be aware of the possibility of contracting a multitude of diseases and innumerable health conditions, not to mention freak accidents. Do you eat processed food, drive a car, breathe in carbon monoxide? Life is risky, and each of us has the freedom (at least in my country) to decide how we want to navigate our lives, what risks to take and what risks to avoid.
      Just look at the statistics, you have a lifetime risk of less than 1% of contracting cervical cancer. Is it easily preventable? That is debatable; many of us here would say that the harm caused by aggressive treatment of these ambiguous ‘abnormal cells’ is not an acceptable risk. Especially when there’s such a small chance that these cells could develop into something life threatening. Personally I do not believe there is any reason to subject myself to any preventative health screening, unless I develop concerning symptoms.
      Another issue you may like to consider is that the nature of the pap exam is invasive and many women are uncomfortable with the procedure. You’ve only got to do a quick google search to see just how many women really loathe having their intimate body parts examined and picked at. A significant number of women feel violated and suffer PTSD as a result of having to endure the Pap test – since they believe as you do that it may save their life. Many women have been bullied and brainwashed to believe pap testing is a good thing and against their own instincts submit to being tested.
      Be careful you don’t turn into a bully – pressuring other women to submit to these exams is under-mining a woman’s right to choose and her right to privacy and agency over her own body.
      Jess I respectfully suggest you take the time to think about the realistic benefits of cervical screening, there’s plenty of resources on this website to research it for yourself and make an informed opinion.

    • Alex says:

      I’ll leave the biological stuff to other people (except to say there ARE risks & inaccuracies with this test, in addition to any problems arising from overtreatment).

      First off, any interface with sexual areas as a product of someone else’s decision-making is an attack (it’s merely an iatrogenic variation in this case). This is medical rape, plain & simple. It is an imposed penetration & a situation is what it consists of (just like if a doctor poisons someone with a needle, it’s still murder). That, in itself, is very severe (just like if someone snatched someone else up to aggressively play doctor). It is not accurate to present this situation as a non-antagonistic one.

      That chemo, surgery, and radiation are RESULTS of these tests giving false impressions of there being a problem in the first place. Usually these measures don’t work, anyway- even if someone does have cancer. Maybe they’ll be additional problems like infections from being in the hospital with a weakened immune system or getting surgery in that environment. It’s also not accurate to say that chemo, radiation, and surgery are worse (at all, much less by FAR)- abuse of this nature is grievous, repeated or not (and especially if someone’s had an abusive past). Someone doesn’t tend to have flashbacks of chemo.

      Medical personnel DO NOT annex people with their decisions. They do not self-conclude that they are GOING to do something, especially something of this nature. Medical quality is determined by patient satisfaction, not academic value. That confrontational “I outmatch you because what comes from me is an A & what comes from you is a B, at best” is not valid. It is antithetical to assistance, due to it being an attack.

      For whatever reason, medical personnel tend to assume that they have self-determination with someone else’s self. This is not the case. They do not assume proprietorship of the patient. They also do not insubstantiate the patient by ignoring them. A very serious point is that reality is not fromed by recognition- if it were, no one would get hit by a car they didn’t see coming or drown trying to walk on the water. That applies to unexpected good things, as well (or expecting good things, but getting problems instead).

  21. Mary says:

    “Cervical cancer is extremely preventable- that is what these tests are aiming to achieve”
    At what price? Cervical stenosis, immature cervixes resulting in miscarriages, the psychological trauma of abnormal paps that turn out to be harmless? Considering that cervical cancer is so rare (always was) I believe that the risks outweigh the benefits. And I question the net gain of lives saved from paps if we deduct miscarriages resulting from treatments for abnormal paps.
    ” If we can take preventative measures against cancer, why wouldn’t we?” Because basically the pap test is a crap screening tool that is highly inaccurate. That is why. There are better tests around now. The pap smear is almost a century old. It is laughable that we are still relying on this antiquated test.

  22. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Exactly, it’s not preventable with pap tests, ever heard of false negatives? There are far better ways to deal with this rare cancer if we actually cared about women. The Finns and Dutch have followed the evidence. In my opinion, when women are urged to seriously over-screen or screened inappropriately, screening is not evidence based, it’s bad medicine that exposes women to risk. This sort of testing is the result of political, vested and misguided interests influencing these programs.
    Informed consent matters…I’m not interested in screening for a rare cancer, that’s my right.
    The fact is I have an almost zero risk of cc, so why would I accept a very high risk of over-treatment with this testing? I’m sure more women would feel the same way if they were given balanced information and respected to make up their own minds.
    Any woman (aged 30 or older) concerned about this rare cancer should be offered HPV primary testing or HPV self-testing, but that will be resisted in many countries, it’s not in the interests of those who hang off these programs enjoying the power, profits and political kudos.
    Also, where is the concern for those who get false negatives, the huge number over-treated who may end up losing a premature baby or suffer a miscarriage. No concern at all…incredible those who defend pap testing are costing some women their lives and sending the vast majority for not only unnecessary pap testing, but to day procedure.
    We stick our heads in the sand and ignore the reality of this program, it harms huge numbers and misses too many of these rare cancers and that’s a lousy deal for women.

  23. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Also, while people defend this testing/program, they help keep these harmful testing/programs in place…they enable these influences to continue using women for their benefits, and to keep out better testing options. This will cost some women their lives and condemn huge numbers to over-treatment. So they’ll praise themselves for perhaps, saving a relatively small number of lives, but at a very high cost to other women most of whom have not given informed consent or even consented to the testing in the first place.

  24. ADM (Canada) says:

    Abnormal cells are not a sign that cancer is on it’s way. Abnormal cells on the cervix can be a result of hormonal changes, yeast infection, use of a tampon, recent sexual activity, and normal changes in the cervix. Throughout your body cells are constantly changing and at any time you could take a sample from anywhere and find abnormal cells. If you took a swap off your arm and found abnormal cells would you subject it to burning especially if there was nothing visibly wrong, You wouldn’t be afraid that you have arm cancer. It is known that in most women abnormal cells disappear without any further treatment. It is not a black and white issue of get pap smears or end up getting chemo and radiation. Many women who get CC have regular paps and with the number of women who don’t get regular paps they should be dropping dead but aren’t. It is exactly the hyperbole statement of get paps are end up with surgery, or radiation, or chemo that takes away from the ability of women to make informed decisions about this cancer screening. The facts are CC is rare and screening is not 100% effective. There are far greater threats to our health as women such as heart disease than CC. Yet we rarely hear anything about heart disease.

    • Alex says:

      Getting unconventionally attacked is a much more prevalent threat, too. Nobody seems to zoom in on that too much.

    • Anonymous says:

      I can’t help but despair when so many doctors, nurses etc. have just accepted the screening “story” and spout it confidently. Few have bothered to do any real research and some know the evidence, but protect screening to also, protect their interests. Some people are well-meaning, but misguided…and that often comes back to a complete acceptance of the hype and a closed mind to the evidence.
      You don’t have to be a genius to ask…why are so many women being treated and saved when this cancer is rare, but you do need an open mind?
      So most can’t see the wood for the trees and others choose not to..for all sorts of reasons, some may even be afraid to look, especially if they’ve already lost some of their cervix and have noticed the so-called facts simply don’t add up.

  25. Jola says:

    Goodness me! Jess, with all respect to you and to your profession, please, please don’t say rubbish. Sorry Jess for my saying so, but it is your business to do as many paps as possible.

    Intervene beforehand?!!! In such a way – by doing so much harm to women – it is mutilation!!! How disgusting it is! It’s just sheer business – dot.

    Why don’t the government think reasonably about the most common diseases and cancers?!

    • Alex says:

      I keep remembering that Pennsylvania case with the 11-year-olds. I don’t think there’s a single one of them with a soul. Maybe it’s my bleak outlook on life, but I truly don’t think there’s a soul left in America anymore (save for the people on this site from this country). They adore any abuse of children, particularly sexual abuse- because they always find a way to disqualify it. It doesn’t matter what the properties of a situation are to them, they figure it’s transformed by their designations. They don’t want to wipe out that situation. They want to make friends & collaborate with “people” like that.

      In a bunch of the links on that story (can’t remember which thread), I found that there was no concept of decommissioning the doctor’s actions. There was no idea of “your mandate is dissolved” or that the components of a methodology don’t cease to exist in their own right. Their wasn’t any idea of a goal that should be left unfulfilled or that they don’t outmatch someone else with their concept that potential utility generates a justification against someone else’s counteraction. There’s a concept that if there’s even a fake goal to be attained by doing something, it outwashes anyone’s discretion.

      Bodily autonomy, integrity, and inviolablility are not cancelled by medical influences. The lack of support from their side is NOT an indicator of things being otherwise. Children are not free game! The cops have been acting like enemies toward children in this country, too. What happens? Complete disqualification. “They’re not all like that,” is the only thing that comes out of someone’s mouth over here. As if you’re dealing with something else just becaue it COULD be there. What’s the point being made? That if it’s not 100% of the time, it’s 0%? The situation is not this way because not EVERY situation goes this way? What stupidity! That they can’t have a mindless “catch-all” in one direction, so they’ll disregard whatever comes up & fabricate a “prettier” one. Wouldn’t it make things more “mellow” if these problems were dissolved?

  26. Here is a disturbing video about vaccines (including Gardasil):

    • Ro says:

      Perfect timing! The flu shot hysteria has started, at least where I live. I’m terrified that flu shots are going to become “mandatory”. I put that in parentheses, because it’s illegal to actually impose it, but my point is that it will be marketed as such. I do not trust the flu shot at all, and it turns out that all vaccines apparently can have negative effects. I’ll admit I was pretty ignorant until I watched this video. I was only aware of affects from the flu shot and the Gardasil vaccines. Frightening video, but important to watch.

    • Alex says:

      Thanks for the vid, Sue. This is pretty scary- no matter what the problems are, the situation is always disqualified. The situation is always sugar-coated & there’s the constant argument that: the people that do this are “only” doing their jobs. What’s the difference? Occupational doesn’t mean fictional.

      Doesn’t matter if they feel bad about doing these thing, either. Most likely, they’re just lying about that to begin with- trying to parasite off of other people’s conscience. Using guilt as a shield, basically. Someone tries to put these things into practice, they’re enemies.

    • Alex says:

      Just finished watching this & wanted to say that this IS both frightening & important like Ro said. Noticed a bit of propaganda at about 1:03, but the video was very informative & easy to understand.

      I know I’ve made this point before, but watch out for those that are in law “enforcement” (notice the word?). Every damn thing gets deemed illegal or acted on as if it is & fabrication IS possible. I’d be very concerned about various things being imposed through whatever methods (coercion, deception, physical force, etc…). I hate to phrase it this way, but maybe it turns into a medical “rape rally” with full legal sanctions like in Romania with Causescu. These vaccines might also make people more vunerable to other attacks, medical or otherwise. Their capacities mentally & physically are severely impaired, and that generates an easy environment for an attacker of that nature.

      Anyone else notice how infrastructure tends to turn on you now? I don’t know if that’s the right word, but the general theme is like that car in the Stephen King book that would strangle people with the seat belts. Things that are supposed to provide assistance are antagonistic instead. Things that are supposed to provide a means of doing something don’t do that. Anything that provides anything tends to be extrememly coercive & dictatorial.

    • OverItAll says:

      Haven’t watched video yet but every “vaccine” is essentially a human experiment (illegal by the way) due to the “drug studies” containing far too few people to provide any reliable info (side effects for example) and victims of the study are not followed long enough to see if there are any permanent side effects (fertility problems, etc). I’m shocked that kids are given so many in such a short time, yet no one is questioning the sharp uprise in diseases/conditions and infertility (though diet does help also). And why is the hep b (basically sexually/drug addict transmitted) given to all newborns? According to a dr I once interviewed, “high risk people are too hard to get in the office. Shooting up freshly-born is much easier”.

      My son at 3 months had 4 seizures. Pediatrician said they were all in my head then called them “seizure like activity” and told us to either shoot him up or leave. We left for a gp who called them “febrile (fever) seizures”. According to this dr, a fever is over 101 and my son was just under 100. He sent us to a neurologist who, other than flashing a light in his eyes and doing a knee bump reflex thing, did nothing and said it was all in my head. Now, the gp is demanding to see my research. My son has not had any shots since his “incident”. I was so careful too; either 1 combo or 2 singles and only dead shots.

      We got back in town 2 weeks ago but baby boy’s been sick since Thursday when he spiked a 104d fever. Oddly, the fever was his only symptom and, up until today, he’s been eating like normal and fever went away Sunday. Not a single seizure which means he did have seizures from the shots. Imagine my surprise.

  27. HealthWise says:

    When I saw the first commercial for Gardasil, inner city minority girls playing double dutch singing “one less” I almost choked on my green smoothie.
    I work in advertising so I often pay very close attention to whom and how a company markets a product.
    Sterility and $$$ were the first two things that popped into my head. I wont elaborate, think about it.

    • Alex says:

      Speaking of Gardasil, did you hear about Katie Couric? Apparently, she presented both sides of the situation (including negative information about the vaccine) & got in a bunch of trouble. She recently made an apology, but there was an article that was plenty scathing about what she said. I just Googled “Katie Couric” & it came up, but it was on slate.com, specifically. The author pretty much just went in complete reverse & really pitched the whole “this saves lives/thousands could die/now people might be scared about this situation, so they’ll opt out” thing.

      Another thing was a father in the U.K. got sentenced to life in prison for the death of his daughter, but she may very well have died from the MMR vaccine. He wasn’t allowed to present that possibility in court, however. It occurs to me if the guy actually DID shake his daughter to death (as was accused), he’d be a bad father- but if he gets his kid vaccinated & it causes the same effects as killing her with his bare hands, that’s not being a bad father. Seems you can have the same issues if they die of something a vaccine would (supposedly) prevent.

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s