Discussion Forum (Unnecessary Pap Smears: Part Two)

This post has been created to provide an additional forum for discussion.

Thank you Alex for suggesting the addition of an open forum devoted to discussion on this blog. (click on title or graphic to go to comments)

About forwomenseyesonly

Hi. My name is Sue and I am interested in promoting holistic and respectful health care.
Gallery | This entry was posted in discussion about womens health, pap test and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1,252 Responses to Discussion Forum (Unnecessary Pap Smears: Part Two)

  1. Alex says:

    Holy shit! Those women actually pranced around in their underwear (on a seemingly cold day, too) to try to drive women into getting probed at the doctor’s office?! They’re actually telling someone whether THEY have a problem with something. They’re arguing that something ceases to exist, despite it’s EXISTANCE!

    Notice: A lot of those women were in shape- this would gain them male attention & maybe that was the point: the other women would look at them as something to imitate. Men do the same thing when a guy is really jacked & the women seem to approve- he starts looking for workout tips so he can have these attributes, too. I wonder what would happen if women started wearing mini-shirts & spandex shorts carrying signs that says “My body, my rules- including in the doctor’s office”? They actually did something real similar in Mexico- there was all kinds of victim-blaming with rape & groping & such, so they threw on something sexy & marched around with “My body belongs to me” written in lipstick on themselves. Some dudes were involved, too.

    I’ve got to say, if I was going to go to bed with a woman, I’d want her to be supportive of bodily autonomy & compositional thinking- however hot she is. Whether the goal is procreation or not, there is the potential for it & I wouldn’t want a woman that is going to try to sabotage our kids. Also, I don’t trust people that don’t have self-determination. It’s just that it’s not normal to be like that & I worry if they’re nuts, plain & simple.

  2. Victoria says:

    I had a very cynical thought after a conversation with my mum about this. I told her I wouldn’t ever be screening and she was fine, didn’t say anything at all, not even, “Well you should really…” I was explaining some of the main points I’ve learned from here (the Bristol Study, 99% caused by HPV, most treatments of abnormal cells haven’t stopped cancer, etc…). She then said she wasn’t too fussed about going again because she’s never missed one her adult life and they’ve all come back clear. Now, I don’t see that in itself as a reason to stop, although there are plenty of other valid reasons. I wondered, though, if my mum had had treatment for abnormal cells in the past, would she be so blaze about stopping? Her reason for possibly stopping was that she’d been completely clear her whole life, so turn that around and you have women using abnormal cells as a reason to keep going. We see this a lot on forums, the “better to be safe than sorry” line of argument and it’s not news to any of you reading. The cynical thought I had was that it’s actually in the screening programme’s interest to have as many women as possible promoting the screening through stories about their “cancer scare”. If they were to improve testing so over-treatment didn’t happen on so large a scale, there would be less of these stories out there encouraging/scaring witless some women into screening.

    • adawells says:

      “If they were to improve testing so over-treatment didn’t happen on so large a scale, there would be less of these stories out there encouraging/scaring witless some women into screening.”

      I think this is what’s now happening in the UK. From now on smears which are abnormal are being tested to see if they are HPV+. If not these women are treated as normal and go straight back to normal recall, so many less women than before are being referred for abnormal smears. The NHS will only test if a woman is HPV+ after she has given a smear, when a woman who is HPV- has no need to have smears in the first place.

      • Kate (UK) says:

        Are they, though? As far as I’m aware, only borderline/minor *abnormalities* will be HPV tested, not the moderate/severe ones. In the past, women with minor changes would simply have been retested 6 months later, and many of these would have resolved by then anyway. So although it reduces the need for more tests, I’m not sure whether HPV testing has really made a huge difference in regards to referrals – maybe it would if they used it as a primary test instead of tacking it onto the useful-as-a-chocolate-teapot smear test. Considering that abnormal smear + HPV positive means immediate referral, we’re still going to see an enormous amount of overdiagnosis.
        According to the new sales brochure – sorry, screening leaflet – 6 out of every 100 women have abnormal results and 4 of them will be referred – so with 13 routine tests in a lifetime, that’s a 78% risk of getting an abnormal result and a 52% risk of referral in one’s lifetime. When the lifetime risk of getting the disease (according to CRUK) is 0.9%.
        Doesn’t sound like an improvement to me.
        Yes, I know my *statistics* aren’t really correct, since risk factors change during our lifetime, but I’m employing the same creative accountancy the NHS is so fond of. ;)

        I also find it quite insulting that a woman who tests HPV- is simply returned to the regular system – it’s as if they’re assuming we, or our partners, are all out merrily shagging everything with a pulse and thus if we’re not infected now, we soon will be!

      • adawells says:

        You may well be right. My last test was in the 20th century so I’m completely out of the loop. I was just going by what I’ve read recently on the NHS website:

        http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDoQFjAA&url=http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/hpv-primary-screening.html&ei=G1nFU8ukM9Sw7Aa5yoCgCQ&usg=AFQjCNGpN77nFy0T7xFuAK5H1LXz8BQu-w&bvm=bv.70810081,d.ZGU:

        I would be interested to know from any women living in these areas how the system actually works. For instance, if you are living in one of these cities and you test HPV-, are they really going to say to you that you can come back in 6 years time instead of 3? I doubt it somehow. They don’t want the word to get out that you don’t need to keep screening so often.

      • Moo says:

        Systems do not work. If a woman over 35 is HPV negative, she might be that until she has sex with someone who gives her a strain of HPV she never had her immune system encounter and clear. But really only the HPV negative women might want Pap tests.

        I sent off the form to never have another cancer screening invitation or phone call for cervical, breast or colon cancer. It said I was signing that I knew I was responsible for keeping my screening updated and also my family doctor was responsible (a contradiction). No acknowledgment that I was choosing not to have screenings or could have that choice.

        Why does there even have to be a SYSTEM for cancer screening?

        When the cause of some cancers were not known cancer registries were useful in determining what populations, neighbourhoods (chemical contamination of soil, air, water) were experiencing more types of certain cancers. It could also be used for planning so that medical care could be equalized according to needs. Only where is the evidence that cervical screening registries are being used for those purposes?

        Most of the reports I have read about cervicla screening programmes go back to the “Health Belief Model” system of scaring women into testing and finding out “their excuses” for not testings and proposing measures to “increase” numbers tested.

        The panty video was disgusting. Maybe the next one will be worst showing us how we actually get HPV with live sex acts in the street. Back when I was 13 I was embarrassed to go to the store to buy tampons.

  3. adawells says:

    So glad I don’t live in Northamptonshire and would have had to suffer the dreadful No Excuses flashmob in 2013. Their video is here:

    It makes me squirm with embarassment to watch it, and I’m ashamed this happened in my country.
    They say they want to have 100,000 likes on YouTube. They have 16 (probably the 16 girls in the video) and 1 dislike. I can’t seem to find any evidence that they ran it again this year (2014) so let’s hope they’ve had complaints about it.
    It was organised by our very own NHS, and eve.livesley@northants.nhs.uk advertised on Mumsnet to get volunteers.

    • Karen says:

      I thought the same. I guess it was done at the same time as the crying boy posters. I wonder why there were no media features? The Huffpost seems to be willing to run any misogynist crap as long as it’s “ironic” of course, like Nadia Kamil. I hate living in a country where this crap is permitted, even funded, and no-one goes up to them and tells them where to show their hashtags. These videos play into the worst stereotypes of women, in this case the northerner women running around in knickers in the snow, just the drunken, irresponsible slags they are(this is such a stereotype in the UK, that northern girls never dress appropriately for the weather), and they are then ritually humiliated and its of course a big cheeky giggle, and it “saves lives”.

      • adawells says:

        Amen. I noticed that one female poster on YouTube has said how patronising it is, and on another Northamptonshire newspaper site there was just one comment made:
        “Organised by Hugh Jarse, I presume?”

    • Victoria says:

      Haven’t watched the video yet, but my first thought is that the word “excuses” is an appalling one to use. It completely ignores the evidence that women (including a GP like Dr McCartney) have used to come to their decision not to screen. “Excuses” to me is to be used when they’re not real reasons.

      • adawells says:

        Yes, I think Elizabeth also raised this point: how come you need an “excuse” when the test is entirely an elective one, based on a woman’s own decision. This is the mentality of many NHS staff, that women should have no say in their healthcare at all.

    • Alice says:

      This video is so disgusting!
      I don’t remember the last time I was deeply insulted for being a woman.
      I am ashamed to share the gender with those female idiots who agreed to run around in pink undies. The money was good I presume, so was the prospective to get “famous”.
      By the way, how do we call women who sell access to their their genitals? That’s right…

    • Alice says:

      P.S. I hope the people who have YouTube accounts will give them their “dislike”.
      So that “enthusiasts” like these won’t think of making another video-puke on this topic.

      • Kleigh US says:

        I am sick of seeing young woman with a smile on there face like there so happy promoting pap smears. I wonder what her face looks like when shes spread egal with a stranger shoving hands and tools inside her. its very gross. I couldnt bare to watch the video.

  4. Victoria says:

    My last visit to the nurse has sprung to mind. She had a much better attitude than others I’ve seen, but she said, “I just have to make sure you know this is a very important test.” I just said “okay” but thinking back, I’ve decided I’m going to say, “I understand that’s your opinion.” By saying “okay” I was effectively agreeing with her that it’s an important test. I don’t want them to think that all women who refuse, know full-well it’s important but still decline. The truth is that I *don’t* think it’s an important test, I think it’s a very ineffective one and particularly irrelevant to my situation!

    • Mint says:

      Of course the nurse promotes the idea that “it’s an important test”. If more women make an informed decision NOT to screen, she is in danger of getting the sack!

    • Kleigh US says:

      Victoria, I understand what you mean as I have had a nurse scold me when she found out that I had never had a pap smear. this happened before i knew about false positves and she just keep shaking her head in discused like I was ignorant for not having them. she also insenuated that woman bodys are so complex and bc we mensruate we are in danger. she whoulnt let me hadly explan myself. 6 years latter i wish I knew what i know know and i wish that I had been more firm with her. I whould also have asked her if she knew what informed concent was. bc she was not respecting my rights as a patent.

  5. Moo says:

    I found this report about self collected HPV tests hidden on an Ontario government website. https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=32290
    Apparently there are not enough studies for the Ontario government to consider self HPV tests for women even if they will not have Pap tests done for various reasons. Even the report is not called “self HPV tests”. As if they are deliberately hiding and archiving it.

    There are also documents that recommend HPV testing every five years yet they will not fund the HPV test. Is this what voters want?

  6. Alex says:

    Using the term “no excuses” completely omits the concept of someone’s own discretion in the matter. They’re trying to comport the situation in this way on their own, around this person.

    I remember a Highlander episode (Duende) where a guy was saying to his daughter “You will do as I say” with regard to marrying someone. I thought “That’s pretty fucked-up, you sure you don’t want to drag her to bed yourself?” I wonder if these women would have a problem with that?

    I just had a thought: Maybe they wouldn’t have a problem with it if it was the MOTHER that was pulling this kind of shit? It certainly seems that, especially with penetrative situations, they’re into the idea of “If you have a problem with something, I’ll let you know.”

  7. Ro says:

    Re: “No Excuses”. Actually, there is always an excuse to not do something. The phrase “no excuses” is to con people into thinking they must do what is popular or accepted. Even if it’s something that is harmful to you individually (see: the following example), there is still the excuse that it’s your life and that your wishes need to be respected. It’s interesting that these women say “there’s no excuse not to get screened!”, but there are probably at least a few of them who use every excuse in the book to avoid giving up cigarettes. Reminds me of the doctor who once told me that I’d eventually have to do things I didn’t want to in regards to medical exams when I refused a breast exam as a teenager. I wish I’d known then what I know now – I could’ve given her a piece of my mind and been taken off “the list” before I even got put on LOL. This mentality needs to stop. It’s disgusting and I have no idea what the root of the problem is (perhaps the media or society telling women what they should do and who they should be, but that even seems a bit of a stretch) but once we find it and attack it head on, I think things will start to gradually get better.

  8. Emily says:

    OK that video was kinda bullsh*t…how is parading around an overwhelming amount of ASS supposed to f*cking help?!?!….yes us women are nothing more than ASS and VAGINA… don’t pay attention to the ***PERSON*** who has thoughts and feelings and wants/deserves some f*cking ***RESPECT*** no that’s silly we’re all just walking vaginas waiting to catch some disease that needs constant testing and “treatment” at the hands of greedy medical institutes. Great. Thanks alot girls you’re really doing a great service to us all- NOT…sorry I suppose that was a little venomous but that kinda sh*t really p*sses me off. I don’t care if you’re a man, a woman, a doctor, a politican or anyone else– WHEN/WHERE/HOW I MANAGE MY HEALTH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT YOUR DECISION-ITS MINE-SO F*CK OFF AND STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS….there I think I’m done now :) thank you guys for putting up with me hehe

    • Alice says:

      Well said Emily. Those are the words the situation requires.

    • adawells says:

      Thanks Emily I think it sums up the video admirably. I don’t think that any of the video used paid models, I think they were all NHS staff or friends of. The NHS usually relies on its own staff, for photos and video clips on its web sites.

      From what I’ve read the NHS is concentrating its drive towards screening at those in their late 20s, (screening starts at 25 in the UK) as these are the figures that are giving them most concern. I think less than half in this age range bother to attend, and they are desperately trying to hook them in as they are afraid of them never attending if they don’t get them into the habit young. This ridiculous stunt is also designed to appeal to the lower class women who have much higher rates of cervical cancer, but I think it fails on so many levels. It is deeply insulting to all women, whatever their social position, and must alienate so many middle class women from going. It is pathetic and so bad it is totally embarrassing to watch.

      • Kate (UK) says:

        So they’re trying to ‘reach’ women when we’re young, naïve and easier to manipulate. Telling us that allowing a stranger to penetrate our vagina is a ‘normal’ and ‘clever’ thing to do.
        Rather like a paedophile grooms a child.

  9. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    This demonstrates the NHS talking about informed consent is pure politics, just words. We only see this approach in women’s cancer screening and I’d say the most aggressive campaigning is about pap testing. This makes sense of course, when you MUST have 80% or more on board to justify the vast expense of the program. It was always known informed consent could not work with cervical screening, if you fully inform women of risks and benefits and respect their right to choose, no harassment, no target payments etc. you wouldn’t get 80% through the door…eventually that means the program can’t be justified.
    I believe that’s the main reason the program is being changed here, more women are rejecting 2 yearly pap tests from 18 to 70, they can’t get the numbers. The numbers keep falling so something has to be done, also, it becomes unsafe to give women bad medical advice when that pool contains more and more informed women.

    So we USE the female form to sell screening, young women walking around in public in their knickers, using the female body to attract attention and to sell something, a familiar approach. They also, want screening to look on-trend…join our cool group! It’s also, scoffing at female modesty…we’re happy to let others view our bodies type-of-approach. Interesting also, that some women feel their bottom is nice enough to show off in public, or they feel confident doing that, others are wearing their pink knickers over their jeans etc.

    You cannot say you respect informed consent or even consent itself when you continue to use this approach to “sell” screening to women. Dr McCartney has pointed out how inappropriate and disrespectful this approach is, yet it continues BECAUSE they have no choice. Take this approach or the program dies.

    We don’t see people walking around with their backsides showing and pointing a brown skewer at people to promote bowel screening. The program is not fully funded here, so the Govt is not fully invested, and the cancer is more common so you don’t have to reach as many people to make the program “work”. (or appear to work)
    Also, the approach is always different IMO, when men are also, being targeted, like day and night when you compare prostate and cervical screening, the former is an option (often with real information on pros and cons) the former is a must with a pink sticker and a jingle. It’s just a question of scaring, intimidating, coercing etc. enough women through the door. The NHS can’t respect informed consent, it’s pure lip service on the rare occasions they’re challenged…they just hope there are not too many informed women out there or the program is on the way out. Happy days, say I…

    • Alice (Australia) says:

      I wonder in the targeting, reminders or call-and-recall will get much worse with the obtrusion of the eHealth in Australia. There are government plans to make e-Health Records opt-out (rather than opt-in as it currently is).

      Many Australians sensed that trusting their personal and sensitive medical information to the government is unsafe in terms of hacking and privacy breaches, and will only benefit the government in its attempt to extend the mass surveillance to the medical territory.

      Very few people signed up for Australian eHealth. But millions of dollars have been already spend, so the program has to be touted, justified and dressed up as “successful”. And to achieve that, the government decided to force it: there are plans to make eHealth profiles for everyone by 2015, whether we want it or not. And there is also an apprehension in the community that the opt-out procedure won’t be made easy: the government may require every person to create a myGov profile first in order to be able to opt-out of eHealth. And how unsafe and badly made myGov web site is, we all already know. It is also worth keeping in mind that nothing ever can be deleted from eHealth: the records can be marked as “hidden”, but they won’t be deleted, and they still can be access in the circumstances the government deems as “emergency” or “public interest”.

      I already went through all sorts of obstacles to delete my personal data from various registers and databases where I never consented for my details to be recorded in the first place. And I’m serious about being one of the first people to opt-out of eHealth once it is forced upon us, no matter how hard the govt will make it to get out. I don’t want my health information to be available to the government. We all know how it uses it, especially when it comes to womens “health care”.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        I’ll have to take a look at this eHealth business, Alice.
        What registers do you mean? I’m not on the pap testing registry, I’ve never tested, so I doubt they’ve ever heard of me. I heard that Papscreen a few years ago cross-checked the pap testing records with the electoral roll and then contacted women who appeared to be non-screeners. They targeted women aged 40 to 50 from memory. That’s the sort of resources they have, imagine the cost of that exercise…disgraceful, when so many other areas are poorly funded. I suppose the pressure to protect the program means they can’t relax for a moment.
        I took myself off the Breast Screen register, sent them a letter.

        I certainly don’t want the Govt sticking it’s nose into my medical records.
        I’ve heard the expression, “nanny state”…and it does seem like we’re constantly being told what to do and what not to do. Sometimes I feel like telling them to push off…my business. I feel sorry for women who choose not to breast feed, with the breast feeding police. I couldn’t believe it when some bright spark came out and said formula should be on script…great so they want to force women into the consult room to beg for formula and lecture them, “naughty woman, why aren’t you breast-feeding? It’s best for baby”.
        There is a line we shouldn’t cross, respecting the individual, personal choice – some women choose not to breast feed, that’s their business, some choose not to have pap tests, their business etc.
        So often it’s women who are targeted, criticized, told what to do…and coercive measures are just fine.

      • Alice says:

        Elizabeth, I meant all sorts of registers the government has or will install to track us and to tell us what to do. As you said, Papscreen cross-checked womens details with the Electoral roll in the past, even though the people provided their personal details to the Electoral roll for one purpose only: voting. Using personal information outside of the reason it was collected for is actually against the law in Australia. But the government and organisations like Papscreen appear to be above the law.

        So can you imagine what they are going to do with people’s personal information contained in the electronic health records? Before, Australian women had at least some defence, because getting into the Eelectoral roll for the purpose of pushing cancer screening was an obvious breach of Australian Privacy Principles. But once the eHealth is imposed on all Australians, the government will have free hands to access our medical information for any “health” reasons, and that will inevitably include “our favourite” screening.

        Every Australian woman who wants to decide for herself what to do with her own health and body, and to avoid any reminders, recalls or other screen-spam, may want to consider opting-out of the Australian eHealth (or myHR, as it is now called after another change of name), once the government forcibly creates eHealth profiles for everyone. I certainly will opt out, because I cannot trust our “caring” medical authorities with the tiniest bit of my personal data.

      • Moo says:

        There is no way to delete information from eHealth or cancer registries or cancer screening registries in Ontario, Canada. They passed legislation to that won’t out much debate. The women representing the cancer screening registry said that if participation was voluntary, the registry would be useless because people would not want to. So why is NOT listening to the tax payers so important?

        What infuriates me more is that I have no easy way to access my health records without get expense. One can ask to view them and have “corrections” made but I have not tried it myself.

        Next time I get called into the doctor’s office for no reason (his trick for pushing cancer screenings and vaccines), I will not remove any clothing and insist I view my medical records. I refuse any blood tests etc until I see the results of last years tests. Saying that something was ok is not good enough for me.

        The problem of government keeping and never deleting records has already caused many problems for people in employment, education and travel in regards to police contact in Ontario, Canada. All police contact is recorded and never deleted. For example someone might have some association with a suspect in a crime although they themselves are never charged or arrested. This record will show up if they are applying for a criminal background check or trying to cross the border.

        As well often doctors opinions and diagnoses are wrong.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        RE: Moo, and Canadian Government keeping all medical records w/o deleting, ever. In the state of CA where I live, there’s a secret registry. The Suspected Child Abuser/Molester Registry. A person can be added to this w/o ever knowing, although they’re supposed to notified so they can have their day in court.

        Anybody can be added to this. All it takes is calling the CPS Hotline. An investigation is started. Arbitrary decisions are made in Juvenile Court. Although Juvie is a bona-fide part of the Superior Court system (Muni and Superior were merged), every proceeding occurs in secrecy. The accused will be excluded from the hearings, as these are for the under-18 child, who’s now a ward of the State. The findings may condemn a person to a temporary, 10-year, or permanent registry. This too has ruined many lives. And once on, it takes huge amounts of money, and court appearances to change it.

        Now and then however, CA gets sued for adding somebody w/o notifying them first. Or for bungling things up so much a person is awarded compensation for reputations ruined.

        About dentists and cancer screenings. As once said, a cousin in Toronto died from melanoma. She had a malignant mole the size of a pencil lead under her tongue. It spread through her jaw to her chest. There’s no describing her, or her family’s agony.

        Last month San Diego Padre #19 Tony Gwynn passed away from salivary gland cancer due to chewing tobacco. Other ball players get tonsil cancer. My dentist charges $90 to use a special chem light to search our mouthes. His exam is painless. He does not dig, but scratches around. He feels around my neck and jaw as well.

        While thanks to this site I’ll forever be educated re pap’s, I look at the dental cancer screening differently. It’s not degrading nor invasive, and nobody demands it. My option!

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        It’s interesting Alice, the electoral roll is a register of voters, but it’s used a lot for other reasons. I did a search recently to check a witness was at the same address. A friend waded through the register to send letters off for a University reunion.
        It’s certainly viewed as a public record, anyone can go into an Electoral Office and search the register.
        I wonder if any women challenged Papscreen. I think a lot of their conduct is overlooked because they claim to be saving lives, when IMO, they are protecting their own existence and the program. They may have helped a few women, but harmed huge numbers in the process. I’m constantly amazed at their lack of respect for women and naturally, you can’t leave comments on their website, they like to have the last word and don’t like being challenged. Every time I think they’ve ethically hit rock bottom, they manage to pull a little extra out of the hat.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        Oh, and Alice, thanks for the information, I’ll be taking myself out of the system as well. My heath information is between me and my doctor, no one else.

      • Adawells says:

        Hi Alice/Elizabeth,
        I found this article, whilst searching academic journals online. I don’t know if you’ve seen it or are able to access a copy?
        No need for ‘yes’: Australian Pap Smear Registers, consent and the (re-)creation of gendered identities, Stagg-Taylor, Joanne
        Is Part Of: Women’s Studies International Forum, 2013, Vol.40, pp.183-191 [Peer Reviewed Journal]
        Identifier: ISSN: 0277-5395 ; DOI: 10.1016/j.wsif.2013.07.010
        Description: In cervical cancer testing, law and medicine operate in gendered ways to create legislative regimes for population testing. Governments in several Australian jurisdictions have enacted legislation which creates cervical cancer registers under the National Cervical Screening Program. Unlike other legislation relating to several other types of health register, cervical cancer register legislation sets up oversight, reminder and information gathering regimes about all patients who undergo testing for cervical cancer. Women must opt out rather than opt in to use the system. Using a feminist theoretical model, the article will examine how the Program creates and reinforces gender identities based in both the embodied position of women as Pap smear patients and patriarchal assumptions about women’s rationality and autonomy.

      • Karen says:

        Adawells- great find! Do you know her work? https://leicester.academia.edu/NatalieArmstrong

      • adawells says:

        Thanks so much for the link. I didn’t know about her, but I see she has written a lot of very, very interesting articles. That’s my bedtime reading cut out for tonight!

        I was just skimming through the academic journals to see if there was anything new regarding the demise of cervical screening, and when I saw that article I thought of our sisters downunder.

      • Alice (Australia) says:

        Adawells,
        Thank you for the link.
        Australian Pap Smear Registers have been operation on opt-out basis for a long time. A woman is never asked whether she wants to be included into a cervical cytology register or not. She is included automatically whenever she has a pap or any other related test like HPV. Also, women often are not told by their doctors that they have a right to to ask the doctor to write “Not for PSR” on her test request form to avoid being included into the register. However, even if a woman done her research and asks for “Not for PSR” to be written, she is often included anyway, just because the system works on autopilot and presumes everyone wants to be included, receive annoying reminders, have their genitals under ongoing surveillance and have their life “saved”.

        In addition to this tactics, the Pap Screen employs another trick to hinder the fact that cervical cancer is a rare cancer and to fiddle with statistics to fabricate the facts on how many lives the screening “saved”. I’m pretty sure I posted this before, but just to refresh:

        I have just figured out how Australian medical system is killing two birds with one stone:
        1. Making cervical cancer look rampant.
        2. Pretending that their “successful screening program” is saving enormous amount of women from the cancer.

        The trick turned out to be very simple:
        A friend of mine has just got a copy of her pap smear results (luckily, she insisted that the doctor writes “copy to patient” on her test request form). She now regrets that she agreed to do the smear and says she won’t do it ever again, but that’s not the point. The point is that my fried did the smear only because her doctor talked her into it. She had no symptoms, no family history of ANY cancers, no suspicions for HPV risk, no pain, no previous history of any female problems. She was absolutely healthy and asymptomatic. Yet she was told she needed a pap smear.

        Now she received a copy of her results from the lab — all normal.
        However, because she went to a non-bulk-billing doctor, the results came with a payment slip, which contained Medicare Benefits Schedule item number 73055 for cervical cytology. At the first glance, it looked correct.

        BUT, if we search MBS and have a look what 73055 means, we will discover the following:
        Cytology of a smear from cervix, not associated with item 73053,…
        (a) for the management of previously detected abnormalities including precancerous or cancerous conditions; or
        (b) for the investigation of women with symptoms, signs or recent history suggestive of cervical neoplasia.

        Then, if we have a look ant the number 73053, we will see:
        Cytology of a smear from cervix…
        (a) for the detection of precancerous or cancerous changes in women with no symptoms, signs or recent history suggestive of cervical neoplasia…

        In other words, 73053 is for routine pap smears for healthy asymptomatic women who have never had any abnormalities, and 73055 is for pap smear for women who have symptoms, or previously had abnormalities, precancer or cancer. And my friend should have got 73053, not 73055!

        Both items 73053 and 73055 cost exactly the same money and the digits look very similar, so there isn’t much chance any patient will notice the difference, and that it works wonders for the sly System.

        Medicare Australia is the main power behind the cervical screening program, and now, instead of admitting in its statistics that this particular smear was useless for my healthy friend, it will add my friend to the number of women who, as the System claims, had, have or are likely to have cervical cancer and, because my friend will stay healthy, the System will also claim that of so-many-women with detected abnormalities so-many are now healthy.

        A simple, genius and dirty trick, isn’t it? “Saving” lives…

      • bethkz says:

        +Alice – The improper coding of “routine” paps as “followup” paps from previously-detected cancerous or “pre-cancerous” conditions happens much more frequently in the US. That’s because it DOES cost more in the US. Patients and 3rd-party payers pick up this tab, and few patients even can read their coded billing statement. It’s done as part of the rampant “upcoding” that is partly causing US healthcare to be by far the most expensive healthcare in the world. This is no accident. The system is working just as it was designed.

      • Alice (Australia) says:

        As to the “opt-out” approach, soon not only Pap Smear Registers will be doing that, but the whole Australian eHealth system is to become opt-out, which means that ALL our medical information, health records, test results, medications, doctor visits and procedures will be accessible by the government and screening authorities at any time (and for hackers to steal, too).

        Which means they will have a huge array of data to manipulate and use to their own advantage. Ahh, no, of course not! Pardon. To save our lives.

      • Alex says:

        Alice: I don’t get what you mean by “opt-out.” I thought that meant that someone can remove themselves from a situation without retaliation or interference. Why would the government or hackers have access to that information? Also, what makes you think they don’t sell/give that information to these people in the first place?

        It’s suprising how many times someone decides to give out YOUR information on THEIR own accord in the States. Then they act like their freedom is being infringed on if you try to counteract this- they “reserve the right,” as far as they are concerned. That’s another interesting thing: people here reserve the right to start shit, but other people don’t reserve the right to counter it.

        Just like when people “mandate” one thing or another & other people don’t “abrogate” that mandate. They make something a requisite & someone else doesn’t cancel it. Personally, I figure it’s these people not wanting to be dictatorial. Doesn’t make much sense, though- since it’s giving them what they dished-out & it’s impeding a dictatorial environment (which they seem to genuinely not like). That’s not the same thing as what they did, because it’s not the same conditions- just like someone driving down an empty street is not the same thing as driving through a crowded shopping mall!

      • Alice (Australia) says:

        Alex,
        In Australia, “opt-out” means that you have to call, write letters and/or do something else to have your personal information removed from places where you never wanted it to be in the first place. Theoretically, it means that women, after home hurdles, can stop pap-spam, but practically, as Elizabeth said, the info is then taken from other sources like electoral roll.

        If the system was “opt-in” (as it should be in a decent free country), your personal information would be shared with pap-register or other organisations only if you explicitly asked fir it or consented to it.

      • Alice (Australia) says:

        As to hackers, Australian eHealth system is connected to a very insecure and extremely badly-made site called MyGov. It has a great potential to become a hacker’s paradise and one-stop shop for identity fraud.

        At the moment, eHealth is “opt-in”, which means that only the people who decided to register for it are risking their personal and medical information. But because only 5% of Australians registered so far, the government decided to force it and devised a plan to make eHealth “opt-out” in 2015, which means they will create a eHealth profile for every person, whether they want it or not. And then, people will have to jump though obstacles to opt-out, but opting out will only prevent new information from being recorded in the eHealth. Everything that the government puts there at the initial stage, will never be deleted.

    • Karen says:

      Adawells there is this one too: Feminism, Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and Postmodernism: Politics, Theory and Me

      Author(s): Vicky Singleton

      Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, Special Issue on ‘The Politics of SSK:

      Neutrality, Commitment and beyond’ (May, 1996), pp. 445-468

      Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

      Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/285426 .

      (I find it rather annoying, and over the top)

      • adawells says:

        I tried last night to read more of Natalie Armstrong’s work, but couldn’t find any. Do you know her? Is her work to increase participation in the cervical screening programme or does she come out against it?

      • adawells says:

        Excuse my last post. I was typing Natalie with a “th” so couldn’t find her work. I can now find her articles so will read these today!

      • Karen says:

        I don’t know her, but I use her work quite a bit. I only know some people from the NHS who worked on the crying boy poster, pfujj.

      • adawells says:

        Thank you for telling me about this author, as I have been reading some of her papers today, and I am struck by her bravery at putting into print how degrading and painful pap testing is. She only uses a small cohort of subjects, and my immediate reaction was: he we go again, it’s another one of those trials where they pick the regular sheep from the flock who go regularly, and can’t praise the programme enough for keeping them from death’s door, but even the regular attendees of testing told how much they dreaded, loathed and hated undergoing the procedure, and also how widespread the pain was. I didn’t feel that she tackled the question enough, about why women put themselves through this every time. The misinformation, bullying and coercion that brainwashes these women is still not being tackled.

      • adawells says:

        When you worked with the NHS people who had worked on the crying boy poster, did any of them question what they were working on? Did they think it was a good advert?

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        Thanks for the references, Karen
        I just printed off her article on cervical screening, “Discourse and the individual in cervical cancer screening”. Individuals, what?! Is this woman some sort of lunatic?
        I don’t think the pap police are bothered by academic papers, not many women see them, they don’t threaten the program, but if she went public with their thoughts, it would be emergency stations. Discredit, deny, dismiss etc. Down with the dissenter!
        Heading somewhere sunny for 10 days, so it’s some reading for the plane.
        I’ll still be online though…
        Hoping we have another informed woman joining us, she sounds just like us. I met her on Patient.co.uk and gave her the link. We had to use the private message system, the moderator removed the link in my comment.
        Love to meet women who push back when they’re pressured, question everything and SEE this program and it’s treatment of women for what it is: disgraceful, unethical and I’d add, illegal.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        I read some of the article over my lunch break.
        The author examines the reactions and responses of a few women to cervical screening. The program treats women as a whole, but the author makes the point individual women may see the test differently. “I’m a very private person so the test is difficult for me”…when the official discourse always describes the test as simple, quick and usually painless.
        The author points out these explanations are not being used by women as a reason not to screen, only one woman was a non-screener, the rest found a way to cope and kept screening. (or words to that effect)

        Interesting that only two people have publicly stated that screening (for women) is a choice and can be reasonably declined, Dr Margaret McCartney and Professor Michael Baum. We often hear that prostate screening is a choice and should be an informed decision, some say it should be avoided…and not much is said about bowel screening. (much more common than cc)

        I think there is something quite perverse about a program that makes women feel like they have to “explain” a negative feeling, a reluctance to screen, being different from the statement in the official discourse…and forces some/many women to find a way around their feelings and keep screening.

        The analysis that goes into how women react to the program is amazing really, when screening is supposed to be up-front…here is the evidence, do you want to screen?
        The sort of thing we see in women’s cancer screening is more like entrapment, carefully planned propaganda, unethical tactics, manipulation…it really is sickening.

        Sadly, in these studies very few women ever say they’ve made an informed decision not to screen, they feel they must “explain” their conduct/feelings, (which is exactly what the program set out to achieve) few see it as a choice (it’s never presented that way) and if a woman says she doesn’t want to screen and provides a reason, then we see her “excuse” being disrespectfully dismissed with articles like, “Overcoming screening barriers”.

        I know Papscreen have a list of tips for GPs, how to handle refusers or reluctant women.
        How on earth can anyone view this as an acceptable way to treat women? It shows the value of propaganda…and of power itself, and how destructive it can be, distorting our view of proper and improper attitudes and conduct.

        I don’t think we’ll move much until people (individual women, doctors, authors, researchers etc.) are comfortable presenting screening as a choice for women. That means forgetting targets and getting rid of the screened (responsible, mature etc.) and unscreened (immature, foolish etc.) judgements. Also, a woman saying she does not screen should not attract a collective sharp intake of breath or see a doctor reaching for the Papscreen Tip Sheet, that doesn’t happen if people refuse bowel screening or anything else for that matter.
        This program has successfully manipulated our thinking to the point it’s stripped women of their legal rights, their individuality and bodily autonomy, our bodies are viewed as public property, and we’re supposed to present them for intimate medical inspection when we’re called upon to do so.
        AND we’re supposed to be fine with that, if we want to be viewed as responsible and mature women…now..how warped is that?

      • adawells says:

        These are two terrific posts, Elizabeth. Brilliantly said. It makes me angry that patient.co.uk have removed a link you put on their site. I noticed that the Demos report author for on the spot smears has removed all comments about cervical screening on her twitter account and drawn a line under it. Keep up the good work. Sometimes I despair of this situation, but then I remember that as every day goes by, more and more women ARE walking away from the programme. The tide IS moving in our favour, but I fear that the endgame might be quite bloody.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        I feel the same way, Ada, but then I remember it was only a few years ago when anything remotely critical of cervical screening was removed and the author banned. Also, there were virtually no negative posts, I think many women were afraid to speak their mind for fear of the attack that inevitably followed. If someone said anything negative they’d immediately put themselves down, “I know that it’s silly but…”

        We’ve been brainwashed over decades and women here are still being horribly over-screened, our referral rates well hidden, so I can’t see things changing quickly.
        Most women have never read or heard anything critical of the program, so they simply don’t trust our posts and information.
        BUT more women are taking the time to do some research and more women are speaking out, I didn’t see posts from dissenters even 5 years ago, now I often see them, and not apologizing for hating the pap test or refusing to have it, but rejecting it outright understanding that’s our right….others have made an informed decision not to screen.
        One woman had endured humiliation and pain over the last 10 years and finally said no, she couldn’t care less about cc, she just wants to be left alone. These women can find the information they need now if they look hard enough…and realize how remote the risk of cc and how likely it is the testing will lead somewhere nasty etc. (most women are not at risk) Hopefully, this will give them peace of mind.

        This program effectively silenced women and dissenters and suppressed real information, which made it easy to keep the herd moving in one direction, that’s changed, over time I see more and more of the herd starting to question the whole rotten business, rejecting it or looking for something better.
        Once informed, the program has lost us forever, the lies and propaganda have no effect, instead it confirms in our minds just how low these people are, they have near contempt for women and their health, bodily privacy/autonomy and rights.
        It’s a snowball effect…more and more women leave the herd, speak to other women and so on. I think many probably already realize that all is lost when it comes to population pap testing, the gravy train is running off the rails so they better enjoy the profits while they can. The reality is only about 5% are at risk of cc and these women can test themselves for HPV, there is no need for the vast industry that attempts to drag all women in for testing, excess biopsies and “treatments”.

      • adawells says:

        Thanks for this, E. I’ve just contributed to Patient.co.uk, and see where they’ve removed your link. Mine is still in moderation, so will wait and see if it comes up. What was the link they’ve removed?

        I think 2015 will see some changes for the better as the first HPV vaccinated cohorts in the UK will be getting their 25th birthday present from the NHS – their first smear summons! I can see facebook getting flooded with indignant WTF!s, and I think many of them will be questioning still having to attend after having had the 3 jabs. I’d be bloody annoyed if I’d had it, and then found I still needed to go. I think the pro-screeners are getting desperate and know they have a fight on their hands, hence the surge in nauseating propaganda at the moment. It is a desperate attempt to keep the programme running until they switch to alternatives, which unbeknownst to the general population are already out there. They may have castrated me, but it won’t stop me from protesting because I have my daughter to protect.

      • bethkz says:

        I agree. When I began with an anti-gynecology site 7 years ago, after finding that the medical industry was completely untrustworthy from either the financial fraud angle or from the scientific/objectivity/reproducibility of diagnoses, or even from the truth-telling angle, I was surprised to find things in that site about harm that could come from testing. Even at that point, I considered paps to be safe, reliable, and necessary for maintaining health.  I thought that the safety from CC was part of what I’d given up to protect myself from other wrongdoing in the industry. Boy was I in for a shock! It was another part of the fraud, lies, and lack of science, as well as there being numerous instances of sexual assault in the doctor’s office.

        7 years ago, I was like a voice in the darkness, talking of anything other than the medicine we have is the best in the world, it keeps us healthier, safer, with longer lives… and my own experiences with Hospital-Acquired resistant infections and egredious fraud including medical identity theft were a tiny aberration. I could find no sites or forums anywhere, excepting Scientologists, where this was discussed in general. When it first started – questioning diagnoses, safety of medication, safety of procedures, we were denounced as ALL being “Scientologists”. Now, it seems that I’ve had better-than-average results with the whole medical profession. It’s MUCH more mainstream now!

        If nothing else, go with the adage: “If it needs to be hard-sold, it’s not worth having.”

      • Karen says:

        adawells- I know her socially, she would never tarnish her squeaky-clean corporate image by working with me. She did not really seem to question it, and there are way too many convenient little pre-fabricated storylines to pull out anyway. Actually, I first saw the campaign posted on her facebook, with comments like “no-one likes a smear, but it is life saving”, and so on and on.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        I also, wonder about the Demos article, did the author remove the posts because she was embarrassed about her position? Have our posts prompted her to do some thinking and reading?
        Or, has she dismissed us as militants, silenced us in her own way and intends to carry on spreading the pap testing message? I wonder…
        I know Elizabeth Boskey on STD.about.com defended the practice of forcing women to have a pap test if they wanted the Pill, “otherwise some women would avoid testing”.
        There is so much wrong with that statement, yet how often do we read it and it goes unchallenged.
        She changed her tune after LOTS of women challenged her statements, I don’t think she’d ever received that sort of response before and it obviously, made her think. Now she still believes in pap testing but doesn’t think it should be linked to the Pill. To her credit she also, left all of those comments in place for all to see…

  10. Alex says:

    Kate (UK): You know, the Mongols actually deliberately married a woman that was somewhat older than them because they figured she’d be able to give better advice- they also considered it unmanly not to heed it.

    As an overall, I figure this was just an organized perv-out. Anything at all can be sanctioned & you’re only dealing with actions, anyway. A mass-implemented attack is totally possible (look at Causescu in Romania or marriage conditionals in America during the cold war).

    Them trying to “protect themselves” could come up, as well. They came up with all kinds of specious reasoning to con people into things & it would be blantantly obvious that they lied big time. Bullshit starting to smell, basically.

  11. adawells says:

    Just browsing the UK government’s e-petition website and came across this one to abolish cervical screening targets. You don’t need to be a UK national to sign http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/67645.

    • Alex says:

      Tried to sign, but it wouldn’t let me. It said I had to be a British national & I don’t have a fake address to put down. It don’t particularly care about lying to counter their bullshit, but I don’t know how things like that pan-out (results thrown out, bullshit internet crime charge, etc…).

      • adawells says:

        Many thanks for giving it a go. This is a new idea for the UK government. Anyone can set up a petition, as long as there isn’t one already going on the same topic. It stays live for 1 year. At the end if there are more than 10,000 signatures the government has to send a written response, if more than 100,000 signatures they have to debate the topic in our parliament. You can search for petitions on a particular topic. There are a quite a few on getting the screening age lowered for the under 25’s, including the dreadful Sophie’s choice petition which was taken up by a national newspaper and ended up with over 300,000 signatures. Fortunately, common sense prevailed and they were told that the screening test does not work in very young women. I noted that there was one petition to make cervical screening tests compulsory in all women, and this had only 1 signature (the author) after the entire year. Ha ha.

        Do other governments have a similar scheme, for the public to raise issues?
        If there are any UK nationals reading this do please start up a petition. We don’t want the pro-screening lobby to monopolise this!

      • Alex says:

        You’re welcome.

        About that compulsory for all women petition, was the author a guy or a woman? Also, what did it say? It’s good that it got zero support (a difference between the U.K. and America, I guess). I really think it would have been supported to a pretty shocking degree here & it’s odd because America makes all kinds of points about other countries being that way. It really is odd that what a situation consists of is not a factor in the assessment of that situation over here.

      • adawells says:

        Here’s the link here:

        http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/search?q=cervical+screening&state=closed

        It was in the section of petitions which had now closed, and it was a woman who posted it. (2nd one down).
        What is absolutely staggering, is the ignorance displayed about the cervical screening test itself. The public, just doesn’t get it that the test is not a diagnostic test for cancer, and is for women with no symptoms at all. So many petitions for colposcopy on demand, and smear tests for those who have very worrying symptoms of vaginal bleeding. The hysteria and false information spread about this cancer is scandalous.

        Our NHS is staggeringly short of money, and the government is looking at ways of privatising sections of health care to private companies, and I think cervical screening is one of those earmarked for privatisation. I’d be very interested to see how this develops. £50 ($70) for an HPV test every 6 years is hardly a lot of money. I wish they would make women pay for it.

      • Alex says:

        Wow, what a bitch! And the way she was okaying-up the whole social angle (saying “we” all the time).

        I don’t get how the pricing goes for all this. There’s bullshit tests that cost a lot & they’re not cut out, but there’s a concern for how much money there is in the budget?

    • Moo says:

      I cannot sign the petition because I am neither a UK resident or British citizen. Interesting though that there are three categories of petition: open, closed and rejected. Many more rejected than the other two categories. That is just for the topic of cervical screening. It seems to be a hot topic. Some of the rejected seem excessive.

      • adawells says:

        Hi Moo and Alex, the NHS has so successfully brainwashed women into believing that the pap test is a cure for cervical cancer, that there is widespread hysteria surrounding it, and any dissent from this view is regarded as mass murder. The media, particularly the tabloid press just loves a young woman dying of the disease, because it can use it to attack the socialist principles of the UK health service, create widespread panic amongst women and sell far more newspapers in the process.

        Lowering the screening age is a very hot topic which comes up over and over again, with the people promoting this idea, completely ignorant of the valid medical issues against it. Margaret McCartney is a lone voice in the dark speaking out against this. The vast majority of the medical profession stays silent. Mass hysteria plays into the programme and fear breeds compliance. Despite the NHS haemorrhaging millions on this programme, no politician will challenge it, for fear of losing votes, so the waste goes on, and the elderly wait weeks to get an appointment.

    • Karen says:

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/19/patients-hospital-care-over-intervention a doctor getting angry about target driven medicine, but no direct mention of cancer screening targets

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        It’s interesting how ignoring consent and informed consent (and going out of your way to deceive women) fuels and protects the excess and leads to harmful outcomes, yet people can’t see the wood for the trees.
        I recall an American woman online was urging young women to insist on mammograms yearly from about 35, earlier if there was family history. The latter is murky now with so many women over-diagnosed and labelled “survivors”, lots more women will be labelled “high risk”.
        Her mother had an early cancer picked up by mammogram, in the milk duct (mmm, DCIS?) and her older sister had a small cancer picked up, “thank goodness she’d been having annual mammograms from 35″.
        What are the odds the small cancer was actually caused by the radiation?
        I’d say it’s a bad decision to start having mammograms at 35 or 40 and at 50 women should carefully review the evidence. Of course, if you “think” there is family history, you’ll be encouraged to be vigilant with screening, and depending on the country, that may mean early and frequent mammograms.

        Yet this just reinforces what the women “think” is the case, mammograms save lives. (no downside or worth the risk/the benefits clearly exceed any risk) Naturally, they’re outraged that some are trying to wind back screening “to save money”.
        She suggested that some women should have 6 monthly mammograms, given her sister’s cancer was picked up with annual screening.

        It’s insidious, and leaves women powerless to protect themselves, they view excess as life-saving and no one will tell them otherwise…and if someone suggests over-diagnosis etc. naturally they’re viewed as ratbags, if it were true “my doctor would have mentioned that”….
        That’s what we’re up against…it’s safe for these doctors to carry on with annual and early mammograms because even if more and more doctors step forward and warn women, these doctors can claim thoroughness, or the evidence was inconclusive, a difference of opinion among experts, it wouldn’t occur to them that if that’s the case they should include women in that discussion. Of course, some doctors would simply follow their doctor’s advice.
        Some will argue legal liability means they have to side with excess.
        If you look at the health forums (especially the US forums) these discussions are fairly frequent. We see the same thing with pap tests, early and frequent testing means lots of false positives and over-treatment so it “looks” like lots of “cancers caught” resulting in more “survivors” so women stay with over-screening…some end up having 6 monthly or annual pap tests for years almost guaranteeing something else will be “caught” (another false positive)…and the merry-go-round continues.

      • Alex says:

        Elizabeth: It also is bizarre that it seems that some people have a conditional that the information that something is bullshit has to come from the one doing it. It’s up to them to deceive or confess & these people will listen no matter what.

        Another thing: I don’t know how to post links, but I just read an article about how some Japanese politician was suggesting giving pierced condoms to newlyweds & selling fake birth control!

      • bethkz says:

        Alex: It’s even worse than that. Not only does it have to be someone in the profession of doing something have to confess that it’s nonsense, that they’ve been deceiving multitudes for years. Just one such person is viewed as a maverick and irresponsible who should have his or her license revoked, and just regarded as a kook. It’s only if or when the majority within the profession, and an organization representing that profession gives “new guidelines” that it is taken seriously. Even then, they won’t admit to duping millions of people for billions of dollars/pounds/marcs/rupees, but just say that “new evidence suggests…”

  12. Alex says:

    Cat & Mouse: Apparently, there’s financial incentives for getting someone placed ($4,000- $6,000), so adoption bonuses are a motivation for kidnapping through occupational activities. This whole thing turns into lots of money for the various people involved (occupational activities- bonuses or not).

    This is another thing for them to fabricate, too. They always come up with one bullshit charge or another, but this is one that makes you look bad right out of the gate (the term itself gets someone thinking about the situation & now it’s pointed at someone). I’ve noticed that people don’t want to think that charges like that can be falsely aimed at them. Theft, arson, murder- these are all things that are a bit easier to swallow as a possibility. When it starts getting creepy, that’s seems to be something that people want to figure someone else (who might very well be that way, themselves) would be honest about & it wouldn’t have even come up if it didn’t happen.

    There’s also a bit of a general trend to convict someone “just to be safe, rather than sorry.” This is with everything, I’ve noticed. This leaves out the problem of someone getting attacked unjustly as a possible issue entirely.

  13. adawells says:

    Regarding privatisation of cancer screening services I found out that this row blew up in 1999:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/271680.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/272351.stm

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/when-the-cost-of-privatisation-is-simply-too-much-to-bear-1.307002

    I have to say that I agree with the gyne Jim Thornton, that these expensive screening programmes should not be bringing our NHS to its knees. If people want these innacurate health screening programmes they should pay for them out of their own pockets, and let the NHS concentrate on providing real healthcare.

  14. Moo says:

    In low resource countries visual inspection with vinegar is done. It is suggested that screening yearly is best but at least once between ages of women 35 to 45. They do not do Pap tests because they do not have labs or technicians to read the slides. Nurses or trained workers do the screening and also treat with cryo therapy on the spot.
    This is the manual even with photos.

    http://screening.iarc.fr/viavilichap2.php?lang=1

    See that over treatment is not happening in these low resource settings. Really serious cases are referred to doctors at a hospital.

    Some women here might like to look at their own cervix to see what is going on and then treat themselves with hydrogen peroxide or herbal therapies or see natural health practioner. I do not suggest self treatment with cryo therapy. Disposable speculum can be purchased at medical supply stores.

  15. adawells says:

    Someone posted recently about dogs who can sniff cancer, but I can’t find the post. There is actually a charity set up for this in the UK. It’s amazing and true.
    http://www.medicaldetectiondogs.org.uk.

  16. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Alice
    I think many doctors just tell women they “need” a pap test every 2 years IF they’ve even had ONE sexual encounter, some would even test virgins assuming some sexual contact has taken place. Others say all women must have pap tests, they don’t want to complicate things…just screen everyone, to hell with the risk of false positives and over-treatment.

    I know women who’ve been pressured to test even though they have no cervix and had the hysterectomy for a non-cancerous condition.
    So most doctors cast a wide net…asymptomatic women who’ve ever had any sexual contact. Some use it as a diagnostic test, wrong, women with symptoms should be referred for a proper investigation, screening tests are for people with no symptoms
    So it’s targets and financial incentives and mindlessly following the program. I think many GPs have a fairly poor understanding of cervical screening/HPV/cervical cancer.

    A woman who felt she could make a case for no pap tests (the words they tend to use) using things like “no family history of cancer, not likely to have HPV” etc. would be fired down, “you’re still at risk”, “you can never be sure, why take the risk?” etc.
    They can always argue you “might” be at risk…that’s why they’ve hidden away the significance of being HPV-…that way they can drag most women into testing (and treatment rooms)

    Even a woman claiming lifetime mutual monogamy would be told to screen, “you can never be sure” (your partner might stray)
    So I’m not surprised your friend was pressured into a pap test. A colleague (who used the Delphi Screener in Singapore) was told by her Aussie GP that she still needed pap tests (even though she is HPV-) She was able to shut down that discussion quickly because she’s informed, probably knows more than her GP at this point.
    Some doctors will try and hang onto pap testing by saying that not all cancers are caused by HPV…a VERY small number “may” not be linked to hrHPV, but these cancers are usually missed by pap tests anyway, how would a false negative help the woman?

    Keeping women in the dark enables GPs to manipulate, argue, dismiss, pressure etc. and get many women screened, whether they want to screen or not. That’s why getting the evidence to women is so important, having the ability to shut down the discussion protects you from this program. Of course, if a doctor talked over me, was rude etc. she’d be sacked, my EX-doctor.

    Alice, I doubt you’d find my name on the Pap test register, I’ve never screened, and I’ve never heard from them. No phone calls, letters, visits…nothing…and I’m 56 now. That suggests to me that I’m not on the register.

    Good detective work too, what a difference a code makes?
    Manipulating statistics is almost an art form for the medical profession and these programs.

  17. Alex says:

    Alice: That “opt-out” situation is kind of like a high-pressure sales tactic. They make it a confrontation where you have to cancel-out what they’re trying to do. Not to be condescending, but this is something that would generally be harder for a woman to counter than a man. Men don’t have as much of a problem with confrontation.

    It brings to mind someone raising a needle up like a dagger & trying to stab someone with it & in order to not get this injection, someone has to physically hold their arm.

  18. Alex says:

    Elizabeth: I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again: They LIKE doing these things. Doesn’t have to be this exact situation or something along similar lines, they are lined-up in an antagonistic way.

    People think it’s all about money, but it tends to be about malice. Look at it: They could think “The money’s not worth it,” they could think “I’ve got enough”, they could even think “Hey, this is a situation I’d pay to prevent.” They’ll use their funds to get things they want, too. All these things point to it being something that they find appealing.

    Same with the doctors & other medical personnel: They DO these things & if they’re not that way, they don’t generally put their jobs on the line to avert these situations or to speak out about them.

    • bethkz says:

      I am among those who think that it’s mainly money behind the whole thing. Doctors and other clinicians get paid to have a higher percentage of the women in their practice screened, they get paid more for doing more invasive testing, still more for more harmful invasive testing and hysterectomies, from all of the false-positives they’ll produce. They’re sending business to these hospitals, labs, and other doctors. This is BIG BUSINESS!

      However, there is a point to your claim that it is malice. Doctors have FEAR to sell. With more “cancer victims” there is more fear, thus more patients. There’s also a sort of “Munchausens by Proxy” that seems to be played by medical practitioners: Do things that will make you sick. Cure that illness. Make the person sick in some other way. Cure that illness.” Make money all the way around, and have a grateful patient about how you “saved their life”, and urge everyone they know to also fall into this web.

  19. Moo says:

    Going back to the old HPV dormancy theory. Any news or thoughts about that?

    The theory (never proven) of latency is used when a woman has years of normal paps and negative HPV tests. Suddenly she has an abnormal pap and positive HPV test. She has not had any new partners and she is a long term relationship. She believe her partner is not cheating and this news causes tensions in the relationship (abuse and divorce in some cases). She is told that she could have got HPV years, even decades ago and some how it is coming out just now. If she had previous negative HPV tests, the levels of HPV were “subclinical”.

    To prove the theory of latency then it would have to be followed that a woman with a positive HPV have the strains of virus typed and the any subsequent HPV infection show to be the exact same strain. Since apparently immunity to any particular strain is supposed to persist for years, could she been reinfected by the same strain later?

    Chlamydia is tested for only routinely (or screening pushed) towards certain populations, usually younger ages. Since 70% of women who have chlamydia show no symptoms it might be theorized that actually a larger number of people have chlamydia as part of their flora and it does not cause disease (symptoms). As well people often have yeast growing inside their bodies but only an overgrowth will make them sick (with symptom). But since these organisms are not routinely tested for, there is no overdiagnosis. M

    Another more sinister explanation is that a woman was infected during a previous pelvic exam from her doctor shoddy practices.

    Even a positive HPV test might. It be a huge deal since only a small percentage of these women will ever get cervical cancer. I do not buy the latency theory.

    • bethkz says:

      No one really buys the latency theory.

      Most of the whole virus theory is based on the notion that when you become infected with a virus, you develop immunity to that virus. That is why people who’ve had measles don’t get measles again. It’s the whole premise from which all vaccines derive. For the most part, vaccinations work to prevent most cases of the illness.

      If doctors and researchers really believed the latency theory, they would not have the HPV vaccination. It never would have been worked on, and if it did, no one would recommend it. If so-called latency theory were a fact, innoculation with the HPV virus would be guaranteed to have no effect in preventing any HPV infections, and might well just cause a few.

      At the same time, they dismiss the notion that many (most) people will clear an HPV infection in a couple of years on their own. If that were true, there’d be no point to the vaccine, since the immune system would not produce antibodies to kill any new similar viruses.

    • Alice says:

      The HPV dormancy “theory” is a scam designed to kill two birds with one stone: make huge money on HPV vaccines AND keep pap screening profits in place.

      Our problem is that currently there are two camps in the medical “life-saving” army: one profits on screening, another — on vaccination.

      When the HPV vaccine was found, the medical business community had a strategical choice. If the pro-inoculators tout HPV vaccine as a new cancer-combat means that will free us from cancer and paps, then pap-screeners will be unhappy and sabotage it, e.g. by saying there are some Autism side effects, like it happened with MMR. Pap-screen was there first, so they needed to be given some respect and left with their share of the market. As a result, we have the situation we have:

      1. Young people are given HPV shots, but told that it only protects against two most common carcinogenic HPV strains, and the girls still need to do pap smears all their lives. However, with the invention of the vaccine, the information about HPV-CervicalCancer link inevitably became public out. This meant that non-vaccinated women could find their HPV status and ditch the pap-crap. To deal with that…

      2. HPV dormancy theory was invented, which proclaimed that being HPV negative now doesn’t mean you won’t die of the “rampant” cervical cancer in 5 years, so keep screening.
      The medical community calculated that there will not be enough people to realise that if human body did not fight HPV and as a result develop any immunity against HPV, the vaccine couldn’t possible work. And there were almost right: many people did swallow the dormancy lie. Except for some free thinkers like we have here. :-)


      As to Chlamydia, it is bacterium, while HPV is a virus. They work very differently.

  20. Karen says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2704233/Mothers-hell-spends-two-years-preparing-die-cancer-discover-mother-spent-two-years-preparing-die-does-work-actually.html

    “Mother spent two years preparing to die after she was WRONGLY told she had cancer – and even wrote farewell letters to her sons and arranged her own funeral
    Denise Clarke, 34, underwent treatment for cervical cancer in 2010
    Had extensive radiotherapy to pelvic area and beat the disease
    But in November 2011 she was told she had huge cancerous mass in pelvis
    Doctors said there was nothing more they could do to treat her
    But after two years and feeling fine, she demanded more scans
    Was astounded to learn mass was actually damage from previous treatment
    Has now received five-figure sum from NHS Grampian for misdiagnosis “

    • adawells says:

      This is just typical of the tabloid stories we get about cervical cancer in the UK, and as usual it revolves around an individual who is completely uninformed about her diagnosis. If she had really been told that she had a huge cancerous mass, all manner of appointments and check ups would have been arranged at the hospital for the end of her life, but she seems to have spent this time with no further contact with the medical services, even though she assumed she was about to die. None of this adds up. It sounds to me like she got the wrong end of the stick about something.

      • Moo says:

        Too many details missing to try and piece together what really happened. She had bleeding at 9 weeks pregnant. Did she get an ultrasound at that time? She had to wait 6 months for an appointment to investigate that. What was that? A colpscopy? Then they told her she had cancer and induced the birth so she could get treatments right away. No mention of pap testing so was the diagnosis from viewing of the cervix? Biopsies are not usually done during pregnancy.

        Pap test during pregancy are not reliable. Some cells that are produced during pregnancy look very much like cancer cells. Mnaufacturers of the Pap test kits have “do not use brush after 8 weeks” right in the instruction pamphlet which I am sure many doctors do not read. There has never been a study published that showed that Pap tests caused miscarriage. That does not mean that no study was EVER done. It was not published. Why the warning by the manufacturer?

        The immune system is depressed somewhat during pregnancy so there are plenty of abnormal paps. Then women are pressured into getting paps 6 weeks after delivery and more abnormal paps are found. It takes some time for the body to return to normal after pregnancy. If the “cancer” is just really a viral infection (maybe combined with a fungal infection) then when the immune system kicks in, healing would happen.

        Another question about this case is how was it determined that she never had cancer? Were her tests reviewed and shown it was just an error?

        If this poor woman received enough radiation “for a lifetime” this very tragic. Likely this would cause her to get other cancer later. It is a tradegy.

      • bethkz says:

        I knew one in my own community, who told me that she’d been diagnosed with a HUGE cancerous mass in her abdomen, which was so large as to be “inoperable”. I cannot say for certain, but her figure was similar to that of a woman who was pregnant, and remained that way even though she was late-middle-aged and unlikely to be pregnant. She did not have, nor was she offered, tons of appointments and dubious treatments. She died… of cancer… I always thought something was amiss about the situation. No doubt she had something, and got the short end of the stick somewhere. It seems that with her they could not be bothered finding out.

    • Alex says:

      Holy shit! Notice how they always act like they give a shit about what problems a person has, but then they cause them? And after that, they’ll cover them up so they keep happening? Not indicators of altruism, for damn sure.

      • Moo says:

        Some people refuse treatment (chemotherapy, surgery) for cancer and even some of the intrusive tests for staging cancer. The “just leave me alone” protocol is available as anyone can refuse medical care. Not knowing what this tumor was exactly is just leading to guessing.

        Some types of tumors such as lipoma which are rarely cancer can grow very large. These can even cause pain but often patients are told their insurance will not cover their surgical removal. Other times their removal is just not practical as to the damage the surgery will do to muscles, organs and tissue that the lipoma infiltrates. Not much research is being done about curing lipomas or what causes them either. For more information google lipoma board. And yes, no doctors seems to give a ******* about patients with lipoma.

      • bethkz says:

        Moo: You can refuse medical care. However, if they think that you “lack insight” into your medical situation, they can and do override your wishes to refuse care, refuse certain types of care, refuse care under specific conditions, and so forth. The patient is financially responsible for all of this forced care, at least in the US. If anything is a conflict of interest, THAT is!

        The same with a DNR order. They’ll follow it IF they feel like it. If not, they are not liable for such things as assault, but the patient is liable to pay for all of this so-called care which he or she never asked for, wanted, or authorized.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Thank you, Alex, Moo, Elizabeth, BethKZ, Adawels, etc, what I read here is so clean, inspiring, clear, and truthful. It’s awful that so many women we speak to outright refuse to even look here, and simply prefer reporting for the “two-fingered rack and scrape attack.” I know this is long, but it explains so much I didn’t know.

        I cared for my daughter. It embarrasses me to think how brainwashed I was that, before reading here, I’d readily have taken her along with me to the doctor so we could both be pap’d at the same time. Why does the medical community want a pre-16 teen on the table? To pass the brainwashing along to her. Sort of like how CPS contaminates children. It must be a real thrill for the provider, male or female, to have two age related, willing specimens to play with. My husband and I also grew up brainwashed that well-patient exams were necessary too. Another crock of ****!

        I’m in need of total knee replacement. My female internist wants me to have a pap. I use her ob-gyn, an older male, whom we’ve noticed other doctors’ wives also use. Funny they choose him over a female. Anyway, next week I’m calling the office to inquire about an HPV test like the Delphi or urine, etc. Since I’m not able to easily get into “position,” I’m a candidate for different screening. I’ll report back with what happens. As I’ve been pap-negative (never tested for HPV) since my cryo in the 1980’s, why should I need a pap anyway? This doctor already admitted to my husband that he can barely feel the bottom half of a uterus anyway. Only inside a skinny girl can he actually “feel” organs. The type of patient every doctor dreams of having.

        Likewise, it was emphasized to me how I was saved from certain death by cryosurgery. The pain was necessary for the cure. As if I should’ve been happy for the pain. Remind me again please. I had cervical dysplasia. What’s that? CIN 0 or 1? While I did have abnormal growth appearance according to the bricklike drawing on my medical chart, what was the chance my body would’ve eliminated this on its own? I too was rushed from colposcopy immediately to cryo; like today the “in-vogue” LEEP is the preferred torture (perhaps better $$ reimbursement? More interesting to perform?)

        Please carefully watch and listen to these videos we’ve watched off YouTube. Thanks to the crew here, we’ve reviewed medical texts re colposcopies. It’s written IF the colposcopy biopsy is done properly and quickly with the right instruments, usually, most patients, depending on their level of disease, health, pain tolerance, they shouldn’t, most likely, usually, feel much if any pain, or discomfort, cramping, for more than an instant.

        The video for the hysteroscope was produced in Australia. The doctor was kind enough to explain his technique which didn’t involve using a speculum due to it causing involuntary vaginal contractions which would stimulate pain receptors. He slowly threads his way through a closed vagina to the cervix before proceeding inward; and he likes using at least local anesthesia, which he also highlighted, compared to inconsiderate bastards who don’t care if we suffer and go home upset.

        He further showed a cervix-uterus diagram with arrows pointing to areas innervated with either parasympathetic or sympathetic nerve endings, or both. These nerve ending connect to the sacral spinal column. Also, I note, the lower 2/3 of the vagina has little sensory nerves. It only feels stretching. It’s much like a man’s scrotum. However, the upper vaginal 1/3 is highly innervated and feels everything. From pleasant sexual stimulation and stretching to painful medical manipulations. And they say we shouldn’t feel pain?! This is proof we can and do. We can have orgasms separately or simultaneously from our clitoris (which connects to inner labia and traces inside to the g-spot), G-spot, or the anterior or posterior fortis (above or below our cervix); which is why we feel our cervix/uterus contract during orgasm. Now, doctor, tell me again that most women don’t complain of pain!!! Plus, while our G-spot generates extra secretions during excitement, stimulating the fornix area immediately produces wetness. Our bodies are complex…God again created a masterpiece.

        Parasympathetic nerves control automatic or autonomic sleeping, digestion, and child birth. Sympathetic sensory nerves report pain. LIke getting burned by a hot stove; or LEEP wire or the pincer piercing tenaculum’s painful grip. Likewise, when our cervix is invaded or scraped.

        Tell me what you think. Including the doctor’s voices, bedside manner, pain you perceive being felt, and stupid background music. The Hysteroscope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsvqe3ToMyk The Colposcope: /watch?v=u7id_1WH8tU (I hope all numbers/letters were transcribed right, like 1 vs i vs l) I feel this doctor is cold, unfeeling, and uncaring. The Cryosurgery: /watch?v=yjgRiHUwNI8. Watch how her cervix moves–the cramping pain I experienced? And as if the music makes it any better?!! I want to f’ing scream!! If I got miswrote any of these, I apologize in advance. Thank you for your patience.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        If you tried my links, and they failed, you have my sincere apologies. The Colposcopy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?=vzu7ld_JWH8tU Add to my comments, you can see the raw pap scrape, he comments on the stinging that vinegar causes (watch! yikes-owww!), he uses the “cheese grater” (thanks whomever coined that) endocervical curettage which forms a clot from the raw bleeding which he retrieves with long-handled forceps or tweezers from inside the canal, snipping and bleeding, there’s his voice with that super irritating music, and the Dx? Cervicitis. What he suspected all along. But he mangled her cervix in the process. It looked so sad.

        I cannot locate the original cryosurgery video I used to look at. However, there’s another. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H9Twr3FUQc Here, two probes are used. Watch the cervix move. The first leaves a huge divit where living tissue once was. We don’t get to see what happens when the second one is placed. In the original video I watch, it was the second treatment (two 3-minute freeze cycles separated by 3 minutes that produced the most movement in the patient (and pain). Just view the destruction. And this is the least destructive and painful of the surgeries. In this video, the second treatment is on a fresh or virgin cervix. The probe is long and thin. The doctor has some trouble ramming it into the canal. The video does not show the full freeze cycle nor what happens when it’s removed. One can easily figure out why.

        I hope this is helpful, educational, and anybody faced with this, if you do consent, demand pain management. Don’t assume anything you’re told is truthful. Once it begins it’s too late.

  21. Karen says:

    some clueless american in the guardian, about how women still need their “female care”: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/23/spy-camera-gynocologist-every-womans-nightmare-wake-up-call

    • Moo says:

      The article failed to mention that black women often get cancer from strains other than HPV 16 and 18 which there is a vaccine for. Of course medical care is racist, it always has been even before the “father of gynaecology” Dr Sims.

  22. Alex says:

    Notice how they’re sooo concerned about all these ailments, but have no issue with causing people problems?

    Sometimes they even ignore a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order. The person’s suffering & they can’t even let that end. No, they’ve got to interfere.

    It’s like the Borg Collective, they want to excite their ego so they try to hi-jack other people & impose the situation they think is so much better. “Constructing reinforcement by imposition of situation,” would probably be the technical description.

  23. Cat&Mouse says:

    The Borg. CPS. Fighting the inflated bills when they arrive. “Resistance is futile.” And, never call the paramedics if you’re the caregiver for a terminal patient with a DNR. They are mandated to ignore it. Also, notice how many of the problems occur with socialized medicine? ObamaCare is the worst thing for US medicine.

    US had the best at one time. Then came along a slew of non-payers. All that was passed along to the insured and cash-paying public. Countries supplying the US with illegal aliens should have to pay for their care, and the Feds in Wash DC should reimburse states and privately insured for the bills that MediCaid does not cover. Generally, nowadays, those on MediCaid type programs require a total write-off for services if there’s primary insurance payer, or if MediCaid is primary they reimburse about 10% usual and customary fees.

  24. Alex says:

    Something I was just thinking of: What does someone actually want from their healthcare? It seems that people are quite paranoid about their health, but then don’t worry about what conditions they are in. I mean to reference how they feel, how well they can do things, their appearance (in the sense or rashes that don’t hurt, thier nails turning a weird color, that sort of thing).

    It seems like people almost want a grade from the doctor like they’d get from a teacher in school. They want a “Certificate of Approval,” basically- that not a hair or cell is out of place. The thing is that this deviation from whatever exact alignment that the medical profession considers perfection isn’t always a detrimental condition.

    Also & maybe other people have noticed this: Whether this is officially declared or not, they see biological activity as a disorder. Doesn’t matter what it is, just that it is happening.

    It also seems that this is somewhat of a cultural thing, that “stability” in the western sense means “static & unchanging.” The term “stability” is also used in place of “non-adverse condition,” so that could potentially cross some signals.

  25. Emily says:

    So here’s another fun story about a trip to the Dr….I had to get a prescription for a fungal issue on my neck refilled and my GP is on vaca. A young man was filling in for him today. So he starts going over my history and I bet you can’t guess what he asked about. THE PAP. This was our conversatin

    Dr: I don’t see a record of your last pap on file

    Me: Ya. Never done it.

    Dr: well that’s not good. You need to be getting those regularly. We should do one right away.

    Me: What? Why? If you can see my records you should know I was vaccinated at 17 and as a dr you should know women under 30 get lots of false positives. Plus the only man I’ve ever slept with was a virgin too and we’ve been in a mongamous relationship for 4 years. There’s no point.

    Dr: That’s not true. You still have all those girl parts and even with all of that there’s no guarantee they’ll behave properly.

    Me: Well if you base things like this purely on what someone has for parts then I absolutely refuse. You see even though you’re a dr you still have all those man parts and there’s no guarantee that THEY will behave properly.

    His jaw dropped and he turned about fifty shades of red. He was still speechless when I got up and said “If we’re done here I’m gonna go check out that new pizza place with the woodfire grill. Please fax my prescription over to rite aid. Have a good one!” I was trying soooo hard not to laugh as I walked out.

    I suppose I could’ve been a little more polite about it but I don’t put up with men treating me like I’m a stupid child no matter who they are. If he’s going to be a doctor for the rest of his life then he needs to learn how to respect his patients. Better he learns now while he’s still young and now he just has a nice reminder…I don’t think he’ll be forgetting that little chat anytime soon LOL

    • Cat&Mouse says:

      Oh, you should be nominated for patient of the year. I’m so thrilled!!! You must be awfully pretty for him to want to do one “right away.” Exactly, this is how I was treated when in my twenties; and my husband was virgin when we met too (I was not however). How I wish I had your self confidence and intuition. Your mentioning to him the facts also left him with no manipulative speech to fall back on. I’m surprised he didn’t claim you may have only a few months to live unless he didn’t “rule out” anything being amiss. Was your boyfriend present or were you alone? This goes to show the predatory nature of those in healthcare. Women or men; I’ve known RN’s who taken liberties with penis when possible. This guy is covering for one day, and not your heart, anything else, but your vagina is number one priority. Oh, professional, see them everyday, no big deal. BS!! Thank you Emily!! Thank you so much!

    • bethkz says:

      OMG Emily! I about choked when I read your post! WAY TO GO!

      I almost really lost it when you countered with “You’ve got all those man parts and there’s no guarantee they’ll behave properly.” Yeah, that’s really it! It’s true in more ways than one!

      Even if you had something wrong with “all those girl parts”, and even if it wasn’t causing you any symptoms, a pap will not catch *anything* except (some) HPV infections, with a lot of false positives. It wouldn’t catch things like various STDs (Unless they tested for those, specifically – and from what you describe your history to be, coming down with one is slim to none unless you got it in the doctor’s office!), wouldn’t catch various vaginal infections, which nearly always cause symptoms, fertility issues, ovarian cancer, or on and on. What, precisely, did this quack think a pap would do, anyway? Many times *they* don’t seem to be sure!

    • Heather says:

      Emily, you are brilliant! :-)
      I wish I could find the right words so promptly in situalitions like this.

      As to paps on young women, I’ve done so much reading in the past weeks aout it, and it looks like because young women (who weren’t mutual virgins with their partners) have HPV very often. It nearly always clears on its own. But if a pap is done, those women are actually at risk of not clearing HPV and subsequently getting a higher chance of cervical cancer. If they DO a Pap smear, because a pap brush scrapes the cervix tissue, and if there was superficial HPV infection, it gets a chance to get deeper in the damaged cervix tissue and is less likely to clear.

      So, the doctors win a lot by insisting on testing young women:
      – paid for the patient visit,
      – paid for the Pap smear,
      – get the incentive payment,
      – when scraping for pap, infect the patient with HPV deeper than it winitially as and diminish its chances for self-clearance,
      – if cell changes caused by the HPV are detected, they are also paid for follow-up visits and more tests,
      – if the deepened infection persisted, much more money to be made on colposcopy, LEEP and other tortures.

      After all this, the woman is caught in a merry-go-round of female genital mutilation for the rest of her life, possuly declared to be lucky to be a cancer survivor, thanks to life-saving pap. A perfect business model for the quacks, and a guaranteed life wreck for the young woman.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Can you share the source where you got the info?

        One thing I forgot to say when I explained pain involved with gynecological procedures. Many of these make the body produce prostaglandins, which make us cramp. The doctor from Australia discussed it.

      • Alex says:

        The stuff you mentioned would definitely be a reason. I pretty much always go with malice as the reason for things like this (which, of course, would blanket the stuff you mentioned). You know, if you look into the history of allopaths & empirics, you see that the allopaths have always been a bit off-the-wall. Being antagonistic to life is a running theme- it doesn’t take much deduction to see how that would aimed at women & at certain parts of women more than others.

      • Moo says:

        Somone asked for a source for this information that Pap tests and the endocervical brush can cause more infection. Just common sense tells you that most types of penetrative sex are not scraping around the cervix and pushing HPV infected skin cells up the cervical canal. I do not need a scientific study to prove that the Pap test can be harmful.

        Yeah scrape up HPV infected cells and swirls then around with a brush or spatula like peanut butter on a bagel. Then take a brush and shove those infected cells up the cervical os and see who gets cancer in a few years. Adenocarcinoma diagnosis in the endocervix is on the rise. I wonder why?

        I have a doctor who poop poops all my herbal cures because there are no scientific peer published approved clinical studies to their effectiveness. Herbals are effective and they have been used for centuries because they are effective. No one is going to do a scientific study on a herbal cure because they cannot make money a patent. Also no manufacturer is going to publish a study that shows their cervical brush causes cancer or miscarriage. They are going to suppress any such publication and sue anyone who does a comparison study of products etc.

        The closest I have come to finding a study that shows the harm of Pap tests is one I put a
        Link on this forum done on primates using a carageenan based lubricant that was supposed to reduce HPV infection. The scientist actually showed that scraping around the HPV infection during a pap made it spread and the dysplasia get worse. I do not like experiments being done on animals like that but I have an even worse aversion to doctors “experimenting” on humans.

        The vinegar test used in low resource countries is done without scraping. It is recommended the minimum should be ONCE in a woman’s life time between 35 and 45 years old. These are women who are often multiparious and married young. If the are going to have cancer the. There is a good chance that the HPV infection or cancer will be caught then. The vinegar test does not scrape or push HPV infected cells up the cervix.

    • Kleigh US says:

      Wow That is so cool that you stud up for your self. And i got that “thats not good and womans bodys are so complex and we mensturate so amny things can go wrong bs too and the nurse was so madd she coulnt justify her clam. and what rigfht is it for them to say it was not good that we dont get paps. thats not respecting are concent at all. i am so glad to hear your come back. if you dont mind did he say anything back after you brought up is parts?

    • Kleigh US says:

      What did he mean by “All those girls parts”? like thers somthing wrong with them. that whould have ticked me off right there shows how doctors view woman bodys. with distrust

    • ADM (Canada) says:

      Awesome response! I had hope for new and younger Dr’s that the curriculum at medical school had changed and that misogyny and a better understanding of what cancer screening tests do, including paps, were being taught. I guess not and the view that being a woman is a preexisting condition and our sex organs are pre-disease still exists.

  26. Kleigh says:

    You know I have to wonder what doctors and nurses are being taught in meadical school? The nurse i had a bad incounter with did not even know what a pap screened for and she even tried to tell me it had somthing to do with us mensturating that the cycels could cause problems. Pap smears do not even screen for problems with the uterus. I just wish i had put that woman in her place. All she knew was how woman desperatly needed paps and she was amazed i had never had one.

    • Emily says:

      oh yes I’m sure you DESPERATELY NEED a pap….dont you know we all do cuz we have “all those girls parts” lmao…although I’m considering getting that pill that lets you only have four cycles a year. Sounds kinda nice to me…my periods are not particularly awful but I tend to have short cycles (always have) and about 5-7 days of PMS before that so it kinda puts a damper on my sex life. Oh btw I enjoy sex ALOT and get it every chance I can but shhh don’t tell the drs…I might secretly be a slut yknow…chock full o fun diseases and “cancer” they can “test” for and “treat”! ;) But in all seriousness I think I may ask my GP when he’s back from vaca. He knows better than to push that pap crap on me. And I might discuss my encounter with his fill-in and suggest he give him some friendly advice. After all the guy is fresh out of med school and works at a clinic in the area. Apparently my GP has been sort of mentoring him and showing him the ropes. I think this would be a good opportunity for some “mentoring” on informed consent and elective procedures/screening. And just plain respect.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Thank you again, Moo, for the info re scraping and spreading of HPV. You always come up with very good research that the med community would rather file away and forget.

        Emily, you can bet that our GP and the covering md fresh out of med school will have a talk. I think the new doctor will rag on your GP for tolerating behaviors such as yours, and not controlling the conversation, making you and him “partners” so he can then, with your blessings, do whatever he wants to your body.

        Personally from us, thanks for knocking the “god” complex out of this young buck. “Right away” he wanted to be the first one to convincing you to strip, put up the rack, and scraped. With a long slow internal exam and f/u lecture instructing you how to “protect your health.” Thank God you were educated and could pick between right and wrong. This guy has the same attitude my husband’s best friend had when he graduated from Purdue med school. That guy now is over 50, and never goes for his own physicals, colonoscopies, or prostate exams.

        HIs advice for healthy prostates? Ejaculate 21 times per month minimum. Those who do are least likely to experience cancer. Doctor’s advice.

  27. Emily says:

    BTW I just wanted to give a huge thank you to Sue and everyone else here. without finding this site I mightve just blindly gone along with all the demands from various drs and been violated (well I consider it being violated) several times over by now. Because of all your thoughtful advice, information and honesty I am no longer afraid that I will be tricked into it or that I won’t know how to stand up for myself. Thanks to you guys I am now immune (or at least pretty damn resistant) to the scaremongering and pressure. My dad always told me “never blindly follow the advice of someone who profits from your choice.” he was right and you all embody his wise words. THANK YOU

    • adawells says:

      http://www.patient.co.uk/forums/discuss/how-is-it-that-in-2014-the-only-option-to-detect-cervical-cancer-is-by-having-a-smear–270247

      I would also like to thank Sue for this website and for all the great work in keeping it going. It has been a refuge for those damaged by dictatorial screening programmes. Patient.co.uk are determined that British women should not find out about it, by deleting its name from one of Elizabeth’s posts. See the link above.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Perfect for us. This is the article I’ve been waiting for. Makes perfect sense too. There’s a PSA, CA series, and finally a CSA. Even if this yielded 1% false positives, it’s better than the pap. However, most HMO’s will refuse to offer this, b/c it will prevent doctors from an “intimate” relationship with their patients, from likewise invasive questioning, and most importantly from getting extra fees. Expect them to fight us as we close our legs and get off their table. What did Nancy Reagan suggest? “Just say NO.” NO to being assaulted and raped.

        RE the automatic assumptions that all couples cheat. When I received too much tylenol in my pain meds, it interfered with my bladder. What was the suggestion? Not to review my meds; but to assume I had an STD. Twice, once with a male, then with a female. The looks they give, like waiting for some warped confession from us. Then when we say nothing extramarital occurred, the look/treatment is that they now have to search for the STD on their own. So goes the testing. And, when done, their bewildered look that nothing bad was present. That’s when the female appeared offended when my husband told he knew in advance my health/hygiene was very good.

        Perhaps, the reason behind their attitudes are b/c so many of them cheat and require treatments for STD’s.

        One day maybe doctors will take care to prevent STD’s from spreading due to their own poor hand hygiene and office cleanliness.

  28. Victoria says:

    This is from an old article that I can see Elizabeth replied to. A GP says, “Older women may well believe they have been in a monogamous relationship, but it only takes a silly dalliance for the husband or partner to catch HPV and pass it on to an unsuspecting spouse”. So we should sit there in the doctor’s office and just go, “Okay then, my husband could well have cheated on me so let’s get on with the smear test. While you’re at it, why don’t we check for STDs, which you haven’t mentioned even though they would be a bigger risk than cervical cancer.”

    • bethkz says:

      Physician’s statements or strong implications that a spouse *may* have cheated, and such cheating can lead to HPV/Cervical cancer as well as chlamydia – both conditions for which they have a test and would be happy to do it TODAY has some horrible ramifications. The PAP, especially, has a very high false positive rate, and the chlamydia test has its own rate of false positives. If someone pops positive, EVEN ON AN UNRELIABLE TEST, that the woman has been taught to trust, she will no doubt accuse her husband of cheating. If he has not, he will not only deny it, but having been taught these things are accurate, he’ll turn around and accuse the wife of cheating. This can lead to a lot of distrust between marriage partners, in a manufactured crisis, which has no resolution since everyone denies it (since it’s not true), and both are sure the other is lying. Distrust is bred, and the marriage could start having some major problems.

      It’s part of the Holy War against marriage and family that the medical industry is creating.

  29. Victoria says:

    There’s a stat that says half of women who are diagnosed with cervical cancer refused smears or didn’t attend every one. What are people’s responses to that?

    My personal take is that I can’t have HPV, therefore if I was to have CC I’d have to have the 1% of an already rare cancer that’s not caused by HPV. That’s such a tiny risk compared to the guarantee of a painful smear test and a 4% chance of over-treatment.

    That sounds like a trolling question above, but I’m just interested to see how you’d counter that argument. I’ve seen it used as a way to get women to screen.

    • Karen says:

      Half of women who are diagnosed with cervical cancer refused smears or didn’t attend every one? And what about the other half, who did attend? And how many people actually participate in the UK, 60-70%?

      • Victoria says:

        Yes, I read it as “glass half empty” as well! So much for regular smears “preventing” cancer in the other half of women who went regularly. On a related note, I saw someone on the Jo’s Trust forum saying she was annoyed by a Jo’s Trust t-shirt at a run saying cervical cancer was preventable. She’d had smears whenever she was told to and still ended up with the condition. Naturally she was quite upset at the suggestion she could have avoided it.

    • Victoria says:

      Another counter-argument I can think of is that even if that stat is true, it doesn’t change the fact that the test is unreliable and results in tens of thousands of women having unnecessary treatment. I agree with a point Elizabeth made either here or on another forum, saying that these many, many women are forgotten about. If they think they’ve been saved from cancer they can be used for press, but if they found the experience distressing their feelings aren’t being addressed. It’s only on forums like this where I see people speaking up about the over-treatment and saying it’s unacceptable.

    • Cat&Mouse says:

      If you all wouldn’t mind, please, take a moment and rate this. Consider the 1-10 pain scale, with #1 being no or little pain, and #10 being absolute hell on earth pain. Please score pelvic, er vaginal pain felt, or shall we say “appreciated” as in medical jargon, when a cervical s-c-r-a-p-e is done for pap test. Feel free also to add pain levels felt during other procedures. Include pain even from numbing injections and/or anything else you feel. Do not compare this to headaches or other pains. I’d say to compare this to cramping, but we all experience difference levels of these, too. So, it’s best just to leave the comparable scoring to medical procedures. Thanks. PS: Please also add your perceived pain threshold. Do you have a low, average, or high pain tolerance?

    • adawells says:

      I’ve read quite a bit about why they keep peddling the story that “more than half of those who don’t attend smears are the ones who get cc”, as if getting your cervix scraped is somehow conferring on you some sort of immunity.

      The real reason is that cervical cancer is a disease of poverty, and you are 3 times more likely to get it if you are from a poor working class background. Reasons being that you are more likely to have early sexual intercourse, experience childhood abuse, lack cleanliness, be a smoker, have many sexual partners from an early age, have many children and not use contraception, or even access the health services at all, let alone make an appointment for a smear test, or be a sex worker. Some of these women are homeless or itinerant, which further complicates matters. The British cc programme recognised from the start that it would only stigmatise these women if it was aimed totally at them alone, and would subsequently never get them to attend so it has always gone to great pains to emphasize that screening is for all women whatever your background, even though a monogamous middle class lady is highly unlikely to ever get the disease. I think I read somewhere that of the 990 women who die of the disease each year in the UK only about 12 are from the professional classes.
      They keep telling women that if you don’t go, the statistics show you are more likely to get it, but they never explain the real reason for this. What they mean to say is that women from poor backgrounds have more risk of dying from diseases like cc.

      On the other hand I have heard of someone who had a fling with someone who’d done time in prison, and she has persistent HPV from this affair. I’ve also heard that drugs which suppress your immune system such as some of those used for cancer patients can cause all sorts of horrible HPV related warts to flourish on you, when normally your body would suppress them. So there are instances where the disease can jump the class barrier!

      • Karen says:

        Adawells- wrote a long reply, but the serves is down for maintenance, so its gone. I was wondering about the class connotation too, I mean the NHS thought nothing wrong of the vile hashtag NoExcusesCampaign, and it blatantly reinforces the chavvy northerner girl flashing her pink panties in the snow stereotype thing, or the focus group for the crying boy poster, made up of ACORN group NMO, struggling families, noone educated beyond 18. Of course you never know who sits in which committee, and what their actual inclusion policy targets are and so on, but the campaigns blatantly seem to have a class-thing going.

      • Victoria says:

        That’s true Karen. At first I thought, “The NHS would never mention class, it’s just not PC.” You’re right, though, they’ve subtly targeted class groups. They must be discussing the class issue behind the scenes but can’t ever (and I’m stereotyping on purpose here) say something like, “Are you on benefits? Then you’re more likely to have cervical cancer!”

        On the topic of socio-economic class, I’ve noticed a lot of the goody-goody women who’ll pressurise their friends, write online about it, spread the word during Awareness Week, tend to be more middle class.

      • adawells says:

        This link shows that social class is a major factor in cervical cancer:

        http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/cervix/riskfactors/cervical-cancer-risk-factors#Socio

        They are trying desperately hard to reach women in lower social classes, hence that awful No Excuses video I posted earlier, but they don’t want it to appear that they are upper class people telling these women to roll up for their smear tests, they want it to appear that they are one of the girls: a good time working class chav who thinks it’s fun to run around in pink knickers in January.
        Working class women have a very poor uptake of screening programmes, whereas the wealthy middle class well, who don’t need cervical screening are the ones who roll up for every single test, costing the tax payer millions. The NHS money is being spent on the worried wealthy well, and the working classes who are really running the risks go without. This is one of the reasons I think this screening programme should be stopped. As Dr Margaret McCartney says in her book The Patient Paradox: screening programmes don’t target those who need them, but they actually increase health inequalities. Screening programmes miss their real targets by miles, and cause no end of suffering to those caught up in the endless and unnecessary interventions.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Verrry interesting reading. It’s no surprise that working class women are more in need of screening & treatment vs upper class. We already know the virus thrives long periods outside the vagina. Who mentioned that HPV survives under fingernails? And all the scratching along with overall poor hygiene? Consider who is most likely to be avid hand washers, germ freaks, who is more likely to attend a clinic where cleanliness is a priority more than writing on the wall?

        Compare HPV screening to terrorists screening at airports. In US, every traveler is screened as if a terrorist b/c we can’t be prejudiced and concentrate only on those most likely to blow up planes. Same with HPV and pap screening. The Israelis screen everybody, but save the “thorough” exams for those most likely to be perps. Wish our policy makers could get save money and hassle and make similar policies for HPV.

        RE prison medical care. In CA, USA where I live, female inmates sued the state over pathetic care. Screenings over months were inadequate, sterile conditions not maintained which contaminated healthy inmates, and those in need of treatment were never informed nor treated. Others had inadequate screening which had to be repeated. However, there was no hurry to rectify. Other countries refuse to extradite felons to US due to torturous and barbaric prison conditions relative to 3rd world countries. And Mexico is far worse. Stay home or go elsewhere.

      • adawells says:

        Regarding my comment about cervical cancer being more prevalent in women in lower social classes, I hope I didn’t give the impression that I think they are all dirty and lack hygiene, because that’s not true. The women themselves may be very carefully hygienic, but their men may not be, and we all know that the virus is caught from men. Someone I know has a husband who works in refuse collection. ( I don’t know what you call it in the US, trash collection?) But she says he always smells of refuse, and you can never get rid of the smell of the waste tip when he’s around. It’s always in their house. A lot of men who do dirty jobs don’t get provided with adequate washing facilities at their place of work, when they should be, and it got me thinking that maybe that’s why there is so much cervical cancer in this social class. What is needed is a major effort to provide all workers with hygienic washing facilities at their place of work, so that infections don’t get brought home. Maybe that would reduce the risk of cc rather than all those pap tests.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        I’ve also seen those in the middle class urge everybody else to screen. Most of the nurses I know perfectly fit this mold. However, as them if they screen? Across the board you’ll get a wink, crooked smile, and hear ‘no’ and it will be years since they last screened. Because they hate doing it.

        This week we spoke to my cardiologist’s nurse, a woman in her late 20’s. The word is out there among professionals. They all know there’s alternative testing and that the pap and bimanual is a crock. But they’ll all silent. Disappointedly, I’d hoped they have lead the charge.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        “They all know there’s alternative testing and that the pap and bimanual is a crock.”

        Yes, Cat and Mouse, it’s those in the know and everyone else.
        I spoke to quite a few doctors at the Evidence Live Conference and many had declined breast screening, all acted on information that is not in the brochures. That information is around though, more and more is appearing in the newspapers. I think many doctors though will simply recommend breast screening to their patients, just following the current recommendations. Many women tell me they were told, “well, you’re 50 now, time to start having mammograms”…like it’s a no-brainer, but then that’s the attitude with pap testing as well. Screening for women is almost a law or you’d think so the way it’s presented.
        You wanted some references…do you mean references that show cervical screening usually misses adenocarcinoma of the cervix? Let me know and I’ll post some links.

    • Moo says:

      Here is the study often quoted on women’s screening history who are diagnosed with cervical cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7762711
      Note that this was published before HPV testing was available,

      • Victoria says:

        Thanks for the link. Interesting comments in it despite it being a pro-screening study:

        “Pap smears have a considerable false-negative rate” (although at least the study says that needs to be improved upon)

        “Adenocarcinomas and adenosquamous carcinomas were seen nearly twice as often among the women who developed invasive disease within 3 years of a satisfactory negative cytologic examination compared with the total study group” – am I understanding that correctly? The total study group includes women who’ve never been screened, and yet the group who was getting “all clear” screens every 3 years were twice as likely to have those rare invasive forms of CC?

        “Invasive cancers can occur despite a history of negative screening tests in the last 3 years”

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        Victoria
        They’ve boomed up the pap test, but it’s far from perfect.
        Lying and misleading us has led to lots of harm and even some deaths.
        The pap test was designed to prevent squamous cell carcinoma, the more common form of these rare cancers, but it usually misses adenocarcinoma, an even rarer form of cc. The very rare cases of young women dying from cc (often after normal pap tests) are usually adenocarcinoma cases.
        So telling women the pap test prevents cervical cancer etc. is dangerous, there is no doubt in my mind many women think cc is off the table if they have a normal pap test, not true.
        There are cases where women have ignored symptoms, falsely reassured by their normal pap test/s and some have ended up with a poorer diagnosis as a result.
        Yet the system is so dishonest they’ll even use false negative cases and adenocarcinoma cases to sell pap tests to women.
        If we were serious about further reducing the incidence of this rare cancer we’d embrace HPV self-testing and HPV primary testing, that would save more lives (including cases of adenocarcinoma) and take most women out of pap testing. (some might choose to stop testing altogether, those aged 30 to 60, HPV- and no longer sexually active or confidently monogamous) Of course, this is only true if HPV primary testing is used properly and sadly, if that means less profit for vested interests, they’ll use the test incorrectly and keep harming the masses. (by combining the tests for all women over 30, the pap AND HPV test, as we see in the States or using the HPV test on women under 30, using it too often etc.)
        Sadly, this means some women will lose their lives and many will endure unnecessary colposcopy, biopsies etc. There is simply far too much money at stake, that is their first concern. We are simply a means to an end, a very profitable end.

  30. Ro says:

    I know someone personally who knew of a guy who supposedly cured his prostate cancer by drinking baking soda. I did some research, and sure enough the article showed up on the Natural News website and a few other holistic/naturopathic/herbalist websites. There was also a link on cancer.org about using baking soda as a cure. I knew I probably shouldn’t click it but I did so anyway. They have an entire section dedicated to natural alternative cures. I had a bad feeling about it, but I clicked it anyway. Essentially, what they said is that natural cures are either disproven or unproven so you should not try them because that’s putting your life at risk, since they have not been studied by the medical scientific community or approved by the FDA. Then, they listed a whole slew of possible side effects for natural cures. Even an all organic diet has negative side effects according to them! What a load of nonsense. Then, they went on to say that FDA approved medicine and mainstream medical treatments are the only proven treatments that actually work. All I can think about is how much harm they cause and I wonder how few people they actually help. I often hear people say that someone who is cured by using alternative methods never really had cancer in the first place, but couldn’t the same be said then for mainstream medical treatments? It frustrates me to no end that these people are lying through their teeth. But the site is run by the ACS and you know, they need to keep making those calendars with nude (or partially nude) women and paying the models obscene amounts of money to get them to do it so hey – it makes perfect sense that they would want money to go to them and not natural treatments or alternative cures. On top of that, they just keep on lining their pockets with the proceeds and don’t actually do anything to cure cancer while people are out there suffering and the ACS is making grabby hands for their money while spreading misinformation. I’m so done with everything. I’m just done. I hope that in future generations children in schools will be taught of the medical horrors of this time and they will be just as horrified as I was when I learned about the medical care during medieval times.

    • Alex says:

      Notice that they “pronounce a causal relationship”? That this things haven’t been declared a certain way by them, and THUS are not safe or effective? That goes back to that “thinking by adjucation” that I mentioned a couple of times, that they think reality is what they say it is. Then again, maybe it’s just trying to use that theme in a subtle way to advertise their own methods? “Well, because of this bullshit belief, this stuff will kill you.”

      You know something else? I’ve been thinking about how all the time you hear about “placebo effects” and things like that- wouldn’t that apply in the opposite direction, if true? Making all kinds of claims that this or that thing won’t work so as to undermine its effect?

      Also, they certainly don’t suggest someone think themselves better in a medical setting, but if these placebo effects are true, why don’t they? Either it’s a true thing that they don’t tend to support & try to use to counter the health-bolstering effects of, or it’s an untrue thing that they try to discredit effective things with. Then again, how is “It worked, but it was a placedo effect” an argument against this thing, whatever it is?

      • Ro says:

        Alex – I agree completely. I do think that positive thinking is very powerful, yet it seems to be indirectly discourage in terms of medical situations.

  31. Alex says:

    Sue- I just had an idea: Maybe a thread on how these things go in the military? I remember hearing that they impose these sorts of things when a woman signs up & then at whatever intervals they decide after that. Not entirely sure there’s a provided option to refuse, though I’d imagine it happens on occasion.

    I was just reading about the clash that’s going on in Ukraine & it got me to thinking about what is or what is presented as mandatory in the military. I definitely remember there being questions about what was involved in a MEPS physical & there’s even that book by Lars G. Petersson on that subject.

  32. Moo says:

    Invasive adenocarcinomas being diagnosed within three years of a women having a negative Pap test result. Diagnosis of adenocarcinoma on the rise in recent years. When did they start using the endocervical brush? So. …….
    The adenocarcinoma is usually inside the cervical canal. The layer of skin cells there is thinner than on the ectocervix (the outside where the pap is supposed to test). Any infection there is going to register as CIN III (in situ). Quite possibly a Pap test done previously used a brush and introduced HPV into the cervical canal. Also if a women had a colpscopy and biopsies because the biopsy cutting tools are not sterilized (usually high level disinfection) between patients, that is another source of infection. But no studies done on that. Type the strains of HPV following women through colpscopy and see what they find out….. The truth.

    The THEORY is that the scraping trauma of the Pap test will cause enough inflammation in the area that the immune system will respond and also respond to any HPV infection there.

    What really matters is the strain of HPV present in an infection AND how the body responds to it AND other factors that contribute to body cell transformation into cancer cells. (Chemicals, lack of nutrients).

    When women are dying of cervical cancer what is really going on in their bodies? Are they dying from the cancer treatments or the damage to their bladder and intestines from the treatment? Are they dying from squameous cell cancer spreading to their lung and other organs? Did they previously have some other cancer and treatment for it? Did they have HIV?

    I have a feeling that HPV infection might be more widely distributed on the body’s skin system that is tested for. Some studies showed HPV virus isolated from under the finger nails of many college students. Are they all going around scratching each other vaginas and scotums? Quite possibly this is just a place that HPV can infect and grow maybe along with other places that people scratch habitually like their scalp, face, trunk skin, butt etc.

    • Cat&Mouse says:

      Elizabeth (Aust) or Moo,

      Your very recent input is excellent. I want to read and print out the studies you used. My ob-gyne is more open minded and I want to discuss these with him. Please help.

      Today we called my ob-gyne’s office and said I’m not going to be scraped due to my need for knee joint replacement. My husband made the call, as he understands medical jargon which confuses me. The office staff got very excited. They first said HPV is tested with the scrap, then took that back and said the “swab” taken from the cervix. [gee whiz, notice how in 30 seconds that scrape became less threatening, less painful?] Hubby pushed, quoting blood, urine, and the Delphi screener. Next thing, he got the nurse, who sent him back to receptionist, who said the doctor would be calling b/c it was too complicated…

      He called 15 minutes later. He is a nice, mellow older fellow. They talked for 10 minutes. While I need to be seen and examined as I use Estro-Test (oral estrogen/testosterone replacement), the doctor concluded that because I have the knee and scoliosis problems he’d do the alternative. Of course, the doctor first had to say he needed to examine my ovaries etc, and my husband countered with remembering my last o/v where the doctor explained that in older, heavier women it’s almost impossible to feel anything but the front half of the uterus.

      The doctor agreed that CA blood testing, and “alternative” HPV testing would suffice. As for my uterus, he could send me for ultrasound if necessary. Frankly, for that I’d almost rather be internally examined by the bimanual than have to get my knees up for an ultrasound. However, if necessary, the ultrasound would show everything, in living details that no hands can duplicate.

      We both appreciate that this guy didn’t try to verbally strong arm us. And that he’s willing to work how we wish so everybody gets what they want and need. So I’ll be calling to make my appt.

      Please get me the web address for those studies. I’ll let everybody know how things go.

    • ChasUK says:

      This is exactly what I thought, the test introduces the virus into the canal which in turn allows it to fester and spread more. Plus all the treatments and all cause mortality! So really they could actually be causing the deaths? I wonder how many women who have been diagnosed with cc, turn down the treatments and are still alive? There are no studies on this?
      Just a quick thank you to everyone still posting here, us quiet people are still reading your comments. You are all just brilliant!

  33. Moo says:

    A vaccine for the treatment of cervical cancer and precancer (CIN I to III) was approved and in use in Mexico. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15144573
    It is called MEL-1.

  34. Alex says:

    Something I was just thinking of is that any & all of these things functionally can get forced on someone in prison or in juvie. Not exactly the focus of this site, I know, but I figure it’s worth mentioning as a topic of general self-defense against medical attacks.

  35. ADM (Canada) says:

    After seeing the opt out form for CC screening in Ontario (I forget who posted it sorry) I decided to do an internet search and this comes up at the top of the page from the Canadian Cancer Society with a link to their page: “In Ontario, all women who are or have ever had sexual skin-to-skin contact need to have regular Pap tests every three years to screen for cervical cancer starting at age 21.” I cannot believe the language. Need implies there is no choice. The wording should be recommended and talk to your Dr about your options. I feel that the pressure is beginning to increase and that’s because of the incentive payments. It’s interesting that the opt out form is for CC, breast, and colon cancer screening which are the three cancers that Dr’s receive incentive payments for. The likelihood is that the Canadian Cancer Society pays Dr’s incentive payments to pressure patients so more will screen and more false positives will be found giving the impression that the screening is successful and saving lives which keeps the funding going to the cancer society. The focus of health care is all wrong. It’s not health care but disease searching for money.

    • Cat&Mouse says:

      No surprise to me at all. Even with my educated husband calling my obgyn, he had to think carefully before responding to the well rehearsed mantra why our cervix’ need scraping and it’s so important that our ovaries and uterus’ be checked. As if the excuse we never make is already accepted, that we don’t have time, we forget, but we know we really need to be carefully checked for cancer. And that’s required!!! Or the medical board will freak out should we get birth control. We shouldn’t have to remind the doctor how useless these tests are. And that an office visit can occur without going up on the rack. If diagnostic testing needs to be done, then there’s blood, urine, and ultrasound.

      It’s because you ladies here, that I’m empowered. That I know there’s accurate diagnostic tests and treatments that work. Our vaginas weren’t meant to read medical practitioners’ palms. And our cervix’ don’t need to have circles scraped onto them as if being made into targets.

      My husband’s best friend, the anesthesiologist, told us in 1991 that blood must be drawn during a cervix scrape, or else it’s useless. And then comes the Delphi, plus urine & blood tests, etc. Maybe if we could use our fingernails to dig a circle onto mens’ prostates they’d finally understand how we feel, and what it feels like. Instead, we’re still brainwashed with the same soiled logic that it’s necessary to be damaged to then, if necessary, a secondary test can be ran on our pap scrape. They then make it plain and clear we’ll be sent separate billing. Screwed is how I feel knowing a doctor can take a test that should be a two-fer and reverse it into a 1 for two fees. They scrape our vaginas and then scrape our pocketbooks.

    • Moo says:

      It is not the canadian cancer society that pays the incentives. They are a charity. They receive donations from corporations, individuals and Ontario lottery.

      The Ontario health insurance programme (OHIP) pays the incentives under the CancerCare Ontario screening programmes which are funded by the Ontario tax payers.

      As for putting up the published journal articles for “proof” that screening is just screening. I put up links on this forum all the time. I am not going to keep repeating that. If someone would like to start maiming up lists that would be helpful.

      It is rather pointless to give journal articles to your doctor to read because they do not read them. They do not have time. Even if they agree with them they will likely do what tests in the standard protocol because of liability. If a patient decides to go against a doctr’s advice that is their decision. Do not expect your doctor to change their mind and say “I am going to tell everyone else this but for you I will agree…..”.

      If women want hormone therapy then because of liability they need to do some tests. This is because estrogen and other articificial hormones cause cancer. So if you refuse certain tests then a doctor can refuse you a prescription because it’s their ass that gets sued.

      • Alex says:

        First of all, there’s always the concept of liability waivers. Some can do their own research & weigh the risks for themselves. Another thing is that they prescribe things that cause cancer & all kinds of other problems all the time- they don’t seem too worried about getting sued over that. It’s just when there’s an angle to start probing people that they bring that idea up.

        Another thing is that they don’t consider the risks & ramifications of all their little “diagnostic measures” being something they’ll get sued for. If a woman has a miscarriage because of whatever tests that don’t work as advertised, I don’t see any lawsuit commercials for that. If someone does in childbirth because of their meddling, I don’t see that getting made as a point, either.

  36. Emily says:

    OK so maybe I’m just being young and naive again but perhaps you ladies can indulge me. Men carry HPV too right? And the stats on the CDC site say they get about 12000 hpv related cancers a year but there is no approved hpv test for men? and the info on the mens health mag site is vague “HPV testing is not commonly done by doctors or in clinics. The test is unpleasant for many men – it involves using something akin to a metal nail file to scrape skin cells from a man’s penis – and is not quite as sensitive or specific of a test as the HPV test is for women, as I understand it.” really? gee the test is “unpleasant”?? WELL NO F*CKING SH*T SHERLOCK like it’s any less “unpleasant” if not traumatic for a woman to be violated with tools that bruise/scrape her flesh?? oh and this is the best part. If a man suspects an hpv related abnormality “They can do a biopsy or, if you’d prefer, try one of the standard treatments” since when tell me has any woman EVER gotten an “if you prefer” in regards to a colposcopy/biopsy?? The hpvtest.com site says for men”Even if the virus causes changes in skin cells, they are often so minor they are not noticeable (and are not of concern).” Hmmm what does that sound like? Maybe the 74% of women who get hacked up during their lifetime?? In men these changes are “of no concern” but if they find the tiniest “abnormality” with a woman (which 99 F*cking percent of the time are nothing) she is “REQUIRED” to attend a colposcopy/biopsy. and this brings me to my final and most infuriatiing point. If you copy/paste this link….http://www.mdnews.com/news/2010_06/05849_jun2010_newhpvtestformen.aspx…VIOLA. an hpv test using URINE. This has been around since 2010??? WHY IS THIS NOT BEING OFFERED TO EVERYONE INCLUDING WOMEN INSTEAD OF THE STANDARD SCRAPE AND HACK ROUTINE???? once again it just doesn’t make sense to me. Any thoughts?

    • Alex says:

      I keep saying it: it’s malice, not money. Ultimately, allopathic medicine has always had that “against life” twist to it- is it any real suprise that a lot of that gets aimed at women? Not that something HAS to be a suprise to be a problem, of course.

      Look at the reasoning: A lot of their “treatments” are attacking the body in the hopes that this will somehow benefit the body.

    • Moo says:

      Why not call them and ask how much the test is and if it licensed for sale by FDA or just in clinical trials? If they do not have pharma rep out peddling the stuff, the doctors do not know about it.

      There are also a few urine test for HPV that can be used by women. One company is in California and it is licences by FDA. It costs about $150 and has to be ordered in bulk. By an MD. So more than one patient would have to ask for it.

      Soaking a paper towel with vinegar and placing that on the penis and scotum for a few minutes and then looking for any white spots or areas will give a clue to what might be HPV infection or warts.

      The problem being when the HPV test is positive and the type is known then a colposcopy and treatments would follow because the extent of the infection needs to be determined. LEEP and such are pushed because it costs too much to keep a women coming in a regular intervals to see if the infection is clearing. A repeat urine test could be done but without any HPV killing treatment (doctors do not use herbs) then not many people are not going for leaving some infection for their immune system to handle when they could get cancer from it (even small chance).

      There is no miracle cure for cervical cancer as far as I know. The Mexican vaccine sounds good and I am angry that I have not heard more about studies with it.

      • Kleigh US says:

        They also want to charge for a speculum exam.

      • bethkz says:

        As far as doctors using herbs, if one is proven to work, the pharmaceutical  companies will find out what chemical in the herb is causing the effect/cure, manufacture that chemical, and distribute it as a pill or serum and sell it. They did that with digitalis; they did it with white willow bark (aspirin). The only reason that they don’t is that they have something out there now that’s a big money maker. Over time, market forces will force it to happen. If 10 pharmaceutical companies have a cure with many side effects that costs thousands of dollars, and another one comes out with a $100 cure for the same disease (derived from an herb/chemical imitation of the active ingredient), proven to be safer and at least as effective, they’re going to push the others with the expensive and difficult treatment aside.

        Conspiracies and monopolies always fail when there is financial incentive to break the agreement.

      • Alex says:

        BethK: There’s a problem with that: Sometimes it’s not one part that’s doing it & isolating one part won’t work the same way. Even if it was, the method of separating it might cause countereffective results. Also, if they make a synthetic version of it- that substance might not work or may very well cause problems.

        If something works as a whole, that whole is generally met with conflict. The herb, let’s say, might do something as a whole- but that herb is not suggested as a cure for anything (actually, I’m pretty sure there’s a law in America against saying anything but a drug is a cure for anything). There’s even laws against whatever it is as a substance- pot is supposed to be very good against cancer, ofr instance.

      • Moo says:

        Example of a herb that works. Green tea extract, EGCG or catechins have been proven to induce death of HPV infected cells. A pharm company manufacturers a cream that is basically green tea extract in a base of mostly petroleum jelly. It costs $350 for a small jar. People make up their own using a tbsp of petroleum jelly and a capsule of green tea extract. Huge difference in cost. Genital Warts turn black and fall off After a few days. It is not used externally because petroleum jelly is not so great inside vaginas. Not impossible to make a cream that can be used inside the vagina, more like a lubricant gel.

        I would I like to see about all this HPV business is just offer a urine test. scrap the Pap tests and speculum cranking and the registries. If anyone is HPV positive or has warts then give them a pill or a cream. Repeat urine test.

        It is not a fairy dream. The technology and even the products are out there. It is just that somehow these products are only for special cases or external use only. There is just an obsessive with looking at and into women’s vaginas, harrassment at every medical visit that doctors cannot seem to get over.

        Do marketing boards of the pharma companies think that docotrs will not buy no speculum inspection products or prescribe them? Really why not have their usual barrage of tv commercials? “Ask your doctor for H pV urine test or antiH pV gel today”. Maybe everyone should start hounding pharma for this. I would pay for a HPV urine test and a pill if it would stop the pap harrass if it was around $30.

        No denying it. Pap test or not some Women are going to get cervical cancer. No point in them coming back to this website and blaming years from now if they get cancer and saying someone on this forum said it was rare to cancer etc…. There is no 100% cure and detection but there is better than paps, chomping colposcopy and LEEP.

    • Kleigh US says:

      There seems to be this idea that bc woman have an opening penitration from a speculum and brushes are none invasive. like womans bodys were made for penitration so it ok to do paps. and telling woman that thry have to have paps must have come from a time when woman were not aloowed to make distions for thems selfs its very sexist.

  37. Alex says:

    That’s interesting, Moo. Does it cure those warts or just make them fall off? I always wondered if there wasn’t any cure or if they just said that- because there ARE laws against saying anything but a drug is a “cure” for anything. Plus, they do so much to attack the immune system or use the immune system to attack the person, I’ve got to figure there’s a way of “marking” the disease so it can be destroyed.

    I keep saying there’s an underlying psychology with a lot of things in medicine. I don’t really believe it’s as, well not so much innocent, but “neutrally charged” might be the right word- when someone is “just” after more money. I still maintain that that is malicious, since they are disregardive toward WHAT is making this money & pulling whatever they’re pulling.

  38. Kleigh US says:

    You know I am really geting tierd of the birth control ads on tv. They show grups of happy woman all talking about there birth control as tho all woman are supose to be on it and thin theres always that one woman that raves about how wonderfull her bc is. Oh and how they all need to talk to there obs about swicthing there bc to this sertain one. thin at the end they say ask your obgyn about it.. its like we all are supose to have a gyn and be on birth control. has any other US woman noticed these adds on tv? I find them very annoying. there is defently a message they are trying to send woman hear that we all have to go to obgyns and be on birth control.

    • Alex says:

      I only have basic cable, so maybe it’s not on those channels. It IS weird, though- how they’re always running ads about pelvic meshes, regularity, incontinence, guys growing tits, all stuff that. They don’t get into much else, sometimes recalls about hip implants or depression medication, but mostly it’s something that involves one orifice or another.

      • Kleigh says:

        Yes i have seen those about pelvic mesh and male breast growth from meads.

      • bethkz says:

        Alex: I haven’t had a television for many years. When I am somewhere and the television is running, it seems to be mainly an infomercial for all sorts of prescription medications and products, with some ads from attorneys seeking people to sign on to a class-action suit for some other prescription device or product that was “the thing” in the past.

        I see the whole gambit of medications: BC, post-menopausal stuff, incontinence products, blood pressure medications, cholesterol medications, antidepression meds, antipsychotic meds, or on and on. There’s no clue in the ad about what these things are for – you see someone sitting inside moping, they take the medication (based on a friend’s advice), and they’re happy and healthy, living life and engaging in recreation with others. Then, “Ask your doctor if you need…” No clue for what. You’re just supposed to ask him/her for it – and if this didn’t result in more prescriptions, they wouldn’t run the ads. Then, at the end, they have the high-speed lists of side effects.

        Of course, it also results in more doctor visits, making more money for doctors. One of the common complaints of the so-called US healthcare system and why it is many-times as expensive as that in other countries with worse outcomes in the US is “overusage” – of seeing a doctor when it’s not warranted, when you are not sick. If people are going to doctors because they saw something advertised on TV, this should come out of their own pockets. Not any 3rd party – not their insurance company – not the government. So should treatments for “side effects” – some of which are life-limiting. Taking drugs you don’t need is harmful to those taking them, and only beneficial to those selling them.

    • Moo says:

      Why all the ads about incontience? Is every man or women expected to be incontient over a certain age? All the ads about adult diapers and pee pads for women.

      The doctor always seems to ask about if I pee when I laugh or run? If I had a problem I would come in the doctor about it. If bladder prolapse is also an excuse to get me to do a pelvic exam. Not everyone has cytocele or rectocele to a degree that it is a problem they want to get surgery for. It’s seems that surgery is pushed at certain age along with many medications. But surgery seems to be the only solution offered after the …… a pelvic exam with “squeeze my finger”.

  39. Si says:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/anger-brazil-obstetrics-tests-jobseekers-24907650

    São Paulo department of education is requiring pap smears from their female candidates.

    • Great link Si. I’m glad some women are furious and are fighting this. I worry women will be put in a position of having to fight off vested interests and attempts to mandate the exams more often in the future. Attempts to mandate the exam may be the next counterattack as more women continue to opt out and the vested interests become more desperate. It seems more women are becoming immune to the propaganda and fear mongering, with stories such as “a pap smear saved my life at 19 and if I hadn’t fought for the right to have a pap test I would have died!” falling on deaf ears. I liked the statement from the article: “We are living in the Middle Ages!” Yes, we still are living in the Middle Ages but the situation is changing.

      • Si says:

        Yes I agree Sue and Ro, it’s frightening that some people think that mandatory gynecological exams are progressive! I hope these people never get into politics!

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        There are doctors out there with no clue, (that won’t surprise you!) they wouldn’t recognize the evidence if it bit them on the backside and the damage they must be doing…it makes me shiver.
        I often read Australian Doctor and look at other sites for doctors, not sure how I got access. Some of the comments made about the proposed change to our cervical screening program are frightening in their ignorance.
        One doctor “Chris” says pap tests on patients aged 16 and 22 produced highly abnormal results, CIN 3, “confirmed at colposcopy, they have severe dysplasia. If we move to HPV testing from age 25, these women fall through the net, we damage lives”.

        Yes, we have doctors crazy enough to do pap tests on teenagers. I’m not the slightest bit surprised a 16 year old (or a 22 year old) produced a highly abnormal pap test, and I’m sure it would have been a normal result a few months later. I’m also, certain these young women were over-treated and were NOT destined to get cc, they should never have been tested, it simply exposes them to high risk.
        How can we protect our young women with this sort of ignorance shown by some of our doctors? It means educating our young women, so at the very suggestion of an early pap test, you change your doctor, find someone competent. Protect your body from these “doctors”.
        I commented, but it’s with the moderators. Unfortunately, links don’t work from that site.

  40. Si says:

    Here’s the Jezebel article on it, some of the comments are disappointing, I don’t understand how people can sanction such an obvious human rights abuse.

    http://jezebel.com/women-must-submit-a-pap-smear-to-become-a-teacher-in-s-1619024357/all

    • Ro says:

      Si – Some of those comments were downright awful, but it’s also very sad to see there’s so much misinformation. One commenter said that HPV has nothing to do with cervical cancer, so virgins are still at risk and should get regular screening. Someone else said that Pap tests are required in the US for employment, higher education, or athletic participation because employers, heads of schools, and coaches want to ensure that women are healthy. Another commenter said that Brazil is much more progressive than the US and hopefully the US will follow.

  41. Ro says:

    I came across a post on a website recently and a feminist was ranting about how women’s bodies are viewed as being inherently dirty and unclean. That they’re viewed as being somehow inherently dysfunctional. She used the example of the fact that it is widely accepted both culturally and by the media for men to, for lack of a better phrase, get themselves off (I am a very modest person and find these things difficult to discuss so it was so awkward typing that LOL). She went on to say that it wasn’t acceptable for women to do the same. However, what people never seem to mention or get upset about is the fact that the medical industry perpetuates these same ideals. I.E; women have faulty bodies, women’s bodies must be monitored, females are so weak that not even their own body can protect them the way a man’s is designed to, women amount to nothing more than their reproductive organs, etc.

  42. Si says:

    And here’s another one, right here in Australia. A pregnant employee of the ANZ bank was threatened with losing her job because she refused a pelvic exam. It’s good to see that general tone of the article is outrage at the incident, and also nice to read that the medical professional’s interviewed claim that a pelvic exam is unnecessary for a normal pregnancy.
    “Olive, who works at the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne, says such examinations are inappropriate in contemporary obstetrics unless there are specific conditions such as obesity or a low-lying placenta.”

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/who-has-the-right-to-ask-a-pregnant-woman-for-a-medical-examination-20140808-3dcrs.html

  43. Alex says:

    Why is it that on a near-constant basis, the concept of this being an attack omitted? For fuck’s sake, it’s like they’re more willing to complain about the color of the wallpaper than they are about someone else self-electively probing them!

    Look at them getting dictatorial at that woman’s job in Australia: They may as well say: “Let the company poke your crotch or you’re fired.”

    The Brazilian government is somewhat notorious for shit like that. Look up “revista vexatoria,” and you’ll see what I mean.

  44. Ro says:

    I came across this story this afternoon. While I do think that most of the time a lot in the medical industry has to do with what will make the most profit, there is obviously malicious intent as Alex has referenced before. This story nearly brought me to tears with how horrible it is. http://fidm.uloop.com/news/view.php/119742/To-Vaccinate-Or-Not-To-Vaccinate-The-Ch

    • Hexanchus (male - U.S.) says:

      Absolutely unfreaking-believeable!

      I do hate needles, and if anyone had ever tried that with me I would treat it as an assault and exercise my right of self defense – and I can guarantee that there would be medical personnel heading for the ER to get treated for their resulting injuries.

      • Ro says:

        Hexanchus (male-U.S.) – I know of a lot of people who would do the same. The worst part of this story, though, is that the girl was a minor and couldn’t defend herself. It went beyond not liking needles, she didn’t want the chemicals of the vaccine injected into her body. As the nurse so kindly pointed out, the vaccine was going to be paid for regardless. So why force it on the girl? It’s just downright awful, malicious, and controlling. There’s no excuse for what happened. There’s a link at the bottom the article which leads to another site. I read some of those stories. Doctors are not only hostile about women’s health “care”, but vaccines. On the site, I actually read complaints from medical personnel leaving their workplace because they didn’t want to submit to vaccines or heavily enforce them upon others. I just don’t understand why there’s so much hostility over it. On the external site, people were also talking about their choice to not get their children vaccinated. Apparently, most of the time, those children are far ahead of their peers in terms of knowledge and ability. So what should that tell us? Vaccines are doing something to our bodies, and it isn’t necessarily a good thing.

      • Kleigh US says:

        You know i hear storys about this kind of thing were meadical pple hold patents down not just with shots but with gyn exams too. I whould never allow a nurse to do that to my child. and her mom friend that “had cervical cancer” most likly was a false positve claming she had the cancer bc most doctors dont tell woman the truth. how can that not be asault? why isnt someone policing these meadical ppl.

      • Moo says:

        I read a blog written by a young women. She had written an open letter to HERS foundation criticizing them for putting up scary details of adverse after effects of hysteromy. She said her doctor told her in her 20’s that she had “microscopic stage cervicla cancer” and she should hurry up and complete her family because when she was done she would have to get a hysterectomy”. So she got busy having three babies in five years and then gets a hysterectomy. She criticizes HERS foundation because she has no bad menopausal effects after her hysterectomy. She said they only exist to scare women and make her upset. Many comment so her blog with equal contempt and ignorance. She said she did research and found there was no option but to have a hysterectomy. .

        ??????? Is there really such a diagnosis of microscopic stage cervical cancer? I never came across that before. And she was advised to have three babies, five years later get a hysterectomy.?

        Even cervical dyplasia can be seen in a colposcopy which is magnified only 15 times. It is hardly microscopic cancer since the lesions can be seen with the naked eyes and vinegar. How can any doctor do a LEEP or cone with only microscopic cancer? Stage 0 cancer/CIN III/cancer in situ again.

      • Victoria says:

        Moo – and if it was cancer, why did they encourage her to delay treatment and have children in the meantime?

      • bethkz says:

        Victoria,

        They encouraged her to delay treatment because 1) She did not have cancer, they knew it.  2) She had a very early possibility of having a slow-growing cancer.  3) They knew that this could be “cured” so that she would live to raise her 3 children.  Since she would then be a “survivor”, who could tell her children as well as everyone else how important early testing and treatment are, they would have recruited at a minimum 3 more consumers to peddle their wares to, and a likelihood of many more – everyone she knows, or a high percentage of everyone her story reaches.

      • Ro says:

        Moo – So let me get this straight, someone got angry over facts being published? Things don’t always affect everyone in the same manner. Hopefully, she was one of the lucky ones who will live a long, happy life with no horrible side affects from the procedure. I know of women in their teens who got hysterectomies because cancer was found when they got a pap smear. I’m not saying it’s impossible for young people to have cervical cancer severe enough for a hysterectomy to be the only viable treatment, but statistically speaking, there are not that many cases of CC among young women. Like I said, it isn’t impossible. It’s just fairly rare. I’ve never heard of microscopic stage CC before either, but perhaps someone else here has.

      • Ro says:

        Kleigh – I know, it’s horrible, awful. My view is that you most certainly aren’t helping anyone by holding somebody against their will. You’re only helping your own, nasty, controlling, vindictive, vile way of thinking. Even if someone is in critical condition and refuses treatment, these “professionals” need to understand bodily autonomy and realize that peoples’ choices are to be respected regardless of how they feel. It isn’t about them, it’s about the person in question. Even if her mom’s friend did actually have cervical cancer, that is in no way correlated to her daughter. Her daughter is not related to said friend. She was 12 at the time, so I doubt she’d ever been exposed to HPV. There was no logical connection there. If that was my best friend, I’d just teach my kids about being as safe as possible, while still encouraging abstinence as the best way to go. That’s just me. It’s understandable that her mother would be concerned, though. The entire system is based on fear. If you feared your child would die of something and someone told you there was a way to prevent it, you’d probably be all for that. I don’t think her mother was malicious, just misinformed and misguided.

    • adawells says:

      This girls experience is going to affect her use or non-use of healthcare services for the rest of her life. So many people don’t seek healthcare or dentistry when they really need it because of a very bad experience from their past. In all these research papers they keep doing to find out why people don’t take up screening or healthcare, having had a bad previous experience comes up near the top over and over again. They often suggest that the experience should be made nicer for people, but until the medical profession starts respecting the bodily autonomy of the patient nothing is going to happen.

      • Ro says:

        adawells – I agree. It’s awful that people are treated so disrespectfully. I made a joke a while back that I wish all doctors were like optometrist (opticians outside of the US), because I’ve found them to always be the most considerate, gentle, and non-coercive in their practice. They offer things. You accept or decline. That’s the end of it (at least, as I said, that’s what I personally have found). “The experience should be made nicer,” how about actually respecting peoples’ bodily autonomy and allowing them to make decisions about their health for themselves? Now THAT would definitely make the experience much more pleasant. (Which I now realize was essentially you’re closing statement.)

    • Alex says:

      That mother would be useless if they were trying to back her into any kind of internal exam (personally, I think she only wanted the medical personnel’s approval). Hope everyone caught that. Loved the pictures on the side of that page, by-the-way.

      Not to be cruel, but why is it that so many women (particularly from the generation that would be turning 40-50) are perfectly fine with getting in someone’s face about equal pay & how they aren’t less than men & that they won’t put up with workplace harassment (and anything else I missed), but yet won’t do anything when a doctor tries to impose something on her or even her own kid?!

      They definitely were aiming for the act of injecting this girl with something. Oh, and that bitch taunting her by saying “You’re a workout”? I’ll bet if someone said that after they mugged her & maybe gave her a jab with whatever might just be in a needle, she’d be livid! And that woman doesn’t stick up for her or even postpone things so she could so some research? I would divorce a woman for that, no question. I probably wouldn’t be able to if I gave the real reasons, which is a point on its own. There’s some guy doing life in England right now, because his kid died of a vaccine & he was blamed for his kid dying to cover for it.

      That mother should have blown through there like a Viking shieldmaiden on a meth trip. I don’t know what to say about the “composition of police responses,” which I know I’ve referenced a few times before. I figure that someone’s got to block things off when attempted, because if someone would be dropping a hammer on you that you don’t have coming, they’d probably do it for nothing anyway. Plenty of people get picked up for absolutely nothing, never mind not doing something bad enough to deserve it (to include righteous things like self-defense or protecting your child).

      • Ro says:

        Alex – I don’t know if she wanted approval or if she was completely terrified for her daughter’s health because of all the propaganda. Either is certainly a possibility, though. As for the pictures, I didn’t see any. I have adblock though so that might be why LOL. Anyway, back to the fact that her mother wasn’t defending her, I just thought of something. As far as my knowledge goes, doctors were fairly trustworthy in the late 1800s/early 1900s. I’m sure there were still cases of malpractice and what-have-you, but overall, it seemed much more about the patient and providing the best care possible that would do the least harm and actually help the patient. It seemed very non-coercive and non-threatening. Women (and people in general) born in that time frame would have taught their children about how wonderful doctors are, and that they should have the upmost trust and respect for them. These children would go through life having fairly similar experiences and raise their children in the same manner. When those children became adults (aged 20-30) this whole screening thing started. So you have 2 generations prior teaching their children to revere medical personnel. The fact of the matter is that the industry changed and things fell out of order. Anyway, be that as it may, those children believed their parents and passed it on to their children and so on. Essentially, it’s an old ideology that was fitting at one point, but due to corruption, it no longer is. I think society needs to reevaluate, but I doubt that will happen considering the mainstream media would never let it get that far.

        Also, what I mentioned above ties in with your second paragraph. I really think that old ideologies that were fit for a time when doctors truly helped people are still held to be true by most older generations. However, I have seen a sort of awakening, if you will, in my generation. I know of several people who eat organic and GMO free, seek natural alternatives, and avoid medications as much as possible. And that’s personally. Searching online through blogs and such – there are HUNDREDS. It’s certainly an improvement. I think the fact that information is freely and readily available via the internet has helped immensely.

        I had the most awful, sinking feeling in my gut when I got to the end of the article. When the nurse was talking about how the vaccination was already paid for anyway, I thought to myself, “good they won’t actually inject her with anything because they’re just being greedy and want the money”. I was so wrong. I really do want to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I was sorely disappointed. There truly are just vile people out there who violate the wishes of others and have no respect for their bodily autonomy. The whole “you’re a workout” thing aggravated me, too. That nurse should have been fired. She is malicious, and volatile, and coercive, and every other word that can be used to describe someone who acts like that. I just don’t understand why someone would have the need to control someone else. You know something I just thought of? I know there are people out there who truly are atheists and don’t believe in God and this comment is certainly is NOT referencing or meant to demean those people, but I think a lot of the scientists and doctors out there claim to be atheist simply because they don’t want to answer to anyone for the horrible things they do to people and the environment. They want to believe they are gods and that the only balance in the universe is the one they create. They believe their actions hold no consequences because they are the highest power. Even if you believe there was an unguided process of evolution or any other theory, there is still an obvious order and balance of things which should not be disrupted. Scientific theories which provide for a non-theistic account of things still express a harmonious, symbiotic ecosystem, in which no one is god-like and no creature is above repercussions for their actions. Meaning that there are consequences of violating bodily autonomy and tampering with the way food has been growing and thriving for centuries. So either way you flip the coin, they’re being ridiculously reckless and ignorant (funny how that’s what they tend to call those who are non-compliant). I may be way off base with all of that, but it’s just something that crossed my mind. Anyway, I think the fear mongering prevents a lot of women from researching things. That and the fact that they’ve been so horribly treated by the system. I don’t necessarily think that they want others to experience harm, but because that’s all they’ve ever known, they learn to find it acceptable. I would divorce someone over that as well. In my honest opinion, it’s a form of abuse/neglect – not respecting your child’s bodily autonomy or even teaching them it’s something they have. I can’t believe that poor man got blamed for what a vaccine did. Does it surprise me? Not really. But it’s still horrible and I hope the truth gets out sooner rather than later so justice can be served and he can be a free man.

        I almost blew up just from reading it, so I’m not sure how a parent could watch their child in that situation. I know mine would’ve never let that happen to me, thankfully. It just doesn’t make too much sense. I suppose it’s just years and years of cultural and societal grooming to accept these things as “normal”.

  45. Hexanchus (male - U.S.) says:

    Ro.

    I understood her rationale for objecting to the HPV vaccine, and that she wasn’t refusing the other two,

    What I find unfathomable is that a parent would be complicit in such an assault on their child.

    And children are capable of fighting back. When I was nine, I was in the hospital for a day surgery procedure on my knee. Prior to the surgery, into the room comes a nursing instructor with a bunch of nursing students and tells me to take off my gown so she can teach them how to do a physical exam. I refused. She then tried to physically force me – I kicked, I fought and screamed at the top of my lungs, which brought a bunch of staff running. I wound up with scratches and bruises and she wound up on her butt half way across the room. When they found out what happened, both my parents and my doctor were livid at what they tried to pull, and complaints were filed.

    This happened over 50 years ago, and to this day is one of the reasons I have very limited trust in the medical profession.

    Hex

    • Moo says:

      Of course children fight back. They are taught to scream, run, hit if a stranger at the mall or on the street grabs them. They are taught that no one should ask them to remove their clothing or touch the body parts that a swimsuit covers. Children are taught this to fight sexual assault. There is no difference when a child is being sexually assaulted in a medical setting.

      Medical workers often have a very difficult time when treating children cancer victims with very scary and sometimes painful procedures. It is very difficult for the staff emotionally. There are programmes and charities set up to help the children with this. Parents are also usually present when they are being treated and need to be around to sign numerous consent forms.

      The problem is teaching hospitals which will coerce patients or all ages into needless exams for “teaching purposes” that do nothing to help with a patients care. These are the problem and no so much giving children medical care that their patients consent to.

      Over a certain age a child or a teenage definitely has control over consent of what is being done to their body. Greed seems to be a part of pushing vaccines on a teenager who does not want it or mammograms on very elderly women with dementia.

    • Ro says:

      Hexanchus – As I mentioned in my comment to Kleigh, I think the girl’s mother went along with it because of fear mongering and she was terrified that her daughter would die of CC without the vaccination. She thought it would potentially save her daughter’s life, and I do think most parents want to do all they can for their children. Sadly, this is what happens when their are multiple generations that have been misled, mistreated, and misinformed. I’m glad to know that you fought back and were able to stand your ground. I’m glad to know that your parents and your doctor backed you up during that horrible fiasco. I have limited trust for the medical profession as well, for various reasons and stories like yours only add to that. If only more people were willing to stand up for minors (and people in general) in medical settings these days.

    • Alex says:

      That’s good, Hexanchus! It’s appalling that those students didn’t help you, though. Shows you what team they’re on, most of the time.

  46. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Hi Hex
    Nice to hear from you.
    I agree, traumatic experiences stay with us and IMO, can last a lifetime.
    It affects trust, respect and can lead to complete avoidance of medical care. That girl’s account is one of violence, not ethical medical care.
    I was reading about Jimmy Saville, who assaulted/raped children and young women his entire life and went to his grave scot-free and having been knighted by the Queen for his charitable work.
    I was horrified to hear a hospital and psychiatric institution gave him open access, he even had a room at the hospital and was free to roam around assaulting patients. He made enormous sums for these institutions with his charity walks etc. and was never challenged. It’s hard to believe, he even interfered with bodies in the morgue. The man was a sick monster who manipulated people and the system very effectively.

    One woman said as a ten year old she was sexually assaulted twice by Saville as she lay in her hospital bed, she felt doctors, nurses and others knew what was happening, but did nothing.
    Some girls were told by nurses to pretend they were asleep if Saville appeared, not sure how that would help, perhaps, it made it easier for Saville and these facilities.
    Needless to say, this woman has lived around these assaults and has a phobic reaction to medical care and settings. She didn’t feel safe to have relationships, get married or have children because all might expose her to the medical profession. So she’s lived with trauma her whole life and continues to live around the assaults…and she was one of hundreds of victims.

    • adawells says:

      When/if the cervical screening programme should ever cease operating, I can see an avalanche of abuse cases coming out into the open. In order to protect the programme, any suggestion that women are abused in the pursuit of this programme “saving lives” is swiftly swept under the carpet. The cervical screening programme is an open door for abuse, and like the Jimmy Savile case, no-one wants to suggest that the charities are turning a blind eye to the victims.
      This article about Clifford Ayling makes you wonder just how much more of this is still going on:

      http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/apr/29/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth

  47. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Ada
    I always viewed this program as an open and safe invitation for doctors and others to assault women. The dangers seemed obvious to me, when you permit doctors to coerce women into screening and encourage them to apply pressure in your consult room when a woman appears for any reason, I believe it’s inevitable some will see an opportunity. The program and profession also, make it difficult for a woman to make a complaint, she’s likely to be howled down by women, “he shouldn’ HAVE to pressure you”…etc. The system can’t really condemn doctors for their conduct because THEY’VE permitted and encouraged this conduct. The medical chose to violate consent to force women into screening to make the program “work”…they knew at the outset the millions spent could only reduce the incidence of this always rare cancer is they got 80% of women to screen. That fact should mean the program is unsuitable for population pap testing, instead they chose to proceed outside the law and proper ethical standards. Coercion negates consent, yet that is also, conveniently ignored when it comes to pap testing.
    So this obvious danger is ignored because the target is all-important.

    I noticed many years ago when a doctor was reported to the Medical Board for misconduct they reviewed his conduct, was the exam a clinical requirement? They of course, had to dance around the pap test requirement when all a woman wanted was the Pill or an antibiotic.
    Just think of the access this gives a doctor…is there anything more invasive?
    Some doctors also, insisted on recto-vaginal and breast exams, why not?
    This would still be going on in some countries and I’m sure we’d still have doctors using coercion to force testing and unnecessary exams simply because they want access to the woman’s body…they CAN use their prescriptive power to take advantage. You’d have to be more careful these days, but predators can be very manipulative and cunning, they target those least likely to resist and complain and they’d pretend their only concern is protecting this young woman from a “preventable” disease. No mention of the HUGE numbers harmed by excess biopsies and over-treatment.
    Isolating and demonizing non-screeners also, added power to the program and more protection for predators, doing a pap test under any circumstances was always a good thing and “for her own good”.

  48. Alex says:

    What was that girl going to a doctor for, anyway? Do they try to mandate shit when you come back from vacation or something? I bet the mother knew & just wanted to do what pleased the doctors & figures “Oh, well I’ll just tell my daughter that I ljust love her & wanted good things for her- that’ll tie up everything.” It’s like mothers in this country figure they can just “fix it” with their daughters, so that’s a given & now they can also get the “good girl points” that she craves from lesser creatures. Worrying about what might go away.

    She said numerous times that she didn’t want this shot & it even got to the level of outright wrestling. When that bitch told her “You shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet,” she should have fired back “Well, just because it’s on the internet doesn’t mean it’s not true. Oh, but there are a bunch of things that speak positively about Gardasil on the internet- so I guess that’s what I should be believing? Sounds like a major conflict of interest.”

    If she knew that pharmaceutical companies are pretty much immune from lawsuits for the damage they cause in the US, bringing up there wouldn’t actually be much in the way of risk as an incentive to pay for any quality control & if they did just so happen to do something that amounts to a biological attack for its own sake, there’d be no repercussions- at least not legally.

    • Ro says:

      Alex – She went back to the doctor after her family returned from living in Malaysia for a year. My assumption is that perhaps the healthcare there was “subpar” (like ours is fantastic, right?) or wasn’t offered because they weren’t actually citizens there, so because us Americans typically get a check up every year (I myself don’t and I know others who don’t, but that’s the standard) that’s probably why she returned to the doctor. The whole situation was just horrible all around. “You shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet…” no, but you most definitely shouldn’t believe ANYTHING people say if it concerns something they have vested interests in. Ridiculous. It was conflict of interests, no question about it. It’s sick that it’s nearly impossible (if not entirely) to sue pharmaceutical companies. They should be held liable for the damage they do.

      • Alex says:

        Ro: Not exactly connected to this post that I’m replying to, but hat insight you had about God & everything seems to be spot-on! It doesn’t even make sense for them to think that way, because what happens is what occurs.

        That ties into that whole perceived control over life & death that tends to run through that profession. Also, I think that they figure they’re more or less stainproof because “they’re saving lives.” They’re beyond wrongdoing or criticism, since what they do is the “best thing that someone can do” & it now it serves as ammuntion to fire back with when someone points out that they did something wrong. If they were to do something like take the scratches out of a car door- they’d have a very “weak bullet.” That purported saving of lives is something that they use as both shield & weapon (also camouflage).

  49. ADM (Canada) says:

    There was discussion on here a while ago about the BMI and it being inaccurate so I wanted to share this link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

    Yet another screening tool that is inaccurate and out of date that the medical profession continues to use and cause harm with.

    With the death of Robin Williams there has been a lot of discussion about mental health and suicide. For me it has highlighted that it’s not about access to health care as he had the money to get good health care (although for some there is also the issue of access to care with some areas having wait times of up to a year). It’s about access to effective treatment. To get effective treatments research money is needed and yet research and services to mental health are cut while cancer research and screening receives millions to billions. Every year in Canada about 4000 people die by suicide often related to mental illness and about 20% will experience a mental illness in their lifetime. The WHO states “Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and is a major contributor to the global burden of disease.” Yet the focus remains on cancer and with pap smears a rare cancer. The focus to me is off.

    • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

      ADM
      I agree, the money goes to the pin-up cancers. Mental health has always been ignored, no one wants to know about it. The mentally ill are largely powerless. Fewer people are interested, fewer want to put their name to it. It’s hard to make mental health look sexy and appealing. Knickers and attractive backsides on display for cervical cancer, breasts obviously for breast cancer, notice they often use younger breasts to sell the breast screening “story”…maximum impact and attractiveness, you want to attract as much attention as possible. It’s why some younger women think they should screen because a 20-something woman was used in a news report.
      They want women to join this fun and responsible club, harder to make depression look like a fun club. YET mental illness is a huge problem, I think it’s something like 1 in 5 will suffer from depression at some stage in their life, 1 in 3 for clinical anxiety. It’s often something hidden away, not many want to talk about it.

      A colleague admitted to me recently that he’d had ECT about 15 years ago for a serious depression, I heard he had glandular fever.
      He felt there was enormous ignorance and judgement with mental illness, he listened to people say, “people are never the same after shock treatment” …dying to say something, but never did.
      ECT changed long ago, no convulsions, people get a muscle relaxant with the short term sedation. It meant instead of years off work, he was back in 6 months. He responded well, not everyone does.
      Yet no one knew about his 6 month battle with serious depression, he was suicidal when he was admitted to a private hospital. (apart from his wife)
      He felt they’d be judgement, he’d be viewed differently, people would be disappointed in him for not coping (especially his father) and his work might dry up if it got out he’d been in a psychiatric hospital. He’s retiring next year and plans to do some work for a mental health awareness group, many have expressed surprise that HE had a problem with mental illness.
      I don’t blame him for keeping it quiet for 15 years, but that’s part of the problem, the shame, the perception of weakness or being odd, the stigma, and the silence and secrecy.

      Cervical cancer and women’s cancer screening has the full force of the feminist movement behind it, lots of outspoken, high-profile, powerful/influential and attractive spokespeople, and politicians like the brownie points that come from women’s healthcare initiatives, like extending our breast screening program when it should be reviewed urgently. Switzerland is talking about scrapping their program, yet we’re extending ours. When the evidence is ignored, it’s usually IMO, about something other than healthcare.
      I believe women’s cancer screening is largely about other things, not healthcare OR we’d do it differently, more effectively, ethically and legally.

      The marketing, awareness drives, walks, morning tea events etc. also, bring the pin-up cancers to front of mind and change our perception of risk.
      Look at the pink ribbon juggernaut, commercial interests now drive the awareness and screening programs because THEY benefit from it…products with a pink ribbon, they give a cent or two to the program for every item sold…and they make a LOT more money as a result. It all means it creates a sort of artificial frenzy of concern about the disease. (the reality and evidence is completely irrelevant)
      If you look behind these programs and the groups that support them, you’ll usually find vested and political interests. Following the evidence does not suit the business and marketing model, neither does informed consent.

      The poor struggle to get decent healthcare, but are still IMO, more likely to get a pap test than decent care for their asthma or diabetes. The programs need this group to reach their target. Also, the wealthy in some countries are over-serviced by the healthcare industry, they’re targeted by vested interests and sold every test under the sun. Some of these people would be left with issues as a result, some may lose their life.
      When healthcare is mixed up with political agenda, scientific ego and massive profits, it stops being medicine and becomes a major threat to our health and lives.
      A colleague was telling me about an “amazing” executive health service, she was thinking of doing it every year. I cringed when I looked through the list of exams and tests. Anything called healthcare is considered a good thing by some/many, it means some people drop their guard and don’t see the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
      She was shocked when I said the exams and tests were unnecessary, not backed by evidence, and would harm her sooner or later and may even kill her. At least I made her stop and think…

    • Moo says:

      Some of the health screening questions are just bad. For example the waist measurement of 35″. Seriously, lump in a 5′ woman and a 6′ women and try to say that a 5′ woman with a waist of 34″ is ok and a 6′ woman with a waist of 36″ is not.

      What problem I have with mental health services is how law inforcement and social stigma influences who and when of treatments. If a person shows up at a doctor’s office and says they feel suicidal then they are going to be admitted to hospital (against their will) for two days and sometimes accompanies by police. This goes into a police database and remains there. When the need a police check to get a job, even a volunteer one or try to go on vacation into US from Canada, it comes out.

      The health screening tests for depression are no good either. Someone walks into a doctors office and says they are depressed then they are handed a prescription when really they end to see a psychologist or social worker. I wonder how many of the suicides were of terminally ill patients who are denied the right to a dignified death?

    • bethkz says:

      ADM and Elizabeth:

      Wait times for access to certain specialists can be months – or even years – FOR MOST OF US. Robin Williams had more than adequate money to be able to get in to see a specialist of any kind basically at his convenience.

      I don’t know where you live, but there is PLENTY of access to, and even a PUSH for treatment or toward getting treatment in everything from schools to obstetricians and pediatricians. You cannot turn on a television or open a magazine seeing a direct-to-consumer ad for some psychiatric medication or other, showing someone down and “mopy” in the “before” picture, then out having fun with something in the next. Then, “Ask your doctor if you need (brand-name drug).” without mentioning what it’s for. If it’s a TV ad, a very fast list of the side effects (each of which effect at least 2% of those taking the drug), or if it’s a print ad, these are in microscopic print.

      It’s hardly being ignored, but it is not being treated either. Many people with a mental illness need it treated in some other way than a prescription mental health med. Some have physical problems causing the mental illness (thyroid being a major one, blood pressure being another, diabetes being another big one). Thyroid is seldom tested AND THE RESULTS READ. Blood pressure screening is pushed, and blood pressure medications are overprescribed, sometimes causing (apparent) mental and other illnesses of their own. Diabetes screening is fairly good, but variable. Treating the wrong illness with the wrong drug often leads to CASCADING MEDICATIONS, where another medication is added to treat side-effects of other medications, or multi-way interactions among meds – a phenomenon known to exist but not studied. Meanwhile, the underlying illness is ignored and festers. In other cases, the person has a temporary problem, best solved with counseling and/or a social worker.

      There IS research into mental health and mental illness. It’s just that the results of that research are not being used. They exist in an academic journal. Consumers do not read these. Physicians claim they do not have time to read them. Instead, they get the sales pitch from a nice-looking drug rep, peddling whatever wares she has, giving out pens and coffee mugs, and telling the doctor just what she (and her company) want them to know.

      It has been shown that they track these things by having pharmacies give out prescription information about these drugs – patient’s names, doctor’s name, drug name. It’s a violation of the law, but it’s widely done. Then competing drug manufacturers do direct mailings to patients/consumers for their drugs.

      The suicide rate more than triples when someone is getting “help” in the form of an SSRI pill, and increases for people on other sorts of psychiatric medications.

      In 1950, before the advent of most of these medications, depression and schizophrenia were short to moderate-term illnesses. People usually got over them. Now, mental illness is chronic and is the major cause of disability of people under 23. Moreover, depressed people were SELDOM violent. Violence is a known side-effect of SSRIs and SSNIs – including suicide. The stigma associated with multiple depressed people is associated with violence in the mind of the public.

      ECT works by damaging parts of the brain. Muscle relaxants stop the outward convulsions, but it works by producing a seizure in the brain severe enough to damage parts of it. There are no good theories as to how or why it works, in some cases, on some people. It makes no sense that damaging something in nearly-random ways would somehow “fix” it.

      Meanwhile, the community mental health care centers, which opened in the US during 1970s and increased during the 1980s when State mental hospitals were closed, designed to provide long-term care for the mentally ill, have been commandeered away from providing any “real”, effective treatment to those who need it. Instead, they involve someone asking the mentally ill if they’re still taking their meds, giving them more, and having them come back in several months. Some of these drugs are taken, some are sold illegally. For instance, Seroquel, one of the powerful antipsychotics, are sold as “Quell” or “Baby Heroin” to opiod addicts.

      Every third child you run into is taking amphetamines for ADHD. Often, these are prescribed because someone at the school tells the parents “your child cannot come back to school until he is taking (specific name-brand drug).” When I was in school, we were told to NOT take the amphetamines sold by the creepy-guy-in-a-raincoat, because they would damage our minds and bodies. Now, the school and the doctors are pushing them. Did the physiology of teenagers change or did the effects of amphetamines change? Or, did those in power over the issue find a way to make a lot more money, and push the drug dealers out of the way?

      • Alex says:

        It’s not money, it’s malice. I say it all the time, but think about something: What “overhead” do these people have to worry so much about? They get a lot of cash & I guess it’s an attempt to make it look innocent or somehow a more “regular” thing than fucking with people for no reason, but ulitmately they don’t have much to worry about if it’s in terms of evictions.

        As for them that you refer to as “those in power,” they are usually trying to supplant someone else. Like the idea of a hi-jacking, they keep wanting to do what would be metaphorically be phrased as “crawling into someone else’s skin.” Doesn’t it make sense that they’re looking for “entry” in whatever way? Food, pills, injections, probing (both literal & in the figurative sense)- kind of has a general theme of “going into someone & exerting agency,” even if it’s just their influence.

        I know that’s a bit pyschological, but people sometimes think that things at a “higher level” are based on different stuff- science, math, logic, strategy, etc… . It doesn’t always occur to someone that fear & greed CAN be a reason for major financial moves. Arrogance actually CAN be a reason for a military strategy being useless.

        Connected to this is that simple malice CAN be a reason for whatever way of steering things. I guess “policy” tends to be the word for that, although “intended method of comportment” works just as well.

      • Moo says:

        Bethkz. Thanks for telling the truth.

        I go to a church where they have a weekly service and lunch/food bank for anyone who wants to come. Some of these people are involved in self help groups for addictions, others have numerous health problems. (The donated food is mostly carbs and a few good people donate fresh vegetables). Some of the people there say that no one ever cared about them or listened to them before. These people seem to see numerous doctors and take numerous medications yet they live in substandard housing (or homeless) and have inadequate nutrition, social isolation and lack of transportation.

      • bethkz says:

        All of that medical, quasi-medical, or psychological/addiction treatment and medication costs money. A LOT OF MONEY! That money goes to multi-billion $$$ corporations – many of which have annual budgets that exceeds the annual budget of most nations. Addiction treatment is a multi-billion dollar/year industry as well, and is less than disappointing in the number of people who stay “sober” for 10 years after the treatment. When it doesn’t work, rinse and repeat, and not try something new.

        The something new is very often just having someone to talk with who will listen, will not judge, will not report to physicians, psychiatrists, social workers, or law enforcement. Rather than needing another medication that costs hundreds of dollars per month, often paid for through a government program, if that money were used to provide housing and healthful meals, it would result in a lot more “cures”.

        Moreover, “mental health” and the associated medications that go with it can be, and often is, used as a lazy way to overlook and fail to diagnose or treat a real, treatable, and easily-testable condition, such as scurvy, diabetes, and thyroid disorders (I’ve seen all of these and others done more than once!). Healthful food is what’s required for both of the examples, but that is somehow “too expensive” to do, whereas the more expensive solutions with an industry behind them are the ones given.

      • @Bethkz: “Now, mental illness is chronic and is the major cause of disability of people under 23. Moreover, depressed people were SELDOM violent. Violence is a known side-effect of SSRIs and SSNIs – including suicide. The stigma associated with multiple depressed people is associated with violence in the mind of the public.”
        Well stated Beth. I don’t know if you’ve read Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime by Peter Gøtzsche, but there is a chapter in his book titled “Pushing children into suicide with happy pills”. From the chapter:

        An internal unpublished study report that became available through litigation showed that at least eight children became suicidal on Paxil versus one on placebo. This was a serious and statistically significant harm of Paxil (P = 0.035). There were 11 serious adverse effects in total among 93 children treated with Paxil and two among 87 children treated with placebo, which was also significant (P = 0.01, my calculation; the paper didn’t say that this difference was statistically significant). This means that for every 10 children treated with Paxil instead of placebo, there was one more serious adverse event (the inverse of the risk difference, 11/93 – 2/87, is 10). However, the abstract of the paper ended thus: ‘Conclusions: Paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.’ http://www.radcliffehealth.com/sites/radcliffehealth.com/files/samplechapter/gotzsche_chpt18.pdf

        I read the book hoping to find out more about vaccinations, but unfortunately they were not covered. Still, it was a great read: http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844
        Video clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1LQiow_ZIQ

      • bethkz says:

        I have not yet read _Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare_. I have read _Anatomy of an Epidemic_ by Robert Whitaker. He cites other studies which give about the same thing: That there are FAR more “adverse effects” with youngsters and adults taking Paxil and various other psychiatric medications than those taking a placebo. There are various long-term (?permanent? Some of them seem to last DECADES after taking the last dose of drug) effects, including sleep disturbances and sexual dysfunction – including one called “genital numbing”, whereby the male or female genitalia are either totally or partially numb, leading to sexual dysfunction as well as a propensity for injury. That’s okay though. If someone is sexually dysfunctional, there are other drugs they can take for that!

        It’s probable that the same types of fraud – including misstating the efficacy and diminishing side-effects are done with vaccinations as well as psychiatric and other medications, including those commonly prescribed like statins and beta blockers. My SO who is my common debate partner on these issues brings up that vaccinations have a very tiny markup. While that might be true, the drugs used to treat the side effects can often be big moneymakers, and are sometimes taken for 7 remaining decades of life.

      • Beth, I agree that vaccinations may be increasing health business. It’s difficult to find information that is not clouded by contradictions. I remembered reading an article about vaccinations causing micro-vascular strokes in infants and had a difficult time finding it again (not all servers will link to it). Here is an excerpt from a related article:

        Dr. Andrew Moulden, a Canadian doctor, actually discovered back in 2001 that vaccines can induce microvascular strokes in some people, though none of the journals or medical organizations he submitted his research to would publish these shocking findings. As it turns out, vaccines cause the body’s natural immune system to hyper-react to the injection of foreign particle material, which prompts a massive release of white blood cells. And these white blood cells, which are too large to enter the bloodstream, surround capillaries and actually clog and collapse them, leading to what are essentially micro-strokes.

        As a result, these blockages prevent smaller red blood cells from effectively delivering oxygen to the organs near these capillaries. And if these particles get anywhere near the brain, brain injuries such as autism and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) can ensue, which would explain a similar increase in these injuries in direct correlation to the ever-expanding childhood vaccination schedule.

        “What should be clear by now is that vaccines are taking a severe toll on people’s brains,” adds Stevenson. “The cost both to the individuals, whose lives are afflicted by strokes, and to society as a whole, which loses [its] productiveness and is burdened with their care, is massive.” http://www.naturalnews.com/039247_vaccinations_strokes_neurology.html#

        Another interesting article: why the press shouldn’t dismiss those who question the safety of vaccinations http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/vaccine-skeptics_b_4548510.html

  50. Alex says:

    Sue: I think I hit the bottom of the page, is the last comment going to fit?

    • Alex, when a page ends the next comment that is posted will automatically start a new page. I don’t think there is any limit on the numbers of comments, posts, or pages on WP blogs.

    • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

      Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime by Peter Gøtzsche – I must get this book, I’ve heard a lot about it. I’m a fan of Dr Gotzsche, he’s a straight talker and many don’t like that, I suspect he has a lot of enemies. He’s a major threat to the billions being made from non-evidence based screening, excess etc. and they haven’t been able to silence him. He’s definitely in my Hall of Fame.
      This is a MAJOR problem in the States and becoming a problem in other countries.
      I was shocked to see a documentary by the BBC reporter Louis Theroix a couple of years ago. (children taking psychotropic drugs in the States)
      I’ve also, mentioned a book called “Saving Normal” by American doctor, Alan Frances, which is about almost every emotion now being categorized as some sort of mental illness that requires medical surveillance and medication. Shyness is now social phobia, an active child is now hyperactive etc.
      It says to me (once again) we need to be very cautious with our dealings with the medical profession and others. Australia doesn’t allow drug companies to advertise their products on TV. (directly to the consumer)
      When I was in Hawaii last year, I was shocked to see that every second or third ad on American TV was a drug company pushing something, “Ask your doctor…”
      I could see lots of people writing down the names of all of these drugs and then heading off to the doctor.
      We now have the private screening company here, I received a letter a couple of months ago, (straight in the bin and a letter sent to my local member) hope we don’t end up with drugs being advertised on TV etc.
      I was concerned a couple of politicians said recently that private insurers could have a role to play with medical consultations. I want to choose my own doctor and make my own informed decisions about healthcare, I don’t want my insurer meddling in the process. The Govt is trying to save on Medicare, but I think it would be a BAD move.
      The States has the most expensive healthcare in the world, but have poorer outcomes. When you allow medicine to become big business with blurred ethical boundaries,IMO, it stops being medicine and becomes a commercial and harmful exercise.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        That documentary is by Louis Theroux, “America’s Medicated Kids”
        Parts 1 to 4 on YouTube

      • bethkz says:

        It’s not just all emotions and all expressions of emotions that are medicalized, but it’s also medicalized to show NO emotion or to not show particular emotions. Acts  happy: ADHD, bipolar, or delusional. Doesn’t act happy: anhedonia, emotional detachment, blunted affect.

        They can’t win. They can’t break even. They can’t even quit the game.

      • Elizabeth, Peter Gøtzsche is in my Hall of Fame too. I bet he has gone through many gauntlets, and has lost status in many circles, in order to bring this information to the public. Prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death so it makes perfect sense to begin viewing pharmaceutical companies that put profits ahead of safety, to the point of causing death, in the same light as organized crime. The book is written in a conversational tone with a bit of humor thrown in, similar to how he speaks. Peter Gøtzsche worked for the pharmaceutical industry at one point in his career. This in addition to his years of research experience makes for a very informative book.

        “Saving Normal” by Alan Frances sounds like a good read as well, I’ll have to order it.

  51. Alex says:

    That’s the nature of that kind of creature- nullifying everything, I guess. Always going against whatever is there & playing “rock & a hard place” games with everyone. They like to trap. They like to erode. They like to inflict. They like to deceive. It’s what their gravitations are, plain & simple. Other things don’t “taste” as good.

    It’s not really a “power” thing, I figure it’s about infliction- because power can go with momentum, as well as against or be actively neutral. Kids are very active & there’s a lot of things that are in flux (they’re not only living- they’re growing, developing more adult characteristics, there’s mental changes, skill development, all kinds of things). Plus, it’s more fucked-up to go after children.

    I’ve mentioned before about them viewing anything that happens as a disorder, but it’s less a theory & more proof by indication at this point. I look at them as kind of a cult with resources.

    • bethkz says:

      “Cult with resources”. That seems to sum it up well.

      Money is only part of the issue. Power is only part of the issue. It’s about gaining and keeping complete control over someone. If you mess up someone who is 70, you only get a few years of having that person under your control. If you start with someone who is 3, you’ve got 7 or 8 decades to keep them under your thumb, and the thumb of other “medical specialists”. Moreover, you won’t be questioned as much. Someone who iatrogenically injures an adult runs the risk of having them either quit your practice or file suit. With a child, that child has nothing to say in the matter. It’s only important that they sell what they’re doing as “necessary” to the parents – and get them to leave the room at appropriate times. By the time the child is an adult, they will have had adequate indoctrination to continue to return throughout their lifetimes.

      It’s quite telling that the US gets by far the most and the most expensive health care in the world, along side having the lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world – below that of many poor third world countries.

      Iatrogenically-caused deaths are directly the third-leading cause of death in the US. That doesn’t count the number of people who have longer-term adverse outcomes. For instance, those taking some classes of mental health drugs have an average of 25 years lower life expectancy. Many other drugs, or classes of drugs, given for dubious reasons have “death” as a possible “side effect”, and most people now seem to be taking 3 or 4 prescription drugs regularly. Some are taking 20 or more! The deaths caused, directly or indirectly through a healthcare-acquired antibiotic-resistant infection is difficult to ascertain…. and many of those deaths are not immediate. It won’t be correlated with “healthcare” received several years before the death.

  52. Cat&Mouse says:

    Thank you Alex for that story of Gardisil. And I’ll get back to Elizabeth re statistics I may need. I’ve talked about the best man at our wedding. He designs parts for jet engines. If you fly Boeing or Airbus, your life was carried on his parts. HIs daughter is 11. It’s taken her over a year to recover from Guillian-Barre syndrome. We’re gonna find out if were due to Gardisil, as her immune system is hyperactive. She spent over 4 months in a rehab hospital. Last month she began walking again without needing a walker.

    If men had administered that vaccine, there would be a huge lawsuit, Gloria Alllred would be there demanding castration followed by execution, and the media would be up in arms. Here, 3 adult women ganged up virtually violating or raping this girl while her mom was bullied into silence. Want to bet they had her leave the room? That’s a great lesson for these women to remember should they ever be violated. And we wonder how kids become so violent and the rapings or survival sex that women (and men) endure in prison.

    My husband suffered a severe left arm fracture when he was 7. His stupid, ignorant mom, an RN, told him to be “in control” of his pain as the needle went in between the fractured bones of his wrist. They all complained his screams were embarrassing and could be heard all through the hospital. To this day, he remembers it vividly. He needs valium to see a doctor, hates hospitals (especially ER’s), and goes into a cold sweat if his flu shot is injected into his left arm. Those little kids screaming at the Pediatrician won’t forget either. Shame on the medical establishment.

    As for that medical researcher who said that she “didn’t believe” vaccines gave autism. Read that carefully. Watch how conversations with doctors are carefully controlled and you are steered (bullied) into forgetting your grave concens and buying into the propaganda. Well, I “believe” that woman whored using her words a real cush job with a drug/vaccine manufacturer.

    You can bet sure as Canadian rain that this same woman will be extremely cautious when it comes to her own kids. I’ve written here that my husband’s other friend, the anesthesiologist, withheld vaccines from his kids. Too much mercury, too many side-effects, too many shots for an underdeveloped immune system, and allergies that can develop too. Too much.

    • Alex says:

      You’re welcome, although I don’t remember which one. Was it the one where that guy had to do the interview with a French magazine because it turns into a problem in America?

  53. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    I saw a newspaper at my local cafe yesterday called “The Senior”, an article caught my eye, “Time to stop sex predators”. The story was about elderly women being sexually assaulted in nursing homes. This is a vulnerable group and their complaints are often dismissed, downplayed or ignored. The victim’s story is often considered unreliable because of cognitive decline, which is a bonus for the predators. They also, talked about an elderly man with some dementia using Viagra and regularly sexually assaulting his elderly wife, they claim this sort of thing is increasing. Viagra is easy to obtain (unlike the Pill) and likely to be used incorrectly by someone with dementia.

    They outline the case of a male nurse who admitted (when he was challenged) he regularly lubricated an elderly woman’s vagina to make her more comfortable, to deal with the dryness. The woman had not complained of dryness/discomfort and no one at the nursing home had asked him to lubricate anything. This came to light after the woman became very upset when he entered her room and her daughter quizzed her about her reaction.

    It was a depressing article, but I’m not really surprised. Some of the offenders were picked up by CCTV cameras or reported by other nurses or family members. Sexual assault is mostly about power and control, we can be a victim at any age.
    It makes you wonder how many cases are never picked up.

    There is talk that males will not be employed to care for babies, toddlers and children in the State system after a recent high profile case where a male carer was caught on camera sexually assaulting his charges, just horrible stuff. Some people are screaming “discrimination”…we’re not all like that!
    I’m sure that’s right, but surely the welfare and safety of our elderly and children should be our first concern.
    Note: He was charged with 7 counts of unlawful sexual intercourse along with other charges for sexual assault etc.) It turns out he was involved in child porn, the Police have found video footage of him sexually abusing babies, toddlers and children. (the footage has been disseminated/sold to other pedophiles)

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australian-government-worker-charged-with-sexually-abusing-preschool-children-in-residential-facility/story-fni6uo1m-1226997270838?nk=f951f6f61d89675ff74c1a277484ab9b

    Virgin Airlines came in for some criticism when they moved an unaccompanied child away from a male passenger and re-seated her next to a woman. The man complained to the airline and the media. The airline said that was their policy, unaccompanied children are seated next to women. I believe the welfare of the child is paramount. I wasn’t surprised the next day to see the comments to the article, many parents said they agreed with the policy.

    • bethkz says:

      I have an issue with removing men, and substituting women to deal with children in healthcare, daycare, or unaccompanied children on airlines. Speaking of someone who dealt with sexual abuse from a female perpetrator (as well as male perpetrators) as a child, that is no guarantee that the child will not be assaulted, sexually assaulted, or abused in other ways. The poor girl who was held down and forced to have an HPV vaccination was held down by WOMEN. As was said here, had she been held down by men, and given the shot by a man, there would be plenty of publicity and people prosecuted.

      Most of the iatrogenic assaults which occur do not require a penis.

      • Alex says:

        Also, someone might act like it’s not an attack if done by a woman. That’s even a common trope on TV (tvtropes.org). I never got that reasoning. If a woman runs another woman over with her car, that’s an attack- it doesn’t matter whether she gets any gratification from doing it at all.

        On top of that, someone might very well be homo or bisexual & aggressive about it. Why would it make sense for people that are hetero, but not anything else?

        On a side-note: I’ve noticed that a lot of women seem to be reluctant to believe that someone could be a lesbian whenever things get strange. Is it THAT rare? Or is it that women don’t think there could be some warped tastes at work & arousal would never play a role in something like that.

        I understand that someone would make a differentiation between screwing around & something imposed that has physiological overlap, but it’s unrealistic to believe that arousal couldn’t possibly play a role. Come on, some people even get aroused by lighting things on fire!

      • bethkz says:

        Alex ,
        The fact that many people cannot believe that something is an attack if done by a(nother) woman, whereas they would clearly view the exact same thing done by a man as an attack is part of the double-standard on men/women, as well as a certain amount of stereotypes that anyone who is a mother, or could be, or someday might be could not possibly do something that would deliberately harmful to another person. Women are viewed throughout society as nurturers.

        People who were hurt by women (battered partners, battered children, sexually assaulted persons) are not taken seriously or BELIEVED by police, spouse abuse shelters or counsellors, child abuse counsellors, or support groups. I think it’s changing somewhat, but I know that during the 1990s, I had a therapist call me a LIAR when I was explaining to her a bizarre instance of sexual abuse from my mother when I was a toddler. I don’t understand either why she did this, as I don’t think it gave her sexual pleasure. It was a female therapist, and I had to spend several sessions with the next therapist (male) to get over the therapist! That was not very useful.

        Sexual orientation is seldom either/or. The assumption is always that the woman *is* hetero unless it is obviously otherwise – and people are often blind even then. It also changes whether the situation is loving and consensual or if forced sexuality is imposed upon them. This is seen most vividly in men who rape other men, while vehemently stating they’re no f**, while insisting that the victim was – even though he was overpowered, threatened with weapons, beaten, injured, unconscious, or otherwise incapable of defending himself. It’s no different when a woman imposes herself on another woman, except that the attack will not be intercourse, but rather something else.

        It’s changing, but in the past, when an adult woman imposed herself on a young teen boy, it was not considered abuse. If HE thought it was abuse, tried to stop it, tried to prevent it, tried to complain, HE was the one attacked, and she very very rarely got any jail time regardless of circumstances.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Women are absolutely capable equal to men in sexually abusing. Virgin Air may have placed a child right into the lap of a female pedophile. Re medicated children/adults. I’ve taken SSRI’s for pain caused by my disability. Never again. Weight gain, and the horrible side effects the first two weeks and two weeks after quitting. I totally believe suicides and violent acts perpetrated by individuals have happened and these meds were the final trigger. A person does just as well w/o side effects on an extremely small dose of narcotic exactly as those in high altitudes in South America chew coca leaves–and thrive w/o violence. Here again, there’s all the money involved and law enforcement which benefits to boot.

        Only in good ol’ USA will one see commercials talking up taking a pill to modulate another pill which screws with how things function in one’s head.

        Thank God for this website and everybody here. You all educated me to things I’ve always suspected. My husband feels vindicated by what I’ve found here; he felt even stronger about things here than I did. BTW, I use the word “our” in my last message referring to marriages failing after childbirth due to the process. I meant to use “the” instead. I already had kids when I met my husband. My first husband lost the desire to be father/husband when the attention of being a new dad wore off.

        It’s been said that there’s a case of ebola in Sacramento CA. If so, this could be the “crisis” this president has been waiting for so he could finish “his job” as he put it when voted in. Those of us here who watch world events, seeing our Constitutional Rights taken away, and knowing prophecy, have to wonder if the final “round up” will begin using this possible upcoming crisis. Just think what would happen if people contaminated with ebola began going to Christian churches spreading it around. Also in the news lately is a version of the “chip” that works implanted in the hand (right out of Revelations). I apologize if I sound paranoid, but after 9/11 (especially building 7), and how here I’ve seen how we’re controlled, I have to wonder.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        I apologize for digressing to other things. Re sex in prisons. In the 80’s & 90’s rapings occurred all the time. Now, supposedly, they don’t happen as much, depending on whose study you read. However, the prison thinking within inmates is that everybody has some kind of inner homosexuality that can be explored or comes out in prison. Supposedly, this explains why, especially with women, one who even with husband and kids will days after admission take up a relationship with another woman.

        What isn’t considered, is that severe intimidations, beatings, and rapes still occur if one doesn’t quickly adjust and adapt. But apparently nobody wants to call it rape. And the former inmates do not want to discuss things either. And what you say about male inmates who rape other male inmates not calling themselves f**s is true. Absolutely true. The more ignorant views himself so long as he isn’t being penetrated then he’s not gay. As for turkeys? They are among the dumbest of the animal kingdom. Male lions will occasionally mount another male to show dominance, as will alley cats. Dogs as well. Others, horses, cattle, do same if no female is around and they’re horny enough. In captive breeding, an artificial vagina is made, and used with something the animal can mount. For visual help, other animals of opposite sex or same sex are brought near.

        Humans are not much different. Unfortunately. And the worst conditions bring out the worst in these already bad humans. In prisons, inmates will avoid being raped under horrible circumstances if they can have a bit of control in a less terrible choice. And they disassociate themselves from the event, just like rape victims outside do. Regardless if they reach orgasm, which may happen even in rapes or when the person gives themself away to avoid rape. Without the violence of hate and dominance.

        I believe what you say about the female therapist. Women, especially (from my experience) those therapists having lesser educations, don’t accept females as being abusers, period.

      • bethkz says:

        It’s not just prisons where people who consider themselves heterosexual end up having sex with one of their own sex. Many teen boys try it with other teen boys, one-on-one or in various group games. Many women had a tryst with another woman while in college, and have mainly been in heterosexual relationships. Or, got into some situation where some guy (boyfriend, husband, etc) talked her, possibly with some chemical assistance, into trying the wild side with him and another woman. Some do it on their own, and have at least one same-sex relationship often before they got married, sometimes after a divorce and a woman going through an “I hate all men” phase. The total of these are about 1/3 of all women having done one of these.

        Sex can be used for a lot of things. In a positive light, to express love, to have fun, to relieve stress, to alleviate fear. In a negative light, it can be about causing fear or pain, or showing another that you’ve got complete dominion over another person. When it’s about dominance and displays of power, sexual orientation does not really come in to play. It’s not about the assailant getting sexual pleasure. It’s about asserting power… over a child, over someone that’s been overpowered or threatened with a weapon, about getting something else from the victim. No class of people are immune from having this desire: Not women. Not doctors. Not nurses. Not even mothers.

  54. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Beth
    Someone has to care for children, the elderly, unwell etc. and I think the statistics show it’s overwhelmingly males who commit these offences. It may be a female is less likely to be reported, but I believe the male predator is far more common than the female predator.
    There are certainly cases of women doing the wrong thing, we’re had a couple of cases of a female teacher having sex with a teenage student, and we know female doctors also, use coercion to get women to have pap tests, pelvic exams etc. I believe coercion negates all consent and the exam becomes an assault.
    So excluding men from the care of toddlers, the elderly etc. does not give you a rock solid guarantee that no one will be sexually assaulted, but it’s IMO, less likely to be a problem.
    I’m taking about sexual assault here, I know female carers can be mean and uncaring, some may engage in rough handling or humiliate their charges.
    What do others think?

    • Elizabeth, yes, it’s overwhelmingly males who commit sexual offenses, hands down. I believe it’s rarely due to malicious intent, or a desire to have power over another. IMO males are simply programed to reproduce, and can mistake any signal from a female as an invitation to mate. One of my favorite studies ever:

      “Male turkeys aren’t fussy. Give them a lifelike model of a female turkey and they’ll happily try to mate with it as eagerly as they would with the real thing.

      This observation intrigued Martin Schein and Edgar Hale of the University of Pennsylvania, and made them curious about what might be the minimal stimulus required to excite a turkey. They embarked on a series of experiments to find out. This involved removing parts from the turkey model one by one, until the male turkey eventually lost interest.

      Tail, feet, and wings were all removed, but still the clueless bird waddled up to the model, let out an amorous gobble, and tried to do his thing. Finally, the researchers were left with a head on a stick. And surprisingly, the male turkey still showed great interest. In fact, it preferred a head on a stick over a headless body.

      Schein and Hale subsequently investigated how minimal they could make the head itself before it failed to elicit a response. They discovered that freshly severed female heads impaled on sticks worked best, but if the male turkey had nothing else it would settle for a plain balsa wood head. Turkeys evidently adhere to the philosophy that if you can’t be with the one you love, then love the one you’re with.

      Curious about the mating habits of other poultry, Schein and Hale performed similar tests on White Leghorn Cocks. They published their results in an article with the intriguing title, “Effects of morphological variations of chicken models on sexual responses of cocks.” http://www.madsciencemuseum.com/msm/gallery/top_20_most_bizarre_experiments

      Male poultry or male human, all the same IMO.

      • Alex says:

        I don’t think it has much to do with a mating drive, actually. There’s lots of cases where someone went after an old woman or a young girl & there wasn’t any reproductive possibility.

        Also, turkeys are pretty dumb in a lot of ways- you can’t necessarily compare them to other birds, much less people.

        I was just reading about inbreeding (specifically that there’s A LOT of it in muslim culture) & that this has a major impact physically & mentally. Intelligence & sanity are both impacted in a severe way with this situation. Marrying first cousins at the very least causes issues, never mind when this is an ongoing thing.

        This could have a social impact, as well. Maybe someone is warped & then comes up with all kinds of crazy doctrines for people to follow- if they’re in a position of leadership (royalty, for instance), they might cause a large pattern of behavior. If they’ve had a bad environment that they were raised in, this might cause or add to the situation.

      • bethkz says:

        You do realize that, worldwide, 25% of all marriages are between first cousins.

        It does not raise the incidence of genetic disorders significantly. This same phenomenon plays out in terms of animal breeding.

      • Alex, I agree turkeys are pretty dumb in lots of ways . . . still, there are some similarities between male turkeys and male humans. For example, from the study re my earlier comment:

        Male turkeys aren’t fussy. Give them a lifelike model of a female turkey and they’ll happily try to mate with it as eagerly as they would with the real thing.
        In comparison, some male humans have been known to happily try to mate with blow up dolls.

        From the study: “Tail, feet, and wings were all removed, but still the clueless bird waddled up to the model, let out an amorous gobble, and tried to do his thing. Finally, the researchers were left with a head on a stick. And surprisingly, the male turkey still showed great interest.
        Some (many) male humans will become aroused by simply looking at different parts of a female, or from looking at photographs of women. They don’t even need a three dimensional image.

        The sex drive in males is so strong that some will risk their careers, marriages, and reputations. I agree that reproduction doesn’t necessarily come into play as the end goal – that would require some forethought.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Notice how it’s always the women who are looked down upon, and questioned as to their sexual practices? Never the male doctors questioning themselves nor their fellow dudes. How did STD’s get invented? Because males in the Old Testament mounted their sheep and “knew’ them in the Biblical sense. Thanks guys! What’s the difference between Aussie & Dutch women anyway? Is there a different sex position done down under but not done up top? Doctors? They’ll believe whatever is good for them long before they accept what’s right for us.

        I can’t compare dumb men and dumb turkeys, and how easy it is getting them to mate with, well, anything having a hole. Much can be said about women too. Vegetables. We created our own industry of sex toys. Hormones make people horny, and then comes inventive thinking…

      • Si says:

        I really don’t think you can compare a turkey with a human male. There really isn’t enough evidence to suggest the male sex drive is geared towards sexual violence, however there is a lot of evidence to support bad behaviour in men is culturally constructed. By saying ‘men can’t help it they’re wired that way’ excuses their actions when they behave badly, and quashes accountability perpetrating rape culture.

  55. Ro says:

    I have a question about something. Are medical exams ever required (read: mandatory) for employment? If so, is there a way to exempt yourself from participating? If not and you’re still told they’re mandatory, what would be the best way to refuse such things and defend yourself from being coerced and lied to by an employer or potential employer? I have no problem being tested for TB, getting a blood pressure check or being drug tested. However, I don’t want to participate in extensive blood tests, vaccinations, physical exams, or anything of the sort. I have not yet encountered a situation where I was told any exams were required (thankfully), but it’s always best to be prepared!

    • Alex says:

      If there’s something you want to cut out of the situation, do so. Them using cute little words like “requisite” & “medical procedure” doesn’t change what the situation consists of.

      As for “requirements,” it’s not unheard of for them to tack things like that onto employment, but it seems like that’s mostly if you’re using company insurance- which you could not do, it might even make them want to hire you more. Don’t know all the legal specifics, but it doesn’t really make sense to worry too much about that. Plenty of laws contradict themselves & sometimes ruling contradict laws- ultimately, you’re dealing with actions.

      I know it sounds dictatorial & a bit abusive, but requirements can always be changed thrid-party. “Abrogation of requisites,” I believe would be a technical term for that- if you wanted to get fancy on someone. Someone saying “Your requisites are cancelled” would at the very least unbalance them. Whether you get what you want is questionable, anyway- but maybe more & more people acting entitled to steer what happens to them would have a positive effect on the medical environment.

      Another thing is that someone can always “inform” someone of something as a trick, just like someone can try to enforce an impression. Don’t believe things just because someone says things in a decided tone or with a straight face. Someone can act certain about a lot of things & if they figure someone will believe them (because of their performance or in general), it’s a lot easier for them to keep up appearances. It can also be hard for people to believe that someone can really be that supportive of things like that- that someone puts their “heart” into lying to them & screwing them over.

      It works that way when someone attacks someone else conventionally & that person that gets attacked has a hard time believing that someone would still have a self-preservation urge. That they’d actually be rooting for whatever situation they’re looking to do, as well as being protective of themselves. See, a lot of people think of what they “equate” to- at least when it comes to serious stuff.

      • Ro says:

        Alex – I know that wording doesn’t change what something consists of, my problem is that I have to convince them of that and get them to back off if that situation were ever to occur. Even if I DID want to use company insurance (which I’d typically have no problem declining for whatever reason), I would still have the right – both legally and ethically – to decline all screening programs and invasive exams. It’s just figuring out how to go about that the best way where it gets tricky.

        I’ve thought about using religious beliefs as a reason for declining any imposed exams or screenings that I don’t want to participate in, in the future. As of now, that’s my reasoning behind declining vaccinations. I find that typically declining something for religious reasons tends to work pretty well for most people. At first, there may be some argument or backlash for it (a sense of “your religious beliefs are stupid and I’m a smart doctor”), but eventually they’ll have to back off because it could be considered religious discrimination, and the last thing they want is a lawsuit from a religious freedoms organization.

      • Alex says:

        Well, yeah- I know YOU know that, but if you state it to them outright it would be very hard for them to work any angle.

        I’ve always wondered: What religious reasons do people use for things like this? I know Jehova’s Witnesses have a problem with blood transfusions & the Muslims have a million regulations about nudity and what kind of contact is allowed (which seems to be more of an incidental protection from medical attacks, because they seem to get pretty damn dictatorial about those subjects themselves).

        I suppose someone could always go with “sanctity of life” as the religious principle. Self-protection because you hold that life is important & someone can’t care so much about life that they don’t care what happens to it. It wouldn’t make any sense to say that this is how things line up for God, either- so it would be both an endorsement of self-defense AND a general argument against detriment.

        Medical personnel (and it seems anyone with a western scientific background, actually) tends to act like they think that “life” is only biological activation, but it’s also the conditions & activities that make up someone’s situation.

        At some point language has to connect to something, though- so they try to exhaust someone’s vocabulary & eventually they run out of words (and some things are so basic that one doesn’t usually bother to try articulating them). “Actively weathering” someone’s arguments to counteract them.

        When they hit this point, the ending tends to be “Oh, so it’s nothing?” (and there’s no influence to produce the goal of prevention that someone is after- the argument has no “batteries”) or they lie and act like they “don’t understand” (so because they’re innocent, it would be wrong to hurt them- also they’re not at fault for any of their wrongdoings, thus no liability).

        Another one is “I agree, but… (whatever they say)” and doing whatever it is, anyway. Trying to generate a feeling of futility & fraternity at the same time. On the one hand, someone’s efforts fall short & they maybe give up hope. On the other, someone is betraying a “friend” & being the “bad guy” if they harm whoever is aiming the situation at them. It’s still something being directed at you, though- how much the one doing it emotionally supports the situation doesn’t change that.

      • Ro says:

        Alex – Stating it outright is a fantastic idea! You’re right – there’s really really no way to argue that point.

        I don’t know exactly how religious reasons would be used in all types of situations, but I know for me, I’d use Christian science as I’m looking into that at the moment and believe there is quite some validation to their methods. Essentially, the belief is that God made our bodies to work in harmony with His creation the way that He created them to work. Which is something that I completely agree with. Because of that belief, I don’t believe in using medical intervention or digging for problems unless it’s completely necessary (emergency situations such as broken bones, excessive bleeding, etc). I trust that God designed my body to fix itself and bounce back from illnesses and other problems. Which in turn means that digging for problems would be a direct assault on my beliefs. Not only that, but because I believe God designed my body in such a way, I believe that all of our bodily functions and especially the reproductive organs (as they produce new life) were created with a purpose (whether or not we choose to use them for that purpose is up to us individually) and that the use of synthetic man-made objects in or around said organs could potentially damage the delicate balance within the body and transfer bacteria or tear skin and/or organs that are not meant to be harmed. So that is my argument for my own personal religious beliefs against those type of exams. I do admire that very much about Muslims – they hold their ground. They don’t let others coerce them into their ways.

        Sanctity of life could potentially work as well, considering that some follow-up procedures carry risk for infertility and the like.

        I think the best thing to do in arguments is to just stay firm and don’t get shaken up or heated. By staying calm and collected, but firm, I think it’s much more apparent that the person in question cannot be shaken or coerced into anything.

      • Alex says:

        Ro: Thank you! You might be interested in Russian Orthodox, as they seem to have a “Good & Bad WOLF” mentality when it comes to ethics.

        Not to assign you homework or anything, but read what I was saying about sanctity of life again. What you’re saying works on a reproductive level, but ONLY on a reproductive level. If somoene where to, let’s say, aim for the backdoor (like with that guy in New York or sometimes people that just have crashes, falls, or an E.R. visit)- that angle wouldn’t work.

        Same deal with non-pervy variations of attack. Maybe they decide to try to keep you in the hospital when you don’t want to be there (any number of reasons, including financial ones), maybe they “find” something wrong with you from whatever tests they do (running a test & interpreting the data to mean something that they can get off on or paid for “treating” is a major potential), maybe they decide to rush you into surgery over whatever this “is” (putting that in quotes gives me a Clinton flashback).

        All of this gets them a lot of cash & probably repeat costs. If they screw up the imposed surgery (maybe they cut something important, maybe they leave something in you, whatever) this would net them quite a bit. There’s the possibility of infections contracted just by being in the hospital or by getting cut open in one (same potential with catheter, potentially a fatal one).

        Even ambulances tend to get pushy about bringing people away, since they worry about not getting their fare. I’d be ready to prove reality on the fly with them, too. It’s probable that they’d say they “have” to bring someone to the hospital. Making the point that “Oh, so someone could just have someone kidnapped by calling an ambulance on them?” might make them back off.

        Telling them “if someone refuses their services, they have no right to impose them on someone” might be a real good way of getting various people to back off. Come to think about it to think about it, using the term “forcible ASPORTATION of person,” might be pretty scary & get someone to think about technical definitions of kidnapping.

        One can make the assumption that they might be inclinced to inflict grievous harm on someone in the ambulance (anything from robbery to rape can & HAS happened in ambulances- if someone does not desire their services, why would they keep trying to get them in the vehicle?).

        Had one thought after another, there. Sorry about this being so long.

      • Ro says:

        Alex – I tried to find information on the Russian Orthodox, but I couldn’t find any good resources about it online. Are there any books you would recommend? You’re right about that angle only working on a reproductive level. I need to reevaluate and figure something else out. Though I’m sure that Christian science is still a good defense method, it’s just figuring out how to apply it to other aspects. I’m going to start reading up on it more and see what I can find. I talked with someone on a forum about Christian science and apparently they only use medical doctors in absolute emergencies. Aside from that, they tend to seek out herbalists, naturopaths, and chiropractors as they believe God gave us all we need naturally. I agree with that completely, but that’s just about as far as my knowledge goes on the subject. As far as sanctity of life goes, I think that’s a good angle, but I doubt the phrase sanctity of life holds much weight with the medical industry these days, unfortunately. I don’t think it harnesses much respect. I understand what you were saying, and it is a good point. It’s just figuring out how to put it into words that will be respected that’s the challenge. (An example about the sanctity of life not being respected is vaccines. Quite a few Catholics [if not most] have strong moral convictions against abortion. They feel it is morally wrong. They consider it a violation of the sanctity of life. Yet doctors still vaccinate them with vaccines that contain tissue from aborted fetuses. Even still, some women are pro-choice but would never consider it for themselves as they are against it on a personal level. These women are being vaccinated with those vaccines as well, so that’s disrespecting the sanctity of their life and beliefs.) Don’t worry about going on – it’s important to have these conversations and talk things through.

        adawells – About the abdominal palpating, I figured as much. These things seem to be fairly vague and inaccurate in general.

        Cat&Mouse – It would make sense if someone had appendicitis, but in an asymptomatic person it would seem fairly useless. Or as you called it, BS.

      • Alex says:

        Actually, I don’t- expect for maybe this Systema Manual that’s on the Systema website. It’s a martial arts thing, but it DOES have roots in the Russian Orthodox religion & it seems that the guy that wrote it gets into life experiences. Maybe there’s some connected references? I usually just presume when something pisses me off, THIS particular Christianity would agree with me, HaHa! (I’m actually serious about that)

        I get what you mean about terms that they respond to. “Sanctity of life” might not be scary or important to them, but perhaps “biological safety” would be? I’d think it’s a fairly easy connection to make that “This organism is not safe, due to intended impositions.” Something along those lines might work, since it encompasses what’s aimed at this person (organism) overall. No separation of action applied & situation that happens. Their actions are an act of endangerment & assualt, if realized.

        Adding to that: “Iatrogenic detriment applies whether you think yourself above me or not.” That one should rock them back a bit! Nice little jolt with the technical terms AND pointing out their attitude as a factor in their behavior? Certainly sounds like something a jury would side with. Not to mention that they’d probably love to finally have a term for things like that, instead of having to give examples- if they didn’t have it already.

      • Alex says:

        Well, the only book I can think to suggest is the Systema Manual by Konstanin Komarov. It’s on the Systema website. It’s a martial arts thing, but that art have roots in that religion & it seems the book makes a lot of references to life experiences- maybe it’s got something in there. I honestly just presume that when I get really pissed-off about something, that particular version of Christianity would agree! (actually serious)

        I know what you mean about words they respond to. “Sanctity of life” might not scare them or strike them as important, but maybe “biological safety” would? Had other stuff to add to that, but I clicked the wrong goddamned icon & it got erased. Now I can’t remember it. Maybe it’ll come to me later.

      • Alex says:

        Sorry, I didn’t see that the first comment had loaded.

      • Ro says:

        Alex – I’ll look into it! I could definitely see “biological safety” carrying more weight with them. I’m going to write down, “Iatrogenic detriment applies whether you think yourself above me or not,” and memorize it. That’s a fantastic line!

    • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

      Ro
      I think lots of so-called mandatory things fall away when challenged.
      Women are sometimes told pap tests are mandatory for the Pill, not so.
      I worked for the Government for a few years and a medical exam was required to join the public service and the super fund. This is going back now…about 1983
      I contacted the Govt Health Service: what exactly was included?
      It was a basic exam, armed with that knowledge I went to the appointment. I had a young male doctor and my body language probably gave a lot away.
      I told him a basic exam was all I’d agree to…and it was basic, I did not undress and was out of there in 7 minutes or so. It was basically BP check, pulse, reflexes, questions about my health…and pap tests were not mentioned. Can’t recall whether I had blood tests, don’t think so. I’ll bet pap tests are mentioned now, but if that had been the case, I would have mentioned informed consent, all screening is my choice says the law and proper ethical standards, no one can override that right.
      So my advice: do some research, why is the exam required? What EXACTLY does it involve? I didn’t undress at all, some of my colleagues were told to undress down to their underwear. One colleague declined and was able to lift her shirt and loosen her skirt so the doctor could palpate her abdomen. I think the American practice of being in the buff and donning a gown or lying under a piece of paper leaves you very vulnerable.
      Walk into the exam room informed and in control is my advice.

      • Alex says:

        Keep in mind, though: they can always add whatever you’re worried about honestly & dictatorially. Look at immigration: apparently, they frequently make people get naked as something included in their immigration physical. A blood test would work for detecting if they have any communicable diseases & it’s not like they actually worry about the impact things have on people’s health here, anyway.

        Now, there’s nothing to say that they don’t try to add other, more invasive, things in on their own- but the point is that someone can always write something problematic into a doctrine that gets followed blindly & a deviation is responded to with a disqualification. This disqualification is not based on the conditions being in such way that causes the problems that these measures are in place to prevent.

        This can apply with anything. There was that stretch where Gardail vaccines were mandated in Texas for a while. I don’t know what they put on the list wtih immigration, but they get pretty pushy & try to exploit a lack of information with people that actually ARE citizens- so I’d expect them to do the same with people coming from any other country.

      • Ro says:

        Elizabeth – I’m glad to know that things were fairly lax for you! If only it were still that way, or that way here. Contacting the health service beforehand is a great idea! As I said in my first comment, I’d have no issue with agreeing to any of those things you agreed to, but resent participating in any more than the absolute minimal approach.

        Unfortunately, as far as my knowledge goes, paps get brought up at every visit from the time you’re 21 until you’re considered old enough to stop screening. I haven’t been to the doctor since I turned 21, thankfully. I’m dreading it. I’ve thought of writing a note on my medical forms when the time comes, though, stating that I formally refuse all screening and will bring it up myself if I am interested or concerned. If it is brought up by the doctor without my consent or initiation, then I will walk out of the practice and find a new doctor. And so they can’t find a loophole, I’d add on that them bringing up any exams or practices unrelated to the specific reason for the visit would also end in the same manner. Then I’ll sign off on it. I don’t know if it’ll work, but it’s worth a try.
        I will make sure to mention informed consent if it ever does come up. I’ll use the word coercion as well, because from what I’ve heard, that seems to be pretty effective.

        In regards to abdomen palpating – what exactly is the purpose of that? Is it accurate for its purpose or just another inaccurate exam which puts someone at risk of being put through the medical ringer? I’ve never been a fan of it because it always seemed kind of pointless to me. I’m genuinely curious about it now.

        The last time I was at the doctor’s office, I just put the gown on over all of my clothes. There was no comment, but that’s when I had the lovely doctor who accepted no as no, never coerced me into anything, but unfortunately got fired after being at the practice for about 6 months. I was unable to find where she went, which is unfortunate. Anyway, if and when I have to go to the doctor’s next, I probably won’t even bother with the gown. If I just wear my clothes, I feel like that’s less submissive and it’ll help get the point across that I’M in control of the situation. So thank you for bringing that up! I never would’ve thought to consider that. Thank you for all of your advice in general!

      • adawells says:

        Re abdominal palpating and pelvic exams, I think a lot of it is just done to see if any of it makes you yell out in pain. If it does then they have found something. If not then they haven’t found anything. I don’t think it’s anymore specific than that.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        The purpose of palpation. A test for appendicitis is when a hand is pushed into the abdomen to the right of the belly button and then quickly released. If sharp pain or increase in pain results then it’s likely one’s appendix is inflamed… During a pelvic, in a very skinny girl/woman, it’s possible to push the abdomen while sandwiching the uterus and also either ovary with two fingers in the vagina, rectum, or 1+1 rectovagina. A tipped uterus is more easily found via the rectum this way.

        The bit about appendicitis is true. The rest is bs. Our organs can’t be “felt” like a testicle can. Instead, even in a skinny female all that can be determined is if the approx size is WNL. They’re really just ruling out something large and that’s not supposed to be there. A woman ovulating, as we all know, can have tender, enlarged ovaries. Thank God we have these educated doctors who charge hundreds for an invasive office visit to tell us we’re normal. While we get nothing for the thrill they just got off us. I’m referring to that news story we all saw & commented about last year where the young attractive woman was “saved” by her older male gyn who told her she was just normal and ovulating. She promised to go back every year to be saved again. In church it’s necessary to be saved just once…

        Doctors will use a deep rectal exam pushing toward the appendix to see if that’s painful. How can it not be painful? If a female is attractive, she will get the most thorough exam imaginable, especially if in the ER. When all can be done via external ultrasound and standard labs checking infection.

        San Diego CA has an Islamic identity of being where the 9/11 highjackers took flying lessons, plus being where the shoe bomber iman lived and preached in his mosque. What’s not publicized in the Koran is that Muslims are supposed to “accommodate” the infidel until he takes complete rule. To women, the rules aren’t made to protect as they are to insure total domination and ownership. I do commend Muslim females for sticking up for themselves. If they don’t, punishment is a severe beating. A religion endorsing honor killings I cannot accept as being devinely inspired.

      • Alex says:

        Speaking of abdominal palpation, I remember a doctor basically grabbing my liver when I was younger. I forget how old I was, but I think I was somewhere around middle school age. Hurt plenty & was a bit of a suprise.

        I would think if someone was having any problems where contact would make them yell out in pain, then I’d imagine putting on pants (or skirts, shorts, whatever isn’t a moo-moo) would be a problem. You hands touch your whole abdominal area when you’re bathing, at the very least. There’s plenty of contact throughout the day with that area from your arms, your legs (if someone’s bending that much- sit-ups, carrying things, and the like), and just “bellying-up” to something (making something to eat at the counter or the table, washing your hands at the sink, etc…)- so I’d think someone would definitely find out on their own.

      • bethkz says:

        Yeah, we touch our bodies all the time while getting dressed, bathing, or even turning over in bed.

        It’s just that we’re not *professionally trained* to seek out problems.

        It is for that reason that doctors seek out the diseases which are in vogue this week, while ignoring patients’ complaints about symptoms that are not indicative of this week’s fad disease, or one they want to or like to or can make the money at treating. Or even referring to another doctor who treats that disease. It’s part of the way they operate to treat the patient for THEIR favorite disease, regardless of the complaint.

        That is why that going to a doctor is actually worse than not going to a doctor. You know very well that you won’t get treated for the presenting disease either way, but if you go to the doctor, you know that you will be treated for some non-problem – causing you a great deal of distress, possibly long-term or permanent, having effects or “side effects” from this purported treatment (some are deadly Others cause lifetime of pain and disability), and it costing a great deal of money, as well as being totally useless otherwise. Moreover, you will STILL have the original disease unless you got over it. If the original was chronic, the whole thing will have progressed. If you got over it, it probably took longer than it would if you’d have just been left alone.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        I agree with Ada, if you feel pain or discomfort during the exam, there “might” be something (more tests) or they “might” feel something, although I understand palpation is not a good diagnostic tool. (so the CBE is also, of no proven benefit, but leads to excess biopsies) I’d say to feel a bowel tumour, it would have to be large/advanced and you’d be symptomatic.
        I doubt very much it’s an exam that finds much at all in a symptom-free person.
        Ro
        Yes, I was lucky, things weren’t so pap-crazy back then. Now I’d rule a line through all screening and point out that screening is optional, says the law and ethical standards. If it was mentioned on the form, I’d go in prepared with references. I may even send a letter with references ahead of my appointment.
        Why can screening be nothing more than an option? Because few (if any) benefit, while almost all screening carries risk. You’re offering something that carries risk to a symptom-free person. That’s why informed consent is so important.

        BP screening is the exception, the benefits were demonstrated in a fairly small RCT, but there is still some risk, the threshold for high blood pressure (and cholesterol) and the need for medication has been fiddled with over the years, some believe this is to increase the number of people taking medication. The number of people with “abnormal” readings instantly goes up when you change the threshold and so does the profit of vested interests. These medications have side effects. I know Dr Welch in one of his books mentioned an older person can have falls as a result of BP medication, (causing light headedness and dizziness) sometimes, lifestyle factors are enough to improve the patient’s readings. We should not mindlessly prescribe drugs for cholesterol etc.

        I just can’t see how anyone could force a pap test, colonoscopy or mammogram on anyone, I’d rely on the law and ethical standards. I’ve found over the years making an informed, polite and firm stand has been a great protector. Of course, I’ve never had to deal with the American or Canadian health care system, that’s another thing entirely.

        There are so many articles now on the futility and risks with routine pelvic exams, mammograms….the lack of proven benefit with all the rest, CBE, rectal, recto-vaginal, visual inspections of the genitals and they all carry risk. Would a doctor or anyone else be prepared to take full responsibility for harm that might flow from a screening test “requirement”? I think that’s why informed women are often treated carefully and differently.

        With pap testing you can mention evidence based medicine is the only medicine you’d consider and that’s the Dutch program, you “may” test yourself for HPV at age 30?
        It’s hard for them to deny the evidence, when you can show it’s not pie in the sky, but an actual program.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Adawells is correct on palpation. If we scream out in pain, report feeling pressure, or if the doctor ‘thinks” he/she detects fluid or swelling in one area vs another, or if very careful charting shows no swelling at all and something new is detected by same provider, then the theory on using palpation is valid.

        Remember however, these tests, guidelines, were created decades before ultrasound and CA lab tests came to be, let alone MRI & CT. Combine these with CA testing for cervix plus the Delphi, and, with no symptoms, why should we need to get naked for an invasive exam?

        I prefer these tests, which aren’t so subjective. For myself and mine, I’d prefer a colonoscopy or another test at my choice. But we don’t receive informed consent even on these. Instead, we’re talked into it, or told it’s our time due to age. Choice is taken away. In that instance, the HMO respects us b/c they are too cheap to fight us to spend the money to have it done. Other plans fight to get us to have the test so they can earn that money and prove they are busy.

        That Huff & Puff post was written by a college professor. Read it carefully. He is sure to harp in a convincing manner (just like we’re on the table), calmly stating why he is right and why he cares for us more then we do ourselves. Like he knows better than we do. Every issue showing he’s wrong is avoided. Or sidestepped with a weak claim the truth cannot be trusted. But trust him. Yes, there’s the exception, where a young woman has cancer. So do many children. Neither mean we must race for yearly screening. It didn’t stop cancer then, and won’t now.

        Elizabeth is right again. Evidence based screening wins, and it truly is best. Just not for doctor’s pocketbooks nor their daily thrills.

        Last night I sent my husband in to a salon to buy shampoo. He told me he discussed this sight in detail after finding out there had been a recent fund raiser for a woman who underwent elective mastectomy after finding out she was BRCA-2 positive. He said one woman took particular notice when he explained to her how the colpo brush can spread cancer up the endocervical canal.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Elizabeth, I’d like to know more about the on-line conversation you shared with that doctor. About him wanting to screen <25? Fine, just let the women choose which method. How many would opt to thrill the doctor vs blood, urine, or the Delphi? In this case he has to live by his own words, which help us but don't help him.

        Something i wish I'd added to my Huff & Puff reply. How many women have actually showed up in his Dr Shirazian's, young and beautiful vs old and perhaps haggard, that have had the problems he's so keen on intercepting and treating? The ones who had no idea whatsoever and only recognized something was amiss when he had his hand up tickling her tonsils. Give me those results in number and percentage. Instead he lumps all women into this group, no matter how unrealistic. And of these women, how many showing up are illegal aliens who've never had medical care or legal residents not having any medical insurance, relying on his free clinic? Please if possible, add that to my Huff & Puff response.

        The problem in US is doctors believe the old school way is still the norm, whether we know they are lying, whether we take charge or not. We're still confronted with the take or leave it; or as my doctor put it, 'you'd want me to check your ovaries and uterus and make sure you have no cysts or tumors and to ensure it is working ok and the internal exam is the easiest way. I'll get into trouble with the board if I just prescribe things without doing some sort of an exam…"

        Thank God it was my husband, who took a breath and remembered why there was a discussion in the first place. After hubby had reiterated the facts, the doctor agreed, and "remembered" who we were and why I couldn't have the exam. I've written about this before.

        The doctor acted as if I was intending on having him write an Rx or whatever with me totally skipping out on the exam. Not even, I was planning to see him face to face. And in this case, there's no way he could tell with fingers whether my uterine lining had thickened or not, which he admitted. Only an ultrasound could. Also, I take the lower dose of Estra-Test. I am told the lower dose cannot cause uterine cancer on their own. If a woman is to get it, then she will regardless of this med or not. So, if I"m asymptomatic, why put me through this nonsense at all?

  56. Moo says:

    One place I worked had everyone go see a nurse when they started there. They just took blood pressure and asked about headaches and general health. This was not to prevent anyone from working but just to see if there were any conditions developing or getting worse due to work conditions. This was about their health and safety programme. Because the workers were handling chemicals it was important.

    Some jobs people have to lift and they should be capable of doing that without injury. A TB test and some vaccines might be for working with elderly or children.
    But if a food server (or photoshoot model) is asked to do a breast exam or a Pap test then hey stop. That is unnecessary for the job.

  57. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    I often chat to doctors on a couple of doctors-only sites, not sure how I got access, but anyway,
    a doctor agreed with me the new Dutch program is definitely the way to go, good. (we won’t see it here though…)
    Then this:
    “Having said the above I certainly would not like to see screening starting at age 30yrs; I have some reservations about starting at 25yrs. After all there are 30+ women <25yrs who develop invasive cervical cancer in Australia each year. If you raise the starting age to 30yrs it must miss over 50 young women each year – I would think that they would be most unhappy.

    BTW Cervical cancer is certainly NOT a rare cancer! In 2010, cervical cancer was the third most commonly diagnosed gynaecological cancer with 818 new cases in Australia, accounting for 1.7 per cent of all new cancers in women; rare? I think not.

    I also get the feeling that if what you have implied about the sexual practices of young Dutch women is true, then it is very different to their Australian counterparts."

    The long standing evidence is that screening does not prevent/detect these early and very rare cancers, early screening just harms young women. So many of our doctors don't seem to know about the long standing evidence on this subject. (or don't accept it)

    0.65% lifetime risk IS a rare cancer, 818 new cases in Australia (where did that figure come from, Papscreen? I'd want proper references before I accepted that figure)
    Even if that's the case, how many women do we have in Australia? 800 in 10 million or so…that's rare!
    I don't understand the last paragraph at all, I didn't imply anything, just set out the new Dutch program. Incredible though there is still so much judgement about the sexual practices of Australian (and other) women, this program has never weeded out high risk women anyway, all women were lumped together, now the high risk/low risk thing is irrelevant, if a "high risk" woman is HPV-…well, she's not at risk of cc and might choose to re-test for HPV in 5 or 10 years time, depending on her age. (assuming she's not in a monogamous relationship)
    I sometimes wonder how many of our doctors have accepted the screening "story" as the evidence.

    • Heather (AU) says:

      Medical paternalism is very hard to kick out of our society.

    • adawells says:

      I’ve noticed that you’ve appeared on the Joel Sherman website quite a lot. I like his website and enjoy reading the posts on there. It’s a good site and he gives fair comment. It is incredible to think that his wife attended 50 pap smears during her annuals. Assuming all are negative, an English woman can expect only 12 in her lifetime, and a lot are distraught that they need to attend anymore frequently than this.

  58. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Cat and Mouse, You’re right about appendicitis, but these patients would usually be symptomatic. I wonder just how useful palpation is in a totally symptom-free person. It’s not recommended here for the breast anymore or the testicles. Although some of our doctors will still try to examine breasts, especially young and attractive ones. They usually say they’re being thorough or that’s the way they were trained or they “believe” in the value of these tests. Some/many women don’t challenge these doctors. I’d like to see a snapshot of the women still having their breasts routinely and opportunistically “examined” here, call me a cynic.
    The example you mention has stayed with me, the trusting young woman seated on the exam table being openly misled by a middle-aged male “doctor”. It makes my flesh crawl. To think he’s so sure of himself he’s happy to put the exchange on You Tube for all to see. The profession must deal with the predators who masquerade as doctors, made possible by a profession who’ve used women in the worst possible way, ignoring evidence, consent and informed consent, an anything-goes attitude has led to shocking abuses and harm to so many women.

  59. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mount-sinai-health-system/womens-health-_b_5691392.html

    Yet another article on the routine pelvic exam. It’s inevitable some doctors will fight to the end to protect this great stream of income. This exam was ditched long ago in many other countries and we have better health outcomes than US women. So these doctors are skating on very thin ice, the reasons used to justify the exam are pathetic. Interesting some think the only way to communicate with women is via a pair of stirrups…and the nonsense about finding incontinence and atrophy women are too embarrassed to mention otherwise. Paternalism is still alive and well.
    I can’t comment, I don’t have a Facebook account.
    Is it my imagination or are more US women becoming informed? These articles contain a healthy number of “we know what’s going on, you can’t con us any more” type posts. It makes me very happy. There is only one comment so far, but she sounds informed.

    • Cat&Mouse says:

      Any young attractive woman showing up in an ER or office with abdominal pain will receive every invasive exam imaginable, even if the palpation and other symptoms, fever, infection, increased white cells on labs, indicated infected appendix. When I showed up in pain at the ER I received ultrasounds. Of course, they didn’t bother to say I’d be receiving a vaginal one; nor did they inform my husband at any time either. Lying comes so natural for people in power.

      I tried to post, but couldn’t since I’m not on Facebook either. If anybody wishes to print my article on this Huff & Puff page, please do so. You may use your own name with my permission or mine, Jayne.
      Dr Shirazian in his genius did nothing to convince me that his lordly opinion is any more authoritative than the studies he criticizes as being inadequate and invalid. Here’s another doctor who actually has convinced himself that he needs to inform women, while they are naked and spread before him, that urinating on themselves and other problems is abnormal. Any women I know can figure out for herself that if for years she was continent, and suddenly becomes incontinent or has pain and pressures that weren’t there before, she has a problem and needs help.

      Dr Shirazian also fails women in general when he fails to declare that he cannot feel small malignant growth, and may not digitally detect even advanced cancer in heavier women. He cannot duplicate what cancer antigen lab tests and ultrasound does. His error rate is exponentially higher than the alternatives.

      Most importantly, no woman needs Dr Shirazian’s hands inside us to determine if we have HPV or warts. This too can be tested via blood, urine, or the self-collected Delphi screener–all these tested, validated and legal in the US. Only the doctors refuse to use them. Why?

      Another thing is this bit he adds about skipping mammograms. The Obama Administration quickly came out with new studies questioning the need for annual exposure to large amounts of radiation. There was no health benefit, and the cost plus the radiation exposure issue to me, outweigh this doctor’s statements contrary.

      You cannot fool me anymore. It’s time doctors got their heads out of our crotches, and faced the truth. And that also means telling us the truth. Yes, I mean informed consent. Something we don’t receive, ever, in an ob-gyn’s office. Now Dr Shirazian has run out of reasons why we should blindly show up every year, without that informed consent, so now he just tells us we should do it anyway. It might be good for us he says.

      To me, this is another lie built around other lies doctors in this industry do so much they don’t know when they have to be truthful. How many times are we told horrible tests don’t hurt much, only afterward to be told how painful it really is? Then in another few months they want to repeat it, saying the same thing?

      We don’t have to sacrifice ourselves to the ordeal anymore. Now technology is on our side, as are the economies of scale, multiple studies confirming. It’s time gynecologists were educated with the times, and found another way to make a living besides having young women stacked in the waiting room, all waiting their turn.

      Please anyone, please post this to Huff & Puff Post for me.

      • Kleigh US says:

        When i was 17 I went to a walkin clinc for a pain in my side. it was high up and i could tell it was not apart of my reprodutve tract. the first thing the gp wanted to do was a pelvic. i didnt even know what they were gona do bc they said “pelvic” i thout he whould cheek my hips. and somthing that i thout was stupid was that he rushed the pelvic first befor rulling out a hurnia and appendix. it turned to be constipation. thin a few weeks latter my mother got a bill for a gonareaha screening when i was told he was looking for a cyst on my overies. hmmmm i had never been alowd to see boys let alone kiss aboy so my mother was blown away . it was like we whould have refused had he said what he was screening for// years latter it still ticks me off and i never felt or saw them taking a swab. he just smashed my overies and he was heavy handed man and he could have brussed me.

    • bethkz says:

      What is this so-called annual “well woman exam” that does not include a pelvic exam, bimanual exam, or pap test? It was long ago determined that the “annual physical”, long considered the gold standard for everyone in medical care was thrown out as being not useful. Are they now just taking everyone’s pulse, blood pressure, vision and hearing screening, and ONLY giving it to women? Is this somehow more useful for women than for men? Or, is it just to talk women into mammograms now?

  60. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    http://contemporaryobgyn.modernmedicine.com/contemporary-obgyn/news/whither-annual-bimanual-pelvic-examination?page=full

    This gynecologist’s solution: add a transvaginal ultrasound to the routine bimanual exam.
    It sounds like a desperate attempt to make a sale, “Wait! I’ll throw in the cushions for nothing”…
    Needless to say the TVU in a symptom-free woman is not a good idea and will lead to more unnecessary testing, procedures and even surgery…so profits might even be bolstered…crisis over.

    • Cat&Mouse says:

      For Kate. The women here know how to care for and feed a cervix as much as any clinic. It’s normal for a woman to have abnormal smears time and again. While off you go to colposcopy, no answers are ever given. Unless you specifically sign the medical information release and demand actual results (as written on medical form plus interpretation) you’ll never get a clear picture. The care provider must also compare present findings to your history. Do findings match? No use pursuing another colposcopy (what was the pain like? Worse now or back then?) until you find out if the diagnosis is the same or different. And what the treatment plan is for either possibility. Force them to communicate with you!

      Elizabeth. Another great article you’ve found. Author Dr Lockwood has self-exposed himself excessively to the FL sun. Unfortunately, his age reflects his stubborn refusal to release his speculum. Interesting, the study he criticizes didn’t include the effects of pap testing in finding and reducing cancer. It’s the pap testing that has women making anniversary visits to her gyn. Combining poor clinical benefits of pap testing (the stats we know–48% women being pap tested still end up having cancer) with the results they obtained would really spell doom for pelvic exam futures.

      Dr Lockwood criticizes this study for having poor data. The study was gleaned from records dating 1946-2014 (68yrs)!! He picks diseases and issues of mostly chronic issue, or those caused from trauma like childbirth. A woman having these will know herself and continuously seek medical attention, or discuss them during office visits following a procedure. These problems don’t gratuitously between annual well-visits. But big words among those uneducated in medical literature will create concern and false belief among many that this guy is right.

      He then whines about the lack of studies determining if these exams are helpful, vs the study conclusion that fear, excessive pain, and excessive treatment from false positives drive women away from clinics. He then claims pelvics are an incentive for women to receive other gyn care. What he means is that if we want other care such as birth control, and “non-gyn care.” So what he’s saying, is pelvic first, then everything else afterward. How many of us have complained exactly of such practices? Being blackmailed onto the rack for spread and scrape in order to receive the actual care we originally scheduled the appt.

      Now Dr Lockwood gets crazy. He claims the pelvic is recommended based on expert “opinion” (not science), while at same time admitting it’s limitations of the internal pelvic exam should be recognized. His reason for a “complete” exam? “Shared decision making” And that just because the study says a pelvic is useless, that doesn’t mean it is–as there’s NO evidence saying so. (really?)

      Then it seems Dr Lockwood experiences a brain flash. He admits pelvics are “crude” and that inner anatomy cannot be assessed. He then mandates that a pelvic ultrasound should be shoved in for free (emphasis added). Since we’re often rushed through these “well visits,” do any of you think the ultrasound would be performed with dignity and gentleness? And this is on top of the pelvic exam. This guy’s so addicted to examining vaginas he can’t separate the bad from good nor does he understand “enough.” And where in his fantasy will managed care plans accept the loss of productive time when doctors are ordered into ultrasound expeditions? Like quality of care will increase just because it’s “free?” We’ll look aside from his admissions of how poorly pelvic exams diagnose anything just because we are guaranteed additional ultrasound probing? “The potential benefit of this approach is substantial.” From whose perspective?

      He declares for two decades he’s been teaching this mantra. Why then have none of us heard him speak until now? Because his precious pelvic is being taken away! His “double-down” factor is ungloved yet again. After blabbing again how ultrasound is fantastic in finding the usual targets it was designed for, he must reinforce why the bimanual exam has to stay. It “provides invaluable information…” He names pelvic organ prolapse for one. If you have this, your inner organs will be hanging outside your vagina. A bimanual is hardly necessary. As for a bimanual “helping” identify vaginal pathology like endometriosis? The ultrasound does this nearly instantly without guessing and more intense “examining.”

      Cost, again and yet again he stresses…Not a factor in his proposal.

      His concerns? Overdiagnosis and excessive interventions for benign lesions. “Harm accruing such ‘false positives’ would have to be weighed against the benefits of early detection…” And “incidentally detected endometrial & ovarian cancers.” “Thus, randomized trials would indeed be in order.” So, he’s saying his “life-saving” method might catch a few cancers. While overdiagnosing everything else and causing stress, trauma, pain, and cost. Too bad he doesn’t have the courage twenty years ago, when he figured all this out, to recommend dumping the bimanual altogether. Maybe he’d be viewed as a hero. His message is ambiguous and arbitrary. He can’t let go of dirty old habits that do nothing but subject women to his control and whims. His message is a great example for evidence based medicine.

  61. Kate says:

    Hi all, I’m new and just looking for some advice if any kind soul has time to give it. I’m in the UK. Twice in the past I’ve had ‘abnormal’ smear tests resulting in colposcopy, which in each case came back fine, but requiring much more frequent smears for the next 2 years, which were also fine. I live near Oban in Scotland, and on both occasions had the colposcopies at the clinic in Oban. After that I kind of let it slide for a few years (maybe around 8) and then in June this year thought I’d better have another smear test, so off I went and had it done and it came back abnormal again. Another colposcopy/biopsy “needed” – but the consultant in Oban has now retired, so I had to go to Alexandria near Glasgow, 3 hours away on the train. This necessitated taking a day’s leave from work. The results of the colposcopy, and I quote, read “the result of the biopsy has shown some abnormality and you will need to return to the clinic for further treatment. I therefore enclose an appointment.” That’s it. No information on the extent of the abnormality (CIN 1, 2 3? Borderline/mild/moderate/severe cell changes?) – or what the proposed “further treatment” entails. The appointment they sent was for 12th August and I actually (genuinely) forgot about it until the actual day, so I called to cancel. They sent me another appointment for 2nd September, which I’ve cancelled again as I have a job interview that day. And so they’ve sent me another one now for 23rd December. Another day’s leave from work required, two days before Christmas, six hours on the train. But in the meantime I’ve been doing some internet research (which has brought me to this site), and becoming quite angry! Is the “treatment” really necessary? How am I supposed to know? I mean, I realise that it’s not possible for anybody to know for sure, but… Surely I’m entitled to more information that I’ve been given, so I can at least make an educated judgment? Also, as the appointment in December would now be more than six months after the colposcopy, could I request another smear test instead to see if the situation had improved? Sorry for the long rambly post – and I know nobody can tell me for a fact whether I should or shouldn’t have this treatment – but…. it’s a dilemma! Has anyone else been in this situation? What would you do if you were me? Thanks…
    Kate :-)

    • Kate says:

      (Just to add to this: I’m 39, have never smoked and have no family history of gynaecological cancer.)

      • adawells says:

        Hi Kate,
        In your shoes I think I would phone your clinic where you had the colposcopy, and demand to know more about the abnormality of the smear result and ask them if it is CIN 1, 2 or 3. It’s really bad that they haven’t explained any of this to you, but I think they all assume that women are too stupid to want to know anything, and those who are clever enough to find things out, might not comply with the programme. In your case, living in a less populated part of the country, it is causing you a great inconvenience to have to travel to the clinic. Also you can view your own medical records (and smear history) at your GP surgery. You should be able to view all the slips, which have the results of smear tests going back years, and these might shed some light on what grade of CIN (if any) they may have been graded at. You will need to make an appointment to view them, but I wasn’t charged for doing this recently. It is amazing what they write about you.

        You can only get cervical cancer if you are HPV positive, and if you have a spare £50 in your pocket you can get a self test kit online, which involves sending a swab to a laboratory. Try looking up Tampap or test.me.
        In England they are HPV testing mildly abnormal smears, but only in certain areas: Sheffield, Norwich, London, etc. If these abnormal ones are found to be HPV negative, they go back to normal recall, and not on to colposcopy which is what has happened to you in Scotland. Apart from your period, I take it that you have no symptoms such as signs of blood?

  62. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Ada has covered it well, love informed women!
    Welcome Kate and so sorry to hear of your dilemma. I’ve never been in your position largely because I’ve never had a pap test, an informed decision made in my early 20s. At 56 the chances are very high I would have had at least one colposcopy and biopsy by now, Australia seriously over-screens women so false positives are quite common…and our excess biopsy and over-treatment rates are high. I’ve only found one research paper on the subject and it put the lifetime risk of colposcopy and biopsy at a massive 77% with our program. The lifetime risk of the cancer is 0.65%, so we burn down the forest to find a few leaves.
    Risk is maximized under our program causing widespread worry and damage.

    I was happy to accept my near zero risk of cc, I knew I was low risk, but now I understand the significance of HPV, I know I can’t benefit from pap testing. Rejecting our program and the official discourse was one of the best healthcare and life decisions I’ve ever made.

    Ada is right, I’d want my results, exactly what is the classification, CIN 1, 2 or 3, what were the earlier results?
    BUT the very first thing I’d be doing is testing myself for HPV, if you’re HPV- then you’re not at risk. It’s concerning that we can now identify the small number of women who might benefit from a pap test, but we choose instead to keep pap testing as many women as possible, doing it poorly, ignoring the evidence (over-screening and screening inappropriately, increasing the risk of false positives) leading to lots of excess biopsies and over-treatment. Most of this worry, damage and inconvenience is avoidable.
    The new Dutch evidence based program will offer women 5 HPV primary tests or you can self-test with the Delphi Screener (which can be ordered online from Delphi Bioscience in the Netherlands) at ages 30,35,40,50 and 60 and ONLY the roughly 5% of women who are HPV+ will be offered a 5 yearly pap test. (until they clear the virus) Those women who are HPV- will be offered the remaining 4 HPV primary or self-tests, those HPV- and no longer sexually active or confidently monogamous might choose to stop all further testing.
    MOST women are having unnecessary pap tests, biopsies and “treatments”. About 95% of women aged 30 to 60 are HPV- and cannot benefit from pap testing. (we shouldn’t be pap or HPV testing anyone under 30, and definitely not 25)

    So I’d be finding out my HPV status and getting my hands on my records.
    It’s disgraceful that screening is “done” to women, you can’t make informed decisions when you receive no information and are just ordered to turn up for another “treatment”.
    Dr Margaret McCartney is a Scottish GP, she has publicly stated that she has declined pap tests, she’s also, the author of Patient Paradox. It’s a great and informative read.
    I think more women are starting to question this testing and their treatment by the medical profession. I’d urge you to do your own research and make informed decisions, don’t allow them to treat you like a body on a conveyer belt.
    I think the Scottish program also, over-screens women, so your false positive/colposcopy/biopsy/over-treatment rates would also, be high. Am I mistaken or did I read Scotland will stop screening women under 25 in the not too distant future? Hope so, that causes a lot of damage, Finland and the Netherlands have evidence based programs and they have never screened before age 30.
    When we ignore the evidence and don’t put the interests of women first…we worry and harm lots of women and miss some of these rare cancers due to inefficient excess.

    This testing IMO, should be confined to the small number who have a small chance of benefiting, (if they choose to take part in the program) and they should leave the rest of us alone to get on with our lives.

    • adawells says:

      Thank you for your kind comments. I have just completed my treatment for endometrial cancer, and don’t need to return anymore. I had the total laparoscopic hysterectomy including bilateral oophorectomy last May. It came away cleanly, and in one piece, and tests showed the cancer was confined only to the womb (stage 1B). Normally I think a number of follow up visits would be planned after this, but having imparted my views on gyn visits, they suggested I attend just the one follow up visit 2 months after my operation, and then to monitor myself. I’ll remain vigilant thereafter for any spots of blood or discharge, when I will phone the hospital directly for an appointment. I feel very happy about this arrangement. For the first time in 10 months I no longer feel I’m a patient. If I feel I need to return, I can do so, but I feel a free person again, because I don’t have those appointments to attend. I was very pleased to see the word discharged on my notes. Now that’s what I call patient empowerment!

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        That’s wonderful news, Ada.
        The follow-up appointments can go on for years, they extend the time between visits, but I’ve heard of women seeing their gyn-oncologist for 5 years post-surgery and each involved a vaginal vault smear. (which came back normal) Is it really necessary to keep going back for that length of time, especially when the cancer was contained in the uterus? I’d certainly prefer your approach, but then I hate all things medical. I’ve always felt less is more with the medical profession.
        Look forward to reading your informed comments here and elsewhere into the future.
        I hope to be elderly, feisty AND still “non-compliant”…and suspect quite a few on this forum are destined for the same future.

      • Kate says:

        I’m so sorry to hear what you went through Ada, but great that you are now recovered. Congratulations on no longer being a patient :-)

  63. Kate says:

    Many thanks for your responses and support – this is a lovely site! I’ve had no symptoms really, other than a very late period (2-3 weeks late, unheard of for me) which just kind of reminded me that I hadn’t had a smear test in a good while. (It hasn’t happened again since.) After the earlier colposcopies I’d stopped going for smear tests because of the hassle, but always felt a bit guilty and irresponsible about it… wish I’d done a bit of research before, I never would have bothered! It’s scary how even perfectly rational and intelligent people (such as me, I like to think!) tend to just blindly accept that we ought to be doing things just because that’s what we’re told by health professionals. You naively suppose they’re motivated primarily by concern for public health and I’m sure many of them are, but the political and financial motivations are concerning to say the least. Dr Margaret McCartney’s article was highly interesting, and great credit to her for being brave enough to stand up as a GP and state her position with her full name unashamedly appended.
    I’ve emailed the clinic to request a copy of my results and more information about the proposed treatment – I initially sent it to the “Enquiries” email address which was included on my original letter, and it bounced back as “delivery failed”! Not impressed. I re-sent it to their appointments department and have been assured “it has been passed to the appropriate department”. I’m going to wait and see what they come up with, and will probably then make an appointment with my GP to see exactly what happened with the past smears/colposcopies for comparison. I do remember one of them at least was associated with a postive HPV test, which the consultant said was very common among the adult population and may or may not clear up on its own. It was the first time I’d even heard of HPV (this was years ago). I’ve no idea if I’ve still got it now, but will look into the test you’ve mentioned – I’ve got plenty of time at least to arm myself with the information I need to decide what to do!
    Thanks again – I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to respond.
    Kate x

    • Kate (UK) says:

      One thing I’ve mentioned before on this site regarding HPV which never seems to occur to those so-called experts…
      If a woman diagnosed as HPV+ has a current partner of the male persuasion and they have intercourse, there’s a distinct possibility that her partner also has an active HPV infection.
      However, if a woman is deemed to be ‘at risk’ from cervical cancer simply because she has ‘abnormal’ changes and just happens to have an HPV infection as the time, the ‘treatment’ consists of removing the infected skin. The lady will then return home and engage in relations with her partner who will then re-infect her. Rinse and repeat.

      Of course, most HPV infections will be dealt with by the immune system in time, so HIS infection is unlikely to persist. However, her body is not given the opportunity to develop natural resistance to the virus due to these barbaric ‘treatments’.
      Isn’t it strange, also, that if you were to contract an STD and toddle off to the clinic it’s recommended that your partner should also be tested and treated – there’s no point trying to eliminate an infection if you’re simply going to be re-infected by your partner, is there?
      And HPV is now classed as an STD. But there’s no testing or treatment for men. Even though HPV is linked to cancers elsewhere in the body, because no-one gives a stuff about those (no expensive screening program for the others, of course) it’s purely associated with the cervix and thus is a ‘female’ problem.
      Plus, men would never tolerate having their genitals scraped and burned in the same manner as women are, so a screening/treatment program for men simply wouldn’t get enough bums on seats. Sauce for the goose is so obviously not sauce for the gander when it comes to medicine.

      • Kate (UK) says:

        Oh, Kate, bear in mind if you do manage to look at your smear history that the younger you are the more likely you are to get an ‘abnormal’ result. The ‘smear’ test is just a scraping of skin, after all, and anything that upsets the natural balance of the skin can trigger ‘abnormal’ changes. Infections, inflammation, hormonal changes, chemical reaction (tampons, condoms,)… if we all tested every month I suspect that every one of us would get an ‘abnormal’ result within the year. If this test were as reliable as the health authorities claim we wouldn’t have this conveyor belt of women going through colposcopies.
        Regarding your periods… this irregularity, if it continues, may very well be the peri-menopause making itself known. My best friend was regular as clockwork and started having weird bleeds, out of the blue, at 38. And yes, she went through three years of hellish exams and ‘treatments’ which only made things worse until the medical experts decided her problems were just hormonal and she should try the coil. Luckily that seems to have helped, because the only thing our wonderful NHS could offer her after all their bullshit ‘treatments’ was a hysterectomy.

        Just a thought… if it’s so easy to detect ‘pre-cancerous’ changes in skin cells by scraping them off and examining them under a microscope, why isn’t there a similar screening test for skin cancer?

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        Some good points, Kate (UK)
        The focus is always on the woman, I can imagine a “treated” woman going back and having unprotected sex with her partner, the cervix would be even more vulnerable.
        Some of these treatments are very damaging…
        It would be interesting to know what these women are told, we know condoms give some protection, one study put the protection from HPV at 70% with consistent condom use.
        Even if women were advised to use condoms until the cervix had fully healed…
        It’s a curious thing that HPV is treated in such a hysterical way in women’s “healthcare” yet it’s responsible for some anal, throat and mouth & neck cancers…not much is said about those cancers. The latter group are more common than cc.
        I guess men are not a compliant herd…and harder to capture.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        Of course, it’s good for business if a “treated” woman goes back to her infected partner, that profitable roundabout of abnormal, treatment, abnormal etc. it also serves to scare the daylights out of women making them more compliant and hopefully, vocal advocates of the program. They probably say, “oh, well, if he infects her again, our fabulous and amazingly successful program (for whom?) will pick it up again, how lucky is she?”…

  64. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Kate, most women clear HPV in a year or so, so even if you were HPV+ at one point, you may well be HPV- now. Some women believe once HPV+…always HPV+… Not true. Some women are also, led to believe the virus can lie dormant and fire up many years later. I believe these programs and the medical professioj felt that misleading women kept these women in the program, kept them compliant and protected the program. These women would tell others their high risk story etc…
    A woman on a forum told me she was HPV+ and clearly lived in fear considering herself high risk, she tested for HPV and was shocked to find she was HPV- and to find out what that meant, she was not at risk of cc. So this “high risk” woman was actually no risk. (and no longer sexually active)
    The “significance” of HPV has been kept very quiet, most women would be shocked to find out they were not even at risk of cc and having unnecesary pap tests, biopsies etc.
    The Dutch program monitors HPV- women over their lifetime with five HPV primary tests to guard against a new infection, but those HPV- and no longer sexually active might choose to stop testing. I’d also, add those confidently monogamous, but that’s not something you’ll hear from the medical profession, they assume all men may be unfaithful, well, some might be unfaithful, but I believe that’s our call…give women all the information they need to make informed decisions, don’t make assumptions about us or our partners. In my opinion, the “information” that’s available to womem is mostly about protecting these programs and achieving screening targets. We cannot make informed decisions about screening unless we do our own research, that should be a scandal. Screening is supposed to respect our legal right to make informed decisions about screening. I don’t believe that has ever happened in women’s cancer screening.
    Good luck with your enquiries, keep us posted.

  65. Kate says:

    Many thanks for those thoughts, Elizabeth and Kate. I had a look at the HPV self-testing kit on test.me that adawells suggested – and immediately noticed that “We recommend that only women over the age of 30 are screened for HPV as women under the age of 30 have a very high chance of a positive result that will clear spontaneously.” Interesting! I was in my 20s (probably 26/27) when I was told I had HPV, so it’s maybe gone now. Although to be sure I have had another 2 or 3 partners since I turned 30, so could have got it again. I’m not sure, with hindsight, how the HPV was even picked up from a colposcopy/biopsy, since it doesn’t appear to be something that is routinely tested for and I certainly didn’t ask for it. I never had any symptoms that I was aware of, so it seems unlikely the consultant could have seen anything during the exam – you need a proper test to definitively diagnose it, don’t you? Makes me wonder whether they ran a test on this latest biopsy as well. Presumably this would be included with the results, if so. Hey ho – thanks for all your input, I will keep you posted!
    Kate x

    • bethkz says:

      Kate,

      It could be that they assumed it was HPV+ because you could not have CC without being HPV+. Then, used that assumption that you (might) have a (pre) CC condition. Catch 22.

      Moreover, it’s come up in the US at least that much of this equipment cannot be sterilized, some is only disinfected once a day, once a week, or NEVER. Some are wiped off, some are rinsed off in the same sink they wash hands and clean other instruments used in the practice. There is a moderate risk there, especially later in the day or week, that you could CATCH HPV from the clinic or the instruments used.

  66. Alex says:

    So wait- This Lockwood guy is saying “It’s not useful, but it’s important”? The opinion is supposed to be based ON the evidence, which contraindicates what he’s saying. I’ve noticed a general trait of contradiction with medical personnel- “it’s not this way, so we’ll say it is”/”it’s not safe, so we’ll say it is”/”it doesn’t work, so we’ll act like it does”/”they said no, so we’ll do it anyway.” I’m starting to think their general reaction to outside stimuli is to contrast with it- they feel bullied by whatever circumstances. That, and they’re inclined to affront people- with financial motivations added in.

    Oh, and “shared decision making”? The doctor is self-electively probing people AND is a medically viable source of assistance? That reads to me as: “So the doctor has SOME choices & doesn’t feel like they can’t do something at their own discretion. It’s so the doctor doesn’t feel like a victim.” I really figure there needs to be more submissive people in the allopathic medical fields, because there’s such a tendancy to get dictatorial & at least act like they think everyone else is oppressing them.

    • Cat&Mouse says:

      You’ve got Dr Lockwood figured out. I wonder if he proofed what he wrote before publishing, because he contradicts himself so much. Like, he’s so conflicted he just wants to do everything anyway, just to be safe, and to those harmed, sorry for the inconvenience. Every other site I’ve reviewed lately has plainly indicated the massive amount of false positives in women under 30, but the facts don’t deter this guy. I’ve never met him, but I see him as being very pushy. Anybody challenging him would be deemed as needing a psychiatrist.

      Some of the worst people I’ve met work in the medical field. Personal disregard and disrespect, not knowing boundaries, abusive toward loved ones, paranoia, bullying, and regarding the patient (and family) as if the hospital or office is personal dictatorial domain. Nurses, doctors, office staff. As my psychologist related, there’s no correlation between education and mental maturity.

      Doctors like Lockwood in one sentence rag about the need to provide thorough care regardless of cost. Next breath it’s the load they have to carry regardless of compensation, and then it’s all about controlling costs. The quality of care provided increasingly deteriorates when medical staff are mandated to provide more and more services without being rewarded in finding things wrong which require treatment and in receiving increased pay. We patients become cattle being forced through the system to their amusement. Dr Lockwood is so wrong it hurts.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        The system has always protected doctors too, that’s why they get a warning, when another man/woman would get a conviction and possibly a jail sentence.
        We had a cocaine addicted neurosurgeon practicing here, he was also, a sex addict.
        Great to know the Medical Board are handling things, isn’t it?
        He harmed some people doing delicate spinal surgery after 24 hour benders.

        He got 4 years in prison, but the system has to be questioned, is anyone actually protecting the public? The medical profession is not transparent and IMO, is all about protecting doctors, even when they are accused/guilty of very serious misconduct or criminal conduct.
        He has destroyed the lives of some of his patients, in one case he operated on the wrong disc in a woman’s back with serious consequences, her quality of life is now very poor. Apart from harming the public, he also, walked off (to party with other escorts) after a young escort used cocaine and suffered a cardiac arrest in his hotel room. The doctor seriously pressured sex workers to take drugs with him and offered them extra money to do so. They found evidence of cocaine in her rectum as well as the nose and mouth.

        I’m sick to death of the medical profession doing a lousy job of monitoring and discipling their own, these people are in a position where they can do enormous harm, even kill us…more needs to be done to protect the public. I think in some cases we’re better off going straight to the Police and forgetting about the Medical Board.

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-24/cocaine-addicted-surgeon-linked-to-deaths-continued-operating/5691768

  67. adawells says:

    This book looks like a very good read, if it hasn’t already been posted on this site:
    “The tyranny of health: doctors and the regulation of lifestyle, by Michael Fitzpatrick. The section on screening in the UK is available to read on Google Books below:

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qpqBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=ruth+lea+screening&source=bl&ots=Airfk7_QFl&sig=TFIY94hqbcPAUsVyLlRpHqoJY8Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q378U4bmNOrF7AaOiIHwAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=ruth%20lea%20screening&f=false

  68. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Ada, that does look like a good read, I’ve read a few of Michael Fitzpatrick’s articles on the online publication, “Spiked”.
    Here is a good one, he also, wrote an article on the Jade Goody effect. If you do a search of his name in the archive section, all of this articles appear, he’s also, written some great articles on prostate screening.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/9669#.U_1BPLySxDE

    • adawells says:

      A great article. I’ll definitely be following up his name. There were posts earlier about a “Hall of Fame”, and I’ve decided to compile a list of good people to follow. Perhaps they ought to be given a special roll of honour on this website as medical professionals standing up for women’s rights! It’s good to know we have some heavyweights out there fighting for us.

      It’s enough to make me weep, that there was all this opposition going on against cancer screening,during the 2000’s, when I thought I was the only person in the world objecting to it and fighting a lone battle against the system. So many women out there must have been thinking they were on their own too. It is great to have found like minded people on a site like this.

      I only found this Michael Fitzpatrick book (I’ve already ordered my copy from Amazon) when I was trying to get hold of a document by Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors, UK. She often appears on TV news programmes, and I discovered that she is totally against these screening programmes and wants to kick them out of NHS funding, and make the brainwashed who believe in them pay for them themselves. She wants to keep the NHS for genuine core healthcare, and schemes which are showing no benefit (such as screening) will be axed in her proposals. In the present financial climate the government is already trimming off parts of the NHS, and with our cervical smear programme costing £175,000,000, and millions of people unable to book a doctor’s appointment, I just wondered how long it would be before the smear test came under scrutiny. Ruth Lea wrote this policy paper in 2005ish, http://www.ejog.org/article/S0301-2115%2800%2900550-9/fulltext
      harshly criticising the screening programme for it’s costly uselessness, and rightly saying that the taxpayer shouldn’t be coughing up for it, but I haven’t yet managed to get my hands on a copy. Prof. Jim Thornton at Nottingham Uni, UK, is a gynaecologist who has written articles against the screening programmes, saying that they are not core healthcare. Another writer is Dr Alison Hann of Swansea Uni, UK, who has also challenged the pro-screening lobby.
      I think the screening lobby are very worried they’ll end up in the health fad bucket soon, hence the demos report to try and delude politicians it can be cost effective.

      • Karen says:

        Thank you for finding out all this stuff! If someone scratches the surface it becomes so obvious- this is all about politics.

      • Karen says:

        Adawells- I was actually able to obtain the article form Ruth Lea. The link expires in 24hrs, so please hurry up with downloading it http://temp-host.com/download.php?file=ve75ee

      • Karen says:

        Hang on, these are only reviews..

      • adawells says:

        Hi Karen, thanks for these, but both are about Ruth Lea’s report and not the actual document. The excerpt which appears in Michael Fitzpatrick’s book was from page 77 of the report, so it must be a lengthy document, and is one of the IOD’s Policy Papers. I think I might just have to buy a copy.

      • Karen says:

        Yeah, its just some report of some meeting- that was the only thing available under the link you sent. Sorry for false hopes then.

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        Glad you found this. Another problem with socialized medicine and politicians schmoozing with doctors, then arbitrarily deciding what’s good for us, on taxpayer’s dime, not their own money. One major positive aspect is that women as a group have a target to pursue effecting change. Which in itself is better than US; where profits drive decisions like this. Women like us are left essentially with our legs in the air, voiceless. Thank you for changing that.

        This is off subject. Are those of you outside US able to research the professional lives of doctors? Complaints, malpractice verdicts, hospital privileges revoked? Here, I tried to check Ronald D Neufeld MD before he maimed me. The CA state Med Board told me he was clean. In fact, he was on verge of having his license revoked. Later, the local arm of that organization told me they could not truthfully reveal his record due to him suing them for defamation of character! Dr Neufeld was the guy who tried to have another doctor shot on a San Diego freeway in 1994. Government and doctors have a way too comfortable relationship with each other.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        Ruth Lea, her name sounds familiar. There was nothing here of a negative or critical nature about the programs, so I had to find my gems in the UK. That’s still the case, I’ve found a few articles calling for our program to be changed, but locked behind pay walls.
        Now the change to our program is being sold as “as a result of new evidence we can safely…” when they really mean, we can no longer coerce, pressure and mislead enough women into the current program.
        Everyone here is afraid to criticize the programs, especially cervical screening. I’ve written to several investigative journalists over the years, no one will touch it.
        Cervical screening always escapes scrutiny, most just accept it’s life-saving and essential, including many in medicine. It’s almost a crime to even question the program.

        Only recently has some critical stuff emerged about breast screening, and that’s only a couple of doctors. Most are silent.
        I think that’s why many women dismiss us as ratbags, they’ve never heard a single negative word about these programs, especially cervical screening.

        They’ve created an environment that basically silences us…and pre-internet, it was difficult to do any research. It was hard for some to fight back when they were denied access to the evidence and when doctors were encouraged to ignore both consent and informed consent.
        Most women didn’t even look for the evidence, they just accepted the official discourse. I think isolating and intimidating dissenters and informed women has protected the program.
        I can’t believe how successful their tactics have been, but finally it’s starting to unravel, I’m sure that’s why we’re likely to get a call and recall system, an attempt to round up the herd again.
        Women here seem to be less aware/more accepting of the propaganda, I’ve been delighted to see some of the comments made about US and UK articles over the last 5 years, many more informed women. I think that’s because your advocates have been raising awareness for sometime now, while the crickets were chirping down here, or chirping, “don’t forget your pap test!”.

        I heard last night that the vaccine for meningococchal B will not be subsidized by the Govt, a vaccine for a real killer. Not enough people would benefit to justify the cost.
        Yet we have vast sums available for cervical cancer and no one says a word. It makes no sense, but I can’t see a Govt changing that any time soon, it would be political suicide.
        Our present Govt is looking to cut costs, looking at University funding, healthcare and medical and other research, but they’ll still extend the breast screening program and our new cervical screening program will be excessive. So it’s easier for them to undertake these measures, or try to (in the face of plenty of opposition) than touch these programs.
        The vested and political interests are firmly in control here. No one is prepared to take them on and directly challenge these programs…to the point no one seems to LOOK at these programs, they’re out of bounds.

      • adawells says:

        What surprises me is that all this professional dissent from the cancer screening programmes was coming out around the year 2000, only 12 years after our call and recall system had been set up in the UK, so they must have known after a decade that the programmes weren’t working, even then. So what have they done, but throw more money at trying to convince women into coming.

        I keep hearing that screening programmes are popular with the public, so we can’t get rid of them. Are they really, or are women made petrified of not adhering to them? About 90% of people think colorectal screening is a good idea, but only about a quarter take up their invitations. When the UK cervical screening call/recall programme was rolled out in 1988, women chucked their invitations in the bin and attendance levels were only struggling at about 40%. That’s why they had to set up the incentive payments scheme to GP’s in 1990 to get them to pester women into having it done, when attending for other appointments. Is this opportunistic screening the right use of a GP’s time? My own GP took on the dissenters like me, herself, as she knew I’d never turn up to a nurses appointment, so I got caught when I was turning up for antenatal appointments. If my GP was doing smear tests, why wasn’t she paid a nurses salary, if that’s what she wants to do? I don’t want to see GP’s paid all that money to undertake pathetic coercion exercises and nurses work. I’ve actually read in academic journals, (Sasieni, I think), that it is purely the incentive payments to GPs, which maintain the programmes at all. The incentive bonuses are half the cost of the programme in the UK ( about £87 million).
        As Jim Thornton says in his book:
        “Not only are [UK] taxpayers forced to pay for poor quality screening, but they are forced to pay to persuade those, who do not want it, to turn up!”
        I think the 80% screening targets and incentive payments are a violation of our human rights, and are illegal, since it deprives women of making a free choice, and so much of the taxpayers money goes on propaganda for the programme and not on the disease itself.
        I applaud Dr Margaret McCartney for raising the issue of the 80% screening targets and incentive bonuses in her campaign. Without these the UK screening programmes would collapse.

  69. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Love his opening sentence, “Anybody who questions the value of screening tests for cancer risks provoking the wrath of powerful vested interests”
    Couldn’t agree more…

  70. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    The Federal Govt pays for cervical and breast screening and for our piecemeal bowel screening program, so yes, the taxpayer pays for screening. Not that I’m promoting bowel screening, but interesting it’s far more common than cervical cancer, yet they can only find money for free testing at ages 50,55,60 and 65. It’s supposed to be yearly or 2 yearly. (if you choose to test) It says to me that women’s cancer screening has a strong lobby and that includes vested and political interests.
    Even those who ask for more bowel screening are careful not to criticize cervical screening, but the fact is most women cannot benefit, but most women end up having at least one colposcopy and biopsy if they follow our program, almost all are unnecessary and caused by false positives/over-screening. We could seriously cut costs with something like the new Dutch program, but too many influential groups and people feed off the healthy cervix.
    It’s not about spending scarce resources as efficiently and effectively as possible, more about politics, vested interests and which cancer has the best lobby group, the “pin-up” cancers (is a term I use)…the media savvy cancers. You need great marketing…like the Pink Ribbon juggernaut.
    Bowel cancer/screening gets MUCH less exposure and funding, I believe because men get it too. The feminists, women’s healthcare lobby etc. have a much louder and more influential voice. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, almost all of it.
    The Financial Incentives Legislation covers the target payments to GPs….and I think it’s handled by Medicare. Anyway, it’s a govt thing and taxpayers ultimately pay for all of these things.
    HUGE sums are wasted on our current programs, while far more deserving projects are under-funded or go unfunded.

  71. Alex says:

    I was just thinking something: You know how people talk about “lowering the bar”? Do you think low quality of medical situations is related to that? That it’s “okay” for things to get shittier & shittier in general, so that blankets medical situations. I know they usually seem themselves as a cut above & a caste apart, but maybe that’s why they act that way- that it’s a state of diminished expectations, so it’s okay for them to be massively arrogant.

    Another thing is that when someone is arrogant, they usually don’t have good “quality control.” They’re too arrogant to catch their own mistakes & watch what they’re doing in the first place. They also are typically very abusive toward other people & tend to try bouncing the blame back onto the “lesser” people.

    I figure it’s also that people sometimes have a tendancy to scavenge- when something MIGHT be useful, they have a hard time letting that go. The never-ending arguments that doctors present (which basically amounts to “Reality is what I say it is,” “Something isn’t detrimental until I say it is,” and “I’ll do what I want to people & deem it oppression to be stopped”) might sway things mentally a bit, too. That they never waver & they have “unshakable confidence” doesn’t mean that anything is right on their end, it just means that they are very self-supportive.

  72. Alex says:

    I was just noticing something else that we’ve mentioned again & agin: these people do have the traits of psychopaths & sociopaths (whatever the hell the difference is). I was just reading about if you can tell a psychopath by the way they speak & that article seemed to be, somewhat, a bullshit thing- but the other traits (massive arrogance, constant lying, fucking-up the same way again & again, etc…) hit them right on the head. How often do they try to “keep the lie alive,” even when caught? How often do they try to hi-jack the patient? They tend to be very manipulative & rely on people trusting them: using guilt trips, scare tactics, and trying to dazzle people with amazing stories & with their “abilities” (they passed MEDICAL SCHOOL, wow!).

    I think people have got those kinds (psychopaths or whatever they’re called) wrong, though. They’re bad & all, but I’m talking about the style of them. You know how people always talk about them having an ABSENCE of whatever emotions (empathy, hospitality, guilt, fear, etc…)? I don’t think that’s the way it is with them. I figure that they’re AGAINST these things, not neutral. If someone were to push away in every direction what would they be? Dead still.

    I think it might very well be that some people have a hard time accepting that someone else is evil. Maybe it’s because they try to identify with that someone & they don’t see that in themselves, so they figure someone else isn’t like that? Hearing “everyone’s equal” too much? In the sense that reality doesn’t take a “coffee break” for anyone, that’s true- but there’s no equivalency between people. There isn’t the same instance of person, even with identical twins. Let’s say there was an exact copy of someone, there STILL exists disparity between them.

    One more thing: You know how some people try to have self-determination with other people’s self? That they have a “crawling into other people’s skin” style to them & that they seem to try this a bit literally? I wonder if this theory of “equality” is in the background- like an abrogation of reality through acting like an “equivalent.” That reality is what it is & there exists disparity between them & someone else, but they’re going to reassure themselves that they dictate reality by acting in contrast to that. Can’t very well lie in contradiction to something you don’t know about, though. I guess maybe it could just be malice with elaborate bullshit to make it more fun for them.

    • Cat&Mouse says:

      Doctors fit the descriptions of sociopaths. They are high functioning, high achieving, and totally f****d-up in their narcissistic heads.

      Dr Mohammad T(whatever) would find himself either in solitary confinement to protect his mouth and rear end or he’d be the love interest of every man in whatever US prison he’d be sent to. So much for UK justice. In US he’d be tried and convicted. There have been several here who, eventually (I stress), get caught, stripped, and convicted by a jury of peers he can’t intimidate nor boss around. In San Diego CA there was a doctor who took 15 min to perform a rectal exam. On several patients. He drained his bank accounts defending himself, and the reputation followed him. Just how far I don’t know. Depends whether he has to register as a sex offender, and attorneys for these wealthy jerks get away with things the average citizen doesn’t.

      I like the “devout Muslim” moniker, and the pictures of him published. Reading the Koran, it stipulates that any non-Muslim is lower than an animal, and the “believer” can do whatever “he” wants as the “infidel” is to be treated as trash. Women in particular. Even if a woman converts, she goes from trash to being a subject controlled w/o question by her husband. So Dr T felt in his mind, through his religious conviction, he had all the rights to do as he pleased. Pretty soon it’ll be difficult to freely speak our minds, even here. PC is out of control when one religion mandates it’s to be respected at total cost of everything else free and good.

      I read with astonishment that this guy had been caught enough times in the past that he was restricted to not doing internal exams w/o a chaperone present. He’d escaped a penetration trial. So authorities already knew what a threat he was. WHAT! ! Is socialized medicine so poor or the amount of doctors so low that this is repeatedly tolerated? Accepted? ! WTF?! Where’s Lorena Bobbitt when she’s needed? He’s allowed to watch women undress? I want to puke on him!

      This guy knows no boundaries, no decency, and he cannot be redeemed to become anything good for how he’s coddled and tolerated. Please, somebody explain to me how this animal could be allowed to thrive in the UK? Where was staff, who should’ve been automatically watching him?

      • adawells says:

        It is truly shocking that this man was allowed to continue practising for so long, but I’m not surprised. I noticed that this woman was only 20 years old, and as we don’t have any Well woman exams here or smear tests until 25, I can well believe this woman’s story that she didn’t know what was going on, but felt it wasn’t right. Doctors like him can take advantage of young women, who don’t know what needs to be done, and what doesn’t.
        From my own experiences, no healthcare person should watch you get undressed. I have been shown into a room and given a cotton sheet to put over me and told the doctor would come in after a few minutes. The sheet is never entirely removed during the exam. At my hospital, the room was larger and had a curtain in the corner to get changed behind, and a pile of cotton sheets to wrap around yourself. The gyn (a man), went outside while I did this and the nurse waited in the room, while I changed behind the curtain. As far as I know, watching a patient get undressed is definitely not supposed to happen, but this young woman couldn’t have know this.
        Did you see this link about Richard Neale. We’re too soft on people like this.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/struck-off-at-last-richard-neale-botcher-gynaecologist-706772.html

      • bethkz says:

        In the US, he would undoubtedly be permitted to resume his practice. There are LAWS protecting the rights of doctors to follow their religious mandates even in their medical practice. They were passed specifically to allow doctors to lie in order to talk patients out of abortions OR contraception if those things violated the doctors religion. So, if a Muslim doctor were to treat his “infidel” patients as less than dirt, he would just be following the dictates of his religion, and they couldn’t touch him. He could not be put on the sex offender registry. His license would not be taken. Complaints would have to be scrubbed from his record as violating his religious rights. Even putting it on a blog or warning a friend could be prosecuted against the PATIENT or VICTIM as slander or libel.

        Beth

      • Cat&Mouse says:

        US Bill Of Rights (1st) guarantees one’s Right to practice religion equally w/o discrimination. These laws designed to protect freedom and allow people to change religious affiliation w/o retaliation. Unlike Islamic countries where death is mandated for leaving Islam. It also applies to Expression, and thankfully mothers are relying on it to blissfully breast feed as God intended. Yes, the perv could drop to his prayer mat whenever while in his work office so long as it didn’t offend others. That’s where it ends though. Here one cannot claim a religious right to abuse. Laws stipulate separation of religion from work.

        His track record of complaints mean terrible pre-trial publicity. Trials here by jury means a likely conviction. If not the first time, definitely the second. His attorney can pare many off the panel for almost any reason, but in the end he’s facing 12 regular citizens not appointed pigeons he got there. Cost in defending is $500+ per hour. Many gyns convicted commit suicide. Losing a jury trial means automatic loss of license, and lifetime sex offender registry. You’re sadly correct on much however.

        In negotiating a plea bargain conviction, he’s in effect calling the shots. He can prevent lifetime offender registry, obvious felonies dropped to misdemeanors. Prison time negotiated; and instead of going to prison, he can “voluntarily” admit he’s got a problem and enroll in “treatment.” He might end up as prison doctor with inmates as patients. Some plea bargain convictions result in him practicing while serving out his sentence. The State gets to ballyhoo a “conviction” but no expense of trial nor embarrassment if he somehow gets one juror who sides with him so he can beat the charges (which would mean another expensive trial) or favorable plea bargain. Conditions could include getting partial or full license again after a few years, treatment, admission of guilt, and continuing education. He wouldn’t be considered a violent criminal even though what he did was rape. If he cooperates on a plea, his money can buy a great attorney and the “due process” guaranteed in US would be very good for him. Contrasted to the person with a court-appointed attorney or “paid pretender” as some are referred to (which the defendant still must later reimburse some if not all costs). If he loses a jury trial? Automatically he loses his license, usually permanently, and suffers other penalties. The only break would be if it’s his first conviction. The laws become less flexible to one losing in a jury trial. Only the judge can effect leniency, and that’s unlikely b/c most judges are elected.

        It’s also his word vs hers; and no witnesses. Is she on a vendetta? Psychiatrically stable? Were charges result of blackmail gone bad? This is why I want my husband there whether I’m examined by a female or male. And that we can peek around the sheet or over the doctor’s shoulder. A woman alone with a woman has resulted in lesbian passes or molest, and it can’t be validated unless there’s a string of complaints already on file. A woman knows how to get away with more, I think, than a man since she knows how much she can touch etc. I want these exams done away with, period.

      • bethkz says:

        I agree with you. I want my husband, or at least someone to be with me who I trust to be on my side as a witness. The last time I was alone in a medical situation, an attempt was made to get me to agree to a scam/sham treatment. The time before that I was assaulted with a catheter which I had clearly NOT consented to. It was my word against theirs. I don’t want to be alone with a medical professional ever again. I would prefer to be alone with whatever random stranger in a dark alley.

        I don’t trust the whole profession. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Numerous times, alone, I have had crimes perpetrated on me (or my wallet more often) that would get real prison time if it were proven. Other times, iatrogenic assault. I won’t willingly put myself there again. I’d rather die from LACK of treatment.

  73. Ro says:

    Being an informed woman is a powerful thing. I had to share this story with you all. The other day, I went grocery shopping with my mother. At the front door, there were two medical students handing out fliers about scoliosis screening and vaccinations. They were vaccinating and screening for scoliosis in the back of the grocery store (which seems highly unsanitary and flat out rude to me, but I guess there are no boundaries). They were only stopping women who were going into the store. I’m not entirely sure why, because men are not exempt from the prospect of vaccines or scoliosis, but I’m assuming they’re much more difficult to coerce – especially in the setting of a grocery store. Anyway, as we walked in one of them looked at me. I raised an eyebrow, had a hard look on my face, walked with my head high, my neck elongated, my feet firmly walking in line, and gave her the side-eye. She put the flier back in the pile. Then, she handed the flier to my mother. Thankfully, my mother is very informed as well and didn’t pay attention to any of it, but she didn’t really notice the med students standing there so I suppose they figured she would be an easy target as she didn’t look the least bit intimidating or put-off. When I walked toward the back of the store, the med student there looked at me as if she was considering talking to me (read: coercing me), I gave her the same look I did the med students at the front door and she left me alone. On the way out, I ripped up the paper and tossed it into a garbage bin by the entrance while side glancing at the med students. They saw me and I flashed a quick smile before exiting. I had mixed feelings as I left. On the one hand, I felt slightly guilty because I always try to be polite and have good manners and be kind. I hate being rude or unkind to people. On the other hand, I felt so completely empowered. I didn’t even need to say anything and they backed down. Being informed and showing it really is the most powerful weapon we have. If you can pull that off confidently (even if you’re faking it slightly, and I will admit I was since it’s not in my character to be cold or harsh), then you will not be stepped on. They may argue at first, but I believer that as long as you stay confident, stand your ground, know what you’re talking about, and refuse to be pushed around, the battle can be won. Right now, I would like to personally thank Sue, Elizabeth, Alex, adawells, kleigh, moo, and anyone else on this site who has encouraged me to stand my ground and become informed. I don’t know if I would have found it within myself to do so without your guidance and advice. I cannot thank you all enough.

    • Alex says:

      You’re welcome, Ro! It’s my absolute pleasure to help bolster someone’s abilities to do things like that. Even if it wasn’t as severe as what they tend to angle for with women, it always could lead from one thing to another- particularly if someone’s

      That’s a good story. I’d imagine they’d be trying to get your shirt off in back (scoliosis screening tends to involve you lifting your shirt in back, but I suppose the overlap angle would be tried for- especially if a woman were wearing a one-piece dress). That’s pretty creepy: giving scolisos tests & vaccines in a grocery store. That’s getting pretty close to: “Hey, let me check out your boobs in the back of my van!”

      • bethkz says:

        If a woman was wearing a bra, it would have to come off in order to perform the scoliosis exam too. As most women have trouble getting a bra off without taking off their shirt or dress, she would have her breasts exposed. What do you bet that when they’ve done this, they “Might as well do a breast exam, so long as we’re here…”?

        Beth

      • Moo says:

        The scoliosis screening programme in schools was discontinued in Canada. There were studies done that showed it was not cost effective. Many children who were referred were normal and some with a problem were referred too late. This is because children seldom go through puberty at the same age. Some parents would not let their children participate due to cultural issues.

        Parents are recommended to either check their child themselves or take them to a doctor to do that. The check does involves removing clothing and girls can wear a bra, halter top or bathing suit so the back is exposed. The check involves viewing but also touching. However this is not done privately as the children are usually taken in to change in gender segregated groups because it saves time. As well why have a strange adult viewing a child without clothing without their parents? Parents had to sign a permission form but I am sure plenty of kids had the check without it.

  74. Alex says:

    Wouldn’t it be fairly obvious if her spine was curved even with a bra on? I remember the had use guys lift up the back of our shirts when they started doing that in schools.

    It’s not that broad of a strap & I don’t think it would deviate in one small area without being very obvious in sensation. It’s not going to go straight & then be crooked only in one spot & then go straight again, so as to be hidden by something as narrow as a bra strap.

    I think that doctors have a very “doctrine bound” mentality. Not only do they more or less mindlessly adhere to whatever agenda is put before them- but when a detail is not a functional issue, but is still different from the “list,” they adamantly pursue that detail anyway.

    That & the general pervyness/money/malice/dictatorial behavior stuff.

    • bethkzb says:

      I looked up the requirements for a scholiosis exam. The majority say that a sports bra is suggested. They want normal bras removed because of metallic hooks that interfere with scanners. I don’t see how that would matter in a school physical where it’s all visual anyway.

      Others say that you don’t have to take off your bra. Others, especially those talking about having such exams, say that they were required to remove their shirt and bra.

      They don’t need to remove bras, or remove any metal to do a visual exam. There’s no “scanner”. It’s an excuse. The claims that it doesn’t have to be removed are to put other people at ease. It’s most likely what happens is not what occurs.

      I remember them taking the 8th grade girls off to be examined for our “high school physicals”, 6 at a time. They had us undressed, and they examined our backs. I don’t remember that much about it, except declining the pelvic exam even with pressure.

      • Alex says:

        Wait, they had you girls naked & they were doing pelvic exams on girls in the 8th grade?! That’s fucking appalling! Didn’t any of the other girls clash with that?

        Someone trying shit like this with one of my descendants (because it’s not not just my own children) is a big part of why I’m looking to get the hell out of this country. It’s getting more & more closed-off and nazi-like, plus they’re pissing off the rest of the world- allies included.

        You know there’s actually a “tax” on renouncing your citizenship? AND that you’re still charged taxes even if you don’t live in the country? So someone would be paying for Obamacare, even if they live in Europe where they don’t fuck up health care so much.

  75. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Well, the scare-mongering has started, an article appears in the MJA today and elsewhere, by a pathologist concerned about our new screening program. Her main complaint is starting HPV primary testing at age 25…of course, we know screening those younger than 30 is a goldmine for vested interests. (and is NOT supported by the long-standing evidence)
    Thankfully, a senior doctor has challenged her assertions and pointed to the evidence. Interesting some of our doctors are now aware of the evidence…now it’s been accepted our program must be changed. The evidence was denied for decades….”keep having your 2 yearly pap tests from 18 until you’re 70 or you’ll die an early and preventable death”.
    Sadly, I can’t link the articles, pap walls apply, don’t want any non-medical prying eyes here.

    I wonder whether vested interests will go public with their “concerns”…they stand to lose a lot of money with these changes. I don’t think we should offer HPV primary testing until age 30…as it is about 40% of those aged 25 to 29 will be HPV+…and we know what that probably means, immediate referral. If we waited until age 30, only about 5% would be HPV+, almost all of these transient and harmless infections have disappeared by then.
    But no, that would never do, too much money is at stake…

    • Moo says:

      Ah the magical age of 30. Where does it come from?

      Not every woman is going out and having their “sexual debut” in the late teen years. Some women might not be sexually active or get any HPV infection until they are older. Not all women’s lives follow the same timeline that the screening programmes use.

      I know a woman who married whe she was over 40. She had a LEEP as recommended but another women pointed out to her that she had not waited long enough to clear the HPV infection. She actually might have been a virgin until that relationship that resulted in marriage.

      The whole HPV, Pap test and treatments, mammograms, and IVF business has to be revamped and more focused on informed patient choice not one-size-fits-all protocols. I am tired of every medical consult being all about tits and ass.

      • Elizabeth (Aust) says:

        I agree, Moo, but I really think the only way we’ll force change is for more women to reject the “mass” information, as you mention, we’re not all the same. It should be about the individual, not the female herd.
        I also, hate the emphasis on “tits and ass”…this message that the female body cannot be trusted and must be closely watched by the medical profession needs to be broken down. I hope more women start to trust, respect and protect their symptom-free body.
        I believe the symptom-free female body is viewed by the medical profession and others as a commercial opportunity. I don’t worry about rare cancers, I understand the real threat to my health and well-being is the medical profession and these programs.

  76. Elizabeth (Aust) says:

    Just noticed I wrote, “pap walls” not “pay walls”…freudian slip

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