73 comments

1. “Financial ties between health professionals and industry may unduly influence professional judgments and some researchers have suggested that widening disease definitions may be one driver of over-diagnosis, bringing potentially unnecessary labeling and harm.”
   http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001500

   I’ve always believed this is why our cervical screening program is excessive and does not follow the evidence and why mammograms are still pushed, ignoring the ever-mounting evidence that the risks exceed any benefit. I think most developed countries have allowed vested interests to control or influence screening programs. Independent groups, like the NCI, should be given the job.

   Reply
   • Good find Elizabeth. It ties in well with the other article you linked on the other refs and eds, and which I want to link on this post as well: http://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2013/04/30/eb-2012-101216.full . From the article:
     “Conclusions: Articles in specialty journals were more likely to explicitly reject results from the Cochrane reviews, and less likely to accept the results and methods, than articles in general medical journals. Several specialty journals are published by interest groups and some authors have vested interests in mammography screening.”
     I especially like this part “some authors have vested interests in mammography screening”. Exposed in plain English, awesome.

     Apparently there are other ways in which vested interests exert control as well. For example, this article (Pap smears: the truth, the whole truth and possibly an exaggeration): http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/18/1063625125715.html?from=storyrhs reveals that labs which graded pap smears were told they needed to produce more false positives. Labs were not producing enough false positives that required further investigation following improvements and clarification to terminology (Bethesda system). So it seems the labs resorted back to using terms that were less clear – more ambiguous terms were once again implemented. After all, where there is doubt and ambiguity there is increased opportunity to perform further tests/procedures.

     Reply
2. I’m not sure where to post this. A new medication called Fibristal has been approved for the treatment of uterine fibroids and it looks like it is quite effective. This is good news as it looks like a good alternative to surgery especially hysterectomy. I wonder how many gyns will know about this medication and recommend it instead of doing the lucrative surgery of a hysterectomy. Here’s more information about it: http://ir.actavis.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65778&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1832731

   Reply
3. Here’s a first. The American CDC ADMITS pap smears are unreliable in women under 30.

   “Women aged 20 to 24 are most likely to have abnormal Pap test results that lead to further testing and treatment. HPV DNA tests find many infections that will not lead to dysplasia or cervical cancer, especially in women younger than 30 years.”

   AND
   ” The Pap test is not a helpful screening test for cervical cancer in the following groups of women:
   Women who are younger than 25 years…”
   http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/cervical/Patient/page4

   I can’t stress enough. It is a SMEAR, not a “test”. The word “test” implies that it’s accurate.

   Reply
   • I think its bs that the CDC still recomends doctors do pap on woman over 21. When I was young the age was 18 and i always was asked the date of my last pap smear if i went to the doctor for any thing. and all of my teenaged girl friends were made to have paps for birth control. this was the late 90s erly 2000s. How can they admet this and put these woman in danger. When I was 24 A nurse yelled at me for never having a pap smear. She even asked me to think back every year since I was 18 to remember if I had one. I keep saying no and the look on her face was priceless. She talked to me like I was stupid and ignorant for never having pap smears.

     Reply
4. Here’s another interesting not. Notice how, over 3 years, the rate of cervical cancer is estimated to drop only by 17 women.

   In 2009 (most recent available year): 12,357 cases (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/index.htm)

   In 2013 an estimated 12,340 cases (http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html)

   Think about all of the cervices damaged for those 17 women…

   Reply
   • Yet, 121 MORE women are estimated to die from CC… (same resources)

     Reply
5. I thought you all would be interested in reading this article: Money May Be Motivating Doctors To Do More C-Sections (http://www.gpb.org/news/2013/08/30/money-may-be-motivating-doctors-to-do-more-c-sections?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GPBNewsFeed+%28GPB+News%29). We all know that some doctors will do unnecessary exams and surgeries for money.

   Misty

   Reply
6. You might find this article interesting (The Canadian medical profession is facing major upheaval): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/the-canadian-medical-profession-is-facing-major-upheaval/article13941175/
   Apparently there is a surplus of doctors in Canada. This is news for me . . . and I wonder why there is now (after years of shortage) a surplus. Doctors from the U.S. moving in? Or perhaps fewer patients flocking in for yearly exams, thus leaving some doctors without patients?

   Reply
   • Didn’t know where to post this, but I found a site called Natural Fertility Info that might be useful.

     I was looking up something on Neanderthals, which lead to me looking up things on puberty (because Neanderthals, apparently develop quicker than Homo Sapiens & I clicked on “growth spurt”), which lead to me hitting something on how the chemicals & BPA & such have a massive effect on hormones and that leads to all kinds of problems (fertility problems is one of them). Anyway, I thought that might be helpful for various things. There’s all kinds of natural information, as well as stuff on doctors (not necessarily cynical, but illuminating- a lot of details get sprung on people & it’s nice to have a “well, here’s the doctor style and here’s the other styles.”)

     It also seems to have some how-to stuff on self-massage (don’t know if it’s that Mayan Uterine Massage I mentioned in a couple of other posts, but it seems like it).

     Reply
7. “Since I came to California in 1985 – I got health insurance and every year we have what is called a well woman examination which is a mammogram and a pap smear. I once had some dense tissue and had mammograms every 6 months at one stage. The mammograms started when I was 40 – and I am now coming up to 63. So far, I have had regular mammograms, extra views, compressions – a sterotactic mammogram where I had to lie on a table face down with the left b*** hanging through a hole where I heard a lot of noise — in the worst position ever and then have had ultrasound and another needle biiopsy with my arms over my head on both of them. Twenty three years I have had these and all clear. I have never ever had any lump or anything. I am used to it all now – last one I had was a few months back. I still have them every year adn will have them I imagine until I expire. The mammograms now are digital”

   She obviously thinks this is good healthcare. It makes me shudder, this woman has had a lot of compression and radiation over 23 years…and annual pap tests.
   An example of pure and harmful excess interpreted as good healthcare, the more must be better school of thought.
   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2182932/Women-duped-benefits-breast-cancer-screening.html

   Thought this was interesting as well, how on earth could this be called cancer screening? Making appointments that we have to cancel, I’d just ignore their outrageous summons, this is way beyond unethical, who do they think they are, modern day Gestapo?

   “In the Medway Towns, UK, the coercion to submit to these xrays is terrifying. Healthy women are now sent bullying call-up letters in which a hospital appointment has already been made for them, plus a misleading leaflet. If you are unsure about attending, this then forces you into phoning the hospital to cancel the appointment, when you are bullied again.You are told that you have been recruited into a “programme” (without your knowledge or consent) and that your name will not be removed unless you sign a legal disclaimer exonerating the authorities of all responsibility should you ever contract cancer. On your next visit to your GP (for unrelated matters) you will then find that your refusal to subject yourself to this dangerous procedure has been flagged up on their computers and you will be interrogated and bullied again. Are we children, slaves, prisoners or what? Not free citizens surely to be coerced and pressurised into a permanently damaging, controversial procedure”

   Reply
   • Elizabeth thank you for these excellent articles. I love the title “Women Duped Over Benefits of Breast Cancer Screening”. Also, “Are we children, slaves, prisoners or what?”, that quote sums the situation up very well. Women’s bodies should not be viewed as commodities for medical profit. Thankfully some people from the Cochrane group are dedicated to breaking through the propaganda that is so prolific in women’s health care. I wanted to link the article by Peter Gotzsche you provided under refs and ed on this forum as well: Time to stop mammography screening? http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/17/1957 From the article:

     “Key points

     Screening with mammography does not reduce the occurrence of advanced cancers.

     Rigorous observational studies in Europe have failed to find an effect of mammography screening.

     Mammography screening produces patients with breast cancer from among healthy women and increases the number of mastectomies performed.

     The most effective method we have to reduce the occurrence of breast cancer is to stop screening.” (emphasis mine)

     The article basically states that women are far less likely to get breast ‘cancer’ if they do not screen. The directive to stop classifying all harmless lumps, bumps, and lesions as ‘cancer’ does not seem to have been incorporated into practice just yet. In the meantime healthy women are being coerced into screening without being given balanced information or a choice. Doctors are very persistent when it comes to finding disease in the healthy population, and if you let them they will do just that – find something. Only thing is, the ‘something’ they find almost always turns out to be nothing that was ever destined to cause harm. But the ‘treatments’ can unfortunately cause a great deal of harm.

     Reply
     • I just recently Googled “bodily autonomy” & got some interesting information. The Wikipedia article is “bodily integrity” & it referenced the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Apparently, it says “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” Interesting, isn’t it?

     • “Only thing is, the ‘something’ they find almost always turns out to be nothing that was ever destined to cause harm. But the ‘treatments’ can unfortunately cause a great deal of harm.” This is why i think doctors are bs… currently i have a blood draw every 6 months, fasting and all, and even then, the overtesting from that can be harmful because you find something or a number off, but it turns out to be nothing.

8. Have any of you looked into the 23andme.com test? It looks for a TON of diseases, cancers and conditions (https://www.23andme.com/health/all/) all JUST WITH SALIVA.$99 plus shipping.It does ancestry also. I’m seriously considering it.But of course it would test for prostate cancer and not cervical. Obviously, this would be more “fun” than “real”, still a very interesting idea and a very noninvasive potential alert system.

   Reply
9. In regards to cervical cancer screening in Canada, the doctors have to stop receiving all the extra incentives and that money should go to the cancer patients who need it. The doctor can get paid three times for pushing Pap tests: once for the basic consult fees or exam, then the pap code that can go with looking at a sore toe, and then the $2200 per year if they meet the 80 percent screening goal. It is absurd they get this money for harassing, traumatizing and damaging women.

   Reply
   • It becomes even more absurd when you consider that CC is rare and not a real threat to women’s health. All this money and time and worry for something that’s not a real threat. How many real health problems such as depression and anxiety or heart disease are being overlooked because of the focus on this rare cancer. It’s not only absurd but scary.

     Reply
10. this is a very interesting blog that discusses how bad the science that created the HPV vaccine is.

    Reply
11. Did anyone read about Marilyn Monroe’s medial records being auctioned off? How is that legal and ethical? Apparently the doctor gifted the records to a friend.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2449897/Marilyn-Monroe-DID-chin-implant-X-rays-auction.html

    Reply
    • That is AWFUL! Does society have no respect for people and their privacy any more? I don’t care how well-known someone is, they deserve privacy like anyone else. Disgusting. It also makes me question what exactly the requirements and limitations are for selling and/or auctioning off medical records? Surely, for people who aren’t public figures they wouldn’t be auctioned off or sold to the general public, but perhaps they get passed around between groups of doctors or scientists to gather statistics? I’m sure if people have done that, it’s a nice way to make some extra cash.

      Reply
12. Hey, today I bumped into some leaflets about STIs. I wonder about these claims that chlamydia or gonorrhoea never self heals, often symptomless etc. If that is the case, why are only the females should be subjected to regular testing? Does it self heal in men, like other bacterial infections can self heal? Does not add up at all.

    Reply
    • It’s bullshit to facilitate ulterior motives. There’s guys that like to play doctor with women, aggressive lesbians, financial motivations, and potential for attention gained to be the point. Either one can simply like causing people problems or get thrills out of lying, too.

      These things that they say is useful for one thing or another & isn’t is something they STILL pitch as useful. They still say things that add up in one direction, but not another (“Oh, this doesn’t work for that- put it’s important in spite of that”). What about how all these things that get integrated into someone’s situation are MASSIVELY unsafe & inaccurate, but that somehow isn’t generating detriment. The whole point was the state of NOT having problems.

      How many things were started off as a way to get pervy with women or as a simple scam? Notice how they are not discarded? Instead it’s now a case of “It’s always been like that.” So it’s not about utility, it’s about tradition? That’s what their “expertise” amounts to? Same deal with them saying “that’s how they were taught” when they’re getting dictatorial or mindlessly integrating one thing with another. May or may not be true, but it’s not right for them to do things like that- it doesn’t matter if they were taught that way or came up with it themselves.

      Reply
    • It does not self heal in males or females. Both require antibiotics. Women are tested because it causes more damage (fallopian/ovarian damage for example). But both are urged to test yearly. Women are tested more often for multiple reasons; women are more likely to see a doctor, women are not told they are being test since it’s usually done with a pap, etc. Both can be tested for via urine, selfswab or cervical swab

      Reply
13. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85553.php “Chlamydia does not only damage female fertility, it damages male fertility as well.” NOTHING seems to be true that I have learned about reproductive health. That is why I suddenly started wondering whether these bacteria might self heal, just like any other.

    Reply
14. Also this claim that there are no natural cures for STIs. It just makes me wonder.

    Reply
15. Just google the STD name and natural treatment. Even then blocked tubes can also be treated with herbs to unblock them. Fertility clinics will do tests to “prove” blockages, not cure them. Their money is in providing very expensive IVF treatments. They are not going to tell people to use alkaline douches or herbs to get pregnant.

    What I find strange …… if someone has a silent infection, they might take an antibiotic for another type of infection and also cure it.

    There is a natural balance of microrganisms in the body that out populate the bad ones. So an infection could actually start after taking an antibiotic for some infection in another part of the body. Why women tend to get vaginal yeast infections after taking antibiotics for some other part of their body.

    Reply
16. Karen
    I always assume the truth is being manipulated, there are usually glaring omissions that make their information unreliable or they flat out lie to us, why not? No one challenges them, it’s almost a game.

    One example: The Australian Govt and others have rejected HPV primary testing here for a few reasons, which are all correct, HPV is common, (it’s not common after age 30) there is no treatment and it clears spontaneously over a year or two in almost all women. True, BUT…

    What is conveniently left out? HPV- women, now that’s most women, cannot benefit from pap testing. It’s a whopper of an omission. It’s left out because they don’t want women to know that most are having unnecessary pap testing. There is also, a fear that making changes may lead to less confidence in the program and coverage will fall, more women may take a closer look at the program etc. Coverage is falling anyway, I hope it’s because more are getting to the well-hidden evidence.

    Now they don’t want women to self-test here, dead against that option, that means losing control of the herd, their income generating assets. So we hear patronizing and outrageous statements like, “leave the Pill on script so women are forced to keep up with their pap tests”. The spokesman for the AMA here recently endorsed medical coercion saying he doubted many doctors would provide a script for the Pill without a current pap test on file….NO ONE challenged him.
    So at least two senior male doctors at the AMA STILL link the Pill with elective cancer screening and one endorses coercion, and was confident enough to do so vey publicly.
    Coercion negates all consent. IMO, this makes the exam an assault. Even if you mislead women claiming pap testing is a clinical requirement for the Pill, it’s not, so there is no consent at all. If a woman complained to the Medical Board that she was refused the Pill after declining a pap test, I suspect the doctor would be disciplined. Yet this was the statement made by someone senior at the AMA and no one challenged him.
    What’s going on? What is the agenda of these men and why are they being permitted to run the show? Surely there must be many doctors who’d also, find their views abhorrent.

    The Dutch-style HPV primary testing program with the option of self-testing will IMO, never be offered here…certainly not with the dinosaurs in charge and while so many women remain in the dark.
    Australia IMO,
    1) does not want women self-testing. (profits and power/control)
    2) The Pill must remain on script so they can pressure, mislead or coerce women into testing and;
    3) They don’t want to lose the lucrative business of pap testing everyone, even though it’s unhelpful and risks the health of those under 30, and when 95% of women aged 30 and older are HPV- and cannot benefit from pap testing.
    Population pap testing guarantees waiting rooms and day procedure will be full of women having unnecessary pap testing, excess biopsies and being over-treated…and lots having repeat pap tests, and those damaged by these treatments may need fertility treatments, c-sections, cervical cerclage etc.

    With millions at stake, they’ll fight to keep our program in place. I believe the current review is to negotiate with vested interests, our program is now so obviously harmful…they finally feel uncomfortable leaving it in it’s current form. So they’ll make a great show of it and agree to wind back a little of the excess, but not too much! My guess: 3 yearly population pap testing from 25 to 70. We’re pretending this is about women with the usual cover statement, is it “safe” to wind back the program to 3 yearly pap tests from age 25? The Finns could have given us the answer in 1960.
    This is so transparently about profits and keeping the herd compliant.

    So HPV testing would only be considered if it added to their profits and kept most women in the program having pap testing, biopsies etc. Using it the right way and taking most women out of pap testing would be unthinkable. This is the very reason you don’t take screening advice from vested interests and why you respect informed consent. We’re protected from vested interest “advice” and “concerns” and these programs because we’re aware of the evidence. This problem has been partly created because women don’t receive balanced and complete information on screening.

    Also, our program has ignored the evidence for decades and now it would be tricky to make sweeping changes. They refuse to release young women from the program, too much money to be made there, so they’d have to create separate recommendations (just pap testing for those under 30, no HPV testing) and of course, they’re always so concerned about “confusing” us, (read: alerting us) they’ll probably decide it’s best to just keep pap testing everyone.

    The States have added HPV testing to pap testing, a disaster for women, it creates the most over-investigation, most of these women are not even at risk.
    Here we’re so far away from evidence based screening, the lies will continue into the future…they’ll do and say anything to keep population pap testing in place, the Pill on script, and recommend pap testing during pregnancy. (more bad medical advice, but great for coverage and profits)

    I read recently that some older women are given oestrogen pessaries for a few days prior to pap testing to make it less painful and hopefully, there will be less bleeding, but, of course, these women could simply test themselves for HPV, most would be HPV- and cannot benefit from pap testing. Those HPV- and no longer sexually active could forget about further testing, but no, we continue to lie to women and put so many through unpleasantness, pain, embarrassment, inconvenience etc. and expose them to risk for no benefit.

    When you know the evidence and you see what’s going on around you, it actually becomes quite frightening, those in power have the ability to deceive and harm huge numbers and call it healthcare…and get away with it. IMO, that’s certainly what’s happening here and most doctors are culpable…from those who lie to women, accept target payments, bully us or remain silent, ensuring this program of misery continues. We’d also, see deaths here that could have been prevented with HPV primary testing so to suggest our program is about saving lives is a cruel joke, it’s about maximizing risk and profits. All of this is acceptable because so many consider it’s okay or even preferable to treat women this way. I’ve now heard two senior male doctors from the AMA make outrageous statements, I’d call them misogynistic statements.
    The definition of misogynist is: those who hate, dislike, mistrust or mistreat women.
    Bingo!

    Reply
17. “I read recently that some older women are given oestrogen pessaries for a few days prior to pap testing” I just stopped reading here, just too much. It is just mutilation and torture, with an institutional system to perpetrate is, with policies to support it, and the saddest thing for me, the “responsible women”, those suffering in stockholm syndrome or being just smug self congratulating bitches exorting the peer pressure.

    Reply
18. If you think about the usual women’s wellness BS:

    -home birth is risky and endangers the mother and the baby- no
    -pap smears are safe and effective, cervical cancer is rampant- fuck no
    -cervical cancer is rare because of pap smears- a blatant lie
    -treatments for “bad” cells found by pap smears are minor- no
    -healthy, asymptomatic women need regular “care” ie a doctor touching their privates- hahaha
    – uteruses are useless for anything else but childbearing- no
    – you need to get a pelvic exam to test for STIs or take the pill- no

    I guess you can understand why I got to wonder about the official lines concerning STIs!

    Reply
    • There was a case in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania where they ambushed 59 girls (who were 11 years old) with pelvic exams at school. They said it was external (but it wasn’t, at least for some of them) & acted like it was for STDs (blood & urine tests are for that, plus there’s things that WOULDN’T be detectable externally- giving lie to their previous claim of things “just” being external, plus they were ELEVEN). Afterward, they said it was to check for abuse & see how their development was going (so it’s a bunch of lies going in a bunch of different directions). Never mind that this is an interface with a sexual area as a product of someone else’s decision-making. Never mind that this was with children, too.

      This was in the mid-90s, not even the TSA at the prom/”touch my kid, not my i-phone” generation. These girls tried to refuse & call home, but they didn’t let them (I guess it’s called “negating refusal,” because it’s not really a requistion form type of situation). One of the nurses actually blocked the door & she told one of them not to be a baby. The doctor herself had said something to the effect of “Not even a parent has a right to determine what’s appropriate when a physician is conducting an exam.”

      Keep in mind that this had full administrative support: The teachers all wore blue ribbons to show their support of this, the school board decided it was fine & so did their branch of Nation Education. Oh, and the district & state cops both thought it was fine & shouldn’t be pursued (wonder what happens if your forcibly probe them?). The end result of this seems to be that they apologized & the doctor quit. Wow, I guess that fixes everything- huh? It being the kind of thing that doesn’t get “fixed” anyway, factors in here.

      If I punched a cop in the face, I’d theoretically get jail time (and who knows what happens there?). There’s all kinds of parallel dynamics with what happens officially (various security & hygiene measures- convicted or not, because these things get integrated into “just sorting things out,” by-the-way) & unofficially (the obvious stuff: guards/other prisoners/people that work there/etc…). Medical things of various sorts get imposed with varying degrees of legality (and “legal support,” important distinction), too. All these things are proportionate? Yet, when someone does things like this- they’re treated like wonderful people that are being unjustly attacked.

      Reply
19. I am doing some research for an article I am doing on pap smears. I know sometimes speculums used in pap smears are unsterile.

    Look at this link: http://womenagainststirrups.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gynmyths&action=display&thread=83. There are some women who want to have pap smears. How can those women protect themselves?

    What steps do you recommend women take if they decide to have a pap smear to prevent the possibility they could contract HPV?

    Misty

    Reply
    • I have been doing a tonne of reading lately, websites, blogs, research papers. You give me a private message since I have no idea how to email you, Misty.

      Please read the paper about the monkey pap testings and how it is proposed that pap testings and pelvic exam can spread HPV or make any infection with it worse. Effect of Pap Smear Collection and Carrageenan on Cervicovaginal Human Papillomavirus-16 Infection in a Rhesus Macaque Model Jeffrey N. Roberts,Rhonda C. Kines, Hormuzd A.Katki, Douglas R. Lowy and John T. Schiller JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2011) doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr061 First published online: April 11, 2011
      http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/04/11/jnci.djr061.full

      I would say to women who want to pap test.
      1. Be careful in choosing your doctor to do the test. Ensure that your privacy and wishes will be respected before, during and after the test. Check them out if they have any disciplinary actions against them, reports on websites (not all good ones that seem fake), ask friends, neighbours. Even with good reviews still be wary.

      2. Be aware of the risks of taking pap test (false negatives and positives). Be aware that getting a bad pap result will result in you feeling pressured into further investigations and procedures that you might not want. (such as colposcopies, punch biopsies,LEEP, cone biopsies)

      3. If you have past sexual trauma or abuse or PTSD you might to consider whether you can handle the test or not.

      4. Make sure the health provider will respect your wishes about parts of the exam that you want or do not want such as using cytobrush in your OS, rectal exams, bimanual exams. You should be respected that you refuse or consent to any part of the pelvic exam.

      5. Better if you look at your own cervix with your own speculum and some vinegar to see it you have any white areas that are dysplasia due to HPV infection. I would treat myself at home in that case. If you can get HPV home test then do that first and then decide.

      6. If you are are going to do a pap test then insist on the following:
      sterile plastic speculum in intake plastic original manufacturers packaging – ask to see it packaged. speculum is lubricated either with warm water (not from dirty handing washing sink. (pick up a takeout cup of hot water that should be cooled off enough to use), some doctor will put condoms (with the end cut off) over a speculum for “fat” women – there is no reason why that cannot be done for every woman and lubrication used. I would recommend that you do not allow the cytobrush to be used (that is put up into the cervical canal). Also I would not allow a “brush” type collection device used. Only a spatula with “light” scraping. Check the tray ahead of time to see all the equipment necessary for the test. Gloves (ask for sterile ones), if any lubricant gel is being used it should be squeezed out on the tray (the tube should not be handled), qtip, stool guaiac test paper, speculum (sterile sealed package), pap test kit, biological swab. If you do not want any part of the pelvic exam (such as rectal exam, ask for the guaiac test paper to be removed from the tray).

      7. Women over 40 – get tested immediately after your period on are before day 10 (day 1 is the first day of bleeding). This is because any endometrial cells after day 12 in women over 40 is reported – This is considered abnormal and will “require” further investigation of uterine hyperplasia (if it is a problem then even cancer is rare but why the hassle if you are not having problems). Oddly in younger women it is not reported. I would even lie and say that I was at day 10. If it comes back: blood or endometrial cells were seen, it will be “well it was from your period”.

      8. Ask BEFORE you get a test if you will be provided with a copy of the report to keep for yourself. Ask who will get copies of the report (government registries) and what other health care workers will be allowed access to your results.

      I am thinking of making up some pamphlets that I can print out and leave around (yeah, better than those religious and animal activist tracts) about the lies in cancer screening. Maybe we need more patient education. I could leave them in doctors office, malls, public transit etc. If there someone out there that is savvy enough to make one that can be put on a website and downloaded for more people to use?

      Reply
20. Misty
    If women want to test, they should first consider HPV sef-testing. The Delphi Screener, I’m told, is easy to use, is used only once, (by you) in the privacy of your bathroom. If you’re HPV- you can’t benefit from pap testing. Almost all women are HPV- and having unnecessary pap testing.
    If women are worred about a new infection, then they could simply self-test again in 5 or 10 years time. (depending on your age)
    Women under 30 need to be very careful, pap testing does not help them, but carries lots of risk, and HPV testing is not recommended either. In countries with evidence based programs those under 30 are simply told to see a doctor with persistent and unusual symptoms, (for proper investigation, NOT a pap test)
    It’s getting easier to get to the Delphi Screener, I know women who’ve ordered it online from Delphi Bioscience in Singapore. UK women could get it from the Head Office in the Netherlands. American and other women shoud make enquiries with the company, they might be able to mail it to you.
    So there is no need for most women to have a speculum anywhere near their body, pap testing should be confined to the roughly 5% of women aged 30 to 60 who test positive for HPV. (if they want to test)
    For those who want to test, I’d speak to a doctor I trust (yes, I know that can be very difficult) about my concerns. I’ve never had a pap test, can they use something disposable rather than the metal speculum that needs to be sterilized? A professional clinic with a good reputation would be my preference rather than a walk-in clinic or free clinic with an unknown doctor. Ask the doctor to take you through their sterilization practices etc. someone decent should be happy to reassure you.

    Reply
21. Women might be aware that colposcopy speculums and equipment are often metal. I think a woman should be able to ask if the reusable equipment is steam heat sterilized or just high level sanitized. In my country the equipment does not have to be sterile to be used in the vagina. I believe that only want steam sterilized equipment to sterile disposable equipment is acceptable. Oddly dental practices are required to have stricter standards and all reusable equipment must be sterilized.

    Reply
22. http://drbeardmoose.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/witchesmidwivesandnurses.pdf (Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers, Barbara Ehrenreich )Some of you might be interested in this book, I read a few things from this author and she is amazing.

    Reply
23. http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/jan/03/patients-truth-health-screening-harm-good
    Patients deserve the truth: health screening can do more harm than good.
    The NHS fails to inform patients that health screening often leads to unnecessary and risky treatments. Another great article from Margaret McCartney in the Guardian.

    Reply
    • Notice how the PSA test is not recommended AT ALL? A good thing, but it is obvious that the same is not directly stated for women.

      Also that bit about how someone should know the risks, but attend screenings that they’re “invited” to? I get that the author disputed that & that’s good, but the fact that someone had said that previously is pretty appalling. “Despite the risks, it’s wrong for you not to have this test if directed” would be more honest, but I guess that’s the point.

      The Guardian is a British newspaper, right? I’ve got to say: Their reputation as borderline robots that never just say whatever they have to say is quite a bit more deserved by the Americans!

      Reply
24. A new reference that people might want to discuss
    The known unknowns of HPV natural history, Patti E. Gravitt, J Clin Invest. 2011;121(12)
    http://www.jci.org/articles/view/57149

    another important note: ” The author receives funding from the National Cancer Institute”

    Certain assumptions were made. That HPV can only be acquired through sexual contact not pap tests and other procedures with non sterile instruments. It is suggested that HPV is reactivated from latency in HIV patients, however how does this extend to normal healthy women is their 40’s and 50’s? I would say that more of these women are getting or had colposcopy or other gynecological procedures.

    The latency theory could only really be proved by showing that the same serotype of HPV caused the initial infection, remained and resurfaced later. However very few HPV infections result in cancer.

    Reply
25. colposcopy instruments are not always sterilized. Even WHO recommends high level disinfection. It is not enough.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/28/unsterilized-forceps-used-for-14-years-at-miramichi-clinic-hospital-contacts-2500-patients/

    N.B. clinic forced to apologized after realizing it was using unsterilized forceps — for 14 years
    “He said 2,497 women who had colposcopy biopsies are being sent letters advising them to have blood tests for hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.”

    appalling!

    Reply
26. Moo, that’s something we often overlook, the risk posed by unsterile instruments. We can never really be sure of standards, lots of women here have ended up with hepatitis B after their anethetist used syringes on them that he’d used to inject himself, he was addicted to various drugs and feeding his habit with Clinic drugs. These women were all having abortions. We really do put our health and welfare in the hands of these people, so I certainly intend to approach anything that might be “required” in the future with extreme caution. That firm policy has served me well in the past. Dr McCartney has a saying, “No decision about me, without me”. Exactly.
    Moo, thanks for the reminder.
    I just posted on the Answer.com site, an 18 year old virgin asking if mammograms and pap tests are compulsory, she asked for straight information, not preaching, so far she’s got a holier-than-thou response and a sort of scary post, that don’t answer her question. Isn’t it amazing that so many women have to ask that question: are pap tests and mammograms compulsory? I doubt many men view prostate exams that way. But this is exactly what the system intended to create, a “climate” where women feel they have no choice in the matter.

    The sort-of scary poster mentions her mother is a nurse who scared her about a woman who didn’t get pap tests and got ovarian cancer. Garbage.
    It’s a shame more women don’t go past the folklore. they’d find out very quickly that most of the scary stories are pure nonsense.
    Anyway, I posted, hope it helps to speak to a pap-test free woman in her 50s who has also, declined mammograms.
    The outrage caused when a woman even questions this testing is the result of decades of misinformation and deliberate scare-mongering by the profession, also, the dressing up of false positives as “scares” or cancer. Successful brainwashing…
    It makes no sense, if I decline bowel screening, a FAR more common cancer, I don’t get the same sort of nasty, indignant and judgmental outrage.
    I hope this young woman gets on with her life – she should respect her asymptomatic body, not view it with suspicion and hand it over to the “caring” (don’t make me laugh…or cry) profession.

    Reply
    • Good thing you posted to her. Seems like talking to you would definitely bolster a “your body, your rules” philosophy. It seems she hasn’t been aquianted with the fact that properties don’t change by designation- so if someone is imposing an interface with a sexual area, however subtlely, is attacking them. The term “iatrogenic” attack ends that argument pretty quickly. The observation that someone is not trustable if they pull things like that kills any aftershocks.

      Plus, the reality of finding out through experience if something’s clean or not is a major point. Getting a disease doesn’t happen any less if it’s picked up from a doctor’s tools. Same goes for injuries & any ramifiactions of these injuries- like miscarriages.

      Isn’t it bizarre that things like “watch your drink” & “don’t get out of the car” & “bring friends with you” gets taught, but that whole theme gets reversed with doctors? It’s like the actions of medical personnel are not considered reality! Of course, it IS considered reality if it doesn’t go their way.

      Reply
27. Sorry, I left the “s” out of anesthetist.

    Reply
28. Alex,
    It saddens me that so many very young women are worried sick about this testing and all of the other nonsense. (pelvic and breast exams) It’s disgraceful that time is wasted fretting about this stuff at all, but at 18…thankfully, she’s questioning it all and not simply complying. It is amazing though how hostile the reception from other women if someone dares question the sacred cow of women’s healthcare…we’re all just excepted to be “responsible” and grown-up and hand our healthy bodies over to the medical profession, to hell with that…once a dissenting view was rare, but slowly more supportive posts are starting to appear.
    The women who don’t question or protect themselves pay a high price, a very high price.

    Reply
    • Yeah, it’s good she’s questioning things. It’s odd that a backhand to the mouth & a dinner order is considered a problem & not to be put up with, but someone deciding what goes in where & what risks to put someone at is perfectly fine. It’s like the impression is that it’s somehow immature or stupid to make YOUR own decisions with YOUR own body or to base any of them on YOUR alignment on the situation.

      Bodily autonomy & self-protectiveness aren’t immature, stupid, or defective traits. It sure as hell isn’t a trait of a down-trodden woman, either- considering that some women seem to think that it’s got something to do with keeping other people from touching their husband’s property or that impeding someone else from doing anything is being prudish & servile.

      I wish there’d be some kind of “regeneration of wildness.” Like someone thinks a situation is what it CONSISTS of & that it’s NOT wrong to fight back. Also, not accomodating a general hatred for life. I notice a lot of things that are directly correlated to life (women, kids, water, food, activity, etc…) getting aimed at more & more.

      Reply
29. Some of you may have come across this before but I thought I would post this link to an organisation called Sense About Science. A lot of good people are involved, and they have produced this booklet which you can view online called Making sense of screening.
    http://www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php/7/making-sense-of-screening

    Reply
30. Ada, it’s great that some of your doctors are making a big effort to get informed consent and evidence based medicine front and centre of the discussion when its been ignored for so long, but I don’t think much has changed at the surgery level for most women.
    There is virtually no discussion here, but we don’t have a call and recall system yet so women can dodge pap test pressure by doctor shopping. That will get harder though if we adopt a call and recall system, this gives them greater control over women.
    But it does mean that women have more and more information at their disposal to fend off pap test and other pressure and hopefully, more women will stop, listen and do their own research so the pool of informed women gets larger and finally threatens the viability of these programs, then we’ll see real change.
    If they can no longer control most women, game over. Their tactics all fall flat when they’re dealing with informed women, IMO, that’s why they’re so threatened by critical discussion and women having access to real information and having a choice about screening.

    Reply
    • I forgot to mention that along with the 5% stepped GP incentives replacing the 50% and 80% screening bonuses in the UK, this has now been reduced to start at 45% screening coverage going up in 5% increases to a maximum of 80%. I don’t know when this happened, but it will at least stop those GP’s who pressure women (like my ex GP) in order to hit that 80% target. Clearly, they know that the days of the 85% screening rates of the 1990’s will never happen again, and hopefully many surgeries will be happy to settle for reduced screening rates, but in essence this whole idea of putting a price on a woman’s cervix is completely wrong.

      I have been doing some research into the history of how this 80% target came about. It would seem that originally the figure would have been even higher, had not the British Medical Association stepped in. Kenneth Clarke, who was in charge of Health under Margaret Thatcher came up with this target in his White Paper of May 1989. It was kept a secret, while Clarke presented it to the BMA in a private meeting, which lasted 9 hours on 4th May 1989. The BMA forced him to climb down on the cervical screening figure, which was then set at 80%, so goodness only knows what Clarke had set it at before. The following day the agreement was presented to the rest of Parliament and the doctors, many of whom were angry that such a high “unattainable” figure had been set for cervical screening. One doctor actually complained:
      “The immunisation and cervical smear targets are unreasonable. GPs cannot be a paternalistic police force forcing people to have what is good for them.”
      It is my personal belief that the government of the day then launched a massive propaganda exercise to frighten women into attending, in an effort to prove the doctors wrong. Although some GP’s were against these targets initially, the younger ones, like my exGP were only too keen to drive the speculum into any female who walked through the door.
      Kenneth Clarke is chairman of Unichem.

      Reply
31. This is a great article, which speaks out against the idiocy of the cervical screening programme, which had just been launched in the UK in 1988.
    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/26th-august-1989/8/the-shibboleth-of-smears

    Reply
32. Please add to the list of natural occuring substances that have action against HPV or cancer cells.
    Black cumin seed oil or nigella sativa
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25241984

    Also on my list against HPV infections either topically or orally:
    Green tea extract
    Neem leaves oil
    Curcumin extracted from tumeric root
    Hydrogen peroxide
    Apple coder vinegar

    You can dig up published papers on these having antimicrobial and anticancer properties.
    I also find it odd that some of these substances are being tested for use along with chemotherapy agents. They are often effective alone. They could be used for prevention of cancer in cases of HPV infections such as CIN in a vaginal cream. Only so far an ointment with green tea extract is licenced for use on genital warts outside the body.

    Reply
    • There was another article in a popular UK magazine today about the epidemic of cervical cancer in women under 25 and too young for a smear, though the women who died had symptoms and probably wouldn’t have benefited from a smear. One mother who lost her daughter paid privately for a smear for her other girl when girl was 20. It cost 250£ whereas it costs the NHS 69 £ per test…
      So what’s the solution?? Sadly people will be diagnosed with illnesses not typical to their age, such as my 19 year old daughter who was diagnosed at 9 with arthritis…
      Surely the girls in the article needed diagnostic tests rather than smear testing but that seems to be well hidden from the public..

      Reply
      • Epidemic! *derisive snort*
        Well of course, Kat – the *experts* have been promoting this bullshit test to women as if it’s god’s gift to womankind for over thirty years now – it’s only very recently that they’ve begun to reluctantly admit that it’s not the ‘perfect’ test they’ve always claimed it to be, and they only pay attention to false negatives. Probably because there’s no danger of them getting sued for damages from overdiagnosis & overtreatment.
        Those messages about the ‘smear’ being the perfect, gold-standard test have sunk in pretty deep and it’s going to take a long time for those beliefs to change. They’re terrified to say anything that might damage their precious program.
        Besides, these stories of CC in very young women probably help to push reluctant women into the clutches of the program, so even if there’s a little bit of bad press for the NHS (over the screening age) it still works out in their favour. Charities thrive on this bullshit too.

        Note how the sales leaflet has always told us screening is harmless, treatment is minor and harmless… it’s all FABULOUS, dahlink!, what’s not to like? Yet when the NHS is asked why they don’t screen the under 25’s they simply state that the test causes more harm than good in very young women… firstly, that’s a partial lie because it doesn’t do ANY good in young women (but they wouldn’t dare say that, nope.) But most important, no-one ever spots the contradiction. If you’re over 25 you’re told that the test and everything that may follow is completely harmless (apart from the fact you may find it ‘unpleasant’ of course!) yet if you’re under 25 it causes more harm than good?
        Critical thinking? What’s that?

33. Last night there was some good viewing on BBC2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33855895
    Horizon, Should I Test My Health Michael Mosley – It was great viewing, but when cancer screening was discussed, cervical got no mention is any detail. However Dr Iona Heath was fantastic! If you can spare the time it is worth viewing

    Reply
    • Hi Chas, I was aiming to watch this, but didn’t get around to it last night. I’ll watch it on catch-up. So often these programmes look good when they are advertised but then churn out the same old news. Good to hear he is really tackling the screening issue, but I somehow thought cervical screening would be skirted around. Iona Heath is someone I follow and what she says is good for the soul. She has a number of her talks on YouTube and they are well worth watching.

      There is a big movement in the UK at the moment about getting the public weened off spoonfed healthcare. I know it probably has a lot to do with the government wanting to slash the costs of the NHS, but I think there is so much money being wasted in the NHS I do agree with this new evidence-based movement. We are ahead of the field on this website! At my local GP surgery they have introduced an online “ask us a question”. Of about 300 questions asked by the public, only about 20 people were actually asked to make an appointment and come in. Just shows how much is wasted at GP surgeries.

      Reply
34. Worth a look perhaps, a little copied in below : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010757/full
    •To evaluate the risk of developing recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ (CIN2+) in women with a positive high risk human papilloma virus (HPV) test after large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) treatment.
    Carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV), the causative agent of cervical cancer and its precursor lesions, is present in up to one third of women following LLETZ and is associated with increased risk of disease recurrence.

    I noticed that HPV is still present in a third still after the treatment, not so good hey! Oh never mind why don’t we just “cut it all out” after all “its so simple” “its painless” “its no big deal” “suck it up” “get used it”………………yeah right!

    Reply
35. Trials and Evidenced based medicine – from BMJ a very good read and remember to read the responses, Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
    http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6770
    And another, Authors’ financial ties may be a source of bias in trials and must be disclosed in full.
    http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j176

    Reply
36. http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3414/rapid-responses
    This was last year about mandatory vaccines, it’s scary too as many of these responses are from the medical profession, also mentioned is the HPV vaccine, especially Steve Hinks Retired health professional – but many more, please read them all.

    Reply
    • Chas, I find that none of this HPV vaccination adds up. Just seen that from April 2018 the UK is offering the HPV vaccine to gay men aged between 18 and 45. We have previously been told that women over 18 cannot be vaccinated because the vaccine doesn’t help much after first sex and probable HPV acquisition. It seems to be a completely different story for men. It will also require men to come out about their sexuality to get the vaccine.

      I remember a GP on Margaret McCartney’s website saying that for the vast majority of people with HPV there are no symptoms or signs before the virus clears, so this is vaccination for very little gain, and there have been serious adverse events from vaccination. Although HPV is clearly a component of cervical cancer it is very strange that it disappears spontaneously in some but kills others. I often wonder if those who die have actually got a form of HIV/AIDS. I’ve noticed that data on those who have died from cervical cancer is unavailable. Someone asked this as a Freedom of Information request, and I noticed a while back that Steve Hinks has asked a lot of FOI requests and been fobbed off.

      All very suspect. Apart from the odd young women in the Daily Mail we have very little info on the other 650 women who die of cervix ca in the UK. I strongly suspect that they are desperately searching for a replacement strategy for cervical screening, and the vaccination programme has been rushed in.

      Reply
      • adawells – you make some interesting points about the HPV vaccine and age with men/women, as you say a different story and it certainly doesn’t add up! I wonder how many men will actually accept the vaccine? Only time will tell. Perhaps it is about whether they have HIV/Aids and wanting to “capture” them into the system. I have read somewhere ages ago that the false positive rate of HIV testing is 15%, although no mention of the false negative rate! Also referring back to Steve HInks, I noticed he is now retired as are a couple of others from those comments, if they were still practising I wonder if they would speak out? Doubtful I think,
        I was also looking for the data of cervical cancer deaths, but not much available with any specific details, I want to know how many died from getting treatment or no treatment, how many of those deaths were screened and not screened, how many from actual symptoms. I know the disease is awful (as is any cancer) but as we know still small numbers to the 4 million screened women in the UK. I had a look at this which is all cancers and spending – http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/how-we-spend-your-money
        A lot to read through but worth a look, they also break it down i.e. research, policy etc.

      • https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancerregistrationstatisticsengland/2016

        The Office for National Statistics gives the numbers of those diagnosed and then annual deaths, but has only just published the 2016 general overview. The actual breakdown for 2016 will be coming out this summer. Always 2 years behind. I’ve also searched for further breakdowns, by ethnicity, first language, symptoms, screened or not, but all this info is strangely not available.
        Last year, I remember seeing that RCOG announced that of those with a cervical cancer diagnosis 52% had regular smears (ie found by screening) and 48% were non-attenders. The non-attenders might have been found at a later stage, but it depends on the cancer, doesn’t it – slow growing squamous cell or aggressive adenocarcinoma. Do BAME women have a higher incidence? Why are they targeting these groups so much? I thought they were less likely to get this cancer than white women. I often wonder if a proportion of those who present late are homeless women, travellers, or elderly immigrant women, who arrive to join families in the UK, but have not registered with the NHS, so don’t get leaflets. It’s a very confusing picture, but I don’t think the NHS will ever release the info to prevent stigma.

37. I decided to research Living Kidney Donation and was really surprised by all the tests required. Obviously there needs to be various testing and assessments for both parties sakes but nonetheless it angered/shocked me.
    From the site below half way down under “Other tests” it states the following:
    Female donors will be asked to make sure they are up to date with cervical smears and, if over 50 years old, with mammogram screening.
    Male donors will have a blood test for their prostate and may need to undergo a further examination.

    http://www.giveakidney.org/the-donor-operation-before-during-and-after/

    I am alarmed by this because if ever I needed to do this for family or anyone then this really would cause me to have a re-think! Not saying it would definitely stop me but caused me huge concern. Which of course would make me appear selfish and feel very guilty. What if I refused those 2 tests, I wonder if one could still proceed?

    Reply
    • WTF! What the hell have the state of your cervix, boobs or prostate got to do with your kidneys? They’re making a judgement call, it seems – if you haven’t been keeping up with your screening tests, you’re irresponsible with your health. What utter crap!

      Reply
    • So if you hold an organ donor card, would your organs be refused if not up to date with smears and mammos at the time of your death? Would be interesting to ask them why.

      Reply
    • Hi Ada and ladies. This organ donation thing is crazy. I bet they don’t ask blood donors these questions? Blood donation is another form of putting your body produce into others?!
      About BAME women… I read somewhere its a real stigma in the black community with the view taken if you have CC or HPV you’re a slag and sleep around. Also there’s an element of if its Gods will…
      I live in an area composed of mainly Pakistani and Bengali people and rates of take up are very low here too …. the older generations would no way go. Its the shame ..some women would not see an Asian sample taker even if they were female because of what the community would say and think . I’ve heard of cases where parents intercepted their daughters screening “invitation” and not given it because of worries about would that girl go to her husband a virgin? Also some males really do still in the UK rule with a rod of iron and would forbid their women to screen. Again I think literacy and understanding is still an issue even with leaflets in different languages and again an element of if its Gods will.. From experience I know its a whole enclosed world and really hard to put Into to words. Things are changing with the younger generation born and brought up here. I think 98% of my daughters year group had the HPV jab.

      Reply
38. Exactly. Surely if you had advanced or secondary cancers as a result of neglected smears or mammograms you’d know! I don’t know where I stand on this issue as yet but it seems like another way to force us into cancer screening. ..

    Reply
39. https://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/evaluation
    Gynecological examination. Female donors may need to have a gynecological exam and mammography.
    •Cancer screening. You may also be given some cancer screening tests, which may include a colonoscopy, prostate exam, and skin cancer screening.
    https://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/testing-living-donor-evaluation-process
    So if having HPV (over 150 types) which most sexually active people have/had, where do you stand? Outrageous! I am so put off by all of this! If say, my brother needed a kidney I don’t know what I would do?
    http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/colorectal-cancer-screening-potential-kidney-donors
    Evidence suggests that screening men and women aged between 55-64
    year old for colorectal cancer is justified either with non-invasive
    faecal occult blood (FOB) test as recommended by the UK national bowel
    cancer screening program (NBCS) or with flexible sigmoidoscopy (ref 1).

    Reply
40. On the same subject BAME. Someone (can’t remember who on this site…sorry!) said while a lot of women are now walking away from breast screening they still feel smears are absolute nececcities. I work with an Indian woman who’s 60 that’s 6 years older than me. She told me her DAUGHTER nags her to go for smears ( so she does) but she’s refused to have breast screening. She hates smear tests (understandable)…….

    Reply
    • I don’t understand that from a 60 year old woman, she’ll allow herself to be bullied for one and not the other? Complete Madness!

      Reply
      • Precisely Chas! Skewed thinking.

41. Sorry that BMJ link was only a response from a Renal Transplant Fellow!

    Reply
    • Chas if he thinks that I’m sure others do too….

      Reply
42. This one explains more on the WHY? Regarding donor transmission of malignancy, albeit very low!
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X1400055X

    Now I am wondering what if I was brain dead donating many parts of my body, are they seriously going to carry out cancer screening? I am not on the donor register however I have given firm instructions to family that if there is no hope for me then donate what you can. But as a living donor I would be very hesitant.

    Reply
43. I did not know the cervical cancer risk was DOUBLED when taking the contraception pill, or that it may stop you from clearing HPV? I don’t take this but most of my friends do, so this will mean that they are more likely to have an abnormal screening….and on their way to colposcopy for butchery, followed by “I’m a cancer survivor”. Also increasing breast cancer, I wonder if this is the reason for the increases we have along with the over diagnosed ones. But then also offers slight protection from other cancers i.e. ovarian and womb!
    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/hormones-and-cancer/the-contraceptive-pill
    The longer a woman takes the combined Pill for, the higher her risk of cervical cancer while she is taking it. Taking it for only a short time may not have any noticeable effect, but women who have been using it for 5 years or more have nearly double the risk of developing cervical cancer compared to women who have never used the combined Pill. However, the risk starts to fall back down again once a woman stops using it. About 10 years after stopping, her risk is no longer affected.
    Almost all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Other things like smoking or taking the Pill, can further increase the risk of cervical cancer. It’s not yet clear how the Pill might do that, though there a number of possibilities. For example, the Pill might stop the body from clearing HPV infection. More research is needed to work out what’s going on.

    Reply
    • It’s my understanding that smoking and the pill reduce your immune system from working effectively, for reasons not known, so these people will be less able to clear the HPV. I’m sure it’s why people with HIV are much more likely to have cervical cancer than those without. Saw a post on Patient.co.uk recently: a woman has Crohn’s disease and takes medication for it. She seems to have had a number of LETZ treatments and cone biopsies. It’s a wonder she has any cervix left from what she writes, but her smears seem to be CIN3 one minute to clear the next. It sounds to me that the Crohn’s treatment is causing the abnormalities, and she’s being butchered for nothing.

      Reply

Speak your mind Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

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

Email (Address never made public)

Name

Website

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

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.