3,978 comments

1. Horrible post, so many women go through hell with this testing, of course, almost all would be HPV- and cannot benefit from the test anyway.
   It seems quite a few older women dodge pap testing after one or more very painful pap tests or after a traumatic pap test experience, I wish we could reach all of them and tell them not to worry, cc is the least of their worries and if they want reassurance, self-test for HPV.
   Even those who stop testing often lead a life around this test, it’s so unfair.
   I also suspect some who work in this area are callous, hard and even sadistic individuals, some are drunk on power, enjoy humiliating women etc….we should complain whenever we come across or hear about these “people”.

   “Yesterday I had one of the most horrific experiences of my life. I am 60 and a mother of a 30-year-old Son. I have had many smear tests before, so was not worried at all….. I went into the surgery at 9.30 am and waited until nearly 10am to be seen…. I had been in bed for 4 days with a bad dose of the flu….so was feeling really bad and weak… I told the nurse this, as I entered her room…she was very polite and kind and felt relaxed with her……she could see and tell instantly that I was a vulnerable person… I am hard of hearing, very short sighted, and I have a tiny build, I weight 7 stones and 5 ft 3ins. Her name was Maria, but I had never met her before.. I have been going to that surgery and have the same doctor for over 20 years. Anyway, she told me to take my underwear off and lay on the bed…. I waited ages for her…. I was relaxed as I knew what was coming….. but to my horror… before I knew it….. she plunged/forced the cold sharp instrument inside me….. I screamed, and cried out in pain… she just carried on…..I was in agony, it was the worst pain I had ever had in my life…….I was sobbing… and she said… its best like this… straight in…… I am still in shock……and I am still sore inside…… now… because I was poorly, I asked to see the doctor while I was there… he gave me some medicine and antibiotics… I didn’t mention anything to him….. when i got home, I told my son, and he was very upset and also in shock, that this could happen……I have written to NHS England, but don’t hold out much hope…. Luckily, after much research on line… I have found you Shirley…..and now I am wondering if there are any other women who have been so badly assaulted like I was yesterday…. the nurse was obviously a sadistic witch, with no compassion or empathy…. and wonder if she has done this many times…… people need to know whats going on and stop abusers like her, get away with their heinous crimes….. yesterday, I felt I was raped and I cant get it out of my head”
   http://patient.info/forums/discuss/how-is-it-that-in-2014-the-only-option-to-detect-cervical-cancer-is-by-having-a-smear–270247?page=0#1999525

2. A well-known celebrity (who claims to be a feminist) made a public post talking about how her gynecologist called her a good girl, and that in that, she had achieved all she ever dreamed of. In the replies, another woman commented saying her gynecologist called her a good girl and she’d never felt so proud of herself. My question is…what type of feminist enjoys being called a good girl? I don’t even like when my grandmother calls me that. I cringe but grin through it as I love her dearly. However, if a stranger, particularly a doctor were to call me a good girl, I would be incredibly offended. The celebrity in question did, unfortunately, have some health problems and that was part of the discussion. That being said, being called a good girl is incredibly demeaning and in my opinion, there was no reason for that statement to be brought up or glorified. What bothers me most is that no one responded negatively or had a problem with what she said, and as mentioned, one woman even shared the sentiment. Furthermore, it seems like these women value the opinion their gynecologist has of them above anyone else’s, which is sad. A woman’s value is not tied to her body in any context. A woman’s value is in who she is and how she treats others. I just don’t understand this mindset, I really don’t.

   • Which celebrities were these? A lot of them are attention hogs & so are a lot of people that look up to them (an interesting point is that when narcissists/megalomaniacs get to admiring someone & then something “dulls the shine,” they usually flip a total

     Actually, I was watching something that is unrelated, but reminded me of sneaky things like these: It was about a Palestinian activist going to an Ithica elementary school & saying they could help by becoming freedom fighters for Palestine! It’s on Bare Naked Islam & the woman is such a snake in the grass it’s like seeing a cliche come to life.

     Reminds me of the way people get with this type of subject- I suppose it might be called “the medicalization of life.”

     • I don’t want to name any specific names for fear of drawing in a bunch of passionate fans to this site who have no intention to learn and only want to criticize anyone who disagrees with what the celebrity in question says, but she’s on the HBO show Girls. The second commenter was just a regular every day person like you and me. I wouldn’t say she’s narcissistic necessarily, as she did actually have health problems and was openly discussing those – which I don’t have a problem with. She should have every right to discuss what she’s going through. The “good girl” comment is what rubbed me the wrong way, personally.

       That is so backhanded. Children should never have to face the harsh realities of war or be brought into one. I know that isn’t always the case and it’s impossible to shelter all children from war, but I believe if children can be sheltered from it, they should be until they’re old enough to truly understand it and have compassion for the victims on both sides.

       P.S; Sorry for the late reply! I’ve been incredibly busy lately.

     • I didn’t see the thing, but (in theory) she could have been pointing out that it was a bad thing- just not doing it in an obvious way. Something like “not making waves but still trying to make points.”

       I notice this isn’t mentioned about the military very much. Someone on here had said something about it recently & I just find it odd that someone might mention swerving to avoid a plastic bag or cardboard box because they think it’s an IED & all the nightmares they have, but not anything on this subject or any of the ramifications.

       For instance, if a woman had a miscarriage from something imposed on her by the military, that’s a major breach of loyalty & yet the constant fucking-over of soldiers is seen as something to leave undisturbed- even as something endearing! This seems to even be seen as evidence that this is not the kind of thing that they’d do!

     • Alex – That is a very good point. Perhaps in an under-the-radar type of way she meant for the comment to come across as sarcastic or to point out the issue without actually calling it one as to avoid negative attention. As per usual, you made some really good points!

   • Hi Ro:

     It’s a Freudian slip – and an offensive one, agreed.

     They see the women in stirrups as girls – girls who obey them and let them do pelvics, bimanuals, rectovaginals and TUBEs (totally useless breast exams – their term as it’s an inside joke). I think they also see them as whores and prostitutes for being willing and dumb and desperate enough to submit to these. And seeing that these celebrity women are especially attractive, I imagine these doctors are over the moon to have them as patients. Her wonderful doctor just couldn’t resist calling her a good girl (especially because he’s making untold amounts of money from her – good girl!)

     Be blessed.

     • Those are all valid points, terrible as they may be. The thing that really aggravates me to no end as well is this was a woman who had symptoms and went to get them diagnosed and treated. How dare they talk down to a woman who is in actual need of care in that way. How dare they demean her to being a “good girl” when it’s entirely possible that some of these treatments may have been painful or time consuming or both. It is deplorable. They’re supposed to be “caregivers” so maybe they should start showing some actual care instead of talking down to symptomatic patients.

     • But the thing is that they don’t want to be “bullied” by that. Being caregivers & at least non-antagonistic generally isn’t appealing to them, so they don’t do it. Don’t know what the allure of keeping them around is, since someone considerably less qualified wouldn’t cost as much in salary & would potentially generate less financial damage in lawsuits or the circumventing of them- since they wouldn’t feel inexpendable or certified beyond failure. Not getting better is seen somewhat as a given, so there’s no reason to keep someone around that has higher expertise AND causes problems- they’re just a bigger paycheck & a smaller payoff.

   • It is disgusting – especially (as I suspect perhaps in this case) if said gynaecologist is male. I can imagine a man getting off on calling her a “good girl” as she is being inspected.
     It also makes my blood boil when women are repeatedly told this during labour. I’d be tempted to give them short thrift (verbally or even physically) if anyone dared speak to me like that. It implies the woman is child-like with little agency of her own so needs to be instructed to do things (such as have pelvics) because she as a lesser adult than a male, needs special care and attention – being female and all.

     Going back to another comment here, it appalls me that many doctors see women as fair game for these sorts of procedures because they are female – and might be sexually active. The idea that if a woman is sexually active with her own husband, then she must be okay about being regularly inspected sexually, is extremely offensive but I wholeheartedly agree, these doctors (especially the males) view women in this way, as free commodities. Sexually active with 1, 2, 3, 10… 100, it doesn’t matter, it’s all the same to them. No doubt, they see women as whores and the whole set-up of the consult room (table, stirrups, instruments etc) can’t help but inflame and confirm this notion for the men.

     They may hate us for “daring” to defy them and stand up for ourselves, but guaranteed, they will probably secretly, respect us more for it. And herein lies the problem, doctors are suppised to have empathy and understanding for their parients, but I cannot fathom that the status quo takes out all the empathy and reduces females to sexual objects. Men don’t belong in the gynaecology industry!

     • AQ
       I’ve often wondered how all of this was possible, why did so many women simply accept this test was necessary every year or two for most of their lives? Why so many women put up with coercion? Why the rare complaint from a woman forced to have a pap test fell on deaf ears? Why legal groups and the media refuse to touch this subject?

       I think it comes down to power and the way women were viewed when this testing was rolled out. Our dignity & bodily privacy didn’t matter, also, we were viewed as powerless, they could “deal” with any complaints so our legal rights could be safely dismissed. Ethical obligations didn’t matter either, we were second class patients/people.
       Women find it harder to avoid medical care, so they knew they could capture most women, especially when the Pill. Women are also more likely to comply with medical “recommendations” so the propaganda program worked well with many women, it also isolated dissenters. Locking away all real information and silencing any critics kept the program firmly in control.

       I know women (online and in real life) who lodged complaints after they were forced to undress for a pap test, pelvic and breast exam simply to get the Pill. (sometimes a rectal exam as well, why not?) The standard response was always the same, “this exam and test is in your best interests”…”we know if doctors didn’t insist on it, some women would avoid the exam and test and we’d see more preventable deaths”…”the doctor shouldn’t have to force you, you should know all women must have regular pap tests!”…etc.

       If you look at what was actually happening, it’s quite shocking…young woman goes to the doctor to get the Pill, (most women on the Pill are apparently under 35) the clinical requirements for the Pill is a blood pressure test and your medical history. The young woman is asked to strip off, if she’s reluctant it’s made clear she won’t get a script unless she has the exam. Some young women were left naked for the “exam”….others might get a sheet or paper covering, then her breasts are “examined” (inverted commas because it’s not required for the Pill, an unnecessary exam IMO, amounts to an assault, not an exam)
       then the speculum exam, bimanual and rectal exam….NONE of these things were ever clinical requirements for the Pill. It always seemed like a boy’s group being free to do as they pleased with young women, (mis-)using their power to safely assault women.

       So doctors and medical associations obviously got together and decided this is what they’d do, they were gatekeepers for the Pill so they’d demand all of these unnecessary invasive checks & in return they’d reward the woman with a script.

       This was acceptable to the profession…we still have the AMA and others here continuing to link the pap test with a script for the Pill, some mention breast exams, some still do pelvic exams. Nothing is done to stop this abuse….

       If we did some research I’m sure we’d find the attractive and young women are much more likely to face these “requirements”, that was my observation back in 1980 and I’m sure it still applies today. (but doctors have to be more careful these days)

       I’ve spoken to older women (usually from the UK) who gave birth at home using a midwife, all of these women said it was a respectful, supportive and caring environment, they felt safe to give birth. Contrast that to hospital birth where women sometimes come out feeling brutalized, many women feel out of control, like birth was a public event etc.
       Women lost a lot when childbirth became a medical procedure. We could have home birth midwives working with doctors but there has always been savage push-back here.
       The medical profession does not want to work with midwives/home births or pharmacists, it might result in better care for us, but also less control for them, inconvenient, and it would lower their market share and profits.
       That’s what we’re fighting, that’s what we must change, the attitudes that thought all of this was/is an appropriate way to treat women.

3. Looks like young women (and more older women) are getting to the evidence, the screening rate continues to fall
   http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/young-women-urged-not-to-be-complacent-as-cervical-screening-rates-fall/

4. Hi Eliz. The article states that 75% of CC cases are from women who havent been tested. Must I presume that 1/4 of all cases are from women that have? Why is no one hysterical over this fact?
   Also it makes light of the fact that from 18 – 70 every 2 yrs a women should be tested. Thats about 26 exams. This is a very invasive exam and very unpleasant to have yet we are expected to have them and not be bothered. They think women should not be very attached to the most private part of our body and just offer it up to anyone who asks without a second thought.
   If it was that easy then rape wouldn’t be such a bad crime only a minor inconvenience.
   I’ve only had 7 in comparison and one excision for the sus cells yet I am left unable to sleep at night. Sometimes even after all this time the pain in my vag is there. It changes your cervix somehow. It feels stiffer and I can feel a scar. I alter from anger to upset from one min to the next. I think mostly because its becsuse i always thought these things were ‘mandatory’ thank god a lot of women now know better and can decide for themselves.
   There is an awful site called Demos and one of their writers jo salter has produced a booklet to download it has all kinds of stats on how the nhs could save money when 70% 80% even a 100% of women tested. This woman is a Nazi and believes testing should be ‘mandatory’ . it scares me.
   No one is worried about the mental health of women being forced to undergo all these unwanted gen exams. The medical prof is behaving like a world wide criminal organisation. I will never trust them again.

   • Hi Linda
     We don’t hear much about false negative women, but they have used these women to promote pap testing. Deceiving women is almost a sport…
     Haven’t been tested…ever…last 2 years…last 3 years?
     You just can’t trust these people at all…it’s all spin, propaganda and misinformation. (often cherry picked as well, Breast Screen do that a fair bit, mention the research that supports screening, ignores the mounting-ever-higher research that does not support screening.
     At this stage the situation is so serious, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a class action, how can you possibly use celebrity endorsement to promote something that could lead to death?

     • Linda, I’ve always felt that serious over-screening shows women are almost held in contempt by doctors and others. Yes, women here have endured 26 or even more, pap tests when the evidence has been clear for a long time, (back to the 1960s) this is BAD medical advice. Serious over-screening provides no additional benefit to women, but greatly increases the risk of a false positive, colposcopy/biopsy etc. (profits!)
       We’ve also known for decades that early screening just harms lots of young women, but we couldn’t care less, we even used their pap test records to do some research on the effectiveness of Gardasil. Why not? Women have no rights according to these people…they can do as they please, no one pulls them up, it’s almost like “anything goes” in WOMEN’S cancer screening.
       I think this research may have held up the introduction of our new program too, don’t get rid of our young guinea pigs just yet!

       It’s also why self-screening options have IMO, been blocked and discouraged, Tampap was locked behind a GP’s script, a GP who gets target payments for pap testing.

       Now the “research” to support the new scare campaign has been released, just in time, our new program starts in 2017.
       These people watch us like hawks, they know more women are self-testing for HPV so that fact can’t be ignored, it’s a threat to the program, their control and profits.
       The Delphi Screener can be ordered online but they’ve already acted there, NOW you have to nominate your Aussie GP, this way they keep their claws in the women using the Screener. (outside the program)
       They also know IMO, that even more women will use the Screener as word spreads so it’s time for a proper scare campaign.
       http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/medical-news/hpv-screening-by-gps-beats-self-sampling
       It’s on a locked site, so I can’t post the article, but it’s bound to be released to the media shortly. IMO, this is to scare women away from HPV self-testing and get them back to the invasive HPV test (speculum exam, like a pap test)
       The Delphi Screener is reliable and easy to use, it’s now widely used in a few countries. Once again, they want to keep the herd in place, under control and assuming the position when ordered to do so. Honestly, they’re so predictable…
       They want women to have 10 or 11 invasive HPV tests, you can’t have women doing their own thing, even if it’s supported by the evidence. Informed women making sound decisions are a major threat to vested interests and these programs. Our welfare IMO, is not their main concern, not even a secondary concern.

       We’ll see increasingly desperate measures as they continue to lose control over more and more women, the herd is starting to break up, that’s good news for women.

     • Elizabeth, I agree. What you say is on an administrative level. You have successfully evaded their stirrup trap. Me, not so lucky. Thankfully though, my husband understands medical issues and came factory-equipped with a photographic memory. We discuss this often with women. What you say coupled with clinical experiences should raise eyebrows.
       So many of us me included, just got naked, and did as told. What they said served as “informed consent” whether it was or not. The pain, embarrassment, horror I suffered…when I met hubby he had a fit and said never again. His declaration included a mandate that he would accompany me as my advocate to all future appts and never again would I take a bad appt out on him.
       The learning experience left us both angry and feeling betrayed.
       A young (strictly monogamous) woman will endure questions and then the same questions reworded seeking a perverse knowledge of her sex history. Here again, “no I don’t” isn’t regarded as “no I don’t.” Exams which were painstakingly slow, very (unnecessarily) thorough in an asymptomatic young woman with no genetic history of cancer.
       Finally, at 50+ my last bimanual exam (before finding this site!) took less than 15 seconds. As if (I like to say) I could spread cooties. My husband later asked the doctor questions based on facts learned here. UNLESS the woman is very young and skinny, only the cervix and 1″ of uterus can be felt. And in young women, the ovarian/uterus cancer risk is nil.
       Given this info, every woman (and partner) should ask WHY we are forced into the stirrups?
       Because the doctor will go to jail if s/he doesn’t do the exam? (yeah, heard that a few times)
       Women are used to track sexual behaviors/trends. We are used so doctors can make money.
       Worst yet, when young, skinny, at our sexual best, we are used for doctors’ sexual pleasure.
       That is why paranoia and threats, not stats and double-blind studies, are being used to keep us naked, vulnerable, and flat on our backs where we can’t fight back.
       As I’ve said, through here my husband found Trovagene. He liberated me.
       PS: Unfortunately, as I also disclosed here. My husband was molested during a pre-op by four RN’s prior to a hernia operation. One performed a “hand-job” on him while another painted his abdomen with antibacterial gel and two others watched. He was tied down, his eyes covered, but he overcame the pre-op sedation, giving them the “finger” on both hands.
       Unfortunately, nothing has yet to become of this. Apparently, woman-on-man molest is not looked at as seriously as man-on-woman. The effects are just as bad though.

   • I think part of the issue is that these idiots who think women should not be entitled to dignity and bodily autonomy (just because they are women) are out of touch, plus they are finally being called out on their bs, re. the efficacy of screening. They are too thick to realise that the general consensus amongst enlightened women is now – “well, these tests are of low clinical value. So why, exactly, do I “have” to put up with this intrusive test?” If there ever was a reason in many women’s minds that they “must” submit to a degrading, humiliating test, the “need” is questioned when the truth about the efficacy comes out.

     The medical patriarchy are living in the dark ages and there’s this notion that women (by virtue of being women – a highly offensive and insulting insinuation), should be “used” to this because of childbirth. How many doctors, nurses and other women also talk about childbirth and smears as if they are inherently inter-linked: “when you have a smear/ give birth, you leave your dignity at the door”. I despise women who say this.
     My grandmothers never saw smears as “linked” to the female “condition” and one of the two has NEVER had a smear.

     These women belong to a generation, who contrary to what many people believe about women and what they should/ must do, were very particular about bodily autonomy and dignity. The type of women who did not comprise their RIGHT to bodily integrity even during times where that right may be at risk of being compromised, such as childbirth. They didn’t even talk about women’s issues, never mind leave their dignities at the door.

     The notion that I should compromise my right, purely because I am a woman, offends me greatly. It goes along with the same sort of thinking from the dark ages, that women must not pursue dreams or hobbies that might not be characterised as conventionally feminine, because as women, we must be “responsible”, “sensible”, “mature”, etc.

     What is interesting is that my mother works within social care for the elderly and vulnerable adults and the mantra is very much about, promoting independence, respect and dignity for clients when being assisted to wash and bathe and taking NO for an answer.

     Yet, we young and middle aged women are not entitled to even the RIGHT to exercise or expect the above?! No wonder, women are abandoning this programme in their droves and that this programme is in real trouble.

     • yes in us its bad too my dear friend who is 93, got a reminder for a mammogram!
       that is cruel to do that to her. i don’t care if she had past issues. she is too old for that.
       what are they going to give her chemo f they find cancer? U S medicine is all about money these days. Here in Florida u s a with a large elderly population, they put medical offices like fast food chains!

     • Yes, they would happily put this 93 year old woman on chemo! If her frail elderly body couldn’t live through it, they would chalk it up as another death from cancer – whether she actually had cancer or not, or if it was a slow-growing one that would be certain not to cause her any trouble for the rest of her life. If she’s one of the “lucky ones”, it would certainly degrade her quality of life, requiring her to have a lot of assistance or even a nursing home. That too, would be chalked up to “aging”.

       Yes, they put up medical offices more than they do fast-food restaurants! And, expect them to be used to capacity – somehow.

     • Diane – I agree with you, this is disgusting. It is unacceptable to badger a 93 year old woman about cancer.
       Even if she were to have it, it is highly likely that she would end up dying of something else and not from cancer.
       Why go actively looking for cancer in a woman of that age? They know that the mere trauma of worrying about having to undergo the test, coupled with the long wait for the “results”, then wait for treatment would likely have a significantly detrimental effect on the physical and mental health of a 93 year old woman. It is morally reprehensible in the extreme.

5. Linda this scares me to, I posted before I think this government will seek to make screening (bowel and prostate too) mandatory because it’s obsessed with people being fit and staying in work and overcoming barriers to get and stay in work!
   We shall have to see and fight back at the first hints..

6. Hi Kat. I wrote to you once before saying screening is on its way out but now i am worried. They might try to make all screening for everyone mandatory one say if numbers continue to fall. The fight might never be over.

7. Linda when proposals to make it compulsory in Poland were floated there was such an outcry it was shelved. I’m guessing it’ll be,same here. Our prisons are overflowing already can u imagine where they’d put people refusing to screen?? We will all kick up a fuss. Our beloved government is getting very good at u turns. I read the tampons tax could be on its way out as well!

   • In the UK, you’re probably right. At least British women have Bodica to look to (although things didn’t go well, which isn’t the point- one that would be missed in the US, I think). That said, it doesn’t seem like the British government cares what the people think- look at immigration. They’d probably have it be an exemption for muslim women & firls, but not for everyone else & that, in itself, would be a multi-faceted issue (ex: exploiting the disparity between the non-muslims to make it an “un-them” kind of thing, acting like it’s the “path of the superior” which is already exploited with regard to putting up with their bullshit because “they don’t know any better”).

     Speaking of the “they don’t know any better” concept, that seems to happen A LOT in the American population toward politicians & generally anyone that screws them over. They’re “idiots” & “crazy”- instead of people playing stupid or crazy. Gives those kinds of people a weird refuge in their intended victims self-esteem & rightful resentment. Might be something to bring up in discussions, since it seems Britain seems like it would try that angle.

     America is steadily becoming more & more of an internment camp. I notice that there’s a large dissatisfaction AND an issue with seeing antagonism or incompetence in much of it. It’s like if someone’s not in a gang, isn’t homeless, and isn’t wearing a towel around their head- they don’t register as an issue most of the time. Kind of a “Webster’s Dictionary defines an enemy as … ” situation. Don’t know if you guys have an unofficial “If it’s wearing blue, it’s true” & “If it’s wearing white, it’s alright” mentality, but when push comes to shove (or shooting, or stealing, or imposed probing, or anything else) that’s how people around here act most of the time.

     • Hi Alex. There is a pervading idea that people now need to do what our masters feel is the ‘right’ thing. Thats anything from food,alcohol,cigs,politicsl ideas,culture,and health. People perceived as not doing the ‘right’ thing are pariahs. I feel as tho the ‘western’ world is moving towards being one ‘mindset’ were we all do and say what we are told is the ‘right’ thing. In the future it will be criminal not to screen or eat 5 fruits and veg a day.. A bit like the vision Hitler had for everyone. My nephew who us 21 has just got a job working for the NHS his eyes have been opened to the extent its a billion dollar business.

     • What you’re talking about could be that things are all kinds of fucked-up & are looking to grab anything that sounds like it’ll fix problems. Cults sometimes spring up when a country turns into a shithole for this reason. It IS almost like a cult following, isn’t it?

       It’s weird- I was just noticing how people get all wrapped-up in “right,” like they actually have ethical concerns & that somehow EVERYTHING is an ethical concern.

       Maybe it’s because there is such a barren environment on that level that they start grasping at straws to fill the void? Maybe there are cases where someone is so arrogant that nothing’s good enough for them, so they find fault with everything or close to it (some religions are like this).

       I also think it’s possible that some people are so obsessed with someone doing what someone else tells them that they don’t care what that situation actually is, as long as someone’s doing what someone else tells them.

8. Hi everyone:

   I was just reading Alex’s post. Guess those overseas in the U.K. and Australia must think this election in the U.S. is a bit crazy – well we sure do. When all the noise, rhetoric, and opinions die down, there is an obvious candidate who is most qualified, but most people see elections as their right to be wrong – to vote for whoever matches their thinking – never mind who is best for all of the American people – or at least the majority. I won’t get political and say who I’m voting for as it’s beside the point of our website. And – I wouldn’t say that the U.S. is like an internment camp, Alex, but I Iike that you can see from across “the pond” the obvious slantedness of the media. It just seems America is like an internment camp because of the media that is picked up by other countries. It’s historic that countries generate media that other countries pick up in pieces and then feed to their citizens in pieces, so that the image of the other country is skewered. The U.S. media is no different as it likes to focus on certain issues/topics/fodder that they have determined will generate shock and high ratings at the same time, as well as disburse the opinions of those who run the media outlets. The American public is the primary target, but obviously, people in other counries will pick it up. It also disproportionately targets people, as Alex has mentioned. It’s less about giving an accurate picture about what’s going on in the country and more of a viewpoint they are trying to sell. Evidently, it’s similar over there with the mention of all the propoganda – specifically all I’ve been reading here about the NHS in the U.K. and what’s been happening with womene’s health in Australia.

   And I really need to stop and give my heartfelt sympathy for you all and the torment that their doing over their in the name of women’s health. Please help me understand, good women on this site how the women’s health systems in the U.K. and Australia are not being challenged by it’s female citizens, since there is a growing concern about screenings becoming law. I can’t see screenings becoming law. I imagine your countries have watch dog groups that would challenge it ever becoming law. It is after all medical rape to make women go in and spread their legs (for especially male, and for female doctors since they’re in it now) for something the government knows – cervical cancer, that is – isn’t prevalent. They know that globally only tens of thousands of women might contract it – and out of that how many are misdiagnosed making the numbers lower.

   The U.S. health system – has similar propaganda and demands – rather coercion tactics for women’s health. Their tactic is the “everyone’s doing it” tactic; it’s subversive. Thank the Lord, more and more women are also choosing not to get screened – too slow for me, though. The ACOG uses the “let’s make every woman think that all women are willingly spreading their legs to the good male and female doctors and baring their breasts and think nothing of it so why should you” – tactic to try to win people into the gynecologists’ offices. You should see some of the advertisements and internet articles over here. And they ignore the obvious trauma involved. I really think, ladies and Alex, that in medical school they tell the gynecology students to look at their patients like whores and prostitutes. That, well, if they’re out their having sex with some man or their husband, that all women shouldn’t mind spreading their legs for them – after all they aren’t some man or woman on the street – they’re in a sterile office in a white lab coat and they sweat through medical school and residency for goodness sakes.They are above everything and no one should question. It explains how they can clinically explain and do a pelvic exam and bimanual exam and look at you as if your feelings don’t matter. Like a good cook putting in ingredients for a good stew, they throw in fear by giving inaccurate statistics – and of course – denying informed consent. Our congress is too polarized to allow something like screening to become law – and our society is too politically active. They did try to make those nasty transvaginals required by law for women getting abortions, but it was shot down and destroyed – and the republican senators were woefully but deservedly ridiculed for their 1950’s view and knowledge of women. It didn’t become Federal law, but unfortunately, literally a few southern states decided to enact it – our government works like that.

   Well, I sure hope there is a blessed change over across the pond regarding women’s health. I’m really sorry you have to go through all of thatfearmongering. I’ve learned to ignore what I can ignore – especially gynecology screenings. I suggest – although a small suggestion – not to sound glib – but try to ignore the requests like junk mail you get in the post or even spam on your email. Just encourage women over there to ignore it. Life is too short for that.

   Everyone be blessed.

   • Penelope: Actually, I’m from America & am still living there now. I’ve seen my entire life how the people here very much want to be the “wellspring” from which other people flow & have an extreme issue with personal agency as well as simple accuracy. For all they talk about how other countries do one thing or another, the same dynamics in this country get given a pass & to hell with any issues this causes.

     I’ve noticed that there are a lot of cases where intangible trends would be present, but not something that you could pick up & hit someone in the head with- so it was deemed non-existent. It was like the tone of someone’s voice, but it’s pretty much impossible to argue.

     It’s BECOMING more like an internment camp, is what I’m getting at. The information mining, the non-stop rules (ex: in Michigan there are threats of child abduction if you stop paying for toxic water running into your house), the constant attacks by law enforcement- sometimes including medical personnel (ex: there was a guy in New Mexico that got medically tortured for three hours on cop command & it seems there is frequently medical abuse in jail/prison/juvie for women & girls)- even when there ARE laws precluding or allowing something, the actions taken against someone in spite of these laws are treated with support & protection.

     Look at something: If a cop were to bash into the wrong house & shoot the 7-year-old that lived there dead, someone would be right to assume that the case would be dismissed. If someone were to presume that a cop that breaks into a woman’s house & molests her would be able to escape legal issues by retiring, they’d be right. If someone were to think that they can have their assets stolen from them without even a formal accusation of a crime (never mind a conviction- which doesn’t necessarily mean anything, anyway), they’d be right. They’d also be right if they assumed that things cops do wrong don’t usually even go to trial (about 96% of the time, actually- almost the exact opposite of everyone else).

     Not to go on & on, but I think people look at cops as a middle-class gang & it makes them feel vicariously tough & dangerous- even when it’s the same people that would lock them or theirs up for defending themselves or just for kicks. Sure, blacks & latinos are USUALLY the preferred targets- just like serial killers might TEND to rape & kill hookers, because it’s the easier target. Still, there’s plenty of option to pursue the taboo. Also, it’s not just a “forbidden fruit” angle- there’s the “contradiction angle,” as well. Like how something happening a certain way isn’t going to MAKE them right it in the report & someone not doing something attackworthy isn’t going to BLOCK their attack.

     Just to cap things off, the medical things discussed on this site are not LIKELY to be vitiated or disaffirmatively reacted to by this kind of law enforcement community & that community may very well incite or facilitate these kinds of problems. Someone has a miscarriage when they’re 25, because of things that were imposed on them when they were 16, that were deemed perfectly innocent & safe- just a possible scenario. Not that relationship problems & drug use as a coping measure is out of the question. I think it’s called “racketeering” when someone causes a problem & then tries to get paid for responding to it.

     • Hey Alex:

       Thanks for clarifying to me you’re from America, also. All this time I thought you were an English bloke – lol. I imagined you write your posts as you speak; and that if you read them it would be in one of several of those charming British dialects in the U.K. My imagination is active, so please excuse me.

       You made me think on that word – internment. I can see from the examples you’ve given how policies and law enacted individually by law enforcement officials and local governments and systems, as well as outrageous individual behavior on behalf of these, makes it seem that America is becoming as an internment camp. From the prior posts, I can see how it seems that way with the NHS and women’s health providers harassing for pap smears in the U.K. But, I have to consider the outrageous stories that we’re barraged with, that you were good to mention; that are in the news, as symptoms of regional problems, and not a definitive boxing in of the country, as an internment camp detains it’s – detainees. If you had a few moles on your body, you wouldn’t conclude that your whole body is wracked with skin cancer, would you? We have to think positively.

       I can’t imagine the U.S. (Or the women’s health system in the U.K. or anywhere else….) becoming as an internment camp. Regarding the U.S, when I think of the word – Internment – I feel a stifled and suffocated sensation when thinking of the U.S. in those terms. I have to think more positively and put the things I hear and read about in perspective – after the feeling of disbelief from reading the articles subsides, of course. The word conjures the World War II internment camps in Europe – and America – when the Japanese were detained in the later parts of the war with Japan. It suggests we’re in a condition of captivity and confinement based on insufferable laws, rules, and regulations – like the World War II camps – and are at the mercy of captors – who don’t intend to free us. Mmmm, somehow I can’t correlate internment as a condition of the U.S. because people are very free to live their lifestyles (they just legalized pot in Colorado, for example) and do outrageous things (nudist colonies; cults?). However, I can imagine how you can see the actions taken against people, as a whole, as a kind of internment. Some are justified, like the growing numbers of parents arrested for locking their babies and toddlers in hot cars – it’s, if you will, a kind of “time out” for them (If I were a betting woman, I’d bet money that it’s not from being overwhelmed, but that they were on their cell phones…..). Some are not justified, like those parents who are locked up or at the least have their kids taken away by DHS for spanking – not abusing – their children. It seems we can’t go a day without some outrageous thing in the news on TV, in magazines, and on the internet. But I have to have faith that we aren’t going the way of internment. Thinking that way would change my outlook of how I live my life everyday – “just trying to find some peace” as the song goes. As they say, if you think it, you believe it, and eventually act according to it.

       It’s why I hold out hope for the women’s health care systems in the U.S. and the U.K, Australia, Poland (someone here mentioned Poland recently) and all the countries where women are medically abused. We’ve seen alot of progress over the decades towards the good of people. Since one sure thing is change, I believe that, since people are increasingly become activist against what is wrong as well as being able to more easily obtain knowledge to challenge what is wrong, that things will change again – for the better. I hope we see it soon – or at the least in our lifetime.

       Let’s be blessed.

       (P.S. – sorry Sue if I took a few liberties and detracted too much from our topics; if I did, then I apologize.)

     • Penelope: It’s funny you say that, because I’ve actually had a few people think I was Scottish/Australian from my demeanor & accent (once for the first thing, a few times for the second) AND I actually am part Irish & English.

       I get what you mean about thinking positively & not fixating on the severe things to the point where it totally swamps your attention, but that’s not what’s happening. It’s more like the idea of gang activity that is increasingly severe & increasingly more frequent. The more the pervasiveness things are the more the concept comes up- just like a heat wave. Personally, I don’t think everything in America is bad, just that the things that are tend to blanket the things that aren’t. For example, there are a lot of things that are legal on paper, but in practice it’s kind of a “Go ahead & try it- I dare you.”

       Personally, I think a lot of people in this culture have a huge issue with private enterprise in the broad sense. ANY exertion of personal agency is some kind of an issue, it doesn’t matter what it is. This is not likely to be announced, however.

       That, or the people won’t actually look at what DID happen, but what COULD have happened if things went differently & then base their assessments on that. I guess that would be called a “False Boyd Cycle,” where they fantasize & observe THAT, then orient their decisions & actions based on it- instead of going by real life. Whether this is done deliberately or by reflex, the effect will be the same- just like if someone shoots to deliberately commit murder in itself or they simply fire on whoever looks scariest while in a panic, the person that didn’t have it coming still gets shot.

       If they were to outright say: “They weren’t wrong, but if they did things differently they would have been- so I’ll just pretend that this is the case & pull the trigger on them” it would come off like the injustice that it actually is. Some people won’t adjust course when they realize they’re making a fiction-based decision, only hide it- if they’re not simply “biting because they like to bite.”

       If a person is too arrogant to notice their own mistakes, this amplifies the potential for them & if they’re not in any danger when they screw up or screw someone over, that simply amplifies things further- kind of like a “too big to fail” situation. Does any of this sound like something that can likely happen in America? Not 100% definite, but plausible sometimes to the level of probable? It always came as a welcome surprise to me whenever things didn’t go this way- but it WAS a fairly rare thing. Especially when dealing with situations that people are afraid off- like the concept of getting attacked, for instance. Even in discussion it was like this, so I presume a trial & a jury deliberation would likely go the same way.

   • This idea that” everyone’s doing it.”. Is being hevly played out in t.v shows and American movies. They make lite of it like a joke . its discussing and becoming more common.

     • Hi Kleigh. I agree. In the UK there is a comedy written by so called feminist caitlin moran. Who isn’t really a feminist but just some cow who has a thing against men. Its called ‘raised by wolves’ the mother mentions paps in random sentences that have no meaning every week. Eg. The father wanted to keep a statue they found in a skip and put it in the garden but for no reason the mother said ‘has it been pap smeared?’ The week before she was coming out if the clinic, it was the same clinic she came out of in series one – she came out walking all funny with her skirt tucked up in her backside – because according to her daughter character who is about 10 (and shouldn’t really know about smears anyway) commented ‘mums just had her pap’ The ‘canned’ laughter they dubbed in would make you think this was the all time funniest joke in history as it went on for ages.
       Also I saw one episode of jane the virgin the other day it was terrible.
       The media tries to ‘normalise’ paps in our heads. Now theyve turned to comedy.

     • Linda: What was the Jane The virgin one? I agree with the idea of things being propaganda & everything, but I figure it’s a bit more than that- it’s arguing against T.V. Despite the popular argument, it IS very frequent for people to believe TV as a knee-jerk reaction. It might not be something mentally announced & might be verbally mocked, but it DOES happen. Another thing is that women seem to give a flying shit about their “oddling” status- men, not so much (speaking as a general rule for both, of course).

     • Hi Alex. Jane the Virgin is an American sitcom. Apparently she went for a Pap and accidently got artificial insemed with a baby. Its just ridiculous. In UK we get loads of American shows and they are ususlly great especually the new x files. However this jane the virg is terrible.

     • Just saw a thing on Gardasil causing behavior problems that were covered up by the company that makes it. It’s on the Free Thought Project today (3/25/2016). Thought I’d mention it, but then there was that big article that kind of made this general point already.

9. Wow – I shouldn’t say that most people in the U.S. act on their right to be wrong – don’t want to jinx the November election before it happens…….

   I should say though that from my observations that a fair amount do – and that’s what’s making this election so crazy. I hope and pray that most will vote for the right candidate – that they know will do good for the majority of the U.S.
   Be blessed.

10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cervical+screening+programme

    There are a lot of recently produced medical articles available for the public to read on the PubMed website.

11. Linda, sounds like the UK is taking on the same ideas from American TV . its sickening. I’d rather not know a woman has had a pap smear it creeps me out.

12. If you have a facebook account, a lady in the UK has started a facebook site called:
    Cervical screening – right to refuse

    Well worth taking a look.
    She has also posted on Patient.co.uk under the Cervical screening and disorders forum.

    • There used to be a closed group on fb called “against gym exams, ” but the lady in charge went Mia. There were so many good commenters on there. sadly it dispanded but there were some angry pole who left comments.

13. Solopap was approved by the TGA late last year, you can order it online but your results are sent to your GP (no surprises there!)
    Naturally, there is a lot of bellyaching going on, the medical profession is not happy about this self-testing device. (many are not happy about self-testing…full stop)
    I’ve only started reading about it, but it seems to complicate testing, it does the HPV AND pap test and of course, it can be difficult to locate the cervix and get an adequate sample. The lab will apparently contact women if the sample is inadequate and ask for another sample.
    This is the point being made by many doctors, it can be difficult to sample the right area (even with a speculum exam) but that’s not a reason to condemn self-testing.
    HPV testing should stand alone, if a woman is HPV+ then she might prefer to use Solopap – if the pap test bit comes back Normal then she can just self-test for HPV again in a few years.

    So I’m a bit concerned Solopap might worry a lot of women, HPV- but abnormal pap, for example, it shouldn’t because we know HPV- and you can forget about pap testing, but…will women leave it at that if they get an “abnormal” with the HPV- reading? I know combined testing causes confusion and over-investigation in the States.
    IMO, women would be better off using the Delphi Screener. (if they want to test)

14. I think Australia will argue self-testing is unreliable focusing on problems with some of these testing devices, but they won’t mention the Delphi Screener because they know it’s reliable and easy to use, as good as a sample taken by a GP or nurse.
    It sounds like the free HPV self-test kit that will be offered to unscreened/underscreened women (or those who refuse the invasive HPV test for 6 years) is not the Delphi Screener, that way they can say it’s less reliable than the invasive test.

15. Anne Mackie has responded to our comments on the NHS Screening site:

    “Dr Anne Mackie — 22/03/2016
    Dear Elizabeth, Helen and Kat

    I am responding to you all at once as I think your issues are very similar.
    We know that for women in the UK screening and treatment for risk of developing cervical cancer has been very effective indeed. The national screening programme has meant that deaths and suffering from cervical cancer are now rare events.

    In the beginning of the programme there were no standards (you might call them targets), no prescribed pathway nor any quality assurance (mechanisms to make sure that all the parts of the pathway are working (from admin to IT to doctors and nurses) as they should be. Women were invited and screened and tested and treated according to local processes and enthusiasm. This led to a huge amount of unnecessary discomfort and anxiety for women and NHS clinical time and effort with little effect on deaths.

    Recognising this the Department of Health asked that a central system be set up to improve the situation. A team developed standards, described a pathway and set up a system to make sure that all was being done as it should be. This legacy has meant that we have one of the best screening programmes in the world and cancer of the cervix is now rare.

    Along the way we have learned all sorts of ways to make the programmes better deliver the health benefits that they promise. Key among them are centrally described pathways, standards and Quality Assurance. Also we learned that opt in programmes are utilised much, much less than opt out programmes. This means that if we were to make cervical screening an opt in programme that more women would get and die from cervix cancer. The introduction of GP payments helped to improve coverage from about 40-50% in the mid-80s to well over 80% in the early 90s

    But…. we are also clear that screening is a choice and should not be forced on people who wish to decline. To that end we have produced supporting information for people and clinicians (GPs) that say it’s an offer. Doctors being people too will have their own take on this information and we know that some are keener than others but all have been told that it is an offer. There is clear information to assist women who wish to decline to explain how they can do that on the offer letter.

    So you may say how come you have targets? Doesn’t that show that you’re not serious about it being a choice?

    My answer is that if the target was 100% then you would have a point but the target is 80%. This allows for women to decline. While we don’t know how many women actively decline in the cervix programme we know that in the breast programme it is less than 1%. If that is the case in the cervix programme or even if we say it’s 10 times that many then that means there is still a lot of women who have not declined and yet are not being screened. We know that they are most likely to be those at risk as we have evidence that uptake is lower in women from poorer backgrounds who are more likely to smoke, which increases their risk of cervical cancer. We are concerned that such women, who are not screened, have not really made an informed choice not to be screened. It is therefore important we strive to ensure that all women are given a choice.

    If you as individuals are being pursued by your GP in what you consider to be an inappropriate manner then you should follow the advice in this link to make a complaint http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/complaints/Pages/NHScomplaints.aspx

    I hope this is helpful

    Anne”

    • My response to Anne Mackie’s comment:
      “Screening has been very effective”
      For whom? We know it can only help a fairly small number of women but harms and worries huge numbers thanks to false positives and false negatives. We focus on the small number helped (whether they were actually helped or simply over-treated) and ignore the much larger group left worse off. So the masses end up worried and harmed to help a few, is that fair?
      We’ve also made decisions to increase the risks with this testing so the majority who can never benefit face a higher risk of harm, early screening, over-screening, screening during pregnancy etc.

      “The introduction of GP payments helped to improve coverage from about 40-50% in the mid-80s to well over 80% in the early 90s”

      Exactly how did the incentive payments “help”, I’d argue it motivated more doctors to pursue and harass women, to ambush us in consults, to flag files and even sack “non-compliant women”. Are these payments compatible with respecting choice?

      These payments are unethical unless they’re mentioned to women, this potential conflict of interest is kept under wraps for a reason, they KNOW it’s unethical and they know telling women about the targets may put some women off screening or to at least take a closer look at the test.

      “While we don’t know how many women actively decline in the cervix programme we know that in the breast programme it is less than 1%.”

      I’m not sure how they work that out, anyway…
      How many screened women actually make an informed decision TO screen, we’re told we must or should screen, we’re told it’s part of being a woman, it’s rarely presented as a choice, huge numbers have been scared and misled into testing, many believe they are survivors (when they were over-treated)
      I’d say MOST screened women have been misled and are not making an informed decision to screen, you can tell by the comments, “I left it 12 months between my tests and pre-cancerous cells grew in that time” etc. “All of my friends have had cc”…etc.

      At the moment the only women with a choice are informed women, others stay away from medical care, face the screening lecture at every visit, get phone calls etc. I’d say many of these women are actively declining but they’d be counted as unscreened to be pursued, persuaded etc.
      It seems it’s only the informed and determined who manage to get an opt-out form to end the harassment. (and sometimes that’s only for a few years)

    • Hi all. What does Mackie mean by they have produced ‘supporting info’ for people and clinicians about the fact its only an offer? Have they sent out letters to all GPs and their vile ‘familiars’ ? Have they been told to respect our decision and not to hassle us. Also what if this clear info assisting women who wish to decline?
      I want to see this new ‘info’ where can i go about downloading a copy.
      Is Mackie lying about this? She often seems very muddled about other things.

    • “the target is 80%. This allows for women to decline.”

      Erm, but what if more than 20% decline? How can any target level exist when there’s supposedly free choice and they’re fine with that?

      “there is still a lot of women who have not declined and yet are not being screened” – she doesn’t appear to understand (at least not from the wording she’s chosen) that those two groups are not completely separate. Many women who have not screened are doing so because they’ve chosen not to, but haven’t been able to officially take themselves off the register.

      Also, in the UK you’re only off the register for 5 years. How does that give the impression it’s a choice?

      I’d have less of a problem with an opt-out system if:
      – everybody was presented with unbiased facts without some of those buried or brushed over (giving more weight to the 10 lives saved than the hundreds of unnecessary treatments)
      – nurses and doctors took “no, I’ve decided not to have them” as the end of the story, without us having to justify our decision every time.
      – they acted as if they respected that decision instead of sighing or tutting.
      – coming off the register was a quick automated phonecall or check-box on our file at the GP. No disclaimer form signing as if we’re about to do a bungee jump, no jumping through hoops to even be offered the chance to come off the register, and no phonecalls.
      – and once you’re off the register you are off for life. We’re capable adults who can ring for an appointment for a test if we change our mind.

      • http://www.bmj.com › bmj › 101.full.pdf

        I don’t know if you’ve seen the above article, but it’s an old one from 1989, by a Glasgow GP, discussing the near impossibility of reaching the proposed new 80% screening targets about to be imposed by the government in 1989. It says that between 4% and 5% were a hard core of determined dissenters, which absolutely refused, and not 1% as Mackie maintains. Nowadays, screening attendancies have dropped by a further 10% from the 1990’s – from 83% to about 73%, so I’d say as many as 15% could be hard line decliners now.

      • Exactly. If there is any “target”, I would expect that there’s no real choice at all.

        For instance, how do they decide which 20% are “legitimate dissenters” and so will not be pursued further.

        The reason I think they like this “herd mentality” is that if women are indoctrinated as a whole class, it is easier to manipulate women into complying.

        If 10%, 15% and 20% decline – what happens then? The chances are that once you reach 20%, the number of dissenters will eventually increase further. Once they go over the threshhold, they are in essence, saying that those cohort of women (those over 20%) are no longer essentially allowed to decline.

        How do they propose they monitor compliance rates to ensure women don’t “escape” and that they maintain that 80% threshhold without compromising informed consent and the right to bodily autonomy?

16. https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2015/08/03/how-do-we-help-people-decide-if-screening-is-the-right-choice-for-them/

17. Something I just thought of as a possible mental issue: Maybe they look at the cervix as the “smoking gun”? If someone was anti-life/corrosive to life & obviously women have babies, wouldn’t it be like an idiot/crazy person zooming in on the barrel of a gun in a murder?

    Like this: Someone’s backward, so they see life like other people see death. Delivering a baby is like delivering a bullet. The anatomy that’s employed in delivering a baby is seen in the same esteem as the weapon that’s used to deliver a bullet.

    Now, of course, guns don’t kill people- since it’s the person using the gun that’s doing the act. That said, it’s fairly obvious that people ignore that & blame the gun (there’s probably a psychology term for that kind of thinking, “object fixation” or something like that).

    If someone was this way, they might have an attraction to the toxic. They might have issues with someone being strong in the extreme or not injured despite all the odds. They might very well go “on the attack” over simply being. It’s kind of hard to say when dealing with someone that’s a non-cliche version of crazy. They’re not necessarily going to put on a purple suit & scar their face- other people’s faces, maybe.

18. Anne Mackie states:

    “We know that for women in the UK screening and treatment for risk of developing cervical cancer has been very effective indeed. The national screening programme has meant that deaths and suffering from cervical cancer are now rare events.”

    So according to her statement cervical cancer is now rare because of screening . As there were no randomised controlled trials before the screening programme was rolled out to the population, I don’t see how they can legitimately attribute the decline in cervical cancer solely to a screening programme. The numbers were already in decline before, so there may be additional factors in the mix. Without RCTs it is not clear cut at all.

    • Hi. Screening did not help me. She knows the whole thing stinks. I think she or her minions have been accessing this site and reading the posts. They know the game is up and are doing some serious spinning.
      There are literally hundreds of thousands of comments on the internet about smear tests from every country in the world. Lying to us hasn’t been isolated incidences of a few doctors. This whole thing is global. I don’t think women realise the extent the World Health Organisation is in on this. If you look at their cervical screening manifesto printed in 2014 35 out of the 70 strong department has vested interests in this programme. They are all declared quite openly. They are making millions out of this. Some have their fingers in every pie and their names are listed more than once. My friend tells me that the next manifesto will have their vested interests printed in a seperate pamphlet as they now have so many.
      You can not undo what was done to me simply by telling me thing wern’t run properly.
      You can not undo the feeling that I didn’t fully own my own body. It was like my vagina was some kind of small business and other people owned shares in it and I couldn’t make the decision on my own what happened to it.

      They totally p!zzed off the wrong person. The day I woke up to my rapes was a day they’ll regret. I have the ability to produce a free download every 3 months for the rest of my life and overwhelm the digital book market. They never thought someone like me had this potential.
      .

      • Linda, I think this is a problem that they simply didn’t factor into the screening programmes when they set them up in the UK. Who would have thought, when they set the programme up in 1989, that millions of women would be turning to social media to air their grievances. They must have been rubbing their hands in 1989, that their propaganda machine was watertight. They must have thought that all those who were terrorised into going and enduring many unnecessary procedures would never find out that it was all for nothing. They are finding out now that screening programmes are having to operate in an open transparent way. No wonder they are proceeding extremely cautiously with other future planned programmes (if there are likely to be any at all from now on).

    • Absolutely. What they fail to mention is that most deaths from cervical cancer are in the over 65s. Not quite the poster girls Jo’s Trust likes to use for its campaigns, and too old for the screening programme anyway, but then perhaps that’s what the campaigners mean when they say that most women who get cervical cancer are those naughty girls who have not had their smear tests. Which begs the question, what has the screening programme done to save their lives if they haven’t been attending it.
      None of their arguments hold water.

      • Then, there are some over-65s who continue to get regular pap tests even though they are not recommended. My nearing-80 year-old neighbor is “very glad” that she continued with her pap tests. They “found something” and she got her hysterectomy “in time”. Now she considers herself a cancer survivor! Moreover, for awhile she was encouraging all women to “be sure they had their annual pap”, no matter what their age. She went to the doc for pain in her lower back, and he “determined” that her CC was causing it. Guess what? Even though she “survived” cancer (or “cancer scare” or high-pressure sales), her back still hurts!

        It probably didn’t save her life, but think of all the free advertising they got out of it! And, all the money they scammed out of Medicare for this nonsense.

19. Take a look at @Beth_Meyerson’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/Beth_Meyerson/status/714979676893028352?s=09

    OMG it looks like “Jade Goody, the movie”.
    Special presentation by a couple who have
    “lost their daughter to HPV”. Hope it clears up soon.

    • Hi. Yes social media has changed everything. No one foresaw this way of connecting. The young wont do anything anymore without doing the research. If only it had been around in 1989. They treated us very badly.
      Is Public health england a bit scared of us? New people find us every week.

      • What gets. Me is her comments about the lower socio economic smoking women who don’t come forward for screening and she’s worried they’re not making informed choices. Presumably the vast majority of these women can read so they’d probably have read the leaflets that came with their “invitations”. Admitted the leaflets don’t present much information but still… Maybe they do there own research? And its a never ending circles.. No where is it spelt out you can opt out so women from all socio economic backgrounds are in the same boat! Ignore this ” invitations ” and get labelled daft!
        It now says on the NHS website its a choice, and if the new invitations do explain how to opt out, what do they think will happen? I’d hazard a guess that women will vote with their feet and decline. Then probably millions more will be spent trying to find out why we’re not accepting our “invitations”!
        My doctors know I’m a lifelong never smoker and I’ve always been hassled to have smear teats!

      • Linda – Further to a message I sent to you some weeks ago, I have a book title for you (that could help with your latest book).

        It is called, “Law, Fertility and Reproduction” by Gillian Douglas.

    • Complete with “on-site” HPV vaccines. Got to rope em in with hype while still gullible. Until they find out Gardisil kills. Just amazing. See the poster with the cute young virginal looking girl? You’d want to protect that, RIGHT? I can imagine this must-see movie. Vomit. Wish I could graffiti “Sponsored by Nazis” across it.

20. Although when it comes to screening, some simply don’t see women as human beings with legal rights, we’re bodies.
    I was shocked to read a senior doctor say publicly that we shouldn’t change our program until they’d completed the research that was going on with young women, they were comparing the pap test records of vaccinated young women. (Gardasil)
    It was stated that Australia was in a unique position to do this valuable research as so many countries did not or no longer pap tested young women. That research showed some GPs were pap testing girls under the age of 17. (it was mentioned in the research that these girls should not have been tested)
    So we knowingly left an excessive program in place even longer, at least partly, to assist the researchers. We knew women were being horribly over-screened exposing them to a higher risk of a biopsy or “treatment” and we knew testing young women was fairly high risk for probably no benefit at all.
    So it’s not surprising they have little respect for women, our rights, our health, well-being, bodily privacy or dignity.
    It’s not surprising they scoff at the pain/discomfort/indignity of the test when they’re happy to “require” far more testing than necessary (and pap testing can never be necessary) but my point is 7 pap tests from age 30 since the 1960s in Finland, 26 tests here (moving to 10 or 11 hpv tests next year)
    They’re happy to increase the risk of excess biopsies and over-treatment.

    That’s what we’re fighting, the unacceptable way women are viewed and treated, making more see that saving a few lives can never justify treating women like mere bodies. Attitudes and conduct are now so entrenched it will take lots of women demanding better treatment and reminding doctors that poor conduct will not be tolerated. More and more women are not prepared to put up with lectures, threats or insults from GPs and nurses, endless demanding letters etc.

    I’m sure they fear a class action, their behavior was only okay because women were powerless to do much about it, they were all powerful and firmly in control….now the power dynamic is changing. IMO, that’s why we’re seeing damage control, more spin, more transparency (that seems to be the new word for the NHS) but they still have to protect the program and all who feed off it.
    I think our comments here and elsewhere were certainly part of the catalyst for change.

    • Couldn’t agree more with this. The Scottish cervical screening programme is still calling up women at age 20 until 1st June 2016, when it will switch to age 25 in line with the English programme. I have read that this was deliberately kept at 20 to provide a test group to see how well the Gardasil vaccine was working and if HPV rates were decreasing after the vaccination programme was introduced in 2008. Because the English programme doesn’t call up for screening until age 25, they have only just started to be able to assess this in English women since last year. It was openly stated that by keeping the age as low as 20 in Scotland, they could have an earlier idea of how effective the vaccine was.

      Funnily enough, chlamydia screening has been set up in the UK for all those under age 25 for some years now. There is no call up for this, but any teenager visiting their GP for any purpose, is asked to provide a urine or swab sample, which is then tested for HPV. If positive, they know these youngsters are sexually active and are the ones to follow and watch, so they are keeping tabs on the HPV situation by another means.

      We found out that our local school was teaching about HPV testing as part of their science classes, and the teenagers were providing urine samples to be tested. It came to light when some parents started making complaints about it. The school replied that it was entirely voluntary and none of the teenagers were forced to provide a sample if they didn’t want to, but my suspicions were that it was a sneaky way to find out those who were sexually active. I doubt the teenagers themselves were too sure about what they were letting themselves in for.

      • I doubt that the urine was being tested for HPV but more likely for STI. There is a standard STI urine test.

        I got the sneaky urine test trick at the doctor’s office. He asked for a urine test at the office and the lab request sheet can be filled in with whatever he wants later. He told me later that my STI test was clear. I had complained of a bladder infection so that is why I gave the urine sample. I was angry because I never consented to an STI test being married for over 15 years I do not need that. So now I ask for the lab requisition sheet and go to the lab and give my sample there or better pee in jar at home instead of their filthy washroom. I make a copy of the requisition and look up the tests ordered in the internet. I am also very angry that I am never given copies of my test results. So now I just go to doctors for emergencies.

        No one should be tricked into giving medical tests. All require CONSENT.

      • Interesting that teenagers can provide a urine sample to test for HPV, but woman “must” submit to a smear test.

      • Remember, there IS a urine based HPV test. Trovagene. Out of San Diego CA USA. $140 through insurance or $120 cash. Uses PCR and antibody pickup.
        Thanks Elizabeth for the “Dr Beyes” tip. Nice to know.
        Recently my husband needed an Rx. An office visit was requested. As it begins, the doctor puts a glove on. Hubby knew what it was for but played dumb. Finally after 15 min his GP stated that he wanted to check his prostate. Hubby refused. GP’s mouth fell open.

      • Some in US thought teens were better off when Big Brother set aside parental notification for abortions. The same individuals and do-good groups lamented that parental participation in middle and high school events has dropped off. What’s said here, that schools claim that students “voluntarily” gave consent for urine based STI tests, shows authority taken too far. When was the last time a teen was able to make his/her own med-legal decision w/o a parent signing off? Even for a field trip. In no way was informed consent given.
        Imagine the love and concern given to anybody coming back positive.

21. I found an interesting article on Kevin MD about cancer screening, think I might quote this back to Anne Mackie, this is one of the points she’s missing (although I’m sure she fully understands the position but has the tricky job of trying to convince us otherwise)

    “The deeper issue is that thinking about breast cancer screening requires you to hold both of the following facts in your head at the same time:

    1) Some people will benefit from a screening test done in a population of asymptomatic individuals, even if there is a low prevalence of disease.
    2) Statement #1 is not a justification for screening.

    The reason why the anecdotal “save” like the congresswoman’s shouldn’t be used to justify screening in all populations is because it ignores the teaching of Dr. Bayes. Bayes’ theorem reveals that even a highly sensitive and specific test if applied to a population with a low prevalence of disease, will lead to many more false positives than true positives, and the lower the prevalence of disease, the higher the ratio of false to true positives.”
    http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/05/this-is-why-its-so-hard-to-rein-in-mammogram-screenings.html

    Exactly…you simply can’t justify the widespread worry and harm caused by these programs by holding up a fairly small number of women who were (possibly) saved by testing. This is especially true when you don’t give women a real choice, that’s apparent by the material given to women, very one-sided with choice tacked onto the end (that’s in the UK brochures, it’s not mentioned in many countries) It’s apparent just looking at the approach taken in women’s screening, whether that be sending women an unsolicited appt for breast screening and expecting them to call and cancel if they don’t want to screen. The programs know many women will feel obliged to attend or won’t get around to canceling so they’ll get more through the door, numbers…not informed consent.

    You cannot say we use the opt-out system instead of opt-in to save more lives, IMO, that suggests capturing women who are not motivated or able to get to real information and stand up for themselves, they KNOW most women won’t pursue or find the opt-out option. (especially when screening is presented as a MUST)
    How many years has this program been operating?
    How many women are still unaware they can opt-out? I rest my case…
    I find it offensive to argue an opt-in option is better because it saves more lives, it also does not sit with ethical cancer screening. This approach has led to coercion, extreme pressure, inappropriate screening, harassment etc.

    The program does not want women to have an easy OUT, so the opt-out option is reserved for those determined to be removed from the program.
    At the very least opt-out information should be readily available and the right to refuse accepted, but the fact is these programs don’t “work” on that basis.

    If these programs can’t operate in a legal and ethical way, they shouldn’t be permitted to operate at all (and should never have been approved in the first place)

    • This comment on that article is very true: “We as a profession have failed to convey that in actual fact most women do not get breast cancer. Instead we have allowed marketing and hype to pervade our field. The people who sell soap do not tell you that most reasonaably clean people do not stink; instead they all tout their special antibacterial ingredients. Likewise, we have frightened women with misleading information.
      Remember that every medical statement that contains the word “may” would be just as true if it said “may not.”

      Fear and misinformation and hyperbole pervade cancer and cancer screening and sadly because of that most people expect to get cancer especially women with breast cancer and CC.

22. My family dr has moved to online bookings and despite it clearly stating on my medical records that I do not want paps within a day I received a message stating that I was way overdue for a pap test and to book an appointment now. The message contained fear tactics that I could have cancer and not know it and a pap is the only way to know. It also blatantly lies saying that cell changes on the cervix caused by HPV infections don’t go away. The appointment that I was ordered to book is for a women’s wellness visit which likely includes a breast and pelvic exam which are not evidence based. Of course the message contained no information that would allow me to make an informed decision about screening much less that I had the legal right to decline. Also the medical clinic does not have the equivalent of a women’s wellness visit for men. It’s all about making their screening target and women’s health care only involves their sex organs. The clinic was reminded of my informed decision to not screen.

    • ADM, this is the biggest issue I have with woman’s screening, how it’s assumed we will all have it with out question. I’m assuming your American too. I hate that question ” when was your last Pap smear?” Gerr. There is so much wrong that. Implying it was something that had to have been done and they want a date for there records. It is made to seem right.

      • What I hate even more than “When was your last Pap smear?” is that when I give them a year in the last century, they’ll immediately start pushing one, that “you need this” and “it’s important that you get one TODAY”, and even start setting up for one – REGARDLESS of the reason that I’m seeing the doctor. From there, it’s a high-pressure sales pitch for the pap, me resisting that, which is done in lieu of any actual medical care or treatment involving the condition that brought me in. So, I fail to get medical treatment that I need, I don’t get that all-important pap test, I’m irritated, aggravated, and CHARGED for the extra time they spent “selling” the pap test.

        What good is it to even go then?

23. Well, you don’t fail at all- you encountered THEIR failure. They aren’t supposed to be pushing people around & acting like it’s okay. They figure out some kind of translation to “saving lives” & “providing care” that equates to whatever antagonism they engage in is a non-issue. I guess because the situation could have been totally different, it’s equal to what actually did happen.

24. CONSENT TO CANCER – hidden from us – should be included with our invite (order)SCREENINGhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/436770/cs4.pdf
    At then end there are 3 forms to dissent and get removed – maybe worth trying?

25. Has anyone else in the US received harassment err I mean survey calls from the CDC about vaccinated children in your household? I kept getting a call from a strange number out of state, at least once a day for about the past week. I finally answered today and a woman spoke, saying she was calling from the CDC to conduct a survey about children in my household and their vaccination history. I told her I was not interested, she continued to speak, and I hung up. As I do not have any children, I’m not eligible to participate in the survey anyway. I googled the number thinking it was a scam, however it is legitimate and listed on the CDC website. The 800notes website had some great comments about it. One woman had a child who ended up with autism and believes there may have been a link, now she has the CDC calling her up about vaccines. It’s so inconsiderate. Whether or not vaccines cause autism, this woman is being reminded often of what she considers to be a potential factor. That’s so heartbreaking. The CDC should not be harassing people like this. Here’s a broken link for the 800notes website to anyone who’s curious about the situation (it’s broken to avoid being flagged as spam, delete spaces): http ://800notes. com/Phone. aspx/1-312-578-7015

    P.S; There is a Ro who has commented on the 800notes site who is not me. I suppose I should have chosen a more unique nickname to go by LOL.

    • Not sure what’s going on in US, but in Australia Australian Bureau of Statistics has been conducting the most outrageous and privacy-violating health surveys. Basically, they send a household a letter that they have been “randomly” selected for a survey, and from that moment the unfortunate victims in the household are forced participate, otherwise they will be fined and can even be dragged to court or jail. The surveys are very invasive, including raking through the person’s health history, taking body measurements, and even blood and urine tests. I have no idea how that’s allowed in a free country. And, instead of putting an end to this abuse, Australian Bureau of Statistics have instead been given even more powers recently to collect and retain even more personal information from Census and link it to other databases, including health records!

      • That’s horrible! How can people be forced to participate like that? That’s so awful that they’ve gained even more power. There’s no way any of that can be legal. Is there any way the citizens of Australia could collectively file some sort of petition against those practices?

        Here, it is a “voluntary” survey. Meaning you either volunteer up the information on your own free will or don’t. But if you don’t, they keep calling to harass you. So many people working in/for the medical industry keep using words like “voluntary” and “consent” but I don’t think they really understand what those words mean.

      • That’s not voluntary, then. Coerced participation is not the same thing, even though I’m sure they’d argue that it is.

        Just to mention it, there’s an implied threat of things getting strange with getting put in jail. Maybe there should be “invasive responses”? I don’t know if I should say that, but if someone were to flat-out say: “I’m going to get some woman to impositionally dyke-out on your daughter if she doesn’t fill out our survey,” my first thoughts would steer toward doing something along these lines to them. I know, usually it’s better to just shut down the threat & be efficient, but I’d imagine sometimes that would be exactly what that would be.

      • Ro, unfortunately, ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) has too much power and keeps getting more from the Australian data-hugry government. The government in Australia has long forgotten what individual privacy means and keeps pushing for more data collection and surveillance despite public resistance and outcry. For example, when Online Health Records were voluntary, 90% of Australians were against and refused to sign up. Next thing – the government pushes through a new law to sign up everyone without asking.

        There is a great volunteer organisation Australian Privacy Foundation that keeps fighting for our privacy and freedom (and I regularly make donations to them to help at least a little bit), but unfortunately, each side of the government — left and right — keeps criticising each other for privacy violations, yet, once they get to power, continues the same atrocity they were so against while trying to win the election. So there is no side of politics we can turn to: every time you complain about privacy, you get the same blanket response that it is in the public interest, everything is safe, and has been implemented after an “extensive public consultation”.

        The last “extensive public consultation” that let ABS strip everyone of their privacy and personal data safety for the upcoming 2016 Census was done without notifying anyone, and included only 3(!) submissions from citizens. Very “extensive”, isn’t it?

      • I think its shocking whats going on in Australia. I cant believe they would imprison individuals for not filling in a health survey. It sounds very sinister. You should all collectively fill in the answers with ludicrous facts or return them damaged beyond being able to extrapolate any data.
        I’m afraid the puppet masters of the so called ‘free’ world are controlling populations via the health system. They want compliance to all health screenings and they want us eating what they perceive as being the ‘right’ foods.
        I know its being done to save governments money on health spending but sending out these questioners that you ‘must’ answer is Nazism. I can not believe this is going on in the western world. Women seem to be the main targets of all this medical intervention even tho we outlive men by about ten years on average.

        Hi Kat. Not heard from you in a while i hope u r ok. I’m still working on my submission for our book. I will upload it in a few weeks once i’ve finished it. I’ve had loads of problems with malware and struggle with my computer to get it to do what i want.

      • Hi Linda and Kat, I’ve been deeply engrossed in reading books lately and come up with a gem. I don’t know how I didn’t come across it earlier:
        “Women and the health care industry: an unhealthy relationship?” by Peggy Foster, 1995.
        It is available for 1 penny from Amazon, and has a whole chapter dedicated to the unethical brainwashing of women by the UK cancer screening programmes. It is like a forerunner of Margaret McCartney’s book “The patient paradox”. Although old, it has a lot of details about how these dreadful programmes were bulldozed into operation “for the good of women” and has historical data that might help you with your next book.
        One of the most interesting details about cervical screening that Foster mentions,is that during the 1970’s research found a clear correlation between cervical cancer and women married to coal miners and other very dirty and dusty occupations, such as metal workers and builders. The research was buried, of course, but it got me thinking, that the collapse of these industries might have been a major factor in the reduction of cervical cancer, which “our wonderful programme” is claiming credit for.

      • Thanks for the link, Ada.
        I read one of Penny Foster’s articles quite a few years ago, it was old, but it looked at the approach taken by the program and considered the Q: Is this an ethical approach?
        It’s surprising (and shocking) just how few actually questioned these programs…even when GPs were sacking women who refused pap testing, demanding non-compliant women attend a “counselling” session, refusing women the Pill without a pap test (and often a breast and pelvic exam, why not?) etc.
        Can’t they “see” how differently men were “offered” prostate screening?
        Can’t they “see” how differently people are offered bowel screening?

        Most went along with the shocking treatment of women, others said nothing, even when female doctors started appearing the approach remained the same – how do we capture and screen women? Even now we have Papscreen basically offering GPs handy hints on how to tackle “excuses” that might be provided by “unscreened” and “under-screened” women. An informed refusal is never considered, it’s always about embarrassment, comfort, fear of cancer etc.
        It goes to show when those in power are free to abuse, most can’t see the abuse or just accept that’s the way it has to be… (or don’t want to rock the boat)
        Women were thrown under the screening bus, VERY few uttered a word of protest, even “non-compliant” women were silenced. We know censorship has just started to ease but today many of the pro-screening sites don’t permit comments, once it was all, “pap testing saved my life, so pleased the doctor forced me to have one”…now they might get a highly critical comment based on the evidence, law, and proper ethical standards, one they can’t answer with spin. Now it’s increasingly the case that deleting the comment and/or banning the poster can mean a complaint higher up the line. (and they know these comments are out there now and staying in place on other sites they can’t control or influence)
        The old tactics are not as effective as they were for many years, more and more can “see” the treatment of women by this program and the medical profession is culpable, completely unacceptable.
        We talk about family violence, gender inequality, yet they permitted this abusive program, it’s exactly the same thing, violating women’s legal rights and their bodies.

      • I also came across another book on “future trends in gynaecology”, and thought it might throw some light on the future of screening.

        The book did not foresee any great changes until the vaccinated cohorts are about 10 years into the screening programme, ie 2025. The suggested planned scenario then is as follows:
        Those fully vaccinated at age 12 will be called up for 2 smears in their lifetime – 1 at age 35 and another at age 50.
        Those vaccinated in the school leavers vaccination programme (ie at age 18) will be offered (summoned) to 3 smears at ages 30, 35 and 50.
        In the meantime it is business as usual for the rest of us.

        I happened to notice that the NZ government issued a statement that NZ would be switching to HPV 5 yearly primary testing from 2018 onwards following on from Australia,
        the UK and other countries. As yet, there has never been an announcement in the UK that the UK is switching to any new programme. HPV testing is still all a big secret for your average British woman. I think they fear any more of these pink propaganda scaremongering campaigns by the tabloid press.
        Of course they could be honest with women now and tell them the truth, but I reckon the 10 year postponement of any change is to gently run down the cytology business, and allow them to bow out gracefully.

        Interesting comment from Peggy Foster’s book, as she complains about the cost of the cervical screening programme, in terms of all the glass slides used and thrown away. I wonder what she would make of the situation now, where even the speculums have to be thrown away. How much do 4 million plastic speculums each year cost the NHS and where are they dumped?

    • I’m my I dislike the way the CDC talk to people esp woman about the screenings they”should” be getting and the vaccines they should get for there kids and for them selfs because now according to the CDC we are just baby incubators that need constant medical monetering. Very controlling if you ask me. And doctors follow the standards they put out in fear of being sued.

      • Hi Linda I’m around! I’m writing too! And getting used to a new laptop as well. I think your right about the higher ups wanting to monitor us more. At quite a few previous consults I was asked about things I didn’t consider relevant ie my working status, my job when I hadn’t asked for a sick note and wasn’t claiming it was work related. They always wanted to weigh me, I’m not overweight, and I’m asked about menopause, smoking, everything basically! Is anyone else getting this?
        Also Ann Mackie, is she serious? Saying she doesn’t know how many women actively decline smears? by actively I assume she means those who sign opt out forms,? And cervical cancer is such a threat to our health she doesn’t know how many of us opted out?? Oh well…!!

      • I’ve been asked all sorts of questions – about my job, work, hobbies, menopause, when my last period was, if I’m having any trouble, if I had a miscarriage, my love life/dating status (presumed then, that I have sex with everyone on the first date, and have sex with all of my male coworkers and male friends!), birth control.. Then, they don’t listen to the answers, because of how they’ll ask about something else and it’s clear they haven’t listened.

        I’m not getting that so much anymore, now that I’m older, and with a different doctor who is a young woman, and that I’ve learned to take my husband with me on EVERY appointment.

        The weight thing has somewhat of a purpose. If they prescribe medication, in some of it the dosage needs to be matched to the person’s weight. However, they could just weigh me then, if they want to prescribe something that has that requirement.

      • Thanks Ada I just ordered this. Off the penny bookshop!

26. Ok so according to the CdC I should be up to date on all vacceines. Be having regular well woman exams be avoiding alchol because they say I might not know I’m pregnant even tho I’m not sexually active and they say all woman not trying to get pregnant should be put on birth control. Well I don’t believe in hormonal bc and don’t want to put those hormones on my body and some woman get horrible side effects from the pill. That is never mentioned only woman are expected to take bc. A lot of men I know expect woman to be on it too.

    • Ever think it might partially be a mental stability issue with them? That it’s like having a “good bead on things.” Not knowing if she’s pregnant is something that gets them all twisted-up, but if she’s on the pill there’s an assurance of sorts that she’s not pregnant.

      They probably feel stupid & feeble by not knowing something- no way to look impressive by what they know if they don’t know something or at least have a plausible-sounding way to pretend they know something (they obviously won’t say that they know something based on inaccurate diagnostic measures).

      Seriously, the narcissistic personality traits get written-off as a reason for doing things when they shouldn’t be. Even with developments of things, why wouldn’t that be a factor? If someone’s nuts, wouldn’t it be entirely plausible that they come up with some bad science explained with specious reasoning? Wouldn’t this continue for years & become entrenched as something of a cultural tradition, especially if affirmations of accuracy were based on title instead of veracity? Someone being seen as right because of their seniority or rank is a potentially life-marring or life-ending habit.

      • Hello Alex,

        “Ever think it might partially be a mental stability issue with them? That it’s like having a “good bead on things.” Not knowing if she’s pregnant is something that gets them all twisted-up, but if she’s on the pill there’s an assurance of sorts that she’s not pregnant.”

        To be blunt, I think the edict that all women of “childbearing age” treat ourselves as “pre-pregnant” (a decision originally enacted during the Bush II administration) is emblematic of the larger War on Women that’s been waging for decades in the U.S. The powers-that-be simply can’t stand the idea of women having autonomy or agency over our own bodies, and anyone who refuses The Pill while having intercourse might get pregnant and choose to have an abortion.

        Putting as many women on The Pill as possible lowers the total abortion rate, which satisfies Democrats and Republicans alike who are opposed to any procedure that places a sentient adult woman above an immature fetus that cannot live without said woman’s support. Likewise, demanding that women between menarche and menopause treat ourselves as “pre-pregnant” consistently — regardless of how inappropriate this may be, whether it’s because we don’t want kids, can’t have them safely, don’t have the type of sex that causes pregnancy, or all of the above! — trains Americans, especially women themselves, to view our gender as innately governed by our biology. And to view our biology as our destiny.

27. Hi. They are deff monitoring us. I think its collecting info. A doc asked me about meno and when i answered he typed into his comp in front of me which i thought was rude. I told hubby that for all future apos he is coming with me. I wish i had thought of it years ago.

    • Thanks for sharing.
      i don’t have any one to go a Dr with me. In the US , I find office staff rude and uncaring.
      i do the best i can with my Dr anxiety, I will US medical system is to caught up in paper work and collecting $$$$. Its impossible to get anyone to listen.
      If you divert from the system, you are considered non compliant.
      I feel the system has turned people away from seeking medical help.

      • Diane, you wrote:

        “In the US , I find office staff rude and uncaring.”
        “i do the best i can with my Dr anxiety”
        “Its impossible to get anyone to listen.”
        “If you divert from the system, you are considered non compliant.”
        “I feel the system has turned people away from seeking medical help.”

        And, I agree with ALL of these points. Yet so many smarmy know-it-alls tell me “I’m crazy” and deny my repeatedly negative and abusive experiences in the U.S. medical system. So I’m “crazy,” now, for telling it like it is, and what’s more, objecting to the idea of paying hard-earned money (sometimes, lots of it) for the non-privilege of putting myself in harm’s way and NOT getting my actual medical problems treated? WOW!

        Ever gotten similar nonsense from others? If so, how did you handle it? (Anyone can answer — please feel free.)

      • Hi Ali. I had no idea it was so bad in America. I always thought you were all sassy mouthed women who could take care of themselves. This out of control medical profession you have to put up with is terrible. Its deff profit driven. I think you all need to start avpuding all this healthcare and research herbs and spices that heal. Globally doctors kill more people than they save. The native american people know all about natural healing why don’t you consult their healers.

        And i had no idea about the situation with baby boys. I thought all that mutilation was a middle east and africa problem. It does hapoen here but tends to be in those communities that practice it. The general population frowns on it. Its not normal for boys to have this and parents generally treat their childrens privates with respect. No doctor looks at children unless their is a specific problem the parents have noticed. In general we leave peoples privates alone. Except that is of course when it comes to pap smears. That obeys a different rule. A free for all rule.

        I’ve been a bit low for the past few days as i have a lot of probs with my neighbour who slams doors and cupboards day and night – alzheimers! So i decided to sit out in the garden as its nice here today to get away from her. I’m in the process of moving bedrooms to try and minimise the effect in the night.

        I’m also beginning to pen a chapter on practice nurses for our joint book. I hope you are ok. I check here everyday to read comments.

        Are you feeling ok today?

      • yes i am okay. just trying healing from yrs of being denied medical help because of inability to have a pap test! The yrs of going to drs, paying money, and never finding out why sex hurt.
        i have been deined love. i can’t bond with women i feel so alone.
        my mom kept pushing me for yrs to have a pap test. She has no idea what i have suffered.
        bad drs, mean abortionist. self aborting in a hospital.
        have felt damaged for yrs, and never finding an answer is an unending pain!
        i would like someone to love me , but have little hope.
        i am sure there others who have suffered like i have, i hope this trauma to women will stop.
        i don’t have mammogrms either. I hate being examined!

      • Hi Diane,

        “just trying healing from yrs of being denied medical help because of inability to have a pap test! The yrs of going to drs, paying money, and never finding out why sex hurt.
        i have been deined love. i can’t bond with women i feel so alone.”

        It’s sad to hear that you are struggling with medical help, painful sex, and bonding with potential friends and people who love you (in whatever way you seek). It can be difficult to find good help here, or even someone to confide in at times. I really feel for you here.

        “my mom kept pushing me for yrs to have a pap test. She has no idea what i have suffered. bad drs, mean abortionist. self aborting in a hospital. have felt damaged for yrs, and never finding an answer is an unending pain!”

        That’s a tough one. It does seem sometimes like the push to PAPs starts with mothers and other female relatives. I no longer speak to my mother. She brought me to my first PAP when I was 17 and about to graduate high school. It was terrible, painful, and could’ve killed me, since the doctor ignored my warnings about my suffering migraine with aura and put me on The Pill, which is contraindicated for such a condition. I feel damaged sometimes too — like everyone else can get the help they need but I can’t figure it out.

        I don’t want to complain or hijack your story here — just wanted to let you know that you’re not alone…

    • Spouse and I will be going to each other’s medical appointments — all of them! — going forward. All women should avail themselves of the assistance that can be provided by a partner or friend, male or female, if possible. Two “NO you may NOT’s” speaks louder than one!

    • Hello, Linda.

      “I had no idea it was so bad in America. I always thought you were all sassy mouthed women who could take care of themselves.”

      The media likes to sell this image of American bad-assed attitudes to the rest of the world. In truth, it is all a pose. Many of us in the U.S. are scared for our futures, and in addition to the healthcare woes, we battle economic insecurities that should not exist in a nation with such wealth. Half our population is low income, living around or below the poverty line, which is something like 10K for a single person or 25K for a family. The economy has boosted somewhat since the Great Recession of 2008-2011, but job creation lags behind the number of new people entering the job market, those changing careers after old ones went elsewhere or disappeared to technology, etc.

      Anyone who’s at least mid-career level is concerned that they’ll never be able to retire. Parents are anxious about their childrens’ futures, wondering if the current young generation will even be able to work for wages at all after graduating from school. It’s not a great time to be American, all in all. And the war that the Republican Party in the U.S. has waged on women’s bodies (with the Democrats doing their share to continue the fiction that we are inherently incapacitated, diseased, or in need of monitoring because of our reproductive organs) has only added to the aura of misery.

      This out of control medical profession you have to put up with is terrible. Its deff profit driven.

      You hit the head on the nail, as the saying goes. A for-profit model NEVER works when the issue on the table is human health (and lives!) — it merely distorts the “product” for sale and reduces what should be an essential right into a greedy grab for dollars.

      I’ve been a bit low for the past few days as i have a lot of probs with my neighbour who slams doors and cupboards day and night – alzheimers! So i decided to sit out in the garden as its nice here today to get away from her. I’m in the process of moving bedrooms to try and minimise the effect in the night.

      Agh, that’s the worst. I hear you. Our problem currently is noises made by college students moving into our family style neighborhood, as well as a VERY loud alterna-Christian church across the alley run by a man who seems intent on breaking as many tenets of the NYC noise code as he can.

      I’m feeling okay some days. Keeping busy helps. I hope you are well, too.

      • HI Ali! just wanted to reach out to a fellow American poster on this site…and an east coaster too! 😉 I’m a smart, proud, stubborn 26 year old Maine girl who has never been on any type of BC and never had a pap or pelvic exam…and they all call us crazy lol. Anyway thought it might be nice to touch base and let you know I’m here. And hello to everyone else! I still read comments nearly everyday and hope you are all doing well 🙂

      • Hi Ali, Emily, Diane, Pen. I hope our American friends are all ok today. I am thinking about you all.
        The medical profession and governments and religions have robbed women of what sociologists refer to as their ‘essential selves’ women were once the holder of knowledge around healing,birth and even death and spiritual matters. We have an inate sense of whats right and wrong for our bodies, souls and even the care of others.
        You need to get back in touch with this part of your nature. The internet is amazing and i trawl it for answers to medical problems. I research natural healing cures something med proff scoff at. Yet you can not deny that despite being very poor indian people are healthier than us. They scoff at our doctors who in their opinion are poisoning us.
        Similarly with having smear tests forced on you when you were young. You knew it wasn’t right. We all know something isn’t right.
        We have got out of this abuse because we aren’t taken in by lies and misinformation like others. In some ways that makes us different in some way. As if we are special.
        Treasure your specialness.

      • Emily: You told me before, but I forgot- Where in Maine did you suggest? I’m still thinking of taking off to the Czech Republic or Poland, but Maine also caught my eye (especially since they relaxed the gun laws recently). Plus, no accepting of “refugees” (unlike Vermont, for whatever reason- and New York, because they’re assholes).

        I really don’t like the direction the country has been taking, so Europe or somewhere else outside of America is a major idea. That said, Maine seems to have good points & it’s got being way-the-hell out there going for it, too.

28. Thanks Ada will get this as well.

    • Emily, I’m glad to hear I’m not the only young US woman hear who has not been having Pap smears. If u don’t mind me asking , have you ever been hassled by a medical person for not having them? I know I have told my story about the angry nurse when I was 24. Just wondering if u had and what was there responce? I’m from the south east by the way.

29. I know this isn’t exactly on-topic, but I was just reading on Free Thought Project that parents are getting threatened with arrest for walking their kids home from school (I think this is in Magnolia, Texas).

    I mention it because I figure it ties-in on a couple of levels, since all the kind of stuff that we discuss on here are things that frequently get imposed on people when locked-up (in adult facilities or juvie)- along with various security & hygiene measures of theirs. Point of fact, I was also reading on the same site about this woman that was strapped to a table & medically raped numerous times in Pennsylvania (Kimberlee Carbone). Not too sure I’d trust those kinds of people around kids. Just seems to be a bad idea.

    Also, one has to worry about what’s directed at your kids if you’re deemed by others to be an unfit parent or whatever suspicions they supposedly have (ex: I remember that her parents bringing my cousin to the hospital for stitches when she fell & cut her face resulted in them making her take her clothes off- supposedly to see if she had marks from getting hit at home).

    On top of that, I have to wonder how people like this are going to act. Maybe they go after these kids & act like it’s innocent? Maybe they outright kidnap them? Maybe they molest these kids by themselves or by proxy (like in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania a while back)? I’m remembering all kinds of times where kids got arrested for nonsense, even at five years old for splashing in a puddle. Sometimes they outright murder someone on camera, hands in the air or cuffed behind their back, and this is someone to call for help?

    Don’t people realize that they might just flip out at random & now happen to be where they are? Or simply because that person is prompting them to do something? Maybe they try to bolster their ego by acting like someone else isn’t good enough? With them, that would likely mean an attack instead of a general attitude. Of course, if it WERE just an attitude, what reaction or lack of reaction is going to set them off? Probably anything, right? Since, as far as they’re concerned, nothing’s going to “control” them- they’re not even going to be “bullied by circumstance.”

30. Hi sorry for posting here but don’t know where else I can put this. I have posted before but my last comment has had no reply.

    I’m very anxious today and have been googling madly for the last 4 hours. My last smear was in 2007 and came back normal. I’m so so worried that I could have cc because I’ve left it so long since my last smear.

    Please can I ask if all the women on this site consider themselves low risk? Is that why you don’t have smears? I have been reading through this site but I still feel like I don’t have enough information to make the right choice.

    Can anyone help to put things in perspective for me please?

    I’m 49 and have had about 4 years in total, I have 5 children, don’t smoke, have had about 6 partners, 4 of which have been long term relationships. Been with my current dp for 15 years. I started being sexually active at about 16/17 years old. Given all the knowledge that you have do you think I’m considered high risk? I’m peri menopausal and worry that because of that my smear would come back abnormal because of this. I suffer from health anxiety and waiting for results would probably push me over the edge 😢😢

    • Tracey,
      No, you are not “high risk”. There only about 10,000 cases in the us in 2013 – the most recent year I could find data for. With about 160 million women in the US, that makes it less than 1 in 10,000 that any woman would have CC. This is a very rare disease, but one that has been pushed to the forefront of everyone’s minds – to the detriment of actually taking care of our health.

      There are a LOT of false-positives with paps. Those lead to further, more invasive testing. Usually nothing is found, but every survivor of one of these “cancer scares” considers herself a survivor of cancer! That’s where the stories of “If I (my auntie, my grandma…) hadn’t had one JUST AT THAT TIME WE WOULD HAVE DIED!”

      I haven’t had a pap test since 1998. I don’t intend to have any more!

      BTW, the pelvic exam itself is of low clinical value.

      If you don’t have symptoms of some type, don’t get one. If you’ve got symptoms of a vaginal infection, there are plenty of over the counter as well as natural remedies that work very well.

      • Tracey I agree with beth. Even cancer research site says you have 0.65%chance of getting cervical cancer. That’s less than 1%. You have more chance of being in a road accident.. Do you worry about that?
        I know you have health anxiety and it must be awful, this is another reason why the way pressure to screen for the disease is so wrong!
        You are right being menopausal could indeed throw up a false result and I think it’s harder to get a viable sample from a menopausal cervix.
        Please please try and put aside your anxiety and enjoy your life, partner and children. I had my last smear when my daughter was 5, she’s nearly 20 now!

    • Hi Tracey – to echo other posters, no you are not high risk.

      The smear is actually not an effective method of detecting cervical cancer anyway.
      It actually detects “changes” (which the medical community term “abnormalities”).
      But use of the word “abnormalities” is actually a very unethical and misleading ploy because in the vast majority of instances, these “abnormalities” detected on a smear will turn out to be innocent.

      Even on a CIN III diagnosis (the most “serious” cell grade changes I believe), 88% of such diagnoses will not turn into cancer. Having said that, because doctors mislead women, they will refer 100% of these women to colposcopy units to undergo laser treatment, that could result in infertility, pre-term deliveries, miscarriages, still births and endless menstrual problems – because smears cannot distinguish innocent, harmless changes from the harmful ones. This is the reality.

      Of course, it is up to you if you want to have a smear. We never advise or instruct women to do anything other than what is right for them, but we do advise women to research the evidence, look at their own individual risks and make an informed decision for themselves.

      I would also like to add that cervical screening is unreluable for detecting adenocarcinomas (this is a very rare form of cervical cancer, thought to be highly aggressive which makes up to 1 – 30% of all cervical cancers), therefore this test has only a (small) chance of detecting changes caused by the most common form of cervical cancer – squamous cell carcinoma.

      Adenocarcinoma is often found in younger women (below 30) and may also be prevalent in those stories you hear of women who had regular smears, yet still went on to develop cervical cancer.

      If you’d like to mitigate your chances, I would recommend an alternative to a smear. You could try googling the Delphi Screener – this is a DIY swab self-test for HPV (usually, the precursor to most squamous cell carcinomas). There is a fee of around £99 for this test.

      Many women over 30 purchase this online and use it to self-screen for HPV (before age 30, most women’s bodies will clear HPV strains on their own).
      If the test redult is HOV positive, only then will some women decide to have a smear. If the result is HPV Negative, you can forget all about cervical cancer (and screening for that matter) and get on with your life.
      You may also choose to repeat this test every 5 years or so, depending on your circumstances.

      Should you decide to forego smears, be firm and calm with your medical providers. I would advise giving them minimal information to avoud getting into a long debate with them and do not feel you need to justify or explain your decision to them.
      Remember, this is your body and you have EVERY right to decide what happens to it.

31. xyz

    • I have just sent a post with links and it hasn’t appeared at all, so I’ve just sent the above post as a test. Perhaps I can’t send links via my laptop?

32. Thank you for your kind replies.

    I really want to stop worrying about this and to start enjoying life more. My health anxiety is normally under control as I have had treatment to help me deal with it but the thought of cc always sets my anxiety off again.

    I don’t have any symptoms as far as I know but I am quite sure that I have a posterior wall prolapse. I don’t want to go to the Dr about it because I’m worried that when they examine me they might do a smear test.

    I have thought about the hpv test but then I’d have to deal with the possibility of it being positive. Can you tell me if you have been hpv+ does the virus lie dormant in your body then reactivate in later years?

    • HPV cannot reactivate. This is a theory and never proven. There are over 100 HPV strains and to prove the latency/reactivation theory they who have to test and type the HPV strains of many people over decades to prove that HPV could reactivate. Even if reactivation could happen, almost all HPV infections do not develop into cancer. If anyone have found a published study that states over-wise please give it here.

      When a woman gets an abnormal pap test they might be told to watch and wait or get a colposcopy. If they get a normal pap test and a positive HPV test (for type 16 or 18 or just at all, depends on the brand) and they are over the magic age of 35, they will be told to get a Colposcopy. So if you really want a Colposcopy then pay for the HPV test along with your pap test. I know a woman who got a LEEP because she was lied to. They told her she had type 16 and “it would develop into cancer within 6 months” and her pap was only CIN I. She had a baby a few months before. The probably that she would get cancer was very low.

      If you want an HPV test, try to get one that you can do privately without a doctor. Some countries like Canada this is almost impossible and every pap or HPV test result ends up in a government registry. One bad pap test or HPV test result means a life time of pestering by every doctor for most tests and even hysterectomy.

      I am not sure what you can do about rear wall prolapse. Probably diet and exercise might help that. For bladder prolapse there are exercises and there is a new tampon product http://www.poise.com/products/impressa/faq/what-makes-poise-impressa-different-from-other-bladder-supports. Can someone check if it can be bought without a doctors prescription?

      • If viruses, such as HPV could reactivate after years of being dormant, that would throw the whole notion of vaccines out the window. Vaccines and inoculations are proven science for well over 100 years, and it’s been known for much longer that exposure to a virus will give you immunity to the disease it causes. If a virus could just magically “reactivate”, there would be millions of people coming down with everything from measles to the flu to polio as a result of having been exposed to those viruses years ago.

        You fight them off. If you do it efficiently and right away when you’re first exposed, you don’t get sick. If it takes longer, you get the associated disease. If you live through the disease, you don’t get it again and again.

        The notion of a virus “reactivating” is long debunked for other viruses, but the damage they cause can cause problems later on. Such was the case for mistaking post-polio syndrome for a return of the polio. We can only surmise why it is that this same long-debunked theory is being re-used for HPV.

      • for rear wall prolapse i wonder if “hyperpressive therapy” might help? i am following this thread with much interest! i live in canada i am 50 yrs old and have had to find a new Dr and for the first time it will be a male and i fully intend to refuse the pap test. i am so anxious and stressed about my first appointment i am losing valuable sleep over it. i am also a personal trainer with a keen interest in therapy post-delivery because i instruct to so many new moms,there are physiotherapists that do wonderful work on pelvic floor for issues such as prolapsed uterus, urinary incontinence to name a few. goodluck to you Tracey! be strong with your words and do some research about your prolapse!

    • Tracy, you’ve just touched on a major problem with all of these oversold tests – women spend their lives with worry and anxiety over something that is extremely unlikely to happen. For instance, you have approximately 3 times the chance of having cervical cancer as you do being hit by a meteorite! You don’t spend your life worrying and fretting about that, do you?

      Symptoms as far as you know? If you had symptoms, they would by their definition be uncomfortable and worrisome, and you wouldn’t be asking us whether you need a doctor.

      As Moo said, the “dormancy theory” of HPV has no evidence to back it up. What has more evidence though is that there are various things in the examining room – instruments, gloves, lube, etc which HAVE BEEN SHOWN to have HPV on them! IMnsHO, the reason for giving women the “dormancy theory” is to cover up how she might have gotten HPV and taken themselves out of suspicion, when she won’t believe that she might have gotten it because her husband might have had an affair. That is the medical profession putting suspicion and distrust in between marriage partners which is unwarranted and doesn’t belong there.

      • I would add that the HPV reactivation theory is a ploy sold to women by doctors to get women to consent to screening.

        As Beth said, if it is possible, why are they bothering with the vaccine???

        Re. Your doctor pestering you. This is my advice to you or anyone else in the same position.

        I would advise telling your doctor this:

        “I have made an informed decision to decline screening”.
        “I do/ will NOT consent to this procedure.
        You are required to accept my decision by law”.

        If they still go on, you could threaten to take the matter further. If you can, don’t engage in a long conversation with them (they will use the opportunity to try to manipulate you into screening). Just tell them you have made your decision.

        It is hard but it is worth remembering that however much pressure they apply, your consent is required by law. If they undertake a procedure against your will, they break the law – but make it explicit to them that you do not consent.

        Might it be worth taking someone with you to the appointment if you find it too daunting to challenge them?

    • Tracey – I just want to add a further suggestion.

      If you are too nervous to challenge them and have no one to take with you to the appointment, you could always write down a short statement saying that you will NOT consent to cervical screening and you have made an informed decision not to screen.

      Sign and date the statement and keep a copy for yourself. Hand it to your GP. I often find I get tongue tied if I’m nervous about something and forget what I want to say, writing things down really helps me. Also, it provides you with some audit trail that you have told them that you refuse to screen.

33. I decided to google what a male equivalent of gynecology would be and one of the results that came up was a yahoo answers page where someone asked the same question. All the answers are pretty much the same (that there’s no male equivalent to gynecology and that men just go to other doctors when they need something checked in that area). But one answer that really enraged me was this: “Men don’t generally need a ‘genital check up’ the way women do.” I’m literally throwing flames onto my computer screen right now. Ugh… that is just so… I have no words for it. Yes, of course, women are dirty disease ridden whores and all men are saints who never get any problems down there and if they do it’s because their girlfriend skipped that gyno visit, right? I really need to block google on my computer or I’ll drive myself insane with these idiots.

    • Hi can anyone help.

      I want quotes like ‘we hunt them down like terriers’ and comments like that. I’ve accessed one nurse forum and found another i can use. But do any of you know any others. I would like a few more for my section of the book.

      • “Round ’em up like outlaws”.

      • A good place to check might be on Mumsnet. There used to be a number of lively threads and some heated debates about saying no to smear tests and I remember some posters saying they were practice nurses, although not all were bad.

    • I toally agree with you. a angry nurse once told me a few years ago that it was “not good, that i had not been having pap smears because womans bodies are so complex. we may be more complex but that doesnt mean we are flawed and are bodies cant fuction with out being examend. it makes no logical since to me. i just see past it as a culterual thing that alot of countrys have that woman need exams. it erks me they go looking for things wrong with the female bodie. i have two male family members that have a had infections and growths in there genitals. no one pushes men to get cheeked to see if there body is abnormal.

      • Thanks for them. I’ll put them in as qoutes.
        My friend said she heard ‘grab em and bag em.’

      • What a stupid thing to say. This attitude really irks me and plays a lot on my mind.
        Complex? If we are so complex and need paps to function, why is cervical cancer, ovarian and uterine cancer so rare then??

        On male check-ups, in the UK, there is the odd campaign every now and again, telling men to be aware of prostate and testicular cancer.
        There is some campaigns also in some UK press outlets telling men and women that it is important to get checked for STIs before commencing new relationships.

        I don’t really have a problem with these messages if I’m honest as it is still voluntary but I hate the “all women must have annual gyno checks” message. It’s clear this is a patriarchal thing, designed to benefit men and it appears particularly virulent in the States. Thank goodness, you don’t “need” to see a gyno here in the UK – unless there is something genuinely wrong.

      • AQ: I would point out that neither paps nor bimanual pelvic examinations detect ovarian cancer – unless the woman is very thin and her ovarian cancer is quite advanced, by which time it has almost certainly spread to other organs. Nor are they effective at finding uterine cancer unless it is quite advanced. Pap tests only get some of the rare cervical cancers.

      • Beth – Yes, I agree. All the evidence points out that pelvic exams are of “no clinical value”. I would go as far as to say the same about paps – they don’t detect cervical cancer (and skip the odd one), they just detect “changes” – around 90% of the time would have done no harm.

    • Are you in the US by any chance? I’ve read that the make equivalent is andrology? (Or something to that effect).

      I’m not surprised that has been said in the US. It seems like a very aggressive, militant attitude. Is Canada different? I’ve spoken to men and women online about this. A gentleman from Edmonton told me he has been regularly screened since 35 for prostate cancer using the DRE. I was shocked when he said this. Another woman said both her and her husband have annual full body checks using paps, breast exams and DREs.
      It appears Canada is very pro-screening but is the morivation behind it over there somewhat different to the States? It seems to me that if this is true, the US system is all about monitoring women not just for their own “good” but also for their partners’ health (how insulting and degrading is this concept?!) but in Canada, if both genders are more likely to be scrutinised, then is it down to some musguided liberalism and naivety and lack of awareness about the limitations for screening?
      I’ve read that well-male exams are also more commonly offered in the North Eastern and Western liberal US states?

      That being said, I hate America’s attitude to women’s “well-woman” exams. Need exams? Women might need adequate care during pregnancy but apart from that, women don’t “need” any special care relating to their condition as a female otherwise how has the human race managed to survive and evolve! Sone of these attitudes put me off some countries I am afraid to say.

      • I have herd a lot of health care people say woman need these exams bc it could effect futuer pregnancy a by detecting dessert early. We have a new thing hear being pushed to treat all woman of child baring age as pre pregnant. To prepare the bodies for any ppsible pregnacy. It’s beyond me.

      • Kleigh – Yes I’ve heard about the “pre-pregnant” thing. Advising women on how to take precautions and avoid getting pregnant is fine, but this is being manipulated to control women and have them treated as nothing more than incubators.
        I thought this was a misogynistic Republican thing brought in by George W. Bush? I haven’t heard of it since then (apart from in the Southern States)? Are the Democrats also pushing this under Obama? Didn’t have it done as being their thing?

      • I’d say asymptomatic women are more likely to be happy and healthy without medical meddling. So often you hear of women put through hell for nothing, like my sister, abnormal pap test, panic, abnormal colposcopy, panic, cone biopsy…perfectly normal.
        New brand of condoms must have caused some irritation/inflammation. Screening resulted in an unnecessary cone biopsy and a damaged cervix. (and a lot of stress)
        So often when women are talking about their health issues it comes back to medical meddling.
        I’m a firm believer…if you’re well, you don’t need doctors poking around looking for abnormal anything, after a certain age they’re bound to find something, something not worth knowing about….
        That’s why I’m incredibly cautious with all cancer screening, these interventions can harm you, might even take your life.

      • I read an interesting article on the BBC website this morning on prostates and prostate cancer.
        A charity spokesman said a recent study revealed “shocking” statistics stating that many men are not aware of what a prostate gland is, that they have one and are blind when it comes to prostate cancer. The article labelled men as “dangerously ignorant”. I thought it was interesting and in some way refreshing (because let’s face it, men are rarely labelled “ignorant” in any context. That label is usually labelled for us women, hence why we “need” “protecting”, “looking after” and “special care” – sarcasm noted).

        Not surprisingly, this article was not published in the Daily Mail (misogynistic right wing rag that LOVES gender stereotypes). Or it certainly wasn’t when I looked this morning and this evening.

      • In the US, for the past several years they have been pushing “prostate cancer awareness” and encouraging men to “get tested”. They were (and are) doing the DRE (with little evidence), and the PSA (which also is not showing itself to be very effective).

        I have seen my husband very much pushed into having these tests. We accompany each other to all medical appointments. His recent caregiver hasn’t pushed them so much as to just make them available. With the ones who push, it had the same effect that it has on me getting care at a doctor – the sales push for those tests was done in lieu of the problem for which he was seeing the doctor. Then, having actual care put off.

      • Article here (has not been published in many other newspapers – wonder why!!!):

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36105272

      • And this – http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/prostate-cancer-awareness-most-people-have-no-idea-what-the-gland-does-many-don-t-know-they-have-one-a6995931.html

        The Independent (unaffiliated to any party or social ideology) and the BBC (traditionally very left leaning, but good when it comes to reporting health news in an impartial and informative manner) were the only two British newspapers to report this

    • Also wanted to add – gynaecology is a multi-billion dollar industry. Men are traditionally portrayed as being more miserly (or wiser!) when it comes to money, plus they avoid going to doctors unless it’s absolutely necessary so no wonder there is no male equivalent!

      • Women’s healthcare, the way it’s approached here and in many other countries, is mostly about business opportunities, making a fortune from testing and unnecessary treatments. Who would ever imagine a rare cancer could make so much money for vested interests, that MOST women would lose some of their cervix in this so-called successful screening program, not to mention lost breasts, uterus and ovaries from other interventions.
        Well woman exams are about profit, they’re very bad for your health and well being.

34. I’m in the US and I agree gynocolgy is big bussnes esp in places where well woman exams are pushed. I really think at lest hear in the US it is a cultural thing most US woman think it’s terible not bee having exams at a gyno yearly.

35. Ooh!! Wonder if this is the start of mens screening? Being “invited ” to prostate screening, being phoned to chase it up, thrown off list for being non compliant! A girl can dream..

    • Interestingly enough, whenever there is an article about womens screening, you’ll see plenty of men asking about screening for prostate cancer, decrying all the pink propaganda and asking whether the government cares more about women (oh, if only they knew the half of it!!).

      The irony is that many men (given the huge prevalence of prostate cancer) are actually crying out for more screening (probably wouldn’t if they understood the reality).

      Now, I wouldn’t recommend screening (given what we know about it) but I agree with many men that male specific-cancers certainly deserve more focus and awareness.

      Seems we are not the only ones fed up with the pink propaganda machine.

36. PLEASE READ – USEFUL INFORMATION

    Hello all. Just found something REAL interesting that I think you’ll all like: the site is RationalWiki & I guess the general topic would be syllogism. I happened upon it (was lookng up what “Ad Hoc Reasoning” means) & it’s a little hard to explain, but it’s something along the lines of psychology/argumentative tactics/general mind games. A good example is (on the List of Cognitive Biases) is “deformation professionnelle”- the tendency to look at things according to the conventions of one’s own profession, forgetting any broader point of view. Sound familiar?

    There’s A LOT of stuff like that. There’s so much in “Decision-making and behavioral biases” & it’s just a list of about 40 things with usually one sentence that describes things pretty clearly. It seems much more complicated when you first see the term than the definition actually is. This isn’t even getting into “straw man arguments” (like how Person X makes Argument A1, then Person Y misrepresents Argument A1 as Argument A2, then person Y refutes Argument A2, then Person Y claims that Argument A1 has been refuted)., and other stuff. I’d suggest clicking around on the various blue words (whatever that’s called).

    I do have to say, however, there can be a little bit of a smugness at certain points (particularly in defense of evolution & a seeming issue against homeopathy). Still, the tricks are quite common tactics & sometimes getting what’s at work helps in the countering of it. Might be useful for giving someone a taste of their own medicine & then discrediting the tactics they were just using (ex: They try one of these tricks, you point out what it is & then use one yourself- then they point out that it’s bullshit & hang themselves, since it’s now a case of “Oh, so bullshit is LESS than accurate & trustable?”).

    • This one’s basically a bulletin: “Court Rules Non-Consensual Oral Sex Is Not Rape If Victim Is Unconscious From Drinking.” This 17-year-old girl in Oklahoma was orally raped (in the sense of area of penetration, not area employed in attack) when she passed out from drinking by a 16-year-old girl & the court said: “Forcible sodomy cannot occur where the victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation.” This seems to be in direct contradiction to what the law (not that it matters) says.

      At the end of the day, this was something penetrative that took place as a product of someone else’s decision-making & the law enforcement community (or at least influential parts of it) said “Despite that being what happened, this is not what occurred.” In addition to saying that there was an “act of oral copulation” when there was someone unconscious not doing this “act.”

      Also, it seems they started doing exams for sexual assault when she was unconscious- it seems that she was only in the hospital because of how drunk she was, so I don’t know if that’s a typical thing that they do (like it’s tacked-on when someone is brought in for possible alcohol poisoning). It DOES seem that they get very one-sided when it comes to doing internal exams on people, in general- so it might be the case with this. Definitely, when someone is drunk or high, there’s the potential for them to take liberties & rely on that person’s testimony not being trusted.

      Minors also seen as “open game,” as far as deciding what goes where- that can be a factor (there was even a Law & Order SVU episode with that: the one where the teenage girl got raped & didn’t want any penetration imposed on her & her father supported that, but the woman cop (Benson) fought against this & made up some official-sounding term to make it sound like the laws were on her side with getting this to happen. VERY surprised her partner didn’t point out that she was lying, but I guess that is congruent with reality most of the time.

37. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1600448
    Colorectal Cancer on the Decline — Why Screening Can’t Explain It All

    “Nevertheless, we believe it’s important for clinicians to have some humility regarding the effect of screening on disease trends. Although it’s tempting to take credit for good news, doing so may exaggerate the perceived benefits of screening the general population and distract from the more important activities of promoting health — for example, by encouraging a healthful diet and exercise — and caring for the sick. Furthermore, overstating the benefits of colorectal-cancer screening may divert attention from colonoscopy’s downstream effects and potential harms. The majority of people undergoing screening are neither identified as having cancer nor protected from its developing, but they often endure repeated colonoscopy for surveillance of small polyps. Certainly, aggressive efforts to screen and perform follow-up colonoscopy in persons who are most likely too old or infirm to benefit has real potential to cause harm. In questioning the argument that screening is the dominant explanation for decreasing colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality, the example of gastric cancer may be salient: since 1930, without any screening effort, gastric-cancer incidence and mortality have decreased by almost 90%.”

    • thanks i wondered about colonoscopy. i have never had one, afraid of it,

38. I found this website which records cancer data for all of the European countries if anyone is interested.
    http://eco.iarc.fr/EUCAN/CancerOne.aspx?Cancer=25&Gender=2

    • Seems like they say it’s more common in Eastern Europe by five or six people.

    • The cancer and mortality rates are age standardized. The richer countries with better medical care overall have lower rates of cancer. The poorer countries have higher rates but even then I doubt this. Were all these women in poorer countries actually given proper diagnoses and autopsies when they died to determine the cause of death to be from cancer? I suggest not. These figures are often extrapolated and exaggerated. Further more getting a cancer diagnosis and treatment does not often cure or even prolong a person’s life. Many people died from the cancer treatments. Often times people can live longer and more comfortably without cancer treatment. I would like to read more about that.

      • I’d be interesting if they did a such of what countries people died in.

39. Before I throw this in the junk mail bin, I thought I would share with you all that I’ve just received my 6th summons in 8 years to attend a mobile breast screening unit at my local Tesco car park. The “appointment” is at 3:20pm next Thursday. Most women I know will be at work at that time of day. The summons tells me that it’s my choice whether or not to have breast screening. (Wow- thanks!) It also states that the unit will only have female staff. What it doesn’t tell you that if you are unfortunate enough to have a recall, my local hospital only has male doctors working in the breast clinic.

    Thanks but no thanks.

    • I think you hit the nail on the head about working women. I work in a school, and as far as poss we have to book medical and routine stuff for holidays. For a routine smear or mammogram we would be expected to try to change the date and time but would get unpaid leave. I know from women there who do screen that it’s nigh on impossible to change the appointment as they’re booked weeks ahead. Also, for the part timers, you might think oh the tests at 10. Plenty of time, I start at 12, but they usually over run.
      I’m watching what our UK government is doing in horror. Work cures all, work improves health, work cures terminal cancer probably according to them! Makes you wonder why we “need” smears and mammos.. Or won’t work help here?? Oh no bcoz we can’t get sick now either!!

40. 6 in 8 years!! Lucky you (not?!)

    • I think that I keep getting the “invitations” because I refuse to accept them. 😉

      • I contacted BreastScreen when I turned 50 and asked to be removed from the register, I would not be screening and did not want to receive any “invitations”.
        I also told my GP that I’d declined to have breast screening and a note was made on my file. She wasn’t surprised, I’ve never had a pap test and have decided not to have a colonoscopy. (ALL informed decisions, not many screened women can say that…)

        She doesn’t do routine breast exams, they’re not recommended and she’s up with the recommendations. I suspect it’s mainly younger women who still face that “requirement” or it’s presented as being a good idea/being thorough, sometimes they want to show (young) women how to check their own breasts. (curious when breast self-exams have not been recommended for many years) I don’t think many older women face the same enthusiasm from doctors to do routine breast exams.
        I know two young women in the office had to fight off enthusiastic older male doctors (they now see female doctors and breast exams are never mentioned)

        GPs ARE in a difficult position, they KNOW most women don’t have balanced information on screening, but the test is recommended and if they put women off screening, they stand alone if something goes wrong. If they hand out the breast screening brochure, they KNOW it’s not balanced information, but handing out the NCI summary means they’re, once again, striking out on their own.
        It’s much easier if the woman is informed and makes up her own mind.

        If the GP states the screening is recommended, there’s unlikely to be legal action for over-diagnosis, and if something does come up/go wrong, the program takes the heat, the GP was just following recommendations.

        I know my GP doesn’t promote screening and certainly doesn’t pressure women.
        A friend sees her now and she simply said, “they recommend breast screening 2 yearly from 50, some of my patients have breast screening, some don’t, it’s your decision”…
        I know she’s also referred patients to the NCI summary as well as the Breast Screen site.
        I understand she’s caught between a rock and a hard place. Some women ask her what she recommends and I know she avoids that Q.
        I can understand why GPs don’t dissuade women from screening and take the safer path, but there is NO excuse for GPs who pressure women or the medical associations and Breast Screen – they have a duty of care, remember something called informed consent. It’s disgraceful that women here still get celebrity endorsement (completely inappropriate) and a one-sided presentation of screening.
        Heads should roll….it’s culpable at this stage (IMO)

      • It’s odd, we’re more likely to get breast cancer than cervical, but I refused my mammogram last year and phoned to cancel (kicking myself after because I never asked for it in the first place)! And I’ve never heard anything else. Mind you I’ve not seen the doctor since last August when smear was discussed longer than my severe anaemia was! No repeated invitations, no phone call, nothing! Guess it’s like Linda said, you can literally rot away as long as your all important cervix is healthy!!
        I wrote before easter to the breast unit saying I wanted to opt out and not receive any more invitations. Not had a. Reply. Next invitation I get I won’t cancel because I said I didn’t want any more. We’ll see what happens to me!!

41. Hi Kat and all. Hope you are ok. I’m going to start the second of my articles today. I got a bit sidetracked over the last few days. This article will be about the use of language in CC screening.

    You should know that ‘they’ are covering the sun every morning by having jets fly over puffing out some kind of smoke to combat global warming. So no more blue skies for a while. Its all over the internet what they are doing. It accounts for the fact there is a white mist hanging over us all. I kid you not just google ‘geoenginnering over uk’ and then start looking up early morning to see it actyally being done ! Apparently everyone in america is up in arms over it.
    Alex – what do you know?

    • Linda talking about the book, do you think the checking elves will approve the cover pix of the aggressive looking speculum? I ask because I’ve found a few references to it through out history and touch on this?? Hope you’re okay x

42. Yes it will be fine. The rules in their words are – no nudity, wobbly bits, butt cracks or anything that dangles!

43. Phew! Thanks!

44. http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/1403

    Despite all the medical evidence that 1 in 3 women under the age of 25 will have an abnormal smear test, and will be put through the treatment mill, these British politians are campaigning to make sure that the starting age for smear tests is lowered to 18. If any of them are your MPs please contact them and tell them to stop harming women. Note nearly all are men.

45. Ada while strictly speaking kelvin Hopkins is not my mp, I’m in gavin shukers ward, I know kelvin and have worked with him before on various political / union stuff and have a good friendship with him so I’ll e mail him in a private capacity!

    • Hi Kat, it’s good that you have some political contacts. I don’t know how I missed this one, as I had set myself up with an alert from the parliament.uk website that I was to get an alert if ever cervical screening was mentioned. Somehow it didn’t work.
      I think that targeting politicians is the way forward. They are eager to be seen to be doing something for women, and seem to believe that all women are desperate for smear tests, so see this as a means to get the young female vote. I don’t think any of them realise that so many women are against smears and I think it is important to let them know how we feel. Knowing that they don’t have universal support for these misinformed campaigns would be a vital step in getting cervical screening off the political agenda.
      I was furious to see that a Liberal Democrat from Cheltenham, Mel Gladwin, was suggesting on twitter that the age should be reduced to 16, and that mobile units could be deployed to 6th forms around the country to ensure that every girl was given a smear test at school. It is appalling that such misinformed fruit-cakes like this are on the loose in the environment to terrify school girls that this could be a reality. I’d be phoning the police if I saw any such van outside a school, even though my daughter is no longer at school! It just shows the depth of some people’s misunderstanding. I have contacted Ms Gladwin with my views, and I noticed that she has already had sound academic advice posted to her on twitter proving that she is in the wrong, but she still seems to think that colposcopy is a quick and easy painless ordeal.
      If you do find the time to contact any MP’s, Jo’s Trust, (good grief, I can’t believe I’m writing this!), have a very good explanation of why screening under 25’s is a bad idea, and it is a good text to send any non-medical person who needs to know why.

      http://www.jostrust.org.uk/about-cervical-cancer/cervical-screening-smear-test-and-abnormal-cells/cervical-screening-under25

      • Women are “desperate” for smear tests is but a symptom of the huge amount of fear that has been ginned-up over recent decades. There are some things that are worth fearing, and worth doing something about, but those get under-emphasized. This pervasive fear causes people to be desperate for *anything* that will reduce their fear – and perceived risk – of everything from disease to terrorists to the boogey-monster. Since women have been taught for several generations now that cervical cancer is a MAJOR risk, they look to that as a way to reduce fear. Not just for themselves, but for girls – who cannot possibly benefit from such a test. It makes them less fearful.

        The trick here is to stop being afraid of things that the government, the media, and other powers-that-be want you to be afraid of, and look for what the dangers actually are, and do something about those if you can.

46. E mail to kelvin
    Hi Kelvin u OK? Missed the other week due to being KO,D with sinus! I know I’m in Gavin’s wrd but I found out you’re supporting a move to lower the age of smear testing and am asking you to think again?
    There is much evidence to suggest that while younger, 1in3 women will produce an abnormal smear result as a result of their cervix still maturing which is why the screening committee upped the age from 20 to 25. Evidence based programming such as those in Holland and Finland start screening at 30 and their rates of cervical cancer are among the lowest in the world. They also teat lras frequently than here and as of January this year Holland offer the opportunity to self screen which is denied to UK women. If we begin smearing 18 year olds they are
    Likely to produce abnormal results and undergo treatment which could later impact on their ability to carry a pregnancy to full term.
    Even severely abnormal results can revert back to normal without treatment the problem being medics can’t predict which so the tendency’s to treat all women, resulting in over treatment.
    Of around. 30 million women in the UK around 900 die every year of cervical cancer and around 3,000 cases are diagnosed but over 100,000 women endure colposcopy every year leading to lots of worried women. Cancer research UK figures suggest that a woman is 0.65% likely to develop cervical cancer in her lifetime. A non smoking woman has an 8% chance of developing lung cancer. Cervical cancer is rare!
    I have my own concerns about our cervical screening programme. Its elective, but doctors get financial bonuses if they “persuade” 80% of the eligible women on their books to “elect” to have it. Ey are bombarded with letters and phone calls until they “elect” and if they don’t some are denied medication or thrown off their doctors lists. Women aren’t asked if they want to be enrolled on the programme and are given no clue as to how to opt out if they don’t wish to screen.
    There’s plenty of evidence out there try Angela Raffle, Professor Michael Baum to name just two.
    Thanks for reading!

47. I understand that these men might be genuinely misinformed about screening and might think they are doing right by women by advocating screening, but to me, a woman advocating screening is one thing, a man doing it makes my blood boil! They are very unlikely to come across pressure tactics as men, or not until middle age at the very least when bowel screening raises its ugly head, but they have no understanding or appreciation in what’s involved for women – mentally, physically and emotionally. This is something that will never affect them. How dare they tell us women that we “must”/”should” be screened!

    • AQ
      The “pressure” to have bowel screening here is LOW, very low key. I doubt anyone is really pressured to have bowel screening, even though bowel cancer is FAR more likely than cc.
      There’s a bit more pressure to have breast screening, we get the dirty and inappropriate tactics, but again, you’re unlikely to be cornered about breast screening.
      That’s why I put pap testing is a separate category, one that makes no sense from a health care and health economics point of view. IMO, the focus and extreme pressure is about protecting a VERY expensive program that can benefit very few, (and they must get LOTS of women screened to stand any chance of finding the rare cases…worrying and harming heaps of healthy women along the way) the program rests on a knife edge….oh, and the incentive payments add to the pressure too.

      • In the US, bowel screening pressure is high. It’s done with both men and women, but it looks to me that it’s more intensely directed at men. I said, “no” repeatedly, and they went on to pressure me into pap testing and mammograms. When my husband did it, the doctor in the clinic ran out into the waiting room as he was in line to check out screaming, “You’re going to DIE!!!” if he refused such screening! Then, his long-time best friend, who had clearly been talked into it, and they found “something” (as they do with nearly all of them), about how wonderful it would be, spent a 2-hour visit with him telling him how “important” it is to be tested.

        It’s about sales, and about selling someone expensive drugs and other “treatment” – including for things they may not have or will never bother them.

      • Elizabeth, I’m very glad that Australians are not (yet) under much pressure to submit to bowel screening. Those “invitations” seem to come with a clear explanation how to opt out, unlike in cervical screening where it is all about “must” and “due”. By legislation, every woman should to be told that, once she endured a pap smear, her personal data will be sent to the government-run Female Genital Surveillance Register (aka PSR), and that she can request for that not to happen. But in reality doctors don’t say anything of the sort.
        So my hopes are that female screening in Australia will be brought to the level of bowel screening, not the opposite.
        It doesn’t matter how common a cancer –or any other illness– is. It should be up to each person to decline any test and make sure their personal information is not disseminated by the system and used for unwanted reminders.

      • In the US, supposedly there is confidentiality of patient records. HIPPA makes it illegal to disseminate patient information without consent. However, they may with the patient’s permission. Now, some of that “routine” paperwork which you MUST sign or the clinic will not see you, treat you, nor count you as a patient contains such blanket permission. So, patient records are disseminated through insurance companies, government agencies, researchers, employers, and on and on. It seems that the ONLY people who cannot see these records are the patients themselves! Also, our attorneys have trouble getting them, citing “patient privacy” when we are mounting a case with any sort of medical evidence, or getting them for our relatives, even if deceased.

        So, in the US, any insurance company, government agency, or potential employer can find out that I’m “due” for a pap test, bowel screening, mammogram, etc. They can read about the “findings” of someone else’s previous ones. (so much for privacy) They can even read *wrong* information about some supposed previous screening, when the records presented have nothing to do with the person in question. Moreover, someone who finds out there is “wrong” information in the MIB (a database of medical records, kept by the insurance companies), there is NO WAY to get it out!

      • also privacy laws in us work against elderly patients. i have an elderly friend with dementia,
        the dr knew she was declining. didn’t have a social worker help with power attorney
        when i tried to help her, i could not get info. the first home she was in kept harassing me for info.
        i had to tell them i am not family can’t get info. They tried to get her $$$$ info from me. i said no! am not family and don’ have legal authority to give them that!
        This lady is now a ward of the state with a guardianship program ripping through her money!
        calling constantly for a while $ 7.00 a call till i baked them off!
        us medical system all about $$$$ and paper work!

        This worked all he life only to have no help in old age. Here in Florida U S A its bad.

      • “Female Genital Surveillance Registry”? Sounds like some pervy idea a sick fuck came up with in an office or a basement. I never got why people don’t think they have a choice in how the public services behave themselves- it’s like they court those organization & are trying to charm them into doing what they want. There’s no need to “make your case.”

        I never thought I’d say this, but sometimes independence is not something beautiful. These people seem to be “fighting for their freedom” & it hits a soft spot as a general concept with a lot of people. They don’t want to be an oppressor, but that is a way that self-defense can be phrased. Same with righteous revenge- another taboo.

      • It is the only one of the 3 which takes place in the GP surgery, and GP’s try all sorts of coercion and threats to make women take a test there and then, whatever it is you have come for. They have no control over getting you into a mammogram or colposcopy.

      • I meant colonoscopy there, but phone keeps changing it to colposcopy!

      • bethkz, you are so righ about the misuse of patient privacy. It is a very similar situation here in Australia. Patients have difficulties accessing their full health records (they are declared property of doctors), diagnostic imaging reports or pathology lab test results. For those, patients are often forced to go back to their GP, no matter how trivial the result is. The medical system completely disregards the harm caused by unnecessary waiting, stress and anxiety, or negative outcomes of depriving the patients of their chance to do some research before the follow-up appointment and prepare the right questions.

        At the same time, the system has no problems with disseminating private and sensitive health information between medical staff, institutions, private enterprises, researchers and government agencies — all without explicit consent of the patients or giving the patients any chance to control this encroachment on their privacy and safety.

    • Bethkz – It is interesting that men are getting the same pressure (not that I agree with it at all), but just interesting that they are being targeted in this way.
      I didn’t think bowel screening would become an issue here in the UK either but with take-up rates below the screening threshhold, I have read that they are looking at more militant tactics. Middle aged men I have read, are becoming a more focal group for capture these days as many are more health conscious than they were a generation ago and hence, more inclined to visit the doctor.

48. I would like some statistics on bowel cancer screening. What percentage of positive for occult blood fecal screening actually have cancer and have symptoms?. How many get colonscopy? How many with colonscopy find polyps benign or otherwise? How many polyps found are cancer
    ( I heard 3%).

    • Hi Moo
      I’ve read that colonoscopies don’t change mortality rates from bowel cancer, people who screen tend to die from heart attacks and even up the numbers, they’re not sure why…
      About 3% of polyps will become an issue, but most (if not all) will be removed during the colonoscopy. When you compare the risk of dying from bowel cancer with a screened and unscreened population, the numbers are fairly small. (Margaret McCartney and others have covered this topic, I’ll look for Dr McCartney’s article and link it)

      The FOBT as an alternative to colonoscopy: my concern: does it produce a lot of false positives? The next step would be colonoscopy, that invasive procedure bothers me, does FOBT mean most will end up having a colonoscopy anyway? I found a couple of studies that found over a 10 year period the cumulative risk of a false positive is 23%:

      “After 10 years of annual FOBT, 23.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.2–27.0] will receive at least one FOBT+, CRC− result”
      http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/22/9/1612.full

      There are risks with colonoscopies and the FOBT so it’s a Q of weighing up the risks and actual benefit and your risk profile. I also think sedations and GAs should be kept to a minimum, there’s evidence they can lead to memory loss and confusion, especially after age 60, in some people, these adverse mental changes continue…and may get worse.

      My mother’s experience:
      A screening colonoscopy found bowel cancer (age: high 70s): major surgery followed, did the surgery save her life or was it unnecessary major surgery? We’ll never know….
      Would she have died of something else before bowel cancer raised its ugly head? We’ll never know…
      Mum failed to thrive after the surgery, it took ages to sort out her medications and get the right levels in her system again, she plummeted over this period and we thought we might lose her. Once her meds were finally sorted out, she improved, but a screening colonoscopy about a year after her surgery left her with major confusion and short term memory loss, her cardiologist said she might have had a small stroke while she was on the table. The screening procedures to check her lungs and bowel also found “something” on her thyroid (nothing will be done about that…) and “something” on her right kidney. The latter meant another major surgery…now Mum has one kidney, so has to be careful with her meds and hydration etc.
      Would my mother have died from kidney cancer? Did she have unnecessary and major surgery twice? We’ll never know…

      BUT I do know: they’ll be no more screening colonoscopies, CAT scans etc. for my mother, we’ll focus on symptoms and leave her be….her memory continues to slide, we hope she stabilises at some point, but it doesn’t look good. My Aunt, 2 years younger than my mother, is now in a nursing home with full blown dementia, can’t help but think she also had a lot of sedations and GA’s after age 60.
      Interesting when you look at the maternal family tree there is no dementia even though the woman (all but one or two) got into their 80s and even 90s, but they didn’t have screening colonoscopies or screening CAT scans that picked up “abnormalities” here and there.

      If you go looking for trouble after a certain age, you’ll find it…

    • Moo I just wanted to thank you again for the tip about saline spray for sinus and hayfever from last year.. I’m using it now and it’s really helpful! No more steroid spray or hassle from doctor to have a smear test!

      • Try getting some local raw honey as it contains all the pollens in your area that usually give you allergic reactions like hayfever. Take a spoonful everyday.

49. This is not informed choice.

    
    Some figures mentioned in this piece…

    • Thanks again moo will do! My playleader work takes me outside a lot! X misery in tree pollen season!

50. Moo
    A blood test for bowel cancer screening may also be on the way, again, I’m cautious with all screening tests, the so-called simple ones can lead to some nasty places

    “In Australia, the use of a blood-based test for CRC, ColoVantage Plasma, is being piloted
    following an agreement between the manufacturer and a participating health insurer.
    Diagnostic accuracy data on ColoVantage Plasma are anticipated with the publication of a
    trial including more than 2,000 Australian and Dutch participants.”

    “At this time, there is insufficient evidence to support the introduction of
    blood-based biomarker tests for the use in population screening in Australia; however; due
    to the rapidly evolving evidence base around a number of these tests, HealthPACT
    recommends that this technology be reassessed in 24 months.”
    (2015 so review recommended in 2017)

    Click to access WP151.pdf

51. I was speaking to an online friend, she sent me a PM, she used the Delphi Screener at 50, HPV- and so she told her doctor, “no more pap testing for me”. The decision was reluctantly accepted, you can’t fight the evidence, and an informed woman knows the evidence. She’s met someone and has asked him to have STI checks before things go any further.
    He saw his doctor this week and was told: ” there’s no HPV test for men, just ask your partner to have regular pap tests, she should be having them anyway”.
    How typical is that response?

    She doesn’t want to expose herself to HPV and certainly doesn’t want pap testing in her life again. If she used the Delphi Screener again and it was HPV+ she knows that would mean worry and she’d probably end up back on the table having pap testing and then more pre-cancerous cells burnt off. Condoms offer decent protection but not 100% protection.

    I did a quick search and couldn’t find anything available in Australia, the entire emphasis is on the woman “taking responsibility” and that means regular pap or HPV testing, she can’t protect herself by asking the man to get tested. It’s such a big issue for her she’ll only continue to see this man if he can be tested and is HPV-

    I found this:

    “There is currently no approved test available to detect HPV infection in men. Although the infection is common in men, most do not show any symptoms, making diagnosis difficult. HPV infection in men rarely causes any medical problems apart from genital warts”

    Does anyone know of a HPV test for men available in Australia or elsewhere, they’re happy to pay for the test?

    • Ehh, so typical… The painful, humiliating, privacy-invading test is a”must” for women and non-existent for men, even though both genders get HPV infections at the same rate. Men can enjoy their sex lives, and women are “due” for regular, government-sanctioned rape with a high chance of even more painful and harmful “treatments”. So much for care about women’s health….

    • I am sure that I have read that there is a HPV test for men. I am not sure what is entailed though if I’m honest.

      I’m sure I cane across something online being available at a Marie Stopes type clinic.
      I know these may only be available in the UK via the clinic, but perhaps it is worth emailing them.

      They may be aware of companies that could offer it. It may even be worth emailing the Delphi Screener company. They might at least know where she could get hold of one.

      It is outrageous that the doctor said this. It is also a ridiculously stupid thing to say (especially given what the evidence now tells us about the accuracy of these tests).

      It is said though isn’t it that 97% of women can clear HPV and around 99% of men do.

    • We have
      http://www.letsgetchecked.com/HPV

      http://www.test.me

      http://www.better2know.co.uk

      Just checked out their websites on my mobile and the HPV bit is missing, but I am sure I have seen testing for men on these sites before. My husband says websites are reduced for mobile use, so you don’t get the full website on a mobile. Best to check on a computer. There is also Udo test, which is South African.

      • Hi Ada
        Thanks for that, I’ll check out the sites

52. Sadly, this reminds me of my situation. Years ago, after testing in Europe, I knew I was HPV-negative (I don’t test in Australia because there are no anonymous HPV tests here, and there is a high chance of being placed in a Pap register after HPV test even if you say “no”).
    Then I met my life partner. He wanted me to be safe, happy and healthy, so he asked to be tested for everything, including HPV, and was told that there is no approved HPV test for men, that he shouldn’t worry about it, and that his partner (me) must do regular Pap smears instead. We had to take a risk and felt very bitter about the whole unfair system until after a few years I got another chance to test for HPV overseas. Luckily it was HPV- again, and I’ve been ignoring all the cervical cancer scare campaign ever since. There are other, more important health aspects to think about, and that certainly doesn’t involve doctors or screening.

    What is shocking though is that Australian medical system prefers to spend millions of dollars on pap screening, incentive payments for doctors, scare campaigns, “cancer awareness”, smear registers, reminder letters, posters, TV ads, biopsies, colposcopies, treatments, follow-ups…. It invented many ways of scraping, freezing, cutting and burning women’s cervixes, yet it is not interested in investing in the development of a simple reliable HPV test for men to prevent women from getting the infection in the fist place and put an end to female humiliation, tortures and suffering!

    • It’s disgusting that they are basically saying that women should be screened, not just for their “own good” but for the sake of the men too. It is basically saying that it is unnecessary for men to be tested for any STI’s or what have you because a woman should be taking care of that side of things through attending regular smears. It is also a load of nonsense. But why not try it if it dupes more women to commit to the stupid programme?

      I do personally see value into being tested when entering into a new relationships (I certainly wouldn’t object to this if a male partner would undergo one too) for infections but I would never undergo cervical screening for this purpose when it is clinically useless.

      With all the evidence emerging, it is going to become increasingly diificult for them to continue to spew the same old nonsense.

53. And you can bet your bottom dollar if women could pass a virus to men causing cancer of some obscure part of their body it would be law punishable by prison if we didn’t test for it!! Can’t infect the men now can we??

    • We do. Women pass HPV viruses to men. Hence all of the HPV screening of women.

    • Well- defending yourself is punishable by prison, too. I think far too many people think far too much of the law. Anything at all can be sanctioned & you only ever deal with actions, anyway.

      To address the guilt trip tactic, it’s exactly that. You women aren’t exactly flawed by being (generally) more concerned about that, but it IS a susceptibility- kind of like how a man can get kicked in the nuts or is a bit easily swayed by someone clucking like a chicken. Also, simply arguing in a “polar way” is kind of hard in this case- like saying “Fuck them, anyway” or “No, it’s not a risk.” All subtle tactics, much like loaded language.

54. This is interesting……http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27118696
    Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening.
    CONCLUSIONS: Invitations to cervical cancer screening were information poor and biased in favour of participation. This means that informed choice is not possible, which is in conflict with modern requirements for personal involvement in medical decisions.

    • That’s a great journal – thanks for the link.

      No wonder, some practices are trying to resort to pressure tactics again. That bubble is slowly bursting!

    • A great article, thank you!

      “The most important harms of cancer screening, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, were typically downplayed or unmentioned. The same applied to other important harms, such as false-positive results and the psychological consequences from an abnormal test result. The majority of invitations took a paternalistic approach.”

      So sad, and so true…

    • http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-case-against-early-cancer-detection/

      Great article Chas. I also found this one, but very silent on cervical screening.

55. Colleague of mine went for the bowel cancer test 5?weeks ago and she’s still bleeding! Remind me to never accept the invitation!

    • Good grief that’s terrible! Have you had one of those health checks yet? That’s another screen they’re trying to put on us. Hubby is 58 and we’ve never been called up. Perhaps they know better than to contact us now!
      Have you seen that dreadful prostate screening advert where the son treats his dad like a little boy because he won’t get his prostate checked? My husband puts it on mute every time it comes on, he can’t stand it.

      • No, I haven’t seen it. Is this a drive to get men tested so that they can eventually introduce a screening programme? I heard GPs get paid for performing prostate tests as well as the bowel screening and those ghastly “MOT”s. Cervical screening is dying a slow death but they don’t give up easily do they? I can see lucrative payment targets being eventually introduced..
        I’ve read men (particularly middle class, middle aged men) are becoming a captive audience, as they are more health conscious (apparently) and more amenable to visiting the doc than previous generations. Couple this with a growing number of men actually asking for prostate screening (I’m not sure how aware many of them are WRT false positives, harms, risks and benefits etc). This isn’t going to end well.

      • http://menunited.prostatecanceruk.org/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=60s%20spot

        Kat and AQ, I’m amazed you haven’t seen this dreadful advert, as we have had this on TV most evenings, and we absolutely detest it. We either mute it or turn off. Really bad and offensive. I keep telling my husband to write and complain…

      • Lol! What a patronising advert! It’s cringe-worthily bad! The tone is very similar to the smear campaigns we women get, telling us not to be ignorant, reckless etc and this advert treats the poor dad as a stupid, petulant child! The only aspect I find interesting is that men are now beginning to see for themselves how annoying this endless paternal lecturing is but I’m not surprised your husband puts it on mute to be honest!

56. Ada I was “invited ” a few years ago and it went right in the bin! strange I was never pursued the way I’ve been with smears, and the doctor gets paid for health checks too! I’ve not seen the prostate ad. Poor men will know how we feel!

    • I see a new as campaign. The “my mum missed her smear ” dusted off and the kid yelling then”dad don’t leave me an orphan please please get your prostate checked! ” vomit bucket time..

      • Ad campaign sorry

57. Hi All. We get this here is well. Its so embarrasing. We just mute it when it comes on.
    I’m putting the date for the book back as i’m a bit behind with my next bit. Should upload another bit next week. Hope you’re all ok.

58. No HPV test for men hey….well yes there is for anal so could do the penile test too, have a read of the abstract for this link
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27176896
    Abstract – BACKGROUND:
    In a cytology-based screening program intended to prevent anal cancer, the anal transformation zone (TZ) should be adequately sampled because it is the site most susceptible to the development of the cancer precursor, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). An adequate TZ component is defined as comprising at least 10 rectal columnar or squamous metaplastic cells. In the current study, the authors examined whether the presence of a TZ component in anal cytology correlated with the detection of histological HSIL.
    METHODS:
    In a natural history study of anal human papillomavirus infection in homosexual men, all participants underwent liquid-based cytology and high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) with or without biopsy at each visit. True-negative cytology (negative cytology with non-HSIL biopsy or negative HRA), false-negative cytology (negative cytology with HSIL biopsy), and true-positive cytology (abnormal cytology with HSIL biopsy) were compared with regard to the presence or absence of a TZ component.

59. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167552
    Another interesting read, perhaps live longer & better quality of life without the treatment???
    The incidence of cancer (CA) has increased globally and radiotherapy (RT) is a vital component in its treatment. Cardiovascular injuries induced by RT in the treatment of thoracic and cervical CA have been causing problems in clinical practice for decades, and are among the most serious adverse effects of radiation experienced by the growing number of cancer survivors. This article presentes a review on the Lilacs, Scielo and Pubmed databases of the main cardiovascular injuries, their mechanisms, clinical presentations, treatments and prevention proposals. Injuries caused by RT include diseases of the pericardium, coronary artery disease, valvular disease, myocardial disease with systolic and diastolic dysfunction, conduction disorders, and carotid artery and great vessels disease. Thoracic and cervical irradiation increases cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite the great progress in the improvement of RT techniques, totally excluding prime areas of the cardiovascular system from the irradiation field is not yet possible. Guidelines must be created for monitoring, diagnosis and treatment of patients with CA treated with RT.

    • Sorry. The thoraic and cervical region in the article are referring to the upper chest and throat area not the uterine cervix or uterine cervical area.

      However radiation therapy does have many negative side effects. If you look up what therapies are used for cervical cancer, it is horrific. Women often die from intestinal infections from it. I wonder how long a woman without symptoms or just mild ones of cervical cancer would live comfortably without threatment (or even cone biopsy). I read too many accounts of women told to hurry along their pregnancies becuase they “needed” a hysterrctomy for their “microscopic cancer”.

60. And one more link on HPV testing for men, it can be done! Please note the self sampling/urine method, so why can’t women be offered this if one wishes to test, it is not necessary to submit to the stirrups…..ever! It still makes no sense to only test females when they return to their partners who are infected, HPV is so very common after all. So woman gets treatment & goes back to partner – bingo re-infected with HPV, then after 2/3 rounds of treatment to cervix – Hysterectomy is next!! Of course I forgot that our body parts internal/external are disposable, oh and apparently not a big deal……really!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26920866

    Penile swab sampling is the method of choice when testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) in men. Urine sampling is already used in routine sexually transmitted infections (STI) diagnostics and could provide a less invasive sampling method in men to detect HPV. Therefore we compared detection of HPV types in urine samples and penile swabs by the highly sensitive SPF10-LiPA25 system.
    First void urine and self-obtained penile swab samples were collected from 120 men, with a mean age of 29.4 years, visiting a STI clinic in South Limburg, the Netherlands. In total 111 of 120 men were included in the analysis. Broad-spectrum HPV DNA amplification and mucosal HPV genotyping were performed using the SPF10 DEIA-LiPA25 system (SPF10 HPV LiPA, V.1).

    Sorry Ladies & Gents – I’m on one today, this stuff gives me the right hump!

    • I’m sock to death of this myself. I have believed for a long time that the NHS and other medical “bodies” don’t want us to find out what the most common cause of cervical cancer is, HPV. They don’t even want women tested for HPV when they have STI checks with their new partners upon entering a new relationship. I believe they don’t want us to know for two reasons – 1. A lot of practice nurses themselves are ignorant anout HPV, smear-testing and the mechanics behind it (so making women aware would expose all this ignorance and perhaps require re-training of nurses) and 2. To keep the population ignorant and keep women reliant on smear testing.

      When I was in school, we were never told about the risks of not using barrier contraception as a risk factor for cervical cancer. In the press, the only “official” advice women are given to avoid cervical cancer is “have regular smears”. NOTHING else. I believe this is reprehensible in the extreme. It also keeps males ignorant (who might be inclined to do something about it if they were aware more of it and that it posed a risk to their health too) and I also think it puts those women who have had false negative results following a smear test. Realistically, how likely is a GP (who happens to be militant about smears and ignorant of their limitations) to take a woman who is “up to date” but presenting with symptoms, seriously? What are the prospects she will be “fobbed off” and dismissed with the “all your smears are normal”? Highly likely in my opinion.

61. Hallelujah!

    https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/2016/05/18/new-letters-and-leaflets-for-cervical-screening/

62. This is real progress at last. Lets hope this gets through to docs a PN’s. I’m still going to publish my book tho as rape is still rape.

    • We’ve waited a long time for it, Linda. Still would like to see what the actual summons letters look like. They don’t seem to be publishing those just yet. They can put one story in the brochure, but if the call/recalls still tell women they must make an appointment, and there’s no chance to reply in the negative we might not be much further forward.

      • Still no mention in the leaflet on how to opt out, and nothing about women finding the test unpleasant. They lost that bit! Still guess it’s an improvement

      • I don’t think it’s an improvement on the whole. It’s certainly a lot worse than the prototype I read last year. Too much information left out, benefits wildly inflated and risks downplayed, as always. So much for Ann Mackie’s ‘more honest’ leaflet!
        Pretty much as I expected, really.

    • Absolutely, Linda. For all the blathering on about ‘choice’, they’ve left out so much vital information from this leaflet it’s a bloody joke. They don’t even acknowledge that the test ‘is not perfect’ anymore. Any woman reading this tripe might think the program is foolproof – false advertising or what?

    • Just seen the leaflet. I’m really disappointed. The only major change (and an important one at that) is the notion of choice in bold at the top.
      Everything else is just a re-hash of the previous NHS leaflet but worded slightly differently. I am dismayed that the NHS/ PHE is still clinging on to this “screening saves 5,000 lives a year” despite NO evidence backing up such an outlandish claim and as Kate says, it is still exaggerating the “benefits” and massively downplaying the disadvantages – I suppose that now a lot of trust areas are using the HPV primary/ secondary method, they can afford to downplay these disadvantages.

      Very disappointing. And as Kat says, they make no mention of how women can opt-out. If a woman is being aggressively pursued by GPs, how can that be CHOICE? No mention that this is unethical behaviour either. It is nowhere near as informed as the breast screening leaflets – despite that being a far more common cancer!

63. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-telstra-wins-contract-to-manage-your-health-records-20160525-gp3go9.html
    I wonder what will happen to the cancer screening industry in Australia with big business behind the helm..

64. http://www.eve-medical.com/

    This Canadian Company is offering HPV Self Test kits. Anyone heard of them?

    • I am not sure if this is licensed for sale yet but likley it will be distrubuted by doctors or clinics or mailed to “underscreened” women. What I understand from the product video is this self test device tests for HPV, and some STI. The results would be sent to a doctor. Then the woman will be pressured to treatment for STI gsome will be reported to government registries) and presured for further tests such as pap or colpscopy if the hpv part is positive. It is NOT a test for cervical cancer.

      Unless this test is very cheap there is no way that it woukd be sent through the mail to women who throw their reminder letters in the trash. I would likely throw this thing in the trash if I got it with the ultimatum screening letter. However it would save money if used to screen women in long lines at clinics but somehow I doubt they would all escape pelvic exams.

      I woud prefer to have the choice to purchase such a device at a pharmacy and get the results sent privately to myself and no one else.

      • In the US, many/most STIs are “reportable diseases”, As such, someone would be in a registry, and required to use any curative treatment – e.g., gonorrhea or syphilis and antibiotics. A pap test cannot test for STIs, and a pelvic exam is useful for chlamydia. However, I see those women who pop positive for any STIs to be pressured for a pelvic exam and pap test.

65. http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g5264

    Another one from me. This time about urine testing being a suitable replacement for the speculum test.

    • We heard nothing about self-testing or alternatives to the speculum exam for decades, women were supposed to suck it up and put up with it. I suspect with more informed women walking away from pap testing and these programs, they’re desperately searching for ways to drag them back under medical and govt control.

      Informed women can access self-testing here but only if you nominate an Australian GP or request one from your GP, they obviously worked out some women were ordering self-testing kits online or testing overseas. Block, block, control, control…

Comments are closed.