This post has been created to provide an additional forum for discussion, and is a continuation of the old Blogcritics’ Unnecessary Pap Smears discussion. The original Blogcritics Unnecessary Pap Smears discussion had more than 10,000 comments, but the comments were deleted following changes to the Blogcritics’ site.
Fortunately, the comments from Blogcritics have since been recovered and are preserved here: http://unnecessarypapsmears.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/over-10000-lost-comments-on-unnecessary-pap-smears-find-a-home/ This post also provides a ‘part three’ continuation of the ‘part two’ discussion forum that exists on this site: https://forwomenseyesonly.com/2013/09/22/discussion-forum/
Thank you Alex for suggesting the addition of an open forum devoted to discussion on this blog.
forwomenseyesonly 
Precisely Ada! Talk about human guinea pugs….
https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/2019/04/04/tackling-breast-and-cervical-screening-inequalities-in-merseyside/
I just don’t know why they are bothering to report this. After high input from staff chasing women only half of CCGs could report an increase in uptake of 1-1.9%, and that’s just temporary while the events have been on. Most interventions were unmeasurable, and although women reported being influenced, we have no figures how many extra screenings actually took place.
St Helens is my area. I haven’t been contacted for breast or cervical. I have opted out of both but anything goes with these programmes. Looks like they’re going after imigrants and other vulnerable groups. I’d love it if someone phoned me. It would be a conversation and then some.
I’ve just left a comment saying the % increase in uptake is very small and did anyone measure the costs involved with the chasing and activities.
It’ll be interesting to see if the comment gets let through. What a waste of resource for such a small increase in uptake.
Flogging the proverbial dead horse.
Moreover, Carolyn, how many years of life did it add for this cost? Or, did it take away years of “healthy life”, making healthy people into cancer patients longer with little to no increase in length-of-life – making this (seemingly callous) metric of cost per year of added life NEGATIVE?
The reality is that there has never been a randomized controlled trial of this. I wonder why…. (No I don’t)
SOME MORE GUINEA PIGS FOR A NEW VACCINE!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6886697/Experimental-vaccine-clears-cervical-pre-cancer-lesions-HPV-infection-one-women.html
The new shot, known as Tipapkinogen Sovacivec, clears tissue already infected with HPV. About half of the severe lesions will progress to cancer within 30 years. (RUBBISH!!)
‘We have no way to determine which women with CIN 3 will progress to cancer and which women will not,’ Dr Harper said. ‘So we treat all women with CIN 2 or 3 as if they are likely to develop cancer.’ (YEP THANKS FOR THAT)
The team studied 200 women who had moderate or severe lesions. 130 had vaccine & 70 placebo (ONLY 200 & 70 ONLY PLACEBO, NOT BALANCED IS IT)
‘There are very few products trying to cure women who already have an HPV infection,’ said Dr Harper. ‘It’s very exciting. This is the first time we’ve seen something with this success rate that is relatively easy to implement.’
Treatment for these lesions usually involves removing a piece of the cervix, but complication include scarring and a shortened cervix, which could lead to problems when delivering a child. (YEP THANKS FOR THAT TOO)
‘The surgical procedure removes all the tissue that is headed towards cancer, but it doesn’t remove all the HPV. You’re not home-free. You still have HPV,’ said Dr Harper.
WELL IF ONE HAS A VAGINA WE WILL NEVER BE HOME FREE WILL WE, WE MIGHT EXPLODE IF NOT UNDER SURVEILLANCE LOL!
Not much about long lasting immunity from hpv vaccines. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30085139
Note the statement about profitability for third booster compared to two booster regime.
Amy Schumer has a picture on her instagram showing her in a paper gown laying back on an exam table. The captain reads “ I adore being a girl.” This is the mentality of so many American woman. It’s unpleasant but you just have to because your a girl. It just irks me.
I hate these sort of images, but unfortunately it’s all too commonly promoted by those keen to grab anything that will put them into the celebrity limelight. There was a presenter here in the UK who had a test done “live”. I couldn’t watch it, but from the images on social media, she’d taken the trouble to ensure her enormous push-up bra was doing it’s job, and the sample taker was a young man in the typical stock photo image of a doctor. (Don’t you just hate those photos). All sample takers are practice nurses in the UK. You are unlikely to encounter a man until sent to hospital with “abnormalities” Hate it when this abuse is turned into a show for public consumption.
Meanwhile in Australia: Medical Board wants to ban doctors who recommend natural remedies, complementary medicines, vitamins and integral approach to health. The excuse is “while some treatments may be beneficial, others may be unnecessary or expose patients to serious side effects”.
What about the PAP-bullcrap, mammograms and other harmful screening tests?! Are they necessary?? Don’t they have serious side effects??? Not much hope that the greedy bureaucrats at Medical Board, obsessed with money, control and power, will ever ban this sanctioned rape and deliberate harm.
Daily fail again today ladies. Experienced nurse and smear taker struck off for falsifying records not carrying out smears and not sending samples to he lab. Her actions “have put women at risk” yawn
I saw that, great excuse for them to make a lot of noise about “life saving” smears.
What a bizarre thing for the nurse to do. I wonder what important tasks she actually failed at?
I read about the codes used for smear taking somewhere. There is a whole list of about 20 different codes that the nurse has to allocate to each woman. There is even a code for declining a smear test, and the nurse/GP has to allocate a code to every single woman every 3 years, so that’s why they keep pestering women, because they’ve got to enter a code on your medical record every 3 years or it triggers all sorts of demands. My guess is that the poor nurse probably mis-red the code list and allocated a wrong code in a few women, but then this is a world-leading screening programme, so she was probably taken outside and shot.
https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/2019/04/09/how-the-north-midlands-breast-screening-team-uses-facebook-to-increase-breast-screening-uptake/ MORE OF THIS RUBBISH!!
the North Midlands Breast Screening Service:
•linked with local GP practices that had active Facebook pages
•promoted the service on local Facebook community groups popular with women over 50
The team posts information aimed at encouraging women to spread the message about the benefits and importance of screening. The posts include women explaining the screening process and their personal experience of it, as well as videos showing the rooms where screening takes place.
It should say “uses Facebook to help ensure their job security!”
Not one of the women involved in this project look in the 50 – 70 age range. Just what do they really know about it? They are all too young to be in the programme, yet here they are telling us middle aged ladies to go and get our breasts crushed and radiated. Same old offensive language:
You are “empowered if you make an infomed choice to attend” when the evidence says otherwise and no mention of harms at all. Patronising Health England spewing the same old nonsense.
You are, indeed, “empowered” if you make an INFORMED choice to attend.
Part of that information is that exposing the breast tissue to ionizing radiation increases the incidence of cancer. Of course, being informed that mammograms increase the lifetime exposure to ionizing radiation must be balanced against the other health needs of a particular woman so she can make an informed choice on whether to expose herself to ionizing radiation.
Note that if the woman has symptoms of breast cancer, a mammogram can help with the diagnosis. It’s the same radiation, but diagnostic tests are given to symptomatic people – not well people. It can help direct further medical care.
The radiation factor is an important consideration, as is the possibility of a false positive leading to an unnecessary and invasive biopsy. In addition, there is the possibility of being diagnosed with DCIS, a “precancer’ that may never bother a woman during her lifetime, but once diagnosed via mammography, will likely be treated with radiation and tamoxifen, with their own significant risks and side effects. Radiologists and mammographers as well as primary care physicians seem to forget these inconvenient little facts in their hysterical coercion of women to get this screening, .
If I found a lump, I’d be cautious about the next step, it seems you’re routinely referred for a mammogram, but is it a good idea to squash a lump?
I recall watching a video put together by lots of impressive people on mammograms and that was a comment made by one of the doctors, “not a good idea to crush a lump”…so I assume an ultrasound should be the next step and then, if nec, a biopsy.
Not sure if I linked that video, I’ll check the reference part – if not, I will, it’s worth watching, they talk to a woman deemed high risk for breast cancer, she had so many mammograms starting at about 30 and ended up with sarcoma in the rib, just behind one of her breasts – excessive use of mammograms, which still happens in the States and elsewhere, can lead to cancers caused by the radiation. This poor woman didn’t die from breast cancer, she died from the sarcoma…in her 40s or 50s.
I’ve heard the dangers of squashing a lump – even the tiny ones that you cannot feel, but mammograms can detect – you know, the ones they claim mammograms “save lives” over.
The poor woman who was high-risk for breast cancer, and they did a lot of mammograms – each with more ionizing radiation, and she died of sarcoma…. (Set Sarcasm HIGH) Well, those mammograms DID save her from dying of breast cancer! If she’d have lived to be in her 60s or 70s without them or the sarcoma, she MIGHT have died of breast cancer!
Set Sarcasm OFF
There IS no safe level of ionizing radiation! The amount you are exposed to is cumulative over a lifetime. In all cases, one must weigh that additional risk against the benefit of the exposure.
A documentary film…”The Promise”
“The truth about the routine breast cancer screening programme. The biggest catastrophe in women’s health is taking place right now right before our eyes. Healthy women all over the world have been disfigured, disempowered and brainwashed into believing that their beautiful nurturing breasts have only one objective…to kill them”
Sadly, I think you have to pay for access, (about $6 from memory) but it was released a while ago now so you might be able to find it somewhere on line without the pay wall.
Yes, just found Part 1, it’s now on You Tube – Part 2 must be there somewhere.
All three parts of “The Promise” are now available at no charge from Youtube. There is a playlist at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7XUnQBLlnU&list=PLog7kY0GRQu6VMmG6lxh0VCB9kx0p5Q4u
Thanks, Beth
Wonderful…that it’s now freely available
The comments here about crushing a breast lump, I agree that has never sounded right to me. I also would be concerned about the fine needle biopsies, in case it draws cancer cells up through the breast tissue and spreads it. Surely crushing a lump and jabbing it with a needle can’t be right.
Breast screening has never seemed like the right thing to do. I discussed this with a male GP and he claimed that it does save lives. I replied that men would never agree to have their testicles crushed between two glass plates. He didn’t have an answer for that!
I have had yet another summons for breast screening. This time, instead of attending the mobile unit, I have been invited to the breast cancer unit at my local hospital. I’ve never had breast screening. I’m not sure why I have been selected for this special treatment. Once again, I shall be ignoring the letter. The NHS can continue to squander their resources on invitations for appointments I don’t need and didn’t request.
Mint wow they really want your breasts! How many “invitations ” is that now? Wish I could b like u. I felt obliged to cancel my 1st summons so someone who actually wanted it could go and then I opted out as I wasn’t prepared to keep cancelling something I didn’t want or ask for..
https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/2019/04/10/reducing-cervical-screening-inequalities-for-trans-people/
DESPARATION to increase uptake as usual. OMG the video – totally unnecessary! The GP states after the test if inadequate another can be taken in “3 months to allow the cells to recover”, but I think they mean….allow the now damaged cells to repair themselves!
OMG! Fox said that he took Al with him to hold his hand… but I didn’t see her there. Yeah, “3 months to allow the cells to recover”. They damage cells on every pap screening – which of course can lead to cancer or to the spread of cancer if they ARE there (albeit very unlikely)
The usual pap crap about it “saving lives”. Just HOW does it save lives if someone has already made a firm decision to refuse colposopies, biopsies, hysterectomies, chemo and radiation therapy? Do they just record it for statistical purposes? How about the people who feel raped afterwards? Some people who are raped, 33% of women, contemplate suicide, while 13% attempt suicide (DG Kilpatrick, CN Edumuds, AK Seymour. Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. Arlington, VA: National Victim Center and Medical University of South Carolina (1992). Accessed via RAINN.org on 4/10/19) I could not find statistics for men who are raped nor trans-men.
The risks are pretty high. The benefits are nowhere to be seen unless one will consent to follow-on tests and treatments.
For a trans-man, waiting in the women’s clinic for one of these follow-on tests or treatments would very much leave him open to harassment and ridicule. Again, what is the purpose?
Subscribe Now
58°Oklahoma City
Log In
Register
breaking: Oklahoma Department of Corrections ending contracts with two halfway houses
developing: Classic car stolen from Oklahoma City man
Sales tax revenue rebounds after 1-month downturn in Oklahoma City
NewsOK: Oklahoma City News, Sports, Weather & Entertainment
OKC doctor accused of rape agrees to stop practicing medicine
Nuria Martinez-Keel
by Nuria Martinez-Keel
Published: Wed, February 27, 2019 1:05 AM Updated: Wed, February 27, 2019 1:30 AM
708
shares
email
0
Advertisement
In this June 30, 2016 photo provided by the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office, Dr. John A. Fuller is pictured in a booking photo. Rape and sexual battery charges have been dismissed against Fuller, who agreed to stop practicing medicine. Oklahoma County court records indicate the charges were dismissed Monday, Feb. 25, 2019 against 65-year-old Dr. John A. Fuller after he agreed to not practice medicine again. (Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office via AP)
In this June 30, 2016 photo provided by the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office, Dr. John A. Fuller is pictured in a booking photo. Rape and sexual battery charges have been dismissed against Fuller, who agreed to stop practicing medicine. Oklahoma County court records indicate the charges were dismissed Monday, Feb. 25, 2019 against 65-year-old Dr. John A. Fuller after he agreed to not practice medicine again. (Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office via AP)
An Oklahoma City gynecologist agreed to end his medical practice in exchange for having rape and sexual battery charges against him dropped.
John A. Fuller, 65, retired his medical license and promised never to practice medicine again, according to court documents. His charges were dismissed Monday in Oklahoma County District Court.
His attorney, Scott Adams, said Fuller hasn’t practiced medicine in five years. The doctor worked as a gynecologist and a pain management specialist.
Fuller was charged in separate felony cases in 2014 and 2016 after female patients accused him of inappropriately touching them during examinations. Between the two cases, he faced a count of second-degree rape and three counts of sexual battery.
Two women also filed civil lawsuits against him, claiming assault and battery.
Juries in both civil cases ruled in favor of Fuller. The court ordered both women to pay more than $2,400 to cover his attorney fees.
Adams said Fuller was prepared to stand trial Monday for his criminal case but decided to resign from medicine instead.
“He’s to the point in his career where he’s wanting to move on and enjoy life,” Adams said. “He’s always professed his innocence. He still does. He didn’t do anything inappropriate and will stand by it until the day he dies.”
So, what he was going to have as part of a consequence anyway- that’s the retaliation?
Yes, so he wants to move on, what about the women? Will they be able to move on? I doubt it…
Daily fail today ladies. Over half of women forced to delay or not get their smears bcoz they can’t get appointment. Mr Music claims screening saves 5000 lives a year. Usual comments from pro screeners
5000 lives per year in the UK???? Gee, in the US, there are only just over 12,000 diagnoses of CC per year, and just over 4,000 deaths! Our population is a LOT higher than the UK’s! How are they claiming to save 5,000 lives when a bigger country only has 4,000 deaths?
Cancer Research UK states 2,000 lives saved yet I see quoted elsewhere “up to/estimated to save anything up to 5,000 – so I wonder exactly which is it 2,000 OR 5,000 who knows? Nobody really knows for sure, its only estimated (Guestimated) & estimates IMO are useless to the public!
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cervical-cancer/getting-diagnosed/screening/about?_ga=2.92462685.1799800134.1555424380-1684121643.1532008188
“Benefits of cervical screening
Research shows that cervical screening prevents at least 2,000 cervical cancer deaths each year in the UK.”
Nearly 5 million women in the UK, in 2016 only 854 deaths, which we need to remember that around a third of those deaths had false negatives when screened. I’m still happy to give all this crap a miss….for the 0.65% risk! Even if it was 50/50 I’d still not want screening.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15262102
Beth, here’s the reason for that ridiculous figure. About 2004 there were major concerns that this hugely costly programme of ours wasn’t having any effect. During the 1990’s there had been huge financial payouts in damages to women who had got the cancer in spite of negative screening results. The programme was fighting for survival amongst heavy criticism that it wasn’t cost effective. So what did the government do?
Here’s my opinion. They paid researchers to write this paper saying that there would have been an epidemic of cervical cancer in the UK if the programme hadn’t prevented it. This enabled the government to by-pass data protection laws which said that citizens have a right to not have their personal identifying data used in mass mailings for call-up. The government created Section 251 which says that in the event of a national disease epidemic the government can collect citizens data and set up mass call-ups for disease control. So they are free to send endless mailings to us, when the law protects us otherwise. The government also set up a propaganda “shop window” to pacify worried women and dissipate any further complaints -Jo’s Trust.
Note Peto claims that the UK would have had the highest rate of cervical cancer in the world without our programme. Really? Even above impoverished African countries????? Of course, if you read through past all these outrageous statements it also says that this is all wild speculation. It was this paper which set the 5,000 figure, and the NHS has stuck rigidly with this figure ever since. It has been on every website, newspaper and magazine, despite this paper being quietly dropped from NHS web pages lately. I’ve challenged it a number of times, so maybe they are feeling they could be up in court for false advertising. It really makes me mad that they can get away with this. I pointed out on one website that there are only about 2,500 cases of cervical cancer in the UK annually, and only about 800 deaths, mostly women over 65, and the reply just went on about the hundreds of thousands of abnormalities they treat every year, and implied they were curing them all of cancer. They tried to blind me with huge numbers to convince me they were saving thousands, and did not print my reply when I pointed out these only had a remote chance of becoming cancer.
I will continue to challenge everywhere I see on this figure until it is removed for good.
I call it out too whenever I hear it. I’ve heard that the US is #1 in CC — and, REALLY??? Like you, does that include the poor countries of Africa, the war-torn nations of the world – especially where mass-rape has been used as a weapon of war for decades? Then, I’ve heard other nonsense like breast cancer or cervical cancer being the #1 cause of death for US women! No, they don’t hit the top 10. The #1 cause of death for women in the US is the same as it is for men – cardiac conditions. The #1 cause of cancer deaths for US women is the same as it is for men – lung cancer. Of course, it was different before we had all of these screening programs. What was the #1 cause of deaths for US women in 1900? Yes, again, the same as men – tuberculosis.
I’m looking at who gains the most financially from all of this overtesting and overdiagnosing “female” cancers worldwide? It’s not just the lecherous interests of male doctors worldwide. It’s not just the money-making opportunities for physicians or hospitals. The makers of the test? Or, it’s got a lot of attributes of ritual as well. It’s sure as heck not science-based medicine! It provides a distraction from any science-based medicine.
I think they just lie or they fudge the statistics, also, using relative/absolute risk distortions to make something “sound” like a huge risk – but when you look at the real figures, well, you wouldn’t give the cancer, any rare cancer, a second thought.
Yet they mandated regular vaginal exams for women, for most of their lives (and initially that also included a breast and pelvic exam) knowing it would lead to widespread over-treatment and help very few women. Rare is rare…
The UK breast screening program came up with the figure that 1 in 8 women will get breast cancer – grossly misleading, the risk of breast cancer rises with age – you’re very unlucky to get it before 40 or 50.
The Australian program picked up this number and ran with it, they were finally challenged and said the figure came from the UK, they decided to use that rather than confuse women, even though they knew it didn’t sound right!
Even now the 1 in 8 terrifies many women, after one campaign we had 18 year old women going to their GP asking for a mammogram and leaving in tears when it was denied…Kylie Minogue did a lot of damage too, urging young women to get screened – unhelpful when CBEs are not recommended here at any age and the screening program starts at 50 (but I understand you can start screening in your 40s) (of course, Kylie’s advice was well meaning but it was still bad advice)
The willingness to grab and run with any statistic that’s likely to scare women and help the program is disgraceful and of course, these people are rarely challenged in this country…so they get away with it…have done from the start.
That’s the bit that really stings, that no one was prepared to challenge the lies and spin, you’ve got a few advocates in the UK, but really, until very recently, there’s been no challenge here at all – even now, not much is said about cervical screening – we’re seeing a bit more being said about breast screening. (about time!)
So it means that the AMA, doctors and academics believe it’s best not to challenge these programs, IMO, they’re worried about their incomes and/or funding.
I read somewhere that it was UK Conservative politician Edwina Currie who came up with the 1 in 8 women will get breast cancer. Can’t find a link, but she was largely behind setting up the breast and cervical screening programmes in Mrs Thatcher’s government. She was a big promoter of HRT for women as well as screening, and wanted an advertisement which would fit on the side of a double decker bus, so without any evidence this became the campaign slogan to launch mammography screening, and the 1 in 8 stuck for good. There was no medical evidence at all. Edwina’s political career started to unfold, when she also announced that Britain’s eggs were full of salmonella, and caused a spectacular crash in Britain’s egg production lines as a result. She didn’t go down too well after that. John Major took over from Mrs Thatcher when she was ousted, and Edwina Currie, fired up on HRT no doubt, had an ongoing affair with him during his time as Prime Minister. Years later, when the Jimmy Saville scandal came out it was found that she was one of those who had turned a blind eye to Mr Savilles activities and given him full access to vulnerable people in the health care system.
Elizabeth – Indeed! They take the statistics, and conflate absolute risk with relative risk, and take that 1 in 8 number for breast cancer – and then spin it so as to SCARE young women in their teens or twenties that they could have a 1:8 risk for breast cancer, so they spend time examining their own breasts, finding lumps, making appointments with their doctors, getting more scared and stressed that they “probably have cancer”, get some more invasive and expensive tests, complete with ionizing radiation, then breathe a sigh of relief that they don’t have cancer. Then repeat. Nevermind that stress is a killer by itself, and the higher cortisol levels associated with all sorts of things from cardiac risks to cancer risks through medication for high blood pressure risks…
Then, of course, she needs a pap for a very rare cancer – but one with unacceptably low specificity or sensitivity – leading to more invasive and dangerous testing and procedures… along with more stress, including or especially the stress from a coercive test, with implication of no care or treatment for other diseases, which is heightened for any survivor of previous rape, molestation, or medical abuse. Note that rape survivors have about a 16% chance of attempting suicide (source: RAINN.ORG) – now compare that with the 0.65% lifetime risk of cervical cancer. Considering that 1:3 women are survivors of rape or sexual abuse, that’s a LOT of people!
If someone knows they would refuse the follow-on procedures or tests after having an abnormal result, what is the purpose of the test, other than populating a database? Moreover, many of the questions they ask, such as “How many partners have you had?” “At what age did you have first intercourse?” “What is your sexual orientation?” “Are you a victim of domestic violence?” “Has anyone forced you to have intercourse, with a weapon or drugs? etc has DATABASE written all over it! Why do I want to help them populate a database, in the US at MY expense and/or my insurance company’s, and at the expense of risks associated with the exam itself?
In the US, 50 million pap smears are done in the US each year! (source: cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/13/3/355) A pap test kit costs around $12, but add in the cost of the appointment ($80), the cost of a pelvic exam ($75), and throw in a breast exam “just because” at about $35), these are about $200 each! Now, multiply that by 50 million, and we’re spending $10 BILLION per year to save around 8,000 lives (the difference between CC detected and CC deaths – those who died didn’t benefit from it anyway!), that is $1.2 million for EACH death prevented – just from the cost of the pap tests, not including the cost of all of the follow-on procedures. Or if we go with the screen 1000 women for 35 years to prevent 1 death, that’s about $7 million if there was annual testing, or $2.3 million for each death.
This leaves out the “psychosocial” costs, or the fact that the pap crap acts as a distraction with people seeking medical care for actual conditions, and puts up barriers to care for symptomatic women.
Now, if we forgo the pap crap in the US, ignoring the costs of the follow-on tests and procedures (which cost a LOT more! Estimating it at the same cost over 35 years as all of the pap tests), that would put an additional $20 BILLION into the US healthcare system – including freeing up the time and energy of all of the resources of clinicians, lab techs, and technicians for the other gadgets used in testing. If we put this money into research, or into medication or ensuring adequate nutrition for people to prevent diseases, it would seem that would get much more “bang for the buck”.
I suspect that the amount spent in the UK is a bit lower, as the profit motive is more removed from the costs – but the equipment and supplies are still manufactured and sold for profit. Still, the percentage that could be put into the system to treat REAL conditions would probably be similar.
For extra credit, we can do the same thing for mammograms, colon cancer screening, prostate screening, etc. There is no limit to the amount of medical overuse that can result from cancer screening!
Ada,
“There was no medical evidence at all”
Incredible that a politician can come up with a number, with no evidence, and it becomes set in stone – no one felt compelled to challenge the number, or perhaps, they did in the UK, but Currie had a louder voice and larger public profile.
I watched a documentary about Saville recently, left me feeling sick, and so sad and angry for the devastation these sexual attacks caused to so many young women, teenagers and children. His victims were terribly vulnerable – he often targeted girls who were paralysed or unwell – a doctor even gave Saville the use of a room at a hospital so he was free to roam the wards at night – and some nurses told young girls to pretend to be asleep if Saville came into their room.
It certainly sounded like a lot of people had suspicions but Saville was so powerful and raised so much money for various charities, everyone looked the other way. That’s typical of sexual predators, especially pedophiles, to put themselves in a place of power and trust…they groom the victims and others, they’re master manipulators.
Such a shame Saville was never punished for his crimes – I still can’t believe he was considered an appropriate host of a music program aimed at teens, but of course, that’s the perfect place for a sexual predator.
If there’s a hell, I’m sure he’s there…
I saw that Daily Fail article. It is ridiculous to say 5000 lives saved. How can anyone possibly know how many lives are saved? Did anyone compare deaths from CC before the screening programme was introduced with how many there are now? So was there like 6000 per year before and now 1000?
It’s like a brainwashing mantra “smear tests save lives” and if it’s repeated often enough people will believe it. Well I don’t want my life saved in this manner, thanks very much. I don’t want a life of having regular vaginal exams. That is not a life as far as I am concerned.
I remember Edwina Currie boboasting about breast screening. Someone asked her about DCIS. She never heard of it
https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h867/rr-3
See link here from BMJ 2015. One of the reasons the breast screening programme is in trouble is because Edwina Currie’s screening programme was “naïvely informed and politically motivated”. I have seen her quote that it was purely an exercise in getting women’s votes, and also a big chance for private healthcare. She is still giving talks now and trumpeting her screening achievements, saying the UK was first country in world to have both programmes running. Totally oblivious to the harm she has caused.
Kat,
We had an older female politician who proudly declared in Parliament that she had annual Pap tests and that female doctors and nurses should always be available, she was congratulated for her bravery. taking on a difficult and personal topic. No one mentioned it was a very bad idea to have annual pap testing – and of course, this woman had no idea what she was talking about – she apparently had no concern for the major killer of women, heart disease.
Omg ladies 2ce in one day. Daily fail. Women launch the no shrinking violet campaign sending violets to the health secretary and demanding better access and avail ability of smears
Kat, they just can’t accept that women just don’t want this test.
I see that the “Women’s Equality Party” (ffs) is leading this campaign. For those not in the know, this is a fledgling feminist political party in the UK which campaigns for free sanitary products and endless misinformed screening (for women, of course) along with any other political issues which affect women. They’ve based their new campaign about shrinking violets, as they are really angry about all the endless smear test promotions calling women too embarrassed and shy to attend, and say that for a large number, the difficulty of getting an appointment due to cuts in services is the real reason. Loads of support from indignant women saying what big empowered girlies they are, but the poor dears have spent months ringing their GP surgeries trying to get an appointment without success. It’s odd that a lot of practice nurses frequently post online that less than half turn up to these appointments. Jo’s Tosh have supported this new campaign, but remember, it was Jo’s at the root of all this propaganda about women being too embarrassed to attend with their “research” which showed that women were too embarrassed to attend smears. Now they seem to be campaigning against their previous campaign.
They just don’t seem to get that this test is so invasive, uncomfortable and humiliating that even if it really was
the major life saver they claim, and even if cervical cancer really was a major threat to women’s health as they represent, many women would still opt out. If it is as important as they say they should put their energies into coming up with a non-invasive test!
Moreover, “shy” and “embarrassed” is not even a small part of the issue.
On top of the other reasons not to screen, the notion of having a man you just met fingering your girlie-parts, when consent is lacking or is outright refused, supplemented with coercion on not treating your other diagnosed health conditions is hardly “embarrassment” – any more than any woman who has her vagina and anus penetrated against their will by someone’s hands or an object is. Rape or sexual assault are hardly matters of “just being embarrassed”!
Exactly Beth. The matter of informed consent is always of paramont importance, especially since it’s generally lacking in woman’s health care.
They know women hate the test, for many it’s completely unacceptable, which should have meant the test was unsuitable for population screening, instead they continue to tell us how we should feel and what we must do…
A non-invasive option is available but they’d rather lock that away and pressure women to submit. Attitudes haven’t really changed all that much In medicine, women are still viewed as public property – others can dictate what will happen to our bodies.
The militancy around this testing – the over-the-top pressure – sent me to the Medical Library, it was a huge relief to find the cancer was rare and the test was unreliable, I was happy to pass. I knew that had to be the case or I would have been aware of women dying or being treated for cc…and that wasn’t the case, most women didn’t give cc a second thought, until they were brainwashed to see it as a huge threat.
At the end of the day, I wasn’t having the test, but it was nice to know the risk of cc was tiny…I could live with that. Interesting all these years later, there’s still a reluctance to offer the test, it’s still mandated, “should”…”must”…it never sounded like an offer…because they didn’t want us to think we had a choice.
In the UK we see the word “choice” in the brochures, but you can see the program really struggles with the notion of choice, they know a lot of women would choose not to screen without the pressure, and all the other dirty tricks. Nothing has really changed, I suppose it’s to appease the informed women, who are making more and more noise…make it “look” like they respect choice…yeah, sure!
And they’re calling it a public cervix announcement! Beam me up…
🤢🤮
Chas thanks 4 yr support on the shrinking violet campaign x
I’m watching local news. A local uni has developed an online tool to help men decide to do about a prostate cancer diagnosis. It agrees over treatment is horrible and maybe not necessary. It agrees men need time to think this through and they need balanced info..
Bbc today ladies appalling smear letters don’t tell you to screen and are cold and don’t encourage you
I’ve just seen this BBC article. Apparently there will be a “No Fear Book a Smear” campaign to “encourage” women to book a test. It’s so patronising and honestly I am sick of hearing about this every single day. Hardly a day goes by when there is not an article in the mainstream media about smear testing. They also seem to have found every poor person diagnosed with this illness and put their story out there to make it seem more common than it is.
The test itself is disgusting, the way it is promoted to women is disgusting and there is never a balanced view presented. It’s always “get the screening or die”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-47946395
The letter is not as ‘cold’ and ‘appalling’ as they used to be.
In the past, the letters that came led with ‘Your cervical screening is now due.’ It was written as if it were a summons and you had to book one.
This is how I was ‘captured.’ I was carefully lead to believe smear tests were mandatory. This belief somehow pervaded all of society. It was all cleverly done. Government worked with the NHS to work out how best to ‘capture’ women into the programme. My doctor implied he wouldn’t give me the pill unless I submitted. A ruse. This is why I often talk of ‘rape.’ in my comments because this is how the programme was initially run. A programme of mass rape where women were given no choice to refuse a smear test.
Many doctors did betrayed their female patients in this appalling manner.
The women of this site through their constant campaigning have changed that dynamic and now the letter read that it is our ‘choice’ to have one.
Young women do their research and quite probably come across this site and read the articles and comments before deciding for themselves.
This is the way it should always have been – ‘our choice.’ Not the doctors or their ugly hearted nurses.
The NHS took something from me. Despite being in a faithful monog marriage several nurses and doctors have now rooted about in my private place. For what exactly. Cervical cancer was and still is rare. This did something to my physce. It was like rape. It was rape.
I’m glad young women are not so easily ‘captured’ into the programme as many of us here were all those years ago. I’m proud of their ability to reason and think for themselves.
I think its only a matter of time before the letters are changed again and ‘choice’ is once again robbed from women.
How sad.
I completely agree, it’s a bit better than the old summons but not by a great deal.
I remember the old “your cervical screening is now due” invites. It wasn’t about choice, it was a summons pure and simple and this message of it being a summons was reinforced by doctors and nurses.
Back then accessing the internet for research wasn’t the norm and it was framed as something women had to do to access medical care. Non attendance would be seen as a problem, like an unpaid bill that would end up in debt collection.
Thankfully things have changed and we know better of course however I think there are plenty of us who feel hostility and resentment towards the NHS and doctors who duped up and bullied us back then.
You’re absolutely right to use the word rape as that’s what it was. Using fear and coercion to penetrate someone.
Linda, that was the norm when I was a young woman, (I was 21 in 1979) women were refused the Pill unless they submitted to a Pap smear, pelvic and breast exam – if you said NO, then you left empty handed. That’s how far they were prepared to go…leave women with no reliable contraception, risking miscarriage, an unplanned pregnancy or abortion, not to mention the psycho-sexual issues.
How many women managed without the Pill because they refused to go through all of that,…just for a script? I certainly wasn’t prepared to go through all of that, especially when I KNEW none of it was clinically necessary for the Pill. Even back then I struggled to find anything supportive of routine pelvic exams or CBE. (some suggested a CBE was a good idea in women over 40)
Neither exam is recommended now for women of any age.
The medical profession and the program were using that consult to force screening, in my opinion, that negates all consent. I firmly believe these women were assaulted…and it was okay with the AMA, RACGP, doctors, etc.
Linda they might change the wording but the word is well out now about choice this test and self testing
They won’t gain re control of the herd. Thanks to sue and all the women out there spreading the word
Hi Kat. Thank God for that. The younger ones are so savvy. The first thing they do is go on the internet and look into stuff. No going back to the bad old days.
x
Beth, so true…
Here we struggle to properly fund psychiatric services when suicide and other mental illness is a serious concern but there’s always heaps of funding for anything to do with cervical or breast cancer screening. (unless it doesn’t support the program)
I also wonder at the cost of all the women left damaged with cervical stenosis and cervical incompetence who go on to have high risk pregnancies, infertility, miscarriage and premature babies – how many premature babies passed away or were left with an on-going disability?
When these women usually suffered damage to their cervix in their 20s after a “treatment” – it says to me it could so easily have been avoided, the evidence has never supported screening before age 30. Over-treatment has harmed so many women…
Look at the countries that don’t screen young women, you don’t see this awful damage and they don’t have lots of young women dying from cc either…they get the same rare cases that occur whether you screen or not. I suspect young women might get an earlier diagnosis in these countries too – they won’t be falsely reassured with a false negative Pap test.
I also reflect on the pain and loss of quality of life…so many women unnecessarily going through bad life experiences – the cervix is there for a reason, leave it alone!
Yes, causing premature babies who live their first 3 or 4 months on life support, with lifetime disabilities, with a lifetime of mental problems caused by not being held as infants, then spends an OUTRAGEOUS amount of money over the course of these children’s lives – which might be ordinary length. Had you just left their mother’s cervix alone, they would have been born at term and had an ordinary, productive life.
In the US, insurance at least used to have “lifetime caps”, then the parents’ money was used to pay for this – ending any possibility for any sort of savings or nest egg – going farther and farther into debt. If they have other children, they can forget about going to college!
It all gets taken by the medical system that way…. It provides lots of jobs for a lot of these people. It makes money for device manufacturers. It contributes to overuse of the medical system. It gives suffering to the disabled baby, their siblings, and the couple who had these children.
Yes, same in the UK. Mental health and crisis services are woefully underfunded and yet there is a seeming bottomless pit of money for cervical screening ads.
There is an ‘awareness’ ad at the moment going around social media with the headline 2 women die of cervical cancer everyday. Sad of course however 16people commit suicide everyday.
Cervical screening has a budget in excess of £175m. I don’t know what the budget is for suicide prevention but I’m comfortable guessing it’s nowhere near that. It’s a disgrace that this propaganda machine is allowed to roll on and on.
I agree…
We spend a fortune screening to prevent or catch a rare cancer, always rare here, while far greater risks to our lives go onto the back burner.
There’s been a focus on domestic violence here, we currently have an ad on TV about sexual harassment on public transport, “call it out”…of course, how does the treatment of women by the govt, medical profession and these programs sit with these topics.
Respect women is the catch cry…, yet they continue to lie, manipulate, harm and often, assault women.
Yes, there seems to be an endless pit of money from which to draw for these cervical screenings…. errr, diddlings…. errr, sexual assaults…. errr putting women in (our) place… errr frightening women and those who love us. There’s not enough money anywhere to pay for care for real diseases and conditions, nor is there money to pay for safe, warm housing, adequate food, protection from violence or harassment. One women in 2, 3, or 4 (depending on what statistic source) is a victim of rape or molestation, and one rape victim out of 16 attempts suicide. THAT’S A LOT OF WOMEN! That’s a lot of unneeded death and disability – and contrary to public opinion, just giving someone a pill or 3 is not going to be adequate suicide prevention.
The amount spent or budgeted for cervical screening is nowhere near what this actually costs. The costs for follow-on procedures comes out of other budgets – such as hysterectomies, HRT. A proven outcome of hysterectomies is an increase in heart conditions, so treatment for those comes from other parts of healthcare budgets. The (apparent) anhedonia and “feeling out of touch with onesself” syndrome that comes after some LEEP procedures is a cost that cannot be addressed, nor is the creation of or worsening of PTSD symptoms from penetrating a woman without consent – using coercion – her feeling that she has no bodily autonomy (a basic human right).
I’m still unclear on just who is behind this propaganda machine – or if it is one entity. Follow the money…. money goes to the suppliers/manufacturers of the tests, money goes to the labs that test them, money goes to the clinicians who collect the paps. It seems that it’s part of a ritual more than any sort of even money-driven health scare, or a way for the clinicians to get more people in the clinic. There has been no random controlled trials to show that it “saves lives” – although some data from the UK shows that it has a tiny effect but I’m not sure that it’s statistically significant. It appears to have a low specificity and sensitivity – it would certainly not be approved if it were introduced today.
It seems to have more in common with ritual. Believing that it prevents cancer or keeps women healthy is not based in anything scientific or evidence based – it’s just BELIEVED.
They don’t care about women damaged by the programme at all. They only care if these women bring them “bad press”, but I imagine that women will be shouted down like the “anti-vaxxers” if they dare make a song and dance about it, abd this is what’s worrying me in the UK atm.
The screening rate is dropping at the rate of flies (apparently), however in response, the programme supporters are stamping their feet and throwing their toys out of the pram.
The campaigning is becoming increasingly militant. These crazies are now demanding that we discuss smears everywhere – in tge salon, and in the workplace.
It is no longer an awareness campaign, it’s an intimidation tactic that is about publicly “outing” and challenging “defaulters”.
They hope that nosey colleagues will interfere and persuade these naughty women that they “must” go, that they’re irresponsible if they don’t go.
It is a source of concern because it seems to be grounded in the notion of policing women, and as there is cracking down on “anti-vaxxer” dissent, I’m concerned that the same will eventually apply to screening, making it a “no-go” area for any form of discussion.
As those rates are dropping, the screening proponents are hitting a brick wall and are becoming more desperate. I’ve never seen so many informed women on forums who are happy to challenge the shortfalls of screening, without fear of reproach.
It is an interesting development, but I do wonder where it will end, and how far they’ll be willing to go to enforce screening.
Yes, I too have talked with pro-screeners, and been compared to an anti-vaxxer AND JUST AS DANGEROUS. Now, there’s absolutely no evidence that CC can be transmitted by casual contact or via airborne methods, as are most vaccine-preventable diseases. I invited the person if they don’t want to risk the spread of CC to themselves just STAY OUT OF MY VAGINA! I think I put the kabbash on that discussion, but WHEW! How can anyone even consider my vagina to be public property and of societal concern needing public surveillance?
The feminists were vocal about our right to an annual free Pap test, I think they were used by vested interests, they saw the opportunity to make a fortune and it offered a great way of exerting control over women.
The arrival of the Pill made it easy to coerce and pressure women into testing. The test was certainly tied to pre and post natal care too, and HRT, so they probably thought they could trap enough women to make the program look successful. The program also manipulated women to believe that testing was mandatory, unless you were some sort of reckless lunatic, it was just part of being a woman.
I’ve heard many say cervical screening has been a huge success, that we’ve saved X number of lives (of course, could you trust their figures?..Hardly) Yet there’s been no discussion on the cost paid by the vast majority of women who would never have had an issue with cc – this huge group are just dumped on the side, collateral damage. Also, the way this program has been structured in many countries, it maximises the risk of over-treatment for zero additional benefit to women. (a lucrative sideline for doctors and served to mislead women, make it seem like lots of cc was being caught) We horribly over screened and included young women, both against long standing evidence, now we do HPV testing on women from 25, a high school student could find very swiftly that HPV testing should never start before 30.
No doubt in my mind these programs have always been shaped by clueless politicians after votes or misguided applause and vested interests with no concern for women, just $$$
Hey, my awesome sisters and brothers, if there’s any redditors here, got a thread you might like to see and maybe drop some truth in!
https://www.reddit.com/r/GirlTalk/comments/bc6nro/who_has_heard_of_gynoselfies
And don’t forget to take a look.at r/wedeservebetter, which was linked in this thread!
This has to be the most idiotic twist yet by the pro-screening brigade. How is undergoing an invasive unreliable test for a very rare cancer standing up for our reproductive rights? I would say it does just the opposite since traditionally women have been forced into these exams if she wants a pill prescription. What a collosal insult to our collective intelligence! And as for this ” destignatizing gyn visits” business, the fact remains that many women find these exams painful and humiliating and are going to avoid them no matter what, stigna or no stigna.
Whoops, meant “stigma,” not “stigna.”
As far as going for pap tests, what sort of stigma has existed over going? It seems that the stigma is not going, and standing up and saying that it’s absurd to live your life around an obsessive search for a rare cancer. The only stigma about going to a GYN is if someone is going to diagnose or treat an STD, but that’s not this “big responsible empowered girlie” stuff.
The problem most do t know about how unreliable this screening is.
Yeah, I was shocked when I found out about the unreliability of the screening and the rarity of CC. I had certainly never been given any of that information, so the informed part of informed consent was missing.
These sorts of tactics are very prevalent in the UK when the “screening authorities” start worrying about declining numbers. It’s a sign of desperation.
Could just be that some are worrying that screening is on the backfoot in the US…
I think this is what Amy shimmer picture on instagram was about. Make lite of it normalize it. I don’t think so.
And also, by encouraging women to go, these idiots are indirectly admitting that they have a choice! If someone is having to persuade you to do something, it means it’s optional, otherwise you’d never have declined it!
Whoops, own goal there Amy!
Totally agree Demon and Julie. Totalk desperation. I think these ladies are more in need of psychiatric help than a gynaecologist
What do they mean by reproductive rights? How are they being controlled? Who is the controller? It doesn’t make any sense. 🤷♀️
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/bling-my-bits-in-aid-of-jos-cervical-cancer-trust-tickets-60458189071
Bling my bits event on in Glasgow. Pay £15 to stick glitter on this plaster of Paris mould and hear about cervical screening from Jo’s Tosh.
Don’t all rush!
Hard pass…
£15 for that?? 🤣
This is fun? I’d rather pull my teeth out with pliers! ! I mean what’s next?
I’ll join you at a teeth pulling party.
I don’t even know what to say….. people not responding well to the vagina cupcakes so sticking crystals on some plaster instead?!!
I just can’t imagine who they expect to come. It seems to be aimed at young women, but how many young women have £15 spare to spend on this, when Jo’s propaganda is freely available online. If you’ve got doubts about going and need convincing, would you pay to be convinced?
Secondly, it says all money will go to Jo’s, but can’t imagine there would be much left over after paying their expenses for running this event.
Expenses? I reckon the money might pay for a few holidays..
I’ll pass thank you…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v2GPXI30Mf-gUtLgVFLHb6owoYHHv7HQ/view?usp=drivesdk
Latest meeting minutes from the UK National Screening Committee. Cervical from page 16 onwards. They are finally recommending that HPV screening interval be extended from current 3 to 5 years. No implementation time scale suggested. They also recommend further research into self testing for the future. They certainly don’t want to rush things. Got to be confirmed at June meeting. Don’t think we can expect any changes to the programme for the next decade.
Daily fail today ladies BREAKING NEWS! spread the word. Call the screening police. The wanna b celeb Sam Faires has only EVER HAD ONE SMEAR TEST!!!!
I hate the daily fail it is always freezing up just as I am about to submit my comments!
Reading further seems MsFaires never went back after having abnormal cells. The fact she’s still here didn’t register with her when someone else said and you didn’t go back they put a camera in you its so important and then shared her own story. The fact this is a rare cancer escaped Ms Fairs who now knows how important smears are….all well in paradise lol
Don’t you know that just KNOWING you have abnormal cells SAVES LIVES. It works even if you don’t go for follow-up appointments. No one seems to be able to explain the mechanism, nor how having the data of an abnormal smear, along with other irrelevant information about when you had your first period, first intercourse, education level, income, job title somehow effects that.
Screen, ladies! Watched pots never boil!
Silly me Beth kz it quite slipped my mind!! I must be one of those women who needs to be reminded by my pet to book my smear….
Exactly LOL – my abnormal cells 10 years ago have not caused me any issues and I refused the colposcopy & any further screening….and here I am still alive! So KNOWING and doing nothing must have cured me too LMAO!
CHASUK – It must have been even more difficult to refuse all of those follow-on tests and referrals, after “knowing” something is abnormal. Screening is one thing, but when they (or you) know something is wrong, it becomes imperative to “do something”.
Do they seriously ask about your job, income and educational level? Wtf
Oh yes. They ask all of these categorization questions at least in the US. This has DATABASE written all over it! For income, one is asked in ranges – as if boxes are being ticked off somewhere.
I have never been informed about any research project I might be participating in, nor have I given my consent to participate in such research. As hard as it was pushed at my last physician’s appointment, for diabetes medications, they must be desperate to get “enough” of the female population in this database.
The daily fail pro screeners are even more vile than usual today…..!
AQ they did at my last smear in 2000. I was also asked if I practiced sage sex which I refused to say. How does she know I’m practicing any sex atm?? And since I obviously wasn’t diseased and have never been..or asked for abortion or the morning after pill…..
They always ask, assume the patient is lying, and assume wrong on how their patient is being sexual.
Virgins are not believed, and demanded that they have a PAP and HPV test – even though it’s impossible for them to benefit.
Lesbians are also given PAP and HPV tests, as well as having birth control pushed on them.
Young, attractive women are assumed to be sexually active and promiscuous, no matter what they say.
Women in sexless marriages (and faithful) are also pushed with birth control and pregnancy tests – BTDT.
Women who are older, less attractive, or fat, are assumed to be “not sexually active” no matter what the woman says or her marital status. Prescription birth control is not available to them.
Women who are assumed to be sexually active will be tested with a large speculum. It does not matter if the woman says she hasn’t had sex with a man in a very long time or ever.
Chas and CD78 I thinksome of your comments getting through…thank you! I hate the daily mail full stop. They are so catty to the poor woman it makes me sick!
Yep, I got a couple through 🙂 Going to keep plugging away.
I love challenging them. I can be as catty as them, but I’ll add data and veiled insults about some of the posters’ intelligence levels. Usually does the trick 😂
Now we can’t even go to the salon in peace! https://www.treatwell.co.uk/inspiration/lifesavingwax/
The usual rubbish about informed choice but the only correct choice is to attend.
OMG This is just getting worse! If anyone attempted to discuss this with me I would hit the dam roof! This really is not acceptable….they are not Medical Professionals & have no right to do this! Ridiculous to think they feel it necessary to convince women to attend! How much are they being paid I wonder??
Oh, why not have your hairdresser talk to you about pap screenings? We know the way we are butchered afterward. FGM in North Africa is often done by barbers. Same thing. Different place.
Just saw PHE are teaming up with Treatwell beauty salons for Life save wax. Women going for wax treatment will be asked about cervical screening and encouraged to “accept” their “invitations ” to screening. Where will it end. ..
So beauticians will now be the source of information regarding screening. How will they deal with the fall out if they upset a victim of sexual assault or a woman that has had a traumatic birth?
Or an informed woman! 😱
Judging by the tact and sensitivity shown to women they’ll probably offer a free wax! And in no way am I being insensitive to these ladies who suffered trauma or like myself found smears agonising and violating. I’m sadly predicting what probably will happen….
Surprise surprise the beloved daily fail is trumpeting the beauty wax story ….
Stopped comments after just two days (they usually allow them for at least 3 – 4 days!). I expressed outrage, and pointed out that in 2019, this is excessive interference and encourages “policing” and monitoring of women’s health choices. I take it that didn’t go down well lol…..
I’m going for it on the daily mail LOL but all this just makes me so dam angry! But also “empowered” (LOL) for declining to let anyone near my cervix with spear headed brushes, a sharp tenaculum, Biopsy forceps, Endocervical curette, Endocervical speculum, Ring forceps, Cervical hook, acetic acid, Full-strength Lugol’s iodine solution, electrical loops etc…..OMG just the thought of it, horrid! I read a story a while ago about a woman who severely burned with the acetic acid which should be only 3% or 5% – the woman who inadvertently received undiluted acetic acid during a routine colposcopy, resulting in significant chemical burns of the vagina, cervix, and perineum. Poor woman! Cringing thinking about it right now
Go Chas and Caroline! ! Let’s knock the screeners for 6
Just to mention that twitter is full of news about this story at the moment and lots of women saying how disgusting it is. Heavy criticism of PHE and Treatwell. Do join in the fun on twitter. You’ll soon find us. They can block our blog comments but they cannot stop our twitter accounts!
Yes! If anyone’s on there I’m @CBTweets7 and I’m not shy with the screening zealots haha
Any search suggestion.or a link? Can’t find it.
You can try #lifesavingwax for the latest initiative.
There’s usually plenty to be found simply searching ‘smear test’ or #smeartest #cervicalscreening.
There’s some very interesting and hugely ignorant people on Twitter!
The ignorance is staggering. Most women in the UK are still clueless that HPV causes cervical cancer and haven’t any idea about the switch to HPV testing, which has largely gone unnoticed as nothing has changed about the way the test is done and extending to 5 year intervals has only just been discussed as a possibility. Most haven’t twigged at all that they need the virus to get the disease, and if you try to explain they dismiss you as an anti-vaxer. Mention self testing and they say they could never get the speculum in and look up inside themselves to see where to put the brush. 😔 We are that far behind in the UK.
I wasn’t on twitter before but I just joined up posting as KR7862…..
Welcome, welcome! I am your first follower! It’s a complete bear pit, bit a good chance to challenge these organisations publicly.
Ada thank you! You’re right it’s a crazy world out there…..x
Twitter is a very public platform and the pro-screeners have held the stage for too long. PHE may block our posts on their blogs, but they cannot prevent us speaking out and others reading our tweets. PHE, CCGs, celebrity doctors, politicians, pink charities and anyone who says we must/should or quotes that bloody “5,000 lives saved” are my targets. Other than that I’m a calm arty, cat lover!
I love cats 2…my ginger Leo is my baby!
Shock horror! The Angry Brit Nurse blocked me for saying I’m angry to be badgered about a test I never asked to be “invited” to..boo hoo hoo 😿
The Angry Brit Nurse account doesn’t seem to exist anymore. Something we said?
She deleted it after I tagged the NHS, PHE, Royal College of Nursing & GMC in the thread asking if they thought her likening of informed consent to antivaxxers was appropriate.
It’s amazing what an bot of accountability can do for these self important witches.
Yayyy! We got ’em on the run
We have a second nurse who felt women should be told to attend smears by beauticians delete her account citing fears she will be reported to the NMC.
If you aren’t doing anything wrong coercing people and dismissing informed consent, what are you so worried about?
Most definitely on the run!
Amazing that this seemingly never crossed their minds before it was pointed out to them.
This makes me think that these types of nurses have been badgering their female patients for years, probably getting carried away with the “power” of being able to collude with doctors to threaten women with deregistration or withholding of medication. They still don’t think they will be challenged so when they are, it’s a big shock to them. Nasty little witches.
I notice that after just two days, the Mail has stopped accepting comments on the so called “life saving wax” article but I got my two cents in before that happened. Even several pro-screeners were outraged with this. These types of campaigns seem to be incurring somewhat of a backlash, even by some of their own proponents.
However, I am quite frankly amazed that in 2019, your colleagues and your hairdressers are being actively encouraged to hassle and pester you about screening. I’ve feared that the campaign would take this turn. You can punish your hairdresser by taking your custom elsewhere, but you face your colleagues every day. A discussion about screening in the workplace has the potential to cause conflict. I have always said that this sort of discourse is designed to “hunt down”, publicly “out” and humiliate non-screeners. It is a shaming campaign, done under the guise of “encouraging discussions” about it. Thing is, many women who have rejected screening and have made their decision, so see no need for further discussions on the matter. So, what will they do next? Encourage people to report non-attendees to Public Health England? Bring it on.
Good for all of you! This has inspired me to set up a Twitter account!
See you there!
As Ada said, they can’t silence us there and there are some great discussions to be had. Be prepared for some mind numbing ignorance tho, often at the hands of Hannah and her ‘cervical screen’ cronies.
Haha, that sounds like a lot of fun! I’ll certainly give it to ’em! Let’s put them to the sword! 😀
Go AQ do it! 2 trolls down is great. I’m annoyed I didn’t get twitter b4
I have to admit, since being in Twitter it has made me see practice nurses in a whole new light.
I’m sure there are great ones but most on Twitter are arrogant, ignorant and self important.
*on Twitter. Fat hands strikes again LOL
Just thought I’d share the following with you all. It’s an email I’ve just sent to Treat Well. Enjoy 🙂
I am emailing you regarding the new campaign that you are heading in partnership with Public Health Campaign and would like to offer you my thoughts on the matter, as I believe it is something that you as an enterprise, should be considering.
First of all, the very nature of screening means it has a tendency to produce lots of false positives and false negatives.
In two separate studies, the propensity for CIN 3 diagnoses to turn into cervical cancer (squamous cell carcinoma) using conventional screening, has been estimated to be around 12%.
That means that up to around 88% of women who have CIN 3 may be offered treatment for something that might never have harmed them, and the treatment for removing “abnormal cells” is not in itself insignificant.
While HPV primary screening significantly improves outcomes, it itself is not without risk for those with transient HPV (that might clear of itself without further treatment).
In fact, a wealth of research suggests that only HPV+ women over the age of 30 can benefit from traditional screening, which equates to roughly 5% of women (incidentally, the same proportion of CIN 1 diagnoses estimated to progress to cancer).
Furthermore, the use of self-testing HPV kits have been found to be as effective as primary HPV screening (the latter of which, many women find intrusive and offensive).
As such, the NHS now advocates that screening is a choice, and all women deciding whether or not to undergo screening, should be entitled to make an informed decision as to whether or not they take up their invitations.
Please can you tell me, as a responsible organisation, are you also advocating informed choice for your clients when discussing screening?
Are you pointing them to other sources of information besides the NHS?
Do you feel it is your place as a private enterprise to discuss private health matters with your clients? Do you not feel that your role in this campaign has the potential to undermine the trust that exists in relation to client/ Business relationships?
Have your staff been trained to ask these questions?
Have your staff been trained as to how to respond appropriately, if clients disclose that they will not attend screening?
What if your clients disclose that they are victims of sexual abuse and are upset by your staff’s questioning?
Did you realise that some public and private organisations are being trained to recognise signs and symptoms of domestic abuse, but are having to undergo extensive training to enable them to carry out those assessments as it has potential to involve safeguarding issues (as well as referrals to Multi-Agency Risk Conferences for high-risk victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence)?
It is not entirely unforeseeable, is it not, that a large proportion of non-attendees for cervical screening may refuse screening due to past or ongoing abuse?
Please tell me, what steps your organisation is taking to ensure that your staff are adequately trained to address the pitfalls of these enquiries?
Please could you respond to all my enquiries, or I will resort to making an application to obtain this information under a Freedom of Information request.
Many thanks.
Excellent email. I would also ask them if the beauticians are recording how many conversations they have with their clients. Are they updating a database with the outcomes of their little chats? Where would this information be held? How else would Treatwell evidence their success without a record of their interactions?
Should have thought of that before I sent it, but you raise an excellent point particularly in view of GDPR.
I will raise it in connection with any response I may (or may not) receive.
I could also send an email to a newspaper highlighting all these concerns and see if it gets published. ..
It sounds like a good way to get women to boycott beauty shops. Let’s see if in a year or two it becomes fashionable to have simple, DIY hairstyles – long, short, cropped, shaved, braided, buns, etc.
I don’t usually read the sun paper but there’s a headline today smears could b replaced by a urine test which has proved just as accurate. ..
Hooray (????) It’s about time they figured out they could test for CC without a program of mass rape, with the little girlies feeling so “empowered” that they could consent – but not refuse. That doesn’t get rid of the problem that paps are sooo unreliable, and the coloscopy/biopsy being no small thing, that causes pain and damage, not to mention LEEPS and cone biopsies and finally hysterectomies.
Old adage: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That goes for internal organs too.
Lies in the breast screening brochure too…
– we have the 1 in 8 women will get breast cancer in their lifetime rubbish – deliberately used to scare and mislead women. We all know the risk goes up with age…
“more women survive breast cancer today thanks to early detection and better treatments”
– We know it’s mostly better treatments that account for the fall in the death rate
– we know that breast cancer screening produced high rates of screen detected cancers with the death rate remaining the same, suggesting over-diagnosis of breast cancer. (and over-treatment)
– we know, and have done for many years now, that the risks of breast cancer probably exceed any benefit – with better treatments these days, some women might decide it’s better to wait for a lump or change, rather than risk over-treatment. (and the radiation and compression)
Of course, we don’t get that information, just pro-screening spin and orders.
Again, “you should be screened every 2 years from age 50-75 – in your 40s or over 75, talk to your doctor to find out if screening is right for you”
Once again, excessive, but they had to get the numbers up to protect the program so included older women – we’ll be herding 90+ year old women into screening before too much longer…pull the van into the nursing home car park, a captive screening population!
It’s shameful that these brochures are still produced and distributed – that no one in this country has an issue with their tone or content.
It’s 2019 and women are still treated so badly….
Elizabeth – These organisations sure are sailing dangerously close to the wind when it comes to legally-obtained consent and ethics.
They’ve sat on this information for years, but wheeling it out now, because they’re getting desperate. They want women to make enquiries about it, and then it will be, sorry no, but while you’re on the phone we have an appointment available…
I hadn’t thought of that. Do you think it’s the same with home testing? Announce it and when people call up, attack them to come in for a traditional smear?
“well you are due and we don’t know when home test will be out, you might have cancer in the meantime….”
It’s always been hard to say NO to pap testing, rarely was a refusal accepted, women were insulted, questioned, debated – I doubt we’d get the same conduct from doctors if we refused bowel screening, yet that cancer takes far more lives.
The attitude has always been – all women must or should test – I think even informed women have to stay strong in the consult room or avoid doctors. (as far as possible)
Certainly, women who wanted the Pill or had one or more babies, ended up tested – also, those who wanted HRT or had any other gyn exam – the test was/is often just tacked on, an opportunistic testing.
There’s no doubt that self testing is being used here to rope in hard-to-reach women, you have to ask your GP for the test and actually do the test in the surgery – also, I’ve read in a few places that our self test option is not as good as a test taken by a GP or nurse – that would be a deliberate strategy to pressure women into the “more reliable” invasive test.
Of course, the Delphi Screener was available online here, a very reliable self test option, that website was blocked shortly before the new program started – just to make it more difficult for women to arrange their own testing.
I’ve had 4 friends head off to Singapore for shopping, dining etc. and they used the Delphi Screener while they were there, all in their 50s or early 60s, all HPV- and all have asked their GP to remove them from the registry and make a note on their medical file: No Cervical Screening! Subject closed…
Actually, just looking at the new brochure and not a word about self-testing, I assume that will only be mentioned if women refuse the invasive test and keep refusing for a few years, initially they said the self test would only be offered to those refusing for 6 years.
We see the same inappropriate wording:
“If you are a woman aged 25-74 of age and have ever been sexually active, you should have a cervical screening test every 5 years until the age of 74.
Your first cervical screening is due at 25 or 2 years after your last Pap test.”
“Due”…”should”…not much has changed!
So not much suggests it’s a choice, something that can be reasonably refused and no mention of self testing. Also, the program is, once again, excessive, the poor women enduring this invasive test until they’re 74!
Absolutely unnecessary – almost all older women would be HPV- and many will have some vaginal atrophy, making the test very painful and potentially damaging – leading to tears or UTIs.
Yet we still bang on in this country about respecting women, “call out sexual harassment!” TV ads, equal opportunities etc. yet we still herd women into invasive testing like they’re a pack of ignorant sheep…no informed consent and often, no consent at all
>Yet we still bang on in this country about respecting women, “call out sexual harassment!” TV ads, equal opportunities etc. yet we still herd women into invasive testing like they’re a pack of ignorant sheep…no informed consent and often, no consent at all<
THIS!!! We do all of these things, to encourage freedom and respect for women, telling us that we are free from sexual violence, "no means no" campaigns, but none of that seems to matter when in a medical situation. WTH?!?! The nature of things does not change by someone's designation!
I was just reading some more comments on the PHE Blog, and posting 2 more myself currently awaiting moderation on age Re A lady called Susan’s post 05/04/19 as she was refused screening as 70 years old! So I looked on CRUK – https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer/mortality#heading-One
IT STATES THE FOLLOWING:
“Cervical cancer mortality is related to age, with the highest mortality rates being in older women. In the UK in 2014-2016, on average each year almost a third (30%) of deaths were in females aged 75 and over.[1-3] This is a lower proportion of deaths in older age groups compared with most cancers.
Age-specific mortality rates rise steadily from around age 15-19 and more steeply from around age 65-69. The highest rates are in the 85 to 89 age group.”
Not sure if my 2 comments will make it through but tried anyway LOL
Why is cervical cancer mortality increased in older women? Is it because these women had HPV infection and symptoms for decades and never bothered to get any medical attention? Did the aggressive cancer treatment such as surgery and damaging radiation that caused bowel and bladder damage kill them? Did they acquire HPV and other infections during repeated screening, testing and procedures that their weaken immune system could not deal with?
When I get to be 75 or 80 years old getting a cancer screening test is not going to be on my list. I pray for a merciful death.
Hi Anon,
I think it’s because these women have been having treatment for cervical cancer for a very long time. The treatments are much improved from what they used to be, so women live a lot longer with the disease, but in the end old age takes over. I think CRUK published figures that the most common age of death from cervical cancer is the 85-89 age group. Now that’s a stat you won’t ever see Jo’s or EveAppeal using. However, I have seen them regularly use the slogan that most deaths from cervical cancer are in women who are not being screened. Since most deaths occur in the over 65s these women are not a part of the screening programme and wouldn’t put it past those scumbags to be using this figure.
Daily fail today just posted the urine HPV test. Obviously the pro screeners are rubbishing it and saying they want conventional testing and it saves lives so go…
Daily fail today ladies women being offered 1 hour free childcare to attend smears. Pro screeners out in force. They take their kids and leave them other side of curtains and brainwash the next generation
Yeah. Do you really think these people will be content to read the children things like _Jack and Jill_, let them play with puzzles, or have them color? Or, do you think they’ll be told how “responsible” their Mom is being, that she could die without them, and encourage them to talk to their friends and friends’ Moms about how important this is? And, how important it will be to girls when they get older… or to the girls/women the boys ever come to love? Complete with coloring books!
I know some women think Papscreen should speak to girls in secondary school, girls 16-17, I know some pro-screening women thought that was a good idea, esp when screening was starting at 18 or 2 years after your first sexual contact.
One woman said girls that age can be very modest, so important to knock that out of them…
I was appalled, it’s not surprising these statements stay with us…and to think these were women talking about their daughters. Of course, they’re been brainwashed, they think they’re doing the right thing, when nothing could be further to the truth.
I don’t know whether papscreen ever went into schools, I know Breastscreen has spoken to women in an office situation. You should be able to go to work without having to explain to your colleagues why you don’t want to have breast screening or go to the presentation…it’s just another way of pressuring and cornering women.
I mean, any girl should certainly see the importance of not permitting another teen, with whom she’s got a romantic relationship, and keep the girl from not being sexual with him or then. That would be wrong for her. The next year, she can see the nice doctor, who is about twice or thrice her age, who it feels a little creepy to her to have this relative-stranger fingering her (front and back) and groping her breasts, and she cannot refuse. She might not be the age of consent at the time! Yet, this guy donning a white coat can do about the same things this boy would have, or might dream of, and it’s all right.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48092561
It was reported in one of our newspapers today that lots of UK women are not turning up for their cervical screening and that a urine test for HPV might help them get around issues like embarrassment and discomfort.
A spokesmen for the Eve Appeal said,
“This research sounds like a promising early step but is some way off being rolled out through the NHS. In the meantime, women must continue to book their screening appointment when they’re called. It’s a life-saving test.”
MUST book an appt when CALLED – like naughty little children!
Honestly, it infuriates me – the way they speak down to women. Not sure why that’s being reported here, they wouldn’t want women here asking for urine tests – heaven forbid they should expect a non-invasive test!
I read that on Twitter and was appalled. I called the CEO out on Twitter and she said “of course it’s optional.” Why didn’t she say that in the article then? Why didn’t she say “can choose to book an appt if they like.” Language matters.
As with Jo’s, it’s all about uptake and treating women like silly little girls. Eve Appeal are launching Get Lippy today, I think their version of #smearforsmear. It’s grotesque that all their efforts either revolve around lipstick or baking because obviously they’re the only things us dumb women relate to.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/4/e025388
I think this is the paper.
That infuriates me. These articles in mainstream publications really illustrate the fact that informed consent in women’s healthcare is severely lacking or non-existent. A Reader’s Digest magazine from several months ago contains a piece entitled “4 Cancer Screenings You May or May Not Need.” With respect to breast cancer screening, it says the American Cancer Society recommends screening starting at age 45, or perhaps earlier with a family history. For prostate cancer screening, it says, and I paraphrase here, men age 70 or older should skip the test entirely, but men age 55 to 69 should decide for themselves because prostate cancer is slow growing and treatment can severely affect quality of life. But in the mention of breast cancer screening, there is not one word of caution that some breast cancer is also slow growing and treatment can also severely impact our quality of life (among other risks). Not to mention the fact that all cancer screening is elective, but the “decide for themselves” stance is only emphasized in men’s cancer screening. I think that says it all right there.
It does, Judy, prostate screening is not recommended here, there’s a bit of confusion though because some sporting bodies urge men to get tested. Interesting that a few urologists recommend screening, but most GPs leave it up to the man, no pressure, some even hand out real information to assist in the decision making process…wouldn’t that be nice?
Surprise ladies daily fail again today. Woman caught up in the appalling cervical screening blunder in N Ireland awarded 1.8 million damages
They keep blaming the screening companies but wonder how much they really misread the slides. Says 2009 test was negative, but 2012 test was “inadequate”. Cancer diagnosed in 2014. What happened those 2 years in between? I thought about half of cancer cases came after negative tests, and not all cancers were curable. Seems to me this is another high profile case to blame the cytology firms but cover up the innaccuracy of the test.
Sky news ladies UK health secretary says he might make it mandatory for parents to immunise their babies for measles and if they don’t they have blood on their hands. Might the HPV jab be next?
I find it interesting that anyone with concerns about Gardasil is often labelled a prude or some of maniac, anti-women, an anti-vaxxer.
I hate the way sensible and important discussion is shut down supposedly to protect our health and save our lives, rather than promote full and frank discussion and leaving women and parents to make an informed decision about vaccination.
It’s that shutting down of any real discussion that worries me…and it’s still happening in women’s “healthcare”.
Agreed, Elizabeth (Aust)! This whole pro-pap, pro-screening for “women’s cancer” overshadows the whole doctor/patient discussion and collaboration. If you refuse pap screening, because of refusal to permit someone unknown to penetrate you, for an unreliable test with even more invasive follow-on tests, for a condition effecting 0.65% of women over their lifetimes, you’re treated as an anti-science woo-meister, an anti-vaxxer, and anti-women.
Vaccines are useful and save many lives, not just among those vaccinated because they decrease the number of susceptible people to that disease, such that each person with it infects, on average <1 person – causing the epidemic to subside. This is especially true for airborne illnesses, such as measles. Before measles vaccines, thousands died of it, and thousands more were disabled (blind and/or deaf and/or brain damage).
We're just scientifically short of being able to identify who gave a viral disease to any person. When we get there, the person failing to get vaccinated from that disease could be liable for deaths or hospitalizations of other people. They actually did those genetic testing on the virus to track down a measles outbreak at Disneyland a few years ago to the person who brought it into the US. That person's only "save" was that they were vaccinated. Vaccines are 95-98% effective, depending on whether you got 1 shot or 2.
For HPV, it is not airborne. Anyone wanting to prevent catching HPV from a given woman is invited to stay away from her vagina! She is not a danger to those surrounding her, or her community, unless you have a very strange community where vaginas are community property. (I must admit that with doctors so pushing these pelvic exams on EVERY VISIT that I sometimes feel like they think my vagina is community property!)
AFAIC, the HPV vaccine has proven to be pretty safe. However, I *still* have questions about it: They still demand pap tests on the schedule, but now combined with HPV tests – why not double your chances for a false positive? Moreover, there is a claim that HPV can "reactivate" after many years since infection. This seems to belie that it is possible to vaccinate against! Vaccines work by producing antibodies to a (weakened) strain of the same virus, making the immune system kill it. However, if the body does not kill these inactive viruses over many years, it would seem to belie the way vaccines work. Gardasil only goes after certain "high risk" strains of HPV. The lower-risk ones are left in place. Why?
Personally, my conclusion is that Gardasil works, but they're not about to give up their gravy-train. The notion that it's been inactive for years or decades then just suddenly "pops up" in a given test after decades of monogamy is probably better explained by her being infected by fomates (assorted surfaces and objects where pathogens can live) during her previous pelvic exam.
I understand the argument for vaccination, however I am very concerned that we are entering some form of authoritarian, dystopian climate where awkward questions with the potential to lead to meaningful discussions is being shut down.
This worries me a lot, and there are some vaccinations that cause me a great deal of concern such as Gardisil and the Flu Jab.
Not sating that I would rule it out at all, but if I were a parent, I’d want to undertake as much research as possible before consenting to it. I certainly wouldn’t want to rely on the sole word of an NHS nurse.
Are we to be denied of this basic right now?
I also have concerns with the flu jab. As a child, I got flu, as did many others. I know it can be very dangerous, but by conducting wholesale vaccinations, are we in danger of compromising the integrity of children’s natural immune systems in an effort to protect the older populations?
Again, I’m not saying I would rule it out, but I’d want the right to make a rational and informed decision without having to listen to the preachings of an NHS nurse.
As Elizabeth has pointed out, it is this shutting down of debate that is worrying me. It also seems ideologically driven.
We’ve talked about vaccinations being made compulsory, but if this were to happen, it could potentially set a very dangerous precedent for other medical procedures/ treatments. It potentially undermines the very cornerstone of informed consent in medical settings.
Would this eventually apply to screening? With all the clamouring by vested interests to increase take-up rates, it does worry me a great deal as to what direction these campaigners choose to take if those rates continue to decline. Desperate people can be very dangerous people. Any creative argument could be made to legitimise compulsory cervical screening.
https://www.mcmasterforum.org/find-evidence/products/project/economic-analyses-of-policies-to-reduce-cervical-cancer
I’ve just recently found this. I hope this is readable for you all. I haven’t had a chance to go through it thoroughly but hopefully this is an indication of things to come as there are some positive conclusions: HPV testing is only cost effective after age 30 and giving girls the HPV vaccine at 12 is too young and would be better delayed until 14. Let’s hope it is the blueprint for dismantling these existing programmes worldwide.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/judge-sets-absolute-confidence-as-screening-threshold-1.3880289
The screening programmes are looking very fragile in Ireland. A handful of cases have shown the total innacuracy of the test and a couple of women have died already, a couple more face terminal diagnoses. The payouts have run into millions of Euros and look like bankrupting the programmes. The same think happened in the UK in the famous Kent & Canterbury Hospital scandal of 1990’s when the hospital had to pay huge payouts to women who tested negative but then went on to get cancer. When the sheer inaccuracy of the test came to light in court the judge wanted to wind up the screening programme as it was too unreliable to run. The NHS was forced to change the wording of the leaflets saying that the test couldn’t be accurate to avoid paying out in future. Ireland is in the same position now. After promoting the test as infallible to get women to demand it, they’ve now got to admit it isn’t accurate and can go wrong. Seen countless tweets from Irish women in an absolute panic that their programme looks like being cancelled, and how will women survive without it. Those with terminal cancer who have brought damages are being attacked by other women, claiming that they are bankrupting the programme by their selfish demands for damages. Another woman has posted that a smear test done on her at 7 weeks pregnancy has come back showing HPV and abnormalities. Nothing more than that, but she’s now panicking as any further testing cannot be done or it would endanger the pregnancy. She is now spending her pregnancy terrified she may have cancer. In the UK, a smear during pregnancy is not now recommended as shows too many abnormalities which are nothing, so in the UK this smear test would never have happened and this lady could enjoy her pregnancy. These programmes rely on terrorising women to increase uptake. They then get forced to make huge payouts to misinformed individuals. These women then get attacked for bankrupting the programmes in trying to get damages. The anguish, fear, delusions and deception which are integral to the running of these programmes is so disgraceful. Women are posting that they may not have any screening programmes in Ireland. It’s so pathetic. Those who perpetuate this fear are criminals in my opinion.
Women attacking those with terminal cancer for seeking damages are abominable in my opinion.
Disgusting behaviour.
They are not intelligent enough to question why these ladies’ cancer was not picked up by the infallible smear test .
They should be utterly ashamed of themselves, but you can expect no better from those who seemingly lack any form of critical thinking skills.
AQ – The women who are attacking the women with terminal cancer probably excuse themselves by saying that it’s all the terminal women’s fault for “not having regular pap smears”. In reality, they probably did, and these flawed tests missed them – and, in fact, may have delayed them getting actual medical testing and treatment far earlier – after all, they and their docs knew that it “couldn’t be CC”, because they’d “just had a pap test”.
You’re probably right.
The level of vitriol for deciding not to have a flawed, entirely elective and invasive screening procedure is incredible.
Screening is a personal decision.
I find the mindset of women who attack other women who don’t attend to be mind-boggling.
It is as if they see it as your duty as a woman to go, and if you don’t, you’re somehow “failing” in your duty as a woman. Totally incomprehensible and they need to be called out on forums.
They really are ignorant sheep.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-screening-programmes-kpi-reports-2018-to-2019
Latest figures in for cancer screening in UK. See 2nd table after antenatal. You should be able to check your own GP figures in this lot. My own city has 65% uptake.
I often see referenced on various cervical screening sites the words “screening stakeholders”, I was curious and have been searching for a list of them for a while now – finally found it, there are 20 of them, each have links!
Found it here:
https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/cervicalcancer%22%3EUK
And the one stakeholder with absolutely ZERO medical knowledge is….Jo’s!
Interesting that Eve Appeal not involved.
I’ve looked over the list of “stakeholders”, and I’m missing the “follow the money” link worldwide – what corporation, organization, or whatever is making a LOT of money, regardless of medical payment system, so as to push these unreliable tests on all women, world over?
I’m starting to think this is a rare instance where it’s not so much THE MONEY, but rather (in this case) the power. These absurd tests seem to have more in common with prison rape than they do with any legitimate medical care.
Today on Google search there is a picture of dr papalomus. With a picture of a woman’s body holding up a slide with a microscope. It makes me sick to my stomach. He must be that important that they are celebrating him.
Kleigh, I just needed to Google something and saw the image of Dr. Papanikolaou you are referring to. Apparently they are having some kind of tribute to him. The picture of him holding up a slide with a women’s body in the background makes me sick to my stomach also – it just reinforces the notion that we are just a collection of cells or body parts to be experimented on and trifled with at will.
Judy I agree with u. I was thinking the same thing the way the picture is depicted.
I don’t even want to look at this, it sounds so repugnant. No doubt there is no mention at all of the millions of miscarriages and preterm births his test has caused over the decades, and also, until about 1970’s, treatment for abnormal result was often a hysterectomy, even for women who were still young. Famous Danish study was done in 1950s which demonstrated that most abnormal smears could regress, and this was further proved to be the case in New Zealand in 1970’s at National Women’s Hospital, but big business and the wacky feminists insisted Papanicolou’s test was error free and every abnormality would go onto be cancer. Papanicolou is up there with the concentration camp doctors in my opinion.
Pa smears causing miscarriages? Many want to deny this happens. I have heard about a dozen stories of women who went to see a doctor when they first had a positive home pregnancy test and were convinced by a doctor that they needed a pap smear. Often miscarriages occurred after 48 hours but they were told that the miscarriage “would have happened anyway”. See women against stirrups forum.
I searched through technical brochures from many pap test collection device manufacturers. Many had the warning that the cervical brush should not be used after 8 wks of pregnancy. I have to wonder how accurate is any woman’s or her doctor’s guess at the correct age of gestation until an ultrasound is done to measure rump/crown? So would these devices be safe at 8 1/2 weeks or 9 weeks? And just how exactly did these manufacturers have this guideline? By their own in house unpublished research? Seems now all reference to these warnings have been removed from the manufacturers brochures after a few links were listed on a forum a few years ago. Maybe someone should have a look?
I was one of those who had a smear forced on me when I registered my first pregnancy at 8 weeks. This made me bleed so the sample was useless. I was extremely angry about this and thought I might miscarry, but all went well, except that I had a premature rupture of the membranes at 37 week mark. However, GP brutally forced a smear on me at my postnatal assessment 6 weeks after the birth to make up for the failed one during pregnancy, also against my consent.
2 years later pregnant with 2nd baby, GP informed me they weren’t allowed to do smears during pregnancy anymore, so it would have to wait until after birth. I didn’t turn up to any postnatal checks, but later found out that not only were smears no longer permitted during pregnancy but also may not be done earlier that 12 weeks after the birth. These are now the regulations in the UK, but I’ve never been able to track down the evidence of harm which must have brought about these changes in medical policy. It’s all been suppressed.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news-parliament-2017/adult-health-screening-report-published-17-19/
Don’t know whether to laugh or not. In the UK there has been a government investigation to try to find out why the public isn’t going for screening. They have berated NHS England for doing nothing about trying to engage with women to find out why they aren’t going. They say they are putting it all down to generalisations that women are too busy, not to mention that quality research carried out by Jo’s Tosh which revealed women were too embarrassed.
There is glossy brochure to download from the website if you need any further laughs..
WTF! They’re pushing to screen everyone for abdominal.aortic aneurysm? Last I heard, they can’t do crap about it, and screening only ensures you know you could pop at moment (even though, as with pap abnormalities, the majority don’t ever bother anyone),thereby creating stress that makes it more likely you actually will pop!
I mean, as bull crap as these programs are, how sadistic do you have to be to promote awareness of having a condition you can’t actually do anything about? Are they just trying to identify a group.of potential.lab rats they can experiment a “cure” on?
Yup. I’m sure this is being turned into a private enterprise “Screening UK Inc”! Our hospitals don’t have enough beds, don’t have enough doctors or nurses, waiting lists a mile long for genuinely sick people, but screening regularly recruits more and more people, produces fancy websites, glossy brochures and ever more charitable funds. The government has it as a top priority thinking that the public are clambering for it and that it will be a vote winner. I think they are seriously, seriously worried that uptake continues to fall and their plan won’t come off.
All this talk of the IT not being fit for purpose and the screening authority not being able to track people’s screening records. I understand the Police have PNC and the DVLA have a similar database using names and DOB and they manage to keep information updated – hardly rocket science.
Actually, they can do something about it. They can put an artificial aorta in, replacing the “bad” one. Of course, this turns someone into a lifetime heart patient, on medications with limitations on what they can do, but AT LEAST they won’t die of a sudden aorta burtsting.
I have a family history where a chest aortic anurism can be a problem. I was “offered” to have it investigated and “treated” about 25 years ago. I said, “No thank you”.
That’s unlike pap crap where they will not accept a “no thank you”. However, I Haven’t recently volunteered information or had tests that indicate this problem runs in my family. I’ve lost several relatives who are over 90 years old to this problem. I was not going to spend 2/3 of my life waiting for this to happen, and taking lots of heart pills in the mean time.
@bethkz: Like I said, it was last I heard. It was in one of those Gilbert Welch books, I think, but I’m not sure. Where ever I read it, it claimed that the abdominal one was in an inoperable area, unless I’m.mixing it up with a different aortic aneurysm in the trunk. But he was lamenting the push to get full body scans to find a problem they couldn’t safely operate on. Maybe they figured a way to operate there since the book.was published.I
Btw, this is Demonhype. Still figuring out how to post with my credentials.
Demonhype, My discussion with my doctor on the topic was roughly 20 years ago. My MIL had an aortic anurism which burst, and it was a combination of sheer luck that a surgical suite was immediately available, and my FIL, seeing her collapse, picked her up, carried her to the car, and got to the hospital as quickly as safely possible. That led to investigation of my husband and his sister to find aortic anurisms (negative). That was 15 years ago, and there was a surgery similar to the one recommended (and rejected) to me of having a tubing placed in the aorta 20 years ago.
The treatment sounds like a big problem in itself, which is why I rejected it after it was explained to me. That discussion was respectful and informative, without all of the PUSHING they do when it comes to a pap.
Yes, I’m likely to die suddenly of this after I’m in my 90s. That doesn’t sound like too bad of a way to die, actually. It sounded a lot better than being a “coronary patient” for 60 years!
I know the answer – women just don’t want screening. Not interested in being cranked open with an ill fitting speculum. Not interested in having their cervix brushed so hard it bleeds. Not interested in having their breasts squashed between two plates in a dodgy van in Tesco’s car park. Not interested. Not too busy. Not embarrassed. Just no.
Fantastic answer 👏👍 And they keep peddling this inequalities myth. Nothing to do with inequalities – purely about forcing uptake everywhere.
The best reply possible! 😀
Someone should make a sticker with it and stick over each screening-peddling poster they put in public places, and send it to each “committee” that is wasting taxpayer money searching for reasons why women don’t want to fall for screening bullshit anymore.
Also, women no longer want to listen to medical lies about cervical cancer being “number 1 killer”. Women now know that screening is more likely to be harmful because it is set up for the benefit of the system first and foremost. It will lie, use pressure, hold medication and contraception hostage, and manufacture fear to get to its targets and money.
I wonder what those committees and researchers really do when an informed woman says plain NO, or quotes a scientifically proven reason for screening programs causing more harm than good? It appears that they falsify data and record the answer as one of the usual “busy”, “embarrassed”, poorly educated, or being from a non English speaking background regardless. Just as the Australian system was discovered to deliberately use incorrect Medicare schedule procedure numbers to make cervical abnormalities and cervical cancer appear much more common that they actually were. That falsification also made cure and recovery rates look much higher, and that falsified information was used to tout the rape and cervix butchery program as “successful and life-saving”.
Yep, just one big NO.
If they want more reasons, here are two more, in addition to the above said:
1. There is no independently proven evidence that these screening tests will definitely do more good than harm. Glossy propaganda brochures and posters with photos of smiling imbeciles or threatening slogans are not evidence, nor are they a source of information.
2. There is zero respect for patient data privacy and security. For example, if I had a higher risk of a certain condition AND could do a screening test 100% anonymously, get the results and make a sole, independent decision what to do with those results, there would be a chance of considering the test. But, as things stand, I know that the screening will demand a heap of my personal information and then, against my will, will share it with other government institutions, researches, various unrelated bureaucrats and even private corporations like Telstra (because Australian government sold screening registers to Telstra for “management”).
So NO. And until there are significant changes in the way screening is run, it will remain a NO.
Here’s a couple more. My husband goes along with me to all doctor appts. So we’re at the mammography place. The tech watches hubby wheel me inside the room (I’m in a wheelchair). Then she asks him to leave. He appears as if fused to the wall and says “no.” I need his help. Not one tech, ever, has figured out how to help a disabled person. Anyhoo hubby answers tech when she says I should be coming in sooner for “early detection.” With that hubby says mammography isn’t early detection. After an exchange of a few minutes she finally admits he’s right. Ultrasound can detect blood vessel formation long before a calcification forms which is how and what x-ray mammography works.
Also, where I live a local hospital has been sued for millions and by several patients. Grossmont Hospital in San Diego County CA was filming, via computer terminal, surgical operations and other procedures in its Women’s Center operating rooms. This went on for months. All to supposedly catch somebody stealing propofol.
The videos were stored on an unsecured computer where anybody in the know could access them.
Isn’t that typical of doctors?
The whistle blower, an anesthesiologist of 16yrs experience there, was fired.
Isn’t that also typical of doctors?
I came across this youtube video and was mortified!! She reviews lowest rated personal services, and went as far as the worst rated gyno. Plenty of things wrong besides the obvious unneeded exam for youtube hits. And her poor husband.
Hi Evaro, omg I saw that come up on my YouTube too. I Couldn’t watch it. I didn’t want to be triggered. I think this shows the mentality of a lot of woman hear in the USA. They are trying to normalize going for “ well woman exams.” I already know I’m well. And why isnt there a well man exam? I don’t fell the need to go be probed every year . I also don’t like how birth control has been tied to gynecology exams hear in the US and Canada. Hardly anyone questions this.
I only watched a small portion and don’t know what was worse, the content or the featured young woman’s Valley Girl accent lol. The video does very much show the mentality of many women in the US that these exams are a normal thing we are compelled to do and is emblematic of the way “going to the gynecologist” has infiltrated popular culture.
I’ve noticed that a few people who were proactively involved in discussions on Twitter about smears and the lack of informed consent have suddenly had their accounts locked, closed or something.
I’m trying to work out if they’ve just had enough of the mean streets of Twitter (which I get) or there’s some censorship, dark arts involved in getting them removed.
I know people close accounts but 3 people I follow, all advocating for the same thing have randomly disappeared within a short space of time. Odd to say the least.
It does sound suspicious. Though we all know that misinformation and propaganda coming from the medical establishment is entrenched, ubiquitous and very far-reaching. It isn’t hard to believe they could resort to some shady deals with the media and censorship.
Interesting, the Heart Foundation has pulled an ad promoting heart checks after a flood of complaints – one scene there’s a young mother in a hospital bed saying to her child…”when I didn’t care about my heart, I didn’t care about your heart either”…
Umm, doesn’t it sounds familiar…
“My mummy missed her smear test, now I miss my mummy” – promoting smear tests in the UK.
“Do it for those you love” was one used here for years etc. etc.
This emotional blackmail angle seems perfectly acceptable in women’s cancer screening but it was viewed as unacceptable when it was about men and women.
So true Elizabeth! Men weren’t told while they didn’t think of THEIR heart they didn’t think how their partners and family would cope if THEY keeled over……
Another one, here we go: https://www.jostrust.org.uk/get-involved/campaign/cervical-screening-awareness-week
“Cervical Screening Awareness Week 2019
This year, we are focussing on the experiences of women going for cervical screening and those who have had cell changes (abnormal cells).”
Interesting that now the focus on screening awareness is not about cajoling women into having the test any more. They know that battle is lost. So the best way to keep the charity coffers full is to talk about how successful it is. False marketing at it’s finest.
And they are heavily targeting the under 30s. They know they can’t convince the older women anymore. It’s all about bullying the HPV vaccinated generation now, or they know there’s no point to their organisation anymore.
“In the period 2015–2016, 56.0% (age-standardised) of eligible women aged 20–69 years participated in the National Cervical Screening program” (https://ncci.canceraustralia.gov.au/screening/cervical-screening-rates/cervical-screening-rates)
Will be interesting to see whether they can maintain the 56% of eligible women now we’re moved to 5 yearly testing, I think some women had worked out 2 yearly was unnecessary and had moved to 3 or 5 yearly. The AMA is desperately trying to keep the Pill on script so that consult can still be used to push screening – I think some women are still being misled into thinking the test is a clinical requirement. I think GPs would be more careful using coercion these days but I’m sure it still happens…
I don’t think HPV self testing will boost the participation rate, haven’t heard of many women accessing self testing – I suppose it will depend on the GP but I know initially they were talking about restricting its use to those who declined the invasive test for 6 years – I suppose they hope most women will cave over that period of time and agree to the invasive test.
We spend a huge amount of money on this program – I’ve never felt it’s the best use of taxpayer funds – would we spend vast sums on screening for another rare cancer? Doubt it…
In the UK the 5 yearly uptake after age 50 is about 75%. It’s highest around the menopause, so I reckon a lot of women get caught at GP appointments at this time. There are only 3 tests after age 50 & I can see the pressure being put on to finish the course and put up with the last 3. Women I’ve spoken to still think it has to be done, and totally accept it all without question, like a “get out of jail free card”. Absolutely clueless about any medical facts. In the under 50’s they struggle to keep to the 3 year targets, but I believe that now that the UK has almost totally switched to HPV testing, the targets have been changed to everyone tested every 5 years, but they haven’t made the change public.
And we all know what will happen……….abnormal tests BECAUSE of the MENOPAUSE! This is what happened to me but I relied on my instincts and found all of you, in fact the first I believe was Elizabeth (Aust) on the old blog critics site – So once again a HUGE THANK YOU!
So a big percentage of the 75% who are screening will most likely have a false positive result, some with treatment & many stating that they have “BEEN SAVED” or “I WOULDN’T BE HERE TODAY” blah blah blah!
As you say…………..clueless……..the lot of them.
And this can then be added to their suspicious statistics so it still looks like cervical screening is doing a good job and saving lives – of course we know that’s utter crap.
I’ll be commenting later. It’s disgusting how they have twisted this sad story and medical failure into smear propaganda:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7098439/Woman-25-refused-smear-test-age-discovers-fatal-stage-3-cancer.html
Typical DailyBullshit approach: ignore the facts, twist the story, add lies. All to conjure a sensation with horror undertones, simply to keep their readership numbers up and make more profit.
None of this adds up. Says she was diagnosed aged 25 in February this year, but first invitations are sent out at age 24 & half, meaning she would have got one months before when she started to experience the pains. She would not have been turned away as too young last year. Not only this, she would have also qualified from catchup HPV vaccination whilst still at school 10 years ago. There’s been a lot of campaigning for LGBT people to come forward for screening, with some saying they’ve been told they’re at no risk. Sounds too fabricated for me.
Yes. Sounds like BS to me. We’ll never hear about alternatives with this farce. A 53% effective test. Once you’re in the toilet circling the drain there’s no way out. Now she begins the high dose radiation. Forget about decent sex ever again.
Vaccine? I know an 11 yr old who’s now recovered from Guillian Barre syndrome. After 3 months in rehab.
The Trovagene 93% and the ? Screener would resolve the mystery here. Wish I could remember the name of the Screener. It’s the one used in Australia. I want to call it Da Vinci but I think it starts with a B.
We all know if they make changes then cases like these, young women NOT needing to see med personnel to talk about sex history…doctors will finally have to work for a living and not be able to masturbate through their days.
I came across this today! If they were that serious about increasing uptake then wouldn’t this help as it gives an immediate result?
http://truscreen.com/truscreen-the-product/
However – All Screening is still out for me! I am happy to wait for symptoms if ever I get any!
Agreed, we don’t need our lives medicalised and there is evidence early detection actually doesn’t help.
I firmly believe most screening is about control and giving the appearance you are being protected i.e a vote winner.
Yicks! Instant results in a doctor’s office would be immediate pressure for biopsy and LEEP treatments.
Now if there were a discrete private home test that a woman could get instant results and repeat them in 6 months without the involvement of any medical personnel…….
That’s not going to happen. Such test would have truly saved lives and helped women, but it would fail all 3 pillars of modern medicine: surveillance, control and money-making.
Daily fail has jumped on the bandwagon with the latest cervical cancer whatever week. 2 stories on smears. Mother waits q0 months to b diagnosed and new accurate test …I’m taking a read now
Have been commenting and it looks like they are getting through (for now.) The pro-screeners are particularly ignorant and rabid today.