Are Current Routine Pelvic Exams and Paps obsolete

Posted in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
ConfusedPatient

Allentown, PA

#1 Jul 28, 2012
I have been researching the reliability of and clinical value of routine pelvic exams and paps. I am personally tired of having these procedures forced on me. I am low risk for cervical cancer.
I am personally at a much higher risk for skin cancer, yet doctors don't push skin testing on me.

I understand there is a CSA cervical specific antigen test available, patented in the USA in 2003, used reliably in other countries, yet not in the USA. It is supposedly more reliable and obviously non-invasive.

I fear the notorious false positive and follow up care with the pap smear.

I also feel frustrated that women don't get all the facts presented to them about cervical cancer.

We are expected to turn our bodies over to the doctors and just do what they say.

Does anyone else feel this way? I am not sure if I want to continue cancer screenings.
Chris

Dracut, MA

#2 Jul 29, 2012
The most intrusive part of the exam, imo, is the bimanual, which is suppose to detect ovarian cancer. A controled study was done which showed it was nearly imposible to detect tumors on the ovaries by way of the bimanual exam. Google it yourself. Try accuracy of bimmanual exam, see for yourself. Ultra sounds are much much more effective.
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#3 Jul 29, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
I have been researching the reliability of and clinical value of routine pelvic exams and paps. I am personally tired of having these procedures forced on me. I am low risk for cervical cancer.
I am personally at a much higher risk for skin cancer, yet doctors don't push skin testing on me.
I understand there is a CSA cervical specific antigen test available, patented in the USA in 2003, used reliably in other countries, yet not in the USA. It is supposedly more reliable and obviously non-invasive.
I fear the notorious false positive and follow up care with the pap smear.
I also feel frustrated that women don't get all the facts presented to them about cervical cancer.
We are expected to turn our bodies over to the doctors and just do what they say.
Does anyone else feel this way? I am not sure if I want to continue cancer screenings.
Confused...Your assertion is 100% correct!
Let's look at this in some length...this invasive, vile, degrading examination was born of one J. Marion Simms, knows as the father of gynecology (and hopefully in HELL by now). He experimented on the reproductive system of slave women often without the benefit of ANY SEDATION! he invented one of the first models of vaginal speculum.

Much of the exam of 100 years ago is the same today. It's worthless. Take for example the bi-manual. By design, intended to demoralize any female and for WHAT? I'm male, and in my 64 years (1 marriage and a few relationships) I've yet to find any 2 fingers on either hand that can reach to the end of the vaginal canal. No, I have not pushed on the abdomen with the other hand and no one else should do that either due to the possibility of tearing the connecting tissue of the uterus. Just a bad idea.

Speculum exam (pap). Not much (if any) better. Look at all the things they say to not do prior because it will affect the outcome.
Washing, douching, sexual relations, sprays and/or perfumes etc. Well if the damn screening is that sensitive, then sure you're going to get false positives. And as you know, a false positives means a re-do (as if the first wasn't humiliating enough). And before I forget, even the handling of the cell sample can affect the results. If that one comes back positive then they want to do LEEP! Do you know anything about that? It's not pretty, and just like the torture expert (Simms) no sedation ! Do you know that if a pathologist slices enough bits of you (or me, or anyone) s/he will find abnormal cells SOMEWHERE in the body. As humans we constantly have cells that are in the process of dying. But they are replaced by new ones. There are many things that can cause what they (medical types) call cervical displasia. And people (both genders) get hpv to one degree or another several times in their lives. It usually clears the body with no intervention in a few days. Only a couple of them can go on to cause cervical displasia.

You mentioned that you're low risk. That's great! And since you are, that's where it should end. Cervical cancer (although dr.s will not admit to you) is a very rare cancer. It is also very slow in its progression (they don't tell you that either). Another thing that they don't tell you is that "a damaged cell will mutate into a cancer cell more easily than would a non-damaged cell" I got that straight from a Harvard University trained oncologist that is now almost 70 years old and practicing for the last 40 years. I think she should know. So that being the case no one (either gender) should want any internal organ scraped for a cell sample, sometimes to the point of BLEEDING - a sure sign that a cell (probably many cells) were damaged!

As far as being frustrated with women that don't get all the facts.....join the club! That's been a frustration of mine for YEARS. Almost out of space, so closing for now. You might want to Google "unnecessary pelvic exam" I did and got over 28,000 hits!

The days are numbered for those that do this exam!
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#4 Jul 29, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
I have been researching the reliability of and clinical value of routine pelvic exams and paps. I am personally tired of having these procedures forced on me. I am low risk for cervical cancer.
I am personally at a much higher risk for skin cancer, yet doctors don't push skin testing on me.
I understand there is a CSA cervical specific antigen test available, patented in the USA in 2003, used reliably in other countries, yet not in the USA. It is supposedly more reliable and obviously non-invasive.
I fear the notorious false positive and follow up care with the pap smear.
I also feel frustrated that women don't get all the facts presented to them about cervical cancer.
We are expected to turn our bodies over to the doctors and just do what they say.
Does anyone else feel this way? I am not sure if I want to continue cancer screenings.
Confused...Your assertion is 100% correct!
Let's look at this in some length...this invasive, vile, degrading examination was born of one J. Marion Simms, knows as the father of gynecology (and hopefully in HELL by now). He experimented on the reproductive system of slave women often without the benefit of ANY SEDATION! he invented one of the first models of vaginal speculum.

Much of the exam of 100 years ago is the same today. It's worthless. Take for example the bi-manual. By design, intended to demoralize any female and for WHAT? I'm male, and in my 64 years (1 marriage and a few relationships) I've yet to find any 2 fingers on either hand that can reach to the end of the vaginal canal. No, I have not pushed on the abdomen with the other hand and no one else should do that either due to the possibility of tearing the connecting tissue of the uterus. Just a bad idea.

Speculum exam (pap). Not much (if any) better. Look at all the things they say to not do prior because it will affect the outcome.
Washing, douching, sexual relations, sprays and/or perfumes etc. Well if the damn screening is that sensitive, then sure you're going to get false positives. And as you know, a false positives means a re-do (as if the first wasn't humiliating enough). And before I forget, even the handling of the cell sample can affect the results. If that one comes back positive then they want to do LEEP! Do you know anything about that? It's not pretty, and just like the torture expert (Simms) no sedation ! Do you know that if a pathologist slices enough bits of you (or me, or anyone) s/he will find abnormal cells SOMEWHERE in the body. As humans we constantly have cells that are in the process of dying. But they are replaced by new ones. There are many things that can cause what they (medical types) call cervical displasia. And people (both genders) get hpv to one degree or another several times in their lives. It usually clears the body with no intervention in a few days. Only a couple of them can go on to cause cervical displasia.

You mentioned that you're low risk. That's great! And since you are, that's where it should end. Cervical cancer (although dr.s will not admit to you) is a very rare cancer. It is also very slow in its progression (they don't tell you that either). Another thing that they don't tell you is that "a damaged cell will mutate into a cancer cell more easily than would a non-damaged cell" I got that straight from a Harvard University trained oncologist that is now almost 70 years old and practicing for the last 40 years. I think she should know. So that being the case no one (either gender) should want any internal organ scraped for a cell sample, sometimes to the point of BLEEDING - a sure sign that a cell (probably many cells) were damaged!

As far as being frustrated with women that don't get all the facts.....join the club! That's been a frustration of mine for YEARS. Almost out of space, so closing for now. You might want to Google "unnecessary pelvic exam" I did and got over 28,000 hits!

The days are numbered for those that do this vile exam!
ConfusedPatient

Riegelsville, PA

#5 Jul 30, 2012
Does anyone know why the CSA cervical screening test is not being used in the USA?
The pap is notoriosly unreliable, it couldn't be any worse than that?
All I can find on the Internet is that is has been around since 2003.
I am not finding any stats against this test.
I believe Finland uses this test and they have the lowest rate of cervical cancer and false positives.
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#6 Jul 30, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
Does anyone know why the CSA cervical screening test is not being used in the USA?
The pap is notoriosly unreliable, it couldn't be any worse than that?
All I can find on the Internet is that is has been around since 2003.
I am not finding any stats against this test.
I believe Finland uses this test and they have the lowest rate of cervical cancer and false positives.
The F.D.A. is holding it up! It wouldn't surprise me if they're in bed with the medical types that want the CSA to not make approval in the U.S. Think about it....if the CSA were to be approved, the vile degrading exams would disappear along with their $ for those exams. A simple, non-invasive blood test is far less expensive.

And the other 'little' thing that the pigs lose is their gratification they (men gyn) get from the exam.
MPM

Canton, NC

#7 Jul 30, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
Does anyone know why the CSA cervical screening test is not being used in the USA?
The pap is notoriosly unreliable, it couldn't be any worse than that?
All I can find on the Internet is that is has been around since 2003.
I am not finding any stats against this test.
I believe Finland uses this test and they have the lowest rate of cervical cancer and false positives.
I spoke to the CEO of the company that made the CSA blood test yesterday. Unfortunately, I found out that the test has not been validated. He said they did the tests on patients with cervical cancer and patients who didn't have the cancer at 5 different sites and there was no difference in the test results so the CSA test is not reliable. I wish it was.

I am the founder of Medical Patient Modesty ( http://www.patientmodesty.com ). I agree that too many unnecessary pap smears are done. I do not know your history so I don't know your risk for developing cervical cancer.
ConfusedPatient

Bethlehem, PA

#8 Jul 31, 2012
Thanks, MPM!!
Hopefully, they are trying to improve this test. Maybe USA standards are higher, but other countries are using it.
I am low risk for cervical cancer. I am not promiscuous, never have been, never will be. I have all healthy habits, diet and exercise, etc.
I am tired of worrying about false positives, the attitude of gyns, and the general incompetency of medicine.
Chris

Newark, NY

#9 Aug 1, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
Thanks, MPM!!
Hopefully, they are trying to improve this test. Maybe USA standards are higher, but other countries are using it.
I am low risk for cervical cancer. I am not promiscuous, never have been, never will be. I have all healthy habits, diet and exercise, etc.
I am tired of worrying about false positives, the attitude of gyns, and the general incompetency of medicine.
H.P.V. Causes over 90% of cervical cancer. If you are H.P.V. Free , which it sounds like you most likely are, cervical cancer is very very rare. You can be tested to tell if you ever have been exposed to H. P.V.
MPM

Canton, NC

#10 Aug 1, 2012
Chris wrote:
<quoted text> H.P.V. Causes over 90% of cervical cancer. If you are H.P.V. Free , which it sounds like you most likely are, cervical cancer is very very rare. You can be tested to tell if you ever have been exposed to H. P.V.
HPV actually causes 99% of cervical cancer cases.
MPM

Canton, NC

#11 Aug 1, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
Thanks, MPM!!
Hopefully, they are trying to improve this test. Maybe USA standards are higher, but other countries are using it.
I am low risk for cervical cancer. I am not promiscuous, never have been, never will be. I have all healthy habits, diet and exercise, etc.
I am tired of worrying about false positives, the attitude of gyns, and the general incompetency of medicine.
I recommend you read an excellent article about how informed patient consent is missing from pap smears at http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/11/informed-... .
ConfusedPatient

Northampton, PA

#12 Aug 3, 2012
I found this on About.com

"Question: Why Do I Need a Pap Smear to Get Birth Control Pills?

Most doctors require you go get a Pap smear in order to get a prescription for birth control pills. Although it may seem arbitrary, and many people resist what feels like unnecessary intrusiveness, it's actually for a very good reason.

Answer:
The Pap smear is a test used to detect cellular changes that, if ignored over many years, could lead to cervical cancer. Cervical cancer was once one of the leading causes of death among women. However, as Pap smears have become more common, the death rate due to cervical cancer has declined more than 70% in developed nations. Requiring women to get Pap smears once a year in order to obtain birth control pills has been an extremely effective way to encourage women to get regular Pap smears."

I don't think this is a good reason and I don't find this encouraging.
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#13 Aug 4, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
I found this on About.com
"Question: Why Do I Need a Pap Smear to Get Birth Control Pills?
Most doctors require you go get a Pap smear in order to get a prescription for birth control pills. Although it may seem arbitrary, and many people resist what feels like unnecessary intrusiveness, it's actually for a very good reason.
Answer:
The Pap smear is a test used to detect cellular changes that, if ignored over many years, could lead to cervical cancer. Cervical cancer was once one of the leading causes of death among women. However, as Pap smears have become more common, the death rate due to cervical cancer has declined more than 70% in developed nations. Requiring women to get Pap smears once a year in order to obtain birth control pills has been an extremely effective way to encourage women to get regular Pap smears."
I don't think this is a good reason and I don't find this encouraging.
CP...you're right, it's not a good reason, but then again you got it from About dot com. I've never had luck with getting a direct answer from that site. I've only gotten their opinion. Looks like you did too.

I recall (and have just spent about an hour trying to find it again) a story posted by a woman on a blog. She had gone to her Dr. simply for BC pills. The pig (oops, I mean doctor) was trying to insist on a fully pelvic exam and said that the pills would be withheld until she complied!(enraging to say the least).
She informed him that she was a (either paralegal or lawyer, can't recall which) and knew that it was illegal for him to withhold!

Guess what....the script for the pills was waiting at the reception desk at the end of the appointment. Interesting, isn't it?

It's one thing to make a suggestion/recommendation but this attempt at bullying/coercion is just over the top. They should be able to be arrested for fraud imo.

Below is a link for you. I was actually the first post on that blog, but the blog creator, one Lucille Zimmerman thought my posting was mean. Probably because I saw through her attempts to force this nasty exam on not just one woman, but EVERY woman that read the blog! As a result, she deleted my comment but I retained a copy on my computer and reposted it lower in the blog. It shows up as 3 consecutive posts because she apparently also limited me to a couple of hundred characters.

Her nonsense is not important, but if you read the comments from people you will see that you are not alone in your desires or feelings on this subject. Also some pretty good information and links there too!:)

Here's the link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/help-for-wome...
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#14 Aug 4, 2012
Typo: "trying to insist on a fully pelvic exam"
should have been 'trying to insist on a FULL pelvic exam'.
MPM

Canton, NC

#15 Aug 4, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
I found this on About.com
"Question: Why Do I Need a Pap Smear to Get Birth Control Pills?
Most doctors require you go get a Pap smear in order to get a prescription for birth control pills. Although it may seem arbitrary, and many people resist what feels like unnecessary intrusiveness, it's actually for a very good reason.
Answer:
The Pap smear is a test used to detect cellular changes that, if ignored over many years, could lead to cervical cancer. Cervical cancer was once one of the leading causes of death among women. However, as Pap smears have become more common, the death rate due to cervical cancer has declined more than 70% in developed nations. Requiring women to get Pap smears once a year in order to obtain birth control pills has been an extremely effective way to encourage women to get regular Pap smears."
I don't think this is a good reason and I don't find this encouraging.
This is wrong. The only true requirement for getting birth control pills is blood pressure check. One of my sister's friends was able to get birth control pills without having a pelvic exam or pap smear. We have to speak up and ignore doctors' orders.
ConfusedPatient

Easton, PA

#16 Aug 8, 2012
I am not sure where some of the cervical cancer stats are coming from, but consider this:
(Please note my calcs may not be 100%
scientific, but I hope close enough)

Around 2009, there were about 156,000,000 women in the USA. Approx 75% over age 18, for about 117,000,000.(I believe cervical cancer under the age of 18 is really rare.)

If 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, we are talking about approx 1 in 10,000 ?!?!?

Even if you remove any type of cervical cancer screening, it would not be more than 4 or 5 out of 10,000.

This can't right. Am I missing anything?
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#17 Aug 8, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
I am not sure where some of the cervical cancer stats are coming from, but consider this:
(Please note my calcs may not be 100%
scientific, but I hope close enough)
Around 2009, there were about 156,000,000 women in the USA. Approx 75% over age 18, for about 117,000,000.(I believe cervical cancer under the age of 18 is really rare.)
If 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, we are talking about approx 1 in 10,000 ?!?!?
Even if you remove any type of cervical cancer screening, it would not be more than 4 or 5 out of 10,000.
This can't right. Am I missing anything?
CP, yes I think you are missing something...the word "be" ("This can't BE right)....lol ! Okay, now that I've had my fun...

You've got the right idea, but your numbers are not quite right. The actual incidence rate is. 7.9 and the death rate is 2.4. Note that this is for a group of 100,000 and considering all races.
Source is Center for Disease Control.
Link is

http://www.cdc.gov/features/dscervicalcancer/

Basically, it's a very rare disease!
The stats from the National Cancer Institute are as follows:

Lung Cancer: Deaths: 160,340 (37.9 times greater than C.C.)
Colon and Rectal Cancer: Deaths: 51,690 (colon and rectal combined)(12.2 times greater than C.C.)
Pancreatic Cancer: Deaths: 37,390 (8.8 times greater than C.C.)
Prostate Cancer: Deaths: 28,170 (6.6 times greater than C.C.)
Leukemia: Deaths: 23,540 (5.5 times greater than C.C.)
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Deaths: 18,940 (4.4 times greater than C.C.)
Bladder Cancer: Deaths: 14,880 (3.5 times greater than C.C.)
Kidney Cancer: Deaths: 13,570 (3.2 times greater than C.C.)
Melanoma Cancer: Deaths: 9,180 (2.1 times greater than C.C.)
Cervical Cancer: Deaths: 4,220
Thyroid Cancer: Deaths: 1,780
ConfusedPatient

Northampton, PA

#18 Aug 9, 2012
Not With My Lady You Dont wrote:
<quoted text>
CP, yes I think you are missing something...the word "be" ("This can't BE right)....lol ! Okay, now that I've had my fun...
You've got the right idea, but your numbers are not quite right. The actual incidence rate is. 7.9 and the death rate is 2.4. Note that this is for a group of 100,000 and considering all races.
Source is Center for Disease Control.
Link is
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dscervicalcancer/
Basically, it's a very rare disease!
The stats from the National Cancer Institute are as follows:
Lung Cancer: Deaths: 160,340 (37.9 times greater than C.C.)
Colon and Rectal Cancer: Deaths: 51,690 (colon and rectal combined)(12.2 times greater than C.C.)
Pancreatic Cancer: Deaths: 37,390 (8.8 times greater than C.C.)
Prostate Cancer: Deaths: 28,170 (6.6 times greater than C.C.)
Leukemia: Deaths: 23,540 (5.5 times greater than C.C.)
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Deaths: 18,940 (4.4 times greater than C.C.)
Bladder Cancer: Deaths: 14,880 (3.5 times greater than C.C.)
Kidney Cancer: Deaths: 13,570 (3.2 times greater than C.C.)
Melanoma Cancer: Deaths: 9,180 (2.1 times greater than C.C.)
Cervical Cancer: Deaths: 4,220
Thyroid Cancer: Deaths: 1,780
Thanks, I will check out that website. Keep in mind that my calcs above are a year to year risk of being a new diagnosis, not a lifetime risk.
ConfusedPatient

Line Lexington, PA

#19 Aug 11, 2012
Not With My Lady You Dont wrote:
<quoted text>
CP, yes I think you are missing something...the word "be" ("This can't BE right)....lol ! Okay, now that I've had my fun...
You've got the right idea, but your numbers are not quite right. The actual incidence rate is. 7.9 and the death rate is 2.4. Note that this is for a group of 100,000 and considering all races.
Source is Center for Disease Control.
Link is
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dscervicalcancer/
Basically, it's a very rare disease!
The stats from the National Cancer Institute are as follows:
Lung Cancer: Deaths: 160,340 (37.9 times greater than C.C.)
Colon and Rectal Cancer: Deaths: 51,690 (colon and rectal combined)
(12.2 times greater than C.C.)
Pancreatic Cancer: Deaths: 37,390 (8.8 times greater than C.C.)
Prostate Cancer: Deaths: 28,170 (6.6 times greater than C.C.)
Leukemia: Deaths: 23,540 (5.5 times greater than C.C.)
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Deaths: 18,940 (4.4 times greater than C.C.)
Bladder Cancer: Deaths: 14,880 (3.5 times greater than C.C.)
Kidney Cancer: Deaths: 13,570 (3.2 times greater than C.C.)
Melanoma Cancer: Deaths: 9,180 (2.1 times greater than C.C.)
Cervical Cancer: Deaths: 4,220
Thyroid Cancer: Deaths: 1,780
Ok, I have done a lot of research the last few weeks and I am convinced the risk of cervical cancer is low, especially if you are a monogamous, non-smoker.(It seems smoking has been tied to cervical cancer.) It is also believed that cervical cancer was in decline before the advent of the pap smear.

I also question the validity of the bimanual exam for any woman. It seems doctors are questioning this. The question then becomes, how does a woman's weight affect this exam? I would think being
overweight would make it even less viable.(I have not yet researched this.)

It seems scare tactics are employed to get women to embrace their examinations. It's strange.

The number of false positives is upsetting to me. Women should be informed. I feel completely disrespected.

So, I have looked to stats and opinions like Angela Raffle, etc.

Now, why are these exams still taking place without informed consent? Do the doctors know these stats? Are they lying? Do they simply disagree with the stats? Are they infatuated with medical science? Are they perps? Abuse of power? Is it all about bottom line dollar? Is it yet another method to keep women subservient to men? Is it all of the above? What about women doctors? Are they brainwashed? Are they perps, too? Is the culture, in general, brainwashed? Why the militant attitude at the doctor's office? Why are women treated like loons if they don't want to be examined by a man or a woman? Are women like this too phobic? Or are others brainwashed? Maybe alittle of both.

I don't see the system changing. Many OB/GYNs have dropped doing obstetrics due to the cost of malpractice insurance. I doubt they will give up routine gynecology too easily. But, maybe they believe in it. Maybe they feel the false positives are a small price to pay.(This is not my opinion.)

We are talking invasive procedures here. I always want the least invasive measures taken at all times. Modesty should be respected in both men and women, but women's procedures are more invasive.

Too creepy for me.

Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#20 Aug 11, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I have done a lot of research the last few weeks and I am convinced the risk of cervical cancer is low, especially if you are a monogamous, non-smoker.(It seems smoking has been tied to cervical cancer.) It is also believed that cervical cancer was in decline before the advent of the pap smear.
I also question the validity of the bimanual exam for any woman. It seems doctors are questioning this. The question then becomes, how does a woman's weight affect this exam? I would think being
overweight would make it even less viable.(I have not yet researched this.)
It seems scare tactics are employed to get women to embrace their examinations. It's strange.
The number of false positives is upsetting to me. Women should be informed. I feel completely disrespected.
So, I have looked to stats and opinions like Angela Raffle, etc.
Now, why are these exams still taking place without informed consent? Do the doctors know these stats? Are they lying? Do they simply disagree with the stats? Are they infatuated with medical science? Are they perps? Abuse of power? Is it all about bottom line dollar? Is it yet another method to keep women subservient to men? Is it all of the above? What about women doctors? Are they brainwashed? Are they perps, too? Is the culture, in general, brainwashed? Why the militant attitude at the doctor's office? Why are women treated like loons if they don't want to be examined by a man or a woman? Are women like this too phobic? Or are others brainwashed? Maybe alittle of both.
I don't see the system changing. Many OB/GYNs have dropped doing obstetrics due to the cost of malpractice insurance. I doubt they will give up routine gynecology too easily. But, maybe they believe in it. Maybe they feel the false positives are a small price to pay.(This is not my opinion.)
We are talking invasive procedures here. I always want the least invasive measures taken at all times. Modesty should be respected in both men and women, but women's procedures are more invasive.
Too creepy for me.
If you (and PARTNER) are a monogamous, non-smoker it would take an act of God in my opinion for a female to get c.c. Yes, smoking is tied to many cancers. Reason being that it infiltrates every living cell of the body and will eventually cause at least one cell to mutate into a cancer cell, and that, unfortunately is the beginning of the end.

Re C.C. association with pap - I have mentioned this more than once on a couple of the threads (Male Gynecologist and How HUsbands Feel About Male Gyns), but I'll type it again for you. Through a friend that had breast cancer I posed a question to her (female) oncologist. The question was "does a damaged cell more easily mutate into a cancer cell than what does an undamaged cell" The answer from the oncologist was "yes". This is a doctor that is Harvard University trained and practicing oncology for about the last 40 years. Now....if you think about the scraping that is done to the cervix (often to the point of bleeding) logic would follow that damage to cells has occurred. And because not every cell is captured to be removed with the sample for the lab some damaged cells remain on the cervix. THAT is exactly what you don't want, but the only way to avoid it is to not allow it to happen to you!!
To put it another way, women that comply with this stupid screening are assisting in their own future problems.

The bi-manual is a huge white elephant and the second part of this disrespectful FRAUD that has been committed on the female gender for the last several generations. Putting it simply (and as respectfully as I can) the human finger(s) are typically not long enough to do what the medical 'professionals' claim. It takes the entire length of a speculum just to view the cervix. Human fingers being shorter than an average (size medium) speculum means that the cervix can not even be touched.(out of space - continued below)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Obstetrics and Gynecology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why I take my daughter with me to the gynecologist Sat pailrider 3
Male Gynecologist (May '08) Fri maryjaneprincton 3,660
What is a urologist? What do urologists do? Dec 19 pailrider 2
Question for the wackadoodles who hate male gyn... Dec 19 pailrider 6
Pain after sex (Nov '06) Dec 18 lolly 1,053
Yellow Discharge (Aug '07) Dec 18 Maggie 550
Preeclampsia During Mother's Pregnancy Associat... Dec 17 Parasite epidemic 3
More from around the web