Are Current Routine Pelvic Exams and ...
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#21 Aug 11, 2012
Forcing the pelvic organs downward with the opposing hand so that the two (now internal) fingers can palpate the uterus is just a really poor idea imo. It risks tearing/bleeding of any connecting tissues and for what?

I know nothing about the effects of weight. I would think it would only affect the heart, but I don't know.

I don't know about the informed consent issue, but they certainly need consent. That can come in several forms. If a woman makes an appointment for this vile, disrespectful, degrading exam, then consent is probably (correctly) presumed.

Certainly the dr.'s know the stats! That's is the third part of the FRAUD. They know, yet they coerce, intimidate, and do anything they can to get women to comply. And yes, I think it is all of the above. Re: the women gyns, yes, same for them. Why?
Remember that medicine was originally male dominated. I don't know your age, but I can clearly recall a time when only men were doctors, and only women were nurses! Historically, male dr.s were also the professors at med school. So they now train both genders in the science.

Militant attitude - maybe some attempted intimidation - to get you to comply rather than backing out of exam.

The system will likely not change unless informed women (like you) start talking to other women and sharing the benefit of what they've learned. Gyn's will not give up, but that doesn't mean that women can't give THEM up!

I always want least invasive measures also. Agree, womens procedures ARE more invasive and part of the reason to stay clear of them! Think about the reason God, mother nature, or whomever you believe to be the creator/supreme being put female reproductive organs on the INSIDE ! Reason being so that they could NOT be accessed.

Then man comes along and defies that. It needs to stop.
Erik

Lodz, Poland

#22 Aug 12, 2012
Did you ask your doctor regarding his/her thoughts on your thoughts? It is quite normal to feel like this but it is also important to know what your doctor has to say about it so that you can help clear your mind. http://www.vaginalmeshlawsuit.com/
ConfusedPatient

Morrisville, PA

#23 Aug 12, 2012
I am asking if a woman is overweight, is it really possible to feel the uterus through the fat that exists on the stomach? In other words, wouldn't layers of fat prevent or hinder the ability to feel the uterus and ovaries.
I would logically think, but I may be wrong, that it would easier to palpate a thin woman, with little or no fat.
Anyway, I am just trying to determine any true usefulness of all this crappy screening.
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#24 Aug 12, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
I am asking if a woman is overweight, is it really possible to feel the uterus through the fat that exists on the stomach? In other words, wouldn't layers of fat prevent or hinder the ability to feel the uterus and ovaries.
I would logically think, but I may be wrong, that it would easier to palpate a thin woman, with little or no fat.
Anyway, I am just trying to determine any true usefulness of all this crappy screening.
Oh, that's what you meant?! Yes, I would agree that it would be more difficult. Just as it is more difficult (so they say) to find a breast lump in large breasted women (although I did 8 years ago).

And yes, she is alive and cancer free today!
ConfusedPatient

Pennsburg, PA

#25 Aug 12, 2012
Not With My Lady You Dont wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, that's what you meant?! Yes, I would agree that it would be more difficult. Just as it is more difficult (so they say) to find a breast lump in large breasted women (although I did 8 years ago).
And yes, she is alive and cancer free today!
No need for those dang mammograms, huh?
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#26 Aug 12, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
<quoted text>
No need for those dang mammograms, huh?
Don't get me started on those!
They wanted her to have one and she complied, but was hysterical and wouldn't have it unless I went in with her. The x-ray tech balked at that....absolutely refused until I said: "look, I'm an electronics technician that has worked with military radar, high power/frequency transmitters at a satellite earth station, and 3 television stations. I've probably taken 1,000 times more r.f. over my career than I'll ever get in there. Gimme an apron and I'll sign a release holding you and this office harmless"

The tech looked at me, then back at her, then back at me, and said: "Come on" waving her hand in the direction of the room. No release needed. But I'll tell you what....I'd have never believed how much a breast is compressed during that exam. I understand why. If they don't compress it as much as possible, the image will be dark. But the problem with compression to that degree is the internal tissue is bruised! bruising causes cell damage and cell damage causes cell displasia which can turn to cancer.
ConfusedPatient

Pennsburg, PA

#27 Aug 12, 2012
Not With My Lady You Dont wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get me started on those!
They wanted her to have one and she complied, but was hysterical and wouldn't have it unless I went in with her. The x-ray tech balked at that....absolutely refused until I said: "look, I'm an electronics technician that has worked with military radar, high power/frequency transmitters at a satellite earth station, and 3 television stations. I've probably taken 1,000 times more r.f. over my career than I'll ever get in there. Gimme an apron and I'll sign a release holding you and this office harmless"
The tech looked at me, then back at her, then back at me, and said: "Come on" waving her hand in the direction of the room. No release needed. But I'll tell you what....I'd have never believed how much a breast is compressed during that exam. I understand why. If they don't compress it as much as possible, the image will be dark. But the problem with compression to that degree is the internal tissue is bruised! bruising causes cell damage and cell damage causes cell displasia which can turn to cancer.
Yep. This is an issue I am having. I have simple cysts which are created. They are harmless and eventually your body flushes them out. For me, they are painless.

The mammo keeps catching these spots on the xray. The drs office calls me very militantly for follow up. I get another diagnostic mammo and ultrasound to find out nothing is wrong. This has happened to me twice so far. I have no family history of breast cancer.

I'm happy, but this is crazy. I can't keep doing 2 mammos a year. I am going to talk to my GP about it. I don't see myself doing this yearly.

I felt that medicine in general is more protocol driven than sensible, so I started researching these routine screenings.

Breast cancer occurs more than cervical and is more aggressive. But I can't keep getting 2 mammos a year.
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#28 Aug 13, 2012
ConfusedPatient wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. This is an issue I am having. I have simple cysts which are created. They are harmless and eventually your body flushes them out. For me, they are painless.
The mammo keeps catching these spots on the xray. The drs office calls me very militantly for follow up. I get another diagnostic mammo and ultrasound to find out nothing is wrong. This has happened to me twice so far. I have no family history of breast cancer.
I'm happy, but this is crazy. I can't keep doing 2 mammos a year. I am going to talk to my GP about it. I don't see myself doing this yearly.
I felt that medicine in general is more protocol driven than sensible, so I started researching these routine screenings.
Breast cancer occurs more than cervical and is more aggressive. But I can't keep getting 2 mammos a year.
Those simple cysts are creating brighter spots than the fatty tissue or milk ducts. That's whats setting off the alarm! They see a bright spot and figure the worst. I occasionally get cysts in my ear lobes (of all places!) but they go away by themselves. As I'm sitting here typing this, I have cyst in the palm of my left hand, about 1/2" long and in line with the ring finger. No pain, just a hard mass. Am I going to panic and run off for a few thousand $'s of x-rays and biopsies? HELL no! It's there, but not bothering me in any way.

Why is it taking 2 visits before they dismiss your cysts as harmless? Is it because they don't do the ultrasound on the first go-round? Any chance they're trying to 'milk' your insurance co?
Breast cancer is hereditary, unlike cervical cancer which is NOT.
So the fact that it does not run in your family is good. I don't know that you even need one mammo a year, all things considered. 1 is going to be an automatic 2 in your case. It's low level, non-ionizing so basically not harmful, but still....do you want to be tied to that?

Sure it's more protocol! Reminds me of their phrase "standard of care" which to me means 'this is what we give everybody that has what you have because it worked for 5,001 people who were in a group of 10,000'. I think it's the lazy way out of not treating the individual.

You're right on the breast cancer - more frequent/aggressive.

Are you ready to tell me yet?
Ornery

Concord, NC

#29 Aug 18, 2012
Chris wrote:
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.
No, a bimanual was never "suppose to detect ovarian cancer". Palpation is a lousy screen in general(see digital rectal exam in men) and owes most of its roots to laying of hands mysticism.
That's one of the main reasons the USPSTF could find no benefit to the routine physical (palpation rich). Perhaps we can stop the practice of jamming fingers, gloved or otherwise, in every available human orifice some time soon.
So how the heck did this become standard practice? Well, there's the Contagious Disease Acts of 1860s that empowered doctors to forcibly inspect sex workers (pretty soon, it was any woman they chose). And then let's not overlook the power and sex dynamic here. Finally, there's simple inertia, with both patient and doctor indoctrinated into the "standard of care".
What chaps about the pelvic exam is that coercion used (access to birth control)? Highly unethical and it should be illegal. When combining the valueless element of this with the coercion, it's tough not to see this as sexual battery. Ah, the power of the white lab coat. This will stop once the women reclaim the OB GYN industry (which is well underway) but it's a shame there isn't payback.
As for ultrasound, CA-125, etc. for ovarian cancer they are a very rich source of false positives and given the rarity of ovariance cancer (22K cases annually), there is no way this makes sense even on higher risk patients.
Ornery

Concord, NC

#30 Aug 18, 2012
Not With My Lady You Dont wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
A better question is why the FDA hasn't approved home HPV testing. Research shows that self-collected specimens are every bit as good as clinical collected specimens (INVASIVE) in terms of sensitivity (not quite as good in specificity...false positive risk is higher but imagine a world where 55 million PAP smears go to 5 million). Further, a negative HPV result provides up to 6 years of protection (Euros use 5).

Where is the home HPV test gents???
Not With My Lady You Dont

AOL

#31 Aug 18, 2012
Ornery wrote:
<quoted text>
A better question is why the FDA hasn't approved home HPV testing. Research shows that self-collected specimens are every bit as good as clinical collected specimens (INVASIVE) in terms of sensitivity (not quite as good in specificity...false positive risk is higher but imagine a world where 55 million PAP smears go to 5 million). Further, a negative HPV result provides up to 6 years of protection (Euros use 5).
Where is the home HPV test gents???
You make excellent points! Since HPV is the primary cause of cervical cancer a home HPV would be one step ahead of the pap. But that would take money out of the pocket of the doc, and my guess is they will fight that with every illogical bone in their bodies.
Rick

West Chicago, IL

#32 Aug 24, 2012
Try seeing another doctor and see what they suggest. Maybe you are also quite paranoid about things. Ask advise from a friend and see what she/he can say about the situation. http://www.vaginalmeshlawsuit.com
Debz

Ottawa, Canada

#33 Sep 20, 2012
Not With My Lady You Dont wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Not With My Lady You Dont wrote:
<quoted text>
My best response to this 'hysteria' is this link:
http://www.womensfreedomproject.org/
You might want to pay particular attention to the middle of the fifth paragraph where it states: "The more frequently a woman is tested, and the younger she is when she starts testing, the more likely she is to get a false positive"

PLEASE ALSO VISIT OTHER TOPIX FORUM - WHAT AGE SHOULD DAUGHTERS START OBG/GYN HEALTH CARE VISITS?
WHERE THIS IS POSTED:

Not With My Lady
I'm glad you have input this advice on this site.
It is also important, for your daughters safety and modesty, to be aware of the fact that there is no obligation to see a male gynecologist; patients can request a female for her intimate care.

Young girls should not have to cross "that modesty barrier" and become accustomed to any man's attention to her "private areas". This is an important tool in her resolve not to get nvolved with men at an inappropriate age.

Please see 4 threads here on topix which detail some of the emotional and relationship pain that women and their partners have experienced as a result of trusting male gynecologists (there are alarming incidents of male Gyn/OBG sexual misconduct - spanning, notonly the USA, but Canada and Europe, but also Asia and the developing world). Please take the time to research these legal cases and forearm yourself with the rationale for/against medical GYN/OBG procedures, many of which are counter-productive to the safeguarding of womens/girls health.

PLEASE VISIT THESE 4 "Topix" THREADS:

1)Male gynecologists
2)How husbands feel about male gynecologists
3)My wifes anal exam
4)Why docters are obsessed with vaginas

Here you will see links re. GYN/OGB sexual assault cases(worldwide)

Testimonies from women (including me) who have been assaulted

Testimonies from men (partners) explaining how their relationships have suffered/or ended as a result of this "inappropriately intimate" intrusion by male Doctors/hospital staff.

Please also note the resource "Patient Modesty" which is a web. resourse counselling and advising patients on how to protect their modesty during the persuit of health care.
Modest Woman

Waynesville, NC

#34 Sep 20, 2012
Make sure you check out tips on how prevent teenagers from being sexually abused by doctors at http://sexualmisconductbydoctors.com/teenagef... . Also make sure you check out how important it is to be sensitive to your teenage children's wishes for modesty in medical settings at http://www.patientmodesty.com/teenagers.aspx .
EEB Aust

Hughesdale, Australia

#35 Sep 23, 2012
Actually the only women at risk of cervical cancer are the roughly 5% who are HPV positive and aged 30 and above, these women should be offered a 5 yearly pap test until they clear the virus.
Population pap testing is outdated...it has been horribly overused in countries like Australia and the States producing huge and highly lucrative industries in the over-treatment of CIN.
The new Dutch program puts the evidence and women first...they'll offer 5 hrHPV primary triage tests at ages 30,35,40,50 and 60 and there is also a self-test HPV option, the Delphi Screener - only the roughly 5% who test positive will be offered a 5 yearly pap test. The vast majority of women, about 95%..will be HPV negative, not at risk and they will be offered the remaining HPV primary tests or can self-test.
Those HPV negative and confidently monogamous or no longer sexually active can forget all further testing.
Countries that do not have evidence based screening may never offer HPV primary testing to women...yet this vitally important information enables women to make an informed decision about testing.
Why would a HPV negative women, most of us, wish to spend a lifetime having unnecessary pap tests with the high risk of a false positive, excess biopsy and potentially harmful over-treatment?
The dishonesty in women's cancer screening is shocking...I believe these programs are controlled/influenced by those who benefit from this excess and that's not women!
There was never a need to worry and harm so many, even before HPV primary testing it was known that frequent and early pap testing generated huge numbers of false positives for no additional benefit...Finland has had their 6-7 pap test program, 5 yearly from 30 to 60, since the 1960s.
Women can use the Delphi Screener or Tampap to check their HPV status in the UK, Italy, Singapore, The Netherlands, Malaysia...I think more Australian women will be flying to Singapore to check their HPV status and most can then get off this harmful pap test program once and for all. So many women have been worried and harmed unnecessarily and endured years of unnecessary pap tests, biopsies etc..
Women here are still being pressured to have 26+ pap tests from teens to age 70 - just absurd...and harmful...and unacceptable when you consider 95% of women aged 30 and older are not even at risk from cc and cannot benefit from pap testing. This shows a deep disrespect for the bodily privacy of women and a cavalier disregard for our health and well-being.
Those under 30 don't benefit from pap testing (it doesn't change the small incidence rate, but leads to high numbers of false positives and over-treatment) and HPV primary testing is not recommended either as 40% would test positive, almost all have transient and harmless HPV infections, by age 30 only about 5% will test positive. So, young women are simply advised in the Netherlands and Finland to watch for persistent and unusual symptoms and see a doctor. If pap testing and HPV testing doesn't help young women, but harms them sending many for over-treatment, then why do so many countries persist with testing them?
HPV today, Edition 24 sets out the new Dutch program - registration is free. The Delphi Bio-science site contains info on the self-test HPV device.
Women need to protect themselves from these programs....make informed decisions about testing.
CHRIS

Bedford, MA

#36 Sep 23, 2012
EEB Aust wrote:
Actually the only women at risk of cervical cancer are the roughly 5% who are HPV positive and aged 30 and above, these women should be offered a 5 yearly pap test until they clear the virus.
Population pap testing is outdated...it has been horribly overused in countries like Australia and the States producing huge and highly lucrative industries in the over-treatment of CIN.
The new Dutch program puts the evidence and women first...they'll offer 5 hrHPV primary triage tests at ages 30,35,40,50 and 60 and there is also a self-test HPV option, the Delphi Screener - only the roughly 5% who test positive will be offered a 5 yearly pap test. The vast majority of women, about 95%..will be HPV negative, not at risk and they will be offered the remaining HPV primary tests or can self-test.
Those HPV negative and confidently monogamous or no longer sexually active can forget all further testing.
Countries that do not have evidence based screening may never offer HPV primary testing to women...yet this vitally important information enables women to make an informed decision about testing.
Why would a HPV negative women, most of us, wish to spend a lifetime having unnecessary pap tests with the high risk of a false positive, excess biopsy and potentially harmful over-treatment?
The dishonesty in women's cancer screening is shocking...I believe these programs are controlled/influenced by those who benefit from this excess and that's not women!
There was never a need to worry and harm so many, even before HPV primary testing it was known that frequent and early pap testing generated huge numbers of false positives for no additional benefit...Finland has had their 6-7 pap test program, 5 yearly from 30 to 60, since the 1960s.
Women can use the Delphi Screener or Tampap to check their HPV status in the UK, Italy, Singapore, The Netherlands, Malaysia...I think more Australian women will be flying to Singapore to check their HPV status and most can then get off this harmful pap test program once and for all. So many women have been worried and harmed unnecessarily and endured years of unnecessary pap tests, biopsies etc..
Women here are still being pressured to have 26+ pap tests from teens to age 70 - just absurd...and harmful...and unacceptable when you consider 95% of women aged 30 and older are not even at risk from cc and cannot benefit from pap testing. This shows a deep disrespect for the bodily privacy of women and a cavalier disregard for our health and well-being.
Those under 30 don't benefit from pap testing (it doesn't change the small incidence rate, but leads to high numbers of false positives and over-treatment) and HPV primary testing is not recommended either as 40% would test positive, almost all have transient and harmless HPV infections, by age 30 only about 5% will test positive. So, young women are simply advised in the Netherlands and Finland to watch for persistent and unusual symptoms and see a doctor. If pap testing and HPV testing doesn't help young women, but harms them sending many for over-treatment, then why do so many countries persist with testing them?
HPV today, Edition 24 sets out the new Dutch program - registration is free. The Delphi Bio-science site contains info on the self-test HPV device.
Women need to protect themselves from these programs....make informed decisions about testing.
Very good information !
Elizabeth

Carnegie, Australia

#37 Apr 13, 2013
On the Q of breast screening....be very careful.
I recently heard Peter Gotzsche from the Nordic Cochrane Institute speak at the Evidence Live Conference in Oxford and his message was clear:
- about 50% of screen detected cancers are over-diagnosed;
- breast screening does not save breasts;
- in Denmark they only screen women in one region so have the perfect control group: screening has NOT reduced death from breast cancer;
- you reduce the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis by one-third if you DON'T screen;
- any benefit of screening is taken away with deaths caused by over-treatment, heart attacks and lung cancer caused by chemo and radiotherapy;
- the fall in the death rate is about better treatments, not screening.
I had already decided to decline screening, but there are powerful vested and political interests in breast screening and high emotion so most women will never get to or accept these facts. I'd urge every woman to go to the NCI website and read their excellent summary of all of the evidence on breast screening.
Almost all intrusions on the asymptomatic female body are unnecessary and do nothing more than risk your health and well-being. Routine pelvic and breast exams...unhelpful and carry risk, excess biopsies with the latter and unnecessary surgery with RPE. The RPE is NOT a screening test for ovarian cancer. Pap tests should only be offered to the 5%(roughly) who test HPV+ and are aged 30 to 60 and women can self-test for HPV, no need for an invasive test. Most women are HPV- and cannot benefit from pap tests, biopsies etc
The greatest threats to our health IMO, are these screening tests and exams, I have never permitted them and never will...I value and respect my health symptom-free body. Find a doctor who feels the same way and will work with you....being informed helps a lot...start reading, it will protect you from dysfunctional, harmful, unhelpful and unethical women's "healthcare".
CHRIS

Bedford, MA

#38 Apr 14, 2013
Elizabeth wrote:
On the Q of breast screening....be very careful.
I recently heard Peter Gotzsche from the Nordic Cochrane Institute speak at the Evidence Live Conference in Oxford and his message was clear:
- about 50% of screen detected cancers are over-diagnosed;
- breast screening does not save breasts;
- in Denmark they only screen women in one region so have the perfect control group: screening has NOT reduced death from breast cancer;
- you reduce the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis by one-third if you DON'T screen;
- any benefit of screening is taken away with deaths caused by over-treatment, heart attacks and lung cancer caused by chemo and radiotherapy;
- the fall in the death rate is about better treatments, not screening.
I had already decided to decline screening, but there are powerful vested and political interests in breast screening and high emotion so most women will never get to or accept these facts. I'd urge every woman to go to the NCI website and read their excellent summary of all of the evidence on breast screening.
Almost all intrusions on the asymptomatic female body are unnecessary and do nothing more than risk your health and well-being. Routine pelvic and breast exams...unhelpful and carry risk, excess biopsies with the latter and unnecessary surgery with RPE. The RPE is NOT a screening test for ovarian cancer. Pap tests should only be offered to the 5%(roughly) who test HPV+ and are aged 30 to 60 and women can self-test for HPV, no need for an invasive test. Most women are HPV- and cannot benefit from pap tests, biopsies etc
The greatest threats to our health IMO, are these screening tests and exams, I have never permitted them and never will...I value and respect my health symptom-free body. Find a doctor who feels the same way and will work with you....being informed helps a lot...start reading, it will protect you from dysfunctional, harmful, unhelpful and unethical women's "healthcare".
Someone who really knows what their talking about , good to see.
pailrider

Grimsby, UK

#39 Apr 14, 2013
SEEMPLES yes defo out of date from another planet, sex abuse in some cases...
CHRIS

Great Barrington, MA

#40 Sep 28, 2013
Ornery wrote:
<quoted text>
No, a bimanual was never "suppose to detect ovarian cancer". Palpation is a lousy screen in general(see digital rectal exam in men) and owes most of its roots to laying of hands mysticism.
That's one of the main reasons the USPSTF could find no benefit to the routine physical (palpation rich). Perhaps we can stop the practice of jamming fingers, gloved or otherwise, in every available human orifice some time soon.
So how the heck did this become standard practice? Well, there's the Contagious Disease Acts of 1860s that empowered doctors to forcibly inspect sex workers (pretty soon, it was any woman they chose). And then let's not overlook the power and sex dynamic here. Finally, there's simple inertia, with both patient and doctor indoctrinated into the "standard of care".
What chaps about the pelvic exam is that coercion used (access to birth control)? Highly unethical and it should be illegal. When combining the valueless element of this with the coercion, it's tough not to see this as sexual battery. Ah, the power of the white lab coat. This will stop once the women reclaim the OB GYN industry (which is well underway) but it's a shame there isn't payback.
As for ultrasound, CA-125, etc. for ovarian cancer they are a very rich source of false positives and given the rarity of ovariance cancer (22K cases annually), there is no way this makes sense even on higher risk patients.
I agree with you that the bimanual exam was never about detecting ovarian cancer, however it has sure been sold as doing so ! Which is/has been a fraud/scam. Just male doctors getting their "jollies." then telling woman their ovarian cancer free. All the while they may not be and they may ignore symptoms because they believe so. W.T.F.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
thenose is NUTS... 23 hr Mr Trump 124
Large Lump Inside Vagina (Apr '07) Fri Raeraerose 871
How do male gynecologists feel about very attra... (Aug '13) Fri stephen 340
How Husbands Feel About Male Gynecologists (Apr '10) Fri pailrider 2,738
Doctors & Gynecologists get sexually aroused du... (Feb '13) Fri pailrider 538
doctor gave provera pill to postone period (Jul '07) Jan 19 Ronler 132
Female sex predators: Why there are more of the... Jan 18 thenose 14
More from around the web