Merck’s continued looting of state and federal public health budgets for a dangerous and unnecessary vaccine is unsustainable and has to stop.

There are better, safer, more sustainable ways to prevent and treat cervical cancer both at home and in developing countries.  Safety, and ethical issues aside, as a country, we simply cannot afford the Merck solution. There are too many other critical demands for public and private health dollars.

In early 2006, when I first started writing about Gardasil, I questioned the necessity of a very expensive, possibility unsafe vaccine for a disease that was easily detected through the use of regular PAP screens and was the most treatable and curable of all cancers. According to the American Cancer Society, fewer than 4,000 lives are lost annually to cervical cancer in America. These women, precious mothers, sisters, daughters, all, could have been saved with affordable access to PAP tests. The logical answer to me was finding a way to get low income and new immigrant populations into neighborhood clinics… problem solved, women and girls did not need Gardasil.

The “500,000-Cervical Cancer Deaths” Merck touted in their marketing blitzkrieg as their HPV vaccine’s justification, referred to women in developing countries who died due to inadequate access to existing medical solutions.

Convinced that Merck’s HPV vaccine, the $400 per series  Gardasil, was simply not appropriate technology for the existing threat, I also reported on the Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention (ACCP) work with ‘Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) as a low cost, easily deployable, alternative to the PAP Smear.

For middle-aged women in the developing world, cervical cancer is one of the leading causes of death. Cervical cancer is almost completely preventable, if precancerous lesions are identified and treated in a timely manner. Cervical cancer screening based on cytological examination is largely unavailable in developing countries or, made available to a small, select group of women in private facilities, maternal child health sites, or family-planning clinics, missing the age groups at highest risk for precancerous lesions.

Visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) can be used to screen women. It can be done by nurses or midwives with appropriate training. Research results show that VIA is simple, accurate, cost-effective, and acceptable to most women. Visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) can be done with the naked eye (also called cervicoscopy or direct visual inspection [DVI]), or with low magnification (also called gynoscopy, aided VI, or VIAM).  VILI, another variation of the visual inspection, known as Schiller’s test, uses Lugol’s iodine.

Various world health organizations and charities have been actively deploying VIA solutions in Latin America, Africa and India since the late 1990’s. By 2002 and 2003 promising results had been reported. For a very, low cost, (under $20) cervical cancer was being detected and treated successfully. When the BIG FOOT of Merck can crashing down, it lobbied for funds previously committed to more sustainable technologies.

Could the millions Merck wheedled from the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation for doses of over-priced, possibly unsafe, vaccines be more effectively allocated? In my opinion — Yes!

As healthcare dollars become scarcer, all of us are going to ask, “What is sustainable? What solution will help the greatest number of people, affordably? What is the least invasive solution, with least opportunity for harmful side effects?”

When public health officials and medical practitioners start asking those hard questions, Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil will not be the objective answer.

ACCP partner organizations in ongoing VIA research are: EngenderHealth ; International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC);  JHPIEGO; Pan American Health Organization (PAHO);   Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)

Sources: Evaluation of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Lugol’s iodine (VILI), cervical cytology and HPV testing as cervical screening tools in Latin America : this report refers to partial results from the LAMS (Latin American Screening) study
http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/4033

Test characteristics of visual inspection with 4% acetic acid (VIA) and Lugol’s iodine (VILI) in cervical cancer screening in Kerala, India.
Sankaranarayanan R, Wesley R, Thara S, Dhakad N, Chandralekha B, Sebastian P, Chithrathara K, Parkin DM, Nair MK.

International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, Lyon 69008, France. sankar@iarc.fr
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12845681

Cervical cancer screening in low resource settings using visual inspection with acetic acid. Carr KC, Sellors JW. Seattle University, College of Nursing, Seattle, WA 98122, USA. Kcarr@seattleu.edu
PMID: 15236713 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

There Is An Alternative Way.

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.

3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumours.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental,

food and lifestyle factors.

5.. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow,

gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumour size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not

result in more tumour destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence

the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.

What Cancer Cells Feed On:

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal,Spoonful etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soya milk, cancer cells are being starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to no urish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try

and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties.Water-

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrefied and leads to more toxic build-up.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body’s own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

but only if you get a good night’s sleep

After my last week’s rant about focusing efforts to PREVENT cancer as well as CURING cancer, I was please to review a research study that did just that! The study examined the link between exercise and cancer risk, paying special attention to whether or not getting adequate sleep further affected a women’s cancer risk.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls sleep loss a growing and as yet an under-recognized public health problem, saying Americans are getting less and less slumber. The CDC said the percentage of adults reporting sleeping six hours, or fewer, a night increased from 1985 to 2006. In previous studies reported in “The Inconvenient Women”, the rates of “short duration sleep” are even higher in the female population.

A resent National Cancer Institute study, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research’s Seventh Annual International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, reported that physically active women, who slept less than seven hours nightly, had a 47 percent higher risk of cancer than those who got more sleep.

James McClain, Ph.D., MPH, cancer prevention fellow at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, said it is unclear exactly how getting too little sleep may make one more susceptible to cancer, but getting adequate sleep has been long associated with maintaining good health. “We think it’s quite interesting and intriguing. It’s kind of a first look into this. It isn’t something that has been widely studied,”, said McClain.

“Greater participation in physical activity has consistently been associated with reduced risk of cancer incidence at several sites, including breast and colon cancers,” said James McClain, and “Short duration sleep appears to have opposing effects of physical activity on several key hormonal and metabolic parameters, which is why we looked at how it affected the exercise/cancer risk relationship.”

The Maryland-based study involving 5,968 women, aged 18 years or older with no previous cancer diagnosis, confirmed previous findings that people who engage in regular physical activity are less likely to develop cancer. The women completed an initial survey in 1998 and were then tracked through the Washington County Cancer Registry and Maryland State Cancer Registry. McClain and colleagues followed the women for almost 10 years to determine the association between physical activity energy expenditure, sleep duration and incidence of overall breast and colon cancers.

First incidence of cancer occurred among 604 women, 186 of which were breast cancer cases. According to McClain, sleep duration altered the association between physical activity and cancer risk among this population. In terms of the amount of physical exercise the women got per week, researchers found that sleep appeared to play an important role in cancer risk.

Even though the exact mechanism of how exercise reduces cancer risk isn’t known, researchers believe that physical activity’s effects on factors including hormone levels, immune function, and body weight may play an important role.

“Short duration sleep” increases all levels of health risk

Sleep experts say chronic sleep loss is associated with obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, cardiovascular disease, depression, cigarette smoking and excessive drinking.

Source Document:

McClain J. #B145. Presented at: AACR Seventh Annual International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research; Nov. 16-18, 2008; Washington.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

A friend sent me this image yesterday, with the message, “From her cute lips to God’s ear.”

I smiled and sent the e-mail on to my writing partner, Leslie. But last night, as I fell asleep, I thought about the e-mail’s real message.

I asked myself, “Why do we keep looking for “Cures” in our various “wars against (name of disease here)?”

Of course we want to heal and save our moms, grandmothers, sisters and daughters from Breast Cancer, but what are we doing as a society to PREVENT Breast Cancer in the first place?

I realize that we have learned much of what to avoid, and what to embrace to remain Cancer free from the all of the past and current Cancer research. I am grateful for that research and to those who contributed ‘time, talent and treasure’ to vanquish a disease that has taken so many of our beloveds.

Maybe I’m just ready to think about the issue differently…ready to switch the problem around 180 and look at the situation as an opportunity for change. What if we women were able to refocus our intention from being ‘at war’ with a deadly enemy, to being ‘in harmony’ with our body and our planet?

Just maybe, by living in peaceful accord with our feminine cycle, and all the other natural cycles of Mother Earth, our bodies would find the balance to heal. Perhaps living in synchronicity with nature would prevent illness? I don’t know, but living in alignment with your natural cycle can’t hurt, and being at war with Mother Nature has proven to be a failed strategy.

I vote for a peaceful, gentle approach to appreciating the wonder of the female cycle and just maybe we could reach that state of balance before our little lady “Grows Boobs”.

Think of just one thing you can do for your self to live within your feminine cycle.

Just one, it is a start.

Live gently on this earth and treat your body with love and understanding.

Be as kind to your self as you are to others.

Love yourself and appreciate the miracle of your body, mind and spirit. Laugh, feel your inner joy, if only for a moment, it is a start.

I would love to credit the creative team who developed this thought-provoking image, but the e-mail did not include a credit line. If some one knows, please let me know so I can thank them for their creativity in my Blog.

My best hope for the little girl in the photo that she grows up with healthy boobs, a vibrantly healthy body and the spirit to be an Inconvenient Woman.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Please take the time to visit the Sister Study web site.

The Sister Study is the only long-term study of women aged 35-74 whose sister had breast cancer.  It is a national study to learn how environment and genes affect the chances of getting breast cancer.  A total of 50,000 women will join the effort to find the causes of breast cancer

WHO CAN JOIN THE SISTER STUDY?

You may be eligible to join the Sister Study if —

• Your sister, related to you by blood, had breast cancer.
• You are between the ages of 35 and 74.
• You have never had breast cancer yourself.
• You are a woman living in the U.S. or Puerto Rico.

SISTERS ARE STILL NEEDED!

As we approach our goal of enrolling 50,000 diverse sisters, we want to make sure that groups not yet as well represented among participants have an opportunity to join. Unfortunately, this means turning away some women who are already very well represented in the study group. Caucasian women ages 35-64 with more than a high school degree will no longer be able to enroll, but can help the Sister Study in other ways.  This group is now very well represented among our current participants

We still need women from the following groups to enroll in the Sister Study:

• African Americans, Latinas, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans between ages 35-74
• Caucasian women between the ages of 65-74 or with a high school degree or les

CAN YOU JOIN NOW?

If you need help determining whether you can join at this time, please call our toll free number 1-877-4SISTER or CLICK HERE to answer the screening questions at the Sister Study web site.

You can be a part of this landmark research effort to find the causes of breast cancer.

Join the Sister Study for your daughters, nieces,

granddaughters, and future generations!

Visit the Sister Study Homepage

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

“In television advertisements, a cast of hip people in their 20s — artists, writers and professionals — describe why they got the shots, in the language of liberation, such as, “I chose to get vaccinated because my dreams don’t include cervical cancer.” The advertisements direct viewers to gardasil.com, which includes patients’ stories, buddy icons and downloads for holding an event at sororities.

Girls of any age who have had one dose of the vaccine can ask for text-message “reminders” from Merck to get the next two shots. The offers come with another reminder: “I understand that the information I provide will be used by Merck or those working on behalf of Merck for market research purposes.”

For such efforts, Merck last May swept the 2008 Pharmaceutical Advertising and Marketing Excellence awards, and Gardasil was named Brand of the Year by Pharmaceutical Executive magazine.

The marketing helped make Gardasil one of Merck’s best sellers, with a projected sales of $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion outside Europe this year, and more from sales in Europe, where Merck sells the vaccine through a joint venture with Sanofi Aventis.

Aggressive pharmaceutical advertising is nothing new, but the campaign was a revolution for a vaccine. Vaccines were traditionally the orphans of the pharmaceutical world because they were cheap and not particularly profitable. But the two for cervical cancer are the latest in a wave of high-priced vaccines that have come to market since 2001, opening a lucrative new field.”

Excerpted from:: THE EVIDENCE GAP; Drug Makers’ Push Leads to Cancer Vaccines’ Rise

August 20, 2008 – By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL (NYT) – Front Page –

… DRUG MAKERS’ BIG PUSH A marketing campaign in the United States and Europe by Merck has made Gardasil, its cervical cancer vaccine, a best seller. Cervarix, a similar vaccine from GlaxoSmithKline, has also proved popular, and profitable.

Read the full article and send the link out to anyone who cares about the health issues of women and girls!

Inconvenient Women do not get angry…We get ACTIVE!!

The marketeer/lobbyist/legislator ‘hook-up’ only works if no one is looking. Make sure your representatives know you are watching them and are holding them accountable for the health and wellfare of the nations’ women and girls.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Pap Smear

A Pap smear is a microscopic examination of cells scraped from the cervix that is used to detect cancerous or precancerous conditions of the cervix and other medical conditions. If detected, precancerous conditions can be treated before they become malignant. Between 1975 and 2001 use of the Pap smear is credited with cutting the age adjusted cervical cancer incidence in half, from 14.8 to 7.9 cases per 100,000 women; and with reducing the age adjusted cervical cancer death rate from 5.6 to 2.7 deaths per 100,000 women (1).

In 2002 cervical cancer was the reported cause of death for 4,000 women in the United States (2).

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American

Cancer Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all recommend regular Pap smear screening for cervical cancer, although recommendations vary as to the frequency, timing, risk factors, and age of women to be screened (3–5).

Between 1987 and 2003 the percent of women 18 years of age and over with a Pap smear within the past 3 years increased from 74 percent to 79 percent, with increases occurring among women of all race and ethnic groups (figure 22). However, Pap smear screening rates vary considerably by race and ethnicity. In 2003 non-Hispanic black women had the highest rate of screening, 84 percent.

Both non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white women were considerably more likely to report having a recent Pap smear than Asian and Hispanic women in 2003. Screening rates for both Asian and Hispanic women increased between 1987 and 1993, but have remained fairly stable through 2003. Pap smear screening rates remained lower for Asian and Hispanic women than for non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white women. Several studies have examined barriers to cervical cancer screening for Hispanic and Asian women. Demographic and socioeconomic variables were found to be important predictors of Pap smear screening for Hispanic and Asian women, as they are for the general U.S. population (6). In addition, language and acculturation has been shown to predict Pap smear utilization among Hispanic and Asian women, with more recent immigrants and those with English language barriers, fatalistic views on cancer, and culturally-based embarrassment reporting less frequent receipt of Pap smear (7–9).

Incidence rates of cervical cancer were highest for Hispanic women and rates for black women were also higher than the average for all women (10). Despite their high Pap smear screening rates, black women had the highest death rates from cervical cancer in 1997–2001, 5.6 deaths per 100,000 women. Hispanic women also had cervical cancer death rates higher than that of non-Hispanic white and Asian women. In contrast, both the incidence rate of cervical cancer and the death rate for Asian women—who had the lowest screening level—were in line with the average rates for women of all races and ethnicities combined. The reasons for the higher death rates among black women despite their high screening rates are not fully understood. This higher mortality among black women may be in part due to diagnosis at more advanced cancer stages and lower socioeconomic status (11).

For women in whom precancerous lesions have been detected through Pap smears, the likelihood of survival is nearly 100 percent with appropriate evaluation, treatment, and followup (12).

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and other initiatives help low income, uninsured, and underserved women to obtain access to both screening and follow-up care for cervical cancer.

1. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer

Statistics Review, 1975–2001. Table V-3. National Cancer

Institute. Bethesda, MD. 2004. Available at seer.cancer.gov/csr/

1975_2001/ accessed on January 5, 2005.

2. Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Anderson RN, Scott C. Deaths: Final data for 2002. National vital statistics reports; vol 53 no

5. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2004.

Available at www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf accessed on February 18, 2005.

3. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: Recommendations and rationale. AHRQ pub no

03–515A. January 2003. Agency for Healthcare Research and

Quality. Rockville, MD. Available at www.ahrq.gov/clinic/

3rduspstf/cervicalcan/cervcanrr.htm accessed on January 3,

2005.

4. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, et al. American Cancer

Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 52(6):342–62. 2002.

5. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

ACOG News Release: Revised cervical cancer screening guidelines require reeducation of women and physicians.

Available at:

www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr05–04-04–1.cfm accessed on January 5,

2005.

6. Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, et al. Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: Results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 97(6):1528–40.

2003.

7. Chaudhry S, Fink A, Gelberg L, Brook R. Utilization of

Papanicolaou smears by South Asian women living in the

United States. J Gen Intern Med 18:377–84. 2003.

8. Alba D, Sweningson JM, Chandy C, Hubbell FA. Impact of

English language proficiency on receipt of Pap smears among

Hispanics. J Gen Intern Med 19(9):967–70. 2004.

9. Austin LT, Ahmad F, McNally MJ, Stewart DE. Breast and cervical cancer screening in Hispanic women: A literature review using the health belief model. Women’s Health Issues

12(3):122–8. 2002.

10. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer

Statistics Review, 1975–2001. Table V-7. National Cancer

Institute. Bethesda, MD. 2004. Available at:

seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2001/results_merged/topic_race_ethnicity.pdf accessed on January 6, 2005.

11. Schwartz KL, Crossley-May H, Vigneau, FD, et al. Race, socioeconomic status and stage at diagnosis for five common malignancies. Cancer Causes Control 14:761–6. 2003.

12. Lawson HW, Henson R, recommendations for the early detection of breast and cervical cancer among low-income women. MMWR Recomm Rep. 49(RR-2):37–55. 2000.

Available at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/RR/RR4902.pdf accessed on January 26, 2005.

When quoting from this source, use the following citation:

National Center for Health Statistics

Health, United States, 2005

With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans

Hyattsville, Maryland: 2005

Library of Congress Catalog Number 76–641496

For sale by Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Between 1975 and 2001 use of the Pap smear is credited with cutting the age adjusted cervical cancer incidence in half, from 14.8 to 7.9 cases per 100,000 women; and with reducing the age adjusted cervical cancer death rate from 5.6 to 2.7 deaths per 100,000 women. By 2002, cervical cancer was the reported cause of death of less than 4,000 women in the United States.

— American Cancer Society

Most of those deaths were the direct results of lack of access to preventive health care — in this case, an inexpensive, safe PAP Test. Due to wider access to multilingual health education, and public health clinics the number of cervical cancer deaths continues to decline. MERCK wants billions of dollars for solving a health issue that was well on its way to being eradicated; and in my personal opinion, endangering the lives of our daughters and granddaughters in their rush to make a profit before too many lawsuits forces them to pull the vaccine from the market… the ghost of VIOXX past…

Below is a description of the PAP Test.

Inconvenient Women make informed decisions.

Get educated, form an opinion and act on it.

Silence is for lambs

What is a Pap test?

The Pap test, also called a Pap smear, checks for changes in the cells of your cervix. The cervix is the lower part of the uterus (womb) that opens into the vagina (birth canal). The Pap test can tell if you have an infection, abnormal (unhealthy) cervical cells, or cervical cancer.

Why do I need a Pap test?

A Pap test can save your life. It can find the earliest signs of cervical cancer – a common cancer in women. If caught early, the chance of curing cervical cancer is very high. Pap tests also can find infections and abnormal cervical cells that can turn into cancer cells. Treatment can prevent most cases of cervical cancer from developing.

Getting regular Pap tests is the best thing you can do to prevent cervical cancer. About 13,000 women in America will find out they have cervical cancer this year. And in 2004, 3,500 women died from cervical cancer in the United States.

Do all women need Pap tests?

It is important for all women to have pap tests, along with pelvic exams, as part of their routine health care. You need a Pap test if you are:

• 21 years or older
• under 21 years old and have been sexually active for three years or more

There is no age limit for the Pap test. Even women who have gone through menopause (when a woman’s periods stop) need regular Pap tests.

How often do I need to get a Pap test?

It depends on your age and health history. Talk with your doctor about what is best for you. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends the following:

• If you are younger than 30 years old, you should get a Pap test every year.
• If you are age 30 or older and have had three normal Pap tests for three years in a row, talk to your doctor about spacing out Pap tests to every two or three years.
• If you are ages 65 to 70 and have had at least three normal Pap tests and no abnormal Pap tests in the last 10 years, ask your doctor if you can stop having Pap tests.

You should have a Pap test every year no matter how old you are if:

• You have a weakened immune system because of organ transplant, chemotherapy or steroid use
• Your mother was exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) while pregnant
• You are HIV-positive

Women who are living with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, are at a higher risk of cervical cancer and other cervical diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that all HIV positive women get an initial Pap test, and get re-tested 6 months later. If both Pap tests are normal, then these women can get yearly Pap tests in the future.

Who does not need regular Pap tests?

The only women who do not need regular Pap tests are:

• Women over age 65 who have had a number of normal Pap tests and have been told by their doctors that they don’t need to be tested anymore.
• Women who do not have a cervix and are at low risk for cervical cancer. These women should speak to their doctor before stopping regular Pap tests.

I had a hysterectomy. Do I still need Pap tests?

It depends on the type of hysterectomy (surgery to remove the uterus) you had and your health history. Women who have had a hysterectomy should talk with their doctor about whether they need routine Pap tests.

Usually during a hysterectomy, the cervix is removed with the uterus. This is called a total hysterectomy. Women who have had a total hysterectomy for reasons other than cancer may not need regular Pap tests. Women who have had a total hysterectomy because of abnormal cells or cancer should be tested yearly for vaginal cancer until they have three normal test results. Women who have had only their uterus removed but still have a cervix need regular Pap tests. Even women who have had hysterectomies should see their doctors yearly for pelvic exams.

How can I reduce my chances of getting cervical cancer?

Aside from getting Pap tests, the best way to avoid cervical cancer is by steering clear of the human papilloma virus (HPV). HPV is a major cause of cervical cancer. HPV infection is also one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases (STD). So, a woman boosts her chances of getting cervical cancer if she:

• Starts having sex before age 18
• Has many sex partners
• Has sex partners who have other sex partners
• Has or has had a sexually transmitted disease (STD)

What should I know about human papilloma viruses (HPV)?

Human papilloma viruses are a group of more than 100 different viruses.

• About 40 types of HPV are spread during sex.
• Some types of HPVs can cause cervical cancer when not treated.
• HPV infection is one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases.
• About 75 percent of sexually active people will get HPV sometime in their life.
• Most women with untreated HPV do NOT get cervical cancer.
• Some HPVs cause genital warts but these HPVs do not cause cervical cancer.
• Since HPV rarely causes symptoms, most people don’t know they have the infection.

How would I know if I had human papilloma virus (HPV)?

Most women never know they have HPV. It usually stays hidden and doesn’t cause symptoms like warts. When HPV doesn’t go away on its own, it can cause changes in the cells of the cervix. Pap tests usually find these changes.

How do I prepare for a Pap test?

Many things can cause wrong test results by washing away or hiding abnormal cells of the cervix. So, doctors suggest that for two days before the test you avoid:

• Douching
• Using tampons
• Using vaginal creams, suppositories, and medicines
• Using vaginal deodorant sprays or powders
• Having sex

Should I get a Pap test when I have my period?

No. Doctors suggest you schedule a Pap test when you do not have your period. The best time to be tested is 10 to 20 days after the first day of your last period.

How is a Pap test done?

Your doctor can do a Pap test during a pelvic exam. It is a simple and quick test. While you lie on an exam table, the doctor puts an instrument called a speculum into your vagina, opening it to see the cervix. She will then use a special stick or brush to take a few cells from inside and around the cervix. The cells are placed on a glass slide and sent to a lab for examination. While usually painless, a Pap test is uncomfortable for some women.

When will I get the results of my Pap test?

Usually it takes three weeks to get Pap test results. Most of the time, test results are normal. If the test shows that something might be wrong, your doctor will contact you to schedule more tests. There are many reasons for abnormal Pap test results. It usually does NOT mean you have cancer.

What do abnormal Pap test results mean?

It is scary to hear that your Pap test results are “abnormal.” But abnormal Pap test results usually do NOT mean you have cancer. Most often there is a small problem with the cervix.

Some abnormal cells will turn into cancer. But most of the time, these unhealthy cells will go away on their own. By treating these unhealthy cells, almost all cases of cervical cancer can be prevented. If you have abnormal results, to talk with your doctor about what they mean.

My Pap test was “abnormal,” what happens now?

There are many reasons for “abnormal” Pap test results. If results of the Pap test are unclear or show a small change in the cells of the cervix, your doctor will probably repeat the Pap test.

If the test finds more serious changes in the cells of the cervix, the doctor will suggest more powerful tests. Results of these tests will help your doctor decide on the best treatment. These include:

• Colposcopy: The doctor uses a tool called a colposcope to see the cells of the vagina and cervix in detail.
• Endocervical curettage: The doctor takes a sample of cells from the endocervical canal with a small spoon-shaped tool called a curette.
• Biopsy: The doctor removes a small sample of cervical tissue. The sample is sent to a lab to be studied under a microscope.

The FDA recently approved the LUMA Cervical Imaging System. The doctor uses this device right after a colposcopy. This system can help doctors see areas on the cervix that are likely to contain precancerous cells. The doctor uses this device right after a colposcopy. This system shines a light on the cervix and looks at how different areas of the cervix respond to this light. It gives a score to tiny areas of the cervix. It then makes a color map that helps the doctor decide where to further test the tissue with a biopsy. The colors and patterns on the map help the doctor tell between healthy tissue and tissue that might be diseased.

My Pap test result was a “false positive.” What does this mean?

Pap tests are not always 100 percent correct. False positive and false negative results can happen. This can be upsetting and confusing. A false positive Pap test is when a woman is told she has abnormal cervical cells, but the cells are really normal. If your doctor says your Pap results were a false positive, there is no problem.

A false negative Pap test is when a woman is told her cells are normal, but in fact, there is a problem with the cervical cells that was missed. False negatives delay the discovery and treatment of unhealthy cells of the cervix. But, having regular Pap tests boosts your chances of finding any problems. If abnormal cells are missed at one time, they will probably be found on your next Pap test.

I don’t have health insurance, how can I get a free or low-cost Pap test?

Programs funded by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) offer free or low-cost Pap tests to women in need. These and other programs are available throughout the United States. To find contact information for a program near you, visit the NBCCEDP website at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/ or call 1-888-842-6355 (select option 7). Also, your state or local health department can direct you to places that offer free or low-cost Pap tests.

Planned Parenthood offers low-cost Pap tests as well. To find the Planned Parenthood office in your area, call 1-800-230-7526 or visit their website at: http://www.ppfa.org

For more information . . .

You can find out more about Pap tests by contacting the National Women’s Health Information Center (NWHIC) at 1-800-994-9662 or the following organizations:

Cancer Information Service, NCI, NIH, HHS

Phone Number: (800) 422-6237

Internet Address: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Resource Center

Phone Number: (800) 762-2264 x 192 (for publications requests only)

Internet Address: http://www.acog.org/

American Cancer Society

Phone Number: 1-800-227-2345

Internet Address: http://www.cancer.org

National Cervical Cancer Coalition (NCCC)

Phone Number: (800) 685-5531

Internet Address: http://www.nccc-online.org/

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Phone Number: (800) 230-7526

Internet Address: http://www.ppfa.org

Centers for Disease Control

National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program

Phone Number: (888) 842-6355

Internet Address: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/

All PAP SMEAR (TEST) material contained in the FAQs is free of copyright restrictions, and may be copied, reproduced, or duplicated without permission of the Office on Women’s Health in the Department of Health and Human Services; citation of the sources is appreciated.

This FAQ was reviewed by Edward L. Trimble, MD, MPH

Head, Gynecologic Cancer Therapeutics & Quality of Cancer Care Therapeutics

Clinical Investigations Branch

Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program

Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis

National Cancer Institute

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

In June of 2006, my writing partner, Leslie Botha, and I, started writing articles cautioning women against the use of Gardasil® for girls and young women. We cited the limited nature of the clinical trials (the number, and ages of women tested) and the length of time from the clinical trials and the FDA approval; which in our opinion precluded a reasonable amount of time to follow-up for adverse reaction to the injection.

The RUSH-TO-APPROVAL, combined with MERCK’s, MEGA-Money State and Federal legislative-lobbying efforts, made us very nervous. Anytime a State or Federal agency mandates the use of a vaccine, the manufacturer is essentially, held harmless. That means adverse reaction victims cannot sue them directly. MERCK gets hide behind the shield of the very government agencies WE pay to protect us.

In our articles, Leslie and I cited European researchers who questioned not only the efficacy of the HPV vaccination plan, but the cost effectiveness of what could be one of the largest transfers of public money to private industry in history. With early detection, cervical cancer can be successfully treated; and the best early detection tool is the inexpensive, easily attainable PAP test.

“In developed countries, Pap smear screening and treatment have effectively reduced cervical cancer death rates to very low levels already. There are 3,600 deaths annually from cervical cancer in the United States, 1,000 in France and 400 in Britain.”

Each of those women were mothers, daughters and sisters, and very dear to their families. Most of the deaths were a result of lack of access to preventive medical care. The poor and uninsured can’t get a $30 PAP test, but our public heath officials think its justifiable to mandate BILLIONS of dollars to inoculate young girls with a vaccine that could do more harm than good.

MERCK has sold $1.5 BILLION worth of Gardasil® vaccine in less than two years. Those Gardasil® sales are saving their Vioxx-ravaged balance sheet. How many PAP tests would that amount provide women who have limited, or no, access to preventative care? If the safety of young girls doesn’t make you want to take action and stop this madness, how about cost-effect, use of limited health care resources?

Breast cancer kills hundreds of thousands of women every year…and the numbers are rising. Would 1.5 BILLION dollars be better spent on breast cancer research? We think so.

Spending 1.5 billion on Gardasil®, chasing the ghost of “possible cancer” in the distant future, is not good stewardship of time, talent and treasure — unless you own MERCK stock.

Two years ago Leslie and I sent information to major media outlets, asking that they at least investigate the possibility that HPV vaccines might not be effective or safe for young girls.

We felt like the mythical Cassandra…no one was interested in the news.

To date, there have been 17-deaths and thousands of reported hospitalizations of previously healthy young women and girls. As adverse reactions started to be recorded to the NVIC database, investigative reporters began questioning the HPV vaccine’s safety and cost-effectiveness. Harvard just published a “Follow the Money” report delineating the cost benefit of the mostly, publicly, funded HPV-vaccination initiative.

In the fall of 2006, using published US census data, Leslie and I estimated the number of targeted girls and women (nine to twenty-six year old) and the reported cost of the series of three of the Gardasil® inoculation and estimated the cost to public health budgets. I was sure some bean counter in the bowls of MERCK had preformed the same calculations, with far better resources, when determining the Lobbying budget that got Gardasil® approved.

I wish I could say, we are please to report that with about 20-hrs work, an old calculator and a new MAC laptop we came within a $60K of the Harvard study; but it is actually kind of depressing. All it proves is that we need more inconvenient women, asking more questions, more often, with greater insistence.

Excerpt of Harvard Study

“The vaccines, which require three shots for a complete series, cost about $400 to about $1,000, depending on the country and the fees for doctors’ visits. Unlike older vaccines that save money by preventing costly disease, these vaccines cost health systems money.

The Harvard study concluded that giving the vaccine to 12-year-olds would cost $43,600 for every “quality adjusted year of life” it saved by preventing a cancer death; that price would often be considered acceptable by health officials in wealthy countries, experts say.

But if the vaccine were given to all girls and women up to age 21, the cost per year of life saved would be far higher — $120,400, the Harvard study concluded. And if the vaccines prove to require a booster shot, as many critics believe, that cost rises to $140,000. In such cases it might make more economic sense to rely on Pap smear screening alone, the researchers said.”

Read the full text of following NY Times article.

Email the links to as many women, and health professions as you can.

Inconvenient Women take ACTION!

Click here for the full ELISABETH ROSENTHAL’s NY Times article on Gardasil®, Published: August 20, 2008

“Two vaccines against cervical cancer are being widely used without sufficient evidence about whether they are worth their high cost or even whether they will effectively stop women from getting the disease, two articles in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine conclude.”

“The two vaccines, Gardasil by Merck Sharp & Dohme and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline, target two strains of the virus that together cause an estimated 70 percent of cervical cancers. Gardasil also prevents infection with two other strains that cause some proportion of genital warts. Both vaccines have become quick best sellers since they were licensed two years ago in the United States and Europe, given to tens of millions of girls and women.

“Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer,” Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote in an editorial in Thursday’s issue of The New England Journal. “With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.”

In her article, Dr. Haug points out the vaccines have been studied for a relatively short period — both were licensed in 2006 and have been studied in clinical trails for at most six and a half years. Researchers have not yet demonstrated how long the immunity will last, or whether eliminating some strains of cancer-causing virus will decrease the body’s natural immunity to other strains.

More to the point, because cervical cancer develops only after years of chronic infection with HPV, Dr. Haug said there was not yet absolute proof that protection against these two strains of the virus would ultimately reduce rates of cervical cancer — although in theory it should do so.

Both vaccines target the human papillomavirus, a common sexually transmitted virus that usually causes no symptoms and is cleared by the immune system, but which can in very rare cases become chronic and cause cervical cancer”

For more information read:

The Evidence Gap: Drug Makers’ Push Leads to Cancer Vaccines’ Rise (August 20, 2008)

Send these links out to anyone who cares about the health issues of women and girls!

Inconvenient Women do not get angry…We get ACTIVE!!

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

By Devra Davis, PhD, MPH

Review by Leslie Botha, Holy Hormones Honey!

In a recent interview on CSPAN Davis stated, “For much of its history, the cancer war has been fighting the wrong battles, with the wrong weapons, against the wrong enemies.”

The Secret History of the War on Cancer by Dr. Devra Davis shows, decade by decade, how the campaign has targeted the disease and left off the table the things that cause it—tobacco, alcohol, the workplace, and other environmental hazards. Conceived in explicitly military terms, the effort has focused on defeating an enemy by detecting, treating, and curing disease. Overlooked and suppressed was any consideration of how the world in which we live and work affects whether we get cancer. The result is appalling: over 10 million preventable cancer deaths over the past thirty years.

This has been no accident.

With each page of Davis’ carefully crafted book, readers will become more conscious of the obvious issues that have been ignored or marginalized and appalled by the attitude and actions of America’s medical profession, the American Cancer Society, the petrochemical industry and, “our” government. Many of us concerned with the health and wellness of women and girls knew something just wasn’t right; but Dr. Davis’s book moves us from inkling to awareness.

Filled with compelling personalities and never-before-revealed information. The Secret History of the War on Cancer is the gripping story of a major public health effort diverted and distorted for private gain. It carefully documents how, over time, the “WAR” on Cancer has come to be orchestrated by the leaders of those industries that made cancer-causing products, and who sometimes profited from drugs and technologies for finding and treating the disease.

Davis, driven by the conviction, writes with passion about premature deaths, and preventable illnesses resulting from exposure to industrial toxins and presents a powerful call to action. In the book she proposes a kind of truth-and-reconciliation approach to get industry and public health experts mutually involved; but notes that, based on the continued loss of life, change is simply not happening fast enough.

Among the Findings Described in The Secret History of the War on Cancer

— As early as 1936, the world’s leading cancer scientists understood that tobacco, diagnostic and solar radiation, benzene, and hormones caused cancer. The preparation and conduct of World War II with its focus on immediate survival effectively sidetracked these early findings of cancer hazards.

— Many more young people (those under 40 years of age) are getting cancer. One of the reasons may be the excessive use of x-rays in infants and children, and our failures to reduce exposures to other cancer hazards like those in urban air or agents that can leach from some plastics. Earlier this year, the American College of Radiology advised against unnecessary and excessive use of CT and other forms of diagnostic radiation in children, warning that this will further add to the growing cancer burden in young people today.

— When first reports emerged that coke oven workers had higher rates of lung cancer in the 1970s, some suggested that this was because most of them were black. Not until similar findings showed up in white Mormon workers five years later, was the link between coke oven work and lung cancer established. While one in eight Americans today is black, one in three works in a blue collar job, and one in five lives within two miles of a hazardous waste site. This increased environmental burden has never been considered when trying to understand why rates of prostate, breast, and colo-rectal cancer are so much higher in blacks than whites.

— Davis cited women chemist in Shanghai had a 14% increased incidence of breast cancer; chemists around the world also have a higher rate of cancer – due to poor protection in the laboratory.

— The life-saving test for cervix cancer, called the Pap smear, was not put into use for more than a decade after it was shown to save lives, because of fears that it would undermine the private practice of medicine. These delays led to the deaths or unnecessary surgery of millions of women, who succumbed to an illness that could have been avoided.

— Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease and was concerned about infectious disease. His dying words were; “remember the host; remember the host conditions” – in reference to milkmaids and their carrying infectious germs – without necessarily becoming ill from them.

— Old approach to curing cancer came out of WWII and the poison Gas Therapy

Leukemia – over abundance of white blood cells (weiss blut) chemotherapy was developed as a poison gas to fight the cells and was developed as secret army research.

—New paradigm of treating cancer includes boosting the immune system and the development of extracts from broccoli, chocolate and red wine to fight what many are coming to believe are cancers that are viral in nature.

Concerning Hormones and Cancer…

Davis reintroduces Barbara Seaman’s 1969 book, The Doctors’ Case Against the Pill, which was the basis for the Nelson Pill Hearings on the safety of the combined oral contraceptive pill. As a result of the hearings, a health warning was added to the pill, the first informational insert for any prescription drug. Robert Finch, Secretary of HEW, wrote Seaman “… THE DOCTORS’ CASE AGAINST THE PILL… was a major factor in our strengthening the language in the final warning published in the Federal Register to be included in each package of the Pill.” The dramatic events surrounding the hearings also brought together many soon-to-be prominent health feminists for the first time, and encouraged them to pursue further action. In 1975 Seaman co-founded the National Women’s Health Network with Alice Wolfson, Belita Cowan, Mary Howell, M.D., and Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D. According to Davis – we should have listened to Barbara’s warning thirty years ago. Dr Seaman is now celebrated in the same medical circles that blackballed her then. The government has finally confirmed that her warning about synthetic estrogen was correct.

— Davis cites studies showing HRT raises the risk of breast cancer, blood clots, heart attacks and dementia.

— About HPV …it is a factor in not just cervical cancer, but laryngeal and an anal — however the vaccine has not been fully tested as an agent against infectious disease.

—Questionable HPV Trail Methodology — Less than 20,000 girls between the ages of 15 – 25 were tested, and yet the CDC recommends the vaccine for girls as young as 11 and 12. Davis raised the question of what about the boys? And noted that two of three sexual encounters for teens less than 18 yrs old ARE NOT CONSENTUAL.

What People Are Saying

“A breathtaking, impeccably documented wake-up call for what we should have done and what we must do!”

— Teresa Heinz Kerry, co-author of This Moment on Earth

“With the mastery of a great writer, Devra Davis takes the reader inside the successes, the failures, and the ambiguity of research on cancer.”

— Lorenzo Tomatis, MD, Former Director,

International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization

“The Secret History of the War on Cancer is a masterful combination of scientific insights and investigative journalism. If you want to know why one in three Americans develops cancer, read this book.”

—Mitchell Gaynor, MD, President, Gaynor Integrative Oncology

About the Author

Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H., is the Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Professor of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health. She was appointed by President Clinton to the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board in 1994 and also served as Scholar in Residence at the National Academy of Science. She works in Pittsburgh, and lives in Washington, D.C.

A portion of the profits from this book will go to support research on cancer prevention.

OK! OK! I’ve read it NOW WHAT!

This book is a timely, well-written, and stunning exposé — Share It.

• Request your local library ordered a copy of the book.
• If your local bookstore is not carrying the book, request that they order it.
• Start a reading group based at your local bookstore.
• Request that your local high school and college libraries order the book. If they don’t have the budget, buy it your self and donate the book to the library (Donations are a tax deductible action)
• Buy and send a copy to our congressional representative, and ask what he/she plans to do to stop the uncontrolled use and dumping of toxins into our environment and to protect the health of people who what to work with or around these chemicals and environmental toxins.
• Talk to your friends and family about the book and what it means to their health.

Inconvenient Women do not get Angry — We Get ACTIVE!

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.