This is a great way to see the posts right in your calendar. It’s easy to do.

Just add http://iconicwoman.com/?ical as an external iCal calendar to whatever calendar application you are using.

In Google Calendar, for example, go to ‘Add’ and then ‘Add by URL’, and then just add http://iconicwoman.com/?ical to the input box and hit Enter! And it’s done!

If you want to only show posts from a specific category, then add &category= to the end of the URL, with the category’s name at the end. An example would be http://iconicwoman.com/?ical&category=Gardasil

Enjoy!

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Left, right, or independent — yesterday’s election was a paradigm shift of tectonic proportion. Millions of women joined together, gave time, talent and treasure and changed the out come of thousands of local, state and national elections.

The millions of women who cast their votes yesterday did so under the hard-won ‘Grace’ of great grandmothers, grandmothers, and mothers who fought, were ridiculed, arrested imprisoned, intimidated with physical and emotional violence and still did not quit.

Generations of Inconvenient Women won our “Right” to vote. It was not ‘given’ to us.

Inconvenient Women do not accept imposed limitations or demeaning treatment!

We take action! Deal with the consequences, and continue to take action until our issues are recognized, and condition improved.

Over the past several years, I have spoken to and corresponded with women who feel that we don’t have the power to mitigate the influence of the Medical / Pharmaceutical industrial complex. Some feel that we will NEVER be able to reform the FDA, and get fair access to holistic health care that recognizes that women are not just small men. Some women have told us that we can’t change a system that is “medicalizing” every aspect of a women’s natural cycle.

Yes We Can…

For over thirty years my writing partner, Leslie Carol Botha, has worked tirelessly to give women access to menstrual health education. She has fought for a woman’s right to know and understand the perfection of her reproductive cycle. She struggled to bring this information to girls and women, through her writing, her classes, her Internet radio program and her website, Holy Hormones, Honey!

Is change coming fast enough? No!

Is change coming? Yes!

To paraphrase Napoleon Hill, “What ever the mind of women can perceive, she can achieve!”

If you have any doubts, read the Women’s eNew historical perspective piece included in this Blog.

Yes We Have…

By Louise Bernikow

WeNews historian

Nov. 7, 1871: New York women, determined to vote, confront election officials.

(WOMENSENEWS)–Victoria Woodhull and her sister, Tennie Clafin, truly maverick spiritualists, stockbrokers, publishers and political activists, always commanded public attention. When they called the press to their apartment on Election Day, 1871, reporters responded and listened as the sisters and 10 other women announced that they were about to become the first women to vote in the city of New York.

“Unterrified, indomitable,” one reporter wrote, “each determined female unsheathed her parasol and swore to vote.”

At the crowded polling place, the inspectors refused the women’s ballots. Woodhull demanded to know if it was “a crime to be a woman” and began reading aloud from the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, to no avail. The group left to begin work on a lawsuit that they hoped would become a test case against the government for preventing legitimate citizens from casting ballots.

The action was neither spontaneous, nor unique to the flamboyant Woodhull. Confronting election officials was part of a new national strategy. Since the first convention for women’s rights in 1848, an organized and growing movement had tried petitions and speeches, legal arguments, lobbying and withholding tax revenues, without success.

Now they leaped on the language of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments, particularly these words from the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside.” The new tactic was to announce that women were citizens and already entitled to the vote.

In April 1871, women in Washington, D.C., including Belva Lockwood–the first female attorney to argue before the Supreme Court and, in 1884, a candidate for the presidency herself–had attempted to register and tried to cast ballots. After being barred, they filed cases at the District of Columbia Supreme Court against the Board of Registration and the election judges. While Woodhull was marching to the New York City polls, Matilda Joslyn Gage was confronting local registrars in upstate New York.

And in Rochester, N.Y., Susan B. Anthony was organizing for another assault, which would take place a year later. In 1872, while Victoria Woodhull was audaciously campaigning for the office of president, Anthony also read out the words of the 14th Amendment at her local polling place. She and 14 other women were rejected, but Anthony would stand trial for trying to vote. Hers would become, while not exactly the test case the women with Woodhull and Lockwood hoped for, a media and legal spectacle that brought women’s citizenship claims even more intensely to the nation’s attention.

Louise Bernikow is the author of seven books and numerous magazine articles.

She travels to campuses and community groups with a lecture and slide show about activism called “The Shoulders We Stand On: Women as Agents of Change.” She can be reached at louise@womensenews.org.

Reprinted with the kind permission of Women’s eNews.

Women’s eNewswelcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.

©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.

The Environmental Protection Agency is poised to rule that it will not set a drinking-water safety standard for perchlorate. This component of rocket fuel has been linked to thyroid problems in pregnant women, newborns and young children across the nation.

The story broke last week in a number of major newspapers; but was pushed to the back pages by the looming “debt-bomb” about to dropped on the taxpayers in the name of friendly fire from our elected representatives. No one in good conscious could refer to anyone in Washington, of any political stripe, as “leaders”, but that is another story for another day.

The EPA’s “preliminary regulatory determination” estimates that up to 16.6 million Americans are exposed to perchlorate at a level many scientists consider unsafe. Independent researchers, using federal and state data, have put the number at 20 million to 40 million.

Most perchlorate contamination in U.S. drinking water is the result of improper disposal by rocket test sites, military bases and chemical plants. A nationwide cleanup could cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, and several defense contractors have threatened to sue the Defense Department to help pay for it if one is required. The Government Accountability Office reported this spring that the Pentagon had pressured the EPA for several years not to regulate perchlorate.

“They have distorted the science to such an extent that they can justify not regulating” the chemical, said Robert Zoeller, a University of Massachusetts professor who specializes in thyroid hormone and brain development and has a copy of the EPA proposal. “Infants and children will continue to be damaged, and that damage is significant.”

Zoeller said scientific studies have shown that a small reduction in thyroid function in infants can translate into a loss of IQ and an increase in behavioral and perception problems. “It’s absolutely irreversible,” he said. “Even small changes in thyroid functions early on have impacts on functioning through high school and even into people’s 20s.”

According to a Washington Post article, OMB officials deleted any references to those studies in the EPA’s proposal.

The current EPA document states that establishing a drinking-water standard for perchlorate “would not present a ‘meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems,’ ” but it also reveals that many Americans will be exposed to the compound at levels higher than recommended if nothing is done to remove it. Perchlorate impedes the functioning of the thyroid gland, which produces hormones that foster mental and physical development and control metabolism. The notice indicates that the agency plans to finalize its decision by December 1st, 2008.

In response to the “dust-up” over the preliminary report, the EPA’s assistant administrator for water, Benjamin H. Grumbles, stated; “Science, not the politics of fear in an election year, will drive our final decision.”

“Until then, final numbers and strategies are mere speculation,” Grumbles added. “We know perchlorate in drinking water presents some degree of risk and we’re committed to working with states and scientists to ensure public health is protected and meaningful opportunities for reducing risk are fully considered.”

In January 2002, the EPA issued a draft risk assessment finding that 1 part per billion should be considered safe; in March 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection set a maximum contaminant level of 2 ppb; last year, California adopted a standard of 6 ppb.

A National Academy of Sciences panel prepared a risk analysis in 2005 that, according to the EPA’s traditional models, would produce a protective standard of 1 to 6 ppb. The academy’s study came under attack because two of the committee’s members had financial ties to defense contractors that face legal liability because of perchlorate disposal.

The EPA’s proposed ruling assumes that perchlorate contamination of 15 ppb is safe. But its regulatory document states that “between 16,000 and 28,000 pregnant women” and 900,000 to 2 million Americans could be exposed to higher levels.

The EPA document also finds that bottle-fed infants would be exposed to more than five times the level the National Academy of Sciences deemed safe — 700 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day — if parents mix formula with drinking water containing perchlorate levels of 15 ppb.

OMB officials said during the drafting process that there was “no need” for detailed data to flesh out a table suggesting that infants would be exposed to perchlorate levels above the academy’s recommendation.

To determine safe levels of exposure, the OBM opted not to use the academy’s “reference dose,” a formula that includes a tenfold safety factor to protect children and vulnerable populations, and instead used a computer model developed by the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology. EPA officials initially inserted language in the document calling this a “novel approach,” but the OMB deleted that language.

Federal officials have yet to determine the extent of perchlorate contamination nationwide, but it is known to be widespread. The GAO, which produced a 2005 report calling for a better federal tracking system for perchlorate, found that limited EPA data show the chemical compound has polluted the soil, groundwater and drinking water in 35 states and the District and has contaminated 153 public water systems in 26 states.

Stay tuned, and don’t drink the water, or swallow the Kool-Aid.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

But 55-percent of all strokes and 60-percent of stroke deaths occur in women.

About 100,000 women die annually of stroke, 40,000 more than the number of men who die from it. The fact that risk goes up with age and women live longer account for a large portion of that difference.

Strokes can affect younger women as well, including after childbirth when the blood is more likely to clot — probably an evolutionary adaptation so new mothers don’t bleed to death, says Dr. David Sherman, chief of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center.

And for women who have migraine headaches — about 18 percent of women do — and those who smoke and take oral contraceptives, there is more risk of stroke.

Twice as many women die from stroke every year than from breast cancer

That is why I’ve posted the following Harvard Medical report. LEARN the early warning signs of stroke. Inconvenient Women know their bodies and are proactive about their health. For more information go to ‘Stoke Facts In America‘

		September 23, 2008

3 warning signs of stroke You know the signs of a stroke. Or do you? You’d probably recognize the classic symptoms, such as sudden weakness on one side of the body or blurred vision, but often the signs are much less obvious. A crushing headache may come on without warning. Your face may feel numb. You may have inexplicable trouble speaking or following what people say. How to tell when someone’s having a stroke Crooked smile. Have the person smile or show his or her teeth. If one side doesn’t move as well as the other or seems to droop, that could be sign of a stroke. Arm drift. Have the person close his or her eyes and hold his or her arms straight out in front for about 10 seconds. If one arm does not move, or one arm winds up drifting down more than the other, they may be having a stroke. Slurred speech. Have the person say, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” or some other simple, familiar saying. If the person slurs the words, gets some words wrong, or is unable to speak, that could be sign of a stroke. Knowing all the warning signs of a stroke may one day save your life and well-being. That’s because the faster you recognize the symptoms, the sooner you can get medical help. And prompt treatment is the key to shielding your brain from a stroke’s damage and sparing you serious disabilities such as paralysis, speech impairment, and dementia. Every 45 seconds, someone in the United States has a stroke. Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States and other industrial countries, trailing only heart disease and cancer. In the United States, about 700,000 people have a stroke each year. If you have a stroke, the risk of dying from it increases with age: 88% of deaths from stroke are in people 65 and older. About two-thirds of people who have a stroke have some resulting disability and require rehabilitation. The odds of having a stroke more than double for each decade after age 55. Two-thirds of strokes involve people over 65. Men and women are about equally likely to have a stroke, but women have a greater risk of dying from one. Race is another risk factor. African-Americans, for example, are almost twice as likely to suffer a stroke as are whites. Although you can’t change your age or race, you can take steps to reduce other risk factors for stroke, especially ischemic stroke. The most common risk factors for both ischemic stroke and TIAs (transient ischemic attacks, or “mini strokes”) are high blood pressure (hypertension), diabetes, unhealthy cholesterol levels, and obesity. All of these factors affect the health of your blood vessels — increasing the risk not only of stroke, but also of heart disease. That’s why medications and other steps you take to reduce the risk of an ischemic stroke will also benefit your heart. Some types of hemorrhagic strokes are more likely to occur in people with chronic high blood pressure. But other types of hemorrhagic strokes seemingly strike out of the blue. Although abnormal blood vessel conditions such as an aneurysm (a bubble in the blood vessel wall that could rupture) or an arteriovenous malformation (an abnormal tangle of blood vessels) increase the risk, these conditions may only be discovered inadvertently while you are undergoing testing for something else or may not be discovered until a stroke occurs. Fortunately, medicine has made considerable strides in understanding how to treat and prevent strokes. Medical imaging devices now enable medical teams to begin to diagnose a stroke accurately within minutes. Large studies have clarified which medications and other treatments are best for which patients. For those who need rehabilitation, experimental techniques are showing promise in helping patients make better progress than was possible even just a few years ago.

FEATURED CONTENT: What is a stroke? How the brain works Subtypes and causes of stroke Diagnosing a stroke Treating ischemic stroke Treating hemorrhagic stroke Stroke rehabilitation Preventing stroke Reprinted from Stroke: Preventing and treating “brain attack” — A Special Health Report from Harvard Medical School, Copyright © 2008 by Harvard University. All rights reserved.

** Get your copy of Stroke: Preventing and treating “brain attack” Stroke: Preventing and treating “brain attack” provides up-to-the-minute information about stroke symptoms, diagnosis, stroke treatment, and rehabilitation. This report discusses stroke prevention and common signs of stroke. It also contains helpful illustrations, an extensive glossary, and an informative resource guide. Click here to read more or buy online. To order online, click one of the following links: Purchase printed version ($18.00) Purchase electronic download (PDF) ($18.00) Purchase print + electronic download (PDF) ($26.00) Or to order by mail, print and mail the order form below:

Harvard Medical School offers special reports on over 50 health topics. Visit our Web site at http://www.health.harvard.edu to find reports of interest to you and your family. Copyright 2008 by Harvard University.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

On this page:

• Genetic Engineering
• Benefits of GE Animals
• GE Animals Regulated Under New Animal Drug Provisions

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is inviting the public to comment on draft guidance that discusses FDA’s approach to regulating genetically engineered (GE) animals.

Although the guidance, released Sept. 18, 2008, is aimed at industry, FDA believes it may also help the public gain a better understanding of this important and developing area. The guidance explains the process by which FDA is regulating GE animals.

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is a process in which scientists use recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology to introduce desirable traits into an organism. DNA is the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms. Scientists use rDNA techniques to manipulate DNA molecules.

Genetic engineering involves producing and introducing a piece of DNA (the rDNA construct) into an organism so new or changed traits can be given to that organism. The rDNA construct can either come from another existing organism, or be synthesized in a laboratory. Although conventional breeding methods have been used for a long time to select for desirable traits in animals, genetic engineering is a much more targeted and powerful method of actually introducing specific desirable traits into animals.

Genetic engineering is not a new technology. It has been widely used in agriculture, for example, to make crops like corn and soy resistant to pests or tolerant to herbicides. In medicine, genetic engineering is used to develop microbes that can produce pharmaceuticals. And in food, genetic engineering is used to produce enzymes that aid in baking, brewing, and cheese making.

back to top

Benefits of GE Animals

GE animals hold great promise for human and animal health, the environment, and agriculture.

• Health protection of animals – Animals are under development to be more resistant to very painful and harmful diseases, such as infection of the udder (mastitis) in dairy cows and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (widely referred to as “mad cow” disease) in all cattle.
• New source of medicines – Animals can be engineered to produce particular substances, such as human antibodies, to make infection-fighting drugs for people. These “biopharm” animals can change the way we treat chronic diseases, such as bleeding disorders, by providing large quantities of safe, health-restoring proteins that previously were available only from human cadavers.
• Transplantation – Pigs are being engineered so that their cells, tissues, or organs could be transplanted into humans with a reduced risk of immune rejection.
• Less environmental impact – Food animals are being engineered to grow more quickly, require less feed, or leave behind less environmentally damaging waste.
• Healthier food – Food animals, such as pigs, are under development to contain increased levels of omega-3 fatty acids, providing a more healthful product. Livestock can also be engineered to provide leaner meat or more milk.

back to top

GE Animals Regulated Under New Animal Drug Provisions

FDA regulates GE animals under the new animal drug provisions of the law, and the agency must approve them before they are allowed on the market. Food and animal feed from GE animals will undergo FDA review before the food or feed can be marketed. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines a drug as “an article (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” Therefore, the rDNA construct intended to change the structure or function of the body of the GE animal is a drug.

FDA may exercise “enforcement discretion” over some GE animals, based on their potential risk and on a case-by-case basis. This means that the agency may not require premarket approval for a low-risk animal. For example, the agency is not requiring premarket approval for GE lab animals used for research, and did not require approval of a GE aquarium fish that glows in the dark. FDA does not expect to exercise enforcement discretion for animal species traditionally consumed as food.

This guidance will help industry comply with FDA’s requirements and will help the public understand FDA’s oversight of GE animals and food from such animals.

This article appears on FDA’s Consumer Health Information Web page (www.fda.gov/consumer), which features the latest updates on FDA-regulated products. Sign up for free e-mail subscriptions at www.fda.gov/consumer/consumerenews.html.

back to top

For More Information

FDA welcomes comments on its 25-page draft guidance document at www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or www.regulations.gov. Once on this Internet site, select Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0394 and follow the directions. All written comments should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0394. The comment period runs for 60 days and closes Nov. 18, 2008.

FDA has developed a number of publications to help inform consumers about the technology of GE animals and the agency’s regulation of these animals. Please visit www.fda.gov/cvm/GEAnimals.htm.

back to top

Date Posted: September 18, 2008Science

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

By JARED A. FAVOLE

WSJ.com, September 5, 2008 8:07 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration on Friday unveiled a report listing 20 drugs that the agency is investigating for potential side effects, as part of a new policy to warn patients and health-care professionals as early as possible.

The list includes a wide array of drugs, from Eli Lilly & Co.’s antidepressant Cymbalta to Purdue Pharma LP’s painkiller Oxycontin. It also addresses a range of adverse reactions, including cardiac arrest, cancer and Purple Glove Syndrome, which can result in patients having their arms amputated. (See the FDA’s list of drugs that are under investigation.)

The FDA has already sent out warnings about a handful of the drugs on the list. The report lists TNF blockers — such as Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade — as being potentially associated with cancer in children. In June, the FDA said it was investigating the possible link. TNF blockers target a compound known as tumor necrosis factor, which is overproduced in many patients with inflammatory diseases like arthritis and Crohn’s.

But there appear to be new ones, too. The report lists Biogen Idec Inc. and Elan Corp.’s multiple-sclerosis treatment Tysabri as potentially being associated with skin cancer. Medical journals have reported cases of melanoma in patients taking Tysabri, but the FDA hasn’t previously said it was investigating the drug for this side effect.

The list, which the FDA will start issuing quarterly, is aimed at giving consumers and health-care professionals early indications of what the FDA is investigating, but it might end up creating more confusion. Indeed, the agency is concerned “that people will stop taking a drug inappropriately” because it is on the list, said Paul Seligman, associate director of safety policy at the agency.

The FDA said it alerted companies whose drugs appeared on the list prior to it being made public — several companies said they received word late Thursday — and intends to give drug makers a heads-up in the future as well.

Drug makers said they support the FDA’s additional efforts to be transparent about drug safety, but some expressed concern that the information was being communicated to patients without context and wondered about what patients might do with the information.

“It is very, very important that patients and their physicians understand the benefits and the risks of the drug. To speak about one without the other could have an impact on patient perception of their medications,” said Tony Jewell, a spokesman for AstraZeneca PLC, whose psychiatric medication Seroquel made the list for the possible safety concern of overdose due to confusing sample-pack labeling.

Companies also cautioned that just because a drug is posted on the site doesn’t mean a causal relationship has been identified, and it is also risky if patients go off their medications without consulting a physician.

The FDA’s intention is for patients and doctors to use the list to be aware of potential adverse events and to encourage them to report any problems. The list doesn’t represent a comprehensive list of drugs the FDA is investigating, the FDA’s Mr. Seligman said.

The report is generated from the agency’s adverse-event-reporting database. That compilation consists of voluntary reports from patients and health-care professionals, and is widely considered to capture only a fraction of the actual adverse events associated with any given drug.

Mr. Seligman said the FDA is hopeful the quarterly reports will encourage people to report adverse events.

Write to Jared A. Favole at jared.favole@dowjones.com

©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.

I was doing some research for a fiend whose child had just been “diagnosed” Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by a school nurse who suggested drug therapy. My first thought was a Kindergarten version of ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’…dazed and compliant preschoolers.

In the past decade, ADHD, ”Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a neurobehavioral developmental disorder has become one of the most commonly diagnosed conditions of childhood, and is being increasingly diagnosed in adults. ADHD is characterized by a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity, as well as forgetfulness, poor impulse control or impulsivity, and distractibility. The pharmaceutical medical industrial complex currently considers ADHD a “persistent and chronic condition for which no medical cure is available. Methods of treatment usually involve some combination of medications, behavior modifications, life style changes, and counseling. (BTW side effects aside, MEDICAL TREATMENT is spelled with two-cha-chings!)

So how do most ‘school nurses’, Physicians’ assistants and doctors come up with the very common ADHD diagnosis? Most medical professions use the “Desk Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria From DSM-IV-TR®”, compiled by American Psychiatric Association. Available in a spiral-bound book, and online accessible by computer, or PDA, the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV-TR® is one of the most commonly used tools used by Physicians and other “prescribing” health care professions. Another ‘tool’, Desk Reference (PDR), which includes every prescription drug package insert. The guides serve as ‘medical cliff notes’, listing symptoms, probably diagnosis, suggested drug protocols, prescription drug side effect information and possible drug interactions.

Guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend medications like CONCERTA® among first-line therapies for children with ADHD as part of a comprehensive treatment program. Go to the CONCERTA® website(1), READ the SIDE EFFECTS.

What rational person would suggest a little kid’s developing brain be put at risk, to assure social compliance? I knew there had to be a better way to deal with “the fidgets” so I did what Inconvenient Women do best, I looked stuff up, and sent the results out to a few thousand of my closets friends.

In September of 2007, William Atkins did a brillant, if little noted, piece on hyperactivity in children. I found it on IWIRE one of my favorite obscure resource sources. For the full article go to: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14399/1066/

Study links hyper kids with artificial preservatives and colorings

Sodium benzoate and other food preservatives and colorings have been linked with hyperactivity in children. Although such ingredients have been thought in the past to produce adverse behavior in children, this study is considered the first scientific evidence of its kind.

The British study from researchers at the University of Southampton, England, has found that the food preservative sodium benzoate (also called benzoate of soda, with chemical formula C₆H₅COONa), when found with food dyes and colorings, can increase hyperactive behavior in children. Jim Stevenson, psychologist at the University of Southampton, and lead researcher of the study states, “We now have clear evidence that mixtures of certain food colors and benzoate preservative can adversely influence the behavior of children. We have now shown that for a large group of children in the general population, consumption of certain mixtures of artificial food colors and benzoate preservative can influence their hyperactive behavior.”

Food colorings and preservatives–which are often found in sweets such as ice cream, candy, and soda, what children love to eat–were studied. For six weeks over one hundred fifty randomly three-year-olds and over one hundred forty randomly eight-year-olds, in Southampton, England, were studied as to their diet.

The children displayed behaviors previous to the study ranging from normal to hyperactive.

They were provided food that was free of additives. Each day they were given one drink, either fruit juice or one of two mixtures of sodium benzoate preservative and food colorings. One mixture contained sodium benzoate and sunset yellow, tartrazine, carmoisine, and ponceau. The other mixture contained sunset yellow quinoline yellow, carmoisine, and allura red. They were not told which they were given, the fruit juice or one of the two mixtures.

The children who were given the benzoate preservative and food coloring mixtures showed, in some cases, more hyperactive behavior than the children given fruit juice. However, the increases in hyperactive behavior were not consistent between the two mixtures. The researchers contend that the hyperactive behavior may be linked to sodium benzoate and one or more of the specific artificial colorings, rather than to all of the colorings.

The U.S.$1.5 million study was funded by the British Food Standards Agency (FSA) and written up on September 6, 2007, in the journal The Lancet.

From the website of the Food Standards Agency comes this advise, “Parents of children showing signs of hyperactivity are being advised that cutting certain artificial colours from their diets might have some beneficial effects. The colours – Sunset yellow (E110), Quinoline yellow (E104), Carmoisine (E122), Allura red (E129), Tartrazine (E102) Ponceau 4R (E124), and Sodium benzonate (E211) – were studied as part of new FSA-commissioned research.”

Within the Friday, September 7, 2007, FSA article “Agency revises advice on certain artificial colours”, Andrew Wadge, the FSA’s Chief Scientist, said: “This study is a helpful additional contribution to our knowledge of the possible effects of artificial food colours on children’s behaviour.”

“After considering the COT’s [Committee on Toxicity (COT)] opinion on the research findings we have revised our advice to consumers: if a child shows signs of hyperactivity or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) then eliminating the colours used in the Southampton study from their diet might have some beneficial effects.”

“However, we need to remember that there are many factors associated with hyperactive behaviour in children. These are thought to include genetic factors, being born prematurely, or environment and upbringing.”

“The Agency has shared these research findings with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is currently conducting a review of the safety of all food colours that are approved for use in the European Union, at the request of the European Commission. This review is being undertaken because of the amount of time that has elapsed since these colours were first evaluated.”

“If parents are concerned about any additives they should remember that, by law, food additives must be listed on the label so they can make the choice to avoid the product if they want to.”

[William Atkins' note: When buying foods, always LOOK at the labels. What you don’t read may hurt you and your loved ones when you consume such foods.]

Inconvenient Women take action. If you know a mom who is drugging their child at the suggestion of a school nurse or family doctor, ask her to take this or other nutritional research to them and at least try to change their child’s diet before resorting to the BIG PHARM option.

If the child is a little girl, get her to a female pediatrician, specializing in precocious puberty. Girls as young as four and five years old are experiencing what their moms dealt with at twelve and thirteen. (See precocious puberty in IconicWoman article archive and go to: http://www.HolyHormones.com)

Explore every option before “medicating” compliant behavior.

(1) CONCERTA® and OROS® are registered trademarks of ALZA Corporation

This site and its contents are intended for USA audiences only.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.