fucking ignorant assholes
3:59 p.m. x 2003-11-09
I am seriously pissed off. I'm outraged. I'm fuming. I'm hoping and praying that nobody that gets the email I got, which I'm about to attach, listens to it.
Here it is:
Annual Pap Test Not Needed for Low-Risk Women
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Provided that the last three Pap smears were normal, a woman probably doesn't need to be tested for cervical cancer on a yearly basis, new research suggests.
Women with consistently normal smears can be safely screened every three years, the authors of an article in The New England Journal of Medicine indicate.
Citing a lack of evidence that annual Pap screening improves cervical cancer outcomes, several medical groups have issued guidelines recommending intervals of three years. Still, many doctors have been reluctant to abandon annual screening, perhaps out of fear that longer intervals will miss some cancer cases.
To determine the extra risk associated with less frequent screening, Dr. George F. Sawaya, from the University of California at San Francisco, and colleagues entered data from nearly 1 million women into a statistical model of how cervical cancer typically develops.
Among women with three or more normal Pap tests, screening on a yearly basis for three years would find cervical cancer in no more than 2 women among 100,000 screened. By comparison, if screening was performed every three years instead, cervical cancer would be detected in up to 5 in 100,000 women. Thus, the extra risk from performing less frequent screening is very, very small.
Moreover, annual screening adds considerably to the cost, Sawaya's team estimates. For example, screening 100,000 low-risk women, between 30 and 44 years of age, annually rather than every 3 years could result in nearly 70,000 extra Pap tests and almost 4,000 colposcopic examinations.
"Our findings provide reassurance to women and their healthcare providers that extending the intervals between screenings to three years after three or more consecutive negative Pap tests is a safe option," the researchers state.
In a related editorial, Dr. Sarah Feldman, from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, warns that although suitable for many women, it would be unwise to lengthen the screening interval in women in higher risk categories, such as those with abnormal Pap test results, or in women that do not comply with screening recommendations.
SOURCE: The New England Journal of Medicine, October 16, 2003.
Yes, I fell way below the age of thirty that they mentioned, but I'm always fairly healthy. Sure I get colds and flu but nothing super serious. Well, except for this.
I started getting paps done when I was seventeen. I went every year and sometimes early, just because it seemed like the thing to do, but I never figured I'd come up with an abnormal test, til I was 21 (my 4th year of paps but the 5th one I had done because I had 2 done when I was 18). I was at work, standing behind the balloon counter and I here "Carla, phone call on line one." So I answer it thinking it was Ron or something and I get the news that my pap came back abnormal and I needed a biopsy. I had stage three pre-cervical cancer. That means that it was the stage right before cancer. What if I had heard advice like the above? I had 3 years worth of normal paps behind me. I had gotten 4 before that one. I wasn't apparently at risk, according to this shit, but if I had listened to something like this, I'd be dead right now.
No Kimberley.
No me writing in this diary.
No mother for my two older children.
Dead.
If anyone is considering this information, or your doctor recommends this line of treatment, refuse. You never know when you might be the one that has the bad cells.