Avoiding Smear Test

The usual procedure ena under an evidence backed program, (if you want to test that is) is: do the HPV self test, if it's HPV+ then you'd be offered a pap/smear test. MOST women are HPV- and therefore are not at risk of cc and cannot benefit from a pap/smear test. If you're one of the roughly 5% aged 30 to 60 who are HPV+, then you'll be offered a pap/smear test.

I don't know your age, but you should not do HPV testing until you're 30. (under an evidence backed program there is no smear testing before age 30 either, it doesn't help, but leads to a LOT of excess biopsies and over-treatment)

So doing the test could lead to a dilemma if you don't want to have a pap test/smear test - some women might worry if they don't have a pap test and test HPV+

It's important to think about these tests and where they can lead BEFORE you do them. Best of luck...

Thabks Eliz52. I am 58 years old, and  my last Pap was so painful and traumatic, that I decided not to have them in future.

Do you have any advise concerning HPV test by urine? 

 

Hi Ena

At 58 you're likely to be HPV-...under an evidence based program you'd be offered HPV primary testing or HPV self testing and if your result was HPV- you'd be sent away, no more testing. (HPV and smear testing stops at 60 in the Netherlands and Finland, evidence backed programs)

The urine test is not available as far as I know here in Australia, the women I know who've used a self testing device ordered it from Delphi Bioscience in Singapore. (Delphi Screener) If you're in the UK you could use Tampap or contact Delphi Bioscience in The Netherlands, their head office. If they can post the device from Singapore to Australia, they should be able to post it from Amsterdam to the UK.

Putting post menopausal women through smear testing is just cruel, almost all are HPV- and cannot benefit from the test. False positives are also, more likely in this age group. Yet they continue to block HPV self testing options or to release HPV- women, who are no longer sexually active or confidently monogamous, from further testing.

Hi eliz and thanks again for your reply. Here in Thailand, where I live now, urine test is avialabe as well as Delphi Screener. As for self test kit, I read that when taking a sample, it is important to get it as high as possible in the vagina close to the cervix, so I am frightened that it will be also painful. My pain treshlod is very low. So I would go for urine test. But I am a little bit confused by informations about that kind of tests.

Oh, sorry, didn't realize you're in Thailand.

The Delphi Screener is not painful (so I'm told) one of my colleagues nearly passed out from the pain having her last pap test, she refused to have any more. She had no trouble using the Screener. (she was HPV-)

Now that she knows the evidence, she understands the pap testing was unnecessary, she was put through hell for years for nothing, at least she's informed now and can stand firm in the consult room.

I know some older women are given creams etc. to make the pap test less painful, some are even sedated, it's pure insanity when the woman can self test for HPV easily and reliably and in MOST cases the result will be HPV-

So I'd give the Screener a go, if you can't manage it, you could then try the urine test. 

Thank you so much Eliz.

What a growing number of informed women have a problem with is that women in the UK are not given proper information before this test, therefore it is not informed consent. We are not told about the risks of false positives leading to over treatment (see useful info from Eliz52 here) and the damage this can do. We are not told of the types of cervical cancer this test does NOT pick up. We are told it will reassure us to have it, so much so, that we all believe this, as you have said you do too. This is nonsense. Men are told about the risks and benefits of a PSA test (prostate cancer screening) but this courtesy is not extended to ladies' cancer screening tests - ludicrous. But then our GPs are incentivised/paid to get us to have the smear test, aren't they. Not so with the PSA, they're very quick to put men off having it, because they know it can be unreliable. See Dr Margaret Mcartney's online blog so you can get the full picture and make an informed decision yourself. If, after being informed of the risks and benefits of any screening test, a lady still decides to go ahead with it, then that's up to her, at least it'll be an informed decision, rather than the situation we have now, where the vast majority of us are NOT giving informed consent.

Exactly PharmaSarah, and I'd say that many women are not consenting at all, they've been coerced, pressured or misled into testing.

Interesting too that so many women have "treatment" for CIN when the cancer itself is fairly rare, here in Australia the lifetime risk of referral for colposcopy and biopsy is a huge 77%, while the lifetime risk of cc is 0.65% - we also, "treat" more than 10 times the number of women than a country like Finland. Almost all of these procedures were avoidable if we'd followed the evidence and respected informed consent.

VERY few women benefit from smears, VERY few AND we can identify the fairly small number of women who might benefit from smears, but instead they choose to drag all or most women into testing. 

Our program actually maximizes risk for no additional benefit to women, Finland has offered 7 smear tests since the 1960s, here women are still being told they must have 26 (or even more) smear tests...BAD medical advice.

It's an absolute disgrace...heads should roll.

My anti screening stance has nothing to do with the hpv vaccine. I feel I never gave informed consent prior to stepping onto the screening pathway.No one ever told me the true incidence of Ca cervix or that I could be putting my future fertility at risk had I had rashers sliced off my cervix for CIN lesions that would likely regress on their own. I was lucky,never being referred for colposcopy, my sister was not.The lack of informed consent is my issue,it is disgraceful that it still does not happen.BTW the hpv vaccine is under investigation because young women are presenting with POTS and CRPS following vaccination.

I'm mid 50's and when the NHS cervical screening programme was rolled out in 1989, I knew this cancer was rare, was caused by a sexually transmitted infection, and forced compliance was against any woman's human rights so I declined to test, and this set up a very bad relationship with my GP, culminating in her forcing 2 smears on me against my will during pregnancy related appointments. In the 1990's GPs were incentivised financially to reach an 80% screening target, which many doctors assumed negated the human rights of 80% of female patients. Our bodies were up for grabs, and doctors just a few percentage points short of the 80% target would employ all sorts of unethical tactics to force women to undergo a test, leacing many women fearful they would get no healthcare at all if they didn't comply.

This screening programme became an open door to assaults and rapes throughout the UK, as virgins and unwilling participants are routinely bullied into testing, without understanding the test at all.

This screening programme should be in the dock at the European Court of Human Rights for the abuses it has forced upon British women over the decades. 

The shameful history of this abusive programme is now comi g to light thanks to the internet. Many women have been posting for years about assaults carried out on them, but all have ended up "deleted by the moderator" for fear of others finding out what goes on and not attending their appointments. The NHS and the charities which spread fear and confusion about this test cannot play King Canute for much longer. The truth will out.

Yes I've read about the safety issues of the HPV vaccine. I'm waiting for the outcome before I decide whether to vaccinate my kid. (Though I'd be v surprised if they publicly admit there's a problem.) 

I agree. We didn't vaccinate our girls. The screening authorities are going to be pushing it hard because the uptake in the NZ European population is low. Maybe because we have done our research.

Couldn't agree more, it's the same here in Australia, women are TOLD they must or should screen, the Govt website pays lip service to informed consent, and then lists ways for GPs to get around screening "barriers"...how to increase screening rates - nowhere is it mentioned that screening is a choice and that women can reasonably decline to test. (and don't need to provide a reason)

It's clear from the language they have zero respect for our right to choose. You even see the absurd statement, we want women to make an informed decision TO screen, wrong, informed means making an educated decision to screen or NOT to screen.

We haven't seen the same levels of abuse in the consult room, mainly because we don't yet have a UK style call and recall system, but I fear that's not far away. Many women still receive pressure in the consult room though, and some of our doctors are still "requiring" a pap test before they'll prescribe the Pill. IMO, the latter tactic negates all consent and is a very serious matter. It would be like telling a man he can't have Viagra until he has a colonoscopy and we know that would never happen, and we so often hear that informed consent is important in prostate screening, so why isn't it equally important in women's cancer screening? It says to me the profession and others still view women very differently...like second class citizens.

I have to add as an informed woman, I don't fear the consult room, doctors back off quickly when they realize you're informed. These dirty and unethical (and possibly) illegal tactics only work when women are ignorant of the evidence and their legal rights.

It amazes me though...when our program is so bad, how long they were able to keep the evidence hidden, censorship was very effective and the campaign of misinformation, but...all of that is changing fast, it might be easy to silence one woman, not so easy when there are lots of informed women.

I am just so angry at having been duped. I trusted in the system. Never again will I believe anything coming from the health authorities. I only researched this when I was opportunistically tested 3 years ago! At least I can now protect my girls.Breast cancer screening is also very dodgy,so I won't be risking that either.Sensible lady doing research at the beginning, I wish I had!

finn, don't even think about breast screening until you've read the summary put together by the Nordic Cochrane Institute. (it's on their website)

It's the same approach: give women a screening "story" and use all sorts of insulting, disrespectful and unethical tactics to get us in for screening. Of course, it's harder to force women into a breast screening centre. They'll never reach the target here, numbers are continuing to fall as more women get to the evidence. I've declined to screen...over-diagnosis is a serious risk. IMO, Breast Screen cherry pick research and dismiss anything critical of screening, their job is to protect the program, not women. It's inappropriate (close to culpable at this stage) to push screening using celebrity endorsement, screening could end up taking your life, over-treatment (surgery, chemo and radiation) carry a LOT of risk, including REAL cancer and heart attacks. About 50% of screen detected breast cancers are over-diagnosed, that's horrifying.

I've listened to them lie to women for decades, watched the manipulation, read the misinformation etc., I lost trust a LONG time ago.

I researched breast screening after having 2 false positives.I went because Mum died of breast cancer at 36 and again, I trusted.Now Ii know the truth, I'll take my chances and avoid such a harmful procedure. I am forever grateful to Peter Gotzche,H Gilbert Welch and Prof Baum.The screening authorities are full of BS in my opinion!

I got to the evidence about 7 years ago, just before my first "invitation" arrived, I wouldn't have trusted them anyway, always intended to do my own research. I knew they'd lied to women about cervical screening and knowingly harmed huge numbers, and violated their legal rights, so assumed the same would apply with breast screening...I was right, 100%.

I was lucky enough to hear Peter Gotzsche speak at the Evidence Live Conference in Oxford in 2013, I travelled all the way from Australia to hear him speak. He came to Australia this year but his visit was kept very quiet, obviously the screening program was not happy to have him in the country with his "controversial" views. He did give a lecture on screening but it seems it was only promoted to a small group of people, I heard about it after the event. I did hear him speak about over-diagnosis and over-medication in psychiatry and the risks posed by the influence of big pharma. I saw an article in one of our newspapers, "Danish Professor visits with controversial views on breast screening"...hardly, he's head of NCI and their report was released over a decade ago!

Censorship and mind control is alive and well right here in Australia.

It goes to show the power of these programs and their backers, supporters and beneficiaries....don't rock the boat when people are making millions from screening and harming women! (billions in the States)