[ETWolverine]

A new report just released:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/...cG9ydDIwLXNvbQ--

Report: 20-somethings can go 2 years between Paps

By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard, Ap Medical Writer

WASHINGTON – First mammograms. Now — in an apparent coincidence — Pap smears.

New guidelines by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say most women in their 20s can have a Pap smear every two years instead of annually to catch slow-growing cervical cancer.

The change comes amid a separate debate over when regular mammograms to detect breast cancer should begin. The timing of the Pap guidelines is coincidence, said ACOG, which began reviewing its recommendations in late 2007 and published the update Friday in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The guidelines also say:
_Routine Paps should start at age 21. Previously, ACOG had urged a first Pap either within three years of first sexual intercourse or at age 21.

_Women 30 and older should wait three years between Paps once they've had three consecutive clear tests. Other national guidelines have long recommended the three-year interval; ACOG had previously backed a two- to three-year wait.

_Women with HIV, other immune-weakening conditions or previous cervical abnormalities may need more frequent screening.

Paps can spot pre-cancerous changes in the cervix in time to prevent invasive cancer, and widespread use has halved cervical cancer rates in the U.S. in recent decades. About 11,270 new cases will be diagnosed this year, and about 4,070 women will die from it, according to American Cancer Society estimates. Half of women diagnosed with cervical cancer have never had a Pap, and another 10 percent haven't had one in five years.
Cervical cancer is caused by certain strains of the extremely common sexually transmitted virus called HPV, for human papillomavirus. There is a new HPV vaccine that should cut cervical cancer in the future; ACOG's guidelines say for now vaccinated women should follow the same Pap guidelines as the unvaccinated.

But the updated guidelines reflect better understanding of HPV. Infection is high among sexually active teens and young adults. Women's bodies very often fight off an HPV infection on their own without lasting harm, although it can take a year or two. The younger the woman, the more likely that HPV is going to be transient.

Moreover, ACOG cited studies showing no increased risk of cancer developing in women in their 20s if they extended Pap screening from every year to every two years.

As for adolescents, ACOG said cervical cancer in teens is rare — one or two cases per million 15- to 19-year-olds — while HPV-caused cervical abnormalities usually go away on their own, and unnecessary treatment increases the girls' risk of premature labor years later.

For all the talk about how the term "death panels" is just scare mongering and has no basis in reality, we now have TWO reports that have come out in the same week, both of which suggest LIMITING cancer screenings or preventive medicine.

The first was the mamogram report that said that women shouldn't bother with mamograms under the age of 50 and after 50 should get them every 2 years instead of annually.

In this report, we are being told that women should only get pap smears every two years instead of annually.

Is there anyone who really believes that this is a coincidence?

This is the future of medicine as controlled by your government... official "recommendations" of less preventive care that will become government policy and medical decisions made on the basis of cost and not care.

And for those who say that it won't happen... it's just recommendations, not government policy... I give you NICE, the health care rationing body of the UK... a body which has taken "recommendations" of lower levels of care and turned them into government policy. If it can happen in the UK, what makes anyone think that it won't happen here?

The biggest lie ever told is just 9 words long: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Wake up, people.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

A new report just released:

Report: 20-somethings can go 2 years between Paps - Yahoo! News--


For all the talk about how the term "death panels" is just scare mongering and has no basis in reality, we now have TWO reports that have come out in the same week, both of which suggest LIMITING cancer screenings or preventive medicine.

The first was the mamogram report that said that women shouldn't bother with mamograms under the age of 50 and after 50 should get them every 2 years instead of annually.

In this report, we are being told that women should only get pap smears every two years instead of annually.

Is there anyone who really believes that this is a coincidence?

This is the future of medicine as controled by your government... official "recommendations" of less preventive care that will become government policy and medical decisions made on the basis of cost and not care.

And for those who say that it won't happen... it's just recommendations, not government policy... I give you NICE, the health care rationing body of the UK... a body which has taken "recommendations" of lower levels of care and turned them into government policy. If it can happen in the UK, what makes anyone think that it won't happen here?

The biggest lie ever told is just 9 words long: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Wake up, people.

Elliot

Read the thread you got your info from - you got owned.

Asinine thread.

[excon]

Hello Elliot:

Science isn't something you righty's embrace. You should try it out, though. You might like it.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello Elliot:

Science isn't something you righty's embrace. You should try it out, though. You might like it.

excon

What about the science that said that women should get pap smears every year?

What about the science that said that women should get mamograms every year?

Did that just stop being science? Or do you only accept the science that supports your political positions, no matter how idiotic they are?

Bottom line, whether you agree with the so-called "science" that supposedly supports the idea of women taking LESS care of themselves and doing LESS to protect themselves from cancer or not, there is now a pattern set in place... a pattern of "official" bodies giving "official" recommendations to the public that the government will eventually adopt as a cost cutting measure and use as an excuse to limit the health care you are able to obtain.

If you can't see the pattern, it's only because you don't want to.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Read the thread you got your info from - you got owned.

Asinine thread.

No... YOU have been PWNED... by your own government's health care system, and you can't even recognize it.

Assinine post.

[NeedKarma]

Lol!

[excon]

What about the science that said that women should get pap smears every year?

Hello again, Elliot:

The problem we have when ONE side doesn't understand science (and doesn't want to), and the OTHER side does, is you get some pretty dumb questions...

You see, Elliot, science isn't static. It's dynamic. When I was a kid, science taught me that the Universe didn't change, but we found out it does.

Bummer. We were wrong. I spose we should just heave this science thing over the rails, cause it don't work anyway. Dude!

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

The problem we have when ONE side doesn't understand science (and doesn't want to), and the OTHER side does, is you get some pretty dumb questions...

You see, Elliot, science isn't static. It's dynamic. When I was a kid, science taught me that the Universe didn't change, but we found out it does.

Bummer. We were wrong. I spose we should just heave this science thing over the rails, cause it don't work anyway. Dude!

excon

So, you actually believe that these two reports, both coming out the same week, and both coming out at a time that the government is trying to take over health care, are good science and just simple coincidence?

I've got a really nice bridge to sell you... it connects Brooklyn, to Manhattan...

What science can you possibly imagine that would suggest that women should check for the most common forms of cancer LESS OFTEN?

The underlying support for these reports wasn't "science". It was statistical manipulation and "computer modeling".

If you can possibly show me a single person who was saved from cancer by checking for it LESS often, I'll be happy to hear it.

Elliot

[tomder55]

The Dean of the Harvard Medical School ,Jeffery S.Flier wrote that the proposals for reform will take everything that is bad about the current US system and give patients more of it;and also take everything that is good about the status quo and give people less of it in the future.

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system.

Jeffrey S. Flier: Health 'Reform' Gets a Failing Grade - WSJ.com

“we should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.”

I think that's the goal . Why would they move to debate the bill like the House did and now the Senate will do in a late Saturday night session ? Why would they add millions in costs to buy the La. Senator's vote if the bill stood on it's own merit ?

Want to see the future ?
NICE, has decided that 18,000 pounds is too much to pay for extending a liver cancer patient's life by six months.
Condemned to an early death: Rationing body tells liver cancer victims that life-prolonging drug is 'too costly' | Mail Online

I call that death panels .

[excon]

If you can possibly show me a single person who was saved from cancer by checking for it LESS often, I'll be happy to hear it.

Hello again, Elliot:

So, it doesn't bother you that we waste millions and millions of $$$'s spent on tests that science now tells us are un-necessary??

And, you call yourself a fiscal conservative? Dude!

excon

[NeedKarma]

If you can possibly show me a single person who was saved from cancer by checking for it LESS often, I'll be happy to hear it.

By your thinking you should have a daily colon cancer screening - imagine how safe you'll be!!

[tomder55]

And that of course is an absurdity . ET was referencing to widely held medical practices.

[NeedKarma]

PAP smear, colon cancer screening (colonoscopy), these aren't both "widely held medical practices" in the US?

[tomder55]

I know you aren't that ignorant.. why pretend to be ? Eliot was referring to standard accepted practices that are now being conveniently extended with the goal of cutting costs rather then the general health of the patient.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

So, it doesn't bother you that we waste millions and millions of $$$'s spent on tests that science now tells us are un-necessary????

And, you call yourself a fiscal conservative?? Dude!

excon

That's the point, excon... science hasn't told us that these tests are unnecessary. POLITICS has made that declaration, not science.

[ETWolverine]

By your thinking you should have a daily colon cancer screening - imagine how safe you'll be!!!!!

If anyone though that daily colon screening would be helpful, that would probably be the case. But don't project your personal pleasures on the rest of us.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

But don't project your personal pleasures on the rest of us.

That a few posts of yours that speak of fantasies of rape, homosexuality and pleasures of having things inserted anally. One wonders.

[inthebox]

First Cervical Cancer Screening Delayed Until Age 21 Less Frequent Pap Tests Recommended

"The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence," says Alan G. Waxman, MD, at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque and who headed the document developed by ACOG's Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. "A review of the evidence to date shows that screening at less frequent intervals prevents cervical cancer just as well, has decreased costs, and avoids unnecessary interventions that could be harmful."

It is early.

ACOG actually came out against biennial mamograms

ACOG Statement on Revised US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations On Breast Cancer Screening

Unlike the mamogram recommendation, there has not been an immediate counter opinion from other societies like ACS etc. that I know of.

In addition breast cancer tends to be more aggressive and can spread quicker and farther than cervical cancer, so the interval between testing should be shorter for cancers that are known to be aggressive.

For years this has been the case for prostate cancer in men. PSA screening is very effective, but prostate cancer is generally slow growing so finding the disease early does not really change the natural history of the disease.



G&P

[excon]

Is the pattern becoming clear yet?

Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. You don't like the bill, and everything in it is a death panel. Or, it's a secret commie plot to take over the country...

It's becoming quite clear, thank you very much.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. You don't like the bill, and everything in it is a death panel. Or, it's a secret commie plot to take over the country...

It's becoming quite clear, thank you very much.

excon

Lol! That's about it.