Talk Cancer

Question:

You are such a hopeless liar. You have been cyberstalking for years, using different names, Marla.

If you are referring to the numerous email addresses, Mark Probert or some close variant has been part of the name. If you are referring to the rantings of that sick woman who claims that I am so-and-so, etc. then I cannot refute your fantasy, as there is no way for me to do so. Of course, Iwill not addre4ss anything else, except to note the cheap shot, again, as I have addressed that numerous times, and have wasted my time with you. It is no wonder you can’t see it from others, such as Richard H Jacobson who has a long record of badgering and cyberstalking with his many lies and his transference of his weaknesses to others. That’s why you are in my killfile and back you go, you are a waste of time. Get a life, be a man and quit living off your wife.

See, that is your cheapest shot. I have never made a comment, until today, about your spouse. Sad that you are so blinded by your anti-semetic bigotry and hatred.

Response:

You are such a hopeless liar. You have been cyberstalking for years, using different names, Marla. It is no wonder you can’t see it from others, such as Richard H Jacobson who has a long record of badgering and cyberstalking with his many lies and his transference of his weaknesses to others. That’s why you are in my killfile and back you go, you are a waste of time. Get a life, be a man and quit living off your wife. Jan

Response:

Because you’re a guy….

Not only that glaringly obvious point, but this as well: "It can be uncomfortable; some women find it humiliating and it is true the majority will not benefit," she admits, but, she says, the 42 per cent fall in the mortality rate from cervical cancer since the 1980s shows that for those who do develop cancer, the benefits are very real. "There are approximately 14,000 women alive to day who would not be if they had not had cervical screening. Women need to realise its limitations and not get so incredibly worried when they have an abnormal smear." John missed the point mentioned above. The 14,000 women & the families who love ‘em no doubt feel MUCH differently about the value of regular cervical screening.  Maybe John & others are unaware of the prevalence of HPV & it’s relevance to the occurence of cervical dysplasia & cancer.  The stages of cervical dysplasia aren’t even discussed in the cited piece.  I suppose some people would do anything to avoid the possibility of any worry, any concern about their health — even die. Michele I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.

Response:

Because you’re a guy….

Sexism is not something we just have to accept!!  I want my smear!

Response:

Because you’re a guy…. Sexism is not something we just have to accept!!  I want my smear!

Probably not a problem.  Check the back of your shorts. — Mortimer Schnerd, RN http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Because you’re a guy…. Sexism is not something we just have to accept!!  I want my smear! Probably not a problem.  Check the back of your shorts. — Mortimer Schnerd, RN http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

ROTFLOL!!! Ouch! Jan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Because you’re a guy…. Not only that glaringly obvious point, but this as well: "It can be uncomfortable; some women find it humiliating and it is true the majority will not benefit," she admits, but, she says, the 42 per cent fall in the mortality rate from cervical cancer since the 1980s shows that for those who do develop cancer, the benefits are very real. "There are approximately 14,000 women alive to day who would not be if they had not had cervical screening. Women need to realise its limitations and not get so incredibly worried when they have an abnormal smear." John missed the point mentioned above. The 14,000 women & the families who love ‘em no doubt feel MUCH differently about the value of regular cervical screening.  Maybe John & others are unaware of the prevalence of HPV & it’s relevance to the occurence of cervical dysplasia & cancer.  The stages of cervical dysplasia aren’t even discussed in the cited piece.  I suppose some people would do anything to avoid the possibility of any worry, any concern about their health — even die. Michele I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.

Cancer of the cervix kills more women than any other cancer in undeveloped countries and is in second place world-wide. On the day that a potential vaccine was announced, the anti-vaccination liars started a campaign to prevent women getting the vaccine. John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. — Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light          http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Response:

<snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women.

Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan

Response:

Why I’ll never have another smear test

John, you’re a male. I am surprised to learn that you had a first smear test. The fact is that because of this test, thousands of women were spared cervical cancer. The test is definitely worth it. At least if you think saving lives is worthwhile. Jeff.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan

So I guess you share John’s apparent opinion that women shouldn’t have regular Pap smears.  You agree that regular Pap smears serve no purpose and only serve to raise fears among women;  you agree that there is no utility in early cervical cancer screening? Please educate me if I am wrong in ascribing these opinions to you…you have heretofore given no reason for me to believe otherwise, after all. BTW…does God think cervical cancer is good?  Does God think those who suffer from cervical cancer are somehow getting their just desserts?  I’m just trying to understand your last comments… Mark, MD

Response:

Mark MD has now reached the cyberstalking level. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan So I guess you share John’s apparent opinion that women shouldn’t have regular Pap smears.

That would indeed be a guess, as I said nothing about pap smears, as you can see.   You agree that regular Pap smears serve no purpose and only serve to raise fears among women;  you agree that there is no utility in early cervical cancer screening?

I didn’t agree to anything, I stated exactly the above. Please educate me if I am wrong in ascribing these opinions to you…you have heretofore given no reason for me to believe otherwise, after all.

You need to read for comprehrension and quit guessing. BTW…does God think cervical cancer is good?  Does God think those who suffer from cervical cancer are somehow getting their just desserts?  I’m just trying to understand your last comments… Mark, MD

Sure you are. Have someone explain it to you. John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds.

Jan Rich will be right along with his cyberstalking, unless he is out leading a nudie hike.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan

In Matthew 19:14, Jesus said: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me". (I realise that I could have quoted similar words from Luke 18:16 or Mark 10:14, but Luke was a physician and Mark is a name synonymous with EOM here. Jan would not trust these people.) I would suggest that it is turning your back on God to deny little children the right to a disease-free life and to tell women to avoid action which can prevent cancer. Why should I not hate someone who want to kill women and children? For those who came in late and don’t know what Jan snipped, this thread is about telling women not to get Pap smears. Apparently they are better off dead. — Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light          http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan

Sad that Peter accuses one of such things just because two people have different belief systems. <snip remainer of no remorse and further lies. Jan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan Vaccines Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative I wish for you a good dose of mercury poisoning, peripheral neuropathy and migraine headaches. Jan Jan is showing her love:-)  What was that about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? May God have mercy on Jan’s soul.

WWJD?  What would Jan Do?  Why that sweet Jan Drew would be wishing disabilities on others!  I’m sure Christ is proud of her! Aloha,

Happy Hanukkah! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Rich

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mark MD has now reached the cyberstalking level. <snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan So I guess you share John’s apparent opinion that women shouldn’t have regular Pap smears. That would indeed be a guess, as I said nothing about pap smears, as you can see.

Exactly — you said nothing remotely connected to the subject of PAP smears, whether to disagree or agree w/ John’s POV.  At least Peter offered a possible explanation WRT why somebody would promote the ridiculous idea that regular PAP smears aren’t a good idea. So why not post whether you think PAP smears are to be avoided (as John puts forth) or why you think somebody would promote such nonsense?   You agree that regular Pap smears serve no purpose and only serve to raise fears among women;  you agree that there is no utility in early cervical cancer screening? I didn’t agree to anything, I stated exactly the above.

A reply about PAP smears — pro or con — would be refreshing….. Please educate me if I am wrong in ascribing these opinions to you…you have heretofore given no reason for me to believe otherwise, after all. You need to read for comprehrension and quit guessing.

The thread is about PAP smears.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BTW…does God think cervical cancer is good?  Does God think those who suffer from cervical cancer are somehow getting their just desserts?  I’m just trying to understand your last comments… Mark, MD Sure you are. Have someone explain it to you. John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Jan Rich will be right along with his cyberstalking, unless he is out leading a nudie hike.

Responding to a post isn’t "cyberstalking".  Learn the difference. Michele I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan Sad that Peter accuses one of such things just because two people have different belief systems. <snip remainer of no remorse and further lies. Jan

Like Jew Boys are going to hell because they don’t share your belief system?  Pot?  Kettle? Mark, MD

Response:

Rich will be right along with his cyberstalking, unless he is out leading a nudie hike. Responding to a post isn’t "cyberstalking".  Learn the difference.

I’s rather ironic to note that Jan seems to respond to every post I make, whatever the topic, and often seems to only appear once I have made a contribution. Could that be "cyberstalking"? — Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light          http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan Sad that Peter accuses one of such things just because two people have different belief systems. <snip remainer of no remorse and further lies. Jan Like Jew Boys are going to hell because they don’t share your belief system?  Pot?  Kettle? Mark, MD

No, like these kind of statements. John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women.

No one said anything about Jew boys. No one said anything about going to hell. No one said anything about sharing my belief system. The comments from Peter were absurd. Jan

Response:

Rich will be right along with his cyberstalking, unless he is out leading a nudie hike. Responding to a post isn’t "cyberstalking".  Learn the difference.

The cranky bitch should know Rich’s pattern and he indeed is a cyberstalker and has been long before me. So should Peter. I’s rather ironic to note that Jan seems to respond to every post I make, whatever the topic, and often seems to only appear once I have made a contribution. Could that be "cyberstalking"? — Peter Bowditch

Right back at ya. Jan

Response:

. . .and further lies. Jan

$    KaChing    $26

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. Statements like this are a result of one who has turned his back on God. Rampant hatred abounds. Sad. Jan Sad that Peter accuses one of such things just because two people have different belief systems. <snip remainer of no remorse and further lies. Jan Like Jew Boys are going to hell because they don’t share your belief system?  Pot?  Kettle? Mark, MD No, like these kind of statements. John is just extending his need to kill children to include adult women. No one said anything about Jew boys. No one said anything about going to hell.

No one said anything about sharing my belief system. The comments from Peter were absurd. Jan

No one ? Trying to find the original posting by Jan Drew with his attacks, calling someone "jew boy", I found 2 postings missing in my "Agent" archive file. Seems as if somebody cancelled them before I could download them with "Agent" in those days. I do not know, who is responsible for these postings being cancelled, but I think, that pieces of proof like these should be made public. So, I herewith to public show these 2 pieces of proof, as can be found with Google : <quote Lines: 30 Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you have Fibromyalgia, then you have one of these Syndromes too! LAZY DOCTOR SYNDROME <Snip Perhaps, Bubba, folks who believe they have one of these "syndromes" should see an alternative medical practitioner.  Those so afflicted should consider consulting their yellow pages for an Acupuncturist near them.

Please stay clear of Southern Acupuncture Inc.   I.L.S.A. 1403 Audubon Blvd. #1A Wilmington, NC 910-799-5777 Jan </quote <quote Lines: 54 Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you have Fibromyalgia, then you have one of these Syndromes too! LAZY DOCTOR SYNDROME <Snip Perhaps, Bubba, folks who believe they have one of these "syndromes" should see an alternative medical practitioner.  Those so afflicted should consider consulting their yellow pages for an Acupuncturist near them. Please stay clear of Southern Acupuncture Inc.  I.L.S.A. 1403 Audubon Blvd. #1A Wilmington, NC 910-799-5777 Jan Jan, quit shilling, it is against the MHA 10 Commandments.

Little do you know anything about the *10 Commandments* Jew Boy. Please stay clear of Southern Acupuncture Inc.          I.L.S.A. 1403 Audubon Blvd. #1A Wilmington, NC 910-799-5777 </quote Again, Jan Drew is proven a liar. Regards, Aribert Deckers —                                World Conference               "Health Care Systems: Public and Private Management"                     http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_p0.htm

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rich will be right along with his cyberstalking, unless he is out leading a nudie hike. Responding to a post isn’t "cyberstalking".  Learn the difference. The cranky bitch should know Rich’s pattern and he indeed is a cyberstalker and has been long before me. So should Peter. I’s rather ironic to note that Jan seems to respond to every post I make, whatever the topic, and often seems to only appear once I have made a contribution. Could that be "cyberstalking"? — Peter Bowditch Right back at ya.

Yep. Cyberstalking by jan’s standards.

Response:

Why I’ll never have another smear test New research suggests cervical screening doesn’t work

So says the introduction, whereas the actual text says== "There are approximately 14,000 women alive to day who would not be if they had not had cervical screening. " It does work.  It does save lives.    It is simply a cost-benefit issue, for governments, and also for  the individual.  Included in the costs are adverse effects, mainly anxiety and unnecessary procedures through margnal findings, which apply in any screening procedure.    Someone who has never had unprotected intercourse or more than one sexual partner does have a low risk. In the USA the age adjusted death rates for uterine cancer was 28 per 100,000 person years in 1930 and about a sixth of this (five) in 1998 (NCI figures) which will be partly due to better treatment and partly due to screening for cervical cancer.    This is despite more promiscuity, which is the main risk factor. What is also overlooked is that in those cases that are discovered early the treatment is trivial, whereas hysterectomy is usually necessary in non-screen detected cancers. Peter Moran Peter Moran. . Women need to realise its limitations and not get so incredibly worried when they have an abnormal smear – and could even – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – do more harm than good. Can it really be true? Anna Saybourn thinks so http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,960943,00.html Anna Sayburn Thursday May 22, 2003 The Guardian For the past 15 years, I have obligingly trotted down to the doctors’ every three years, breathed deeply, chatted with the practice nurse and tried to ignore the discomfort as the speculum opens me up for inspection. I have done it because regular cervical screening is what sensible, health-conscious women do. It’s recommended. It’s better to be safe than sorry. Except maybe it isn’t. Last month, the British Medical Journal published research that suggests that I, and millions of other women, may have been wasting our time. In order to save one life from cervical cancer, the research found, 1,000 women would need to be screened for 35 years. Worse, the researchers suggested that testing might do "more harm than good": women born after 1960, they found, have a 40 per cent chance of having a smear test labelled abnormal at some point in their lives – with all the anxiety, investigation and treatment that implies – even though the chances of this leading to cancer are minimal. Michael Baum, emeritus professor of surgery at University College London and a cancer screening expert, calls the research "absolute dynamite. Any intelligent woman reading that would make an informed decision not to go for cervical screening". The paper talks of the anxiety caused to the thousands of women who get borderline or abnormal results every year. Anxiety is the least of it. A friend recently phoned me in floods of tears, to read out her letter from the GP. It said her smear showed "mild dyskariosis". Being an inquisitive type, she had looked it up in the medical dictionary, which told her she had cancer. Mild dyskariosis means small changes to cells, which could, one day, turn malignant. In the vast majority of cases they don’t. According to the BMJ paper, which looks at the 348,419 women screened for cervical cancer in the Bristol area from 1976 to 1996, 156 women in every 1,000 had abnormal results, but only one in a 1,000 showed signs of invasive cancer. Dr Angela Raffle, consultant in public health medicine in Bristol and author of the BMJ paper, began the research because she was struck by how many women were being referred for colposcopy (microscopic examination of the cervix) after abnormal smear test results. "Originally, people thought everybody with an abnormality would go on to get cancer, and we have come round to realising it is just a phenomenon of screening," she says. "Cell changes are very common and all of us have them, and they go away; it is impossible to predict who is going to go on and get cervical cancer." But no one had bothered to tell my friend that. In fact, in 15 years, I don’t remember ever being given any information about cervical screening, the accuracy of the test, the possible results I could receive, or having any explanation of the results when they come through in the post, months after the test. Just pop your knickers off and get up on the couch. There could be a reason for this. Raffle says that the screeners realised in the 1980s that they needed to screen and treat enormous numbers of women in order to make an impact on mortality figures. Most would not have gone on to get cancer – but a very small number would, and it was these women they wanted to catch. If women realised how unlikely it was that they would personally benefit from screening, the screeners might not have got the numbers they needed to reduce cervical cancer deaths. I tell her that my conclusion after reading her paper is to withdraw from the screening programme. Cautiously, she falls back on the "can’t be too careful" argument. "What would I regret most? If I got cancer and I hadn’t been for screening, I would never forgive myself," she says. But my chances of getting cervical cancer are minimal, I say. "Some women would say: ‘I loathe hospitals and I’m very confident in my own health. If I had to go to colposcopy I would regret it.’ Those women are best not coming for screening," she admits. The evidence against the usefulness of universal cervical screening keeps coming. An audit in Leicestershire in May 2001 found that a third of the women who did go on to develop cervical cancer had had normal smear test results. The test – microscopic inspection of a few cells scraped off the cervix – is not very sensitive and can easily miss changes, either because the cells sampled don’t show them or because they arise in the three to five years between screens. Then there are the false positives – the number of women worried and upset by "abnormal" results, which put them straight onto a conveyor belt of annual smear tests or further procedures such as colposcopy and biopsy. For every death prevented, acccording to Raffle’s research, more than 80 women undergo further investigation and more than 50 are treated. But while cervical cytology (examination of the cells taken from the cervix) may be far from perfect, there are others who argue that it is better than nothing. "If somebody suggested in 2003 we [should] introduce cervical cytology, no randomised trial would ever show it was worthwhile," admits Dr Anne Szarewski, clinical consultant for Cancer Research UK. "However, it is impossible to turn the clock back. We haven’t got anything to replace it with. "It can be uncomfortable; some women find it humiliating and it is true the majority will not benefit," she admits, but, she says, the 42 per cent fall in the mortality rate from cervical cancer since the 1980s shows that for those who do develop cancer, the benefits are very real. "There are approximately 14,000 women alive to day who would not be if they had not had cervical screening. Women need to realise its limitations and not get so incredibly worried when they have an abnormal smear." In a letter to the BMJ, Professor Peter Sasieni from the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London, says women should view cervical screening not as a test for cancer, but as "a costly and imperfect insurance policy" against the "catastrophic" but unlikely event of cervical cancer. So it comes down to the level of risk with which we are happy to live. And now that I know my likelihood of an abnormal smear is so much higher than ever having cervical cancer, I think I’ll take my chances until the test improves. What does Michael Baum think of my decision? "You are not being irresponsible or reckless. You are making a serious, thoroughly well-informed choice and I would like to extend that choice to all women," he says. I wonder how long it will take the rest of the medical profession to come round to his point of view.

Response:

Because you’re a guy…. — "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn’t, he’s merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" to email me Please remove "all your clothes" Doug

Response:

Why I’ll never have another smear test New research suggests cervical screening doesn’t work – and could even do more harm than good. Can it really be true? Anna Saybourn thinks so http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,960943,00.html Anna Sayburn Thursday May 22, 2003 The Guardian For the past 15 years, I have obligingly trotted down to the doctors’ every three years, breathed deeply, chatted with the practice nurse and tried to ignore the discomfort as the speculum opens me up for inspection. I have done it because regular cervical screening is what sensible, health-conscious women do. It’s recommended. It’s better to be safe than sorry. Except maybe it isn’t. Last month, the British Medical Journal published research that suggests that I, and millions of other women, may have been wasting our time. In order to save one life from cervical cancer, the research found, 1,000 women would need to be screened for 35 years. Worse, the researchers suggested that testing might do "more harm than good": women born after 1960, they found, have a 40 per cent chance of having a smear test labelled abnormal at some point in their lives – with all the anxiety, investigation and treatment that implies – even though the chances of this leading to cancer are minimal. Michael Baum, emeritus professor of surgery at University College London and a cancer screening expert, calls the research "absolute dynamite. Any intelligent woman reading that would make an informed decision not to go for cervical screening". The paper talks of the anxiety caused to the thousands of women who get borderline or abnormal results every year. Anxiety is the least of it. A friend recently phoned me in floods of tears, to read out her letter from the GP. It said her smear showed "mild dyskariosis". Being an inquisitive type, she had looked it up in the medical dictionary, which told her she had cancer. Mild dyskariosis means small changes to cells, which could, one day, turn malignant. In the vast majority of cases they don’t. According to the BMJ paper, which looks at the 348,419 women screened for cervical cancer in the Bristol area from 1976 to 1996, 156 women in every 1,000 had abnormal results, but only one in a 1,000 showed signs of invasive cancer. Dr Angela Raffle, consultant in public health medicine in Bristol and author of the BMJ paper, began the research because she was struck by how many women were being referred for colposcopy (microscopic examination of the cervix) after abnormal smear test results. "Originally, people thought everybody with an abnormality would go on to get cancer, and we have come round to realising it is just a phenomenon of screening," she says. "Cell changes are very common and all of us have them, and they go away; it is impossible to predict who is going to go on and get cervical cancer." But no one had bothered to tell my friend that. In fact, in 15 years, I don’t remember ever being given any information about cervical screening, the accuracy of the test, the possible results I could receive, or having any explanation of the results when they come through in the post, months after the test. Just pop your knickers off and get up on the couch. There could be a reason for this. Raffle says that the screeners realised in the 1980s that they needed to screen and treat enormous numbers of women in order to make an impact on mortality figures. Most would not have gone on to get cancer – but a very small number would, and it was these women they wanted to catch. If women realised how unlikely it was that they would personally benefit from screening, the screeners might not have got the numbers they needed to reduce cervical cancer deaths. I tell her that my conclusion after reading her paper is to withdraw from the screening programme. Cautiously, she falls back on the "can’t be too careful" argument. "What would I regret most? If I got cancer and I hadn’t been for screening, I would never forgive myself," she says. But my chances of getting cervical cancer are minimal, I say. "Some women would say: ‘I loathe hospitals and I’m very confident in my own health. If I had to go to colposcopy I would regret it.’ Those women are best not coming for screening," she admits. The evidence against the usefulness of universal cervical screening keeps coming. An audit in Leicestershire in May 2001 found that a third of the women who did go on to develop cervical cancer had had normal smear test results. The test – microscopic inspection of a few cells scraped off the cervix – is not very sensitive and can easily miss changes, either because the cells sampled don’t show them or because they arise in the three to five years between screens. Then there are the false positives – the number of women worried and upset by "abnormal" results, which put them straight onto a conveyor belt of annual smear tests or further procedures such as colposcopy and biopsy. For every death prevented, acccording to Raffle’s research, more than 80 women undergo further investigation and more than 50 are treated. But while cervical cytology (examination of the cells taken from the cervix) may be far from perfect, there are others who argue that it is better than nothing. "If somebody suggested in 2003 we [should] introduce cervical cytology, no randomised trial would ever show it was worthwhile," admits Dr Anne Szarewski, clinical consultant for Cancer Research UK. "However, it is impossible to turn the clock back. We haven’t got anything to replace it with. "It can be uncomfortable; some women find it humiliating and it is true the majority will not benefit," she admits, but, she says, the 42 per cent fall in the mortality rate from cervical cancer since the 1980s shows that for those who do develop cancer, the benefits are very real. "There are approximately 14,000 women alive to day who would not be if they had not had cervical screening. Women need to realise its limitations and not get so incredibly worried when they have an abnormal smear." In a letter to the BMJ, Professor Peter Sasieni from the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London, says women should view cervical screening not as a test for cancer, but as "a costly and imperfect insurance policy" against the "catastrophic" but unlikely event of cervical cancer. So it comes down to the level of risk with which we are happy to live. And now that I know my likelihood of an abnormal smear is so much higher than ever having cervical cancer, I think I’ll take my chances until the test improves. What does Michael Baum think of my decision? "You are not being irresponsible or reckless. You are making a serious, thoroughly well-informed choice and I would like to extend that choice to all women," he says. I wonder how long it will take the rest of the medical profession to come round to his point of view.

Response: