The findings from a recent study show that HPV DNA tests are more effective than the Pap smear in detecting pre-cancerous lesions than the Pap smear. The Pap smear is the current primary cervical cancer screening tool and has been for over fifty years. It is a routine screening test that is highly effective in detecting cervical abnormalities. Current research shows, however, that HPV DNA testing is more sensitive than the Pap smear. This could mean more at risk women being identified and earlier detection of precancerous lesions. It could also mean less frequent testing for women.
THE HPV DNA test does not come without flaw. Its hypersensitivity can also cause a higher rate of false positives, which can lead to unnecessary exams and testing. Researchers from the study feel that false-positives are a small price to pay in exchange for better detection of cervical pre-cancers.
The HPV DNA test is currently offered to women, age 30 and over and also to high risk women. The test is done along with a routine Pap smear, but it still not considered a primary screening method. The test is performed just like a Pap smear and identifies the presence of a high risk HPV infection.
While there is speculation that the Pap smear will be replaced by the HPV DNA test, women shouldn't hold their breaths. More studies need to be done before the Pap smear is replaced and even then, it still may be used as a secondary testing method. In the meantime, women should continue to receive regular Pap smears as directed by their physician.
THE HPV DNA test does not come without flaw. Its hypersensitivity can also cause a higher rate of false positives, which can lead to unnecessary exams and testing. Researchers from the study feel that false-positives are a small price to pay in exchange for better detection of cervical pre-cancers.
The HPV DNA test is currently offered to women, age 30 and over and also to high risk women. The test is done along with a routine Pap smear, but it still not considered a primary screening method. The test is performed just like a Pap smear and identifies the presence of a high risk HPV infection.
While there is speculation that the Pap smear will be replaced by the HPV DNA test, women shouldn't hold their breaths. More studies need to be done before the Pap smear is replaced and even then, it still may be used as a secondary testing method. In the meantime, women should continue to receive regular Pap smears as directed by their physician.
According to the CDC and the American Cancer Society (and many others) all HPV, high or low risk, are cleared by the immune system. But from what I have read that can take one to two years.
With over 75% of people getting some type of HPV in their lives, testing for HPV, especially with the higher rates of false positives you report here, will lead to much useless testing and waste of resources.
With a lag time of up to 2 years for someone to rid themselves of the HPV finding the HPV is clearly not an indication extra testing is warranted.
Routine pap smears should continue and actions taken based upon those results.
No testing for HPV should be occuring.
Additionally, I think HPV vaccines are a waste of resources.
My reasoning is as follows.
1. HPV are a common infection nearly always cleared by the immune system.
2. Anyone with a chronic HPV infection must have an immune system problem (nutritional deficiency, toxin-induced, genetic, immunosuppression etc.)
3. Merck reports that cervical cancer is almost always accompanied by a chronic HPV infection.
4. Gardasil provokes an immune reaction to 2 out of 36 types of HPV that “cause” cervical cancer. It does this using inactivated proteins that are part of the virus protein coat.
Though I have yet to see any statistics regarding the type of HPV that have become chronic, I assume it will be one or more of the 38 that are blamed for cancer. (I personally don’t believe that cervical cancer is caused by HPV, but that HPV are evidence of a compromised immune system and that compromised immune system allows the development of cervical cancer.)
For this comment I will assume that cervical cancer is caused by a chronic HPV infection.
If only HPV chronically infected people will get cervical cancer and that chronic infection is due to the immune system being unable to clear the HPV, there is a big problem. How can the vaccine protect against HPV if the immune system is unable to detect or destroy the inactivated proteins?
I don’t believe it can. People whose immune systems are capable of detecting and destroying HPV don’t need the vaccine. People whose immune systems cannot detect or destroy HPV won’t react to Gardasil’s inactivated viral proteins and cannot be protected from a chronic HPV infection, or, ultimately, cervical cancer. These people also do not need the vaccine.
More simply, the vaccine is not needed by people who clear HPV naturally and is useless for people who can become chronically infected with HPV.
Additional problems surrounding this vaccine;
1. Only a small percentage of HPV chronically infected women go on to get lesions or cancer, and a smaller percentage of them die from the cancer that develops. This is not a public health threat for which mandatory vaccinations should be required. A very small percentage of the USA population dies from cervical cancer (.003%). While I know that this number is still around 3-5000, and I am empathetic towards the victims, it is a huge diservice to everyone to vaccinate with a useless vaccine that will end up costing more than all other vaccines combined.
2. The only states that have approved mandatory vaccinations (Texas and Virginia) did so through executive orders from the governors. The Texas legislature revoked the order when it was revealed that Merck was behind some political contributions and the Virginia order is being fought. These are just two examples that Merck is clearly buying influence around the world in an attempt to make mandatory the most expensive vaccine ever created.
3. In June and October 2006 The Jim Lehrer News Hour did 2 interviews with Elizabeth Garner of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who enthusiastically supported Gardasil. Both interviewers (Jeffrey Brown and Margaret Warner) made personal assertions that Garner was free of influence from Merck.
They are not very good reporters or they lied.
The Dana Carver Cancer Institute made significant contributions to the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Merck made significant contributions to the Dana Carver Institue.
To make matters MUCH worse Garner is now Merck’s worldwide spokesperson for Gardasil.
4. Merck was a major sponsor in April 2006 for a PBS special on drugs and vaccines in a world threatened by many illnesses (RX for Survival). This was a 2-hour special which featured a significant advertisement for Merck. Shame Shame on PBS, now truly a corporate partner instead of the bastion of objective truth we expect it to be.
harb45 test test544343
5b56ad38fd5f4365fd43c446f29121c6 18587-fd60d20ff65e7e3dde47d794a94b902e
this diseas is very bad need a liitle help with it though
dsfsdfs67877 test test