Study: Cervical precancerous test claims 90 % accuracy

[WhiteTara]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/22/content_10094053.htm
LONDON, Sept. 22 (Xinhua) -- A study published on Monday in Lancet Oncology shows that a new cervical cancer test by QIAGEN, leader in molecular diagnostics, has a 90 percent success rate in identifying women with precancerous cervical disease.

The report by You-lin Qiao and his colleagues undertook the screening test in Shanxi province in Northern China, proved to be far more effective than the current method (visual inspection) used in poor countries.

The Netherlands-based QIAGEN has developed an affordable HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) DNA test specifically for women in developing regions of the world.

The test, which can be run in areas without reliable electricity supplies (on battery power) and without clean water, is the fruit of a public-private partnership between QIAGEN and PATH (Program for Appropriate Technologies in Health), and its development was partly funded by the Gates Foundation.

snip

As vaccines have their limitations, screening is the best hope, especially for women aged 20 and above, it said.

edited to repair cut and paste miss

[mhatrw]

1. Good news! n/t

[iheartmulletz]

2. I believe that the answer to all dis-ease is to be proactive

I believe that I have a huge part in creating or avoiding dis-ease. I do not think I am a sitting duck and that it is a random, chaotic event to "get" cancer. I also think that cancer is heart disease is pnemonia is arthritis is the common cold. Throwing out the very small percentage of inherited dis-eases or tendencies (vulnerabilities), I believe that our lifestyle choices dictate if we are well or not. Have you ever heard of a walk for lung cancer? No, because it is well-understood that the vast majority of lung cancer cases occur in smokers or former smokers (about 10% are from non-smokers, but there could be environmental factors). Because there is a strong link of cause-and-effect, people don't view lung cancer as unavoidable, yet they see colon cancer in such a light! Google 'natural hygiene' to understand the philosophy of making food our medicine (to say nothing of sunlight).

[trotsky]

3. That sounds disturbingly like blaming the victim for being sick.

I.e., they just didn't try hard enough NOT to get sick.

Cancer happens. People who never smoked, never drank, ate well, and got plenty of exercise have gotten cancer. Yes, there are things you can do to minimize your risks but you will never eliminate them - and it's NOT your (or anyone else's) fault.

BTW, regarding walks for lung cancer:
http://www.bostonlungcancerwalk.com/
http://www.walkforlungcancer.org/1.html
http://www.kintera.org/faf/home/default.asp?ievent=272062
http://www.lungevity.org/content/?section=370&subcat2=420&page=420
http://lastheplace.com/2007/11/19/2nd-annual-la-lung-cancer-walk/

[iheartmulletz]

4. You misunderstand me; I am simply for empowering each of us!

I ackowledged that there are inherent causes (although some of the unknown cases could be from some environmental toxin).

I have had two people in my life diagnosed with lung cancer; one died. He was a heavy smoker who shunned the sun (denial is so common with addiction). Even though he obviously caused his illness, I never 'blamed' him for it. I also never lectured him about smoking because he was a big boy and knew the deal. I grieved long and hard for him. But I believe in cause and effect. Doctors don't do patients any favors by acting like everything is out of our control and we just have to focus on the pathology. No! Focus on what CAUSES the pathology. Educate yourself on proper habits. Linda McCartney was a vegetarian and still developed breast cancer. I get that. But I also believe that even emotions can contribute to immune health. The alternative: a diet of drugs, denatured foods (including lots of animal products), and a sedentary life are not how I intend to live.

[trotsky]

5. Nope, I'm pretty sure I understand you perfectly.

This post only clarified it.

[iheartmulletz]

6. It's not my intention of changing your mind; I simply wanted to state an alternative view

I thought this would be the right place to do it. Please don't prove me wrong...

Did you know that the USA and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow drug commercials? When I watch the national news in the evening and the morning network shows, I am struck by the sheer bombardment of the pharmaceutical industry. I used to work in a natural foods stores where we sold all those herbs and other supplements. In order to determine if it was okay for a person to take a certain herb, I would ask if they were on any meds. I had one elderly woman who was on 11 different med! 11! If that isn't evil, then I don't know what is. And if you choose to go in the direction of taking a pill for everything that ails you, then that is your complete choice. But I will NEVER allow myself to get into that racket, nor will I take that cervical cancer vaccine (or any other vaccine, for that matter), which has sickened women.

[trotsky]

7. Oh, you're perfectly welcome to state an alternative view...

but don't be shocked when your view is challenged. This is a forum, open to debate. If you don't want to have your cozy little worldview challenged, donate to DU so you can post in a Group - those are off-limits for dissent.

I had one elderly woman who was on 11 different med! 11! If that isn't evil, then I don't know what is.

Nope, you don't know what evil is. You clearly aren't able to see past your black-and-white mindset. Just keep in mind that a thousand years ago, before there was any pollution, before there was any evil medicine, before there was smoking or sedentary lifestyles, or any of that, and when everyone ate natural, unprocessed food, the average lifespan was about 30 years.

[iheartmulletz]

8. I am not afraid of debate; I welcome it. You just seemed a little on the defensive

Why, I am not sure. Perhaps you worship at the altar of the drug companies, or work for them? Whatever, but I believe that people are living longer because food is readily available. Think of what people used to have to do just to eat for the day! In any case, it's not about living; it's about thriving. Who wants to live if you feel like shit, have no zest for life, cannot move (and used to be able to)?

Drugs come in handy in emergency situations. Hell, when I get menstrual cramps, I take Naproxen (Aleve). You betcha! I have never had kids, but I feel like I am in labor at that time! But that is ALL I take and the less the better. I know damn well that damage would be done to my body if I took meds day in and day out.

[trotsky]

9. That's a shame.

Stooping to such a low attack. But then, people who espouse your kind of view usually don't have much to support their argument, so you resort to accusing others of being drug company shills. And you call me defensive? Pot, meet kettle.

[iheartmulletz]

10. I didn't accuse, I wondered aloud

And this will be my final statement on this to you: go for it! If it makes you feel better, then by all means...I will say one thing about antidepressants, however. I know someone who was taking them for a long time. Eventually they "wore off" or stopped working, that is. Find out about David Foster Wallace, the author and professor, who had the same thing happen to him. He is no longer with us, God rest his soul.

Drugs cannot cure; they mask. And sometimes masking is important because of an acute situation. However, if you have gastric reflux and don't address the situation, you face all kinds of OTHER problems as a result, not to mention a worsening of your original complaint. The cause is always TOXINS. Colds? Body is too toxic? Cancer? The same. People, in their ignorance, run to the doctor when they have a bad cold (even though antibiotics are not for viruses) and the doc will give them a shot. The very symptoms that vex them: runny nose, fever, sneezing are the body's attempt of getting rid of excess mucus. But they take meds (over the counter) to suppress the symptoms. And then they usually feel "better," even though it is only temporary. I should know; I used to get horrible colds that would last for weeks and respiratory infections. I also had bronchial pneumonia once. I now go to bed when I am sick and either fast or eat lots of raw foods (especially fruits), avoid dairy (mucus-forming), and I get better quicker and no complications! It was nice chatting with you and good luck.

[trotsky]

11. Why is it all-or-none?

Isn't there a middle ground? Can't someone point out the holes in your screed without being accused of wanting to force people to pop 20 pills a day? Isn't it possible to recognize the vital role that exercise and diet play while ALSO acknowledging there are plenty of legitimate drugs out there that extend our lives and enhance its quality? Why are you stuck in black-and-white, either-or thinking?

The cause is always TOXINS.

No, the cause is not always toxins. Your belief to the contrary demonstrates your lack of knowledge on this topic and will hopefully keep most rational people from accepting what you have to say.

[iheartmulletz]

13. Um...did you read where I said I take Naproxen every month?

It isn't either/or, but it sure as hell should be hopefully never or as few as possible.

If you are talking about HIV or AIDS, then you may have a point, although I would sure as hell find out about alternatives before taking that cocktail every day. I am simply referring to the people who start on one drug, then have to take another to deal with the side effects the first, and so on and so on. You know, like that shampoo commercial from the '70s.

I have a friend who told me she was pre-diabetic. I saw she was eating Wonder Bread (refined carbs), soda (refined sugar), coffee (affects blood sugar) and told her about it. Of course, she refused to listen. Fast forward a few months and she had diabetes and was on 4 DRUGS! OMG! It has no effect on me whether she gets diabetes or not. I just wanted to give her another viewpoint since we treat doctors like God.

[trotsky]

18. But that's the thing - you don't even realize you're granting exceptions.

For everyone else, taking drugs is a sign of weakness and unwillingness to address their own condition. Your friend's condition is indeed sad, but it in no way shows drugs are unnecessary. Lots of people are born with diabetes - do you blame them, too?

[iheartmulletz]

25. I said in my first post that there are some INHERENT illnesses

but with Type 2 diabetes, it used to be called "Adult-onset diabetes" and in recent years has been found in younger and younger children. In some communities (Blacks and Hispanics), it is at very high levels. Not addressing diet choices is insane.

I am not trying to put down other people for using meds and neglect my own use; that's why I mentioned my monthly intake. But I wanted to put forth a view where we don't automatically reach for meds without considering other behaviors. A perfect example are blood thinners. I know people who, when offered grapefruit or its juice, will say: "Oh, no, I can't. I take a blood thinner." But these same people never think: "Hey, if grapefruit thins the blood, maybe I should just eat grapfruit instead of taking a frigging pill!" D'oh!

[trotsky]

26. And now all you have left is strawmen.

Not addressing diet choices is insane.

WHO has ever said we should ignore the role of diet? Can you name ONE doctor who advocates this? Can you even find ONE post in this forum that says such?

I am not trying to put down other people for using meds and neglect my own use

Yes indeed you are. Your use of a painkiller is OK, but others "choose(s) to go in the direction of taking a pill for everything that ails you." A double standard at best.

But I wanted to put forth a view where we don't automatically reach for meds without considering other behaviors.

And again I challenge you - point me out a medical professional who says diet *shouldn't* be a consideration. You seem to be tilting at this fictional windmill, fighting foes (doctors) who aren't really there!

"Hey, if grapefruit thins the blood, maybe I should just eat grapfruit instead of taking a frigging pill!"

Maybe if you understood a bit about why some people are on blood thinners, and that it's not always because their doctor forced them onto it, or because they aren't making the proper dietary or activity decisions, AND also understood exactly what about grapefruit can interfere with medications, you'd be a little less likely to start bashing people who don't make the "right" decisions according to you. What's it like on that high horse?

[iheartmulletz]

29. Regarding grapefruit: it makes meds more potent

Why? Because, that's right, folks, IT THINS THE BLOOD!

As I stated before, go for the meds. It's no skin off my nose. Just realize that it IS possible that the cure is worse than the so-called dis-ease. And that may require yet another med to offset the med just taken, until it's a never-ending vicious circle.

Methinks we are a doctor? And if not, don't start wigging on me and accusing me of jumping to conclusions. Toodles!

[trotsky]

30. Epic fail.

You failed to answer my challenge of your strawman - naming ANY doctor, or even providing ONE post in this forum indicating that diet isn't an important part of health. Obviously you know as well as I do, that's because it IS a strawman. No one holds the position you are arguing against. Can't you just admit you were exaggerating?

You failed to acknowledge your double standard, instead choosing to once again mischaracterize someone with a different opinion than yours as "go(ing) for the meds." Which of course is another strawman. Pathetic.

And finally, you failed miserably in the area of medical knowledge - grapefruit is not dangerous because it thins the blood, it's dangerous because it increases the permeability of the gut for certain kinds of medication. My goodness, as if it wasn't obvious before that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, you certainly made that point crystal clear now.

One final BTW - it's one word: disease. No hyphen.

[iheartmulletz]

34. That's the way you (and your Western medical brethren) spell it, Dollface

Not me. Because it ultimately is a lack of ease of some type. An imbalance, if you will.

Okay, let me parrot the party line: gee whiz, we have no idea how illness occurs! Cause and effect? What is that? We are poor little victims and are helpless except for those saviors: physicians and drug company execs! Let me pop pills and enjoy my extended, wonderful life! Yay!

I have to agree with you about grapefruit's effects. I hear from friends and family who take meds and are warned things regarding interactions and I should have double-checked my example because it was actually regarding garlic and blood-thinners. And I am posting a link where they caution the patient not to take a garlic supplement if they are taking Warfarin, I believe, never seeming to get that maybe the person could lose the pill and just take the garlic!

http://www.healthcastle.com/garlic-heart.shtml

[trotsky]

35. Glad to see you got the granite cookie you were hankering for.

Buh-bye, "dollface."

[chicagomd]

12. "Drugs cannot cure; they mask"

Really?

So what exactly do antibiotics do?

[iheartmulletz]

14. Antibiotics kill everything in sight (bacterial infections)

They don't discriminate between good bacteria and bad, which is why they are not used as often anymore. Too many women were winding up with nasty yeast infections or other problems. But if you have read all my posts, I have said there is a definite place for drugs and that includes antibiotics! Just not for colds, for the love of God!

[trotsky]

15. You didn't answer the question.

Antibiotics do indeed take out good bacteria. But they also help CURE infections that are overwhelming the body's defenses. In other words, antibiotics stand out as a glaring counter-example to your wild claim that drugs only mask, never cure.

[iheartmulletz]

16. Sorry, but I disagree...

What do people take antibiotics for? Infections, right? But even if you get rid of the infection, if a person has such a lowered immune system to pick up any little thing, illness will manifest itself in another way in the body. It's like the person who goes through chemo, shrinks/eliminated the tumor and it 'comes back' at a later date. Maybe it's in a different part of the body, maybe it's not even cancer anymore, but the root cause, the toxic lifestyle/body hasn't been dealt with. And food-bourne illness is just an acute situation, so it should have an emergency response like antibiotics. But you aren't cured if you get another illness in its wake, LOL

[trotsky]

17. Antibiotics have cured several infections for me, and my children.

And we never got "another illness in its wake."

Your point is disproven - is it really that hard to just admit you were exaggerating?

[cosmik debris]

19. She's using the preemptive "Post Hoc" Argument.

Antibiotics cure the infection you have now, but they won't cure the infection that you are going to get later because you cured the first infection.

I never saw that one coming.

Hmmmm.

[iheartmulletz]

23. Hey, enjoy the "cure"

It doesn't affect me--I am not in the natural foods industry, nor in any industry that needs to down Western medicine. But the fact that more and more people are eschewing antibiotics for their kids is enough evidence that they didn't like the side effects. Even for ear infections, pediatricians are now saying that if you just let it run its course, it will go away on its own.

I never made a black and white statement, but people are so reactive to any criticism of meds that THEY exaggerate!

[LeftishBrit]

22. You get infections because you're exposed to them..

and your immune system can have something to do with whether you get them; but there are also limits to what you can do to boost your immune system.

I agree that taking antibiotics every time you have a cold is a bad idea. I take antibiotics on average about once every 3 or 4 years; certainly not for every sniffle. Firstly, they don't work for viruses, and secondly overuse can encourage the development of drug-resistant bacteria. But as you say, sometimes they are necessary. And there is in any case a difference between not taking antibiotics for every minor illness, and regarding illness as mainly a matter of lifestyle.

[LeftishBrit]

21. I really object to the idea that everyone who has a different view from yours must 'worship at the

altar of the drug companies, or work for them'!

That is really the health equivalent of saying that those who don't support the Patriot Act and the War on Terra must want the terrorists to win!

And who is saying that those who don't think that lifestyle is the main factor in whether we get cancer must support taking 'meds day in and day out'? Taking meds won't prevent cancer either.

[iheartmulletz]

24. I have a feeling you didn't follow the thread and just jumped into this thing

My initial response was to someone who was so thrilled that there is now prescreening for a type of cancer (God, is it ovarian? I can't recall) and what I object to is the mentality that taking charge of one's health is screening for illness. I couldn't disagree more. I believe that all you are doing is finding something out AFTER THE FACT! I don't want to get cancer, ergo, I am going to research all methods of avoiding it in the first damn place. I am not interested in spotting something after it's already there! That is not where I want to put my energy but to each his own...

[LeftishBrit]

27. Well, it's up to you; but screening is one of the best ways of ensuring that you survive cancer if

you do get it.

It's actually cervical cancer here (I wish it included ovarian as well - that would be a huge breakthrough); and in the case of cervical cancer, it's often possible with regular screening to detect abnormalities BEFORE they turn into cancer; and thus indeed to prevent cancer from developing.

The recommendations in Britain with regard to cervical cancer are to practice safe sex AND to get the Gardasil vaccination (if you're young enough for this to be appropriate) AND to get regular Pap tests. As with many forms of cancer, it also helps if you don't smoke. IMO it's a good idea to combine as many ways as possible of protecting health - it's not either/or; one can multitask.

In developing countries, the expense and logistics of getting regular Pap tests has meant that many women do not get early screening for cervical cancer and precancer; and as a result, the disease is much commoner, and has a higher mortality, than in developed countries. If there is a cheaper and simpler test available, that could save lots of lives worldwide.

[iheartmulletz]

28. I appreciate your info, but have you heard the latest about Gardisil?

I would never, ever take it in a million years. I don't believe in vaccines and this one has made women sick. What is even more vile to me is that they initially marketed it to Blacks and then the next commercial featured mostly Whites. It would appear that BP didn't take the bait so they switched their focus.

I am not interested in getting screened, even though I am in my early 40s. I declared to a doctor recently (I had to take the physical) that I am not worried about breast cancer. The medical community has recently determined that mammograms are not effective tools for detection. I think it's because there are benign masses so often. I think the whole thing is a racket and I don't trust these medical people as far as I can throw them.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Well, it's your body...

and you shouldn't have to have any treatment that you don't want; but I will fight for my own and other people's right to have access to treatments.

Do you not believe in ANY vaccines? Vaccines have saved huge numbers of people from serious diseases. With regard to Gardasil, I have followed the controversy, and would still recommend it for anyone of appropriate age (I am too old for it to be really effective apparently); but I do recognize the concern that it could give people a false sense of security if it's not made clear to them that they *also* need the Pap smears. But there seems absolutely no doubt that screening does help to prevent death from cervical cancer - why have the death rates gone down dramatically in countries where regular screening has been introduced?

[varkam]

31. Hoo boy.

[Dorian Gray]

37. How is being on 11 different meds EVIL?

I actually agree with you on approaching your health holistically. I think that it's great to be well versed in vitamins, nutrients, herbal supplements and the like.

But some people get ill and medicine is the only thing that will help them. I currently take three different presciptions (Pre-natal Vitamins, Folic Acid and Allergy pills). I mean, three prescriptions might sound shocking, but when you learn what they are and that they are necessary for my health and well being... not so shocking.

[LeftishBrit]

20. While lifestyle is important, it is not the only factor...

A lot of people get cancer and other diseases despite very healthy lifestyles. There is a certain amount that we can do to reduce the chances of getting cancer (don't smoke; eat healthily; take reasonable sun precautions); but a lot is still random.

[varkam]

32. You're wrong, LB.

It's all up to you whether or not you get sick.

:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

36. I Believe That "90% Success Rate" Is A Meaningless Term

For example, if we have a test that always results in a positive, then it will, in fact, be positive on 100% of the women who later get cancer. And also positive for all the ones who don't get cancer. It would be of zero utility.

The things to look at are sensitivity (what percentage of the time does it detect women who do go on to get cancer), and specificity (the percentage of positives that turn out to actually develop cancer). Those two together define the goodness of a test.