banie01 Registered User
#1,471

Graces7 said:


The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic! Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.


I have never in all my time on Boards wanted to attack a poster more!
Your intransigence and myopic understanding of what screening is intended to be, could quite easily earn me my 1st ban.

I would respectfully suggest that you research and then try and actually understand what the goals and limitations of any medical screening program are. There is a reason screening programs are continuous and it is to ensure that where possible a false positve/negative on screen is picked up on the following screen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230552/

Start there, even a limited screening program saves a health service an order of magnitude more in costs than it would spend in treating late stage diagnosis.
Let alone the lives saved by the early identification and ablation of cancerous or pre-cancerous cells in just cervical cancer cases.

19 people have thanked this post
ProfessorPlum Registered User
#1,472

Graces7 said:


The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic! Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.


Really?? Is that what you think I’m saying?

Jesus wept.

4 people have thanked this post
kunst nugget Registered User
#1,473

Graces7 said:


The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic! Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.


After all the press coverage that has been about the Cervical Check and all the information that has been put out there in relation to screening, how can you be this clueless?

3 people have thanked this post
Call me Al Registered User
#1,474

Graces7 said:


The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic! Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.

How on earth have you gone from plum's saying that it doesn't pick up all cases to saying that's he or she is implying that it's a useless and costly exercise? Which it isn't.
And I'm quite sure the 1000s of women in this country who have had abnormal smears, many if not most as a direct result of HPV, through the Cervical Check process would say it may very well have saved their lives.
The trick is trying to get that other proportion of women who don't participate in the screening to be more proactive about their health.
And where possible to get the HPV vaccine before its too late.

10 people have thanked this post
alaimacerc Registered User
#1,475

Graces7 said:


The old " if correctly challenged, accuse of ignorance" tactic!


There might be a reason you're seeing what you purport to take as this "tactic" so much.

Screening then a useless and costly exercise is what you are saying.. which we already knew .... as I said.


Graces7 is a handy distillation of why we can't have nice things. Especially in the health service. If it's not perfect, scream the house down and wreck it. Losing the demonstrable good that it did do.

11 people have thanked this post
Srameen Registered User
#1,476

banie01 said:
I have never in all my time on Boards wanted to attack a poster more!
Your intransigence and myopic understanding of what screening is intended to be, could quite easily earn me my 1st ban.

I would respectfully suggest that you research and then try and actually understand what the goals and limitations of any medical screening program are. There is a reason screening programs are continuous and it is to ensure that where possible a false positve/negative on screen is picked up on the following screen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230552/

Start there, even a limited screening program saves a health service an order of magnitude more in costs than it would spend in treating late stage diagnosis.
Let alone the lives saved by the early identification and ablation of cancerous or pre-cancerous cells in just cervical cancer cases.


Not worth the annoyance.

Unfortunately there are people who will trawl the Internet for the one piece of bad science that agrees with their viewpoint. They'll make blanket statements but won't engage in an actual discussion based on facts.
Thank goodness we have screening. Thank goodness we have vaccinations. What we now need is more of both. It's a clear fact that thousands of lives have been saved by vaccines. Screening saved two lives in my own family.

7 people have thanked this post
Igotadose Registered User
#1,477

Srameen said:
Not worth the annoyance.

Unfortunately there are people who will trawl the Internet for the one piece of bad science that agrees with their viewpoint. They'll make blanket statements but won't engage in an actual discussion based on facts.
Thank goodness we have screening. Thank goodness we have vaccinations. What we now need is more of both. It's a clear fact that thousands of lives have been saved by vaccines. Screening saved two lives in my own family.


Vaccines do more than save lives. They save you from living with horrible disabilities. They save children from going through the hell of childhood diseases.

2 people have thanked this post
Graces7 Registered User
#1,478

alaimacerc said:
There might be a reason you're seeing what you purport to take as "tactic" so much.


Graces7 is a handy distillation of why we can't have nice things. Especially in the health service. If it's not perfect, scream the house down and wreck it. Losing the demonstrable good that it did do.


I have reported this post as a personal attack. I challenge yes and the way you respond? as a seriously vaccine damaged person of course I challenge.

Attacking like this? Cuts too near the bone?

Graces7 Registered User
#1,479

Igotadose said:
Vaccines do more than save lives. They save you from living with horrible disabilities. They save children from going through the hell of childhood diseases.


and sometimes they do serious damage. You need to face THAT reality please.

Over and out as you are clearly refusing to have any civilised discussion. I have never made personal insults against you so why take this tack?

Over and out...more challenging vaccines than ever.

VinLieger Registered User
#1,480

Graces7 said:
and sometimes they do serious damage.



No they don't.

5 people have thanked this post
kunst nugget Registered User
#1,481

Graces7 said:
I have reported this post as a personal attack. I challenge yes and the way you respond? as a seriously vaccine damaged person of course I challenge.

Attacking like this? Cuts too near the bone?


How did vaccines seriously damage you?

1 person has thanked this post
ancapailldorcha Moderator
#1,482

kunst nugget said:
How did vaccines seriously damage you?


I wouldn't bother asking to be honest. Graces7 has a tendency to make wildly fanciful claims and then leave.

12 people have thanked this post
kunst nugget Registered User
#1,483

ancapailldorcha said:
I wouldn't bother asking to be honest. Graces7 has a tendency to make wildly fanciful claims and then leave.


I was just curious... I don't know if she mentioned it on this thread before and with nearly 1,500 posts on it, I'm not arsed going through it.

Igotadose Registered User
#1,484

kunst nugget said:
I was just curious... I don't know if she mentioned it on this thread before and with nearly 1,500 posts on it, I'm not arsed going through it.


No she hasn't, have been on this thread awhile.
Plus she did say 'over and out' so hopefully she won't be back.

1 person has thanked this post
ancapailldorcha Moderator
#1,485

kunst nugget said:
I was just curious... I don't know if she mentioned it on this thread before and with nearly 1,500 posts on it, I'm not arsed going through it.


Don't. You won't learn anything. I've tried asking to no avail.

2 people have thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!