Is global warming the biggest hoax in the history of man kind?Where is the false prophets of science?
No, evolution is. Global warming comes in second place.Where is the false prophets of science?
The false prophet??
Would that be those guys who make like 'The Secret' and stuff by twisting Quantum Physics??
Edit: I second Richard Dawkins as well, he's too popular, yet his most prominent book isn't even based on anything scientifically exploratory.
Actually, it's not.
It's not global warming now, it's climate change, and what can we do about it. Even the one who started all this crap is now rethinking it. C'mon! All this is called...weather!
No, if you read any real scientific journals you would know the answer to that.
The false prophets of science are probably those intelligent design people.
No. It's not a hoax. You need to lay off the conspiracy theories.
kent hovind is one.
That would be religion.
Richard Dawkins.
Yes, it is at least one of the biggest.
hmmm? even if it weren't true, religion would still be a far bigger hoax
Thursday, February 11, 2010
I found a false tooth in my burger from a very famous world know burger resturant , i was told it was bone?
then i was told it was false tooth , the owner then had it tested agin and he says its quartz possible from percline or cermic , i believe it is tooth as why would the manufacute say so and make it bad for themselves , i have requested the item again so i can have it tested ,i am waitin on blood results as im worried or health problems, then owner as offered to pay for these tests .. anyone have any advice or had similar story .I found a false tooth in my burger from a very famous world know burger resturant , i was told it was bone?
Fascinating.I found a false tooth in my burger from a very famous world know burger resturant , i was told it was bone?
During cooking, any bacteria would be killed so I don't think you have anything to worry about in that department. As for it being quartz, quartz does not come from porcelain or ceramic material. my bet is on a bone fragment.
About poster Warwick2's response, you cannot sue someone and expect to win unless some sort of damages occur and it doesn't seem the be the case here. You can sue, but you will not win. z.
I found a hair in my food dozens of times. I complain and they give me another one.
You could try to sue, but what were the damages? Talk to a lawyer and see if you have a case.
Sue them!!!virus protection software
Fascinating.I found a false tooth in my burger from a very famous world know burger resturant , i was told it was bone?
During cooking, any bacteria would be killed so I don't think you have anything to worry about in that department. As for it being quartz, quartz does not come from porcelain or ceramic material. my bet is on a bone fragment.
About poster Warwick2's response, you cannot sue someone and expect to win unless some sort of damages occur and it doesn't seem the be the case here. You can sue, but you will not win. z.
I found a hair in my food dozens of times. I complain and they give me another one.
You could try to sue, but what were the damages? Talk to a lawyer and see if you have a case.
Sue them!!!
Could being on the birth control pill, cause a take home pregnancy test to show a false positive?
No. If it's positive, the pregnancy hormone HCG is present and you are pregnant. Birth control pills don't give false positive results.Could being on the birth control pill, cause a take home pregnancy test to show a false positive?
No....the hormones in the pill do not effect a pregnancy test. If your pregnancy test says positive, then you are pregnant.
My sister got pregnant the first time on the pill and the second time on the ring!Could being on the birth control pill, cause a take home pregnancy test to show a false positive?
Birth control does not cause a test to show a false positive. You are probably pregnant unless any other medications you have taken include the hormone HCG. Good luck!
No. If thats the case sounds like you got pregnant on the pill. It happens. %26gt;.%26lt;
NOPE no such this as a false positive only false negitive!!! sould like you expecting CONGRATS
no mam
no
no
No....the hormones in the pill do not effect a pregnancy test. If your pregnancy test says positive, then you are pregnant.
My sister got pregnant the first time on the pill and the second time on the ring!Could being on the birth control pill, cause a take home pregnancy test to show a false positive?
Birth control does not cause a test to show a false positive. You are probably pregnant unless any other medications you have taken include the hormone HCG. Good luck!
No. If thats the case sounds like you got pregnant on the pill. It happens. %26gt;.%26lt;
NOPE no such this as a false positive only false negitive!!! sould like you expecting CONGRATS
no mam
no
no
Living in Poverty Today is Almost as Good as Being Middle Class was in 1960. True or False?
Many more benefits and much help goes to those that we say are ';in poverty'; today.
Think about how hard an average family's life was in 1960. People at the poverty cut-off today aren't much worse off than an average American was in 1960. Right?
What clothes do poor kids wear to school today? What did your relatives wear in 1960? How well did the car work? Medical care for a poor person is light-years better than it was in 1960. Example: There were no heart bypass operations.Living in Poverty Today is Almost as Good as Being Middle Class was in 1960. True or False?
All valid points. Plus people at the poverty line today have amenities that are all wants, and not needs. For example, cable TV, Internet, cell phones, etc. All these are luxury items. They are not needs.Living in Poverty Today is Almost as Good as Being Middle Class was in 1960. True or False?
Poverty is a subjective term. I think that a person living in 1960 with the luxuries possessed by today's poor would be quite happy. In that respect, your statement is true.
Yet, poverty only has meaning when compared with someone else's standard of living. I think that in 1960, there was more of a sense of personal accountability. People realized that in most cases, if they had accomplished less than others, it was their own failing. Today, I believe that people are much more likely to blame their failures on others. They are much more likely to expect a hand-out to achieve their wants.
So in that sense, I think that people living in poverty today are much worse off than the middle class of 1960. They are miserable and are less motivated to work themselves into better situations.
I'd say that all depends on one's definition of ';poverty';. What dollar range is the highest mark for ';poverty';?
I know people in the middle class who would go bankrupt if they needed an operation. Just because medical care has become so advanced does not mean it has become affordable. Especially in regards to these HMO's that punish you financially if you need to go out of their network for certain medical issues.
I disagree! I was raised middle class, and in the sixties, things were far better for the middle class, than for the poor now! Real wages have not even come close to keeping up with inflation, and the dollar went way farther back then. My father made around $30,000 (in 1960 dollars), back in the early sixties, and I have only broken the $30,000 mark (in 2004 dollars) once in my life. That was 3 years ago. Back then, it was easy for a one income household to live comfortably on $30,000. Now, it takes two incomes to live a comfortable life, unless you are making AT LEAST $45,000.
So no, I do not agree with your question at all! *sm*
better
I wonder how many people in ';poverty'; and have no isurance have the following:
cable, internet, cell phones, rims, stereo systems, etc, etc.
Just because someone is living in ';poverty';, doesnt mean they dont have luxuries. its all about how they choose to spend their money (or shoudl I say my money)
I've seen a lot of mothers shopping at a thrift store for their childrens' clothes.
My relatives wore nice clothes, their money went further back then.
Milk wasn't $4 a gallon.
Those cars were built to last. My mom had a Mustang. Beauty.
Is light years better?
Medical care is better? Yes, the quality is better, if you can afford it.
Real Wages have been declining since 1968. There are more poor as a percentage of the population than there were in 1968. Poverty alleviation was much stronger then.
Being Middle Class today is enjoying less amenities than being poor in the 60's. Unless you were black...
Let's be truthful, the US is still a very difficult place to live in if you are not a white male young to middle aged....
Vanzetti said he was lining ';under'; America, not in it.
There are very many people still living ';under'; America.
Yeah, unless you were black, or hispanic, or jewish, or native american, or asian, or (insert ethnic minority).
If only we could go back to the good ole days when the government only took care of white people. Are you cracked? The reason things were so ';great'; back then is cause nobody talked about it. It drives me crazy when people talk about how great it was in the 50s and 60s. It was, if you were a white young to middle aged male.
Overconsumption of material things does not show an improvement in life.
Respect of the American freedoms, the constitution, and the bill of rights have been taken to a new low. Our prisons are now growing in size. Household debt is growing.
For a poor American, it is more difficult to just get by and people are working longer hours just to keep up.
Having more cheap junk from China does not equal a better life.
Guys and drank and smoked in their offices, drove enormous convertables on highways with little traffic and women had dinner on the table when you got home.
Maybe the poor had it worse then I dunno.
In some cases much better than the middle class of the 60's.
Think about how hard an average family's life was in 1960. People at the poverty cut-off today aren't much worse off than an average American was in 1960. Right?
What clothes do poor kids wear to school today? What did your relatives wear in 1960? How well did the car work? Medical care for a poor person is light-years better than it was in 1960. Example: There were no heart bypass operations.Living in Poverty Today is Almost as Good as Being Middle Class was in 1960. True or False?
All valid points. Plus people at the poverty line today have amenities that are all wants, and not needs. For example, cable TV, Internet, cell phones, etc. All these are luxury items. They are not needs.Living in Poverty Today is Almost as Good as Being Middle Class was in 1960. True or False?
Poverty is a subjective term. I think that a person living in 1960 with the luxuries possessed by today's poor would be quite happy. In that respect, your statement is true.
Yet, poverty only has meaning when compared with someone else's standard of living. I think that in 1960, there was more of a sense of personal accountability. People realized that in most cases, if they had accomplished less than others, it was their own failing. Today, I believe that people are much more likely to blame their failures on others. They are much more likely to expect a hand-out to achieve their wants.
So in that sense, I think that people living in poverty today are much worse off than the middle class of 1960. They are miserable and are less motivated to work themselves into better situations.
I'd say that all depends on one's definition of ';poverty';. What dollar range is the highest mark for ';poverty';?
I know people in the middle class who would go bankrupt if they needed an operation. Just because medical care has become so advanced does not mean it has become affordable. Especially in regards to these HMO's that punish you financially if you need to go out of their network for certain medical issues.
I disagree! I was raised middle class, and in the sixties, things were far better for the middle class, than for the poor now! Real wages have not even come close to keeping up with inflation, and the dollar went way farther back then. My father made around $30,000 (in 1960 dollars), back in the early sixties, and I have only broken the $30,000 mark (in 2004 dollars) once in my life. That was 3 years ago. Back then, it was easy for a one income household to live comfortably on $30,000. Now, it takes two incomes to live a comfortable life, unless you are making AT LEAST $45,000.
So no, I do not agree with your question at all! *sm*
better
I wonder how many people in ';poverty'; and have no isurance have the following:
cable, internet, cell phones, rims, stereo systems, etc, etc.
Just because someone is living in ';poverty';, doesnt mean they dont have luxuries. its all about how they choose to spend their money (or shoudl I say my money)
I've seen a lot of mothers shopping at a thrift store for their childrens' clothes.
My relatives wore nice clothes, their money went further back then.
Milk wasn't $4 a gallon.
Those cars were built to last. My mom had a Mustang. Beauty.
Is light years better?
Medical care is better? Yes, the quality is better, if you can afford it.
Real Wages have been declining since 1968. There are more poor as a percentage of the population than there were in 1968. Poverty alleviation was much stronger then.
Being Middle Class today is enjoying less amenities than being poor in the 60's. Unless you were black...
Let's be truthful, the US is still a very difficult place to live in if you are not a white male young to middle aged....
Vanzetti said he was lining ';under'; America, not in it.
There are very many people still living ';under'; America.
Yeah, unless you were black, or hispanic, or jewish, or native american, or asian, or (insert ethnic minority).
If only we could go back to the good ole days when the government only took care of white people. Are you cracked? The reason things were so ';great'; back then is cause nobody talked about it. It drives me crazy when people talk about how great it was in the 50s and 60s. It was, if you were a white young to middle aged male.
Overconsumption of material things does not show an improvement in life.
Respect of the American freedoms, the constitution, and the bill of rights have been taken to a new low. Our prisons are now growing in size. Household debt is growing.
For a poor American, it is more difficult to just get by and people are working longer hours just to keep up.
Having more cheap junk from China does not equal a better life.
Guys and drank and smoked in their offices, drove enormous convertables on highways with little traffic and women had dinner on the table when you got home.
Maybe the poor had it worse then I dunno.
In some cases much better than the middle class of the 60's.
Are defamatory or false accusations postings on the internet are considered slanderous?
Somebody from the friendster community has sentmessages which contains false accusations against my sisters and our business. Can we file a law suit against this person? and will friendster be obliged to help us with this?Are defamatory or false accusations postings on the internet are considered slanderous?
Each state's laws are different, but the common elements of defamation are an untrue statement (expressing or implying facts, not pure opinion) of/concerning the plaintiff, that is published and harm's the plaintiff's reputation, resulting in damages.
Slander is spoken defamation. In other words, the publication is transitory (verbal). Libel is written defamation, and most courts have found that includes publication through electronic media as well. Slander per se is spoken defamation that attacks one's business abilities/competence, or falsely accuses one of a crime (or a couple other things).
In the case of libel and slander per se, damages are presumed in most states. In other words, in those jurisdictions, the plaintiff doesn't need to prove how much they were hurt, just that the statement had some negative impact on their personal or professional reputation.
Proving harmful impact may not be easy, but it's generally easier than proving an actual dollar amount.
As far as the truth requirement, that's where constitutional issues come in. If the person being spoken of (the plaintiff) is a public figure, or the matter is one of public concern, then the plaintiff must prove that the speaker/writer acted with malice -- either knowing that the statement was false, or acting with reckless disregard for the truth/falsity. So, comments about famous people, elected officials, or those who have voluntarily chosen to be at the center of a public debate are all held to a higher standard for culpable mental state (intent/recklessness).
If the situation involves a public concern, but the person spoken of is a private citizen and not voluntarily at the center of debate, then the standard is negligence (carelessness). So, the Mayor's personal assistant, or an executive who didn't personally do anything wrong but works for a company like Enron or WorldCom. These are private individuals collaterally involved in a public controversy, and are afforded slightly higher protection.
So, first you should be asking these questions to a lawyer who is licensed to practice in your state, preferably one who has some experience in internet law and/or defamation cases.
But to address your question, you (and your lawyer) would need to be able to show every one of the elements of defamation, as defined in your state. You could start with the list above, to get a sense of how you would go about proving each element. If you can't meet the elements for defamation (as defined in your state) then you probably wouldn't have a case.
Even if you do, your lawyer then needs to research the appropriate laws governing disclosure on the part of an Internet Presence Provider. There are a lot of special laws regarding what information they can and must provide, and how to get it.
In the end, it's an uphill and probably expensive battle. So, also ask yourself, how much is the fight worth to you?Are defamatory or false accusations postings on the internet are considered slanderous?
Hmmmm...Well, if you can prove that you have sufferred damages(having sales totals from before the incident, and totals from after showing that you have lost significant money) they yes, you can sue. But slander is one of the hardest things to prove, like pain and suffering, so you probably wont win. The best thing you can do is to try to right the wrong, maybe put out messages discrediting the libel, and if all else fails, go for the deep pockets, seriously, sue friendster for not scanning the messages before they were to be sent, at least friendster could have someone to block the sender of the messages, so i would sue for the money possibly lost and for defamation of character. Glad I could help.
If you know who did this, and you can prove the accusations are totally false, you can sue for PROVEN damages.
Your whole game here has to be about showing you, your sister, the business have been harmed in a financial manner.
You have the right to rebuttal on these accusations and if I were you, I wouldn't contact friendster until you know you don't have a suit. Once/if you decide not to sue, contact them and demand rebuttal space or for the information to be removed.
You have to be able to prove that you suffered real damages -- financial in particular. Slander is extremely hard to prove. All you need are print outs off the statements. Can you prove it hurt your business?
If they are false I assume they can, however good luck in finding an attorney!!!
Fox News can LIE in their broadcasts, even if they knew it was a lie, so said the Florida Supreme Court! It may have been the US!! But a reporter was fired for not airing a story she knew was untrue. The court upheld her termination!
Yes I believe that is slander and libel. You should get an attorney and let them do the work for you. And you'll need proof as to who is doing it
YES THE ARE. BUT PROVING IT CAN BE A TOTALLY ROUGH ROAD TO TAKE.
Each state's laws are different, but the common elements of defamation are an untrue statement (expressing or implying facts, not pure opinion) of/concerning the plaintiff, that is published and harm's the plaintiff's reputation, resulting in damages.
Slander is spoken defamation. In other words, the publication is transitory (verbal). Libel is written defamation, and most courts have found that includes publication through electronic media as well. Slander per se is spoken defamation that attacks one's business abilities/competence, or falsely accuses one of a crime (or a couple other things).
In the case of libel and slander per se, damages are presumed in most states. In other words, in those jurisdictions, the plaintiff doesn't need to prove how much they were hurt, just that the statement had some negative impact on their personal or professional reputation.
Proving harmful impact may not be easy, but it's generally easier than proving an actual dollar amount.
As far as the truth requirement, that's where constitutional issues come in. If the person being spoken of (the plaintiff) is a public figure, or the matter is one of public concern, then the plaintiff must prove that the speaker/writer acted with malice -- either knowing that the statement was false, or acting with reckless disregard for the truth/falsity. So, comments about famous people, elected officials, or those who have voluntarily chosen to be at the center of a public debate are all held to a higher standard for culpable mental state (intent/recklessness).
If the situation involves a public concern, but the person spoken of is a private citizen and not voluntarily at the center of debate, then the standard is negligence (carelessness). So, the Mayor's personal assistant, or an executive who didn't personally do anything wrong but works for a company like Enron or WorldCom. These are private individuals collaterally involved in a public controversy, and are afforded slightly higher protection.
So, first you should be asking these questions to a lawyer who is licensed to practice in your state, preferably one who has some experience in internet law and/or defamation cases.
But to address your question, you (and your lawyer) would need to be able to show every one of the elements of defamation, as defined in your state. You could start with the list above, to get a sense of how you would go about proving each element. If you can't meet the elements for defamation (as defined in your state) then you probably wouldn't have a case.
Even if you do, your lawyer then needs to research the appropriate laws governing disclosure on the part of an Internet Presence Provider. There are a lot of special laws regarding what information they can and must provide, and how to get it.
In the end, it's an uphill and probably expensive battle. So, also ask yourself, how much is the fight worth to you?Are defamatory or false accusations postings on the internet are considered slanderous?
Hmmmm...Well, if you can prove that you have sufferred damages(having sales totals from before the incident, and totals from after showing that you have lost significant money) they yes, you can sue. But slander is one of the hardest things to prove, like pain and suffering, so you probably wont win. The best thing you can do is to try to right the wrong, maybe put out messages discrediting the libel, and if all else fails, go for the deep pockets, seriously, sue friendster for not scanning the messages before they were to be sent, at least friendster could have someone to block the sender of the messages, so i would sue for the money possibly lost and for defamation of character. Glad I could help.
If you know who did this, and you can prove the accusations are totally false, you can sue for PROVEN damages.
Your whole game here has to be about showing you, your sister, the business have been harmed in a financial manner.
You have the right to rebuttal on these accusations and if I were you, I wouldn't contact friendster until you know you don't have a suit. Once/if you decide not to sue, contact them and demand rebuttal space or for the information to be removed.
You have to be able to prove that you suffered real damages -- financial in particular. Slander is extremely hard to prove. All you need are print outs off the statements. Can you prove it hurt your business?
If they are false I assume they can, however good luck in finding an attorney!!!
Fox News can LIE in their broadcasts, even if they knew it was a lie, so said the Florida Supreme Court! It may have been the US!! But a reporter was fired for not airing a story she knew was untrue. The court upheld her termination!
Yes I believe that is slander and libel. You should get an attorney and let them do the work for you. And you'll need proof as to who is doing it
YES THE ARE. BUT PROVING IT CAN BE A TOTALLY ROUGH ROAD TO TAKE.
Chemistry true or false easy points state why?
In a REDOX reaction the oxidizing agent is reduced.Chemistry true or false easy points state why?
True, it oxidizes another reagent by taking its electrons and therefore reducing itself. A reducing agent does the opposite, giving up electrons and being oxidized itself while reducing the other reagent.Chemistry true or false easy points state why?
The oxidizing agent is reduced and the redutor agent is oxidized.
So, this sentence is true!
Bye! Brazilians kisses!
Fonte: eu
Atenciosamente,
Nailson, o ';тєυтσ ρυя'єη ∂єяš!';
Hu kir tur hu movety fur nudem!
Sexta-feira, 03 de julho de 2009 - 16:31
True, it oxidizes another reagent by taking its electrons and therefore reducing itself. A reducing agent does the opposite, giving up electrons and being oxidized itself while reducing the other reagent.Chemistry true or false easy points state why?
The oxidizing agent is reduced and the redutor agent is oxidized.
So, this sentence is true!
Bye! Brazilians kisses!
Fonte: eu
Atenciosamente,
Nailson, o ';тєυтσ ρυя'єη ∂єяš!';
Hu kir tur hu movety fur nudem!
Sexta-feira, 03 de julho de 2009 - 16:31
Are there many false PAP smear results?
I am curious if anyone knows if there are alot of false PaP results. I have gotten 2 pap smears by 2 different doctors in the same month. Both said my PAP's were normal but both had HPV high.Are there many false PAP smear results?
An HPV test is pretty sensitive鈥?8% correct. When HPV is doormat or sleeping then the virus can鈥檛 be detected in any test. www.digene.com patient insert for our Hybrid Capture High risk HPV testing. Our HPV test looks for virual load.
At this time your HPV infection may not be producing abnormal cell changes or your virus can be so new it has yet to produce these changes.
Many people with the virus never show any abnormal cell changes, the body producing the antibodies needing to fight the virus.
Follow your doctor鈥檚 recommendations of follow-up. Tell future partners of your infection use condoms because they can provide extra protection to your cervix and may help in the transmission of the virus. Sadly condoms do not protect 100%
There is no treatment for HPV we can only treat the manifestation of the virus.
I hope your next Pap is clear and your HPV test is negative.
I wish you well.
Is it still possible to have HPV even if my Pap test was normal?
Yes. You can have HPV but still have a normal Pap test. Changes on your cervix may not appear right away or they may never appear. For women over the age of 30 that get an HPV test and a Pap test, a negative result on both the Pap and HPV tests means that no cervical changes or HPV was found on the cervix. This is great news, because it means there is an extremely low chance of developing cervical cancer in the next few years.
http://www.4women.gov/faq/stdhpv.htm
A False Negative (Looks Normal, But May Not Be)
The Pap test is a very good screening test, but it is not perfect. A single Pap test may miss up to 20 percent of abnormalities. Changes that are missed once are usually found the next time. This is why it is important to get a Pap test at least once every 3 years.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/under鈥?/a>Are there many false PAP smear results?
with it being 2 differant ones they are prb correct.however im no doctor.might ask your doc
I had two false positives,and the doctor told me thats very common.I also had high hpv,but was already scheduled for partial hysterectomy..
there is no such thing as a false HPV pap smear result.
You must do all of your follow up pap smears and all other followups your ob-gyn suggests!
Here in georgia HPV is so common that, (it may be federal) we have a law that says girls starting age nine have to have the vaccine......9 years old.....!!!! My point is its probably a sure thing you have that.
What you're experiencing isn't a false result. It's possible to have a high risk HPV virus but not to have any abnormal cells on your cervix. For someone with this type of virus (I have it too), a normal pap is a great thing.
Response to your additional info: Yes. You are exactly right there--your body could be supressing the virus so your cells aren't becoming abnormal.
A single pap smear (or even two) is not necessarily significant. There are MANY ';false positives'; and that is why physicians look at the results of many Paps over time to give a more accurate assessment......while a single test is not always accurate, the Pap tests as a whole over time are VERY effective at screening for cervical dysplasia.
Even high risk strains of HPV are VERY SLOW at causing cancer. The only thing to do is to continue to get Pap smears at the frequency indicated by your physician and make sure that they follow up with colposcopy/anoscopy as needed.
With regular care, HPV is a very manageable infection.
An HPV test is pretty sensitive鈥?8% correct. When HPV is doormat or sleeping then the virus can鈥檛 be detected in any test. www.digene.com patient insert for our Hybrid Capture High risk HPV testing. Our HPV test looks for virual load.
At this time your HPV infection may not be producing abnormal cell changes or your virus can be so new it has yet to produce these changes.
Many people with the virus never show any abnormal cell changes, the body producing the antibodies needing to fight the virus.
Follow your doctor鈥檚 recommendations of follow-up. Tell future partners of your infection use condoms because they can provide extra protection to your cervix and may help in the transmission of the virus. Sadly condoms do not protect 100%
There is no treatment for HPV we can only treat the manifestation of the virus.
I hope your next Pap is clear and your HPV test is negative.
I wish you well.
Is it still possible to have HPV even if my Pap test was normal?
Yes. You can have HPV but still have a normal Pap test. Changes on your cervix may not appear right away or they may never appear. For women over the age of 30 that get an HPV test and a Pap test, a negative result on both the Pap and HPV tests means that no cervical changes or HPV was found on the cervix. This is great news, because it means there is an extremely low chance of developing cervical cancer in the next few years.
http://www.4women.gov/faq/stdhpv.htm
A False Negative (Looks Normal, But May Not Be)
The Pap test is a very good screening test, but it is not perfect. A single Pap test may miss up to 20 percent of abnormalities. Changes that are missed once are usually found the next time. This is why it is important to get a Pap test at least once every 3 years.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/under鈥?/a>Are there many false PAP smear results?
with it being 2 differant ones they are prb correct.however im no doctor.might ask your doc
I had two false positives,and the doctor told me thats very common.I also had high hpv,but was already scheduled for partial hysterectomy..
there is no such thing as a false HPV pap smear result.
You must do all of your follow up pap smears and all other followups your ob-gyn suggests!
Here in georgia HPV is so common that, (it may be federal) we have a law that says girls starting age nine have to have the vaccine......9 years old.....!!!! My point is its probably a sure thing you have that.
What you're experiencing isn't a false result. It's possible to have a high risk HPV virus but not to have any abnormal cells on your cervix. For someone with this type of virus (I have it too), a normal pap is a great thing.
Response to your additional info: Yes. You are exactly right there--your body could be supressing the virus so your cells aren't becoming abnormal.
A single pap smear (or even two) is not necessarily significant. There are MANY ';false positives'; and that is why physicians look at the results of many Paps over time to give a more accurate assessment......while a single test is not always accurate, the Pap tests as a whole over time are VERY effective at screening for cervical dysplasia.
Even high risk strains of HPV are VERY SLOW at causing cancer. The only thing to do is to continue to get Pap smears at the frequency indicated by your physician and make sure that they follow up with colposcopy/anoscopy as needed.
With regular care, HPV is a very manageable infection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)