Posts by Samuel Morgan40

mistymaker8 said:...,and I just started seeing my OBGYN—it was my first PCOS diagnosis, and now I'm terrified that what I thought was a cyst actually ruptured...

Welcome to the club! No, this isn't caused by the PCOS—because, technically, PCOS doesn't involve actual cysts, just follicles that look like them on an ultrasound, which is where the whole "polycystic" name comes from. So, there’s no way this could be some sort of "leakage" from a cyst. Don't worry too much. If you're looking for more info, there's a great thread about it up 😉

Oh, please—no one is actually upset with you 🙂. We were just teasing you a little bit (though I have to admit, I still find that 😛 comparison pretty hilarious). Anyway, enjoy the peace and quiet while you have it—at least regarding those specific "monthly" headaches 😉

mistymaker8 said:🙄 I mean, when exactly was that ever even a thing? 😁
My apologies to the moderators—it certainly wasn't my intention to "crowd the space" or whatever it is people call it when you start a new thread. I only opened this one because the other discussion was getting so little traction, and frankly, I needed an answer immediately. I was absolutely terrified—I mean, I was genuinely panicking here—since nothing like this has ever happened to me before.😢
There it is!

This is where everyone who’s panicking rushes to congregate—and honestly, what would this sub even look like if every single person just rushed in to open a two-post thread in a frantic hurry?

What you're experiencing is actually a perfectly normal occurrence—something that, if you had taken a moment to scroll through this massive thread, you probably could have found mentioned quite a few times already.

mistymaker8 said:...it looked quite a bit like sperm inside a chicken egg😕

😂 Honestly, I couldn't help but laugh out loud at that one. 😂

Everything you’re describing is perfectly normal, I suppose. One shouldn't really expect it to be nothing but liquid blood all the time—if it were, that would actually be the strange part. After all, menstruation is essentially just the uterine lining shedding, which naturally involves both blood and that discarded tissue passing through the vagina.

gentlegull93 said:... I honestly have no idea where rock is even heading in this country! ... If this is what passes for "modern rock" these days, then it’s officially the first musical genre I’ve ever felt the urge to spit on.

A fitting lyric would be: "my roads lead nowhere" 😁
I might as well join him in spitting on it—frankly, I'm just exhausted by seeing certain crowds who, almost by default, label themselves as "rockers" or some other quasi-subgenre (whatever that's supposed to mean in the US nowadays), not to mention those who simply exist solely on the fading glory of their past.

feraltrucker5 said:NBC: one step forward, two steps back. Well, I suppose this counts as progress—given they usually take two steps backward for every single step forward. 😁

Yeah. There's just no winning with these guys. I might give them a shot eventually, though I can't say exactly when 🤷🤣 given how their timing usually works.

Good grief, I have no idea what they were thinking—where on earth did they decide to schedule the Drummer Night? 😢

Amanda Roberts2 said:It also mentions here:

1. How much time typically passes before cervical cancer develops?
10-15 years

2. At what age does cervical cancer most commonly develop?
Between 40 and 50 years old

Personally, I tend to get a bit uneasy with these kinds of estimates and broad statistics—it’s all a bit much, I guess. Saying how much time it takes to develop depends on so many different factors, including the host (meaning us and our immune systems), the specific strain of HPV, and quite a few other variables that aren't even mentioned. Besides, we've had young women posting here—literally very young women—sharing their own diagnoses. Based on the statistics provided above, those girls would have had to become sexually active at six years old and been exposed to the virus immediately, which obviously isn't the case.🤮

It is true that this age range remains the most common, partly because so many gynecologists focus on monitoring via regular checkups, so things eventually come to a head. But even that age threshold is a tricky thing to pin down. It seems to be dropping quite significantly; there are plenty of young people facing the reality of CIS. It's widely known that the vast majority of people who encounter HPV do so during their 20s. From there, it varies wildly—for some, it comes and goes; others struggle through it or manage to heal; and then there are those who carry it as a persistent infection for years, only to find themselves needing much more radical procedures in their 40s or 50s once the situation has truly turned sour.

Yes, unfortunately, that’s the reality of it. I recall a former moderator, The, mentioning this once—she’s based over in Ireland, if I remember correctly, and I know that’s somewhat standard practice there (up to a certain age limit, provided everything seems fine).
Though, I suspect things might be shifting regarding that policy, especially since it hasn't exactly proven to be the foolproof prevention method everyone hoped it would be 🤷. Honestly, it's hard to say for sure now, but the truth is that a lot can happen in a three-year span. You could have a significant HPV flare-up, or perhaps a more aggressive bacterial infection—which tends to be quite insidious, really—quietly working its way deeper into the reproductive system and potentially causing issues like blocked fallopian tubes
.

Lisa Moore61 said:but isn't it okay for someone like that to be under scrutiny? 🤷 An abortion is hardly an pleasant experience—not for the one undergoing it, nor for the one criticizing it.

Well, this type of situation absolutely should be scrutinized—in fact, it already is. We aren't just talking about a psychiatrist here; we have to consider all the other 'institutions' (I’m using quotes there quite intentionally), her family, and the whole complicated web surrounding her—though, naturally, the list of diagnoses would be even longer. It seems to be a logical progression that a woman might find herself forced to visit a clinic far more frequently than necessary (aside from the procedure itself) simply because of what she does or has done. While I wouldn't categorize this specific case right here, unfortunately, that happens too. There really ought to be a concerted effort regarding this kind of "networking" to ensure that, on one hand, there aren't gaping holes in the system, and on the other, to prevent any unnecessary leaks of private information (to certain people, of course).

Lisa Moore61 said:—and that anyone making decisions regarding someone else's health really ought to have all the puzzle pieces in front of them.

Exactly so; that is essentially the crux of the matter 👍. Because, unfortunately, we have seen plenty of fatal outcomes precisely because every specialist tends to look only at their own narrow field. They process what is in their specific domain—what falls under their purview—but they fail to account for other variables, those things that need to be connected, the pieces that need to be fit together. Often, in that stage, the key is missing—that vital piece, that link, that single connection required to complete the entire chain. Of course, I am speaking generally here, unrelated to abortion, though that doesn't mean we should omit the concept from this discussion.

Though, honestly, people, we are sitting here discussing privacy—specifically the confidentiality of certain segments of our data—yet the law itself hasn't even begun to be implemented. We don't even know what the actual practice will look like, whether it will truly come to fruition, or how it will function in reality.

As for how much this will change everything in terms of privacy, I don't believe it will be much; perhaps maybe in the case of abortion. But we simply don't know yet. Things used to come to light before, without any networking, involving both information that should have stayed quiet and information that shouldn't have, all without much fuss. However, there is a medical code of ethics. I have doctors in my family, both immediate and extended, who treat patients I know quite well. It never even crossed their minds to divulge anyone's private medical matters, nor did it occur to me (or anyone else) to interrogate them. I am aware that there are fools out there, but that only hurts their own reputations; it serves no purpose for them.

But then, there is this case below:

just as another idea for thought... a case where a patient, Jane Doe, has had 15 or 16 abortions... perhaps that data in her file could serve as a signal to her primary care physician to refer her to a psychologist, or to her gynecologist so they might attempt to educate her on other methods of contraception.
or that the first five shouldn't be recorded🤔

I wouldn't have even thought of that if you hadn't written it... While I was visiting my former gynecologist (who was being rather chatty once, likely just wanting to vent😁), she mentioned a woman who uses abortion almost literally as a method of contraception—every time the woman comes in, it's just, "Alright, let's just do the abortion." The normal sequence of events would be that she (along with her 'family') is placed under the microscope by other doctors, in this instance, a psychiatrist. This is admittedly an ultra-extreme example, but that is the reality of it.

Since you’ve already contributed your thoughts over at Colorectal Cancer, and considering there is already another thread active—one that was actually suggested by some of the other users here—I suppose I should go ahead and close this one out.

Yes. In theory, the standard practice is this: if your Pap test comes back clean, you don't need any additional swabs—but, as it turns out, reality is often quite a bit more complicated than that.
A person CAN carry the virus even when their Pap test shows nothing at all; we've seen plenty of examples of this right here on this forum. And honestly, that goes for most other nasty little bugs, too.
It’s entirely possible for someone to only find out about the virus once a Pap test finally detects some level of dysplasia—and who knows how long that was actually lurking there in the meantime?

You absolutely have to get every lump checked out. And I’m not talking about just doing a quick self-exam at home—I mean actually seeing a specialist.
You honestly never know what a lump actually signifies until it's properly investigated by a pro.
I actually have a family situation that illustrates this perfectly—a doctor performed nothing more than a manual palpation (using a flashlight 🙄) and concluded it was a benign tumor (located just above the abdominal cavity, for context), then simply scheduled the patient for a routine procedure three months down the line.
In the meantime, they went to a second opinion, got an ultrasound, followed up with a CT scan, then a biopsy, and finally surgery—only to find out it was malignant (thankfully caught "in time").
So, while it could truly be nothing (which is what I'm hoping is the case for you), it could also, God forbid, be something much more serious.

Amanda Roberts2 said:there aren't any condoms, but there is an alternative 😁 those long men's undergarments—you know, like boxers—that have an opening right where you'd expect... so, I suppose a combination of those boxers and a condom might actually work... since there wouldn't be any direct skin-to-skin contact 😁😁😁 when we are making this much of a sacrifice, maybe they could step up just a little bit too ☕ 😳

uh...😂....the first thing that comes to mind is Robin Hood and his gang 🤣

Jamie Davis17 said:well, that highlighted part is spot on. if the Pap test isn't coming back clean, you have to go find out what the actual cause is.
you can't tell from a Pap test alone whether it's HPV, some kind of bacteria, or something else entirely.

Exactly
a cytology report can only really flag if HPV is present and mark it on the Pap test, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's definitely HPV (or anything else, for that matter).👍

the issue is that a huge number of people think a Pap test gives you two simple answers: a) you're healthy and fine, or b) you have a bad Pap result, which means you've clearly been sleeping around unprotected and now you're paying for it.

So true, I'll sign my name to that ☕

It’s not a hundred percent guarantee, unfortunately, though it does play a massive role in protection.
And about that doctor... I mean, is she just a general practitioner or an actual OB-GYN?
Because if what she’s rambling about is true, it would imply that some of us who have been consistently using this type of protection actually caught the HPV from it—how does that even make sense?

What about swabs?
The reason I’m asking is that so many of us have always had perfectly clear Pap tests, yet when we go in for swabs, it's like a whole ecosystem of bacteria and yeast shows up. It makes the results even more of a shock.
What I'm trying to get at is that you can have a completely clean Pap test and still be dealing with some kind of beast—especially when it comes to the Federal Reserve.

It’s hard to say if it’s just the pills—especially since you were prescribed them because of those clear results.
I really hope you’re keeping up with your regular checkups.