Ok Bumbley.
Smear tests are sometimes look clear, but aren't. Testing those cells for HPV is proven to show that those seemingly innocent smears do in fact have cell changes. How do we know this? Well women with high-risk HPV strains and clear smears, are more likely to go on to develop cervical cancer than women who don't have HPV but do have cell changes on their smear tests.
So HPV testing is used to suss out the existence of dangerous cell changes.
Hence it is a test for cell changes.
Read this whole paragraph
*"On April 24, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of one HPV DNA test (cobas HPV test, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.) as a first-line primary screening test for use alone for women age 25 and older. This test detects each of HPV types 16 and 18 and gives pooled results for 12 additional high-risk HPV types.
The new approval was based on long-term findings from the ATHENA trial, a clinical trial that included more than 47,000 women. The results showed that the HPV test used in the study performed better than the Pap test at identifying women at risk of developing severe cervical cell abnormalities.
The greater assurance against future cervical cancer risk with HPV testing has also been demonstrated by a cohort study of more than a million women, which found that, after 3 years, women who tested negative on the HPV test had an extremely low risk of developing cervical cancer—about half the already low risk of women who tested negative on the Pap test.
First-line HPV testing has not yet been incorporated into the current professional cervical cancer screening guidelines. Professional societies are developing interim guidance documents, and some medical practices might incorporate primary HPV screening."*
As you can see, HPV testing is being used as a test for cervical cell changes.
Not sure why this is so very difficult for you to understand: If we finally find the definitive evidence that some biomarkers are associated with autism, will you say "oh it's not a test for autism, it's just a test for /biomarkers/"?
Are the CDC wrong to say that a test for Pneumocystis jirovecii is essentially a test for HIV in someone not otherwise immunologically compromised? Is there such a thing as an Aids defining illness (or are you an Aids denialist as well as being anti-vax?).
I'm not trying to identify them - you brought them up, you believe they exist, you have absolutely no proof of it at all. So count this as evidence for your misleading statements you claim you don't make.
So you don't think that Measles, Mumps etc. are totally harmless, you don't think vaccines trigger autism, and you don't think that vaccine damage is actually more dangerous than wild disease?
So you're saying that no child has ever died or been disabled by Mumps, Measles, Rubella? Finding it difficult to answer, Bumbley?
I am under no obligation to find you figures you first asked for. If you want to find them go ahead. You are the one claiming that they never ever have negative side effects and there's no point vaccinating against them. You can dig out the evidence that those illnesses are completely trivial and not worth bothering with.
You most definitely do advise people against vaccinating. Perhaps you should read your old posts to get up to speed.
I thought LaVolcan could add some balance to the conversation, considering she is apparently not anti-vaccination. It would be nice to see her say something positive about vaccines for once.