Smear Tests

Today's moan is at the government. Prepare yourselves for a lot of these as I have become quite interested in politics and how tragic our future is going to be if there isn't some kind of change. i.e lying, pompous dickheads out... honest folk with common sense, in.

First on my agenda is the issue of smear tests. I recently joined a facebook group called 'Rosie's Cancer Story'.. it was set up by a girl from South Shields who has a type of cervical cancer and wants to update her friends/family at once about what's happening to her. She also hopes it'll raise awareness about the disease.

(If anyone wants to show their support or follow her journey -> http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=ts#/group.php?gid=247631468067)

She's such a brave girl and I think it's very selfless to publish what's happening to her at such a difficult time. If anything else, it'll also help people who have recently been diagnosed to see what may happen. I can't even begin to imagine what would go through your brain if you were diagnosed with cancer but at least some questions about what to expect will be answered through her diary.

The main focus of today's moan is that the government are refusing to lower the age that woman can have a smear test. Currently, you have to be 25 to qualify for this test yet I read somewhere (can't find the exact reference now) that cervical cancer is one of the biggest killers of women from the ages of 20 to 29. If that's the case then why on god's earth are women from the ages of 20 to 24 not even allowed to be tested???

Furthermore, the HPV vaccine is currently in a "catch-up stage" whereby girls aged between 16 and 18 from autumn 2009, and girls aged between 15 and 17 from autumn 2010 will be vaccinated... what about the rest of us who don't quality for a smear test and are too old to be vaccinated because "it would not be cost effective in preventing cervical cancer"????

Of course the health minister hit back with a plethora of reasons why the age limit should remain at 25 but surely it's worth the risks to get yourself checked out rather than dying of a completely preventable disease? Or if the risks are simply too high, how about researching into a new procedure that's relatively safe?

The reason that this has aggravated me so suddenly is because of a petition that I've been sent to sign. It's from a lady whose 23 year-old daughter passed away from the disease who was due to have her first smear test the year after. This is the message she has written on the petition:

my daughter sadly passed away on 17th august 2009 to cervical cancer aged just 23 years, leaving 2 little girls aged 5 and 18 months. if the age limit hadn't been changed from 20 to 25 in 2004, my daughter would have had her first smear in 2005 and would still be here today. too many young girls under the age of 25 are dying unnecessarily the age limit now needs to be lowered back to 20, please show your support by signing this petition

Imagine if that was your mother, sister, daughter, cousin etc..?

Here's the link to her petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/smear20/

This is a slightly more serious moan than I orginally intended this blog to contain but there you are. It's an important issue that wound me up. I abhorrently disagree that a certain regime can dictate my life... deciding at what point I am able to test for cancer, raising tuition fees, cutting back on public spending etc. How about abolishing expenses and paying for your mortgage/commute/duck shelters/porn with your salary like everybody else? I have absolutely no faith in our political parties whatsoever which is a terrifying thought as one of them has to run this country.

Anyway ciao for now, thanks for reading :)
p.s remember to sign the petition!!

McElderry vs RATM/Simon Cowell vs The People

It's probably a bit late to voice my opinion on the whole Christmas number one fiasco of 2009. If anyone was too busy living in a cave at the end of the year, metal band Rage Against the Machine grabbed the number one spot leaving poor Joe McEldreee of X Factor fame dwindling at number two with a horrendously bland cover of Miley Cyrus' The Climb.

As you may have gathered from my last post, I'm an X factor fanatic. However, this does not mean that I would prefer a regurgitated, predictably monotonous single to clinch the overly coveted Christmas 2009 number one slot. I like Joe McElderry, he's a sweet boy and he's got a good voice. I feel a bit sorry for Joe in that he now has the stigma of being 'the only X-factor winner not to have a Christmas number one'. But.... it shouldn't be like that in the first place.

What I got out of AAAALLLL the coverage/hooplah about this 'chart battle' is... the X factor winner should not automatically get a number one. It shouldn't be expected. Which is why I was very pleased that RATM fans (or anti-X factor peeps.. there are a lot of them!) bought the single and pushed it to the top of the charts. I also don't give a monkeys whose bank account the money cher-chinged in to or how the two record labels were somehow intertwined. What I found fascinating about it was how a social network site (Facebook) was the platform on which thousands of people joined together to fight the X factor and what it represents. Moreover, RATM pipped Joe to the post on downloads alone. Even with the added advantage of physical CD sales and discounted online single sales, Geordie Joe came up the rear (no alternative meaning intended).

It's a shame that the chart system is going down the pan, nobody seems to care anymore. A number one single isn't as cherished as it once was. RATM vs Joe McElderry made it interesting again, I wonder if that's the last time? Maybe this event also shows that the X Factor isn't such as huge media giant sucking up and shitting out all that's good in music. It just shows that if enough people care then something can be done. It's just a sad fact that music isn't the number one priority anymore. Xboxes and all that are getting in the way.

Just to clarify.. I do love X Factor, as an entertainment programme, not necessarily a music one. I enjoy watching bad auditions and then following the genuinely talented people because I enjoy watching good singers. As for John and Edward, they weren't the best singers but I was so happy they stayed in the competition as long as they did. They were the most entertaining out of the rest of them and didn't deserve half of the flack that people gave them (and still are). They were just two dillusional lads from Ireland who want to fulfil their aspirations of singing like the Backstreet Boys so they auditioned for this programme. It was the four judges who allowed them to progress through bootcamp, Louis Walsh put them through to the final twelve and the public kept them in until whichever week they were booted out. None of it was their fault and there was genuine hate circulating around the press, the internet, the streets! Poor lads.

Anyway, enough ranting about John and Edward. I think I've vented some steam on the X factor subject. Everything worked out in the end: Rage Against the Machine got Christmas number one, Joe managed to get a number one the next week and Jedward are releasing a single (with Vanilla Ice.... oh dear).