The term “cervical erosion” has been used in obstetrics and gynecology for more than 100 years, from 1850 to the 1980s, to diagnose “chronic cervicitis”. In the 1980s, American obstetrics and gynecology monographs and textbooks removed the term “cervical erosion” and replaced it with “cervical ectopy”. It has also been abandoned in recent revisions of obstetrics and gynecology textbooks in China. Cervical erosion, once thought to be associated with cervical cancer, is now considered to be unrelated to the development of cervical cancer. Unfortunately, to date, a significant number of obstetricians and gynecologists in China continue to use the term “cervical erosion”, providing unnecessary treatment and possible harm to women who have “cervical erosion” but no cervical disease. What are the dangers of treating “celiac disease”? 1. It is against medical ethics to treat “celiac disease” because women who are treated may not have cervical disease, and the physical and psychological burden and financial loss that treatment brings to women should not be! 2. Treatment without cervical screening may miss invasive cervical cancer or high grade precancerous lesions (CIN3/AIS), which is dangerous for women with the disease. 3. Treatment may also cause harm such as adhesions or atresia of the ectocervix, trauma leading to “cervical inflammation” or “cervical endometriosis” causing post-coital bleeding or prolonged leukorrhea, impaired cervical function leading to miscarriage or premature delivery during pregnancy, etc. Currently, there is a three-step cervical cancer screening ladder: cervical cytology TCt – colposcopy + biopsy – pathological histology.