Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Hi again, Couple more thoughts...it doesn't seem unusual to me that some stones are not visible/detectable through ultrasound. If you look at an ultrasound scan, you'll notice the lack of definition or exact representation of what they are taking " pictures " of. I notice a parallel with standard X-Rays. X-Rays are excellent showing the hard dense composition of bone, but cannot pick up much in the way of soft tissue. Adrienne --- " Ira L. son " <laser@...> wrote: > In considering the claims made on this forum, the one that I > understand to be most prevalent is that each of us (or perhaps 80 > percent of the population) has cholesterol stones in our livers. > > I therefore wonder about two things. First, since they are not > identifiable in ultrasound, it should follow that we have lots of > these stones in our gall bladders too, without their appearing on > unltrasonograms. > > And there comes my next wonder: it seems to me that although these > stones, despite their numbers, cannot be seen by conventional imaging > > methods, wouldn't it be obvious to expect that in autopsies the liver > > and gall bladder of the deceased would have lots of stones. And if > this is so, how could it be that medical science remains unaware of > the fact that the stones are formed in the liver rather than in the > gall bladder? > > Has anyone any thoughts on my wonderment? > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.