Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Barry asked me about my ultrasound. There were probably about 20 different pictures in the file, but I did locate one where I could see the gallbladder sort of from a distance. I could see where it connected to the duct and yes, there are 2 or 3 white spots in the gallbladder. But to give you an idea of what I was looking at, the size of the gallbladder in the picture was barely the size of the end of my little finger. It wasn't a closeup. There are closeups, but I can't really see make them out. I just wish I had known then what I know now and could have had the right questions to ask the surgeon when he showed me the films! And of course the important question is what's in there NOW. I would really like to have a followup ultrasound and compare the two. Oh, by the way, although I haven't been posting much in the past few days, I have been reading and wanted to make a comment. I've appreciated the lively banter on the " just a thought " thread and have appreciated how the differing opinions have all been shared with a good amount of respect and courtesy. It's one of the things that makes this a great list - the freedom to see things from all angles and to share viewpoints honestly. in health, rachel~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 In a message dated 2/21/02 7:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, barry91162@... writes: > Yes, your ultrasounds sound very vague or usless to you. Maybe a > doctor could translate what you are seeing. The ultrasounds I have > are specifically of the gb and are very big. The pic you descibe > sounds too small to get any useful infomation. Maybe you should > schedule in with a radologist just to get a good look at the gb, > ducts, and pancreas area again. Good luck. > Thanks for your thoughts, Barry. Unfortunately, none of the above would be covered by insurance since there isn't currently a medical problem. Isn't that ironic? I've been doing cleanses in order to improve my health, but now if I want to get an assessment of where I am, I'd have to pay out of pocket. I don't know about you, but I just don't have extra cash sitting around for these things! I will be content to just pay attention to how I feel, listen to my body and trust that I'm on the right path. in health, rachel~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 , Yes, your ultrasounds sound very vague or usless to you. Maybe a doctor could translate what you are seeing. The ultrasounds I have are specifically of the gb and are very big. The pic you descibe sounds too small to get any useful infomation. Maybe you should schedule in with a radologist just to get a good look at the gb, ducts, and pancreas area again. Good luck. Barry. > Barry asked me about my ultrasound. There were probably about 20 different > pictures in the file, but I did locate one where I could see the gallbladder > sort of from a distance. I could see where it connected to the duct and yes, > there are 2 or 3 white spots in the gallbladder. But to give you an idea of > what I was looking at, the size of the gallbladder in the picture was barely > the size of the end of my little finger. It wasn't a closeup. There are > closeups, but I can't really see make them out. > > I just wish I had known then what I know now and could have had the right > questions to ask the surgeon when he showed me the films! And of course > the important question is what's in there NOW. I would really like to have > a followup ultrasound and compare the two. > > Oh, by the way, although I haven't been posting much in the past few days, I > have been reading and wanted to make a comment. I've appreciated the lively > banter on the " just a thought " thread and have appreciated how the differing > opinions have all been shared with a good amount of respect and courtesy. > It's one of the things that makes this a great list - the freedom to see > things from all angles and to share viewpoints honestly. > > in health, > rachel~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 westoo@... writes: > Maybe I'm just a little too enthusiastic about the 'back to nature' point of > view but there is sound evidence that ultrasound is detrimental to fetuses > and I'm of the > opinion that we all should be treated as preciously as pregnant women and > fetuses. If you are seeing results from flushing, then trust that you > don't > need conventional medical interference to keep peeking at your innards. > JMO.........(.02 worth) God bless 'ya and keep on flushin', Betsy > This is an interesting viewpoint, Betsy. I think it partly depends on the situation. In mine, it's easy to say that I'll just keep on flushing and trust that I'm getting good results. If I was experiencing pain, like Barry and some others are, on a regular basis, then I think I might be more into the idea of getting ultrasound to see - literally - what progress, if any, I was making. But if ultrasound really is harmful to the fetus, why is it so common for pregnant women to get them? (and heaven help me if this turns into another doctor-bashing segment! Please, let's not go there everyone, okay?). What I mean is - is this new information coming out?? Thanks, in health, rachel~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 barry91162@... writes: > If I lined up all my flush friends he may start charging me $40 > instead of $30. Will you pay the difference for me? hahaha Or maybe he'd give us a group discount - haha. Hey - that's still better than what my hospital charged for the ultrasound. I told you this, didn't I? My insurance company was billed $700 for that procedure. How nuts is that? I do think that I will just continue with the cleansing lifestyle that I'm creating (bit by bit) and not worry about what's in there unless it causes a problem. I will be interested, when I have my annual physical in the spring, to see what a difference there is in my bloodwork. I'm sure that will have changed somewhat because of the cleansing I've been doing. in health, rachel~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 barry91162@... writes: > I personal think it is the best proof that we have that our gb's are > clear of calcified stones. Proof is needed because sometimes we are > fooled for weeks by the great feeling after a flush and the > ultrasound will either prove the result or bring us down to the > reality of our problem. > I like the proof because I've been mislead by my own feelings. > And, I'm not pregnant. :-) Are you sure? But seriously though, while I understand your desire for proof - what will change? I mean - if you get an ultrasound one day and it shows the stone is gone, will you change anything about your lifestyle? Would you change your diet back to something unhealthy? Naturally you don't have to answer any of these questions, I'm just making conversation here. I guess I'm sort of on the other end of the scope here for several reasons. One is, as we've already established, our experiences are very different. Your episodes have been far more severe and much more frequent than mine. So for me, I actually am not sure that I would want to know that the gallstones are gone because they are part of what's keeping me on my toes (somewhat) with my eating habits. I'm actually (don't call the men in white coats on this one) grateful for the gallbladder attacks that I did have because the are what got me started on this road to cleansing and improved health. Just offering a different perspective on it, that's all. in health, rachel~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 , If I lined up all my flush friends he may start charging me $40 instead of $30. Will you pay the difference for me? hahaha Really though, ultrasound is really the best way to keep track of your progress and see if the stones increase, decrease, or dissappear. After my first flush, I felt so great that I was sure it was gone. I rushed back in and found my stone still there. So, I must say that I have never been fooled by the 'clear' feeling that I'm feeling after a flush. Oil will make you feel great for a few days and keep everything oiled up but once that time passes, you are back to working on the problem again. Barry. > In a message dated 2/22/02 6:42:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, > barry91162@y... writes: > > > > Yes, I understand that is usually the case with ultrasound. If you > > can, find a nurse that you know (a relative, friends, etc) or find a > > college that may have the equipment. What I mean is, try and find a > > more economical way to check your progress. I get ultrasound for $30, > > including pics. :-) I have a 'connection' with a radiologist office. > > > > I know plenty of nurses (through work) , but unfortunately they aren't > familiar with reading films. I'll keep an eye out for other options. > I'd like to have it re-checked after six months and that will be the end of > April. So I have a little time to find options. Hehe - maybe I'll go to > your radiologist and tell them I'm a friend of yours. > > in health, > rachel~ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: " barry91162 " <barry91162@...> <gallstones > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 8:33 PM Subject: Re: ultrasound Barry.....are you sure ultrasound is such a good idea? Maybe I'm just a little too enthusiastic about the 'back to nature' point of view but there is sound evidence that ultrasound is detrimental to fetuses and I'm of the opinion that we all should be treated as preciously as pregnant women and fetuses. If you are seeing results from flushing, then trust that you don't need conventional medical interference to keep peeking at your innards. JMO.........(.02 worth) God bless 'ya and keep on flushin', Betsy Barry wrote: > Really though, ultrasound is really the best way to keep track of > your progress and see if the stones increase, decrease, or > dissappear. > After my first flush, I felt so great that I was sure it was gone. I > rushed back in and found my stone still there. So, I must say that I > have never been fooled by the 'clear' feeling that I'm feeling after > a flush. Oil will make you feel great for a few days and keep > everything oiled up but once that time passes, you are back to > working on the problem again. > > Barry. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 Betsy, I'm not really sure about the effects of ultrasound on a fetus. Don't they do ultrasound to check the condition and sex of a fetus during pregnancy? All I know is that for me it is the best way to see what size stone I have, if it is getting bigger or smaller, if my flush has finally did the job I want it too, etc. I personal think it is the best proof that we have that our gb's are clear of calcified stones. Proof is needed because sometimes we are fooled for weeks by the great feeling after a flush and the ultrasound will either prove the result or bring us down to the reality of our problem. I like the proof because I've been mislead by my own feelings. And, I'm not pregnant. :-) Anyone else ever hear of ultrasound effecting a fetus? Barry. > > Really though, ultrasound is really the best way to keep track of > > your progress and see if the stones increase, decrease, or > > dissappear. > > After my first flush, I felt so great that I was sure it was gone. I > > rushed back in and found my stone still there. So, I must say that I > > have never been fooled by the 'clear' feeling that I'm feeling after > > a flush. Oil will make you feel great for a few days and keep > > everything oiled up but once that time passes, you are back to > > working on the problem again. > > > > Barry. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: " barry91162 " <barry91162@...> <gallstones > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 10:03 PM Subject: Re: ultrasound Barry.....ultrasound is disturbing to a fetus and in fact many procedures done under the guise of 'prenatal care' are very injurious to the unborn child and mother. (Glad to hear you're not pregnant.....me neither.) It seems that ultrasounds are giving you feedback and reassurrance so please take my opinion with 2 cents worth of hot air. Like I said, I'm a 'back-to-nature' advocate and may tend to go a little overboard sometimes. (At least in someone's opinion.) BUT.....it sounds to me that you might stand to trust your own decisions just a wee bit more. You're a smart guy, IMO.....if the ultrasounds are getting you where you want to go, you certainly have my very best wishes.......Betsy Barry wrote: > I'm not really sure about the effects of ultrasound on a fetus. Don't > they do ultrasound to check the condition and sex of a fetus during > pregnancy? > > All I know is that for me it is the best way to see what size stone I > have, if it is getting bigger or smaller, if my flush has finally did > the job I want it too, etc. > > I personal think it is the best proof that we have that our gb's are > clear of calcified stones. Proof is needed because sometimes we are > fooled for weeks by the great feeling after a flush and the > ultrasound will either prove the result or bring us down to the > reality of our problem. > > I like the proof because I've been mislead by my own feelings. > And, I'm not pregnant. :-) > > Anyone else ever hear of ultrasound effecting a fetus? > > Barry. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 , I understand what you are saying. I'm also 'grateful' that the stone made the attacks come to alert me that I needed to change my diet and help prevent my gb from getting worse. The pain is actually God's way to tell us something is wrong and we need to change our habits and do something about it. To be honest with you, the thing I would change would not really be my diet so much (I may sneak a pizza in once a month..:-)..)but I would reduce my flushing from twice a month to probably once every other month or twice a year eventually. I can think of better things to do on a weekend night besides hanging around by my toilet and drinking lots of oil. hehe Barry. > barry91162@y... writes: > > I personal think it is the best proof that we have that our gb's are > > clear of calcified stones. Proof is needed because sometimes we are > > fooled for weeks by the great feeling after a flush and the > > ultrasound will either prove the result or bring us down to the > > reality of our problem. > > I like the proof because I've been mislead by my own feelings. > > And, I'm not pregnant. :-) > > Are you sure? But seriously though, while I understand your desire for > proof - what will change? I mean - if you get an ultrasound one day and it > shows the stone is gone, will you change anything about your lifestyle? > Would you change your diet back to something unhealthy? Naturally you > don't have to answer any of these questions, I'm just making conversation > here. > > I guess I'm sort of on the other end of the scope here for several reasons. > One is, as we've already established, our experiences are very different. > Your episodes have been far more severe and much more frequent than mine. So > for me, I actually am not sure that I would want to know that the gallstones > are gone because they are part of what's keeping me on my toes (somewhat) > with my eating habits. I'm actually (don't call the men in white coats on > this one) grateful for the gallbladder attacks that I did have because the > are what got me started on this road to cleansing and improved health. > > Just offering a different perspective on it, that's all. > in health, > rachel~ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 Wow, $700 dollars?!?! To my $30? If I had to pay that much I'd probably stick some kind of microscopic viewer down my throat and look myself. :-) I definitely wouldn't have gone in 3 times over 6 flushes if it was costing that much out of my own pocket. But, on the other hand, if you could get it done for $30, you may be curious enough to stop in and check it out on the way home from work. That's my case anyway. I hope you can find an easy and less expensive way to check ultrasound results. Barry. > barry91162@y... writes: > > If I lined up all my flush friends he may start charging me $40 > > instead of $30. Will you pay the difference for me? hahaha > > > Or maybe he'd give us a group discount - haha. Hey - that's still better > than what my hospital charged for the ultrasound. I told you this, didn't I? > My insurance company was billed $700 for that procedure. How nuts is that? > > I do think that I will just continue with the cleansing lifestyle that I'm > creating (bit by bit) and not worry about what's in there unless it causes a > problem. I will be interested, when I have my annual physical in the > spring, to see what a difference there is in my bloodwork. I'm sure > that will have changed somewhat because of the cleansing I've been doing. > > in health, > rachel~ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 Hi , This is old news in the sense that I knew that ultrasounds are potentially harmful for an unborn child, as well as the pregnancy itself, 19 years ago when I was pregnant with my first child, and so I never had an ultrasound done when I was pregnant. Have not read anything recent about the potential hazards, but what they were saying, at least 9 years ago, was that it could cause possibly cause miscarraige, by negatively affecting the amount of amniotic fluid. Also, ultrasounds, when first introduced, were only done for high risk pregnancies. As we became a more litigious society, they became routine. That's my take on it. Adrienne Rachd1961@... wrote: westoo@... writes: > Maybe I'm just a little too enthusiastic about the 'back to nature' point of > view but there is sound evidence that ultrasound is detrimental to fetuses > and I'm of the > opinion that we all should be treated as preciously as pregnant women and > fetuses. If you are seeing results from flushing, then trust that you > don't > need conventional medical interference to keep peeking at your innards. > JMO.........(.02 worth) God bless 'ya and keep on flushin', Betsy > This is an interesting viewpoint, Betsy. I think it partly depends on the situation. In mine, it's easy to say that I'll just keep on flushing and trust that I'm getting good results. If I was experiencing pain, like Barry and some others are, on a regular basis, then I think I might be more into the idea of getting ultrasound to see - literally - what progress, if any, I was making. But if ultrasound really is harmful to the fetus, why is it so common for pregnant women to get them? (and heaven help me if this turns into another doctor-bashing segment! Please, let's not go there everyone, okay?). What I mean is - is this new information coming out?? Thanks, in health, rachel~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 barry91162@... writes: > I understand what you are saying. I'm also 'grateful' that the stone > made the attacks come to alert me that I needed to change my diet and > help prevent my gb from getting worse. The pain is actually God's way > to tell us something is wrong and we need to change our habits and do > something about it. I read a wonderful book years ago, called " The Gift Nobody Wants " . It's written by a doctor named Brand. He did extensive work with people with leprosy and discovered that a lot of the problems people experience with leprosy actually stems from a lack of pain because it affects the nerve endings. (that's an oversimplified explanation, but it's enough for here..) He described things like - the reason a lot of people with leprosy go blind is because the nerve endings are not communicating and they don't blink. We don't really think about how many times we blink, but this is actually a response to something that the eye is 'feeling', but it's on such a level that we don't notice it. People with leprosy (often) don't even have that sensation so the message doesn't come from the brain for the eyelids to blink. So the eyes get dried out and obvious problems ensue and many times they go blind. Maybe that's not the best example... Okay - say you're walking along and you step into a hole and twist your ankle. Your body's instant response to that pain is to fall - which alleviates the pressure on your ankle and minimizes the damage. After that, you limp, which also minimizes the damage and helps it to heal. Imagine, though, if you, like many people with leprosy, didn't have that pain message going to the brain and therefore didn't have the response message in return. You'd sprain your ankle, but would keep on walking because you didn't notice it. The damage would continue to increase. Or what if you cut yourself but didn't notice? What if the cut got infected, but you didn't notice, because there was no pain to get your attention? These were just some of the examples that he used and the book is incredible if you ever have a chance to read it. But the point of this long-winded paragraph is that the book shows how valuable and how important pain is. Those of use who have experienced gallbladder pain - to whatever extent (none of it is pleasant!!) - are learning ways to prevent that pain from recurring and in the process are doing something that is benefiting our entire body and improving our health for the future. (this is me, getting off my soapbox now!) > To be honest with you, the thing I would change would not really be > my diet so much (I may sneak a pizza in once a month..:-)..)but I > would reduce my flushing from twice a month to probably once every > other month or twice a year eventually. I can think of better things > to do on a weekend night besides hanging around by my toilet and > drinking lots of oil. hehe Ah yes, I suppose there are a FEW more interesting things in life to do than flush every two weeks. I would agree on that point also, that it will be nice to get to the point of doing this every six months. I wonder if there is anyone on this list who IS at that point, but remained on the list anyway. Anyone???? in health, rachel~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 In a message dated 2/23/02 11:31:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, barry91162@... writes: > Wow, $700 dollars?!?! To my $30? If I had to pay that much I'd > probably stick some kind of microscopic viewer down my throat and > look myself. :-) I definitely wouldn't have gone in 3 times over 6 > flushes if it was costing that much out of my own pocket. But, on the > other hand, if you could get it done for $30, you may be curious > enough to stop in and check it out on the way home from work. That's > my case anyway. I hope you can find an easy and less expensive way to > check ultrasound results. I didn't save the paperwork from the insurance company, but yes - I remember being astounded at that amount. It's odd, though, that there is SUCH a variance. I gues I need to make some phone calls and get some information. I'm content with doing the flushing and making the changes and if I was to get to the point where I didn't see any results from the flushes I would be 90% content with that. Still, though, it would be nice to have that visual image of the clean gallbladder!!! in health, rachel~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 Thanks for sharing your take on it, Adrienne. I suppose I just wasn't familiar with this because I've never been pregnant. So it was never a personal concern to me. Good to know, though. Thanks, in health, rachel~ In a message dated 2/24/02 12:07:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, adriennelynn1@... writes: > This is old news in the sense that I knew that ultrasounds are potentially > harmful for an unborn child, as well as the pregnancy itself, 19 years ago > when I was pregnant with my first child, and so I never had an ultrasound > done when I was pregnant. Have not read anything recent about the > potential hazards, but what they were saying, at least 9 years ago, was > that it could cause possibly cause miscarriage, by negatively affecting the > amount of amniotic fluid. Also, ultrasounds, when first introduced, were > only done for high risk pregnancies. As we became a more litigious > society, they became routine. That's my take on it. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: <Rachd1961@...> <gallstones > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 9:58 PM Subject: Re: Re: ultrasound I don't know why doctors do so many harmful things, especially to pregnant women, but they do. Without going into doctor bashing, you might want to get a copy of " I Was A Medical Heretic " By Dr. S. Mendelsohn. Best wishes, Betsy wrote: > But if ultrasound really is harmful to the fetus, why is it so common for > pregnant women to get them? (and heaven help me if this turns into another > doctor-bashing segment! Please, let's not go there everyone, okay?). What I > mean is - is this new information coming out?? Thanks, > in health, > rachel~ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Some of you asked me to let you all know how my ultrasound went. It showed no gallstones. The pain is coming from my ribs. The technician was focused on 3 spots, 1 in the middle, one a little bit away from the first, and the 3rd was on my side. The pain was so intense I had to make her stop 10 minutes in to the session. I have a Dr's appt in a few hours to talk about what they found. I tried to post this message early yesterday but I guess the moderator passed on it. Hopefully he or she will let me inform the group what the ultrasound showed. Thanks :-) Beth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beth; This sounds to me like you may also be having pain in the back in the area of the narrow point between the scapulas. If this is the case then you have ribs that are out of alignment with the vertebra and this can cause the feeling of a potential liver problem because of the discomfort it causes on the front area of the ribs. I just experienced this in the last few weeks but knew what it was when I went to my chiropractor. http://www.cascadewellnessclinic.com/articles/2000art/art0006.html Dale 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.