Re: Ultrasound imaging of gallstones

[Guest guest]

This (false negatives...) is true for many tests.

~Suzanne

> I think it would be fair to say that false negatives are more

common than

> false positives with regard to gallstones.

[Guest guest]

Ira,

This is true. Fortuntely my floating, 1cm stone is very clear on the

4 ultrasounds I have done over 4 months. I feel so great sometimes

after a flush that I've gone in to varify the results and end up

being dissappointed that the stone is still there. The olive oil will

also lubricate my body for a few days of pain free living until my

body gets back to normal and the attacks resume. That is also a false-

truth about the cleasning methods. We need to realize what our bodies

are really doing. I think about that when reading some of the

many 'success' stories that people have written the next day after a

flush. How about later? In most cases, if a stone is still there, and

after the euphoric feeling is gone, and the lubricating effects of

the oil has left the body, the stone will again cause colic.

This is my particular case anyway.

If ultrasound is clear but you still have colic, that tells you

either the ultrasound missed a stone (which you can see is very easy

to do) or there is a stone in the duct somewhere blocking the way.

Sludge can also block the way and cause colic and not show up on

ultrasound.

Be Healthy.

Barry.

>

> >My worst gallbladder attack wasn't even a gallbladder attack, but

had

> >the

> >same symptoms excepting I didn't have any stones according to the

> >ultrasound

> >that was done!

>

> I have also had ultrasound imaging that showed no stones, but the

> roentgenologist explained to me that there may be stones that are

not

> visible, either because they are small or because they are in a

certain

> part of the gall bladder.

>

> The last ultrasound that I had done, about two months ago, also

showed no

> stones. But since the doctor knew that I had had stones that

showed on

> the previous ultrasound, she moved me to a more sensitive

ultrasound

> machine, and worked extremely hard to find them (including my

assuming

> many positions that I had never experienced in previous ultrasound

> scanning), and finally was successful in finding a stone. Many

other

> roentgenologists would have simply concluded that there were no

stones,

> and left me to believe that I had passed any that I had previously

had.

>

> I think it would be fair to say that false negatives are more

common than

> false positives with regard to gallstones.

>

> ---------------------------

> IRA L. JACOBSON

> ---------------------------

> mailto:laser@i...

>

>

>