Re: Take out the stones or gallbladder

[Guest guest]

Suzanne,

I know how you feel, but the doctors do not say that the gallbladder

is not very necessary. Everyone agrees that the gallbladder stores

bile to help in digestion. The problem is in a gallbladder that is

diseased, sluggish beyond repair, and the always debatable topic

of 'once gallstones are being produced by the aged gallbladder that

it will continue to do so'. That last one would be the real argument

to remove only the stones and save the gallblader. Now if it is

diseased, of course in that case it should be removed. But, back to

the stones being reproduced once they start...

Weither it's true or not, they say that 50% chance of stones

returning is the reason to remove the organ. The body will adjust to

the change and the bile provided directly from the liver will be

sufficient to aide in digestion. Only 5 % of the people with

gallbladders removed could notice some kind of difference or problems

later. Supplements could even be taken occasionally but are usually

not necessary.

The laproscopic surgery to remove only the stones instead of the

entire gallbladder is actually more expensive to perform. They still

opt for the 'lesser cost' because of the percentage of reaccurance.

Insurance will only cover the removal of the gallbladder, not just

the stones. You can pay a doctor to remove only the stones and leave

the gallbladder in place but you would have to pay out of pocket

instead of having your insurance cover it. The operation may be

something like $5,000. I'm not sure. Even then, doctors would be

reluctant to do it because in 50% of the cases, you will be right

back in within a year for another 'stone removal' operation.

Heretitary reasons are more common than dietary reaccurances of

gallstones.

Uterus importance and problems are not equal to gallbladder

importance and problems. I do understand the comparison you are

making but there is also a major difference in organ function that

needs to be addressed with this kind of statement.

It all comes down to the reason for removal. No one would get an

organ removed for no reason. If you have a diseased gallbladder

beyond repair, I'd say get it out before it causes more pain and

problems. If you can cleanse and reactivate your organ, by all means

do it. Try that first of course. But, if the pain of colic is ruining

your life, flushing doesn't stop the pain because you have a stone

that won't exit, or for some other unbearable reason, don't worry if

you have to remove the gallbladder to get happiness and healthy

again.

I believe in flushing too, but I believe in living a happy and pain-

free life, and having the freedom of choice as far as eating by

whatever means possible. I'd say flush first, change diet, excersize,

etc. but if you need to, I'd also say remove the gallbladder.

Good luck with your health and your flushes. I wish for you and

everyone in here great success in keeping their gallbladders and

living a happy and colic free, flushing life. :-)

Barry.

>

>

> I don't totally agree with the doctors that say the gallbladder is

> not very necessary.

>

> <..Note; if this was drastically a negative effect to the digestive

> <system, they would surely just remove the stone and not the

> <gallbladder. They feel that if in 50% of the cases the stones will

> <return no matter what kind of dietary changes you make, and

because

> <only 5% of the people removing the gb have some mild problems

later,

> <the best option for them is to remove the entire thing....>

>

> That is assuming that the doctors remove only organs of little or

no

> use.

>

> Sorry, but it's a well known fact that many women have their

uteruses

> removed for little reason - especially if they " have their

family " .

> It's been proven that a uterus produces hormones and has a

cleansing

> effect on the body whem monthly menses continue.

>

> What about appendixes, tonsils and adnoids?

>

> So many of these things are considered useless and therefore

> disposable. Who makes these decisions? Do women decide to remove

> uteruses that may be salvageable? (by the way, it is advised to do

> hysterectomy only for cancer and how many women have it

removed " just

> for fibroids " ).....or do doctors decide that an easier, less

> complicated surgery, will gain the same financial rewards or even

> more $$$$?

>

> I guess that I'm getting carried away, but I feel that the stones

> could be removed, but the doctors find it:

>

> 1)financially less appealing than total removal

>

> 2)Shy away from removal of stones and that repairing the incision

in

> the gallbladder as too time consuming and tedious and more prone to

> accidents.

>

> Mind you ------that is my humble opinion.

>

> ~Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Barry,

*Sigh* In your statement I am not sure either way if you mean the uterus is less

important, equally important or more important....

Peace

Lu

----- Original Message -----

From: barry91162

gallstones

Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:42 PM

Subject: Re: Take out the stones or gallbladder

Suzanne,

I know how you feel, but the doctors do not say that the gallbladder

is not very necessary. Everyone agrees that the gallbladder stores

bile to help in digestion. The problem is in a gallbladder that is

diseased, sluggish beyond repair, and the always debatable topic

of 'once gallstones are being produced by the aged gallbladder that

it will continue to do so'. That last one would be the real argument

to remove only the stones and save the gallblader. Now if it is

diseased, of course in that case it should be removed. But, back to

the stones being reproduced once they start...

Weither it's true or not, they say that 50% chance of stones

returning is the reason to remove the organ. The body will adjust to

the change and the bile provided directly from the liver will be

sufficient to aide in digestion. Only 5 % of the people with

gallbladders removed could notice some kind of difference or problems

later. Supplements could even be taken occasionally but are usually

not necessary.

The laproscopic surgery to remove only the stones instead of the

entire gallbladder is actually more expensive to perform. They still

opt for the 'lesser cost' because of the percentage of reaccurance.

Insurance will only cover the removal of the gallbladder, not just

the stones. You can pay a doctor to remove only the stones and leave

the gallbladder in place but you would have to pay out of pocket

instead of having your insurance cover it. The operation may be

something like $5,000. I'm not sure. Even then, doctors would be

reluctant to do it because in 50% of the cases, you will be right

back in within a year for another 'stone removal' operation.

Heretitary reasons are more common than dietary reaccurances of

gallstones.

Uterus importance and problems are not equal to gallbladder

importance and problems. I do understand the comparison you are

making but there is also a major difference in organ function that

needs to be addressed with this kind of statement.

It all comes down to the reason for removal. No one would get an

organ removed for no reason. If you have a diseased gallbladder

beyond repair, I'd say get it out before it causes more pain and

problems. If you can cleanse and reactivate your organ, by all means

do it. Try that first of course. But, if the pain of colic is ruining

your life, flushing doesn't stop the pain because you have a stone

that won't exit, or for some other unbearable reason, don't worry if

you have to remove the gallbladder to get happiness and healthy

again.

I believe in flushing too, but I believe in living a happy and pain-

free life, and having the freedom of choice as far as eating by

whatever means possible. I'd say flush first, change diet, excersize,

etc. but if you need to, I'd also say remove the gallbladder.

Good luck with your health and your flushes. I wish for you and

everyone in here great success in keeping their gallbladders and

living a happy and colic free, flushing life. :-)

Barry.

>

>

> I don't totally agree with the doctors that say the gallbladder is

> not very necessary.

>

> <..Note; if this was drastically a negative effect to the digestive

> <system, they would surely just remove the stone and not the

> <gallbladder. They feel that if in 50% of the cases the stones will

> <return no matter what kind of dietary changes you make, and

because

> <only 5% of the people removing the gb have some mild problems

later,

> <the best option for them is to remove the entire thing....>

>

> That is assuming that the doctors remove only organs of little or

no

> use.

>

> Sorry, but it's a well known fact that many women have their

uteruses

> removed for little reason - especially if they " have their

family " .

> It's been proven that a uterus produces hormones and has a

cleansing

> effect on the body whem monthly menses continue.

>

> What about appendixes, tonsils and adnoids?

>

> So many of these things are considered useless and therefore

> disposable. Who makes these decisions? Do women decide to remove

> uteruses that may be salvageable? (by the way, it is advised to do

> hysterectomy only for cancer and how many women have it

removed " just

> for fibroids " ).....or do doctors decide that an easier, less

> complicated surgery, will gain the same financial rewards or even

> more $$$$?

>

> I guess that I'm getting carried away, but I feel that the stones

> could be removed, but the doctors find it:

>

> 1)financially less appealing than total removal

>

> 2)Shy away from removal of stones and that repairing the incision

in

> the gallbladder as too time consuming and tedious and more prone to

> accidents.

>

> Mind you ------that is my humble opinion.

>

> ~Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Lu,

I'm saying it's inconclusive to relate organs in this way. In other

words, every organ is as important as the next as far as the

individual is concerned and as far as if the organ and person with

the organ is happy and healthy.

The main topic of this thread is weither the stones can be removed

without also removing the gb....I thought it was anyway. haha :-)?

Barry.

> >

> >

> > I don't totally agree with the doctors that say the gallbladder

is

> > not very necessary.

> >

> > <..Note; if this was drastically a negative effect to the

digestive

> > <system, they would surely just remove the stone and not the

> > <gallbladder. They feel that if in 50% of the cases the stones

will

> > <return no matter what kind of dietary changes you make, and

> because

> > <only 5% of the people removing the gb have some mild problems

> later,

> > <the best option for them is to remove the entire thing....>

> >

> > That is assuming that the doctors remove only organs of little or

> no

> > use.

> >

> > Sorry, but it's a well known fact that many women have their

> uteruses

> > removed for little reason - especially if they " have their

> family " .

> > It's been proven that a uterus produces hormones and has a

> cleansing

> > effect on the body whem monthly menses continue.

> >

> > What about appendixes, tonsils and adnoids?

> >

> > So many of these things are considered useless and therefore

> > disposable. Who makes these decisions? Do women decide to

remove

> > uteruses that may be salvageable? (by the way, it is advised to

do

> > hysterectomy only for cancer and how many women have it

> removed " just

> > for fibroids " ).....or do doctors decide that an easier, less

> > complicated surgery, will gain the same financial rewards or even

> > more $$$$?

> >

> > I guess that I'm getting carried away, but I feel that the stones

> > could be removed, but the doctors find it:

> >

> > 1)financially less appealing than total removal

> >

> > 2)Shy away from removal of stones and that repairing the incision

> in

> > the gallbladder as too time consuming and tedious and more prone

to

> > accidents.

> >

> > Mind you ------that is my humble opinion.

> >

> > ~Suzanne

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello there Barry!!

I know it was whether stones can be removed and that my observation was

wondering about what it was you were saying about this just to clear my mind

because my mind is zoning in on something that wasn't that important..

roflol...sorry Barry, I figured you meant that equally important for different

reasons but I just wanted to make sure that I was reading it right and that for

the benefit of my lack of interest in the thread I just thought I would throw in

something. Sorry for taking up time on the list and of course it does help to

clarify to others that is what you meant so as not to stir up chaos....okay,

there I go again always promoting peace when there is no threat...sorry!! lol.

,-)

Peace

Lu

----- Original Message -----

From: barry91162

gallstones

Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:21 PM

Subject: Re: Take out the stones or gallbladder

Lu,

I'm saying it's inconclusive to relate organs in this way. In other

words, every organ is as important as the next as far as the

individual is concerned and as far as if the organ and person with

the organ is happy and healthy.

The main topic of this thread is weither the stones can be removed

without also removing the gb....I thought it was anyway. haha :-)?

Barry.

> >

> >

> > I don't totally agree with the doctors that say the gallbladder

is

> > not very necessary.

> >

> > <..Note; if this was drastically a negative effect to the

digestive

> > <system, they would surely just remove the stone and not the

> > <gallbladder. They feel that if in 50% of the cases the stones

will

> > <return no matter what kind of dietary changes you make, and

> because

> > <only 5% of the people removing the gb have some mild problems

> later,

> > <the best option for them is to remove the entire thing....>

> >

> > That is assuming that the doctors remove only organs of little or

> no

> > use.

> >

> > Sorry, but it's a well known fact that many women have their

> uteruses

> > removed for little reason - especially if they " have their

> family " .

> > It's been proven that a uterus produces hormones and has a

> cleansing

> > effect on the body whem monthly menses continue.

> >

> > What about appendixes, tonsils and adnoids?

> >

> > So many of these things are considered useless and therefore

> > disposable. Who makes these decisions? Do women decide to

remove

> > uteruses that may be salvageable? (by the way, it is advised to

do

> > hysterectomy only for cancer and how many women have it

> removed " just

> > for fibroids " ).....or do doctors decide that an easier, less

> > complicated surgery, will gain the same financial rewards or even

> > more $$$$?

> >

> > I guess that I'm getting carried away, but I feel that the stones

> > could be removed, but the doctors find it:

> >

> > 1)financially less appealing than total removal

> >

> > 2)Shy away from removal of stones and that repairing the incision

> in

> > the gallbladder as too time consuming and tedious and more prone

to

> > accidents.

> >

> > Mind you ------that is my humble opinion.

> >

> > ~Suzanne

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>I guess that I'm getting carried away, but I feel that the stones

could be removed, but the doctors find it:

1)financially less appealing than total removal>>

I wouldn't see how it would be much less expensive.

>>2)Shy away from removal of stones and that repairing the incision in

the gallbladder as too time consuming and tedious and more prone to

accidents.<<

More time consuming would mean more money. It probably is more prone to

accidents, and even if all goes well, a year later a person could have a

gallbladder full of stones again.

Personally, I think that if it was considered safe and effective, this is

what would be done. I think that eventually lithotripsy will be a more

available option, which will mean less surgery.

Debra

_________________________________________________________________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Barry,

I agree that should all else fail, one must do what is going to work

for their body. If that be gallbladder removal - so be it. And

believe me, I realize that with your symptoms you have gone the extra

mile. but do people in the 50% bracket follow a healthy life style

or just go back to their old habits which brought them there in the

first place.

> Whether it's true or not, they say that 50% chance of stones

> returning is the reason to remove the organ. The body will adjust

>to the change and the bile provided directly from the liver will be

> sufficient to aide in digestion.

.......I'd hate to be in that 5% group, because then your chance of

compications personally is 100%.

>Only 5 % of the people with

> gallbladders removed could notice some kind of difference or

problems

> later. Supplements could even be taken occasionally but are usually

> not necessary.

I'm not questioning your philosphy, just the doctors who make the

above statements.

In health

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Lu,

And besides, your uterus is more important to you than mine is

because I don't have that organ. haha

I know what you mean, and I love to discuss anything with you. :-)

Peace & Love,

Barry.

> > Barry,

> > *Sigh* In your statement I am not sure either way if you mean the

> uterus is less important, equally important or more important....

> > Peace

> > Lu

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: barry91162

> > gallstones@y...

> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:42 PM

> > Subject: Re: Take out the stones or gallbladder

> >

> >

> > Suzanne,

> >

> > I know how you feel, but the doctors do not say that the

> gallbladder

> > is not very necessary. Everyone agrees that the gallbladder

stores

> > bile to help in digestion. The problem is in a gallbladder that

is

> > diseased, sluggish beyond repair, and the always debatable topic

> > of 'once gallstones are being produced by the aged gallbladder

that

> > it will continue to do so'. That last one would be the real

> argument

> > to remove only the stones and save the gallblader. Now if it is

> > diseased, of course in that case it should be removed. But, back

to

> > the stones being reproduced once they start...

> >

> > Weither it's true or not, they say that 50% chance of stones

> > returning is the reason to remove the organ. The body will adjust

> to

> > the change and the bile provided directly from the liver will be

> > sufficient to aide in digestion. Only 5 % of the people with

> > gallbladders removed could notice some kind of difference or

> problems

> > later. Supplements could even be taken occasionally but are

usually

> > not necessary.

> >

> > The laproscopic surgery to remove only the stones instead of the

> > entire gallbladder is actually more expensive to perform. They

> still

> > opt for the 'lesser cost' because of the percentage of

reaccurance.

> >

> > Insurance will only cover the removal of the gallbladder, not

just

> > the stones. You can pay a doctor to remove only the stones and

> leave

> > the gallbladder in place but you would have to pay out of pocket

> > instead of having your insurance cover it. The operation may be

> > something like $5,000. I'm not sure. Even then, doctors would be

> > reluctant to do it because in 50% of the cases, you will be right

> > back in within a year for another 'stone removal' operation.

> > Heretitary reasons are more common than dietary reaccurances of

> > gallstones.

> >

> > Uterus importance and problems are not equal to gallbladder

> > importance and problems. I do understand the comparison you are

> > making but there is also a major difference in organ function

that

> > needs to be addressed with this kind of statement.

> >

> > It all comes down to the reason for removal. No one would get an

> > organ removed for no reason. If you have a diseased gallbladder

> > beyond repair, I'd say get it out before it causes more pain and

> > problems. If you can cleanse and reactivate your organ, by all

> means

> > do it. Try that first of course. But, if the pain of colic is

> ruining

> > your life, flushing doesn't stop the pain because you have a

stone

> > that won't exit, or for some other unbearable reason, don't worry

> if

> > you have to remove the gallbladder to get happiness and healthy

> > again.

> >

> > I believe in flushing too, but I believe in living a happy and

pain-

> > free life, and having the freedom of choice as far as eating by

> > whatever means possible. I'd say flush first, change diet,

> excersize,

> > etc. but if you need to, I'd also say remove the gallbladder.

> >

> > Good luck with your health and your flushes. I wish for you and

> > everyone in here great success in keeping their gallbladders and

> > living a happy and colic free, flushing life. :-)

> >

> > Barry.

> >

> >

> >

> > --- In gallstones@y..., " suzanne_on_ca " <suzanne_on_ca@y...>

wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > I don't totally agree with the doctors that say the gallbladder

> is

> > > not very necessary.

> > >

> > > <..Note; if this was drastically a negative effect to the

> digestive

> > > <system, they would surely just remove the stone and not the

> > > <gallbladder. They feel that if in 50% of the cases the stones

> will

> > > <return no matter what kind of dietary changes you make, and

> > because

> > > <only 5% of the people removing the gb have some mild problems

> > later,

> > > <the best option for them is to remove the entire thing....>

> > >

> > > That is assuming that the doctors remove only organs of little

or

> > no

> > > use.

> > >

> > > Sorry, but it's a well known fact that many women have their

> > uteruses

> > > removed for little reason - especially if they " have their

> > family " .

> > > It's been proven that a uterus produces hormones and has a

> > cleansing

> > > effect on the body whem monthly menses continue.

> > >

> > > What about appendixes, tonsils and adnoids?

> > >

> > > So many of these things are considered useless and therefore

> > > disposable. Who makes these decisions? Do women decide to

> remove

> > > uteruses that may be salvageable? (by the way, it is advised to

> do

> > > hysterectomy only for cancer and how many women have it

> > removed " just

> > > for fibroids " ).....or do doctors decide that an easier, less

> > > complicated surgery, will gain the same financial rewards or

even

> > > more $$$$?

> > >

> > > I guess that I'm getting carried away, but I feel that the

stones

> > > could be removed, but the doctors find it:

> > >

> > > 1)financially less appealing than total removal

> > >

> > > 2)Shy away from removal of stones and that repairing the

incision

> > in

> > > the gallbladder as too time consuming and tedious and more

prone

> to

> > > accidents.

> > >

> > > Mind you ------that is my humble opinion.

> > >

> > > ~Suzanne

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Yes Debra,

And unfortunely for someone to be a 'candidate' for successful

Lithotripsy methods they would have to have less than 3 cholesterol

stones, none bigger than 2 cm in size. Also, they will always feel

that gallstones will return in months or years in 50% of people

treated this way.

I also believe the 'stone removal only' would be more expensive.

Also, they don't want you to come back a few months later with

more 'stone removal surgery. Insurance doesn't cover that and the AMA

doesn't approve that for a logical reason no matter what alternative

method practicioners think or believe.

Laser stone breaking would be a good thing. Or some wonder drug.

Barry.

> >>I guess that I'm getting carried away, but I feel that the stones

> could be removed, but the doctors find it:

>

> 1)financially less appealing than total removal>>

>

> I wouldn't see how it would be much less expensive.

>

> >>2)Shy away from removal of stones and that repairing the incision

in

> the gallbladder as too time consuming and tedious and more prone to

> accidents.<<

>

> More time consuming would mean more money. It probably is more

prone to

> accidents, and even if all goes well, a year later a person could

have a

> gallbladder full of stones again.

>

> Personally, I think that if it was considered safe and effective,

this is

> what would be done. I think that eventually lithotripsy will be a

more

> available option, which will mean less surgery.

>

> Debra

>

>

>

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

http://mobile.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Suzanne,

Great question and I have studied that as well. Dieting will in some

cases slow the process of reaccurring stones but unfortunately it is

not good enough to avoid the problem. Excersizing helps as well as

dieting, but a lot of the causes of reaccurrance is heretitary and

aging. They feel (and studies of thousands of people have proven it)

that once your gb is at the age and 'diseased' condition to produce

stones that are symtomatic, the gb will most likely (50%) continue to

create problem for the rest of your life. There are always exceptions

but in most cases a flusher will have to flush forever to control the

condition. Dale is an example of someone who is on a very strict diet

and really watches what he puts it, and even though he now has a

clear ultrasound, he still has 'discomfort' in the bilinary area.

Maybe I'm wrong about Dale but he is not alone. Most stories and

reports I've read shows just that. It's a lifestyle, lifetime thing.

I've never personally met anyone in that 5%. And if they are, it is

only a minor problem. Supplements could very well adjust the problem

and do not have to be taken for lifetime. Unless a surgery is done

bad, like a cut duct or something, this would be a problem that would

need extra care. I think the % of that is only .001. Driving a car is

more dangerous. All surgery is dangerous but gb sugery is really

considered a minor, outpatient type of surgery. Coilc pain 2 - 3

times a week is more dangerous.

If you are considering surgery, I would suggest that you check all

information you can on it. Also, ask family members, friends, and

anyone you know who has done it and see what you think. Personal

choices are made by you and you will have to live with the results.

Personal health and happiness are the most important. I hope you

never have to face that choice for yourself.

Good luck with your health.

Barry.

Good luck with your search for health, happiness, and pain-free

living.

Barry.

> Dear Barry,

>

> I agree that should all else fail, one must do what is going to

work

> for their body. If that be gallbladder removal - so be it. And

> believe me, I realize that with your symptoms you have gone the

extra

> mile. but do people in the 50% bracket follow a healthy life

style

> or just go back to their old habits which brought them there in the

> first place.

>

> > Whether it's true or not, they say that 50% chance of stones

> > returning is the reason to remove the organ. The body will adjust

> >to the change and the bile provided directly from the liver will

be

> > sufficient to aide in digestion.

>

> ......I'd hate to be in that 5% group, because then your chance of

> compications personally is 100%.

>

> >Only 5 % of the people with

> > gallbladders removed could notice some kind of difference or

> problems

> > later. Supplements could even be taken occasionally but are

usually

> > not necessary.

>

> I'm not questioning your philosphy, just the doctors who make the

> above statements.

>

> In health

> Suzanne

[Guest guest]

>>but do people in the 50% bracket follow a healthy life style

or just go back to their old habits which brought them there in the

first place.<<

Just my experience, but I eat essentially whatever I want. I eat dairy

again, which I had totally sworn off of before surgery, and I did not have

to add it or anything else in gradually. I try to eat a lot of fruit, and

some vegies every day. (I hate vegies, but I force myself.) I eat the

fruit to avoid eating other sweet things, not because sweets bother me, but

because fruit is better than empty calories, and the freedom to eat anything

could lead to weight gain if I wasn't selective.

Debra

_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx