Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72FABA3;
boundary="=====================_42144737==.ALT"
Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72FABA3; charset=iso-8859-1
At 12:20 PM 4/15/03 -0700, you wrote:
Thanks Marshall, for the comforting protrayal of the common tests.
I knew the ultrasound was no biggie, but the other one sounded not
so nice for a sensitive three year old. Now that she is six and can
understand it a bit better I am willing to g have the tests.
Hi Sharon, I may have missed something here, but if it was my
description of the radiological test that you found comforting, I
didn't communicate very well!!!!! I'm of the opinion it is
seriously not-so-nice, now or ever; and possibly not appropriate
anyhow. BUT: Disclaimer time, I'm not a medical professional and
go only by my own knowledge and experiences; your reality is no
doubt different than mine. Actually, I guess 'your' test may be
different than 'mine', but on the chance we're talking about the
same thing, here's my thoughts.
Yeah- From your desctiption it sounded like it wasn't so bad after all!
First off; However "safe" your doc may tell you the radio-isotope
employed for this test is, it is ionising radiation and obviously
capable of penetrating the body, or it couldn't produce a diagnostic
result. The isotope is introduced by I.V. and circulates throughout
the body in the blood stream, and is selectively harvested out by
the kidneys; for this reason the "picture-taking" process does not
show much for several minutes, and lasts for over 45 minutes - for
an adult, anyway.
Wow, that's a while.
Any such radiation, specifically including so-called 'low-level'
radiation, is more likely to produce teratogenic (growth
abnormality) mutations in rapidly growing tissues, such as those
responding to attack by pathogens, and in young organisms like
six-year-olds, than it is in the more stable mature and/or
degenerating ones. Such few mutations as may occur and survive the
body's cleanup mechanisms may be "sleepers" and surface as disease
ten or twenty years later from the stimulus of viral or other
triggers. This is not to say that chances of such an event are at
all likely; on the other hand they're not infinitely small, either.
It is this never-never land of the uncommon possibility the docs
will vehemently disregard. (As in: "Don't even think about that!")
The safety records for these complex diagnostic tools come from
tests over limited periods of followup time in major often publicly
funded hospitals such as the VA or county state and University
teaching hospitals with high turnovers of the indigent. The tests
are designed and supervised by commercial organizations that have a
vested interest in selling their equipment and protocols. The real
testing occurs in the years after the equipment has been approved
and installed. Any true record will be fragmented and seldom well
analysed unless a public outcry arises because of gross damage. No
such outcry has arisen about this procedure and it seems to be
pretty benign, but I know that exposure to low-level ionizing (and
even some non-ionizing) radiation has been proven harmful and the
effects are cumulative.
This procedure gives you - well, the doc - a series of indistinct
images made up of an increasing number of little isolated dots; two
blobs of these representing the kidneys, two suggestions of lines
for the ureters, another blob for the bladder. The series shows the
rate at which each kidney strips the radioactive isotope from the
blood, whether a major portion of a kidney is unable to do so
indicating damage, and gross obstruction to ureters or malformation
of the bladder. As I said previously, basically a flow test.
OTOH an ultrasound yields very much more detailed pictures of all
these structures from all angles, and including - by some magic - a
rough indication of arterial and venous blood flow through a kidney.
Kidney and bladder stones are also visible in many cases, which is
not so for radiological IVPs. However ultrasound does not give a
direct and unambiguous picture of urine production compared over
real-time in each kidney. If you or your doc have some real reason
to suspect genetic or traumatic damage to your kid's innards, this
could be highly significant, otherwise . . . . . . . it could just
be a CYA move on their part, doesn't cost THEM anything. If an
ultrasound or some of the multitude of serological or excretory
tests indicate some kidney malfunction that's another matter (what
is your daughter's creatinine level, by the way?? Ask your
pediatrician, and if she doesn't even know, you can yell at her!
The creatinine level is a simple common clinical test of the
kidney's ability to filter; it's not real sensitive for minor
dysfunction, but there are other tests which are.)
Undoubtedly she doesn't She did no tests beyond the urine test to
determine the infection.
Also, and most important, get a second opinion, and a second "second
opinion", from MDs who don't yell at you and who do want you to
understand what's on their mind about the case, and why they
recommend whatever, and who will discuss alternatives - like
alternatives you bring up - in clear language. Try to make sure
they don't all "go to the same country club." (Yeah, I know, "Try
and win the lottery, too. This could help a great deal.")
ROFL! Yeah. This is why I started going to the Naturopath. It seems
most of the MD/PDs around here are unable/unwilling to think outside
the box, indeed, they are threatened by anyone who does. A patient
who takes responsibility for their own healthcare plan is merely an
annoyance.
There are books on clinical urology in the lib. that are not too
hard to understand . . . . . And see if you can get to talk to Dr.
Stan Jacobs, U of O, he's good, and has a heart. Even if you're not
dealing with Cystitis he could help with recommendations and
referrals. I've heard he even talks with his patients, not just to
them.
Ha! That's gotta be bad for his rep ( with the other docs )
So just to keep this marginally on-topic, I'd expect that CS would
be more effective in counteracting kidney infection than bladder
infection, since the bladder is armored with mucus but the kidney
with all it's marvellous filtration and re-absorbtion tubules is
not. But also, kidney infection is incredibly more threatening to
one's well-being; maybe CS would be good prophylaxis, dunno. And
just to backslide a little, check out Dr. D'Adamso's stuff on blood
type and diet, it's on the web and it's solid work which could help
on the allergy question, too.
I have his book, but I got it for me, so I have to go get her typed.
She has got to be either O or A neg though. Can't vary from Mom and
dad that much...Well, o.k. she has to be neg.
Thanks for all the info Malcom!
Sharon
Take care, Malcolm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert;
x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72FABA3
Content-Disposition: inline
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.470 / Virus Database: 268 - Release Date: 4/8/03
