You have to remember that CC was first described in 1976, and LC was first described in 1980. Those articles were written only a few years after that. Virtually no one knew anything about the disease, back then. Having said that, it's certainly not impossible, IMO, that gallbladder disease might be another uncatalogued trigger for MC, since it appears that the disease can be triggered by many varied types of trauma.
Tex
Gallbladder Disease
Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
-
alexandraCA
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:39 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
gallbladder
It's only due to my own frustration that I wonder why 18 years later, in 1998, a GI so stumped by his patients IBS-D and subsequent emergency cholestectomy could have not have begun to hypothesize? Literature had been out there almost 2 decades. It's all in the past now, but don't you find it both ridiculous and fantastic that patients seem more driven in this cause than the medical community? I hate to put the dollar sign at the forefront but it is amazing how it stands in the way of progress. When your goal is wellness, to paraphrase a different doctor, Seuss, oh, the places you will go!
In my opinion, the primary problem is the fact that the doctor gets paid, whether the patient actually benefits from the doctor's services, or not. No other profession, (that I am aware of), uses such a callous payment policy. The doctor has no real incentive to stay on the cutting edge of technology, the way that any other businessman or professional would have to do, in order to be able to stay competitive.
Progress in the medical world moves at a snails pace. That's one of the reasons why many/most medical services are so inefficient, and why hospital care is so ridiculously overpriced. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm not a doctor. I'm sure most doctors and hospital administrators would disagree.
Tex
Progress in the medical world moves at a snails pace. That's one of the reasons why many/most medical services are so inefficient, and why hospital care is so ridiculously overpriced. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm not a doctor. I'm sure most doctors and hospital administrators would disagree.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
One can do everything right, and still have things go wrong. People should be paid for giving the highest established standard of care to their patients, not according to whether their bodies respond or not, so I'm sure you see the absurdity in what you are saying. Human bodies don't respond like your automobile or some mechanical thing, and they are all highly individual in their responses to various treatments, medications in particular. That is the reason scientists are working so diligently on the so-called "designer drugs" that will be totally individual for a patient.
Right now, I have a friend recently found to have stage 3c ovarian cancer. She has an excellent female surgeon, but is having complications, none the less. Do you really think she shouldn't be paid for all her hard work?!!
Pretty soon we're not going to be able to get anyone decent to go into medicine if we keep expecting docs to work for nothing, like the insurance companies do. The only people who will remain in the profession eventually will be the dishonest ones who can only survive cutting corners, and cheating the system. I've seen this happen while working as a government employee which is the way we're headed.
There are already positions that go begging in elite cardiac residency programs, and medical schools can't demand the best students like they could before. Who would be dumb enough to go into a profession where you have to work yourself to death just to keep up with paying the bills, and still have all that debt hanging over you head.
Medical standards are based on published research, and our problem in this group is that we've figured all this stuff out before the research has been published. Clinicians are not usually researchers and can only ethically do what the published standards based on published and duplicated published research demands.
It's one thing to talk about the politics among the researchers themselves, and quite another to blame the streetcorner clinicians for the hold-ups that may result from the politics of research, or the fact that there just hasn't been research in the first place, or that it's still ongoing with no definitive conclusions among researchers. Just think how little we knew back in 1950, and you've got to know we are sooo fortunate to have the best medical care in the world, even though there are forces at work that have been slowly killing incentive, with the death blow on it's way, I'm afraid!
I must say, with all the medical and surgical problems I've dealt with in my life, I've been VERY satisfied with ALL my physicians' care, and I was always seen promptly when I tried to make an appointment for something potentially serious. However, I have seen how impossible demands killed the nursing profession resulting in much lower standards, and see the same thing happening in medicine.
There will always be a problem with so-called "orphan diseases." These are the ones that occur so infrequently that there's not enough justification to spend research dollars on them in traditional ways. Perhaps some of you are familar with an organization called N.O.R.D. They exist to help those who fall into the category of having an orphan disease or little known disease.
I suggest that as many of you as want to look into this organization. They accept contributions and do mail outs. I confess I've been off of their mailing list for years now, so I'm not sure what all they may be doing more recently. No doubt they have a website now. I need to look into that myself.
You never know when someone you care about will fall prey to one of these, often very serious, painful, or limiting conditions. I'm fairly certain that they have a way to connect people to places where the rarer or less well known conditions can be treated. It might involve some travel, but then, there might only be one "expert" in the field.
It's basically just impossible for anyone, even the typical specialist, to keep up with all the many diseases and conditions that a person can have, so one has to be pro-active in finding the right person to even diagnose them.
My own mother has a less common form of Parkinsons of the family of movement disorders sometimes called Parkinsons Plus diseases. She had a regular neurologist for years who was quite knowledgible, but when the extra symptoms came along, we moved her to a superspecialist with the blessings of her former neurologist at one of a handful of such centers around the globe.
One such center just happens to be a few miles from us. The guy she sees there is an associate of Dr. Jankovitch (sp) who some of you may have heard give a lecture or interview -- he travels the globe talking on the subject of Parkinsons -- a world reknown expert.
We chose his associate because we could get her in earlier to see him and also, because he doesn't travel quite so much. When we go to see this new superspecialist, we become informed of the very latest research to come out, even before it's published -- it is fascinating! Mother is receiving cutting edge care, but we also go alot by our observations of what works and what doesn't.
Everyone is different, so we take responsibility for doing the best by my mother without blaming anyone if something that is tried doesn't work or if we elect not to try something in the first place due to her age and condition.
Basically, I just think it's time for people to take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming everyone else that they got sick, or that they don't respond to the same prescribed treatments as someone else. We are so blessed to have found what works for so many of us, and to have the internet so that we can share information that helps us.
Perhaps a little more thankfulness would help on the spiritual side the way the gluten free, etc. diets have helped on the physical side. Oh shucks, now I'm beginning to sound like Oprah!
Time to get off the soap box and get some things done before getting some sleep.
Take care everyone.
Luce
Right now, I have a friend recently found to have stage 3c ovarian cancer. She has an excellent female surgeon, but is having complications, none the less. Do you really think she shouldn't be paid for all her hard work?!!
Pretty soon we're not going to be able to get anyone decent to go into medicine if we keep expecting docs to work for nothing, like the insurance companies do. The only people who will remain in the profession eventually will be the dishonest ones who can only survive cutting corners, and cheating the system. I've seen this happen while working as a government employee which is the way we're headed.
There are already positions that go begging in elite cardiac residency programs, and medical schools can't demand the best students like they could before. Who would be dumb enough to go into a profession where you have to work yourself to death just to keep up with paying the bills, and still have all that debt hanging over you head.
Medical standards are based on published research, and our problem in this group is that we've figured all this stuff out before the research has been published. Clinicians are not usually researchers and can only ethically do what the published standards based on published and duplicated published research demands.
It's one thing to talk about the politics among the researchers themselves, and quite another to blame the streetcorner clinicians for the hold-ups that may result from the politics of research, or the fact that there just hasn't been research in the first place, or that it's still ongoing with no definitive conclusions among researchers. Just think how little we knew back in 1950, and you've got to know we are sooo fortunate to have the best medical care in the world, even though there are forces at work that have been slowly killing incentive, with the death blow on it's way, I'm afraid!
I must say, with all the medical and surgical problems I've dealt with in my life, I've been VERY satisfied with ALL my physicians' care, and I was always seen promptly when I tried to make an appointment for something potentially serious. However, I have seen how impossible demands killed the nursing profession resulting in much lower standards, and see the same thing happening in medicine.
There will always be a problem with so-called "orphan diseases." These are the ones that occur so infrequently that there's not enough justification to spend research dollars on them in traditional ways. Perhaps some of you are familar with an organization called N.O.R.D. They exist to help those who fall into the category of having an orphan disease or little known disease.
I suggest that as many of you as want to look into this organization. They accept contributions and do mail outs. I confess I've been off of their mailing list for years now, so I'm not sure what all they may be doing more recently. No doubt they have a website now. I need to look into that myself.
You never know when someone you care about will fall prey to one of these, often very serious, painful, or limiting conditions. I'm fairly certain that they have a way to connect people to places where the rarer or less well known conditions can be treated. It might involve some travel, but then, there might only be one "expert" in the field.
It's basically just impossible for anyone, even the typical specialist, to keep up with all the many diseases and conditions that a person can have, so one has to be pro-active in finding the right person to even diagnose them.
My own mother has a less common form of Parkinsons of the family of movement disorders sometimes called Parkinsons Plus diseases. She had a regular neurologist for years who was quite knowledgible, but when the extra symptoms came along, we moved her to a superspecialist with the blessings of her former neurologist at one of a handful of such centers around the globe.
One such center just happens to be a few miles from us. The guy she sees there is an associate of Dr. Jankovitch (sp) who some of you may have heard give a lecture or interview -- he travels the globe talking on the subject of Parkinsons -- a world reknown expert.
We chose his associate because we could get her in earlier to see him and also, because he doesn't travel quite so much. When we go to see this new superspecialist, we become informed of the very latest research to come out, even before it's published -- it is fascinating! Mother is receiving cutting edge care, but we also go alot by our observations of what works and what doesn't.
Everyone is different, so we take responsibility for doing the best by my mother without blaming anyone if something that is tried doesn't work or if we elect not to try something in the first place due to her age and condition.
Basically, I just think it's time for people to take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming everyone else that they got sick, or that they don't respond to the same prescribed treatments as someone else. We are so blessed to have found what works for so many of us, and to have the internet so that we can share information that helps us.
Perhaps a little more thankfulness would help on the spiritual side the way the gluten free, etc. diets have helped on the physical side. Oh shucks, now I'm beginning to sound like Oprah!
Time to get off the soap box and get some things done before getting some sleep.
Take care everyone.
Luce
Hi Luce,
Sorry to raise your blood pressure, (especially so late at night), but I do appreciate all the good points that you raised, and there is definitely a lot of merit in what you have presented. However, I think you may have missed my point, and the reason why you did, is surely because I didn't make my point very well, (or course, when I wrote that brief comment, I wasn't intending for it to turn into a debate, so I didn't go into any detail). My bad.
I am not saying that doctors/hospitals should not be paid for doing their best to discover what health issues we might have, and to properly treat them. That's why we go there in the first place. I'm not talking about GPs here, either - I'm referring to specialists, (experts). My beef is about misdiagnoses, and treatments that are ineffective, yet they are presented as valid diagnoses, and valid treatments, (when the doctor, if he or she bothered to do their homework, should know better). IMO, that's substandard performance, which doesn't merit "expert" compensation. My gauge in this would be the same that the legal justice system uses - their performance should be according to what a reasonably prudent individual would do, in a similar situation, (a reasonably prudent individual who happens to be classified as an "expert"). If they incorrectly diagnose a case, because of poor judgment, they shouldn't be paid. If they use an obviously ineffective treatment, (again, because of poor judgment), they shouldn't be paid. IOW, I'm not saying that anyone should be penalized for using accepted science that happens to be invalid, (unless they developed that science), I'm saying that they should be held to using accepted science intelligently, and appropriately. I'm saying that they should always use good judgment - how could we accept less, from a highly paid "expert".
Okay, here's a scenario: My GI doc diagnosed IBS, when I have MC. Should he be paid? No way - all he had to do was to take some biopsies, and he could have had the correct diagnosis. It would have been a piece of cake, if he had done his homework. IOW, he showed poor judgment. MC was first described around 30 years ago, for Pete's sake.
Another scenario: My GI doc properly diagnosed MC, then he gives me a script for Entocort, for 8 weeks of treatment, and when I relapse, he tries one drug after another, with no real benefit. Obviously he earned his money for the diagnosis. Should he be paid for the "experimentation" he did, using me as a guinea pig? Well, IMO, if he told me right up front, or at least after the relapse following the Entocort treatment, that he really doesn't know how to treat the disease, but he would do his best to try to find something that might work, then sure - he should be paid. However, if he keeps telling me, (or implying), that this treatment will work, even though the last one didn't, then he's obviously not being honest, is he. That's poor judgment. If he tells me that "diet has nothing to do with MC", then, IMO, he should never be paid for any treatment that he offers, that is not effective, because he is quoting an assumption, (not a fact), and he should never be paid for "bad science". "Bad science" is a form of malpractice, regardless of how many "experts" might condone it. IOW, the presumption, "diet has nothing to do with MC", has never been proved, by scientific research - they just assumed that to be the case. Shame on them. In view of all the empirical evidence against that assumption these days, continuing to use that assumption as the basis of a treatment program, (without a disclaimer - IOW, without pointing out that this is a controversial position), is, in my view, very poor judgment. Don't you agree?
The line of reasoning that medical professionals should be exempt from the standards by which any other professionals are judged, simply because their education is expensive, is rather convoluted. I don't know if you have checked the tuition prices at any of the universities lately, (to say nothing of all the other associated expenses), but I can assure you that if it's been a few years since you've checked them out, they will knock your socks off, (and probably knock your hat in the creek, to boot). Any degree is ridiculously expensive these days, and yet PhDs, (the time and monetary investment equivalent of a medical degree), are widely represented in the business world, and certainly in the occupations regarded as "professions". Similarly, a law degree, is on top of 4 years of college work, and not exactly cheap. Trust me, we all have bills to pay - the medical profession does not have the market cornered on that issue.
If you are well satisfied with all of the medical care that you have received, and/or been associated with, then you are very fortunate. Personally, I can't say that I have always been satisfied. The raging, miserable symptoms that I was suffering from, when I tried to get help from the medical system, were extended for a couple of extra years, after my GI doc told me there was nothing wrong with me. What if I had believed him, and I had just accepted that sentence to life imprisonment in the bathroom? Fortunately, I finally figured it out for myself, and found a way out. Otherwise, there's no telling how long I would have had to deal with it. All that time, my life, and my business, was pretty well "held hostage", because I was only able to function "normally", a fraction of the time.
Yep, his performance left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't have a problem with ignorance, (Lord knows I have enough of my own to contend with), and certainly, no one can be expected to know everything, but I do have a problem with incompetence, and if I am as "sick as a dog", I expect a medical "expert" to tell me something a little more accurate than "there's nothing wrong with you". Is that expecting too much? So what should my GI doc have done? He certainly shouldn't have told me that there was nothing wrong with me. He should have been candid, and told me that he couldn't determine what was wrong with me. That would have left the door open, and I would still have all the respect in the world for him. IOW, he showed very poor judgment. You might say that I should have gone for a second opinion. Well, I might have, if his performance had offered a little more hope. Frankly, after going through all those tests, and knowing that he was purported to be one of the "best" GI docs in this area, I had no desire to go through all that again. Not only are some of those tests quite unpleasant, but together, they add up to a major expense. And for what? To be told that there is nothing wrong with me, again. No thanks.
I'll throw this out as an EWAG: If the doctors and hospitals didn't expect to be paid for poor performance, (due to poor judgment), I'd bet a GF cookie that there wouldn't be near as many malpractice suits filed by disgruntled patients. IMO, in the long run, that change would drastically reduce the cost of medical service, (due to the effect on malpractice insurance). We all know and understand that doctors are human. We just don't all happen to agree that they should be allowed to play the "game", exempt from the rules that everyone that else has to follow, (except for legislators and other government officials, of course - but that's another story). We resent paying for poor judgment, and resentment leads to lawsuits.
The reason why "experts" are allowed to charge high fees for their opinions, in the first place, is because their opinions are assumed, (by legal standards, and otherwise), to reflect the current state of the art. A definite obligation goes with that position, and they are held to higher standards than anyone who is not officially an "expert". All specialists, of course, are deemed to be experts. That being the case, I expect them all to show good judgment. Is that asking too much?
Tex
Sorry to raise your blood pressure, (especially so late at night), but I do appreciate all the good points that you raised, and there is definitely a lot of merit in what you have presented. However, I think you may have missed my point, and the reason why you did, is surely because I didn't make my point very well, (or course, when I wrote that brief comment, I wasn't intending for it to turn into a debate, so I didn't go into any detail). My bad.
I am not saying that doctors/hospitals should not be paid for doing their best to discover what health issues we might have, and to properly treat them. That's why we go there in the first place. I'm not talking about GPs here, either - I'm referring to specialists, (experts). My beef is about misdiagnoses, and treatments that are ineffective, yet they are presented as valid diagnoses, and valid treatments, (when the doctor, if he or she bothered to do their homework, should know better). IMO, that's substandard performance, which doesn't merit "expert" compensation. My gauge in this would be the same that the legal justice system uses - their performance should be according to what a reasonably prudent individual would do, in a similar situation, (a reasonably prudent individual who happens to be classified as an "expert"). If they incorrectly diagnose a case, because of poor judgment, they shouldn't be paid. If they use an obviously ineffective treatment, (again, because of poor judgment), they shouldn't be paid. IOW, I'm not saying that anyone should be penalized for using accepted science that happens to be invalid, (unless they developed that science), I'm saying that they should be held to using accepted science intelligently, and appropriately. I'm saying that they should always use good judgment - how could we accept less, from a highly paid "expert".
Okay, here's a scenario: My GI doc diagnosed IBS, when I have MC. Should he be paid? No way - all he had to do was to take some biopsies, and he could have had the correct diagnosis. It would have been a piece of cake, if he had done his homework. IOW, he showed poor judgment. MC was first described around 30 years ago, for Pete's sake.
Another scenario: My GI doc properly diagnosed MC, then he gives me a script for Entocort, for 8 weeks of treatment, and when I relapse, he tries one drug after another, with no real benefit. Obviously he earned his money for the diagnosis. Should he be paid for the "experimentation" he did, using me as a guinea pig? Well, IMO, if he told me right up front, or at least after the relapse following the Entocort treatment, that he really doesn't know how to treat the disease, but he would do his best to try to find something that might work, then sure - he should be paid. However, if he keeps telling me, (or implying), that this treatment will work, even though the last one didn't, then he's obviously not being honest, is he. That's poor judgment. If he tells me that "diet has nothing to do with MC", then, IMO, he should never be paid for any treatment that he offers, that is not effective, because he is quoting an assumption, (not a fact), and he should never be paid for "bad science". "Bad science" is a form of malpractice, regardless of how many "experts" might condone it. IOW, the presumption, "diet has nothing to do with MC", has never been proved, by scientific research - they just assumed that to be the case. Shame on them. In view of all the empirical evidence against that assumption these days, continuing to use that assumption as the basis of a treatment program, (without a disclaimer - IOW, without pointing out that this is a controversial position), is, in my view, very poor judgment. Don't you agree?
The line of reasoning that medical professionals should be exempt from the standards by which any other professionals are judged, simply because their education is expensive, is rather convoluted. I don't know if you have checked the tuition prices at any of the universities lately, (to say nothing of all the other associated expenses), but I can assure you that if it's been a few years since you've checked them out, they will knock your socks off, (and probably knock your hat in the creek, to boot). Any degree is ridiculously expensive these days, and yet PhDs, (the time and monetary investment equivalent of a medical degree), are widely represented in the business world, and certainly in the occupations regarded as "professions". Similarly, a law degree, is on top of 4 years of college work, and not exactly cheap. Trust me, we all have bills to pay - the medical profession does not have the market cornered on that issue.
If you are well satisfied with all of the medical care that you have received, and/or been associated with, then you are very fortunate. Personally, I can't say that I have always been satisfied. The raging, miserable symptoms that I was suffering from, when I tried to get help from the medical system, were extended for a couple of extra years, after my GI doc told me there was nothing wrong with me. What if I had believed him, and I had just accepted that sentence to life imprisonment in the bathroom? Fortunately, I finally figured it out for myself, and found a way out. Otherwise, there's no telling how long I would have had to deal with it. All that time, my life, and my business, was pretty well "held hostage", because I was only able to function "normally", a fraction of the time.
Yep, his performance left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't have a problem with ignorance, (Lord knows I have enough of my own to contend with), and certainly, no one can be expected to know everything, but I do have a problem with incompetence, and if I am as "sick as a dog", I expect a medical "expert" to tell me something a little more accurate than "there's nothing wrong with you". Is that expecting too much? So what should my GI doc have done? He certainly shouldn't have told me that there was nothing wrong with me. He should have been candid, and told me that he couldn't determine what was wrong with me. That would have left the door open, and I would still have all the respect in the world for him. IOW, he showed very poor judgment. You might say that I should have gone for a second opinion. Well, I might have, if his performance had offered a little more hope. Frankly, after going through all those tests, and knowing that he was purported to be one of the "best" GI docs in this area, I had no desire to go through all that again. Not only are some of those tests quite unpleasant, but together, they add up to a major expense. And for what? To be told that there is nothing wrong with me, again. No thanks.
I'll throw this out as an EWAG: If the doctors and hospitals didn't expect to be paid for poor performance, (due to poor judgment), I'd bet a GF cookie that there wouldn't be near as many malpractice suits filed by disgruntled patients. IMO, in the long run, that change would drastically reduce the cost of medical service, (due to the effect on malpractice insurance). We all know and understand that doctors are human. We just don't all happen to agree that they should be allowed to play the "game", exempt from the rules that everyone that else has to follow, (except for legislators and other government officials, of course - but that's another story). We resent paying for poor judgment, and resentment leads to lawsuits.
The reason why "experts" are allowed to charge high fees for their opinions, in the first place, is because their opinions are assumed, (by legal standards, and otherwise), to reflect the current state of the art. A definite obligation goes with that position, and they are held to higher standards than anyone who is not officially an "expert". All specialists, of course, are deemed to be experts. That being the case, I expect them all to show good judgment. Is that asking too much?
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Hiya Wayne,
I'm not getting my point across, so let's move on to something that might actually be helpful.
What I think would really be helpful to people with lesser known conditions like ours would be for there to be a way to fast track legitimate research results directly to physicians on a wider number of conditions than just heart attacks and cancer and a few of the other biggies. There's already alot of research available on the internet, but I think these need to be translated into written standards resulting from all the research after each condition undergoes a thorough peer review.
I'm not sure, with all the diseases and conditions that are known now, even in one specialty, how all this could get put into "standard" form as rapidly as it needs to be. Delays from research to patient care are really a problem IF one has one of the conditions for which an agreed upon standard doesn't already exist.
That being said, I'm not sure that there was enough research in M.C. to come up a concensus of care that would really have been beneficial for me at the time I was diagnosed, a little before your diagnosis, I believe, much less as far back as I originally became ill.
I suppose all the medications that are prescribed today (that I never wanted to take) actually would be the concensus, based on the most published research, other than Dr. Fine's unpublished study, of course. Even at that, it would be nice if that research had been standardized and immediately retrievable in an official standard of treatment for the condition, for those who wanted to get some temporary relief and were willing to take a chance on the side effects, etc.
Also, it needs to be a little quicker for patients who want to participate in clinical trials with those doing credible research to be able to find who to contact to be able to try some of these treatments.
One computer site with all this information at a doc's finger tips as soon as it becomes available in standardized form could be so helpful to the very next patient who walks in with the condition. That is where I would've sought help, and that's how I might've found Dr. Fine's research earlier.
This system could protect patients from quacks, while still allowing them to chose between the concensus of known research findings and the cutting edge treatments as yet unpublished or unsubstantiated by further research.
Also, the physician would have the assurance that someone had already checked out the credentials of the those claiming to have done research in a given area.
I just think that speed, accuracy, and quality assurance are the name of the game, and getting all the information in a form that doctors can trust quickly, will get the help people need, along with alternatives, much more quickly.
If a doc follows these standards of practice, then he should be better able to avoid a phony lawsuit when the research findings aren't officially compiled into an official standard of treatment.
The goal, however, is not to avoid a lawsuit, but to give the patient the best possible treatment as soon as it's established.
This should also help physicians avoid payments being denied as there should be no question that the best things, given the state of knowledge at the time, had been done for the patient.
We already have such standards on longer existing and better known conditions, but the process of developing them needs to be more all-inclusive in terms of diagnoses. I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap increasing the number of people involved when so many more treatments are standardized, but I think, in the long run, it would save money.
That being said, there will always be people with mysterious symptoms that no one will be able to figure out how to treat. These can be so sad. Remembering what it was like to be so disabled with this stuff, I really feel for these folks who can't even tell anyone what's wrong with them, particularly when it's not an obvious condition. I know what that's like.
I keep thinking that instead of spending so much money on this gigantic healthcare system, that so much of the expenditure for healthcare down the road could be lessened by doing a few creative things outside of the healthcare system. I would even support subsiding restaurant starts for those who wanted to open restaurants that would serve only healthy meals for diabetes prevention and weight reduction. We could try different things with different restaurants, just to see which were the most helpful in various populations.
The diabetes in this country, due to the ethnic changes and lower economic conditions we're going to have to learn to live with, are going to bankrupt us if we don't put a stop to all the problems that will result from not nipping this diabetes thing in the bud pretty soon.
This is only one idea, but I think it's worth trying rather than all the harrassment from the government getting even worse, whether directly, are hidden behind the insurance companies. Actually, I should think the government and the insurance companies could also benefit from some sensible approaches for a change if they could just step out of their power boxes for a change.
I don't think this is entirely a new concept, but it just seems more positive than criminalizing honest, hard working people.
Luce
I'm not getting my point across, so let's move on to something that might actually be helpful.
What I think would really be helpful to people with lesser known conditions like ours would be for there to be a way to fast track legitimate research results directly to physicians on a wider number of conditions than just heart attacks and cancer and a few of the other biggies. There's already alot of research available on the internet, but I think these need to be translated into written standards resulting from all the research after each condition undergoes a thorough peer review.
I'm not sure, with all the diseases and conditions that are known now, even in one specialty, how all this could get put into "standard" form as rapidly as it needs to be. Delays from research to patient care are really a problem IF one has one of the conditions for which an agreed upon standard doesn't already exist.
That being said, I'm not sure that there was enough research in M.C. to come up a concensus of care that would really have been beneficial for me at the time I was diagnosed, a little before your diagnosis, I believe, much less as far back as I originally became ill.
I suppose all the medications that are prescribed today (that I never wanted to take) actually would be the concensus, based on the most published research, other than Dr. Fine's unpublished study, of course. Even at that, it would be nice if that research had been standardized and immediately retrievable in an official standard of treatment for the condition, for those who wanted to get some temporary relief and were willing to take a chance on the side effects, etc.
Also, it needs to be a little quicker for patients who want to participate in clinical trials with those doing credible research to be able to find who to contact to be able to try some of these treatments.
One computer site with all this information at a doc's finger tips as soon as it becomes available in standardized form could be so helpful to the very next patient who walks in with the condition. That is where I would've sought help, and that's how I might've found Dr. Fine's research earlier.
This system could protect patients from quacks, while still allowing them to chose between the concensus of known research findings and the cutting edge treatments as yet unpublished or unsubstantiated by further research.
Also, the physician would have the assurance that someone had already checked out the credentials of the those claiming to have done research in a given area.
I just think that speed, accuracy, and quality assurance are the name of the game, and getting all the information in a form that doctors can trust quickly, will get the help people need, along with alternatives, much more quickly.
If a doc follows these standards of practice, then he should be better able to avoid a phony lawsuit when the research findings aren't officially compiled into an official standard of treatment.
The goal, however, is not to avoid a lawsuit, but to give the patient the best possible treatment as soon as it's established.
This should also help physicians avoid payments being denied as there should be no question that the best things, given the state of knowledge at the time, had been done for the patient.
We already have such standards on longer existing and better known conditions, but the process of developing them needs to be more all-inclusive in terms of diagnoses. I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap increasing the number of people involved when so many more treatments are standardized, but I think, in the long run, it would save money.
That being said, there will always be people with mysterious symptoms that no one will be able to figure out how to treat. These can be so sad. Remembering what it was like to be so disabled with this stuff, I really feel for these folks who can't even tell anyone what's wrong with them, particularly when it's not an obvious condition. I know what that's like.
I keep thinking that instead of spending so much money on this gigantic healthcare system, that so much of the expenditure for healthcare down the road could be lessened by doing a few creative things outside of the healthcare system. I would even support subsiding restaurant starts for those who wanted to open restaurants that would serve only healthy meals for diabetes prevention and weight reduction. We could try different things with different restaurants, just to see which were the most helpful in various populations.
The diabetes in this country, due to the ethnic changes and lower economic conditions we're going to have to learn to live with, are going to bankrupt us if we don't put a stop to all the problems that will result from not nipping this diabetes thing in the bud pretty soon.
This is only one idea, but I think it's worth trying rather than all the harrassment from the government getting even worse, whether directly, are hidden behind the insurance companies. Actually, I should think the government and the insurance companies could also benefit from some sensible approaches for a change if they could just step out of their power boxes for a change.
I don't think this is entirely a new concept, but it just seems more positive than criminalizing honest, hard working people.
Luce
gallstones a cause of MC?
On 10/5/06 (I still remember the date!) I began having super-watery, explosive D. I saw five different doctors in three months, and finally ended up in the emergency room on 12/5/06, where they diagnosed gallbladder disease. After the cholestectomy (I had one 3.8 cm. gallstone!), things seemed to go back to normal. But it was only temporary. Since then, I've had attacks on and off, and the latest lasted 4 months, and I thought it was bile salt D from having no gallbladder. It wasn't until biopsies were taken in my latest colonoscopy that I was finally diagnosed with collagenous colitis. (Just two days ago I got the diagnosis.) After reading all of the great info on this site, I'm beginning to think that my MC began five years ago, caused by the gallstone and infection back then.
There does seem to be a correlation between gallbladder disease and MC, and you obviously had gallbladder disease for a while, in order to develop a gallstone that large. Remember, though, that secretory diarrhea is not a symptom of gallbladder disease - it's a symptom of inflammatory bowel disease and/or bubonic plague. In 90% of cases, GB disease causes no symptoms, (according to medical statistics), and when symptoms do develop, they typically involve severe postprandial pain, just under the rib cage, and nausea/vomiting, (not diarrhea).
That means that you almost surely already had MC on 10/05/06, and if your doctors had been on the ball, they would have taken biopsies way back then, and you would have been diagnosed with CC over 5 years ago. At least that's my opinion, (but I'm no doctor, of course).
It sounds as though you've had many periods of spontaneous remission, and that's good, (most of us are not that lucky). At least you finally have a valid diagnosis now, so you can take preventative measures to keep the symptoms from developing in the future, or you can at least treat the symptoms, if/when they occur.
Tex
That means that you almost surely already had MC on 10/05/06, and if your doctors had been on the ball, they would have taken biopsies way back then, and you would have been diagnosed with CC over 5 years ago. At least that's my opinion, (but I'm no doctor, of course).
It sounds as though you've had many periods of spontaneous remission, and that's good, (most of us are not that lucky). At least you finally have a valid diagnosis now, so you can take preventative measures to keep the symptoms from developing in the future, or you can at least treat the symptoms, if/when they occur.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Thank you!
Thanks, Tex! I hope to be able to control my symptoms now that I know what causes them!
Patc73, I bet you're glad you don't have bubonic plague! I think you don't have cholera, either ;) Tex, you should just post that part about the plague once in a while when the general mood around here takes a little dip. Tonight, I'm loving my plague-free lifestyle. Hehehe.
I also had some unexplained stretch(es) of spontaneous remission. I have no idea why you and I had those little bits of luck, when so many do not. But I'll take it - and I'm assuming I get no more gifts from the fickle fortunes, and need to manage my recovery from here.
Hope you're doing well,
Sara
I also had some unexplained stretch(es) of spontaneous remission. I have no idea why you and I had those little bits of luck, when so many do not. But I'll take it - and I'm assuming I get no more gifts from the fickle fortunes, and need to manage my recovery from here.
Hope you're doing well,
Sara
Sara,
Oops!
your post jolted me wide awake. 
It's not the plague that causes secretory diarrhea, (as you are well aware) - it's cholera. I don't know why I listed the plague. I must have been half asleep.
Thanks for awakening me.
Tex
Oops!
your post jolted me wide awake. It's not the plague that causes secretory diarrhea, (as you are well aware) - it's cholera. I don't know why I listed the plague. I must have been half asleep.Thanks for awakening me.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Tex,
Quite honestly, it did not occur to me for a single moment that you were wrong about the bubonic plague. Rather, I was fascinated to learn that plague ALSO would cause secretory D. And who knows what else... (typhoid, I'm looking at you). (Believing everything I read... another MC symptom?)
I am still glad none of us appears to have plague symptoms. Or cholera.
If you're telling me you make human errors, I'm going to sleep very poorly this evening. So you'll have to tell me that earlier in the day, on the remote chance it's true.
I got through a whole day without eggs, btw. Apparently, breakfast without eggs is possible. And life goes on ;)
xox/S
Quite honestly, it did not occur to me for a single moment that you were wrong about the bubonic plague. Rather, I was fascinated to learn that plague ALSO would cause secretory D. And who knows what else... (typhoid, I'm looking at you). (Believing everything I read... another MC symptom?)
I am still glad none of us appears to have plague symptoms. Or cholera.
If you're telling me you make human errors, I'm going to sleep very poorly this evening. So you'll have to tell me that earlier in the day, on the remote chance it's true.
I got through a whole day without eggs, btw. Apparently, breakfast without eggs is possible. And life goes on ;)
xox/S