Did it.
Was out cold.
Don't remember.
Felt nothing.
So do it!
Sue

yea man, and you get some good sh.t too, fentenal!!! whooo hooooo, after a
dose of that stuff I didn't give a rat's a.s what they did, LOL......

Hi Cindy
Wow! No sedation? Thats very abusive and, crule they should be put in
jail for practicing medicine like Hitler. I was sedated though they
didn't want to at first. When I saw the needle I started to climb the
wall from my bed and panic set in, then the stupid dr. said "sedate her"
like I already told him to do before hand as I didnt need the added
stress.. They even did 2 and I never felt a thing. After, they even gave
me a shot of morphine cause I refused to move around and sit up. I'm
sorry to hear this. Though I would not have let it stop me. I would have
taken a few valiums and a codine if they weren't going to sedate me. The
only way to know the condition of your liver is to have it done. Good
Luck                                                 Juanita
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
Jul 25, 2005, 3:00pm (PDT+3) From: cnospamleigh1@hotmail.com
(Cindy in Pa)
I saw this post on the fibrosure test and wanted to know where did you
find information that says this test is not accurate for showing no
fibrosis? When I google I get mostly labcorp results..
I recently had this test and it showed no fibrosis and min. to mod.
inflammation...I have tried to get sedation to have the biopsy and the
hospitals here refuse to sedate you. So the biopsy is out for me...my
doc indicates he will treat with the fibrosure results...
Cindy in Pa
"Thomas Wagner" <tomw@capecod.com> wrote in message
news:dsr3d19hp30htqdfbc0ckrjqcam04r8o95@4ax.com...
On 10 Jul 2005 16:40:51 -0700, "smith21347@msn.com"
<smith21347@hotmail.com> wrote:
  According to Dr Cecil's web site he has done over 100 of these
blood tests and is very happy with the results.
Well... he's very happy meaning what - that he has verified the results
with a biopsy, and they were accurate? Probably not, so how does he
know? Independent studies (most of the published studies on
Fibrospect/Fibrotest were anything but - they were done by the same
people who license the test) have found very mixed results concerning
test accuracy. AFAIK, the problem is false negatives - the test showing
that everything is hunky dory when it's not, possibly leading to delayed
treatment. If the test is positive, i.e. showing high fibrosis levels,
false results are apparently less of a problem.
A while back I was talking to
a Doctor about a trigger finger problem I was dealing with and asked him
about surgery vs a hydrocortizone shot. He smiled and said they will try
and talk you into surgery because that is where the Money is. I am
starting to suspect that this is true with most of the medical system.
Lets get real, this is America. I have heard a lot argument how only by
putting the liver piece under a microscope can you really tell what is
happening with your liver. Then I here a sample from one part of your
liver may not give the same result as another part of your liver.
Not really. That is true for some other forms of liver damage (NASH et
al), but the damage done by HCV is very uniform, so biopsy results
generally reflect liver status very accurately.
Has anyone used one of these tests ? As someone who can't bring himself
to do the needle I am starting to give this more concideration.
Given that the test is not that expensive, and that it could spare you a
biopsy if it's positive anyway, why not talk to your doc about it. You
might have a problem with your insurance, though, since a number of
companies don't pay for it. And if it's negative, you still won't be
much wiser than before...
Thomas

You'll find more results when you search PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

The problem there is that most of the studies are co-authored by Poynard
and his colleagues in France, who profit from FibroTest. There's one
independent study, though:

Validation of the FibroTest biochemical markers score in assessing liver
fibrosis in hepatitis C patients.

Rossi E, Adams L, Prins A, Bulsara M, de Boer B, Garas G, MacQuillan G,
Speers D, Jeffrey G.

Clinical Biochemistry, PathCentre, Nedlands, Western Australia,
Australia. ric.rossi@health.wa.gov.au

BACKGROUND: Determining the stage of fibrosis by liver biopsy is
important in managing patients with hepatitis C virus infection. We
investigated the predictive value of the proprietary FibroTest score to
accurately identify significant fibrosis in Australian hepatitis C
patients. METHODS: Serum obtained from 125 confirmed hepatitis C
patients before antiviral therapy was analyzed for haptoglobin,
alpha(2)-macroglobulin, apolipoprotein A1, bilirubin, and
gamma-glutamyltransferase activity, and the FibroTest score was
computed. Liver fibrosis pathology was staged according to a defined
system on a scale of F0 to F4. We used predictive values and a ROC curve
to assess the accuracy of FibroTest scores. RESULTS: The prevalence of
significant fibrosis defined by liver biopsy was 0.38. The most useful
single test for predicting significant fibrosis was serum
alpha(2)-macroglobulin (cutoff value, 2.52 g/L; sensitivity, 75%;
specificity, 67%). The negative predictive value of a FibroTest score
<0.1 was 85%, and the positive predictive value of a score >0.6 was 78%.
Although 33 of the 125 patients had FibroTest scores <0.1 and were
therefore deemed unlikely to have fibrosis, 6 (18%) had significant
fibrosis. Conversely, of the 24 patients with scores >0.6 who were
likely to have significant fibrosis, 5 (21%) had mild fibrosis. Of the
125 patients in the cohort, 57 (46%) could have avoided liver biopsy,
but discrepant results were recorded in 11 of those 57 (19%).
CONCLUSION: The FibroTest score could not accurately predict the
presence or absence of significant liver fibrosis.

The full text of the study is available free at
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/49/3/450

Thomas