Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Lupus / October 2005
Lupus blood test(s)
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Beverley - 04 Oct 2005 17:22 GMT Ok guys, my sister is sitting on that lab sheet she brings with her to the lab in Friday morning for blood work and there are all these little boxes checked for all her normal stuff, CBC, etc. But sitting right there is the ANA box unchecked because her doc keeps saying "we don't want to go there" So she is planning on checking the ANA box. Is there anything else that she should check that goes with ANA? Any idea how much an ANA costs (she does not have medical insurance)? Bev
KCat - 04 Oct 2005 18:20 GMT > checked for all her normal stuff, CBC, etc. But sitting right there is the > ANA box unchecked because her doc keeps saying "we don't want to go there" what kind of nonsense is that? if the patient were a man in his 50s would he eschew the PSA test? arggg...
> So she is planning on checking the ANA box. Is there anything else that she > should check that goes with ANA? Any idea how much an ANA costs (she does > not have medical insurance)? > Bev what comes to mind at the moment is VDRL (a false-positive is commonly seen in autoimmune patients) and anti-dsDNA, anti-Sm. don't know if these are available to her but they're commonly used to try to narrow down the issue. RF should be tested, IMO if it hasn't already.
Mair - 04 Oct 2005 21:14 GMT If you are "Looking for lupus" you need all kinds of different blood tests, Bev. It is not good to have a doctor who is not looking for lupus, and I don't know how he will respond to you ordering your own tests to a request that he has signed.
A doc looking for lupus would order a lupus panel which has all those differnet antibodies like ANA, A-DNA, Anti-thyroid, Ro, La, --on and on. other tests that my doc routinely looks at are CBC, *Sed rate,* ANA, C3, CRP, there are others... which I can't remember. They won't tell if you *have* lupus, but if they are abnormal, it would contribute to the diagnosis of lupus. Good luck! M
>> checked for all her normal stuff, CBC, etc. But sitting right there is >> the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > issue. > RF should be tested, IMO if it hasn't already. William R Thompson - 05 Oct 2005 09:08 GMT >> checked for all her normal stuff, CBC, etc. But sitting right there is >> the >> ANA box unchecked because her doc keeps saying "we don't want to go >> there"
> what kind of nonsense is that? if the patient were a man in his 50s would > he eschew the PSA test? Well, if we're talking about some of the doctors I've visited . . .
This thread prompted me to take a closer look at my test results from May. I hadn't looked closely at the numbers because I've had a lot of fatigue since that visit (way too much sun that day) and after the doctor's office called with the results, I didn't see much point in checking (I know, I know . . . but they told me all the numbers were fine, except for my cholesterol, which was the only thing that concerened them ) (and I don't give a flying <expletive deleted> about my cholesterol; I could die of old age waiting for that to kill me!).
So, first question: my doctor checked off the boxes for several lupus-related tests. I know because I got a look at the lab form. ANA, scleroderma, RF, and SS-B. But how do I know which parts of my lab results are related to those specific tests? The RF and ANA results are labelled, but are the other results buried under other titles? Or did someone decide not to bother with all of the tests?
Next, most of the numbers *are* within the normal range. The sed rate is zero. The Rheumatoid factor is "<11" with <15 being acceptable. The results for Anti-Nuclear Antibody, IgG say only "None detected." So far, so good.
Two numbers on the "CBC with Diff" panel are out of the normal range by a few points. "Neut, Auto" has a normal range of 39.7 to 70.9 %, and I was a bit high at 74.4. The normal range on "Lymph, Auto" is given as 20.4 to 48.9 %, and I'm a bit low at 18.6%. A few other numbers seem close to the limits: RBC is 4.70, just above the 4.50 lower bound; HCT is at 42.6%, above the 41.0% limit; MCHC was 35.8, just below the 36.0 upper limit; "Lymph, Abs" reads 1.3, just above the 1.2 lower limit. My platelets were at 180, above the 150 lower limit and higher than they were in the late nineties, when they tested at 165 and 167. (Each time I went in for testing I had been taking fairly good care of myself, and felt okay.)
Third question: in another post, it was mentioned that it can take one to several days for a stimulus to provoke a flare. My problems start five or six hours after I've had too much sun or have got stressed-out. Should lupus kick in that fast? Or does this mean I should look at other causes?
--Bill Thompson
Andy - 05 Oct 2005 10:06 GMT []
>Third question: in another post, it was mentioned that it can take >one to several days for a stimulus to provoke a flare. My >problems start five or six hours after I've had too much sun or >have got stressed-out. Should lupus kick in that fast? Or does >this mean I should look at other causes? I think that was me... as I understand it (standard disclaimer: I am not a medic, just an information-packrat) a flare can occur within hours, but may be delayed for several days. I was thinking more of someone who says "I haven't been outside for days so the sun can't be causing it". Some of us can't even manage a circuit of Wallmart before they start to feel unwell :(
 Signature Andy Taylor [Chair, N E Lupus Group] See http://www.northeastlupus.org.uk for more!
William R Thompson - 05 Oct 2005 12:22 GMT ]
>>Third question: in another post, it was mentioned that it can take >>one to several days for a stimulus to provoke a flare. My >>problems start five or six hours after I've had too much sun or >>have got stressed-out. Should lupus kick in that fast? Or does >>this mean I should look at other causes?
> I think that was me... Yeah, the "test-showing-negative" thread.
> as I understand it (standard disclaimer: I am not a medic, just an > information-packrat) a flare can occur within hours, Oh, well . . .
> but may be delayed for several days. I was thinking more of someone who > says "I haven't been outside for days so the sun can't be causing it". > Some of us can't even manage a circuit of Wallmart before they start to > feel unwell :( I'm pretty close to that point. If I put on a hat, coat and gloves I can spend a short while in a store, but I have to dash past those quartz-halogen and sodium-vapor lamps they use in so many parking lots. And that hours-long delay will let me get some things done in the day when necessary.
At least I don't, yet, have trouble with that picture of the sun on my dart board.
--Bill Thompson
BJ - 05 Oct 2005 15:53 GMT Hi Bill, The "normal ranges" given are really just guidelines. Slight variations could be completely normal. Levels can change fairly quickly with our blood, so the results of tests taken today could vary slightly if we repeated the same tests tomorrow. I hope I explained that properly. Anyway, all of your tests look good as far as I can see. To my way of thinking, that does not mean that you do not have something brewing. It only tells me that it does not give anything for your doctor to go on at the present time. BJ-Sk. Canada
> >> checked for all her normal stuff, CBC, etc. But sitting right there is > >> the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > --Bill Thompson William R Thompson - 05 Oct 2005 17:22 GMT > Hi Bill, > The "normal ranges" given are really just guidelines. Slight variations [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mean that you do not have something brewing. It only tells me that it does > not give anything for your doctor to go on at the present time. Okay; thanks for the explanation, which makes sense. I wish the doctor's office had given me that much explanation when they called.
Something really pushed my frustration button last night.
--Bill Thompson
BJ - 05 Oct 2005 19:36 GMT Hi Bill, I don't blame you for feeling frustrated. I get that way more than anyone can imagine. Sometimes I wonder if doctors think they should keep us out of the loop for our own good. It leaves patients with lots of unanswered questions. A few minutes of their time is all it would take and it would help us one heck of a lot. Hang in there. BJ-Sk. Canada (P.S. I meant to reply group previously, but flubbed up. Sorry about that.)
> > Hi Bill, > > The "normal ranges" given are really just guidelines. Slight variations [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > --Bill Thompson William R Thompson - 06 Oct 2005 06:55 GMT > Hi Bill,
> I don't blame you for feeling frustrated. I get that way more than anyone > can imagine. Sometimes I wonder if doctors think they should keep us out > of > the loop for our own good. It leaves patients with lots of unanswered > questions. A few minutes of their time is all it would take and it would > help us one heck of a lot. Hang in there. Thanks for the kind words. I wish this last doctor hadn't written, in the space of one line, that the psychiatric therapy hadn't helped--but he wanted to suggest it again. It made me feel like the visit, and the ensuing problems, all went for nothing. Hand me off to another therapist . . . and when the therapist says it isn't psychosomatic, well, it still isn't his problem.
> BJ-Sk. Canada (P.S. I meant to reply group previously, but flubbed up. > Sorry > about that.) No problem. I do the same thing.
--Bill Thompson
BJ - 06 Oct 2005 15:48 GMT Hi Bill, I felt really bad for you when I read that your doctor wants to send you to a therapist again. That is a slap in the face for a patient. You are not the first I have heard about. A friend of mine was just telling me about a relative of hers. This woman was suffering from severe headaches and memory problems for a year. The doctor kept saying that nothing was wrong. ( except empty nest syndrome, menopause, psychosomatic, etc) Things were worsening, so finally the woman's husband went along to an appt to stress just how bad things were getting. The doctor then ordered a CT of this woman's head. Turns out she has a malignant brain tumour. There were many times, before I was diagnosed, that the doctors acted like they thought it was all in my head. I know many others have had that reaction too. I am only telling you this to let you know that you must not give up. You know your body and are well aware when something is not right. Sometimes illnesses take quite a while before they begin to show up clearly on blood work. Try not to be discouraged. BJ-Sk. Canada
> > Hi Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > --Bill Thompson William R Thompson - 07 Oct 2005 04:58 GMT "BJ" wrote :
> Hi Bill, > I felt really bad for you when I read that your doctor wants to send you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > while before they begin to show up clearly on blood work. Try not to be > discouraged. Thanks; I try not to get discouraged.
A friend of mine spent years trying to get a diagnosis for his headaches and fatigues. It drove him and his wife to distraction, to put it mildly, before a doctor finally discovered that he had a rare problem with a couple of glands. Before that, however, one doctor dismissed Mike with "Your headaches are all in your head!"
I think my least favorite MD has to be the one who listened to me describe my problems with other doctors; he muttered that "there are a lot of bad doctors here in Utah." I don't think he realized he was in Utah when he said that.
I know that doctors need to see some physical proof before they can deliver any sort of diagnosis, and I'm sure they see a percentage of malingerers and con artists. I just wish they wouldn't be so quick with that psychosomatic misdiagnosis. I've done the psychiatric thing, and I'm not going to go through it again for that doctor's benefit.
--Bill Thompson
Herb Wormwood - 07 Oct 2005 09:30 GMT > "BJ" wrote : >> Hi Bill, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > --Bill Thompson Any chance the therapist could actually work with you to "empower" you and give you some strategies for dealing with the doctors? My GP "sent" me to a counsellor some years ago, not because she did not think I had a physical illness, she knew I did, but because she thought I was dealing with it really badly, which I was! The counselling really helped me to take more control of my life. The other thing about counselling is they don't like counselling people who don't want to be there, so if you don't want to be there, what good will it do? What kind of therapist is it? Here in the UK we have counsellors and psychologists who can do this empowering. Also any UK counsellor or psychologist worth their salt would keep an open mind about physical causes of problems and refer you back to a medical doctor if they thought the problem was physical Of course things may be different here in UK. Bill, you say you have done the psychiatric thing, do you mean you saw a psychiatrist? Again, a psychiatrist should exclude physical causes before attempting to give you "talking cures". Its true some of these psychiatrists, counsellors and psychologists (they are not the same professions) are not very good, and I have heard some bad things about US therapists, but if they are any good they will look for physical problems first, by either asking you certain questions (in the case of counsellors and psychologists) or ordering tests in the case of psychiatrists.
Herb Tyneside, UK
 Signature please sign my guest book at http://members.lycos.co.uk/herbwormwood
BJ - 07 Oct 2005 15:44 GMT Hi H, You made a very good point. I know that I sometimes get so frustrated when I go to doctors that I don't explain myself well. In fact, I often clam up and don't really say much at all. I never thought about a therapist helping a person take control. I only thought about being sent to one, because the referring doctor figured there was nothing physically wrong and that it was psychosomatic. Thank you for sharing your experience and making me think about it from a different point of view. BJ-Sk. Canada
> > "BJ" wrote : > >> Hi Bill, [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Tyneside, > UK William R Thompson - 07 Oct 2005 16:53 GMT > Any chance the therapist could actually work with you to "empower" you > and > give you some strategies for dealing with the doctors? I don't know. This last doctor didn't name a therapist; he wrote in his report that he wanted to consider retrying some of the psychiatric meds that I had already tried (Seroquel, Xanax, Effexor; I'm not sure if Neurontin counts there). I think he wanted to try it himself. (He's impressed with himself, and I'll admit he has good reason to feel that way.)
> The other thing about counselling is they don't like counselling people > who > don't want to be there, so if you don't want to be there, what good will > it > do? I wouldn't say I was wildly enthusiastic about it, but I didn't have to be dragged into therapy, either.
What happened was this:
In 1998 I went to an MD who came highly recommended. She listened to me for less than ten minutes, looked grave and said "This is porphyria. It's life-threatening." She wouldn't change that diagnosis even after the tests results came back negative; she believed it could be variegate porphyria, and said I'd only test positive when it was in full bloom. I'd know when I was ready to be tested because I'd be in so much pain that I'd have to go to the emergency room.
I wasn't eager to try it that way. Fortunately, the university hospital had a doctor who's an expert in the porphyrias. I made an appointment to see him, and he spent two hours doing a work-up. At the end of it he told me he'd run some more tests, just to convince me I didn't have porphyria, but he thought it was psychosomatic. He gave me the name and phone number of a therapist.
First problem: the therapist he recommended was puzzled when I called for an appointment. She didn't analyze patients; her job, outside of research, was to supervise the administration of psychiatric drugs prescribed by other therapists.
I went to see another therapist, who gave me the talking cure. He didn't run any tests; he took doctor #2's word that I had a mental problem, and that the tests found nothing physically wrong. After six months, though, he gave up. Basically, he said that I seemed well-balanced, if somewhat depressed, and that "psychosomatic problems don't act like this."
Before I went to the next therapist I got a look at the report that doctor #2 had written on me. He said I was delusional, that I had "diagnosed myself with porphyria over the internet" and that I had "demanded" he run various tests. I went on with therapy because I thought I was out of options in the physical department. Therapist #2 ran some thyroid tests, then tried assorted drugs. He didn't warn me about side effects, and I didn't ask--if this was a psychosomatic problem, I didn't want my subconscious to pull tricks on me.
All Neurontin did was to give me three weeks of insomnia; I got by on an hour or so of sleep every night, until I started hallucinating from fatigue (the weird thing is that some of my relatives take Neurontin, and afterwards they told me it makes them groggy). I don't know if Xanax helped with depression or anything else, but it made me hallucinate (which was kind of cool, in a way; at one point part of my bedroom turned into the beach near where I grew up). Seroquel--well, the doctor called it an anti-stress medication; in reality it's an "atypical anti-psychotic" used to treat schizophrenia. When you're *not* schizophrenic, it makes you hear voices, which I did. Effexor works as an anti-depressant, but it will also give you the worst nightmares you ever had; physically, it effected me the same way as sunlight does, and then some. I lost eight pounds in three days, ached all over, had diarrhea and nosebleeds, plus fatigue. I quit that stuff after three days (I didn't go back to that doctor for two reasons. First, he told me that if Effexor didn't help me, he was out of options. Second, Effexor is addictive; he gave me a three week starter-kit supply and told me to come back in six weeks.)
This doctor had also tried prednisone on me. I told him I thought it had given me some help, but for some reason he didn't pursue that. He didn't explain why.
It isn't 100% bad. How many people can say they wore out two psychiatrists?
--Bill Thompson
Herb Wormwood - 07 Oct 2005 17:13 GMT >> Any chance the therapist could actually work with you to "empower" you >> and [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > > --Bill Thompson So Dr 2 disagreed with Dr 1 and then when couldn't find evidence for Dr 1 decision... and so said you were delusional? Then tried to make you delusional with some delusion inducing drugs? Is that about right? I would say that is pretty fu**ed up. Has anyone seen the film "Dark City?" somehow Bill's story brings it to mind.
 Signature please sign my guest book at http://members.lycos.co.uk/herbwormwood
William R Thompson - 07 Oct 2005 17:38 GMT > So Dr 2 disagreed with Dr 1 and then when couldn't find evidence for Dr 1 > decision... and so said you were delusional? > Then tried to make you delusional with some delusion inducing drugs? > Is that about right? Sorry I wasn't clear: there were four doctors here: the two regular MDs, followed by two therapists.
I can't prove anything, but Dr. #1 and Dr. #2 were colleagues at the same university hospital. I suspect that Dr. #2 wanted to cover #1's misdiagnosis in case I tried to bring a malpractice suit (which isn't my style).
The two therapists had no connection to either doctor, beyond reading the report that called me delusional, etc. I don't blame them for taking the word of an MD. At least they changed their minds in the end, which I hope means they were really good doctors. (When you consider my luck with doctors, it could be that I'm loony enough to be a Republican vice-president, and they missed the symptoms.)
> I would say that is pretty fu**ed up. It was rather Kafkaesque at times.
--Bill Thompson
Candi Bowen - 08 Oct 2005 14:12 GMT Bill, I was also initially dx'd with porphyria; the doc seemed excited because I guess it's rare & he wanted to make the medical books or something. Neurontin also gives me insomnia; paradoxical effect. Candi
>What happened was this: > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > >--Bill Thompson William R Thompson - 08 Oct 2005 18:07 GMT > Bill, I was also initially dx'd with porphyria; the doc seemed excited > because I guess it's rare & he wanted to make the medical books or > something. Neurontin also gives me insomnia; paradoxical effect. Candi I was baffled when the one doctor claimed I had porphyria. It's normally so rare that most MDs would never think of it. And of course, nobody explains what you're supposed to do when the doctor is wrong. I hope you didn't have a lot of trouble with that doctor's mistake.
It's reassuring to hear that someone shared my reaction to Neurontin. I spent a lot of time wondering if my mind was playing tricks on me.
--Bill Thompson
Herb Wormwood - 10 Oct 2005 14:18 GMT >> Bill, I was also initially dx'd with porphyria; the doc seemed excited >> because I guess it's rare & he wanted to make the medical books or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > --Bill Thompson A friend of mine from college has porphyria. I didn't think it was so rare? There is a feature about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/porphyria1.shtml My friend also has ME quite badly. As for Neurontin see http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=Neurontin or just put Neurontin side effects into google for a load of controversial stuff about this drug and its side effects
 Signature please sign my guest book at http://members.lycos.co.uk/herbwormwood
William R Thompson - 11 Oct 2005 09:01 GMT >> I was baffled when the one doctor claimed I had porphyria. It's normally >> so rare that most MDs would never think of it. And of course, nobody >> explains what you're supposed to do when the doctor is wrong. I hope >> you didn't have a lot of trouble with that doctor's mistake.
>> It's reassuring to hear that someone shared my reaction to Neurontin. >> I spent a lot of time wondering if my mind was playing tricks on me.
> A friend of mine from college has porphyria. > I didn't think it was so rare? I had already done a lot of library and internet research on porphyria before my misdiagnosis. Patients and doctors talked about how hard it was to get a diagnosis because it was so uncommon (or because the doctors are told not to look for rare conditions?)
> There is a feature about it here: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/porphyria1.shtml I wouldn't trust this page too far. The part about vampires and porphyria has been debunked elsewhere, as has the alleged link between porphyria and werewolves. There are better sites out there, but it's been a long time since I looked at them and I don't have a list on hand.
> My friend also has ME quite badly. > As for Neurontin > see http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=Neurontin > or just put Neurontin side effects into google for a load of controversial > stuff > about this drug and its side effects Smegging hell!
When the doctor tried Neurontin on me, I trusted him to do the right thing. That quack! I hope that some day he ends up in the hands of a doctor who's every bit as qualified as he was.
--Bill Thompson
Herb Wormwood - 15 Oct 2005 10:29 GMT >>> I was baffled when the one doctor claimed I had porphyria. It's normally >>> so rare that most MDs would never think of it. And of course, nobody [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and werewolves. There are better sites out there, but it's been a long time > since I looked at them and I don't have a list on hand. Its a British site, (as are all bbc.co.uk sites, bbc stands for British Broadcasting Corporation) maybe porphyria is more common in Britain (members of the Royal Family supposedly had it). And I heard they spread their genes around a fair bit on the sly as well as interbreeding! When you say " The part about vampires and porphyria
> has been debunked elsewhere as as has the alleged link between porphyria > and werewolves. " are you actually saying that site suggests there is a link? I think you may have misread it. It is talking about historical links in fiction and myth! Do you mean that the quote from the website which goes "Chronic damage leads to thin, darkened and scarred skin which may become unusually hairy (find out how this and other symptoms may have inspired the stories of vampires and werewolves. " is untrue? So chronic damage does not lead to these skin changes? If so maybe you should contact them as the BBC is the British Governments propaganda arm and they spend a fortune on their website. There is a feedback form on the LH side of the website... you could email them and point out any errors. Just clarifying what you meant, no offence iintended.
>> My friend also has ME quite badly. >> As for Neurontin [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > --Bill Thompson
 Signature please sign my guest book at http://members.lycos.co.uk/herbwormwood
William R Thompson - 15 Oct 2005 16:10 GMT > maybe porphyria is more common in Britain (members > of the Royal Family supposedly had it). And I heard they spread their > genes > around a fair bit on the sly as well as interbreeding! I did a Google search for the incidence of various types of porphyria. The figures vary, but apparently the more common types have an incidence of about one in ten thousand. Porphyria diagnoses may be more common in the UK because your doctors are more likely to look for it. (Several doctors diagnosed me with "irritable bowel syndrome" when I mentioned my digestive problems, and that's when they stopped looking at anything else--why mess with a successful diagnosis, I suppose.)
Outside of a few isolated cases (some Dutch descendants in South Africa, for example) the incidence varies from "one in ten thousand" to "practically unknown," depending on the type. One type, PCT, may actually be even more common in the US, as it can be caused by environmental factors (there's some evidence to link it to dioxin and other chemicals).
> When you say "The part about vampires and porphyria > has been debunked elsewhere as as has the alleged link between porphyria > and werewolves," are you actually saying that site suggests there is a > link? That's how I read it. Of course it's in a foreign language (I'm American, not British).
> I think you may have misread it. It is talking about historical links in > fiction and myth! The only such links appear to be in recent fiction. The mention of these "links" surprised me because when I found them mentioned on medical sites about porphyria, they were always denounced and debunked in no uncertain terms. Auntie Beeb is usually more careful with her research.
> Do you mean that the quote from the website which goes > "Chronic damage leads to thin, darkened and scarred skin which may become > unusually hairy (find out how this and other symptoms may have inspired > the > stories of vampires and werewolves" is untrue? So chronic damage does not > lead to these skin changes? That's the quote I meant, but I was referring to the part about vampires and werewolves, not to the (very real) chronic damage.
The porphyria/werewolf link appeared in 1964, when a British neurologist named Lee Illis suggested that some of the symptoms--darkened skin, discolored teeth exposed by receding gums, and abnormal hair growth on the face--sounded a lot like a description of a werewolf.
Illis was wrong; in folklore, a werewolf looks like a wolf when the magic is in effect, and then turns back into a human when either the moon sets or the spell ends (some mythical werewolves chose to become creatures, for reasons beyond me--what's the point in becoming a real big dog?) Illis's description sounds *much* more like the movie version of the werewolf, in particular the Hammer version in "Curse of the Werewolf" (which debuted just a few years before he pitched his idea).
David Dolphin, MD, came up with the porphyria/vampire connection in 1985, in a speech he made to the AAAS. He suggested that the light sensitivity and discolored, gum-exposed teeth sounded like a vampire, and that "vampires" had been porphyriacs who drank blood to obtain the heme which their bodies couldn't produce.
Wrong again. For one thing, you can't obtain heme by drinking blood. It wouldn't make it through the digestive system. Even if it did, the vampires of folklore and fiction weren't harmed by sunlight (if you read Stoker's "Dracula," you'll find that the Count sometimes wanders around London by day). Dracula had fangs, but vampires in folklore had normal teeth and were just as likely to visit their relatives by day as by night. The "harmed by sunlight" idea didn't appear until 1922, with the debut of the film "Nosferatu." To be blunt, Dolphin appears to have done his research by watching moves.
(I have a warped sense of humor and I really like vampire movies, but I don't watch them for their scientific accuracy!)
To make another point, neither of these theories has been backed up by facts. No one has uncovered a historical account of a vampire or werewolf who also displayed the symptoms of porphyria. Modern porphyriacs don't seem to act like werewolves or vampires.
> If so maybe you should contact them as the BBC is the British Governments > propaganda arm and they spend a fortune on their website. There is a > feedback form on the LH side of the website... you could email them and > point out any errors. > Just clarifying what you meant, no offence intended. None taken. I'd rather be clarified than perpetuate a mistake.
--Bill Thompson
Candi Bowen - 05 Oct 2005 14:05 GMT Hi Bev,
I posted a list of tests 4 posts down - PLEASE HELP tests showing negative - with other bloodwork that should be done. If the sed rate is normal, the CRP is similar & could be off. Maybe your sister's doc doesn't want to go there because if she is ANA positive, no insurance company will touch her in the future. Well, excuse me, we found one but it was $1,000 a month. Right.
Candi ----------
>Ok guys, my sister is sitting on that lab sheet she brings with her to the >lab in Friday morning for blood work and there are all these little boxes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >not have medical insurance)? >Bev BJ - 05 Oct 2005 15:39 GMT Hi Bev, I don't know what an ANA would cost. As you may know, we have medicare in Canada. I do know that the doctors here can only order it once within a certain time frame, so I suspect it may be fairly costly. I doubt we would get away with checking off any extra boxes when we get a requisition. The doctor would have a record of the tests he ordered. It could be your sister's doc is using these tests as a starting point, with more to be ordered later should anything raise a red flag. I don't know. I can never seem to figure out what any of the doctors are thinking. BJ-Sk. Canada
> Ok guys, my sister is sitting on that lab sheet she brings with her to the > lab in Friday morning for blood work and there are all these little boxes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not have medical insurance)? > Bev Herb Wormwood - 05 Oct 2005 16:53 GMT > Hi Bev, > I don't know what an ANA would cost. As you may know, we have medicare in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> not have medical insurance)? >> Bev Hi, This sounds like a sensible explanation. My own docs are quite good but they request the blood tests which look at the simple stuff first, and if they come back off , they go for the more obscure ones. And by the way, is sed rate the same as what we call in UK ESR or erythrocyte sedimentation rate? My docs say if the ESR is normal things are usually OK, because ESR (and CRP too) is a reliable measure of inflammation. Lupus activity usually causes the ESR to rise. However my hospital doctor recently did anti DNA and anti double stranded DNA ( think those were the names) and they came back abnormal, but I feel OK and its probably "normal" for me to have those results to be abnormal. I get these tests about every 2 years or if in a flare. Another example of the simple tests being done first is anaemia. I get a regular haemoglobin test. If the haemoglobin is low and shows I am anaemic, I then get a ferritin (iron stores) test. There is no point in doing a ferritin test if my haemoglobin is fine. To be honest I have now larned to spot the symptoms of anaemia for me, breathlessness, restless legs, lightheadedness, ringing in ears. I often get my blood forms in my hand before the tests are done and would have opportunity to tick other tests I wanted doing. However I know that once they tests are done my doctor is charged for each test, and if tests were done they had not requested, 2 things caould happen. 1 they could think it was an error, and in that case they might throw the result away? 2 they might guess I had done it and then they would ask me why, they would accuse me of questioning their judgement and they might refuse to treat me in future.
 Signature please sign my guest book at http://members.lycos.co.uk/herbwormwood
BJ - 05 Oct 2005 19:13 GMT Hi Lynn, Yes, the sed rate and the ESR are one in the same. I agree with your personal findings. My sed rate rises whenever there is lupus activity. It always accompanies a sudden drop in my platelets, wbc and rbc. My doctors also consider it a reliable indicator. BJ-Sk. Canada
> > Hi Bev, > > I don't know what an ANA would cost. As you may know, we have medicare in [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > guess I had done it and then they would ask me why, they would accuse me of > questioning their judgement and they might refuse to treat me in future. janersagain - 05 Oct 2005 22:06 GMT Hello gang Tis true about the sed rate but..................Mine is running high and my doc just a couple weeks ago, said "oh we aren't even going to go by that any more. Meaning, I was feeling good, less pain, less fatgue and etc.... So she felt the sed rate was not telling the whole story. It was lower on MTX but my white cells dropped too low, stopped the MTX, and they are still LOW, and the sed rate WENT up. I was even on MORE medrol at this time. Hemoglobin dropped as well. Every thing else was border line, high or low. So that isn't going to show much either.
I think it has to do with symptoms and blood work combined. YOU can have a normal ANA, but abnormal DNA. Or vise versa too. Or both normal. That does not rule anything out.
Tests usually done to deterimine lupus are up to each individual doctor and putting x's on an order MIGHT piss him or her off, like someone else said. This is a legal medical order/document and well they have a tendency to get a little huffy when we mess with it. I suggest that person call the doc and just up and ask and if that doc gives problems, go to a family doc, talk to them and have them ADD more blood tests. There you are covered...hehe Found that one out myself.
ESR, anti DNA, anti Ro, anti SSB, anti SSA, RNP, urine, chem panel, blood counts, Hemolytic blood tests, Coagulation time, CRP, Total urine protein, Auto antibodies such as IGA, IGG, IgM, cryoglobulins, compliment levels of C3 C4 Hepatitis panel, syphillis antibodies, viral antibodies which is Parvovirus B19 IGG, Serum Electrophoressis with is globulins, and urine electrophoresis(this shows if there is kidney involvement you don't know about) and finally Mnocloni protein anal which are serum levels again for kidney.
This should should and would HIT everything they MIGHT be looking for. Lots of them but well worth having done. I was surprised what they found when mine was done in Cleveland. Did show kidney albumen that no one had any idea NOW keep in mind some of these test are NORMAL then abnormal as the disease is up and down too.
sorry this is long and I am late to respond janers
|
|
|