Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Lupus / October 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Lupus blood test(s)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.