John Ashcroft's Gall Bladder.

"WB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just wondering why a gall bladder/liver flush was not the
recommended treatment ?

The news reports that he had gall stones, and the doctors
removed his gallbladder.

Why choose surgery when a simple flush would do ?

Just wondering,

WB

Read and learn. Hulda is very specific regarding this.
Flushes will not work on Republicans.

carabelli

In article <[email hidden]>,

WB said:

Just wondering why a gall bladder/liver flush was not the
recommended treatment ?

The news reports that he had gall stones, and the doctors
removed his gallbladder.

Why choose surgery when a simple flush would do ?

Just wondering,

Actually, John Ashcroft had a rather severe case of
gallstone pancreatitis. He was in the intensive care unit.
It's a very appropriate reminder of the potential REAL
complications of untreated gallstone disease (gallstones
treated with "liver flushes" count as "untreated," in my
book). He could well have died. Gallstone pancreatitis has a
very high recurrence rate (around 50% within a couple of months)--
unless the gallbladder is removed. Consequently, the
standard treatment is to support the patient with fluid,
antibiotics, and intravenous nutrition until the
pancreatitis settles down a bit (usually 4-8 days) and then
remove the gallbladder.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac said:

In article <[email hidden]>, WB

Quoted message said:

Just wondering why a gall bladder/liver flush was not the
recommended treatment ?

The news reports that he had gall stones, and the doctors
removed his gallbladder.

Why choose surgery when a simple flush would do ?

Just wondering,

Actually, John Ashcroft had a rather severe case of
gallstone pancreatitis. He was in the intensive care unit.
It's a very appropriate reminder of the potential REAL
complications of untreated gallstone disease (gallstones
treated with "liver flushes" count as "untreated," in my
book). He could well have died. Gallstone pancreatitis has
a very high recurrence rate (around 50% within a couple of
months)--unless the gallbladder is removed. Consequently,
the standard treatment is to support the patient with
fluid, antibiotics, and intravenous nutrition until the
pancreatitis settles down a bit (usually 4-8 days) and then
remove the gallbladder.

So gallstone induced pancreatitis can be a life threatening
condition ?

Duly noted that the alties are suddenly and mysteriously
silent on this subject.

Thanks Orac, WB

Quoted message said:

From: WB [email hidden]
Date: 3/9/2004 4:15 PM Pacific

Quoted message said:

Just wondering,

Just being the usual troll

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: WB [email hidden] Date: 3/9/2004 4:15 PM
Pacific

Quoted message said:

Just wondering,

Just being the usual troll

Considering one of the recent threads here it seems to be
quite on topic. If you don't want to read what WB posts -
don't read it. Otherwise, to quote yourself, "BUTT OUT".

What are you? - The self appointed troll police in MHA?

carabelli

WB said:

So gallstone induced pancreatitis can be a life threatening
condition ?

yes ... and it's a nasty way to die.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a
lot like politicians invoking morality and children - grab
your wallet and/or your kid and run for your life.

WB said:

So gallstone induced pancreatitis can be a life threatening
condition ?

yes ... and it's a nasty way to die.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a
lot like politicians invoking morality and children - grab
your wallet and/or your kid and run for your life.

WB said:

So gallstone induced pancreatitis can be a life threatening
condition ?

yes ... and it's a nasty way to die.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a
lot like politicians invoking morality and children - grab
your wallet and/or your kid and run for your life.

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

WB said:

Just wondering why a gall bladder/liver flush was not
the recommended treatment ?

The news reports that he had gall stones, and the
doctors removed his gallbladder.

Why choose surgery when a simple flush would do ?

Just wondering,

Actually, John Ashcroft had a rather severe case of
gallstone pancreatitis. He was in the intensive care
unit. It's a very appropriate reminder of the potential
REAL complications of untreated gallstone disease
(gallstones treated with "liver flushes" count as
"untreated," in my book).

It is a plot by the Republican branch of Evil Organized
Medicine to make Hulda look bad!

He could well have died. Gallstone pancreatitis has a very

Quoted message said:

high recurrence rate (around 50% within a couple of months)--
unless the gallbladder is removed. Consequently, the
standard treatment is to support the patient with fluid,
antibiotics, and intravenous nutrition until the
pancreatitis settles down a bit (usually 4-8 days) and
then remove the gallbladder.

"carabelli" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040309222805.25804.00001169@mb-
m01.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: WB [email hidden] Date: 3/9/2004 4:15 PM
Pacific

Quoted message said:

Just wondering,

Just being the usual troll

Considering one of the recent threads here it seems to be
quite on topic. If you don't want to read what WB posts -
don't read it. Otherwise, to quote yourself, "BUTT OUT".

What are you? - The self appointed troll police in MHA?

She is being a NET NANNY and, according to the
woman_whose_name_I_will_not_type, that is evil.

In article <[email hidden]>,

WB said:

Orac said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

WB said:

Just wondering why a gall bladder/liver flush was not
the recommended treatment ?

The news reports that he had gall stones, and the
doctors removed his gallbladder.

Why choose surgery when a simple flush would do ?

Just wondering,

Actually, John Ashcroft had a rather severe case of
gallstone pancreatitis. He was in the intensive care
unit. It's a very appropriate reminder of the potential
REAL complications of untreated gallstone disease
(gallstones treated with "liver flushes" count as
"untreated," in my book). He could well have died.
Gallstone pancreatitis has a very high recurrence rate
(around 50% within a couple of months)--unless the
gallbladder is removed. Consequently, the standard
treatment is to support the patient with fluid,
antibiotics, and intravenous nutrition until the
pancreatitis settles down a bit (usually 4-8 days) and
then remove the gallbladder.

So gallstone induced pancreatitis can be a life
threatening condition ?

Indeed. Although most cases of gallstone pancreatitis are
mild and resolve without sequelae, 10-20% are serious, the
overall mortality is around 4%. Mortality is markedly higher
in those over 70, about four times higher.

Look up Ranson's criteria on the web to see the factors that
influence survival in acute pancreatitis. They apply to
gallstone pancreatitis, too:

ncemi.orgcgiOpen ↗
ncemi/edecision.pl?TheCommand=Load&NewFile=ranso
ns_criteria_for_pancreatitis&BlankTop=1

Quoted message said:

Duly noted that the alties are suddenly and mysteriously
silent on this subject.

Of course.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tsu Dho Nimh said:

WB said:

So gallstone induced pancreatitis can be a life
threatening condition ?

yes ... and it's a nasty way to die.

It can be a nasty way to live, as well. Acute pancreatitis
can sometimes lead to chronic pancreatitis, and life for
patients with chronic pancreatitis sucks, with recurrent
attacks of abdominal pain and inability to eat requiring
hospital admission and sometimes necessitating intravenous
nutrition for periods fo time, not to mention the potential
need for surgery for complications of chronic pancreatitis,
such as pseudocysts.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"