Gallbladder surgery

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Also, is there a clinical trial you can point to
> that proves that this "Gold Coin Grass" or other
> altmed remedies are ineffective? Or at least
> harmful?

Wrong question. The correct question is whether there is a clinical
trial that shows Gold Coin Grass or other alt-med remedies for
gallstones are effective.

I absolutely agree that you are entitled to this opinion, just as I
am entitled to the opinion that you can't understand true logic, and
are unable to understand even the fundamentals, such as what does
"unknown" truly mean, or even the actual significance of a clinical
trial as a scientific process.

Wrong. I understand it FAR better than you do. Also, it isn't what is
unknown that is at issue here, it's what should be done with treatments
whose efficacy is unknown.

Why do you stress 'efficacy' rather than 'safety'?

Do you understand that for many who go in search of alternative
solutions, safety is far and away the more serious concern?

And that for some of them, this is because of having had unfortunate
exeriences from within the medical system.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(kevinf) said:

I have been told that I need to have my gallbladder removed but am
keen to explore alternatives. I have seen methods for "flushing" the
stones. Has anyone any experience of this procedure and what were the
results?

They don't work. Conventional medicine gave up on various approaches to
try to "dissolve" or "flush" gallstones many years ago, because they
just don't work. In fact, "flushing" the stones out of the gallbladder
would likely not be a good thing in the absence of a means of removing
them from the biliary tree or somehow dissolving them completely.

Quoted message said:

Serious sequelae of gallstones finding their way out of the gallbladder
and into the common bile duct include cholangitis, jaundice, or even
gallstone pancreatitis.

Could you clarify what each of those mean, in terms that most of us
could understand? What would be the different symptoms and
consequences for a person who developed any of those conditions? I
understand a few of the effects and symptoms of jaundice, but nothing
of the other two.

Quoted message said:

(In fact, these are some of the potential
complications of gallstone disease that prevented by cholecystectomy.)

? Is that removing the gallbladder?

Quoted message said:

Indeed, it's probably good that "alt meds" can't "flush" the gallstones
out, as it would certainly result in some serious complications and even
some deaths.

Regarding alternatives to surgery, it rather depends on the symptoms. In
general, if a patient has no symptoms and just gallstones (and isn't a
diabetic), then simply observing is a viable option and intervening if
the gallstones become symptomatic.

What would be the difference if the person were diabetic?

Quoted message said:

(A significant percentage of them
will never become symptomatic.) On the other hand, if a patient has
symptomatic cholelithiasis

? (I am one of your readers who are less than fluent in medical
terminology.)

Quoted message said:

and is in decent health, cholecystectomy is
probably indicated. If a patient has ever had a bout of cholecystitis,
the gallbladder should almost certainly come out, unless that patient is
a very poor surgical candidate.

So, what is the chain of development from having "no symptoms and just
gallstones" to having cholecystitis? Are you saying that it is like
turning on a light switch, - one minute it is not there, the next it
is fully developed with the gallbladder in need of removal?

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

Quoted message said:

So, what is the chain of development from having "no symptoms and just
gallstones" to having cholecystitis? Are you saying that it is like
turning on a light switch, - one minute it is not there, the next it
is fully developed with the gallbladder in need of removal?

==========================
Apparently a person can have either chronic inflammation or acute
inflammation.
I can relate my own experience with having gallbladder attacks off and on
over several years. They occurred after eating a tuna sandwich on wheat
bread, chocolate milk and chocolate pudding. Pain would hit, shaking, cold
sweats and feeling faint. Silly me never mentioned it to my doctor. The
night I had an attack (after hubby fixed a great corned beef and cabbage)
that was way, way extreme and didn't subside after several hours I ended up
in the emergency room. Three shots of morphine to quiet the pain.

An ultrasound showed the gallbladder packed full with stones and
inflammation (have no idea if it was considered chronic or acute
inflammation). The surgeon checked carefully to ensure no stones had passed
down the duct.

(I read some interesting information here🙂
Chronic cholecystitis is a chronic inflammation of the gallbladder caused,
in 95% of cases by gallstones. This condition does not have a generally
agreed clinical name and in some texts is known as gall stone or flatulent
dyspepsia. Perhaps the best description of this condition would be chronic
low-grade obstructive gall bladder disease.
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/-1831862226.htm

In other reading the best known cause of cholecystitis is suggested to be
refined carbohydrates.
(apparently a connection with diabetes?)

For those talking about flush treatment (which I'd never heard of before
coming to this newsgroup) my thoughts are: if there are teeny-tiny stones
released and you feel good about this treatment for your own health and
there is no medical harm...hey, go for it. I think if gallstones were
problematically enlarged, they'd be too big to pass anyway. There can be
room in life for both traditional and alternative methods.

Coleah

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

Quoted message said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > Also, is there a clinical trial you can point to
> > that proves that this "Gold Coin Grass" or other
> > altmed remedies are ineffective? Or at least
> > harmful?
>
> Wrong question. The correct question is whether there is a clinical
> trial that shows Gold Coin Grass or other alt-med remedies for
> gallstones are effective.
>

I absolutely agree that you are entitled to this opinion, just as I
am entitled to the opinion that you can't understand true logic, and
are unable to understand even the fundamentals, such as what does
"unknown" truly mean, or even the actual significance of a clinical
trial as a scientific process.

Wrong. I understand it FAR better than you do. Also, it isn't what is
unknown that is at issue here, it's what should be done with treatments
whose efficacy is unknown.

Why do you stress 'efficacy' rather than 'safety'?

Do you understand that for many who go in search of alternative
solutions, safety is far and away the more serious concern?

And that for some of them, this is because of having had unfortunate
exeriences from within the medical system.

Yes, the treatment was 100% safe, and the patient died.

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

Quoted message said:

? (I am one of your readers who are less than fluent in medical
terminology.)

You can try these two links for medical terms:

www.m-w.com

or, my favorite...

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Gallbladder surgery
From: [email hidden] (toby jones)
Date: 2/29/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Why do you stress 'efficacy' rather than 'safety'?

well...why bother with anything if it doesn't do what it is supposed to??
safety is important of course.....but efficacy is the gold standard..

standing out baying at the full moon is safe..but won't do a thing for a brain
tumor

hawki.....

So basically, you like two sets of criterias, one for you
and one for everybody else.

Does "99.9% certainty" ring a bell?

But I will ignore the numerous inconsistencies in your
posts (you will only "refute" them with more inconsistencies),
and explain this one time to you, what is really wrong with
your position.

The general public doesn't care that much that
something is not "proven to work", as much about
"is it safe?" If it has no reasonable harm, and there is
a slight chance it will work, the public will
use it. This is also good thinking from a logical and
scientific pov, and only vested interests
would pretend otherwise.

Sort of getting some kind of McCarthy to attack
the altmeds, there is no hope for your "strict" -
use only if verified by official clinical trials - pov.
The people of the world will continue mixing and
matching "alt" and "conventional" medicine treatments
as needed, and will continue to benefit from
many of them.

Sorry, but that's the way it's going to be.

And sorry if I baited you excessively :-)
No hard feelings, I hope...

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Gallbladder surgery
From: WB [email hidden]
Date: 2/28/2004 6:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Bew' qw@nonamewhatsover said:

> Proponents of the flushes are required to show that the gall bladder

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> fewer stones after a flush. In another post you claim that your doctor
> recommended them. Did you have their existence determined by pre-flush
> ultrasound and did a post-flush ultrasound show that they were gone?

If

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> not,they you really do not know if the flush was effective in

eliminating

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> them.

I have already stated my experience and the experience of others I know
personaly . Don't try and twist it around to me having to prove anything

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you , you are the one who is telling me it doesn't work when from

personal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

experience I know it does , so you prove your arguement .

That old saw "personal experience"

YES!!!

This is a discussion group. People have every right to tell of their own
experience.

Fine, but Bew will not even tell of her own experience. She will not even
answer the simple questions about why she believed she had gallstones, what
tests her "doctor" did to make the diagnosis, and why she feels that the
flushes "worked for her?"

Asking those simple questions is a long way from demanding million-dollar
controlled scientific studies.

--Rich

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Gallbladder surgery
From: [email hidden] (toby jones)
Date: 2/29/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > Also, is there a clinical trial you can point to
> > that proves that this "Gold Coin Grass" or other
> > altmed remedies are ineffective? Or at least
> > harmful?
>
> Wrong question. The correct question is whether there is a clinical
> trial that shows Gold Coin Grass or other alt-med remedies for
> gallstones are effective.
>

I absolutely agree that you are entitled to this opinion, just as I
am entitled to the opinion that you can't understand true logic, and
are unable to understand even the fundamentals, such as what does
"unknown" truly mean, or even the actual significance of a clinical
trial as a scientific process.

Wrong. I understand it FAR better than you do. Also, it isn't what is
unknown that is at issue here, it's what should be done with treatments
whose efficacy is unknown.

Why do you stress 'efficacy' rather than 'safety'?

Do you understand that for many who go in search of alternative
solutions, safety is far and away the more serious concern?

And that for some of them, this is because of having had unfortunate
exeriences from within the medical system.

BINGO!

Jan

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Gallbladder surgery
From: [email hidden] (toby jones)
Date: 2/29/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

> Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:<[email hidden]>...
> > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > [email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

> > > Also, is there a clinical trial you can point to
> > > that proves that this "Gold Coin Grass" or other
> > > altmed remedies are ineffective? Or at least
> > > harmful?
> >
> > Wrong question. The correct question is whether there is a clinical
> > trial that shows Gold Coin Grass or other alt-med remedies for
> > gallstones are effective.
> >
>
> I absolutely agree that you are entitled to this opinion, just as I
> am entitled to the opinion that you can't understand true logic, and
> are unable to understand even the fundamentals, such as what does
> "unknown" truly mean, or even the actual significance of a clinical
> trial as a scientific process.

Wrong. I understand it FAR better than you do. Also, it isn't what is
unknown that is at issue here, it's what should be done with treatments
whose efficacy is unknown.

Why do you stress 'efficacy' rather than 'safety'?

Do you understand that for many who go in search of alternative
solutions, safety is far and away the more serious concern?

And that for some of them, this is because of having had unfortunate
exeriences from within the medical system.

BINGO!

Jan Drew thinks healthcare is a game.

(Jan) said:

BINGO!

Jan

What should ja|\|dre\/\/ be playing instead of being bothersome on MHA ?
--

Take out the G'RBAGE for private discussion.
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Gallbladder surgery
From: WB [email hidden]
Date: 3/1/2004 2:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

BINGO!

Jan

OOps, selective snipping to change the meaning.

Quoted message said:

What should ja|\|dre\/\/ be playing instead of being bothersome on MHA

Bothersome:

Not letting the trolls get by with LIES.

Quoted message said:

?
--

In article <[email hidden]>,

(toby jones) said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(kevinf) said:

I have been told that I need to have my gallbladder removed but am
keen to explore alternatives. I have seen methods for "flushing" the
stones. Has anyone any experience of this procedure and what were the
results?

They don't work. Conventional medicine gave up on various approaches to
try to "dissolve" or "flush" gallstones many years ago, because they
just don't work. In fact, "flushing" the stones out of the gallbladder
would likely not be a good thing in the absence of a means of removing
them from the biliary tree or somehow dissolving them completely.

Quoted message said:

Serious sequelae of gallstones finding their way out of the gallbladder
and into the common bile duct include cholangitis, jaundice, or even
gallstone pancreatitis.

Could you clarify what each of those mean, in terms that most of us
could understand? What would be the different symptoms and
consequences for a person who developed any of those conditions? I
understand a few of the effects and symptoms of jaundice, but nothing
of the other two.

Cholangitis is an ascending infection of the biliary tree that can occur
when the common bile duct is obstructed, allowing bile stasis. It is
very life-threatening. Gallstone pancreatitis is a pancreatitis caused
by obstruction of the pancreatic duct by gallstones lodged at Ampulla of
Vater, where both the common bile duct and pancreatic duct join together
and enter the duodenum. It, too, can be very serious.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(In fact, these are some of the potential
complications of gallstone disease that prevented by cholecystectomy.)

? Is that removing the gallbladder?

Quoted message said:

Indeed, it's probably good that "alt meds" can't "flush" the gallstones
out, as it would certainly result in some serious complications and even
some deaths.

Regarding alternatives to surgery, it rather depends on the symptoms. In
general, if a patient has no symptoms and just gallstones (and isn't a
diabetic), then simply observing is a viable option and intervening if
the gallstones become symptomatic.

What would be the difference if the person were diabetic?

Actually, thinking is evolving in this area based on new studies.
Because diabetics are in general less able to handle serious infections
and because serious infections can cause major problems with controlling
their blood sugars (potentially leading to dangerous levels of
hyperglycemia), it used to be recommended that diabetics with gallstones
have their gallbladders out even if their gallstones were asymptomatic.
More recent practice is more selective about this and asymptomatic
gallstones in diabetics are now treated more or less similarly as they
are in nondiabetics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(A significant percentage of them
will never become symptomatic.) On the other hand, if a patient has
symptomatic cholelithiasis

? (I am one of your readers who are less than fluent in medical
terminology.)

Quoted message said:

and is in decent health, cholecystectomy is
probably indicated. If a patient has ever had a bout of cholecystitis,
the gallbladder should almost certainly come out, unless that patient is
a very poor surgical candidate.

So, what is the chain of development from having "no symptoms and just
gallstones" to having cholecystitis? Are you saying that it is like
turning on a light switch, - one minute it is not there, the next it
is fully developed with the gallbladder in need of removal?

Not that fast, but fast enough. It can develop in anywhere from a few
hours to a couple of days.

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

In article <wHC0c.92566$4o.116900@attbi_s52>,

Coleah said:

Apparently a person can have either chronic inflammation or acute
inflammation.
I can relate my own experience with having gallbladder attacks off and on
over several years. They occurred after eating a tuna sandwich on wheat
bread, chocolate milk and chocolate pudding. Pain would hit, shaking, cold
sweats and feeling faint. Silly me never mentioned it to my doctor. The
night I had an attack (after hubby fixed a great corned beef and cabbage)
that was way, way extreme and didn't subside after several hours I ended up
in the emergency room. Three shots of morphine to quiet the pain.

An ultrasound showed the gallbladder packed full with stones and
inflammation (have no idea if it was considered chronic or acute
inflammation). The surgeon checked carefully to ensure no stones had passed
down the duct.

(I read some interesting information here🙂
Chronic cholecystitis is a chronic inflammation of the gallbladder caused,
in 95% of cases by gallstones. This condition does not have a generally
agreed clinical name and in some texts is known as gall stone or flatulent
dyspepsia. Perhaps the best description of this condition would be chronic
low-grade obstructive gall bladder disease.
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/-1831862226.htm

In other reading the best known cause of cholecystitis is suggested to be
refined carbohydrates.
(apparently a connection with diabetes?)

Actually, the whole subject of whether there is such a thing as chronic
cholecystitis has been rather controversial off and on. Acute
cholecystitis is usually due to a bacterial infection of the gallbladder
secondary to stone disease. More chronic conditions are harder to
distinguish. For instance, it can be hard to distinguish biliary colic
(pain from the gallbladder contracting against a duct obstructed by
stones) from chronic cholecystitis. Not all surgeons are convinced that
"chronic cholecystitis" is a distinct clinical entity from severe
longstanding biliary colic.

--
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]>,

(toby jones) said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > Also, is there a clinical trial you can point to
> > that proves that this "Gold Coin Grass" or other
> > altmed remedies are ineffective? Or at least
> > harmful?
>
> Wrong question. The correct question is whether there is a clinical
> trial that shows Gold Coin Grass or other alt-med remedies for
> gallstones are effective.
>

I absolutely agree that you are entitled to this opinion, just as I
am entitled to the opinion that you can't understand true logic, and
are unable to understand even the fundamentals, such as what does
"unknown" truly mean, or even the actual significance of a clinical
trial as a scientific process.

Wrong. I understand it FAR better than you do. Also, it isn't what is
unknown that is at issue here, it's what should be done with treatments
whose efficacy is unknown.

Why do you stress 'efficacy' rather than 'safety'?

I don't. The two must be balanced.

Quoted message said:

Do you understand that for many who go in search of alternative
solutions, safety is far and away the more serious concern?

Two problems with such a statement: First, not all alt-med therapies are
actually "safe." Second, taking something that is "safe" but ineffective
is no better than taking nothing at all and letting the disease run its
course.

Quoted message said:

And that for some of them, this is because of having had unfortunate
exeriences from within the medical system.

That is unfortunate for them. However, such bad experiences do not mean
we should not challenge them when they make unsupported assertions about
how great they think various alt-med therapies are. Unfortunate
experiences within the conventional medical system do not give them a
free pass when they spout pseudoscientific nonsense.

--
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]>,

(Hawki63) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Gallbladder surgery
From: [email hidden] (toby jones)
Date: 2/29/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Why do you stress 'efficacy' rather than 'safety'?

well...why bother with anything if it doesn't do what it is supposed to??
safety is important of course.....but efficacy is the gold standard..

Indeed. If a treatment is totally safe but also totally ineffective,
what's the point of using it?

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

"Mark Probert-February 29, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wrong. I understand it FAR better than you do. Also, it isn't what is
unknown that is at issue here, it's what should be done with treatments
whose efficacy is unknown.

Why do you stress 'efficacy' rather than 'safety'?

Do you understand that for many who go in search of alternative
solutions, safety is far and away the more serious concern?

And that for some of them, this is because of having had unfortunate
exeriences from within the medical system.

Yes, the treatment was 100% safe, and the patient died.

Not if the patient's condition was mild, and chronic, rather than at
any acute stage.

From: "Orac" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Gallbladder surgery

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (toby jones) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, it isn't what is unknown that is at issue here, it's what should be done with treatments whose efficacy is unknown.

Why do you stress 'efficacy' rather than 'safety'?

I don't. The two must be balanced.

ok

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you understand that for many who go in search of alternative
solutions, safety is far and away the more serious concern?

Two problems with such a statement: First, not all alt-med therapies are
actually "safe."

I did not mean to suggest that they were. However, compared with
risks associated with surgery, for example, including the possibility
of unnecessary surgery and consequences from that, many alt approaches
involve rather less risk.

And many are considered preventative rather than cures. This means
that someone may wish to try the "stone flush" or whatever, not as a
cure for a disease but as part of a general health-improvement
program.

Quoted message said:

Second, taking something that is "safe" but ineffective
is no better than taking nothing at all and letting the disease run its
course.

That sounds self-evident, but it is not that simple.
(And wasn't there are a recent study showing noticable _placebo_
effects?)

People trying out alt therapies usually try several, whether
sequentially or at the same time.
And in many cases they _are_ happy with the overall results; they
find that "something" worked, for them. They find various health
improvements.

Also, our understanding of what may have an effect in regard to
health, changes over time. In accordance with that, adjustments are
made, such as, for example, the fortification of breakfast cereals
with vitamins.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And that for some of them, this is because of having had unfortunate
exeriences from within the medical system.

That is unfortunate for them. However, such bad experiences do not mean
we should not challenge them when they make unsupported assertions about
how great they think various alt-med therapies are.

Most certainly, - question, and find out what was really happening, if
someone is making outrageous claims of "success" with something that
should have had no effect.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunate
experiences within the conventional medical system do not give them a
free pass when they spout pseudoscientific nonsense.

The one does not follow automatically from the other.

"Mark Probert-February 29, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

? (I am one of your readers who are less than fluent in medical
terminology.)

You can try these two links for medical terms:

www.m-w.com

or, my favorite...

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/

Thanks, though M-W does not always deliver on medical terms. It's a
bit hit-and-miss.

From: "Orac" <[email hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Gallbladder surgery

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(toby jones) said:

Quoted message said:

Conventional medicine gave up on various approaches to
try to "dissolve" or "flush" gallstones many years ago, because they
just don't work. In fact, "flushing" the stones out of the gallbladder
would likely not be a good thing in the absence of a means of removing
them from the biliary tree or somehow dissolving them completely.

Quoted message said:

Serious sequelae of gallstones finding their way out of the
gallbladder
and into the common bile duct include cholangitis, jaundice, or even
gallstone pancreatitis.

Could you clarify what each of those mean, in terms that most of us
could understand? What would be the different symptoms and
consequences for a person who developed any of those conditions? I
understand a few of the effects and symptoms of jaundice, but nothing
of the other two.

Cholangitis is an ascending infection of the biliary tree that can occur
when the common bile duct is obstructed, allowing bile stasis. It is
very life-threatening. Gallstone pancreatitis is a pancreatitis caused
by obstruction of the pancreatic duct by gallstones lodged at Ampulla of
Vater, where both the common bile duct and pancreatic duct join together
and enter the duodenum. It, too, can be very serious.

Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(In fact, these are some of the potential
complications of gallstone disease that prevented by cholecystectomy.)

? Is that removing the gallbladder?

Quoted message said:

Indeed, it's probably good that "alt meds" can't "flush" the
gallstones
out, as it would certainly result in some serious complications and
even some deaths.

Regarding alternatives to surgery, it rather depends on the symptoms.
In
general, if a patient has no symptoms and just gallstones (and isn't a
diabetic), then simply observing is a viable option and intervening if
the gallstones become symptomatic.

What would be the difference if the person were diabetic?

Actually, thinking is evolving in this area based on new studies.
Because diabetics are in general less able to handle serious infections
and because serious infections can cause major problems with controlling
their blood sugars (potentially leading to dangerous levels of
hyperglycemia), it used to be recommended that diabetics with gallstones
have their gallbladders out even if their gallstones were asymptomatic.
More recent practice is more selective about this and asymptomatic
gallstones in diabetics are now treated more or less similarly as they
are in nondiabetics.

Thanks also.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(A significant percentage of them
will never become symptomatic.)

I missed that the first time around. So, merely being diagnosed with
having the stones, yet having no symptoms, should not be reason for
concern?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, if a patient has
symptomatic cholelithiasis

? (I am one of your readers who are less than fluent in medical
terminology.)

Quoted message said:

and is in decent health, cholecystectomy is
probably indicated. If a patient has ever had a bout of cholecystitis,
the gallbladder should almost certainly come out, unless that patient
is a very poor surgical candidate.

So, what is the chain of development from having "no symptoms and just
gallstones" to having cholecystitis? Are you saying that it is like
turning on a light switch, - one minute it is not there, the next it
is fully developed with the gallbladder in need of removal?

Not that fast, but fast enough. It can develop in anywhere from a few
hours to a couple of days.

Knowing that, if someone did have gallstones they might wish to
make a few pre-emptive lifestyle changes, - diet etc, and also they
might wish to try out anything that is reputed to lessen the
likelihood of one of the diseases manifesting.

And, for some people that may include "stone flushes". At that
point, surely it is of greater import to determine the safety of the
practice (than efficacy) as, if it is unsafe and could release actual
stones into one of the ducts, people should be forewarned.