Medical, Kidney Stones

Kidney Stones

Author	Message
ron ro #1 / 5	Kidney Stones [...] B > Medicine has not, and probalby never will be, practiced this way. There B > has always been the use of conventional wisdom. A very good example is B > kidney stones. Conventional wisdom(because clinical trails have not been B > done to come up with an effective prevention), was that restricitng the B > intake of calcium and oxalates was the best way to prevent kidney stones B > from forming. Clinical trials focused on {filter} or ultrasonic blasts to B > breakdown the stone once it formed. Through the recent New England J of B > Medicine article, we now know that conventional wisdom was wrong, B > increasing calcium intake is better at preventing stone formation than is B > restricting calcium intake. [...] B > Marty B. Marty, I personally wouldn't be so quick and take that NEJM article on kidney stones as gospel. First of all, I would want to know who sponsored that study. I have seen too many "nutrition" bulletins over the years from local newspapers, magazines, to TV-guide, with disclaimers on the bottom informing us that this great health news was brought to us compliments of the Dairy Industries. There are of course numerous other interest groups now that thrive financially on the media hype created from the supposedly enormous benefits of increasing one's calcium intake. Secondly, were ALL the kidney stones of the test subjects involved in that project analysed for their chemical composition? The study didn't say that, it only claimed that "most kidney stones are large- ly calcium." Perhaps it won't be long before another study comes up with the exact opposite findings. A curious phenomenon with researchers is that they are oftentimes just plain wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Sodium/magnesium/calcium/phosphorus ratios are, in my opinion, still the most reliable indicators for the cause, treatment, and prevention of kidney stones. I, for one, will continue to recommend the most logical changes in one's diet or through supplementation to counteract or prevent kidney stones of either type; and they definitely won't include an INCREASE in calcium if the stones have been identified as being of the calcium type and people's chemical analysis confirms that they would benefit from a PHOSPHORUS-raising approach instead! Ron Roth ===================================================================== * A stone on the ground is better than a stone in the body. --- RoseReader 2.10 P003228 Entered at [ROSEHAMILTON] RoseMail 2.10 : Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363
Sun, 15 Oct 1995 18:53:01 GMT

banschb.. #2 / 5	Kidney Stones Quote: > [...] > B > Medicine has not, and probalby never will be, practiced this way. There > B > has always been the use of conventional wisdom. A very good example is > B > kidney stones. Conventional wisdom(because clinical trails have not been > B > done to come up with an effective prevention), was that restricitng the > B > intake of calcium and oxalates was the best way to prevent kidney stones > B > from forming. Clinical trials focused on {filter} or ultrasonic blasts to > B > breakdown the stone once it formed. Through the recent New England J of > B > Medicine article, we now know that conventional wisdom was wrong, > B > increasing calcium intake is better at preventing stone formation than is > B > restricting calcium intake. > [...] > B > Marty B. > Marty, I personally wouldn't be so quick and take that NEJM article > on kidney stones as gospel. First of all, I would want to know who > sponsored that study. > I have seen too many "nutrition" bulletins over the years from > local newspapers, magazines, to TV-guide, with disclaimers on the > bottom informing us that this great health news was brought to us > compliments of the Dairy Industries. > There are of course numerous other interest groups now that thrive > financially on the media hype created from the supposedly enormous > benefits of increasing one's calcium intake. > Secondly, were ALL the kidney stones of the test subjects involved > in that project analysed for their chemical composition? The study > didn't say that, it only claimed that "most kidney stones are large- > ly calcium." > Perhaps it won't be long before another study comes up with the exact > opposite findings. A curious phenomenon with researchers is that they > are oftentimes just plain wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. > Sodium/magnesium/calcium/phosphorus ratios are, in my opinion, still > the most reliable indicators for the cause, treatment, and prevention > of kidney stones. > I, for one, will continue to recommend the most logical changes in > one's diet or through supplementation to counteract or prevent kidney > stones of either type; and they definitely won't include an INCREASE > in calcium if the stones have been identified as being of the calcium > type and people's chemical analysis confirms that they would benefit > from a PHOSPHORUS-raising approach instead! > Ron Roth Ron, you are absolutely right. Not all kidney stones have calcium and not all calcium stones are calcium-oxalate. But the vast majority are calcium- oxalate. Calcium is just one piece of the puzzle. I cited that NEJM article as a way of pointing out to some of the physicians in this group that conventional wisdom is used in medicine, always has been and probably always will be. If one uses conventional wisdom, there is a chance that you will be wrong. As long as the error is not going to cause a lot of damage, what's the big deal(why call a physician who gives anti-fungals to sinus suffers or GI distress patients a quack?). On the kidney stone problem. I'd want a mineral profile run in a clinical chemistry lab. Balance is much more important than the dietary intake of calcium. I know that you use an electrical conductance technique to measure mineral balance in the body. I know that you don't think that the serum levels for minerals are very useful(I agree). If I can get a good nutritional assessment lab setup where I can actually measure the tissue reserve for minerals, I'd like to do a collaborative study with you to see how your technique compares with mine. Marty B.
Mon, 16 Oct 1995 04:47:54 GMT

Alice Sande #3 / 5	Kidney Stones A student told me today that she has been diagnosed with kidney stones, a cyst on one kidney, and a kidney infection. She was upset because her condition had been misdiagnosed since last fall, and she has been ill all this time. During her most recent doctor's appointment at her parents' HMO clinic, she said that about FORTY! x-rays were made of her kidney. When she asked why so many x-rays were being made, she was told by a technician that they need to see the area from different views, but she says that about five x-rays were made from EACH angle. She couldn't help feeling that something must be wrong with the procedure or something. She is a pre-med student and feels she could have understood what was happening if someone would have explained. When nobody would, she got worried. Also, she is told that thre are 300! surgery patients ahead of her and that they cannot do surgery until August or so. It is now April... She is supposed to rest a lot and drink fluids. But she has to go to classes. She wonders why they have given her no medicine. She plans to call back her doctor's office / clinic and try to get answers to these questions. But I told her I would also write in to sci.med and see what I could find out about why there were so many x-rays and whether it seems o.k. to wait in line 3 or more months for surgery for something like this or whether she should be looking elsewhere for her care. She does plan to get a second opinion, too. I will pass info on to her. It never hurts to get information from more than one source. You can e-mail me or post. Thanks. Alice
Mon, 16 Oct 1995 08:34:06 GMT

banschb.. #4 / 5	Kidney Stones Quote: > A student told me today that she has been diagnosed with kidney stones, a > cyst on one kidney, and a kidney infection. She was upset because her > condition had been misdiagnosed since last fall, and she has been ill all > this time. During her most recent doctor's appointment at her parents' > HMO clinic, she said that about FORTY! x-rays were made of her kidney. > When she asked why so many x-rays were being made, she was told by a > technician that they need to see the area from different views, but she > says that about five x-rays were made from EACH angle. She couldn't help > feeling that something must be wrong with the procedure or something. She > is a pre-med student and feels she could have understood what was > happening if someone would have explained. When nobody would, she got > worried. > Also, she is told that thre are 300! surgery patients ahead of her > and that they cannot do surgery until August or so. It is now April... > She is supposed to rest a lot and drink fluids. But she has to go to > classes. She wonders why they have given her no medicine. She plans to > call back her doctor's office / clinic and try to get answers to these > questions. But I told her I would also write in to sci.med and see what I > could find out about why there were so many x-rays and whether it seems > o.k. to wait in line 3 or more months for surgery for something like this > or whether she should be looking elsewhere for her care. She does plan to > get a second opinion, too. > I will pass info on to her. It never hurts to get information > from more than one source. > You can e-mail me or post. > Thanks. > Alice My opinion(for what it's worth) is that 40 x-rays is way too many. Guidleines have been set on the number of dental x-rays and chest x-rays that one should have over a given period of time because of all the environmental factors that can cause cancer in humans, ionizing radiation is one of the most potent(splits DNA and causes hydroxyl free radical formation in tissue cells). Ultasound(like that used in seeing the fetus in the uterus) has been shown to be extremely good at picking up tumors in the prostate and gallstones in the gallbladder. But kidney tissue may be too dense for ultrasound to work for kidney stones(any radiologists care to comment?). Most stones will pass(but it's a very painful process). Unlike gallstones, I don't think that there are many {filter} that can help "dissolve" the kidney stone(which is probably calcium-oxalate). Vitamin C and magnesium have worked in rabbits to remove calcium from calcified plaques in the aterial wall. I have no idea if a diet change or supplementation could speed up the process of kidney stone passage(but I'm pretty confident that a diet change and/or supplementation can prevent a reoccurance). If surgery is being contemplated, the stone must be in the kidney tubule. A second opinion is a good idea because there are better(less damaging) ways to break up the stone if it's logged within the kidney(sonic blasts). HMO's are notorious for conservative care and long waits for expensvie treatments. My condolences to your friend. Marty B.
Mon, 16 Oct 1995 23:25:36 GMT

Lori K Hero #5 / 5	Kidney Stones If the student has a kidney infection, she ought to be on antibiotics. Kidney infections-- left untreated-- can cause permanent damage to the kidneys. I was hospitalized with a kidney infection a while ago and I was very sick. ...... Quote: > Also, she is told that thre are 300! surgery patients ahead of her > and that they cannot do surgery until August or so. It is now April... > She is supposed to rest a lot and drink fluids. But she has to go to > classes. She wonders why they have given her no medicine. She plans to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tue, 17 Oct 1995 03:56:16 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 5 post ]