Any idea whats wrong with me?? Possible Mult. Sclerosis?

If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.

Postby WoodPharm » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:04 pm

LOL! Noooo! Ouch... Well Hopefully my test results come back normal! :P
Left side of the face still numb,itchy,tingly around the cheek area.
And any of you omniscient folk out there, now would be the time to spill the beans before wed.! :o lol.
User avatar
WoodPharm
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:00 pm

Advertisement

ccvi

Postby WoodPharm » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:15 pm

oh yeah the ccvi or cciv i forget which, is that the link with my varicoseal vain in the scrotum? - sorry ladies. I have an Idea what it was but kind of confused.
User avatar
WoodPharm
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby Loobie » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:03 pm

Varicose in the testes satchel (gratuitous Borat reference :lol: )? Ouch is right!!
User avatar
Loobie
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2196
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio USA

Postby jimmylegs » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:35 pm

yep the ccvi is for chronic cerebral venous insufficiency, but there's just regular venous insufficiency too, and there've been some chats about veins of the varicose variety here, before you brought up the twins ;)
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:55 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:13 pm

backatcha lyon <3 heheh
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby WoodPharm » Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:48 am

well according to the CT with Dye, I have another stone.. Saw the neuro today, he ordered an MRI with dye, and couple other smaller things, blood taken to confirm no lymes, check B12 levels and D. Have the MRI tomorrow morning at 9:30 am... the dye doesn't hurt does it???

other than that, they found another defect on my heart, and prostate is enlarged, not sure how much or anything... have to meet with the uro again. anyways, thats the update for now..
oh.. also went to the bathroom today and Blood when I wiped.. so ouch, not good either :o we'll see..
User avatar
WoodPharm
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby WoodPharm » Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:28 pm

Goodness, well I don't know what it is, but feels like m body has been thru a cement truck over the past few days... friiiick... hopefully it goes easy and fast tomorrow.. Thanks for the info on the MRI.
User avatar
WoodPharm
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:11 pm

hey there i was looking for something else entirely and ran across this:

Many theories have been put forward to explain the mechanism of stone formation and growth. The aim of this study was to investigate the urinary, serum and stone levels of zinc, iron, magnesium, and copper in patients with calcium oxalate stones and to investigate urinary and serum element levels in healthy controls and to find a possible connection between the elements and calcium oxalate stone formation. A total of 104 patients with calcium oxalate stones ranging in age from 3 to 79 years (mean 44.0 ± 18.1) and 77 healthy controls ranging in age from 18 to 77 (mean 44.2 ± 17.9) were included in this study. The mean urinary iron and copper levels in stone patients were significantly higher than healthy controls (P = 0.000). The mean urinary zinc and magnesium levels in healthy controls were significantly higher than stone patients (P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in the serum levels of magnesium and copper in stone patients and healthy controls. Serum zinc and iron level were significantly high in healthy controls as compared to stone patients. Each stone had all 4 elements. Zn and Mg have inhibitory effect on calcium oxalate stone formation. Fe and Cu could be promotor of the calcium oxalate stone formation.

from the full text
Serum Zn and Fe levels were significantly
high in healthy controls (3.15 ± 3.4 and 13.5 ± 7.8 ppm) as compared to stone patients
(0.89 ± 0.9 and 8.93 ± 9.9 ppm) (P < 0.001).

unfortunately i do not have the know-how to do a units conversion on ppm serum zinc, micromol/L!
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby NHE » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:37 pm

jimmylegs wrote:from the full text
Serum Zn and Fe levels were significantly high in healthy controls (3.15 ± 3.4 and 13.5 ± 7.8 ppm) as compared to stone patients (0.89 ± 0.9 and 8.93 ± 9.9 ppm) (P < 0.001).

unfortunately i do not have the know-how to do a units conversion on ppm serum zinc, micromol/L!

As an example, ppt would be g/L since there's a 1000 g in a L of water. Similarly, ppm would be mg/L (and ppb would be µg/L). One would then just need to convert mg/L to µmol/L using the molecular weight of the species under consideration, e.g., for Zn 3.15 ppm would be equal to 48.18 µmol/L.

NHE
Last edited by NHE on Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
NHE
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:16 am

NHE thanks... i'm still sort of confused though...

Conversion:
* to convert from the conventional unit to the SI unit, multiply by the conversion factor;
Component Conventional Unit Conversion Factor SI Unit
Zinc µg/dL 0.153 µmol/L

so i'd have to make 0.153 make sense in mg/L... that's 1000ug/10dL=mg/L so .153*1000/10 gives me 15.3 and we multiply by 3.15mg/L and i get 48.19 umol/L so we're close there, BUT the normal range is all under 20. there's something squirrely here and i don't know what!
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Re: Unit conversions

Postby NHE » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:43 pm

Here's how I set up the calculation. The answer should actually be reported as 48.2 µmol/L to the correct number of significant figures.

Image

The abstract you quoted states that the number is "significantly high" so that would be in agreement with our calculations. In contrast, the stone patients would have levels of Zn at 13.6 µmol/L. This number for stone patients is about the same as what you quoted for MS patient's Zn.

NHE
User avatar
NHE
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:28 pm

yep looks like we're basically doing the same thing, except having the conversion factor is letting me skimp a bit on dealing with units ;)

so yea, i didn't bother with the .89 conversion at first but there it is, 13.6...

but i just can't reconcile their finding zinc levels up near 50 in healthy controls - i've seen various other papers with 18 being the average in healthy controls, and ive seen a few cases of zinc toxicity that documented levels in the 20s and 30s...

:?: :?: :?: :!:
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Re: Zn Levels

Postby NHE » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:08 pm

Jimmylegs wrote:The results demonstrate that these patients have a lower concentration of selenium (0.18±0.02 μg/ml vs. 0.28±0.06 μg/ml) and zinc (11.2±2.75 μg/ml vs. 18.2± 7.33 μg/ml) than healthy controls (p<0.05)


I don't mean to nitpick this to death, but these units seem a little peculiar. Are you sure that they're being reported correctly? I'm getting 18.2 µg/mL = 278 µmol/L. That seems a bit off yet the calculation appears correct.

NHE
User avatar
NHE
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service