This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

LOL! Noooo! Ouch... Well Hopefully my test results come back normal!
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.! lol.

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.

Varicose in the testes satchel (gratuitous Borat reference )? Ouch is right!!

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 ;)

.

backatcha lyon <3 heheh

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 we'll see..

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.

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 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

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!

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.



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

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...

[color=blue]Jimmylegs[/color] 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