Posts by Nicholas Myers

Angela Wright said:Well, based on this new update, it looks like those rules might be out the window. At least, it’s certainly not laid out clearly—I know for one I can't find it anywhere. 🤷

Avastin is a medication administered strictly within a clinical setting—we're talking infusion vials here, right?—and a primary care physician has nothing to do with drugs like that.

vividsailor7 said:I have no idea what kind of "torture" by the medical board you're talking about. Up until now, everything revolved around issuing medications and referrals, which was clearly too much for some people. Let me repeat: there were cases where my colleagues or I had to call out "the gentlemen" in charge because they refused to issue medications that were clearly indicated. Every single one of those conversations ended with them nodding along while they spewed nonsense about guidelines that make zero sense professionally.
If a patient is indicated for Avastin, they will get it, just like they always have.

As far as I can tell, those guidelines weren't even drafted by family practitioners.

Take drugs like Zyllt, Plavix, or Pigrel, for instance.

I remember one of my early days in general practice (that's long behind me now) vividly. My hands were actually shaking when a patient handed me a discharge summary from a specialist. They had been prescribed one of these medications following a heart attack, yet the patient hadn't received a stent or a bypass.

Naturally, Medicare mandates that in this specific scenario, the patient has to foot the bill themselves, and the cost is astronomical.

The encounter turned incredibly tense. The patient nearly came at me, and then the attending cardiologist stepped in, using roughly this kind of tone and logic.

But look, if you check the Medicare website, there's a public list detailing exactly which medications are covered "for free" and which ones require out-of-pocket payment.

Who actually compiled that list? No idea.

Angela Wright said:Look at what’s highlighted here—it says everything you need to know. We’re talking about guidelines that are so incredibly vague that even the bureaucrats at Medicare can't make sense of them half the time. It’s all just a mess of conflicting limits. Here’s the kicker: if a Medicare auditor decides they don't like how a prescription was handled, they don't just ask questions; they go straight for the doctor's paycheck. They dock the physician's salary to cover the cost of the medication or the travel voucher, and there is zero recourse. No chance to appeal, no chance to explain the medical necessity. You prescribe Avastin for something outside of the one specific line item Medicare has authorized, and suddenly the doctor is paying for it out of pocket. It makes me wonder: what kind of cheap generic are they going to force you to prescribe just to stay in their good graces? 😍

Angela Wright, a family practitioner isn't going to write you a prescription for Avastin. They don't handle that, nor do they deal with Sutent or anything else in that category.

When it comes to specialist-recommended medications prescribed by your primary care doctor, the rules are pretty black and white. There are very specific guidelines determining which drugs Medicare will cover and which ones you're stuck paying for out of pocket.

Melissa Mitchell said:Dear Cat, I’d honestly prefer not to be singled out in my own separate thread.
I realize we shouldn't get too deep into administration outside of the designated subforum, but here is a small suggestion. Right now, we have several series of troubles threads. Since we aren't all posting solely for ourselves—meaning a thread isn't as lively when it's just one person's experience rather than a collective one🤣 (which is why I didn't start my own thread; I can't provide daily updates on symptoms or improvements if it's not about my own health, making it impossible to keep a solo thread active), everything feels a bit diluted.
If separation is necessary, it would be better to group similar cases under one heading like "Mysterious 😁 illnesses" or a "Diagnostic Corner."
Alternatively, just merge me with Gogs. Even in the instances where I describe my situation, the conclusions always boil down to either spinal issues or panic attacks.🤣

Perhaps this should have been a private message, but I didn't want to risk having it deleted. I'll leave that call to you.😳

Dear Brian Morris7,

Even though we are straying off-topic, I will give you a brief answer here. This post was moved because it doesn't fit the current subject matter. This thread is reserved for administrative inquiries, as noted in the brackets, not for detailing specific medical issues, diagnostic steps, or therapeutic procedures one should undergo based on their symptoms.

Since the individual whose concerns you are sharing does not have a confirmed diagnosis, we couldn't attach the post to a defined medical thread; therefore, we had to create a separate one.

In these circumstances, we typically follow the format "Series of troubles:..." followed by a list of the person's symptoms and clinical signs.

We wouldn't consolidate all such posts into a single thread because, while symptoms may seem similar, they often stem from entirely different conditions.

If you prefer, your thread can be merged with Gogs' thread. Just confirm this via private message.

Best regards. 🙂

melloworca6 said:Which doctor? Personally, when it comes to this kind of stuff, I trust an OB-GYN the most. They’re the ones who should know exactly what's safe during pregnancy and what isn't. Other doctors might be up to speed, or they might not—general practitioners usually are, but for specialists, it varies depending on their focus.

Actually, if we're talking about expertise on that specific subject, the person you really want to consult is a clinical pharmacologist. That's exactly who pregnant women should turn to when facing dilemmas regarding medication during pregnancy.

Continuation:

retko28 said:

Nicholas Myers said:It looks like you can find out just about anything here.

I’m hoping we soon adopt a model where anyone showing up at the ER for non-emergencies gets billed accordingly. It would be about time.

Good day! Now that we are part of the European Union, rest assured that certain things will finally be brought into order. Until now, doctors and other medical staff weren't really held accountable—no one truly knew what they were doing or how they were doing it. Now, someone else will be overseeing the oversight.

melloworca6 said:My only hope is that they start charging for those trips to the ER for trivial nonsense. The rest of us, waiting patiently for check-ups and routine screenings, are treated like idiots who don't care about our own health or the health of our families. People just pretend to be "smart" by heading to the ER, exaggerating symptoms, and getting everything handled immediately without the wait.

Meanwhile, someone’s mother, father, or child is stuck in the waiting room because the doctors and equipment are tied up with non-urgent cases. As much as I dislike the American healthcare system, I see people here practically begging to be charged. They need to feel the sting in their wallets to actually value what they have.

The argument that "I pay my insurance, why should I wait?" is laughable. Do those waiting for tests and consultations not pay their premiums either? We can't all act like we own every right under the sun.
Look, we live in a country where people wait a month or two for chemo because the monthly drug quota ran out—that’s what we are actually discussing here. What rights and demands are we even talking about? The healthcare system is fundamentally broken; it isn't the fault of the patients, the doctors, the nurses, or the lab techs. You're directing your anger at the wrong address.

David Mitchell4 said:

melloworca6 said:What if we all started acting like we actually had rights in this world?

Maybe then politicians would actually take us seriously and fix the systemic issues causing these delays and frustrations. But no, it’s easier to just keep our heads down, follow orders, and wait indefinitely... and then come here to complain about it. 😁

David Mitchell4 said:

melloworca6 said:As much as I despise the American healthcare system, I see people here vaping as if they aren't being bled dry by costs—as if they should be charged for every breath just to learn how to appreciate what they have.

For God's sake, we live in a country where you might wait a month or two for chemo because the monthly drug quota ran out. In light of that, what are we even discussing here regarding "rights" and demands?

Make up your mind: are we supposed to be satisfied with our healthcare or not? I think we're all on the same side. It's just like anything else in life—some people are proactive, some are passive, and unfortunately, most people don't care until they suddenly need a checkup and wonder why the wait is so long, despite paying into the system for years without ever using it. Welcome to America.

Perhaps it would actually be better if healthcare weren't mandatory. If you want it, fine; if not, save your money and go to a private clinic when you finally need it. End of story. We're getting off-topic here. 😍

melloworca6 said:Like I said, the anger is being directed at the wrong people. A few posts ago, people were calling others idiots just because they're scheduling appointments months in advance. As if the staff at the hospitals—who are already struggling with shortages of personnel and equipment—are the ones at fault for being insulted.

And then people have the nerve to give advice on how to "skip the line" at the ER. Look, the ER is meant for emergencies, not for impatient patients who refuse to wait. If you want change, write letters to the Department of Health or your representatives. Put pressure on the people who actually have the power to change things.

I don't usually weigh in on people's advice regarding how to manipulate a situation to get what they want, but when it comes to tips on how to cut the line at the ER just to avoid waiting months, I can't stay silent. I truly wish nothing but the best for those who manage to squeeze ahead in the emergency room through sheer luck—may they never have to experience the karma of someone else cutting in front of them when they or a loved one actually faces a true medical emergency.

Our system is pretty pathetic. If we actually operated under the American model, we’d realize just how lucky we've been. Right now, we’re just clinging to these inefficiencies, waiting for the whole thing to collapse so we're forced to pay out of our own pockets.

David Mitchell4 said:I think you're stressing over someone else's problems for no reason. If you didn't know—or if anyone else did—the triage sequence at the ER is pretty much set in stone. Urgent matters.All this talk about crowding people out or taking space away from those who need it—it’s all pointless. You aren't actually taking anything from anyone; you're simply giving yourself a fair shot at getting things resolved within a reasonable timeframe. And a word of advice: don't go wishing ill on others. You know as well as I do that everything eventually finds its way back to the source.

melloworca6 said:I don't worry about myself. I don't head to the ER over trivialities, nor do I call emergency services for nonsense. My conscience is clear on that front, and I'm not losing sleep over potential repercussions. Those who actually practice such behavior should be the ones looking over their shoulders—karma is a relentless little thing. 😉

Suppose you have three ambulances out on calls, staffed by three doctors. If all three units are dispatched—but two of them are responding to absolute nonsense—then how exactly can you claim this doesn't hurt the people who actually need help? You wouldn't believe it, but people really do call 911 for complete trifles. Are they just cloning vehicles and doctors at this point? Because if I’m having a heart attack right now, it feels like they're sending me a unit that doesn't even exist.

It’s the same story in the hospital. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with limited doctors, nurses, and equipment on the wards. Let's say—for the sake of argument—that I'm exaggerating my symptoms just to get attention. While that doctor is busy dealing with me, three other people who actually need urgent care might walk through the door. How is he supposed to know if I’m a genuine emergency or if I'm just making things up to get my way? He can't triage the rest while he's stuck on me.

Look, stop telling people to head to the ER for every little thing. There's a reason they call it "emergency" care. I doubt anyone would be thrilled to find their own loved one suffering just because someone thought they were being clever by trying to skip the line and bypass standard procedures.

If you think I'm just talking nonsense, go ahead and ask an ER doctor. They can tell you exactly what that looks like.

David Mitchell4 said:Look, I’m telling you how it works. At the ER, there’s a process called observation . If someone overstates their symptoms and they don't see an immediate clinical need, they'll just have them sit or lie down under observation—you'd know the term if you had any connection to emergency medicine. Meanwhile, the staff keeps handling other cases...

Also, doctors often have to step away to handle something else mid-treatment; that's just the nature of the ER. I’m not talking about someone coming in bleeding out from a gunshot wound and being left alone—that gets prioritized immediately. Anyways, you start adding phone numbers and specific details that weren't even part of the initial call. It's not like anyone calls 911 because they lost their glasses. But if there's an acute vision issue, they might go to the ER, sit, wait, and get seen in a few hours. You have to realize nobody wants to go to a hospital unless it's absolutely necessary, and no one died because a doctor at the ER admitted someone who, by your standards, shouldn't have been there.

We're all subjective. Our own problems always seem the most urgent. A doctor can tell a patient at the ER, "Go home and follow up with your primary physician," but the patient has every right to show up at the ER and wait until a doctor tells them otherwise. That’s what they're paying for.

vividsailor7 said:

David Mitchell4 said:Since I pay my health insurance premiums regularly every month, I expect service when I need it, not months down the line. This logic that favors the state budget at the expense of the patient makes zero sense to me...

You don't pay the health insurance, your employer does , unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay it yourself.

David Mitchell4 said:That’s basically a textbook ethics question from a philosophy class—is it okay to break into a pharmacy to steal life-saving medication for a sick person who can't afford it? My stance is clear when it comes to health, though I think we're drifting off-topic here. 😉

Now, people are going to nitpick this trivial example, but I would take the type of medication into account—say, insulin for Type 1 diabetes or statins.
But generally speaking, that specific example doesn't really tie back to the core of the argument.

David Mitchell4 said:

vividsailor7 said:You aren't paying for health insurance.Your employer is already doing exactly that.Unless you're running your own business—then you're essentially just paying yourself.

Spot on.

Look, when you start lecturing people like that, you should remember one thing: those employees are paying for that out of their own gross salary, not the employer's pocket.

I’ll probably get another warning for meddling in other people's business, but I can't just sit by while falsehoods are spread and people are being misled.

vividsailor7 said:Now, I’ll probably get flak for nitpicking over something trivial, but I still think we need to consider the specific nature of the medication. For instance, there is a massive difference when you're talking about insulin for Type 1 diabetes versus something like statins.
But honestly, that specific example doesn't really have much to do with the discussion at hand.

Of course it relates to the discussion, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own ability to follow along.

vividsailor7 said:I see there's no point in arguing with any of you, much less with general practitioners, regarding how prescriptions are issued.

David Mitchell4 said:Look, I pay my own premiums and my supplemental insurance myself. There’s really no point in arguing with me—at the end of the day, I'm just looking to get the service I actually paid for. 😳

Since an off-topic discussion started on a previous thread and never really reached a conclusion, I’d like to move it here to this (more appropriate) thread so we can wrap it up properly.

For those who aren't up to speed on the context, I'm pulling a few quotes from the "INFO DESK" thread where this whole debate kicked off:

Luyindula said:I'm not sure where to post this, so I'll just drop it here.

For ten years, I've been going to the Ophthalmology Clinic at Johns Hopkins Hospital for eye exams. Every time I call to schedule, they give me a date that's maybe a month or a month and a half out.

This morning I called—after about a thousand attempts, I finally got through—and the woman gives me a date for 01.14.2014. 🙏

Can someone explain what's going on here? How did the wait jump from a month to six months? To make matters worse, I lost my glasses, and she had the nerve to tell me they couldn't see me sooner and that if I didn't want the appointment, I shouldn't bother booking. Has anyone else dealt with them? I'd go elsewhere, but I really value Dr. Juratovac and wanted to consult him regarding laser surgery. But waiting until mid-January? I don't know if I'll even be around by then.

retko28 said:Hey! How's it going? Look, I don't know how much this will help, but here is what I did: My issues weren't quite like yours—it was my posterior segment, specifically the retina (not going to get into the technical details)—but basically, on a day when your doctor, Juratovac, is working, just get up early and head straight to the Johns Hopkins ER. They'll take you in and examine you, and once the on-call doctors see you, you'll get a referral paper. Take that paper and go straight to the doctor, bypassing the usual line. Tell them you lost your glasses and your eye is hurting, so you practically can't function. They are required to see you. That's how I handled it, so give it a shot! I know exactly what you're talking about; usually, the wait is about one to three months. Is that better?

Nicholas Myers said:What is the issue with waiting six and a half months if someone wants to consult a specialist about laser vision correction? Is laser surgery such an emergency that it can't wait?

retko28 said:Tell them I lost my glasses and my eye is acting up. Basically, I'm out of commission.

Looks like you can find just about anything here.

I’m hoping we see a shift toward a system where anyone showing up at the ER without an actual emergency gets billed accordingly—and heavily.

David Mitchell4 said:I pay my health insurance premiums like clockwork every single month. Because of that, I expect service when I actually need it—not after waiting several months. This whole logic where the system prioritizes padding the federal budget at the direct expense of the patient just doesn't make sense to me.

Nicholas Myers said:Do people honestly believe that healthcare services in other countries are just instantly available? That you can walk in elsewhere and skip the wait for an exam? It’s a naive assumption.

And yes, how would you actually solve this? Specifically regarding strabismus—how do you tackle a situation where, out of 200,000 people dealing with strabismus in America, you can count the available strabologists on one hand?

If we start labeling everything an emergency, then what actually qualifies? Is it when a child—who might already be struggling with vision issues—is left sitting around waiting for an appointment at that same ophthalmology clinic?

Quite lovely. 😢

David Mitchell4 said:Age shouldn't be a factor. Whether it's a child, a young adult, or an elderly person—it doesn't matter. Every individual deserves access to a medical exam whenever they need one. Period.

Nicholas Myers said:Yes, but I am asking you once more: how exactly is that supposed to work given the current number of available doctors?

Everyone should have them. Everyone has the right. But in the day-to-day grind—it just doesn't happen.

So, where does that leave me now?

Lying about arriving early just to get ahead in line? Is that really acceptable to you? You added a smiley face to the suggestion, so now I have to ask...

And let’s be clear: the specific diagnosis doesn't change the reality of how things work. There is such a thing as patient triage. Not everyone can be seen at once; someone has to take priority. Just because a situation feels like an absolute emergency to one individual doesn't mean lying to jump the queue is a valid way to handle daily operations. It simply isn't.

David Mitchell4 said:It’s that classic ethics textbook dilemma—is it justifiable to break into a pharmacy to grab life-saving medication for someone who can't afford it? My position is firm: when health is at stake, the rules change. Besides, I think we're drifting off-topic here. 😉

Nicholas Myers said:Sure, it's clear enough—you'll lie just to get an earlier appointment! 😢

David Mitchell4 said:Now you're just slandering me. I didn't say lying; I said urgent necessity. If my need is immediate, that isn't a lie. Regards.

Sandra Brooks91 said:I believe my position is clear. When it comes to health matters, we are drifting off-topic.😉

Yes, it's perfectly clear—lying just to reach an early conclusion.😢

Sandra Brooks91 said:Everyone deserves access to medical checkups whenever they need them.

Sure, they do. But I’ll ask you one more time: how do you actually pull that off given the current shortage of doctors?

The right exists on paper, but in the real world—it's impossible to fulfill.

So, what's the move?

Do we just lie about who needs care first? Is that your solution? You even put a smiley face on a proposal like this, so I have to wonder...

And let's be clear: the specific diagnosis doesn't change the math. There is such a thing as triage. Not everyone can be seen at once; someone has to be prioritized. Just because an individual feels their issue is the most urgent doesn't mean we should resort to dishonesty just to jump the line.

Sandra Brooks91 said:I pay my health insurance premiums every single month. In return, I expect service when I actually need it—not after waiting months on end. This whole logic of prioritizing the national budget over the actual patients seems fundamentally flawed to me..

Do you honestly think medical services are instant everywhere else? That people don't face wait times for specialists in other countries either?

And frankly, how would you solve this? Specifically regarding strabismus—how do you fix the issue when there are roughly 200,000 Americans dealing with crossed eyes, yet the number of available ophthalmologists is barely enough to count on one hand?

By pretending certain cases aren't urgent? While some child, perhaps already struggling with vision loss, sits on a waiting list for that same specialist?

Very classy. 😢

What’s the issue with waiting six and a half months to consult an eye clinic about laser vision correction? Is laser surgery some kind of emergency? Can’t it wait?

feralgardener503 said:Just tell them you lost your glasses and your eye hurts. That way, you're "unable to function."

You can read just about anything in here, it seems.

I really hope they implement a model where anyone showing up at the ER without a legitimate emergency gets billed accordingly. They should pay dearly for it.

Maria Young7 said:I'd like some input on this CBC. Is it possible?
eosinophilic granulocytes - 3.9 (0-7)
basophilic granulocytes - 0.1 (0-1)
lymphocytes - 29.4 (20-46)
monocytes - 8.5 (2-12)
neutrophilic granulocytes - 4.7 (34-69)

Usually, when I get bloodwork done, these components all add up to 100. I'm wondering if this is right. My WBC count is 8.2.

Hello,

You have a sharp eye. There was likely a clerical error somewhere.

Pinpointing the exact mistake is difficult. It’s possible the percentage listed under "neutrophilic granulocytes" actually refers to unsegmented neutrophils, and the actual neutrophil percentage was skipped (though since the total WBC is normal, an elevated unsegmented count seems unlikely).

The other possibility is that they accidentally entered the absolute number instead of the percentage. If we calculate the percentage (100% - 3.9% - 0.1% - 29.4% - 8.5% = 58.1%), and apply that to a WBC of 8.2, the absolute neutrophil count would be 8.2 x 0.581 = 4.7642. This matches the 4.7 figure provided.

If the neutrophil percentage were truly only 4.7%, you would be facing severe neutropenia. Given that you're feeling well enough to post here, I doubt that is the case.

Regardless, you need clarification. The physician who ordered the labs should contact the lab and the supervising official to resolve this discrepancy.

Best regards. 🙂

ironseal78 said:Here are my results. My doctor is out on vacation. 🙂

Ferritin. 9.53 (15-150)

IgG 9.12 (Normal range: 7–16). Within limits.

IgA 2.45 (Range: 0.7–4.0)

IgM. 3.03 (0,4-2,3)

EMA (IIF) negative titer (
The tTG test wasn't performed (
Fibrinogen 2.9 (Ref range: 1.8–4.1). Within normal limits.

Lactate dehydrogenase 155 (normal range
Calcium. Totaling 2.57 (range: 2.14 - 2.53).

Phosphorus. Anorganic 1.42 (range: 0.79 - 1.42). Right at the edge.

Female, 24. For the last decade, I’ve been dealing with recurring keratitis of unknown origin—always sterile cultures. About six or seven years ago, Dr. Sentić sent me on an absolute marathon of testing. Blood work, X-rays, dentist, dermatologist, OBGYN, thyroid, rheumatologist... basically everyone under the sun. She theorized about a laundry list of diseases and predicted some pretty grim outcomes, but nothing ever stuck. Every single test came back perfect, except for being HLA B27 positive and having elevated IgM. Otherwise, I was the picture of health—almost never even catch a cold. Doctors were actually puzzled by my iron surplus, though apparently, that isn't the case anymore. After a brief experimental stint on Decortina, the consensus was that this is likely immunological, though local corticosteroid eye drops yield the same result. At that point, the doctor and I went our separate ways. It only affects my right eye, and it follows a strange pattern: one year is a total disaster, the next is calm. No one can explain the cycle. My only trigger seems to be summer—the heat, the beach, the sun. My eye and the outdoors just don't get along. Allergies have been ruled out, so I just stick with my ophthalmologist.

I was referred for these tests because I dealt with two bouts of "pyoderma" last year—once in the summer and again in the fall. It actually flared up a few years back too, but my doctor just dismissed it as acne. Since I deal with breakouts regularly, I didn't think much of it at the time. However, once it resurfaced last year, things changed. It wasn't just a breakout; it was this intense, inflamed, hot sensation concentrated entirely around my chin area. It lasted about two months from start to finish. The rest of my face felt completely fine—almost like it belonged to a different person. That’s when I decided to seek a second opinion from another dermatologist. 🙂All my swabs came back negative. My OBGYN says everything looks normal there, too. However, the dermatology clinic thinks this is part of a much larger puzzle given my keratitis, so they've sent me down this diagnostic rabbit hole. They’re looking into Celiac or maybe Crohn’s disease and want me to see a gastroenterologist. Celiac is on the table because it runs in my family—apparently, that’s a common diagnosis these days—and Crohn’s is a possibility since I deal with occasional stomach cramps and bouts of diarrhea. I avoid the sun like a vampire, so I'm guessing my Vitamin D levels are low. No issues with my kidneys so far. I don't eat much dairy, but I go heavy on the nuts.

Thanks for the input and the help. My apologies if I went on a bit too long or dumped too much info on you all at once. 🙂

To whom it may concern,

If you're dealing with recurring keratitis—specifically cases where you see corneal ulceration, thinning at the edges of the cornea, or significant inflammation—you need to look deeper. These symptoms often point toward systemic autoimmune issues. Rheumatoid arthritis is the most frequent culprit, followed less often by systemic lupus erythematosus or Sjögren's syndrome. Other possibilities include polyarteritis nodosa or Wegener granulomatosis. Furthermore, modern medical literature increasingly suggests screening for Hepatitis C as a standard precaution. There is also the phenomenon known as a Moore ulcer, where corneal damage occurs without an identifiable cause.

Given you mentioned pyoderma gangrenosum alongside digestive issues, it makes sense to consider inflammatory bowel disease (more commonly ulcerative colitis). Usually, IBD presents with uveitis—inflammation of the middle layer of the eye—rather than direct corneal involvement.

Even though you followed all the tests suggested by Dr. Sentić and they came back clear, keep in mind that systemic autoimmune diseases are notoriously unpredictable. Often, lab results don't turn positive right away, leaving patients in a diagnostic limbo. You shouldn't have abandoned the idea of a follow-up or a consultation with Dr. Sentić just because those specific markers were normal at the time.

Looking at the results you posted, there's a drop in iron stores (low ferritin). This suggests iron loss somewhere in the body. When paired with digestive complaints, a visit to a gastroenterologist—which you've already been referred to—is necessary. Of course, in younger women, low ferritin and related anemia are most frequently just the result of heavy menstrual cycles.

Your IgM levels are also somewhat elevated, which can happen with autoimmune conditions, but it occurs in many other illnesses too. A protein electrophoresis would be a useful next step to determine if we're looking at monoclonal or polyclonal IgM (essentially checking for the presence or absence of an M-spike).

I don't have anything groundbreaking to add here that you haven't heard, other than suggesting you stick to your dermatologist's advice.

Hopefully, once vividsailor7 is feeling better, they might weigh in with some insight from a gastroenterology perspective.

Best regards. 🙂

darkcanyon17 said:Hi there,
I have a question because I’m a bit confused. I just had some hepatitis testing done and got these results:
The reactive markers are:
HBeAg - 1218.282
HBsAgQ2 - 926.64

My doctor mentioned that based on these labs, I lack the antibodies I should have given my age.
She asked if I’d ever had hepatitis before. I told her no—I’ve never had jaundice or anything else. I feel perfectly fine.
She sent me for more follow-up tests.

It’s confusing to me that the numbers look bad when I feel so good. 🙂 🙂

So, I'm wondering what this might mean. 😲

Hello,

Having both positive HBsAg and HBeAg could indicate an active Hepatitis B infection. It suggests you might be in the early stages where the virus is replicating heavily, meaning you are likely infectious.

Further testing will be conducted to confirm this.

To provide some perspective, the clinical presentation of Hepatitis B is incredibly varied. Some people experience very mild symptoms—or perhaps none at all—even when their serology clearly shows they are infected.

Consequently, how a person feels (whether good or bad) isn't a reliable way to rule in or rule out an infection.

Best regards. 🙂

Thomas Murphy said:What does this code, MCS_141136/013F8C654FBA000058FE, mean on my psychiatric referral?

That’s just the name of the software provider—the company behind the system your primary care physician uses to manage records and generate referrals (the MCS group).

redcrane22 said:Can anyone tell me when I ended up in the ER because I felt terrible and they couldn't figure out why? They ran a complete blood count (CBC).
Now I'm wondering if liver function tests were included in that, because I can't find the results.
Basically, I'm asking if those are standard when you get a CBC, or if they are separate tests.

Ma'am,

When a doctor on a referral—whether it’s a primary care physician or a hospital specialist—writes "CBC," that order does not automatically include liver function tests. It also doesn't include bilirubin, blood sugar, lipid panels, etc.

Each of those requires its own specific order (for example, requesting a CBC plus ALT, AST, GGT, bilirubin, glucose, etc.).

However, you still haven't answered whether those liver tests were actually performed in your case.

In casual conversation, medical staff often tell patients, "We're going to run some blood work," implying a broad sweep from a CBC to a differential, liver enzymes, electrolytes, and so on. Listing every single test would take too long.

But, strictly speaking, if the written order specifies only a complete blood count, it excludes liver tests, blood sugar, or anything else beyond the basic cell counts (erythrocytes, leukocytes, and thrombocytes). 😁

brightpanther152 said:I had thyroid hormone testing done and all my levels are normal except for T3, which is a bit low (1.48)—should I monitor this or schedule more tests?

Ma'am,

It is difficult to provide a meaningful response without knowing why the thyroid panel was ordered, which specific hormones were tested, your exact values, and the lab's reference ranges, as those vary from one facility to another.

I would also suggest looking at one of the most active threads on this forum, Thyroid, where you will undoubtedly find a wealth of perspectives and personal experiences in short order.