CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Kate Collins67 › Posts

Posts by Kate Collins67

242 posts shown.

Usually, they just list the proteins.

Was one of those other two items a serology test for Bartonella?

Were these results from 2011 taken while you were running a fever or dealing with some other acute flare-up—or was this just a routine lab workup?
I'm looking at this urine analysis for Fran Mihaljević—is there really nothing listed here about proteins?

Can you just list out the diagnoses from both of Fran Mihaljević's lab results?

How many days of antibiotics were taken, how long after the fever finally broke, and which antibiotic was it—assuming they actually switched up the treatment? And tell me, you don't have a cat, right?
restlessangler said:What kind of tests are SE, C3, and C4?

They were supposed to do a biopsy, but since my rash cleared up, we didn't end up doing it.

Is CBC just general blood work?
I don't have my latest results on me—they're still sitting in the doctor's computer. And honestly, there's no point in uploading results from when I was actually sick anyway, since they'd all be skewed...

CBC—that’s your complete blood count: red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets.
SE is erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C3 and C4 are complement components. (Given how you're asking, I'm guessing they weren't even run.)

The lab results taken during active flares are exactly what will help clear things up the most.
Were you actually admitted to the hospital, or was this all outpatient stuff? If you were hospitalized, you should have discharge papers that list every single test performed along with the actual values.
restlessangler said:Hey,
first off, thank you so much for getting back to me.

That’s actually why I did some digging—everything came back negative for Lupus. I don't know if you can see that picture under my face, but that's for the dsDNA. Later on, my dermatologist—well, she told me—said we're ruling out Lupus and that it's just seborrheic dermatitis.

Sometimes you run into these overlapping conditions where you end up showing symptoms and lab results from one autoimmune disease alongside things from another. It's confusing, right?

You really need to comb through all your labs. If they weren't testing you during those specific flare-ups—you know, when the skin issues, stomach pains, or fevers hit—did they at least check your ESR and C3, C4, and total complement levels? Those are your big indicators for autoimmune activity, along with the usual stuff. Honestly, ESR isn't even a routine test at many clinics anymore because everyone just uses CRP instead, but let's be real: you don't get the same level of detail from both. They aren't interchangeable!

Look, if your results show high ESR combined with low C3 and/or C4 and/or low total complement, then you have strong evidence of an autoimmune issue involving immune complex formation (Lupus being one of them). At that point, you have to be persistent—really push—to figure out exactly which one it is.

Make sure you get your thyroid hormones checked (T3, T4, TSH). If those suggest a thyroid problem, you'll need an ultrasound and tests for Anti-TPO, Anti-Tg, and Anti-TSI—though I'm not entirely sure which local lab handles those specific ones... Looking back, if you were ever seen in endocrinology, they probably already ran most of this (at least the basic thyroid panel).

One thing you definitely should have by now is your CBC. Go through your records and check how many of them show low values for WBC (white blood cells), platelets, lymphocytes, or RBC (red blood cells). Also, check your urinalysis: look at what it says next to protein. If you haven't had one done in a while, go ahead and redo it.

And if you've ever had a biopsy done on any of those skin patches, make sure you get the actual pathology report.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/articl...4-workup#a0756

Take a look at the criteria in that link, then go over your own lab results—if you hit four of those markers, the diagnosis would be Lupus.

First off, there’s that butterfly rash on your face. Second, you've got that photosensitive rash.

Beyond that, you're going to have to do the math yourself since I can't see your actual labs.

During any kind of "flare," you really should be seeing changes in your ESR, C3, C4, and total complement levels.
Lymphadenopathy—you know, swollen lymph nodes—often goes hand-in-hand with Lupus, even if it isn't technically one of the official diagnostic criteria. And headaches? According to the literature, they are common (read: way more frequent than in the general population) with Lupus, though honestly, that's a hard thing to objectively prove—I mean, is there anyone out there who *doesn't* get a headache every once in a while?

The hair loss and weight loss could also be tied to hyperthyroidism—think Graves' disease or maybe Hashimoto's. Both of those are autoimmune conditions just like Lupus, so they frequently show up alongside it.
Olivia Scott86 said:Hey everyone...
I just went in for my follow-up thyroid hormone check after getting that ablation therapy, and I finally got my results back. Could someone please help me make sense of this? 🙂 Basically, if you could just list out what the standard reference ranges are

Here’s the data:

FT4 21.54 pmol/L
FT3 5.92 pmol/L
TSH 0.023 mU/L
Tg mL
TgA 10.88 IU/mL

thanks 🙂

Roughly speaking, these numbers look fine—except for that suppressed TSH (meaning it's low). Honestly, it’s pretty common for the TSH to stay bottomed out like that for a while after hyperthyroidism treatment, even if your peripheral hormones (you know, FT3 and FT4) have already stabilized back to normal.
So, let me get this straight—how many doctors have you actually seen up to this point? Four?
And yet, you don't have a single scrap of medical documentation or a lab report to show for it?
Petechiae—those tiny little red spots—can definitely pop up when you're dealing with Hepatitis C. Honestly, though, this specific blood panel doesn't tell us much about the actual state of the Hepatitis C itself. At most, it might indirectly suggest that things haven't spiraled into severe, chronic liver damage yet.

Regardless of what's happening with the HCV, if you're seeing petechiae, you really need to get a platelet aggregation test done.
Your tests show positive antibodies for Hepatitis C, but the core antigen came back negative.

To get a definitive answer and clear this up once and for all, you're going to need an HCV RNA PCR test.

Now, assuming the anti-HCV is actually positive—and we aren't just looking at a false positive here—you're likely dealing with either a chronic infection or one that you've already cleared.

The fact that the core antigen is missing usually points toward the "recovered" side of things.

But again, I'm telling you, nothing is final until that PCR comes back.

That’s just how the lab side of things works. As for all those risk factors people always bring up—things like unprotected sex, IV drug use, sharing needles, or blood transfusions... well, you know your own history better than anyone. You know which boxes you check and which ones you don't. If you haven't had any of those risk factors, the odds lean heavily toward this being a false positive.

Just keep in mind, though—you can absolutely have Hepatitis C even if your liver enzyme panels look perfect and your ultrasound comes back totally normal.
driftingmason52 said:I'm really stuck on this discrepancy between my FSH and LH levels—my FSH is at the bottom end of the range while my LH is sitting right at the top. Does that actually mean anything?

Thanks nalaziti

Look, "reference values" just mean those numbers fall within the standard distribution of a Gua's curve. Basically, anything inside that window is considered "normal" by definition. Even if you're slightly above or below the lines, those numbers can still be perfectly normal for *you* specifically as an individual.

Seriously, stop obsessing over every tiny detail in your lab reports. Stick to what your doctor actually told you or wrote down regarding your care. This constant nitpicking and over-analyzing? It’s a one-way ticket to a psychological breakdown.
jadedriver0 says:


They ran tumor markers

hCG: result


Look, in this specific instance, they were testing for pregnancy, not actual tumor markers. And honestly? Why aren't you just asking the poor little resident while you're standing right there in front of them? They aren't exactly getting eight hours of sleep anyway—they're pulling 24-hour shifts! Instead, you show up here with half-baked information expecting some semi-qualified "doctor" on an internet forum to give you a more accurate answer than the medical professional actually in the room. It's ridiculous.
vividsailor7 said:The EKG looks fine, and both creatine kinase and the MB isoenzyme came back normal.
She isn't pregnant, and everything else seems okay.
Did they perform a pH study during the gastroscopy?
How old is she?
They really ought to repeat the EGD.

If you ask me, she’s probably around 25—she refers to her parents in a certain way, and they even ran a beta HCG test... plus there was mention of reproductive age and an infarct... I mean, come on, what are the odds?

It's most likely just gastritis.

Gastroscopy 🙂 is basically "excuse me, medicine" at this point. Personally, I’ll just load up on Nexium and if that doesn't work, then maybe a gastroscopy. I am absolutely not letting an endoscopist poke around inside me unless it's a life-or-death situation.🙂
vividsailor7 said:Why on earth would you bother doing a throat swab, a tetanus shot, or whatever else when everything has already been explained?
Now there’s some mention of a certain bacterium (Helicobacter pylori or whatever)
LOOK, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL, I'M NOT STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO YOU, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TELEPATHIC POWERS TO JUST KNOW YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY.
[/B]

Heh... wait, is there actually an official doctor on this forum answering these kinds of things, or are you just doing this as a little hobby?

Honestly, that snippet above—taken completely out of context—is basically my daily life. I actually burst out laughing when I saw that the reactions on this forum are exactly the same as they are in the real world.

What are you even trying to explain to them? Just answer the question.

Take that guy above—the one whose grandmother was in the hospital. If you really wanted to give him a reality check, you’d write something like: Either she has renal insufficiency—which probably means she won't need dialysis for the rest of her life—which is also why she has microcytic anemia (and hey, he can look up those terms on Google if he's interested), OR the alternative is that if she has black or bloody stools, it could be stomach or colon cancer. And as for those creatinine and urea levels? Those are high because you aren't giving the old lady any water (read: she's dehydrated).
Patrick Reyes15 said:Based on how you worded that response, I can tell you’re clearly an industry insider—mostly because you managed to conveniently sidestep the most critical issue of all: the actual duty of a physician toward their patient and the systemic failures within our healthcare system. It was quite a masterful omission, really. Honestly, if you ever decide to jump into politics, I fully expect you to have a very successful career.
Maybe your statistics aren't exactly hitting the mark—I’m thirty years old, after all, so perhaps my worldview is just too naive or idealistic—even though I firmly believe I'm being a realist here. Look, I have certain expectations from doctors and the medical staff we all fund through our taxes; I expect basic human decency and professionalism. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. But apparently, doctors have fought their way into this divine, untouchable status where they think they're above everyone else—as if the rest of us are just uneducated peasants who should bow down the moment they walk into the room. And honestly? We can't entirely blame them. It's the patients' fault too. People don't actually stand up for their rights; they just nod along, say, "Yes, doctor," and accept whatever subpar treatment they're given. If refusing to just roll over and accept that nonsense makes me a naive idealist, then fine—call me whatever you want.
Look, being a doctor or working in healthcare is incredibly demanding—exhausting, even—and I know you understand that better than anyone. But clearly, you’ve missed the point that this job requires heart; you have to be a human being first and foremost. Both doctors and nurses take an oath, yet it seems like half the people out there treat it like a suggestion rather than a commitment. Please, just get it through your heads: you aren't auto mechanics tinkering away in a garage. If you can't perform this job with the necessary care and decency, then just quit and find something else to do. Don't drag yourself through it, and for heaven's sake, don't torture your patients in the process. Nobody forced this career path on you—you knew exactly what you were getting into when you signed those papers.

And now, I suppose, I really ought to weigh in on your responses as well.
1. What you wrote there is just pathological. I’ll say it again—people aren't made of steel, and in my opinion, a doctor who remains completely indifferent toward a patient isn't functioning normally. And then you have the nerve to claim they don't even want to see them because they'll end up being lectured with nonsense?!?!? Unbelievable. I mean, surely a patient has the right to ask what's wrong, what the prognosis is, and so on. I agree that a doctor doesn't need to weep over every single patient—and yes, certain things simply have to be suppressed just so they don't lose their minds themselves—but as for treating patients with such an arrogant attitude? You aren't going to convince me of that.

2. Look, I agree that a hospital isn't a hotel and people shouldn't just show up whenever they feel like it, but as I mentioned before, I was at the hospital during visiting hours, and a nurse actually told me to go out to a pharmacy to buy some gel because they didn't have it in stock. It is frankly sick that they don't carry basic pain relief gel, and then to have some high-and-mighty, agitated nurse start picking on me while I'm already worked up... it's too much. In all that madness, I managed to pull myself together for a second and explain the situation to her, only for her to keep up the fight. And what was I supposed to do? Go home? Leave my dad in pain just because visiting hours ended five minutes ago? Give me a break... And if, God forbid, a security guard had kicked me out, I'm certain that nurse wouldn't have had a good time—she knows she had no right to be that condescending, especially since the other nurses knew I was already in the building. She knew it too, which is why she shut up.

If I'm unhappy with how someone is treating a patient, my first move will always be to approach that individual directly to smooth things over—I'd rather give them a chance to fix it before I start filing paperwork or taking it through official channels. Because, well, I consider myself a civilized person and I don't want to cause a scene immediately. But I won't let anyone take their frustrations out on me, let alone on sick parents.

And this idea that "it might become annoying" to deal with people—I honestly don't know how to respond to that. It's their damn job. I'll say it again: if they find it annoying, they can quit. I won't tolerate people dumping their moods onto patients, especially not the decent, easy-going ones. If mom had to get up, and if she had to use slippers that she couldn't reach because she wasn't allowed to bend over—and the nurse had shoved them under the bed—what was she supposed to do other than call a nurse to hand them to her? Instead, this arrogant creature comes along and takes it out on her just because she dared to call for help. It's a disaster.

4. That's a difficult one to comment on. Some people want to die in the hospital because they want that sense of false security provided by the doctors and nurses nearby. Others, however, just want to get away from the hospital as quickly as possible. Toward the end, Dad wanted to be home, but we were naturally worried about mom's heart and how she would handle everything. But somehow, her love for him and her desire to help him through those final, hardest moments kept her going, so neither of them left.

You’re talking about an on-call doctor—you know, the one covering one or more departments outside of regular business hours. Your father isn't usually seeing the on-call physician; he's seeing his primary attending. That means the on-call doc isn't even briefed on your father's specific condition, unless—God forbid—he's dealing with colon cancer. You get your updates from the doctor actually managing his care at the hospital, not some guy passing through the ward. If an emergency happens with your father while the on-call doctor is there, *then* you'll hear from that doctor about what went down.
I don't understand how this is confusing to you.
The more detached a doctor is from the patient, the clearer their head is—which, medically speaking, leads to better outcomes for the patient. I won't even get into the socio-psychological side of things here.
Patrick Reyes15 said:We can't just act like there isn't a human element behind the "system." The system isn't some imaginary, untouchable ghost in the machine—it's made up of those very doctors. And surely, as a highly skilled specialist and a respected physician, she actually has some influence over how things run. Maybe not total control, but if every doctor actually stepped up and took some responsibility, things might actually move forward. Even those empty-headed politicians would need to wake up once in a while. We can't just keep chanting "it's the system's fault, it's the system's fault" without actually doing anything to change it.
It’s just like that classic line: "the institutions should just do their jobs." Nobody knows anything, and everyone is always pointing the finger at someone else.

That person might be on their feet for 30 hours if they're picking up extra private shifts—which, honestly, they really shouldn't be doing.

And look, there are other versions of this too. You’ve got cases where after a grueling 24-hour shift, they’re basically forced to stay because "there’s nobody else to cover"—so once again, all that talk about compassion and humanity in the medical field just goes right out the window. Once we actually establish decent working conditions, maybe then we'll see a bit more actual humanity and professional behavior than what we're dealing with right now.
Patrick Reyes15 said:Based on how you worded that response, I can tell you’re clearly an industry insider—mostly because you managed to conveniently sidestep the most critical issue of all: the actual duty of a physician toward their patient and the systemic failures within our healthcare system. It was quite a masterful omission, really. Honestly, if you ever decide to jump into politics, I fully expect you to have a very successful career.
Maybe your statistics aren't exactly hitting the mark—I’m thirty years old, after all, so perhaps my worldview is just too naive or idealistic—even though I firmly believe I'm being a realist here. Look, I have certain expectations from doctors and the medical staff we all fund through our taxes; I expect basic human decency and professionalism. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. But apparently, doctors have fought their way into this divine, untouchable status where they think they're above everyone else—as if the rest of us are just uneducated peasants who should bow down the moment they walk into the room. And honestly? We can't entirely blame them. It's the patients' fault too. People don't actually stand up for their rights; they just nod along, say, "Yes, doctor," and accept whatever subpar treatment they're given. If refusing to just roll over and accept that nonsense makes me a naive idealist, then fine—call me whatever you want.
Look, being a doctor or working in healthcare is incredibly demanding—exhausting, even—and I know you understand that better than anyone. But clearly, you’ve missed the point that this job requires heart; you have to be a human being first and foremost. Both doctors and nurses take an oath, yet it seems like half the people out there treat it like a suggestion rather than a commitment. Please, just get it through your heads: you aren't auto mechanics tinkering away in a garage. If you can't perform this job with the necessary care and decency, then just quit and find something else to do. Don't drag yourself through it, and for heaven's sake, don't torture your patients in the process. Nobody forced this career path on you—you knew exactly what you were getting into when you signed those papers.

And now, I suppose, I really ought to weigh in on your responses as well.
1. What you wrote there is just pathological. I’ll say it again—people aren't made of steel, and in my opinion, a doctor who remains completely indifferent toward a patient isn't functioning normally. And then you have the nerve to claim they don't even want to see them because they'll end up being lectured with nonsense?!?!? Unbelievable. I mean, surely a patient has the right to ask what's wrong, what the prognosis is, and so on. I agree that a doctor doesn't need to weep over every single patient—and yes, certain things simply have to be suppressed just so they don't lose their minds themselves—but as for treating patients with such an arrogant attitude? You aren't going to convince me of that.

2. Look, I agree that a hospital isn't a hotel and people shouldn't just show up whenever they feel like it, but as I mentioned before, I was at the hospital during visiting hours, and a nurse actually told me to go out to a pharmacy to buy some gel because they didn't have it in stock. It is frankly sick that they don't carry basic pain relief gel, and then to have some high-and-mighty, agitated nurse start picking on me while I'm already worked up... it's too much. In all that madness, I managed to pull myself together for a second and explain the situation to her, only for her to keep up the fight. And what was I supposed to do? Go home? Leave my dad in pain just because visiting hours ended five minutes ago? Give me a break... And if, God forbid, a security guard had kicked me out, I'm certain that nurse wouldn't have had a good time—she knows she had no right to be that condescending, especially since the other nurses knew I was already in the building. She knew it too, which is why she shut up.

If I'm unhappy with how someone is treating a patient, my first move will always be to approach that individual directly to smooth things over—I'd rather give them a chance to fix it before I start filing paperwork or taking it through official channels. Because, well, I consider myself a civilized person and I don't want to cause a scene immediately. But I won't let anyone take their frustrations out on me, let alone on sick parents.

And this idea that "it might become annoying" to deal with people—I honestly don't know how to respond to that. It's their damn job. I'll say it again: if they find it annoying, they can quit. I won't tolerate people dumping their moods onto patients, especially not the decent, easy-going ones. If mom had to get up, and if she had to use slippers that she couldn't reach because she wasn't allowed to bend over—and the nurse had shoved them under the bed—what was she supposed to do other than call a nurse to hand them to her? Instead, this arrogant creature comes along and takes it out on her just because she dared to call for help. It's a disaster.

4. That's a difficult one to comment on. Some people want to die in the hospital because they want that sense of false security provided by the doctors and nurses nearby. Others, however, just want to get away from the hospital as quickly as possible. Toward the end, Dad wanted to be home, but we were naturally worried about mom's heart and how she would handle everything. But somehow, her love for him and her desire to help him through those final, hardest moments kept her going, so neither of them left.

So, if I’m reading this right, your father passed away in the hospital?
If that’s actually the case, I honestly have no idea how you can sit there and lecture anyone about humanity or compassion or any of that nonsense—seriously, go back and read what you just wrote.
Patrick Reyes15 said:We can't just act like there isn't a human element behind the "system." The system isn't some imaginary, untouchable ghost in the machine—it's made up of those very doctors. And surely, as a highly skilled specialist and a respected physician, she actually has some influence over how things run. Maybe not total control, but if every doctor actually stepped up and took some responsibility, things might actually move forward. Even those empty-headed politicians would need to wake up once in a while. We can't just keep chanting "it's the system's fault, it's the system's fault" without actually doing anything to change it.
It’s just like that classic line: "the institutions should just do their jobs." Nobody knows anything, and everyone is always pointing the finger at someone else.

That person might be on their feet for 30 hours if they're picking up extra private shifts—which, honestly, they really shouldn't be doing.

We all know who's actually responsible here, but patients don't usually go after them directly. It's the hospital directors, the department heads, and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. They are the ones in charge of organizing the entire healthcare system. The doctors you meet in outpatient clinics? They're just the frontline workers executing the system's orders—they aren't the ones designing the whole mess.

Here’s the most ridiculous example of where the blame lies: the Secretary keeps making these grand statements claiming that every single person in America is entitled to "everything available" within the American healthcare system. What an idealistic, populist load of nonsense! It's a way to mislead patients into thinking everything is accessible whenever they need it, when in reality—as you can clearly see—it's absolutely not. And does that same Secretary take any actual steps to make it true? Not a chance.
But look, when you're hit with pure frustration because you're dealing with a sick mom or dad, you show up at the clinic and the doctor snaps at you—telling you things won't work quite the way you imagined—and naturally, you're going to be furious with *him*, not the Secretary. Then, you head over to a private provider and suddenly everything is "perfect," right? Well, that's because the policy there isn't dictated by some government official, but by a capitalist. In a private facility, your satisfaction is worth more to them because it leads to more money, which creates a whole different trap for the sick: being cycled through endless, unnecessary checkups and tests just so they can bleed you dry.
Kyle Lee7 said:I'm concluding that you must be a primary care physician. 😉

First of all, every specialist SHOULD take a full medical history and know exactly what medications the patient is currently taking and what other conditions they might be dealing with.
Why would you think a primary care doctor knows which drugs interact, but a specialist wouldn't?
For instance, when I see my pulmonologist once a year, she gets a complete report from me regarding my other diagnosis. I ask her if Singulair interacts with interferon, just like I ask my neurologist the same thing. Plus, I read the instructions for both medications myself.

But let's assume not every patient will remember to do that.
I still believe specialists should have the authority to prescribe medication and order follow-up tests directly. That same specialist could easily be digitally linked to the primary care physician, rather than us running around with piles of paperwork and wasting both our time and theirs by duplicating work.

It’s not that I have anything against my own GP—not at all—but it’s exhausting to think that for every single test or check-up, I have to go to them first, wait for the appointment, wait for the booking, and then go back to them again, in an endless loop, all while the waiting rooms are always packed.

That’s exactly why I handle quite a few things privately. And I pay for supplemental insurance too. You really have to piece everything together just to get adequate treatment.

Every single patient needs to know their own medication list and their medical history, period. Seriously, more than 70% of the patients I deal with have absolutely no idea what pills they’re even swallowing—that's how little interest there is.

Go ahead, ask your neurologist—or whoever you want—what "clashes" with what. I'm positive you'll just end up with a mountain of "interesting" but ultimately useless information.
Karen Young17 said:Why on earth would I need to pray to anyone just to get an explanation for the very reason I showed up?

Take the other day, for instance... I went in for an abdominal ultrasound, and honestly, the entire experience consisted of nothing more than being told to "take a breath," "hold it," and "just breathe"—followed by the standard, "wait over by the window for your results." Then, I finally get the report in my hands and it says:

Cholecystolithiasis—or what most people just call gallstones—is one of those medical terms that sounds much more intimidating than the actual reality of dealing with it. Essentially, you’re looking at solid deposits forming in your gallbladder, which can turn a routine Tuesday into a complete nightmare if they decide to migrate. It’s a bit like having a handful of gravel stuck in a delicate piece of plumbing; everything functions fine until a stone decides to wedge itself right in the narrowest part of the pipe. Once that happens, the discomfort isn't just a nuisance—it's a full-blown crisis.
Splenomegaly—essentially an enlarged spleen—is one of those medical terms that sounds much more intimidating than the actual sensation might suggest, though the underlying causes can certainly be serious. It isn’t a disease in itself, but rather a clinical sign that something else is going on within the body's internal ecosystem. Think of the spleen as a sort of high-tech filtration plant for your blood. When that plant starts swelling, it’s usually because it's being overworked—perhaps by fighting off a persistent infection, or due to issues with how blood cells are being produced or recycled. It could be anything from a relatively minor viral bout to more complex hematological concerns that require a specialist's touch. If you’re feeling that specific fullness or discomfort in the upper left side of your abdomen, it’s worth getting it checked out by a professional. It’s better to have a doctor run some standard tests—maybe some blood work or an ultrasound—to figure out if your "filtration plant" is just dealing with a temporary clog or if there's a deeper systemic issue at play. Always listen to those subtle cues your body sends; they're rarely wrong.

I did some Googling of these Latin terms and discovered that I have an enlarged spleen and gallstones... Should I be praying over this information, or was my doctor—the one who performed the exam—supposed to tell me directly?

Nicholas Chavez70 Asks:
It shouldn't be particularly difficult to distinguish between those who dress themselves up and those who just smoke like a chimney. When you look at the data—blood alcohol levels, the specific patterns of damage to the liver, brain, stomach, and kidneys—it becomes quite obvious how chronic drinkers differ from everyone else. It’s the same story with cigarettes; you have layers of tar and nicotine building up in the lungs year after year. Personally, I’m all for a dedicated surcharge on alcohol and tobacco to help fund Medicare, but that isn't true prevention. If you actually want to prevent health issues, the most effective method is prevention via the wallet—making the cost high enough that people think twice before they indulge.

So, get this—about nine months ago, I was recovering from surgery. While I was in the ICU, the doctor on duty was listening to my lungs when she suddenly shakes her head and starts muttering under her breath, something like, "Ugh, you smoke..." I could have sworn right then and there that I’ve never even touched a cigarette in my entire life. It’s honestly such a repulsive assumption to make. But here I am—the lucky one who basically grew up in a cloud of smoke, having spent twenty-three years breathing in secondhand smoke.

And how exactly would you go about proving that?

My grandfather used to say back in the day—and he was one of those old-school types who didn't waste words—that things were built differently then. It wasn't just about the quality of the tools or the materials, though that was part of it; it was more about a certain mindset, a way of approaching life that seems to have slipped through our fingers lately. He had this quiet, steady way of looking at the world—not rushing to judgment, just observing—and he believed that if you took care of the small details, the big picture would eventually take care of itself. It’s a perspective that feels increasingly rare in such a loud, fast-paced era. Twelve varieties. It’s always the same cycle—you take a pill, then go in for a follow-up only to have the doctor tell you your stomach is acting up because of the medication, so they just hand you another prescription to fix the side effects of the first one. It's a bit of a loop, isn't it? 🙄

I honestly get a little anxious watching my doctor click through the exact same menu a million times—just pounding away at the keyboard with two fingers like she’s using an old typewriter.

If she realized that software isn't static—that you don't just use the same program every single day and constantly have to type things out—maybe she wouldn't be so perpetually lost in space and time... by the way, I've been seeing this woman for 40 years now.

It’s blindingly obvious your grandfather isn't doing well if he's popping 12 different pills, but jumping to the conclusion that he's sick because of those 12 specific tablets is just pure madness. Still, if you're so absolutely convinced that's the root cause, go ahead—cut all 12 out and let's see how much "better" he feels then.

And honestly, you should probably just be happy and grateful that he's managed to stick around for an extra 20 years.
Patrick Reyes15 said:Here’s the rest of the story since the last post cut me off mid-sentence. 🙂

About eight years ago, my mom was diagnosed with some heart issues—and of course, because medical opinions vary, we were met with a mountain of conflicting advice right out of the gate, which didn't exactly inspire confidence. Basically, an old doctor—a family friend who wasn't practicing anymore—read her EKG and told us she’d actually had a myocardial infarction and just walked right through it. Naturally, the hospital staff didn't see it that way initially. Once they finally confirmed it, the confusion only grew; one specialist would insist she needed valve surgery, while another argued medication was enough. It leaves you feeling incredibly vulnerable as a patient when you're supposed to be in capable hands, yet the experts in front of you are essentially bickering over your life.
Ultimately, she ended up on a regimen of pills without the surgery, which—in a cruel twist of fate—only made things worse regarding Dad’s situation, eventually leading doctors to say a transplant was her only hope. They actually caught the urgency during a private ultrasound at a clinic—she’d been sent there by her hospital doctor because apparently, the hospital staff was too "overbooked" or "tied up"... I can't recall the exact excuse. When she urgently scheduled an appointment with her primary physician, he agreed a transplant was necessary and explained there was a massive gauntlet of testing required just to get her on the waiting list.
The transplant team includes a very prominent, highly recognized surgeon who will be overseeing her case. Shortly after, my mom was admitted to the hospital for those tests, and both of my parents ended up hospitalized simultaneously—each in a different part of town. In moments like those, all you crave is a little compassion or a kind word from the medical staff. But humanity was in short supply. My mom would ask to be released for an hour or two around 2:00 AM when there were no tests scheduled, just so she could visit Dad, who was literally counting down his final days. Some doctors viewed this as nothing more than extreme rudeness or being "spoiled," and they flatly refused to sign the paperwork to let her out. A few others were more reasonable, so she did manage to slip out briefly here and there. After spending two weeks in that hospital, dealing with a mix of total idiots and genuinely wonderful people who actually care about their work, they finally cleared her for the transplant list.
Later on, she had to go in for monthly follow-ups, which usually involved sitting in a waiting room for three or four hours just to have this high-profile surgeon ask if everything was "okay" or if there was anything new. Honestly, the way this system handles critically ill patients is nonsensical. They schedule these appointments, and then the doctor doesn't even show up because she's on call or somewhere else entirely. And when you finally do get a moment with this "distinguished" professional, she treats you with zero empathy or genuine interest in the patient’s well-being. To top it off, she didn't even bother explaining the actual transplant process—what to expect, what recovery looks like, or how long the wait might be. During one check-up, Mom tried to give the doctor the contact numbers for all of us, just in case her heart failed and she couldn't hear her phone, so we could rush her to the hospital. The doctor wouldn't even listen or take a single note. Seriously, lady, if the police ever had to track you down, you'd be in trouble. She said that to a critically ill cardiac patient! I think if Mom saw a police officer at our door, she’d think something catastrophic had happened to us.
I accompanied her once and we actually joked about how empty the place was—maybe everyone was away on a ski trip or something. Regardless, we still sat there waiting for an hour. So much for "efficiency" and organization.
On the bright side, Mom did receive a heart. We experienced quite a few beautiful moments during that phase. From the very first contact with the nurse who called us, to the intake process and the staff preparing her for surgery, the atmosphere was incredibly positive and relaxed, which really helped build trust in both the procedure and the recovery. We stayed with her right up until the surgery, which meant a lot to us. The operation went well, and by the next morning, she was moved to the ICU. The people in the ICU were unbelievably kind and sweet. From the doctors to the young nursing staff, they were exactly how I imagine medical professionals should be: compassionate, human, and highly skilled. It felt secure and encouraging.
Once she moved from the ICU to the general ward, however, the vibe changed completely. You still find some decent people, but you also run into the most inexplicable individuals. There are people there who snap at patients, don't even offer a greeting when they walk in, act incredibly arrogant, and are just plain rude—they won't show up even twenty minutes after being called, and when they finally do, they're condescending. For instance, Mom asked for her slippers because they were under the bed, and the response she got was, "What do you want? Should I put them on your bed instead?" Then she asked for the blanket to be moved because she was hot, and the nurse just snapped at her and left it draped over her legs. When she asked for something for the pain—not a pill, as the doctor had specifically instructed—the nurse barked at her that she couldn't do it that way. When Mom asked to call the doctor, the nurse claimed he wasn't available; when Mom asked to call him on the phone to verify the medication, the nurse insisted there wasn't even a doctor on shift. Now, I have to wonder: is she blatantly lying, or does a ward housing a heart transplant patient truly have no doctor on call at night? I honestly don't know which thought is more terrifying.

Look, the system is broken—I think you figured that out by now—but this "merciful" doctor isn't the one building the system, nor does she have any real power to change it. Most of the time, she’s just another exhausted worker being squeezed dry by the bureaucracy, yet you're taking all your frustration with the entire infrastructure out on her. It happens all the time: your mom gets seen by someone who hasn't slept in 30 hours, and the only reason they’re even looking at her is out of pure, individual willpower. If they were acting according to "standard procedure," they’d just say, "My shift ended five or six hours ago, and I don't care who the system scheduled for today; I'm done." They'd walk away, leaving those 20 people hanging, simply because the system dumped them there without checking if anyone was actually available to help.