Re: Pancreas anatomy question.

[Guest guest]

hi all

i dont get much of a chance to answer many emails but i saw this one and i

can answer this , it is the accesory duct it should run parrellel with the

primary , my daughter had two accesory and no primary and every time they [

the docs] did the sphictorodomy on the sphynctor of odie and open it up it

would regenerate new tissue and close off again. they think it is from

steroid use for her asthma. well now she is battling acute recurrent

pancreatitis . she has been and is still on 38 pills a day . her asthma is

also becoming more and more acute every day. there is a alot of info in your

college library. knowledge is power .

krystal has just gotten out of the hospital again . it seems like she is

always in there. but we all have to keep the faith.

sorry it has been so long i need a lap top to take with me.lolo

dot

in louisiana

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Mark,

Thanks for the site. I took a quick look at some of the info there.

A couple things stood out.

1. The overwhelming emphasis on the use of alchohol as the cause for

chronic panc. I realize that it is a major cause. However, it certainly is

not the only cause. I remember when I had my first attack, I constantly had

to tell the docs I didn't drink. They took my wife aside and told her not to

let me drink. We were very frustrated.

I hope I have not offended anyone who does have an alchohol problem or it was

the cause for them. I'm not judging anyone. It's just that there are many

causes for the disease that I had to find out on my own. I think many

doctors are shortsighted when it comes to CP.

The second is that they stressed demerol as the best drug for pain control. I

myself suffered nights of unbearable pain after being given

as much demerol as they were aloud to give. Once and ER doc gave me dilauded

and it gave me relief. I would guess that the course of pain management would

differ for each person.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Hey Rob. check out this link. It should help explains some things

http://www.top5plus5.com/Pancreas/PROCEDURES/SURGICAL%20THERAPY.htm

I hope this finds you and yours well

Mark E. Armstrong

www.top5plus5.com

Pancreas anatomy question.

> Hello,

> I had thought I had a complete picture of the anatomy of the

> pancreas and duct system. However, at the GI's office i saw a model of the

> panc and there was something I had not seen in my past research.

> I was discussing some other important issues and never got to asking him

> about it.

>

> I know that the pancreatic duct goes through the center(more or less) of

the

> pancreas. I believe it meets up with the common duct, from the gall

bladder

> and Liver and empties into the duedenom (part of small intestine). The

> sphicter of oddi is the muscle that controls the opening from the duct.

Many

> of us have had that muscle cut.

> On the model I saw there was a smaller duct that brached off of the main

> pancreatic duct near the head of the panc and seemed to go toward the

small

> intestine. I was not aware of this secondary duct, if it's called that.

Can

> anyone clarify this. Also if any of the other info in your belief in not

> accurate please feel free to add that to the discussion.

> I have a stricture in the duct near the head of the panc and wondered what

> role this secondary duct plays.

> Rob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rob,

You've raised a couple of really interesting questions, questions to

which I'm not sure there are easy answers, but that certainly warrant

discussion; certainly a great deal more than we'll ever be capable of

resolving on this list.

Nearly every source I've encountered has suggested that the primary cause

of CP was due to chronic alcoholism... and nearly every source has suggested

that rate to always be approximately 80%.

This list is probably not representative of those numbers, as most of the

members don't attribute their CP to alcoholism, but rather diabetes,

protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity, cystic fibrosis or idiopathic causes.

However, the statistics DO bear out that these five other causes comprise

the remaining 20%, with half of that number being idiopathic. That means

that only 10% of the persons who have CP do so because of diabetes,

protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity or cystic fibrosis... averaging only

slightly higher than 1% each.

So, those being the statistics (at least from all of the research that

seems currently available... and while we may quibble over the " exact "

numbers, let us, for arguments' sake, at least acknowledge that these are

roughly the statistics that science has provided to date), we are presented

with a dilemma.

Should one give proportional focus to each of the causes of CP? If so,

there would need to be a great deal MORE focus to chronic alcoholism as the

primary culprit of CP, and LESS to each of the remaining possible causes. I

doubt if most present are necessarily going to argue for this (though I

certainly can't speak for any other members of this list - perhaps there are

those that WOULD suggest that proportional representation is appropriate)...

but what is an appropriate breakdown in representational focus?

Is it appropriate that any other particular possible cause of CP that is

responsible for 1% of all studied cases be given 20% of available space

and/or research? 1% cause = 20% focus? Surely most would not argue that

THESE numbers are appropriate, either. Hence the dilemma.

Therefore, while nobody could sanely argue that the treatment that you

(in fact most ALL persons subscribed to this list) were and are treated by ER

and primary care healthcare workers as considerably less than " gentle " ,

entirely unsympathetic, and sometimes nothing short of painfully sadistic,

that does not change the fact that the statistics bare out such questions.

What is the solution? I certainly don't presume to know. I hate it too,

I promise you! And at the point that one finds oneself (or a loved one)

standing in the ER, bent over in absolute terror and agony, such questions

seem grossly irrelevant, to say the least!

Nonetheless, to disregard the scientific numbers about the causation of

this disease seems hardly to do anybody any good either.

Anyway, one other point of view for your consideration.

Thanks,

Terry in KC

PS... To the second point; I've been told that Demerol is

less-than-effective in pill form, as the liver obsorbs/dilutes it wihtin a

bout thirty minutes of intake - and that the averages are far better for pain

relief in numerous other forms of pain medications that are available today -

thereby making the " old standard " of demerol not quite as desirable as it

once was.

<< Mark,

Thanks for the site. I took a quick look at some of the info there.

A couple things stood out.

1. The overwhelming emphasis on the use of alchohol as the cause for

chronic panc. I realize that it is a major cause. However, it certainly is

not the only cause. I remember when I had my first attack, I constantly had

to tell the docs I didn't drink. They took my wife aside and told her not to

let me drink. We were very frustrated.

I hope I have not offended anyone who does have an alchohol problem or it was

the cause for them. I'm not judging anyone. It's just that there are many

causes for the disease that I had to find out on my own. I think many

doctors are shortsighted when it comes to CP.

The second is that they stressed demerol as the best drug for pain control. I

myself suffered nights of unbearable pain after being given

as much demerol as they were aloud to give. Once and ER doc gave me dilauded

and it gave me relief. I would guess that the course of pain management would

differ for each person.

Rob >>

[Guest guest]

Rob,

You've raised a couple of really interesting questions, questions to

which I'm not sure there are easy answers, but that certainly warrant

discussion; certainly a great deal more than we'll ever be capable of

resolving on this list.

Nearly every source I've encountered has suggested that the primary cause

of CP was due to chronic alcoholism... and nearly every source has suggested

that rate to always be approximately 80%.

This list is probably not representative of those numbers, as most of the

members don't attribute their CP to alcoholism, but rather diabetes,

protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity, cystic fibrosis or idiopathic causes.

However, the statistics DO bear out that these five other causes comprise

the remaining 20%, with half of that number being idiopathic. That means

that only 10% of the persons who have CP do so because of diabetes,

protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity or cystic fibrosis... averaging only

slightly higher than 1% each.

So, those being the statistics (at least from all of the research that

seems currently available... and while we may quibble over the " exact "

numbers, let us, for arguments' sake, at least acknowledge that these are

roughly the statistics that science has provided to date), we are presented

with a dilemma.

Should one give proportional focus to each of the causes of CP? If so,

there would need to be a great deal MORE focus to chronic alcoholism as the

primary culprit of CP, and LESS to each of the remaining possible causes. I

doubt if most present are necessarily going to argue for this (though I

certainly can't speak for any other members of this list - perhaps there are

those that WOULD suggest that proportional representation is appropriate)...

but what is an appropriate breakdown in representational focus?

Is it appropriate that any other particular possible cause of CP that is

responsible for 1% of all studied cases be given 20% of available space

and/or research? 1% cause = 20% focus? Surely most would not argue that

THESE numbers are appropriate, either. Hence the dilemma.

Therefore, while nobody could sanely argue that the treatment that you

(in fact most ALL persons subscribed to this list) were and are treated by ER

and primary care healthcare workers as considerably less than " gentle " ,

entirely unsympathetic, and sometimes nothing short of painfully sadistic,

that does not change the fact that the statistics bare out such questions.

What is the solution? I certainly don't presume to know. I hate it too,

I promise you! And at the point that one finds oneself (or a loved one)

standing in the ER, bent over in absolute terror and agony, such questions

seem grossly irrelevant, to say the least!

Nonetheless, to disregard the scientific numbers about the causation of

this disease seems hardly to do anybody any good either.

Anyway, one other point of view for your consideration.

Thanks,

Terry in KC

PS... To the second point; I've been told that Demerol is

less-than-effective in pill form, as the liver obsorbs/dilutes it wihtin a

bout thirty minutes of intake - and that the averages are far better for pain

relief in numerous other forms of pain medications that are available today -

thereby making the " old standard " of demerol not quite as desirable as it

once was.

<< Mark,

Thanks for the site. I took a quick look at some of the info there.

A couple things stood out.

1. The overwhelming emphasis on the use of alchohol as the cause for

chronic panc. I realize that it is a major cause. However, it certainly is

not the only cause. I remember when I had my first attack, I constantly had

to tell the docs I didn't drink. They took my wife aside and told her not to

let me drink. We were very frustrated.

I hope I have not offended anyone who does have an alchohol problem or it was

the cause for them. I'm not judging anyone. It's just that there are many

causes for the disease that I had to find out on my own. I think many

doctors are shortsighted when it comes to CP.

The second is that they stressed demerol as the best drug for pain control. I

myself suffered nights of unbearable pain after being given

as much demerol as they were aloud to give. Once and ER doc gave me dilauded

and it gave me relief. I would guess that the course of pain management would

differ for each person.

Rob >>

[Guest guest]

Rob,

You've raised a couple of really interesting questions, questions to

which I'm not sure there are easy answers, but that certainly warrant

discussion; certainly a great deal more than we'll ever be capable of

resolving on this list.

Nearly every source I've encountered has suggested that the primary cause

of CP was due to chronic alcoholism... and nearly every source has suggested

that rate to always be approximately 80%.

This list is probably not representative of those numbers, as most of the

members don't attribute their CP to alcoholism, but rather diabetes,

protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity, cystic fibrosis or idiopathic causes.

However, the statistics DO bear out that these five other causes comprise

the remaining 20%, with half of that number being idiopathic. That means

that only 10% of the persons who have CP do so because of diabetes,

protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity or cystic fibrosis... averaging only

slightly higher than 1% each.

So, those being the statistics (at least from all of the research that

seems currently available... and while we may quibble over the " exact "

numbers, let us, for arguments' sake, at least acknowledge that these are

roughly the statistics that science has provided to date), we are presented

with a dilemma.

Should one give proportional focus to each of the causes of CP? If so,

there would need to be a great deal MORE focus to chronic alcoholism as the

primary culprit of CP, and LESS to each of the remaining possible causes. I

doubt if most present are necessarily going to argue for this (though I

certainly can't speak for any other members of this list - perhaps there are

those that WOULD suggest that proportional representation is appropriate)...

but what is an appropriate breakdown in representational focus?

Is it appropriate that any other particular possible cause of CP that is

responsible for 1% of all studied cases be given 20% of available space

and/or research? 1% cause = 20% focus? Surely most would not argue that

THESE numbers are appropriate, either. Hence the dilemma.

Therefore, while nobody could sanely argue that the treatment that you

(in fact most ALL persons subscribed to this list) were and are treated by ER

and primary care healthcare workers as considerably less than " gentle " ,

entirely unsympathetic, and sometimes nothing short of painfully sadistic,

that does not change the fact that the statistics bare out such questions.

What is the solution? I certainly don't presume to know. I hate it too,

I promise you! And at the point that one finds oneself (or a loved one)

standing in the ER, bent over in absolute terror and agony, such questions

seem grossly irrelevant, to say the least!

Nonetheless, to disregard the scientific numbers about the causation of

this disease seems hardly to do anybody any good either.

Anyway, one other point of view for your consideration.

Thanks,

Terry in KC

PS... To the second point; I've been told that Demerol is

less-than-effective in pill form, as the liver obsorbs/dilutes it wihtin a

bout thirty minutes of intake - and that the averages are far better for pain

relief in numerous other forms of pain medications that are available today -

thereby making the " old standard " of demerol not quite as desirable as it

once was.

<< Mark,

Thanks for the site. I took a quick look at some of the info there.

A couple things stood out.

1. The overwhelming emphasis on the use of alchohol as the cause for

chronic panc. I realize that it is a major cause. However, it certainly is

not the only cause. I remember when I had my first attack, I constantly had

to tell the docs I didn't drink. They took my wife aside and told her not to

let me drink. We were very frustrated.

I hope I have not offended anyone who does have an alchohol problem or it was

the cause for them. I'm not judging anyone. It's just that there are many

causes for the disease that I had to find out on my own. I think many

doctors are shortsighted when it comes to CP.

The second is that they stressed demerol as the best drug for pain control. I

myself suffered nights of unbearable pain after being given

as much demerol as they were aloud to give. Once and ER doc gave me dilauded

and it gave me relief. I would guess that the course of pain management would

differ for each person.

Rob >>

[Guest guest]

Terry,

I don't think the doctors should ignore the statistics. However

using your numbers 20% of cases are not caused by alchohol use. For a doctor

to give no consideration at all to that number is irresponsible. And I am

talking about doctors that have done that.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Terry,

I don't think the doctors should ignore the statistics. However

using your numbers 20% of cases are not caused by alchohol use. For a doctor

to give no consideration at all to that number is irresponsible. And I am

talking about doctors that have done that.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Terry,

I don't think the doctors should ignore the statistics. However

using your numbers 20% of cases are not caused by alchohol use. For a doctor

to give no consideration at all to that number is irresponsible. And I am

talking about doctors that have done that.

Rob

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/01 2:16:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, roguekc@...

writes:

> Nearly every source I've encountered has suggested that the primary cause

> of CP was due to chronic alcoholism... and nearly every source has

> suggested

> that rate to always be approximately 80%

>

In my study of this disease, I found that I agree totally with your

statement, this is what the general information is and what is generally

taught in Med school. But I find a fly in the soup so to speak, I think many

of these statistical studies were done in major city ER's and that there is a

high proportion of alcoholics in these medical places. From this board I

think there are many more women than the statistics would predict and a

generally much younger population than the statistics would predict.

Then briefly, I think the general statistics are suspect, and are skewed, and

thus their conclusions are skewed. Totally wrong, maybe not, but certainly

not worth teaching or learning, or basing medical opinion or conclusions upon.

I'll bet big money and give long odds that sometime in the near future (10

years) there is an entirely different opinion in the medical field as to the

causes of and the treatment of pancreatitis.

But for now we suffer the current opinion. However, even if the cause of this

stinking disease is self caused alcohol abuse, shouldn't the medical

profession (a term used loosely) learn to treat the disease rather than pass

moral judgment of suspected " sins " of the past. Apparently some Dr.'s just

cant bring themselves to do that. A pox on them that do so and their houses.

Poncho

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/01 2:16:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, roguekc@...

writes:

> Nearly every source I've encountered has suggested that the primary cause

> of CP was due to chronic alcoholism... and nearly every source has

> suggested

> that rate to always be approximately 80%

>

In my study of this disease, I found that I agree totally with your

statement, this is what the general information is and what is generally

taught in Med school. But I find a fly in the soup so to speak, I think many

of these statistical studies were done in major city ER's and that there is a

high proportion of alcoholics in these medical places. From this board I

think there are many more women than the statistics would predict and a

generally much younger population than the statistics would predict.

Then briefly, I think the general statistics are suspect, and are skewed, and

thus their conclusions are skewed. Totally wrong, maybe not, but certainly

not worth teaching or learning, or basing medical opinion or conclusions upon.

I'll bet big money and give long odds that sometime in the near future (10

years) there is an entirely different opinion in the medical field as to the

causes of and the treatment of pancreatitis.

But for now we suffer the current opinion. However, even if the cause of this

stinking disease is self caused alcohol abuse, shouldn't the medical

profession (a term used loosely) learn to treat the disease rather than pass

moral judgment of suspected " sins " of the past. Apparently some Dr.'s just

cant bring themselves to do that. A pox on them that do so and their houses.

Poncho

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/01 2:16:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, roguekc@...

writes:

> Nearly every source I've encountered has suggested that the primary cause

> of CP was due to chronic alcoholism... and nearly every source has

> suggested

> that rate to always be approximately 80%

>

In my study of this disease, I found that I agree totally with your

statement, this is what the general information is and what is generally

taught in Med school. But I find a fly in the soup so to speak, I think many

of these statistical studies were done in major city ER's and that there is a

high proportion of alcoholics in these medical places. From this board I

think there are many more women than the statistics would predict and a

generally much younger population than the statistics would predict.

Then briefly, I think the general statistics are suspect, and are skewed, and

thus their conclusions are skewed. Totally wrong, maybe not, but certainly

not worth teaching or learning, or basing medical opinion or conclusions upon.

I'll bet big money and give long odds that sometime in the near future (10

years) there is an entirely different opinion in the medical field as to the

causes of and the treatment of pancreatitis.

But for now we suffer the current opinion. However, even if the cause of this

stinking disease is self caused alcohol abuse, shouldn't the medical

profession (a term used loosely) learn to treat the disease rather than pass

moral judgment of suspected " sins " of the past. Apparently some Dr.'s just

cant bring themselves to do that. A pox on them that do so and their houses.

Poncho

[Guest guest]

Hey Rob. You have brought up some great points. I think they are trying to

talk in generalizations. I don't think you will offend anyone

I hope this finds you and yours well

Mark E. Armstrong

www.top5plus5.com

Re: Pancreas anatomy question.

> Mark,

> Thanks for the site. I took a quick look at some of the info

there.

> A couple things stood out.

> 1. The overwhelming emphasis on the use of alchohol as the cause

for

> chronic panc. I realize that it is a major cause. However, it certainly is

> not the only cause. I remember when I had my first attack, I constantly

had

> to tell the docs I didn't drink. They took my wife aside and told her not

to

> let me drink. We were very frustrated.

> I hope I have not offended anyone who does have an alchohol problem or it

was

> the cause for them. I'm not judging anyone. It's just that there are many

> causes for the disease that I had to find out on my own. I think many

> doctors are shortsighted when it comes to CP.

>

> The second is that they stressed demerol as the best drug for pain

control. I

> myself suffered nights of unbearable pain after being given

> as much demerol as they were aloud to give. Once and ER doc gave me

dilauded

> and it gave me relief. I would guess that the course of pain management

would

> differ for each person.

> Rob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Rob. You have brought up some great points. I think they are trying to

talk in generalizations. I don't think you will offend anyone

I hope this finds you and yours well

Mark E. Armstrong

www.top5plus5.com

Re: Pancreas anatomy question.

> Mark,

> Thanks for the site. I took a quick look at some of the info

there.

> A couple things stood out.

> 1. The overwhelming emphasis on the use of alchohol as the cause

for

> chronic panc. I realize that it is a major cause. However, it certainly is

> not the only cause. I remember when I had my first attack, I constantly

had

> to tell the docs I didn't drink. They took my wife aside and told her not

to

> let me drink. We were very frustrated.

> I hope I have not offended anyone who does have an alchohol problem or it

was

> the cause for them. I'm not judging anyone. It's just that there are many

> causes for the disease that I had to find out on my own. I think many

> doctors are shortsighted when it comes to CP.

>

> The second is that they stressed demerol as the best drug for pain

control. I

> myself suffered nights of unbearable pain after being given

> as much demerol as they were aloud to give. Once and ER doc gave me

dilauded

> and it gave me relief. I would guess that the course of pain management

would

> differ for each person.

> Rob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Rob. You have brought up some great points. I think they are trying to

talk in generalizations. I don't think you will offend anyone

I hope this finds you and yours well

Mark E. Armstrong

www.top5plus5.com

Re: Pancreas anatomy question.

> Mark,

> Thanks for the site. I took a quick look at some of the info

there.

> A couple things stood out.

> 1. The overwhelming emphasis on the use of alchohol as the cause

for

> chronic panc. I realize that it is a major cause. However, it certainly is

> not the only cause. I remember when I had my first attack, I constantly

had

> to tell the docs I didn't drink. They took my wife aside and told her not

to

> let me drink. We were very frustrated.

> I hope I have not offended anyone who does have an alchohol problem or it

was

> the cause for them. I'm not judging anyone. It's just that there are many

> causes for the disease that I had to find out on my own. I think many

> doctors are shortsighted when it comes to CP.

>

> The second is that they stressed demerol as the best drug for pain

control. I

> myself suffered nights of unbearable pain after being given

> as much demerol as they were aloud to give. Once and ER doc gave me

dilauded

> and it gave me relief. I would guess that the course of pain management

would

> differ for each person.

> Rob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Terry,

You make a good point about statistics but statistics leave out other

explanations that all good doctors should consider when looking

for the cause of pancreatitis. It's as if the doctors look in the

medical textbooks and lump everyone in together accordingly.

It's so much easier to look in a medical journal and say, " well

according to available statistical odds your pancreatitis must be

caused by alcohol " , than it is to actually take the time to think

of various lesser known causes of pancreatitis.

For all we know,even if a patient denies alcohol consumption,the

attending doctor may feel they aren't truthful and attribute their

pancreatitis to alcohol use in their medical record without the

patient even knowing. This could then lead to false percentages

regarding the true cause of pancreatitis in individuals for whom

there is no clear cut cause.

I do believe that these misconceptions did lead to my pancreatitis

not being diagnosed in a timely fashion. The doctors didn't want to

look for lesser known causes becasue of the percentages we are

talking about.

Ready to respectfully agree to disagree,

Your friend,

Amy

> Rob,> members don't attribute their CP to alcoholism, but

rather diabetes,

> protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity, cystic fibrosis or

idiopathic causes.

> However, the statistics DO bear out that these five other causes

comprise

> the remaining 20%, with half of that number being idiopathic. That

means

> that only 10% of the persons who have CP do so because of diabetes,

> protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity or cystic fibrosis...

averaging only

> slightly higher than 1% each.

> So, those being the statistics (at least from all of the

research that

> seems currently available... and while we may quibble over

the " exact "

> numbers, let us, for arguments' sake, at least acknowledge that

these are

> roughly the statistics that science has provided to date), we are

presented

> with a dilemma.

> Should one give proportional focus to each of the causes of

CP? If so,

> there would need to be a great deal MORE focus to chronic

alcoholism as the

> primary culprit of CP, and LESS to each of the remaining possible

causes. I

> doubt if most present are necessarily going to argue for this

(though I

> certainly can't speak for any other members of this list - perhaps

there are

> those that WOULD suggest that proportional representation is

appropriate)...

> but what is an appropriate breakdown in representational focus?

> Is it appropriate that any other particular possible cause of

CP that is

> responsible for 1% of all studied cases be given 20% of available

space

> and/or research? 1% cause = 20% focus? Surely most would not

argue that

> that >

> In a message dated 9/9/01 4:58:12 AM, muspub751@a... writes:

>

> << Mark,

> Thanks for the site. I took a quick look at some of the

info there.

> A couple things stood out.

> 1. The overwhelming emphasis on the use of alchohol as the

cause for

> chronic panc. I realize that it is a major cause. However, it

certainly is

> not the only cause. I remember when I had my first attack, I

constantly had

> to tell the docs I didn't drink. They took my wife aside and told

her not to

> let me drink. We were very frustrated.

> I hope I have not offended anyone who does have an alchohol problem

or it was

> the cause for them. I'm not judging anyone. It's just that there

are many

> causes for the disease that I had to find out on my own. I think

many

> doctors are shortsighted when it comes to CP.

>

> The second is that they stressed demerol as the best drug for pain

control. I

> myself suffered nights of unbearable pain after being given

> as much demerol as they were aloud to give. Once and ER doc gave me

dilauded

> and it gave me relief. I would guess that the course of pain

management would

> differ for each person.

> Rob >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Terry,

You make a good point about statistics but statistics leave out other

explanations that all good doctors should consider when looking

for the cause of pancreatitis. It's as if the doctors look in the

medical textbooks and lump everyone in together accordingly.

It's so much easier to look in a medical journal and say, " well

according to available statistical odds your pancreatitis must be

caused by alcohol " , than it is to actually take the time to think

of various lesser known causes of pancreatitis.

For all we know,even if a patient denies alcohol consumption,the

attending doctor may feel they aren't truthful and attribute their

pancreatitis to alcohol use in their medical record without the

patient even knowing. This could then lead to false percentages

regarding the true cause of pancreatitis in individuals for whom

there is no clear cut cause.

I do believe that these misconceptions did lead to my pancreatitis

not being diagnosed in a timely fashion. The doctors didn't want to

look for lesser known causes becasue of the percentages we are

talking about.

Ready to respectfully agree to disagree,

Your friend,

Amy

> Rob,> members don't attribute their CP to alcoholism, but

rather diabetes,

> protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity, cystic fibrosis or

idiopathic causes.

> However, the statistics DO bear out that these five other causes

comprise

> the remaining 20%, with half of that number being idiopathic. That

means

> that only 10% of the persons who have CP do so because of diabetes,

> protein-calorie malnutrition, heredity or cystic fibrosis...

averaging only

> slightly higher than 1% each.

> So, those being the statistics (at least from all of the

research that

> seems currently available... and while we may quibble over

the " exact "

> numbers, let us, for arguments' sake, at least acknowledge that

these are

> roughly the statistics that science has provided to date), we are

presented

> with a dilemma.

> Should one give proportional focus to each of the causes of

CP? If so,

> there would need to be a great deal MORE focus to chronic

alcoholism as the

> primary culprit of CP, and LESS to each of the remaining possible

causes. I

> doubt if most present are necessarily going to argue for this

(though I

> certainly can't speak for any other members of this list - perhaps

there are

> those that WOULD suggest that proportional representation is

appropriate)...

> but what is an appropriate breakdown in representational focus?

> Is it appropriate that any other particular possible cause of

CP that is

> responsible for 1% of all studied cases be given 20% of available

space

> and/or research? 1% cause = 20% focus? Surely most would not

argue that

> that >

> In a message dated 9/9/01 4:58:12 AM, muspub751@a... writes:

>

> << Mark,

> Thanks for the site. I took a quick look at some of the

info there.

> A couple things stood out.

> 1. The overwhelming emphasis on the use of alchohol as the

cause for

> chronic panc. I realize that it is a major cause. However, it

certainly is

> not the only cause. I remember when I had my first attack, I

constantly had

> to tell the docs I didn't drink. They took my wife aside and told

her not to

> let me drink. We were very frustrated.

> I hope I have not offended anyone who does have an alchohol problem

or it was

> the cause for them. I'm not judging anyone. It's just that there

are many

> causes for the disease that I had to find out on my own. I think

many

> doctors are shortsighted when it comes to CP.

>

> The second is that they stressed demerol as the best drug for pain

control. I

> myself suffered nights of unbearable pain after being given

> as much demerol as they were aloud to give. Once and ER doc gave me

dilauded

> and it gave me relief. I would guess that the course of pain

management would

> differ for each person.

> Rob >>

[Guest guest]

Hi Poncho -

Just a comment on your comment regarding statistics, and what this

board shows. I think you have to take into consideration how many

people in this country actually own a computer, or have access to the

internet. I think I read somewhere that only 40% of the population

actually owns a computer. I know I tend to forget that, because

everyone I know owns a computer. But then again, almost everyone I

know is involved in the computer industry or the high tech industry.

I also think that internet use is much more prevalent amongst younger

people than older people. My parents do own a computer, and they do

use the internet, but they use it primarily for e-mail and a few

select websites that they visit. I could never imagine them searching

out an online support group or message board.. and in all the years I

have been writing to message boards, it is very seldom that I find

older people.. ages typically range from 20's to 40's - I guess that

would be the " computer generation " .

So I just think it's not really fair to use members on this board as

an example of what the true statistics might be, since the people on

this board really don't represent a true cross-section of society.

Just thought I'd throw that out

> In a message dated 9/9/01 2:16:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

roguekc@a...

> writes:

>

>

> > Nearly every source I've encountered has suggested that the

primary cause

> > of CP was due to chronic alcoholism... and nearly every source has

> > suggested

> > that rate to always be approximately 80%

> >

>

> In my study of this disease, I found that I agree totally with your

> statement, this is what the general information is and what is

generally

> taught in Med school. But I find a fly in the soup so to speak, I

think many

> of these statistical studies were done in major city ER's and that

there is a

> high proportion of alcoholics in these medical places. From this

board I

> think there are many more women than the statistics would predict

and a

> generally much younger population than the statistics would predict.

> Then briefly, I think the general statistics are suspect, and are

skewed, and

> thus their conclusions are skewed. Totally wrong, maybe not, but

certainly

> not worth teaching or learning, or basing medical opinion or

conclusions upon.

> I'll bet big money and give long odds that sometime in the near

future (10

> years) there is an entirely different opinion in the medical field

as to the

> causes of and the treatment of pancreatitis.

> But for now we suffer the current opinion. However, even if the

cause of this

> stinking disease is self caused alcohol abuse, shouldn't the medical

> profession (a term used loosely) learn to treat the disease rather

than pass

> moral judgment of suspected " sins " of the past. Apparently some

Dr.'s just

> cant bring themselves to do that. A pox on them that do so and their

houses.

> Poncho

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Poncho -

Just a comment on your comment regarding statistics, and what this

board shows. I think you have to take into consideration how many

people in this country actually own a computer, or have access to the

internet. I think I read somewhere that only 40% of the population

actually owns a computer. I know I tend to forget that, because

everyone I know owns a computer. But then again, almost everyone I

know is involved in the computer industry or the high tech industry.

I also think that internet use is much more prevalent amongst younger

people than older people. My parents do own a computer, and they do

use the internet, but they use it primarily for e-mail and a few

select websites that they visit. I could never imagine them searching

out an online support group or message board.. and in all the years I

have been writing to message boards, it is very seldom that I find

older people.. ages typically range from 20's to 40's - I guess that

would be the " computer generation " .

So I just think it's not really fair to use members on this board as

an example of what the true statistics might be, since the people on

this board really don't represent a true cross-section of society.

Just thought I'd throw that out

> In a message dated 9/9/01 2:16:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

roguekc@a...

> writes:

>

>

> > Nearly every source I've encountered has suggested that the

primary cause

> > of CP was due to chronic alcoholism... and nearly every source has

> > suggested

> > that rate to always be approximately 80%

> >

>

> In my study of this disease, I found that I agree totally with your

> statement, this is what the general information is and what is

generally

> taught in Med school. But I find a fly in the soup so to speak, I

think many

> of these statistical studies were done in major city ER's and that

there is a

> high proportion of alcoholics in these medical places. From this

board I

> think there are many more women than the statistics would predict

and a

> generally much younger population than the statistics would predict.

> Then briefly, I think the general statistics are suspect, and are

skewed, and

> thus their conclusions are skewed. Totally wrong, maybe not, but

certainly

> not worth teaching or learning, or basing medical opinion or

conclusions upon.

> I'll bet big money and give long odds that sometime in the near

future (10

> years) there is an entirely different opinion in the medical field

as to the

> causes of and the treatment of pancreatitis.

> But for now we suffer the current opinion. However, even if the

cause of this

> stinking disease is self caused alcohol abuse, shouldn't the medical

> profession (a term used loosely) learn to treat the disease rather

than pass

> moral judgment of suspected " sins " of the past. Apparently some

Dr.'s just

> cant bring themselves to do that. A pox on them that do so and their

houses.

> Poncho

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Poncho -

Just a comment on your comment regarding statistics, and what this

board shows. I think you have to take into consideration how many

people in this country actually own a computer, or have access to the

internet. I think I read somewhere that only 40% of the population

actually owns a computer. I know I tend to forget that, because

everyone I know owns a computer. But then again, almost everyone I

know is involved in the computer industry or the high tech industry.

I also think that internet use is much more prevalent amongst younger

people than older people. My parents do own a computer, and they do

use the internet, but they use it primarily for e-mail and a few

select websites that they visit. I could never imagine them searching

out an online support group or message board.. and in all the years I

have been writing to message boards, it is very seldom that I find

older people.. ages typically range from 20's to 40's - I guess that

would be the " computer generation " .

So I just think it's not really fair to use members on this board as

an example of what the true statistics might be, since the people on

this board really don't represent a true cross-section of society.

Just thought I'd throw that out

> In a message dated 9/9/01 2:16:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

roguekc@a...

> writes:

>

>

> > Nearly every source I've encountered has suggested that the

primary cause

> > of CP was due to chronic alcoholism... and nearly every source has

> > suggested

> > that rate to always be approximately 80%

> >

>

> In my study of this disease, I found that I agree totally with your

> statement, this is what the general information is and what is

generally

> taught in Med school. But I find a fly in the soup so to speak, I

think many

> of these statistical studies were done in major city ER's and that

there is a

> high proportion of alcoholics in these medical places. From this

board I

> think there are many more women than the statistics would predict

and a

> generally much younger population than the statistics would predict.

> Then briefly, I think the general statistics are suspect, and are

skewed, and

> thus their conclusions are skewed. Totally wrong, maybe not, but

certainly

> not worth teaching or learning, or basing medical opinion or

conclusions upon.

> I'll bet big money and give long odds that sometime in the near

future (10

> years) there is an entirely different opinion in the medical field

as to the

> causes of and the treatment of pancreatitis.

> But for now we suffer the current opinion. However, even if the

cause of this

> stinking disease is self caused alcohol abuse, shouldn't the medical

> profession (a term used loosely) learn to treat the disease rather

than pass

> moral judgment of suspected " sins " of the past. Apparently some

Dr.'s just

> cant bring themselves to do that. A pox on them that do so and their

houses.

> Poncho

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rob,yes there is a secondary duct. The main duct is called the Duct of

Wirsung and the smaller duct is called the Duct of Santorini. For those

of us with pancreatic divisum, those two ducts are not connected or are

only partially connected and don't work, or the major duct doesn't work

and so the only drainage is through the smaller duct. I have two small

parallel ducts instead of one duct that splits into two. Both are

smaller then they should be and one is only opened on one end so that

nothing exited through it (though I had this fix by surgery). There are

really good diagrams of both on the Hopkin's GI website

http://hopkins-gi.org/subspecialties/chronic/introduction/anatomy.htm

Kimber

--

Kimber

hominid2@...

California State Chapter Representative

Pancreatitis Association, International

[Guest guest]

Rob,yes there is a secondary duct. The main duct is called the Duct of

Wirsung and the smaller duct is called the Duct of Santorini. For those

of us with pancreatic divisum, those two ducts are not connected or are

only partially connected and don't work, or the major duct doesn't work

and so the only drainage is through the smaller duct. I have two small

parallel ducts instead of one duct that splits into two. Both are

smaller then they should be and one is only opened on one end so that

nothing exited through it (though I had this fix by surgery). There are

really good diagrams of both on the Hopkin's GI website

http://hopkins-gi.org/subspecialties/chronic/introduction/anatomy.htm

Kimber

--

Kimber

hominid2@...

California State Chapter Representative

Pancreatitis Association, International