Posted on 05/10/2005 8:34:42 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
Also remember that he has a friend at JH that's doing unethical things to get him in there, supposedly. So who knows?
Something is fishy. Why is the preliminary radiology report and exam done just yesterday while the operation was supposed to be done yesterday or the day before?
How can the operation take place without the radiology scan and report. Are the surgeons operating blind?
Furthermore, Why did a radiology scan and exam cost $25,000?
Just a little odd to operate on an un-biopsied tumor, too.
1. Not strange, but just an observation.... Is Andy his legal name, or is it Andrew?
2. You are right about scans not diagnosing cancer, but in the History section, it only states "unusual mass" (or something similar), in order to be in this study, he would have had to been diagnosed with the cancer, so the history should have reflected that diagnosis. "Mass" is an unspecified condition, as is "tumor", this should have said "carcinoma" "cancer stage ...", etc.
3. Every single radiology report I read, if it is done with IV contrast (which this one says it was), explains the dye procedure with the specification of what type of contrast material was used.
All of these points could possibly be explained simply by the format that John Hopkins uses in there dictation of reports, but I have seen many reports, and legal names are always used, the history is usually more specific, and the contrast materials used are spelled out.
Another side point, that does not diminish this forms authenticity is the fact that the report says there are no prior studies for comparison. I can't imagine John Hopkins (or any other research program) accepting a patient for a trial study without first having a simple CT Scan copy from the referring Doctor. Now in this case it could be something as simple as the radiologist not having access to it, but usually when a patient goes to a new facility, the history, or the comparison section will have a summary of past findings from the originating facility.
Yep -- a bunch of dimwits all conveniently gathered in one place.
I am reminded of the scene of Dracula robbing the blood bank in Love At First Bite: "Plastic disposable bodies! Only in America!"
I'm going to have to pick my jaw up off the floor after that one... The Dems told Cheney not to come, they booed Lott, and basically turned the thing into a midterm Dem. Nat'l Convention and we're the ones who politicized it??? There is no helping these people.
No way Johns Hopkins would want $25,000 up-front money to do a simple radiology scan and exam. Many facts are not adding up.
hmmm....
Could Pancreatitis be the actual diagnosis?
http://www.surgical-tutor.org.uk/default-home.htm?tutorials/pseudocyst.htm~right
This abdominal CT scan shows a 10 cm diameter pancreatic pseudocyst adjacent to the posterior wall of the stomach. The episode of acute abdominal pain 6 weeks previously was acute pancreatitis due to alcohol excess. Pancreatic pseudocysts are fluid collections arising adjacent to the pancreas and often occurring in the less sac. They have a fibrous wall and are not true cysts as they lack an epithelial lining. They contain a fluid rich in pancreatic enzymes including amylase. At least one third of patients with acute pancreatitis develop acute fluid collections most of which resolve over a few weeks. Only those that are enlarging or become symptomatic require operative or surgical intervention or surgical intervention at this stage. Such early acute fluid collections should not be regarded as pseudocysts. Those persisting beyond 6 weeks are less likely to resolve spontaneously and are more prone to complications. It is these fluid collections that are true pancreatic pseudocysts. Symptoms of gastric outflow obstruction or persistent elevation of serum amylase may suggest the diagnosis. The exact time appropriate for conservative management is controversial.
Pancreatic fluid collections can be identified and followed up with ultrasound. Abdominal CT scan will allow assessment of the cyst in relation to adjacent structures. The use of endoscopic ultrasound has attracted recent interest particularly in as means of assessing the relationship of the cyst wall to the stomach prior to endoscopic drainage. ERCP will allow identification of any abnormality of the pancreatic duct and identify any fistulae between the duct and the cyst. Dependent on the findings seen at ERCP one of three treatment options may be appropriate
* Percutaneous aspiration
* Endoscopic drainage - transpapillary or transmural
* Surgical drainage - cystogastrotomy or cystojejunostomy.
Percutaneous aspiration under ultrasound or CT guidance is about 80% successful when there is no fistula between the cyst and pancreatic duct. If a fistula is present the outcome is less assured. Percutaneous aspiration is occasionally associated with the development of a pancreatic abscess, pancreatic fistula or haemorrhage. Surgery allows adequate internal drainage and the opportunity to biopsy the cyst wall to exclude a cystic neoplasm. A cholecystectomy and exploration of the common bile duct can also be performed if required. The mortality of all procedures is approximately equal but the recurrence rate is less after surgery.
Agreed -- as foolish as the DUpes who fell for this scam are, their intent is to do the right thing (and scam artists like Undie make it that much harder for people with real problems).
This was the work of ONE person. A vindictive, lying, spiteful and incredibly vicious person who has abused and libeled almost every person who has helped rise to national prominence.
She is not a tool of the right, she is just a VERY sad and pathetic excuse for a human being.
She has gotten quite rich off our money and sweat and she CAN'T stand that someone she set out to destroy is supported so publicly.
I believe here David Allen is referring to the notorious BBeV Harris, with whom he and Undie used to work. It sounds like he is saying that BBeV is the one who came on DU and said Undie was scammin' them.
Soooooo....even the ever-faithful WillPitt had his doubts! It wasn't just all those awful FREEPER trolls but the most illustrious member of DU himself! And he should rightly continue to do so.
WilliamPitt Donating member (1000+ posts)
Thu May-12-05 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
40. I posted this in Andy's thread about the checks. You should read it.
I will admit something. I got worried about all this last night. When Andy posted that thread that seemed to be indicating he needed more money, that another 'hot check' had been sent...and then the text of the thread was deleted. I had seen the thread where the 'blood suckers' had been paid, and was badly confused by the new thread. I was even more confused when it was summarily deleted. I got worried. I got mad. I asked some hard questions.
It was a marvelous position to be in. If it did turn out that something was wrong with all this, I was responsible for helping DU, PDA and truthout get wrapped up in it. The reputations of the two crews I work for would have been in the burn bag. If I was worried for no reason, then I was responsible for getting up the nose of a friend with cancer who needs that like he needs a hole in the head.
So all of you should know that part of the reason Andy is posting these documents is in response to whoever started this mess in the first place. Part of it is in response to me.
Andy, you have my humblest and most ashamed apology. I don't expect you to forgive, but I hope you can understand why I was confused and upset. That last thread of yours threw me for a bad loop, and I've been burned before on matters of trust.
Anyone else who wants to kick my a**, feel free.
Heheee~ or maybe they're all over here & at CU finding out how stupid they really are? ;3
Somebody on the DU "Update on Andy's cancer surgery: donations needed" thread posted these "Dancing Andy" animations. They move.
Ok.. for the record, I'm not a DU Troll, and not an Andy apologizer, but this looks authentic to me. I have had lots of experience with stuff (my wife died of cancer after a 2.5 yr battle with it). CT Scan, Bone Scan, MRI reports are usually input into a computer by the specialist who reads the scan. A report is generated from the computer for the doctor and if requested for the patient. I have seen dozens of these reports almost identical to the one posted. That in itself doesn't make it authentic, but the questions raised here do not discount it.
Ah, you beat me.
So where'd the other $18,000 go?
The Freeps don't need to do anything to harm Andy. Bev is doing the job for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.