You know, Jana, sometimes I think doctors write these kind of articles - or "letters" - because then they can point to something to get them off the hook when they do mislabel us or can't for the life of them figure out what's wrong.

You can't help everyone and most of the time you can't help anyone. But we can at least try, eh?

Annie

Yikes Annie now you are scaring me. I have had a severe B12 deficiency for a few years now. I need mega B12 injections and tablets. My thymus is only enlarged - not a thymoma they said.

Not sure about the link with horses. I did work with photo chemicals all my life with poor ventilation. My bosses went to court about it for another co worker. She got a nasty type of asthma and diseased lungs. I think I was drawn to horses cos they did the exercise for me when I got tired. Like another pair of legs I could never run or play sport like the others my age - but I could ride a horse... and put in extra effort and ride fast or jump or just potter along on trail rides. I hope this makes sense. The horse became my 'helper'.

Sorry, I didn't mean to scare you!!! Do you take the sublingual methylcobalamin B12? If not, please try it. The shots were doing squat for my levels. The sublingual tablets made my B12 go up and symptoms go down!

Cancer is not the only reason why someone would have a B12 deficiency!!! In fact, it's probably way down on the list. A lack of stomach acid and celiac disease are much more common.

Sorry.

Annie

the only connection I have with horses, is an article I recently tried to publish with a colleague called- "horses and zebras, and the art and science of medicine" . the funny thing is that they did not accept it for publication, because there was nothing novel about it. all we said was that physicians should keep in mind that patients may have rare diseases, rare presentations of rare disease and unusual/unexpected response to treatment. and that a good physician patient-relationship based on mutual trust and respect, and the understanding that not everything is covered by our text books and journals is essential. but everyone knows that!!!

obviously they do, and that is why, so many of them understand right away that when a patient does not fit the textbook, or has a very unusual and unexpected response to a certain highly effective treatment that works so well in 99% of the patients, he/she definitely has some psychiatric problems that account for that.

I grew up with horses, but the only chemicals to do with them was the worm paste we used, and we were always soooo careful not to get it on us.
I think I had more exposure with chemicals for other farm type stuff, although being a child I never had anything to do with them, just the residues.
I also worked on a orchard and vineyard, and some of the chemicals they used there were a bit worrisome, but once again, if I handled chemicals I wore all ALL the gear. The guys rekonded I went overboard, but I never once thought I did.
Kate

Well - I prob have Coeliac so I hope this is the reason ! I would like a repeat CT Scan done. It has been two years since my original. Do you think that would be a good idea to ask the Neuro when I see him ? I mean - if its a thymoma it would be larger in two years ?


And amen to that. We can only hope our Drs 'think outside the square' and are prepared to trust their own judgement and eyes before the textbooks they have crammed during study.

You think that article's bad. Check out this case study from the 40s. It's Freudian to the max- painful to read. I'm sure that the patient became psychotic due to repeated crisis', not because he wasn't hugged enough as a child...lol

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org...nt/3/2/120.pdf

My late Auntie was treated as a psyche case in the 1960s when she became ill. She then gave up on Drs and never discussed her health issues again with Drs or family. The family believed the Drs .... Poor Auntie - no one believed in her.

Now dx ( by daughters' description of symptoms and photos ) as "definately MG - blind Freddie could spot that"

It is really sad to see not a lot has changed in 50 years.