|
Roz has pointed an interesting little slide slow presentation. This may or may not be related to the RSD disease process, but it's definitely worth checking out in some level of detail.
Attention all of you budding molecular biologists, if we could just have your atttention for a moment . . . . Mike |
Well, all I am officially un employed. I do not need to work, as my husband was in Vietnam and is on 100% disability from that agent orange our government sprayed over there. I too loved my job. I cried buckets too over not being able to go back! I took care of altizmers patients in their homes.. I miss it. Love, Desi
|
Vicc
Vicc
My main question about cyanosis to you is... does it have to be blue? Since my hand turns red to red purple or red burgundy... I was wondering if this is NOT cyanosis to you, and if you need to have cyanosis to have RSD. I don't need a long explanation... just simple yes, no for now. I am very puzzled by the cyanosis compared to RSD, as many people seem to be like me, and do not turn blue or blue gray. And, remember..... who knows what sort of spread I may have had without the grapeseed. There is no way to know that. Thanks!! Jules |
bumpity bump...
|
Hey Jules,
I would imagine that the burgundy colours would be cyanotic - they show a problem in circulation in that limb anyway - and the grey shading would also suggest a compromised circulation. I could be wrong but I think the less an individual is able to move the affected part the more pronounced the colour changes are eg - for me, my legs are black, BUT that's because I can't move them, whereas others who can, would still suffer with the cyanosis, but because they have the ability to pump the blood through muscle movement it would be less pronounced. Well, that's my 2cents! - Vicc, come and correct me!!! Love Frogga xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
...falling off the page again....
|
Quote:
Thanks for the link. You sold me on the book. :wink: Peace, Roz |
Hey guys,
I've beem working on a reply, but every time I try it's just too long. I decided to start a thread talking about cyanosis and its moving along slowly but will be finished pretty soon (whatever that means). It will answer most of the questions in this thread. Meanwhile, be patient with me, I'm an old man...Vic |
Vic
Thanks Vic...
Mainly, I just wanted to know if when you talk about cyanosis, if you would say I fit your discription... since my skin does not turn blue or gray, but **just** red and burgundy/purple. No real long explanations needed right now... THanks sweetie... and I think this RSD stuff makes us all feel old if we are or not. Jules |
Hi Jules,
You've known me long enough to know that I don't know how to write anything without long explanations. It's what I do. Still, I am working on a thread on cyanosis, so I guess its safe to say "yes", RSD doesn't require discoloration, but it is the most common sign of the disease, so if the RSD "experts" could find their way to talk about cyanosis as a sign of this disease, life would be easier for the majority who do present with it and who are stuck in litigation. Cyanosis is pretty strictly defined as blue to purplish, so people with discoloration different from strictly defined cyanosis could still face problems, as could anyone with no discoloration, but the majority would be able to use their cyanosis as evidence that they do, indeed, have RSD. Today you have to prove you have RSD, and you can't use cyanosis as evidence. Remove that barrier and their lives would automatically be come better. That will only come down when a few "experts" start telling the truth. I don't think they're going to do that voluntarily. To admit cyanosis is a sign of RSD is the same as admitting that this can't come from a nerve injury; science proved that the only possible neurological explanation for RSD doesn't exist. It was once believed that damaged sympathetic nerves caused the cyanosis of RSD. For that to be true however, the damaged nerve would have to constrict arterial blood flow to the point that cyanosis appears; but scientists back in the 1940's proved that arterial blood flow is not reduced in RSD. Way back then, the "experts" of the day decided that even if their assumptions about sympathetic vasoconstriction were wrong; they must be right about nerve damage. They couldn't come out and lie; they couldn't blame cyanosis on sympathetic vasoconstriction anymore, so they just stopped talking about cyanosis. That may not have been a big deal back in the 1950's. Maybe the older material (the stuff that still discussed cyanosis), was still around and used to convince workers comp insurance companies that the patient really was disabled, but it doesn't work like that anymore. Once upon a time, insurance companies felt obligated to pay the people they "insured", but that time is past. Today, the greater the disability, the harder they fight. Today insurance companies only exist to make a profit, and paying large claims hurts profits, so people with RSD are the enemy. We are hurting the bottom line. Not mentioning cyanosis in the 1950's might not have been a big problem then, but it sure hurts people today. And the "experts" know their silence is hurting people, but they remain silent. Maybe someone can come up with an explanation for this silence that doesn't curse the "experts" as liars, but I can't come up with a single reason that would justify the damage their silence is causing. So silence about cyanosis is hurting a lot of RSD people who have obvious cyanosis, but what about you and the others who don't have blue to purplish color skin? Your discoloration isn't just a coincidence. When the area that hurts is also discolored, it means that science has to come up with a better explanation. That's their job: to explain facts. In your case, the fact is that your skin is discolored in the same places where it hurts, so is mine. The colors are different, but the fact that we have discoloration is just as real. Real scientists would want to know whether the two are associated, and they would keep trying until they found the answer. RSD "experts" remind me of Republican Senators; they know the boss is wrong, but they think loyalty is more important than the truth. They hope they can get off the ship before it sinks. Right now, the RSD "experts" have more time; most RSD people still believe them. In my mind, this means I have more work to do. I have to keep bringing up this "inconvenient fact" until others decide that I may come across as an arrogant know-it-all, but their arm or leg is cyanotic, so why aren't the "experts" talking about it? When a well-funded researcher begins investigating cyanosis in RSD, others will eventually follow, and they will explain why your skin is burgundy while mine is purple and someone else shows no discoloration at all. So Jules, for what its worth, I have no doubt that your burgundy color means that science is going to have to find another word for cyanosis, or widen the definition to include other colors, because you are living proof that impaired circulation can present as something besides blue to purple. Well, you got your short answer and I wrote my long explanation. Everybody's happy except those who are tired of reading my crap...Vic |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin • Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by
vB Optimise (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.