Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: vhfpmr on 05/02/2024 11:53:09
-
As per the title.
-
I'm baffled by this strange question. What makes you think there is a connection? General anaesthetics comprise an extremely wide variety of agents which can cause insensibility, had you any particular group in mind? Calories are the principle cause of type 2 diabetes while type 1 likely has a viral/genetic causation.
-
I'm baffled by this strange question.
No more than I am.
What makes you think there is a connection?
I don't.
-
Well, that was weird...
-
Well, that was weird...
I thought so too, but I haven't yet said as much to the GP who referred me for a fasting blood sugar test on the premise that it might explain the symptoms I've been experiencing since waking from a general anaesthetic 3.5 years ago. I thought I'd wait until I've checked whether I can find any evidence for it first.
-
I thought so too, but I haven't yet said as much to the GP who referred me for a fasting blood sugar test on the premise that it might explain the symptoms I've been experiencing since waking from a general anaesthetic 3.5 years ago. I thought I'd wait until I've checked whether I can find any evidence for it first.
I think asking another doctor or researching the question yourself would make a lot more sense than asking strangers on the internet.
-
I thought so too, but I haven't yet said as much to the GP who referred me for a fasting blood sugar test on the premise that it might explain the symptoms I've been experiencing since waking from a general anaesthetic 3.5 years ago. I thought I'd wait until I've checked whether I can find any evidence for it first.
I think asking another doctor or researching the question yourself would make a lot more sense than asking strangers on the internet.
I already have researched it for myself and found nothing, hence my posting this thread. Do you have any evidence that the NHS answer any of my questions when I ask them?
-
@vfhpmr
I know you Specifically asked for NHS...
https://patient.info/doctor/precautions-for-patients-with-diabetes-undergoing-surgery
But this is all i could find.
(sorry)
-
@vfhpmr
I know you Specifically asked for NHS...
https://patient.info/doctor/precautions-for-patients-with-diabetes-undergoing-surgery
But this is all i could find.
(sorry)
Thanks, but that's for diabetics who are having an anaesthetic. I didn't have diabetes then, and I think that the test will show I don't have it now.
-
Type 2 diabetes can have a slow onset - but it's extremely common in western societies.
- A fasting blood test every couple of years is a wise precaution, so don't fear it.
Perhaps you first noticed the symptoms after your operation? (rather than the operation+anaesthetic being the cause of diabetes.)
-
The person most likely to know the answer is surely the GP who requested the test. But a first guess would be that you have symptoms associated with diabetes, which prompts the blood test - standard investigative procedure: "common symptoms have common causes". If that eliminates diabetes, it's worth probing further.
A general anesthetic isn't usually administered for no reason, so the next question is whether your symptoms are related to the cause or effect of the surgery.
-
The only substance i know of that can induce diabetes is alloxan, mesooxalylurea which causes selective destruction of the beta cells in the pancreas. This substance is not remotely related to any anaesthetic in use, past or present.
-
The person most likely to know the answer is surely the GP who requested the test.
If the NHS have suddenly been overcome by an urge to answer my questions, they have dozens of unanswered ones to be going on with already.
-
If you don't ask, you'll never know. Not "the NHS" (which is mostly accountants nowadays) but the doctor who made the statement.
-
If you don't ask, you'll never know. Not "the NHS" (which is mostly accountants nowadays) but the doctor who made the statement.
When I do ask I never know either, and I don't know who the doctor was, they're all locums, so you never get the same one twice, and they never introduce themselves. The usual response to verbal questions is "I don't know, nothing to do with me, go away and ask someone else", and written questions sent by recorded delivery get ignored.
I'd quite like to know why I still haven't been given the pulmonary vein isolation I was offered ten years ago, and what the "Major" condition was that they discovered from a brain MRI 16 months ago, but both of those questions have been met by the responses above. I'd also quite like to see the 27 page MDT report into my bowel tumour, but they're withholding it because "the pages are all blank".
Etc etc etc......
Meanwhile, you seem to think I'm the village idiot who doesn't even have the initiative to ask them a question.
Before you come back with some other patronising suggestion such as making a complaint, all this is what the NHS do to patients in revenge for complaining.
The reason I came on here looking for independent information is to be forearmed when they start lying to me next time I speak to them.
"Test result Plasma fasting glucose level Report, Normal, No Further Action. 07 Feb 2024 14:28
Plasma fasting glucose level (44g1.) 4.3 mmol/L [0 - 7]"
Well, surprise surprise. Normal, just like it was immediately before my symptoms suddenly started at ~14:00 on 15.9.20.
-
May I ask what symptoms do you attribute to having had a general anaesthetic? If this question is too personal or intrusive, ignore it.
-
When I do ask I never know either, and I don't know who the doctor was, they're all locums,
and they all sign their entries in your record - or should do.
I'd also quite like to see the 27 page MDT report into my bowel tumour, but they're withholding it because "the pages are all blank".
Definitely worth a complaint. Look what happened to the Post Office employees when nobody questioned the infallible computer.
Meanwhile, you seem to think I'm the village idiot who doesn't even have the initiative to ask them a question.
I don't have an opinion on your intelligence, just a lack of evidence of your having actually posed the question to the person best able to answer it. I'm a scientist, not a psychologist.
"Test result Plasma fasting glucose level Report, Normal, No Further Action. 07 Feb 2024 14:28
Plasma fasting glucose level (44g1.) 4.3 mmol/L [0 - 7]"
Well, surprise surprise. Normal, just like it was immediately before my symptoms suddenly started at ~14:00 on 15.9.20.
So whatever the symptoms, which we have not been told but must assume have persisted for several years, the cause does not appear to be diabetes.
-
"Can General Anaesthetics Cause Diabetes?"
Does alcohol count?
-
Alcohol shares similar pharmacology with two classes of anaesthetics, namely nmda antagonists such as ketamine and gaba-a agonists such as thiopentone. It is however not a good choice of anaesthetic, just imagine the hangover from a knockout dose of alcohol, gives me the shivers just thinking about it. The deleterious effects of alcohol in diabetes or pre-diabetes comes from it's high calorific value rather than it's intrinsic anaesthetic effects as it is oxidised to acetate and then converted to energy in the mitochondria.
-
May I ask what symptoms do you attribute to having had a general anaesthetic?
A feeling of extreme pressure in head was the immediate symptom on waking, along with violent dizziness.
Then in the days immediately after, the following developed:
Brain fog, like a cross between conscious sedation and drunkenness
Extreme dizzy attacks, and waking with dizziness & vomiting in the night
Double vision & blurred vision
Difficulty judging speed & distance
The sight of unexpected movement puts me off balance or makes me want to throw up
Inter-pupillary distance (relating to varifocals) changes at random
Bright lights like shooting stars running across my vision
2.5 fold increase in the number of (previously occurring) ocular migraines
Dyspraxia: difficulty writing, slicing food, getting food in my mouth without it falling off fork, cutting myself shaving etc.
Poor reaction to any movement initiated by my own movement
Vomit reflex in diaphragm when swallowing
Random stabbing pains in head & neck
Symptoms are paroxysmal, and tend to be aggravated by anything increasing my blood pressure. (Arguing, straining to do jobs, straining on loo, kneeling etc)
If this question is too personal or intrusive, ignore it.
I'm happy to publish just about anything and everything relating to my healthcare, because people who are too coy to do so are just providing the NHS with protection.
Definitely worth a complaint.
I never thought of that. (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6fygh3qj6orqx3qekp5kl/ICO-Good-Faith.png?rlkey=95mfin669pi5evju8odsu3jnl&dl=0)
Before you come back with another one I've already done years ago, such as filing a complaint with the Health Ombudsman, you might like to read Hansard, and see what the MPs who created the PHSO had to say about their handiwork:
"The Bill was always drafted to be a swiz, and now it is spelt into the Bill." (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1967-01-24/debates/1251c367-9d8b-48e7-9f91-0e3bb939b6d9/Clause5%E2%80%94(MattersSubjectToInvestigation)#contribution-fc5a69cf-0b7e-4d08-b411-bd84592c68b2)
"Anyone who contemplates an office of this kind is faced with the dilemma of making it either a Frankenstein or a nonentity?a Frankenstein if it has effective powers and a nonentity if it has not. The Government, quite rightly, has opted for its being a nonentity, and in that sense it is a fraud....I congratulate the Government on its being a nonentity. A Frankenstein would, I think, have undermined the power of Ministers and would have undermined the authority of individual Members of Parliament. That, I am quite sure, is not to be.....My ultimate conclusion about this Bill is that it is a noble facade without anything behind it." (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1967-01-24/debates/af78b856-0d7a-4040-9af8-8a0d412d0461/Schedule3%E2%80%94(MattersNotSubjectToInvestigation)#contribution-420bd2b2-868e-4819-8761-6be054a1e792)
PHSOtheFacts is a pressure group campaigning against the PHSO corruption (they have given evidence in parliament (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/USgsD2rOLUQ), and to the HSIB (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xeO5AKqstc), they're not just kids blogging from their bedrooms). In 2018 their lawyers filed 32 cases of Misconduct In Public Office (https://phsothetruestory.com/2018/04/12/is-phso-parliaments-silo-for-toxic-waste/) with Scotland Yard, but the investigation had to be abandoned, not because there was no evidence, but because the Health Service Commissioners Act prevents the police, or anyone else, from accessing PHSO files.
Here are the series of reports on the PHSO commissioned by Katherine Murphy, CEO of the Patients' Association. They were taken down from the website as soon as they'd got rid of her.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1xg5t63lk1bjv5o/PA%202014%20Report%20on%20the%20PHSO.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/duiyv4cyxfq1hui/PA%202015%20Report%20on%20the%20PHSO.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r99b96cvcy3r8as/PA%202016%20Report%20on%20the%20PHSO.pdf?dl=0
TLDR? Here's a summary (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o2rswxgehrysry055hj5s/PHSO-Complaint-Themes.png?rlkey=yk6lyh70xfjusrldt9cxf3465&dl=0). I can tick off the top 12 of those from my own personal experience.
("Communication takes too long" looks innocuous enough on the face of it, but it's a deliberate ploy to run you out of time on the Statute of Limitations. They ambush you with the final report a few days before the 3 year limit expires.)
The NHS complaints system is a sham, and above the law, just as the MPs who created it intended.
Paragraph 9.37 of the PHSO Service Model Main Guidance (https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/Policies_and_Guidance_Service_Model_Main_Guidance_20.0.pdf) is interesting:
"Where we have found that an injustice arose in consequence of maladministration or service failure but that it was fully remedied before the complaint was received by the Ombudsman then a complaint will not be upheld. (Policy requirement)"
So as you can see, all the NHS have to do to get a complaint dismissed is to claim the problem has already been fixed:
"Yes, your Honour, it was me who robbed the Nat West last month, but I've stopped robbing banks now."
"Oh, that's OK then, off you go."
And just in case the NHS are in any doubt what they need to do, this is an email (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v8gpl4zje8gcpjrvoism4/Coaching.png?rlkey=1fd4ocbae8bmbq2ciye0py1tx&dl=0) from a PHSO Caseworker coaching the hospital what to say.
My original complaint in 2015 was made because cardiology deliberately lied, and denied any knowledge of my having been diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. After the PHSO went through the pretence of an investigation, and produced a report which ignored all the evidence without explanation, whilst accepting the NHS account at face value with no evidence at all, I wrote a long reply systematically dismantling it, piece by piece. They then conceded it was "flawed" and agreed to re-investigate.
After many months, they then withdrew their previous letter, saying that the second investigation had been stopped in order to "manage" the "legal risks" (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9wza6hxr2mfijk7jpcc9a/20210507-Red.jpg?rlkey=gh1fcmmld78m2wfd7qhklk7gz&dl=0).
I now appear to have become the unluckiest patient in the NHS, as every encounter I've had with the NHS since then seems to have resulted in my being harmed. It's like being one of the Post Office workers but worse: there's nowhere to escape from the NHS.
-
That is a bizarre constellation of symptoms. I can't see any anaesthetic being responsible and I don't see the remotest connection with diabetes. I would reckon some other factor is responsible. Again I emphasise what has previously been said-an internet forum is not the place for medical advice. I would suggest you do some doctor shopping until you find a sympathetic and understanding practitioner-this may require multiple consultations until you find one that takes you seriously and is competent with complex cases. As regards your problems with the NHS, I can't comment as I live in Ireland.
-
As with the Post Office, the only route to getting anything done seems to be to involve your Member of Parliament and/or a journalist - these are my recommendations to my own clients who have been wronged by authority. The case of the missing MDT record suggests individual malfeasance or a serious flaw in the NHS records system, either of which would be grist to the mill of an MP or investigative scribe.
Apropos your symptoms, I don't see anything there that suggests diabetes, however fashionable that diagnosis might be this year. Much more like vestibular or auditory nerve malfunction.
If you can't get any help from your GP, you might actually get some insight from Specsavers - not a pun, nor a joke. If they can't identify a problem with hearing/balance/vision, they will know someone who can. I just heard from a client whose 7-year-old daughter developed a squint. Local optician didn't like what he saw, so referred her to an NHS ophthalmic clinic who determined that she had a brain tumor that was treated by proton beam radiotherapy and saved her life.
-
I would suggest you do some doctor shopping
In 2016 I had a report on a series of ECGs from a very helpful professor in London which proved that the NHS were lying, without any shopping around at all, so when I was facing an unnecessary anaesthetic for a cystoscopy that I didn't need I tried the same again. This time I went all round the private sector and just got told to go to the NHS or that I needed a referral from the NHS. They've been warned off for pulling the rug out from under the NHS's feet.
As regards your problems with the NHS, I can't comment as I live in Ireland.
Most countries have the same issues. It isn't really about medics even, as the Post Office scandal shows, it's just human nature. If you'd been there yourself you'd know.
involve your Member of Parliament
I assume you're unaware that MPs have no power over the PHSO then? The ombudsman is ostensibly there to police the MPs, so you can't have the PHSO and MPs each policing the other. The PACAC Committee supposedly oversees the PHSO, but they don't actually do anything beyond a token meeting once a year. When I wrote to my MP I got no reply, and the stock line from the PACAC Chair is that they don't get involved in individual cases. I've been going at this for eight years, just how much is there that you think I (and all the others in a similar position) haven't already done in that time? I know someone who has been going at this for over 20 years, spent north of ?100k on legal fees, had coverage on national TV, and still got nowhere. Have you ever heard the term 'duty of candour'? That was his doing, but it still hasn't got any of us anywhere. Like I said, even Scotland Yard were thwarted. Nothing came of the Gosport Inquiry, even though Nurse Spilka testified that they were euthanising patients just because they were regarded as "difficult". I've lost count of the times I've seen that in my records. I've been told I'm "notoriously difficult" to my face.
The case of the missing MDT record suggests individual malfeasance or a serious flaw in the NHS records system
The main issue behind my complaint in 2015 was the denial of my heart arrhythmia, I just mentioned the MDT report because you seemed to think that records are there just for the asking, and because I had a scan of that ICO letter to hand. You don't get given anything they don't want you to have. Even the ombudsman has publicly panned the NHS for forging records. I can see where mine have been forged.
Much more like vestibular or auditory nerve malfunction.
The neurologist who told me that it can't be a brain problem because I get 'headaches' (his word, not mine) sent me to ENT. They said it can't be an ear problem. He sent me to physiotherapy twice. They rejected me twice. Second time I saw him he referred me to an ophthalmologist. She said it's not an eye problem.
you might actually get some insight from Specsavers
I've been to the opticians twice, the second time to ask for a referral to a neuro-ophthalmologist, but she refused and told me to go to the NHS.
I had an appointment with an orthoptist last month, she found that the muscles controlling my left eye aren't working properly. They're controlled by the brain aren't they? The left eye is sluggish, and won't swivel as fast as the right eye, which seems to me to be a pretty good explanation why I find it difficult to judge speed and distance of moving objects, and why I sometimes feel put off balance or want to vomit at the sight of unexpected movement.
In 2021 the neurologist told me that my brain MRI was normal, but that's not what the records say, they mention a brain condition that has symptoms remarkably similar to the ones I'm getting. I had a second MRI in 2022, and after that they put an entry on my records saying that they'd found something "major" but denying me access to it. In the 16 months since then they haven't told me what it's about, and I've been discharged by the neurologist. I asked in writing last year, by recorded delivery, but they didn't answer. I asked the practice manager and got "MRI? What MRI? We don't know anything about any MRI". Since then I've been told that the second MRI was also normal, and that the "Major" entry on my record was a "mistake".
I've just had a letter saying that a new referral back to neurology has been sent for 'review' first before they decide whether they're going to give me an appointment or not.
-
You have an absolute right under GDPR to see your medical records.
-
You have an absolute right under GDPR to see your medical records.
No you don't.
GDPR devolves health record access to the pre-existing Access to Health Records Act, read it and you'll see that the latest amendment to take account of GDPR is dated 25.5.18, the day that GDPR came into force.
If you read the legislation you will find that Section 5 states that records can be withheld if releasing them would cause 'serious harm' to anyone (including a doctor or a third party, and not just the patient), and that the arbiters of what is harmful are the doctors (whose reason may or may not be legitimate). Neither the patient nor their solicitor are allowed to know this reason, so even if you exercise your right to take it to court, you have no means of arguing your case. Never mind that most patients won't have thousands to spend on legal fees each time they need to access their records.
This was also confirmed to me by a lawyer at Mishcon de Reya who specialises in medical records.
Finally, the NHS don't need to use any of this anyway, all they have to do is deny that the records exist, and then you can't complain that you haven't been given them. The same applies to correspondence, if they reply you have something to challenge, and evidence to show others, much better to just ignore it, then you have no proof they didn't answer.