Sheryl

He is overweight, and ultrasound showed fatty liver. However his enzymes were previously normal and are now also normal. This very mild elevation was a one-off result from a private stand-alone lab. Lab error (not uncommon) or transient effect of a medication or alcohol are my guesses.

No. This might be a lymph node or a hernia. Best just start with an internistif it persists.

Extremely. And they know nothing about the practice of medecine.

Impossible for anyone to know what the doctor mumbled. It is normal to have Hep B antibodies if you have been vaccinated. According to your original thread on this matter your elevated AST was 57 (normal range is usually 8-48 ) and ALT was 68 (normal range is usually 7-55 ). These are very, very mild elevations. Could have been lab error. Could have been due to medications taken in the days prior to the blood test. Either way the levels now are normal.

Glad to hear you finally got a proper diagnosis and treatment. Hopefully your shortness of breath will improve.

What brand of protein powder drink? I am considering trying one - not for pain (stretches and periodic massage keep that pretty much at bay) but for muscle stiffness that develops overnight and whenever stationary for an hour or more (car ride, etc).

Massage does stimulate (temporay) release of endorphins which is calming.

If I follow your story correctly you had a kidney stone, not gallstones. Your pain stopped because you had passed the stone. No way that olive oil + orange juice would help with a kidney stone except if it meant taking in more fluid. (more fluid aids in passing the stone).

Are you doing regular stretches? As you get older, stretching becomes very important. A good stretching regimen along with brisk walking or swimming may be better at your age than bench presses and the like. If after doing regular stretches this persists and if the pain is in more than one joint, might be wise to see a rheumatologist.

Infection (cholecyctitis) can occur without bile duct blockage. Bile duct blockage is a critical emergency and can lead to pancreatitis, sepsis, even death. The stone does not always clear itself. Decision to remove gall bladder takes into account symptoms and also stone size and number. It is recommended after a bout (singular) of acute cholecystitis unless the patient has unusual risk factors for surgery. Not least because repeat episodes of cholecystitis are a risk factor for cancer of the gall bladder.

With the advent of ultrasounds (and especially in Thailand where private hospitals include them as part of check up packages -- something no public health authority recommends) small asymptomatic gall stones are often found. Most authorities agree that these can be managing expectantly (wait & see if they cause a problem) or with conservative measures (e.g oral medications.) These abdominal ultrasounds also turn up a of of harmless cysts on liver and kidney.

Your body still produces bile just as it did before. What has changed is that you no longer have a reserve stash of it on hand to quickly cope with a large amount of fat at once.

The tamsulosin is to aid in passing the stones. Although not having trouble peeing now you might if/as the stones pass...as well as considerable discomfort. The tamsulosin helps avoid or reduce that. The retrograde ejaculation is temporary and will stop when you go off the drug. Apparently the stones are small enough that they think you may be able to pass them without need for other intervention. Did they instruct you to strain your urine? (To see if stones/stone fragments have passed.)? With kidney stones it is useful to know what they are made of as there are several kinds and specific dietary advise for each to help avoid them in future (that plus of course drinking plenty of water).

A post with link to an unreliable and commercial site has been removed.

Yes the surgery for this is complete removal of the gall bladder. You can live fine without a gall bladder except might find ingestion of very fatty foods doesn't sit well afterwards. Shouldn't eat those anyhow. Bile is made by the liver and stored in the gall bladder , and bile is necessary to digestion of fats. You will still have bile coming ftom your liver but no longer a reserve sac of it. So you will still be able to digest fats but may not be able to handle a large intake of them all at once. Not outpatient. The surgery is usually done under general anesthesia. If laporoscopic you may be able to go home the very next day. If open approach may need 2-3 nights depending on how much incisional pain as in Thailand they usually don't like to discharge people with narcotic pain killers.

A gallstone above a certain size or one that is causing severe symptoms needs surgery. You fit into at least one of these catrgories. There are medications that can be tried and sometimes work in dissolving stones but it takes a very long time (up to 2 years) so not appropriate with very large stones or stones that are symptomatic. Failing to promptly treat those is quite dangerous. Can lead to pancreatitis and/or sepsis. Which can be fatal. Small asymptomatic stones are another matter but that is not your situation. There is nothing on earth that can get rid of a gallstone in just a few days. And no NHS site that says this. What you describe is a so-called "gallbladder cleanse" or "liver flush" for which no evidence exists and which is definitely not endorsed by NHS or any other public health agency. Actually what happens is that this "cleanse" is usually taken by healthy people in pricey "detox" programs. It results in loose stools containing fat globules which they are then told were gallstones. Complete smoke and mirrors. A government hospital would not recommend surgery if it were not necessary. Private hospitals sometimes do (e.g. for small asymptomatic stones) but not government hospitals. An endoscopic ("keyhole") surgery is easier on the patient, smaller incision and quicker recovery. But more technically difficult to perform, needs special training and equipment so costs more. At a government hospital maybe 20k additional.

Extremely unlikley. This is just a form of curcumin which is active ingredient in tumeric. There are many Thai traiditonal medicine products containing this, you can even get at 7-11. No reason to get an expensive imported version if you want to try turmeric.

No, I don't know where. It will not be easy to find: there is only one brand here, an expensive import, and it is not widely used. Your best bet is either a large pharmacy near a major hospital (could for example try those near Victory Monument opposite Ratchawithi hospital) or as previously suggested several times, the TRC Clinic. If there are strains of MGEN in Thailand that are sensitive to it but not to Moxifloxacin, they will probably carry it. Note that antibotic sensitivities do vary by location, what you read on the web may not necessarily reflect the situuation in Thailand. Nothing I have read suggests that Sitafloxacin is in any way "easier on the body'. It carries the same side effect profile as other quinolones (actually higher for some minor things like photophobia).

Giving birth in the US does not secure citizenship for the parents. Only the child. Quite possible, even common, for parents of children who are US citizens on basis of birth to be deported. So while it might confer a benefit to the child once grown, it does nothing for the immigration status of the family, which is one reason why there is not a big problem of people coming to the US specifically to give birth.

"proven false" is incorrect. It is rarely possible to prove a negative. It was found to be unsubstantiated. I.e. nothing except her statement years later to back it up and several things that cast doubt on it (i.e. a complaint of sexual harrassment she filed at the time which made no mention at all of an assault or any physical contact, and proof of gaving lied under oath on znother matter). But unsubstantiated is not same as disproven. No possible need to "flee" to Russia of course. That is a PR stunt on part of Putin and possibly US based political interests.

Nothing is wrong with changing the Constitution but it is a complex and lengthy process requiring huge majorities at multiple levels. True in most if not all countries. And it is not subject to Executive Order. President has no role at all. And of all the changes that might be made to the US Constitution, the birthright citizenship provision is pretty low down in priority.

He also has almost no knowledge of the Constitution. And no interest in acquiring it. Lacks even the most basic understanding of the role of the Executive Branch. He does not hesitate to make promises for things he then does not even attempt to do, in the case of promises aimed at his "Maga" base. Conversely he is quite careful to deliver on promises made to the other 2 population segments that, together with the (for lack of a better word) "Maga" folks, are what he needs to be elected: the extreme social conservatives/Evanglicals and the extreme fiscal right 1%-ers. This is because support from those 2 blocs is conditional. Quid pro quo, not based on being in any way enamored of (or deluded by) the Trump persona. But the Maga crowd support is emotion-based and focused on what they perceive to be his persona which they emotionally identify with, and his emotional appeals to their resentments. Doesn't matter what he actually does or that nothing about their circumstances actually improves. (Can't possibly improve since these people are not wealthy, and he is completely beholden to the wealthy). His famous statement about being able to stand on Fifth avenue shooting people and still getting elected, was true but only for the "Maga" group. While he is indeed totally ignorant of the Constitution and many other things, he has shrewd political instincts and fully understand the above dynamic.

Even for this Supreme Court, this would be too egregious. It is not a matter of interpretation as many other issues are (e.g. abortion, guns). This is crystal clear. BTW I do agree that in this day and age of air travel it does not make much sense to give automatic citizenship based on birth without any other criteria e.g. at least a minimum period of physical residency by the mother before delivery. The Constitution dates back to an earlier time. But it is not a huge problem and hardly worth the complex process of Constitutional Amendment.

It is not a law. It is a constitutional provision. See above.

This would require a Constitutional Amendment. First sentence of the 14th Amendment is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Requires a 2/3 majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a separate ratification by 3/4 of the States. President has no role in this process. Never comes to him for signature and certainly cannot be done through an Executive Order. So empty talk on his part.