GeezerSue

Will somebody wake me when the polls close on Tuesday? Until then, I'll probably need drugs. HOWEVER, Rush knows his audience. There are MANY, MANY people who believe him and agree with him because he promotes their agenda...at any cost.

Iterating... 2--The pars flaccida technique has been utilized for several years...and those patients are probably included in this group. (My band was placed in '02 using the pars flaccida technique...I still had problems.)

Okay...just because other people have complications doesn't mean YOU will, HOWEVER... 1--(reiteration) You can't collect data over several years without including stuff from several years ago. 2--The pars flaccida technique has been utilized for several years...and those patients are probably included in this group. (My band was placed in '02 using the pars flaccida technique...I still had problems.) 3--Do not discount the damage that can be done by "heartburn." It seems there may be a link between "heartburn" and "Barrett's esophagus" and esophageal cancer. (Not to mention that sleeping in a upright position can become a real pain.) 4--It does NOT say that "MOST OF THESE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN FIXED / REDUCED WITH SURGICAL TECHNIQUES." It says "Many of these complications can be avoided and have been reduced with more careful patient selection and improvement in surgical technique." Which does't mean there are no more problems...it means that--for instance--that there will probably be a somewhat lower rate of slippage in future long-term studies, because starting several years ago the placement technique was improved. It also means--to me--that surgeons would be wise to screen their patients better and make sure that esophageal dysmotility and other esophageal AND psychological conditions (such as eating disorders) are not pre-existing. 5--It isn't "the same old data with from the FDA trial with the swedish band?" The OLD data from the FDA was for the LapBand. The NEW FDA data for Johnson & Johnson's band trials used a Swedish band. This is neither. This is data from THEIR practice--in Switzerland--where they do both bands and have for many years. I think an important message to take away from this is that some doctors who have been banding people for a long time have discovered that--several years out--people have problems that no one expected. It's nice that somebody finally figured that out...

Jessy--I thought I was pretty clear...that there were legitimate Huacuz patients here. But there are also this kind of advertising: http://lapbandtalk.com/showthread.php?t=19088&highlight=huacuz And there was this kind of problem reported by a member: http://lapbandtalk.com/showpost.php?p=228350&postcount=13 I don't know anyone who has "badmouthed" him but that one patient.

Depends on who you ask. I looked at PubMed for answers. The Israelis replace it on the spot. The Belgians wait four to six months. The Germans just remove it. I LIKE VERBOONEN!! I didn't used to because of some stuff I had read about him, but he's the doctor who actually SAW that the barium just sat in my esophagus and he was so sweet when he tried to break the bad news about that and he kind of hemmed around until I said, "Esphogeal dysmotility?" He was so relieved! LOL He also told me not to have the DS because I would have diarrhea all the time. He was wrong there. Maybe I should go with you and tell him about that!! I sure wouldn't want to rush replacement...hell, I wouldn't even want to chance replacement. I kind of buy into the "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior" school...but maybe you're just a glass half full kind of girl!!! (Most of my friends are.) Good luck with this whole mess.

HOW CONVENIENT...AGAIN!!! Is anyone REALLY stoooopid enough to believe these Huacuz shills that show up and ask and then answer their own questions over and over again? (Note: Not EVERYONE is a shill, a FEW are REAL patients...but not many. Check the dates and number of posts. OF ALL THE BAND SURGEONS, he has the most people who come here again and again and again trying to recruit patients. What bullshit.) NO NOS FRIEGUES. The GOOD surgeons don't have to send their lackeys here to drum up business.

What Carlene said. All of it. Fluoro? Did he put 4.0 in and take it back out and it all came out? If not, there may be a leak. If it DID all come out...well, I'd have to have some evidence that the band was in place and intact.

DDee...I think that a good number of doctors would consider that a really risky option. They say things like "the best predictor of future performance is past perfomance." So if the blood flow to your stomach was cut off once...you might have difficulty finding a surgeon who would want to take that chance a second time. If you are not SMO--that is, if you don't need malabsorption--have you looked into the Gastric Sleeve procedure? It provides a smaller stomach, that's all. The one person I know who has changed from band to sleeve, was just revised recently...but she is making the progress she never did with the band. I hope you find your answer. Sue

Hey, guys! Corinne was sent over here from OH because there are no OH boards specifically for band problems. (i may have sent her.) Anyway, if you have any info to share with her, that would be cool. Corinne...my band came out as part of a revision to my DS...you knew that. So the cost was all inclusive. Maybe some others can help. BTW...do yo have insurance at all?

A square always has four sides of the same length. But a rectangle can be shaped like a football field... A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.

I'm sure you have found many definitions of the word "catholic." But, I'm pretty sure that the term "universal" is...well...catholic among them. As you may have observed, the etymology of the word is: Middle English catholik, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole. Please note that I didn't say that "universal" is the ONLY definition...I said it pops up with great regularity.

About the "Catholic" Church and local BC decisions... If we consult a dictionary--or the Catholic Church--for the definition of the word "catholic" we find that "universal" pops up with great regularity. That WAS one of the great claims to fame for the "old" Catholic Church. That church has ONE leader and ONE set of underlying principles although local adaptations have always been allowed on the details of practice...but, of course, not on the underlying principles. But, if what Carlene tells us is accurate (and I believe she is correct on the details), that universality has diminished considerably, and what remains at the most local of levels is apparently not really related AT ALL to the catholic Catholic Church. At issue is nothing less than the infallibility of the Pope. Essentially, the Pope declared the Pope infallible. He can't be wrong. And THEN about a hundred years later, THAT Pope through the adoption of papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae ruled out birth control for all time. That about covers it: 1--The Pope is never wrong; 2--The Pope has declared birth control wrong for all time. If advice that people are hearing locally conflicts with what the Vatican says, then IMHO it takes a lot of fast and fancy logical tap dancing to reconcile the two. One is the official position of the Catholic Church and the other is--at at least at one link in the chain--dishonest. What bothers me the most about this is the wink-wink-nudge-nudge bullshit that underlies the whole thing. A priest is responsible to the Church-Pope through his chain of command. Birth control is the HUGE elephant in the living room of the Catholic Church...and nobody is talking about it because considering changing it is considering questioning the infallibility of the Pope. If people insist on (illogically, but who said religion has anything to do with logic) belonging to an organization the official position of which is that the way they choose to live their lives is essentially wrong and they will suffer eternal damnation, then they are certainly free to do so. But attempting to explain the duplicitous logic of THAT to those who also know the definition of "hypocrisy" will always prove fruitless (pardon the reproductive pun.) Sue :::an atheist veteran who won't join the American Legion because their motto is "For God and Country." For some reason, that decision seemed very simple to me:::

"...with the the full knowledge and consent of the Church?" Are you talking about "Vatican Roulette" Birth Control? Or the pill and other hormonal or barrier products? As described by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles... http://www.archdiocese.la/prayer/sacraments/family/nfp/index.html From this site: http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). And, the above was accompanied by: NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004 I have no doubt that people who consider themselves to be Roman Catholic and priests who deal with those people are in agreement using birth control is not the highway to hell...but, I really, REALLY doubt that anyone has cleared that position through Rome. Which means...if I am correct...that while Catholics in the US are using birth control it is not something the Pope would give the go-ahead for. More info and history available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception#Roman_Catholic_Church

How reassuring it was that those women could have clean abortions. The nine-year old girl in Nicaragua was almost not able to have hers because of all the well-meaning people who wanted to impose their will on her...just as her rapist(s) had. No video of her rape, her battle with the Catholic Church or her abortion is available. But I'm sure glad that she didn't have to go to term. Nine years old. Nine. http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=7549

On another site, I read that the word "shaped" is the operative word here. Meaning that if the fetus, once aborted "looked human" then you had sinned. Interesting criteria.

The Catholic church has been on a political see-saw on this topic for about two thousand years. Subsequent to the Didache...(cut and pasted quote): The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 CE) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul: "Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." (7:3) St. Augustine (354-430 CE) returned to the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 1 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation." gained acceptance within the medical and church communities. 2 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at the time of conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church had previously taught. Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus." The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication. A Papal decree in 1884 prohibited craniotomies. This is an operation that kills the fetus by dismantling its skull. The procedure was occasionally needed in order to save the life of the pregnant woman. In 1886, a second decree extended the prohibition to all operations that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life. The effects of these decrees would often be the death of both the woman and the fetus. These rules are still in place today, although they are ignored by most North American physicians -- both Catholic and non-Catholic. The Roman Catholic church has occasionally "held funeral and burial services" for aborted fetuses. 3 However, this has not been the general rule. Embryos and pre-viable fetus have not usually been considered full persons to the extent of being worthy of a formal requiem mass or a formal burial service. more here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm And there's: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abortion.html Interestingly enough, in this country, Catholic women constitute a disproportionately large percentage of women having abortions. If people REALLY want to "do God's work" perhaps they could stop condeming their sisters.

Because once born, it's a baby, not a fetus. I don't know why some people find that point so difficult. It's a legal thing...not a moral thing. If someone's chuch says it's a kid from the time the daddy gets a stiffy, so be it. But that's for THEIR personal moral beliefs, not legal issues to be shoved down everyone else's belief system.

I wore my uniform to defend our CONSTITUTION...which, interestingly enough, protects YOUR right to make decisions in YOUR life, but NOT in--for example--MY life. A baby is a baby when it's born. Until then, it's a fetus. (Well, assuming we get past the zygote and embryo stages.) I'm sorry that your friend was not emotionally equipped to be able to handle the consequences of--apparently--several of her actions. But abortion has been going on FOREVER (in the early days of Christianity, the Catholic Church had guidelines as to how far into a pregnancy an abortion could occur...different guideline for male and female fetuses because they thought they had THAT resolved) and most women don't get nuts. Of course, if she was hanging with people who kept telling her she was a baby-killer, that might have had SOME bearing on her mental health. Maybe it's good that she moved on. BTW, this is a good time to mention genealogy. Look back in your family history. If--prior to commercially available birth control--you didn't have a great-grandma popping out new babies every three years (with time outs for wars and all), it MIGHT be time to give some real grown-up consideration as to how that was possible. My grandmothers were born at the dawn of the 20th century. One of them had a baby every two years for 24 years. The other had two kids. Guess which one was "upwardly mobile" and had access to doctors who found it necessary to do a "scraping" (that's what they called it) every now and again!! The reality is that abortions have ALWAYS happened and will always happen...we can make them safe or not. After all, what it boils down to for me is...who decides? WHO DECIDES what's best for me? Ultimately, legally or illegally, I will. People can punish me afterward, but I'll make my own decisions.

That spelling would have confused many native Englisn/English-only speakers. I "speak" two major phonetic alphabets--one from a little outfit called "the U.S. Army," and the other from a major law enforcement agency--and your alphabet was neither of those. So even with my familiarity with using phonetic alphabets, I'd have stalled-out in the translation. My sister, who speaks English only and worked in telphone customer service her entire career, would not have understood any more than the woman on the phone...unless you had said, "M as in Michael" and so on. Some people with heavy accents are more fluent in English than many native English speakers. I know words in Spanish that my native-Spanish speaking mother--who has lost almost all Spanish proficiency over the last 75+ years--has never learned. I have lived in other countries and other cultures and I have hoped that those to whom I was speaking in THEIR language might cut me a little slack. Since I travel the planet without total proficiency in the language of every country I visit, I hope for patience, understanding and wisdom from those I encounter...and I try to reciprocate. It has worked fairly well so far. I'm sorry that you are having such difficulty maneuvering in the world as it is. No matter how much you protest, chances are, it will continue to be more like it is and less like it was. That's the nature of change.

I spoke of people "who stand around outside the clinics telling other people what to do and killing doctors." They are what they are...I believe the word I used was "morons." Works for me.

Ya know..until it's a frog...it ISN'T a frog; it's a pollywog. And until it's a baby, it just ain't a baby. It may be a POTENTIAL person...a HOPE of a person...a DREAM of a person...but it is NOT a person until, you know, it's a person. (The IRS--a branch of our government--will explain what is child is to anyone who tries to claim a "potential child" on his or her taxes.) Abortion is not funny. The morons who stand around outside the clinics telling other people what to do and killing doctors (who ARE people) come closer to tragedy than comedy. I've BEEN to clinic defenses. Those idiots try to attack people coming in for things totally unrelated to pregnancy. They are a scourge on humanity. They are no different that the Taliban who blew up the Buddist statues because they didn't mesh with Taliban beliefs. No different at all. I didn't wear MY uniform to protect the rights of those who would dictate that I should live by their standards.

More and more, the term "pro-life" is the translation for "I have no sense of humor and I know what's best for YOU." ~~~~~~~ Hey, TruBlueSue... I had the same MOS, different era. DLI? (Back when I went there is was DLIWC because there was one on the East Coast as well.) My name tag ended in "RU." GeezerSue

Jacqui, I'm happy for those for whom the LapBand has--so far, anyway--caused few or no problems, but that group is not a miniscule as you might believe...nor are the problems as minor as one might assume from reading your post. A young woman on another board I frequent, who was LUCKY because her surgeon was Rumbaut, just spent 9.5 hours in surgery and 11 days in the hospital having her band revised to an RnY. If it took Rumbaut, one of the most experienced band surgeons on the planet, 9.5 hours to fix something...it was a mess. a mess that MANY other doctors would not have had the experience to repair. I never said that mental health was not important. If someone is unhappy being obese, that's just another good reason to do something about it. But if anyone is having any wls in hopes that "the other kids" will like them better...they need help. There ARE people who have surgery for all kinds of reasons...and doctors who, for their own reasons, actually perform surgery on people with bizarre reasons...like the doctor in Scotland who amputated the healthy limbs of people who just felt they'd be happier with only one leg. But to tell the truth, I've encountered several people who have learned AFTER having wls (or various types) and losing substantial weight, that not fitting in and not being accepted and all of that was NEVER about their weight.

FYI..ON AVERAGE...a person with a band loses 50-60% of excess weight after two years. Call it 55%. Let's take a 5'7" person who weighs 210, a BMI of about 33. She gains up to 225 to have a BMI of about 35. A high-end normal weight for this person would be about 158. Her excess weight would currently be +/- 52 pounds. After gaining weight to qualify for surgery, her excess weight would be +/- 67 pounds. Her projected average weight loss after two years would be +/- 37 pounds and her two-years-out weight would be +/- 188...about 22 pounds less than her starting point. So, two years, give or take, thousands of dollars and a HOST of potential complications for 22 pounds.

But...you are intentionally gaining weight to "be sick enough" to qualify for wls. Okay.