I have a doctor (G.P) that referred me to a cardiologist for a stress test
since I had minor blood pressure problems. He referred me to a
pulmonologist (sp ??) to determine whether or not I had asthma.
The cardiologist determined that I did not have any heart problems and the
pulmonologist determined that I did not have asthma. It was wonderful to
find out the condition of my heart and lungs. I would also like to find
out the condition of my kidneys.

I am having some symptoms of kidney problems but I don't have kidney disease
.
My GFR is about 75 ml per minute. My creatinine levels have always been on
the high side of normal (1.1 to 1.3). While I was taking statins, the
creatinine level rose to 1.7 during a three month period. I have had
metabolic problem that started when my creatinine level was still 1.7. I
still wonder if some minor damage was done to my kidneys as a result of
taking statins.

I would like special tests to be done by a kidney specialist to determine
whether or not my kidneys are the cause of my metabolic problems. I would
also
like the kidney specialist to determine the condition of my kidneys at
this point in time. I do not want a biopsy since it's not indicated or
necessary
at this point in time.

Several medical experts and at least one doctor (in another newsgroup)
told me that doctors do NOT refer patients to kidney specialists unless
they are sure the patient already has kidney disease. Why are kidney
problems different than LUNG problems and HEART problems?

Do you have any advice on how I could convince my doctor to refer me to a
kidney specialist for diagnostic tests despite the fact that I do not
kidney disease at this point in time. I should note that I had kidney
disease when I was a baby.

My doctor seems to think (and I hope I am wrong) that there is NOTHING
that can be done to prevent the development of kidney disease. He treats
kidney problems vastly different than he treats heart problem and lung
problems. He seems to view it the same way he views cancer--the patient
either has it or does not have it.  I wonder if he thinks that a person
goes to bed one night and does not have kidney disease but develops it
before he wakes up the following morning. It's my  guess that everyone
that now has kidney disease will agree that in most cases it takes several
years for a patient to develop kidney disease.  I already know that there
are exceptions. For those of us that have not yet developed kidney
disease, I see no reason why we should not be referred to kidney
specialists for special diagnostic tests.

I thank you in advance for your advice and help.

Jason

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

In article
<jason-0207061448000001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote:

> I have a doctor (G.P) that referred me to a cardiologist for a stress test
> since I had minor blood pressure problems. He referred me to a
> pulmonologist (sp ??) to determine whether or not I had asthma.
> The cardiologist determined that I did not have any heart problems and the
> pulmonologist determined that I did not have asthma. It was wonderful to
> find out the condition of my heart and lungs. I would also like to find
> out the condition of my kidneys.

Your doctor has determined that by blood tests. You have no signs of
kidney disease; your creatinine is normal. Your doctor has already told
you that the GFR test done was not definitive and that there was no need
for further testing. You will not be referred to a nephrologist; you are
likely to be noted as a somatizing patient.

Statins are NOT nephrotoxic. I have provided you a list of nephrotoxic
drugs more than once; statins are not on the list. They are damaging to
the liver, not the kidneys.

You can prevent kidney disease by not becoming diabetic, not using
heroin, using NSAID drugs as directed and keeping your blood pressure
normal.

--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Jason,

You are in a catch 22 that really has no answer nowadays.  You have the
fear that something is going on with our kidneies, but there is no
actual evidence to support this.  Part of the problem here is simple
biology.  We as human beings(for the most part) have much more kidney
capacity than is necessary to maintain a healthy person.  This is why
most kidney transplants consist of a single kidney.  The primary
indicators that kidney damage is or has occurred do not even show up
until more than 50% of the function has been lost.

A creatinine level that moves around from time to time in unusual
circumstances is not the most unusual situation.  It can be seen when
one is sick with other illnesses, and then reverse itself when the
illness goes away.  Unusual and sudden increases in exercise patterns
can also cause temporary changes in the creatine level.  The consumption
of Creatine( a dietary suppliment) sometimes shows up in the serum
creatinine level. Sometimes fluctuations occur with the administration
of certain drugs, as you have seen with the statins, but I must admit I
haven;t heard of that class of drugs doing this.  Maybe it is a new
unforeseen side effect. That sometimes occurs.  Your doctor should have
reported the possible association with the statijn you were taking and
the apparent elevation of your creatinie to the FDA and possibly to the
NIH.  Kepp after it though.

You may be able to get the tests you want done by paying out of pocket
for them.  Your insurance compant may be the culprit as to why your
doctor doesn't want to appease your fears.  In this day and age, if the
insurance industry decides a procedure is not warrented, doctors will
generally avoid ordering them.

Dave

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

In article <nC5qg.126359$dW3.30456@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, REP
<rep@inanna.com> wrote:

In article
<jason-0207061448000001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote:

> I have a doctor (G.P) that referred me to a cardiologist for a stress test
> since I had minor blood pressure problems. He referred me to a
> pulmonologist (sp ??) to determine whether or not I had asthma.
> The cardiologist determined that I did not have any heart problems and the
> pulmonologist determined that I did not have asthma. It was wonderful to
> find out the condition of my heart and lungs. I would also like to find
> out the condition of my kidneys.

Your doctor has determined that by blood tests. You have no signs of
kidney disease; your creatinine is normal. Your doctor has already told
you that the GFR test done was not definitive and that there was no need
for further testing. You will not be referred to a nephrologist; you are
likely to be noted as a somatizing patient.

Statins are NOT nephrotoxic. I have provided you a list of nephrotoxic
drugs more than once; statins are not on the list. They are damaging to
the liver, not the kidneys.

You can prevent kidney disease by not becoming diabetic, not using
heroin, using NSAID drugs as directed and keeping your blood pressure
normal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REP,
Yes, we have discussed my medical problems in the past. You and others
have helped me determine that I do NOT have kidney disease at this point
in time.
Let's agree to disagree related to statins as a cause of kidney problems.
I pointed out that Rhabdomyolysis can be caused by statins and that
two of the listed complications of Rhab. are acute tubular necrosis and
acute renal failure.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/..icle/000473.htm

Regardless, I thank you for your post and I thank you for helping people
that ask for advice re: to kidney problems.

I should note that my doctor and yourself are on the same page related to
this issue so you are in good company.

Jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

In article <Xns97F578656EAF9Somebobysomeplacecom@66.150.105.230>, Dave
<Someboby@someplace.com> wrote:

Jason,

You are in a catch 22 that really has no answer nowadays.  You have the
fear that something is going on with our kidneies, but there is no
actual evidence to support this.  Part of the problem here is simple
biology.  We as human beings(for the most part) have much more kidney
capacity than is necessary to maintain a healthy person.  This is why
most kidney transplants consist of a single kidney.  The primary
indicators that kidney damage is or has occurred do not even show up
until more than 50% of the function has been lost.

A creatinine level that moves around from time to time in unusual
circumstances is not the most unusual situation.  It can be seen when
one is sick with other illnesses, and then reverse itself when the
illness goes away.  Unusual and sudden increases in exercise patterns
can also cause temporary changes in the creatine level.  The consumption
of Creatine( a dietary suppliment) sometimes shows up in the serum
creatinine level. Sometimes fluctuations occur with the administration
of certain drugs, as you have seen with the statins, but I must admit I
haven;t heard of that class of drugs doing this.  Maybe it is a new
unforeseen side effect. That sometimes occurs.  Your doctor should have
reported the possible association with the statijn you were taking and
the apparent elevation of your creatinie to the FDA and possibly to the
NIH.  Kepp after it though.

You may be able to get the tests you want done by paying out of pocket
for them.  Your insurance compant may be the culprit as to why your
doctor doesn't want to appease your fears.  In this day and age, if the
insurance industry decides a procedure is not warrented, doctors will
generally avoid ordering them.

Dave

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dave,
You guessed correctly related to the information in your last paragraph.
My HMO insur. program has all sorts of rules that my doctor has to follow.
One of the rules is that patients can NOT be referred to specialists
unless there is a medical reason. In the case of kidney specialists, it's
my GUESS that the serum creatinine level must be outside the normal
limits.

If you want to read the reasons that I believe that statins caused my
kidney problems, you need to visit these two sites:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/..icle/000473.htm

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/..icle/000512.htm

In my case, the internal structures of my kidneys were NOT destroyed but
were only slightly damaged by the Myoglobin. I did not develop
Rhabdomyolysis since I stopped taking statins the same day that
I noticed on the blood test that my creatinine level had gone up
to 1.7. If I had NOT done that, I still believe that I would have
developed Rhabdomyolysis. One of the listed complications of Rhab.
is Acute Tubular Necrosis. I have many of the symptoms of
Acute Tubular Necrosis. However, since only minor damage was
done by the Myoglobin--I don't have all of the listed symptoms.
One of the reasons that I stopped taking statins when my creatinine
level rose to 1.7 was because the wife of a man that developed
Rhabdomyolysis as a result of taking statins told me
that he continued to taking statins even after his creatinine
rose to about 2.0 as per his doctor's advice. His doctor did not
realize that Rhabdomyolysis could develop as a result of statins.
Most doctors now realize it. I don't recall whether or not the
husband filed a lawsuit against that doctor. I hope so.
My doctor wanted me to keep taking statins even after my creatinine
level rose to 1.7. I refused to take her advice.

Of course, I am only GUESSING related to my theory since no major
diagostic tests have been done related to the condition of my kidneys.

I would appreciate it if you read visited the two websites mentioned
above and tell me your opinions about my theory.

I agree that I am in a catch 22. Thanks for your support and help.

Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:27:34 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson)
wrote:

>I should note that my doctor and yourself are on the same page related to
>this issue so you are in good company.
>
>Jason

Jason,
If you don't now have kidney problems, and it looks like you may never
have kidney problems based upon your prolific posts, what the devil
are you doing here?

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

In article <fuhja2l2aq6j866vlfi6umlm3ugrga5ib4@4ax.com>, Larry Krzewinski
<Feerless_Freep@madmagazine.com> wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:27:34 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson)
wrote:

>I should note that my doctor and yourself are on the same page related to
>this issue so you are in good company.
>
>Jason

Jason,
If you don't now have kidney problems, and it looks like you may never
have kidney problems based upon your prolific posts, what the devil
are you doing here?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Larry,
I don't have a kidney disease at this point in time. Based upon what I
read in "Coping With Kidney Disease--A 12 Step Program to Help You Avoid
Dialysis", lots of people are like me. They do NOT need dialysis and may
never need dialysis at long as they do was is necessary to avoid ever
needing dialysis. One of Dr. Walser's patients deferred dialysis for 10
years and may never need dialysis.
I have some kidney problems and want to find out the condition of my kidneys
.
My doctor refuses to refer me to a kidney specialist to determine the
present condition of my kidneys. I visited this newsgroup to find out as
much info.
as possible about kidney diseases and to get answers to my questions. I
have received some excellent advice from various people. It appears that
doctors don't refer people to kidney specialists for special diagnostic
tests unless they are certain the patient already has a kidney disease.
Doctors don't have that same attitude related to heart problems and lung
problems--in those cases--they do refer patients to patients for
diagnostic test. I have had those diagnostic tests and I don't have asthma
or heart disease.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

In article
<jason-0307061027340001@66-52-22-80.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote:

> Let's agree to disagree related to statins as a cause of kidney problems.
> I pointed out that Rhabdomyolysis can be caused by statins and that
> two of the listed complications of Rhab. are acute tubular necrosis and
> acute renal failure.

You are wrong in your understanding of rhabdo. Rhabdo causes kidney
damage; statins can cause rhabdo. Statins do not cause kidney damage in
the absense of rhabdo. You've NEVER had rhabdo.

You are risk of developing rhabdo while on statins if you have
preexisting liver or kidney disease *and* very low blood pressure. And I
mean VERY low blood pressure, like 86/42. You are not at risk.

--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

In article <fuhja2l2aq6j866vlfi6umlm3ugrga5ib4@4ax.com>,
Larry Krzewinski <Feerless_Freep@madmagazine.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:27:34 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson)
> wrote:
> 
>
> Jason,
> If you don't now have kidney problems, and it looks like you may never
> have kidney problems based upon your prolific posts, what the devil
> are you doing here?

I believe the term for him is "worried well." He very much would like to
have a dx of kidney disease, but his tests keep coming up normal.

--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:54:02 GMT, REP <rep@inanna.com> wrote:
 
>
>I believe the term for him is "worried well." He very much would like to
>have a dx of kidney disease, but his tests keep coming up normal.

He keeps on posting and posting.  I for one wish he would stop.  We're
here to help people with real problems, not to listen to people going
on and on and on and on.  He's even giving advice, some of it
inaccurate.

I'm all for supporting people with real problems.  Jason doesn't have
any real problems other than his desire for attention.

Larry

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]