Hv, thank you so much. I thought of strangulation, because it seems he was doing well when I pulled his stomach down,then it seemed to pop right back.
Would you please elaborate on why you think it might be strangulation. I want to tell my husband what you said. I've been telling him about how right-on you are.
The main reason I am concerned it may be a strangulation is the vomiting. Even if there were a tumor in the esophagus it would not cause a sudden blockage of food or barium going in to the stomach or through the intestines. Same goes for a hiatal hernia. In both cases there would only be a partial constricture, but food an d barium should still pass in to the stomach and intestines. When there is a strangulation it is like a kinked garden hose with the pressure backing up. Since the food or barium cannot pass there is only one way for this stuff to be expelled and that is through vomiting. You did not mention about bowel movements, but this can be another big clue. If there is a complete blockage from stangulation then bowel movements can decrease significantly or stop altogether as food is not able to pass the blockage. For example, I had a guy one time telling me that he had not had a bowel movement in 2 weeks and everything he tried to eat came right back up. So I strongly suspected an intestinal stangualtion, so everything backed up clear to the stomach. When he ate anything there was no place for it to go but back up. I don't know if he ever got it checked since he spent a while debating with me over the use of laxatives in his case. He wanted me to recommend a laxative for him and I told him I would not do that until he confirmed it was a strangulation. If there was a strangulation then using laxatives to stimulate peristalsis would have been a very dangerous idea. Anyway he kept insisting and I kept saying no. I never saw him again so I don't know if he went to the hospital or not.
Bottom line though is it sounds like a sudden onset, which is not consistent with a tumor or hiatal hernia. And the vomiting of food and especially barium without an infection is indicative of a more complete blockage.
He has not been diagnosed with a hiatal hernia, by the way.
Today, he had the endoscopy, and he's so weepy; it's breaking my heart.
Did the endoscopy indicate any tumors or other constrictions in the esophagus? My guess would be no since it sounds more like an issue with the stomach or intestines. Again if it were a tumor growing in the esophagus then the problem should have been a gradual onset, not sudden onset.
Also did they do the endoscopy in to the stomach?
He wants to go to a cancer center in Arizona now. Also, he got angry with a doctor today, when he told him that he had cancer, and he would be dead within 6 months. My husband was asking around how can these doctors make these unverified claims?
It is malpractice, but I have seen this happen so many times. One friend of mine had what the doctors were telling her was basal cell carcinoma. Problem is that the open ulceration was present for over 12 years without any treatment. If it were cancer she would have been dead long before. Another friend of mine was also diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma and again the skin was ulcerating through his jaw and neck. He got started on the ozone and herbs , but was not being consistent with the ozone because the healing would cause the tissues to contract, then when he turned his head it would tear and bleed. Still it apparently killed the cancer cells. In both cases what was eating the tissue was not cancer but rather fungus, which is a common issue in cancers due to the immune suppression. And in both cases biopsies of the area confirmed that there was no cancer. I also pointed out to my one friend that a simple way to prove it was fungus and not cancer was the smell. He kept complaining about the smell of the ulceration. So I pointed out to him that you cannot smell cancer cells. You can smell the fungal infections that can be triggered off by cancers though. I told him to have it cultured, but to NOT tell the doctor his previous diagnosis. So the doctor simply looks at the ulceration and tells him he has basal cell carcinoma. There is not a doctor on Earth that can simply look at something like that and determine that it is cancer. This requires a biopsy. So I tell him to go out of the state because the doctors in Nevada are some of the worst in the nation. So I tell him to go to California instead. And again I told him to NOT tell the doctor what the first doctor said. But again he did. So the doctor did 4 biopsies along the ulceration and all 4 came back negative for cancer. But because the first doctor claimed it was cancer without a biopsy the new doctor came up with this ludicrous excuse that the cancer was pocketed and they just missed the cancer in all four biopsies. The doctor was either ignorant about cancer growth or just outright lying.
Another guy I knew was admitted to the hospital for kidney failure after a single dose of ibuprofen. During the admitting X-ray they saw a spot on his lungs. He told them to check his medical records that it was scar tissue from a bout of valley fever 10 years earlier. Still they insisted on doing a biopsy. When they came back they said he was right, and it was not cancer. Well the higher ups at the hospital, who happened to be in serious financial trouble at the time, must have gotten wind of it. A week later they came back and said they made a mistake and it was cancer and they had to operate immediately. Since it was the county hospital and the state was footing the bill they told him that if he refused the surgery against doctors orders that he would have to pay the whole hospital bill personally. So they coerced him in to the surgery that he did not need.
As another example the parents of an ex-girlfriend went through something similar. Her dad suffered a stroke while mowing the lawn. So they take him to a local hospital that was also in financial trouble at the time. Well, he had been bleeding from his lungs for about 70 years. So when he was admitted for the stroke they called in a specialist to do a lung biopsy, even though this is not what he was admitted for. This is like taking your car in for a brake job and instead they rebuild your transmission. Anyway, they falsely told him that his lungs were cancerous and they wanted to operate immediately. He refused, ended up in a nursing home where he lived quite a while cancer free. A week after his admittance his wife overdosed on some pills this quack prescribed to her. She ended up in the same hospital. So we went and gathered her meds, which literally filled a gallon bag all prescribed by the same quack and many of the meds were the same meds under different names. Anyway, that is a whole other issue of meds she did not need and some that would have killed her if she had actually taken the prescriptions she got. So they admit her for the overdose. Again they call in a specialist who did a stomach biopsy and they tell her that she has stomach cancer and they needed to operate immediately. She consented and died three weeks later. I seriously doubt she had cancer either. But hospitals are in the business of making money for their shareholders and the lie, cheat and steal to do this. This same hospital has recently opened two major hospitals here. Question is how many people did they con in to unnecessary procedures to go from debt to having enough money to build two big beautiful hospitals?
I assume they did a biopsy after the endoscopy. Even if they did, how can I trust what they are saying?
If they did a biopsy then it should have been during the endoscopy. But you are right that you are pretty much at their mercy. The only thing I can think of is to have the specimens sent off to a specialist with absolutely no ties to the hospital, such as an out of state specialist to verity the findings.
I remember around 20+ years ago, the AMA did an anonymous survey of all the physicians, and something like 40% said they would order extra tests if the patient had insurance.
Depends. HMOs pay their doctors extra if the doctors DO NOT order tests that may be necessary. Otherwise this is true, but the number is much higher. That is just a sample of the doctors willing to admit to it. And it is not limited to tests. Research Redding Hospital in California and the scandal where the doctor was performing bypasses on healthy patients to make extra money for the hospital. I found one link to get you started: