Page 1 of 1

Is this the case for ANYONE???

Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:13 pm
by Identity
Am bored at work so have been surfing the net trying to find stuff on UC.

This quote is taken from the NHS direct website and it made me laugh.
"Symptoms are usually intermittent with many people having few or no symptoms between attacks. The severity and frequency of attacks varies due to the extent of the disease"
I don't know about anyone else but for the five or six years I have had this not once have I been without symptoms of some kind.

Just wondered how everyone else felt about this?

Am I alone on this one or is the NHS truly misguided as to how this affects our lives?

Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:36 pm
by midjet
As time goes on, the symptoms become evermore present on a daily basis. However, when they reckon I first got this condition did all the tests on me and said in a passing manner that it was "probably irritable bowel". I went away with no firm diagnosis and just putting up and getting used to the cramps in my stomach which I tried to control with diet. So on that premise the NHS advice may be interpreted as being correct because we just put up with it.

It was only when I started bleeding in 2001 that anything really got done. As has been said before on the forum, some of the symptoms for this condition creep up on you and you don't realise how bad you have become until you get it cleared via drugs.

Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:26 pm
by Joe Fogey
I guess we're the people the drugs don't work for. My GP's receptionist told me she's had UC for years. It's controlled by sulfasalazine, she hasn't had a relapse for years - why would she join a forum. Lucky woman!