I had another ultrasound today to determine the progress of my blood clot.  The technician was willing to talk about what they saw while the procedure was going on.  I agreed with everything they said and it jived with what I saw on the screen.  It looked to me like there was a part of the vein that had about a 50% blockage and another part that was like 10% blocked.  The clot is dissolving, which is a good thing.  However, I sat around waited for the radiologist to give me the "official" results of the ultrasound.  I got a completely different story from him than I had from the technician.  The radiologist said that he saw no clot.. at all.  And that the warfarin had done a great job dissolving the clot.  WTF?  I know what I saw.. and I was just dumbfounded that the radiologist said there was no clot.  Part of the problem, if the radiologist doesn't see a clot in the image, is that the radiologist wasn't there during the actual ultrasound.  Seeing the images in live motion makes it easy to determine if there is a clot.  Heck, if I had an ultrasound machine I could diagnose myself.  But the radiologist sees nothing but the still images taken during the scan.  The stills look like grey blurry blobs on a screen.  So of course he could misinterpret them.  I just wonder how many people out there who don't pay as close attention to this crap as I do get misinformation from doctors.  I still have some symptoms, swelling, redness.. etc.  But they're minor.  I'm planning on resuming running and bicycling.  I'm also considering pursuing taking some alternative medicines that are supposed to actually be clot busting agents to finish breaking up the remnants of the clots.  I'll run it by my GP first since he seems to be willing to discuss such things with an open mind.  INR test tomorrow.