Re: The Daily Mail (next Tuesday)

[Guest guest]

Sheila this is great news and your dreams are suddenly being realised thanks to your hard work and determination. Instead of buying the paper and raising their profits sky high, it will be available on line at www.dailymail.co.uk - lets face it, if we don't have to pay then it would be silly to do so.

Luv nne

Dear Member

It might be worth buying the Daily Mail next Tuesday as I believe there will be a further article

[Guest guest]

Nice to know that he is taking this very seriously and I look forward to reading it in the Mail week after next. Yes Sheila, I am keeping everything crossed for you that things are on the turn and that you will be reaping the benefits of your hard work in 2008, what a great year that would be.

Luv nne

I DO sincerely hope we are on a roller - and the snowball with just keep rolling and get bigger and bigger. I have a VERY good feeling in my bones.

Luv - Sheila

[Guest guest]

Hi nne

Jerome Burne has written to me a couple of times today needing yet more information. In his last message, he now tells me the article is very likely NOT to be published this following week, but will be the week after. I thionk it is probably because he has got this latest information and is needing to do a little research to get all his facts, because of the questions he is asking me.

I DO sincerely hope we are on a roller - and the snowball with just keep rolling and get bigger and bigger. I have a VERY good feeling in my bones.

Luv - Sheila

Sheila this is great news and your dreams are suddenly being realised thanks to your hard work and determination. Instead of buying the paper and raising their profits sky high, it will be available on line at www.dailymail.co.uk - lets face it, if we don't have to pay then it would be silly to do so.

Luv nne

Dear Member

It might be worth buying the Daily Mail next Tuesday as I believe there will be a further article

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 02/01/2008 11:29

[Guest guest]

>

Hi Sheila,

Your dedicated research in to all things thyroid never ceases to

amaze me and as always I am so very grateful that you are fighting

this cause.

One thing that worries me about this abstract is the passage:

'risk of malignancy correlated with higher TSH level (p=0.007). The

likelihood of malignancy was 16% (9/55) when TSH was <0.06 mIU/L

versus 52% (15/29) when 5.00 mIU/L (p=0.001). When TSH was between

0.40 to 1.39 mIU/L the likelihood of malignancy was 25% (85/347)

versus 35% (109/308) when TSH was between 1.40 mIU/L and 4.99 mIU/L

(p=0.002).'

So this would suggest that of members in the forum there is a chance

that somewhere between 25 and 35% of us were at risk of DTC.

My question is would this percentage risk have changed since taking

thyroid meds that would have substantially reduced our TSH. My

other question is how would those findings relate to people who are

on synthetic T4 who's TSH is kept higher due to fears of

osteoporosis?

Does anyone have any theories on that one and are some of us still

at risk of DTC, presumably so?

Luv Bella

> Might I suggest that if you been told by your GP or

endocrinologist that because your TSH is within the normal reference

interval, you do not have a thyroid problem, that you take a print-

out of this publication (it isn't very long) to your GP and/or

endocrinologist. THIS IS UNEQUICICOL.

> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jc.2007-2215v1

>

> Higher Serum TSH Level in Thyroid Nodule Patients is Associated

with Greater Risks of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer and Advanced

Tumor Stage

> Rist Haymart*, Repplinger, Glen E. Leverson,

Diane F. Elson, S. Sippel, Jaume, and Herbert

Chen

> Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of

Medicine, University of Wisconsin, and Section of Endocrine Surgery,

Department of Surgery,University of Wisconsin P. Carbone

Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI

53792

>

> [..Conclusions: The likelihood of thyroid cancer increases with

higher serum TSH concentration. Even within normal TSH ranges, a TSH

level above the population mean is associated with significantly

greater likelihood of thyroid cancer than a TSH below the mean.

Shown for the first time, higher TSH level is associated with

advanced stage DTC....]]

>

> As Bob stated " I don't think any Professors (of repute) will be

advocating " let 'em get a wee bit hypothyroid " any longer....else

risk being shot at by large numbers of lawyers with free-fire range

about 360 degrees.......that's angle, not temperature.... "

>

> I sincerely hope Jerome Burne can add this to his article on

Tuesday, as this shows unequivocally that the professors have got it

all wrong with their TSH reference range and we have been right all

the time. They should hang their heads in shame. What a wonderful

start to 2008.

>

> Luv - Sheila

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bella, my reading of this research is that its specific to patients with thyroid nodules, and that these patients do have a higher risk of malignancy with a higher TSH. I dont know about thyroid nodules (and Im cursed with having done a course in research in health and social care in the NHS!) I dont know about thyroid nodules but if patients/people with thryoid nodules have a higher risk of thyroid cancer than other patients with hypoT then Im not sure that we can extrapolate these findings to everyone with hypoT. It could be that thyroid nodules are a precursor to cancer and this may be a hormone dependent form of cancer, which then makes sense to me if the TSH is higher then cancer might be more likely if the tumours are dependent on TSH. But I dont know enough about thyroid nodules.

What I am pretty sure of is that GPs would take the view that this research was not carried out on a general population or even a population of anyone with hypoT,. but was carried out on a specific population of those patients with thyroid nodules.

Whether that makes us all at more risk of cancer I dont know, but I think it probably does only apply to those with thryoid nodules. But Id be grateful for other views!! And I might be completely wrong, its late and Ive got a cold and should really be in bed!!

Gill

> Hi Sheila,Your dedicated research in to all things thyroid never ceases to amaze me and as always I am so very grateful that you are fighting this cause.One thing that worries me about this abstract is the passage:'risk of malignancy correlated with higher TSH level (p=0.007). The likelihood of malignancy was 16% (9/55) when TSH was <0.06 mIU/L versus 52% (15/29) when 5.00 mIU/L (p=0.001). When TSH was between 0.40 to 1.39 mIU/L the likelihood of malignancy was 25% (85/347) versus 35% (109/308) when TSH was between 1.40 mIU/L and 4.99 mIU/L (p=0.002).'So this would suggest that of members in the forum there is a chance that somewhere between 25 and 35% of us were at risk of DTC. My question is would this percentage risk have changed since taking thyroid meds that would have substantially reduced our TSH. My other question is how would those findings relate to people who are on synthetic T4 who's TSH is kept higher due to fears of osteoporosis? Does anyone have any theories on that one and are some of us still at risk of DTC, presumably so?Luv Bella> Might I suggest that if you been told by your GP or endocrinologist that because your TSH is within the normal reference interval, you do not have a thyroid problem, that you take a print-out of this publication (it isn't very long) to your GP and/or endocrinologist. THIS IS UNEQUICICOL. > http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jc.2007-2215v1> > Higher Serum TSH Level in Thyroid Nodule Patients is Associated with Greater Risks of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer and Advanced Tumor Stage> Rist Haymart*, Repplinger, Glen E. Leverson, Diane F. Elson, S. Sippel, Jaume, and Herbert Chen > Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, and Section of Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery,University of Wisconsin P. Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI 53792 > > [..Conclusions: The likelihood of thyroid cancer increases with higher serum TSH concentration. Even within normal TSH ranges, a TSH level above the population mean is associated with significantly greater likelihood of thyroid cancer than a TSH below the mean. Shown for the first time, higher TSH level is associated with advanced stage DTC....]]> > As Bob stated "I don't think any Professors (of repute) will be advocating " let 'em get a wee bit hypothyroid" any longer....else risk being shot at by large numbers of lawyers with free-fire range about 360 degrees.......that's angle, not temperature...."> > I sincerely hope Jerome Burne can add this to his article on Tuesday, as this shows unequivocally that the professors have got it all wrong with their TSH reference range and we have been right all the time. They should hang their heads in shame. What a wonderful start to 2008.> > Luv - Sheila>

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.6/1192 - Release Date: 21/12/07 13:17

[Guest guest]

Hi Bella

I think what is coming out here is that for many sufferers of thyroid cancer, this might have been avoided had they been given thyroid hormone replacement or this had been inadequate.How many of us have been refused a diagnosis because our TSH was considered within the so called "normal" reference interval?

If you have a TSH level of say 5.0 (which is officially UK normal) and you supplement with thyroxine, your TSH level then goes down in the long run , but liothyronine (T3) does it quicker and may actually be safer if this new report is justified/replicated on a larger scale (I will be posting over 100 references in my response to the BTA statement on combination T4/T3 therapy to members of the forum and on to our website proving this). This would suggest that a risk of cancer would also drop - but more studies need to be carried out. I wonder if there is a difference in the number of cases of DTC between countries such as the UK (where the top of the TSH reference interval is around 5.5) and other European countries such as Germany (where the top of the TSH reference interval is 2.5)?

The incidence of thyroid cancer has been increasing slowly over the decades from many types of exposure, radiological, chemical, and presumably dietary from the slow poisoning of thyroid function by such as soya (widespread use in bread) and the many other goitrogens, many goitrogenic (eg cruciferae) vegetables, in fact, have cancer reducing properties.

For a typical thyroid patient to come to the notice of the medical profession, they would either have been dismissed by their GP or badly treated, despite the large number of patients said to be 'adequately treated' (feature of the GPs payment scheme under Quality Outcomes Framework(QOF) -the consequences of which the poor patients are now suffering:o(

Considering the range of poisons and endocrine disrupters, it is my belief that there is a large (as yet undiscovered) epidemic going on throughout the world, of both thyroid dysfunction and, by implication, the incidence of DCT is also creeping up. You will see this (eventually) in my comments and references to BTA et al.

The serious question to ask BTA (and I single them out because they hold a massive responsibility) is " Have any of your policies added to this problem? " I seriously think yes!

A validated trial of this would require a long time and large numbers, maybe up to a decade. BUT, hopefully, if the article in the Mail gets the endocrinologists asking similar questions to the one's we're asking after Tuesday, they might, at last, start demanding more research and studies.

This newly published retrospective survey is too serious to be ignored. The precautionary principle is ALWAYS called into play in this type of circumstance.

It all seems to hinge on the adequacy of treatment (or otherwise).

BTW everybody - Jerome Burne phoned me again last night and told me his article WILL be in the Daily Mail THIS COMING TUESDAY. It seems it will be centred around Dr Skinner being brought before the GMC and the controversy surrounding the diagnosing and treatment of hypothyroidism within the NHS. He told me he mainly writes "controversial" articles - so I am really looking forward to this one.

What he asks is for EVERYBODY to write their comments to the article online as the editors apparently DO pay great attention to this. He says the more responses there are backing up his article will prove to the editor that there really IS a big problem out here and this controversy over diagnosing and treatment protocol for sufferers of hypothyroidism will really start to take off - which is what TPA-UK was set up to do. I will post a link to the online article - and after reading it and you feel strongly about the way you have been (or not been) diagnosed and treated within the NHS, PLEASE do take this opportunity to help yourself and your fellow sufferers by taking time out to write what you feel.

Many thanks

Luv - Sheila

Hi Sheila,Your dedicated research in to all things thyroid never ceases to amaze me and as always I am so very grateful that you are fighting this cause.One thing that worries me about this abstract is the passage:'risk of malignancy correlated with higher TSH level (p=0.007). The likelihood of malignancy was 16% (9/55) when TSH was <0.06 mIU/L versus 52% (15/29) when 5.00 mIU/L (p=0.001). When TSH was between 0.40 to 1.39 mIU/L the likelihood of malignancy was 25% (85/347) versus 35% (109/308) when TSH was between 1.40 mIU/L and 4.99 mIU/L (p=0.002).'So this would suggest that of members in the forum there is a chance that somewhere between 25 and 35% of us were at risk of DTC. My question is would this percentage risk have changed since taking thyroid meds that would have substantially reduced our TSH. My other question is how would those findings relate to people who are on synthetic T4 who's TSH is kept higher due to fears of osteoporosis? Does anyone have any theories on that one and are some of us still at risk of DTC, presumably so?Luv Bella

..

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 02/01/2008 11:29

[Guest guest]

Ah, thank you Gill. The article does indeed, in large lettering,

state that the tests were carried out on Patients with thyroid

nodules! Duh. Brain not in gear again.

Luv Bella

>

> Hi Bella, my reading of this research is that its specific to

patients with thyroid nodules, and that these patients do have a

higher risk of malignancy with a higher TSH. I dont know about

thyroid nodules (and Im cursed with having done a course in research

in health and social care in the NHS!) I dont know about thyroid

nodules but if patients/people with thryoid nodules have a higher

risk of thyroid cancer than other patients with hypoT then Im not

sure that we can extrapolate these findings to everyone with hypoT.

It could be that thyroid nodules are a precursor to cancer and this

may be a hormone dependent form of cancer, which then makes sense to

me if the TSH is higher then cancer might be more likely if the

tumours are dependent on TSH. But I dont know enough about thyroid

nodules.

>

> What I am pretty sure of is that GPs would take the view that this

research was not carried out on a general population or even a

population of anyone with hypoT,. but was carried out on a specific

population of those patients with thyroid nodules.

>

> Whether that makes us all at more risk of cancer I dont know, but

I think it probably does only apply to those with thryoid nodules.

But Id be grateful for other views!! And I might be completely

wrong, its late and Ive got a cold and should really be in bed!!

>

> Gill

>

>

>

>

>

> >

[Guest guest]

I for one am very much looking forward to reading

that 'controversial' article Sheila and will post my comment

online.

Thank you for clarifying the implications of that research, it does

indeed generate hope that it might cause a review of the NHS/BTA

approach to hypothyroidism.

I had begun to wonder if I was being slightly obsessive about this

condition as I'm now seeing signs of it in friends and acquaintances

but your use of the word epidemic, is beginning to seem worryingly

accurate.

Luv Bella

>

>

> I think what is coming out here is that for many sufferers of

thyroid cancer, this might have been avoided had they been given

thyroid hormone replacement or this had been inadequate.How many of

us have been refused a diagnosis because our TSH was considered

within the so called " normal " reference interval?

>

> If you have a TSH level of say 5.0 (which is officially UK normal)

and you supplement with thyroxine, your TSH level then goes down in

the long run , but liothyronine (T3) does it quicker and may

actually be safer if this new report is justified/replicated on a

larger scale (I will be posting over 100 references in my response

to the BTA statement on combination T4/T3 therapy to members of the

forum and on to our website proving this). This would suggest that a

risk of cancer would also drop - but more studies need to be carried

out. I wonder if there is a difference in the number of cases of DTC

between countries such as the UK (where the top of the TSH reference

interval is around 5.5) and other European countries such as Germany

(where the top of the TSH reference interval is 2.5)?

>

> The incidence of thyroid cancer has been increasing slowly over

the decades from many types of exposure, radiological, chemical, and

presumably dietary from the slow poisoning of thyroid function by

such as soya (widespread use in bread) and the many other

goitrogens, many goitrogenic (eg cruciferae) vegetables, in fact,

have cancer reducing properties.

>

> For a typical thyroid patient to come to the notice of the

medical profession, they would either have been dismissed by their

GP or badly treated, despite the large number of patients said to

be 'adequately treated' (feature of the GPs payment scheme under

Quality Outcomes Framework(QOF) -the consequences of which the poor

patients are now suffering:o(

>

> Considering the range of poisons and endocrine disrupters, it is

my belief that there is a large (as yet undiscovered) epidemic going

on throughout the world, of both thyroid dysfunction and, by

implication, the incidence of DCT is also creeping up. You will see

this (eventually) in my comments and references to BTA et al.

>

> The serious question to ask BTA (and I single them out because

they hold a massive responsibility) is " Have any of your policies

added to this problem? " I seriously think yes!

>

> A validated trial of this would require a long time and large

numbers, maybe up to a decade. BUT, hopefully, if the article in

the Mail gets the endocrinologists asking similar questions to the

one's we're asking after Tuesday, they might, at last, start

demanding more research and studies.

>

> This newly published retrospective survey is too serious to be

ignored. The precautionary principle is ALWAYS called into play in

this type of circumstance.

>

> It all seems to hinge on the adequacy of treatment (or otherwise).

>

> BTW everybody - Jerome Burne phoned me again last night and told

me his article WILL be in the Daily Mail THIS COMING TUESDAY. It

seems it will be centred around Dr Skinner being brought before the

GMC and the controversy surrounding the diagnosing and treatment of

hypothyroidism within the NHS. He told me he mainly

writes " controversial " articles - so I am really looking forward to

this one.

>

> What he asks is for EVERYBODY to write their comments to the

article online as the editors apparently DO pay great attention to

this. He says the more responses there are backing up his article

will prove to the editor that there really IS a big problem out here

and this controversy over diagnosing and treatment protocol for

sufferers of hypothyroidism will really start to take off - which is

what TPA-UK was set up to do. I will post a link to the online

article - and after reading it and you feel strongly about the way

you have been (or not been) diagnosed and treated within the NHS,

PLEASE do take this opportunity to help yourself and your fellow

sufferers by taking time out to write what you feel.

>

> Many thanks

>

> Luv - Sheila

>

>

>

>

>