Re: Why Patient Counterexamples Are Important

[Guest guest]

Hi .... very interesting post. My question is why? Why do the health

professionals deny, or refuse to even trial the efficacy of T3? I don't

understand it! I've only joined this group a few days ago but have learnt so

much already, and still have much to learn, but that's the question that keeps

springing into my mind... why?

If it's all to do with money, then from what I can gather they'd make a huge

amount manufacturing and prescribing T3. So many people seem to think it's the

key to getting their thyroid health issues solved that surely they'd be thinking

" hey, this sounds like it could be a money spinner - let's give them what they

want. "

So I don't get it! Maybe I'm missing something (like I said I'm new to this) so

feel free to point out if I'm missing the obvious!!

Gill x

>

> Patient Counterexamples are important because they refute endocrinology's

claim that T3 is not effective, not needed, and dangerous. They also falsify

the bogus excuses for medicine's failure to return patients to active,

attractive lives.

[Guest guest]

Hi -as far as I see GPs are not to perscribe T3 without permission of an endo .

However endos do and therefore a small group of doctors [many not specialist ]

have the health of a large part of the population in there hands. I think

however there are just a small number of endos at the centre of this and the

rest follow . It would be interesting to know who[which endos] really are at

the centre of this - as this is really a rediculous situation.

[Guest guest]

Dear Gill and All,

My wife developed some sort of post thyroid deficiency and these do require T3

replacement. By way of a " mistake " by each of two endocrinologists, she got a

prescription for T3 in sufficient quantity to do some good. After studying the

medicine for a couple of years, I realized that her suffering was collateral

damage to an antitrust conspiracy. (In the US levothyroxine sodium cost more

than Armour, at least at that time.) So I started studying law in hopes of

finding a firm bold enough to pursue what could be the largest class action

lawsuit ever.

While one might claim that could not be about the money, and the UK that is

true, it also about market share and keeping competitors out of the market.

Further, there is more to this market than the hormone replacements. There are

all of the blood test kits. You sell more of them when people are complaining

about their " thyroid " condition. Further, deficiencies in the Greater Thyroid

System make folks more vulnerable to other diseases....

On the other hand, there is a substantial gap in scientific method in medicine.

As I was describing this to my friend, a doctor, he pointed out that

counterexamples are just anecdotes and should not be given much weight.

Medicine, would rather depend upon the super expensive, but still corruptible,

placebo corrected, randomized, double blind clinical trial, which may have

anti-competitive implications on its own. What medicine does not do is use

counterexamples as a warning that there is something wrong.

In our case, what is wrong is simple. The studies that support the anti-T3

stance of medicine are concluded beyond logical propriety because the subjects

probably did not have any post thyroid deficiencies in the conversion of T4 to

T3, the reception of T3 by the cells, and the use of T3 within the cells by the

mitochondria. And if they did, they were in statistically insignificant

numbers. So the counterexamples say that this conclusion is wrong because they

had the symptoms of hypothyroidism, but they were not mitigated by T4, they were

mitigated by T3. In other words, T3, for them, was indeed effective, not

ineffective.

And once those studies are discredited or limited in their implication to only

thyroid gland deficiencies, then there is little else that stands in the way of

proper care for those with post thyroid deficiencies.

In theory, a single counterexample is sufficient. TPA registry has more than

800 the last time I read about it. This number is in the same ball park as all

of the subjects in all of the anti-T3 studies combined.

We do however, have a great problem with medical hubris. But then that is

another subject.

Have a great day,

> >

> > Patient Counterexamples are important because they refute endocrinology's

claim that T3 is not effective, not needed, and dangerous. They also falsify

the bogus excuses for medicine's failure to return patients to active,

attractive lives.

>

[Guest guest]

Through history doctors have been very reluctant to admit they are wrong . I am

sure a lot of this is due partly to ego -however the health of the patient is

much more important than the ego of the doctor . What amazes me is how slow the

other consultants are in working out what is going on . I have had numerous

diagnostic procedures which probably were not necessary with various consultants

scratching their heads .Considering i've had two thyroid operations[one

emergency] you would think one of them would get there.Unfortunately none of

them could see past the blood test {TSH}- for such highly educated people that

amazes me .I know this starts in medical school but they really should question

this more closely as in the long run this affects them as well .

[Guest guest]

Because they will look as though they are not as clever?....

Glynis

>

> So what are the BTA, RCP, BTF frightened of to let the doctors prescribe T3

> etc.

>

> Lilian

[Guest guest]

Hi Gill, and all,[[..So the counterexamples say that this conclusion is wrong because they had the symptoms of hypothyroidism, but they were not mitigated by T4, they were mitigated by T3. In other words, T3, for them, was indeed effective, not ineffective...]]I'll extend 's argument just a little.....The same magnitude of misconception also applies to the use of word "ineffective" as it does to the word " inactive".Where the BTA and its august 'Umbrella for a rainy day' fall down is that they each apply a peculiar level of misunderstanding ~ they apply these words indiscrimately and blindly ignore the science (or should one say 'sceance?).....to establish that the T3 is both dangerous and unnecessary in the case of ordinary GPs prescribing it ....they damn it without justification....citing their crimes of the past ...in failing to report the true cause of deaths ( misprescribing T4-only ).....Whilst prescribing T4-only and without treating failing adrenals, they wish to conceal the size of the problem in that they have already 'coverd up' a massive conspiracy in respect of causation of heart attacks......without treating the adrenals before commencing thyroid hormone treatment, they precipitate an electrolyte crisis that is most difficult to diagnose ( in time), hence the patient is left to the vagaries of GP service.......it eventually gets logged as ... 'heart attack' .... and not as maltreatment with T4-only.The other problem is with respect to the 'inactivity' of RT3 (Reverse T3) ........ it sits in the Thyroid Hormone Receptor (THR)blocking its proper role (THR) ~ initiating transcripton of messenger RNA (mRNA) that leads to protein synthesis when it is occupied by the T3.so RT3 is the 'blocker'....and T3 is the 'activator' of mRNA transcription when it sits in the Receptor and moves to the nucleus to begin trancscription.in a sense, the RT3 is 'very active' in that it stops the proper role of transcription by (THR) in the nucleus....it is 'inactivating' ..not 'inactive'.The same paradox applies to the way that T3 works .....T3 is 'effective' in its proper role as 'activator' of the transcription process.On the other hand, RT3 is just as 'effective' in blocking that process, so it's not 'inactive'...it plays a vital role in the control process, providing the negative feedback that switches the transcription processes 'on and off'.They need to be far more 'judicious' in the way that they use and abuse words.best wishesBob> > >> > > Patient Counterexamples are important because they refute endocrinology's claim that T3 is not effective, not needed, and dangerous. They also falsify the bogus excuses for medicine's failure to return patients to active, attractive lives.> >>

[Guest guest]

Hi

As if the RCP was emulating the Church of Rome:-

http://35433993.nhd.weebly.com/treatment-of-both-sides.html

" For a long time I was in great difficulty as to whether I should bring to light

my commentaries written to demonstrate the Earth's movement... "

~De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium by Nicolaus Copernicus

>

> Patient Counterexamples are important because they refute endocrinology's

claim that T3 is not effective, not needed, and dangerous. They also falsify

the bogus excuses for medicine's failure to return patients to active,

attractive lives.

>

> Patient Counterexamples are important because endocrinology's claim comes from

studies and these studies are merely collections of observations. Then

endocrinology conjectures the well-known concept that T3 is not useful based

upon these observations. This is called inductive reasoning. Inductive

reasoning has a vulnerability. A single counterexample can falsify the

conjecture. In other words a single patient counterexample can falsify the

notion that T3 has no value. There are more than 800 patient counterexamples on

the TPA registry.

>

> You might ask, " When should the emirs of endocrinology learned this? " I have

felt that this should have been learned in high school geometry since geometry

is highly dependent upon logic. Indeed, I borrowed a 9th grade Geometry book

from the local high school and found the description of and lessons on inductive

and deductive reasoning in it. Since Geometry is required for college bound

students, we can expect that most if not all of the emirs of endocrinology

should know inductive reasoning and the importance of counterexamples to

observational studies. But apparently their frailties allow them to abuse those

who do need T3 to live reasonably.

>

> Have a great day,

>

[Guest guest]

HI Bob,

Copernicus had the problem of a difficult proof, although to deal with the

geocentric notion requires non-available sources of energy to get planets to

reverse course as required by the geocentric concept. (in order to change

speed, there is a need to accelerate the body either positively or negatively.

And that requires a force, F = M x A. where M is the mass of the planet. AH, it

must be an invisible hand, which is quite akin to medicine's rebuke of

Semmelweis with " bad humors in the air cause infections. "

On the other hand, our primary proof, patient counterexamples, is not difficult.

They tried the prescribed method, found that it did not work, then they tried

the proscribed method, and found that it did work.

Quite unlike Copernicus and Semmelweis, we have the advantage of the acceptance

of the philosophy on science by Sir Karl Popper. Science is not proven so well

by confirming studies as it is by the absence of counterexamples. And patient

counterexamples abound.

Have a great day,

> >

> > Patient Counterexamples are important because they refute endocrinology's

claim that T3 is not effective, not needed, and dangerous. They also falsify

the bogus excuses for medicine's failure to return patients to active,

attractive lives.

> >

> > Patient Counterexamples are important because endocrinology's claim comes

from studies and these studies are merely collections of observations. Then

endocrinology conjectures the well-known concept that T3 is not useful based

upon these observations. This is called inductive reasoning. Inductive

reasoning has a vulnerability. A single counterexample can falsify the

conjecture. In other words a single patient counterexample can falsify the

notion that T3 has no value. There are more than 800 patient counterexamples on

the TPA registry.

> >

> > You might ask, " When should the emirs of endocrinology learned this? " I

have felt that this should have been learned in high school geometry since

geometry is highly dependent upon logic. Indeed, I borrowed a 9th grade

Geometry book from the local high school and found the description of and

lessons on inductive and deductive reasoning in it. Since Geometry is required

for college bound students, we can expect that most if not all of the emirs of

endocrinology should know inductive reasoning and the importance of

counterexamples to observational studies. But apparently their frailties allow

them to abuse those who do need T3 to live reasonably.

> >

> > Have a great day,

> >

>