Online Clinic Post

January 31, 2012

That thyroxine does not work for all patients was first noticed by Drs. Kirk and

Kvorning in 1947

That thyroxine does not work for all patients was confirmed by Dr Means in 1954.

Failed thyroxine treated patients were studied by Drs. Baisier, Hertoghe, and

Eeckhaut and successfully treated with desiccated thyroid in the last two

decades of the 20th century and reported 2001

Drs. Gross and Pitt-Rivers found T3 more active than T4 in 1953, but

endocrinology holds that T3 is ineffective and T4 is effective, circa 2005.

Dr. Goldberg made a case for euthyroid hypometabolism circa 1960 and

successfully treated 32 patients.

Drs. Refetoff and Bravermand and their respective staffs discovered the post

thyroidal physiology that processes T4 to produce 80% of the required T3 and the

cellular receptors that receive the T3 for use by nuclei and mitochondria, circa

1970

My mother-in-law was suffering from euthyroid hypometabolism until she fainted,

broke her leg in two places and was taken to hospital for a cast. Since she was

too weak to lift the cast, she was admitted. The physician there recognized her

plight by sight and referred her to an internist. Her look was such a textbook

example, that he gathered residents to view her puffy face, etc. A T3 therapy

resurrected her life. In 10 days she could lift her cast and was discharged. The

internist claimed that she was lucky to have broken her leg because she would

have died in a myxedema coma otherwise. She became a patient counterexample.

Years latter, another doctor took her off of T3 and put on T4. Her symptoms

returned. She gained weight. She was no longer active. So she pointed out the 25

years she was on T3 with good health. She was put back on T3. She became a

triple patient counterexample. Now, nearly two decades later and in her 80's she

is still active and living on her own.

My mother-in-law's experiences fit the medically accepted CDR (challenge,

de-challenge, re-challenge) test for causality. T3 works and produces good

health - at least in some.

My wife realized that she had hypothyroidism about a decade ago, although her

doctor did not believe her. But a TSH of 60 or so changed his mind. He

prescribed thyroxine. It barely made a change. Although her TSH was normal, she

still suffered. Over the next two years, she saw two endocrinologists. The first

gave her an insignificant dose of T3 to shut her up. This starter dose for

children did nothing. But the second endocrinologist noted that she should have

been taking this three times daily. So the two " mistakes " per medical practice

guidelines gave her life back to her. She became a patient counterexample.

Eventually, she became a triple counterexample as well.

In lieu of proper treatment, my wife was told that she had nonspecific symptoms,

and alternately, functional somatoform disorders. Both were false as her

becoming a counterexample confirmed.

There are lots of patient counterexamples. Physicians who value their ethics

more than they fear the GMC produce them routinely.

Unfortunately, medical science dismisses counterexamples. Every other science

recognizes them and acts upon them to better their science. But medicine does

not. The attitude of endocrinology towards this issue is stated in a

meta-analysis of the anti-T3 studies. The context is patients with continuing

symptoms in spite of T4 therapies. The conclusion if this analysis is that the

T4-only therapy should be continued, i.e., those patients should continue to

suffer chronically.

So, the questions are simply these: Why, in the face of incontrovertible

evidence, does endocrinology maintain a position that has been a medically

recognized failure for more than 60 years? Why does endocrinology maintain this

failed position in spite of known physiology? Why does endocrinology maintain

and promote suffering in those with post thyroid deficiencies when the way to

active, attractive lives have been demonstrated by patient counterexamples? Why

are millions suffering in spite of T4 therapy (Saravanan, et al.)? Why did

endocrinology make my wife suffer quite unnecessarily and nearly kill my

mother-in-law? With regard to this medical niche, why isn't endocrinology

ethical? Why isn't patient welfare first and foremost? Why don't endocrinologist

keep up with the medical science of this niche? Why aren't endocrinologists

honest?

January 31, 2012

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou - as the old song goes, once

again " Have I told you today how much I love you " ??

And this - THEY REMOVED! That says it all. This needs to go onto

our web site for all to see. Can anybody give me a copy of the message that

wrote this in response to please so I can tell the full sorry story?

Luv - Sheila

That thyroxine does not work for all patients

was first noticed by Drs. Kirk and Kvorning in 1947

That thyroxine does not work for all patients was confirmed by Dr Means in

1954.

Failed thyroxine treated patients were studied by Drs. Baisier, Hertoghe, and

Eeckhaut and successfully treated with desiccated thyroid in the last two

decades of the 20th century and reported 2001

Drs. Gross and Pitt-Rivers found T3 more active than T4 in 1953, but

endocrinology holds that T3 is ineffective and T4 is effective, circa 2005.

Dr. Goldberg made a case for euthyroid hypometabolism circa 1960 and

successfully treated 32 patients.

Drs. Refetoff and Bravermand and their respective staffs discovered the post

thyroidal physiology that processes T4 to produce 80% of the required T3 and

the cellular receptors that receive the T3 for use by nuclei and mitochondria,

circa 1970

My mother-in-law was suffering from euthyroid hypometabolism until she fainted,

broke her leg in two places and was taken to hospital for a cast. Since she was

too weak to lift the cast, she was admitted. The physician there recognized her

plight by sight and referred her to an internist. Her look was such a textbook

example, that he gathered residents to view her puffy face, etc. A T3 therapy

resurrected her life. In 10 days she could lift her cast and was discharged.

The internist claimed that she was lucky to have broken her leg because she

would have died in a myxedema coma otherwise. She became a patient

counterexample. Years latter, another doctor took her off of T3 and put on T4.

Her symptoms returned. She gained weight. She was no longer active. So she

pointed out the 25 years she was on T3 with good health. She was put back on

T3. She became a triple patient counterexample. Now, nearly two decades later

and in her 80's she is still active and living on her own.

My mother-in-law's experiences fit the medically accepted CDR (challenge,

de-challenge, re-challenge) test for causality. T3 works and produces good

health - at least in some.

My wife realized that she had hypothyroidism about a decade ago, although her

doctor did not believe her. But a TSH of 60 or so changed his mind. He

prescribed thyroxine. It barely made a change. Although her TSH was normal, she

still suffered. Over the next two years, she saw two endocrinologists. The

first gave her an insignificant dose of T3 to shut her up. This starter dose

for children did nothing. But the second endocrinologist noted that she should

have been taking this three times daily. So the two " mistakes " per

medical practice guidelines gave her life back to her. She became a patient counterexample.

Eventually, she became a triple counterexample as well.

In lieu of proper treatment, my wife was told that she had nonspecific

symptoms, and alternately, functional somatoform disorders. Both were false as

her becoming a counterexample confirmed.