My Support of Dr. Skinner

[Guest guest]

Dear Victim of Endocrinology:

Now is the time for you all to defend a doctor who has helped so many of you and

stands for the future care for all of you. And further, he stands for the

secure prescription to maintain your health. As you will note below, the

General Medical Council and Dr. Skinner's accusers have no rational, scientific

cause for this persecution (not prosecution). This is a fight for your well

being. Join the fight.... Write to the GMC.!!! Go to the hearing.!!!

To Whom It May Concern:

Dr. Skinner is the modern version of the physician of yore. He cares about his

patients. In fact, he cares more about their welfare than for his own. The

images of hundreds of successfully treated patients trying desperately to save

their active, attractive lives from the corruption within endocrinology

certainly is telling beyond words. Indeed these patients have great motivation

as they have been abused at the will of endocrinology and rescued by Dr.

Skinner. Rather than investigating Dr. Skinner in a manner having all of the

character of a sham peer review, Dr. Skinner should be honored for uplifting the

reputation of medicine. Rather, than questioning the judgment of Dr. Skinner,

the General Medical Council should examine the history of this medical niche:

1. Circa 1947, Drs. Kirk and Kvroning disclose their noting the ineffectiveness

of the thyroxine (T4) only therapy. This disclosure was confirmed by Dr. Means

circa 1954.

2. Circa 1953, Drs. Gross and Pitt-Rivers disclose their discovery of

triiodothyronine (T3) and that it is far more active than thyroxine (T4). The

discovery of the greater activity of T3 contradicts the studies that claim T3 is

ineffective while T4 is effective.

3. Circa 1960, Dr. Goldberg tests subjects for euthyroid hypometabolism, which

presents the symptoms of hypothyroidism in spite of properly functioning

hypothalmus-pituitary-thyroid axis. He found 32 of the 500 hundred original

subjects to have euthyroid hypometabolism and successfully treated them with

synthetic T3, which is now banned by endocrinology.

4. Circa 1970, Drs. Refetoff and Braverman and their respective staffs

discovered physiology that lies between the thyroid gland and the symptoms

producing cells. These findings contradict the endocrinology paradigm that the

thyroid gland is directly connected to the symptom producing cells. In reality

the thyroid gland is indirectly connected to those cells. This connection is

first made by peripheral conversion which converts the low activity prohormone,

thyroxine (T4), to the active hormone, T3. And second, the T3 must be received

by peripheral cells through hormone receptors so that the cells' nuclei and

mitochondria can properly function. Unfortunately, endocrinology dismisses this

physiology as never failing or nonexistent. Imagine: Here we have allopathic

physicians, whose reason d'etre is caring for bodily failures, claiming that a

bodily function cannot fail in anybody at any time.

5. Circa 2001, Drs. Baisier, Hertoghe, and Eeckhaut disclose their long term

study of the failures of endocrinology to mitigate the symptoms of

hypothyroidism in patients. They find, like Dr. Goldberg did, that they

symptoms are the symptoms of hypothyroidism. They find better clinical and

laboratory diagnostics. And in a followup study, they successfully treat 40

patients with the effectively banned desiccated thyroid therapy.

6. Circa 2002, Dr. Saravan, et al., surveyed patients treated for hypothyroidism

and find 13% of them dissatisfied with their therapy. Endocrinology has one of

the highest failure rates in medicine. They are higher than the failure rates

for stints manufactured by a company facing criminal charges.

7. A paper is published in a peer reviewed medical journal claiming that if

endocrinology's use of language in medical practice guidelines were

linguistically precise and if logical consistency maintained, patients and

physicians would not be abused by endocrinology's dictates. Such practice,

which is dictated by standards of care, would turn the patient-physician

relationship form win-lose to win-win. The General Medical Council has been

attempting and is continuing to attempt to put Dr. Skinner on the " lose " side of

the win-lose relationship because he has been consistently providing winning

solutions to his patients. What the General Medical Council should be doing is

working toward win-win solutions as suggested in " The Linguistic Etiologies of

Thyroxine-Resistant Hypothyroidism, " Thyroid Science, circa 2005.

8. Circa 2006, endocrinology reiterates its excuse for failure by claiming that

complaining patients are effectively imagining their suffering via functional

somatoform disorders. This notion was published earlier by the American Thyroid

Association, which also blamed medical science for not knowing what to do about

" nonspecific symptoms. " These excuses gave physicians a way out of the conflict

between their obedience to medical ethics and the ever present threat of

improper prosecution by the General Medical Council. Unlike Dr. Skinner, such

physicians would rather see their patients suffer than to expose themselves to

the great liabilities that the GMC could impose.

9. Circa 2006, a meta-analysis of all of the anti-T3 studies was published

claiming that it studied patients with continuing symptoms but then concluding

that they should continue to suffer with a T4-only therapy. A close examination

of these studies shows that the subjects did not have continuing symptoms, that

the trial doses of a combination T3 and T4 had a lower therapeutic value than

the T4 doses. The statical measures minimized all positive responses to T3.

And the study conclusions were overstated. In lieu of proving any sort of

general ineffectiveness of T3, what was demonstrated was that if the post

thyroid physiology of Refetoff and Braverman were functioning properly, T3 was

not needed.

10. Circa 2010, Thyroid Patient Advocacy began a registry of patient

counterexamples. These are patients who have suffered under endocrinology's

prescriptions and found virtual resurrection of their lives via endocrinology's

proscriptions. The number of these counterexamples exceeds the total number of

all of the subjects in all of the anti-T3 studies combined. By medicine's

notion of evidence, this establishes a consensus that T3 does in fact have

value. Moreover, some of these patient counterexamples have endured

endocrinology's enforced suffering twice and have been resurrected twice with

medical treatment contrary to endocrinology's proscriptions. Thus, by the

medically accepted CDR test for causality, endocrinology's proscriptions to

produce good health in some patients, the sort of patients that Dr. Skinner has

encountered.

It must be asked. How did endocrinology get it so wrong? The major cause is

the lack of attention to basic scientific practice, to fundamental logic, to

linguistic precision, to ignoring diagnostic protocol, and to its own statements

of medical ethics. All other sciences value counterexamples. Indeed, Her

Majesty knighted Sir Karl Popper for his advocacy of counterexamples in his

quest for what truly is science. He claims that a concept is not proven so well

by confirmations as it is by the lack of counterexamples. In the

thyroid-related realm of endocrinology, there are numerous counterexamples to

the proscriptions. The logic used quite often by endocrinology is flawed as

demonstrated by the conclusions of the anti-T3 studies. The conclusions are not

supported by the conditions of the studies. As noted above, linguistic

precision in at least this niche of endocrinology is lacking as readily

misunderstood words and terms are not defined, thereby defeating all demands for

clarity, even those of the Royal College of Physicians. The differential

diagnostic protocol used in this niche is lacking completeness in the potential

causes of the symptoms of hypothyroidism. The physiology of Refetoff and

Braverman are ignored. The testing approaches of Goldberg, Baisier, Hertoghe,

and Eeckhaut are effectively banned. Finally, medical ethics demand the

patients' welfare be given the greatest priority. It is not, except by

physicians like Dr. Skinner.

When contemplating Dr. Skinner's fitness to practice, the General Medical

Council should also contemplate his endocrinology's fitness to accuse. A tort

lawyer would exercise his mantra of " knew or should have known. " The above

history plainly supports Dr. Skinner's practice. The experts of endocrinology,

as experts, should know the above cited physiology as there are hundreds of

papers thereon. These experts, indeed all endocrinologists, should know how

this physiology works and what its impact on the human condition is. Indeed

these experts should know that patient counterexamples do exist and require

treatment when it is required and available. Indeed, these experts should know

what Dr. Skinner knows. And most of all they should have the care for patients

that Dr. Skinner has and has shown throughout is career.

Sincerely, K. Pritchard, M.Sc.

[Guest guest]

FANTASTIC!!! thank you SO MUCH!!!

>

> Dear Victim of Endocrinology:

>

> Now is the time for you all to defend a doctor who has helped so many of you

> Sincerely, K. Pritchard, M.Sc.

>