The Need for Evidence - body temperature

[Guest guest]

This isn't directly related to autism (I don't think - although endocrine problems are certainly rampant), but the general idea I think is relevant to the community. I'm subscribed to Dr. 's newsletter on the "WTS" protocol for "'s Temperature Syndrome" (reverse T3 dominance, which he treats with very high doses of sustained-release T3). He was recently asked the following question, and gave the following response:Question: "How would you respond to the following statement: 'By the way, the so-called normal temperature of 98.6 degrees is based upon a single study performed over 100 years ago by a German scientist using an old-fashioned thermometer pressed between the arm and torso. A true average core body temperature is more like 98.2 degrees. What's even more interesting is that our core body temperatures can vary from a high of 100 degrees in the afternoon with lots of activity to a low of 96.1 in the early morning hours before we awaken. And all this is considered normal."The above is from a newspaper column "Ask Dr. H.". Hecht is a physician specializing in Internal Medicine."Answer: Certainly. I would respond by saying that when we get patients' temperatures up to 98.6 their symptoms often disappear, and when we wean them off treatment their symptoms often remain improved when their temperatures stay around 98.6.That reproducible observation is really the sum of the whole matter. The rest is just a matter of what people want to define or describe normal or good. As a side note, I imagine you copied this quote correctly but the typical axillary temperature as measured between the arm and torso is 97.8, not 98.6. And it's true that the temperature ranges during the day. But when it ranges lower than higher, people can have symptoms. There are a lot of people out there with temperature of 98.2 that are told they are normal that have low temperature symptoms that would respond well to raising their temperatures to 98.6, regardless of definitions. But this answer presupposes that the person asking the question about BT "actually" being 98.2 (this is a criticism I have read - and don't know quite what to think about it) is willing to accept the statement the "symptoms disappear when temperature is brought up to 98.6" Not everyone is going to accept this. In fact, I would guess that most people that are still "trapped in the (small - very small) box" of mainstream medicine will not. Not because it's not true, but simply because either 1) their doctor didn't say it, or 2) it isn't a finding of a "gold standard" study that cost $5-10 million to do (half of that paperwork proving to the FDA that yes, sticking a thermometer in someone's armpit for 10 minutes is not actually going to psychologically scar them for life - and we aren't going to do it without them knowing (how exactly you would do it without them knowing is an interesting question.. but I digress) Most people don't accept such "anecdotal" empirical evidence, no matter how good it is, although it might help if it's published in JAMA (as opposed to Med Hypotheses or JPANDS..) But no study is ever going to be published because body temperature is just "assumed" to be normal (there isn't actually an epidemic of thyroid system problems going on), or because there's no money to do such a study, because no drug company will make any money off of selling thyroid glandular and cortisol.. Or the more conspiratorial answer that they make so much more money treating symptoms of depression, arthritis, low immunity, back pain, etc, etc, etc that result form low thyroid and cortisol function - whether this conspiracy is intentional (I doubt) or unintentional (I have no doubt - if only resulting from companies doing what makes them money and no doing what costs them more money). So how do you respond to an answer like this, when the retort your're going to get back (like from my parents) is, "there's no such thing as normal body temperature", and people who will dismiss the closest thing to "real" evidence I can think of which is Broda work.. But that was done 30 or 40 years ago - it can't possibly still be applicable! It's old! This is of course relevant to autism in that people refuse to consider anecdotal evidence - and/or come up with all sorts of objections to the "semi-real studies" which are done such as the Geier's recent study on transsulfation/methylation biomarkers, and the rebuttal by Dr. "B ", which I still haven't had time to go through in detail (or energy - my temperature only today and three days ago is consistently at 98.6 - and yes, I feel better - but what does that matter? It's just a fluke)? And if you ask the question "who cares about the biomarkers, why are kids getting better when we give them mB12 and folic acid?" they will imply or outright say we are lying or it's just coincidence (A kid who utters his first words in 2 years the DAY he gets his first mB12 shot? They'd still say it was a coincidence, or if it wasn't - that you can't generalize to larger numbers of kids.. And then refuse to do the study themselves to see if it's true or not) And this applies not just to the NDers, who can be ignored, except when they start influencing too many idiots like Leary and Savage and who-ever the caveman (no offense to the Neanderthals ) who started that Facebook group is. It is also true of most doctors, and the politicians and others who make decisions about funding. Like whoever cancelled the chelation study. I wonder if that was someone in the NImH who stood to lose a LOT if autism were shown conclusively to be something that WASN'T just neurological/psychological. (Good think for Kirby or someone else who knows how to dig in money trails to investigate perhaps). You don't have to look that far outside the box to come to the conclusion that even if mainstream medicine is not wrong about a lot of things - they certainly are ignoring a lot of things. But too many people won't even do that - or actively fight against it.Very miffed at the box,Jim Witte