Re: i have test result[s]!

September 5, 2004

Hi

That is interesting... I looked for a website on them; found lots of

references but no actual site.

Sue

>

> Yeh, so even if he's one of the old " hard liners " on TSH, it

doesn't make

> sense. Of course, from everything I've learned, a TSH above 2

indicates

> hypo,

>

> I've had 2 endos tell me that in 2001, the American Association

of Endocrinology revised their TSH levels. The new levels (which

for some reason many labs still have not adjusted) are .3-3.

Anything above 3 is definitely hypo. But... your doc has to be

smarter than the lab ranges.

>

September 6, 2004

Sue,

See the following interview of Dr. Derry, MD at Shomon's

website:

http://thyroid.about.com/library/weekly/blderryb.htm

Btw, the Australian link that Topper sent did have some comments by

doctors on TSH.

blithe

> Thanks... but all I asked for was SOME reference to SOME

> professional medical information to back up the comments that TSH

> levels do not matter whatsoever. I have not been able to find any.

>

> Sue

September 6, 2004

The AACE website: http://www.aace.com/

> >

> > Yeh, so even if he's one of the old " hard liners " on TSH, it

> doesn't make

> > sense. Of course, from everything I've learned, a TSH above 2

> indicates

> > hypo,

> >

> > I've had 2 endos tell me that in 2001, the American Association

> of Endocrinology revised their TSH levels. The new levels (which

> for some reason many labs still have not adjusted) are .3-3.

> Anything above 3 is definitely hypo. But... your doc has to be

> smarter than the lab ranges.

> >

September 6, 2004

The AACE website: http://www.aace.com/

> >

> > Yeh, so even if he's one of the old " hard liners " on TSH, it

> doesn't make

> > sense. Of course, from everything I've learned, a TSH above 2

> indicates

> > hypo,

> >

> > I've had 2 endos tell me that in 2001, the American Association

> of Endocrinology revised their TSH levels. The new levels (which

> for some reason many labs still have not adjusted) are .3-3.

> Anything above 3 is definitely hypo. But... your doc has to be

> smarter than the lab ranges.

> >

September 6, 2004

The AACE website: http://www.aace.com/

> >

> > Yeh, so even if he's one of the old " hard liners " on TSH, it

> doesn't make

> > sense. Of course, from everything I've learned, a TSH above 2

> indicates

> > hypo,

> >

> > I've had 2 endos tell me that in 2001, the American Association

> of Endocrinology revised their TSH levels. The new levels (which

> for some reason many labs still have not adjusted) are .3-3.

> Anything above 3 is definitely hypo. But... your doc has to be

> smarter than the lab ranges.

> >

September 6, 2004

From the link that Topper sent earlier today

(http://www.thyroid.org.au/Information/NormalTSH.html):

The conclusions which can be drawn from this survey are:

* TSH results in the upper half of the Reference Range have a low

probability of being `normal'. This does not mean that they are not

`normal'. It means that they are unlikely to be `normal'.

* The Reference Ranges for TSH tests are potentially too wide,

especially at the upper end. This suggests that `high normal' TSH

readings should possibly be treated with more suspicion than they

currently appear to be.

* The centre of the Reference Range is clearly not a good target

point because very few of the healthy population have TSH readings

around this point.

* A much better target point would be around 1.0 to 1.5. But some

people will feel better at higher levels or lower levels. This

supports Prof Jim Stockigt's view that the target should be a TSH

reading around 1.0.

From the NACB website (The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry

Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines), reprinted here

http://www.thyroid.org.au/Information/NACBExtract.html:

serum TSH level between 0.5 and 2.0 mIU/L is generally considered the

optimal therapeutic target for the L-T4 replacement dose for primary

hypothyroidism.

See http://www.nacb.org/lmpg/thyroid_lmpg_pub.stm for the full text of

the guidelines.

> Hi

>

> I am not disputing you... just curious as to where you learned that,

> since everything I am reading (and my two doctors) all indicate my

> 2.58 is normal.

>

> Sue

September 6, 2004

From the link that Topper sent earlier today

(http://www.thyroid.org.au/Information/NormalTSH.html):

The conclusions which can be drawn from this survey are:

* TSH results in the upper half of the Reference Range have a low

probability of being `normal'. This does not mean that they are not

`normal'. It means that they are unlikely to be `normal'.

* The Reference Ranges for TSH tests are potentially too wide,

especially at the upper end. This suggests that `high normal' TSH

readings should possibly be treated with more suspicion than they

currently appear to be.

* The centre of the Reference Range is clearly not a good target

point because very few of the healthy population have TSH readings

around this point.

* A much better target point would be around 1.0 to 1.5. But some

people will feel better at higher levels or lower levels. This

supports Prof Jim Stockigt's view that the target should be a TSH

reading around 1.0.

From the NACB website (The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry

Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines), reprinted here

http://www.thyroid.org.au/Information/NACBExtract.html:

serum TSH level between 0.5 and 2.0 mIU/L is generally considered the

optimal therapeutic target for the L-T4 replacement dose for primary

hypothyroidism.

See http://www.nacb.org/lmpg/thyroid_lmpg_pub.stm for the full text of

the guidelines.

> Hi

>

> I am not disputing you... just curious as to where you learned that,

> since everything I am reading (and my two doctors) all indicate my

> 2.58 is normal.

>

> Sue

September 6, 2004

From the link that Topper sent earlier today

(http://www.thyroid.org.au/Information/NormalTSH.html):

The conclusions which can be drawn from this survey are:

* TSH results in the upper half of the Reference Range have a low

probability of being `normal'. This does not mean that they are not

`normal'. It means that they are unlikely to be `normal'.

* The Reference Ranges for TSH tests are potentially too wide,

especially at the upper end. This suggests that `high normal' TSH

readings should possibly be treated with more suspicion than they

currently appear to be.

* The centre of the Reference Range is clearly not a good target

point because very few of the healthy population have TSH readings

around this point.

* A much better target point would be around 1.0 to 1.5. But some

people will feel better at higher levels or lower levels. This

supports Prof Jim Stockigt's view that the target should be a TSH

reading around 1.0.

From the NACB website (The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry

Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines), reprinted here

http://www.thyroid.org.au/Information/NACBExtract.html:

serum TSH level between 0.5 and 2.0 mIU/L is generally considered the

optimal therapeutic target for the L-T4 replacement dose for primary

hypothyroidism.

See http://www.nacb.org/lmpg/thyroid_lmpg_pub.stm for the full text of

the guidelines.

> Hi

>

> I am not disputing you... just curious as to where you learned that,

> since everything I am reading (and my two doctors) all indicate my

> 2.58 is normal.

>

> Sue

September 6, 2004

Yes, RAI is radiation. But it is not used only with cancer. It is used to partially or completely kill off the thyroid more than surgical removal is used. I have a friend who is hyper whose endo told her "They don't do surgery anymore" But they do and that would be the preferred way as far as I'm concerned.

Even though your medical care is satisfactory right now, I highly recommend Dr. Youngs book. There are others, but that is my favorite so far. The more educated the better you can avoid problems in the future.

Blessings,

Debbie K.

-----Original Message-----From: Sue Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 11:46 PMTo: The_Thyroid_Support_Group Subject: Re: i have test result!

Thanks, Debbie! No I have not read the book. I am glad to know you have medical backing for your comments... I appreciate your posting the reference. Have to admit I don't want to put $$$ into books at this point when there is no indication personally that I need medical care other than what I am getting... I'm an Internet junkie. I am not sure what RAI is. <G> (Radiation???) If so in my case it was not needed since I was fortunate that it was not cancer.I appreciate your concern. My doctor took Free T3 and Free T4 tests -- no results yet.I wish you the best too, Debbie... take care!!Sue> Have you read "Thyroid, Guardian of Health" by Dr. Young? That is one> book that explains the problems with TSH. Sounds like you have a good> doc. Please keep us posted on your progress. BTW I am ever so glad you> had surgery for the thyroid rather than RAI.> Blessings,> Debbie K.> > -----Original Message-----> From: Sue [mailto:dance4joy7@h...] > Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 9:24 AM> > ... I would just like to see > a medical reference somewhere saying TSH doesn't matter; I haven't > found one.

September 6, 2004

Yes, RAI is radiation. But it is not used only with cancer. It is used to partially or completely kill off the thyroid more than surgical removal is used. I have a friend who is hyper whose endo told her "They don't do surgery anymore" But they do and that would be the preferred way as far as I'm concerned.

Even though your medical care is satisfactory right now, I highly recommend Dr. Youngs book. There are others, but that is my favorite so far. The more educated the better you can avoid problems in the future.

Blessings,

Debbie K.

-----Original Message-----From: Sue Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 11:46 PMTo: The_Thyroid_Support_Group Subject: Re: i have test result!

Thanks, Debbie! No I have not read the book. I am glad to know you have medical backing for your comments... I appreciate your posting the reference. Have to admit I don't want to put $$$ into books at this point when there is no indication personally that I need medical care other than what I am getting... I'm an Internet junkie. I am not sure what RAI is. <G> (Radiation???) If so in my case it was not needed since I was fortunate that it was not cancer.I appreciate your concern. My doctor took Free T3 and Free T4 tests -- no results yet.I wish you the best too, Debbie... take care!!Sue> Have you read "Thyroid, Guardian of Health" by Dr. Young? That is one> book that explains the problems with TSH. Sounds like you have a good> doc. Please keep us posted on your progress. BTW I am ever so glad you> had surgery for the thyroid rather than RAI.> Blessings,> Debbie K.> > -----Original Message-----> From: Sue [mailto:dance4joy7@h...] > Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 9:24 AM> > ... I would just like to see > a medical reference somewhere saying TSH doesn't matter; I haven't > found one.

September 6, 2004

Yes, RAI is radiation. But it is not used only with cancer. It is used to partially or completely kill off the thyroid more than surgical removal is used. I have a friend who is hyper whose endo told her "They don't do surgery anymore" But they do and that would be the preferred way as far as I'm concerned.

Even though your medical care is satisfactory right now, I highly recommend Dr. Youngs book. There are others, but that is my favorite so far. The more educated the better you can avoid problems in the future.

Blessings,

Debbie K.

-----Original Message-----From: Sue Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 11:46 PMTo: The_Thyroid_Support_Group Subject: Re: i have test result!

Thanks, Debbie! No I have not read the book. I am glad to know you have medical backing for your comments... I appreciate your posting the reference. Have to admit I don't want to put $$$ into books at this point when there is no indication personally that I need medical care other than what I am getting... I'm an Internet junkie. I am not sure what RAI is. <G> (Radiation???) If so in my case it was not needed since I was fortunate that it was not cancer.I appreciate your concern. My doctor took Free T3 and Free T4 tests -- no results yet.I wish you the best too, Debbie... take care!!Sue> Have you read "Thyroid, Guardian of Health" by Dr. Young? That is one> book that explains the problems with TSH. Sounds like you have a good> doc. Please keep us posted on your progress. BTW I am ever so glad you> had surgery for the thyroid rather than RAI.> Blessings,> Debbie K.> > -----Original Message-----> From: Sue [mailto:dance4joy7@h...] > Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 9:24 AM> > ... I would just like to see > a medical reference somewhere saying TSH doesn't matter; I haven't > found one.

September 6, 2004

More interviews of doctors who don't like to rely on TSH:

Summary of Shomon's interview of Domisse, MD, FRCP©:

http://thyroid.about.com/cs/expertinterviews/a/dommisse.htm

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Hypothyroidism by Schachter

M.D., F.A.C.A.M.

http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?PageType=Article & ID=528

Dr. Lowe on hypothyroidism:

http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/drlowefms.htm

blithe

>

> > Thanks... but all I asked for was SOME reference to SOME

> > professional medical information to back up the comments that TSH

> > levels do not matter whatsoever. I have not been able to find any.

> >

> > Sue

September 6, 2004

More interviews of doctors who don't like to rely on TSH:

Summary of Shomon's interview of Domisse, MD, FRCP©:

http://thyroid.about.com/cs/expertinterviews/a/dommisse.htm

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Hypothyroidism by Schachter

M.D., F.A.C.A.M.

http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?PageType=Article & ID=528

Dr. Lowe on hypothyroidism:

http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/drlowefms.htm

blithe

>

> > Thanks... but all I asked for was SOME reference to SOME

> > professional medical information to back up the comments that TSH

> > levels do not matter whatsoever. I have not been able to find any.

> >

> > Sue

September 6, 2004

I'm lookin for somethin now.

Re: i have test result!

> Thanks... but all I asked for was SOME reference to SOME

> professional medical information to back up the comments that TSH

> levels do not matter whatsoever. I have not been able to find any.

>

> Sue

September 6, 2004

I'm lookin for somethin now.

Re: i have test result!

> Thanks... but all I asked for was SOME reference to SOME

> professional medical information to back up the comments that TSH

> levels do not matter whatsoever. I have not been able to find any.

>

> Sue

September 6, 2004

I'm curious as to what your Free T3 and 4 levels are, as your doc did those.

My TSH at the end of May was a .005. Now a lot of doctors would freak over

that. But my Free T3 and Free T4 were 4.5, with an upper end of 4.2, then

1.2, with an upper end of 1.8, just over the top of " normal " on the T3, and

just over midrange on the T4. Had I just done the TSH, formerly, I would

have thought that I was hyperthyroid, but the thing is that the TSH isn't

the thyroid hormone, and it's obvious by my Frees test results that it may

be horrifying to think that I had anywhere from a 3.5 to a 5.5 TSH, and even

a 6 one time, and 3 different doctors called that " normal " and wouldn't up

my dose of Levoxyl. They kept me on the same old dose for 10 long yrs, from

the time I was first diagnosed. Just think of where the Free T3 probably

was with readings like that for around 10 yrs.

Re: i have test result!

> Hi

>

> I am not disputing you... just curious as to where you learned that,

> since everything I am reading (and my two doctors) all indicate my

> 2.58 is normal.

>

> Sue

September 6, 2004