Guest guest Posted December 22, 2002 Report Share Posted December 22, 2002 Hi Fay and all - I hope you don't push delete just yet....... Can you tell me what is the difference between " solid info " and " random rhetoric " and also, is there something wrong with there being a strong anti-RAI bias here? I just get a little confused when some people seem to feel that RAI deserves equal time here. You DO know that there is no shortage of websites and message boards out there that are 100 percent pro-RAI, and anyone is welcome to try those. Yes, everyone SHOULD listen to Jody, and , and Elaine, and - and listen GOOD!!!!! At least they still care enough to try to warn others of the dangers involved. An endo may spin you a lovely tale of the wonderment of RAI, but how do you know if you will be one of the lucky ones who do well on it? ARE there lucky ones, or have they just learned to accept a different quality of life? How will you feel in 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years? If you do experience problems, will your endo be as attentive AFTER the deed is done, as he is while talking you into it? Thanks for your time, Chris ------------ Diagnosed with Graves' May 1979 On tapazole since May 1979 Age 53 - menopause at 46 Currently on 6 mg/da Tap, 30 mg/da inderal Latest testing: 8/6/02 -- FT4 - 0.99 (0.71 - 1.85), FT3 - 4.4 (2.2 - 4.0) 9/9/02 -- FT4 - 1.1 (0.7 - 2.2 ), FT3 - 5.4 (1.5 - 4.1) 9/30/02 -- FT4 - 1.3 (0.7 - 2.2), FT3 - 4.7 (1.5 - 4.1) 11/12/02--FT4 - 0.9 (0.7 - 2.2), FT3 - 3.6 (1.5 - 4-1) ---------------- > Hi and welcome. > > You've come to a great place to get information; I assume that while yes, > there is a strong anti-RAI bias here you can discriminate between the > solid info and the random rhetoric. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2002 Report Share Posted December 22, 2002 Hi Fay and all - I hope you don't push delete just yet....... Can you tell me what is the difference between " solid info " and " random rhetoric " and also, is there something wrong with there being a strong anti-RAI bias here? I just get a little confused when some people seem to feel that RAI deserves equal time here. You DO know that there is no shortage of websites and message boards out there that are 100 percent pro-RAI, and anyone is welcome to try those. Yes, everyone SHOULD listen to Jody, and , and Elaine, and - and listen GOOD!!!!! At least they still care enough to try to warn others of the dangers involved. An endo may spin you a lovely tale of the wonderment of RAI, but how do you know if you will be one of the lucky ones who do well on it? ARE there lucky ones, or have they just learned to accept a different quality of life? How will you feel in 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years? If you do experience problems, will your endo be as attentive AFTER the deed is done, as he is while talking you into it? Thanks for your time, Chris ------------ Diagnosed with Graves' May 1979 On tapazole since May 1979 Age 53 - menopause at 46 Currently on 6 mg/da Tap, 30 mg/da inderal Latest testing: 8/6/02 -- FT4 - 0.99 (0.71 - 1.85), FT3 - 4.4 (2.2 - 4.0) 9/9/02 -- FT4 - 1.1 (0.7 - 2.2 ), FT3 - 5.4 (1.5 - 4.1) 9/30/02 -- FT4 - 1.3 (0.7 - 2.2), FT3 - 4.7 (1.5 - 4.1) 11/12/02--FT4 - 0.9 (0.7 - 2.2), FT3 - 3.6 (1.5 - 4-1) ---------------- > Hi and welcome. > > You've come to a great place to get information; I assume that while yes, > there is a strong anti-RAI bias here you can discriminate between the > solid info and the random rhetoric. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2002 Report Share Posted December 23, 2002 Can you tell me what is the difference between " solid info " > and " random rhetoric " and also, is there something wrong with there > being a strong anti-RAI bias here? No, there is nothing wrong with that. I myself take whatever opportunity I find to let people know what a poor option RAI is. Not having access to the archives I can't comb them to find examples of what I term random rhetoric (random, of course, implying that such instances are few and far between). What I meant to say to newbies, kind of between the lines, is that if stridency, no matter how much the object of the stridency has earned it, is a turn-off, realize that you'll get solid info here. I hope I'm clear here since I'm really tired but did want to address this. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that RAI under any circumstances (the kind of pre RAI prep and post RAI monitoring I mentioned) is good. Just that since so many drs. like RAI chances are we patients may have to work with them and we should be able to discriminate between competent (albeit barely in some cases) drs. and the hopeless ones (like any endo who will do RAI once TED presents itself, even if said dr. claims to employ techniques that some studies may say will minimize risks like steroids. That kind of a dr. is so incompetent I wouldn't even want him/her to manage me on ATD's.) But again, I would never present RAI as the most attractive option, or even in the running. Take care, Fay P.S. Not being able to send this right away, an analogy occured to me. 80% of endos recommend RAI. I can't believe that none of them have the patients' best interests at heart, misguided though they may be. Now, personally, when it comes to RAI for GD, I believe in total abstinence. Once all the info is out, avoiding RAI is only logical, even if precautions are taken before and after. But at least, if it has to be done, I hope the endos " practice safe RAI. " ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2002 Report Share Posted December 23, 2002 Can you tell me what is the difference between " solid info " > and " random rhetoric " and also, is there something wrong with there > being a strong anti-RAI bias here? No, there is nothing wrong with that. I myself take whatever opportunity I find to let people know what a poor option RAI is. Not having access to the archives I can't comb them to find examples of what I term random rhetoric (random, of course, implying that such instances are few and far between). What I meant to say to newbies, kind of between the lines, is that if stridency, no matter how much the object of the stridency has earned it, is a turn-off, realize that you'll get solid info here. I hope I'm clear here since I'm really tired but did want to address this. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that RAI under any circumstances (the kind of pre RAI prep and post RAI monitoring I mentioned) is good. Just that since so many drs. like RAI chances are we patients may have to work with them and we should be able to discriminate between competent (albeit barely in some cases) drs. and the hopeless ones (like any endo who will do RAI once TED presents itself, even if said dr. claims to employ techniques that some studies may say will minimize risks like steroids. That kind of a dr. is so incompetent I wouldn't even want him/her to manage me on ATD's.) But again, I would never present RAI as the most attractive option, or even in the running. Take care, Fay P.S. Not being able to send this right away, an analogy occured to me. 80% of endos recommend RAI. I can't believe that none of them have the patients' best interests at heart, misguided though they may be. Now, personally, when it comes to RAI for GD, I believe in total abstinence. Once all the info is out, avoiding RAI is only logical, even if precautions are taken before and after. But at least, if it has to be done, I hope the endos " practice safe RAI. " ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2002 Report Share Posted December 23, 2002 Can you tell me what is the difference between " solid info " > and " random rhetoric " and also, is there something wrong with there > being a strong anti-RAI bias here? No, there is nothing wrong with that. I myself take whatever opportunity I find to let people know what a poor option RAI is. Not having access to the archives I can't comb them to find examples of what I term random rhetoric (random, of course, implying that such instances are few and far between). What I meant to say to newbies, kind of between the lines, is that if stridency, no matter how much the object of the stridency has earned it, is a turn-off, realize that you'll get solid info here. I hope I'm clear here since I'm really tired but did want to address this. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that RAI under any circumstances (the kind of pre RAI prep and post RAI monitoring I mentioned) is good. Just that since so many drs. like RAI chances are we patients may have to work with them and we should be able to discriminate between competent (albeit barely in some cases) drs. and the hopeless ones (like any endo who will do RAI once TED presents itself, even if said dr. claims to employ techniques that some studies may say will minimize risks like steroids. That kind of a dr. is so incompetent I wouldn't even want him/her to manage me on ATD's.) But again, I would never present RAI as the most attractive option, or even in the running. Take care, Fay P.S. Not being able to send this right away, an analogy occured to me. 80% of endos recommend RAI. I can't believe that none of them have the patients' best interests at heart, misguided though they may be. Now, personally, when it comes to RAI for GD, I believe in total abstinence. Once all the info is out, avoiding RAI is only logical, even if precautions are taken before and after. But at least, if it has to be done, I hope the endos " practice safe RAI. " ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2002 Report Share Posted December 23, 2002 Sorry Fay for misunderstanding what you meant by random rhetoric. This brings up a chance to point something out though. Almost all scientific studies are designed based on anecdotal evidence. Scientists notice a pattern anecdotally, then they try to design a study controlling all the variables except the subject that they are trying to test. While anecdotal evidence should never be considered meaningless, there can be a tendency to attribute things to one circumstance when the result might be because of something often associated with that circumstance and not because of the circumstance at all. That's why it's so important to try to control all variables except the one being tested. That said, the RAI studies aren't much better than anecdotal evidence, in my opinion, because it's impossible for them to adequately control other variables. They are worse, in fact, because since RAI has been " studied " it gives an air of legitimacy to a study which is flawed. Sorry again for misunderstanding Fay. Take care, dx & RAI 1987 (at age 24) > rhetoric (random, of course, implying that such instances are few and far > between). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.