Re: PTU vs. RAI - To Fay

[Guest guest]

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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

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).

[Guest guest]

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).