Re:How useful is T-3 supplementation? (with a rant of sorts)...

[Guest guest]

Hi, . The problem is that you think logically and appreciate the

kind of precise communication that you would get from a scientist;

you'll probobly love Chuck's posts. There are a great number of people

on this list who do not value such communication and thought processes.

> How useful is T-3 supplementation? (with a rant of sorts)...

>

<hypothyroidism/message/38363;_ylc=X3oDMTJxcjk4dDN\

qBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzgzNjMEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIxMDUwMTkwMg-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " brian cooper " brianevans_99@...

>

<mailto:brianevans_99@...?Subject=%20Re%3AHow%20useful%20is%20T-3%20supple\

mentation%3F%20%28with%20a%20rant%20of%20sorts%29%2E%2E%2E>

> brianevans_99 <brianevans_99>

>

>

> Sat May 10, 2008 1:21 pm (PDT)

>

>

> ,

>

> I haven't gotten to the study you mention Chuck cited yet, or I

> accidentally overlooked

> it. But I've never had the impression--

> and we don't have much more than impressions

> and personal experience to work on here--that Armour works best for

> more than perhaps

> 10-20 percent of hypos. Even that is an arbitrary figure, but I

> suspect it is just as

> defensible as any far greater one.

>

> I can't help wondering if there are people on this list who tried

> Armour first, and

> didn't get satisfactory results--or who tried it after " everything

> else " and didn't

> find it was any better, if even as good, for them? I'm not saying for

> a moment that it

> isn't best for some people--and I do want to make sure I have a doc

> who will let me try

> it in due course. But I get the impression from a lot of list members

> that they think

> because it has worked best for them, it should be the drug of choice

> for everyone.

> Unfortunately, just because the " synthetic " companies have probably

> tried to badmouth

> it, just as the branded synthetics must try to badmouth the

> generic-makers (companies

> DO this all the time), doesn't translate into Armour being always or

> even usually the

> unfairly suppressed choice--even though those who ultimately find it

> best WILL probably

> find that the route to it was filled with maddening obstacles.

>

> I think it's fair to say that this list probably doesn't represent an

> accurate sample

> of hypo patients in general.

> It seems to me that those who got treated the " mainstream " way, and

> were satisfied with

> the results (whether they should have been satisfied, who knows?) are

> probably not

> online trying to find better answers for themselves.

> Those who were long undiagnosed.in a very imperfect medical

> system.(and may conclude,

> rightly perhaps??, that docs who are so bad at diagnosing this must be

> equally ignorant

> when prescribing)....or who took what seemed forever to find better

> treatment, and who

> still are struggling with the complexities of hypo and related conditions

> ...are more likely to be advocates of Armour in general, AND to be on

> this list.

>

> But, FWIW, for someone just starting out, it's not necessarily as

> helpful to hear

> dogmatic statements constantly,

> based on even less research (which is often flawed anyway) than what

> most of the

> medical establishment peddles.

>

> If I go to a doc, I want to know about the full range of reasonable

> treatment choices,

> and to try them in a systematic way until I find acceptable

> relieft...or conclude that

> none will help past a certain point...or figure there must be other

> hormones, or body

> systems, or conditions that are keeping any T-meds from doing their best.

> Granted, even a doc like my internist, who spent 40 minutes with me

> the other day--and

> we still didn't cover everything--is only part of the answer. He

> readily admits how

> relatively little he knows--and how so much from med school isn't

> valid today. So that

> has left me, from even before I went to him for this diagnosis, to

> research this

> myself. But that comes natural to me, and I would do it anyway. I just

> think it

> would be helpful if some people on this list would tend to speak only

> in absolute

> terms, as if what THEY have found (and is apparently

> " right " for them) is therefore right and true and accurate, and also

> the best answer

> for everyone else.

>

> As one example--and probably not even the best one....Someone who has

> lost their

> thyroid may, indeed, need iodine supplements. I don't know. But, if

> so, that doesn't

> mean they are right or even safe for others. Or that a dose that works

> for one person

> is effective and safe for someone else.

>

> Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I hope at least it's a reasonable

> rant. I haven't

> not meant to offend anyone, and certainly no one in particular. But

> sometimes it

> helps to stop for a moment, and " meta-communicate " (it's one of those

> 50-cent words I

> picked up in my PR work, meaning " to communicate about communicating. "

> I hope some of

> what I've observed has some value. And I DO value the list in general.

> The difficulty

> for me starts when ideas and suggestions morph into pressure and dogma.

>

> Thanks,

>

[Guest guest]

gee that sounds like most of the (male) doctors we have seen for years and

years who treat us like hypochondriacs and give us antidepressants and other

psych meds.

Gracia

Hi, . The problem is that you think logically and appreciate the

kind of precise communication that you would get from a scientist;

you'll probobly love Chuck's posts. There are a great number of people

on this list who do not value such communication and thought processes.

>

Recent Activity

a.. 17New Members

Visit Your Group

Meditation and

Lovingkindness

A Group

to share and learn.

Health

Early Detection

Know the symptoms

of breast cancer.

How-To Zone

on

Discuss home and

garden projects.

.

[Guest guest]

Want to name names?

cw

-- Re:How useful is T-3 supplementation? (with a rant

of sorts)...

Hi, . The problem is that you think logically and appreciate the

kind of precise communication that you would get from a scientist;

you'll probobly love Chuck's posts. There are a great number of people

on this list who do not value such communication and thought processes.

> How useful is T-3 supplementation? (with a rant of sorts)...

> <hypothyroidism/message/38363

_ylc=X3oDMTJxcjk4dDNqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

DIEbXNnSWQDMzgzNjMEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIxMDUwMTkwMg-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " brian cooper " brianevans_99@...

> <mailto:brianevans_99@

com?Subject=%20Re%3AHow%20useful%20is%20T-3%20supplementation%3F%20%28with%20

%20rant%20of%20sorts%29%2E%2E%2E>

> brianevans_99 <brianevans_99>

>

>

> Sat May 10, 2008 1:21 pm (PDT)

>

>

> ,

>

> I haven't gotten to the study you mention Chuck cited yet, or I

> accidentally overlooked

> it. But I've never had the impression--

> and we don't have much more than impressions

> and personal experience to work on here--that Armour works best for

> more than perhaps

> 10-20 percent of hypos. Even that is an arbitrary figure, but I

> suspect it is just as

> defensible as any far greater one.

>

> I can't help wondering if there are people on this list who tried

> Armour first, and

> didn't get satisfactory results--or who tried it after " everything

> else " and didn't

> find it was any better, if even as good, for them? I'm not saying for

> a moment that it

> isn't best for some people--and I do want to make sure I have a doc

> who will let me try

> it in due course. But I get the impression from a lot of list members

> that they think

> because it has worked best for them, it should be the drug of choice

> for everyone.

> Unfortunately, just because the " synthetic " companies have probably

> tried to badmouth

> it, just as the branded synthetics must try to badmouth the

> generic-makers (companies

> DO this all the time), doesn't translate into Armour being always or

> even usually the

> unfairly suppressed choice--even though those who ultimately find it

> best WILL probably

> find that the route to it was filled with maddening obstacles.

>

> I think it's fair to say that this list probably doesn't represent an

> accurate sample

> of hypo patients in general.

> It seems to me that those who got treated the " mainstream " way, and

> were satisfied with

> the results (whether they should have been satisfied, who knows?) are

> probably not

> online trying to find better answers for themselves.

> Those who were long undiagnosed.in a very imperfect medical

> system.(and may conclude,

> rightly perhaps??, that docs who are so bad at diagnosing this must be

> equally ignorant

> when prescribing)....or who took what seemed forever to find better

> treatment, and who

> still are struggling with the complexities of hypo and related conditions

> ...are more likely to be advocates of Armour in general, AND to be on

> this list.

>

> But, FWIW, for someone just starting out, it's not necessarily as

> helpful to hear

> dogmatic statements constantly,

> based on even less research (which is often flawed anyway) than what

> most of the

> medical establishment peddles.

>

> If I go to a doc, I want to know about the full range of reasonable

> treatment choices,

> and to try them in a systematic way until I find acceptable

> relieft...or conclude that

> none will help past a certain point...or figure there must be other

> hormones, or body

> systems, or conditions that are keeping any T-meds from doing their best.

> Granted, even a doc like my internist, who spent 40 minutes with me

> the other day--and

> we still didn't cover everything--is only part of the answer. He

> readily admits how

> relatively little he knows--and how so much from med school isn't

> valid today. So that

> has left me, from even before I went to him for this diagnosis, to

> research this

> myself. But that comes natural to me, and I would do it anyway. I just

> think it

> would be helpful if some people on this list would tend to speak only

> in absolute

> terms, as if what THEY have found (and is apparently

> " right " for them) is therefore right and true and accurate, and also

> the best answer

> for everyone else.

>

> As one example--and probably not even the best one....Someone who has

> lost their

> thyroid may, indeed, need iodine supplements. I don't know. But, if

> so, that doesn't

> mean they are right or even safe for others. Or that a dose that works

> for one person

> is effective and safe for someone else.

>

> Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I hope at least it's a reasonable

> rant. I haven't

> not meant to offend anyone, and certainly no one in particular. But

> sometimes it

> helps to stop for a moment, and " meta-communicate " (it's one of those

> 50-cent words I

> picked up in my PR work, meaning " to communicate about communicating. "

> I hope some of

> what I've observed has some value. And I DO value the list in general.

> The difficulty

> for me starts when ideas and suggestions morph into pressure and dogma.

>

> Thanks,

>