Re: BIOIDENTICAL T4. WAS: Brain Swelling

[Guest guest]

FWIW, my firewall blocks me from any access to 'tinyurl' links...so I

am never able to see what information may, ultimately, be at the other

end of them.

BTW, , did you see my thread, 'Synthetic'? If not,

hypothyroidism/message/44425

should take you to it. Just copy and paste the entire thing if it

gets disconnected.

[Guest guest]

, I saw you post but at the time did not respond. I've posted so

much here lately that I skipped it; besides I was so tired that I was

starting to make huge blunders in my typing. In addition I don't know

exactly what post you were replying to, as none of it was included.

As for the last part where you refer to a typical lay person coming to

this list for usable information, that's why I try to correct whatever

false info that I can. Information is not constructively useful if it

is false. So if a person rejects a product because it is " 3. Not

genuine; artificial... " when it is actually the identical molecule then

that person has been ill served by this community. " Natural " isn't a

panacea; many natural things will kill you. The " natural " thing to do

if your thyroid fails is to die; however we prefer to interfere with

that " natural " process. When the body can't tell the difference and a

chemist can't tell the difference it's counterproductive to harp on the

" naturalness " of a product when it make no physiological difference. It

may matter psychologically that a product does not come from an animal

if you're a vegetarian or a PETA member, but that's a different story.

But I may have missed your meaning?

..

..

> From American Heritage Dictionary

>

> synthetic -- also synthetical adj. 1. Pertaining to, involving, or of

> the nature of a synthesis. 2. Chem. Produced by synthesis, esp. not

> of natural origin; manmade. 3. Not genuine; artificial; devised. 4.

> Ling. Denoting a language such as Latin or Russian that uses

> inflectional affixes to express syntactic relationships. --n

> synthetic. A synthetic chemical compound or material. [Gk.

> sunthetikos, component <suntithenai, to put together. --see

> SYNTHESIS.] --synthetically adv.

>

> It is my opinion that the argument that keeps coming up is that of

> differing backgrounds...the 'biologists' and 'scientists' (see

> Synthetic Biology http://syntheticbiology.org/ ), who are using

> definitions 1 and 2, vs. the average 'lay-person' who is coming to

> this board for usable information, who is using definition 3.

>

>

[Guest guest]

see responses below...all comments are based on my opinion,

observations, or 'commonly held/shared knowledge', therefore, I will

be backing nothing up with specific 'references' in this posting...

>

> , I saw you post but at the time did not respond. I've posted so

> much here lately that I skipped it; besides I was so tired that I was

> starting to make huge blunders in my typing. In addition I don't know

> exactly what post you were replying to, as none of it was included.

It wasn't a response to any particular post, hence an 'independent'

post...an observation, from my perspective, of what is happening in

numerous discussions across the thyroid boards, but much more

intensely on this particular board...being a 'lay-person' myself, but

from an 'applied science', albeit electronics, background...I relate

to all three definitions, myself.

Many of my family members, OTOH, would relate to definition 3 only,

and once they encountered the application of definitions 1 & 2, would

breeze on by because it's be way over their head...to try to explain

to some of them, in medical terms, especially in their current hypoT

states would be more than they could sort out and make sense of, and

especially 'remember' by the time they'd move to the next post.

I totally understand, NOW, what my mom has endured for years, in her

fog (as she so aptly put it). I 'fight' through that fog that tries

to seep in, racing against time and the inevitable of knowing where

I've been, and where I'm headed again if I can't convince my current

doctor to adequately treat my hypoT, or educate myself fast enough and

well enough to be able to treat myself...and from there, help my

family to achieve adequate treatment themselves.

>

> As for the last part where you refer to a typical lay person coming to

> this list for usable information, that's why I try to correct whatever

> false info that I can. Information is not constructively useful if it

> is false. So if a person rejects a product because it is " 3. Not

> genuine; artificial... " when it is actually the identical molecule then

> that person has been ill served by this community. ...

You, as well as Gracia, both make blanket statements without providing

any supporting evidence...that was my initial observation, and I was

inclined to write you both off...and then, you insulted my

intelligence. Rather than leave the boards, or respond 'excessively'

spitefully, I tried to respond intelligently, although I will admit, a

bit sarcastically...My Bad! I've always been known for my 'dry' sense

of humor; I got it from my dad!

To your credit, since our initial interactions on these boards, my

observation has been that you are making more well reasoned points,

even if I don't agree with ALL of them...I sincerely meant it when I

thanked you and Chuck for an interesting discussion (intelligent!).

When blanket statements are made...insults are thrown...snide and/or

belittling comments occur, whether directly or indirectly, nobody

gains from it...active participants in discussions may end up hurt and

leave, and unbeknown to any of us...how many 'lurkers', too shy or

offended (that kind of behavior is stressful, even if only as an

observer) will leave...how many observers will be afraid to

participate and ask the questions they NEED answers to (and aren't

getting from their doctors) because they are afraid of being

'ridiculed' in front of everyone--whether it be because of 'lack of

knowledge', 'lack of experience' or whatever--how many people are

sitting back and maybe have a piece of the puzzle that could help us

all put this whole thing together and regain our lives back???

> ... " Natural " isn't a

> panacea; many natural things will kill you.

True...OTOH...many of those same natural things, if one knows the

proper part to make use of, will benefit you (i.e. rhubarb is

'poisonous', yet if one knows you cannot eat the leaves, but the stalk

only, it can be good for you...potatoes are thought to be good for us,

especially sweet potatoes [granted, not those who have carb. issues],

yet the eyes and plants are poisonous)

> The " natural " thing to do

> if your thyroid fails is to die; however we prefer to interfere with

> that " natural " process.

If we get into nettles, the natural thing to do is itch and swell and

be miserable until the reaction subsides...scratching all the while,

until we learn that that only makes the reaction last longer and more

miserable. OTOH, I prefer to look around and find some Jewel Weed aka

'Touch-Me-Not', split one open and smear the gelatinous substance on

the stalk all over the offensive area and reverse the reaction to the

nettles immediately. My grandmother taught me this as a kid...and

I've taken it one step further, but it's not documented...any itch

inducing reaction, we've learned to apply the Jewel Weed to. Years

ago, when my kids were all quite small, I took my DH and them to the

woods to 'experience Jewel Weeds' seed pods bursting in their hands'.

We brought seeds home and planted them with the ferns out of the sun.

Through our own willingness to experiment, we learned that we don't

have to 'suffer nature taking its course' when it comes to things that

cause us to itch...well, not when the Jewel Weeds are in season

anyway... ;-) ...and it's sure beat going to the doctor for a 'contact

dermatitis' diagnosis and a prescription that will barely bring

relief, with the added result often being an infection developing anyway.

> When the body can't tell the difference and a

> chemist can't tell the difference it's counterproductive to harp on the

> " naturalness " of a product when it make no physiological difference.

It

> may matter psychologically that a product does not come from an animal

> if you're a vegetarian or a PETA member, but that's a different story.

I've been trying to find a diagram of the molecular structure of

Armour, but so far to no avail. I have however found a diagram of

Synthroid (T4)...but I digress!

The really valid point of the 'natural' vs. 'synthetic', IMO, is

usually overlooked. Synthetic, even including T4 & T3 combined, is

not 'bioequivalent' or even 'bioidentical' to 'dessicated thyroid

hormone'. Our thyroids produce T4, T3, T2, T1 and calcitonin, even if

some of it is in minuscule amounts. I was just reading some material

a couple days ago about what the T2 and T1 do and I even encountered

something that indicated there is another hormone, currently being

referred to as T0. To my understanding (and I may be wrong) our

bodies do not convert anything to T2 & T1, but it has been identified,

at least some of what they do, that we do need them. If our thyroid

isn't producing T4, why should we think it would be any more likely to

be producing any of the others?

I've read studies of women (this may not be as much of an issue for

men) who had osteoporosis develop while they were on 'synthetic' T4,

or T4 & T3, revealed by their Bone Density Scans. When they have had

follow-up Bone Density Scans, they have gained bone density...so their

progressive disease, osteoporosis, has been halted, or reversed. I

just got my Mom switched to 'natural dessicated thyroid' about a year

ago. She was diagnosed 'pre-osteoporosis' when she had her last Bone

Density Scan...I'm anxious to see the results of her next bone density

scan, even though I know her hypoT is still being inadequately

treated. From our visual observations, she has stopped losing height,

which was a direct result of the 'pre-osteoporosis' according to her

doctor.

Also, from my personal observations, we were making regular visits to

the ER/hospital while mom was on 'synthetic'...she kept having A-fibs.

that would not resolve themselves. One of those trips to the

hospital, she flat-lined (two monitors confirmed this). Since she

switched to the 'natural dessicated thyroid', she hasn't had to go to

the hospital a single time for an A-fib!

>

> But I may have missed your meaning?

No, I think you got it.

>

>

> .

> .

>

> > From American Heritage Dictionary

> >

> > synthetic -- also synthetical adj. 1. Pertaining to, involving, or of

> > the nature of a synthesis. 2. Chem. Produced by synthesis, esp. not

> > of natural origin; manmade. 3. Not genuine; artificial; devised. 4.

> > Ling. Denoting a language such as Latin or Russian that uses

> > inflectional affixes to express syntactic relationships. --n

> > synthetic. A synthetic chemical compound or material. [Gk.

> > sunthetikos, component <suntithenai, to put together. --see

> > SYNTHESIS.] --synthetically adv.

> >

> > It is my opinion that the argument that keeps coming up is that of

> > differing backgrounds...the 'biologists' and 'scientists' (see

> > Synthetic Biology http://syntheticbiology.org/ ), who are using

> > definitions 1 and 2, vs. the average 'lay-person' who is coming to

> > this board for usable information, who is using definition 3.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" I'm anxious to see the results of her next bone density scan "

Also consider, is she getting enough magnesium? Magnesium deficiency results in

calcium being leached from the bones to the tissue. Check to make sure which

forms of magnesium are best absorbed, and keep in mind blood tests do not show

true magnesium levels in the body.

Terry

[Guest guest]

I know she takes both calcium and magnesium...has for years...I

remember the days when Mom & Dad harped on me that I needed

supplements and specifically the forms different ones needed to be in;

my response...in one ear and out the other as I believed then that the

body was capable of getting what it needed through the foods I ate and

since that was a healthy & organic diet, I had no interest in what I

thought of as 'wasting time' to learn about specific deficiencies...as

long as I new I was meeting all of my daily requirements per the 'Food

Pyramid' and a daily multivitamin. You would have thought I'd have

known better since I'd already been diagnosed severely anemic back in

my teens and had been on iron supplements ever since...never

successful at trying to eliminate them from my daily intake...always

reverting back to severe anemic symptoms (pretty obvious when you

looked in the toilet) again...duhhh on my part!

>

> " I'm anxious to see the results of her next bone density scan "

>

> Also consider, is she getting enough magnesium? Magnesium

deficiency results in calcium being leached from the bones to the

tissue. Check to make sure which forms of magnesium are best

absorbed, and keep in mind blood tests do not show true magnesium

levels in the body.

>

> Terry

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

see responses below...

> >

> >... I've been trying to find a diagram of the molecular structure of

> > Armour, but so far to no avail. I have however found a diagram of

> > Synthroid (T4)...but I digress!...

>

> Armour is tissue. It is made of a complex mixture of compounds and

> hormones. T4 is one of the hormones in that mix. The molecular diagrams

> for Synthroid and the T4 in a healthy human thyroid are identical. They

> are perfectly identical. However, the DNA and proteins in the Armour

> tissues are from pigs.

I agree, but given that chemistry is a 'scientific' field, and my

background is in another 'scientific' field, I expected to be able to

find the equivalent of a 'schematic' that would break down to more

schematics of specific parts of the 'big, over-all' schematic...from

that, I would have been able to compare the molecular structure

diagrams of synthetic T4 to those of natural T4 and , synthetic T3 to

natural T3...are you telling me that they don't have this

somewhere?...if not, how can they possibly say they are 'bio-' anything???

>

> > ... 'dessicated thyroid hormone'.

>

> This is a misnomer. Armour is dessicated thyroid _glands_, not hormone.

> The porcine tissue happens to contain hormones, but it is not

equivalent

> to a " hormone. "

I realize that...however, it is the 'active ingredients' in that

glandular tissue that is at issue here...we don't discredit synthetic

hormones because of the mechanisms (other ingredients) used to

transport them...

>

> > ...Our thyroids produce T4, T3, T2, T1 and calcitonin, even if

> > some of it is in minuscule amounts....

>

> Armour contains a higher percentage of T3 than our glands ever produce.

I agree!...which is one of the benefits for those of us who don't

convert T4 properly...

> When that is combined with the completely unnatural process of

acquiring

> these hormones through our small intestines instead of directly into

the

> blood from a thyroid gland, you get an even more exaggerated dose of

T3,

If taken sub lingually, or better yet, brachia (between the gum and

teeth), as we do, it is absorbed directly into the blood as is

intended for thyroid hormones produced by our bodies...OTOH, synthetic

is swallowed...as you've so rightly pointed out, absorbed through the

small intestines...hmmm...I wonder if that isn't part of the reason so

many that give 'dessicated thyroid gland'--only for you Chuck ;-) --a

try, have so much more success with it; mind you, I did not say All.

> since you only absorb about 80% of the T4 (much less with food), but

you

> always get 95% of the T3. That makes Armour a mostly T3 medication.

>

> How natural is that?

My point isn't about 'natural' here...it's about what's missing...some

thyroid patients' inabilities to convert and for women especially, the

lack of calcitonin that is only produced by the thyroid.

>

> T2 and T1 are the natural metabolic byproducts of the deiodization of

> T4, T3, and RT3. In other words, every molecule of T4 you take ends up

> as T2 and then T1. Our bodies do make them from the T4.

I understand this process of the removal of molecules from the atoms

in the breakdown of T4, but I don't know that everyone else

does...that's another one of those 'science' or more specifically,

'chemistry' lessons...anyway, this goes back to the conversion

process...which some of us have a problem with not happening...it's

another stage in the endocrine process, performed by a different

gland...IIRC.

> In fact, if you needed T2 or T1 for something, your body would not

> be so quick to

> degrade it further and eliminate it.

>

> Chuck

>

From what I've read (it seems there is very very little info available

regarding T2 & T1), I'm not so quick to jump to the conclusion that

our bodies are 'quick to degrade it further and eliminate it.' By the

time we take away from the original T4 or T3, what is necessary for

other processes (which apparently remove all the molecules--I may be

wrong; it's been known to happen on more than one occasion), it seems

there is likely little, if any (particularly in those of us who are

already 'thyroid hormone deficient', left to have only 2 molecules

(T2) or 3 molecules (T1) for our bodies to use...

[Guest guest]

Hi, . Sorry if I insulted you. I know I don't always come across

the way I intend. If you remember the specific post or have it and want

to send it to me [privately or publicly] I will be happy to try to

straighten it out. Please see other comments below...

..

..

> Posted by: " cindy.seeley " cindy.seeley@...

>

<mailto:cindy.seeley@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20BIOIDENTICAL%20T4%2E%20%20WAS%\

3A%20Brain%20Swelling>

> cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley>

>

>

> Sun Dec 7, 2008 3:59 pm (PST)

>

> see responses below...all comments are based on my opinion,

> observations, or 'commonly held/shared knowledge', therefore, I will

> be backing nothing up with specific 'references' in this posting...

>

>

>

> >

> > , I saw you post but at the time did not respond. I've posted so

> > much here lately that I skipped it; besides I was so tired that I was

> > starting to make huge blunders in my typing. In addition I don't know

> > exactly what post you were replying to, as none of it was included.

>

> It wasn't a response to any particular post, hence an 'independent'

> post...an observation, from my perspective, of what is happening in

> numerous discussions across the thyroid boards, but much more

> intensely on this particular board...being a 'lay-person' myself, but

> from an 'applied science', albeit electronics, background...I relate

> to all three definitions, myself.

>

> Many of my family members, OTOH, would relate to definition 3 only,

> and once they encountered the application of definitions 1 & 2, would

> breeze on by because it's be way over their head...to try to explain

> to some of them, in medical terms, especially in their current hypoT

> states would be more than they could sort out and make sense of, and

> especially 'remember' by the time they'd move to the next post.

>

> I totally understand, NOW, what my mom has endured for years, in her

> fog (as she so aptly put it). I 'fight' through that fog that tries

> to seep in, racing against time and the inevitable of knowing where

> I've been, and where I'm headed again if I can't convince my current

> doctor to adequately treat my hypoT, or educate myself fast enough and

> well enough to be able to treat myself...and from there, help my

> family to achieve adequate treatment themselves.

..

..

I only have a faint knowledge of what you're going through, totally

second hand. And I'm sure you know that's not really a knowledge at

all. But I know enough from the descriptions of others to know that it

can be a truly horrible experience. Sometimes when I see someone

obviously transmitting from a personal hell from which I can offer them

little or no immediate help I feel more than a little embarrassed to

even be here. My hypothyroidism is well controlled by 75 mg Synthroid

and AFAIK I have no symptoms that can't be attributed to other things

[like being almost 68 years old]. I wish you the best in your efforts.

The most I think I can do is to try to see that you have correct

information as far as possible from the world view of science and

allopathic medicine. I'll let others present the alternative view.

..

..

>

> >

> > As for the last part where you refer to a typical lay person coming to

> > this list for usable information, that's why I try to correct whatever

> > false info that I can. Information is not constructively useful if it

> > is false. So if a person rejects a product because it is " 3. Not

> > genuine; artificial... " when it is actually the identical molecule then

> > that person has been ill served by this community. ...

>

> You, as well as Gracia, both make blanket statements without providing

> any supporting evidence...that was my initial observation, and I was

..

..

May I respectfully challenge that statement? I try very hard to NOT

make blanket statements for which I have no support. And when the

support is uncertain I try to qualify my statements. I would appreciate

it if you would be so kind as to point out any blanket statements that I

make that are not supported in order for me to have the opportunity to

correct them.

..

..

> inclined to write you both off...and then, you insulted my

> intelligence. Rather than leave the boards, or respond 'excessively'

..

..

Well, I no doubt owe you a specific apology; rather than a general one.

But I don't know what I did. If I feel you make inaccurate statements I

may challenge them; but then I have the same obligation to provide

support for why I feel they're wrong as I ask of you.

..

..

> spitefully, I tried to respond intelligently, although I will admit, a

> bit sarcastically...My Bad! I've always been known for my 'dry' sense

> of humor; I got it from my dad!

..

..

Well, I guess I wasn't insulted back, because I don't remember it...

..

..

>

> To your credit, since our initial interactions on these boards, my

> observation has been that you are making more well reasoned points,

> even if I don't agree with ALL of them...I sincerely meant it when I

> thanked you and Chuck for an interesting discussion (intelligent!).

..

..

I'm not always right. But even if I have a wrong opinion expressed here

I should have the reason I feel it is correct. I won't be insulted if

you ask me for it.

..

..

> When blanket statements are made...insults are thrown...snide and/or

> belittling comments occur, whether directly or indirectly, nobody

> gains from it...active participants in discussions may end up hurt and

> leave, and unbeknown to any of us...how many 'lurkers', too shy or

> offended (that kind of behavior is stressful, even if only as an

> observer) will leave...how many observers will be afraid to

> participate and ask the questions they NEED answers to (and aren't

> getting from their doctors) because they are afraid of being

> 'ridiculed' in front of everyone--whether it be because of 'lack of

> knowledge', 'lack of experience' or whatever--how many people are

> sitting back and maybe have a piece of the puzzle that could help us

> all put this whole thing together and regain our lives back???

..

..

We do more than a bit of joking around here, especially those of us who

have been here a while; usually with no one taking offense. Did you see

the post recently where I made a statement to Gracia that Sue thought

was insulting and she defended Gracia? And Gracia wasn't insulted; as

she said, she knows the position from which I make my remarks. [but

I've been pretty hard on her lately; so she may not feel so kindly! {ggg}]

Again: Blanket statements are not helpful, as there is too much room

for some of the covered material to be inaccurate. Please give me a

chance to correct any statements that you believe should be constructed

more narrowly.

..

..

>

> > ... " Natural " isn't a

> > panacea; many natural things will kill you.

>

> True...OTOH...many of those same natural things, if one knows the

> proper part to make use of, will benefit you (i.e. rhubarb is

> 'poisonous', yet if one knows you cannot eat the leaves, but the stalk

> only, it can be good for you...potatoes are thought to be good for us,

> especially sweet potatoes [granted, not those who have carb. issues],

> yet the eyes and plants are poisonous)

>

> > The " natural " thing to do

> > if your thyroid fails is to die; however we prefer to interfere with

> > that " natural " process.

>

> If we get into nettles, the natural thing to do is itch and swell and

> be miserable until the reaction subsides...scratching all the while,

> until we learn that that only makes the reaction last longer and more

> miserable. OTOH, I prefer to look around and find some Jewel Weed aka

> 'Touch-Me-Not', split one open and smear the gelatinous substance on

> the stalk all over the offensive area and reverse the reaction to the

> nettles immediately. My grandmother taught me this as a kid...and

> I've taken it one step further, but it's not documented...any itch

> inducing reaction, we've learned to apply the Jewel Weed to. Years

> ago, when my kids were all quite small, I took my DH and them to the

> woods to 'experience Jewel Weeds' seed pods bursting in their hands'.

> We brought seeds home and planted them with the ferns out of the sun.

> Through our own willingness to experiment, we learned that we don't

> have to 'suffer nature taking its course' when it comes to things that

> cause us to itch...well, not when the Jewel Weeds are in season

> anyway... ;-) ...and it's sure beat going to the doctor for a 'contact

> dermatitis' diagnosis and a prescription that will barely bring

> relief, with the added result often being an infection developing anyway.

..

..

Agreed. My point wasn't that nature is bad; it was that nature is

neutral. It can be good or bad for you depending upon how it is used.

But some people worship nature as being " good " ; synthetic and so on are

" bad " . But in fact sometimes a synthetic product can be exactly what

you need to correct something " bad " that has naturally happened to you.

A sharp knife cutting out part of my guts isn't the first thing I think

of when I think of " good " ; but it's exactly what I needed in order to

live on 1/8/00.

..

..

>

> > When the body can't tell the difference and a

> > chemist can't tell the difference it's counterproductive to harp on the

> > " naturalness " of a product when it make no physiological difference.

> It

> > may matter psychologically that a product does not come from an animal

> > if you're a vegetarian or a PETA member, but that's a different story.

>

> I've been trying to find a diagram of the molecular structure of

> Armour, but so far to no avail. I have however found a diagram of

> Synthroid (T4)...but I digress!

..

..

There isn't a single molecular structure for Armour, because it has

multiple [active] molecules. You will have to find one for each

molecule. The one for T4 in Armour is identical to the one for T4 in

Synthroid.

..

..

>

> The really valid point of the 'natural' vs. 'synthetic', IMO, is

> usually overlooked. Synthetic, even including T4 & T3 combined, is

> not 'bioequivalent' or even 'bioidentical' to 'dessicated thyroid

> hormone'. Our thyroids produce T4, T3, T2, T1 and calcitonin, even if

> some of it is in minuscule amounts. I was just reading some material

> a couple days ago about what the T2 and T1 do and I even encountered

> something that indicated there is another hormone, currently being

> referred to as T0. To my understanding (and I may be wrong) our

> bodies do not convert anything to T2 & T1, but it has been identified,

> at least some of what they do, that we do need them. If our thyroid

> isn't producing T4, why should we think it would be any more likely to

> be producing any of the others?

..

..

Your discussion of " bioidentical " and " bioequivalent " are confusing to

me; and in conflict with what I think I understand. " Bioequivalent " is

a term applied to any two medicines which have the same measured effect

within the body. Typically they may be very similar; but there is no

requirement that they be. The molecular structure of the molecules of

the hormones may or may not be bioidentical. The medicines may have

single or multiple components. Some could be bioidentical and some not;

yet if they obtain the same measured result in credible research then

they will be adjudged " bioequivalent " . AFAIK it is a finding of the FDA

[corrections welcome] and there are different bioequivalent ratings.

Strangely, you will find that if A is bioequivalent to B and B id

bioequivalent to C then A is not necessarily bioequivalent to C. At

least not with the same letter designation.

Bioidentical is applied to individual hormones [single molecules] in

every case I've paid attention to. So in discussing " bioidentical " WRT

Armour or Synthroid what you have to consider are the individual

hormones. Specifically, the T4 in Synthroid, Armour and that produced

by a human or pig are bioidentical. Same for the T3. Natural or

synthetic makes no difference whatsoever; the molecules are in each case

identical.

..

..

As for T2 and T1 I believe I've read that they are byproducts of the

creation of T3 from T4 or of other interactions involving same. Waste,

so to speak; but I'm not sure. AFAIK calcitonin is [or may be] a

beneficial product, but I don't remember what it does.

I believe T4 is the first step in the chain; and if the thyroid gland

fails to produce that then I don't think it would produce the others.

But the chemistry is far beyond my understanding.

..

..

>

> I've read studies of women (this may not be as much of an issue for

> men) who had osteoporosis develop while they were on 'synthetic' T4,

> or T4 & T3, revealed by their Bone Density Scans. When they have had

> follow-up Bone Density Scans, they have gained bone density...so their

> progressive disease, osteoporosis, has been halted, or reversed. I

> just got my Mom switched to 'natural dessicated thyroid' about a year

> ago. She was diagnosed 'pre-osteoporosis' when she had her last Bone

> Density Scan...I'm anxious to see the results of her next bone density

> scan, even though I know her hypoT is still being inadequately

> treated. From our visual observations, she has stopped losing height,

> which was a direct result of the 'pre-osteoporosis' according to her

> doctor.

>

> Also, from my personal observations, we were making regular visits to

> the ER/hospital while mom was on 'synthetic'...she kept having A-fibs.

> that would not resolve themselves. One of those trips to the

> hospital, she flat-lined (two monitors confirmed this). Since she

> switched to the 'natural dessicated thyroid', she hasn't had to go to

> the hospital a single time for an A-fib!

..

..

I'm glad she's doing better; and the best of luck to both of you. If

you think any of this is a blanket statement, unclear or just flat out

wrong by all means point out how so I can address it.

I've got to get to bed; I'm so tired I can't spell " a " [ggg]

Regards,

..

..

>

> >

> > But I may have missed your meaning?

>

> No, I think you got it.

>

> >

> >

> > .

> > .

> >

> > > From American Heritage Dictionary

> > >

> > > synthetic -- also synthetical adj. 1. Pertaining to, involving, or of

> > > the nature of a synthesis. 2. Chem. Produced by synthesis, esp. not

> > > of natural origin; manmade. 3. Not genuine; artificial; devised. 4.

> > > Ling. Denoting a language such as Latin or Russian that uses

> > > inflectional affixes to express syntactic relationships. --n

> > > synthetic. A synthetic chemical compound or material. [Gk.

> > > sunthetikos, component <suntithenai, to put together. --see

> > > SYNTHESIS.] --synthetically adv.

> > >

> > > It is my opinion that the argument that keeps coming up is that of

> > > differing backgrounds...the 'biologists' and 'scientists' (see

> > > Synthetic Biology http://syntheticbiology.org/

> <http://syntheticbiology.org/> ), who are using

> > > definitions 1 and 2, vs. the average 'lay-person' who is coming to

> > > this board for usable information, who is using definition 3.

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I think you'll find I'm not one to hold grudges. I also make it a

point to always try to find something good in everyone. I have no

desire to revive the past...and, as I said, my 'first impression' was

blanket statements...you've been supporting your arguments quite well

lately (there were just too many posts between the thyroid boards I

joined for me to go back). Without taking the time to go back and see

what your posts were like before I came (time is a precious commodity

for the next week and a half), I have no way of knowing if my first

impression was based on an unusual aberration on your part, or if it

was your 'norm'.

My managers always told me my very best quality was that I had 'high

expectations' of my co-workers, which I lived up to myself, and

although they didn't understand why, as a result, my co-workers ended

up learning to live up to too...this at my annual reviews, which

contributed nicely to my raises! ;-) So...maybe I've somehow been a

positive influence...maybe not. Either way, I don't allow myself to

judge solely on first impressions.

For the future, if you don't support a statement, and I don't know

where you are getting the information to base that statement on,

unless you've clarified up front that it is 'your opinion', rest

assured, I will ask for you to back it up.

Regarding the molecular structure...see the thread I started 'So Much

for Bio-'equivalent'.' So far, Chuck and I have been having a

discussion there...beware...after my initial post (a link to begin the

discussion, along with a pasted definition from a link defining

information on the chart). This may help to clarify some of what

neither one of us fully understands...and if necessary, we can come

back to this thread to address anything that gets missed.

I'll send you a private message tomorrow, if I get finished what I

started to write by then...an 'about me'...a little more than I care

to have published here, especially all in one place. After-all, I

hope to get well enough to go back to work someday, so I sure don't

want my medical history to interfere with that! ;-)

[Guest guest]

Yeah...me too...I much prefer formats that allow you to see the

thread, at least a whole page of the thread. I do sometimes use

multiple tabs so I can switch back and forth. Also, I've found that

if I arrow back, without clicking on anything, I can arrow back to the

post I am writing and have everything I've already written still be

there...that helps a little.

>

>

>

> I am used to posting on boards that are on the same page as

me--that is not the case here. also often I don't have time to

elaborate. like now.

>

> Gracia

[Guest guest]

see below...

>

> > ...from that, I would have been able to compare the molecular

structure

> > diagrams of synthetic T4 to those of natural T4 and , synthetic T3 to

> > natural T3...are you telling me that they don't have this

> > somewhere?...

>

> A basic endocrinology text would show the molecular structures of

the natural hormones, which you can then compare with those on the

manufacturers' patient inserts. Perhaps I can save you some time,

though, by telling you again that they are exactly the same.

Not that I don't believe you Chuck, but I really would like to see for

myself...I would also, be able to save the proof on my computer and

have it readily available to show someone else if need be. I cannot

just tell someone...'Chuck's a scientist and he said so...'

Unfortunately, I haven't had any luck so far in finding anything

online that shows the molecular structure...only statements to this

effect...

> >

> > I realize that...however, it is the 'active ingredients' in that

> > glandular tissue that is at issue here...we don't discredit synthetic

> > hormones because of the mechanisms (other ingredients) used to

> > transport them...

>

> Exactly.

I see I dropped the rest of my thought...that neither should we

discredit glandular tissues' 'active ingredients'...but you got my point!

> > If taken sub lingually, or better yet, brachia (between the gum and

> > teeth), as we do, it is absorbed directly into the blood as is

> > intended for thyroid hormones produced by our bodies...

>

> Well, we have had some disagreement about this, and no one has found

any credible studies one way or the other. The question is whether

some fraction of the hormones escape the mouth and end up being

absorbed in the intestines anyway. If that is correct, then you should

still avoid food or coffee for awhile after taking it, to make sure as

much as possible gets absorbed.

I can only speak for myself, but when I was taking it in the morning,

I did it first thing...then poured my cup of java and since it's very

hot, usually let it cool for 15-30 minutes while I packed DH's lunch

for work...on weekends, when he wasn't working, I didn't even make

coffee until after I already had it dissolving in my mouth...so the

time was longer yet. About 10 days ago, I switched to taking it last

thing before I go to bed...so at most, I come in contact with water.

Either way, and even when I was on synthetic, there was/is no getting

around all the other prescription meds I'm on.

> Of course, if you just want the T3 from Armour, or if you can get an

arbitrary supply, that doesn't make any difference.

>

> Chuck

Personally, I really want the calcitonin!...in addition to the T3; I

am feeling better since I switched to taking it at bedtime though,

even though I'm not quite sure what the difference is; I'm feeling

more alert, coherent, and clear headed.

[Guest guest]

Hi, . There seems to be a bit of confusion. And before I try

again to explain a bit of it please let me say I'm NOT trying to insult you.

>

> Posted by: " cindy.seeley " cindy.seeley@...

>

<mailto:cindy.seeley@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20BIOIDENTICAL%20T4%2E%20%20WAS%\

3A%20Brain%20Swelling>

> cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley>

>

>

> Sun Dec 7, 2008 7:18 pm (PST)

>

> see responses below...

>

>

> > >

> > >... I've been trying to find a diagram of the molecular structure of

> > > Armour, but so far to no avail. I have however found a diagram of

> > > Synthroid (T4)...but I digress!...

> >

> > Armour is tissue. It is made of a complex mixture of compounds and

> > hormones. T4 is one of the hormones in that mix. The molecular diagrams

> > for Synthroid and the T4 in a healthy human thyroid are identical. They

> > are perfectly identical. However, the DNA and proteins in the Armour

> > tissues are from pigs.

>

> I agree, but given that chemistry is a 'scientific' field, and my

> background is in another 'scientific' field, I expected to be able to

> find the equivalent of a 'schematic' that would break down to more

> schematics of specific parts of the 'big, over-all' schematic...from

> that, I would have been able to compare the molecular structure

> diagrams of synthetic T4 to those of natural T4 and , synthetic T3 to

> natural T3...are you telling me that they don't have this

> somewhere?...if not, how can they possibly say they are 'bio-' anything???

..

..

Let me put it this way: If the T4 in Synthroid were a 470k resistor

then the T4 in Armour would also be a 470k resistor; and the T4 made by

your thyroid gland would be a 470k resistor. One minor exception: they

all have 100% accuracy. They would all be 1/2 watt [or whatever], and

all would be identical in composition and in every respect. And once

you isolate one of the buggers you can't tell whether is was in a

pre-amp, mixer, or oscillator; as they're ALL IDENTICAL. Of course you

can't get resistors like that; but that's how _ALL_ T4 is composed.

Another flaw in the analogy: If you cut a 470k resistor in half you have

two halves of a 470k resistor. If you could cut a T4 molecule in half

you would not have two halves of a T4 molecule. I think...

The same thing is true for T3. Both T4 and T3 are molecules, and if you

break them down then they are no longer T4 or T3. Since the " natural "

and " synthetic " T4 molecules are identical it's rather pointless to try

to compare them. It's like comparing the schematics of two identical

470k resistors.

I know this explanation is a bit clumsy but I've smoke tested a few

circuits too! [ggg] BBROYGBVGW [body-tip-spot?]

..

..

>

> >

> > > ... 'dessicated thyroid hormone'.

> >

> > This is a misnomer. Armour is dessicated thyroid _glands_, not hormone.

> > The porcine tissue happens to contain hormones, but it is not

> equivalent

> > to a " hormone. "

>

> I realize that...however, it is the 'active ingredients' in that

> glandular tissue that is at issue here...we don't discredit synthetic

> hormones because of the mechanisms (other ingredients) used to

> transport them...

>

> >

> > > ...Our thyroids produce T4, T3, T2, T1 and calcitonin, even if

> > > some of it is in minuscule amounts....

> >

> > Armour contains a higher percentage of T3 than our glands ever produce.

>

> I agree!...which is one of the benefits for those of us who don't

> convert T4 properly...

>

> > When that is combined with the completely unnatural process of

> acquiring

> > these hormones through our small intestines instead of directly into

> the

> > blood from a thyroid gland, you get an even more exaggerated dose of

> T3,

>

> If taken sub lingually, or better yet, brachia (between the gum and

> teeth), as we do, it is absorbed directly into the blood as is

> intended for thyroid hormones produced by our bodies...OTOH, synthetic

> is swallowed...as you've so rightly pointed out, absorbed through the

> small intestines...hmmm...I wonder if that isn't part of the reason so

> many that give 'dessicated thyroid gland'--only for you Chuck ;-) --a

> try, have so much more success with it; mind you, I did not say All.

..

..

What scant information I've seen suggests that products taken sub

lingually mostly enter the digestive tract through mixing with saliva

and being swallowed. And, yes, I'm aware those who advocate that

process swear it's not true. I don't know.

..

..

>

> > since you only absorb about 80% of the T4 (much less with food), but

> you

> > always get 95% of the T3. That makes Armour a mostly T3 medication.

> >

> > How natural is that?

>

> My point isn't about 'natural' here...it's about what's missing...some

> thyroid patients' inabilities to convert and for women especially, the

> lack of calcitonin that is only produced by the thyroid.

>

> >

> > T2 and T1 are the natural metabolic byproducts of the deiodization of

> > T4, T3, and RT3. In other words, every molecule of T4 you take ends up

> > as T2 and then T1. Our bodies do make them from the T4.

>

> I understand this process of the removal of molecules from the atoms

> in the breakdown of T4, but I don't know that everyone else

> does...that's another one of those 'science' or more specifically,

..

..

, that statement hopelessly mixes up the characteristics of

molecules and atoms. Did you just mis-type here???

..

..

> 'chemistry' lessons...anyway, this goes back to the conversion

> process...which some of us have a problem with not happening...it's

> another stage in the endocrine process, performed by a different

> gland...IIRC.

>

> > In fact, if you needed T2 or T1 for something, your body would not

> > be so quick to

> > degrade it further and eliminate it.

> >

> > Chuck

> >

>

> >From what I've read (it seems there is very very little info available

> regarding T2 & T1), I'm not so quick to jump to the conclusion that

> our bodies are 'quick to degrade it further and eliminate it.' By the

> time we take away from the original T4 or T3, what is necessary for

> other processes (which apparently remove all the molecules--I may be

> wrong; it's been known to happen on more than one occasion), it seems

> there is likely little, if any (particularly in those of us who are

> already 'thyroid hormone deficient', left to have only 2 molecules

> (T2) or 3 molecules (T1) for our bodies to use...

>

..

..

What I've read tends to equate T2 and T1 to urine or feces: What is

left after we remove whatever we can use. Waste products. But I'm

certainly not sure.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

see responses below...I'll try to be coherent, but I've got a

headache, I think 'cause I only slept 2 hours last night... :-(

>

> Hi, . There seems to be a bit of confusion. And before I try

> again to explain a bit of it please let me say I'm NOT trying to

insult you.

>

> >

> > Posted by: " cindy.seeley " cindy.seeley@...

> >

<mailto:cindy.seeley@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20BIOIDENTICAL%20T4%2E%20%20WAS%3A%20B\

rain%20Swelling>

> > cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley>

> >

> >

> > Sun Dec 7, 2008 7:18 pm (PST)

....

> > I agree, but given that chemistry is a 'scientific' field, and my

> > background is in another 'scientific' field, I expected to be able to

> > find the equivalent of a 'schematic' that would break down to more

> > schematics of specific parts of the 'big, over-all' schematic...from

> > that, I would have been able to compare the molecular structure

> > diagrams of synthetic T4 to those of natural T4 and , synthetic T3 to

> > natural T3...are you telling me that they don't have this

> > somewhere?...if not, how can they possibly say they are 'bio-'

anything???

> .

> .

> Let me put it this way: If the T4 in Synthroid were a 470k resistor

> then the T4 in Armour would also be a 470k resistor; and the T4 made by

> your thyroid gland would be a 470k resistor. One minor exception: they

> all have 100% accuracy. They would all be 1/2 watt [or whatever], and

> all would be identical in composition and in every respect. And once

> you isolate one of the buggers you can't tell whether is was in a

> pre-amp, mixer, or oscillator; as they're ALL IDENTICAL. Of course you

> can't get resistors like that; but that's how _ALL_ T4 is composed.

>

> Another flaw in the analogy: If you cut a 470k resistor in half you

have

> two halves of a 470k resistor.

both halves, of which, would be absolutely useless...open circuit

material...

the flaw in your analogy is that on the schematics of the mixer,

oscillator and pre-amp, there is no BOM, so you have no way of knowing

that those 470K resistors are actually the same...whether 1 is a

leaded, 1 a SMD, and in some cases, a 470K potentiometer. It's only

once you are able to compare BOMs that you are able to verify they are

actually the same...by the part number...(as compared to a diagram of

molecular structure)...The scientists that 'claim' they have created

an identical molecule, had to have a molecular diagram, or something

to go by, to verify they truly had created that identical molecule...

> If you could cut a T4 molecule in half

> you would not have two halves of a T4 molecule. I think...

Well, not exactly, but you would have 2 T2 molecules...if evenly

divided...unevenly divided would yield 1 T3 molecule and 1 T1 molecule...

>

> The same thing is true for T3. Both T4 and T3 are molecules, and if

you

> break them down then they are no longer T4 or T3.

From my understanding, the breakdown is suppose to occur by the

removal of 1 molecule at a time from one process to another, but given

that we are breaking down molecules rather than using molecules, the

breakdown of 1 T3 molecule (division--not consumption of power), would

be 1 T2 molecule and 1 T1 molecule.

Since the " natural "

> and " synthetic " T4 molecules are identical it's rather pointless to try

> to compare them. It's like comparing the schematics of two identical

> 470k resistors.

Then why don't 'all' dosages of 'all' the synthetic manufacturers have

their Reference Listed Drug (RLD) designations yet? Instead, it's

sporadic from one manufacturer to the next, and within manufacturer's

product lines (aka dosages), from one product to the next...

> I know this explanation is a bit clumsy but I've smoke tested a few

> circuits too! [ggg] BBROYGBVGW [body-tip-spot?]

lol...you mean you let the smoke get out of the capacitor...?! 8-)

> .

> .

> >

> > >

> > > > ... 'dessicated thyroid hormone'.

> > >

> > > This is a misnomer. Armour is dessicated thyroid _glands_, not

hormone.

> > > The porcine tissue happens to contain hormones, but it is not

> > equivalent

> > > to a " hormone. "

> >

> > I realize that...however, it is the 'active ingredients' in that

> > glandular tissue that is at issue here...we don't discredit synthetic

> > hormones because of the mechanisms (other ingredients) used to

> > transport them...

> >

> > >

> > > > ...Our thyroids produce T4, T3, T2, T1 and calcitonin, even if

> > > > some of it is in minuscule amounts....

> > >

> > > Armour contains a higher percentage of T3 than our glands ever

produce.

> >

> > I agree!...which is one of the benefits for those of us who don't

> > convert T4 properly...

> >

> > > When that is combined with the completely unnatural process of

> > acquiring

> > > these hormones through our small intestines instead of directly into

> > the

> > > blood from a thyroid gland, you get an even more exaggerated dose of

> > T3,

> >

> > If taken sub lingually, or better yet, brachia (between the gum and

> > teeth), as we do, it is absorbed directly into the blood as is

> > intended for thyroid hormones produced by our bodies...OTOH, synthetic

> > is swallowed...as you've so rightly pointed out, absorbed through the

> > small intestines...hmmm...I wonder if that isn't part of the reason so

> > many that give 'dessicated thyroid gland'--only for you Chuck ;-) --a

> > try, have so much more success with it; mind you, I did not say All.

> .

> .

> What scant information I've seen suggests that products taken sub

> lingually mostly enter the digestive tract through mixing with saliva

> and being swallowed. And, yes, I'm aware those who advocate that

> process swear it's not true. I don't know.

I have no means of proving or disproving...I do know from my own

experience that my TSH went back down a little, for several months,

when I switched from oral to sublingual...I don't expect to see a

decline since switching to brachyia as I know that my TSH has been

approaching closer and closer to the dang upper limits of the lab's

obsolete window the past year... :-(

> > > since you only absorb about 80% of the T4 (much less with food), but

> > you

> > > always get 95% of the T3. That makes Armour a mostly T3 medication.

> > >

> > > How natural is that?

> >

> > My point isn't about 'natural' here...it's about what's missing...some

> > thyroid patients' inabilities to convert and for women especially, the

> > lack of calcitonin that is only produced by the thyroid.

> >

> > >

> > > T2 and T1 are the natural metabolic byproducts of the

deiodization of

> > > T4, T3, and RT3. In other words, every molecule of T4 you take

ends up

> > > as T2 and then T1. Our bodies do make them from the T4.

> >

> > I understand this process of the removal of molecules from the atoms

> > in the breakdown of T4, but I don't know that everyone else

> > does...that's another one of those 'science' or more specifically,

> .

> .

> , that statement hopelessly mixes up the characteristics of

> molecules and atoms. Did you just mis-type here???

Yes, I was thinking about atoms breaking apart (protons and neutrons)

and typed atoms...then cleared it out...and obviously retyped it again

afterwards. T4 is 4 molecules, the conversion process to T3 should

happen by the removal of 1 molecule, yielding a product with 3

molecules known as T3...etc.

Something that seems to be overlooked, in the discussion of the

'molecular structure' is that a molecule is defined in chemistry as at

least two atoms held together by a chemical bond...so even in this,

the synthetic diagrams only break T4 & T3 down to a molecular level,

but fail (from what I've found so far) to break either of them down to

an atomic level... Where's this data reference?

> > 'chemistry' lessons...anyway, this goes back to the conversion

> > process...which some of us have a problem with not happening...it's

> > another stage in the endocrine process, performed by a different

> > gland...IIRC.

> >

> > > In fact, if you needed T2 or T1 for something, your body would not

> > > be so quick to

> > > degrade it further and eliminate it.

> > >

> > > Chuck

> > >

> >

> > >From what I've read (it seems there is very very little info

available

> > regarding T2 & T1), I'm not so quick to jump to the conclusion that

> > our bodies are 'quick to degrade it further and eliminate it.' By the

> > time we take away from the original T4 or T3, what is necessary for

> > other processes (which apparently remove all the molecules--I may be

> > wrong; it's been known to happen on more than one occasion), it seems

> > there is likely little, if any (particularly in those of us who are

> > already 'thyroid hormone deficient', left to have only 2 molecules

> > (T2) or 3 molecules (T1) for our bodies to use...

> >

> .

> .

> What I've read tends to equate T2 and T1 to urine or feces: What is

> left after we remove whatever we can use. Waste products. But I'm

> certainly not sure.

What I've read has indicated nothing of the kinds...although it hasn't

been determined what else they do, they are thought...

T2 -- to have something to do with producing the enzyme that converts

T4 to T3; and affect metabolism, which would also help to burn fat

T1 -- to help in keeping the thyroid in check and to influence the heart

You didn't mention calcitonin; it is thought to help rebuild bones,

protect teeth and somehow works with how our body utilizes calcium

without removing it from those structures...IIRC.

> Regards,

>

>

I don't think I missed any...the arrow thingys are beginning to run

together...

G'night...I'm taking myself off to bed to try to make up for some of

the sleep I didn't get last night...and hope this ice storm has

changed over to snow sooner rather than the later predicted by the

forecast...