Guest guest Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 More studying of for the value of T3 is not needed as bad as knowing that T3 does not work for everybody. Why? According to Sir Karl Popper's widely accepted philosophy on science, a science must first be testable and second must not have any counterexamples. In otherwords, it must be falsifiable but not falsified. So where does that leave studies? If these studies falsify the endocrinology paradigm, they are only useful in these days of providing court evidence in courts that adhere to the Popper inspired Daubert Rule. While the US federal courts do and many state courts do, the UK is not one yet. After those arenas, we are left with the old Frey rule or " general concensus, " which medicine uses still to this day. The Daubert Rule was created by the US Supreme Court to not allow evidence of junk science. However, medicine still allows junk science. Consequently, corrupted influential physicians can get junk science approved by " general concensus " whereas it would fail under closer scrutiny of the Daubert Rule. What is really necessary is counterexamples who are willing to testify to their poor experience with T4-only and good experience with T3. And then, the studies will have a chance. Otherwise, like Dr. Marshall Goldberg's paper on Euthyroid Hypometabolism, they will be swept under the corrupt rug. Have a great day, 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.