Re: SOLICITOR'S RESPONSE TO MY CASE. CAN ANYONE HELP ON HOW TO PROCEED?

November 28, 2011

I would be extremely grateful if anyone could advise on how to move forward.

If you translate this, the solicitor is actually saying:

1. I don't understand all this - it is completely beyond me

2. It is too risky for me to take on

3. If you first had your suspicions in 2008, it's probably too late anyway

4. I'm not going to help you find someone else to take it on

If you are determined to pursue this then you might contact www.apil.org.uk to

see if they can recommend someone in your area to talk to, but the limitation

point is always going to be a concern.

D

November 28, 2011

Thank you for responding, Sheila. I became bedridden and housebound in 2008 but was not officially diagnosed until mid 2010. I was originally told I may have Sjogren's Syndrome or CFS/ME. My GPs did not believe the diagnosis from my first endo and it was only when I saw another endocrinologist on Sheila's list mid 2011, that my condition was finally included in my medical notes. I started self medicating only on 1 january this year as I was becoming increasingly T4 toxic from levothyroxine and I was near death. My endo at the time refused to change my dose and instead, wrote to my GPs and told them that I needed a psychiatrist as I had started self medicating. I was diagnosed as a "Hypochodriasis".My new endo will not increase my T3 above 60mcg when I cannot function on less than 125/130mcg T3, and so I am forced to continue to fund my own medication when I cannot afford to, and am worried what will happen when I can no longer do so.Yes, he does admit that this is out of his remit and he is not a specialist on thyroid issues but, having spoken to him, he honestly doesn't know anyone he can refer me to as this also involves the BTA and RCP. He has already taken up many hours going through everything I sent him and time is money!I do still have a year to get this case to court providing there is a solicitor who will take this on. Thank you for the link but this is not personal injury; it is medical negligence and defamation.He mentions a public interest argument... "it may be possible to construct a public interest argument that would allow you to obtain funding from the Legal Services Commission (Legal Aid) to investigate your claim."... and it is this that I am hoping that someone on this site will have some knowledge of, or know of solicitors who could help or may be interested.Jacquie x__________________thyroid treatment , "Sheila" <dollymedlock@...> wrote:>> I would be extremely grateful if anyone could advise on how to move forward. > > If you translate this, the solicitor is actually saying:> > 1. I don't understand all this - it is completely beyond me> 2. It is too risky for me to take on> 3. If you first had your suspicions in 2008, it's probably too late anyway> 4. I'm not going to help you find someone else to take it on> > If you are determined to pursue this then you might contact www.apil.org.uk to see if they can recommend someone in your area to talk to, but the limitation point is always going to be a concern.> > D>

November 28, 2011

HI JAQUIE

I have had the same experiance, and one solicitor was interested and instructed

me to send her my health records and having read them gave an excuse, and by the

time I was given her reasons for not taking my case on it was too late to do

anything else.

It is the same all round including the Health Ombudsman, and regarding a GP who

caused a lot of harm with drugs to me, and I complained at the time and a

Solicitor said much the same as you have received (not enough evidence and too

complicated). I approached the same firm on gaining evidense and was then told

(sorry but its too late).

With the health Ombudsman he instructed me after a lengthy time to write a

formal complaint to the GP concerned,, but guess what, he had retired early at

the time I wrote to the Ombudsman. Many more months passed to be told by the

ombudsman that due to the time and the fact that the GP had retired he could not

investigate my case. I have to wonder how much money this GP was given to induce

him to retire.

I have found that as soon as ones case concerns anything renal, be it

Hypothyroidism or any other cause they will not take ones case on.

It was the same with the fall that I had on the bus.

ICAS have even declined to help with my present complaint.

I have reached the point where I would no longer trust a hospital for fear of

the untoward being done to me, the infection risk and would look into the side

effects of a drug with a fine toothcombe, and fortunatley we have the Internet

to help with this, as I have suffered enough with Doctors prescribing " willy

nilly " , and as for the diagnoses I have had " too many to mention and no proof " .

Personally and from my experiance you do not stand a chance with obtaining a

solicitor.

The tests that an Endochrinologist may order may well cause you to end up being

worse in anything is invasive, such as going into hospital for a start and

becomming very ill with an infection, or anything invasive can also cause you to

be worse causing an infection. You could then be given an antibiotic and end up

very ill with C-DIFF, and all I can say is " don't give them the chance " .

Kathleen

>

> Hi all

> I contacted a solicitor to take on my case against my Practice etc and

> have finally received a response from him. I would be extremely

> grateful if anyone could advise on how to move forward. He suggests...

> " Given the fact that there are issues regarding the provison of

> treatment for people suffering with thyroid complaints it may be

> possible to construct a public interest argument that would allow you to

> obtain funding from the Legal Services Commission (Legal Aid) to

> investigate your claim. Alternatively, a solicitors practice with more

> experience of dealing with thyroid issues may take your claim on on a

> 'No win, no fee' basis. "

> How would I go about constructing a public interest argument OR find

> solicitors who have experience of dealing with thyroid issues? Anyone

> know? Any help would be so appreciated.

> Below is his response to my complaint against my GP Practice and the 5

> GP statements they made in response to my complaint, as well as other

> correspondence and scientific evidence I sent to him:

> Jacquie x

>

November 28, 2011

I have erased most of the previous message/s. Please try and remember to do

this before replying to messages.

Thanks

Moderator

Dear Jacquie and All,

The analysis of the problem shows a second step that is nominally hidden and not

considered. Once your TSH has been normalized by T4 then, according to the

Royal College of Physicians, you effectively do not have hypothyroidism any

more. At this point the problem of diagnostics must begin again. And those

diagnostics fail because the physician does not consider the physiology, known

to science, that is functionally between the thyroid gland and the symptom

producing cells is ignored and not tested.

And please note that the delayed or missing diagnosis of cancer is a huge tort

issue.

Deficiencies in this post thyroid physiology reduce the importance of the

thyroid gland tests.

Since the TSH has been normalized, then the guidelines and/or statements on

hypothyroidism no longer apply. Indeed, there is a known mimic to

hypothyroidism known as euthyroid hypometabolism. Euthyroid (your thyroid is

ok) hypometabolism (you are dragging about anyway) requires a T3 therapy,

nominally Cytomel or Cynomel or equivalent. Dr. Marshall Goldberg did two

papers on this circa 1960. But today, his diagnostic methods are dismissed and

ignored.

Since your solicitor is undoubtedly interested in the tort mantra, " knew or

should have known " , please note the following other issues.

In 1947 Drs. Kirk and Kvorning noted that not all patients were properly cared

for on T4 only.

In 1954 Dr. Means verified their observation.

In the 50's and 60's euthyroid hypometabolism was being considered, but modern

medicine ignores that work because it did not conform to modern and very

expensive forms of proof, which by the way, are no guarantee of truth and

reality.

Circa 1970, Drs. Braverman and Refetoff and their staffs discovered the

physiology in question.

Circa 2001, Drs. Baisier, Hertoghe, and Eeckhaut disclosed their investigation

of the failures of endocrinology and eventually successfully treated them with

desiccated thyroid, the oldest thyroid related therapy.

Medicine dismisses counterexamples in spite of all sciences, including medicine,

operating with inductive logic, which is inherently subject to counterexamples.

TPA has a registry of patient counterexamples. There are probably plenty in

your area who are willing to testify to their experiences of suffering and

regaining their active, attractive lives through medications which are

proscribed by endocrinology.

If your solicitor needs some help, I have been studying this problem for the

past eight years, mostly on the relevant law, albeit American Law. My email is

ekpritchard@... . I also may be considered an expert because of my

studies and because I have a published peer-reviewed paper on a facet of this

subject. It has the very medical name of " The Linguistic Etiologies of

Thyroxine-Resistant Hypothyroidism. " It says that if endocrinology were precise

in its descriptions, in either of the two ways that it could be, then there

would be no problem getting proper treatment.

And your solicitor is right in one aspect. This is a public case as there are

an estimated quarter million UK citizens with this problem.

I am also preparing a detailed case description, complete with citations to

medical papers and case law, under US law that addresses the various facets of

this case. However, in UK law, those issues are only torts and human rights,

mostly torts. I believe that with the common root in law and psychology between

the countries, there should be similar cases in the UK, and if not, the

arguments within the US cases should work there too.

By the way, the solicitor could make a fortune on this case if it were extended

to all of the UK and further extended internationally. The damages would

bankrupt most countries.

Have a better day, Pritchard.