Re: The paper we all want to read

[Guest guest]

Hello jeneric46324,

Saturday, August 21, 2004, 6:24:22 PM, you wrote:

j> Found it. There is no abstract so it will cost about $30 -$40 to get

j> it online, will be interested to see what it says though.

You may access and print this article (from the computer you are currently

using) for 24 hours for US$12.

--

Best regards,

Alison

http://www.alisonashwell.com

mailto:alison.ashwell@...

new work uploaded

http://www.artwanted.com/alisonashwell

[Guest guest]

Sorry for the mis-information, usually research papers are in that

price range. Are you going to get it?

>

> j> Found it. There is no abstract so it will cost about $30 -$40

to get

> j> it online, will be interested to see what it says though.

>

> You may access and print this article (from the computer you are

currently using) for 24 hours for US$12.

>

>

> --

> Best regards,

> Alison

> http://www.alisonashwell.com

mailto:alison.ashwell@w...

> new work uploaded

> http://www.artwanted.com/alisonashwell

[Guest guest]

Lichten's JAMA paper I can read and comment on in a few days. By

being this current of a report, having no abstract swings close to

it being an actual communist plot: not that it's still in the

bindery, but that you pay for abstracts before you get the article.

Bribing the officials, the border guards, etc. Is this an experiment

to see how far people will go to adopt to absurdity?

CH

> >

> > j> Found it. There is no abstract so it will cost about $30 -

$40

> to get

> > j> it online, will be interested to see what it says though.

> >

> > You may access and print this article (from the computer you

are

> currently using) for 24 hours for US$12.

> >

> >

> > --

> > Best regards,

> > Alison

> > http://www.alisonashwell.com

> mailto:alison.ashwell@w...

> > new work uploaded

> > http://www.artwanted.com/alisonashwell

[Guest guest]

All,

I have both the letter(Lichten) and the article (Clyde) in my hands

in hardcopy. There's just one problem: I must find something to eat,

etc. It will be a few hours before posting.

CH

>

>

> j> Sorry for the mis-information, usually research papers are in

that

> j> price range. Are you going to get it?

>

> no- it seems to be a letter to the editor talking about the

article by

> Clyde et all in 2203 -see table of contents here

>

> http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/vol291/issue12/index.dtl

>

>

> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/291/12/1445

> Synthetic Thyroxine vs Dessicated Thyroid

> To the Editor: Dr Clyde and colleagues1 concluded that treatment

of primary hypothyroidism with combination levothyroxine plus

liothyronine was not superior to levothyroxine alone in terms of

body weight, serum lipid levels, hypothyroid symptoms, or cognitive

performance. Although Clyde et al recommend that patients should be

treated with synthetic thyroid on the basis of cost, natural

desiccated thyroid is considerably less expensive. Thus, perhaps

this would be the most rational treatment choice.

>

> M. Lichten, MD

> EML@u...

> Detroit, Mich

>

> 1. Clyde PW, Harari AE, Getka EJ, Shakir KMM. Combined

levothyroxine plus liothyronine compared with levothyroxine alone in

primary hypothyroidism: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA.

2003;290:2952-2958. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT

>

> Letters Section Editor: J. Lurie, MD, PhD, Senior Editor.

>

> JAMA. 2004;291:1445.

> reply from clyde et al:

> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/291/12/1445-a

> you only get a bit of this letter

>

> Dr Lichten seems to be an anti-aging Dr

http://www.usdoctor.com/intro.htm

> --

>

> BTW It seems the JMA has a guest registration that gives free

access

> to 5 years of articles once they are six months old

>

> Best regards,

> Alison

> http://www.alisonashwell.com

mailto:alison.ashwell@w...

> new work uploaded

> http://www.artwanted.com/alisonashwell

[Guest guest]

Alison,

No, the letter is misleading. At least the letter you just posted.

It is putting words in the mouth of Dr. Clyde et al. Clyde's et al

actual letter to JAMA states: 'We did not assess the efficacy of

dessicated thyroid or the cost effectiveness of different thyroid

hormone preparations.'

>

> s> All,

>

> s> I have both the letter(Lichten) and the article (Clyde) in my

hands

> s> in hardcopy.

>

> i copied the letter earlier : it was Dr Lichten recommending the

use of desiccated

> thyroid instead of artificial T4 and T3 if Clyde et al were worried

> about the cost to patients and insurance companies of adopting a

> T4+T3 regimen.

> clyde et all seemed reply that then patients would find multi

dosing a

> problem since the t3 they were using was time release. Do you have

> their full reply?

>

> --

> Best regards,

> Alison

> http://www.alisonashwell.com

mailto:alison.ashwell@w...

> new work uploaded

> http://www.artwanted.com/alisonashwell

[Guest guest]

How can they say that T4 comes closer to creating proper

physiological levels of T3 than anything? There are mountains of

older studies that say this is not true. I think there is some

finigling going on in this research. I can't count the number of

studies I've looked at from the present day all the way back to the

1960s where it was found that T4 only treatment usually resulted in

T3 levels below the midline of the range and T4 levels at the high

end. Physicians first were not pleased with Synthroid because it did

not produce as normal blood hormone profiles as Armour. What I'm

wondering is how they came up with something so different than

numberous other researchers before them did. What did they consider

normal T3 - just inside the range at the bottom? They never

mentioned that T4 levels were high with respect to T3. Just a

fudging here on what the meaning of " normal " is.

When T4 goes out of balance with respect to T3, Energy processes are

slowed according to some research, not to mention that T4 is more

suppressive of TSH than T3. A person can have TSH suppressed into

the normal range at quite low doses of thryoid. There is a large

range of thryoid replacement levels that keep TSH in the normal

range. I believe that this has to do with the body's adaptive

capabilities. In other words if you have a little too little

thyroid, the body will restrict it from various tissues in order to

keep blood levels normal as a way to make sure more important

tissues, like the heart, get enough thryoid to function properly.

So, the people in their study could for the most part be on quite

low doses such as 2 grains of armour and less than 200 mcg of

Synthroid and have their TSHs all be in the right place. But, the

majority could still feel like dog doo since it was not being

adjusted by symptoms. Why else would they make the comment that some

may need to have TSH suppressed to the low end to feel good. This

actually has been found in many studies with T4 dating back to when

it was first used. TSH must be suppressed quite low for patients to

get the most relief from symptoms. In the 1970's they found that to

be 300 to 400 mcg.

If there was truely merit to their study, I hardly think that so

many newsgroups related to Armour and other natural thyroid medicine

treatments would exist. Just in my own family, where all of us are

on Thryoid treatment, I can say with confidence that my 3 sisters

and mother who are on Synthroid are hardly doing as well as I am.

They are all grosly overweight (I am not overweight) and have many

health problems, which I do not have. I know that isn't scientific,

but it is enough to cast some real doubt on these guy's research.

You can make make any research show what you want it to. Great

distortions are done in scientific research, which are so often

based on biases and preconcieved ideas of the researchers. They

often look at very intertwoven and complex things in such narrow

isolation as to make the results of so much research today a

meaningless distortion of reality. After all if we believed it all

we would all be eating nothing but soy, taking cholesterol and blood

pressure lowering medications, using HRT, and avoiding every fat

known to man. This is just one tiny study in a mountain of others

that would seem to contradict it.

Tish

[Guest guest]

As for raw liver, the Eskimos will not eat polar bear liver, it is

poisonous.

> Hello ,

> They used these customs to energize

> MS> themselves and to get over sicknesses. These were routine

customs to

> MS> consume these things daily, I believe. Wish I could remember

where I saw

> MS> that. Of course, they ate them completely raw also.

>

> i'm sure that folk would

> have found by chance that eating thyroids were useful medically.

Raw

> liver used to be reserved for pregnant women or lactating women in

> some cultures

>

> --

> Best regards,

> Alison

> http://www.alisonashwell.com

mailto:alison.ashwell@w...

> new work uploaded

> http://www.artwanted.com/alisonashwell

[Guest guest]

Tish,

I'm only passing on what seemed to be a study others wanted to read.

I have no investment pro or con, because 1) I have no

emotional/physiological investment in thyroid diseases 2) I believe

that the human system cannot tell the differencce between natural

and synthetic, just as in fertilizers for plants: it's the exact

same molecule, natural or man-made 3)There may be so many variables

as each patient is unique 4) it may not be because some studies are

deliberately trying to skew the results, they simply don't know

enough about each unique physiology, and more profoundly, way too

little about receptors and their functioning vs. genetic mutations,

deleted sequences of nucleotides, enzyme anomalies, etc.

CH

> How can they say that T4 comes closer to creating proper

> physiological levels of T3 than anything? There are mountains of

> older studies that say this is not true. I think there is some

> finigling going on in this research. I can't count the number of

> studies I've looked at from the present day all the way back to

the

> 1960s where it was found that T4 only treatment usually resulted

in

> T3 levels below the midline of the range and T4 levels at the high

> end. Physicians first were not pleased with Synthroid because it

did

> not produce as normal blood hormone profiles as Armour. What I'm

> wondering is how they came up with something so different than

> numberous other researchers before them did. What did they

consider

> normal T3 - just inside the range at the bottom? They never

> mentioned that T4 levels were high with respect to T3. Just a

> fudging here on what the meaning of " normal " is.

>

> When T4 goes out of balance with respect to T3, Energy processes

are

> slowed according to some research, not to mention that T4 is more

> suppressive of TSH than T3. A person can have TSH suppressed into

> the normal range at quite low doses of thryoid. There is a large

> range of thryoid replacement levels that keep TSH in the normal

> range. I believe that this has to do with the body's adaptive

> capabilities. In other words if you have a little too little

> thyroid, the body will restrict it from various tissues in order

to

> keep blood levels normal as a way to make sure more important

> tissues, like the heart, get enough thryoid to function properly.

> So, the people in their study could for the most part be on quite

> low doses such as 2 grains of armour and less than 200 mcg of

> Synthroid and have their TSHs all be in the right place. But, the

> majority could still feel like dog doo since it was not being

> adjusted by symptoms. Why else would they make the comment that

some

> may need to have TSH suppressed to the low end to feel good. This

> actually has been found in many studies with T4 dating back to

when

> it was first used. TSH must be suppressed quite low for patients

to

> get the most relief from symptoms. In the 1970's they found that

to

> be 300 to 400 mcg.

>

> If there was truely merit to their study, I hardly think that so

> many newsgroups related to Armour and other natural thyroid

medicine

> treatments would exist. Just in my own family, where all of us are

> on Thryoid treatment, I can say with confidence that my 3 sisters

> and mother who are on Synthroid are hardly doing as well as I am.

> They are all grosly overweight (I am not overweight) and have many

> health problems, which I do not have. I know that isn't

scientific,

> but it is enough to cast some real doubt on these guy's research.

> You can make make any research show what you want it to. Great

> distortions are done in scientific research, which are so often

> based on biases and preconcieved ideas of the researchers. They

> often look at very intertwoven and complex things in such narrow

> isolation as to make the results of so much research today a

> meaningless distortion of reality. After all if we believed it all

> we would all be eating nothing but soy, taking cholesterol and

blood

> pressure lowering medications, using HRT, and avoiding every fat

> known to man. This is just one tiny study in a mountain of others

> that would seem to contradict it.

>

> Tish

[Guest guest]

Hello Alison,

And I'm saying that there are specific ethnic groups that forbids

some liver eating because of poisons. There are also some cultures

that forbid women in particular from the eating of organs, whether

or not they are poisonous, for instance, in Siberia (non-polar

bears). Vitamin A being stored in Polar bear liver is a geographical

phenomenon and these should not be left out of discussions about

organ eating.

Regards,

CH

>

>

>

> s> As for raw liver, the Eskimos will not eat polar bear liver, it

is

> s> poisonous.

>

> I said " Raw liver used to be reserved for pregnant women or

lactating

> women in some cultures " not *all* cultures

>

> Many arctic animals have toxic levels of vitamin A in their

liver . eg huskie liver is also poisonous due to vitamin A

> content -eating sled dog liver has killed some of the non-Inuit

explorers.

>

>

>

> --

> Best regards,

> Alison

> http://www.alisonashwell.com

mailto:alison.ashwell@w...

> new work uploaded

> http://www.artwanted.com/alisonashwell

[Guest guest]

Ever hear of D-thyroxine? A mirror image of the naturally occuring

molecule, it is in L-thyroxine. If you do enough searching you will

fimd that it is one of the drugs that is used to treat secondary

hyperthyroidism, it supress TSH with out really activating the

receptors in the body.

> > How can they say that T4 comes closer to creating proper

> > physiological levels of T3 than anything? There are mountains of

> > older studies that say this is not true. I think there is some

> > finigling going on in this research. I can't count the number of

> > studies I've looked at from the present day all the way back to

> the

> > 1960s where it was found that T4 only treatment usually resulted

> in

> > T3 levels below the midline of the range and T4 levels at the

high

> > end. Physicians first were not pleased with Synthroid because it

> did

> > not produce as normal blood hormone profiles as Armour. What I'm

> > wondering is how they came up with something so different than

> > numberous other researchers before them did. What did they

> consider

> > normal T3 - just inside the range at the bottom? They never

> > mentioned that T4 levels were high with respect to T3. Just a

> > fudging here on what the meaning of " normal " is.

> >

> > When T4 goes out of balance with respect to T3, Energy processes

> are

> > slowed according to some research, not to mention that T4 is more

> > suppressive of TSH than T3. A person can have TSH suppressed into

> > the normal range at quite low doses of thryoid. There is a large

> > range of thryoid replacement levels that keep TSH in the normal

> > range. I believe that this has to do with the body's adaptive

> > capabilities. In other words if you have a little too little

> > thyroid, the body will restrict it from various tissues in order

> to

> > keep blood levels normal as a way to make sure more important

> > tissues, like the heart, get enough thryoid to function properly.

> > So, the people in their study could for the most part be on quite

> > low doses such as 2 grains of armour and less than 200 mcg of

> > Synthroid and have their TSHs all be in the right place. But, the

> > majority could still feel like dog doo since it was not being

> > adjusted by symptoms. Why else would they make the comment that

> some

> > may need to have TSH suppressed to the low end to feel good. This

> > actually has been found in many studies with T4 dating back to

> when

> > it was first used. TSH must be suppressed quite low for patients

> to

> > get the most relief from symptoms. In the 1970's they found that

> to

> > be 300 to 400 mcg.

> >

> > If there was truely merit to their study, I hardly think that so

> > many newsgroups related to Armour and other natural thyroid

> medicine

> > treatments would exist. Just in my own family, where all of us

are

> > on Thryoid treatment, I can say with confidence that my 3 sisters

> > and mother who are on Synthroid are hardly doing as well as I am.

> > They are all grosly overweight (I am not overweight) and have

many

> > health problems, which I do not have. I know that isn't

> scientific,

> > but it is enough to cast some real doubt on these guy's research.

> > You can make make any research show what you want it to. Great

> > distortions are done in scientific research, which are so often

> > based on biases and preconcieved ideas of the researchers. They

> > often look at very intertwoven and complex things in such narrow

> > isolation as to make the results of so much research today a

> > meaningless distortion of reality. After all if we believed it

all

> > we would all be eating nothing but soy, taking cholesterol and

> blood

> > pressure lowering medications, using HRT, and avoiding every fat

> > known to man. This is just one tiny study in a mountain of others

> > that would seem to contradict it.

> >

> > Tish

[Guest guest]

> I have no investment pro or con, because 1) I have no

>emotional/physiological investment in thyroid diseases

Those of us who have thyroid disease have a huge

emotional/physiological investment in thyroid disease. And those of

us who have been on T4-only meds, and then on Armour, definitely

know the difference, no matter what studies and papers and research

says!!

Janie

[Guest guest]

Yuk!

> Hello solntsepyati,

>

> s> bears). Vitamin A being stored in Polar bear liver is a

geographical

> s> phenomenon and these should not be left out of discussions

about

> s> organ eating.

>

> A geographical phenomenon encompassed by 'arctic animals' in my

> previous post.

> It also applies to Antarctic animals - NB don't eat their livers -

you will

> die.

> I suppose i should also have mentioned that some European people

used

> to eat raw liver from kids [baby goats] and then drink highly

potent

> alcohol to kill liver parasites in case anyone here is bursting to

eat

> potentially parasite infested raw liver.....

>

>

>

>

> --

> Best regards,

> Alison

> http://www.alisonashwell.com

mailto:alison.ashwell@w...

> new work uploaded

> http://www.artwanted.com/alisonashwell

[Guest guest]

,

No, I haven't. This is reminiscent of Pasteur, who, one day while

passing a vat of corned beef, noticed a curious crystalized growth

on the lid. An investigation by him revealed that light had caused a

molecular change in the crystals to its mirror image, the dextro-

levrorotatory phenomenon. This is found in compounds from Chicory(a

study done in Rome, I think): the L-form is rare in nature, and had

potent effects against HIV-1. Nevertheless, the virus mutated just

one nucleotide, evading the compound's antiviral action. To further

ponder/marvel these things, see Pubmed for Cichorium[AND]intybus.

Regards,

CH

> > > How can they say that T4 comes closer to creating proper

> > > physiological levels of T3 than anything? There are mountains

of

> > > older studies that say this is not true. I think there is some

> > > finigling going on in this research. I can't count the number

of

> > > studies I've looked at from the present day all the way back

to

> > the

> > > 1960s where it was found that T4 only treatment usually

resulted

> > in

> > > T3 levels below the midline of the range and T4 levels at the

> high

> > > end. Physicians first were not pleased with Synthroid because

it

> > did

> > > not produce as normal blood hormone profiles as Armour. What

I'm

> > > wondering is how they came up with something so different than

> > > numberous other researchers before them did. What did they

> > consider

> > > normal T3 - just inside the range at the bottom? They never

> > > mentioned that T4 levels were high with respect to T3. Just a

> > > fudging here on what the meaning of " normal " is.

> > >

> > > When T4 goes out of balance with respect to T3, Energy

processes

> > are

> > > slowed according to some research, not to mention that T4 is

more

> > > suppressive of TSH than T3. A person can have TSH suppressed

into

> > > the normal range at quite low doses of thryoid. There is a

large

> > > range of thryoid replacement levels that keep TSH in the

normal

> > > range. I believe that this has to do with the body's adaptive

> > > capabilities. In other words if you have a little too little

> > > thyroid, the body will restrict it from various tissues in

order

> > to

> > > keep blood levels normal as a way to make sure more important

> > > tissues, like the heart, get enough thryoid to function

properly.

> > > So, the people in their study could for the most part be on

quite

> > > low doses such as 2 grains of armour and less than 200 mcg of

> > > Synthroid and have their TSHs all be in the right place. But,

the

> > > majority could still feel like dog doo since it was not being

> > > adjusted by symptoms. Why else would they make the comment

that

> > some

> > > may need to have TSH suppressed to the low end to feel good.

This

> > > actually has been found in many studies with T4 dating back to

> > when

> > > it was first used. TSH must be suppressed quite low for

patients

> > to

> > > get the most relief from symptoms. In the 1970's they found

that

> > to

> > > be 300 to 400 mcg.

> > >

> > > If there was truely merit to their study, I hardly think that

so

> > > many newsgroups related to Armour and other natural thyroid

> > medicine

> > > treatments would exist. Just in my own family, where all of us

> are

> > > on Thryoid treatment, I can say with confidence that my 3

sisters

> > > and mother who are on Synthroid are hardly doing as well as I

am.

> > > They are all grosly overweight (I am not overweight) and have

> many

> > > health problems, which I do not have. I know that isn't

> > scientific,

> > > but it is enough to cast some real doubt on these guy's

research.

> > > You can make make any research show what you want it to. Great

> > > distortions are done in scientific research, which are so

often

> > > based on biases and preconcieved ideas of the researchers.

They

> > > often look at very intertwoven and complex things in such

narrow

> > > isolation as to make the results of so much research today a

> > > meaningless distortion of reality. After all if we believed it

> all

> > > we would all be eating nothing but soy, taking cholesterol and

> > blood

> > > pressure lowering medications, using HRT, and avoiding every

fat

> > > known to man. This is just one tiny study in a mountain of

others

> > > that would seem to contradict it.

> > >

> > > Tish

[Guest guest]

That makes a considerable difference, granted. Yet, what are the

statistics: how many = us? Are there not others on T4-only that can

vouch for it? Is Armour the only brand available?

> > I have no investment pro or con, because 1) I have no

> >emotional/physiological investment in thyroid diseases

>

> Those of us who have thyroid disease have a huge

> emotional/physiological investment in thyroid disease. And those

of

> us who have been on T4-only meds, and then on Armour, definitely

> know the difference, no matter what studies and papers and

research

> says!!

>

> Janie

[Guest guest]

It does not seem to be happening in bears, etc. further south.

> Because of that ungodly amt of vitamin A in it.

>

>

>

> Re: The paper we all want to read

>

>

> >

> >

> > As for raw liver, the Eskimos will not eat polar bear liver, it

is

> > poisonous.

[Guest guest]

It does not seem to be happening in bears, etc. further south.

> Because of that ungodly amt of vitamin A in it.

>

>

>

> Re: The paper we all want to read

>

>

> >

> >

> > As for raw liver, the Eskimos will not eat polar bear liver, it

is

> > poisonous.

[Guest guest]

It does not seem to be happening in bears, etc. further south.

> Because of that ungodly amt of vitamin A in it.

>

>

>

> Re: The paper we all want to read

>

>

> >

> >

> > As for raw liver, the Eskimos will not eat polar bear liver, it

is

> > poisonous.

[Guest guest]

Science, for the most part, attempts to remove subjectivity from the

equation, and for good reason. An example of one of them is my

forgetting my affliction with hepatits B to come over here and talk

about thyroid disorders. The paradox for me is that I may come close

to chatisement for not wishing to indulge in a scar-showing ritual,

but point to the possibility of taking a more 'reptilian' gaze at

the evidence, so that subjectivity does not interfere to the point

that we are blinded to other turths.

Just because one feels the difference in meds does not discount

scientific research. I'm wonderiung how many of the authors I've

quoted recently would call their work 'basic' research?

The phrase 'no matter what studies and papers and research says'

seems to bite the hand that feeds: Armour would not have gotten

developed without scientists and doctors who put in long hours of

studying, at least getting us to the point in thyroid research that

we are today.

CH

> > I have no investment pro or con, because 1) I have no

> >emotional/physiological investment in thyroid diseases

>

> Those of us who have thyroid disease have a huge

> emotional/physiological investment in thyroid disease. And those

of

> us who have been on T4-only meds, and then on Armour, definitely

> know the difference, no matter what studies and papers and

research

> says!!

>

> Janie

[Guest guest]

> Growing numbers of folks are coming forward on this, and yes,

there are some people who seem to do fine on synthetic T4.

At least they " think " they are doing fine. LOL. My sister-in-

law " appears " to be doing great on her T4. Yes, she doesn't have the

extreme fatigue and adrenal reactions I had, and yes, she has more

energy I had, and yes, she isn't depressed like I was. She's happy

and runs circles around me when I was on T4. Yet, when you question

her, you find out that she has high cholesterol, and some aches

(which she is attributing to her arthritis), and does get tired

earlier at night.

And....when folks come into my store, and notice my signs, and tell

me they are on T4, I say to them that I can somewhat tell them what

symptoms they have because of being on T4---and bar none, EVERY ONE

says Yes, I have that, and Yes, I have this.

Hmmmm.

Janie

[Guest guest]

> Growing numbers of folks are coming forward on this, and yes,

there are some people who seem to do fine on synthetic T4.

At least they " think " they are doing fine. LOL. My sister-in-

law " appears " to be doing great on her T4. Yes, she doesn't have the

extreme fatigue and adrenal reactions I had, and yes, she has more

energy I had, and yes, she isn't depressed like I was. She's happy

and runs circles around me when I was on T4. Yet, when you question

her, you find out that she has high cholesterol, and some aches

(which she is attributing to her arthritis), and does get tired

earlier at night.

And....when folks come into my store, and notice my signs, and tell

me they are on T4, I say to them that I can somewhat tell them what

symptoms they have because of being on T4---and bar none, EVERY ONE

says Yes, I have that, and Yes, I have this.

Hmmmm.

Janie