Re: UPDATE High TSH no lab error Re:Pituitary you think?? WAS Re:sw

[Guest guest]

ummmm the proof is in the pudding. there is consensus aomong thyroid

patients about what works!

do you have stock in drug companies?

we are comparing apples and oranges here--two different systems.

Gracia

Every quack product under the sun has its own group of devout believers

who have " BTDT " . Unfortunately when credible research is done the

results fall to chance or placebo. Or sometimes worse. Chuck recently

listed a dozen or so of such products or procedures that once were

supported by a large number of not only patients but also well educated

and highly intelligent medical practitioners. All worthless beyond the

placebo or some psychological effect.

.

.

Recent Activity

a.. 3New Members

Visit Your Group

Drive Traffic

Sponsored Search

can help increase

your site traffic.

Health Groups

for people over 40

Join people who are

staying in shape.

Cat Groups

on

discuss everything

related to cats.

.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date: 1/10/2009

6:01 PM

[Guest guest]

I'm waiting on two things to buy into drug companies: 1] To win the

lottery so I can afford to; and 2] to find a pharmaceutical company with

insanely high profits as alleged on so many lists. I don't know which

is more likely, given that I don't buy lottery tickets...

As for the consensus among hypothyroid patients the " proof in the

pudding " is that 95% MOL use T4 alone. Which, to me proves nothing.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Gracia " circe@...

>

<mailto:circe@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20UPDATE%20High%20TSH%20no%20lab%20\

error%20%20Re%3APituitary%20you%20think%3F%3F%20WAS%20Re%3Asw>

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:40 am (PST)

>

>

> ummmm the proof is in the pudding. there is consensus aomong thyroid

> patients about what works!

> do you have stock in drug companies?

> we are comparing apples and oranges here--two different systems.

> Gracia

>

> Every quack product under the sun has its own group of devout believers

> who have " BTDT " . Unfortunately when credible research is done the

> results fall to chance or placebo. Or sometimes worse. Chuck recently

> listed a dozen or so of such products or procedures that once were

> supported by a large number of not only patients but also well educated

> and highly intelligent medical practitioners. All worthless beyond the

> placebo or some psychological effect.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Click here for a look at stock market " sectors " and note that

" healthcare " is the second most profitable sector vied by net profit

margins. Basic Materials have been driven up by Chinese economic growth

and it's demand for materials.

http://biz./p/s_qpmd.html

Next click on the health care section or click the sorted link below and

see that " Drugs Manufactures - Major " has the highest Net Profit Margin%

at 17.6%; the second highest sub-sector of health care is 11.7%.

http://biz./p/5qpmd.html

I wouldn't say " insanely high profits " , but being able to influence any

regulatory body always places the " regulated " business on the high

profit fast track. Regulation came to the railroads a long time ago to

limit or eliminate competition driven by the major companies themselves,

who placed members in the regulatory boards. Airlines used to have

fixed prices for seats, regulated by a central body, etc. The FDA in

this case is the means to extract higher profits, limit competition, and

be able to deliver low quality and get away with it. In businesses that

have less regulation, like cell phones, quality and choice are

increasing while profit margins are squeezed. Cell phones are still too

regulated however. A completely unregulated drug industry with no legal

or regulatory protection from damages caused by their drugs, procedures,

devices, or vaccines would be safer, better, have higher quality, and

deliver a wider array of effective options, all for lower cost.

The major drug companies have a very sweet deal. You and I get to pay

for it. Except I've been buying 1/2 my drugs from an Indian pharmacy at

10% of what you have to pay, way lower than even my insurance co-pay.

You can thank regulation for your high prices and high co-pay.

Now , I can appreciate your narrow view that research with little

regard to funding, bad study design, studies designed to obtain

pre-determined objectives, etc., is the measuring stick with which you

measure all health care, but I think that view eliminates a whole

universe of opportunities.

The wide array of people trying to fix or manage their own health

problems because their doctors won't or cannot provide the necessary

quality and effective services provides a lot of information and options

to those of us following after. This large set user generated

information outside the editing and limtits of the medical establishment

is a resource with potentially high utility.

Steve

wrote:

> I'm waiting on two things to buy into drug companies: 1] To win the

> lottery so I can afford to; and 2] to find a pharmaceutical company with

> insanely high profits as alleged on so many lists. I don't know which

> is more likely, given that I don't buy lottery tickets...

>

> As for the consensus among hypothyroid patients the " proof in the

> pudding " is that 95% MOL use T4 alone. Which, to me proves nothing.

>

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

Actually you seem to know very little about what I value in health

care. I don't believe LOVE, MEDICINE AND MIRACLES would fit into your

narrow description. Or the many other books I've read and own that

would fall squarely into the quack section for most main stream minded

persons. I have no problem with alternative care; as a matter of fact

I'm very glad we have it. But even in alternative care I think we

should use a bit of our brain power in choosing; just as we should in

allopathic care. To me it's just as important to be able to pick out a

quack alternative practitioner as it is to be able to spot a quack

allopathic practitioner. To do that we need to know some of the more

obvious signs.

My posit regarding profits of pharmaceuticals companies is intended to

indicate only one thing: Anyone who asserts drug companies are too

profitable and have money is other than said companies are speaking out

of the wrong side of their face.

It's great that you're avoiding paying for the development costs of the

drugs you buy from India... for you. Not so good for those who pay in

your stead. I think I would try to be sure they're not made in China,

though! [ggg]

I'm glad to see you support the free market system. It seems almost

nobody does anymore.

..

..

> Now , I can appreciate your narrow view that research with little

> regard to funding, bad study design, studies designed to obtain

> pre-determined objectives, etc., is the measuring stick with which you

> measure all health care, but I think that view eliminates a whole

> universe of opportunities.

>

> The wide array of people trying to fix or manage their own health

> problems because their doctors won't or cannot provide the necessary

> quality and effective services provides a lot of information and options

> to those of us following after. This large set user generated

> information outside the editing and limtits of the medical establishment

> is a resource with potentially high utility.

>

> Steve

[Guest guest]

Steve, after I sent my reply another thing or two occurred to me. It

has to do with how you apparently go about researching your

alternatives. You might notice that IIRC I have never once had any

comment [especially one you might consider negative] concerning your

efforts in behalf of your personal health. There is a reason for that;

even when the conclusions you reach and the actions you take may differ

from what allopathic medicine would recommend. That is quite simply

because it appears to me that you apply the critical thinking that I

believe we should all apply to all of our health care needs.

On this list we have quite a number of people that from time to time are

extremely critical [in a negative manner] of allopathic medicine; and

much of that is understandable. As I have stated so many times, some

hypo patients do not receive the help they need from those venues. It

makes perfect sense to me for those patients to seek alternative

treatment; as a matter of fact it would appear foolish to not do so if

all standard efforts fail.

What I try to do is to get those who consider alternative methods to

apply the same critical thinking that they apply to allopathic medicine

and that I believe you apply to alternative medicine to their own

efforts in alternative fields.

It's great to be open minded; but not so open minded that your brains

fall out. Just as you recognize the limitations of some of the standard

medical testing we should also apply at least _some_ kind of standard to

whatever alternative methods we consider. And we need to be able to

recognize the standard boilerplate that con artists use to separate us

from our hard earned dollars. In addition we need to be able to decide

that just because Joe Blow from Pocono says sea weed cured his cancer

that there is little reason to have faith in it's ability to cure us.

In short, whether it's with allopathic care or alternative care we need

to be less gullible. I try to apply that in my own medical care, which

is mostly allopathic in nature. But I don't take anything my doctor

says or a pharmaceutical company recommends as necessarily gospel.

I value the many contributions of allopathic medicine, as I would not be

alive without it. But I recognize that it kills an alarming number of

patients; and provides less than optimal care for a great number more.

Ultimately we each are responsible for our own health care decisions;

and we need to be able to evaluate the probable accuracy of information

from whatever source. A great deal of my posts have that end in mind.

..

..

> > Now , I can appreciate your narrow view that research with little

> > regard to funding, bad study design, studies designed to obtain

> > pre-determined objectives, etc., is the measuring stick with which you

> > measure all health care, but I think that view eliminates a whole

> > universe of opportunities.

> >

> > The wide array of people trying to fix or manage their own health

> > problems because their doctors won't or cannot provide the necessary

> > quality and effective services provides a lot of information and options

> > to those of us following after. This large set user generated

> > information outside the editing and limtits of the medical establishment

> > is a resource with potentially high utility.

> >

> > Steve