= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pianoforte611 comments on The Thyroid Madness : Core Argument, Evidence, Probabilities and Predictions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (132)
No worries about sounding harsh! I declared Crocker's Rules, so I'm explicitly asking you to optimise for communication and not worry about offending me. And I very much appreciate you taking the time to tell me things I don't know.
That's exactly what I'm saying! The action of T3 seems to be to control ATP recycling in the mitochondria. Sarah Myhill's beautiful paper to my mind proves almost beyond doubt that that's the problem in CFS. This is what I mean by 'every time I look for disconfirming evidence, I find new reasons to believe'.
I know that I sound like a crank. That's because I am a crank. I am a member of several at-risk groups for Arrogant Overconfidence Disorder, which I strongly suspect to be related to hypothyroidism in some way. Others have suggested that I am under a certain amount of 'stress'.
CFS/FMS and hypothyroidism are much more similar than most diseases, to the point where out of a fabulous number of possibilities I was trying to fit to what was wrong with me, hypothyroidism looked instantly like what I had, despite the fact that I'd not only had the test for it, but the test was bang in the middle of the normal range. And I think the CDC agree. One of the diagnostic criteria is explicitly that hypothyroidism have been ruled out (haven't checked this, just a memory).
But also, doesn't the fact that all diseases look similar strike you as suspicious? As I understand it that was the whole reason for the 'stress' theory in the first place.
Let me think about the logic for a while, I'll get back to you.
OK, logic looks fine. I really need to know if that bit's wrong. It means my mind is broken.
If they're not differently caused then they have the same cause. And if that's true, then in one case the TSH test is picking it up, and in the other it's not. So the test is not doing what it's supposed to.
Suppose diabetes was diagnosed by insulin levels instead of blood glucose. And there were two sets of patients, who had roughly the same symptoms, but one lot weren't treated because the insulin test showed that their problems weren't diabetes.
Would you not say that the insulin test was broken?
We should be looking for the 'blood glucose' for hypothyroidism. And as a very lot of people have been claiming since 1940, that's 'slow metabolism'.
I really hate arguing by analogy. But it seems people don't understand unless I do, and I'm now arguing to persuade. Not of the truth of the hypotheses, but of their plausibility.
The sciences I trained for would leap on this. Medical Science has left it uninvestigated (to say the least) since 1970. Whether I'm right or not, that's careless.
And if I'm right.... Jesus Christ.
It seems I somewhat misunderstood your argument and misjudged you; I tentatively pegged you as a pig’s thyroid evangel feigning humility. I apologize. I also apologize because I am not the opponent you are looking for.
Since I apparently didn’t stress this enough, I will conclude by saying again that without interventional data, you have nothing. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, if it disagrees with experiment then its wrong. Repeating your hypothesis again and again, doesn’t help your case, it hurts your credibility. Unfortunately this is all I have to offer that I think is worth offering at this point.
That is not true. You would prefer to have data from randomized intervention trials, but even without them you can look and collect data and come to conclusions.
My dear old thing! That is a perfectly natural assumption to make and there is no need to apologise. If I were convinced of the truth of this idea, that is likely exactly what I would be, here practising the argument before I have to make it as a wild-haired prophet.
But I think I have managed to retain enough sanity to not want to believe it if it's not true. And I have pretty high standards for truth, and they definitely include intervention, cause, randomisation, placebos and control.
At the moment, I think that my hypotheses are probably false (because there is no way that I can see that it can be a widespread problem and yet fibro-turks are hot)
If it's false, then I think it's probably important to refute it properly if only to stop Wilson.
But I don't care very much about that. My own problems seem to be gone, they are or were probably either non-existent or horribly idiosyncratic and no one can help me with them, and I am just going to have to work it out on my own. That's a man's death and I am glad to have found a worthwhile enemy.
But I disagree with you about beautiful hypotheses. If they disagree with experiment then they are wrong, no question.
But they are worth looking at carefully, and a science that does not bother is not a science. And probably not truth-finding, even over the long run.
If you run into any interested opponents, do tell them there is someone wrong on the internet. There is still a mystery to explain! It's just back to being a hobby, for me.