= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
johnlawrenceaspden comments on The Thyroid Madness: Two Apparently Contradictory Studies. Proof? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (76)
I got a reply from an actual endocrinologist! I'm not going to use his name because ethics, and because it was kind of him to reply at all, and more than any of his colleagues have done, but am I wrong to detect a certain lack of curiosity? Or do you think they're all too busy beavering away at the problem to bother answering e-mails from cranks?
to: <secret> subject: crank-trap
Dear [First Name],
Is there any reason why people think that thyroid hormone resistance is only congenital and never acquired?
Given the widespread acquired resistance to insulin it seems an obvious thing to look for.
I imagine you get a lot of e-mails. Please don't feel you need to make a lengthy reply. A link to a paper or web page will do!
John.
P.S. I've attached a paper by one GRB Skinner in Birmingham, UK. Assuming he's not just making up his data it's hard to explain his results.
[Attached Skinner paper where he cures 140 people with hypothyroid symptoms but normal blood tests by giving them thyroxine]
reply:
Mr. Aspden, Diseases have names and definitions. It so happens that the term resistance to thyroid hormone (RTH) is applied to a syndrome, inherited in a dominant fashion. It has three forms RTH alpha, RTH beta and nonTR-RTH. What is described in the publication you attached does not have the clinical findings and laboratory tests results of RTH. The authors have not found the cause nor given a name for what they describe.
Regards,
[secret]
You are falling prey to the typical mind fallacy. The meaning you ascribe to your words in not how a stranger would read them.
You asked about thyroid hormone resistance. The "actual endocrinologist" knows what that is -- it is a genetic condition. So he assumes you are talking about the genetic problem (RTH) but you are terribly confused because you somehow think that genetic conditions can be acquired after birth. At this point he probably stopped reading because why bother.
Oh, well spotted! Can anyone suggest a better crank e-mail? This is actually the only one I've sent since I found Skinner's paper, which is the thing that made me go from 'dark suspicion' to 'bloody hell, this is probably true'.
I would suggest that your first two paragraphs should be (1) a hook, to make the reader interested; and (2) establishing your bona fides in the sense that you've read the literature and not just a random bloke who saw a programme on the BBC and now knows everything about thyroids.
Also don't be so bloody apologetic about intruding on their time and write more than a few lines. They always have the option to stop reading.
Actually I wrote back once you pointed that out, and we've swapped a few e-mails since, but now he's gone silent too. It is hard, this crankery.
I explained the whole bloody thing to him, with papers attached, and said:
and he said:
Am I reading too much into this, or are those the words of a man trying not to get his name mixed up in a massive scandal? Are there in fact lots of people perfectly well aware that there is something dreadful going on but no-one wants to be the first to say it out loud in public?