Is it
Irresponsible to Advise
Hypothyroid Our last email newsletter, titled "No more begging and pleading with misguided doctors," brought a deluge of emails to Tammy and me. All but a couple are extremely positive. Most of the emails were from patients, but several were from physicians and other health care practitioners. All but one of the emails from physicians contain expressions of agreement, thanks, or support. All but the one below. In his email, this physician opines that my advice to hypothyroid patients to treat themselves is irresponsible. I ask that in reading my reply to this doctor, physicians who consider themselves "conventional" bear something in mind: I believe that most conventional physicians conscientiously try to avoid harming their patients. But their efforts, as many studies show, are too often thwarted. This doesn't mean that the physicians are malicious toward their patients. Instead, it means that they work within a bad system—a system corrupted by large corporations' financial and other inducements to many high-profile, influential decision-makers who dictate how conventional physicians must practice, if they are to keep their medical licenses. Many conventional physicians I've talked with are fully and painfully aware of this. For this very reason, thousands of them are jumping off the ship of conventional medicine onto the deck of natural, alternative, complimentary medicine, or whatever one wishes to call it. Those of us on that less-corrupted and safer ship welcome the jumping doctors with open arms. May 12, 2009 Dr. Lowe: Thank you for your opinion, to which I will reply. But before getting to your main point, I want to deal with one you've perhaps inadvertently implied. You seem to think that I've encouraged patients not to work with clinicians at all. If so, you're wrong. I've made it clear elsewhere that it's best for each patient to work with a local clinician—but only if the clinician is truly knowledgeable about, and effective at treating hypothyroid patients. However, if a physicians rigidly complies with the dictates of the endocrinology specialty and denies hypothyroid patients any thyroid hormone treatment other than T4 replacement, then I believe that physician will fail to effectively treat far too many hypothyroid patients. To effectively treat most patients, physicians have to violate the endocrinology specialty's commercially-derived practice dictates. But violating those dictates may cause the physician to lose his or her license to practice clinically—with the endocrinologist who files a complaint against him or her and the regulatory board that prosecutes him or her totally ignoring the physician's effectiveness in treating hypothyroid patients. This unfortunately limits the number of physicians available to effectively treat hypothyroid patients. The Problem in Finding a Physician What I've just described is to me a bizarre circumstance; at the same time, it's a categorically real one. Many physicians get hypothyroid patients well with thyroid hormone therapies other than T4 replacement after T4 replacement failed to do so. But these physicians must keep a low profile if they're going to keep their license to practice medicine. Otherwise local endocrinologists are likely to file complaints against them with medical regulatory boards. The physicians are then likely to find themselves spending their kids' college funds and their retirement savings fighting the medical board. The intimidation of physicians by endocrinologists filing complaints leads to many physicians practicing "underground," so to speak. That makes them hard for hypothyroid patients to find and work with. And, of course, if a complaint has led to a physician's medical license being suspended or revoked, patients are then deprived of his or her effective care altogether. So what are the hypothyroid patient's other choices? One is to settle for the endocrinology specialty's practice dictates. Of course, that's means he also settles for the dreadful state of health that the dictates ensure for many hypothyroid patients. Another choice is for the patient to take matters into his or her own hands. That entails at least two steps: (1) learning everything possible about hypothyroidism, including how to safely and effectively treat it; and (2) obtaining a high-quality dietary desiccated thyroid product, such as Thyro-GoldTM, and using it to recover good health. Should Conventional MDs Control You, of course, strongly object to patients taking this second option. You appear to think patients are incapable of treating themselves safely. And you imply that only physicians ensure patient safety. That belief, however, is more than highly debatable. Let me explain why I say this. Like you, several other MDs have grumbled to me: "Some of these dietary supplements [such as Thyro-GoldTM] are as powerful as prescription drugs. Patients should have to get a prescription from a physician before they're allowed to use these supplements; any supplements for that matter. Patients don't know how to keep from hurting themselves. And because of that, some of them are going to kill themselves messing around with dietary supplements." I ask you to consider the safety track record of your conventional medical colleagues. After considering what I present below, tell me whether you think it's rational for patients to trust conventional physicians to safely guide them through any type of medicinal treatment, whether it's with dietary supplements or prescription drugs. Consider a 1999 report from India. [1] For every 100 patients who were admitted to hospitals, up to 7% had adverse drug reactions. (That was 7 patients out of a 100, 70 out of 1000, and 700 of 10,000.) Drug-related problems caused three problems: failed therapy (23%), patients developing medical problems they didn't bring to the hospital (10%), and damage that could lead to "serious permanent disability or death" (42%). Please pay particular attention to this finding: Medical negligence was involved in 34% of adverse drug events, and negligence was involved in 51% of drug deaths. [Italics mine.]In the US state of New Jersey, a study showed that between 1977 and 1988, medical errors resulted in malpractice suits in which $30,144,636 was paid out.[2] The researchers wrote: "A review of these files revealed that patients incurred death and serious morbidity, and that several specific behavior errors accounted for the majority of patient injury." (Italics mine.) The researchers also wrote, "Among the damages that occurred during that time period were 88 deaths, 15 patients with profound brain damage, 15 patients who alleged that they had become addicted to medications prescribed for pain, 10 patients who required amputations of limbs, and 12 patients who suffered some degree of hearing loss or decreased visual acuity." (Italics mine.) Here are the medical screw ups that injured and killed patients: "disregarding patient allergies," "failing to monitor therapy," and "errors in the writing of prescriptions." [2]A Nobel Prize winning Harvard physician tells us that mainstream medicine fails to help 75% of its patients. [3] But far worse than just not helping patients is another study finding: that is, the medical system—run by conventional MDs—causes the unnecessary deaths of 224,000 US citizens each year.[4][5]I could go on-and-on citing studies that show that conventional MDs dreadfully harm the public, partly through their control over prescription drugs. But should all the evidence of harm done by conventional MDs inspire hope in us for positive change in their performance? Not according to my old mentor, Robert S. Mendelsohn, MD, a thirty-year medical professor at Loma Linda University School of Medicine. He said that modern medicine doesn't learn from its mistakes, no matter how well-documented they are. Instead, he said, "In modern medicine, the changes that are made are like lateral passes in football: lots of razzle-dazzle, but no yardage gained." Modern medicine just goes on helping maybe 25% of its patients[3] while it maims and kills others.Despite conventional MDs' abysmally bad safety record, you suggest that they should control who can and can't use dietary supplements. And I trust that you think they should dictate exactly how patients use the supplements. You're recommending that conventional MDs have totalitarian control over all health decisions involving medicines and dietary supplements. Realistically, Big Pharma might eventually pull political strings that impose your advice on US citizens, and I think that should scare the hell out of every health-conscious person in the United States. Considering the evidence, do you seriously believe that the track record of conventional MDs warrants putting them in control of effective dietary supplements? I don't believe that hypothyroid patients who treat themselves are likely to cause themselves any noteworthy harm; after all, they have their own best interests at heart. Because of that, it's doubtful that they'll do even a small fraction of the harm done to them over the last forty years by the endocrinology specialty's practice dictates. Please keep in mind that Thyro-GoldTM, like scores of other health care products, is protected by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Congress wisely passed that Act in 1994. It did so at the urging of public interest groups, many physicians, and eminent scientists such as Professor Linus Pauling. And fortunately for the public welfare, Congress passed the Act despite vigorous protests from conventional physicians and corporations that richly fund medical specialties. As a result of that 1994 Act, your medical education, degree, and license give you no control whatsoever over patients choosing to use products protected by the Act. Among those products is Thyro-GoldTM, a dietary supplement that's highly likely to improve the lives of countless patients who formerly suffered from the endocrinology specialty's dictates for the diagnosis and treatment of hypothyroidism. All that said, doctor, I appreciate you expressing your opinion, and I remain respectfully open to an evidence-based rebuttal from you. References 1. Bhatt, A.D.: Drug-related problems and adverse drug events: negligence, litigation and prevention. >J. Assoc. Physicians India, 47(7):715-720, 1999. 2. Kuehm, S.L. and Doyle, M.J.: Experience in medical malpractice claims. N.J. Med., 87(1):27-34, 1990. 3. Lown, B.: The Lost Art of Healing: Practicing Compassion in Medicine. New York, Ballantine Books, 1999. (Dr. Bernard Lown, who described the dismally low effectiveness rate of mainstream medicine, is a Nobel Prize winning Harvard Medical School Physician.) 4. Starfield, B.: Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA, 2000 Jul 26;284(4):483-485, 2000. 5. Starfield, B.: Deficiencies in US medical care. JAMA, 284(17):2184-2185, 2000.(Dr. Barbara Starfield is with the Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Room 452, Baltimore, MD 21205-1996, USA.) Once again, Tammy and I included below links to three chapters from a book I wrote. In the chapters, I explain how most people, such as you, can safely get well with thyroid hormone. We believe that the best way for the incalculable numbers of people suffering from the dictates of the endocrinology specialty (it's "practice guidelines" for the diagnosis and treatment of hypothyroidism) is liberation through self-education, followed by well-informed action on one's own behalf. Feel free to share the chapters with anyone else who wants to learn the basics for recovering from hypothyroid symptoms.
Free Book Chapters for | Metabolic Rehabilitation | Numbers Count | | Safely Getting Well with Thyroid Hormone | 
Our Services I f you want to discuss the services we provide, please contact me. You can reach me by email at Tammy@drlowe.com or by phone at 603-391-6061.Dr. John C. Lowe, PLLC © 2009 Dr. John C. Lowe, LLC. All rights reserved. This email newsletter may be copied and distributed subject to three conditions: (1) All text within the full document or any section copied must be copied without modification with all pages included. (2) All copies must contain the following copyright notice: "© 2009 John C. Lowe." (3) Neither this full document nor any section of it may be published or distributed for profit. |