Birte Nygaard om "Naturligt Thyroideahormon"

[Kevlin]

Birte Nygaard skriver bl.a.:

..BN: Man kan fremstille hormonerne T4 og T3 syntetisk på et laboratorium –
disse syntetiske fremstillede hormoner er identiske med de hormoner der findes i mennesket –
den eneste forskel er at de syntetiske er fremstillet i et laboratorium og ikke i et menneskes skjoldbruskkirtel.

Det er løgn.

BN: de aktive hormoner i begge præparater er biokemisk ens og der anvendes samme type binde-stoffer er der ikke holdepunkter for at mennesket tager bedre mod stofskiftehormon fra dyr end det syntetisk fremstillede.

Det er løgn.

..

EDIT/MOD: Innlegg kopiert fra an annen tråd: Overlæge Birte Nygaard fra Herlev Hospital

Syntetisk T4 - det må da gjennom en superfrisk tarm før det blir
"identiske med de hormoner der findes i mennesket "
Har ikke jeg lest det i en tråd - Anisa

Er biokemisk ens kanhende noe annet enn bioidentisk -

[Anisa]

Ordtaket "ingen er så blind som den som ikke vil se, ingen er så døv som den som ikke vil høre" rinner meg i hu...

Veltalt smgj og du er i et godt selskab her... "Don't be intimidated by science! There is none so blind as the double blind! Trust your common sense and your life experience." - Dr. Campbell-McBride (hende der har udviklet GAPS)

“There's none so blind as the double blind” by Anthony Seaton, chest physician, BMJ. 2003 April 19; 326(7394): 889.

Our conformist nature leads us to rely on guidelines for advice on management and to disregard the strength of the evidence behind their recommendations. I prefer to see them as a challenge. Look at them for evidence of how little we know about patient management and there you will find the opportunities for worthwhile research, especially in non-pharmacological management. Where do you think they are plain wrong? And if your patient tells you she gets benefit from a treatment that isn't in the guidelines, who do you think is right? When I was a student in 1960, an elderly physician said to me “There's none so blind as the double blind.” I was a little shocked at his unorthodoxy. I am now that elderly physician. (Source)

How Blind is Double-Blind? Af Kas Thomas, som er teknisk forfatter og programmør (coder) med ekspertise i design af data-platform(e), bl.a. benyttet til medicinsk forskning. Hvis nogen ved hvor (u)pålidelig "dobbeltblind" medicinsk forskning i virkeligheden er, er det Kas Thomas. Her har lægestanden ikke skyggen af autoritet til at kunne anfægte hans konklusioner. Ikke andet end "tro", "formodninger" og "overbevisninger", men så er det jo ikke så "videnskabeligt" mere, vel? Alligevel hviler hovedkonceptet bag behandlingen af hypothyreoise OG Birte Nygaards forskning og disse berygtede Guidelines netop på... "tro", "formodninger" og "overbevisninger".

Kas Thomas: The double-blind randomized control trial (RCT) has been the gold standard of clinical research for the last fifty years. But the double-blind RCT might just as well be called an aluminum standard or a lead standard if blinds are regularly broken. Which, in fact, they are.

Relatively few studies ask participants, at the end (or in the middle) of the study, whether they were able to guess which treatment arm they were in (placebo versus active treatment). But in studies that do, it's surprising how many patients (and clinicians, the other half of the double blind) are easily able to guess which group they were in. (...)

My opinion? If degree-of-blindness is measurable (which it is), then researchers should, in fact, measure it and disclose it as part of any study that's purported to be "blinded." Otherwise, all of us (researchers, clinicians, academics, students, and lay public) are truly operating in the blind. (Source)

Medical Guidelines and the Evils of Algorithmic Medicine hvor en forhenværende professor dr. med. skriver en analyse af skyggesider af medicinsk forskning der bygger på matematiske algoritmer, ignorerende stort set alt det, vi er vant til at forstå som medicin: sygdommernes og patienternes virkelighed, til fordel for maskingenererede statistikker, som også Birte Nygaard-og-kollegers "2012 ETA Guidelines" til diagnose og behandling af vores sygdom udspringer fra. Døde tal, venner. Med disse Guidelines skider Birte Nygaard et al stort på både sine egne patienter og på alle patienter behandlet af læger der benytter disse Guidelines, der er en spand lort parat til at drukne hypothyroide patienter i, i alle lande der implementerer disse Guidelines i behandlingen af lavt stofskifte/hypothyreose. Groft sagt, men smerteligt sandt.

Professoren skriver bl.a. om årsager til at "matematik" er blevet så populær i medicinsk forskning og praksis: Other factors may be intellectual laziness, profit motives, and lack of time to have a full discussion with the patient about the pros and cons of device implantation. It is so much easier (and quicker and profitable!) to implant in everyone who meets the guidelines, and this approach has the added advantage that no one will sue you or arrest you — your actions are covered by the published guidelines. But it is a betrayal of what should be a private contract between the patient and the physician. It is a step away from a humanistic approach to medicine and towards a form of medicine that can be delivered by a computer programmed to follow the guidelines. It is algorithmic medicine. Certainly patients need to be told whether or not an ICD is recommended based on simple data such as their ejection fraction, heart failure class, and so forth. But they also need to know the downsides of implant and the effect or lack thereof on quality of life — all the things so eloquently discussed in Dr. Mandrola’s post. This decision is between the doctor and patient alone. Leave the lawyers, the guideline writers, the coders, the insurance companies and the federal government out of it. In my former life as a Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado I used to tell trainees that the field of Medicine was both a Science and a Humanity. In our eagerness to please the arbiters of “Best Medical Practices” we are in danger of losing the human side of Medicine. (Source)

"In my former life as a Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado I used to tell trainees that the field of Medicine was both a Science and a Humanity. In our eagerness to please the arbiters of “Best Medical Practices” we are in danger of losing the human side of Medicine".

Oversat: "I mit tidligere liv som en professor i medicin ved University of Colorado plejede jeg fortælle de lægestuderende, at Medicin er både videnskab og menneskelighed. I vores iver efter at behage smagsdommere bag “Best Medical Practices” er vi i fare for at miste den menneskelige side af Medicin."

Efter nok en gang at have nærlæst Birte Nygaards artikel om "Naturligt Thyroideahormon" og de Guidelines Birte Nygaard, sammen med tre andre medskyldige fortsætter med at ødelægge behandlingen af lavt stofskifte med - kan jeg ikke længere få øje på den menneskelige side af Medicin.

Syntetisk T4 - det må da gjennom en superfrisk tarm før det blir "identiske med de hormoner der findes i mennesket" Har ikke jeg lest det i en tråd - Anisa
Er biokemisk ens kanhende noe annet enn bioidentisk -

Der er skrevet om det mange steder på forummet, sidst i dette indlæg i tråden Hvorfor virker syntetisk T4 kun delvis eller slet ikke?