Sunday, May 31, 2015

5 Ways Corrective Lenses Break Down your Eyesight and How to Improve your Vision Naturally

by Marco Torres
Optometrists just like much of the medical community are fixated on short-term solutions which don't address the root cause of problems. Few optometrists will admit and the greatest majority are unaware that glasses and contacts are almost guaranteed to destroy your eyesight over time.Unfortunately, they're not trained on natural and preventative solutions that improve vision in the long-term because they simply do not understand the way the eye works. Contrary to popular belief, your vision doesn't have to decline over time. With regular exercise of the muscles that control your eye movements and visual acuity, you can reduce eyestrain and maintain or even improve your vision without any destructive correctional conventions such as laser surgery, glasses or contact lenses.

Practically everyone these days suffers from some form of refractive error. Yet we are told that for these ills, which are not only so inconvenient, but often so distressing and dangerous, there is not only no cure, and no palliatives except those optic crutches known as eyeglasses or contacts, but, under modern conditions of life, practically no prevention.

Few if any optometrists even understand the role of nutrition of even breast milk in eye development. Breast-fed children are significantly more likely to do well in measures of stereoscopic vision than are those who received formula during in infancy.

With one accord ophthalmologists tell us that the visual organ of man was never intended for the uses to which it is now put. Eons before there were any schools or printing presses, electric lights or moving pictures, its evolution was complete. In those days it served the needs of the human animal perfectly. Man was a hunter, a herdsman, a farmer, a fighter. He needed, we are told, mainly distant vision; and since the eye at rest is adjusted for distant vision, sight is supposed to have been ordinarily as passive as the perception of sound, requiring no muscular action whatever. Near vision, it is assumed, was the exception, necessitating a muscular adjustment of such short duration that it was accomplished without placing any appreciable burden upon the mechanism of accommodation.

While primitive man appears to have suffered little from defects of vision, it is safe to say that of persons over twenty-one living under civilized conditions nine out of every ten have imperfect sight, and as the age increases the proportion increases, until at forty it is almost impossible to find a person free from visual defects. Voluminous statistics are available to prove these assertions.

Roughly 2.5 billion people have perfect 20/20 vision. For the other two-thirds, more than 80% of vision problems worldwide are preventable and even curable. In developed nations, more than 90% of aging related deterioration of vision before the age of 50 is due to diet and the daily use of corrective lenses. Meaning the more people lack nutrition and the more frequent the use of glasses or contact lenses, the worse vision will become impaired.

5 WAYS CORRECTIVE LENSES BREAK DOWN YOUR EYESIGHT 

1. Corrective Lenses Don't Correct, They Distort
The fact that glasses or contact lenses cannot improve sight to normal can be very simply demonstrated by looking at any color through a strong convex or concave glass. It will be noted that the color is always less intense than when seen with the naked eye; and since the perception of form depends upon the perception of color, it follows that both color and form must be less distinctly seen with glasses than without them. Even plane glass lowers the vision both for color and form, as everyone knows who has ever looked out of a window. Women who wear glasses for minor defects of vision often observe that they are made more or less color-blind by them, and in a shop one may note that they remove them when they want to match samples. If the sight is seriously defective, the color may be seen better with glasses than without them.

2. Corrective Lenses Injure The Eye
That glasses or contact lenses must injure the eye is evident through the principal of refraction. One cannot see through them unless one produces the degree of refractive error which they are designed to correct. But refractive errors, in the eye which is left to itself, are never constant. If one secures good vision by the aid of concave, or convex, or astigmatic lenses, therefore, it means that one is maintaining constantly a degree of refractive error which otherwise would not be maintained constantly. It is only to be expected that this should make the condition worse, and it is a matter of common experience that it does. After people once begin to wear glasses their strength, in most cases, has to be steadily increased in order to maintain the degree of visual acuity secured by the aid of the first pair. Persons with presbyopia who put on glasses because they cannot read fine print too often find that after they have worn them for a time they cannot, without their aid, read the larger print that was perfectly plain to them before. A person with myopia of 20/70 who puts on glasses giving him a vision of 20/20 may find that in a week's time his unaided vision has declined to 20/200, and we have the testimony of Dr. Sidler-Huguenin, of Zurich that of the thousands of myopes treated by him the majority grew steadily worse, in spite of all the skill he could apply to the fitting of glasses for them. When people break their glasses and go without them for a week or two, they frequently observe that their sight has improved. As a matter of fact the sight always improves, to a greater or less degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted.

3. Corrective Lenses Condition The Eyes To Fail
That the human eye resents glasses is a fact which no one would attempt to deny. Every oculist knows that patients have to "get used" to them, and that sometimes they never succeed in doing so. Patients with high degrees of myopia and hypermetropia have great difficulty in accustoming themselves to the full correction, and often are never able to do so. The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree make all objects seem much smaller than they really are, while convex glasses enlarge them. - These are unpleasantnesses that cannot be overcome. Patients with high degrees of astigmatism suffer some very disagreeable sensations when they first put on glasses, for which reason they are warned by one of the "Conservation of Vision" leaflets published by the Council on Health and Public Instruction of the American Medical Association to "get used to them at home before venturing where a misstep might cause a serious accident." Usually these difficulties are overcome, but often they are not, and it sometimes happens that those who get on fairly well with their glasses in the daytime never succeeded in getting used to them at night.

4. All Corrective Lenses Contract The Field of Vision
All glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree. Even with very weak glasses patients are unable to see distinctly unless they look through the center of the lenses, with the frames at right angles to the line of vision; and not only is their vision lowered if they fail to do this, but annoying nervous symptoms, such as dizziness and headache, are sometimes produced. Therefore they are unable to turn their eyes freely in different directions. It is true that glasses are now ground in such a way that it is theoretically possible to look through them at any angle, but practically they seldom accomplish the desired result.

5. Corrective Lenses Do Not Address Acuity Improvement
It is important to note the absence of statistical correlation between refractive changes and acuity improvements, which implies that other factors besides refractive changes contributed to the observed acuity improvements. Is it not only the sharpness of the retinal focus within the eye that improves acuity. Acuity improvement is a process involving several possible physiological and cerebral mechanisms. The most striking changes occur in visual acuity. Physiological changes are largely responsible for much of these improvements and these can never be addressed by corrective lenses and hence does not address the problem. Although optometrists use refraction measurements, they do not provide enough information about whether the reductions in refractive error are due to axial, corneal, or lenticular changes.

How To Keep Your Eyes Naturally Healthy
Perhaps the single greatest reason why people in today's society suffer from chronic eyestrain and deteriorating vision is the amount of time that is spent staring at computer monitors and television screens.

Your eyes are designed to move regularly. Frequent movement of your eyes is what promotes optimal blood flow and nerve tone to your eyes and the six muscles that control your eye movements.
What follows are several simple eye exercises that you can do on a regular basis to keep your eyes and vision as healthy as possible:

Look as far to your right as possible for 3-5 seconds, then as far to your left as possible for 3-5 seconds. Rest for a few seconds, then repeat this sequence several times.

Look as far up as possible for 3-5 seconds, then look as far down as possible for 3-5 seconds. Rest for a few seconds, then repeat this sequence several times.

Slowly roll your eyes in a circle, first clockwise, then counter-clockwise. Rest for a few seconds, then repeat this sequence several times. Be sure to roll slowly - it should take at least 3 seconds for you to roll your eyes in a full circle.

Hold a pen in front of you, about an arm's length away. Focus your vision on the tip of your pen for 3-5 seconds, then shift the focus of your vision to an object that is farther away for 3-5 seconds. The greater the distance between your pen and the distant object, the better. If you are indoors, look out a window to find a distant object to focus your vision on. Repeat this sequence of going back and forth between your pen and a distant object several times.

Just for interest's sake, this exercise is used by some professional baseball players to optimize visual acuity, which is essential for the hand-eye coordination that is needed to play pro ball.

Please note that all of these exercises should be done with your eyes, not your head and neck. With this in mind, keep your head and neck still while you take your eyes through the movements described above.

Relearning to See: Improve Your Eyesight - Naturally! is an outstanding book that offers a comprehensive array of exercises and information that can help you support your vision. And if you wear eyeglasses or contacts, following the guidance provided in this book may actually help you do away with your prescription eye wear or at the very least, help prevent deterioration of your visual acuity as you age.

Beyond doing the exercises described above on a regular basis, another way to reduce eyestrain and promote your best vision is to use your fingers to apply gentle pressure to three acupressure points that can help promote healthy blood flow to your eyes and the muscles that surround your eyes.

Keep Blinking
Frequent and gentle blinking is essential to maintaining healthy eyes and optimal vision because it allows your eyelids to keep your eyes coated with three beneficial layers of tears:

The first layer of tears lies right up against the whites of your eyes, and provides an even coat of protein-rich moisture for the second layer to adhere to.

The middle watery layer helps to wash away foreign debris. It also nourishes the cornea of your eyes with minerals, a variety of proteins, and moisture.

The third outer layer of tears is somewhat oily. It serves to prevent the middle watery layer from evaporating quickly, and provides needed lubrication between your eyes and your eyelids.

If your eyes are not regularly coated with the three layers of tears described above, they will be deprived of ongoing nourishment and cleansing, and they will be unnecessarily strained.

One of the reasons why many of us don't blink as often as we should is that we don't see frequent blinking in mainstream media. Actors and anchor-people are typically trained to blink as infrequently as possible, so when we take in most forms of media, our subconscious minds learn that it isn't normal to blink frequently.

To optimally support your eyes and vision, it's best to blink softly every two to four seconds, which translates to about fifteen to thirty blinks per minute. By consciously making an effort to softly blink at this rate, over time, your body will turn your conscious efforts into a subconscious habit.
If you're thinking that such frequent blinking will make reading a book or viewing a movie uncomfortable, give it a try and you'll see right away that it doesn't take away from these experiences at all.

Here are some notes on blinking to promote optimal eye health and vision:

A soft and natural blink should occur like the light flap of the wings of a butterfly - this is a good image to visualize as you make an effort to blink softly every two to four seconds.

You should blink regularly during all activities, including reading, working on the computer, and viewing a TV program or film.

Contact lenses can discourage frequent blinking because the back side of your eyelids is not designed to rub over an artificial surface. This is one of several good reasons why contact lenses should be avoided whenever possible.

Some yoga and meditation instructors suggest doing exercises that involve fixating your vision on one object - such as the flame of a candle - and doing your best not to blink. Frequent blinking while doing this type of exercise doesn't take away from the ability to experience inner stillness.

More Visual Training
The following techniques, then, are based on these premises: First, that the art of seeing-like other fundamental skills such as talking, walking, and using one's hands-is acquired. Second, this skill is normally learned through unconscious self-instruction in childhood. Third, for many of us in today's pressure-packed world, the only way to keep perfect sight is to practice techniques of conscious eye relaxation. Finally, if the exercises are performed correctly for a sufficient length of time-in conjunction with a proper diet and a physical conditioning program-eyesight will show permanent improvement. (The corollary to this is that the stronger the lenses you wear now-and the longer the time that you've worn them-the more time and effort you'll have to put forth to achieve better vision.)
It's best to "palm" while sitting or lying on the floor, with your elbows propped on a cushioned surface. Close your eyes and then cover them with the palms of your hands, crossing the fingers of one hand over those of the other on your forehead. Don't, however, apply any pressure on the lids with your palms. Ideally, you'll "see" a field of intense blackness, which indicates a state of perfect relaxation. If instead you witness illusions of light, bright color, or patches of gray, you're tense to some degree. However, don't concentrate on trying to "see" blackness, as the effort itself will produce strain. Rather, passively visualize a pleasant memory-one that helps ease your mind-while keeping your shoulders and neck relaxed. The more frequent and lengthy the periods of palming, the more likely you are to school your eyes to reduce muscle tension, with subsequent benefit to your sight.

Pinhole Glasses
Pinhole glasses, also known as stenopeic glasses, are eyeglasses with a series of pinhole-sized perforations filling an opaque sheet of plastic in place of each lens. Similar to the workings of a pinhole camera, each perforation allows only a very narrow beam of light to enter the eye which reduces the size of the circle of confusion on the retina and increases depth of field. In eyes with refractive error, the result is claimed to be a clearer image.

Unlike conventional prescription glasses, pinhole glasses produce an image without the pincushion effect around the edges (which makes straight lines appear curved).

After prolonged use, the plastic grating should become easy to ignore. With certain eye exercises such as those below, pinhole glasses can permanently improve eyesight. Skeptics argue that no scientific evidence has been found to support them. Due to a lack of formal clinical studies to substantiate this type of claim by companies selling pinhole glasses, this type of claim is no longer allowed to be made in the United States under the terms of a legal settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, however empirical evidence suggests they do work.

Swinging
This whole-body exercise improves vision, relieves fatigue and stress, and increases the mobility of the eyes. Stand looking straight ahead, with your feet positioned about 12 inches apart. Now, rotate your body-head, trunk, and all-to the left, throwing your weight onto your left foot while you allow your right heel to rise from the floor. Keep your shoulders and neck straight. When you swing to the opposite side, shifting your weight to your other foot, your eyes will cover a 180 degree arc.

Absolutely no attempt should be made to focus your sight on anything. Just maintain an attitude of passive relaxation, making about 30 of these "arcs" per minute. You should do this exercise twice daily, completing the swing from side to side 100 times. By doing your swings right before bedtime, you'll prevent eyestrain from occurring during sleep.

Sunning
Although there's no scientific evidence available to prove that sunning helps vision, many people who have tried it testify to its benefits, particularly those whose eyes have become oversensitive to light.

All sunning should be done with the eyes closed. Sit or stand in the sunlight, face relaxed, and let the rays of the sun penetrate and ease the tension in your eyelids. This is a good way to start off the day, and even a few minutes will help. To avoid possible strain on your eyes, rotate your head slightly from side to side or move it as if you were using your nose to draw a circle around the sun . . . breathe deeply and don't squint.

Central Fixation
Central fixation refers to the fact that-since the central portion of the retina is the point of most acute vision-the eye sees only one small part of any object sharply, with all the other areas being slightly blurred. When you look at a thing, your eye shifts very rapidly over it to achieve the illusion of clearly seeing the entire object at once. To demonstrate this fact, look at an object, focusing on its topmost part. Without actually moving your focus downward, try to "see" the bottom of the object. You'll find that its lower details don't appear to be sharp.

A problem-free eye shifts quite rapidly and unconsciously while it is observing. People with imperfect vision often try to see a large part of the visual field at once, all areas equally well simultaneously, without moving their eyes. This puts considerable strain on the eye . . . and also on the brain, the organ that actually has to integrate what you see.

To correct this tendency, it's important to develop your central fixation by teaching your eyes that it's "acceptable" to see only one point clearly at a time. The orbs must learn to move and refocus rapidly, rather than straining to see an entire object at one sighting. You can do this by studying an eye chart, training yourself to look at the top of a letter on the chart while "accepting" an unfocused image of its bottom (and vice versa). When you can accomplish this easily, your eyes will be relaxed, and your vision will be improved.

Most of us rely on our vision to supply 80% to 90% of the information we process about the world. Our sight affects the way that we think and, in addition, the way we think affects our sight. (If you don't believe the latter statement, just remember that you actually see the world upside down...but your mind "inverts" the images so that they make sense!) Taking good care of this dominant sense organ, then, is obviously important. Will a regimen of eye-training exercises help you do that...and even improve defective vision? There's only one way to answer that question for yourself.

Sources:
iblindness.org
motherearthnews.com
drbenkim.com
strong-eyes.com
Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy. This article appeared in Prevent Disease


Friday, May 29, 2015

GMO Foods: Friend or Foe?  I Don't Know.  But I Still Avoid Them


Ever since my first learning of them, genetically engineered foods have frightened me, mainly because I thought that cross-breeding of highly specific agents, like bacteria, into a vegetable would somehow once consumed interrupt subtle hormonal processes of the human glands and would affect neurotransmitters and other subtle  endocrine  functions of human biology.  But outside my own fears, where was the evidence for this?  I didn't have any.  So I went looking.  
Some people point to the obesity epidemic in the U.S. as cause for concern of GMO products.  But is obesity a GMO issue or is it that the sugar monopolies in Cuba and other countries ensure that cheaper versions of their products are reserved for regular users of sugar like Ben and Jerry's, Coca-Cola, General Mills, and others?  Are GMOs responsible for obesity?  
Are GMOs responsible for thyroid problems?  Natural Endocrine Solutions asserts that plenty of health problems arise with GMOs:
But how can GMOs affect thyroid health?  Well, there does seem to be some evidence that eating genetically modified foods can potentially trigger an autoimmune response, thus leading to conditions such as Graves’ Disease and Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis.  But GMOs can lead to other autoimmune conditions as well, and other health issues such as autism, diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, and many other conditions.  Plus, getting back to thyroid health, in past articles I’ve spoken about the risks of unfermented soy on thyroid health, as this can potentially inhibit thyroid gland activity.  And of course having the soy genetically modified will only make things worse.  
Sounds pretty extreme.  Problem with those statements is that none of them are corroborated by any lab or scientist or nutritionist or medical researcher or expert, nor any personal experience.  So far, all that the Natural Endocrine Solutions' author offers is an opinion.  But the author does give examples:
For example, Bacillus thuringiensis is a toxin which kills insects by breaking open their stomachs.  A wonderful idea was proposed (note the sarcasm) to alter the crop’s DNA to produce the Bt-toxin, thus breaking open the stomach of insects, thereby killing them.  It sounded like a splendid idea, especially since this toxin wasn’t supposed to cause any harm to humans.  But even though we were told that only insects would be affected by the bt-toxin, apparently it can harm some of the cells of the human digestive system, perhaps contributing to a leaky gut and other digestive issues.  ". . . some of the cells of the human digestive system"?  
Which ones?  And ". . . perhaps contributing to a leaky gut and other digestive issues."  Hmm.  Are you convinced by "perhaps" and "some"? I'm not.  Nor am I convinced of the innocuous effects of GMOs either.  In other words, so far I have read nothing that sways me from my position of caution . . . and fear stirred up perhaps by the hype from the organic industry.  I like organic, I do.  But again I think that we need to test the virtues of organic as well as examine the detriments of GMOs, for the more I read on GMOs, I am finding that engineered foods are already well into the food supply.  And if they've been in the food supply for over 30 years and we're not seeing a definitive correlation and causation of GMOs to cancer, diabetes, and other diseases, I think we need to re-examine our fears and their source. 

Brad Plumer of Vox.com explains that:      
Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for tens of thousands of years to get certain desired traits. Over time, for example, farmers (and scientists) have bred corn to become larger, to hold more kernels on an ear, and to flourish in different climates. That process has certainly altered corn's genes. But it's not usually considered "genetic engineering."
Genetic engineering, by contrast, involves the direct manipulation of DNA, and only really became possible in the 1970s. It often takes two different forms:
There's "cisgenesis," which involves directly swapping genes between two organisms that could otherwise breed — say, from wheat to wheat. Or there's"transgenesis," which involves taking well-characterized genes from a different species (say, bacteria) and transplanting them into a crop (such as corn) to produce certain desired traits.
Ultimately, genetic engineering tries to accomplish the same goals as traditional breeding — create plants and animals with desired characteristics. But genetic engineering allows even more fine-tuning. It can be faster than traditional breeding, and it allows engineers to transfer specific genes from one species to another. In theory, that allows for a much greater array of traits.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Hypothyroidism Misdiagnosed as Depression
So we have an interesting medical conundrum, do we not? On one hand, doctors are more than eager to prescribe antidepressants at the drop of a hat, based entirely on the patients reported symptoms. No need for any blood tests, and no evidence that they work for the vast majority of people.  --Dr. Malcom Kendrick
"Treating Thyroid patients like children" by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick


Here is an imagined, but not far off the truth, conversation between a doctor and a patient.

‘Why can’t I have T3 doctor? I feel so much better when I do?’
‘Because I say so, now go away.’

Nowadays doctors, at least when they are in training, are repeatedly told that they must NEVER be paternalistic. To do so will result in immediate censure. In the UK it is also a very rapid way of failing the GP entrance exams. We are told that we must explore the patients’ expectations, listen to their worries and fears, and work with them in partnership to lead to a therapeutic partnership…. or some such left wing bollocks. [Joke]
How exactly that fits within the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines is up for grabs. For those who don’t know, NICE decide on which drugs and interventions can be prescribed, or paid for, within the NHS. So you can explore expectations with your patient till the cows come home, only to find that you cannot prescribe what the patient wants, even requires. Even if it makes them feel much better and costs very little. Would you call this paternalism? Oxford entrance exam, discuss.

Don’t get me wrong, I think rationing is increasingly vital for healthcare provision, and at one point I supported NICE. I now realise how naïve and misguided I was…but that is a discussion for another day.

Where was I? Oh yes, T3. Most people have never heard of it. But I am willing to bet that if youhave heard of it, and you are a patient, you will certainly know all about this particular hormone. You will definitely know about a thousand times as much as your GP, who may nod sagely when you mention T3. But frankly they are unlikely to have any idea what it is, or does.

To be honest, until about a year ago I had no real idea what T3 was either, but I have learned quite a lot since. Wikipedia states that: ‘The thyroid hormones, triiodothyronine (T3) and its prohormone, thyroxine (T4), are tyrosine-based hormones produced by the thyroid gland that are primarily responsible for regulation of metabolism.’ I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, in Wikipedia, at least, T3 is mentioned before T4 – which makes it more important?

In reality, in a physiological sense at least, T4 comes before T3, in that T4 is produced almost exclusively by the thyroid gland in a ratio of about 17:1 T4 to T3. Once inside various tissues and organs T4 is then converted to T3, where it becomes the biologically active hormone.

Whichever does come first, it can be argued that T3 that is the key thyroid hormone, because T4 is basically a ‘prohormone.’ From Wikipedia again: ‘A prohormone refers to a committed precursor of a hormone, usually having minimal hormonal effect by itself. The term has been used in medical science since the middle of the 20th century. Though not hormones themselves, prohormones amplify the effects of existing hormones.’ Although the figures are not absolutely clear cut, it is usually stated that T3 is five times more biologically active than T4.

Therefore, if someone is hypothyroid, which is normally taken to mean that the thyroid gland is not producing a sufficient quantity of thyroid hormone, you would want to prescribe the active hormone T3, would you not?

This is a rather rhetorical question because what doctors do, at least since the 1960s, is to prescribe synthetic T4 (levothyroxine). Once T4 is in the body it is converted to T3 (through the kidneys, liver, spleen and brain – and numerous other thyroid hormone receptors throughout the body) and does its thing. In most cases this is a perfectly good treatment. However, there is a kicker, which I will get to.

At this point I feel I need to add that hypothyroidism is a very, very common condition. By the age of 60, 10% of people have ‘lab’ test abnormalities that would define them as having subclinical hypothyroidism. At least 2% of the population has overt, clinical, symptoms. Which means that we are talking about millions of people in the UK, possibly tens of millions in the EU and US.[It affects women ten times as much as men].

TSH
I now need to bring in another player called Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH). As with all systems in the human body, a negative feedback loop controls the function of the thyroid gland, and it works something like this:

If you have a high T4 level, this is detected by the pituitary gland, which sits deep within your brain. At which point the pituitary gland reduces the production of Thyroid Stimulating Hormone. As TSH is the hormone that instructs the thyroid gland to produce T4/T3, production of T4/T3 falls. [There are actually a couple of other steps, but this is essentially what happens].

If T4 falls too far, the pituitary gland swings into action to produce more TSH. In turn stimulating the thyroid gland to manufacture more T4…and so it goes. Up and down, up and down, up and down. Endlessly until, of course, you get too old and drop dead. And there ain’t no feedback loop for that.

TSH is also important in that it is usually the substance you measure to decide whether or not someone is hypothyroid. If TSH is very high this means it is trying to ‘drive’ the thyroid gland into action – and failing. You also use the TSH level to determine the dose of T4 that is required as replacement therapy. If the level of TSH is low, this suggests you may be giving too much T4. If the level of TSH is high, this suggests you may be giving too little.

As you may have noticed, at this point I have slipped into talking about TSH and T4, with T3 getting very little mention. That is because this is where the medical profession now stands. Hypothyroidism means high TSH and low T4. You are getting adequate thyroid replacement hormone if TSH in the ‘normal’ range. End of.

Here is what the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and the British Thyroid Association (BTA) have to say on the matter. Key points only
  • The only validated method of testing thyroid function is on blood, which must include serum TSH and a measure of free thyroxine (T4).
  • Overwhelming evidence supports the use of Thyroxine (T4) alone in the treatment of hypothyroidism. Thyroxine is usually prescribed as levothyroxine. We do not recommend the prescribing of additional Tri-iodothyronine (T3) in any presently available formulation, including Armour thyroid, as it is inconsistent with normal physiology, has not been scientifically proven to be of any benefit to patients, and may be harmful. [Then again, it may not be – harmful, that is]
An aside – (Additional information, as provided to me)
I should mention here that I have been told that the RCP has been asked on numerous occasions to cite references to research/studies showing “overwhelming evidence supports the use of thyroxine (T4 alone)”, but to date, they have provided none. A Freedom of Information (FOI) request that the RCP provide such evidence – again met with no response. A request was made via the ‘Ask for Evidence’ website, run in association with ‘Sense About Science’ asking for evidence on the safety and efficacy of L-T4 as a treatment for hypothyroidism. This request was directed to the RCP who eventually responded stating “The RCP’s guidance is based on the opinion of an expert panel which was temporarily formed for this purpose. The evidence they used to form their individual opinions has not been collated and therefore the RCP cannot provide any evidence list”1 (Jollyas they say, good)

Restricting the diagnosis and treatment of hypothyroidism to measuring T4 and TSH, and nothing else, is the approach that seems to be used by conventional medicine in the rest of the World. I recently received an e-mail from someone in Singapore telling me that their doctor was about to be struck off for prescribing T3 to patients- against Singaporean medical rules. In the UK, T3 testing is virtually banned, and the medical authorities are making it virtually impossible to prescribe T3 in any form.

In the UK, a doctor called Gordon Skinner was repeatedly dragged in front of the General Medical Council (GMC) for prescribing thyroxine to patients whose T4 and TSH levels were in the ‘normal range’. He was also attacked for prescribing natural thyroid extract (NDT) (a combination of T4 and T3) to his patients – who he felt would benefit. He is now dead. It has been suggested that constant and repeated efforts to strike him off the medical register may have had an impact on his health. I couldn’t possibly say.

Now, there is no doubt that this area is highly complex and for those who know this area, you will be aware that I am keeping things as simple as possible. But I think it is important to make a few points:
The lab tests, especially for TSH, are far from 100% reliable, to say the very least. In fact the man who developed the test in the UK, at Amersham International in Wales, has told me that the test is virtually worthless in many cases (especially continuous testing when patients are taking thyroid hormone replacement).

The conversion of T4 into T3 can be significantly reduced in some people. So these individuals can have normal T4 and TSH, but they are still effectively hypothyroid. For those who are interested in a bit more detail, there is a population with a defective DIO2 gene. This blocks T4 to T3 conversion, and results (amongst other things) in reduced T3 levels in the brain, which can lead to mood disorders2. I mention this single example to make it clear that there is solid scientific evidence to back up the conjecture that it is possible to be functionally ‘hypothyroid’ with normal blood tests.

A lot of people have reported significant improvements in their health through taking thyroxine, with normal blood tests, and also natural thyroid extract when their laboratory tests were ‘normal’. Please look at this article in the Daily Telegraph3…then look at the comments section – which is very, very telling. A cry of despair!

I am not going into further detail of how T4 binding and conversion in various organs can be affected by stress hormones, inflammation, trauma, adrenal insufficiency, lack of converting enzymes in tissues, and infection of various sorts. I shall just keep this simple by stating that it is possible to have enough T4, even T3 in your bloodstream, but these hormones have reduced ‘bioavailability’. This is not crank ‘woowoo’ stuff. This is real and measurable and you can find studies on this in peer-reviewed medical journals.

Far more telling, from my point of view, is the fact that hundreds, indeed thousands of patients report that, although their blood tests were normal, they felt terrible, and that they have felt so much better when they have been given ‘excess’ T4 and/T3, or NDT (natural desiccated thyroid). Whilst there is no doubt that some of them are, to quote a medical colleague, ‘not tightly wrapped.’ I have spoken to many, many, people who are calm, rational and reasonable, and their stories are compelling. A hellish existence that was ‘cured’ by Dr Skinner and his like. I refuse to believe that all of these patients are ‘somatising’ fruitcakes.

Comparing the use of SSRIs and ‘Unconventional’ Treatments for Hypothyroidism
At this point I will change tack slightly. For I think it is fascinating to compare and contrast the treatment of depression using SSRIs, with hypothyroid patients who complain that they are unwell, despite ‘normal’ T4 and TSH tests.

Today, almost all doctors you speak to believe that depression is due to a low level of serotonin in the brain. This is why they prescribe SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) by the lorry-load. Drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil etc.To quote from a recent article in the BMJ ‘Serotonin and depression, the marketing of a myth’4.

‘…the number of antidepressant prescriptions a year is slightly more than the number of people in the Western World.’

This all happens despite the fact that:
‘There was no correlation between serotonin reuptake inhibiting potency and antidepressant efficacy. No one knew if SSRIs raised or lowered; they still don’t know. There was no evidence that treatment corrected anything.’

In short, with depression, there is no lab test, no way of measuring the impact of anti-depressants. They are prescribed purely and simply on the basis of the patient history. Equally, there is no doubt at all that SSRIs have significant side-effects, some of which are very, very serious e.g. increased suicidal tendency. They are also addictive and patients can end up stuck on them for years. So, they do cause harm.

Equally, as you may be aware, clinical trial data in this area have been horribly distorted….
“…That said, the fact that the class of antidepressants known as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are basically useless in treating depression in children and adults is not news to the FDA. Back on September 23, 2004, during testimony at a hearing before the House Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce, Dr Robert Temple, the FDA’s Director of the Office of Medical Policy, discussed the agency’s review on the efficacy of SSRIs with the children.”
He noted that it was important in a risk-benefit equation to understand the benefit side. “Of the seven products studied in pediatric MDD (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Effexor, Serzone and Remeron),” he testified, “FDA’s reviews of the effectiveness data resulted in only one approval (Prozac) for pediatric MDD.”

Overall,” Dr Temple said, “the efficacy results from 15 studies in pediatric MDD do not support the effectiveness of these drugs in pediatric populations.”

Also in 2004, a study of previously hidden unpublished data as well as published studies on five SSRIs, was conducted by Tim Kendall, deputy director of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Research Unit in London, to help analyze research to draw up the clinical guidelines for British regulators, and published in the Lancet.

Following his evaluation, Mr Kendall stated: “This data confirms what we found in adults with mild to moderate depression: SSRIs are no better than placebo, and there is no point in using something that increases the risk of suicide.”

In 2005, the British Medical Journal published another study that concluded that SSRIs are no more effective than a placebo and do not reduce depression.

In December 2006, at the most recent FDA advisory committee meeting held to review studies on SSRI use with adults, SSRI expert, Dr David Healy, author of, “The Antidepressant Era,” told the panel that the efficacy of SSRIs has been greatly exaggerated, while the actual studies reveal that only one in ten patients responds specifically to an SSRI rather than a nonspecific factor or placebo.

In February 2008, Irving Kirsch’s study at the Department of Psychology at the University of Hull is the first to examine both published and unpublished evidence of the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which account for 16 million NHS prescriptions a year. The largest study of its kind concluded that antidepressant drugs do not work. More than £291 million was spent on antidepressants in 2006, including nearly £120 million on SSRIs. 4

Critics complain that industry funded studies are presented in ways to exaggerate benefits and obscure side effects. “These include failure to publish negative results, the use of multiple outcome measures, and selective presentation of ones that are positive, multiple publication of positive study results, and the exclusion of subjects from the analysis,” according to the paper, “Is Psychiatry For Sale,” by Joanna Moncrieff, in People’s Voice.”5

So we have an interesting medical conundrum, do we not? On one hand, doctors are more than eager to prescribe antidepressants at the drop of a hat, based entirely on the patients reported symptoms. No need for any blood tests, and no evidence that they work for the vast majority of people.

On the other hand, if a patient dares to say that they feel better taking T4 when their blood tests are normal, or if they say they feel better taking a combination of T3 and T4/NDT, they are dismissed as ‘somatising.’ Which is a posh medical way of saying, you are making your symptoms up and we don’t believe you. Equally, if a patient complains of continuing symptoms and that they don’t feel better when they are taking T4 (or T3 and T4) and their blood test results show ‘normal’ they are again accused of ‘somatising’6

The world, my friends, has gone nuts and, in a bitter irony, the medical profession – at least in this area – has become institutionally paternalistic. ‘You cannot be feeling better, because your blood tests say you were never unwell. So you cannot have treatment. And you, Dr Skinner and your like. If you dare treat patient’ symptoms you will be attacked and struck off from medical practice.’ Now I have looked long and hard, and I have found no evidence, from anywhere, that giving T3, in the dose that’s needed, causes any significant medical problems, and I have listened to repeated testimony from people who feel they have greatly improved.

As for antidepressants, these mostly useless addictive drugs that can increase suicide risk. ‘Have as many as you like for as long as you like. Because we fully believe everything you say about your symptoms….’ No need for any silly tests, or anything like that.

Compare and contrast, then try to make some sense of the medical world that we now live in.
Sigh.

P.S. Because I am considered to have alternative views about medical matters, many people contact me to help promote their ‘alternative’ ideas. Some I believe to be completely whacko, I smile sweetly and move on. Some I cannot decide. Other issues, once I start looking into the evidence, I find the evidence compelling.

I certainly find the evidence that a large number of people are effectively hypothyroid, with ‘normal’ thyroid blood tests, to be virtually overwhelming. Both from a scientific/physiology basis, and also from a patient testimonial basis.

I now firmly believe that the medical profession is currently doing these people a great disservice, and that the guidelines on the treatment of ‘hypothyroidism’ are rigid, autocratic, and just plain wrong (for a significant minority).

As with all medical matters that I write about, I have no axe to grind, no horse in the race, no financial links to anyone or anything with regard to treating thyroid patients. I simply hope this article can have some positive impact. For it seems very clear to me that many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people are suffering unnecessarily. And I would like it to stop.

References:
2.   “Common Variation in the DIO2 Gene Predicts Baseline Psychological Well-Being and Response to Combination Thyroxine Plus Triiodothyronine Therapy in Hypothyroid Patients”http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/jc.2008-1301
4.   Serotonin and Depression, the marketing of a myth.’ BMJ2015;350:h1771
5.   Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, et al. “Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration.” 2008, PLoS Med 5(2): e45 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045: Access full article at http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045
7.   Professor A Weetman – http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524955

Further postscript
Malcolm – we need to clear up the fact regarding the definition of ‘hypothyroidism’ which is “underactivity of the thyroid gland” according to the RCP Policy Statement on the diagnosis and management of hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism is easily diagnosed and more often than not, easily treated with L-thyroxine only. However, what is being missed by everybody is that over 300,000 UK citizens (15% of the thyroid community – millions worldwide) have a normally functioning thyroid GLAND, but the hormone it is secreting is not getting into the cells where it does its work. These are the folk who need T3, in combo. with T4, T3 alone or in NDT. The RCP teaching curriculum makes no mention of the possibility of a non-thyroidal condition where patients suffer the same symptoms and signs of hypothyroidism that may need to be treated with a different medication or hormone. When these patients complain of continuing symptoms when treated with L-T4 monotherapy, many are given an incorrect diagnosis of ME, CFS, FM, depression, functional somatoform disorder – or even old age blah, blah, blah – and sent on their way without further investigation or treatment. This is a serious business, which the RCP and BTA choose to ignore.
This entry was posted in Dr Malcolm Kendrick on May 1, 2015.