I wanted to ask a question about Nature-Throid. I read that NT was reformulated shortly after Armour, but I wanted to know if it was really reformulated in the same way? I read somewhere that the old NT contained methyl cellulose, and that it was replaced by microcrystalline cellulose in the new version, not that MCC was raised (like it was in Armour). If cellulose is to be used at all, it seems MCC is preferable to methyl cellulose?
If anyone here has been on both versions of Nature-Throid, have you noticed any difference as far as efficacy is concerned? It seems some Armour users have successfully raised the dosage, and are still doing fine on it.
The STTM writes that the "new" Nature-Throid contains more calcium (which binds thyroid hormone) than the old version, but that you only have to take more NDT. Would that not be true for cellulose as well (that it binds thyroid hormone, but that you can get the same effects by raising it)? Or are cellulose and calcium different in that respect; meaning that no matter how much NDT you take, the cellulose will always be a problem?
I think I will need to seriously consider switching brands, as Erfa in its current form is not working optimally for me. I also think I am allergic to it, as it causes itching (which incidentally went away yesterday when I mistakenly took "old" Erfa...). Armour is readily available in Belgium, along with Erfa, and maybe it would be able to find a pharmacy willing to supply Nature-Throid. But before considering that (as getting NT would inevitably be more problematic), I wanted to know how many find Nature-Throid better than Armour?