Submission to Petition PE1463 to Scottish Parliament

[diogenes]

Just to inform you that the bullet point summary of the contents of my proposed encounter with the Scottish Parliamentary Committee on June 8th (with Lorraine Cleaver) is now published as PE1463LLL in the petition list for anyone who cares to read it online. You can access by putting in "Scottish Parliament Petitions" and working on from there.

[Hidden]

Thank you diogenes and shall look forward to reading this.

Link to paper:

parliament.scot/S5_PublicPe...

[shaws Administrator in reply to Hidden]

Thanks for link cinnamon_girl.

[shaws Administrator]

I am so glad that the Petition is on-going and that I'm sure you are a far better doctor than the ones produced (against Lorraine) previously who didn't seem to know much at all (which is probably true )

[shaws Administrator]

I have just read the Petition and it sounds wonderful.

If it changes the attitudes in the UK (as you are up against the Associations) but I doubt they could argue with you scientifically.

However, I'm sure quite a few members (maybe not the full number I think we could all go to the Hearing and I think they'd need a bigger 'visitors' gallery.

[stiltzski]

Great news and well done! If the public is allowed at the hearing, I'll be there!

[SilverAvocado]

Looks fantastic! It makes me feel sad to think of how much suffering could have been avoided for people here if these guidelines were already followed.

One thing I dont understand. The two graphs at the end of the bulletin show freeT3 in referred patients, and a healthy sample. Both of them have averages over 6pmol/L, and the top of the confidence interval is 8.8. In my area the top of the reference range for fT3 is about 6.5.

Do these graphs suggest that closer to 8 is a reasonable freeT3 to have, and that unusual people in the trailing 5% might even run to 8.8 or higher?

I'm particularly interested as I'm thinking of increasing my own freeT3 over the range, and if my reading of these graphs is correct it does give me a lot more confidence to do so.

[diogenes Remembering in reply to SilverAvocado]

These diagrams refer to the first FT3 assay developed, where we now know that the calibration was about 15% too high. So 6.5 then would be 5.8 now with new calibration and the range corrected is 4.2 - 7.5. This is the range generally believed to be about right. But it doesn't affect the argument, as all the numbers are so corrected downwards and the relationships one with another stay the same. I would say 6.5 as top of range is significantly too low. Anything around 7.5 should be top of range. But again this depends on the assay for FT3. The manufacturers have made such a mess of it especially with FT3 tests, that the numbers can vary wildly from one test to another (up to 40% difference!)

[SilverAvocado in reply to diogenes]

Thanks so much for replying to me. This is really useful information that will hopefully make a big difference to me, as am mostly house bound at the moment.

[Hidden]

This pleases me so much. Thank you.

[LAHs]

Thank you Diogenes