Continuously, our team has emphasised a crucial difference between what the discipline thinks is right and where and how this has gone wrong. The question is to put the diagreement into a metaphor that nonscientific people can understand. The received idea is that there is only one process (called feedback) which describes the relationship between TSH, FT4 and FT3. That is the pituitary making TSH is restrained if FT4 levels get too high, thus balancing out the system by telling the thyroid to make less T4. However this concept has deep trouble in explaining why, for example, our bodies change all this if a nonthyroidal illness comes along.
So I'll describe a metaphor (by no means perfect) to illustrate the new ideas.
Imagine a window scene of the country. We have trees growing, cornfields waving, tractors ploughing and so on ( a complicated picture say, looking from left to right).
Now imagine two situations at the window. The first is a curtain say on the right hand side, which when drawn across can cover the whole window. The second is a situation where there are curtains at both sides, each of which can be completely drawn across. If in the first case something happens in the window which needs changing. then the curtain is drawn across to limit the situation (blanking it out) it also blankets out everything behind its front edge. That is there is no chance to isolate a situation in the middle of the window without closing off everything to the right. However if there are two curtains, then one can isolate the situation in whatever way is best - a more fluid responsive system. One can arrange an opening whatever width one needs and where ever you want it. This is a crude metaphor, but it shows that two mechanisms simultaneously working, are needed to explain the situation rather than one. Feed back with feed forward to balance the former out and control the system, but at the same time if things alter, change the window visual setting to suit. We have discovered this mechanism which the field is totally oblivious to, but which explains changes the current believed system cannot do.
This in a crude way describes what we have found and what change in thinking must occur, with large implications for diagnosis and treatment.