That site’s a wonderful idea! And it looks as though LDN has some effect on the immune system.
So if we can trust it, it looks like the two things that attack the problem rather than the symptoms are LDN (suppresses immune reaction) and T3 (overwhelms my hypothesised immune-caused endocrine resistance).
This is the problem I keep having. Every time I see something new, it supports me. Can anyone find something that I can’t explain?
And just for the avoidance of doubt, I think taking pure T3 is a terrible idea. But John Lowe thought it worked for him and for many of his patients, and I trust John Lowe much more than I trust myself.
I don’t think I’m conflating something in the context of this discussion. I think johnlawrenceaspden does focus on providing a plausible narrative instead of making falsifiable statements.
Is fair, but surely those predictions can be about bits of the medical literature that I haven’t seen yet, or haven’t understood properly, otherwise history would not be a rational endeavour.
That site’s a wonderful idea! And it looks as though LDN has some effect on the immune system.
So if we can trust it, it looks like the two things that attack the problem rather than the symptoms are LDN (suppresses immune reaction) and T3 (overwhelms my hypothesised immune-caused endocrine resistance).
This is the problem I keep having. Every time I see something new, it supports me. Can anyone find something that I can’t explain?
And just for the avoidance of doubt, I think taking pure T3 is a terrible idea. But John Lowe thought it worked for him and for many of his patients, and I trust John Lowe much more than I trust myself.
Science isn’t about explaining but about making successful predictions. Smart people can explain anything.
You’re conflating two different meanings of “explain”:
Construct a plausible narrative
Describe the underlying mechanism
I don’t think I’m conflating something in the context of this discussion. I think johnlawrenceaspden does focus on providing a plausible narrative instead of making falsifiable statements.
Is fair, but surely those predictions can be about bits of the medical literature that I haven’t seen yet, or haven’t understood properly, otherwise history would not be a rational endeavour.