Talk:Wilson's temperature syndrome

Comments

Looks like average, basic, well-intentioned nonsense to me. Since the median oral body temperature (among healthy adults) is actually less than the 98.6 he demands (and which old textbooks taught), it's clear that more than half the adults in the U.S. will qualify for this so-called 'diagnosis.' Is this really WP:Notable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, better than that: its symptoms are whatever you've got. Do you have fatigue? If you don't, you're probably sick. If you do, you're normal: we're all fatigued. Do you gain weight "easily?" I'll bet you do, unless you're hyperthyroid. It's not merely well intentioned nonsense, because it combines with the Western patient's desire to lose weight and feel happier. Depression is pandemic, and obesity is epidemic. Further, some psychiatrists are using T3 as an adjunct to their therapies for depression. If T3 has a (slight) effect on mood stability or elevation, and we know absolutely that patients can throw themselves into biochemical hyperthyroidism to lose weight, then Wilson's Syndrome is tailor made for popularity. It's a license to print money.

Is it dangerous? Probably not very dangerous to induce hyperthyroidism sporadically in patients, but it's not nice, and it's not health, and it's not ethical. Geogre (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't read this fine article: PMID 16883675. Who needs a placebo arm or validated metrics to study subjective changes, anyway? And don't you see, according to the authors, giving T3 to people with normal thyroid function is just like using estrogen and progesterone to regulate menstrual cycles in women with normal ovarian function. Of course, a stickler (or someone who's taken college-level biology) might point out that estrogen and progesterone are secreted cyclically, while T3 is not. But to return to approved talk-page usage: I think this is probably notable; it has been debunked by the American Thyroid Association, thus satisfying WP:FRINGE. MastCell ^Talk 07:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A high school level introduction to logic suffices to allow reasonably intelligent people to conclude that while double-blind placebo-controlled are the most scientifically rigorous form of experimentation that other less rigorous experiments allow preliminary inferences to be drawn. For your information, non-double blind not placebo-controlled studies are conducted to this day at top tier North American medical schools when funding or a desire for preliminary results suggest.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sure. Hell, for all we know, I may have designed and led a few uncontrolled clinical trials myself, and I only work for top-tier institutions. :) But such studies generally assess toxicities of treatment without reference to efficacy (e.g. Phase I studies). If they make claims about efficacy, they at least make reference to historical control cohorts with similar diseases and emphasize the limitations of such comparisons. Any study measuring a subjective endpoint needs to use a validated, reproducible metric to be meaningful. In this case, we're talking about a poorly defined set of subjective symptoms; we're told that "all patients improved", but according to what metric? How many would have improved with no treatment at all? How can you attribute this "improvement" to the intervention (rather than natural history or the placebo effect) in the absence of a control arm? The problem isn't lack of controls per se; it's the way in which these uncontrolled and unvalidated data are used to present T3 as a "valuable therapy". MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Wilson,

I have only been on the WT3 (Wilson T3) protocol for 39 days and I can report a great improvement following over 60 years of debilitation. What a thrill (on about day 30) when I put my pj's up on the hook behind my bathroom door as I marveled to myself, "That wasn't hard to do at all!"; as it seemed effortless in contrast to my usual routine. That small event was startling in its simplicity. It made me clearly aware of what a painful struggle life has been all these years.

I still have a long way to go, but even the first day of taking T3, I could see that this was the first thing that addressed the extreme fatigue and pain that has plagued me since I was a child.

So often medical interventions only made my symptoms worse even though many doctors initially thought I had "a thyroid problem" until a blood test showed normal T4 levels. I will spare you the details of the many disasterous "treatments" that I have endured which have so negatively effected every aspect of my life.

I look forward to increasingly sound health as I stay with the program. A million thanks go out to Dr. Wilson and all of you who help promote this miracle.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER from Michigan

For me, this sort of stuff is strongly suggestive!--Alterrabe (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's where we differ. I don't find testimonials particularly convincing as an advertising technique, much less to support the scientific pretensions of this topic. Would you like me to produce a testimonial from someone who developed atrial fibrillation because they were inappropriately prescribed T3? Would that prove anything? MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest. I'll raise you and your horror stories with reports of thousands and even tens of thousands of people who died because they drank too much water!--Alterrabe (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Either you are intentionally proving my point, or you have deeply misunderstood it. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing Pseudoscience Category

Dear Friends,

I do not feel that Wilson's Syndrome fits in the Pseudoscience Category and suggest that we remove it.

Pseudoscience cat page says: A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not. ...generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology)...have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)...

I agree that Wilson's Syndrome and the article on it published in the PRHSJ do not meet the best and most rigorous standards of scientific evaluation, but I don't feel that particular shortcoming constitutes pseudoscience.

There are many things in everyday medical practice that are considered standard of care that do not meet the highest rigorous standards of scientific evaluation either.

Just above pseudoscience is standard of care. That's where a condition and its treatment stops having few followers and stops being considered by nearly every open-minded practitioner to be false, and starts having many reasonable practitioners with experience with the condition and treatment to agree and form a consensus that there is benefit. Standard of care extends all the way from there all the way through the highest rigors of scientific validation.

The U.S. medicine is regulated based on standard of care. The standard of care is based on "specifies appropriate treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration between medical and/or psychological professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition." Medicolegally, standard of care is not determined just by "scientific evidence." Treatments can become A standard of care when there is a significant minority of like-minded professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition.

I feel that Wilson's Syndrome (WS) does not fit in the Pseudoscience category because:

An uncontrolled study was published in a medline medical journal. The editors of the journal found it sufficiently scientifically reasonable to publish it. These medical publishing professional didn't find it absurd enough for them to consider it pseudoscience and unworthy of publication.

WS has been taught at CME approved (scientific) medical conventions for over 15 years.

It is taught in the endocrinology (scientific) departments of all 4 accredited Naturopathic Schools in the US.

Well over 150 trained and experienced good faith physicians have signed a consensus statement to document their professional like-mindedness on the scientific validity of this condition and its treatment. The insurance, legal, and medical regulatory areas of our society recognize this as being sufficiently scientific to be a standard of care.

Therefore I don't feel that the category of Pseudoscience is appropriate for Wilson's Syndrome. I believe that the ATA statement adequately makes the point that Wilson's Syndrome does not meet the highest rigors of medical scientific validation. How can that point be made any more strongly? I don't feel the category of pseudoscience makes that point any more strongly because that is actually a different point, a point that is not accurate, and that, I feel, violates the Neutral Point of View principle of Wikipedia. I suggest we remove the Pseudoscience category. Best, MedBoard (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the incentive and remove it from Category:Pseudoscience for now, until it can be more diligently assessed and (hopefully) categorized accordingly. The current standard for characterizing something as "pseudoscience" can be found at Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience_and_related_fringe_theories. Thanks for weighing in, and welcome to Wikipedia. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking there had been a discussion somewhere about this, probably on the Fringe noticeboard, but I cannot find it and cannot be sure. I may be conflating different articles in my mind. My apologies, and if I find or remember the discussion I will certainly link it here.

My view: this is certainly fringe. It appears to me that anything which has the support of 150 physicians and one uncontrolled study of 11 patients can hardly be anything else. I see no science, yet this is presented as a medical condition. IMO, Pseudoscience applies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, things come and go in Category:Pseudoscience. I wouldn't make too much of it for the moment. It can always be reinstated into that category. Better to research the available sources on it, try to determine what sources are reliable and what ones might not be, and proceed from there-- after which there'll be a record of the research associated with this page. If somebody feels very strongly about it, by all means revert. I might hazard a guess that many, perhaps even most, people today who rely on naturopathic approaches are fairly well accustomed to occasionally seeing their preferred therapeutic approaches referred as pseudoscience. So it's perhaps not of pressing importance from moment to moment-- though of course it'd be best to get it "right", i.e., consistent with WP:WEIGHT, WP:V#Reliable_sources and WP:RS, and any other pertinent policies. If the research methods involved are asserted by reliable sources to be unscientific while presenting themselves as scientific, then eventually it'll fall into the pseudoscience category; if not, then it won't; if it's in between then WP users will, I imagine, argue ad-nauseum and ad infinitum about it as we've seen in other instances. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kenosis. My feeling is that Category:Pseudoscience should probably be reserved for things described unequivocally as such by reliable sources. Certainly this "syndrome" fits my personal definition of pseudoscience. On the other hand, I don't see Wilson's Syndrome described as pseudoscience per se by a reliable source. The dubious, implausible, and fringe status of Wilson's Syndrome can be conveyed amply with reference to reliable sources, and readers will draw their own conclusions - it seems a waste of time to argue about the categories.

Just FYI, though - in medicine, the standard of care is not defined by someone's claims making it into print in an obscure journal. It's defined by what expert physicians feel is appropriate in a given situation. Administering thyroid hormone to patients with demonstrably normal thyroid function, to treat vague collections of symptoms, while betraying a basic ignorance of temperature homeostasis, is likely outside most definitions of the standard of care. If a patient suffers adverse effects from thyroid hormone prescribed for dubious indications, then the prescribing physician could certainly face some uncomfortable questions about his/her judgment from a lawyer or from the state medical board. I'm OK with removing Category:Pseudoscience, on grounds of Wikipedia policy. I'm not really OK with passing this off as part of standard of care. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I really am impressed with the civility, speed, care, wisdom, and professionalism you all are demonstrating here. It is clear you have your own strong opinions on the validity of WS and yet you consider the perspectives of and potential benefits to other visitors to the article, and uphold the policies of the Wikipedia project. I know it's business as usual for you, but still, it makes for a neat place.

150 physicians is a statistically insignificant number, but it is not a legally insignificant number. WS isn't part of the standard of care, as in the majority, it is a standard of care, as in a significant minority. The number that constitutes a significant minority is a matter of judgment but can be surprisingly small. There is a verifiable legal opinion on the WS website that holds that this number has been met. 150 physicians is just the verifiable number. There are many thousands of physicians that use T3 in the treatment of WS every day, and have for many years (unsourced, and not verifiable). As MastCell points out, the standard of care is defined by the opinions of experts. There are experts both for and against, with a judgment made by someone(s) in authority. Standard of care judgments can vary widely from state to state, and from board to board (for example, allopathic board vs. naturopathic board, or holistic medical board). Just as MastCell points out that there are experts that would feel that the treatment of WS is not indicated and inappropriate in every case, and that there are lawyers and boards that would ask physicians difficult questions; there are also experts that would say that thyroid blood tests are not conclusive and that a therapeutic trial of thyroid medicine for thyroid symptoms (which are a collection of numerous vague symptoms) based on body temperature is quite reasonable.

To be sure people have reported adverse reactions to T3 therapy as some have to many other treatments. It sounds as though you that have weighed in here have not seen or spoken with (verification) a person who has responded well to T3 therapy, which is totally understandable. That's what published articles are for, and that's also what verifiable consensuses are for. There are physicians who have actually treated patients with T3 and seen good results. An expert is someone that has special skill, knowledge (or authority), frequently gained by experience or practice. Treating WS is not easy and it is not wildly lucrative (because it is so time intensive). There is a group of physicians that treat WS because of the results they believe they are seeing. This year will be the 7th annual Restorative Medicine Conference for proponents of, among other things, WS. These are CME approved conferences and you might be amazed at the quality of the science presented there. Some attendees say that they are the highest quality meetings they have ever attended. The Restorative medicine conference is usually well-attended with over 100 attendees, and has become one of the largest annual alternative medicine conferences. We are concerned here with opinions, opinions of experts, contributors, editors, administrators, and visitors. It doesn't sound as if you weighing in here have attended a Restorative Medicine Conference but I do believe that if you could see and hear for yourselves the quality and tone of the presentations you would be pleasantly surprised and that your feelings and opinions might be influenced thereby.

By saying this, I'm not suggesting that WS be considered an "Alternative theoretical formulation," because I recognize that the WS point of view is currently in the vast minority. But I do feel that it qualifies as "Questionable science" according to the December of 2006 Arbitration Committee ruling on guidelines on the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I don't feel the Pseudoscience category is accurate for WS. I do feel this article should be written to show the majority opinion as the majority opinion and the minority opinion as the minority opinion but with a Neutral Point of View. The minority opinion should be fairly and adequately represented, particularly since this is an article about the minority opinion WP:Weight.

Dr. Wilson is speaking this year on WS at the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine, the American Academy of Anit-Aging Medicine, and the Restorative Medicine Conference. As you know Continuing Medical Education (CME) approval has standards (such as approved presentations must not have commercial content and must disclose financial interests). No, none of this means that WS is meeting the highest scientific scrutiny but it is not being done in a corner.

Best regards, MedBoard2 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, something unusual just happened. I went to log in and the login page wouldn't recognize my password, and when I clicked "email a new password" it said it didn't have an email on file for my username, maybe I didn't enter one. So I had to create a new account.

Action against Wilson

per Stephen Barrett, M.D. on website Quackwatch.org: "In 1992, the Florida Board of Medicine fined Wilson $10,000, suspended his license for six months, and ordered him to undergo psychological testing [2]. Although he does not appear to have resumed practice, his ideas are still promoted by the Wilson's Syndrome Foundation."

This strikes me as information that should be included in the article; it is highly significant and should be easily confirmed with other source material.

The language describing the debunking by the American Thyroid Association may also be unnecessarily weak for NPOV. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)