Yeah, I do. Everyone here is, as far as I know, a typical western middle class person exposed to, in all likelyhood, a similar load of toxins---and there are plenty of healthy people around where these people live, so environmental toxins are out, unless it's genetic susceptibility. Foodborne toxins like pesticides, again, plenty of people eat the same food and are healthy. Perhaps there is some variation in stress, but I doubt it is enough to account for such profound health problems.
I've asked a few simple questions, and it's not like I am owed answers, but I find it puzzling that there is so much evasion--the questions I am asking are simple.
Why do you think you have liver problems? Why do you think you have kidney problems? Have you tried eating 100% DV?
Simple questions. And I know that for most people the answer is going to be no---nothing I've read that Peat has written says "first things first, focus on getting 100% of all of your vitamins and minerals, as defined by the authorities." The authorities are _not always right_, but they are also _not always wrong_. Getting 100% DV is _not going to hurt you_, not even the 18mg of iron suggested, if it is not heme iron, because nonheme iron is so poorly absorbed. And if you give blood once or twice a year, that will certainly eliminate enough iron that getting 18mg daily isn't goign to be an issue.
Before suggesting complex exogenous molecules (and if I did, I would suggest amphetamine! Mmm, amphetamine! Or LSD. O heck, why not both?) why not give the body the building blocks that it uses to synthesize its own enzymes, hormones, etc? What I am _trying to understand_ is this preference for molecules the body can build itself, if properly nourished. Think about why you prob. think my suggestion to take amphetamine is no good, but taking thyroid is just fine. Neither molecule is going to correct an underlying deficiency that is predicated of the body's lack of sufficient nutrition. The fact that thyroid is "natural" and amphetamine is "synthetic" is completely irrelevant.
My major question here is "how have you ruled out low-grade malnutrition"? I mean, we have primate lab chow:
http://www.labdiet.com/cs/groups/lo...eb_content/mdrf/mdi4/~edisp/ducm04_028407.pdf
It seems to me _very strange_ that primates kept in cages can be fed a diet that keeps them fairly consistently healthy but humans have trouble with this. So, perhaps humans have greater genetic variation, perhaps they have more environmental variation. And the biggest environmental variable, it seems to me, is diet: you have healthy people in most any environment with large-scale human settlement, so you can't say "it's the air in the city" or something like that (and in the 19th century, this was an idea in vogue in medicine, before scientific nutrition got going). So what is the biggest environmental variable in a modern human settlement? It's diet. There are huge class-based differences in access to nutrition, and even if people have the money to eat nutritious food, they don't necessarily do it.
Take someone who at about 25-35 starts showing "hypothyroid" symptoms---cold hands, flaky skin, hair falling out, whatever. Now, given that the subject had a period with adequate thyroid function from 0-25, presumably, what is more likely: some genetic defect that only crops up at 25-35; some toxin building up in the liver/kidneys/forebrain/X; or creeping low-grade malnutrition? And which is easier to rule out? It would seem to me that malnutrition could be eliminated as a cause simply by eating an adequate diet. And if that were the case, giving exogenous thyroid is not going to correct the underlying issue w/ malnutrition.