You are falling prey to the typical mind fallacy. The meaning you ascribe to your words in not how a stranger would read them.
You asked about thyroid hormone resistance. The “actual endocrinologist” knows what that is—it is a genetic condition. So he assumes you are talking about the genetic problem (RTH) but you are terribly confused because you somehow think that genetic conditions can be acquired after birth. At this point he probably stopped reading because why bother.
Oh, well spotted! Can anyone suggest a better crank e-mail? This is actually the only one I’ve sent since I found Skinner’s paper, which is the thing that made me go from ‘dark suspicion’ to ‘bloody hell, this is probably true’.
I would suggest that your first two paragraphs should be (1) a hook, to make the reader interested; and (2) establishing your bona fides in the sense that you’ve read the literature and not just a random bloke who saw a programme on the BBC and now knows everything about thyroids.
Also don’t be so bloody apologetic about intruding on their time and write more than a few lines. They always have the option to stop reading.
Actually I wrote back once you pointed that out, and we’ve swapped a few e-mails since, but now he’s gone silent too. It is hard, this crankery.
I explained the whole bloody thing to him, with papers attached, and said:
What I would expect you to say is:
(a) We hear that all the time, and it’s rubbish because [link]
(b) That’s not a bad idea, but it can’t be true because [implication
that I have missed that isn’t true]
(c) [redacted for fear of identifying correspondent]
and he said:
I [have specialised in a thyroid-related field but I don’t see CFS patients] Therefore I have no experience nor opinion about the topic you want me to address.
Am I reading too much into this, or are those the words of a man trying not to get his name mixed up in a massive scandal? Are there in fact lots of people perfectly well aware that there is something dreadful going on but no-one wants to be the first to say it out loud in public?
You are falling prey to the typical mind fallacy. The meaning you ascribe to your words in not how a stranger would read them.
You asked about thyroid hormone resistance. The “actual endocrinologist” knows what that is—it is a genetic condition. So he assumes you are talking about the genetic problem (RTH) but you are terribly confused because you somehow think that genetic conditions can be acquired after birth. At this point he probably stopped reading because why bother.
Oh, well spotted! Can anyone suggest a better crank e-mail? This is actually the only one I’ve sent since I found Skinner’s paper, which is the thing that made me go from ‘dark suspicion’ to ‘bloody hell, this is probably true’.
I would suggest that your first two paragraphs should be (1) a hook, to make the reader interested; and (2) establishing your bona fides in the sense that you’ve read the literature and not just a random bloke who saw a programme on the BBC and now knows everything about thyroids.
Also don’t be so bloody apologetic about intruding on their time and write more than a few lines. They always have the option to stop reading.
Actually I wrote back once you pointed that out, and we’ve swapped a few e-mails since, but now he’s gone silent too. It is hard, this crankery.
I explained the whole bloody thing to him, with papers attached, and said:
and he said:
Am I reading too much into this, or are those the words of a man trying not to get his name mixed up in a massive scandal? Are there in fact lots of people perfectly well aware that there is something dreadful going on but no-one wants to be the first to say it out loud in public?