Re: Re: Nascent vs. Atomic vs. everything else

December 21, 2010

--

I gave you the information that is the Iodine list official response.

Nascent doesn't have enough iodine in it to be an efficient method of

supplementation. Of course the nascent iodine website is saying things to

sell their product.

--

At 03:55 PM 12/21/2010, you wrote:

>Hi ,

>

>Thanks for your response. I haven't really gotten the feeling that the

>difference in dosage is related to the outdated belief that iodine isn't

>safe. Rather it seems to be preferred because of it's (supposedly)

>superior absorption.

>

>I think this is one of the more complete descriptions I found of the

>differences - from this website:

><http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_iodine01.htm>http://www.bibl\

iotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_iodine01.htm

>

>This excerpt talks about why you don't need high doses of nascent iodine.

>Iodine is an easily oxidisable substance. Food that is present in the

>digestive tract will oxidize iodine to iodide which is not corrosive to

>the gastrointestinal tract. Oral iodine appears to be inactivated by

>combination with gastrointestinal contents. Absorption is poor due to

>rapid conversion of iodine to iodide [ii] and this might explain why one

>needs to take very high doses of Iodoral or

><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugol%27s_iodine>Lugol's compared to nascent

>iodine, which seems to bypass the digestive track altogether meaning its

>absorption starts right in the mouth and continues through direct

>penetration of the stomach tissues.

>

>That said, this same article seems to conclude that the best results are

>obtained using both iodide salts and atomic/nascent iodine. I guess that's

>what Iodoral is? I will just have to experiment and find out which type

>works the best for me (that's the only way I really learn anything anyways

> . I was just hoping someone might have personal experience to share, as

>to their perception of the effectiveness of the various types.

>

>Thanks again,

>

> >

> > Nascent and Atomic do not have very much iodine in them-- so to get the

> > milligram doses we recommend, it is very costly. Lugol's was invented in

> > the early 1800s and has been in use continuously since then. Iodoral is a

> > tablet form of Lugol's. The claimed differences in Atomic or Nascent

> > iodine are more a marketing scheme than a real difference-- they are

> > banking on the old and debunked medical myths about iodine (that it is

> > dangerous) and claiming that while other iodines (that is, Lugol's) are

> > dangerous, theirs is safe. But the thing is, Lugol's is totally safe

> > already. There is nothing dangerous about a few drops of those, but there

> > is nothing dangerous about a few drops of Lugol's. Some people do get a

> > stomach upset with Lugol's, especially at larger doses, and that is why

> > Iodoral is a convenient form to use-- the tablets are coated and they

> > dissolve deep in the gut to avoid any stomach issues.

> >

> > I don't know what to say about the noseblowing thing.

> >

> > --

>

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

December 21, 2010

All the research on iodine and the historical usage of iodine/iodide has been with Lugol's. This is the product with the proven track record for eliminating disease. "Energized" iodine products like Nascent, etc do not have any claim to fame - if you will - of healing people of disease. To me that is all I need to know. I will not risk my health on a product that seems to only make people feel more energy.

Re: Re: Nascent vs. Atomic vs. everything else

--I gave you the information that is the Iodine list official response. Nascent doesn't have enough iodine in it to be an efficient method of supplementation. Of course the nascent iodine website is saying things to sell their product.--At 03:55 PM 12/21/2010, you wrote:>Hi ,>>Thanks for your response. I haven't really gotten the feeling that the >difference in dosage is related to the outdated belief that iodine isn't >safe. Rather it seems to be preferred because of it's (supposedly) >superior absorption.>>I think this is one of the more complete descriptions I found of the >differences - from this website:><http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_iodine01.htm>http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_iodine01.htm >>>This excerpt talks about why you don't need high doses of nascent iodine.>Iodine is an easily oxidisable substance. Food that is present in the >digestive tract will oxidize iodine to iodide which is not corrosive to >the gastrointestinal tract. Oral iodine appears to be inactivated by >combination with gastrointestinal contents. Absorption is poor due to >rapid conversion of iodine to iodide [ii] and this might explain why one >needs to take very high doses of Iodoral or ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugol%27s_iodine>Lugol's compared to nascent >iodine, which seems to bypass the digestive track altogether meaning its >absorption starts right in the mouth and continues through direct >penetration of the stomach tissues.>>That said, this same article seems to conclude that the best results are >obtained using both iodide salts and atomic/nascent iodine. I guess that's >what Iodoral is? I will just have to experiment and find out which type >works the best for me (that's the only way I really learn anything anyways > . I was just hoping someone might have personal experience to share, as >to their perception of the effectiveness of the various types.>>Thanks again,>>>>> >> > Nascent and Atomic do not have very much iodine in them-- so to get the> > milligram doses we recommend, it is very costly. Lugol's was invented in> > the early 1800s and has been in use continuously since then. Iodoral is a> > tablet form of Lugol's. The claimed differences in Atomic or Nascent> > iodine are more a marketing scheme than a real difference-- they are> > banking on the old and debunked medical myths about iodine (that it is> > dangerous) and claiming that while other iodines (that is, Lugol's) are> > dangerous, theirs is safe. But the thing is, Lugol's is totally safe> > already. There is nothing dangerous about a few drops of those, but there> > is nothing dangerous about a few drops of Lugol's. Some people do get a> > stomach upset with Lugol's, especially at larger doses, and that is why> > Iodoral is a convenient form to use-- the tablets are coated and they> > dissolve deep in the gut to avoid any stomach issues.> >> > I don't know what to say about the noseblowing thing.> >> > -->>>~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~--A.J. Muste

December 22, 2010

Someone put this together about the different types of iodine. http://iodinehealth.wordpress.com/iodine-types/~WOn Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:55 PM, inneralignmentmedia <changeyourmind@...> wrote:

Hi ,Thanks for your response. I haven't really gotten the feeling that the difference in dosage is related to the outdated belief that iodine isn't safe. Rather it seems to be preferred because of it's (supposedly) superior absorption.

I think this is one of the more complete descriptions I found of the differences - from this website:http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_iodine01.htm

This excerpt talks about why you don't need high doses of nascent iodine.Iodine is an easily oxidisable substance. Food that is present in the digestive tract will oxidize iodine to iodide which is not corrosive to the gastrointestinal tract. Oral iodine appears to be inactivated by combination with gastrointestinal contents. Absorption is poor due to rapid conversion of iodine to iodide

[ii] and this might explain why one needs to take very high doses of Iodoral or Lugol's compared to nascent iodine, which seems to bypass the digestive track altogether meaning its absorption starts right in the mouth and continues through direct penetration of the stomach tissues. That said, this same article seems to conclude that the best results are obtained using both iodide salts and atomic/nascent iodine. I guess that's what Iodoral is? I will just have to experiment and find out which type works the best for me (that's the only way I really learn anything anyways . I was just hoping someone might have personal experience to share, as to their perception of the effectiveness of the various types.

Thanks again, >> Nascent and Atomic do not have very much iodine in them-- so to get the

> milligram doses we recommend, it is very costly. Lugol's was invented in > the early 1800s and has been in use continuously since then. Iodoral is a > tablet form of Lugol's. The claimed differences in Atomic or Nascent

> iodine are more a marketing scheme than a real difference-- they are > banking on the old and debunked medical myths about iodine (that it is > dangerous) and claiming that while other iodines (that is, Lugol's) are

> dangerous, theirs is safe. But the thing is, Lugol's is totally safe > already. There is nothing dangerous about a few drops of those, but there > is nothing dangerous about a few drops of Lugol's. Some people do get a

> stomach upset with Lugol's, especially at larger doses, and that is why > Iodoral is a convenient form to use-- the tablets are coated and they > dissolve deep in the gut to avoid any stomach issues.

> > I don't know what to say about the noseblowing thing.> > --

December 22, 2010

â€œ This atomic state and electromagnetic

charge is held by the atom until diluted in water and consumed. Once diluted

and inside the body this atom is readily absorbed and utilized by the body.

This charged atom of iodine starts a process where it gradually loses its

energy over 2 to 3 hours.

During this time the body recognizes

this atom as the same nascent iodine it produces in the thyroid in order to

make the T3 and T4 hormones. â€¦â€¦â€¦ â€œ - Dr,Mark Sircus

Nascent state (Chem.), the fleeting or

momentary state of an uncombined atom or radical just separated from one

compound, and not yet united with another, -- a hypothetical condition implying

peculiarly active chemical properties; as, hydrogen in the nascent state is a

strong reducer. [1913 Webster]

My version of nascence is at URL

http://forums.hpathy.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=11761 & PID=108668

With

regards

Lew

From: Baker <vbaker@...>iodine Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 11:29:08 AMSubject: Re: Re: Nascent vs. Atomic vs. everything else

--