Iodine - Does everyone here take it & if so, how?

[Guest guest]

probably best to ask the iodine group:

iodine/

the moderator on there has worked with Dr Brownstein and is very helpful;

believe she's training to be a naturopath. think Brownstein also helped her

with iodine and cancer treatment.

chris

[Guest guest]

Hi Ian, Sorry! I can't understand why the docs have to see the TSH rising so high before thinking thyroid, after all over 90% of healthy folk have a TSH of around1.0. Knowledge is power! Subject: Re: Iodine - Does everyone here take it & if so, how?

Hi

You must be joking! I'm in rude health acc to NHS. In fairness, my

Thyroid may be fine, I'm only searching this field, because I know I'm

Testosterone Deficient & symptoms suffered by myself & family members.

Thanks

again!Ian

Hi Ian, I can't remember if you have an NHS diagnosis of hypo,

Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access both.

[Guest guest]

Hi They didn't! 3.87nmol/L is clearly fine by them.That's why I'm doing my own private tests to hit them with.RegardsIan>> > Hi Ian,> Sorry! I can't understand why the docs have to see the TSH rising so high before thinking thyroid, after all over 90% of healthy folk have a TSH of around1.0. > Knowledge is power!>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Chris

I'll have a look!

ian

>

> probably best to ask the iodine group:

>

> iodine/

>

> the moderator on there has worked with Dr Brownstein and is very helpful;

believe she's training to be a naturopath. think Brownstein also helped her

with iodine and cancer treatment.

>

> chris

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

If you have thyroid antibodies and you have an underactive

thyroid gland you have Hashimoto's Disease. Iodine is a very controversial

subject for hypothyroid patients. One of the classic signs of iodine deficiency

is an enlarged thyroid gland and goitre. On the other hand, people with

Hashimoto’s disease often develop a goitre that can be aggravated by

supplementing with additional iodine, especially in large doses. Iodine is a

trace mineral element found in food, that combines with the amino acid tyrosine

in the body to produce thyroxine (T4) and triiodothyronine (T3) which are the

key thyroid hormones.

Those Hashimoto's patients who try to experiment using iodine

find that they cab have an “iodine crash”, where the thyroid

enlarges (becomes “angry”), is extremely tender, and the whole body

becomes shaky and exhausted for several days. Luckily the reaction is normally

so severe, and obvious, that you would be unlikely to repeat the

experiment. If you ever find yourself having a strong reaction to a supplement,

you should check to see whether it contains iodine, which is often included in

the form of a seaweed such as dulse or kelp. Some multivitamins include iodine.

Read the information here about the truth about Hashimoto's

disease http://thyroid-disorders.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_truth_about_hashimotos_disease

Luv - Sheila

Hi Guys. I've been

sufficiently scared now! As a woman with a paternal grandmother who died of

breast cancer and with an incresed risk of cervical cancer, I'm wanting to

reduce my risk of cancer and am interested in the benefits of Iodine.

So..my question is,

if I have thyroid antibodies, is this proof of me having Hashi's?

If I have Hashi's,

why could it not be a good idea to do Iodine?

Fibrojay seems to

have benefitted. Could I too?

Thanks as always

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

>

> Sorry! I can't understand why the docs have to see the TSH rising so

high before thinking thyroid, after all over 90% of healthy folk have a TSH of

around1.0.

> Knowledge is power!

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that your 90% statement is patently

false, as I have tried to explain to you before. The one-sigma (68%) range for

asymptomatic people extends well above 2.0 . Ignorance is bliss.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Thanks for replying Sheila.The link you sent me talks about plaque build up (in

artieries) as being a possibility because of being Hypo.

Interestingly, I have this white " bump " very near to my eye that I'm wanting to

have removed. I was told by the GP, this was a good year or so ago before being

diagnosed as Hypo, that it could be caused by high collesterol(sp)and that I

should get my collesterol checked. Would you say that is a good idea?

Also, my dad died of a heart attack aged 55. Wondering if that could be a strong

indication of needing testing. How does one go about testing for actual build up

of plaque or whatever in arteries? I'm 41, not, I suppose any indication of not

having this kind of problem given I'm not terribly ancient, but people can have

heart disease at my age.

Just wondering...

[Guest guest]

Hi , A high cholerserol level was used to diagnose hypo bfore the wonderful TSh was invented. Theoretically levels should normalise once your thyroid is properly treated. My father too died at a early age (50) with a heart attack, I'm now 57 and still going strong. There are always other actors at work- he was overweight and smoked like a chimney since childhood. > To:> Subject: Re: Iodine - Does everyone here take it & if so, how?> > Thanks for replying Sheila.The link you sent me talks about plaque build up (in artieries) as being a possibility because of being Hypo.> > Interestingly, I have this white "bump" very near to my eye that I'm wanting to have removed. I was told by the GP, this was a good year or so ago before being diagnosed as Hypo, that it could be caused by high collesterol(sp)and that I should get my collesterol checked. Would you say that is a good idea?> > Also, my dad died of a heart attack aged 55. Wondering if that could be a strong indication of needing testing. How does one go about testing for actual build up of plaque or whatever in arteries? I'm 41, not, I suppose any indication of not having this kind of problem given I'm not terribly ancient, but people can have heart disease at my age.> > Just wondering...> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------> > TPA is not medically qualified. Consult with a qualified medical practitioner before changing medication.> >

[Guest guest]

Can you please give us a reference to this information please

Chuck.

Sheila

,

You wrote:

>

> Sorry! I can't understand why the docs have to see the TSH rising so high

before thinking thyroid, after all over 90% of healthy folk have a TSH of

around1.0.

> Knowledge is power!

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that your 90% statement is

patently false, as I have tried to explain to you before. The one-sigma (68%)

range for asymptomatic people extends well above 2.0 . Ignorance is bliss.

Chuck

No virus

found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.71/2510 - Release Date: 11/19/09

19:42:00

[Guest guest]

Thanks for replying

Luv-

>

> Hi ,

> A high cholerserol level was used to diagnose hypo bfore the

wonderful TSh was invented. Theoretically levels should normalise once your

thyroid is properly treated.

> My father too died at a early age (50) with a heart attack, I'm now 57 and

still going strong. There are always other actors at work- he was overweight and

smoked like a chimney since childhood.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sheila,

You wrote:

> Can you please give us a reference to this information please Chuck.

Sure, but I thought any remotely technical discussions were forbidden

here and had to automatically move to LABGAB.

When we tried to discuss this before, in June 27-28, I cited the

measured median value of TSH in healthy neonates as 2.29 . In screened

(healthy) adult volunteers, the median was measured in 2007 to be 1.35.

Several studies since have shown that the median gets progressively

higher with age. cited a source that said 1.5 . Since by

(statistical) definition 50% of the population studied is above the

median, how can have 90% of that population at 1.0 or even below

1.0? You can't. The most you can have below 1.5 is 50%.

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000112954

In response, cited an editorial, an opinion piece by Alun s,

which in turn cited the paper in Norway in 2000, giving a median TSH as

1.5 . Again, that means that _50%_ are ABOVE 1.5. How can you have 90%

" near " 1.0 or even below 1.5, when 50% are ABOVE 1.5? s also cited

an interview by J. Stockigt with Sigma Pharmaceuticals in 2001. These

recommended 1.0 as a target TSH, but neither was from peer reviewed

literature. The study from Norway that was archival, recommended nothing

of the sort.

E. Hamilton, , Lynn Onstad, and J. Kopecky,

" TSH Levels in a Population with No Clinical, Autoantibody, or

Ultrasonographic Evidence of Thyroid Disease: Implications for the

Diagnosis of Subclinical Hypothyroidism, " J Clin Endocrinol Metab,

January, 2008.

Hollowell JG, Staehling NW, Flanders WD, et al. " Serum TSH, T4, and

thyroid antibodies in the United States population: National Health and

Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). J Clin Endocrinol Metab

2000;87:489-99.

I also recall posting a plot of the TSH distribution which showed the

one sigma value. However, this was an older paper. Normally, an entire

reference range is two-sigma, or 98% confidence. That means if the mean

is 1.5, then one sigma would reach to a TSH of about 3.0 . I doubt that

it is that high, but again, the fraction below the median has to be no

more than 50%, so what is " near " 1.0 can only be a tiny fraction of that.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Hi

Chuck

I

asked if you could provide us with a link to the information you cited so we

could check it out for ourselves on this forum. If you wish to expand further

on such technical information, it should be posted to LABGAB forum. You make a

point that you posted the information before, but you must remember that

membership here is changing every day as we get new members coming along, and many

of them are starting from scratch with gathering information that will help

them. Most of the stuff is brand new to them, so please bear with us as you

will find many, many discussions and requests for information will be repeated of

necessity.

As

far as this forum is concerned, the majority of our members are not scientists,

nor are they lawyers, and many do not need the science behind their illness,

nor do they need the legal information that goes with the territory. This is

the reason the LABGAB forum was opened so the more scientific and legal experts

could get together there. If members need to know the science, they can join

LABGAB. If you read our LABGAB Home Page, it states

·

This forum is dedicated solely to discussions and debates about

purely scientific aspects regarding the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid

disease. We are working towards two goals: to provide members of TPA-UK with

the technical information that they might need to convince their physicians,

and to provide logical, assault-proof reasoning for potential legal use, so

that the virtual sea of undiagnosed, under-treated, untreated sufferers of

hypothyroidism will at last be cared for properly.

When you cited this

information in June 27-28, because of its technical nature, I asked that you post

it to the LABGAB forum, but you didn't respond, nor did you move it to LABGAB

at that time. Once again, I am requesting that all members respect our

wishes and post all technical, scientific and/or legal information on the

LABGAB forum. It would be good if members here could be notified of any such

discussions taking place on that forum so they could choose to take part if

they wish.

Many thanks

Sheila

Sheila,

You wrote:

> Can you please give us a reference to this information please Chuck.

Sure, but I thought any remotely technical discussions were forbidden

here and had to automatically move to LABGAB.

When we tried to discuss this before, in June 27-28, I cited the

measured median value of TSH in healthy neonates as 2.29 . In screened

(healthy) adult volunteers, the median was measured in 2007 to be 1.35.

Several studies since have shown that the median gets progressively

higher with age. cited a source that said 1.5 . Since by

(statistical) definition 50% of the population studied is above the

median, how can have 90% of that population at 1.0 or even below

1.0? You can't. The most you can have below 1.5 is 50%.

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000112954

In response, cited an editorial, an opinion piece by Alun s,

which in turn cited the paper in Norway in 2000, giving a median TSH as

1.5 . Again, that means that _50%_ are ABOVE 1.5. How can you have 90%

" near " 1.0 or even below 1.5, when 50% are ABOVE 1.5? s also

cited

an interview by J. Stockigt with Sigma Pharmaceuticals in 2001. These

recommended 1.0 as a target TSH, but neither was from peer reviewed

literature. The study from Norway that was archival, recommended nothing

of the sort.

E. Hamilton, , Lynn Onstad, and J. Kopecky,

" TSH Levels in a Population with No Clinical, Autoantibody, or

Ultrasonographic Evidence of Thyroid Disease: Implications for the

Diagnosis of Subclinical Hypothyroidism, " J Clin Endocrinol Metab,

January, 2008.

Hollowell JG, Staehling NW, Flanders WD, et al. " Serum TSH, T4, and

thyroid antibodies in the United States population: National Health and

Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). J Clin Endocrinol Metab

2000;87:489-99.

I also recall posting a plot of the TSH distribution which showed the

one sigma value. However, this was an older paper. Normally, an entire

reference range is two-sigma, or 98% confidence. That means if the mean

is 1.5, then one sigma would reach to a TSH of about 3.0 . I doubt that

it is that high, but again, the fraction below the median has to be no

more than 50%, so what is " near " 1.0 can only be a tiny fraction of

that.

Chuck

No virus

found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.76/2519 - Release Date: 11/22/09

19:40:00

[Guest guest]

How do you know these 'healthy' examples are at optimum health? So far as the

NHS was concerned both my babies were healthy, but I could see they had health

problems right from birth. There is a difference between being 'not sick' and

having the best health.

We see the same kind of problem with the human body temperature. So many people

have a lowered metabolism these days that doctors recognise lower temperatures

as 'normal'.

Miriam

> When we tried to discuss this before, in June 27-28, I cited the

> measured median value of TSH in healthy neonates as 2.29 . In screened

(healthy) adult volunteers, the median was measured in 2007 to be 1.35.