Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

[Guest guest]

One of the issues here is, "What constitutes feeling well?"I know a woman whose thyroid was removed, & she insists that she feels really well on her thyroid replacement meds, & that it wasn't such a big deal. However, she has come to accept a certain degree of ill-health, & blames a lot of stuff on "normal aging." The iodine doc on the video (link posted recently) commented that NOBODY at ANY age should accept feeling tired all the time. But once you are over 40, if you complain to a doc he is likely to tell you condescendingly that you are getting older...In my early 40s, I had such bad arthritis in my knees that confronting a flight of stairs made me want to weep, because it hurt so badly to go up or down stairs. Now I'm 58, & even though I am OLDER, my arthritis pain is nearly gone. Since the medical expectation is that arthritis will just get worse & worse, I am doing GREAT. But now my expectation is that if I just clean up my act well enough, I could totally get rid of the last lingering crepitus & twinges of pain. My health is better, but I am less satisfied.Another issue is that some natural protocols over-promise. I just did my first liver cleanse, for example, after years of hesitating. I found it totally revolting, but was counting on a huge pay-off, after hearing people describe the result of a liver cleanse in such glowing terms. I was really disappointed. (Yes, I know -- you need to do a series of them. A single cleanse can't solve everything. And yet, I kept reading these reports of downright orgasmic good health after a cleanse... And the thought of doing more cleanses is really depressing, since I found it so revolting. I hate grapefruit juice! I hate drinking oil! I hate having a restless stomach all night...)The fact is that many of us are in such poor shape that we can try something with "huge" benefits, & still have a way to go. Iodine has made me feel a lot better -- but I am still far from being as well as I would like to be.Yes, Laurel, there is not a lot of statistical work to give us clear direction with alternative approaches. But a lot of this stuff is hard to quantify with numbers. On a scale of 1-10, how do I feel? How can I tell you, when the value of 10 keeps changing? A lot of laboratory values are graded on the curve, as it were, so that the poor health of the general population lowers the standard. A lot of us don't even realize that we want "abnormal" numbers to feel good.Most people expect to feel worse as time goes on, & many accept their current state of health as satisfactory. Once you change your expectation, it is much harder to feel satisfied. At what point is it satisfactory to feel better than you expected, but not as well as you had hoped?AnneOn Jun 10, 2011, at 5:58 AM, pythonesk wrote:

Linn - True, most people would not dream of questioning their doctor's judgement and those of us who do are seen as "difficult". On the other hand, if you choose alternative treatments there are no statistics or double-blind studies to help guide you, only blind faith.

For instance, I know RAI is a bad word around here, and has truly been bad for many, but one of my aunts had it done about 50 years ago and she's still doing well. And my MIL had it done about 20 years ago and I haven't heard of any ill effects. That doesn't mean there weren't any, and it doesn't mean there were any. I just think that we are more likely to hear horror stories on the web, and never hear from satisfied patients.

So, I guess my point is that, no matter which way we go we ARE blindly following because the research doesn't exist that gives us clear direction. Don't you agree?

Laurel

Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.

[Guest guest]

Anne - I know this isn't an arthritis forum, but how did your knees get better?

Email me privately if need be. Thanks,

Laurel

> In my early 40s, I had such bad arthritis in my knees that confronting a

flight of stairs made me want to weep, because it hurt so badly to go up or down

stairs. Now I'm 58, & even though I am OLDER, my arthritis pain is nearly gone.

Since the medical expectation is that arthritis will just get worse & worse, I

am doing GREAT.

[Guest guest]

Anne - Yes, it's all subjective. Someone may be very ill, and yet happy enough

with their own situation to describe themselves as well, and vice versa. It all

depends on your goals & expectations. At my age, and with my history, I don't

expect to be hiking the Appalachian Trail, and so I'm satisfied with being able

to mow the weeds, er... grass.

But when it comes to the iodine protocol I hoped that there would be some

statistics showing conventional thyca treatment vs. iodine. That's what I meant

by blindly following. I can blindly follow the medical establishment or I can

blindly follow Dr. Abraham.

And with all medical matters - unless you are the researcher yourself all you

can do is take someone's else's word for what consistutes the truth. My

apologies for going all philosophical...

Laurel

> > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research

on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

But Laurel it isn't just Dr. Abraham. He has been digging into historical research. They aren't his ideas that iodine is effective for cancer. Many other doctors are saying the same thing:

Here are some of the doctors:

Dr. Guy Abraham

Dr. Brownstein

Dr.

Dr. Derry

Dr. Albert Szent Gyorgyi

Dr. Orlee (book - Minerals for the Genetic Code)

Then if you read the research to follow the basic biochemistry:

Iodine is needed for the P53 gene to function. P53 is responsible for apoptosis of abnormal cells. Without iodine it doesn't work and bad cells / DNA is allowed to replicate. P53 is called the guardian of the genetic code.

Radioactive iodine is used to kill thyroid cancer cells by entering the cell and damaging the DNA. So non-radioactive iodine will enter the cells as well but because we know that it effects the P53, we know that it will help to kill the bad cells through P53.

Barriers to entry in the cell by both RAI and non-radioactive forms are:

1. Bromide blocking receptors (which is why large doses of iodine are needed to displace bromide and allow iodine to enter the cells)

2. Non-functioning symporters (which is addressed by Dr Abraham's papers on Vit C & Symporters on www.optimox.com)

3. Iodine Resistance in cells - which can be increased through retinoic acid (It is used to increase uptake of RAI but I have done it to increase uptake of Iodine)

Then you need to make your body an environment that will heal and improve your immune system by detoxing, removing heavy metal toxicity, increasing nutrient levels and balancing hormones.

Here is what I found. You liken this to following blindly. Don't! I am serious here. You need to read research and understand why it is the right thing for you. I was blessed to have Dr. Brownstein as my doctor on my journey. He did set up my protocol which is what I share here but I did not just let him tell me what to do. I read and read and read to figure out why it was the right thing and how I could enhance the protocol with other nutrients based on what I knew about the way RAI worked in the body. I will be writing a book on thyroid cancer - hopefully to start in the fall - so for now all the data remains jumbled in my brain and in folders on my computer waiting to organize for others to use. You need to believe in what you are doing otherwise you will drive yourself crazy wondering. It is not anything that this group can give you. We can share what we have done and what has worked for us and point you to places like www.iodine4health.com so you can read the research that has been gathered. Unfortunately there are no stats of iodine and cancer effectiveness. Those types of stats are generally collected on drugs and not natural remedies. The natural supplement companies are under more and more fire from the FDA and FTC. I recently received a practitioner flyer from one of the supplement companies I work with. They stated that due to an increased scrutiny from the government on what was being said about what supplements would do for your health they were going to eliminate one of the informational sections of the flyer. It is sad but true. We are living in an age where the sharing of information that you are seeking is being taken underground.

Best of luck on your journey.

Buist, ND

Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

Anne - Yes, it's all subjective. Someone may be very ill, and yet happy enough with their own situation to describe themselves as well, and vice versa. It all depends on your goals & expectations. At my age, and with my history, I don't expect to be hiking the Appalachian Trail, and so I'm satisfied with being able to mow the weeds, er... grass.But when it comes to the iodine protocol I hoped that there would be some statistics showing conventional thyca treatment vs. iodine. That's what I meant by blindly following. I can blindly follow the medical establishment or I can blindly follow Dr. Abraham.And with all medical matters - unless you are the researcher yourself all you can do is take someone's else's word for what consistutes the truth. My apologies for going all philosophical...Laurel> > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves. > > > >>

[Guest guest]

I would like to add that Lugol's is an important part of the Gerson Therapy. As is natural thyroid hormone. Max Gerson , M.D. found out as early as the 1930's that cancer patients were always deficient in iodine as well as thyroid hormone. To this day, the Gerson Therapy still utilizes these two materials, along with others and a diet rich in organic vegetables, juices and a detoxification program to make sure the toxins that are released leave the body as efficiently as possible. Best, Kathleen

Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

Anne - Yes, it's all subjective. Someone may be very ill, and yet happy enough with their own situation to describe themselves as well, and vice versa. It all depends on your goals & expectations. At my age, and with my history, I don't expect to be hiking the Appalachian Trail, and so I'm satisfied with being able to mow the weeds, er... grass.But when it comes to the iodine protocol I hoped that there would be some statistics showing conventional thyca treatment vs. iodine. That's what I meant by blindly following. I can blindly follow the medical establishment or I can blindly follow Dr. Abraham.And with all medical matters - unless you are the researcher yourself all you can do is take someone's else's word for what consistutes the truth. My apologies for going all philosophical...Laurel> > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves. > > > >>

[Guest guest]

With alternative medicine, I think drug companies have no interest in any statistics or trials being run. Information about Iodine or LDN could make a big hole in the profits of drug companies. Any laboratory that ran trials would be blackballed by Big Pharma. If I had a load of money, I would start an independent laboratory to run trials on treatments like iodine. It would probably have a huge security budget!

I think that people have to go back to basics here and re-think their whole way of approaching their health care. You go and see a doctor with the expectation that he/she will be able to cure you. In my case after 4 years I was not getting better. My doctor told me that I was OK because my labs were OK. I didn't feel OK. So my doctor was not doing his job as far as I was concerned, although he felt quite pleased with himself. After 4 years of T4 only I had to face the fact that I felt like rubbish, I wasn't getting better and it was no use lying to myself anymore. He was wrong, so was my specialist. So what next?

I surfed the Internet and read everything I could. I tried all sorts of stuff. I reckoned if I had a solution that wasn't going to hurt me, why not try it? I would waste a little money and time, but it was low risk. Eventually, I tried the Iodine Protocol. I was worried about this for various reasons but considered that the potential advantages were worth a small risk and that if things did go wrong the situation was not irreversible. So I tried it and in 6 weeks, no more sore breasts! On the basis of this, I decided that I was probably iodine deficient as doctors A and B describe in their papers on the subject. By trying things out in small controlled steps, I realised that the Iodine Protocol was doing me a lot of good and probably everything it was cracked up to be. It didn't sort out all my problems straight away. I wanted to get my Hashi ABs down. This has taken me about two

years. But in the mean time I was not doing myself any harm so why not wait and see? In the end, it worked OK. Don't know why some people get low ABs after a few months and not me, but I got what I wanted in the end. Basically, Drs A and B delivered the goods for me, it just didn't happen overnight! Along the way, I had to weigh up the pros and cons on several occasions. It just comes down to doing your own clinical trial on yourself!

As for blindly following the Drs A and/or B or blindly following the rest of the medical establishment, well, I find Drs A and B quite clear and forthcoming about how they propose to treat people. There are books and publications on the Internet by them which are very explicit about what they think. None of the doctors or specialists who have treated me have deigned to explain the reasoning behind their treatment. Within reasonable limits, Drs A and B have published a great deal of information. They cannot spend all their time trying to prove their points because they have patients to see and a living to earn. They have put up a very good defence of their case against Dr Alan Gaby's attack in the "Townsend Letter to Patients and Doctors".

Much of the information about conventional treatment for thyroid and fibrocystic breast disease that is available on the Internet is just information and instructions without any bibliography. So how can you make a judgement about something so unsubstantiated? How can anybody even trust it? The only reason that everyone follows conventional treatment is because everyone else is doing it. They do it blindly.

The iodine protocol doctors are honest about what they are doing and expose their ideas to public scrutiny. My specialist had not even heard of the iodine protocol.

I don't think it has to be blindly following one doctor or another. The Iodine Project doctors put forward their ideas and have not done trials for the reasons outlined above. If somebody does not put forward in print their ideas for scrutiny, there is something wrong. You do not have to have all the answers. You do not necessarily have to have trials either. But refusing to discuss the issue AT ALL is for me highly suspect and an abuse of trust on the part of doctors.

People have to learn to apply some very simple rules and reasoning to the way they approach their health care, particularly with chronic problems like thyroid illness and cancer, and have confidence in their own judgement. Many people accept situations in their health care that they would not accept when buying, for example, a used car. I am sure such a statement will provoke a cry of "you can't compare buy a used car with your health!" Well, no the situations are not totally comparable. But if a used car sales man refuses to answer a question about a car or his answer seems unclear or dishonest, it is probably universally agreed that it is ill advised to buy the car. I would say that as far as health care is concerned you should apply AT LEAST the same care that you would with buying a car. I know it is easy to say this

and not so easy to do when you are frightened, have everyone against you and have mind fog. On the other hand, when you are in a tight corner sometimes it can make you very decisive. I must admit, it was the idea that I might die after a long illness that really forced me to think about my health care. I realised that not to make a decision was in fact making a decision of going along with my doctor and that I had to stop it. So I started to look at every possible treatment from scratch. Things started to get better after that.

MacG.

From: ladybugsandbees <ladybugsandbees@...>iodine Sent: Sat, 11 June, 2011 14:54:48Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

But Laurel it isn't just Dr. Abraham. He has been digging into historical research. They aren't his ideas that iodine is effective for cancer. Many other doctors are saying the same thing:

Here are some of the doctors:

Dr. Guy Abraham

Dr. Brownstein

Dr.

Dr. Derry

Dr. Albert Szent Gyorgyi

Dr. Orlee (book - Minerals for the Genetic Code)

Then if you read the research to follow the basic biochemistry:

Iodine is needed for the P53 gene to function. P53 is responsible for apoptosis of abnormal cells. Without iodine it doesn't work and bad cells / DNA is allowed to replicate. P53 is called the guardian of the genetic code.

Radioactive iodine is used to kill thyroid cancer cells by entering the cell and damaging the DNA. So non-radioactive iodine will enter the cells as well but because we know that it effects the P53, we know that it will help to kill the bad cells through P53.

Barriers to entry in the cell by both RAI and non-radioactive forms are:

1. Bromide blocking receptors (which is why large doses of iodine are needed to displace bromide and allow iodine to enter the cells)

2. Non-functioning symporters (which is addressed by Dr Abraham's papers on Vit C & Symporters on www.optimox.com)

3. Iodine Resistance in cells - which can be increased through retinoic acid (It is used to increase uptake of RAI but I have done it to increase uptake of Iodine)

Then you need to make your body an environment that will heal and improve your immune system by detoxing, removing heavy metal toxicity, increasing nutrient levels and balancing hormones.

Here is what I found. You liken this to following blindly. Don't! I am serious here. You need to read research and understand why it is the right thing for you. I was blessed to have Dr. Brownstein as my doctor on my journey. He did set up my protocol which is what I share here but I did not just let him tell me what to do. I read and read and read to figure out why it was the right thing and how I could enhance the protocol with other nutrients based on what I knew about the way RAI worked in the body. I will be writing a book on thyroid cancer - hopefully to start in the fall - so for now all the data remains jumbled in my brain and in folders on my computer waiting to organize for others to use. You need to believe in what you are doing otherwise you will drive yourself crazy wondering. It is not anything that this

group can give you. We can share what we have done and what has worked for us and point you to places like www.iodine4health.com so you can read the research that has been gathered. Unfortunately there are no stats of iodine and cancer effectiveness. Those types of stats are generally collected on drugs and not natural remedies. The natural supplement companies are under more and more fire from the FDA and FTC. I recently received a practitioner flyer from one of the supplement companies I work with. They stated that due to an increased scrutiny from the government on what was being said about what supplements would do for your health they were going to eliminate one of the informational sections of the flyer. It is sad but true. We are living in an age where the sharing of information that you are seeking is being taken

underground.

Best of luck on your journey.

Buist, ND

Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

Anne - Yes, it's all subjective. Someone may be very ill, and yet happy enough with their own situation to describe themselves as well, and vice versa. It all depends on your goals & expectations. At my age, and with my history, I don't expect to be hiking the Appalachian Trail, and so I'm satisfied with being able to mow the weeds, er... grass.But when it comes to the iodine protocol I hoped that there would be some statistics showing conventional thyca treatment vs. iodine. That's what I meant by blindly following. I can blindly follow the medical establishment or I can blindly follow Dr. Abraham.And with all medical matters - unless you are the researcher yourself all you can do is take someone's else's word for what consistutes the truth. My apologies for going all philosophical...Laurel> > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves. > > > >>

[Guest guest]

Dear I appreciate very much your thoughtful comments and I want to congratulate you on your success in finding successful therapies through your own efforts in the face of the prejudices and limitations of conventional medicine. I did want to comment on something you said : …The Iodine Project doctors put forward their ideas and have not done trials for the reasons outlined above. If somebody does not put forward in print their ideas for scrutiny, there is something wrong. You do not have to have all the answers. You do not necessarily have to have trials either. But refusing to discuss the issue AT ALL is for me highly suspect and an abuse of trust on the part of doctors. So in the spirit of your last sentence in the above quoted paragraph and also admitting that perhaps I do not fully understand everything you wrote, I did not find a compelling justification for why the iodine project doctors don’t do trials. If there is a good reason for it, I suspect it’s probably related to money but whether we accept it or not, randomized double blind trials are the standard for establishing the worth of a therapy for people in the medical research community. I would love to see one done, where someone compares Iodine vs synthroid or NDT, even if it’s a short term study where important baseline characteristics can be controlled to show its efficacy. Certainly no one doubts the experiences of Drs A and B, but until you have a controlled randomized study, it will continue to be relegated to the ‘anecdotal’ stage and it cannot be elevated to the status of what the scientific and research community would regard as a ‘proven’ therapy. This is unfortunate, but like so many other things, this is life. So for example, the fact that numerous individuals find positive results , each one conducting their own clinical trial on themselves carries little weight because randomization was absent and no control or positive treatment group was present to compare the experience against. That can only be done with a sufficient number of subjects, and designed according to rules that seek to find a particular effect if it’s there. I earnestly hope, mightily, that Drs A and B would find the courage and wherewithal to rectify this large gap in the research and conduct such a study so that objective evidence could be presented. I hasten to add that I am not very familiar with  the literature, just recently trying to figure out if Iodine is an option for me, so it may be that some such evidence is around and I am just not aware. I apologize in advance if that is the case. Stan   From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of MacGilchristSent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 1:49 PMiodine Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true With alternative medicine, I think drug companies have no interest in any statistics or trials being run. Information about Iodine or LDN could make a big hole in the profits of drug companies. Any laboratory that ran trials would be blackballed by Big Pharma. If I had a load of money, I would start an independent laboratory to run trials on treatments like iodine. It would probably have a huge security budget! I think that people have to go back to basics here and re-think their whole way of approaching their health care. You go and see a doctor with the expectation that he/she will be able to cure you. In my case after 4 years I was not getting better. My doctor told me that I was OK because my labs were OK. I didn't feel OK. So my doctor was not doing his job as far as I was concerned, although he felt quite pleased with himself. After 4 years of T4 only I had to face the fact that I felt like rubbish, I wasn't getting better and it was no use lying to myself anymore. He was wrong, so was my specialist. So what next? I surfed the Internet and read everything I could. I tried all sorts of stuff. I reckoned if I had a solution that wasn't going to hurt me, why not try it? I would waste a little money and time, but it was low risk. Eventually, I tried the Iodine Protocol. I was worried about this for various reasons but considered that the potential advantages were worth a small risk and that if things did go wrong the situation was not irreversible. So I tried it and in 6 weeks, no more sore breasts! On the basis of this, I decided that I was probably iodine deficient as doctors A and B describe in their papers on the subject. By trying things out in small controlled steps, I realised that the Iodine Protocol was doing me a lot of good and probably everything it was cracked up to be. It didn't sort out all my problems straight away. I wanted to get my Hashi ABs down. This has taken me about two years. But in the mean time I was not doing myself any harm so why not wait and see? In the end, it worked OK. Don't know why some people get low ABs after a few months and not me, but I got what I wanted in the end. Basically, Drs A and B delivered the goods for me, it just didn't happen overnight! Along the way, I had to weigh up the pros and cons on several occasions. It just comes down to doing your own clinical trial on yourself! As for blindly following the Drs A and/or B or blindly following the rest of the medical establishment, well, I find Drs A and B quite clear and forthcoming about how they propose to treat people. There are books and publications on the Internet by them which are very explicit about what they think. None of the doctors or specialists who have treated me have deigned to explain the reasoning behind their treatment. Within reasonable limits, Drs A and B have published a great deal of information. They cannot spend all their time trying to prove their points because they have patients to see and a living to earn. They have put up a very good defence of their case against Dr Alan Gaby's attack in the " Townsend Letter to Patients and Doctors " . Much of the information about conventional treatment for thyroid and fibrocystic breast disease that is available on the Internet is just information and instructions without any bibliography. So how can you make a judgement about something so unsubstantiated? How can anybody even trust it? The only reason that everyone follows conventional treatment is because everyone else is doing it. They do it blindly. The iodine protocol doctors are honest about what they are doing and expose their ideas to public scrutiny. My specialist had not even heard of the iodine protocol. I don't think it has to be blindly following one doctor or another. The Iodine Project doctors put forward their ideas and have not done trials for the reasons outlined above. If somebody does not put forward in print their ideas for scrutiny, there is something wrong. You do not have to have all the answers. You do not necessarily have to have trials either. But refusing to discuss the issue AT ALL is for me highly suspect and an abuse of trust on the part of doctors. People have to learn to apply some very simple rules and reasoning to the way they approach their health care, particularly with chronic problems like thyroid illness and cancer, and have confidence in their own judgement. Many people accept situations in their health care that they would not accept when buying, for example, a used car. I am sure such a statement will provoke a cry of " you can't compare buy a used car with your health! " Well, no the situations are not totally comparable. But if a used car sales man refuses to answer a question about a car or his answer seems unclear or dishonest, it is probably universally agreed that it is ill advised to buy the car. I would say that as far as health care is concerned you should apply AT LEAST the same care that you would with buying a car. I know it is easy to say this and not so easy to do when you are frightened, have everyone against you and have mind fog. On the other hand, when you are in a tight corner sometimes it can make you very decisive. I must admit, it was the idea that I might die after a long illness that really forced me to think about my health care. I realised that not to make a decision was in fact making a decision of going along with my doctor and that I had to stop it. So I started to look at every possible treatment from scratch. Things started to get better after that. MacG. From: ladybugsandbees <ladybugsandbees@...>iodine Sent: Sat, 11 June, 2011 14:54:48Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true But Laurel it isn't just Dr. Abraham. He has been digging into historical research. They aren't his ideas that iodine is effective for cancer. Many other doctors are saying the same thing: Here are some of the doctors: Dr. Guy AbrahamDr. BrownsteinDr. Dr. DerryDr. Albert Szent GyorgyiDr. Orlee (book - Minerals for the Genetic Code) Then if you read the research to follow the basic biochemistry: Iodine is needed for the P53 gene to function. P53 is responsible for apoptosis of abnormal cells. Without iodine it doesn't work and bad cells / DNA is allowed to replicate. P53 is called the guardian of the genetic code.Radioactive iodine is used to kill thyroid cancer cells by entering the cell and damaging the DNA. So non-radioactive iodine will enter the cells as well but because we know that it effects the P53, we know that it will help to kill the bad cells through P53. Barriers to entry in the cell by both RAI and non-radioactive forms are: 1. Bromide blocking receptors (which is why large doses of iodine are needed to displace bromide and allow iodine to enter the cells)2. Non-functioning symporters (which is addressed by Dr Abraham's papers on Vit C & Symporters on www.optimox.com)3. Iodine Resistance in cells - which can be increased through retinoic acid (It is used to increase uptake of RAI but I have done it to increase uptake of Iodine) Then you need to make your body an environment that will heal and improve your immune system by detoxing, removing heavy metal toxicity, increasing nutrient levels and balancing hormones. Here is what I found. You liken this to following blindly. Don't! I am serious here. You need to read research and understand why it is the right thing for you. I was blessed to have Dr. Brownstein as my doctor on my journey. He did set up my protocol which is what I share here but I did not just let him tell me what to do. I read and read and read to figure out why it was the right thing and how I could enhance the protocol with other nutrients based on what I knew about the way RAI worked in the body. I will be writing a book on thyroid cancer - hopefully to start in the fall - so for now all the data remains jumbled in my brain and in folders on my computer waiting to organize for others to use. You need to believe in what you are doing otherwise you will drive yourself crazy wondering. It is not anything that this group can give you. We can share what we have done and what has worked for us and point you to places like www.iodine4health.com so you can read the research that has been gathered. Unfortunately there are no stats of iodine and cancer effectiveness. Those types of stats are generally collected on drugs and not natural remedies. The natural supplement companies are under more and more fire from the FDA and FTC. I recently received a practitioner flyer from one of the supplement companies I work with. They stated that due to an increased scrutiny from the government on what was being said about what supplements would do for your health they were going to eliminate one of the informational sections of the flyer. It is sad but true. We are living in an age where the sharing of information that you are seeking is being taken underground. Best of luck on your journey. Buist, ND Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true Anne - Yes, it's all subjective. Someone may be very ill, and yet happy enough with their own situation to describe themselves as well, and vice versa. It all depends on your goals & expectations. At my age, and with my history, I don't expect to be hiking the Appalachian Trail, and so I'm satisfied with being able to mow the weeds, er... grass.But when it comes to the iodine protocol I hoped that there would be some statistics showing conventional thyca treatment vs. iodine. That's what I meant by blindly following. I can blindly follow the medical establishment or I can blindly follow Dr. Abraham.And with all medical matters - unless you are the researcher yourself all you can do is take someone's else's word for what consistutes the truth. My apologies for going all philosophical...Laurel> > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves. > > > >>

[Guest guest]

No I don't agree, there is plenty of research in the alternative field. The

majority of double blind allopathic medical studies have dubious funding to say

the least and honestly double blind studies are a bit nonsensical when you

consider that there truly is no way to carry out a study where everything is

equal. None of us eat the same diet, have the same health issues, etc. I've

spent a lot of time reading various medical studies, it's always interesting

finding out how many people actually participated and where the money came from.

Then there's the issue of whose work gets chosen for the medical journals,

another hotbed of controversy. There is a lot of excellent research out there

but you won't find it in the mainstream's medical journals.

Linn

> Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on

their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.

>

[Guest guest]

Well said,

Linn.

Be Well

Dr.L

-----Original Message-----

No I don't agree, there is plenty of research in the

alternative field. The majority of

double blind allopathic medical studies have dubious funding to say the least

and honestly double blind studies are a bit nonsensical when you consider that

there truly is no way to carry out a study where everything is equal. None of us eat the same diet, have the

same health issues, etc. I've spent

a lot of time reading various medical studies, it's always interesting finding

out how many people actually participated and where the money came from. Then there's the issue of whose work

gets chosen for the medical journals, another hotbed of controversy. There is a lot of excellent research out

there but you won't find it in the mainstream's medical journals.

Linn

> Sadly the majority of folks will not question their

docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their

graves.

>

[Guest guest]

Surely the evidence is overwhelmingly against a doctors advice being safe.Doctors rely on " evidence based medicine".Evidence based medicine is a term which sound impressive until you lookinto the details.The details include the fact that Pharmacuetical Companies fund the laboratoriesat the Universities where the scientists work.The scientists depend for their jobs on producing the evidence necessary toget drugs passed by the FDA so that Pharma can market and sell their drugs.These drugs then earn the companies billions and billions of dollars around theworld.But are these drugs safe? Do they work? Examine the evidence.This from a leading British Newspaper, The Independent.A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs

company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most

people who take them.

Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics

at GlaxoKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some

of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.

It is an open secret within

the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients

but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His

comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by

nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to

the taxpayer of £7.2bn.So most of the drugs don't work on most people who take them. If that is the case why don't GSK tell us all those which don't work and why and we can save a lot of time and money.? Maybe even refund money to all those who receive the duds? That is as likely as the sun shining at night. Remember that doctors receive their advice from companies like GlaxoKline. So they only know what they are told by these huge companies.However there are other ways of getting information about what goes on in these very rich and powerful companies

and that is when whistleblower cases in association with the US Justice Dept provide direct evidence of fraud , deceit, and criminality. There were two such major cases last year( and lots of much smaller ones.). One involving Pfizers . The second involving GlaxoKline.Pfizers the largest pharma company in the world was fined $2.3 billion dolllars for fraud and deception, including marketing drugs for which no approval had beenreceived by the drugs regulator the FDA. What is specially noteworthy was the remarks of the judge. He called the company serial liars and fraudsters. This was the 4th time in 10 years that the company had been before the court on

similar charges. The whistleblower got some $56 million dollars So it seems that they are selling drugs that may have killed or seriously harmed people. Who knows how many thousands of people and they keep doing it.!! Therefore I conclude that fines are considered by the company a business expense and very tiny when compared with the amount they earn from selling the drugs!!!In the Glaxo case they were fined $750 million for knowingly selling drugs for many years which were duds. The whistleblower got over a hundred million dollars and counting as the full extent of the fraud in various states has yet to be completed. The whistleblower had

repeatedly advised the management that the drugs being sent out were no good and the company ignored the information. Eventually they fired the manager. And she went to the US Justice Dept.What is interesting in this case is that one of the drugs considered duds which GSK were knowingly selling was Avandia.Avandia is a drug used for the treatment of diabetes sufferers and earned the company billions of dollars annually.Recently banned in Europe and very restricted in the US) It was causing some 400 deaths per month!!!and GSK had been arguing for years that it was safe if properly prescribed and were fighting this defense of the drug even though they knew that

what theywere actually producing was a dud and they had witheld evidence that the drug was harmful in trials so that it would be approved for sale by the FDA.If that was an individual they would be tried for murder!!!The FDA said they did not have the resources to monitor every plant of which GlaxoKline have, 76 worldwide.So much for their regulatory powers.However if you try and sell whole milk they will send in the National Guard!! No joke.In addition last year Dr Rueben anestheologist who had published fake studies on pain killing drugs, agreed to not more than 10 years in prison and a fine of several hundred thousand dollars. His "research" had been used by Pharma Companies and was published in peer review learned journals and was used as approval documents by the FDA. So much for scientific rigour. Obviously a lot of red faces all round in the scientific community.. Evidence based medicine. peer reviewed. Please!!There are some 300 cases awaiting closure before the US Justice Dept. The health care business is keeping official there really busy.Meanwhile and were forced, they call it voluntary, to withdraw as much as $600 million dollars worth of worthless drugs. (they are all at it)What fine will they receive fro the US Justice Dept..Most research is faulty and if not, fraudulent.In a New York Times article entitled Lies, Damned Lies, and

Medical Science

"MUCH OF WHAT MEDICAL RESEARCHERS CONCLUDE IN

THEIR STUDIES IS MISLEADING, EXAGGERATED, OR FLAT-OUT WRONG. SO WHY ARE

DOCTORS—TO A STRIKING EXTENT—STILL DRAWING UPON MISINFORMATION IN THEIR

EVERYDAY PRACTICE? DR. JOHN IOANNIDIS HAS SPENT HIS CAREER CHALLENGING HIS

PEERS BY EXPOSING THEIR BAD SCIENCE. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical

information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely

accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top

journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given

this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work

in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice

we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that

the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with

conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even

to publicly admitting that there’s a problem." H Freedman. From: Linn <mwm1glm@...>iodine Sent: Sat, 11 June, 2011 21:56:23Subject: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

No I don't agree, there is plenty of research in the alternative field. The majority of double blind allopathic medical studies have dubious funding to say the least and honestly double blind studies are a bit nonsensical when you consider that there truly is no way to carry out a study where everything is equal. None of us eat the same diet, have the same health issues, etc. I've spent a lot of time reading various medical studies, it's always interesting finding out how many people actually participated and where the money came from. Then there's the issue of whose work gets chosen for the medical journals, another hotbed of controversy. There is a lot of excellent research out there but you won't find it in the mainstream's medical journals.

Linn

> Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.

>

[Guest guest]

We are living in a world where the truth is twisted to be unrecognizable and money is all that seems to matter to some people.  *Patent medicine* was the snake oil of the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA.  How it became a (once) highly regarded industry is something that everyone should stop & think & read about.  Many people haw published books on how allopathic medicine became the standard in the USA.  If more people would read about the history of medicine in the USA maybe we would start to develop enough momentum to really force a change for the better.... 

 

Kendra

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM, david kenna <davidjohnkenna@...> wrote:

Surely the evidence is overwhelmingly against a doctors advice being safe.

Doctors rely on " evidence based medicine " .

Evidence based medicine is a term which sound impressive until you look

into the details.

The details include the fact that Pharmacuetical Companies fund the laboratories

at the Universities where the scientists work.

The scientists depend for their jobs on producing the evidence necessary to

get drugs passed  by the FDA so that Pharma can market and sell their drugs.

These drugs then earn the companies billions and billions of dollars around the

world.

But are these drugs safe? Do they work? Examine the evidence.

This from a leading British Newspaper, The Independent.

A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.

Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.

It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn.

So most of the drugs don't work on most people who take them. If that is the case why don't GSK tell us all those which  don't work and why and we can save a lot of time and money.? Maybe even refund money to all those who receive the duds? That is as likely as the sun shining at night. 

Remember that doctors receive their advice from companies like GlaxoKline. So they only know what they are told by these huge companies.

However there are other ways of getting information about what goes on in these very rich and powerful companies and that is when whistleblower cases in association with the US Justice Dept provide direct evidence of fraud , deceit, and criminality. 

There were two such major cases last year( and lots of much smaller ones.). One involving Pfizers . The second involving GlaxoKline.

Pfizers the largest pharma company in the world was fined $2.3 billion dolllars for fraud and deception, including marketing drugs for which no approval had been

received by the drugs regulator the FDA. What is specially noteworthy was the remarks of the judge. He called the company serial liars and fraudsters. This was the 4th time in 10 years that the company had been before the court on similar charges. The whistleblower got some $56 million dollars 

So it seems that they are selling drugs that may have killed or seriously harmed people. Who knows how many thousands of people and they keep doing it.!! 

Therefore I conclude that fines are considered by the company  a business expense and very tiny when compared  with the amount they earn from selling the drugs!!!

In the Glaxo case they were fined $750 million for knowingly selling drugs for many years which were duds. The whistleblower got over a hundred million dollars and counting as the full extent of the fraud in various states has yet to be completed. The whistleblower had repeatedly advised the management that the drugs being sent out were no good and the company ignored the information. Eventually they fired the manager. And she went to the US Justice Dept.

What is interesting in this case is that one of the drugs considered duds which GSK were knowingly selling was Avandia.

Avandia is a drug used for the treatment of diabetes sufferers and earned the company billions of dollars annually.Recently banned in Europe and very restricted in the US) It was causing some 400 deaths per month!!!

and GSK had been arguing for years that it was safe if properly prescribed and were fighting this defense  of the drug even though they knew that what they

were actually producing was a dud and they had witheld evidence that the drug was harmful in trials so that it would be approved for sale by the FDA.

If that was an individual they would be tried for murder!!!

The FDA said they did not have the resources to monitor every plant of which GlaxoKline have, 76 worldwide.

So much for their regulatory powers.

However if you try and sell whole milk they will send in the National Guard!! No joke.

In addition last year Dr Rueben anestheologist who had published fake studies on pain killing drugs, agreed to not more than 10 years in prison and a fine of several hundred thousand dollars. His " research " had been used by Pharma Companies and was published in peer review learned journals and was used as approval documents by the FDA. So much for scientific rigour. Obviously a lot of red faces all round in the scientific community.. Evidence based medicine. peer reviewed. Please!!

There are some 300 cases awaiting closure before the US Justice Dept.  

The health care business is keeping official there really busy.

Meanwhile and were forced, they call it voluntary, to withdraw as much as $600 million dollars worth of worthless drugs. (they are all at it)

What fine will they receive fro the US Justice Dept..

Most research is faulty and if not, fraudulent.

In a New York Times article entitled 

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

" MUCH OF WHAT MEDICAL RESEARCHERS CONCLUDE IN THEIR STUDIES IS MISLEADING, EXAGGERATED, OR FLAT-OUT WRONG. SO WHY ARE DOCTORS—TO A STRIKING EXTENT—STILL DRAWING UPON MISINFORMATION IN THEIR EVERYDAY PRACTICE? DR. JOHN IOANNIDIS HAS SPENT HIS CAREER CHALLENGING HIS PEERS BY EXPOSING THEIR BAD SCIENCE

.. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem. "

H Freedman.

 

 

From: Linn <mwm1glm@...>

iodine Sent: Sat, 11 June, 2011 21:56:23 Subject: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true 

No I don't agree, there is plenty of research in the alternative field. The majority of double blind allopathic medical studies have dubious funding to say the least and honestly double blind studies are a bit nonsensical when you consider that there truly is no way to carry out a study where everything is equal. None of us eat the same diet, have the same health issues, etc. I've spent a lot of time reading various medical studies, it's always interesting finding out how many people actually participated and where the money came from. Then there's the issue of whose work gets chosen for the medical journals, another hotbed of controversy. There is a lot of excellent research out there but you won't find it in the mainstream's medical journals. Linn

> Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.>

[Guest guest]

The

new Burzynski Film, Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious

Business, can be viewed online for free until June 13, 2011 only. It’s a VERY informative film in

which you will be able to see first-hand the antics of conventional medicine when

it comes to finding a cure for cancer.

https://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content & view=article & id=110

Be Well

Dr.L

From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On

Behalf Of Kendra

Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:59 PM

iodine ; davidjohnkenna@...

Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

We

are living in a world where the truth is twisted to be unrecognizable and money

is all that seems to matter to some people. *Patent medicine* was

the snake oil of the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA. How it

became a (once) highly regarded industry is something that everyone

should stop & think & read about. Many people haw published books

on how allopathic medicine became the standard in the USA. If more people

would read about the history of medicine in the USA maybe we would start to

develop enough momentum to really force a change for the better....

Kendra

[Guest guest]

Back when I went to doctors, I, too, was constantly ticked off to be told admiringly how healthy I was! I was over-weight, had allergies & fibroid tumors, & assorted cysts, & digestive problems, & arthritic knees... One doctor told me after doing some tests on my digestive tract that he thought my problem was that I was just too healthy, & was not used to the minor health problems that other people accepted as a matter of course. I was there because I didn't feel WELL, & they kept telling me how HEALTHY I was!AnneOn Jun 11, 2011, at 10:49 AM, MacGilchrist wrote:

With alternative medicine, I think drug companies have no interest in any statistics or trials being run. Information about Iodine or LDN could make a big hole in the profits of drug companies. Any laboratory that ran trials would be blackballed by Big Pharma. If I had a load of money, I would start an independent laboratory to run trials on treatments like iodine. It would probably have a huge security budget!

I think that people have to go back to basics here and re-think their whole way of approaching their health care. You go and see a doctor with the expectation that he/she will be able to cure you. In my case after 4 years I was not getting better. My doctor told me that I was OK because my labs were OK. I didn't feel OK. So my doctor was not doing his job as far as I was concerned, although he felt quite pleased with himself. After 4 years of T4 only I had to face the fact that I felt like rubbish, I wasn't getting better and it was no use lying to myself anymore. He was wrong, so was my specialist. So what next?

I surfed the Internet and read everything I could. I tried all sorts of stuff. I reckoned if I had a solution that wasn't going to hurt me, why not try it? I would waste a little money and time, but it was low risk. Eventually, I tried the Iodine Protocol. I was worried about this for various reasons but considered that the potential advantages were worth a small risk and that if things did go wrong the situation was not irreversible. So I tried it and in 6 weeks, no more sore breasts! On the basis of this, I decided that I was probably iodine deficient as doctors A and B describe in their papers on the subject. By trying things out in small controlled steps, I realised that the Iodine Protocol was doing me a lot of good and probably everything it was cracked up to be. It didn't sort out all my problems straight away. I wanted to get my Hashi ABs down. This has taken me about two

years. But in the mean time I was not doing myself any harm so why not wait and see? In the end, it worked OK. Don't know why some people get low ABs after a few months and not me, but I got what I wanted in the end. Basically, Drs A and B delivered the goods for me, it just didn't happen overnight! Along the way, I had to weigh up the pros and cons on several occasions. It just comes down to doing your own clinical trial on yourself!

As for blindly following the Drs A and/or B or blindly following the rest of the medical establishment, well, I find Drs A and B quite clear and forthcoming about how they propose to treat people. There are books and publications on the Internet by them which are very explicit about what they think. None of the doctors or specialists who have treated me have deigned to explain the reasoning behind their treatment. Within reasonable limits, Drs A and B have published a great deal of information. They cannot spend all their time trying to prove their points because they have patients to see and a living to earn. They have put up a very good defence of their case against Dr Alan Gaby's attack in the "Townsend Letter to Patients and Doctors".

Much of the information about conventional treatment for thyroid and fibrocystic breast disease that is available on the Internet is just information and instructions without any bibliography. So how can you make a judgement about something so unsubstantiated? How can anybody even trust it? The only reason that everyone follows conventional treatment is because everyone else is doing it. They do it blindly.

The iodine protocol doctors are honest about what they are doing and expose their ideas to public scrutiny. My specialist had not even heard of the iodine protocol.

I don't think it has to be blindly following one doctor or another. The Iodine Project doctors put forward their ideas and have not done trials for the reasons outlined above. If somebody does not put forward in print their ideas for scrutiny, there is something wrong. You do not have to have all the answers. You do not necessarily have to have trials either. But refusing to discuss the issue AT ALL is for me highly suspect and an abuse of trust on the part of doctors.

People have to learn to apply some very simple rules and reasoning to the way they approach their health care, particularly with chronic problems like thyroid illness and cancer, and have confidence in their own judgement. Many people accept situations in their health care that they would not accept when buying, for example, a used car. I am sure such a statement will provoke a cry of "you can't compare buy a used car with your health!" Well, no the situations are not totally comparable. But if a used car sales man refuses to answer a question about a car or his answer seems unclear or dishonest, it is probably universally agreed that it is ill advised to buy the car. I would say that as far as health care is concerned you should apply AT LEAST the same care that you would with buying a car. I know it is easy to say this

and not so easy to do when you are frightened, have everyone against you and have mind fog. On the other hand, when you are in a tight corner sometimes it can make you very decisive. I must admit, it was the idea that I might die after a long illness that really forced me to think about my health care. I realised that not to make a decision was in fact making a decision of going along with my doctor and that I had to stop it. So I started to look at every possible treatment from scratch. Things started to get better after that.

MacG.

From: ladybugsandbees <ladybugsandbees@...>iodine Sent: Sat, 11 June, 2011 14:54:48Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

But Laurel it isn't just Dr. Abraham. He has been digging into historical research. They aren't his ideas that iodine is effective for cancer. Many other doctors are saying the same thing:

Here are some of the doctors:

Dr. Guy Abraham

Dr. Brownstein

Dr.

Dr. Derry

Dr. Albert Szent Gyorgyi

Dr. Orlee (book - Minerals for the Genetic Code)

Then if you read the research to follow the basic biochemistry:

Iodine is needed for the P53 gene to function. P53 is responsible for apoptosis of abnormal cells. Without iodine it doesn't work and bad cells / DNA is allowed to replicate. P53 is called the guardian of the genetic code.

Radioactive iodine is used to kill thyroid cancer cells by entering the cell and damaging the DNA. So non-radioactive iodine will enter the cells as well but because we know that it effects the P53, we know that it will help to kill the bad cells through P53.

Barriers to entry in the cell by both RAI and non-radioactive forms are:

1. Bromide blocking receptors (which is why large doses of iodine are needed to displace bromide and allow iodine to enter the cells)

2. Non-functioning symporters (which is addressed by Dr Abraham's papers on Vit C & Symporters on www.optimox.com)

3. Iodine Resistance in cells - which can be increased through retinoic acid (It is used to increase uptake of RAI but I have done it to increase uptake of Iodine)

Then you need to make your body an environment that will heal and improve your immune system by detoxing, removing heavy metal toxicity, increasing nutrient levels and balancing hormones.

Here is what I found. You liken this to following blindly. Don't! I am serious here. You need to read research and understand why it is the right thing for you. I was blessed to have Dr. Brownstein as my doctor on my journey. He did set up my protocol which is what I share here but I did not just let him tell me what to do. I read and read and read to figure out why it was the right thing and how I could enhance the protocol with other nutrients based on what I knew about the way RAI worked in the body. I will be writing a book on thyroid cancer - hopefully to start in the fall - so for now all the data remains jumbled in my brain and in folders on my computer waiting to organize for others to use. You need to believe in what you are doing otherwise you will drive yourself crazy wondering. It is not anything that this

group can give you. We can share what we have done and what has worked for us and point you to places like www.iodine4health.com so you can read the research that has been gathered. Unfortunately there are no stats of iodine and cancer effectiveness. Those types of stats are generally collected on drugs and not natural remedies. The natural supplement companies are under more and more fire from the FDA and FTC. I recently received a practitioner flyer from one of the supplement companies I work with. They stated that due to an increased scrutiny from the government on what was being said about what supplements would do for your health they were going to eliminate one of the informational sections of the flyer. It is sad but true. We are living in an age where the sharing of information that you are seeking is being taken

underground.

Best of luck on your journey.

Buist, ND

Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

Anne - Yes, it's all subjective. Someone may be very ill, and yet happy enough with their own situation to describe themselves as well, and vice versa. It all depends on your goals & expectations. At my age, and with my history, I don't expect to be hiking the Appalachian Trail, and so I'm satisfied with being able to mow the weeds, er... grass.But when it comes to the iodine protocol I hoped that there would be some statistics showing conventional thyca treatment vs. iodine. That's what I meant by blindly following. I can blindly follow the medical establishment or I can blindly follow Dr. Abraham.And with all medical matters - unless you are the researcher yourself all you can do is take someone's else's word for what consistutes the truth. My apologies for going all philosophical...Laurel> > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves. > > > >>

[Guest guest]

" I think that people have to go back to basics here and re-think their whole

way of approaching their health care. "

This IS happening.Because of the emphasis on developing and marketing

'treatments' (pills you take for life) instead of developing cures, there are a

# of diseases which they are not even develping efficaseous (sp) or attractive

to the patients treatments for.

Hypo,Adrenal fatigue,MS,Hep C, and the list goes on.More and more patients are

rejecting these treatments,and rejecting the basic paradyme; Instead of putting

All the responsibility on the Dr., for their treatment, with the result that the

Dr. insists on a comesurate level of authority, these patients are taking that

responsibility, and the authority for themselves.

More and more are self treating, and the use of the internet to share and build

a growing body of knowledge, and a support group of people who have been down

the road, have read the research that IS available, and can give guidance by

sharing their experience when needed, are greatly accelerating the pace of this

trend.However, importantly; these I-net groups are not simply replacing the

Dr.'s, and its important that 'newbies' learn; we can share our advice, we can

point you to research, but we can't walk the road to recovery for you.We will

help you, and you won't be alone, but have to walk it yourself, we can't walk it

for you.YOU must take this responsibility and authority upon yourself.Lamestream

medicine isn't really even aware of this movement,as yet, let alone of the

exponential growth of this growing group of patients who are leaving their

'patient database'.

That awareness will change, when they start to see gaps in their appt. calender,

and look up from their lab reports, and computer screens, and say " Hey! Where'd

everybody go?!! "

When a community is confronted by an insurgency, they all have the same 3 step

responce; First, Ignore. Second, Suppress.Third,Absorb.

We are currently somewhere between step 1 and step 2.Personally, I WISH we could

just stay at step 1, but my wishes have little to do with it.When I see people

striving to get mainstream medicine to 'recognise' these alternative treatments,

I want to kick them in the sit-down.SHHhhh,...sit down and be quiet.Work to

spread the word to patients, who could benefit.But don't work to get validation,

thats your own ego and insecurity.

" They' don't want to do 'double-blind' studies, to prove the efficacy of

iodine,LDN,etc., and dismiss such treatments as 'anecdotal', fine.Let them

remain blindly caught up in the ignorance of the system of centralised

authoritarian lamestream medicine.

The real revolution is NOT in the treatments.Its in a different dynamic between

patient and Dr., with a shift of both responsibility and authority back where it

belongs.And such a shift doesn't start with the Dr, its starts with the

patient.So, work with the patients.Those Dr.'s who reject, on their own, the

paradyme will be the pioneers, who are ahead of the curve. And they will find

us.Jim

> > > > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any

research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I shall explain in greater detail what I meant about trials. I live in France and I used to work for a drug company in the drug license department. Most drug companies run trials using an independent labs in Europe and I suspect the law is the same in USA. Any independent lab that ran a trial for a product that is going to sink a drug produced by Big Pharma is going to have big problems. All their clients will probably gang up on them and drop them. They are ostensibly independent but depend on drug companies for business. It would be the kiss of death to do a trial for something like iodine which will never make anybody rich and will probably knock the bottom out of the mainstream drug market.

Beside this, it needs a lot of money to run a drug trial. Thirdly, iodine is not a drug as such, it is a treatment, so there is no money to be made from it. It cannot be patented. So that's three major obstacles. I think it would be great to have trials for iodine because it would remove a major impediment to getting access to such treatment within a regulated health system. But I don't think it is going to happen soon enough for me to have it prescribed in time to improve my health. So I'm doing it myself.

Also, I have read a load of newspaper articles about the trials that were done on statins before they were put on the market and it is truly scandalous what happened. Basically, trials were run and any body who got a bad reaction was weeded out of the trial pool and then the trials were run again and guess what? The results were fantastic! So I am not sure that trials are necessarily indicative of a good level of security when taking drugs.

I have given up hope of trying to get iodine accepted as a mainstream treatment by doctors. I will probably be dead or very ill before it happens. MacGilchrist

From: S. Altan <AltanS@...>iodine Sent: Sat, 11 June, 2011 20:34:58Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

Dear

I appreciate very much your thoughtful comments and I want to congratulate you on your success in finding successful therapies through your own efforts in the face of the prejudices and limitations of conventional medicine.

I did want to comment on something you said : …The Iodine Project doctors put forward their ideas and have not done trials for the reasons outlined above. If somebody does not put forward in print their ideas for scrutiny, there is something wrong. You do not have to have all the answers. You do not necessarily have to have trials either. But refusing to discuss the issue AT ALL is for me highly suspect and an abuse of trust on the part of doctors.

So in the spirit of your last sentence in the above quoted paragraph and also admitting that perhaps I do not fully understand everything you wrote, I did not find a compelling justification for why the iodine project doctors don’t do trials. If there is a good reason for it, I suspect it’s probably related to money but whether we accept it or not, randomized double blind trials are the standard for establishing the worth of a therapy for people in the medical research community. I would love to see one done, where someone compares Iodine vs synthroid or NDT, even if it’s a short term study where important baseline characteristics can be controlled to show its efficacy. Certainly no one doubts the experiences of Drs A and B, but until you have a controlled randomized study, it will continue to be relegated to the ‘anecdotal’ stage and it cannot be elevated to the status of what

the scientific and research community would regard as a ‘proven’ therapy. This is unfortunate, but like so many other things, this is life. So for example, the fact that numerous individuals find positive results , each one conducting their own clinical trial on themselves carries little weight because randomization was absent and no control or positive treatment group was present to compare the experience against. That can only be done with a sufficient number of subjects, and designed according to rules that seek to find a particular effect if it’s there. I earnestly hope, mightily, that Drs A and B would find the courage and wherewithal to rectify this large gap in the research and conduct such a study so that objective evidence could be presented. I hasten to add that I am not very familiar with the literature, just recently trying to figure out if Iodine is an option for me, so it may be that some such evidence is around and I am just

not aware. I apologize in advance if that is the case.

Stan

From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of MacGilchristSent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 1:49 PMiodine Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

With alternative medicine, I think drug companies have no interest in any statistics or trials being run. Information about Iodine or LDN could make a big hole in the profits of drug companies. Any laboratory that ran trials would be blackballed by Big Pharma. If I had a load of money, I would start an independent laboratory to run trials on treatments like iodine. It would probably have a huge security budget!

I think that people have to go back to basics here and re-think their whole way of approaching their health care. You go and see a doctor with the expectation that he/she will be able to cure you. In my case after 4 years I was not getting better. My doctor told me that I was OK because my labs were OK. I didn't feel OK. So my doctor was not doing his job as far as I was concerned, although he felt quite pleased with himself. After 4 years of T4 only I had to face the fact that I felt like rubbish, I wasn't getting better and it was no use lying to myself anymore. He was wrong, so was my specialist. So what next?

I surfed the Internet and read everything I could. I tried all sorts of stuff. I reckoned if I had a solution that wasn't going to hurt me, why not try it? I would waste a little money and time, but it was low risk. Eventually, I tried the Iodine Protocol. I was worried about this for various reasons but considered that the potential advantages were worth a small risk and that if things did go wrong the situation was not irreversible. So I tried it and in 6 weeks, no more sore breasts! On the basis of this, I decided that I was probably iodine deficient as doctors A and B describe in their papers on the subject. By trying things out in small controlled steps, I realised that the Iodine Protocol was doing me a lot of good and probably everything it was cracked up to be. It didn't sort out all my problems straight away. I wanted to get my Hashi ABs down. This has

taken me about two years. But in the mean time I was not doing myself any harm so why not wait and see? In the end, it worked OK. Don't know why some people get low ABs after a few months and not me, but I got what I wanted in the end. Basically, Drs A and B delivered the goods for me, it just didn't happen overnight! Along the way, I had to weigh up the pros and cons on several occasions. It just comes down to doing your own clinical trial on yourself!

As for blindly following the Drs A and/or B or blindly following the rest of the medical establishment, well, I find Drs A and B quite clear and forthcoming about how they propose to treat people. There are books and publications on the Internet by them which are very explicit about what they think. None of the doctors or specialists who have treated me have deigned to explain the reasoning behind their treatment. Within reasonable limits, Drs A and B have published a great deal of information. They cannot spend all their time trying to prove their points because they have patients to see and a living to earn. They have put up a very good defence of their case against Dr Alan Gaby's attack in the "Townsend Letter to Patients and Doctors".

Much of the information about conventional treatment for thyroid and fibrocystic breast disease that is available on the Internet is just information and instructions without any bibliography. So how can you make a judgement about something so unsubstantiated? How can anybody even trust it? The only reason that everyone follows conventional treatment is because everyone else is doing it. They do it blindly.

The iodine protocol doctors are honest about what they are doing and expose their ideas to public scrutiny. My specialist had not even heard of the iodine protocol.

I don't think it has to be blindly following one doctor or another. The Iodine Project doctors put forward their ideas and have not done trials for the reasons outlined above. If somebody does not put forward in print their ideas for scrutiny, there is something wrong. You do not have to have all the answers. You do not necessarily have to have trials either. But refusing to discuss the issue AT ALL is for me highly suspect and an abuse of trust on the part of doctors.

People have to learn to apply some very simple rules and reasoning to the way they approach their health care, particularly with chronic problems like thyroid illness and cancer, and have confidence in their own judgement. Many people accept situations in their health care that they would not accept when buying, for example, a used car. I am sure such a statement will provoke a cry of "you can't compare buy a used car with your health!" Well, no the situations are not totally comparable. But if a used car sales man refuses to answer a question about a car or his answer seems unclear or dishonest, it is probably universally agreed that it is ill advised to buy the car. I would say that as far as health care is concerned you should apply AT LEAST the same care that you would with buying a car. I know it is easy to say this and not so easy to do when you are frightened, have everyone

against you and have mind fog. On the other hand, when you are in a tight corner sometimes it can make you very decisive. I must admit, it was the idea that I might die after a long illness that really forced me to think about my health care. I realised that not to make a decision was in fact making a decision of going along with my doctor and that I had to stop it. So I started to look at every possible treatment from scratch. Things started to get better after that.

MacG.

From: ladybugsandbees <ladybugsandbees@...>iodine Sent: Sat, 11 June, 2011 14:54:48Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

But Laurel it isn't just Dr. Abraham. He has been digging into historical research. They aren't his ideas that iodine is effective for cancer. Many other doctors are saying the same thing:

Here are some of the doctors:

Dr. Guy Abraham

Dr. Brownstein

Dr.

Dr. Derry

Dr. Albert Szent Gyorgyi

Dr. Orlee (book - Minerals for the Genetic Code)

Then if you read the research to follow the basic biochemistry:

Iodine is needed for the P53 gene to function. P53 is responsible for apoptosis of abnormal cells. Without iodine it doesn't work and bad cells / DNA is allowed to replicate. P53 is called the guardian of the genetic code.

Radioactive iodine is used to kill thyroid cancer cells by entering the cell and damaging the DNA. So non-radioactive iodine will enter the cells as well but because we know that it effects the P53, we know that it will help to kill the bad cells through P53.

Barriers to entry in the cell by both RAI and non-radioactive forms are:

1. Bromide blocking receptors (which is why large doses of iodine are needed to displace bromide and allow iodine to enter the cells)

2. Non-functioning symporters (which is addressed by Dr Abraham's papers on Vit C & Symporters on www.optimox.com)

3. Iodine Resistance in cells - which can be increased through retinoic acid (It is used to increase uptake of RAI but I have done it to increase uptake of Iodine)

Then you need to make your body an environment that will heal and improve your immune system by detoxing, removing heavy metal toxicity, increasing nutrient levels and balancing hormones.

Here is what I found. You liken this to following blindly. Don't! I am serious here. You need to read research and understand why it is the right thing for you. I was blessed to have Dr. Brownstein as my doctor on my journey. He did set up my protocol which is what I share here but I did not just let him tell me what to do. I read and read and read to figure out why it was the right thing and how I could enhance the protocol with other nutrients based on what I knew about the way RAI worked in the body. I will be writing a book on thyroid cancer - hopefully to start in the fall - so for now all the data remains jumbled in my brain and in folders on my computer waiting to organize for others to use. You need to believe in what you are doing otherwise you will drive yourself crazy wondering. It is not anything that this

group can give you. We can share what we have done and what has worked for us and point you to places like www.iodine4health.com so you can read the research that has been gathered. Unfortunately there are no stats of iodine and cancer effectiveness. Those types of stats are generally collected on drugs and not natural remedies. The natural supplement companies are under more and more fire from the FDA and FTC. I recently received a practitioner flyer from one of the supplement companies I work with. They stated that due to an increased scrutiny from the government on what was being said about what supplements would do for your health they were going to eliminate one of the informational sections of the flyer. It is sad but true. We are living in an age where the sharing of information that you are seeking is being taken

underground.

Best of luck on your journey.

Buist, ND

Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

Anne - Yes, it's all subjective. Someone may be very ill, and yet happy enough with their own situation to describe themselves as well, and vice versa. It all depends on your goals & expectations. At my age, and with my history, I don't expect to be hiking the Appalachian Trail, and so I'm satisfied with being able to mow the weeds, er... grass.But when it comes to the iodine protocol I hoped that there would be some statistics showing conventional thyca treatment vs. iodine. That's what I meant by blindly following. I can blindly follow the medical establishment or I can blindly follow Dr. Abraham.And with all medical matters - unless you are the researcher yourself all you can do is take someone's else's word for what consistutes the truth. My apologies for going all philosophical...Laurel> > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves. > > > >>

[Guest guest]

There is current research taking place as well ... in msg #77314 titled

" Molecular Iodine & apoptosis " that I posted several days ago there were two

links to abstracts in PubMed as recent as 2010 by doctors from Germany.

Important information it seems, for those involved in the application of iodine

especially as it relates to cancer.

> > > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any

research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" When a community is confronted by an insurgency, they all have the same 3 step

responce; First, Ignore. Second, Suppress.Third,Absorb. "

I disagree, we have been well into the suppression for many decades, this has

been going on since Royale Rife was able to cure cancer and not just a small

percentage of cases either, his Rife machine was able to cure almost 100%. He

was targeted, raided and the Rife machine was destroyed because he wouldn't sell

out. This was back in the 1930's. The attack on chiropractic has been similar.

Chiropractic offers a whole other strategy to health, a totally different focus.

Unobstructed nervous system, optimum nerve transmission between the brain's

central computer and the body, back and forth. Chiropractic has been around for

over a century, everyone has heard of it, but only about 10% use it. From Dr.

Tim O'Shea:

Chiropractic is not a version of medicine. Chiropractic is not a branch or

specialty within medicine. It's way beyond that. Chiropractic is a completely

separate world view and philosophy, based on three ideas:

– the body is a self-healing organism

– there's a universal intelligence in the body that directs its survival

– the nervous system allows that intelligence to communicate with itself

Mainstream medicine isn't going to have this type of healing at all and the

attack still continues to this day, publicly anyway, lots of chiros will tell

you that many of their patients are doctors, they just don't tell others that

they use it. Oesteopathic suffered similarly, and today there are few left

practicing.

Many other people have been able to cure cancer, some doctors or dentists, some

not, all the info has been suppressed and is still pretty well suppressed to

this day. Dr. Kelley suffered the same fate as Rife. What's amazing is

that back in the 60's people were somehow able to find their way to him. He is

credited with saving thousands of people's lives back then. Word of mouth, no

internet, just amazing. There are many, many people, Hoxley, Gerson, Naessens,

Hans Nieper, just to name a few who have had cures for cancer, most with natural

means and non-patentable. These were people who wanted to share their

discoveries with the world, not make personal fortunes. Even Burzynski who held

a patent, still had tons of trouble. It's about money, big money, last time I

checked over $300 billion per year, yes that's billion. A cure for cancer could

literally bankrupt us. As Dr. Tim O'Shea states, there is no limit they will

observe to secure their control.

Linn

> > > > > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any

research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Absolutely agree, Linn! thank you for this informative and true post! Kathleen

Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

"When a community is confronted by an insurgency, they all have the same 3 step responce; First, Ignore. Second, Suppress.Third,Absorb."I disagree, we have been well into the suppression for many decades, this has been going on since Royale Rife was able to cure cancer and not just a small percentage of cases either, his Rife machine was able to cure almost 100%. He was targeted, raided and the Rife machine was destroyed because he wouldn't sell out. This was back in the 1930's. The attack on chiropractic has been similar. Chiropractic offers a whole other strategy to health, a totally different focus. Unobstructed nervous system, optimum nerve transmission between the brain's central computer and the body, back and forth. Chiropractic has been around for over a century, everyone has heard of it, but only about 10% use it. From Dr. Tim O'Shea:Chiropractic is not a version of medicine. Chiropractic is not a branch or specialty within medicine. It's way beyond that. Chiropractic is a completely separate world view and philosophy, based on three ideas:- the body is a self-healing organism- there's a universal intelligence in the body that directs its survival- the nervous system allows that intelligence to communicate with itselfMainstream medicine isn't going to have this type of healing at all and the attack still continues to this day, publicly anyway, lots of chiros will tell you that many of their patients are doctors, they just don't tell others that they use it. Oesteopathic suffered similarly, and today there are few left practicing. Many other people have been able to cure cancer, some doctors or dentists, some not, all the info has been suppressed and is still pretty well suppressed to this day. Dr. Kelley suffered the same fate as Rife. What's amazing is that back in the 60's people were somehow able to find their way to him. He is credited with saving thousands of people's lives back then. Word of mouth, no internet, just amazing. There are many, many people, Hoxley, Gerson, Naessens, Hans Nieper, just to name a few who have had cures for cancer, most with natural means and non-patentable. These were people who wanted to share their discoveries with the world, not make personal fortunes. Even Burzynski who held a patent, still had tons of trouble. It's about money, big money, last time I checked over $300 billion per year, yes that's billion. A cure for cancer could literally bankrupt us. As Dr. Tim O'Shea states, there is no limit they will observe to secure their control.Linn > > > > > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves. > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Linn, If its suppressed, than how were you able to write about it?

And just as I can read up on this site, and others, and learn about how to use

iodine, I can similarly learn about and obtain LDN,dichloroacetate,DMSO, Food

grade Hydrogen peroxide,CS, and many other unpatentable and therfore

'unprofitable' alternative treatments.As well as 'Googling' and reading up on

all you listed.And all I have to do is look in the phone book, and I can take my

pick of chiropractors.To say nothing of the herbs and supplements market.No

succesful suppression, there. Yes, I know several attempts have been made, in

the US, to restrict supplements.SO far, without success. And, I understand other

countries such efforts have been successful; regretable.Hence, I say we are in

the early portion of the suppression stage; still more they can try to do.You

can't supress knowledge, it has a way of getting out.Heck, 'THEY' aren't even

able to prevent people from importing their own Rx. meds from outside the U.S.

Oh, they can make a law against it, and apply that law to kids ordering get

highs.But they knew the first time they busted a granny, for ordering her heart

(not 'get-high') medication from Canada or Mexico, and the story hit the news,

(and the internet), they would have more grief than they wanted. Hence, they

leave it alone.At any rate, I recognised there is/will be suppression, which

will ultimately be unsuccesful.What the main thrust of my piece was about, they

can't possibly suppress; patients rejection of 'them' in favor of an

alternative.In fact, we can thank them for it. If they hadn't evolved such a

crappy system, people wouldn't be leaving it in droves.Jim

> > > > > > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any

research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I spent many months researching, Rife's and Kelley's work was virtually

destroyed along with thier lives being destroyed, not to mention many others

whose contributions have been lost forever. Raids are carried out routinely on

alternative providers, and even those who are simply providing raw milk and

cheese. Burnyski's work has been suppressed for decades, not to mention the

harrasment he's endured. Try having a minor child diagnosed with cancer who you

want alternative treatment for and you " ll find out how quickly suppression

works. Similar trouble if you find yourself hospitalized and you're self

treating for anything. A member posted here recently about having to undergo a

3 day lock down because a neighbor reported him as a danger to himself for his

treatment of fire ant bites. Iodine is only available in small amounts now.

Supplements are in danger. I gave some basic info, there is much more and some

of it gets very ugly, and it's been going on for a very long time.

Linn

> > > > > > > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any

research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yes it has been. As soon as the AMA began with Fishbine it got so ugly. We have lost many good therapies. Some have travelled over the boarder to Tijuana like Gerson, Hoxsey and a few practitioners that remove amalgams safely. I have no problem with an advisory board to tell me what the possible risks are but when they control what I can and cannot do to my body with an informed consent - that is where I have an issue. Yes iodine has already been taken away (for the most part) under the guise of it being used by drug dealers. I am always accused of being a conspiracy person but being the child of a Chiropractor who took abuse from traditional medicine and reading on my own I no longer wonder if there are people out to take it down. I know.

Buist, ND

Re: Blindly following Was: Sad but true

I spent many months researching, Rife's and Kelley's work was virtually destroyed along with thier lives being destroyed, not to mention many others whose contributions have been lost forever. Raids are carried out routinely on alternative providers, and even those who are simply providing raw milk and cheese. Burnyski's work has been suppressed for decades, not to mention the harrasment he's endured. Try having a minor child diagnosed with cancer who you want alternative treatment for and you"ll find out how quickly suppression works. Similar trouble if you find yourself hospitalized and you're self treating for anything. A member posted here recently about having to undergo a 3 day lock down because a neighbor reported him as a danger to himself for his treatment of fire ant bites. Iodine is only available in small amounts now. Supplements are in danger. I gave some basic info, there is much more and some of it gets very ugly, and it's been going on for a very long time.Linn > > > > > > > Sadly the majority of folks will not question their docs or do any research on their own, many people blindly follow right to their graves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > >> >>