Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

[Guest guest]

Thanks Linn, these are essentially clinical reports. None of the titles indicate a comparative study against another known therapy or a placebo. So what I would typically look for is something like ‘Comparative study of the safety and efficacy of Orthoiodosupplementation’ versus ‘Treatment xyz’ or maybe ‘Retrospective Study of NN patients. has pointed out that such studies do not exist so the best we can hope for at this point is something like ‘Uncontrolled Longitudinal Study of the safety and efficacy of a cohort of patients treated with Orthoiodosupplementation’. The latter would not rise to the ideal standard of evidence but it would be a good start. It could be a small study, perhaps 50 or 100 patients, chosen according to a specific protocol, with a good statistical analysis plan, from the thousands of cases that Drs A and B have treated so far. Even this would be far better than the current dearth of a good formal statistical comparison. Stan From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of LinnSent: Monday, June 13, 2011 12:00 PMiodine Subject: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies Stan,Just wanted to make sure you were familiar with info from Optimax:http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/opt_Research_I.shtmlLinn--- In iodine , " S. Altan " <AltanS@...> wrote:>> > > > > Again, you're subverting the discussion into lines that have no connection> with the topic under discussion. Nothing you have said, or for that matter> others have said, has changed the basic fact that standards of evidence have> not yet been met. People are free to believe what they want, as you do, but> realize that it's still essentially a belief or perhaps a theory or a> hypothesis. The underlying data has not been presented as far as I can tell> in a way that would constitute compelling support for the claim to elevate> things much beyond the belief level. All of the anecdotal testimonies do not> elevate the claim to more than that. You keep finding reasons for why it> will never be more than that, but giving such reasons do not change the sad> fact that the weight of evidence doesn't meet the standards of objective> methodology and testing to arrive at a scientifically supportable> conclusion. Now before you rush to respond, try to think of a reasoned> response and avoid personal insinuations. For the most part we're trying to> be civil here. > > > > Stan> > > > From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of> B> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:05 PM> iodine > Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies>

[Guest guest]

I have a blog with my journey. Here is the page with my symptoms:

http://ds-ladybugsandbees.blogspot.com/2007/01/thyroid-cancer-my-appointment-with-dr-b.html

www.naturalthyroidchoices.com is my website.

Buist, ND

RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

Even if Drs A and B put together statistics from their records, it wouldn't satisfy the medical community and probably not people like yourself either. If you were taking the iodine protocol you would be experiencing the difference in your life and you wouldn't need the approval of a medical science which has proved itself to be highly corrupt. I'm not interested nor willing to wait for my health to improve while medical science continues to play its profit games. I have been in charge of my own health for decades and I'm in much better health than many people my age in the USA.Did you watch the Burzinski film?--At 03:41 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote:

[Guest guest]

Stan,

Are you taking or have you taken iodine? If so, how much are taking?

Linn

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Again, you're subverting the discussion into lines that have no connection

> > with the topic under discussion. Nothing you have said, or for that matter

> > others have said, has changed the basic fact that standards of evidence

> have

> > not yet been met. People are free to believe what they want, as you do,

> but

> > realize that it's still essentially a belief or perhaps a theory or a

> > hypothesis. The underlying data has not been presented as far as I can

> tell

> > in a way that would constitute compelling support for the claim to elevate

> > things much beyond the belief level. All of the anecdotal testimonies do

> not

> > elevate the claim to more than that. You keep finding reasons for why it

> > will never be more than that, but giving such reasons do not change the

> sad

> > fact that the weight of evidence doesn't meet the standards of objective

> > methodology and testing to arrive at a scientifically supportable

> > conclusion. Now before you rush to respond, try to think of a reasoned

> > response and avoid personal insinuations. For the most part we're trying

> to

> > be civil here.

> >

> >

> >

> > Stan

> >

> >

> >

> > From: iodine <mailto:iodine%40>

> [mailto:iodine <mailto:iodine%40> ] On Behalf

> Of

> > B

> > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:05 PM

> > iodine <mailto:iodine%40>

> > Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Would somebody please put up a link to the Burzinski film again? This

conversation has interested a lot of my friends and we need to see the film

you're talking about.

Thanks,

Marji

[Guest guest]

Yes Linn, I am currently taking 3.5 mg/day in the form of kelp, along with Vitamin C, selenium and Tyrosine. Stan From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of LinnSent: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:26 PMiodine Subject: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies Stan,Are you taking or have you taken iodine? If so, how much are taking?Linn> >> > > > > > > > > > Again, you're subverting the discussion into lines that have no connection> > with the topic under discussion. Nothing you have said, or for that matter> > others have said, has changed the basic fact that standards of evidence> have> > not yet been met. People are free to believe what they want, as you do,> but> > realize that it's still essentially a belief or perhaps a theory or a> > hypothesis. The underlying data has not been presented as far as I can> tell> > in a way that would constitute compelling support for the claim to elevate> > things much beyond the belief level. All of the anecdotal testimonies do> not> > elevate the claim to more than that. You keep finding reasons for why it> > will never be more than that, but giving such reasons do not change the> sad> > fact that the weight of evidence doesn't meet the standards of objective> > methodology and testing to arrive at a scientifically supportable> > conclusion. Now before you rush to respond, try to think of a reasoned> > response and avoid personal insinuations. For the most part we're trying> to> > be civil here. > > > > > > > > Stan> > > > > > > > From: iodine <mailto:iodine%40>> [mailto:iodine <mailto:iodine%40> ] On Behalf> Of> > B> > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:05 PM> > iodine <mailto:iodine%40> > > Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies> >>

[Guest guest]

http://vimeo.com/24821365

Linn

>

>

> Would somebody please put up a link to the Burzinski film again? This

conversation has interested a lot of my friends and we need to see the film

you're talking about.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Marji

>

[Guest guest]

I am new to the group. Thanks for all who participate here: I have learned already (10 hours of reading messages and doing additional research yesterday alone!

I wanted to mention that I have Real Player (free download) on my pc, and so just went to the movie link (have to use Internet Explorer, Safari won't allow this) and downloaded the movie in full into my player, to watch at my convenience. Hope this is helpful to others. I assume I could also now send the movie in full to others via email for them to watch at their convenience; it is saved onto my computer as an mp4 file.

Lee

From: Marjij <marjij@...>iodine Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 2:02:25 PMSubject: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

Would somebody please put up a link to the Burzinski film again? This conversation has interested a lot of my friends and we need to see the film you're talking about.Thanks,Marji

[Guest guest]

Hi Stan,

Your continuation of pointing out that isn't addressing the point is incorrect. She is making another point that questions your assumption about having to prove things the way science/medicine says is valid.

I don't agree that this is the only way to prove validity. It is ONE way that the AMA, FDA and other corrupt organizations have laid out to follow so they can control access to health care, whether it is by a doctor or by someone with a different experience.

If I followed all that my doctors have told me to do, I would still be lying in bed. And that would be the PITS!!! I deserve to have a life.

Your argument has validity in your discussion, if you don't want to look at anything else. Here, we look at everything else and see what works for us. We happily and freely share this information. If you are not interested in this type of information, maybe this group is not for you. Especially if all you want to do is call out on her thinking, despite her being so kind in her explanations to you.

So, if this doesn't work for you, then I invite you to leave the group and find one that suits your beliefs more. We won't hold it against you or judge you. That is not our mission. We do want health though and it seems your on-going accusations/discussion is just filling up the board with unnecessary chatter.

I do wish you the best. And hope you can find what you are looking for. I just don't think it will be here. Please respect our group and goals as we do yours.

Glowing, grace~When a community is composed of honest, sober and virtuous people, your forming a bad opinion about anyone of its members, when nothing wicked has been seen of him, is a great injustice to him. On the contrary in a corrupt society to form good opinion of anyone of them and to trust him is to harm yourself." As Ghandi taught, the secret to life is to struggle against oppression and to fight for what is needed, but not to be attached to any particular outcome. Therein lies the secret of peace within the chaos.

[Guest guest]

Dr L,How about pushing at an open door?Senator Grassley and team took on GlaxoKline and the FDA and won.He was fighting for the removal of Avandia, the diabetic drug which was earning GSK billions annually, as it was killing people.He also exposed the fact that they withheld negative studies before approval by the FDA which showed how dangerous it was.Doesn't he deserve a congratulations for his work on behalf of people in the US and throughout the rest of the world whereAvandia was sold.And while congratulating him, what other important issue might he consider? From: Dr Loretta Lanphier <drlanphier@...>iodine Sent: Sun, 12 June, 2011 21:19:03Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

You are absolutely

correct. Every American who views

this film should be angry and should also write their congressmen/women asking

them WHY Congress is allowing the FDA and Big Pharma to abuse the tremendous

amount of power/control they are given. Every American family who has experienced

a cancer diagnosis should be screaming in the streets about this atrocity –

yet, most sit back in their comfortable living rooms mindlessly watching all

those prime-time TV “just ask your doctor†drug commercials. This information must get out to

mainstream Americans – the ones who blindly trust the American medical

cartel to actually care about their health and well-being. America is one of the sickest nations on

this planet and for the most part it is our own doing by allowing the sickness

industry (and it is an industry) to keep us sick. We have had 40 years of this “war

on cancer†nonsense and it’s time for the public to get loud about

their dissatisfaction. If finances

allow, please purchase one or several of the DVDs and pass them around or

having a film-night at your home with invited friends/family. Encourage others to do the same. We are at epidemic numbers of cancer in

this country and the age of diagnosis is getting younger and younger. Obviously from what we see in this film,

it is not about a cure (notice how the FDA doctors seemed to conveniently ignore

the fact that people are being cured?) but about ego, arrogance and of course,

money. This must stop and the only

way I see this happening is if Americans come out of their sheeple-mindset and

begin to demand that the FDA get out of bed with Big Pharma and the medical

cartel and begin to initiate studies into all possible natural, non-toxic cures

for cancer. Contrary to what some

say, CODEX is happening all over the world right now and I personally see this

every day at OAW as more and more countries are closing their doors to the

importation of supplements/vitamins/herbs for personal use. Oncologists, the

FDA, Big Chemical and Big Pharma should be held accountable for every person

who dies at the hands of chemo, radiation and surgery. The mantra “we did all we couldâ€

is a lie. They should be saying “we used your loved-one as a lab rat for

as much money as we could get out of them.â€

There have always been cures for cancer and in almost every instance the cures

were suppressed by Big Medicine. (Politics

in Healing by Haley)

Be Well

Dr.L

From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On

Behalf Of ladybugsandbees

Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 12:58 PM

iodine

Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

You cannot patent iodine

either. So there is reduced incentive.

I just finished watching

the Burzynski film. It angers me. The most compelling comment was

when a witness testifying at one of his hearings stated that he had come from a

communist country and even the dictator of that country would not stop the

doctors from using treatments on their patients. Here we are in the

US where are freedom is gone. CODEX is knocking at the door and most are

unaware of the huge impact all these small erosions are having on us.

Buist, ND

Re: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

>

>

>Ten years ago, I put my son through a course of neurodevelopmental

>movement therapy that GREATLY helped with his autistic issues. I was all

>excited about getting other people to try it with their ASD kids, but it

>sounded too weird to people. I was talking to his therapist, & she told

me

>that pediatricians refuse to recommend neurodevelopmental movement therapy

>because there are no double-blind studies to "prove" its

efficacy. My

>obvious thought was that they should do the double-blind studies. Because

>that is the "gold standard," right?

>

>

>

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

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

Are you aware that Kelp can contain arsenic and other toxic halides? Your brand may be fine but I thought I would throw that o ut there.

Buist, ND

RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies> >>

[Guest guest]

Wow, just saw the film. It is really worth a watch. Very informative and gives lots of proof of the corruption in big pharma and governmentDinner with Anne & Steve

www.berkshiresnow.com--- On Mon, 6/13/11, Linn <mwm1glm@...> wrote:From: Linn <mwm1glm@...>Subject: Re: Blindly following/double blind studiesiodine Date: Monday, June 13, 2011, 2:55 PM

http://vimeo.com/24821365

Linn

>

>

> Would somebody please put up a link to the Burzinski film again? This conversation has interested a lot of my friends and we need to see the film you're talking about.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Marji

>

[Guest guest]

Stan,

Have you considered that the Japanese take in much larger doses of

iodine than people here in the US.

And it appears according to many reports I have read that iodine

deficiency is widespread here.And

not just iodine. In her book the Magnesium Miracle , Dr Carolyn Dean

opens with an extract from

a congressional speech, which I am including here:

"Do you know that most of us today are suffering from certain dangerous

diet deficiencies which cannot be remedied

until depleted soils from which our food comes are brought into proper

mineral balance. The alarming fact is that fruit, vegetables and grains now being

raised on millions of acres of land that no longer contain enough of certain

minerals are starving us.No matter how much of them we eat.

The truth is that our foods vary enormously in value, and some are not

worth eating as food.Our physical well being is more directly dependent on the

minerals

we take into our systems than upon calories or vitamins or upon the

precise proportions of starch, protein, or carbohydrates we consume.

Laboratory tests prove that the fruits, the vegetables, the grains, the

eggs, even the milk and the meats of today are not what they were a few

generations ago.

No man today can eat enough fruit and vegetables to supply his stomach

with the mineral salts he requires for perfect health because his stomach isn’t

big enough to hold them ! And we are turning into a nation of nig stomachs.

From the 74th Congress, 2nd session. Senate

document no: 264.1936"

So how perceptive and prescient, “a nation of big stomachs!! And that in

1936

Since then things have got a whole lot worse.

So if we are not getting enough nutrients from our food then we must

suffer with deficiencies.and deficiencies are diseases.

If we lack iron what happens or zinc or magnesium. For magnesium alone

Carolyn Dean lists 68 deficiency diseases, like diabetes, Depression,

Fibromyalgia

Kidney stones, high blood pressure, etc etc which may be linked to a

deficiency of magnesium. Or go to the NIH site for lists of diseases associated

with

Various mineral, vitamin deficiencies.

However few people go about looking to get the 45 or so nutrients we are

all supposed to take in every day.

But in the case of iodine how do you get enough iodine every day? What

food do you take or do you

supplement? What co factors are involved.

If the RDA on iodine is low and deficiencies are based on this low level,

we are seriously deficient.

The RDA levels are not reliable. They are set way too low. Maybe even on

purpose. Then how reliable are the labs?

Thats what is so good about this site. That many people share their

experiences and can benefit from

trying things for themselves and giving feedback

That has worked for me in three cases recently.

The scientific model even if fraud were not an issue, is not all that

reliable.

Scientists differ, How does one decide who is right.

And having decided, is it right for me.

If it were so easy wouldn't doctors be able to say you are likely to

suffer from these adverse effects

if you take this medicine.

They just don't know.

And patients get sicker and many die with the scientific medical model.?

So why would such people

or their family give a hoot about "science"?

On this site people are

sharing and can learn.

What can they learn in a 5 minute conversation with a doctor. Who often

doesn't have time or

want to listen!

From: S. Altan <AltanS@...>iodine Sent: Sun, 12 June, 2011

21:41:36Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

The financial costs of a randomized study are an important consideration, but that’s not really the subject of the discussion. The subject is about a scientific method for collecting data which permits one to support a particular medical claim. I don’t personally doubt the efficacy or effectiveness of iodine treatment. All I’m saying is that in Dr Brownstein’s book and his website, and elsewhere, I have not see data presented in such a way that it meets the current standard for supporting the claim. It’s the method of scientific ‘proof’ that we’re discussing. So no, it’s not at all complicated, it’s simple actually. Who does it, how it’s done and so forth is

the subject of another discussion, although I would love for Drs A and B to plumb their records and put it into a coherent summary which would go a long way to addressing this concern, but it would not close the gap completely until something like a head to head comparison was conducted. Stan From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of BSent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:54 PMiodine Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind

studies Stan-- imo you're making this way more complex than is required. Studies aren't done by the big companies that have the money because there is no money to be made with iodine. In fact, the very lack of iodine in our diets is the cause of a great many illnesses from which those very same companies make big bucks stirring up drugs to "treat". So there is simply no motivation by those who have the money. Asking why individual doctors don't do these studies is disingenuous-- no single doctor has the money, witness the Burzynski film you yourself reference.--At 07:53 AM 6/12/2011, you wrote:>Dear Anne>>You make many good points. Let me just add though, since my earlier email >was not clear on this, that a randomized trial

does not necessarily mean >you withhold treatment from one group. In the case you mention, you would >randomize to a positive control, not a negative control. But even more of >a concern, the movement therapy you refer to would be difficult to make >blind to the investigator or clinician, because it would be obvious to her >what was being done, so my guess is, that's another reason why such a >design was not proposed. In cases such as this, there are other ways to >present the medical evidence to support the claim, so all is not lost. But >it does take time, energy and effort, as we saw in the Burzynski film, to >keep pushing forward. Such objections do not in any way detract from the >essential worth of the method but it does say something about the >circumstances and the individuals who seek to either apply or ignore the

>method.>>Stan>>From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of >Anne Seals>Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:08 AM>iodine >Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies>>>Ten years ago, I put my son through a course of neurodevelopmental >movement therapy that GREATLY helped with his autistic issues. I was all >excited about getting other people to try it with their ASD kids, but it >sounded too weird to people. I was talking to his

therapist, & she told me >that pediatricians refuse to recommend neurodevelopmental movement therapy >because there are no double-blind studies to "prove" its efficacy. My >obvious thought was that they should do the double-blind studies. Because >that is the "gold standard," right?>>>~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

I would highly urge all of you who are as passionate about this issue as I am to visit www.CanaryParty.org and consider joining us in our movement . . . the more the merrier

Re: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies>>>Ten years ago, I put my son through a course of neurodevelopmental >movement therapy that GREATLY helped with his autistic issues. I was all >excited about getting other people to try it with their ASD kids, but it >sounded too weird to people. I was talking to his therapist, & she told me >that pediatricians refuse to recommend neurodevelopmental movement therapy >because there are no double-blind studies to "prove" its efficacy. My >obvious thought was that they should do the double-blind studies. Because >that is the "gold standard," right?>>>~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

,

Many thanks for the info on Real Player.  How great!  It's

downloading the film as I write.

On 6/13/2011 11:58 AM, Ward wrote:

 

I am new to the group.  Thanks for all

who participate here: I have learned already (10 hours

of reading messages and doing additional research

yesterday alone!

 

I wanted to mention that I have Real

Player (free download) on my pc, and so just went to the

movie link (have to use Internet Explorer, Safari won't

allow this) and downloaded the movie in full into my

player, to watch at my convenience. Hope this is helpful

to others.  I assume I could also now send the movie in

full to others via email for them to watch at their

convenience; it is saved onto my computer as an  mp4

file.

 

Lee

From:

Marjij <marjij@...>

To:

iodine

Sent:

Mon, June 13, 2011 2:02:25 PM

Subject:

Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

 

Would somebody please put up a link to the Burzinski

film again? This conversation has interested a lot

of my friends and we need to see the film you're

talking about.

Thanks,

Marji

[Guest guest]

Yes , I had read this on one of your previous postings but it’s compounded by a pharmacist who assures me that heavy metal content is low based on the CoA that accompanies the raw product. Stan From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of ladybugsandbeesSent: Monday, June 13, 2011 5:33 PMiodine Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies Are you aware that Kelp can contain arsenic and other toxic halides? Your brand may be fine but I thought I would throw that o ut there. Buist, ND RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies> >>

[Guest guest]

I've been taking it for 3 months, I do supplement magnesium also, 500mg magcitrate/day. Stan

In a message dated 6/13/2011 11:02:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mwm1glm@... writes:

How long have you been taking these? Any magnesium? Are you taking any other supplements? Linn >> Yes Linn, I am currently taking 3.5 mg/day in the form of kelp, along with> Vitamin C, selenium and Tyrosine. Stan >

[Guest guest]

,The Medical Model!Is there a model they use?It appears to be about science about studies and concern for people's health.that is the myth.Grown ups know through bitter experiencethat its all based on a financial model.Once one is clear that they are following business rules then one knows itsall about profit. Does this or that drug make profit? Not will it make people healthy. Most drugs don't work anyway.Imagine how arrogant they are that they can say that and know no oneat least no one that counts is going to call them on thatBut people believe in their tricks their skilful marketing where every dollar spent brings back

4.And people believe the adverts.Millions of people believe out of fear and ignorance.Murdoch of Fox News is on the board of GlaxoKline!!The media are on the side of the bad guys.Big forces shaping peoples expectations.How to change?For people to change they need a shock. The shock of dissolusionment.A patient realises the treatment isn't working. The tablets aren't helpingand notice the doctor is not listening about adverse effect complaints.They go off the tablets and feel better!! There are many stories. Something not quite right.Then they start to notice signs that point in a different directionMaybe a site just like this.....freedom...wake up call... .davidFrom: B <vbaker@...>iodine Sent: Sun, 12 June, 2011 23:28:44Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

Exactly. Medical science proves what will generate a profit. Anything else

doesn't exist. To be fair, it isn't just profit-- medical science is still

absolutely beholden to the materialist view that if science could just

figure out every single chemical interaction in the body that science could

then control health absolutely. The joke is that the rest of the sciences

have long given up a purely materialist view in favor of the understanding

that Mind affects the Universe entirely. But medical science clings

stubbornly to outmoded worldviews and to the belief that it is infallible.

And that materialist viewpoint was originally developed to free science and

business to pursue profit at all costs, so it really all comes down to the

same thing.

--

At 04:07 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote:

>Medical science "proved" that T4 only medication was effective for the

>treatment of hypothyroidism. I am here to tell you that this science

>didn't fit for my life. T4 only medication almost ruined my life. Thank

>God for desiccated thyroid hormone which helped me to get my life back.

>

> Buist, ND

>

> RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

>

>

>

>Even if Drs A and B put together statistics from their records, it wouldn't

>satisfy the medical community and probably not people like yourself

>either. If you were taking the iodine protocol you would be experiencing

>the difference in your life and you wouldn't need the approval of a medical

>science which has proved itself to be highly corrupt. I'm not interested

>nor willing to wait for my health to improve while medical science

>continues to play its profit games. I have been in charge of my own health

>for decades and I'm in much better health than many people my age in the USA.

>

>Did you watch the Burzinski film?

>

>--

>

>At 03:41 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

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

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

Stan,

I think we would wish for the same studies but there are none. It isn't the

fault of those who believe in iodine. What are you really wanting? For the

iodine forum to make statements that aren't true? " Iodine made me sick or

iodine ruined my thyroid " kind of statements. Iodine saved my life. I was on

this forum for a year before I took the plunge. I can't speak for studies that

have not been performed nor can anyone else. It is a discussion that goes

nowhere. We are in agreement. Just because no studies have been done, however,

does not make something more or less true. Some people need 'the evidence' from

the scientific world and others only want to get well. This topic is a dead

end street. We move on and take control of our health.

Joan

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Again, you're subverting the discussion into lines that have no connection

> > with the topic under discussion. Nothing you have said, or for that matter

> > others have said, has changed the basic fact that standards of evidence

> have

> > not yet been met. People are free to believe what they want, as you do,

> but

> > realize that it's still essentially a belief or perhaps a theory or a

> > hypothesis. The underlying data has not been presented as far as I can

> tell

> > in a way that would constitute compelling support for the claim to elevate

> > things much beyond the belief level. All of the anecdotal testimonies do

> not

> > elevate the claim to more than that. You keep finding reasons for why it

> > will never be more than that, but giving such reasons do not change the

> sad

> > fact that the weight of evidence doesn't meet the standards of objective

> > methodology and testing to arrive at a scientifically supportable

> > conclusion. Now before you rush to respond, try to think of a reasoned

> > response and avoid personal insinuations. For the most part we're trying

> to

> > be civil here.

> >

> >

> >

> > Stan

> >

> >

> >

> > From: iodine <mailto:iodine%40>

> [mailto:iodine <mailto:iodine%40> ] On Behalf

> Of

> > B

> > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:05 PM

> > iodine <mailto:iodine%40>

> > Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Stan

I'm collecting positive iodine reports on my little (very little) blog. There

are some older reports regarding iodine usage as well as some newer things. If

you're interested it's drinkiodine.blogspot.com.

Jaye

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Again, you're subverting the discussion into lines that have no connection

> > with the topic under discussion. Nothing you have said, or for that matter

> > others have said, has changed the basic fact that standards of evidence

> have

> > not yet been met. People are free to believe what they want, as you do,

> but

> > realize that it's still essentially a belief or perhaps a theory or a

> > hypothesis. The underlying data has not been presented as far as I can

> tell

> > in a way that would constitute compelling support for the claim to elevate

> > things much beyond the belief level. All of the anecdotal testimonies do

> not

> > elevate the claim to more than that. You keep finding reasons for why it

> > will never be more than that, but giving such reasons do not change the

> sad

> > fact that the weight of evidence doesn't meet the standards of objective

> > methodology and testing to arrive at a scientifically supportable

> > conclusion. Now before you rush to respond, try to think of a reasoned

> > response and avoid personal insinuations. For the most part we're trying

> to

> > be civil here.

> >

> >

> >

> > Stan

> >

> >

> >

> > From: iodine <mailto:iodine%40>

> [mailto:iodine <mailto:iodine%40> ] On Behalf

> Of

> > B

> > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:05 PM

> > iodine <mailto:iodine%40>

> > Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

> >

>

[Guest guest]

All the ancient healings will resurface when the medical system is bankrupt. They used to use sunlight for TB and wound healing, now it's considered harmful. There is a frequency of blue light (used in forensics) that kills MRSA,,,yes KILLS it as documented by research conducted at the New York Institute of Technology. (Lasers Surg Med 08;40:735-737) (Photomed Laser Surg 09 Jan 28; E-pub ahead of print).

I have this light in my home and acupuncture practice and have had patients borrow it for various situations with good results. No one, thank goodness, has had MRSA, yet.

This information was taken from Dr. 's newsletter April 2009. I have been getting his newsletter for years and love it. Worth every penny of the subscription.

drdavidwilliams.com

Janet

iodine From: s.macgilxrist@...Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:02:41 +0100Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

I am inclined to agree with 's last very succinctly expressed statement. It is possible that iodine could become a viable treatment one day when the health systems of western democraties are so bankrupt that they cannot afford to pay for mainstream treatment but in the meantime I am not going to wait around for bureaucratic procedures to be carried out to get an official stamp on it. I don't care if other people don't like the iodine for one reason or another, it works for me. Waiting around for official approval could mean continuing bad health for me. I am prepared to believe Drs A and B on iodine. Their arguments are more convincing than the arguments of those against it. As says the health industry is corrupt and studies and trials are no guarantee of safety. Excuse me for saying this so bluntly but you can go up your own back side looking for absolute certainty in life. You have to accept a reasonable degree of uncertainty for many things in life. I think the publications of Drs A and B represent a good argument and I am prepared to forego the usual bureaucratic procedures of marketing a drug or treatment and take a small measured risk.

Besides this, I think that there are many people in medicine who would love to sink the iodine project and it's doctors. As yet, there has not been one patient who has tried to take them to court for malpractice.

MacGilchrist

From: B <vbaker@...>iodine Sent: Sun, 12 June, 2011 23:05:21Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

Even if Drs A and B put together statistics from their records, it wouldn't satisfy the medical community and probably not people like yourself either. If you were taking the iodine protocol you would be experiencing the difference in your life and you wouldn't need the approval of a medical science which has proved itself to be highly corrupt. I'm not interested nor willing to wait for my health to improve while medical science continues to play its profit games. I have been in charge of my own health for decades and I'm in much better health than many people my age in the USA.Did you watch the Burzinski film?--At 03:41 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote:>>>The financial costs of a randomized study are an important consideration, >but that's not really the subject of the discussion. The subject is about >a scientific method for collecting data which permits one to support a >particular medical claim. I don't personally doubt the efficacy or >effectiveness of iodine treatment. All I'm saying is that in Dr >Brownstein's book and his website, and elsewhere, I have not see data >presented in such a way that it meets the current standard for supporting >the claim. It's the method of scientific 'proof' that we're discussing. So >no, it's not at all complicated, it's simple actually. Who does it, how >it's done and so forth is the subject of another discussion, although I >would love for Drs A and B to plumb their records and put it into a >coherent summary which would go a long way to addressing this concern, but >it would not close the gap completely until something like a head to head >comparison was conducted.>>Stan>>From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of > B>Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:54 PM>iodine >Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies>>>>Stan-- imo you're making this way more complex than is required. Studies>aren't done by the big companies that have the money because there is no>money to be made with iodine. In fact, the very lack of iodine in our>diets is the cause of a great many illnesses from which those very same>companies make big bucks stirring up drugs to "treat". So there is simply>no motivation by those who have the money. Asking why individual doctors>don't do these studies is disingenuous-- no single doctor has the money,>witness the Burz>>~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

Well said Dr. L

>

> >Dear Anne

> >

> >You make many good points. Let me just add though, since my earlier email

> >was not clear on this, that a randomized trial does not necessarily mean

> >you withhold treatment from one group. In the case you mention, you would

> >randomize to a positive control, not a negative control. But even more of

> >a concern, the movement therapy you refer to would be difficult to make

> >blind to the investigator or clinician, because it would be obvious to

her

> >what was being done, so my guess is, that's another reason why such a

> >design was not proposed. In cases such as this, there are other ways to

> >present the medical evidence to support the claim, so all is not lost.

But

> >it does take time, energy and effort, as we saw in the Burzynski film, to

> >keep pushing forward. Such objections do not in any way detract from the

> >essential worth of the method but it does say something about the

> >circumstances and the individuals who seek to either apply or ignore the

> >method.

> >

> >Stan

> >

> >From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of

> >Anne Seals

> >Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:08 AM

> >iodine

> >Subject: Re: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

> >

> >

> >Ten years ago, I put my son through a course of neurodevelopmental

> >movement therapy that GREATLY helped with his autistic issues. I was all

> >excited about getting other people to try it with their ASD kids, but it

> >sounded too weird to people. I was talking to his therapist, & she told

me

> >that pediatricians refuse to recommend neurodevelopmental movement

therapy

> >because there are no double-blind studies to " prove " its efficacy. My

> >obvious thought was that they should do the double-blind studies. Because

> >that is the " gold standard, " right?

> >

> >

> >

>

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

> --A.J. Muste

>

[Guest guest]

How long have you been taking these? Any magnesium? Are you taking any other

supplements?

Linn

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Again, you're subverting the discussion into lines that have no

> connection

> > > with the topic under discussion. Nothing you have said, or for that

> matter

> > > others have said, has changed the basic fact that standards of evidence

> > have

> > > not yet been met. People are free to believe what they want, as you do,

> > but

> > > realize that it's still essentially a belief or perhaps a theory or a

> > > hypothesis. The underlying data has not been presented as far as I can

> > tell

> > > in a way that would constitute compelling support for the claim to

> elevate

> > > things much beyond the belief level. All of the anecdotal testimonies do

> > not

> > > elevate the claim to more than that. You keep finding reasons for why it

> > > will never be more than that, but giving such reasons do not change the

> > sad

> > > fact that the weight of evidence doesn't meet the standards of objective

> > > methodology and testing to arrive at a scientifically supportable

> > > conclusion. Now before you rush to respond, try to think of a reasoned

> > > response and avoid personal insinuations. For the most part we're trying

> > to

> > > be civil here.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Stan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > From: iodine <mailto:iodine%40>

> <mailto:iodine%40>

> > [mailto:iodine <mailto:iodine%40>

> <mailto:iodine%40> ] On Behalf

> > Of

> > > B

> > > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:05 PM

> > > iodine <mailto:iodine%40>

> <mailto:iodine%40>

> > > Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

No other supplements? I thought I read something about candida supplements?

How about testing? Did you have thyroid testing done prior to starting the

kelp? Have you had any testing done after?

If I'm reading correctly, you have issues with heart palps and aren't able to

tolerate thyroid meds? How long have you been taking magnesium at 500 mgs

daily? Have you tried larger amounts of magnesium? I used to have issues with

heart palps also and was not able to tolerate thyroid meds until I resolved a

magnesium deficiency. It took upwards of 1200-1600 mgs daily for a while.

Do you include any sea salt, Celtic or other brands for daily supplementation?

Linn

> >

> > Yes Linn, I am currently taking 3.5 mg/day in the form of kelp, along

> with

> > Vitamin C, selenium and Tyrosine. Stan

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure if this was answered, but there's a group you should join to learn more about desiccated thyroid hormone - it's naturalthyroidhormones

I was wondering about your thyroid symptoms and how you ended up taking the desiccated hormone. Do you possibly have a link to info on that treatment?

[Guest guest]

I would love to read your blog but the background is dark red with medium blue

text which makes me go all cross-eyed. Do I need to change browser settings or

something? Thanks,

Laurel

>

> I have a blog with my journey. Here is the page with my symptoms:

>

http://ds-ladybugsandbees.blogspot.com/2007/01/thyroid-cancer-my-appointment-wit\

h-dr-b.html

>

> www.naturalthyroidchoices.com is my website.

>

> Buist, ND