Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

[Guest guest]

,

I find it curious that people that like to paint peer reviewed research

with a broad brush of fraud and deception would be so willing to accept

this Optimox propaganda unquestioned. For example, this article says,

> ... And, it was shown in JAMA, 1976 (Journal of the American Medical

> Association) that if women who have Iodine deficiencies are prescribed T4

> thyroid medication (Synthroid & Levoxyl), this T4 medication further

> increases their risk for Breast Cancer. This same association has NOT been

> shown when women have been prescribed Armour’s Thyroid....

The article that Abraham and his cronies seem to often cite for this is

Ghandrakant, Kapdi, and Wolfe, " Breast Cancer Relationship to Thyroid

Supplements for hypothyroidism, " JAMA, 238:1124, 1976. Sometimes the

second author is listed as Kapdim, and Wolfe is sometimes spelled Wolff.

However, there is NO SUCH AUTHOR as Ghandrakant in JAMA. Just search on

the name with iodine, though, and you'll find lots of Optimox papers.

There is a real article by C. C. Kapdi and J. N. Wolfe, " Breast cancer:

Relationship to thyroid supplements for hypothyroidism, " Vol. 236 No.

10, 1124-1126, September 6, 1976.

Here is the abstract:

" This study was undertaken to determine the relationship between thyroid

supplements and breast cancer. The incidence of breast cancer among the

patients who received thyroid supplements was 12.13%, while in the

control group it was 6.2%. The incidence rate of breast cancer was 10%,

9.42%, and 19.48% among patients who received thyroid supplements for

one to five, 5 to 15, and for more than 15 years, respectively. The

incidence of breast cancer among nulliparous women who received thyroid

supplements was 33%, while in the nulliparous women without thyroid

supplements the incidence was only 9.25%. Even in a specific age group,

the incidence rate of breast cancer was higher among patients receiving

thyroid supplements, when compared to the control patients in the same

age group. "

Note that this 30 year old study DID NOT INVOLVE IODINE DEFICIENCY and

did not distinguish between types of supplements. In fact, this was long

before Guy Abraham devised his iodine uptake (urine) test. So, the

claimed comparison for iodine deficient women based on this test could

not have been made then.

To top it all off, MANY studies since then have shown that the

speculated connections between breast cancer and thyroid medications or

thyroxine status were spurious. That was a hot speculation in the late

1970s. However, no such relationships with breast cancer has held up in

larger studies or in meta studies. Here is a review article from 2002

that summarizes these conclusions, citing " institutional bias. "

http://hormones.gr/pdf/Lack%20of%20association%20between%20Hashimoto.pdf

This sort of blatant lying is exactly the sort of abuse that peer review

prevents. Reviewers are selected that know the literature, and they can

usually recognize when an author is simply trying to promote his own

business. This also is why you won't find any of the Optimox " research "

published in peer reviewed literature.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Chuck,

Remember the years when doctors would " bleed " their patients (sometimes to

death) this was accepted by peer review. Remember that doctors used to go

from one patient to another without washing their hands this was also

accepted by peer review. Remember the man who invented sterilizing hands in

medicine he at first was also considered outside of peer review.

Until his patients lived while others died.

What is peer review simply what a doctor has already been taught as

true thus accepts. Chuck there will always be more followers than leaders

that is the way of the world.

This sort of blatant lying is exactly the sort of abuse that peer review

prevents. Reviewers are selected that know the literature, and they can

usually recognize when an author is simply trying to promote his own

business. This also is why you won't find any of the Optimox " research "

published in peer reviewed literature.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

I believe you may misunderstand the term peer review. See

http://www.linfo.org/peer_review.html

Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

Chuck,

Remember the years when doctors would " bleed " their patients (sometimes to

death) this was accepted by peer review. Remember that doctors used to go

from one patient to another without washing their hands this was also

accepted by peer review. Remember the man who invented sterilizing hands in

medicine he at first was also considered outside of peer review.

Until his patients lived while others died.

What is peer review simply what a doctor has already been taught as

true thus accepts. Chuck there will always be more followers than leaders

that is the way of the world.

This sort of blatant lying is exactly the sort of abuse that peer review

prevents. Reviewers are selected that know the literature, and they can

usually recognize when an author is simply trying to promote his own

business. This also is why you won't find any of the Optimox " research "

published in peer reviewed literature.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Dusty,

That is quite possible however the truth of my statement still stands.

These are the kinds of treatments or lack there of that have been totally

acceptable in medication for generations simply because that is what

people are taught, therefore believe. Nevertheless history shows that

all forward thinking new concepts are treated as bogus at first. Often the

person or persons advancing in a new area are never given the credit.

For many of us if the doctors performed their jobs well we would not need

groups such as these, as we would all be well thus have little time for or

the

need of such groups.

From: Dusty

I believe you may misunderstand the term peer review. See

http://www.linfo.org/peer_review.html

On Behalf Of

Chuck,

Remember the years when doctors would " bleed " their patients (sometimes to

death) this was accepted by peer review. Remember that doctors used to go

from one patient to another without washing their hands this was also

accepted by peer review. Remember the man who invented sterilizing hands in

medicine he at first was also considered outside of peer review.

Until his patients lived while others died.

What is peer review simply what a doctor has already been taught as

true thus accepts. Chuck there will always be more followers than leaders

that is the way of the world.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

These are the kinds of treatments or lack there of that have been totally

acceptable in medication for generations simply because that is what people

are taught, therefore believe.

This is true. That is why there is such a high rate of c-section rate and

induction rate. Docs are taught if there is a big baby then we better cut.

Or how about, your 40 weeks we better induce (or better yet, we'll induce at

37 weeks). We need doc to stop making things so hard!

Crystal

[Guest guest]

I believe you that you believe your statement - but there is very little

truth in it as pertains to " peer review " .

RE: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

Dusty,

That is quite possible however the truth of my statement still stands.

These are the kinds of treatments or lack there of that have been totally

acceptable in medication for generations simply because that is what

people are taught, therefore believe. Nevertheless history shows that

all forward thinking new concepts are treated as bogus at first. Often the

person or persons advancing in a new area are never given the credit.

For many of us if the doctors performed their jobs well we would not need

groups such as these, as we would all be well thus have little time for or

the

need of such groups.

From: Dusty

I believe you may misunderstand the term peer review. See

http://www.linfo. <http://www.linfo.org/peer_review.html>

org/peer_review.html

On Behalf Of

Chuck,

Remember the years when doctors would " bleed " their patients (sometimes to

death) this was accepted by peer review. Remember that doctors used to go

from one patient to another without washing their hands this was also

accepted by peer review. Remember the man who invented sterilizing hands in

medicine he at first was also considered outside of peer review.

Until his patients lived while others died.

What is peer review simply what a doctor has already been taught as

true thus accepts. Chuck there will always be more followers than leaders

that is the way of the world.

[Guest guest]

well how about patient review? Iodoral is wonderful and it works. It's a

big gun.

Gracia

I believe you that you believe your statement - but there is very little

truth in it as pertains to " peer review " .

RE: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

Dusty,

That is quite possible however the truth of my statement still stands.

These are the kinds of treatments or lack there of that have been totally

acceptable in medication for generations simply because that is what

people are taught, therefore believe. Nevertheless history shows that

all forward thinking new concepts are treated as bogus at first. Often the

person or persons advancing in a new area are never given the credit.

For many of us if the doctors performed their jobs well we would not need

groups such as these, as we would all be well thus have little time for or

the

need of such groups.

Recent Activity

a.. 14New Members

Visit Your Group

Cancer Resources

on

Find answers,

help and support.

Health

Fit for Life

Getting fit is now

easier than ever.

Healthy Eating

Find

that are focused

on healthy eating.

.

[Guest guest]

I noted the self promotion of the quoted article as well; but I figured

anyone who cannot up front figure out the credibility of the source

isn't likely to recognize a valid rebuttal. But thanks for your efforts

to keep us all straight...

>

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32397;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNjBxMmM\

zBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzIzOTcEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDg2Mjc3MA-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Chuck B " gumboyaya@...

>

<mailto:gumboyaya@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20CHRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES%20A\

ND%20THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> gumbo482001 <gumbo482001>

>

>

> Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:40 am (PST)

>

> ,

>

> I find it curious that people that like to paint peer reviewed research

> with a broad brush of fraud and deception would be so willing to accept

> this Optimox propaganda unquestioned. For example, this article says,

>

> > ... And, it was shown in JAMA, 1976 (Journal of the American Medical

> > Association) that if women who have Iodine deficiencies are

> prescribed T4

> > thyroid medication (Synthroid & Levoxyl), this T4 medication further

> > increases their risk for Breast Cancer. This same association has

> NOT been

> > shown when women have been prescribed Armour’s Thyroid....

>

> The article that Abraham and his cronies seem to often cite for this is

> Ghandrakant, Kapdi, and Wolfe, " Breast Cancer Relationship to Thyroid

> Supplements for hypothyroidism,

> " JAMA, 238:1124, 1976. Sometimes the

> second author is listed as Kapdim, and Wolfe is sometimes spelled Wolff.

> However, there is NO SUCH AUTHOR as Ghandrakant in JAMA. Just search on

> the name with iodine, though, and you'll find lots of Optimox papers.

>

> There is a real article by C. C. Kapdi and J. N. Wolfe, " Breast cancer:

> Relationship to thyroid supplements for hypothyroidism, " Vol. 236 No.

> 10, 1124-1126, September 6, 1976.

>

> Here is the abstract:

>

> " This study was undertaken to determine the relationship between thyroid

> supplements and breast cancer. The incidence of breast cancer among the

> patients who received thyroid supplements was 12.13%, while in the

> control group it was 6.2%. The incidence rate of breast cancer was 10%,

> 9.42%, and 19.48% among patients who received thyroid supplements for

> one to five, 5 to 15, and for more than 15 years, respectively. The

> incidence of breast cancer among nulliparous women who received thyroid

> supplements was 33%, while in the nulliparous women without thyroid

> supplements the incidence was only 9.25%. Even in a specific age group,

> the incidence rate of breast cancer was higher among patients receiving

> thyroid supplements, when compared to the control patients in the same

> age group. "

>

> Note that this 30 year old study DID NOT INVOLVE IODINE DEFICIENCY and

> did not distinguish between types of supplements. In fact, this was long

> before Guy Abraham devised his iodine uptake (urine) test. So, the

> claimed comparison for iodine deficient women based on this test could

> not have been made then.

>

> To top it all off, MANY studies since then have shown that the

> speculated connections between breast cancer and thyroid medications or

> thyroxine status were spurious. That was a hot speculation in the late

> 1970s. However, no such relationships with breast cancer has held up in

> larger studies or in meta studies. Here is a review article from 2002

> that summarizes these conclusions, citing " institutional bias. "

> http://hormones.gr/pdf/Lack%20of%20association%20between%20Hashimoto.pdf

> <http://hormones.gr/pdf/Lack%20of%20association%20between%20Hashimoto.pdf>

>

> This sort of blatant lying is exactly the sort of abuse that peer review

> prevents. Reviewers are selected that know the literature, and they can

> usually recognize when an author is simply trying to promote his own

> business. This also is why you won't find any of the Optimox " research "

> published in peer reviewed literature.

>

> Chuck

[Guest guest]

they don't understand what peer review is in the first place.

Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

I noted the self promotion of the quoted article as well; but I figured

anyone who cannot up front figure out the credibility of the source

isn't likely to recognize a valid rebuttal. But thanks for your efforts

to keep us all straight...

>

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32397;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNjBxMmM\

zBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzIzOTcEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDg2Mjc3MA<http://groups/group/hypothy\

roidism/message/32397;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNjBxMmMzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARnc\

nBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzIzOTcEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDg2M\

jc3MA>-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Chuck B " gumboyaya@...<mailto:gumboyaya@...>

>

<mailto:gumboyaya@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20CHRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES%20A\

ND%20THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL<mailto:gumboyaya@...?Subject= Re: CHRONIC

IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL>>

> gumbo482001

<gumbo482001<gumbo482001>>

>

>

> Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:40 am (PST)

>

> ,

>

> I find it curious that people that like to paint peer reviewed research

> with a broad brush of fraud and deception would be so willing to accept

> this Optimox propaganda unquestioned. For example, this article says,

>

> > ... And, it was shown in JAMA, 1976 (Journal of the American Medical

> > Association) that if women who have Iodine deficiencies are

> prescribed T4

> > thyroid medication (Synthroid & Levoxyl), this T4 medication further

> > increases their risk for Breast Cancer. This same association has

> NOT been

> > shown when women have been prescribed Armour’s Thyroid....

>

> The article that Abraham and his cronies seem to often cite for this is

> Ghandrakant, Kapdi, and Wolfe, " Breast Cancer Relationship to Thyroid

> Supplements for hypothyroidism,

> " JAMA, 238:1124, 1976. Sometimes the

> second author is listed as Kapdim, and Wolfe is sometimes spelled Wolff.

> However, there is NO SUCH AUTHOR as Ghandrakant in JAMA. Just search on

> the name with iodine, though, and you'll find lots of Optimox papers.

>

> There is a real article by C. C. Kapdi and J. N. Wolfe, " Breast cancer:

> Relationship to thyroid supplements for hypothyroidism, " Vol. 236 No.

> 10, 1124-1126, September 6, 1976.

>

> Here is the abstract:

>

> " This study was undertaken to determine the relationship between thyroid

> supplements and breast cancer. The incidence of breast cancer among the

> patients who received thyroid supplements was 12.13%, while in the

> control group it was 6.2%. The incidence rate of breast cancer was 10%,

> 9.42%, and 19.48% among patients who received thyroid supplements for

> one to five, 5 to 15, and for more than 15 years, respectively. The

> incidence of breast cancer among nulliparous women who received thyroid

> supplements was 33%, while in the nulliparous women without thyroid

> supplements the incidence was only 9.25%. Even in a specific age group,

> the incidence rate of breast cancer was higher among patients receiving

> thyroid supplements, when compared to the control patients in the same

> age group. "

>

> Note that this 30 year old study DID NOT INVOLVE IODINE DEFICIENCY and

> did not distinguish between types of supplements. In fact, this was long

> before Guy Abraham devised his iodine uptake (urine) test. So, the

> claimed comparison for iodine deficient women based on this test could

> not have been made then.

>

> To top it all off, MANY studies since then have shown that the

> speculated connections between breast cancer and thyroid medications or

> thyroxine status were spurious. That was a hot speculation in the late

> 1970s. However, no such relationships with breast cancer has held up in

> larger studies or in meta studies. Here is a review article from 2002

> that summarizes these conclusions, citing " institutional bias. "

>

http://hormones.gr/pdf/Lack%20of%20association%20between%20Hashimoto.pdf<http://\

hormones.gr/pdf/Lack%20of%20association%20between%20Hashimoto.pdf>

>

<http://hormones.gr/pdf/Lack%20of%20association%20between%20Hashimoto.pdf<http:/\

/hormones.gr/pdf/Lack%20of%20association%20between%20Hashimoto.pdf>>

>

> This sort of blatant lying is exactly the sort of abuse that peer review

> prevents. Reviewers are selected that know the literature, and they can

> usually recognize when an author is simply trying to promote his own

> business. This also is why you won't find any of the Optimox " research "

> published in peer reviewed literature.

>

> Chuck

[Guest guest]

Much of the bleeding was actually done by barbers. The red and white

" candy stripe " barber pole has the red color of the blood letting.

Below is a bit of info on bloodletting, and you may note that it began

probably 3000 years ago; long before any modern peer reviewed process.

It pretty much ended I believe by the late 1800's, so your purported

support of this ancient practice by modern peer review is totally

false. You can find the page I quoted here, or just google history of

bloodletting for much more info:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory.html

As for washing hands, that has been around since about the time of the

discovery of the germ theory of disease. Again, so long ago it has

little connection to the modern peer review process.

As for there always being more followers than leaders, if there weren't

such a great supply of gullible followers then those who wrote the

article you posted would be out of business. And your description of

what constitutes peer review is sorely lacking in accuracy.

Here's the quote:

A Brief History of Bloodletting

*Bloodletting Over the Centuries*

Gilbert R. Seigworth, M.D.

Vestal, New York

Director, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Upstate Medical Student Program,

and Active Staff, S. Memorial Hospital, City; and

Active Staff, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ideal Hospital, Endicott.

Bloodletting is a procedure that was performed to help alleviate the

ills of mankind. For an operation with a 3,000-year history,

bloodletting has attracted little attention in recent historic accounts

of medicine. Bloodletting began with the Egyptians of the River Nile one

thousand years B.C., and the tradition spread to the Greeks and Romans;

its popularity continued throughout the Middle Ages. It reached its

zenith during the beginning of the nineteenth century, but had virtually

died as a therapeutic tool by the end of that century.

The custom of bloodletting as practiced over the centuries might seem

repulsive to the modern practitioner of medicine. However, the physician

and his treatment must be judged in the light of the contemporary theory

of disease. Primitive man looked on disease as a curse cast on him by an

evil spirit; his treatment consisted of driving out the demon that

possessed him. Neolithic man of the late Stone Age used flint tools for

trepanning the skull as a method for releasing the demon; the logic of

the treatment was sound, but the premise on which it was based was

wrong. The premise was that the evil spirit of disease was contained

within the skull and could be drawn out. In much the same way as

trepanning allowed demons to escape from the head, bloodletting was

supposed to facilitate the release of evil spirits from elsewhere in the

body. Later use of bloodletting in hypertension, apoplexy, dropsy, and

nervous disorders had a more physiologic explanation.

The story of bloodletting is intertwined in the mysterious fabric of

medical lore; it originated from magic and religious ceremonies. The

physician and priest were one and the same since disease was thought to

be caused by supernatural causes. Witch doctors and sorcerers were

called on to drive out the evil spirits and demons. Bloodletting was a

method for cleansing the body of ill-defined impurities and excess

fluid. The early instruments included thorns, pointed sticks and bones,

sharp pieces of flint or shell, and even sharply pointed shark's teeth.

Miniature bow and arrow devices for bloodletting have been found in

South America and New Guinea. A small bloodletting instrument resembling

a crossbow was once used in Greece and Malta. Wall paintings dating from

1400 B.C. depict the use of leeches for drawing blood from human beings.

*Four body humors*

Prior to the time of Hippocrates (460 to 377 B.C.), all illness was

attributed to one disease with variable symptoms. Careful clinical

observations by Hippocrates led to the recognition of specific disease

states with identifying symptoms. It was during this time that the

concept of body humors developed. The four fluid substances of the body

were blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Health depended on the

proper balance of these humors. Bloodletting was, therefore, a method

used for adjusting on of the four body humors to proper balance. This

clinical concept led to the decline in the doctrine of evil spirits in

disease.

It was thought that blood carried the vital force of the body and was

the seat of the soul; body weakness and insanity were ascribed to a

defect in this vital fluid. Blood spurting from fallen gladiators was

drunk with the hope that it would transfer strength to the recipient.

Caspar Bartholin, M.D., (1655 to 1738) described an epileptic girl at

Breslau who drank the blood of a cat. The girl, so the report goes,

became endowed with the characteristics of a cat. She climbed on the

roofs of houses and imitated the manner of a cat by jumping, scratching,

and howling. Not content with that, she would sit for hours gazing into

a hole in the floor.

*Barber-surgeons develop*

Surgery during the four centuries from 1100 to 1500 A.D. was a very

crude business. The barber-surgeon developed during these years after a

church edict by the Council of Tours in 1163 A.D. prevented monks and

priests from continuing the custom of bloodletting. The council said,

" The church abhors bloodletting. " The barbers began to lance veins and

abscesses as well as to perform amputations of arms and legs. The

red-and-white barber pole designated a barber who did surgery as well as

haircutting. The educated physicians avoided surgery during these years.

This was to set the stage for later conflict when surgery became a

respectable method of treatment. The Barber-Surgeon Company existed

officially in England until 1744. However, barbers and surgeons had a

clear separation of function for many years before that. The transition

of surgery from disrespect to prominence was led by the French master

barber-surgeon Ambroise Paré (1510 to 1590) who is considered the father

of surgery.

Astrology played an important role in the physician's practice during

the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Bloodletting as well as surgery

in general was regulated by the signs of the zodiac, and the planets had

to be in a proper relationship. A phlebotomy table (1480 A.D.) spelled

out the relationship of every part of the body to the signs of the

zodiac. Bloodletting was performed at specific times for specific parts

of the body.^1

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#1>

*Indications for venesection*

Venesection was the most common method of general bloodletting. The

specific indications have varied over the years. The following

translation from Old English is advice given by Ambroise Paré in a 1634

text.^2

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#2>

But blood is let by opening a vein for five respects: the first to

lessen the abundance of blood, as in plethoric bodies, and those

troubled with plentitude. The second is for diversion, or revulsion,

as when a vein of the right arm is opened to stay the bleeding of

the left nostril. The third is to allure or draw down, as when the

vein is opened in the ankle to draw down the menstrual flow in

women. The fourth is for alteration or introduction of another

quality, as when in sharp fevers we open a vein to breathe out that

blood which is heated in vessels, and cooling the residue which

remains behind. The fifth is to prevent imminent disease, as in the

spring and autumn we draw blood by opening a vein in such as are

subject to spitting of blood, quinsy, pleurisy, falling sickness,

apoplexy, madness, gout, or in such as are wounded, for to prevent

the inflammation which is to be feared. Before bloodletting, if

there be any excrement in the guts, they shall be evacuated by a

gentle clyster, or suppository, lest the mesenteric veins should

thence draw unto them any impurity.

In the early nineteenth century adults with good health from the country

districts of England were bled as regularly as they went to market;^3

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#3>

this was considered to be preventive medicine. In earlier times specific

veins were described as heart veins, breast veins, and head veins.

Buchan's^4

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#4>

DOMESTIC MEDICINE discussed this in the 1784 edition. Buchan realized

that since systemic blood made a full circuit, little significance

should be placed on the site chosen for venesection. The median basilic

vein was the site most frequently used.

The term antiphlogistic means to counteract inflammation. Redness, heat,

and swelling were considered the abnormal responses to be treated. With

infection, the formation of laudable pus was thought to be an essential

part of healing. It was not appreciated that these responses represented

an attempt by the body to counteract bacterial infection; this discovery

came later. Our current efforts to treat cancer without understanding

the underlying etiologic factors will someday no doubt appear just as

illogical. Bloodletting counteracted the redness, heat, and swelling by

relieving the vascular congestion. The following quotation comes from

and Condie's^5

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#5>

PRACTICE OF PHYSIC in 1858.

The main object of general blood letting is to diminish the whole

quantity of blood in the system, and thus to lessen the force of the

heart's action. The object of local bleeding is, in most instances,

that of emptying the gorged and loaded capillaries of the inflammed

part. Sometimes the blood is thus taken directly from the turgid

vessels themselves; more often, I fancy, topical bloodletting

produces its effect by diverting the flow of blood from the affected

part, and giving it a new direction, and so indirectly relieving the

inflammatory congestion.

goes on to state, " I cannot too strongly inculcate the precept

that in order to extinguish or check acute inflammation, you must above

all bleed early. " An indication for bleeding in acute inflammation was a

hard pulse of 90 to 120 beats per minute, which was measured by the

resistance that the pulse of the artery made to the pressure of the

examiner's fingers. Rapid bleeding by venesection with the patient

standing was advised. It was surmised that the early onset of faintness

and softness of pulse was beneficial. Slow bleeding with the patient

supine led to more blood loss before the soft pulse and faintness

developed, which was thought to be undesirable. Blood losses averaged 16

to 30 oz. Sufficient bleeding had occurred when the fever subsided, the

pulse had become soft, or suppuration had developed.

Variations of the concept of body balance persisted until the end of the

nineteenth century. Most physicians of that century believed that

illness was due to either an excess or deficiency of some body product.

Cathartics were used to reduce an over-excited nervous system by

cleansing the bowels. Diuretics were used to restore systemic balance.

Tonics were used to stimulate a depressed nervous system. Bloodletting

allowed the physician to reduce body fluids and decrease body

temperature. The febrile patient with a full pulse, red skin, and

agitated state could be rendered pale and cool. The physician concluded

that this represented clinical improvement.

" Bloodletting Over the Centuries " by Gilbert R. Seigworth, M.D. From the

NEW YORK STATE JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (December, 1980): 2022-2028.

Reprinted by permission of the Medical Society of the State of New York

<http://www.mssny.org>.

End of article.

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32398;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbWl2aG4\

1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzIzOTgEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDg2Mjc3MA-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " " 4tex.square@...

>

<mailto:4tex.square@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20CHRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES\

%20AND%20THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> calliope888 <calliope888>

>

>

> Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:56 am (PST)

>

> Chuck,

>

> Remember the years when doctors would " bleed " their patients (sometimes to

> death) this was accepted by peer review. Remember that doctors used to go

> from one patient to another without washing their hands this was also

> accepted by peer review. Remember the man who invented sterilizing

> hands in

> medicine he at first was also considered outside of peer review.

>

> Until his patients lived while others died.

>

> What is peer review simply what a doctor has already been taught as

> true thus accepts. Chuck there will always be more followers than leaders

> that is the way of the world.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> This sort of blatant lying is exactly the sort of abuse that peer review

> prevents. Reviewers are selected that know the literature, and they can

> usually recognize when an author is simply trying to promote his own

> business. This also is why you won't find any of the Optimox " research "

> published in peer reviewed literature.

>

> Chuck

[Guest guest]

Patient review, at least that portion known as " testimonials " are such a

well know stock in trade of the perpetrators of bogus concoctions and

similar quacks that if you see a list of testimonials with any product

or procedure then you should approach with extreme caution. Or better

yet, run the other way...

It's like getting an email that screams, " SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU

KNOW... " . You can rest assured there's about a 99.999... percent chance

it's bogus.

>

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32417;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMml0ZjE\

xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MTcEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDg2Mjc3MA-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Gracia " circe@...

>

<mailto:circe@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20CHRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES%20AND%2\

0THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:52 pm (PST)

>

>

> well how about patient review? Iodoral is wonderful and it works. It's

> a big gun.

> Gracia

>

> I believe you that you believe your statement - but there is very little

> truth in it as pertains to " peer review " .

[Guest guest]

I am not jumping on anybody's bandwagon, but I'd appreciate your definition

of peer review in relation to these discussions.

Roni

<res075oh@...> wrote:

Much of the bleeding was actually done by barbers. The red and white

" candy stripe " barber pole has the red color of the blood letting.

Below is a bit of info on bloodletting, and you may note that it began

probably 3000 years ago; long before any modern peer reviewed process.

It pretty much ended I believe by the late 1800's, so your purported

support of this ancient practice by modern peer review is totally

false. You can find the page I quoted here, or just google history of

bloodletting for much more info:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory.html

As for washing hands, that has been around since about the time of the

discovery of the germ theory of disease. Again, so long ago it has

little connection to the modern peer review process.

As for there always being more followers than leaders, if there weren't

such a great supply of gullible followers then those who wrote the

article you posted would be out of business. And your description of

what constitutes peer review is sorely lacking in accuracy.

Here's the quote:

A Brief History of Bloodletting

*Bloodletting Over the Centuries*

Gilbert R. Seigworth, M.D.

Vestal, New York

Director, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Upstate Medical Student Program,

and Active Staff, S. Memorial Hospital, City; and

Active Staff, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ideal Hospital, Endicott.

Bloodletting is a procedure that was performed to help alleviate the

ills of mankind. For an operation with a 3,000-year history,

bloodletting has attracted little attention in recent historic accounts

of medicine. Bloodletting began with the Egyptians of the River Nile one

thousand years B.C., and the tradition spread to the Greeks and Romans;

its popularity continued throughout the Middle Ages. It reached its

zenith during the beginning of the nineteenth century, but had virtually

died as a therapeutic tool by the end of that century.

The custom of bloodletting as practiced over the centuries might seem

repulsive to the modern practitioner of medicine. However, the physician

and his treatment must be judged in the light of the contemporary theory

of disease. Primitive man looked on disease as a curse cast on him by an

evil spirit; his treatment consisted of driving out the demon that

possessed him. Neolithic man of the late Stone Age used flint tools for

trepanning the skull as a method for releasing the demon; the logic of

the treatment was sound, but the premise on which it was based was

wrong. The premise was that the evil spirit of disease was contained

within the skull and could be drawn out. In much the same way as

trepanning allowed demons to escape from the head, bloodletting was

supposed to facilitate the release of evil spirits from elsewhere in the

body. Later use of bloodletting in hypertension, apoplexy, dropsy, and

nervous disorders had a more physiologic explanation.

The story of bloodletting is intertwined in the mysterious fabric of

medical lore; it originated from magic and religious ceremonies. The

physician and priest were one and the same since disease was thought to

be caused by supernatural causes. Witch doctors and sorcerers were

called on to drive out the evil spirits and demons. Bloodletting was a

method for cleansing the body of ill-defined impurities and excess

fluid. The early instruments included thorns, pointed sticks and bones,

sharp pieces of flint or shell, and even sharply pointed shark's teeth.

Miniature bow and arrow devices for bloodletting have been found in

South America and New Guinea. A small bloodletting instrument resembling

a crossbow was once used in Greece and Malta. Wall paintings dating from

1400 B.C. depict the use of leeches for drawing blood from human beings.

*Four body humors*

Prior to the time of Hippocrates (460 to 377 B.C.), all illness was

attributed to one disease with variable symptoms. Careful clinical

observations by Hippocrates led to the recognition of specific disease

states with identifying symptoms. It was during this time that the

concept of body humors developed. The four fluid substances of the body

were blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Health depended on the

proper balance of these humors. Bloodletting was, therefore, a method

used for adjusting on of the four body humors to proper balance. This

clinical concept led to the decline in the doctrine of evil spirits in

disease.

It was thought that blood carried the vital force of the body and was

the seat of the soul; body weakness and insanity were ascribed to a

defect in this vital fluid. Blood spurting from fallen gladiators was

drunk with the hope that it would transfer strength to the recipient.

Caspar Bartholin, M.D., (1655 to 1738) described an epileptic girl at

Breslau who drank the blood of a cat. The girl, so the report goes,

became endowed with the characteristics of a cat. She climbed on the

roofs of houses and imitated the manner of a cat by jumping, scratching,

and howling. Not content with that, she would sit for hours gazing into

a hole in the floor.

*Barber-surgeons develop*

Surgery during the four centuries from 1100 to 1500 A.D. was a very

crude business. The barber-surgeon developed during these years after a

church edict by the Council of Tours in 1163 A.D. prevented monks and

priests from continuing the custom of bloodletting. The council said,

" The church abhors bloodletting. " The barbers began to lance veins and

abscesses as well as to perform amputations of arms and legs. The

red-and-white barber pole designated a barber who did surgery as well as

haircutting. The educated physicians avoided surgery during these years.

This was to set the stage for later conflict when surgery became a

respectable method of treatment. The Barber-Surgeon Company existed

officially in England until 1744. However, barbers and surgeons had a

clear separation of function for many years before that. The transition

of surgery from disrespect to prominence was led by the French master

barber-surgeon Ambroise Paré (1510 to 1590) who is considered the father

of surgery.

Astrology played an important role in the physician's practice during

the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Bloodletting as well as surgery

in general was regulated by the signs of the zodiac, and the planets had

to be in a proper relationship. A phlebotomy table (1480 A.D.) spelled

out the relationship of every part of the body to the signs of the

zodiac. Bloodletting was performed at specific times for specific parts

of the body.^1

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#1>

*Indications for venesection*

Venesection was the most common method of general bloodletting. The

specific indications have varied over the years. The following

translation from Old English is advice given by Ambroise Paré in a 1634

text.^2

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#2>

But blood is let by opening a vein for five respects: the first to

lessen the abundance of blood, as in plethoric bodies, and those

troubled with plentitude. The second is for diversion, or revulsion,

as when a vein of the right arm is opened to stay the bleeding of

the left nostril. The third is to allure or draw down, as when the

vein is opened in the ankle to draw down the menstrual flow in

women. The fourth is for alteration or introduction of another

quality, as when in sharp fevers we open a vein to breathe out that

blood which is heated in vessels, and cooling the residue which

remains behind. The fifth is to prevent imminent disease, as in the

spring and autumn we draw blood by opening a vein in such as are

subject to spitting of blood, quinsy, pleurisy, falling sickness,

apoplexy, madness, gout, or in such as are wounded, for to prevent

the inflammation which is to be feared. Before bloodletting, if

there be any excrement in the guts, they shall be evacuated by a

gentle clyster, or suppository, lest the mesenteric veins should

thence draw unto them any impurity.

In the early nineteenth century adults with good health from the country

districts of England were bled as regularly as they went to market;^3

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#3>

this was considered to be preventive medicine. In earlier times specific

veins were described as heart veins, breast veins, and head veins.

Buchan's^4

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#4>

DOMESTIC MEDICINE discussed this in the 1784 edition. Buchan realized

that since systemic blood made a full circuit, little significance

should be placed on the site chosen for venesection. The median basilic

vein was the site most frequently used.

The term antiphlogistic means to counteract inflammation. Redness, heat,

and swelling were considered the abnormal responses to be treated. With

infection, the formation of laudable pus was thought to be an essential

part of healing. It was not appreciated that these responses represented

an attempt by the body to counteract bacterial infection; this discovery

came later. Our current efforts to treat cancer without understanding

the underlying etiologic factors will someday no doubt appear just as

illogical. Bloodletting counteracted the redness, heat, and swelling by

relieving the vascular congestion. The following quotation comes from

and Condie's^5

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/bloodlettinghistory3.html#5>

PRACTICE OF PHYSIC in 1858.

The main object of general blood letting is to diminish the whole

quantity of blood in the system, and thus to lessen the force of the

heart's action. The object of local bleeding is, in most instances,

that of emptying the gorged and loaded capillaries of the inflammed

part. Sometimes the blood is thus taken directly from the turgid

vessels themselves; more often, I fancy, topical bloodletting

produces its effect by diverting the flow of blood from the affected

part, and giving it a new direction, and so indirectly relieving the

inflammatory congestion.

goes on to state, " I cannot too strongly inculcate the precept

that in order to extinguish or check acute inflammation, you must above

all bleed early. " An indication for bleeding in acute inflammation was a

hard pulse of 90 to 120 beats per minute, which was measured by the

resistance that the pulse of the artery made to the pressure of the

examiner's fingers. Rapid bleeding by venesection with the patient

standing was advised. It was surmised that the early onset of faintness

and softness of pulse was beneficial. Slow bleeding with the patient

supine led to more blood loss before the soft pulse and faintness

developed, which was thought to be undesirable. Blood losses averaged 16

to 30 oz. Sufficient bleeding had occurred when the fever subsided, the

pulse had become soft, or suppuration had developed.

Variations of the concept of body balance persisted until the end of the

nineteenth century. Most physicians of that century believed that

illness was due to either an excess or deficiency of some body product.

Cathartics were used to reduce an over-excited nervous system by

cleansing the bowels. Diuretics were used to restore systemic balance.

Tonics were used to stimulate a depressed nervous system. Bloodletting

allowed the physician to reduce body fluids and decrease body

temperature. The febrile patient with a full pulse, red skin, and

agitated state could be rendered pale and cool. The physician concluded

that this represented clinical improvement.

" Bloodletting Over the Centuries " by Gilbert R. Seigworth, M.D. From the

NEW YORK STATE JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (December, 1980): 2022-2028.

Reprinted by permission of the Medical Society of the State of New York

<http://www.mssny.org>.

End of article.

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32398;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbWl2aG4\

1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzIzOTgEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDg2Mjc3MA-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " " 4tex.square@...

>

<mailto:4tex.square@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20CHRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES\

%20AND%20THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> calliope888 <calliope888>

>

>

> Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:56 am (PST)

>

> Chuck,

>

> Remember the years when doctors would " bleed " their patients (sometimes to

> death) this was accepted by peer review. Remember that doctors used to go

> from one patient to another without washing their hands this was also

> accepted by peer review. Remember the man who invented sterilizing

> hands in

> medicine he at first was also considered outside of peer review.

>

> Until his patients lived while others died.

>

> What is peer review simply what a doctor has already been taught as

> true thus accepts. Chuck there will always be more followers than leaders

> that is the way of the world.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> This sort of blatant lying is exactly the sort of abuse that peer review

> prevents. Reviewers are selected that know the literature, and they can

> usually recognize when an author is simply trying to promote his own

> business. This also is why you won't find any of the Optimox " research "

> published in peer reviewed literature.

>

> Chuck

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Just because someone testifies to his/her own experiences does not

automatically

render that testimony bogus. If enough people have the same experience using

the

same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and double

blind

testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this has not been

done.

The other thing I have come to know is that if something really works, it

doesn't

stay a secret. Prevention magazine, among others private and professional,

have

been telling the public about vitamin and other natural therapies for a very

long

time, and it is only recently that some doctors (including a neurologist I met

personally at Colombia Presbyterian Hospital in NYC) are now telling their

patients

to take different vitamins for different illnesses, including Dr. Oz on the

Oprah show.

Roni

<res075oh@...> wrote:

Patient review, at least that portion known as " testimonials " are such

a

well know stock in trade of the perpetrators of bogus concoctions and

similar quacks that if you see a list of testimonials with any product

or procedure then you should approach with extreme caution. Or better

yet, run the other way...

It's like getting an email that screams, " SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU

KNOW... " . You can rest assured there's about a 99.999... percent chance

it's bogus.

>

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32417;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMml0ZjE\

xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MTcEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDg2Mjc3MA-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Gracia " circe@...

>

<mailto:circe@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20CHRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES%20AND%2\

0THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:52 pm (PST)

>

>

> well how about patient review? Iodoral is wonderful and it works. It's

> a big gun.

> Gracia

>

> I believe you that you believe your statement - but there is very little

> truth in it as pertains to " peer review " .

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Roni,

You wrote:

> ... If enough people have the same experience

> using the same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this

has not

> been done.

It has been done. That is the basis for the limited doses that

manufacturers recommend. The problem is that some people testify to

experiences that contradict the double blind studies.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this information. Now I have another question. If the highest dose

of

iodine, determined by double blind studies is so much lower than Gracia and

others

have stated that they take, how do you account for their apparent success with

the

higher doses? By the way, I do not take iodine.

Roni

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

Roni,

You wrote:

> ... If enough people have the same experience

> using the same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this

has not

> been done.

It has been done. That is the basis for the limited doses that

manufacturers recommend. The problem is that some people testify to

experiences that contradict the double blind studies.

Chuck

---------------------------------

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside . See how.

[Guest guest]

You're right; the testimonial could be good as gold. Or it could have

been typed up in the charlatan's bedroom. And generally there's

absolutely no way for a prospective consumer to tell the difference, so

the net effect of testimonials is that, as factual evidence, they are

utterly worthless.

That being the case, why are so many used? Very simple; they work.

There's always someone gullible or desperate enough to shell out hard

earned cash for the slightest glimmer of hope; and there's a large

supply of potential customers who apparently have no discernment powers

whatsoever. And there's always an ample supply of those ready, willing,

and able to shear the sheep...

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpuZXV\

nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MzQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDkwOTgxNw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20CHRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES\

%20AND%20THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:38 pm (PST)

>

> Just because someone testifies to his/her own experiences does not

> automatically

> render that testimony bogus. If enough people have the same experience

> using the

> same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind

> testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this has not

> been done.

>

> The other thing I have come to know is that if something really works,

> it doesn't

> stay a secret. Prevention magazine, among others private and

> professional, have

> been telling the public about vitamin and other natural therapies for

> a very long

> time, and it is only recently that some doctors (including a

> neurologist I met

> personally at Colombia Presbyterian Hospital in NYC) are now telling

> their patients

> to take different vitamins for different illnesses, including Dr. Oz

> on the Oprah show.

>

> Roni

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Patient review, at least that portion known as " testimonials " are such a

> well know stock in trade of the perpetrators of bogus concoctions and

> similar quacks that if you see a list of testimonials with any product

> or procedure then you should approach with extreme caution. Or better

> yet, run the other way...

>

> It's like getting an email that screams, " SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU

> KNOW... " . You can rest assured there's about a 99.999... percent chance

> it's bogus.

>

>

[Guest guest]

and that is why so many of those " miracle supplements' are being sued in class

action law suits.

Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

You're right; the testimonial could be good as gold. Or it could have

been typed up in the charlatan's bedroom. And generally there's

absolutely no way for a prospective consumer to tell the difference, so

the net effect of testimonials is that, as factual evidence, they are

utterly worthless.

That being the case, why are so many used? Very simple; they work.

There's always someone gullible or desperate enough to shell out hard

earned cash for the slightest glimmer of hope; and there's a large

supply of potential customers who apparently have no discernment powers

whatsoever. And there's always an ample supply of those ready, willing,

and able to shear the sheep...

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpuZXV\

nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MzQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDkwOTgxNw--<hypo\

thyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpuZXVnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NA\

RncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MzQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ND\

kwOTgxNw-->>

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...<mailto:matchermaam@...>

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...<mailto:matchermaam@...>?Subject=%20Re%3A%20C\

HRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES%20AND%20THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> matchermaam

<matchermaam<matchermaam>>

>

>

> Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:38 pm (PST)

>

> Just because someone testifies to his/her own experiences does not

> automatically

> render that testimony bogus. If enough people have the same experience

> using the

> same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind

> testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this has not

> been done.

>

> The other thing I have come to know is that if something really works,

> it doesn't

> stay a secret. Prevention magazine, among others private and

> professional, have

> been telling the public about vitamin and other natural therapies for

> a very long

> time, and it is only recently that some doctors (including a

> neurologist I met

> personally at Colombia Presbyterian Hospital in NYC) are now telling

> their patients

> to take different vitamins for different illnesses, including Dr. Oz

> on the Oprah show.

>

> Roni

>

> <res075oh@...<mailto:res075oh@...>

<mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Patient review, at least that portion known as " testimonials " are such a

> well know stock in trade of the perpetrators of bogus concoctions and

> similar quacks that if you see a list of testimonials with any product

> or procedure then you should approach with extreme caution. Or better

> yet, run the other way...

>

> It's like getting an email that screams, " SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU

> KNOW... " . You can rest assured there's about a 99.999... percent chance

> it's bogus.

>

>

[Guest guest]

individual genetics.

Re: Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

Thank you for this information. Now I have another question. If the highest

dose of

iodine, determined by double blind studies is so much lower than Gracia and

others

have stated that they take, how do you account for their apparent success with

the

higher doses? By the way, I do not take iodine.

Roni

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...<mailto:gumboyaya@...>> wrote:

Roni,

You wrote:

> ... If enough people have the same experience

> using the same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this

has not

> been done.

It has been done. That is the basis for the limited doses that

manufacturers recommend. The problem is that some people testify to

experiences that contradict the double blind studies.

Chuck

---------------------------------

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside . See how.

[Guest guest]

, I am not talking about testimony for the sake of sales. I am talking

about

testimony from patients taking this or that supplement, or this or that

particular

brand of medication. These people, like you and me, are ill and have nothing

to gain

except their health. I don't see the rationale for rendering their experiences

utterly

worthless. Are you saying that when you or one of the rest of us relates our

experience

with something that our words are utterly worthless?

Roni

<res075oh@...> wrote:

You're right; the testimonial could be good as gold. Or it could have

been typed up in the charlatan's bedroom. And generally there's

absolutely no way for a prospective consumer to tell the difference, so

the net effect of testimonials is that, as factual evidence, they are

utterly worthless.

That being the case, why are so many used? Very simple; they work.

There's always someone gullible or desperate enough to shell out hard

earned cash for the slightest glimmer of hope; and there's a large

supply of potential customers who apparently have no discernment powers

whatsoever. And there's always an ample supply of those ready, willing,

and able to shear the sheep...

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpuZXV\

nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MzQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDkwOTgxNw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20CHRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES\

%20AND%20THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:38 pm (PST)

>

> Just because someone testifies to his/her own experiences does not

> automatically

> render that testimony bogus. If enough people have the same experience

> using the

> same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind

> testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this has not

> been done.

>

> The other thing I have come to know is that if something really works,

> it doesn't

> stay a secret. Prevention magazine, among others private and

> professional, have

> been telling the public about vitamin and other natural therapies for

> a very long

> time, and it is only recently that some doctors (including a

> neurologist I met

> personally at Colombia Presbyterian Hospital in NYC) are now telling

> their patients

> to take different vitamins for different illnesses, including Dr. Oz

> on the Oprah show.

>

> Roni

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Patient review, at least that portion known as " testimonials " are such a

> well know stock in trade of the perpetrators of bogus concoctions and

> similar quacks that if you see a list of testimonials with any product

> or procedure then you should approach with extreme caution. Or better

> yet, run the other way...

>

> It's like getting an email that screams, " SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU

> KNOW... " . You can rest assured there's about a 99.999... percent chance

> it's bogus.

>

>

---------------------------------

Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

[Guest guest]

as many class action law suits as have been filed against main stream

medication?

Roni

Nancie Barnett <deifspirit@...> wrote:

and that is why so many of those " miracle supplements' are being sued

in class action law suits.

Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

You're right; the testimonial could be good as gold. Or it could have

been typed up in the charlatan's bedroom. And generally there's

absolutely no way for a prospective consumer to tell the difference, so

the net effect of testimonials is that, as factual evidence, they are

utterly worthless.

That being the case, why are so many used? Very simple; they work.

There's always someone gullible or desperate enough to shell out hard

earned cash for the slightest glimmer of hope; and there's a large

supply of potential customers who apparently have no discernment powers

whatsoever. And there's always an ample supply of those ready, willing,

and able to shear the sheep...

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpuZXV\

nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MzQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDkwOTgxNw--<hypo\

thyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpuZXVnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NA\

RncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MzQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ND\

kwOTgxNw-->>

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...<mailto:matchermaam@...>

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...<mailto:matchermaam@...>?Subject=%20Re%3A%20C\

HRONIC%20IODINE%20DEFICIENCIES%20AND%20THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> matchermaam

<matchermaam<matchermaam>>

>

>

> Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:38 pm (PST)

>

> Just because someone testifies to his/her own experiences does not

> automatically

> render that testimony bogus. If enough people have the same experience

> using the

> same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind

> testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this has not

> been done.

>

> The other thing I have come to know is that if something really works,

> it doesn't

> stay a secret. Prevention magazine, among others private and

> professional, have

> been telling the public about vitamin and other natural therapies for

> a very long

> time, and it is only recently that some doctors (including a

> neurologist I met

> personally at Colombia Presbyterian Hospital in NYC) are now telling

> their patients

> to take different vitamins for different illnesses, including Dr. Oz

> on the Oprah show.

>

> Roni

>

> <res075oh@...<mailto:res075oh@...>

<mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Patient review, at least that portion known as " testimonials " are such a

> well know stock in trade of the perpetrators of bogus concoctions and

> similar quacks that if you see a list of testimonials with any product

> or procedure then you should approach with extreme caution. Or better

> yet, run the other way...

>

> It's like getting an email that screams, " SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU

> KNOW... " . You can rest assured there's about a 99.999... percent chance

> it's bogus.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I believe that the most scientific thing someone can do is keep an open mind.

For example, it was recently discovered that there are some people who are

automatically immune to certain illnesses, like small pox. In fact I know

someone

who is immune, and though vaccinated many times never had one of the attempts

" take " . Some scientist looked into the phenomenon and discovered that distan

ancestors that survived that illness, passed that gene on down. If no one

believed

the results they were looking at and labeled them worthless or a genetic

anomoly

they would never have found this result. Some day, these genes will be

isolated, and

people can be given a " shot " of the gene to prevent these devestating

illnesses.

Please don't respond that there is more to it than that, I am well aware of

that fact.

Roni

Nancie Barnett <deifspirit@...> wrote:

individual genetics.

Re: Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

Thank you for this information. Now I have another question. If the highest dose

of

iodine, determined by double blind studies is so much lower than Gracia and

others

have stated that they take, how do you account for their apparent success with

the

higher doses? By the way, I do not take iodine.

Roni

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...<mailto:gumboyaya@...>> wrote:

Roni,

You wrote:

> ... If enough people have the same experience

> using the same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this

has not

> been done.

It has been done. That is the basis for the limited doses that

manufacturers recommend. The problem is that some people testify to

experiences that contradict the double blind studies.

Chuck

---------------------------------

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside . See how.

[Guest guest]

what I meant is that everyone has different genetics and that while one dose may

work with one person- or in 3 people- that same dose will not work with someone

else and in fact may be dangerous for that 2nd person to take.

so, what works for gracia may not work in someone else.

there isn't a one size fits all dose scenario here. and there isn't a one

drug/supplement cure all diseases scenario either.

Re: Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

Thank you for this information. Now I have another question. If the highest

dose of

iodine, determined by double blind studies is so much lower than Gracia and

others

have stated that they take, how do you account for their apparent success with

the

higher doses? By the way, I do not take iodine.

Roni

Chuck B

<gumboyaya@...<mailto:gumboyaya@...><mailto:gumboyaya@...<mailto:gum\

boyaya@...>>> wrote:

Roni,

You wrote:

> ... If enough people have the same experience

> using the same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this

has not

> been done.

It has been done. That is the basis for the limited doses that

manufacturers recommend. The problem is that some people testify to

experiences that contradict the double blind studies.

Chuck

---------------------------------

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside . See how.

[Guest guest]

Exactly! That is all that I was trying to get across. Different people react

differently.

All should be accepted and respected.

Roni

Nancie Barnett <deifspirit@...> wrote:

what I meant is that everyone has different genetics and that while

one dose may work with one person- or in 3 people- that same dose will not work

with someone else and in fact may be dangerous for that 2nd person to take.

so, what works for gracia may not work in someone else.

there isn't a one size fits all dose scenario here. and there isn't a one

drug/supplement cure all diseases scenario either.

Re: Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

Thank you for this information. Now I have another question. If the highest dose

of

iodine, determined by double blind studies is so much lower than Gracia and

others

have stated that they take, how do you account for their apparent success with

the

higher doses? By the way, I do not take iodine.

Roni

Chuck B

<gumboyaya@...<mailto:gumboyaya@...><mailto:gumboyaya@...<mailto:gum\

boyaya@...>>> wrote:

Roni,

You wrote:

> ... If enough people have the same experience

> using the same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this

has not

> been done.

It has been done. That is the basis for the limited doses that

manufacturers recommend. The problem is that some people testify to

experiences that contradict the double blind studies.

Chuck

---------------------------------

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside . See how.

[Guest guest]

my friend Stuart slotnick is a lawyer and that is all he does work

pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical drug cases. in his experience it is about

2/3 pharm drugs and 1/3 supplement. but as the supplement market explodes in the

public awareness further that will probably change. he is seeing more non-pharm

cases.

Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF

IODORAL

You're right; the testimonial could be good as gold. Or it could have

been typed up in the charlatan's bedroom. And generally there's

absolutely no way for a prospective consumer to tell the difference, so

the net effect of testimonials is that, as factual evidence, they are

utterly worthless.

That being the case, why are so many used? Very simple; they work.

There's always someone gullible or desperate enough to shell out hard

earned cash for the slightest glimmer of hope; and there's a large

supply of potential customers who apparently have no discernment powers

whatsoever. And there's always an ample supply of those ready, willing,

and able to shear the sheep...

> Re: CHRONIC IODINE DEFICIENCIES AND THE USE OF IODORAL

>

<hypothyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpuZXV\

nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MzQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDkwOTgxNw--<hypo\

thyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpuZXVnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NA\

RncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MzQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ND\

kwOTgxNw--><hypothyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oD\

MTJxdWpuZXVnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQD\

MzI0MzQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDkwOTgxNw--<http://\

/group/hypothyroidism/message/32434;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpuZXVnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycEl\

kAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzI0MzQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3R\

pbWUDMTE5NDkwOTgxNw-->>>

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin "

matchermaam@...<mailto:matchermaam@...><mailto:matchermaam@...\

<mailto:matchermaam@...>>

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...<mailto:matchermaam@...><mailto:matchermaam@y\

ahoo.com<mailto:matchermaam@...>>?Subject=%20Re%3A%20CHRONIC%20IODINE%20DE\

FICIENCIES%20AND%20THE%20USE%20OF%20IODORAL>

> matchermaam

<matchermaam<matchermaam><ht\

tp://profiles./matchermaam<matchermaam>>>

>

>

> Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:38 pm (PST)

>

> Just because someone testifies to his/her own experiences does not

> automatically

> render that testimony bogus. If enough people have the same experience

> using the

> same thing, there should be serious consideration given to it, and

> double blind

> testing should begin at once. It only strikes me odd that this has not

> been done.

>

> The other thing I have come to know is that if something really works,

> it doesn't

> stay a secret. Prevention magazine, among others private and

> professional, have

> been telling the public about vitamin and other natural therapies for

> a very long

> time, and it is only recently that some doctors (including a

> neurologist I met

> personally at Colombia Presbyterian Hospital in NYC) are now telling

> their patients

> to take different vitamins for different illnesses, including Dr. Oz

> on the Oprah show.

>

> Roni

>

>

<res075oh@...<mailto:res075oh@...><mailto:res075oh@...<m\

ailto:res075oh@...>> <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Patient review, at least that portion known as " testimonials " are such a

> well know stock in trade of the perpetrators of bogus concoctions and

> similar quacks that if you see a list of testimonials with any product

> or procedure then you should approach with extreme caution. Or better

> yet, run the other way...

>

> It's like getting an email that screams, " SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU

> KNOW... " . You can rest assured there's about a 99.999... percent chance

> it's bogus.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Roni,

You wrote:

>

>

> Thank you for this information. Now I have another question. If the

> highest dose of

> iodine, determined by double blind studies is so much lower than Gracia

> and others

> have stated that they take, how do you account for their apparent

> success with the

> higher doses? By the way, I do not take iodine.

As I stated, some people have results that contradict the double blind

studies. The issue with iodine is that the large scale studies and

experiences with radio opaque dyes showed it to be toxic FOR SOME PEOPLE

at about the 3 mg level. However, you won't know whether you are one of

those until you try it. Evidently, Gracia and Sam are not in that

vulnerable minority, but people considering massive overdoses of iodine

as a panacea need to be aware that the studies definitely show there is

a risk.

Scientific studies similarly have shown that the RDA provides sufficient

iodine for most people, contrary to Guy Abraham's uptake urine test that

shows that 90% of the population desperately needs his company's product.

Chuck