Guest guest Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 , 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 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. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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 " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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 __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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 " . __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 , 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2007 Report Share Posted November 12, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.