Re: Iodine and fibrocystic pain

[Guest guest]

chuck-

then they haven't met me yet, lol

nancie

From: Chuck B

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:11 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: Iodine and fibrocystic pain

Barb,

You wrote:

>

> Iodine greatly helps fibrocystic breast lumps.

The two studies that really support this statement showed that moderate

doses (under 3 mg/day) helped. Doses larger than this actually hurt.

Symbollon Pharmaceuticals is actually running a study now with even

larger doses, approaching what has been recommended on this list. The

good news is that they did not find anyone with allergies to iodine.

Ghent WR, Eskin BA, Low DA, Hill L. Iodine replacement in fibrocystic

disease of the breast. Can J Surg 1993;36:453-60. (Note the size of the

doses tested).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the response of patients with fibrocystic breast

disease to iodine replacement therapy. DESIGN: Review of three clinical

studies beginning in 1975: an uncontrolled study with sodium iodide and

protein-bound iodide; a prospective, control, crossover study from

iodide to molecular iodine; and a prospective, control, double-blind

study with molecular iodine. SETTING: University affiliated

breast-treatment clinics. PATIENTS: Study 1: 233 volunteers received

sodium iodide for 2 years and 588 received protein-bound iodide for 5

years. Study 2: the treatment of 145 patients from study 1 treated with

protein-bound iodide for several months who still had symptoms was

switched to molecular iodine 0.08 mg/kg; 108 volunteers were treated

initially with molecular iodine. Study 3: 23 patients received molecular

iodine, 0.07 to 0.09 mg/kg body weight; 33 received an aqueous mixture

of brown vegetable dye and quinine. The numbers in study 2 increased

over the review period so that 1365 volunteers were being treated with

molecular iodine by 1989. INTERVENTIONS: All patients in study 3 had

pre- and post-treatment mammography and measurement of serum

triiodothyronine, thyroxine and thyroid-stimulating hormone levels. MAIN

OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjective evaluation--freedom from pain--and

objective evaluation--resolution of fibrosis. RESULTS: Study 1: 70% of

subjects treated with sodium iodide had clinical improvement in their

breast disease, but the rate of side effects was high; 40% of patients

treated with protein-bound iodide had clinical improvement. Study 2: 74%

of patients in the crossover series had clinical improvement, and

objective improvement was noted in 72% of those who received molecular

iodine initially. Study 3: in the treatment group 65% had subjective and

objective improvement; in the control group there was a subjective

placebo effect in 33% and an objective deterioration of 3%. CONCLUSIONS:

The fibrocystic breast reacts differently to sodium iodide,

protein-bound iodide and molecular iodine. Molecular iodine is

nonthyrotropic and was the most beneficial.

The Effect of Supraphysiologic Levels of Iodine on Patients with Cyclic

Mastalgia, Jack H. Kessler (at Symbollon), The Breast Journal, Volume 10

Issue 4 Page 328-336, July 2004.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical

trial was conducted with 111 otherwise healthy euthyroid women with a

history of breast pain. Patients had to document moderate or severe

breast pain by recording a score ≥5 on a visual analog scale (VAS) of

pain for ≥6 days per cycle and had to present with fibrosis involving at

least 25% of both breast surfaces. Subjects could not be effectively

treated with more conservative measures such as local heat or

nonprescription analgesics. There was not a statistically significant

difference in the dropout rate for patients on placebo (11.8%), 1.5

mg/day (31.3%), 3.0 mg/day (18.4%), or 6.0 mg/day (25%) of molecular

iodine for 6 months. Physicians assessed breast pain, tenderness, and

nodularity each cycle; patients assessed breast pain and tenderness with

the Lewin breast pain scale at 3-month intervals and with a VAS at each

cycle. A statistically significant improvement (p < 0.01) associated

with dose was observed in the Lewin overall pain scale for all treated

groups compared to placebo. Reductions in all three physician

assessments were observed in patients after 5 months of therapy in the

3.0 mg/day (7/28; 25%) and 6.0 mg/day (15/27; 18.5%) treatment groups,

but not the 1.5 mg/day or placebo group. Patients recorded statistically

significant decreases in pain by month 3 in the 3.0 and 6.0 mg/day

treatment groups, but not the 1.5 mg/day or placebo group; more than 50%

of the 6.0 mg/day treatment group recorded a clinically significant

reduction in overall pain. All doses were associated with an acceptable

safety profile. No dose-related increase in any adverse event was observed.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Nancie,

You wrote:

>

> then they haven't met me yet, lol

Are you a double blind study?

Chuck

[Guest guest]

chuck- my post was a joke- because you stated that they haven't had any

allergies to the iodine and I wrote back....because you know I have iodine

allergy issues.

nancie

From: Chuck B

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:58 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: Re: Iodine and fibrocystic pain

Nancie,

You wrote:

>

> then they haven't met me yet, lol

Are you a double blind study?

Chuck

[Guest guest]

nancie barnett wrote:

>

> my post was a joke- because you stated that they haven't had any

> allergies to the iodine and I wrote back....because you know I have

> iodine allergy issues.

My post was a joke, because I knew yours was a joke. :0

They may screen for iodine sensitivity from the start. That would only

make sense.

Best,

Chuck

[Guest guest]

ok.

From: Chuck B

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:06 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: Re: Iodine and fibrocystic pain

nancie barnett wrote:

>

> my post was a joke- because you stated that they haven't had any

> allergies to the iodine and I wrote back....because you know I have

> iodine allergy issues.

My post was a joke, because I knew yours was a joke. :0

They may screen for iodine sensitivity from the start. That would only

make sense.

Best,

Chuck

[Guest guest]

So if they are screening for iodine sensitivity from the start and eliminating

those patients,

which is good for those patients, their results are not accurate.

Roni

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

nancie barnett wrote:

>

> my post was a joke- because you stated that they haven't had any

> allergies to the iodine and I wrote back....because you know I have

> iodine allergy issues.

My post was a joke, because I knew yours was a joke. :0

They may screen for iodine sensitivity from the start. That would only

make sense.

Best,

Chuck

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

[Guest guest]

Roni,

You wrote:

>

> So if they are screening for iodine sensitivity from the start and

> eliminating those patients,

> which is good for those patients, their results are not accurate.

They are " accurate " for people without the sensitivity, which

fortunately includes most people.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

I think very many people might look at a study like that and get the wrong idea,

and think

that the iodine is fine for everyone. I also don't think they would make the

distinction in

types. Not everyone is as educated and knowledgeable as you are, Chuck, and I

still

feel that it's misleading and dangerous. IMO

Roni

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

Roni,

You wrote:

>

> So if they are screening for iodine sensitivity from the start and

> eliminating those patients,

> which is good for those patients, their results are not accurate.

They are " accurate " for people without the sensitivity, which

fortunately includes most people.

Chuck

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

[Guest guest]

confusion reigns! believe me, big pharma does not want us to knowaobut

iodine therapies.

gracia

I think very many people might look at a study like that and get the wrong

idea, and think

that the iodine is fine for everyone. I also don't think they would make the

distinction in

types. Not everyone is as educated and knowledgeable as you are, Chuck, and I

still

feel that it's misleading and dangerous. IMO

Roni

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

Roni,

You wrote:

>

> So if they are screening for iodine sensitivity from the start and

> eliminating those patients,

> which is good for those patients, their results are not accurate.

They are " accurate " for people without the sensitivity, which

fortunately includes most people.

Chuck

Recent Activity

a.. 20New Members

Visit Your Group

Health

Achy Joint?

Common arthritis

myths debunked.

Meditation and

Lovingkindness

A Group

to share and learn.

Biz Resources

Y! Small Business

Articles, tools,

forms, and more.

.

[Guest guest]

Roni,

The results of the study are not out yet. All they have published is the

proposal and the results of a preliminary study at much lower doses.

Chuck

>

> I think very many people might look at a study like that and get the

> wrong idea, and think

> that the iodine is fine for everyone. I also don't think they would make

> the distinction in

> types. Not everyone is as educated and knowledgeable as you are, Chuck,

> and I still

> feel that it's misleading and dangerous. IMO

>

> Roni

>

> Chuck B <gumboyaya@... <mailto:gumboyaya%40cox.net>> wrote:

> Roni,

>

> You wrote:

> >

> > So if they are screening for iodine sensitivity from the start and

> > eliminating those patients,

> > which is good for those patients, their results are not accurate.

>

> They are " accurate " for people without the sensitivity, which

> fortunately includes most people.

>

> Chuck

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>