Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 “Of all the elements known so far to be essential for human health, iodine is the most misunderstood and the most feared. Yet, iodine is the safest of all the essential trace elements, being the only one that can be administered safely for long periods of time to large numbers of patients in daily amounts as high as 100,000 times the RDA. However, this safety record only applies to inorganic, nonradioactive forms of iodine. Some organic iodine containing drugs are extremely toxic and prescribed by physicians. The severe side effects of these drugs are blamed on inorganic iodine although studies have clearly demonstrated that it is the whole molecule that is toxic, not the iodine released from it.” Micheal Schachter MD http://www.mbschachter.com/Iodine.htm > Gracia, > > You wrote: >> ... Allergy to radiologic dyes has nothing to do with taking iodine! ... > > If it is an iodine based dye, it certainly does, although you are > recommending a mixture of iodine and iodide. They test for allergy to > the dye with iodine. I have a friend who nearly died because they > couldn't use the dye. He's allergic to most iodine compounds. > > Chuck > > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 Gracia, You quoted: > “Of all the elements known so far to be essential for human health, > iodine is the most misunderstood and the most feared. ... > Micheal Schachter MD http://www.mbschachter.com/Iodine.htm Again, that is not peer reviewed research, not even research. It is opinion, which Dr. Schachter says is based on Abraham's papers in the _Original Internist_. He even refers the reader to Optimox for further information. Chuck Quote
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 Gosh this argument is so old.... - we don't need experts to tell us what we are perfectly capable of observing for ourselves - there is a place for peer reviewed research in science but in life there is a more importantl place for us each to take responsibility for our own God-given intelligence - to use our own powers of observation. Taking a few drops of Potassium Iodide is not rocket science - try it - it if it works great! if it doesn't ....move on to something else. Sheesh next we'lll be needing peer reviewed research to tell us if its OK to eat an apple or take vitamin C. Off my soap box now Kerry Re: Re: Iodine/blood sugar Gracia, You quoted: > " Of all the elements known so far to be essential for human health, > iodine is the most misunderstood and the most feared. ... > Micheal Schachter MD http://www.mbschachter.com/Iodine.htm Again, that is not peer reviewed research, not even research. It is opinion, which Dr. Schachter says is based on Abraham's papers in the _Original Internist_. He even refers the reader to Optimox for further information. Chuck Quote
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 I agree with you Chuck; if it's not AMA approved it's vodoo medicine, and will probably kill you ... God Bless Terry Re: Re: Iodine/blood sugar > Gracia, > > You quoted: >> “Of all the elements known so far to be essential for human health, >> iodine is the most misunderstood and the most feared. ... >> Micheal Schachter MD http://www.mbschachter.com/Iodine.htm > > Again, that is not peer reviewed research, not even research. It is > opinion, which Dr. Schachter says is based on Abraham's papers in the > _Original Internist_. He even refers the reader to Optimox for further > information. > > Chuck > > > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 Terry, You wrote: > I agree with you Chuck; if it's not AMA approved it's vodoo medicine, and > will probably kill you ... I take this as sarcasm, right? However, the AMA has little to do with the standards of archival literature. Perhaps you are thinking of the journal they publish, JAMA, which operates rather independently from the professional organization. It does have the largest circulation of any medical journal, but that is far from making it exclusive or controlled by the AMA. Scientific journals (not just JAMA) stake their reputations on their ability to recruit top professionals in their fields to voluntarily and independently study papers when they are submitted. Among other things, they check for a thorough literature search in planning experiments, logical self consistency in any hypotheses developed, and accepted scientific controls subject to ethical restraints in performing experiments or studies. This does not guarantee perfection or Truth with a capital T in the conclusions they reach, but it is a rigorous first hurdle that published literature must go through. I am much more inclined to consider something that has at least passed such an initial screening by experts that know much more about something than I do. Unlike the iodine group that publishes only in the magazine, the _Original Internist_, and the commercial activities of Optimox, the journals and their volunteer reviewers are generally quite independent from each other, and often even hostile to the authors of papers submitted. Only about 8% of papers submitted every make it into print. Sometimes they are competitors, but many do not even work in the same fields. For example, I was once asked to review a paper on MRI, which is not my specialty. Thus, every paper published gets a look from several angles, not just from one steeped in accepted knowledge. Had the iodine group published just one or two papers that could pass this sort of scrutiny, I would take the opinions and magazine articles more seriously. However, the fact that not even ONE has made it into the archival literature makes me skeptical. The fact that there has been a flood of peer reviewed literature starting half a century ago that confirms the dangers of high iodine doses, I am inclined to recommend caution about trying it. Chuck Quote
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 My god daughter is attending Harvard medical school on scholarship from NIH. She is pursuing medical ethics, and spent the last 2 years, before going back to school, traveling around the country evaluating NIH funded medical research pojects. According to her the medical community is sorely lacking in ethical standards ... Re: Re: Iodine/blood sugar > Terry, > > You wrote: > >> I agree with you Chuck; if it's not AMA approved it's vodoo medicine, and >> will probably kill you ... > > I take this as sarcasm, right? However, the AMA has little to do with > the standards of archival literature. Perhaps you are thinking of the > journal they publish, JAMA, which operates rather independently from the > professional organization. It does have the largest circulation of any > medical journal, but that is far from making it exclusive or controlled > by the AMA. > > Scientific journals (not just JAMA) stake their reputations on their > ability to recruit top professionals in their fields to voluntarily and > independently study papers when they are submitted. Among other things, > they check for a thorough literature search in planning experiments, > logical self consistency in any hypotheses developed, and accepted > scientific controls subject to ethical restraints in performing > experiments or studies. This does not guarantee perfection or Truth with > a capital T in the conclusions they reach, but it is a rigorous first > hurdle that published literature must go through. I am much more > inclined to consider something that has at least passed such an initial > screening by experts that know much more about something than I do. > > Unlike the iodine group that publishes only in the magazine, the > _Original Internist_, and the commercial activities of Optimox, the > journals and their volunteer reviewers are generally quite independent > from each other, and often even hostile to the authors of papers > submitted. Only about 8% of papers submitted every make it into print. > Sometimes they are competitors, but many do not even work in the same > fields. For example, I was once asked to review a paper on MRI, which is > not my specialty. Thus, every paper published gets a look from several > angles, not just from one steeped in accepted knowledge. > > Had the iodine group published just one or two papers that could pass > this sort of scrutiny, I would take the opinions and magazine articles > more seriously. However, the fact that not even ONE has made it into the > archival literature makes me skeptical. The fact that there has been a > flood of peer reviewed literature starting half a century ago that > confirms the dangers of high iodine doses, I am inclined to recommend > caution about trying it. > > Chuck > > > > > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 Kerry, You wrote: >... but in life there is a more > importantl place for us each to take responsibility for our own > God-given intelligence - to use our own powers of observation.... I never said don't try it, if you are adventurous. I simply recommended caution. At the very least, you ought to know how to recognize symptoms of toxicity, particularly since the potential harm to susceptible people is not reversible. BTW, one of the linchpins of experimental science is to never make yourself a subject of an experiment. Our own powers of observation have been proven many times over to be severely impaired when observing ourselves. That is what hypochondria and the placebo effect clearly demonstrate. Observer effects are so pernicious, that only double blind experiments are considered reliable enough to pass peer review. Chuck Quote
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 Terry, You wrote: > ... According to her the medical community is sorely lacking > in ethical standards ... Aren't Doctors Schachter, Abraham, Brownstein, Flechas, et al. also part of the medical community? Chuck Quote
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 As someone on another list is wont to say, he who self-medicates has a fool for a doctor. But on the other hand, sometimes there is no other choice. I'm not speaking specifically of idodine here. Gail > > BTW, one of the linchpins of experimental science is to never make > yourself a subject of an experiment. Our own powers of observation have > been proven many times over to be severely impaired when observing > ourselves. That is what hypochondria and the placebo effect clearly > demonstrate. Observer effects are so pernicious, that only double blind > experiments are considered reliable enough to pass peer review. > > Chuck > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 hold the phone. There is an iodine group on groups but it is like this group, a support group. They do not publish anything. Most are taking high dose iodine and reporting their results. As I understand it much of the iodine research is old. The use of high dose iodine has a long history. It is not new. I am not aware that journals like JAMA write much about the effectiveness of treatments that cannot be patented. Even when higher doses of vitamin D were finally accepted as a treatment, the vitamin D used was a synthetic. Doctors have been trained to treat symptoms with surgery and drugs; they don't know how to heal. Gracia > > Unlike the iodine group that publishes only in the magazine, the > _Original Internist_, and the commercial activities of Optimox, the > journals and their volunteer reviewers are generally quite independent > from each other, and often even hostile to the authors of papers > submitted. Only about 8% of papers submitted every make it into print. > Sometimes they are competitors, but many do not even work in the same > fields. For example, I was once asked to review a paper on MRI, which is > not my specialty. Thus, every paper published gets a look from several > angles, not just from one steeped in accepted knowledge. > > Had the iodine group published just one or two papers that could pass > this sort of scrutiny, I would take the opinions and magazine articles > more seriously. However, the fact that not even ONE has made it into the > archival literature makes me skeptical. The fact that there has been a > flood of peer reviewed literature starting half a century ago that > confirms the dangers of high iodine doses, I am inclined to recommend > caution about trying it. > > Chuck > > > > > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 Gracia, You wrote: > ... There is an iodine group on groups but it is like > this group, a support group. ... That is not what I was talking about. By " iodine group " I meant the set of physician " researchers " that publish articles supporting and recommending each other and Optimox, none of which are subject to peer review or which cite peer reviewed tests. Chuck Quote
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 My sister is so allergic to iodine that she cannot eat seafood. So in her case [and I'm sure others] the allergy is not to radiological dyes. 3c. Re: Iodine/blood sugar <hypothyroidism/message/25996;_ylc=X3oDMTJxcmY3Z2Z\ 0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMjU5OTYEc2V\ jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE2MTAzOTg0Ng--> Posted by: " Gracia " circe@... <mailto:circe@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%2Fblood%20sugar> graciabee <graciabee> Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:23 pm (PST) I will pass this on to the peeps who are getting so much benefit from 50mg Iodoral/day. Allergy to radiologic dyes has nothing to do with taking iodine! ie doesn't mean one is allergic to iodine--can't remember right now what the difference is. gracia Quote
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 yes they are ... I'm an all around sceptic when it comes to puting my well being in the hands of others Re: Re: Iodine/blood sugar > Terry, > > You wrote: >> ... According to her the medical community is sorely lacking >> in ethical standards ... > > Aren't Doctors Schachter, Abraham, Brownstein, Flechas, et al. also part > of the medical community? > > Chuck > > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 Kerry, we have a number of quotes on this list that are from sources that may have an ax to grind, so to speak. Peer reviewed literature should not be looked upon as Gospel, but as something that has withstood a number of rigorous tests. As such, it is much more dependable than literature that has not passed those tests. When none of those espousing a specific divergent view can meet the quality standards of the mainstream view then it makes their whole proposition suspect. Peer reviewed literature is pretty much universally respected by educated people, even when they disagree with the results. I suspect that in the vast majority of cases [if not all] those who can meet the criteria of peer review publish there; as the rewards are great. Little or no professional respect accrues to articles published in a chiropractic magazine. One of the things that makes peer reviewed literature so respected is that you have large numbers of the best educated [and most strongly competitive] people in the world doing everything in their power to find a flaw in the results or procedures of their contemporaries. Nothing would give many of the reviewers more pleasure than shooting down the published reports of a competitor. Such an atmosphere tends to make those who publish there very careful indeed. .. Re: Iodine/blood sugar <hypothyroidism/message/26009;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNDU3Nmg\ 1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMjYwMDkEc2V\ jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE2MTAzOTg0Ng--> Posted by: " Kerry Ann Faithfull " kerry@... <mailto:kerry@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%2Fblood%20sugar> silabell <silabell> Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:36 pm (PST) Gosh this argument is so old.... - we don't need experts to tell us what we are perfectly capable of observing for ourselves - there is a place for peer reviewed research in science but in life there is a more importantl place for us each to take responsibility for our own God-given intelligence - to use our own powers of observation. Taking a few drops of Potassium Iodide is not rocket science - try it - it if it works great! if it doesn't ....move on to something else. Sheesh next we'lll be needing peer reviewed research to tell us if its OK to eat an apple or take vitamin C. Off my soap box now Kerry Quote
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 Thank you - I do understand and agree. I guess I am just concerned that there are a great many areas that have had no interest from the scientific community to date and therefore no research peer reviewed or otherwise - possibly for lack of funding - but also for lack of interest. Many issues that women face historically have had very little interest from the scientific community unless there is money to be made form the outcome of research eg Female hormones. So its not that I have a problem with science it it that I can't afford to wait until science takes an interest in MY problems - I am like you just not prepared to leave my health in the hands of others who may not in my lifetime get around to studying the kinds of supplements I choose to take. I may be an unusual person but I try to be objective when I take supplements - I record my results in a log with a grading system - and so far this works really well - this is why I don't recommend something unless I get a change in my own scores from taking it. Kerry Re: Iodine/blood sugar Kerry, we have a number of quotes on this list that are from sources that may have an ax to grind, so to speak. Peer reviewed literature should not be looked upon as Gospel, but as something that has withstood a number of rigorous tests. As such, it is much more dependable than literature that has not passed those tests. When none of those espousing a specific divergent view can meet the quality standards of the mainstream view then it makes their whole proposition suspect. Peer reviewed literature is pretty much universally respected by educated people, even when they disagree with the results. I suspect that in the vast majority of cases [if not all] those who can meet the criteria of peer review publish there; as the rewards are great. Little or no professional respect accrues to articles published in a chiropractic magazine. One of the things that makes peer reviewed literature so respected is that you have large numbers of the best educated [and most strongly competitive] people in the world doing everything in their power to find a flaw in the results or procedures of their contemporaries. Nothing would give many of the reviewers more pleasure than shooting down the published reports of a competitor. Such an atmosphere tends to make those who publish there very careful indeed. .. Re: Iodine/blood sugar <http://groups. <hypothyroidism/message/26009;_ylc=X3oDMTJ xNDU3Nmg1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXN nSWQDMjYwMDkEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE2MTAzOTg0Ng--> /group/hypothyroidism/message/26009;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNDU3Nmg1BF9TAz k3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMjYwMDkEc2 VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE2MTAzOTg0Ng--> Posted by: " Kerry Ann Faithfull " kerryopeneyes (DOT) <mailto:kerry%40openeyes.com.au> com.au <mailto:kerryopeneyes (DOT) <mailto:kerry%40openeyes.com.au> com.au?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%2Fblood%20sugar> silabell <http://profiles. <silabell> /silabell> Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:36 pm (PST) Gosh this argument is so old.... - we don't need experts to tell us what we are perfectly capable of observing for ourselves - there is a place for peer reviewed research in science but in life there is a more importantl place for us each to take responsibility for our own God-given intelligence - to use our own powers of observation. Taking a few drops of Potassium Iodide is not rocket science - try it - it if it works great! if it doesn't ....move on to something else. Sheesh next we'lll be needing peer reviewed research to tell us if its OK to eat an apple or take vitamin C. Off my soap box now Kerry Quote
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.