Re: Iodine vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

[Guest guest]

If you want to know about " cultish " behavior, just take a look at the AMA. It's a gang of bullies that got together and said, " Hey let's put pressure on all these people to do things the way WE think they should be done, whether we can prove that's the right way or not. " They have no authority whatsoever except that they can bully other doctors into following their own way of doing things.

I'll take a maverick any day. Perfect or not.-- Warmest Regards,Robin Little

[Guest guest]

www.breastcancerchoices.org

gracia

Beckwith wrote:

>

>

> Hi Jana

>

> You mentioned that you are a breast cancer survivor. My wife had breast

> cancer last year and went thru surgery, chemo and radiation. I have

> just started researching and taking iodine (iodoral) for thyroid issues

> and starting giving my wife small dose of iodoral to start. How did you

> arrive at the 100 mg daily dose? Is this a personal decision or is this

> the recommended dose for someone to take who has had breast cancer?

>

> Thanks,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who doesn't like a

good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with no background

in research just don't distinguish between individual results and potential for

harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't seen any

differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have all read

accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost killed me'.

If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically different

outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is presented -

including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal. Groups like

this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I appreciate your

honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased stance to begin

with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate people so they

can make an informed decision (which I thought was a goal of this group), b/c

the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well playing the

options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors to play

options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would be

totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just

b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into

account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.

I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested. What I am

doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population relating to

POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism - before I start

taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at risk). Many studies

have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or not they used proper

methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many scientific studies,

positive or negative, are poorly designed/interpreted or funded by those with

conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism or discarded. It

seems that many in this group are simply not willing to consider studies that

come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived notion of iodine's

benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring to. When anything

becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the objectivity and credibility

of those people is lost.

Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the harm it does.

'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath that gets tossed

out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine (even though, and

b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that as a reason to

require less verification of other healing methods than I otherwise would.

Mike

>

> >First of all, I did not say that 25mg of Iodoral is moving anything anywhere.

I said I had only taken one 25mg Iodoral dose period...ever. Second, TSH is not

a valid indicator of hypothyroidism to begin with, third, I didn't say I take

huge doses of steroids to address AI, I take it to stay alive (do you object?).

Please at least read posts accurately before you launch an attack and call

something crazy.

> >

> >Should I ignore all the data about iodine and possible hypothyroidism b/c

you're sold on iodine?? I'm beginning to see the cult like following that

another post talked about. I prefer objectivity.

> >

> >Cortisol is candy for me. I may as well pop a mint. It does nothing period

b/c it's far too weak compared to prednisone, which I hate taking but have not

choice. And yes, I've read countless books and articles on the safe use of

cortisol.

> >

> >Mike

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

At this point, I trust Brownstein et al, far more than Mercola. I was a fan when he was starting and his work was more about real health. Now most of his articles recommend a supplement of some sort or another and that supplement is a product HE sells. Further, the only "safe" alternative if you read his writing is his. His products are always cleaner, stronger, or better some other way according to his claims.

I'm all for a guy making a buck but, there is no ONE safe source for supplements. There are companies with little or no safety quality control or standardization but if you do your research and look for standardized products that are clean and quality controlled, there is usually more than one source (and some made in the same place using the same process with just a different label slapped on).

I still get Mercola's newsletter but I find myself reading less and less of it because there are better sources of information out there that have not turned themselves into one giant infomercial for their own sales. Tressler Healthy Transitions Life Coaching 541-791-1464 Help raise funds for Legacy Land Conservancy by searching the internet or shoping online with GoodSearch (www.goodsearch.com).

[Guest guest]

This is exactly my take on Mercola as well.   Once upon a time  he

served a purpose,  but now it seems he serves his own.

Zoe

Tressler wrote:

At this point, I trust Brownstein et al, far more than Mercola. 

I was a fan when he was starting and his work was more about real

health.  Now most of his articles recommend a supplement of some sort

or another and that supplement is a product HE sells.  Further,

the only "safe" alternative if you read his writing is his.  His

products are always cleaner, stronger, or better some other way

according to his claims. 

 

I'm all for a guy making a buck but, there is no ONE safe source

for supplements.  There are companies with little or no safety quality

control or standardization but if you do your research and look for

standardized products that are clean and quality controlled, there is

usually more than one source (and some made in the same place using the

same process with just a different label slapped on). 

 

I still get Mercola's newsletter but I find myself reading less

and less of it because there are better sources of information out

there that have not turned themselves into one giant infomercial for

their own sales.

 

Tressler

Healthy Transitions Life Coaching

541-791-1464

Help raise funds for Legacy Land Conservancy by searching the internet

or shoping online with GoodSearch (www.goodsearch.com).

[Guest guest]

Trish,

You wrote:

>

> > What you choose to refer to " detox symptoms " are what reputable

> researchers refer to as toxic responses to excess iodine.

>

> But that IS what is happening isn't it ...

No, it is not, and that is his whole point.

Bromine and bromide only have a biological half life of a few days. Even

methyl bromide only has a serum half life of 12 days. It does not

accumulate in tissue, but a minimum level persists as a trace nutrient.

There is normally not enough present to become toxic, even if it is

displaced.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

I rarely buy any of Mercola's supplements for the reasons you sighted (I too am

wary of his commercial pursuits over the last couple of years). I now use him

as a springboard for ideas I can followup on with further research. What I'm

saying is that if Mercola, or any other independent practitioner, had data on

using iodine with a patient population over a decent period of time, it would

greatly bolster what Brownstein is saying. And everything Brownstein says may

be absolutely true. I hope it is. Of course, if another practitioner comes

forth with supporting iodine research, that person won't be making big money off

of iodine, since there is no big money to be made unless you're selling a

supplement worldwide like Iodoral. That would just make the supporting research

that much more convincing to me.

Mike

>

> At this point, I trust Brownstein et al, far more than Mercola.  I was a fan

when he was starting and his work was more about real health.  Now most of his

articles recommend a supplement of some sort or another and that supplement is a

product HE sells.  Further, the only " safe " alternative if you read his

writing is his.  His products are always cleaner, stronger, or better some other

way according to his claims. 

>

> I'm all for a guy making a buck but, there is no ONE safe source for

supplements.  There are companies with little or no safety quality control or

standardization but if you do your research and look for standardized products

that are clean and quality controlled, there is usually more than one source

(and some made in the same place using the same process with just a different

label slapped on). 

>

> I still get Mercola's newsletter but I find myself reading less and less of it

because there are better sources of information out there that have not turned

themselves into one giant infomercial for their own sales.

>   Tressler

> Healthy Transitions Life Coaching

> 541-791-1464

>

> Help raise funds for Legacy Land Conservancy by searching the internet or

shoping online with GoodSearch (www.goodsearch.com).

>

[Guest guest]

Chuck,

Do you have any references to the fact that bromine/bromide do not accumulate in

the tissues, fat in particular?

Mike

> >

> > > What you choose to refer to " detox symptoms " are what reputable

> > researchers refer to as toxic responses to excess iodine.

> >

> > But that IS what is happening isn't it ...

>

> No, it is not, and that is his whole point.

>

> Bromine and bromide only have a biological half life of a few days. Even

> methyl bromide only has a serum half life of 12 days. It does not

> accumulate in tissue, but a minimum level persists as a trace nutrient.

> There is normally not enough present to become toxic, even if it is

> displaced.

>

> Chuck

>

[Guest guest]

I know of no credible research that suggests that detoxing is what is

happening. If you know of any please post it.

What I have seen IIRC is credible research that reports of harmful side

effects of excess iodine. And I have seen alternative proponents

suggesting that the harmful side effects are actually detox in

progress. As is typical the alternative view is usually unsupported by

any credible research; and when credible research is done purported

benefits often fall to placebo or chance.

It is my understanding that the toxic effects of excess iodine have been

well supported by research among populations in which bromide is not a

significant factor. If that is correct then the position is most likely

bogus.

I'll be happy to address the matter again if I see any evidence to

support the detox viewpoint.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20vs%20Bromine%20in%20a%20E\

uthroid%20Person>

> trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

> Sun Oct 4, 2009 3:24 am (PDT)

>

>

>

>

>

> > What you choose to refer to " detox symptoms " are what reputable

> researchers refer to as toxic responses to excess iodine.

>

> But that IS what is happening isn't it ...the iodine is pushing out

> the bromide, so it IS a toxic response?

[Guest guest]

Chuck, IIRC quite a bit of credible research on iodine toxicity has been

conducted in cultures in which bromine/bromide are not widely used if at

all and the same toxic response/detox symptoms were reported. If I'm

remembering these reports correctly that would seem to completely

discredit the claims of bromine/bromide detox being the cause of the

symptoms of iodine toxicity. Comment?

Thanks,

..

..

>

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

>

<mailto:gumboyaya@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20vs%20Bromine%20in%20a%20Eu\

throid%20Person>

> gumbo482001 <gumbo482001>

>

>

> Sun Oct 4, 2009 12:57 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Trish,

>

> You wrote:

> >

> > > What you choose to refer to " detox symptoms " are what reputable

> > researchers refer to as toxic responses to excess iodine.

> >

> > But that IS what is happening isn't it ...

>

> No, it is not, and that is his whole point.

>

> Bromine and bromide only have a biological half life of a few days. Even

> methyl bromide only has a serum half life of 12 days. It does not

> accumulate in tissue, but a minimum level persists as a trace nutrient.

> There is normally not enough present to become toxic, even if it is

> displaced.

>

> Chuck

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

I don't totally disagree with what you are saying. Apparently your inside

knowledge has given you some skepticism on both sides, and I bet we would be

blown away by the things you have personally witnessed.

Having said that, I was undiagnosed with hypothyroidism for 6 years by our

typical western med docs. It wasn't until I found an alternative doc that I was

finally diagnosed and began a slow recovery. That doc, however, wasn't without

his own agenda. I knew right away that he wanted money more than he wanted to

help his patients. That I believe is part of your point. That's the part where

we agree.

However, I have since found other docs who I know are not like the first one. I

truly believe they have my best interest at heart when treating me. They,

perhaps, are the exception to the rule. These are the docs who are open to my

thoughts, suggestions and questions.

It appears that Brownstein, based on patients here, is that way as well. And

I'm not opposed to those docs making money on what they do best, because I don't

believe they believe money first, patients later. You also have to realize that

these doc do not receive funding for their research and they are up against big

pharma who would love to silence them at any cost.

Of course I am an optimist, and I generally see good in all people. At least

until they give me reason to doubt them. I also don't want to lump all the good

docs in with the bad, because I had a bad experience. Because one bad apple

doesn't spoil the bunch.

As far as anecdotal vs research, I'll take the anecdotal over the research for

now. As you said, the TSH test is terribly flawed and not the best indicator of

actual thyroid function. But, ask any western doc and you get the same canned

response. If you ask western docs about iodine therapy, or any natural therapy

for that matter, their eyes glaze over and they either tune you out or get

aggravated that you had the audacity to question them. It was only through

groups like these that I was able to grow some kahunas and ask my doctors

questions and not care if they disagreed.

And here's where we disagree. I agree that we are biased to a degree with what

works for us. I disagree, however, that we are less credible when we present

the positive side on something about which we have some knowledge. I wouldn't

even know about iodine therapy if not for this group. I would say that is a

form of education. And perhaps as an options trader you would educate those

clients, and perhaps they do a little research on their own, so at some point in

the future they are comfortable making that investment much like my approach to

iodine therapy.

Maybe iodine isn't for everyone. There are ways to determine that by the links

that are on the website. And I believe the amount of iodine suggested is very

small and wouldn't pose a huge problem if taken in those doses.

We also agree is that there is not a " one size fits all " approach to iodine,

thyroid or any other health problem. There are many moving parts, and I always

recommend people discuss all their options with their doctor. Hopefully, they

have a good one. The one thing we have to remember is that not all of us are

that fortunate. Some of the women and men on this board are desperate. They do

not have good docs, and they are sick. I can't blame them for trying to help

themselves however they see fit with the knowledge they have.

I don't think you are being negative. I think it's healthy banter and all the

information gives us food for thought.

I typed this in a hurry, so please excuse any typos.

>

> Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who doesn't like a

good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with no background

in research just don't distinguish between individual results and potential for

harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't seen any

differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have all read

accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost killed me'.

If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically different

outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is presented -

including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal. Groups like

this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I appreciate your

honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased stance to begin

with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate people so they

can make an informed decision (which I thought was a goal of this group), b/c

the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well playing the

options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors to play

options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would be

totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just

b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into

account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.

>

> I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested. What I

am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population relating to

POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism - before I start

taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at risk). Many studies

have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or not they used proper

methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many scientific studies,

positive or negative, are poorly designed/interpreted or funded by those with

conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism or discarded. It

seems that many in this group are simply not willing to consider studies that

come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived notion of iodine's

benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring to. When anything

becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the objectivity and credibility

of those people is lost.

>

> Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the harm it

does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath that gets

tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine (even

though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that as a

reason to require less verification of other healing methods than I otherwise

would.

>

> Mike

>

> --

[Guest guest]

Mike - it sounds like you would prefer to be on the Iodine Research group. The purpose of this group is to educate and assist in the protocol of Iodine (usage) and not as much for research. We had to split them up a bit several years ago. Maybe that will be a better fit for you.

>> Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who doesn't like a good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with no background in research just don't distinguish between individual results and potential for harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't seen any differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically different outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is presented - including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal. Groups like this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I appreciate your honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased stance to begin with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate people so they can make an informed decision (which I thought was a goal of this group), b/c the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well playing the options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors to play options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would be totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.> > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested. What I am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population relating to POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism - before I start taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at risk). Many studies have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or not they used proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many scientific studies, positive or negative, are poorly designed/interpreted or funded by those with conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism or discarded. It seems that many in this group are simply not willing to consider studies that come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived notion of iodine's benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring to. When anything becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the objectivity and credibility of those people is lost.> > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the harm it does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath that gets tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine (even though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that as a reason to require less verification of other healing methods than I otherwise would.> > Mike> > --

[Guest guest]

aren't we a good part of the research right here? the only way to test

iodine's effectiveness is to try it on ppl. also we know how to deal

with probs like wrong dose and need for companion nutrients/ATP

cofactors.

Gracia

ladybugsandbees wrote:

>

>

> Mike - it sounds like you would prefer to be on the Iodine Research

> group. The purpose of this group is to educate and assist in

> the protocol of Iodine (usage) and not as much for research. We had

> to split them up a bit several years ago. Maybe that will be a better

> fit for you.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who

> doesn't like a good story of success. But I guess non medical

> individual's with no background in research just don't distinguish

> between individual results and potential for harmful reactions in

> the population at large. At least I haven't seen any

> differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we

> have all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how

> iodine 'almost killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can

> obviously result in radically different outcomes. One can only

> make an informed decision if all the data is presented - including

> statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal. Groups

> like this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I

> appreciate your honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking

> a biased stance to begin with. In the end, that defeats the

> purpose of trying to educate people so they can make an informed

> decision (which I thought was a goal of this group), b/c the

> presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well playing

> the options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated

> investors to play options could result in them losing their life's

> investment, and would be totally irresponsible on my part. Rather

> than promoting options trading just b/c it treated me right

> (arguing to the consequences), I should take into account that

> what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.

> >

> > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been

> suggested. What I am doing is looking for data that is relevant

> over a wide population relating to POTENTIAL problems with high

> dose iodine such as hypothyroidism - before I start taking large

> doses (to do anything else puts your health at risk). Many studies

> have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or not they

> used proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly.

> Many scientific studies, positive or negative, are poorly

> designed/interpreted or funded by those with conflicts of interest

> and should be viewed with skepticism or discarded. It seems that

> many in this group are simply not willing to consider studies that

> come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived notion of

> iodine's benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was

> referring to. When anything becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters,

> much of the objectivity and credibility of those people is lost.

> >

> > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and

> the harm it does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the

> Hippocratic Oath that gets tossed out the window. I am certainly

> no fan of allopathic medicine (even though, and b/c, I worked in

> it for thirty years). But I don't see that as a reason to require

> less verification of other healing methods than I otherwise would.

> >

> > Mike

> >

> > --

>

>

[Guest guest]

Steph,

Sounds like you're saying you aren't really concerned with whether or not the

protocol is backed by sound data, only that it is promoted to the public,

regardless of how desperate or medically sophisticated the audience might or

might not be. Sorry to hear that.

Mike

> >

> > Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who doesn't

like a good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with no

background in research just don't distinguish between individual results and

potential for harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't

seen any differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have

all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost

killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically

different outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is

presented - including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal.

Groups like this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I

appreciate your honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased

stance to begin with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate

people so they can make an informed decision (which I thought was a goal of this

group), b/c the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well

playing the options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors

to play options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would

be totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just

b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into

account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.

> >

> > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested. What

I am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population relating

to POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism - before I

start taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at risk). Many

studies have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or not they used

proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many scientific

studies, positive or negative, are poorly designed/interpreted or funded by

those with conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism or

discarded. It seems that many in this group are simply not willing to consider

studies that come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived notion of

iodine's benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring to. When

anything becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the objectivity and

credibility of those people is lost.

> >

> > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the harm it

does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath that gets

tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine (even

though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that as a

reason to require less verification of other healing methods than I otherwise

would.

> >

> > Mike

> >

> > --

>

[Guest guest]

she is putting a lot of her time to help people and to answer the questions.if

you do not trust the protocol then you should find what can help you,we are in

the netherlands an doctor we know says that he has nice results with cystes and

fibroms

read this site may be you will see that there aremore doctors then you know who

thinks iodine is important.one of them is doctor derry

> > >

> > > Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who doesn't

like a good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with no

background in research just don't distinguish between individual results and

potential for harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't

seen any differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have

all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost

killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically

different outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is

presented - including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal.

Groups like this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I

appreciate your honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased

stance to begin with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate

people so they can make an informed decision (which I thought was a goal of this

group), b/c the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well

playing the options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors

to play options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would

be totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just

b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into

account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.

> > >

> > > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested.

What I am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population

relating to POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism -

before I start taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at

risk). Many studies have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or not

they used proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many

scientific studies, positive or negative, are poorly designed/interpreted or

funded by those with conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism

or discarded. It seems that many in this group are simply not willing to

consider studies that come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived

notion of iodine's benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring

to. When anything becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the objectivity

and credibility of those people is lost.

> > >

> > > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the harm

it does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath that gets

tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine (even

though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that as a

reason to require less verification of other healing methods than I otherwise

would.

> > >

> > > Mike

> > >

> > > --

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Mike..I feel many of us are mostly here to hear antedotal evidence ...but I always "check" what I hear here or anywhere else with my own intuition....as has been said before there is no money behind iodine so traditional medical studies are not happening..so instead we go on what we learn from eachother ....I am a biochemist by training...have worked in medical research for a world reknown medical doctor (endocrinologist) who was an MD/PhD...Dr. Fred Barter now deceased....and his attitude was always you can learn more by listening to the patients than you can doing medical testing ....that type of thinking and listening is long gone in the traditional medical office...so here we can listen to eachother...we have taken our decisions away from the doctors and have taken responsibility for our

own health here....when one does that we also understand that we may go into areas that may be somewhat controversial to some...I believe that if you are interested in double blind studies then you will need to look for those elsewhere...here many of us are tired of working within the constraints of "proven studies" and instead are going with what our own personal experience and that of those who share here have learned...from our own experience we are seeing our own "sound data" ; that along with what Dr. B and others have seen and learned and thankfully passed on to us is all that I need to go on...because what we were doing out there in the world of big pharma and traditional medicine was not working so we must burn our own path ...good luck to you as you find your own way....From: mikensd <mikensd@...>iodine Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 1:45:32 PMSubject: Re: Iodine vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

Steph,

Sounds like you're saying you aren't really concerned with whether or not the protocol is backed by sound data, only that it is promoted to the public, regardless of how desperate or medically sophisticated the audience might or might not be. Sorry to hear that.

Mike

> >

> > Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who doesn't like a good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with no background in research just don't distinguish between individual results and potential for harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't seen any differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically different outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is presented - including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal. Groups like this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I appreciate your honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased stance to begin with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate people so they can make an informed

decision (which I thought was a goal of this group), b/c the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well playing the options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors to play options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would be totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences) , I should take into account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.

> >

> > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested. What I am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population relating to POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism - before I start taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at risk). Many studies have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or not they used proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many scientific studies, positive or negative, are poorly designed/interprete d or funded by those with conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism or discarded. It seems that many in this group are simply not willing to consider studies that come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived notion of iodine's benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring to. When anything becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the objectivity and credibility of those people is

lost.

> >

> > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the harm it does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath that gets tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine (even though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that as a reason to require less verification of other healing methods than I otherwise would.

> >

> > Mike

> >

> > --

>

[Guest guest]

Not at all. I spend hours and hours researching this with Dr. Brownstein. But the majority of what I get is not suitable for a group like this. There are many that come here very sick hearing about the protocol and knowing that it worked for someone and just want info on how to implement it. Too much scientific stuff would blow them away. So a long time ago we made the decision to move the research to the other group. That way this group could concentrate on the implementation of it.

Zoe, who used to own this group in 2006 would take the articles I had and summarize them and place them on the research group and on www.iodine4health.com but she is no longer involved in the group to that extent and does not maintain the website. I don't have access to the website and at this point don't want to pursue it because I can't add one more thing to my plate. I am struggling to just help people on this group with their questions which is why a month ago I asked for volunteers to help me moderate and answer questions. I am in school working on my ND, have a family and just trying to have a life.

So your comment that I don't care about scientific data can't be further from the truth. It's just that the people I am sharing it with are the doctors working on treating people and training new doctors. That takes a lot of my time as well.

Have you spent any time on www.iodine4health.com ?

Re: Iodine vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

Steph,Sounds like you're saying you aren't really concerned with whether or not the protocol is backed by sound data, only that it is promoted to the public, regardless of how desperate or medically sophisticated the audience might or might not be. Sorry to hear that.Mike> >> > Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who doesn't like a good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with no background in research just don't distinguish between individual results and potential for harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't seen any differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically different outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is presented - including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal. Groups like this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I appreciate your honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased stance to begin with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate people so they can make an informed decision (which I thought was a goal of this group), b/c the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well playing the options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors to play options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would be totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.> > > > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested. What I am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population relating to POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism - before I start taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at risk). Many studies have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or not they used proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many scientific studies, positive or negative, are poorly designed/interpreted or funded by those with conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism or discarded. It seems that many in this group are simply not willing to consider studies that come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived notion of iodine's benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring to. When anything becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the objectivity and credibility of those people is lost.> > > > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the harm it does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath that gets tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine (even though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that as a reason to require less verification of other healing methods than I otherwise would.> > > > Mike> > > > -->

[Guest guest]

Mike/ et al.

I

find myself somewhat bemused by the interaction in this series of posts. I

originally sought out this group as a result of having a client that I had

started on Iodoral (6.25 mg) actually present with an anaphylactic reaction to

it in my clinic approximately 7 minutes after ingestion. Fortunately,

we had the ability to make an antidote for the histimic reaction. Since I have

been assessing clients needs for iodine supplementation almost from the onset

of my practice, and never had a response quite so severe, I needed help. Pub

Med, Med Line, etc. had no " research " that would speak to the issue

that my client presented with. On this site, in the archives I found

" anecdotal " information that is the firsthand experience of the

individual, most of the time replete with additional " anecdotal "

information that was of considerable benefit to me. A practitioner, whether he is

a naturopath or an allopath, is supposed to know everything about everything,

and that is not necessarily the case, at least in my situation. However, I am

charged with finding the answers that my client needs to return to health. With

reference to the above captioned situation, the anecdotal information was key

in assuaging the clients fears, and thus very beneficial to encourage him to

stay with the protocol, until some of the other issues were worked out so that

he did not have a continuing severe reaction.

What

I found in addition on this site was a lot of folks that may not be educated as

much as I am in naturopathy, but were a lot smarter than I am in practical

application to their particular situation. The experiences of people who have

had their thyroids as well as other organs removed because some idiot allopath

doesn't know how to remediate the problem and thus cuts out a vital organ, and

leaves the patient in a worse situation than they were before they started, and

especially when it is found out that the organ once biopsied was benign is

priceless. By listening to some of the very intelligent precious people on this

chat site, I've been able to dissuade several clients from invasive allopathic

treatment and have had success in remediation through natural means.

Research

is fine in a static situation, However, I have a problem with the concept

of believing that an allopathic medical research group would have interest in

funding a very simple and inexpensive solution to quite a few maladies (iodine

research). Theoretically it is juxtaposed to that which I see as allopathic

medical concepts, in that making people well is not what allopathic medicine is

all about. It would put them out of business.

You

probably will have a problem with me also, but the anecdotal information that I

have gleaned from the fine folks on this site as well as Brownstein, ,

Guyton (early) et al. has proven to be of more benefit in problem solving for

my clients than the allopathic research on iodine related issues.

I

have found myself benefited when I ascent to the fact that God has given me two

ears, two eyes, and one mouth, and that 4 to 1 ratio has led me to be able to

assimilate a lot of beneficial information from this medium.

As

stated, this is basically a practical application chat site, and with

a membership in excess of 3000 people, it's working for them, and needs little

justification. Do you have a health issue that you are trying to address? If

not, why exactly are you here?

Dennis Dvorak

From:

iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of ladybugsandbees

Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:11 PM

iodine

Subject: Re: Re: Iodine vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

Not at all. I spend hours and hours researching this with Dr.

Brownstein. But the majority of what I get is not suitable for a group

like this. There are many that come here very sick hearing about the

protocol and knowing that it worked for someone and just want info on how to

implement it. Too much scientific stuff would blow them away. So a

long time ago we made the decision to move the research to the other

group. That way this group could concentrate on the implementation of

it.

Zoe, who used to own this group in 2006 would take the articles I

had and summarize them and place them on the research group and on www.iodine4health.com but she is no

longer involved in the group to that extent and does not maintain the

website. I don't have access to the website and at this point don't want

to pursue it because I can't add one more thing to my plate. I am

struggling to just help people on this group with their questions which is why

a month ago I asked for volunteers to help me moderate and answer

questions. I am in school working on my ND, have a family and just trying

to have a life.

So your comment that I don't care about scientific data can't be

further from the truth. It's just that the people I am sharing it with

are the doctors working on treating people and training new doctors. That

takes a lot of my time as well.

Have you spent any time on www.iodine4health.com

?

-----

Original Message -----

From: mikensd

iodine

Sent: Monday, October 05,

2009 2:45 PM

Subject: Re: Iodine

vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

Steph,

Sounds like you're saying you aren't really concerned with whether or not the

protocol is backed by sound data, only that it is promoted to the public,

regardless of how desperate or medically sophisticated the audience might or

might not be. Sorry to hear that.

Mike

> >

> > Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who

doesn't like a good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with

no background in research just don't distinguish between individual results and

potential for harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't

seen any differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have

all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost

killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically

different outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is

presented - including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal.

Groups like this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I

appreciate your honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased

stance to begin with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate

people so they can make an informed decision (which I thought was a goal of

this group), b/c the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well

playing the options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors

to play options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would

be totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just

b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into

account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.

> >

> > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested.

What I am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population

relating to POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism -

before I start taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at

risk). Many studies have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or

not they used proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many

scientific studies, positive or negative, are poorly designed/interpreted or

funded by those with conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism

or discarded. It seems that many in this group are simply not willing to

consider studies that come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived

notion of iodine's benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring

to. When anything becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the

objectivity and credibility of those people is lost.

> >

> > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the

harm it does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath

that gets tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine

(even though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that

as a reason to require less verification of other healing methods than I

otherwise would.

> >

> > Mike

> >

> > --

>

[Guest guest]

Mike,

You wrote:

>

> Do you have any references to the fact that bromine/bromide do not

> accumulate in the tissues, fat in particular?

Just Google half life and bromide.

Here's a cite that suggests eating more table salt:

http://www.biomed.cas.cz/physiolres/pdf/54/54_639.pdf

Bromine does stay in adipose tissue longer than other organs, but the

half life is still relatively short compared to mercury, radium, or

dioxin. Unfortunately, most of the studies have been done in rats,

rather than humans. Also, bromated hydrocarbons are distinct from

bromides. Those do seem to accumulate, although the problem is more that

they are everywhere in the environment than what happens internally.

Curious trivia: Ancient Phoenicians were famous for a dye they made from

snails, known as Tyrian or Royal Purple. The main constituent was 6,6'

dibromoindigo, a bromine compound.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Dennis, I am impressed with your comment. Wish we could clone folks like you. I am without medical supervision right now because I am unable to find such a clone. Just clowns! They don't work for me. I agree 100% with your assessment of allopathic care. I am a disillusioned old R.N. My profession let me down. I discovered modern medicine isn't what I really wanted to be involved with for the reasons you stated. "Health" care is not wellness oriented. It is oriented toward mediating symptoms, documenting in black and white all the reasons they can find to medicate, medically intervene, surgically remove and otherwise hinder the body's true healing process.

I'm sure this group is intended for purposes other than bashing what most here have already experienced in the "health care" realm and are now seeking wellness care, anywhere they can find it. And for the most of us, that will mean seeking the experiences of others that have successfully found answers by means other than conventional medical practices.

I am looking forward to gleaning what I need to fix my thyroid / lyme disease/ co infections and related conditions from the practical experiential wisdom here. I appreciate the folks willing to answer questions and help.

Diane (MI)...For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. Matt 12:34

Re: Iodine vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

Steph,Sounds like you're saying you aren't really concerned with whether or not the protocol is backed by sound data, only that it is promoted to the public, regardless of how desperate or medically sophisticated the audience might or might not be. Sorry to hear that.Mike> >> > Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who doesn't like a good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with no background in research just don't distinguish between individual results and potential for harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't seen any differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically different outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is presented - including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal. Groups like this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I appreciate your honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased stance to begin with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate people so they can make an informed decision (which I thought was a goal of this group), b/c the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well playing the options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors to play options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would be totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.> > > > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested. What I am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population relating to POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism - before I start taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at risk). Many studies have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or not they used proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many scientific studies, positive or negative, are poorly designed/interpreted or funded by those with conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism or discarded. It seems that many in this group are simply not willing to consider studies that come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived notion of iodine's benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring to. When anything becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the objectivity and credibility of those people is lost.> > > > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the harm it does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath that gets tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine (even though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that as a reason to require less verification of other healing methods than I otherwise would.> > > > Mike> > > > -->

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

>

>

> Chuck, IIRC quite a bit of credible research on iodine toxicity has been

> conducted in cultures in which bromine/bromide are not widely used ...Comment?

I would think that at least some of the many studies of excess iodine

would blame the effects on bromine. I haven't seen any yet.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Hi Diane,

I

have found that most of the participants on this chat site have an interesting

story to tell. That which is of considerable value to me is that there appears

to be no monetary gain as an impetus to post their experiences, and that in

itself tends to lend credibility to what they have to say.

I

note in passing that our participant " Mike " who seems to have the

misdirected predilection to prove everything via empirical research appears to

miss the point that the experiences both individual and collective would have at

very least preliminary characteristics of that " research " sans the

allopathic mindset. A couple of days ago I was " researching " to buy a

new string line trimmer. I was directed at the Sthil headquarters to a

technician that had been with the company over 30 years. When I asked him why my

trimmer line would foul in the spool, he said that the cheaper trimmer lines

would " weld to themselves " . His experience was that the premium

product would not. I felt kind of stupid because I had always used cheap

product. This gentleman's practical experience was invaluable in solving my

problem, and as he had no vested interest in making money from selling the

product, I felt his advice could be trusted.

I

noticed a scripture reference in your communication. If memory serves me, said

text (the Bible) also includes numerous references to healing via herbs

and berries, poultices, etc. Iodine would be a natural substance that by

inference would be found in the aforementioned herbs and berries.

I

got involved in naturopathic medicine, because I was always sick as a kid, and

received little if any help from the allopathic medical community. Once I took

charge of my health, it improved.

Dennis Dvorak

From:

iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of Diane

Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:10 PM

iodine

Subject: Re: Re: Iodine vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

Dennis, I am

impressed with your comment. Wish we could clone folks like you. I

am without medical supervision right now because I am unable to find such a

clone. Just clowns! They don't work for me. I agree 100% with

your assessment of allopathic care. I am a disillusioned old R.N.

My profession let me down. I discovered modern medicine isn't what I

really wanted to be involved with for the reasons you stated.

" Health " care is not wellness oriented. It is oriented toward

mediating symptoms, documenting in black and white all the reasons they can

find to medicate, medically intervene, surgically remove and otherwise hinder

the body's true healing process.

I'm sure this

group is intended for purposes other than bashing what most here have already

experienced in the " health care " realm and are now seeking wellness

care, anywhere they can find it. And for the most of us, that will mean

seeking the experiences of others that have successfully found answers by means

other than conventional medical practices.

I am looking

forward to gleaning what I need to fix my thyroid / lyme disease/ co infections

and related conditions from the practical experiential wisdom here. I

appreciate the folks willing to answer questions and help.

Diane

(MI)

....For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. Matt 12:34

-----

Original Message -----

From: Dennis Dvorak

iodine

Sent: Monday, October 05,

2009 7:39 PM

Subject: RE: Re:

Iodine vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

Mike/ et al.

I find myself somewhat bemused by the interaction in this series of posts. I

originally sought out this group as a result of having a client that I had

started on Iodoral (6.25 mg) actually present with an anaphylactic reaction to

it in my clinic approximately 7 minutes after ingestion.

Fortunately, we had the ability to make an antidote for the histimic

reaction. Since I have been assessing clients needs for iodine supplementation

almost from the onset of my practice, and never had a response quite so severe,

I needed help. Pub Med, Med Line, etc. had no " research " that would

speak to the issue that my client presented with. On this site, in the archives

I found " anecdotal " information that is the firsthand experience of

the individual, most of the time replete with additional " anecdotal "

information that was of considerable benefit to me. A practitioner, whether he

is a naturopath or an allopath, is supposed to know everything about

everything, and that is not necessarily the case, at least in my situation.

However, I am charged with finding the answers that my client needs to return

to health. With reference to the above captioned situation, the anecdotal

information was key in assuaging the clients fears, and thus very beneficial to

encourage him to stay with the protocol, until some of the other issues were

worked out so that he did not have a continuing severe reaction.

What I found in addition on this site was a lot of folks that may not be

educated as much as I am in naturopathy, but were a lot smarter than I am in

practical application to their particular situation. The experiences of people

who have had their thyroids as well as other organs removed because some idiot

allopath doesn't know how to remediate the problem and thus cuts out a vital organ,

and leaves the patient in a worse situation than they were before they started,

and especially when it is found out that the organ once biopsied was benign is

priceless. By listening to some of the very intelligent precious people on this

chat site, I've been able to dissuade several clients from invasive allopathic

treatment and have had success in remediation through natural means.

Research is fine in a static situation, However, I have a problem with

the concept of believing that an allopathic medical research group would have

interest in funding a very simple and inexpensive solution to quite a few

maladies (iodine research). Theoretically it is juxtaposed to that which I see

as allopathic medical concepts, in that making people well is not what

allopathic medicine is all about. It would put them out of business.

You probably will have a problem with me also, but the anecdotal information

that I have gleaned from the fine folks on this site as well as Brownstein, ,

Guyton (early) et al. has proven to be of more benefit in problem solving for

my clients than the allopathic research on iodine related issues.

I have found myself benefited when I ascent to the fact that God has given me

two ears, two eyes, and one mouth, and that 4 to 1 ratio has led me to be able

to assimilate a lot of beneficial information from this medium.

As stated, this is basically a practical application chat site, and

with a membership in excess of 3000 people, it's working for them, and needs

little justification. Do you have a health issue that you are trying to

address? If not, why exactly are you here?

Dennis Dvorak

From:

iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of ladybugsandbees

Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:11 PM

iodine

Subject: Re: Re: Iodine vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

Not at all. I spend hours and hours

researching this with Dr. Brownstein. But the majority of what I get is

not suitable for a group like this. There are many that come here very

sick hearing about the protocol and knowing that it worked for someone and just

want info on how to implement it. Too much scientific stuff would blow

them away. So a long time ago we made the decision to move the research

to the other group. That way this group could concentrate on the

implementation of it.

Zoe, who used to own this group in 2006

would take the articles I had and summarize them and place them on the research

group and on www.iodine4health.com

but she is no longer involved in the group to that extent and does not maintain

the website. I don't have access to the website and at this point don't

want to pursue it because I can't add one more thing to my plate. I am

struggling to just help people on this group with their questions which is why

a month ago I asked for volunteers to help me moderate and answer

questions. I am in school working on my ND, have a family and just trying

to have a life.

So your comment that I don't care about

scientific data can't be further from the truth. It's just that the

people I am sharing it with are the doctors working on treating people and

training new doctors. That takes a lot of my time as well.

Have you spent any time on www.iodine4health.com ?

Re: Iodine vs Bromine in a Euthroid Person

Steph,

Sounds like you're saying you aren't really concerned with whether or not the

protocol is backed by sound data, only that it is promoted to the public,

regardless of how desperate or medically sophisticated the audience might or

might not be. Sorry to hear that.

Mike

> >

> > Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who

doesn't like a good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with

no background in research just don't distinguish between individual results and

potential for harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I haven't

seen any differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After all, we have

all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how iodine 'almost

killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can obviously result in radically

different outcomes. One can only make an informed decision if all the data is

presented - including statistical data and negative data as well as anecdotal.

Groups like this that are 'positive toward iodine' as stated (I

appreciate your honesty) only decrease their credibility by taking a biased

stance to begin with. In the end, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate

people so they can make an informed decision (which I thought was a goal of

this group), b/c the presentation is one sided. As an example, I might do well

playing the options market, but for me to encourage non sophisticated investors

to play options could result in them losing their life's investment, and would

be totally irresponsible on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just

b/c it treated me right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into

account that what works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.

> >

> > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested.

What I am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population

relating to POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism -

before I start taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at

risk). Many studies have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or

not they used proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly. Many

scientific studies, positive or negative, are poorly designed/interpreted or

funded by those with conflicts of interest and should be viewed with skepticism

or discarded. It seems that many in this group are simply not willing to

consider studies that come to conclusions that don't fit some pre-conceived

notion of iodine's benefits. That is the cult like facet that I was referring

to. When anything becomes sacrosanct to it's supporters, much of the

objectivity and credibility of those people is lost.

> >

> > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the

harm it does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath

that gets tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine

(even though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see that

as a reason to require less verification of other healing methods than I

otherwise would.

> >

> > Mike

> >

> > --

>

[Guest guest]

I’ve been noting this whole

discussion with great interest given that I am very interested in iodine but

haven’t actually started yet.

Here’s what I am seeing. I’m

not a doctor but I do have some knowledge of the scientific method, as I hold a

degree in agronomy.

Seems like there are a whole lot of

correlation studies out there in the medical journals where they take a batch

of however many people and ask them a bunch of questions and roll that through

the statistics to arrive at an answer. Of course, the larger the study the

better the results. Three thousand isn’t a huge dataset, but it is not

insignificant either. It would be interesting to know—what percentage of

subscribers are using high dose iodine, what percent are using lower doses of

iodine, and what percent are like me, biting my nails on the sidelines and

wondering.

I don’t know what Mike’s big

concern is. I know mine is what exactly is going on with the detox reactions

you are all having. It sounds like you really suffer. The concern from what I

am seeing is—is that really all bromide, or is there a point where iodine

DOES become an issue? And what really is the average Japanese intake of

iodine/iodide? I mean, if it really is the 12-13 mg that’s very

significant but if it’s the .9mg figure I have also seen then that’s

quite another finding.

Mind you I’m not disparaging anyone

here, it’s wonderful that you are taking charge of your health. I’m

no fan of allopathy not of Big pHARMa. It’s just there is a point where

you need to call in the biochemistry brains and this does feel like one of

those situations.

One question I would ask, has anyone ever

tracked a bromide detox over time, like say every week? In other words, someone

taking Iodoral 50mg every day as some of you do, has anyone ever tracked

bromide levels in the body before, and urine results every week (or other close

interval) over several months to a year? I think that would be very interesting.

Lidia

the experiences both individual and

collective would have at very least preliminary characteristics of that

" research " sans the allopathic mindset.

[Guest guest]

It seems that this discussion is going in circles, and most of the points being

made are not being addressed by the responses. But Dennis, you have pointed out

indirectly exactly what I'm saying. You had a patient who had an anaphylactic

reaction to iodine. Then you were able to convince that patient to stay with

the iodine protocol. Your patient could have died under different

circumstances. Then you wouldn't have needed to convince her of anything.

After all the time I've spent with patients in ICU and psych, there is one thing

I know for sure. Many will self medicate, will not see an MD/ND/DO, etc for

many reasons (no insurance, dislike of doctors, fear of what they'll find out,

and so forth). The reason doesn't matter, just that it does happen in MANY

instances. These people depend on what they read online and elsewhere, many are

desperate to grab onto any 'cure' offered (scams abound), and most are NOT

medically/holistically sophisticated. All the above is reality regardless of

what any of us practitioners would like the situation to be. Therefore, those

dispensing information should ALWAYS take that into serious consideration when

giving information to a wide audience. I can't tell you how many times I've

closed the door to an ICU room and counseled patients and their families on the

advantages AND disadvantages (which in my estimation outweigh the advantages

most of the time) of allopathic treatment, and given them alternate treatments

to look into and educated them on what could happen down the line with the

treatments they are being offered (although I never counseled anyone not to do

what was being offered by an allopath). At great risk to my job I might add -

all it would take is one family to go to admin for me to be fired, but it never

happened b/c of the way I approached them with their best interests in mind.

But what I never did was tell them about a holistic treatment w/o telling what

the limitations of our knowledge of that treatment are, especially if there were

any potentially serious complications. With iodine, those limitations seem to

be 1) what is the probability of a patient having an anaphylactic reaction

(anecdotal data, while valuable, cannot tell you that), and 2) can large doses

of iodine lead to hypothyroidism and other autoimmune responses after it has

been taken for a period of time? Any time you have limitations like that, you

need to be especially vigilant in letting patients know what the potential

complications are in addition to how to minimize the risk. That is what I see

missing here. With that, this would be an excellent site (and, for the most

part, is). Protocols should always be re-evaluated periodically for both

efficacy and safety. While I agree with that too much

scientific/research jargon would be confusing, not giving basic info on the fact

that the possibility of hypothyroidism has not been resolved, or that you could

stop breathing, is putting people in danger (as I said, many will not follow

protocol or see a qualified health practitioner, so need to know what risk they

are placing themselves in). How would you feel if someone in this chat room

decided iodine was their cure all after years of suffering, and took 50mg at

home and died of anaphylaxsis? Would you say it was not your problem b/c they

didn't go to an MD and follow the protocol (and w/o a doubt there are several

people here who are self medicating), or would you wish you had spelled out the

need to do what I did (see below), or take a good book and go to your local ER

waiting room b/f downing 50mg of iodine? Disclosing the limits of our knowledge

of iodine, or any other therapy, does not at all diminish it's validity or

value. But it does enhance your credibility and makes the therapy more safe b/c

it makes potential users more educated and therefore more likely to be judicious

in how they apply that therapy. So in answer to your question, Dennis, 'Why are

you here?', it is to try and determine for myself how much risk there is of

hypothyroidism with iodine use, if bromide toxicity is a real concern and how to

detox bromide, and to help other potential iodine users know that there are

valid concerns about anaphylaxis and hypothyroidism with iodine that are

unresolved. Anaphylaxis is not a personal concern of mine since I've already

resolved that issue.

I said earlier that I had only taken one 25mg Iodoral dose. That wasn't exactly

correct. That was the only dose of any size that I had taken. B/c of the lack

of definitive data on anaphylaxsis, I had taken several 125mcg doses, followed

by 600mcg and then 1mg doses to see if I had any immediate reaction. This was

done with epi, oxygen, albuterol, and a nebulizer available. Many people would

not do that. They would just get Iodoral and take 50mg b/c a site like this

promotes iodine w/o presenting the potential side effects in an unbiased way,

and this is all they've read. That is dangerous, and a disservice to your

readers. Nothing I have said is about iodine being good or bad, just the need

for full disclosure in an unbiased manner when you are dispersing info to a wide

cross section of society. After all, I'm sure there is everyone here from MDs,

NDs, to janitors and short order cooks (not disparaging janitors or short order

cooks - anyone who does their job well has dignity and deserves respect).

, I really didn't think that you don't care about the research. I was

goading you a little bit (my apologies b/c I suspected you were involved in a

little more than you were telling us. After all, I'm sure Dr Brownstein is

engaged in lots of clinical observation, and if you're that close to him, how

could you not know what he's doing? But totally separating research from this

site brings to mind what the big food producers say about labeling: 'putting

all the ingredients on the label would just confuse the consumer', so instead,

give them incomplete information on what's in their food, and by default, take

their choice away from them.

btw, this discussion has been interesting, but I won't be writing anymore

lengthy responses, as I just don't have time. So if anyone chooses to respond

and I don't respond back, no offense meant.

Mike

> > >

> > > Anecdotal evidence is fine, and certainly has it's place - who doesn't

> like a good story of success. But I guess non medical individual's with no

> background in research just don't distinguish between individual results and

> potential for harmful reactions in the population at large. At least I

> haven't seen any differentiation of the two concepts in this group. After

> all, we have all read accounts here of how iodine 'saved my life' and how

> iodine 'almost killed me'. If both are true, then iodine can obviously

> result in radically different outcomes. One can only make an informed

> decision if all the data is presented - including statistical data and

> negative data as well as anecdotal. Groups like this that are 'positive

> toward iodine' as stated (I appreciate your honesty) only decrease

> their credibility by taking a biased stance to begin with. In the end, that

> defeats the purpose of trying to educate people so they can make an informed

> decision (which I thought was a goal of this group), b/c the presentation is

> one sided. As an example, I might do well playing the options market, but

> for me to encourage non sophisticated investors to play options could result

> in them losing their life's investment, and would be totally irresponsible

> on my part. Rather than promoting options trading just b/c it treated me

> right (arguing to the consequences), I should take into account that what

> works and is good for me might be disastrous for others.

> > >

> > > I am not making negative comments about iodine as has been suggested.

> What I am doing is looking for data that is relevant over a wide population

> relating to POTENTIAL problems with high dose iodine such as hypothyroidism

> - before I start taking large doses (to do anything else puts your health at

> risk). Many studies have pointed out these problems. The point is whether or

> not they used proper methodology and if they were interpreted correctly.

> Many scientific studies, positive or negative, are poorly

> designed/interpreted or funded by those with conflicts of interest and

> should be viewed with skepticism or discarded. It seems that many in this

> group are simply not willing to consider studies that come to conclusions

> that don't fit some pre-conceived notion of iodine's benefits. That is the

> cult like facet that I was referring to. When anything becomes sacrosanct to

> it's supporters, much of the objectivity and credibility of those people is

> lost.

> > >

> > > Jana, you are absolutely right about conventional medicine and the harm

> it does. 'First do no harm' is the first thing in the Hippocratic Oath that

> gets tossed out the window. I am certainly no fan of allopathic medicine

> (even though, and b/c, I worked in it for thirty years). But I don't see

> that as a reason to require less verification of other healing methods than

> I otherwise would.

> > >

> > > Mike

> > >

> > > --

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Mike,I also wonder if there are many of us who started with one pill for a week, went up to two pills the next week and then 3 in another week and stayed at 4 pills or 50 mg for 18 months or longer with no major side effects. This was done while using the other supplements and salt as stated. Maybe those of us who have a ho-hum experience haven't mentioned it to the list either. The most that had was headache and bit of rash on legs for few days. Otherwise all the changes have been positive. Am using half as much armour now and even thremography now shows have my thyroid is now warm and working. Have shrunk breast lump from 1 cm to half cm in last 4 months and eliminated the majority of lumps. My current doctors have no objections but also no knowledge of iodine treatment. My chiropractor is Japanese and does confirm the 12-13 mg figure as the average for eating in Japan. She did have me back off to 37.5 recently because I am fighting RA again and wanted to slow detoxing down and on more meds and liver was reacting to that. Health is a dance and we are each individuals and have to be careful of our choices. Pam