Why does this study show benefit of Iodine?

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

Tell me if I'm reading this right.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8221402?dopt=AbstractPlus

In looking at some material re iodine, I saw this multi-study regarding

fibrocystic breast disease from 1993 Canadian Journal of Surgery. A

University-affiliated breast treatment center conducted 3 studies using 3

different forms of iodine.

The studies lasted several years, with one of them lasting all the way up to

1989 (14 years). Together, the 3 studies involved about two thousand women.

On average, the 3 studies were dosing at .08mg/kg body weight. For example, a

120 lb. woman would receive just under 10mg of iodine/iodide per day.

When the studies were done, the conclusion was that iodine (vs iodide) was the

most beneficial both subjectively and objectively, from 65% to 74% of

volunteers, depending on which study you view. Even iodide was very effective,

although side effects were much more common (what type of side effects was not

listed in the abstract).

Shouldn't the iodine group (the largest one) have had negative effects like

hypothyoidism or autoimmune issues after 14 years?

Comments?!

-Ken Bagwell

[Guest guest]

In your research you will find ample evidence of the negative effects of

large doses of iodine. IIRC they start about 3 mg/day but I'm not sure

of that. I would expect the incidences of harmful effects to increase

with the dosage. I think you will find the research does indicate some

harmful reactions in the 10 mg/day range. " Iodine overdose " or " iodine

toxicity " into Google would be a good place to start for the lay person.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " kenancy2000 " kenancy2000@...

>

<mailto:kenancy2000@...?Subject=%20Re%3AWhy%20does%20this%20study%20show%2\

0benefit%20of%20Iodine%3F>

> kenancy2000 <kenancy2000>

>

>

> Sat Oct 3, 2009 7:44 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Hi all,

>

> Tell me if I'm reading this right.

>

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8221402?dopt=AbstractPlus

> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8221402?dopt=AbstractPlus>

>

> In looking at some material re iodine, I saw this multi-study

> regarding fibrocystic breast disease from 1993 Canadian Journal of

> Surgery. A University-affiliat

> ed breast treatment center conducted 3 studies using 3 different forms

> of iodine.

>

> The studies lasted several years, with one of them lasting all the way

> up to 1989 (14 years). Together, the 3 studies involved about two

> thousand women.

>

> On average, the 3 studies were dosing at .08mg/kg body weight. For

> example, a 120 lb. woman would receive just under 10mg of

> iodine/iodide per day.

>

> When the studies were done, the conclusion was that iodine (vs iodide)

> was the most beneficial both subjectively and objectively, from 65% to

> 74% of volunteers, depending on which study you view. Even iodide was

> very effective, although side effects were much more common (what type

> of side effects was not listed in the abstract).

>

> Shouldn't the iodine group (the largest one) have had negative effects

> like hypothyoidism or autoimmune issues after 14 years?

>

> Comments?!

>

> -Ken Bagwell