Re: Brain Swelling

[Guest guest]

I went through it page by page thinking there should be something there

which explained a theory as to how massive doses of iodine might be used

by the body and didn't find any. The short-cut was to help Chuck get to

a specific reference that I thought he missed.

Thanks,

..

..

>

> Posted by: " cindy.seeley " cindy.seeley@...

> <mailto:cindy.seeley@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Brain%20Swelling>

> cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley>

>

>

> Sun Dec 7, 2008 6:36 pm (PST)

>

> I agree, but by not paging down, you missed tables of the data from

> tests they conducted on populations that were iodine deficient...

> the

> use of amounts double to quadruple what Gracia is currently using.

> Then once the deficiency was reversed, they reduced the amount of

> daily intake.

>

>

>

> >

> > It's easier to click on the last entry above " References " . Paging down

> > through however many pages is a PITA.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

,

Is this the context of table 8?

> ... table 8, but it

> specifically says they supplemented with 200 - 400 hundred milligrams

> of iodine.

" A national company, the Empresa Nacional de Salinas (ENSAL) is the sole

established salt producer. ...Salt is iodized with potassium iodate, at one part

per 50,000. Based on an estimated consumption of 10-20 grams salt per day this

figure provides 200-400 mg iodine per day. "

This is what is called a typographical error, since 10 or 20 g divided by 50,000

is 200 or 400 micrograms.

If this is not it, please give us the URL again. It seems a lot more likely that

someone made a commonly observed error in units, than that one place out of the

whole world multiplies iodine supplement recommendations by 1,000.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

,

Was this it?

> Table 8. Recommended doses of iodized oil in the prevention of the

> disorders induced by iodine deficiency.

Iodized oil is VERY DIFFERENT from iodine and only contains a little iodine,

probably at the one part per thousand level.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

No Chuck, it's here...

http://www.thyroidmanager.org/Chapter20/20-frame.htm

They gave some orally and some intramuscular injections of 20 - 960 mg

of iodine (depending on the age and which method it was administered),

using oil as the carrier...I wish there were page numbers, but there

aren't...anyway, this particular example is on the page headed with

the following:

TECHNOLOGY OF IODINE SUPPLEMENTATION

The first section on that page is about salt being used as the

carrier, then the 2nd section begins the discussion of oil as a

carrier. There are actually 2 tables on the page; table 7, in New

Guinea, they used smaller amounts...table 8, they classified as an

emergency deficiency situation and used the huge amounts. Would using

oil as a carrier make it more difficult for the body to utilize?

>

> ,

>

> Is this the context of table 8?

>

> > ... table 8, but it

> > specifically says they supplemented with 200 - 400 hundred milligrams

> > of iodine.

>

> " A national company, the Empresa Nacional de Salinas (ENSAL) is the

sole established salt producer. ...Salt is iodized with potassium

iodate, at one part per 50,000. Based on an estimated consumption of

10-20 grams salt per day this figure provides 200-400 mg iodine per day. "

>

> This is what is called a typographical error, since 10 or 20 g

divided by 50,000 is 200 or 400 micrograms.

>

> If this is not it, please give us the URL again. It seems a lot more

likely that someone made a commonly observed error in units, than that

one place out of the whole world multiplies iodine supplement

recommendations by 1,000.

>

> Chuck

>

[Guest guest]

Chuck, I agree that this seems to be what was implemented with regards

to table 7, but table 8 does not appear to have had the same methods

applied. Table 7 specifies X mg (of iodine) per L of oil, but Table 8

specifies X mg of iodine; it tells us nothing of the amount of oil

used as the carrier. Also, see my questions in the previous

post...I've been waiting for you to come along and help explain this!

>

> ,

>

> Was this it?

>

> > Table 8. Recommended doses of iodized oil in the prevention of the

> > disorders induced by iodine deficiency.

>

> Iodized oil is VERY DIFFERENT from iodine and only contains a little

iodine, probably at the one part per thousand level.

>

> Chuck

>

[Guest guest]

,

Thanks for sending us back:

> http://www.thyroidmanager.org/Chapter20/20-frame.htm

>

> They gave some orally and some intramuscular injections of 20 - 960 mg

> of iodine ...

These are NOT daily doses, but a single oral and intramuscular administration of

iodized oil, commonly called lipiodol or ethiodol and sold under the brand

names, UF or Oriodol. The oil slows the peak absorption and keeps it in the

system longer. This one shot approach is a treatment that has been tried in

endemic IDD areas, where doping the salt supply won't be universally effective.

The problem with this approach (besides the risks) is that it has to be repeated

to prevent developmental problems. A single shot right before pregnancy

evidently gets the baby through birth, but the growing child will need it later.

If there is a nuclear reactor accident, people downwind will be given similar

doses of iodine to prevent absorption of the radioactive kind.

However, neither example implies that it is a good idea to get a daily dose

above 1 mg. They are both situations where the risks are outweighed by the

benefits. That analysis does not apply to doping your morning orange juice with

Lugol's.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

So...another question...well 3 actually...Chuck,

Given the max. dosage was an injection of 960 mg of iodine (so using

it for an example), about what would you expect the peak to

be?...about how long would you expect it to take to peak?...and about

what would be effectively, an initial half-life (I realize this

probably isn't the applicable term, but I don't know what the term for

this would be...I'm just trying to understand the concept.)?

>... The oil slows the peak absorption and keeps it in the system

longer...

> Chuck

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

> ...what would you expect the peak to

> be?...about how long would you expect it to take to peak?...

I am not sure what you mean by this. The peak concentration for oral ingestion

of iodine would occur about hour after taking it. In an oil mixture, that

probably stretches out to about three hours, so the peak concentration will be

less and the loss will be more gradual, at least initially.

> ...and about

> what would be effectively, an initial half-life

At one time they thought the biological half life of iodine in humans was 138

days. Since 1989, the accepted value is 80 days in an active thyroid and 12 days

for the rest of the body. If the iodine is attached to oil, it may get stored

differently, which may account for the different measured half lives.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

I find this all rather tedious however one beats around the creationism

bush. Religions' explanations for anything has been loosing ground to

science for a long long time. Individuals that support some variant of

mythological creation usually have a particular western religious bias

which they assume is the correction one without questioning or looking

into the many others. If you're going to select a particular

mythological creation story, there are thousands of options and their

variants from the many religious persuasions living and dead to select

from with no particular choice being preferred in any rational way over

another. Except, I would posit that older creation myths are better

options and likely to be more original than reworked newer ones which

have taken without attribution bits and pieces of the older.

If your going to select a creation myth, simple and pragmatic is my

preference and to select one of the older ones instead of a relative

newcomer like the incompatible biblical writings which cobbled together

bits and pieces of older myths and created conflicts within the text

itself (especially between the Yahwist and Elohist sources). The

Egyptian variant where the self-created god Atum masturbated with his

hand to create Shu and Tefnut, the group of which went on the create

other aspects of the given world is a better choice. The flaws of the

biblical gods are many and perverse with a propensity for blood and

gore, death and destruction, and rage and retribution. Creation is not

their specialty. May they rest in piece.

Should we switch this debate to one between the theory of evolution and

Egyptian creationism instead? It would be just as " ration " and " valid "

a discussion an no doubt, Egyptian creationism should be taught in the

schools to our children along side the " theory of evolution " . Perhaps

we can come up for a religious myth alternative for " the theory of

gravity " or " the theory of magnetism " , etc.?

A theory is more relevant than a myth. Theories create the modern world

while myths are retired in the process.

Steve

cindy.seeley wrote:

> ,

> Although it is, and has been, taught in our public schools as the 'be

> all, end all', that doesn't change that it is still only a theory, the

> 'Theory of Evolution' (all of my biology books also stated it as

> such!)...please support yourself with non-ideological beliefs...It has

> become politically incorrect, if you will, to support any

> issues/statements based on 'divine intervention', what some also

> consider a 'theory', although I, personally, do happen to believe...I

> won't use 'divine intervention' to support my statements and/or

> comments (which to this point I haven't either), if you won't use your

> belief in the 'theory of evolution' to support yours...any and all

> claims based on 'evolution' in the sense of Darwin's ideas

> loses all credibility, in my opinion (it just sounds like a good

> excuse to explain anything unknown away). I do however believe in an

> applicable definition of 'evolving', such as happens in our mental

> perspectives as we learn and remake ourselves and our opinions based

> on what we have learned/experienced. ;-)

>

>

>

>>>> why are you using the word " massive " ? the doses that work best are

>>> doses that were used when iodine was still the universal medicine. if

>>> you work for the FDA then perhaps my dose of iodine is " massive " .

>>>> have you read anything on http://www.optimox.com

>>> <http://www.optimox.com> ? it is very interesting reading.

>>>> Gracia

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

interesting. Atum like in Adam?

Gracia

I find this all rather tedious however one beats around the creationism

bush. Religions' explanations for anything has been loosing ground to

science for a long long time. Individuals that support some variant of

mythological creation usually have a particular western religious bias

which they assume is the correction one without questioning or looking

into the many others. If you're going to select a particular

mythological creation story, there are thousands of options and their

variants from the many religious persuasions living and dead to select

from with no particular choice being preferred in any rational way over

another. Except, I would posit that older creation myths are better

options and likely to be more original than reworked newer ones which

have taken without attribution bits and pieces of the older.

If your going to select a creation myth, simple and pragmatic is my

preference and to select one of the older ones instead of a relative

newcomer like the incompatible biblical writings which cobbled together

bits and pieces of older myths and created conflicts within the text

itself (especially between the Yahwist and Elohist sources). The

Egyptian variant where the self-created god Atum masturbated with his

hand to create Shu and Tefnut, the group of which went on the create

other aspects of the given world is a better choice. The flaws of the

biblical gods are many and perverse with a propensity for blood and

gore, death and destruction, and rage and retribution. Creation is not

their specialty. May they rest in piece.

Should we switch this debate to one between the theory of evolution and

Egyptian creationism instead? It would be just as " ration " and " valid "

a discussion an no doubt, Egyptian creationism should be taught in the

schools to our children along side the " theory of evolution " . Perhaps

we can come up for a religious myth alternative for " the theory of

gravity " or " the theory of magnetism " , etc.?

A theory is more relevant than a myth. Theories create the modern world

while myths are retired in the process.

Steve

cindy.seeley wrote:

> ,

> Although it is, and has been, taught in our public schools as the 'be

> all, end all', that doesn't change that it is still only a theory, the

> 'Theory of Evolution' (all of my biology books also stated it as

> such!)...please support yourself with non-ideological beliefs...It has

> become politically incorrect, if you will, to support any

> issues/statements based on 'divine intervention', what some also

> consider a 'theory', although I, personally, do happen to believe...I

> won't use 'divine intervention' to support my statements and/or

> comments (which to this point I haven't either), if you won't use your

> belief in the 'theory of evolution' to support yours...any and all

> claims based on 'evolution' in the sense of Darwin's ideas

> loses all credibility, in my opinion (it just sounds like a good

> excuse to explain anything unknown away). I do however believe in an

> applicable definition of 'evolving', such as happens in our mental

> perspectives as we learn and remake ourselves and our opinions based

> on what we have learned/experienced. ;-)

>

>

>

>>>> why are you using the word " massive " ? the doses that work best are

>>> doses that were used when iodine was still the universal medicine. if

>>> you work for the FDA then perhaps my dose of iodine is " massive " .

>>>> have you read anything on http://www.optimox.com

>>> <http://www.optimox.com> ? it is very interesting reading.

>>>> Gracia

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.16/1843 - Release Date: 12/11/2008

8:36 AM

[Guest guest]

I agree Steve, many texts have taken from others without

attribution...have also 'copyrighted' their works and even sell them

for a profit...and haven't even been aware, apparently of the many

contradictions they've included, within themselves even! A resource I

find of interest is:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/index.htm

There, in addition to various versions of the Bible I happen to own,

also have software that has allowed me to download and install

numerous variants of the Bible, which I am able to jump between while

studying it, my preference, in English since it is my native tongue,

is the King Version, not copyrighted, so can be freely used

without requesting permission...I don't believe God's version of the

Bible requires permission for use from any mortal...with available

resources, I am able to translate this version back to the original

Hebrew and Greek languages... Additionally, besides growing up being

taught 'evolution', I've also attended a week long seminar where we

did a parallel study of 'evolution' and 'divine intervention'...

archaeologists are even discovering many of the places and things that

the old testament talks about throughout...regardless, if I'm wrong, I

have nothing to lose...whereas, if I'm right, evolutionists have

everything to lose! :-(

>

> I find this all rather tedious however one beats around the creationism

> bush. Religions' explanations for anything has been loosing ground to

> science for a long long time. Individuals that support some variant of

> mythological creation usually have a particular western religious bias

> which they assume is the correction one without questioning or looking

> into the many others. If you're going to select a particular

> mythological creation story, there are thousands of options and their

> variants from the many religious persuasions living and dead to select

> from with no particular choice being preferred in any rational way over

> another. Except, I would posit that older creation myths are better

> options and likely to be more original than reworked newer ones which

> have taken without attribution bits and pieces of the older.

>

> If your going to select a creation myth, simple and pragmatic is my

> preference and to select one of the older ones instead of a relative

> newcomer like the incompatible biblical writings which cobbled together

> bits and pieces of older myths and created conflicts within the text

> itself (especially between the Yahwist and Elohist sources). The

> Egyptian variant where the self-created god Atum masturbated with his

> hand to create Shu and Tefnut, the group of which went on the create

> other aspects of the given world is a better choice. The flaws of the

> biblical gods are many and perverse with a propensity for blood and

> gore, death and destruction, and rage and retribution. Creation is not

> their specialty. May they rest in piece.

>

> Should we switch this debate to one between the theory of evolution and

> Egyptian creationism instead? It would be just as " ration " and " valid "

> a discussion an no doubt, Egyptian creationism should be taught in the

> schools to our children along side the " theory of evolution " . Perhaps

> we can come up for a religious myth alternative for " the theory of

> gravity " or " the theory of magnetism " , etc.?

>

> A theory is more relevant than a myth. Theories create the modern world

> while myths are retired in the process.

>

> Steve

[Guest guest]

Actually, more like " Amen " , the Christians' unknowing appeal to the

Egyptian god (bible based religions " borrow " everywhere). Adam, is a

prototypical man, not a god (unless you're a Mormon and that's another

story.) However, man's existence as homo homo sapient goes back upwards

of 200,000 years and were he transported forward in time and you saw him

walking the street with his ipod connected and his cell phone browsing

the internet, you wouldn't be able to tell him apart from the rest of

the mass of humanity. The Mythical first man Adam and his wifes Lilith

and Eve would still be 194,000 years in real first man's future.

Steve

Gracia wrote:

> interesting. Atum like in Adam?

> Gracia

>

>

> I find this all rather tedious however one beats around the creationism

> bush. Religions' explanations for anything has been loosing ground to

> science for a long long time. Individuals that support some variant of

> mythological creation usually have a particular western religious bias

> which they assume is the correction one without questioning or looking

> into the many others. If you're going to select a particular

> mythological creation story, there are thousands of options and their

> variants from the many religious persuasions living and dead to select

> from with no particular choice being preferred in any rational way over

> another. Except, I would posit that older creation myths are better

> options and likely to be more original than reworked newer ones which

> have taken without attribution bits and pieces of the older.

>

> If your going to select a creation myth, simple and pragmatic is my

> preference and to select one of the older ones instead of a relative

> newcomer like the incompatible biblical writings which cobbled together

> bits and pieces of older myths and created conflicts within the text

> itself (especially between the Yahwist and Elohist sources). The

> Egyptian variant where the self-created god Atum masturbated with his

> hand to create Shu and Tefnut, the group of which went on the create

> other aspects of the given world is a better choice. The flaws of the

> biblical gods are many and perverse with a propensity for blood and

> gore, death and destruction, and rage and retribution. Creation is not

> their specialty. May they rest in piece.

>

> Should we switch this debate to one between the theory of evolution and

> Egyptian creationism instead? It would be just as " ration " and " valid "

> a discussion an no doubt, Egyptian creationism should be taught in the

> schools to our children along side the " theory of evolution " . Perhaps

> we can come up for a religious myth alternative for " the theory of

> gravity " or " the theory of magnetism " , etc.?

>

> A theory is more relevant than a myth. Theories create the modern world

> while myths are retired in the process.

>

> Steve

>

> cindy.seeley wrote:

> > ,

> > Although it is, and has been, taught in our public schools as the 'be

> > all, end all', that doesn't change that it is still only a theory, the

> > 'Theory of Evolution' (all of my biology books also stated it as

> > such!)...please support yourself with non-ideological beliefs...It has

> > become politically incorrect, if you will, to support any

> > issues/statements based on 'divine intervention', what some also

> > consider a 'theory', although I, personally, do happen to believe...I

> > won't use 'divine intervention' to support my statements and/or

> > comments (which to this point I haven't either), if you won't use your

> > belief in the 'theory of evolution' to support yours...any and all

> > claims based on 'evolution' in the sense of Darwin's ideas

> > loses all credibility, in my opinion (it just sounds like a good

> > excuse to explain anything unknown away). I do however believe in an

> > applicable definition of 'evolving', such as happens in our mental

> > perspectives as we learn and remake ourselves and our opinions based

> > on what we have learned/experienced. ;-)

> >

> >

> >

> >>>> why are you using the word " massive " ? the doses that work best are

> >>> doses that were used when iodine was still the universal medicine. if

> >>> you work for the FDA then perhaps my dose of iodine is " massive " .

> >>>> have you read anything on http://www.optimox.com

> >>> <http://www.optimox.com> ? it is very interesting reading.

> >>>> Gracia

>

> --

>

> Steve - dudescholar4@...

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford