Re: Re: Thyroid Research | Full text | Welcome to Thyroid Research

November 24, 2008

so do actual ppl qualify? b/c there sure are a lot of them taking high

dose iodine. and not getting attacked by hashimotos either!

Gracia

I don't know in what situation it might be advisable to destroy/remove

the thyroid gland. Perhaps with cancer? It is well established that

iodine may trigger a Hashimoto's attack. That's hardly bringing the

thyroid gland back to health. If there's any credible research that

indicates iodine is effective for hypothyroidism I'd like to see it.

Sorry, chiropractics journals don't qualify; nor do iodine sales brochures.

.

> Posted by: " Gracia " circe@...

>

<mailto:circe@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Thyroid%20Research%20%7C%20Full%2\

0text%20%7C%20Welcome%20to%20Thyroid%20Research>

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

> Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:25 pm (PST)

>

> you think it's a high scientific standard to destroy thyroid glands

> rather than bring them back to health with iodine/iodide?

> Gracia

>

> The first sentence below indicates the iodine docs would be welcome.

> The last one says they will not. We'll see...

>

> ...This journal will be open to all points-of-view. The guiding rule

> will be to maintain high scientific standards...

>

> .

>

> Posted by: " Gracia " circe@... <mailto:circe%40fairpoint.net>

> <mailto:circe@... <mailto:circe%40fairpoint.net>?Subject=%20Re%

>

3AThyroid%20Research%20%7C%20Full%20text%20%7C%20Welcome%20to%20Thyroid%20Resear\

ch>

> graciabee <graciabee

> <graciabee>>

>

> Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:55 pm (PST)

>

> http://www.thyroidresearchjournal.com/content/1/1/1

> <http://www.thyroidresearchjournal.com/content/1/1/1>

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

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

Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1805 - Release Date: 11/22/2008

10:34 AM

November 26, 2008

Sam,

You wrote:

> ... 100mg (and

> more) is used on cancer patients. Perhaps you wouldn't need to ask me

> about iodine/iodide if you did your own reading in the right

> places...

So, if the information is so readily available, please give us just one

properly reviewed study that demonstrates that 100 mg of iodine is a

beneficial cancer treatment. Testimonials in the The Original Internist

do not count as properly reviewed.

Chuck

November 26, 2008

Sam,

You wrote:

>

> Did I say that information was readily available? No....

Yes, you did. You suggested that our problem was that we needed to read

for ourselves in the right places. Evidently, there aren't any right places.

Thanks for the name calling.

Chuck

November 26, 2008

Sam,

You wrote:

> ... Would you like

> to contact some of the people involved in the thyroid cancer study or

> the breast cancer project? Both are currently underway....

Please give us the references. The only recognized study we found last

year after much search was about relieving fibroid pain, not cancer. In

the first phase study found that a fraction of a milligram worked better

than a whole mg. I know of no studies of iodine at the levels you

advocate. No responsible agency will allow it.

Chuck

November 26, 2008

I think a large problem is that Chuck needs to have peer reviewed

medical literature that lends itself to double blind studies, limits

that exclude much. Additionally, if a product doesn't have profit

potential and is patentable, then it will not get the business dollars.

Not that I necessarily have a problem with business motives, the fact

that business has criteria different from what is best and most

effective does however lend one to look at studies on the subjects

excluded by business interests with a less critical eye since they will

have less resources, if said studies exist at all. Obviously, there is

research going on into non patentable applications, but again, smaller

studies, less likely to be double blind, and includes items that cannot

effectively be blinded. DMSO is a case in point. Not patentable or the

patents have expired, and the body odor from use eliminates the

possibility of " blinding " .

Why would any business with profit in mind address cancer with extensive

financial input when the outcome could not be exclusively used and

investment funds would be unrecoverable. Vitamin D, which has received

some quite a bit of research dollars at the university level since it is

so essential is still being put down by large institutions an example

being that American Cancer Society put it's PR to work telling Americans

that vitamin D supplements should not be taken to avoid cancer. Iodine

is not a patentable item so I doubt one will get a double blind study

with sufficient financial participation to satisfy many of the " science "

types. I consider myself more of a science type but find I need to be

pragmatic about what gets researched well and what does not.

With that being said, I am open to clinical experience and a lot of

other avenues as valuable input to personal decision making, but some

claims are so vague that a modicum of credibility cannot be applied.

More information is necessary. There is some known danger for some

people from taking a large quantity of Iodine. I myself take much more

Iodine that Chuck would, 12.5 mg/day and for 3 months 50 mg/day. The

long term consequences? Not studied. The short term consequences was

that it reduced my TSH below what almost all doctors would treat without

any personally subjective benefits. To some degree, I consider that a

downside. My goal was to improve my thyroid function but all I got was

the appearance of improvement from a blood lab point of view.

If I had cancer, I would most likely take a trip to the Life Extension

Foundation's cancer clinic in Florida first and foremost. I might

however give Iodine a go since the downsides of Iodine appear to be much

much lower than the downside of cancer and waiting for science to

discover a patentable solution to cancer while working to exclude all

non-patentable solutions would be a futile wait. The people with cancer

want answers that work. The people that treat cancer want answers that

keep the profits rolling in. The studies for Iodine and cancer, if they

are to be effective, will need clinical experiences with effective

consistent outcomes before any funding organization will put forth a

modicum of research dollars while trying to avoid the negative influence

of the profit centers.

Steve

Sam wrote:

> The problem is that you guys are not seeming to be open to anything

> that isn't big pharma allopathetic BS. " Peer reviewed " to y'all means

> reviewed by big pharma allopathetic poopheads, not alternative

> practitioners. If I stand up in front of a group of f'tard

> allopathetics and tell them that I " had " fibrocystic breast disease,

> but after a month on 50mg Iodoral my breasts completely normalized,

> they would not believe me. Why? Because I took Iodoral, not some

> toxic allopathetic drug.

> And you guys seem to think we will all die or something horrible will

> happen if we take more than a miniscule amount of iodine. I can't

> begin to tell you how utterly ridiculous and uninformed that

> is...there are literally thousands of people taking iodine/iodide and

> none of them have blown up or imploded.

>

> You want more info, you talk to these people:

> http://www.breastcancerchoices.org

> http://www.drbrownstein.com

>

> Sam

>

>>> ... Would you like

>>> to contact some of the people involved in the thyroid cancer

> study or

>>> the breast cancer project? Both are currently underway....

>> Please give us the references. The only recognized study we found

> last

>> year after much search was about relieving fibroid pain, not

> cancer. In

>> the first phase study found that a fraction of a milligram worked

> better

>> than a whole mg. I know of no studies of iodine at the levels you

>> advocate. No responsible agency will allow it.

>>

>> Chuck

--

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

November 27, 2008

Sam,

You wrote:

>

> ...for example: http://www.iodine4health.com

> <http://www.iodine4health.com> "

> [note the presence of a web address]

Again, none of the refereed sources on that site favored high doses of

iodine and none indicated iodine was a cure for cancer. The highest

recommended dose that I saw in a credible source set the safe limit at

1.1 mg per day:

Iodine. Chapter 8 in Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin

K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese,

Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc

Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine

The National Academies Press. 2000

" Summary. Iodine is an essential component of the thyroid hormones that

are involved in the regulation of various enzymes and metabolic

processes. Thyroid iodine accumulation and turnover were used to set the

Estimated Average Requirement. The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA)

for adult men and women is 150 ?g/day. The median intake of iodine from

food in the United States is approximately 240 to 300 ?g/day for men and

190 to 210 ?g/day for women. The Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for

adults is 1,100 ?g/day (1.1 mg/day), a value based on serum thyrotropin

concentration in response to varying levels of ingested iodine. " (p. 258)

This review set it at less than 1 mg, exactly what I have been

recommending.

A review of iodine toxicity reports.

Pennington JA, J Am Diet Assoc. 1990 Nov;90(11):1571-81.

" This article summarizes case reports, population studies, and

experimental studies from the literature concerning adverse effects of

exposure to iodine from the mid-1880s to 1988. Exposure to excessive

iodine through foods, dietary supplements, topical medications, and/or

iodinated contrast media has resulted in thyroiditis, goiter,

hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, sensitivity reactions, or acute

responses for some individuals. Reports of maternal iodine exposure

during pregnancy or lactation affecting newborn or nursing infants are

cited. Susceptibility to excess iodine is discussed as well as the

relationship between dose and response. It is concluded that some

individuals can tolerate very high levels of iodine with no apparent

side effects and that iodine intakes less than or equal to 1.000 mg/day

are probably safe for the majority of the population, but may cause

adverse effects in some individuals. Determination of maximum tolerable

levels of iodine intake will require human experimental studies at

levels between 0.150 and 1.000 mg/day for normal subjects, subjects with

autonomous thyroid tissue, and iodine-sensitive subjects. "

Again, these are the papers YOU sent us to, which clearly contradict

your notion that 50 mg is not excessive. The first one also confirms

that most people in the US do get the RDA, exactly as I stated.

-Chuck

November 27, 2008

Sam,

You wrote:

> " Peer reviewed " to y'all means

> reviewed by big pharma allopathetic poopheads, not alternative

> practitioners....

Dr. Gaby is an alternative practitioner.

Chuck

November 27, 2008

The American Cancer Society made the statement after the study referred

to in this article was published:

New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent;

cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html

Or you can try this link but the naturalnews plays to the problems with

the ACS and their cancer motives.

Creighton Study Shows Vitamin D Reduces Cancer Risk

http://www2.creighton.edu/publicrelations/newscenter/news/2007/june2007/june8200\

7/vitamind_cancer_nr060807/index.php

Here is the abstract from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition where

the Creighton study was published. The full PDF is available there also

without a " $charge$ " that is typically of many full papers today.

Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a

randomized trial

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/6/1586?maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=10 & RE\

SULTFORMAT= & fulltext=Creighton+cancer+vitamin+D3 & searchid=1 & FIRSTINDEX=0 & sortspe\

c=relevance & resourcetype=HWCIT

wrote:

> Maybe the American Cancer Society had in mind this study of 36,000 women

> using vitamin D. No benefit was found; however critics point out that

> the dose of 400 IUs was not sufficient and that 2000 IUs should have

> been used. But at the very least there is a reasonable conclusion

> baring any problems with the research that 400 IUs of vitamin D show no

> benefit in preventing breast cancer. Here's one write-up from an

> alternative medicine site:

> .

With a lab reference range of 32-100 and given that 400 IU of D3 will

raise serum blood levels by 4, that isn't a very large amount. Twenty

minutes in the midday sun in summer will provide 20,000 IU, 50 times as

much.

Steve

--

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

November 27, 2008

Why have you decided that the iodine docs are not credible???? I don't get

it. These docs have done so much for those of us who have taken their advice.

if docs knew how to use iodine correctly it would have a HUGE impact on big

pharma however.

Gracia

Sam, when I go to a site and find that Brownstein and Flechas are

prominently featured in their presentations it's really a turn off for

me. Once I've found someone to make consistently dangerous suggestions

contrary to credible research it kills my interest in anything they

might say. So I'm reluctant to read all the material on the site

looking for a theory from someone in who's opinion I place little

credence. I would take the time to read a specific reference to the

matter of my interest [the theory mentioned], even though I would

probably not be able to give it a really fair hearing if you happen to

have one.

The thrust of my post was not intended to be negative and I hope it was

not perceived that way. What I'm looking for is _some_ kind of theory

that would support either the need for both T4 and T3 in those cases

where there is no T4/T3 conversion problem and in the dose level twice

the recommendations of the manufacturer. Or for any kind of theory as

to what iodine actually accomplishes in a hypothyroid patient who has an

adequate supply of T4 and T3.

I'm understanding you to indicate that for you it's basically an

empirical finding; no theory involved. If I'm reading you wrong please

correct me. It seems to work for you and some others. I'd like to know

why.

Thanks,

.

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Thyroid%20Research%20%7C%20Full\

%20text%20%7C%20Welcome%20to%20Thyroid%20Research>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

> Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:07 am (PST)

>

> I do not have a thyroid and have hypopituitarism, also do not have

> uterus/ovaries. As experience shows, my body is not able to convert

> fakey t4 into all the thyroid hormones nor extract any amount of

> iodine from it. Why I take what I take in the amounts I take it is

> due to my body's needs. Presume that is also the reason others take

> what they do.

>

> I do not find 50mg iodine/iodide to be a massive dose. 100mg (and

> more) is used on cancer patients. Perhaps you wouldn't need to ask me

> about iodine/iodide if you did your own reading in the right

> places...for example: http://www.iodine4health.com

> <http://www.iodine4health.com>

>

> I can not deny my own experiences and what I see with my own eyes, no

> matter what you say about this...

>

> Sam

>

> >

> > Another comment on this post; actually a question or two. I've

> wondered

> > about the need for the use of Armour and iodine in the quantities

> that

> > you, Gracia and some others use. Presumedly a healthy person makes

> T4

> > and then converts it to T3 and is considered normal. A hypothyroid

> > person has insufficient T3 either because they do not have the T4

> from

> > which to make T3 or because the conversion process does not

> function

> > properly [ignoring binding and such problems for the moment].

> >

> > Theoretically if one just has a T4 deficiency then Synthroid should

> be

> > sufficient, and the body makes T3 from that in about the same way a

> > healthy person does. So I don't understand the theory of why one

> should

> > need to take Armour, which has T3 as well as T4. However, it

> doesn't

> > seem to work that way for some small percentage of patients. In

> > addition some people seem to need twice the dose recommended of the

> T3

> > and T4 in Armour. Is there a known reason for that need?

> >

> > What is the theory [or is there one] as to why iodine in such

> massive

> > doses should be needed in these cases [in addition to the Armour];

> or is

> > it just an empirical finding?

> >

> > Comments from others on these questions welcome...

> >

> > Best,

> >

> > .

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

Internal Virus Database is out of date.

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

Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1805 - Release Date: 11/22/2008

10:34 AM

November 28, 2008

today I was with a young (early 30s) woman who has been on $inthroid since

teenager. I guess you, she and her doc would think she is " fine " but I would

say otherwise. she is a Mormon and is always pregnant, but she cannot give

birth and so has repeat cesareans and cannot nurse her babies. this is b/c of

her T4 med and her need for iodine.

I know, b/c the same thing happened to me.

Gracia

And you like to call T4 or Synthroid type products " poison " or " fakey " .

I believe that those products are in fact bioidentical with the T4 made

by a healthy thyroid gland. Is that not correct?

.

> You don't seem to know as much as you think you do.

.

I've said so many times: I _don't_ have the answers. I have no

experience with alternative hypothyroid treatment. I am somewhat aware

of the findings of some of the credible research by scientists; and I do

have a major degree of respect for same. If I make some statement

contrary to that please point it out.

I am also aware that apparently a small percentage of hypothyroid

patients do not get the expected results from conventional therapy. And

a number of these _do_ obtain relief by unconventional/alternative

means. I would really like to know why, but the only sources quoted are

of dubious value indeed.

But when ineffective/risky/even dangerous procedures are " prescribed "

here then I think we owe it to whomever might come here seeking help to

at least let them know that there is another viewpoint regarding those

procedures. Then they can make their own choices.

Best,

.

>

Recent Activity

a.. 2New Members

Visit Your Group

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

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

Internal Virus Database is out of date.

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

Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1805 - Release Date: 11/22/2008

10:34 AM

November 30, 2008

this is the prob right here. allopathic medicine believes that iodine is a

trace mineral used only by the thyroid gland. alternative docs say that iodine

is used by the whole body and prevents/treats many afflictions. iodine used to

be known as the universal medicine--why is it not now? influence of big

pharma? Dose has to be above 1mg to be therapeutic--to treat the conditions

that low dose iodine supposedly causes.

if everyone in US gets enough iodine then why is there an epidemic of thyroid

and hormone disorders? all the women I work with have serious and untreated

hormone probs--PCOS, goiter, fibromyalgia, the latest most popular one " bipolar "

etc etc.

Im telling you there is a lawsuit here.