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

[Guest guest]

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>

[Guest guest]

In order for people [personal reports] to qualify then the research has

to be properly conducted. That would mean something like a double blind

test. Anecdotal reports from a small statistical sample have no value

whatsoever. OTOH, if _everyone_ reports the same result it would be

more convincing; even if not coming from a properly conducted research

project.

In addition, for people [personal reports] to qualify as definitive

their reports need to NOT be contradicted by properly conducted credible

research. That presents a major problem for your viewpoint, because the

credible research of which I am vaguely aware contradicts your position.

But I'm sure that means little or nothing to you...

..

..

>

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

>

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

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

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:19 pm (PST)

>

>

> 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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I own/moderate the group " Thyroidless " , and there are all sorts of

stupid reasons doctors remove or destroy peoples' thyroid glands.

Here's a small sample of reasons:

Removed goiter without first trying iodide or meds of any sort.

Doctor says it's easier for him to treat people with no thyroids.

Doctor thought there was thyroid cancer but there was none - euthroid

without symptoms before RAI and had initially only gone for a yearly

work physical.

Profilactic removal of infant's thyroid because mother/grandmother

had thyroid cancer.

TSH was low.

Patient had too much energy.

I'm sure you know that I went to see a doc to repair a back injury

and ended up without my healthy thyroid.

I can tell you that I am starting to think womens thyroids being

yanked out is coming into vogue just like hysterectomies and

c-sections... " keep 'em sick and dumbed down, and they will be easier

to herd... "

And since I own/moderate the thyroidless group, I am well aware of

the types of thyroid treatments that are sucessful with the members

and the types that are not. Hands down, desiccated thyroid is the

winner. And because those members are smart and can think for

themselves and educate themselves, they choose the treatments that

work for them. They use Iodoral and/or Lugol's, " properly " test/treat

adrenals, dose desiccated thyroid " by symptoms " , and don't pay much

attention to anti-iodine groups... A lot of us feel allopathic

medicine should be renamed allopathetic terrorism.

What would you do in this example of typical allopathic stupidity?:

A patient with hypopituitarism (look it up), who can not produce

much, if any, TSH is also without a thyroid gland and must take

thyroid replacement or die. A particular allopath decided that the

patient's TSH is too low and decides to stop giving the patient any

more thyroid replacement.

Sam

(healthy on Armour, adrenal support, Iodoral, etc)

>

> 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%20text%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...

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

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,

..

..

>

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

>

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

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

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:19 pm (PST)

>

> I own/moderate the group " Thyroidless "

> , and there are all sorts of

> stupid reasons doctors remove or destroy peoples' thyroid glands.

> Here's a small sample of reasons:

> Removed goiter without first trying iodide or meds of any sort.

> Doctor says it's easier for him to treat people with no thyroids.

> Doctor thought there was thyroid cancer but there was none - euthroid

> without symptoms before RAI and had initially only gone for a yearly

> work physical.

> Profilactic removal of infant's thyroid because mother/grandmother

> had thyroid cancer.

> TSH was low.

> Patient had too much energy.

> I'm sure you know that I went to see a doc to repair a back injury

> and ended up without my healthy thyroid.

>

> I can tell you that I am starting to think womens thyroids being

> yanked out is coming into vogue just like hysterectomies and

> c-sections... " keep 'em sick and dumbed down, and they will be easier

> to herd... "

>

> And since I own/moderate the thyroidless group, I am well aware of

> the types of thyroid treatments that are sucessful with the members

> and the types that are not. Hands down, desiccated thyroid is the

> winner. And because those members are smart and can think for

> themselves and educate themselves, they choose the treatments that

> work for them. They use Iodoral and/or Lugol's, " properly " test/treat

> adrenals, dose desiccated thyroid " by symptoms " , and don't pay much

> attention to anti-iodine groups... A lot of us feel allopathic

> medicine should be renamed allopathetic terrorism.

>

> What would you do in this example of typical allopathic stupidity?:

> A patient with hypopituitarism (look it up), who can not produce

> much, if any, TSH is also without a thyroid gland and must take

> thyroid replacement or die. A particular allopath decided that the

> patient's TSH is too low and decides to stop giving the patient any

> more thyroid replacement.

>

> Sam

> (healthy on Armour, adrenal support, Iodoral, etc)

[Guest guest]

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

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,

>

> .

> .

>

> >

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

> > <mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Thyroid%20Research%20%

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

> > stealthwind <stealthwind>

> >

> >

> > Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:19 pm (PST)

> >

> > I own/moderate the group " Thyroidless "

> > , and there are all sorts of

> > stupid reasons doctors remove or destroy peoples' thyroid glands.

> > Here's a small sample of reasons:

> > Removed goiter without first trying iodide or meds of any sort.

> > Doctor says it's easier for him to treat people with no thyroids.

> > Doctor thought there was thyroid cancer but there was none -

euthroid

> > without symptoms before RAI and had initially only gone for a

yearly

> > work physical.

> > Profilactic removal of infant's thyroid because mother/grandmother

> > had thyroid cancer.

> > TSH was low.

> > Patient had too much energy.

> > I'm sure you know that I went to see a doc to repair a back injury

> > and ended up without my healthy thyroid.

> >

> > I can tell you that I am starting to think womens thyroids being

> > yanked out is coming into vogue just like hysterectomies and

> > c-sections... " keep 'em sick and dumbed down, and they will be

easier

> > to herd... "

> >

> > And since I own/moderate the thyroidless group, I am well aware of

> > the types of thyroid treatments that are sucessful with the

members

> > and the types that are not. Hands down, desiccated thyroid is the

> > winner. And because those members are smart and can think for

> > themselves and educate themselves, they choose the treatments that

> > work for them. They use Iodoral and/or Lugol's, " properly "

test/treat

> > adrenals, dose desiccated thyroid " by symptoms " , and don't pay

much

> > attention to anti-iodine groups... A lot of us feel allopathic

> > medicine should be renamed allopathetic terrorism.

> >

> > What would you do in this example of typical allopathic

stupidity?:

> > A patient with hypopituitarism (look it up), who can not produce

> > much, if any, TSH is also without a thyroid gland and must take

> > thyroid replacement or die. A particular allopath decided that the

> > patient's TSH is too low and decides to stop giving the patient

any

> > more thyroid replacement.

> >

> > Sam

> > (healthy on Armour, adrenal support, Iodoral, etc)

>

[Guest guest]

Did I say that information was readily available? No. Would you like

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

the breast cancer project? Both are currently underway. Or you can

email Derry and ask him how he cured 3rd stage breast cancer.

Don't be a putz...

Sam

> > ... 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

>

[Guest guest]

No, I did not say that. What I actually said was:

" 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 "

[note the presence of a web address]

Also, I didn't " call " you a putz, I said " Don't be a putz... "

Sam

=====

> >

> >

> > 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

>

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

No, what I wrote was:

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

http://www.breastcancerchoices.org

http://www.drbrownstein.com "

That means is you want more info, you TALK TO

THOSE PEOPLE! You want to know how Derry

cured 3rd stage breast cancer, you talk to

Derry.

capiche?

Sam

> >

> > ...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.

[Guest guest]

Steve,

That was well said. Bravo! I am not a fan of allpathic medicine and neither is

my DH. When you are told by doctors that your pain and symptoms are all in your

head, and to just take an AD you get pretty angry. Doctor after doctor let me

down and I found what I needed on the thyroid forums - NTH and NTH adrenals. I

followed what their commonsense suggestions were after corroborating that with

my own research, and am finally becoming healthy for the first time in my life.

I have never known health, and my childhood was a nightmare of classic

hypothyroid symptoms, in fact, right of a medical textbook and wan't caught by

one single adult in my life. It was after getting a diagnosis of Fibromyalgia,

which another couple of doctors told me was either wastebasket diagnosis or

non-existant; and I couldn't walk without severe pain; that I started doing

research. I knew it wasn't all in my head, and I knew my DH's chest pain wasn't

all in HIS head either. We have

taken the paths we needed to take in order to achieve a level of health unknown

to either one of us throughout our lives. All achieved WITHOUT the help of " peer

reviewed " science or allopathic physicians. Taking 50 mgs. of iodine per day did

nothing but improve my own health. I don't care much for tests, except when

needing a baseline for treatment. The removal of low thyroid symptoms and

improvement of basic functioning is far more important to me. I do my own

research and discuss it with others in similar circumstances and we learn

together. I am beating my particular boogeymen and so is DH, and we have little

use for ANYTHING allopathic anymore. Sam is right on when she calls it

Allopathic Terrorism " and I think that a lot of what is done is barbaric.

Cutting out necessary organs and using RADIATION is barbaric. Using natural

methods, from what I have seen, works much better, especially down the road.

There are MANY natural therapies out there, and

they work. They have not been peer reveiwed and many probably won't ever be, if

the powers that be have their way, but those who have utilzed them know their

power.

F.

http://catherineshypohelljourney.blogspot.com/

http://www.stopthethyroidmadness.com

www.naturalthyroidchoices.com

http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/

www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org

 

 

[Guest guest]

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,

> >

> > .

[Guest guest]

ly, I don't care. But if you're going to throw advice out to

others, and be sure you don't cause those that follow you advice

harm, you had better know what the f you're talking about. That is to

learn E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G you can on the subject. And that's

regardless of whether you find it any of the opposing material

credible or not.

> > >

> > > 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,

> > >

> > > .

>

[Guest guest]

Sam, I don't think that's a fair or accurate statement:

..

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

happen if we take more than a minuscule amount of iodine. "

..

Anything to my knowledge that I've quoted indicates that for one to

three percent of the population may have a dangerous or fatal reaction

to 50 or 100 mg iodine; certainly not " all " . I do think we " all " should

be careful before jumping into a possible fatal dose, even when the

probability only would effect maybe one to three people per hundred.

That means that if all 2600 members followed the advice of Brownstein

and everyone else who promotes the iodine urine loading test there would

probably be a few dozen people with serious to fatal reactions; not all

2600.

I'm happy that iodine [or something] caused a cure for fibrocystic

breast disease for you but I'm aware of how little value a single case

unsupported by any type of controls has in being extrapolated into an

effective cure for the general population.

Even Brownstein admits that iodine sensitivity exists; although he quote

around 1/2% of the population while the credible evidence suggests a

number a few hundred percent higher than that.

Best,

..

..

>

> 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 7:33 pm (PST)

>

> 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.breastcancerchoices.org>

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

>

> Sam

[Guest guest]

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:

..

> Vitamin D Doesn't Live Up to Expectations in Breast Cancer Study

>

> Monday November 24, 2008

> In a study

> <http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djn360> published

> in the /Journal of the National Cancer Institute/, vitamin D

> <http://altmedicine.about.com/od/herbsupplementguide/a/vitamind.htm>

> was tested to see whether it could reduce breast cancer risk in women.

> To the chagrin of lead researcher Rowan Chlebowski, MD, PhD, at the

> Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute and Harbor-UCLA Medical

> Center, the results showed that there was no increased protection

> against breast cancer with the 36,000 women who participated in the

> study: Of the participants, 528 women, who took 1,000 mg of calcium

> and 400 IUs of vitamin D daily, and 546 women, who took nothing at

> all, still developed breast cancer after seven years. This led

> researchers to conclude that " vitamin D and calcium supplementation

> has no detectable effect on the risk of postmenopausal invasive breast

> cancer. " That brief conclusion has incited quite a response across the

> health community, because for quite some time, it was common theory

> that consistent supplements of vitamin D could help stave off breast

> cancer. Critics of the study are saying that the daily dose

> administered was too low. Larry Norton, MD, a breast-cancer specialist

> at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, says in a Time.com

> <http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1858283,00.html>article

> about the study's results, " Four hundred IUs is just not a lot. The

> supplementation wasn't adequate to raise blood levels enough in

> susceptible individuals to have a biological impact. " In other words,

> most doctors recommend up to 2,000 IUs daily; therefore, a daily

> dosage of 400 IUs cannot compare. The medical community concerned with

> these findings offer that another study should be conducted comparing

> higher doses to lower ones and seeing what effect that has on breast

> cancer. So don't despair about vitamin D yet, because as Norton says,

> " These results don't close the door on vitamin D research on breast

> cancer. "

..

Best,

..

..

>

>

> Posted by: " Steve " dudescholar4@...

>

<mailto:dudescholar4@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Thyroid%20Research%20%7C%2\

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

> dudescholar <dudescholar>

>

>

> Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:21 pm (PST)

>

> 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

[Guest guest]

Sam, IMHO neither you nor I, nor anyone else has an exclusive patent on

the true facts. Alternative views are frequently presented here which

are strongly suggested to be inadvisable or very dangerous by the best

and most credible research I can find. I try to present a counter to

what I honestly believe to be risky or dangerous advice. I think those

who come here seeking help and read that risky advice should at least be

made aware that a contrary viewpoint exists so that they can have a

fuller picture of the opinions that exist. And can perhaps be given a

bit of evidence as to what viewpoints or information are likely to be

helpful or harmful.

I don't ask anyone to take my advice or viewpoint as gospel. I'm just

one person with no professional credentials whatsoever; and with no

experience with alternative treatments of hypothyrodism. I do believe

that the opinions I express are for the most part in accord with the

best and most credible scientific evidence I can find. That's all I try

to do.

Regards,

..

..

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

>

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

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

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:08 pm (PST)

>

> ly, I don't care. But if you're going to throw advice out to

> others, and be sure you don't cause those that follow you advice

> harm, you had better know what the f you're talking about. That is to

> learn E-V-E-R-Y-T-

> H-I-N-G you can on the subject. And that's

> regardless of whether you find it any of the opposing material

> credible or not.

[Guest guest]

There are numerous reasons, which I have quoted before.

At least one of them believes the earth has only existed for 6000

years. This despite a good education in biology [hopefully, at least],

which is MOL totally based upon evolution. Plus other massive physical

evidence for the age of the earth that anyone can access if they want

to; but is inexcusable for someone with such a good education.

They also give advice which is massively contradicted by credible peer

reviewed research, some of which may be harmful or even fatal in

isolated cases if followed.

They promoted the iodine skin loading tests for years. It is very

difficult for me to believe that they did not know all along that this

test is totally bogus, given the knowledge they are supposed to have

about iodine. Incidentally, _you_ printed out the first quote I saw

where one of them [brownstein?] finally admitted that the iodine skin

loading test should not be used, as it is " insufficiently accurate " [a

massive understatement]. Another alternative practitioner [Dr. Gaby?]

pointed out years ago that the test was bogus.

They publish no research in any venue subject to credible peer review.

Instead they publish articles that to the uninitiated appear to be

valid research, but which are only published in chiropractic journals or

basically sales brochures for Optimox and the like. Much of this

" research " supports the sale of iodine products from Optimox, which I

believe is totally or majority owned by one or more of the iodine docs.

Personally I feel that if iodine is so wonderful then these three should

have the capability to perform at least some small credible research

projects that support that fact. The thundering silence from that

quarter says lots to me. But my viewpoint is just that: A viewpoint.

I'm aware you have a different one and that's fine.

..

..

>

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

>

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

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

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:26 pm (PST)

>

>

> 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

[Guest guest]

This is utterly ridiculous, .

Iodine has been in use for around 200 years.

Iodoral is simply Lugol's in pill form.

And it's the iodine skin " patch " test, not the skin " loading " test.

And you boys told me that instead of taking Armour I should have just

increased the dose of synthetic T4 poison that I almost DIED from!

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

>

> There are numerous reasons, which I have quoted before.

>

> At least one of them believes the earth has only existed for 6000

> years. This despite a good education in biology [hopefully, at

least],

> which is MOL totally based upon evolution. Plus other massive

physical

> evidence for the age of the earth that anyone can access if they

want

> to; but is inexcusable for someone with such a good education.

>

> They also give advice which is massively contradicted by credible

peer

> reviewed research, some of which may be harmful or even fatal in

> isolated cases if followed.

>

> They promoted the iodine skin loading tests for years. It is very

> difficult for me to believe that they did not know all along that

this

> test is totally bogus, given the knowledge they are supposed to

have

> about iodine. Incidentally, _you_ printed out the first quote I

saw

> where one of them [brownstein?] finally admitted that the iodine

skin

> loading test should not be used, as it is " insufficiently accurate "

[a

> massive understatement]. Another alternative practitioner [Dr.

Gaby?]

> pointed out years ago that the test was bogus.

>

> They publish no research in any venue subject to credible peer

review.

> Instead they publish articles that to the uninitiated appear to be

> valid research, but which are only published in chiropractic

journals or

> basically sales brochures for Optimox and the like. Much of this

> " research " supports the sale of iodine products from Optimox, which

I

> believe is totally or majority owned by one or more of the iodine

docs.

>

> Personally I feel that if iodine is so wonderful then these three

should

> have the capability to perform at least some small credible

research

> projects that support that fact. The thundering silence from that

> quarter says lots to me. But my viewpoint is just that: A

viewpoint.

> I'm aware you have a different one and that's fine.

>

>

> .

> .

>

> >

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

> > <mailto:circe@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Thyroid%20Research%20%

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

> > graciabee <graciabee>

> >

> >

> > Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:26 pm (PST)

> >

> >

> > 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

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, Sam. See responses below...

..

..

>

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

>

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

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

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:25 am (PST)

>

> This is utterly ridiculous, .

..

..

What is ridiculous? Gracia's question to me was why did I not feel the

iodine docs were credible. My post was a simple answer with some of

those reasons. They're MY reasons; you don't have to agree with them.

..

..

> Iodine has been in use for around 200 years.

> Iodoral is simply Lugol's in pill form.

>

> And it's the iodine skin " patch " test, not the skin " loading " test.

..

..

Sorry if I got the name wrong. At least now even the iodine docs [at

least one of them] now admit that it should not be used. Gracia has the

quote, and has posted it here. I wonder if she didn't post the quote

without knowing what was in it, given how foolish it makes the iodine

docs look. Incidentally, he also recommended against the urine loading

test [or whatever the correct name is] in the same article.

..

..

>

> And you boys told me that instead of taking Armour I should have just

> increased the dose of synthetic T4 poison that I almost DIED from!

..

..

I know that your statement is inaccurate. I have NEVER said that you or

anyone else should take Synthroid. I don't prescribe for you or anyone

else; I'll leave that to the alternative medicine advocates. I _have_

seen quite a bit of that here. I _do_ frequently warn that there is no

credible support in scientific research for many of the " prescriptions "

we see here for massive doses of iodine and double doses of Armour.

That is a simple fact, whether you agree that it is right or not.

I _have_ seen reports of low dose of Synthroid being given when it looks

like good standard practice would have been to increase the dose. If

the dose is medium to low and the TSH is medium to high with continued

symptoms then it would seem to make sense for the conventional

practitioner to increase the dose. I haven't the foggiest notion as to

whether such would have been of a benefit to you.

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,

..

..

>

>

> >

> > There are numerous reasons, which I have quoted before.

> >

> > At least one of them believes the earth has only existed for 6000

> > years. This despite a good education in biology [hopefully, at

> least],

> > which is MOL totally based upon evolution. Plus other massive

> physical

> > evidence for the age of the earth that anyone can access if they

> want

> > to; but is inexcusable for someone with such a good education.

> >

> > They also give advice which is massively contradicted by credible

> peer

> > reviewed research, some of which may be harmful or even fatal in

> > isolated cases if followed.

> >

> > They promoted the iodine skin loading tests for years. It is very

> > difficult for me to believe that they did not know all along that

> this

> > test is totally bogus, given the knowledge they are supposed to

> have

> > about iodine. Incidentally, _you_ printed out the first quote I

> saw

> > where one of them [brownstein?] finally admitted that the iodine

> skin

> > loading test should not be used, as it is " insufficiently accurate "

> [a

> > massive understatement]. Another alternative practitioner [Dr.

> Gaby?]

> > pointed out years ago that the test was bogus.

> >

> > They publish no research in any venue subject to credible peer

> review.

> > Instead they publish articles that to the uninitiated appear to be

> > valid research, but which are only published in chiropractic

> journals or

> > basically sales brochures for Optimox and the like. Much of this

> > " research " supports the sale of iodine products from Optimox, which

> I

> > believe is totally or majority owned by one or more of the iodine

> docs.

> >

> > Personally I feel that if iodine is so wonderful then these three

> should

> > have the capability to perform at least some small credible

> research

> > projects that support that fact. The thundering silence from that

> > quarter says lots to me. But my viewpoint is just that: A

> viewpoint.

> > I'm aware you have a different one and that's fine.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I have no idea whether she is fine or not. I would find it impossible

to accurately diagnose her condition if I were to examine her [not being

a physician]; so it would be highly unlikely that I could diagnose her

correctly from a few words on the internet. Strange that the same thing

does not seem to apply to some of the alternative advocates we see here.

My point about T4 was not to suggest that it's the cure for everyone

[apparently only about 95%], but to point out that it's NOT " poison " or

a " fake " [even if it is ineffective for some people]. If you have to

condemn it because you believe it doesn't work then why don't you just

say it doesn't work? Why add in a falsehood to your statement? It just

detracts from the credibility of the entire statement if one includes

obvious falsehoods. No one has challenged my suggestion that the T4 in

Armour and Synthroid are bioidentical. Perhaps it's true???

Two people never read the same book. So it's unlikely that the _exact_

same thing happened to you; although the outside appearances and events

may have been similar.

..

..

>

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

>

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

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

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:08 pm (PST)

>

>

>

> 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?

[Guest guest]

I don't know what my FT# is; I feel fine with T4 only and don't really

need more numbers.

What I'm looking for [and you might run across] is some theoretical

explanation for the need for iodine for someone who obviously has enough

T4 and T3. There's nothing that I saw upon scanning the page you

listed. And some of it is obvious bs. The ridiculous list of symptoms

for hypothyroidism probably covers symptoms for a thousand other

ailments having nothing to do with hypothyroidism. The slam at credible

research is typical of quack sites. Not my cup of tea...

..

..

>

> 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 30, 2008 3:56 pm (PST)

>

>

> can you tell me what your FT3 # is? (with ranges)

> everyone's FT3 on a T4 med will be low.

> as you might know, I think putting a person on a T4 only drug is

> horrible medical practice. for reasons why go to

> http://www.stopthethyroidmadness.com

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

> in the future docs will first use iodine, then Armour if needed.

> correct dosing of Armour is 3--5 grains. that's why that much is needed.

> gracia

[Guest guest]

For some people [especially those trying to sell you a quack cure]

breathing is a symptom of hypothyroidism... And a sure sign you should

open your wallet.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " MSE " knockneed@...

>

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

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

> knockneed <knockneed>

>

>

> Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:46 pm (PST)

>

> if she wasn't fine on the synthroid, she couldn't get pregnant. failing

> thyroid conditions interfere with this process. sounds like the gal enjoy

> robust health (among other things!). The inability to have a vaginal birth

> has and or nurse a baby is certainly not listed on the signs and

> symptoms of

> thyroid disease. I'm amazed at this claim .

>

> mse

[Guest guest]

Was your IQ 20 points lower before you took iodine?

..

..

>

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

>

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

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

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Mon Dec 1, 2008 8:00 am (PST)

>

>

> ......adding iodine will also increase IQ by up to 20 points

[Guest guest]

I don't doubt in the least that infertility and failure to lactate may

be exceedingly painful for women and nothing I have said should cause

you to believe otherwise.

But to put it bluntly to suggest that all of the symptoms listed on the

site you referenced are symptomatic of hypothyroidism is plain utterly

ignorant. IF they were honest; but I don't believe they are. They're

simply a con to sell you on an idea and the need for a product.

..

..

>

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

>

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

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

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Mon Dec 1, 2008 10:25 am (PST)

>

>

> actually infertility (which I experienced from age 24 on) and failure

> to lactate are very painful experiences for women. I know that

> allopathic medicine does not take them seriously, and is not concerned

> if 50% or more of women have their babies by cesarean. in my little

> town I met a woman who had a partial (or more?) thyroidectomy at age

> 19. she then went on to have only one pregnancy, terrible birth

> experience, failure to lactate, and didn't get thyroid meds (only T4)

> until 50 years later.

> this is just plain criminal, as pointed out by Broda MD

> Gracia

>

> For some people [especially those trying to sell you a quack cure]

> breathing is a symptom of hypothyroidism.

> .. And a sure sign you should

> open your wallet.

>

>

[Guest guest]

No; you're talking about anecdotal reports. There is a major difference

between " evidence based medicine " and " anecdotal reports " . A fact which

I would expect someone who understands and appreciates science to know well.

..

..

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

>

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

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

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Mon Dec 1, 2008 10:32 am (PST)

>

>

> look, I am talking about evidence based medicine, better quality care.

> over and over ppl come to these support groups with the " ridiculous

> list of symptoms " and get their lives back with proper treatment.

> after a while one notices the same experiences and symptoms. iodine

> was called the universal medicine and thyroid hormone affects every

> cell in the body, so yeah, they will treat a ridiculous list of symptoms.

> gracia

[Guest guest]

I don't really thing allopathic medicine is a " gold standard " . I think

that many times it is a crap shoot. There are so many variables in a

lot of medical situations that whether we get good care has a large

element of chance. More, I believe that much of that situation is

unavoidable. Further, I personally don't believe a lot of the research

done on modern drugs compares with the level of expertise and diligence

needed for mainstream [none drug related] science.

The one place allopathic medicine really shines is when you compare it

to many of the alternatives. Many of those results fall to placebo or

chance in a controlled situation. That still doesn't mean we don't have

a lot of unnecessary dead bodies from the practice of allopathic

medicine; it just means there would likely be many more without it.

Further, I have no problem at all with those who look for a different

approach when convention methods fail to produce effective results. But

I do deplore the lack of critical thinking too often applied in that search.

With nothing but an anecdotal report I have no idea as to whether iodine

improves lactation. There is strong support for the fact that the RDA

improves multiple things; beyond that the evidence is hazy at best.

As for iodine improving IQ it is most reasonable that it would in an

area where people suffer rampant cretinism from the lack of the RDA of

iodine. Simply removing a large number of mental retardation cases from

the statistics would improve the average score. I know of no credible

research that indicates we could improve the IQ of the general

population of the US by megadoses of iodine... By 20 points; or any

other number. I don't think it would improve mine, and I doubt it

improved yours.

..

..

>

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

>

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

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

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Mon Dec 1, 2008 9:25 pm (PST)

>

>

> we will not come to any agreement here. you think that allopathic

> medicine is the gold standard. I think it's appalling/lawsuit

> material. women on iodine group report improved milk supply on iodine.

> of course there is a connection. yeah you bet I have needed iodine all

> my life.

> Gracia

>

> I don't doubt in the least that infertility and failure to lactate may

> be exceedingly painful for women and nothing I have said should cause

> you to believe otherwise.

> But to put it bluntly to suggest that all of the symptoms listed on the

> site you referenced are symptomatic of hypothyroidism is plain utterly

> ignorant. IF they were honest; but I don't believe they are. They're

> simply a con to sell you on an idea and the need for a product.

>

>