Re: IODISM RELATED TO IODINE DOSE LEVELS. WAS: no more iodine for m

December 8, 2008

None of his " research " qualifies as credible research. But my basic

point was that Gracia seems to have the highest regard for him; yet what

he writes does not support what she says he says. Or something like that...

..

>

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

>

<mailto:cindy.seeley@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20IODISM%20RELATED%20TO%20IODINE\

%20DOSE%20LEVELS%2E%20%20WAS%3A%20no%20more%20iodine%20for%20m>

> cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley>

>

> Mon Dec 8, 2008 7:43 am (PST)

>

> I realize this wasn't directed to me, regardless..

> .I have a

> 'theory'...maybe because the entire study of iodine is

> still...'evolving'...teehee...seriously though...I'm inclined to

> believe the latter...he's quoting valid data to support his hypothesis

> in an ongoing research project, that he is attempting to document

> throughout all phases and identify the 'whys' behind the results of

> the tests of his theories...?

>

> >

> > Then kindly explain to me why in h*ll anyone would publish a paper and

> > quote data or other papers he believes to be false or invalid? I do

> > realize that the professional quality of the publishing venue is

> > somewhere below the toilet, but what could be his motive? The _only_

> > purpose to quote false or invalid data that comes easily to mind is to

> > refute it. Otherwise one quotes _valid_ data in order to support one's

> > hypothesis. See the two quotes from Abraham/Flechas below:

December 9, 2008

Hi ,

That was a little confound-befumbled (you won't find this in the

English dictionary!), but I think I got it...lol

Going back to the circle of new development...since his research is

part of a work in progress and has not yet reached its final

conclusion, it would also not have reached the stage of 'peer review';

that does not mean it isn't credible...IF he's formed a theory,

developed a hypothesis based on that theory, set the parameters to

prove/disprove that theory/hypothesis, & tested against (or based on)

those parameters...just because his research hasn't been peer

reviewed, does not mean it isn't credible...in my experience you do

not go to the step of 'peer review' until you've got an 'end

product'...something totally new that can have consistently duplicable

results, and applied for some purpose within its field of

science...only then does it go to 'peer review'...

Yes, the writings we have seen to date do differ from what Gracia

says; 'maybe'...

1. Being actively involved already, she has access to read

materials that he has written that have not yet been released to the

public for general consumption yet... or

2. He, and his works, cannot be held accountable for what every

Tom, Dick, and Harry happen to say, regardless of how highly esteemed

that T, D, & H may hold him, IF it goes against his written/publicly

available works.

We just went through an election process...the American people

determined that President-Elect, Barack Obama, cannot be held

accountable for the activities, prior crimes or statements of any of

his associates, past or present. Why should Dr. Brownstein be held

any more accountable, or be discredited, because one of his avid

followers says or does something that contradicts our 'existing'

knowledge of his 'works'? If #1 applies to Gracia, then it would be

helpful if she would provide us with the links to his written

materials that support the statements she makes. At that point, we

would have to evaluate the information provided, and based on our

existing knowledge, determine if we wish to be a 'prototype' or not.

One thing I've come to understand about iodine (long before now), &

related research & claims regarding iodine, is that much of the

information put out there does not distinguish between RAI and the

organic halide. Quite often, statements put forth as 'fact', which

really ARE 'fact' are based on studies of RAI, but those statements

just use the generic term...iodine...not distinguishing between the

two...so rather than investigate further to determine the basis for

the factual statement, most people error on the side of caution and

avoid both.

Many of us that come here are looking for alternatives to what our

doctors are providing us...alternatives that we also have access to,

to try to improve our health. For example, it's like I 'know' I need

more Armour; previous doctor said my thyroid needs 'full

replacement'...according to what Forest Pharmaceuticals says in its

dosage information should be full replacement based on my weight, I am

only being allowed 1/2 of what I should be getting...I am very

symptomatic, yet doctors continue to withhold the additional medicine

I need (as well as many others who come to these boards), refusing to

even further investigate my thyroid/adrenal related issues from a

possible thyroid/adrenal perspective...instead, I've been sent to

specialist after specialist after specialist, for test after test

after test (some of which has been nuclear even & is contra-indicated

for those with thyroid disorders; this I did not know at the time, or

I would have refused!) in an attempt to explain & treat each symptom,

rather than get to the root of most, if not all, of my problems. My

hematologist even told me that until thyroid issues are fully

resolved, triglycerides and such will NOT resolve with ANY medication

on the market...yet, since I'm on 'some' thyroid medication, I'm

considered 'treated' with no further investigation as to how well.

Some of us are fortunate enough to have the resources to seek out

other doctors (very expensive since insurance usually only allows one

second opinion--occasionally two), in many cases paying out of their

own pockets (i.e. naturopaths--I use this field as an example only,

since our insurance doesn't recognize it as a reimbursable option);

others don't have those resources and feel compelled to rely upon

themselves to find other solutions...

as for me?...we find out today if our 'Christmas Present' from DH's

employer is going to be getting laid off at the end of this

month...exactly like occurred back in 2001...and as for Cobra...it's a

joke! Last time we received the offer for Cobra, the premiums were

'more' than the unemployment benefits! Since I am on disability, I

will still have some insurance, however restricted...it wouldn't even

cover an annual female exam, even though I hadn't had one in over 6

years! I'm on a slew of medications for all these 'conditions'...I

feel like I could almost open my own pharmacy...3 of these medications

at company cost (company is self-insured and has its own pharmacy) are

about 500 dollars for 90 day supplies; 1 or 2 have moved to tier 2, so

they are about 1/2 that...WHY WHY WHY won't the docs at the very least

provide me with what the manufacturer's own dosage instructions say I

should have? Think what you may, but prior to this whole snowball

happening in my life, I was on absolutely NO medication for

ANYTHING!!!!...I occasionally took a Tylenol, an Advil, or an Ibuprofen.

And now, they are doing the same thing to my son! (not even the same

doctors) So yes, if, based on my research/knowledge, I determine the

risks outweigh the potential benefits, not just of iodine, but other

potential options as well, I am more than willing to be a 'guinea pig'

in the hopes than I can find a solution before my son's life becomes

as bad as mine!...his prognosis under his doctors' care...?...he's 30

y/o...his doctors say, 'You WILL die of a heart attack...it's not a

matter of if, but WHEN!'

I do, however, recognize that it is 'my' responsibility to do the

research, rather than just take unsupported statements at 'face value'

just because someone on the boards says it's so! I also recognize

that one of the problems inherent with my condition is sometimes the

inability to reason clearly, hence it is that much more important that

I check and recheck everything in the process of making my decisions.

This is why it is so very important to me that people back their

'claims' with documentation to the same effect (documentation that is

also well referenced).

Thanks for listening!

>

> None of his " research " qualifies as credible research. But my basic

> point was that Gracia seems to have the highest regard for him; yet

what

> he writes does not support what she says he says. Or something like

that...

>

December 9, 2008

everything I write here is supported by what I have read and my own

experience. I am not sure what you guys find problematic? most of what I read

is posted on iodine group.

gracia