Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iodine: a discussion, and perhaps a civilized debate

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This is what Paleobird thought. It is wrong.
    Actually, no, that's not correct. According to Merriam Webster Apoptosis is "a genetically determined process of cell self-destruction that is marked by the fragmentation of nuclear DNA, is activated either by the presence of a stimulus or by the removal of a stimulus or suppressing agent, is a normal physiological process eliminating DNA-damaged, superfluous, or unwanted cells (as immune cells targeted against the self in the development of self-tolerance or larval cells in amphibians undergoing metamorphosis), and when halted (as by genetic mutation) may result in uncontrolled cell growth and tumor formation—called also programmed cell death"

    So while iodine may indeed cause cancer cell death or any cell death, using the word apoptosis in relation to specifically that is not correct. Also, while I appreciate the time and effort you put into your "reference" link, none of those are to actual scientific, peer-reviewed articles. Give me something from the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Clinical Oncology, hell, I'd even take Lancet.
    This is her agreeing with RobinNM.
    This^^^^^ is what I mean about basic scientific ignorance. If she hadn't corrected Grizz on this, how many people would have read it and thought they know what apoptosis meant. And thought that reference link proved that iodine cures cancer. Iodine kills some cells in a petri dish, so what? Iodine kills germ cells on your skin, that why it is used as a topical disinfectant. That doesn't make it a cancer cure.
    Once again, the answer is right in the title of the study. You don't have to read far to find it.
    Molecular iodine induces caspase-independent apoptosis in human breast carcinoma cells involving the mitochondria-mediated pathway.
    Here is what Paleobird said about the study I posted.
    I, the other Robin in California was out for coffee with friends while the above convo took place.
    There are two sensible people who know how to debunk pseudo-scientific quackery who both happen to be named Robin. So?
    BTW, nicely done, NM.
    Paleobird had no misunderstanding of what she thought Grizz said. If she had, she would have said that here, but she decided to claim that PubMed.gov is pseudo-science quackery instead.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ecksvedge View Post
      This is what Paleobird thought. It is wrong.

      Actually, no, that's not correct. According to Merriam Webster Apoptosis is "a genetically determined process of cell self-destruction that is marked by the fragmentation of nuclear DNA, is activated either by the presence of a stimulus or by the removal of a stimulus or suppressing agent, is a normal physiological process eliminating DNA-damaged, superfluous, or unwanted cells (as immune cells targeted against the self in the development of self-tolerance or larval cells in amphibians undergoing metamorphosis), and when halted (as by genetic mutation) may result in uncontrolled cell growth and tumor formation—called also programmed cell death"

      So while iodine may indeed cause cancer cell death or any cell death, using the word apoptosis in relation to specifically that is not correct. Also, while I appreciate the time and effort you put into your "reference" link, none of those are to actual scientific, peer-reviewed articles. Give me something from the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Clinical Oncology, hell, I'd even take Lancet.
      Can you be more specific? It's not clear which bit you're saying is wrong.

      Originally posted by ecksvedge View Post
      Once again, the answer is right in the title of the study. You don't have to read far to find it.
      The answer to what? Nobody's disputed anything about that study as far as I'm aware.

      Originally posted by ecksvedge View Post
      Here is what Paleobird said about the study I posted.

      I, the other Robin in California was out for coffee with friends while the above convo took place.
      There are two sensible people who know how to debunk pseudo-scientific quackery who both happen to be named Robin. So?
      BTW, nicely done, NM.
      She didn't say that about the study you posted. It wasn't said in reply to you, & it didn't quote you. It was obviously a general comment about the pseudo-scientific quackery that Grizz often posts.

      Originally posted by ecksvedge View Post
      Paleobird had no misunderstanding of what she thought Grizz said. If she had, she would have said that here
      In your opinion. I gave a valid alternative interpretation of Grizz's comment, whether you agree or not.

      Originally posted by ecksvedge View Post
      but she decided to claim that PubMed.gov is pseudo-science quackery instead.
      She didn't claim that at all, but regardless of that, there is a lot of pseudo-science quackery in PubMed. It's just a library after all. You'll find all sorts of rubbish in there about red meat & saturated fat, killer-cholesterol, & why a vegan diet makes you live longer, much of it from peer-reviewed journals. And before you suggest it, no, I'm not saying the study you linked to is rubbish. But you certainly can't use it as proof that 'drinking Lugol's cures breast cancer'.

      Comment


      • Apoptosis simply means programmed cell death. Something showing potential to cause apoptosis in cancer cells is interesting, since cancer is a problem with cells not dying when they are supposed to die. But to claim that apoptosis means cancer cell death is wrong, and Grizz's use of it to mean that is erroneous. Apoptosis is a normal cellular process.

        Words mean things, and particularly in the case of science, what they mean is very important in understanding research. That article discusses apoptosis in relation to cancer cells, but to assume from that article that the word apoptosis always means cancer cells dying is simply poor reading comprehension.
        “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

        Owly's Journal

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
          This is the full study as published in the Journal of Cancer : Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years - Hellquist - 2010 - Cancer - Wiley Online Library

          It clearly shows that mammograms do save lives when you look at the long term. Studies showing pessimistic results were too short to see the benefits.

          No, you don't know my history but I was not lucky enough to have one of the slow growing kind of tumors you speak of. Mine was a fast growing, invasive bugger. I would be dead if I hadn't been treated in time. This is medical fact, not opinion.

          But what should it matter what is statistically likely or unlikely? What if you happened to get one like mine? Why would you take such a risk with your life when there is a simple and non physically harmful diagnostic tool available?

          I went through hell and back and I have some nasty scars that will never go away but I'm alive. I climbed the world's tallest freestanding mountain last year. I just turned 50 and plan on at least another 50.

          Get a mammogram, ladies. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to cancer.
          +1
          Why take the risk. I will be getting a mammogram as soon as I hit the at risk age. There is no reason to risk it when you can possibly have a fighting chance. Weather you choose to take the holistic route or traditional route you can't fight a battle unless you know who the enemy is.
          F/37yr/5' 5"
          SW: 154 March 2011
          CW: 140 July to Oct 2011
          PB: 145 gained 5lbs in first 4 months March to July 2012
          With a combo of PB and IF-ing 5 days a week (1 x 1200 calorie meal per day) I have lost 15 lbs PB/IF = 130 lbs July 2012 to current
          GW: 120
          Ultimate Goals ar to be: Happy/ Fit/ Energetic/ Feel great/ Balanced/ cure my thyroid and adrenals

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mom5booklover View Post
            +1
            Why take the risk. I will be getting a mammogram as soon as I hit the at risk age. There is no reason to risk it when you can possibly have a fighting chance. Weather you choose to take the holistic route or traditional route you can't fight a battle unless you know who the enemy is.
            Exactly. Because you may be one of the 2.4 in 100,000 people who a mammogram actually saves. Mammography Screening for Breast Cancers Is NOT Reliable

            Breast cancer is a very scary thing. I would not want ANYONE to go through it. I've lost enough friends to it already. NONE of them ever supplemented with iodine either. They all did the medical route for treatment. Chemo has not changed or improved much in 30 years. And if anyone thinks that I would say "Neener Neener" to anyone who has had cancer is sorely mistaken. The point I tried to make after someone said that a Mammogram saved her life was to look at it another way: The same medical establishment that "saved" her is also the same one that warned her (along with everyone else) that she only needs 150 mcg's of Iodine per day. The article I just read yesterday and cited above says nothing about Iodine. Mercola has often parrotted the outdated studies that believed too much iodine caused hypothyroidism in his iodine articles. The TSH often does rise as the thyroid soaks up the iodide and then that effect tapers off again in about 6 months according to recent studies. So I would consider this article to be neutral as far as posting it here. It's references say nothing about Brownstein or Iodine but just addresses the statistics of mammograms and offers a safer alternative.

            Iodine is a controversial topic everywhere...I just didn't expect to have to do battle HERE on a site that pretty much promotes taking charge of your own health after realizing that CW is usually wrong. When I first found this thread, I was already using Iodine in high doses and had never heard of Brownstein or Grizz. My hubby found info for me about 6-7 years ago called "The Iodine Saturation Protocol" by Dr Bruce West and hoped it would help my thyroid since no other local doctor would help me based on their useless TSH test. I had every classic symptom of hypothyroidism yet no one would help me. Unfortunately, the iodine hubby ordered only contained Iodine but no Iodide which is what mostly supports the thyroid. So I feel that my breasts and other female parts have still been protected by the iodine I did take but it had little to no effect on my thyroid or the bromides in it. If it had "caused hypothyroidism" by raising my TSH levels, even a doctor would have recoginized something was wrong and treated my thyroid. But my TSH was always at a "normal level" according to the doctors narrow thinking. I needed iodide too and found out about it on this forum along with Selenium etc. I am thankful!

            And if you wanna get pissed about a doctor with a conflict of interest making money off people, the TSH Test is one of those products. It's patented and considered the "Gold Standard" for thyroid testing by those who created it, patented it plus demanded its use by all doctors. They are now making a truckload of money off it and it helps FEW people. All it does it tell the doctor how much TSH was circulating in your blood at the moment of the test--not if your body was USING it or able to CONVERT it for use by your body. Most doctors (even endos) know little about properly diagnosing hypothyroidism. Go read at StopTheThyroidMadness.com if you want to really learn about the thyroid and uneducated doctors.

            So now I take T3 on my own for my hypo problem. I got rid of 15 years of painful Fibromyalgia (diagnosed by numerous medical doctors) as soon as I finally started taking T3. However, now I've read that the use of T3 may increase my need for iodine. So I have so many reasons to keep educating myself about Iodine/Iodide as I use it for removing toxic Bromides from my body. And my health/diet history is filled with Bromides and other toxins.

            So again, I will ask that those of you who refuse to use iodine supplements for bromide detoxing or other health concerns go start another thread that is devoted entirely to "Haters of Iodine Supplementation and Outright Disdain for Those Who Use It." Then you can stop peeing in our pool where we want to simply discuss iodine with each other so we can make good choices as we use it. And I promise I won't come to your hateful thread and pee in YOUR pool. And if you aren't mature enough to accept something so reasonable, I again say that it has to be a truly hateful person that would refuse that compromise. Many of you are like a fly buzzing near my ear with no real purpose to be here other than to continue buzzing & biting until I finally get frustrated enough to swat you. Grizz said and it wouldn't work to start a new thread because you'd all come here and do the same thing again. When I read PB's very first post here bashing Brownstein, I almost posted, "Grizz called it!" I resisted at the time but then went overboard swatting later. (Quote by PaleoBird: "Dr. Brownstein is in the business of selling iodine and supplements. Is it any wonder he advocates such a high dosage of iodine and says the supplements are "required"?")

            And maybe I'm a little touchy right now as late last week I received an update about a friend who started using Lugols on her breast tumor 3+ months ago & got immediate relief from her pain. She said it was the first time she had been able to sleep in a year. She used it briefly UNTIL another well-meaning friend or a doctor told her how dangerous it was. (Sound familar?) She immediately stopped using it 3 months ago after just a few weeks of use. She then started something called Protocel that someone else insisted would help her. When you use Protocel, you aren't to use ANYTHING else--especially Vitamin C or Iodine etc or so I've read. Not familiar with this product. So now 3 months later, my friend's breast pain is unbearable again, she's exhausted and now her huge lump is oozing. I don't even know if the oozing/draining is good or bad. Could go either way. Ironically, I was the one who talked her into going to a doctor after SHE didn't want to go to one (denial) and had kept her lump a secret from everyone for 2 years. I told her if she at least found out WHAT the lump was, she could make better decisions on how to treat it. And she had asked me for my help. She said she would rather die before letting a doctor give her chemo. That was HER choice even though I feel the same way based on how few of our friends have survived after receiving chemo while never using Iodoral. Her biopsy 3+ months ago showed no cancer markers. Cripe, even I told her to get the lump surgically removed and she wouldn't do that either. I don't know what to think right now. All I know is that I don't want to go through this too so I will keep using Lugols & Iodoral as smartly as I can for now until I find a really good valid reason to stop. So far y'all keep giving me MORE reasons to keep taking it despite your intent to do the opposite.

            By the way, my friend HAS insurance through her job. And I have often told my hubby that I often see NOT having insurance as a sort of protection. I am able to take that money and use it for supplements and organic food etc that I could not afford if I had to pay steep premiums for expensive treatments I would reject anyway. Much money is made in this country from just the FEAR of cancer.

            Oh, mom5booklover, this post was NOT personal to you. I had just read that Mercola article last night and wanted to post it here anyway after the mammogram battle broke out. I just quoted your post cuz it was relevant to that cited article when I came here to post it and your post was the last one showing--at least when I started this novel. Food for thought for you whenever you are told by a doctor or friend that a mammogram will save your life.

            Now someone go open a mammogram thread so we can start a civil discussion here about iodine!

            Comment


            • So it's okay to have an iodine discussion thread with "perhaps a civilized debate" so long as people who disagree with high-dose iodine don't join in the debate? Funny, I must misunderstand what it means to debate things--I didn't think it meant "echo chamber".
              “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

              Owly's Journal

              Comment


              • I am in the non-mammography camp too... I have decided to forego having mammograms when I get into the 50+ age bracket simply because mammograms have actually been shown to CAUSE breast cancer (or at least, may contribute to it) through the use of radiation. There are also numerous false positives leading to unnecessary treatment and biopsies (Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)).

                I am not doubting that mammography picks up some types of breast cancer, but if it also increases the chance of breast cancer in a healthy woman who doesn't have breast cancer already, I can't see how it's statistically safer to get an annual mammagram than to avoid it!

                Now maybe I would feel a little differently if I had a family history of breast cancer, but I don't. To me the risk is just weighing up one thing vs another.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jo View Post
                  Since I'm coming up to the age of 50 I have looked into the research around mammograms and I am concerned that the data demonstrates an overall failure to save women's lives. I have made the personal decision not to attend screening. However, if I find a lump I will have a mammogram as an investigative procedure and research the available treatment very carefully before deciding on the correct path. I already take iodine and would include it in my treatment programme based on what I have researched so far. I don't take the view that all conventional treatments are wrong, but I don't trust medical practitioners to make the best decision for me either. I need to take responsibility for that myself.
                  Try thermography. Look into it as a non-invasive, non-painful diagnostic tool that takes the place of mammograms. Then, if it alerts you and your doctor to anomalies, follow it up with standard diagnostic tools like x-rays or MRI's. Although mammograms are free in Canada, I'd pay out of pocket to get a thermogram (graph?) if warranted.

                  Comment


                  • Thoughts on this?

                    I've just watched Horizon - Eat, Fast and Live Longer on the BBC. It'll probably appear on YouTube in the near future. One of the things covered was the effects of lowering IGF (Insuline-like Growth Factor). Doing that appears to restrict the production of new cells, & make the body repair existing damaged ones instead.

                    That made my brain go 'Hmmmm', so I fired up Google, & immediately found this: Influence of iodine supplementation o... [Turk J Pediatr. 2004 Oct-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI

                    IGF-I and IGFBP-3 levels decreased significantly and FT4 levels were suppressed six months after the supplementation [with iodine], while TSH was normalized. These findings suggest a negative impact of iodine supplementation on growth factors in the short-term, which may be a direct effect of iodine repletion or an indirect effect caused by alterations in thyroid function.
                    So iodine supplementation significantly decreases IGF-1. Is that the mechanism that leads to its apparent ability to cure certain ailments? I.e. it's not the iodine itself doing any cell repair, it's the reduction in IGF-1 triggering the body to switch into repair mode?

                    Much more Googling needed, but it's bedtime on this side of the pond.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ljbprrfmof View Post
                      PAYSAN,

                      Two ways to make a quote appear. As Paleobird suggested, you can type the brackets and the uppercase words as shown
                      or press the bubble second from the right above, you will find it in the image circled in red

                      I'm not seeing any image circled in red!!! I hate being the dunce, but honestly, I don't even see the bubbles, John. However, I shall mess up my quoting trying your way as well.;-)

                      Comment


                      • I just wanted to add my personal experience here. As someone who has had their thyroid tested religiously over the years and know that the normal range is for myself, I believe that supplementing with iodine has actually raised my TSH levels and has basically put me into subclinical hypothyroidism. I have been supplementing with iodine for a couple months because I was afraid I wasn't going to get enough after going Primal/Paleo.

                        I had my TSH tested about 6-8 months ago with a level of 1.27. I just had my TSH tested again a couple weeks ago and returned with a level of 3.14......I have gained 10 lbs in the last two months and I'm more tired than normal. Now, it's possible that this could just be a fluke or coincidence, but I really felt like something wasn't right, mostly because I bumped my workouts way up when I started gaining and it hasn't made a difference, and in fact I continue gaining. I have always been fit and when I have fallen out of shape in the past, it doesn't take much exercise for the pounds to start falling off. I usually don't even have to alter my diet much to get great results because I push myself really hard physically. After spending the last month doing more exercise and not losing or staying the same, but in fact gaining, I knew something wasn't right. My TSH has always been from .7 to 1.5 and that is normal for me. The only thing I can think of that would have affected it so much is supplementing with idodine. That being said, I am no longer taking anymore iodine and I pray to God that my thyroid goes back to normal and I can get this weight off. And because my TSH isn't out of the "normal range" by the labs standards, my doc refuses to do anymore tests for me. It's extremely frustrating.

                        So, make sure you do your research and talk with your doctor before supplementing with iodine.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                          How about someone start another thread "Pro's & Con's of Mammograms"

                          Regarding the Iodine, I became quite interested in this and particularly as there seems to be some solid evidence that it may well help in some cases of Fibrocystic Breast Disease and there is some scientific studies to back this up.
                          As for other diseases I did a bit of hunting around and outside of the obvious thyroid relationship, the best I could come up with for other diseases was anecdotal reports of improvements in CFS, Fibromyalgia & PCOS, so some individuals seem to have benefitted from iodine supplementation.
                          When it comes to the crunch, I agree scientific proof is the best way to go, but everyone here must realise by now that their own direction with diet (primal/paleo) is only supported by cherry picked data and the majority of health practitioners would not support this direction for optimum health.
                          AFAIK, there are no scientific studies that point to iodine as being curative that have been done since the 1950's. All "those iodine docs" are discredited simply because their successes are considered anecdotal, but those who are helped think they know better.;-) And, as you pointed out previously, there is no financial incentive for the scientific community to waste their time to address deficiency statuses.
                          ...I am quite capable of discerning the quality of the data and applying an appropriate weighting dependant of the source, heck, even the so called peer reviewed studies need to be viewed with a critical eye in their study designs and conclusions.
                          There are a number of factors that may be contributing to a potential deficiency, like reduction in use of iodised salt use, changes in food preparation dairy & bread both used iodine in the past, reduction of consumption of sweetbreads(thyroid gland), other organs & blood, the presence of flourides & bromides may be blocking iodine sites in the body. These points would at the very least suggest individuals should be conscious of their iodine intake in the same way they ensure adequate sun exposure for vitamin D.
                          Good thinking, but I'd like to make a very small quibble - sweetbreads are thymus, not thyroid glands. They are immune enhancing glands found largely in very young animals, and I've eaten lots of calves' sweetbreads.

                          I'd like to hear more on what people have to say about iodine, I don't take anything here at face value, it's just a lead in to my own investigations.
                          Absolutely the wise course. See all sides, the sayers and nayers, research the available literature, then decide for yourself.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Radialhead View Post
                            You can play with the figures 'til the cows come home to give you any result you want. E.g. the kombu consumption may have been higher in the past, but they may have boiled most of it & poured the water away, which would mean they were getting far less iodine than now as kombu loses more of its iodine during boiling than other types.

                            The point is this 13.8mg figure that's often quoted as if it's cast in stone is nothing more than a guesstimate based on apparently false assumptions. Anyone who uses it to justify taking [n]mg of iodine per day needs to know that in my opinion.
                            And I take all figures quoted in most forums as statistics - and you know what they say about statistics - there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.;-) Anybody who doesn't do their own research for a bothersome or killer ailment is pretty gullible , in my book. If it sounds reasonable, has very few downsides, is lowcost and possibly beneficial, then it's n=1 time.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                              How about someone start another thread "Pro's & Con's of Mammograms"

                              Just to re-inforce some of the critiques as well, "Iodine is not a miracle cure all", it is just another essential nutrient to the body and a deficiency may be an aggravating factor in a number of conditions.
                              There are a number of factors that may be contributing to a potential deficiency, like reduction in use of iodised salt use, changes in food preparation dairy & bread both used iodine in the past, reduction of consumption of sweetbreads(thyroid gland), other organs & blood, the presence of flourides & bromides may be blocking iodine sites in the body. These points would at the very least suggest individuals should be conscious of their iodine intake in the same way they ensure adequate sun exposure for vitamin D.
                              I'd like to hear more on what people have to say about iodine, I don't take anything here at face value, it's just a lead in to my own investigations.
                              By the way I haven't looked at any of the Dr Brownstein stuff as I assume that is already going to be over the top Pro Iodine.
                              I agree that the mammogram stuff was a tangent. It's just a kinda "special" subject for me. Moving on.

                              Originally posted by Radialhead View Post
                              You can play with the figures 'til the cows come home to give you any result you want. E.g. the kombu consumption may have been higher in the past, but they may have boiled most of it & poured the water away, which would mean they were getting far less iodine than now as kombu loses more of its iodine during boiling than other types.

                              The point is this 13.8mg figure that's often quoted as if it's cast in stone is nothing more than a guesstimate based on apparently false assumptions. Anyone who uses it to justify taking [n]mg of iodine per day needs to know that in my opinion.
                              Yes, and who exactly are "The Japanese". One area, one age group? I think this data can be massaged any way you want.

                              Originally posted by Owly View Post
                              Apoptosis simply means programmed cell death. Something showing potential to cause apoptosis in cancer cells is interesting, since cancer is a problem with cells not dying when they are supposed to die. But to claim that apoptosis means cancer cell death is wrong, and Grizz's use of it to mean that is erroneous. Apoptosis is a normal cellular process.

                              Words mean things, and particularly in the case of science, what they mean is very important in understanding research. That article discusses apoptosis in relation to cancer cells, but to assume from that article that the word apoptosis always means cancer cells dying is simply poor reading comprehension.
                              Thank you, Owly.

                              Originally posted by ecksvedge View Post
                              Paleobird had no misunderstanding of what she thought Grizz said. If she had, she would have said that here, but she decided to claim that PubMed.gov is pseudo-science quackery instead.
                              No, as Owly said, that is a very interesting, if very preliminary study. The quackery comment was in reference to the point NMRobin made about the links all leading back to Brownstein

                              Originally posted by mom5booklover View Post
                              +1
                              Why take the risk. I will be getting a mammogram as soon as I hit the at risk age. There is no reason to risk it when you can possibly have a fighting chance. Weather you choose to take the holistic route or traditional route you can't fight a battle unless you know who the enemy is.
                              Yay! I wish you a long, happy, and cancer free life.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Owly View Post
                                So it's okay to have an iodine discussion thread with "perhaps a civilized debate" so long as people who disagree with high-dose iodine don't join in the debate? Funny, I must misunderstand what it means to debate things--I didn't think it meant "echo chamber".
                                Exactly. That's what the love-in at the curezone is for. This is a place where all viewpoints are heard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X