Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iodine: a discussion, and perhaps a civilized debate

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

  • Originally posted by Sceptic View Post
    From reading the prior thread, it sounded like the salt was to add sodium to help get rid of bromine displaced by the iodine. So basically it's there for detox symptoms, much like the vitamin C.
    It is not the sodium that displaces halogens, it is the chloride halogen in the salt. But considering how much salt the average person consumes and the amount of fluoride so many of us are exposed to it would be very unlike that there would be any significant amount of bromine in the body unless spending a lot of time in brominated spas, drinking a lot of Mountain Dew or taking significant amounts of bromine based medications.

    Unfortunately, when people develop iodine poisoning the symptoms are too often blamed on the myth of "bromine detox". The people claiming this should look up the symptoms of bromine poisoning. Many do not fit the symptoms these people with iodine poisoning are reporting.

    Originally posted by Sceptic View Post
    That said, the added salt could also be to counteract the amount of potassium in the mega doses of potassium iodide; the ratio of sodium to potassium in the body is important. Of course, I'm completely speculating here, so take this with a grain of salt ;-)

    Edit: Of course, five minutes after writing that, it occurred to me that the amount of potassium iodide you'd need to be taking would probably be ludicrous by anyones standards to pose a risk from its potassium content...
    Yes, it would be tough to get to much potassium from potassium iodide supplements if taken in normal doses.
    Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:47 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Radialhead View Post
      That doesn't say anything about magnesium. Sceptic's question was:

      I only found one study, which was a rat study:


      The effect of magnesium depletion on thyroid function... [J Nutr. 1984] - PubMed - NCBI

      J Nutr. 1984 Aug;114(8):1510-7.
      The effect of magnesium depletion on thyroid function in rats.
      Hsu JM, Root AW, Duckett GE, Smith JC Jr, Yunice AA, Kepford G.
      Abstract

      The effects of dietary magnesium (Mg) depletion on thyroid function were studied in young male rats. The rats were fed a semipurified diet containing either 12 ppm Mg (deficient rats) or 662 ppm Mg (control rats) for 14 to 28 days. Results showed that the Mg-deficient rats had decreased body weight gain, lowered concentrations of plasma thyroxine (T4) and Mg, but increased weight of the thyroid gland when expressed in proportion to the body weight (milligrams/100 g). There was no difference in the accumulation (uptake) of 131I, 24 hours after Na131I injection, between the Mg-deficient and Mg-supplemented rats. The protein-bound 131I (PB131I) level and the ratio of PB131I to total 131I in plasma was significantly reduced in Mg-deficient rats. Serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels after thyrotropin-releasing hormone injection (TRH, 50 ng/100 g body weight) increased fivefold at 30 minutes, but declined to near the basal level at 2 hours in both groups. No consistent difference in TSH response was observed between the two treatments. Serum T4 response to TRH challenge was significantly reduced in Mg-deficient as compared to Mg-adequate rats at all time intervals. The reduction of T4 level could be due to an impaired T4 synthesis or release in Mg-deficient rats.

      PMID:
      6747732
      [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

      Free full text

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
        But I do agree that some deficiencies are great enough to warrant supplementation, preferably just until it is cleared up. E.g. I took supplements after chemo but I don't need them now.
        A lot of people take supplements as preventatives, not just to heal an illness.
        Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:50 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
          Again, a report of a report from Dr. B. Who wants to sell you iodine.
          Iodine is an essential element of a healthy body. Agreed. Therefor keeping a healthy level of it in your body probably helps your body protect against lots of things including cancer. However, iodine is not and never has been a cure for cancer. This is snake oil, pure and simple.

          Cancer can and does sometimes go into spontaneous remission with or without any type of remedy.
          So using the same reasoning there is no way to prove if and when chemotherapy worked for cancer. After all the cancer could have gone in to remission all on its own.

          One thing I do agree with though is that iodine is not a cure for cancer. Can it help in some cases? Likely since it has anti-estrogen effects. But so does safer compounds like phytoestrogens.

          One major problem I see with iodine being touted for cancer is that inflammation appears to play a role in cancer development. Excessive amounts of iodine can not only directly inflame tissues, it will also lead to suppression of the thyroid. This in turn leads to an increased level of inflammatory homocysteine. This also increases the risk of atherosclerosis, which has been shown to be inflammation induced.

          We do need iodine just like we need water. But the self proclaimed "iodine experts" on Curezone are advocating over 1,000 times higher levels than are considered safe. Since water is more important than iodine in the body does this mean they should be advocating people drink 1,000 times more water than is considered safe if it were even possible?
          Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:54 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
            I urge anyone even considering falling for snake oil treatments to read this document. It is about the history of "miracle cures" that were nothing more than smoke and mirrors and hype. Please people, think.

            Cancer Quackery: Past And Present
            Just because something is published on the internet this does not mean it is true. This article is a fantastic example. Although that is not surprising as it looks like they are associated with the heavily discredited Quackwatch.

            The article is full of errors and misrepresentations. Especially about Hoxsey. I have the transcripts of the 1950s hearing in Texas in which Hoxsey was finally pushed out of the country. Not only did he have numerous long term cancer survivors come forward and testify on his behalf, but Hoxsey even made the government a fair offer. He told them that if they supply a number of terminally ill servicemen with cancer for which allopathic medicine has failed to cure he will treat them for free. He continued that if he did not achieve at least an 80% success rate he wold voluntarily close his doors. A Senator attending the hearings even said that there was sufficient evidence to back Hoxsey's claims and that he should be given a chance. The government would not even allow the terminally ill service men to take the chance and forced Hoxsey to close. So the real question is why would the government deny a terminally ill person that allopathic medicine has given up on to at least try the therapy? Ah, that's right. If Hoxsey would have gotten his at least 80% success rate a lot of pharmaceutical companies among other companies would have been out of business.

            Anyone who thinks they are really are looking for an effective cancer cure to market is fooling themselves!
            Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:56 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              "In preparing for the trials FDA inspectors investigated some 400 cases of persons who were claimed by Hoxsey to have been cured of cancer by the treatment. This is what they found:

              One group of these victims had diagnosed themselves or had never had a biopsy showing they had cancer.
              A second group had cancer and had been treated for it by accepted and effective methods. but had later gone to the Hoxsey Clinic fearing they had not been cured.
              The remaining cases were people who had received the Hoxsey treatment and had died of cancer (the majority) or still had it. Not one case of a bona fide cure was found.
              This is typical of the pattern when cases allegedly cured by untested cancer remedies are carefully investigated."

              This has been shown over and over again throughout history. A very interesting article. Well worth the read.
              Maybe if the article was actually factual. I don't rely on science fiction though for evidence of the effectiveness of treatments.
              Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:59 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RobinNM View Post
                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.
                How did you come to the conclusion that the use of the word apoptosis is incorrect? Apoptosis basically means programmed cell death, but there are numerous compounds that have bee shown to stimulate apoptosis of cancer cells. Your link above states "is activated either by the presence of a stimulus or by the removal of a stimulus or suppressing agent". In other words, something has to stimulate the process of apoptosis. These activators of apoptosis are not limited to compounds in the body. Numerous plants for example have been found to contain compounds that stimulate apoptosis. You can find tons of examples on Medline. Here are some examples I posted:

                Withaferin A-Induced Apoptosis in Human Breast Cancer Cells Is Mediated by Reactive O

                Apoptotic Effects of Chrysin in Human Cancer Cell Lines

                Apoptosis by dietary factors: the suicide solution for delaying cancer growth

                Genistein-induced apoptosis in prostate cancer cells.

                p53-independent apoptosis induced by genistein in lung cancer cells.
                Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 12:00 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                  Then there are the conspiracy theories. How freedom of information is being suppressed, yada, yada and that I should feel pangs of "conscience" for keeping people from finding their "miracle cure". What I wouldn't want on my conscience is even one person being some combination of desperate and gullible enough to shun real, proven cancer cures, also known as modern medicine, in favor of snake oil. Then when that doesn't work, it is too late for the real doctors to do any good and that person dies.
                  First of all REAL doctors don't practice medicine they perform it. Secondly, as I pointed out in an earlier post most people who eventually try holistic medicine for their cancer do so because allopathic medicine failed them already. So they go to real doctors who use real medicine to heal a real disease rather than rely on any more of the lunacy of using well known carcinogens (cancer causing substances) to treat cancer.

                  Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                  I don't post here to keep anyone away from the truth. I have experienced the truth about cancer first hand. I have been that desperate sick person trawling the internet in search of a "cure". There is a real live miracle cure but it is at the oncologists office. They cure real live people every single day and have been doing this for decades.
                  They have? Clearly you have never worked in the medical field and especially in oncology as I have. Yes, they get lucky once in a while because they can occasionally catch the cancer early, or they they can cut off a leg with bone cancer. And as I pointed out earlier they do have two drugs that actually have an 80% success rate for the cancers they treat such as leukemias and lymphomas. And where do these drugs come from? They are derived from the plant Madagascar periwinkle. And why do these drugs work so well? Because these drugs are strong antivirals and these are viral induced cancers. So unlike most chemotherapy drugs these drugs actually address the cause of the cancer.

                  Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                  Then there is the money stuff. Again. One more time, my HMO lost money on my cancer treatment. I pay the same dues regardless of what treatment I get. By the "money grubbing evil doctors" rational, they should have treated me with herbs and baking soda. They used the surgery and chemo method, even though it cost them a lot of money. Why? Because it actually works.
                  Wrong again. As I also pointed out earlier they have to abide by treatments considered the "norm", not by what works or does not work. In fact, a doctor can lose their medical license in this country for using therapies not within the guidelines of the FDA and AMA.

                  Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                  Then I get accused of having a lot of hatred or jealousy in my heart and wanting to see others suffer needlessly. WTH????????
                  Try not belittling people with statements like "conspiracy theories" and "tin foil hats". You might get a lot further by being nicer and providing some actual real evidence. People resort to such insults when they have no real evidence to respond back with.

                  Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                  I am trying to keep people from suffering needlessly and from being prematurely dead.
                  Yet you are promoting chemotherapy, which for the most part has less than a 3% success rate for most cancers. And I have seen people suffer tremendously from chemotherapy and radiation therapy for that matter before these therapies killed them. For example, one of our patients literally drowned to death on her own fluids after they burnt her lungs with radiation therapy. She was only 32 years old and had quit smoking a year earlier. Ironic that it was her therapy that killed her and not the cigarettes!

                  Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                  Anyone reading this can believe that or not as you choose but I know in my non jealousy and hatred filled heart that it is true.

                  (Yes, the above post was disturbing to me on a personal level. That's why I took a while to answer it. It represents a pattern of willful ignorance, lack of even basic scientific reasoning skills, tinfoil hat thinking, with, as bloodorchid put it, a big helping of douchebaggery. I wish we as the MDA community could find a way to grow beyond this.)
                  See my earlier comment above about replying with insults instead of evidence.
                  Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 12:05 PM.

                  Comment


                  • JamesS, what are you doing? Is the normal font someone else's post (who?) and the bold your response to the same?

                    Are you not quoting because it is from the other thread?

                    It would help if you could edit briefly to identify the forum member to whom each post responds. Identity counts! (well, for me anyway, some members' posts I glaze over, for others I pay attention)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                      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.
                      I don't think you understand what it means either since Grizz was not wrong. Again, apoptosis refers to programmed cell death. Many substances both in and out of the body have been shown to activate or inactivate certain genes to induce apoptosis. So exactly how do you think Grizz was wrong?

                      By the way, if you think I am a supporter of Grizz you are way off. I have not taken anything he has said serious ever since he tried to convince me that sunlight is acidic because it contains acidic hydrogen. Sorry, but just because the sun has a lot of hydrogen this does not mean sunlight contains hydrogen. Light is made up of photons.

                      Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                      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.
                      And many chemotherapy drugs will also kill cultured cancer cells. This does not mean they work the same in the body. This is why the drug companies drop anyone from the chemo drug studies if they die or do not respond to make the drugs appear effective when they are not.

                      A great example was reported on a program on NOVA. They were testing for new angiogenesis inhibitors and found one in rat urine. During the program they followed two men undergoing the testing trial. The first man died despite the treatment so you know he was dropped especially when at the end of the program they put up a note that the second man "was dropped from the study because his tumor grew beyond the parameters of the study". To translate that what they are saying is their drug failed so to prevent skewing the results in to the negative they simply got rid of the participant so only positive outcomes would be reported. This way this worthless drug, which by the way is now FDA approved and on the market, would appear to be more effective than it really is.

                      Yep, allopathic medicine is full of such snake oil and is profit, not safety or effectiveness, driven!!!
                      Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 12:07 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        Oh, the drama! The evil doctors! The innocent Victim! The despair! The CURE! The joy!

                        heeeeee's baaaaaaack!

                        But seriously, I never once said on this thread or the other that FBD did not respond well to iodine. I have never had FBD. I wouldn't know. I am happy for anyone who finds health. I just think that Grizz takes a positive thing, one that could help a lot of people and, by over-hyping it and making sweeping statements that are totally unfounded factually (e.g. the cancer "cure" stuff) makes the whole idea look like lunacy.

                        Seriously, does anyone really believe that any doctor would say in so many words, "Learn to live with your breasts or cut them off"?
                        Could it be that Grizz and/or his neighbor are engaging in a bit of hyperbole for dramatic effect?

                        Seriously, does anyone really believe that any doctor would say in so many words, "Learn to live with your breasts or cut them off"?
                        Could it be that Grizz and/or his neighbor are engaging in a bit of hyperbole for dramatic effect?
                        Why is this so far fetched for you? Doctors are telling women to have their HEALTHY breasts cut off (prophylactic mastectomies) just because they have a history of breast cancer in the family. Why would any doctor do such a stupid thing especially when there is absolutely no proof of hereditary breast cancers? If you want to learn where these genetic mutations that cause breast cancer come from then research the various viruses shown to cause these mutations including human papilloma viruses (HPVs). Does cutting off the breasts get rid of the cancer causing viruses? Hint: The answer is NO!!!

                        And it is not just women. Men are also being talked in to prophylactic prostectomies to prevent possible future prostate cancer, which has also been linked to various viruses including HPV.

                        Maybe more research and less sarcasm is in order!
                        Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 12:10 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
                          As far as worry about "irradiating breasts"
                          "An average of 70 millirems—roughly the dose you'd receive from your normal, everyday environment over a period of two and a half months. Most of our lifetime exposure to radiation comes from radon produced by decaying uranium in soil and rocks. Enough of this gas gets trapped in your house to deliver about 200 millirems per year. Food, which incorporates uranium from the soil, adds to this total, as do air travel, smoking, and radioactive atoms inside your body. But that's no reason to worry: Studies have shown no increased risk of cancer among people experiencing as many as 1,000 millirems per year of background radiation. (As a general rule, though, you're better off with less exposure.)"
                          How dangerous is the radiation from a mammogram? - Slate Magazine

                          Basically, we are always being exposed to radiation... nothing to be done about it. A mammogram isn't really going to hurt anything.
                          There is big differences when it comes to the types and levels of radiation. Yes, we are exposed to all sorts of natural radiation on a daily basis. This does not make it safe to stand next to a nuclear power reactor core.
                          Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 12:17 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by katemary View Post
                            JamesS, what are you doing? Is the normal font someone else's post (who?) and the bold your response to the same?

                            Are you not quoting because it is from the other thread?

                            It would help if you could edit briefly to identify the forum member to whom each post responds. Identity counts! (well, for me anyway, some members' posts I glaze over, for others I pay attention)
                            He is responding to Paleobird's attempts to dominate the discussion. I agree with his sentiments about her attitude. James, feel free to respond to her matriachial self important injections into other threads!!

                            Comment


                            • Since this thread is way off track anyway.
                              JamesS
                              You seem to have done a lot of looking into alternative cancer cures,
                              What do you think of Burzynski and antineoplastins, his site link below:
                              Burzynski Clinic | Advanced Alternative Cancer Treatment | Houston, Texas
                              I looked into all this stuff a while back including Hosley, some nurse with "Herbs" and Gerson therapy amongst others, obviously data is lacking so they may all be quacks or all or some of them may actually be onto something.
                              I centred on the Burzynski one after watching a Doco(?) on U-Tube, his battles with the FDA seem to be well documented, there is footage of senate hearings with real patients and documented diagnosis being healed and there seems to be some evidence of conspiracy to steal his patents, so just just wondering if you or anyone else has more to add on that one?
                              Link to movie below.
                              Dr Burzynski movie (Full Version) .flv With Extra Burzynski Links - YouTube
                              "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                              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, it does not. In fact, it appears to be just the opposite. Why? A big problem with such studies is that it is based on statistics, which are very easily manipulated such as in this case. If you actually read the study it states:

                                "During the study period, there were 803 breast cancer deaths in the study group (7.3 million person-years) and 1238 breast cancer deaths in the control group (8.8 million person-years). The average follow-up was 16 years"

                                So they make it sound like the "study group" who had the mammograms had a lower death rate than the "control group" that did not get mammograms. Wow, sounds impressive if you only read that part instead of the whole study design. If we read the rest of the study though we find something very interesting. There was a total of 7,261,415 women in the study group yet 8,843,852 women in the control group. There was only 435 more deaths in the control group, which is minimal to begin with. But the control group also had a total of 1,582,437 more women in their group. Therefore, on a per capita basis the study actually proves that mammograms had a negative effect on survival rate.

                                The study does not say much about allopathic medicine's treatments either being that so many diagnosed women still died from their cancer.
                                Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 10:48 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X