[QUOTE=JamesS;977967]I don't know of any other tests to see if you are sufficient, but likely you are with excessive doses you were taking and with your current supplementation with seaweeds. Iodine is only required in what can be considered trace amounts in the body, around 150 micrograms (not milligrams) per day.
Normally cAMP downregulation will reverse over time after cessation of the excessive iodine intake. Keep in mind though that low cAMP can also occur even without excessive doses of iodine. If someone starts taking massive amounts of iodine when they had low cAMP to begin with not only will the iodine have a minimal effect on supporting the thyroid, the excess iodine will just further decrease cAMP. This is why I am always trying to get across to people that iodine will not treat all causes of hypothyroidism and can actually be detrimental in some cases.[/QUOTE]
Thanks a lot James! What causes low camp, outside of the obvious large iodine amounts?
I think we should take a normal average amount of Iodine necessity for our body, as it helps a great deal in our healthy living. But i don't think there is any link between HPV and breast cancer, i totally disagree with that research. It doesn't bother me.
So I took the Serum/saliva test to get a better picture of my iodine situation. My ratio was 28.6 (57.9-30.5). Serum was .316 mg/L. saliva was 9.04 mg/L. Any value under the normal range is classified as a symporter defect.
I have no idea what this means just yet. Still doing some research to figure out what I should do next.
I was active in this thread last summer. Update: I stopped trying to get rid of a couple moles because it burned and discolored the skin around the mole, which is still visible. I may try it again on a couple very small moles over a short time frame, but I'm afraid to do it again.
I tried to drink a drop of iodine here or there, and felt lightheaded and shaky. I immediately took a salt flush and stopped with that. I also found that taking the daily cup of salt water raised my blood pressure from 105-125. I stopped and my blood pressure returned to normal. I think iodine is important, but not enough to go insane over it.
Nowadays, I sprinkle a mix of kelp flakes and salt on my daily eggs. I have a bag of dry Kombu Kelp, and I eat a 1" x 4" piece every couple days. Every day I eat two Brazil nuts for selenium. Every week I eat 4 oz of sardines and 6 oz of salmon. And that's it. That's around 0.5 - 1 mg, which is already 5-10x the RDA. Hope that's good enough.
Just for the record, I'm not supplementing anymore - just eating kelp now and then for the last 6 or so months. I have endometriosis and fibrocystic breasts so I want to figure this out.
I'm pretty relaxed
I eat kelp
I want to feel better - that is why I am asking questions.
[QUOTE=jaye;1029943]Just for the record, I'm not supplementing anymore - just eating kelp now and then for the last 6 or so months. I have endometriosis and fibrocystic breasts so I want to figure this out.
I'm pretty relaxed
I eat kelp
I want to feel better - that is why I am asking questions.[/QUOTE]Jaye, Bosnic's quip about relaxing was not at you. It was a joke about how heated the debate on this thread got a while back. Nobody was denying that iodine is important for good health, but there was just some contention about the amount needed and the best way to get that into your body. I feel great with some rice free sushi now and then with a side of seaweed salad.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1030054]Jaye, Bosnic's quip about relaxing was not at you. It was a joke about how heated the debate on this thread got a while back. Nobody was denying that iodine is important for good health, but there was just some contention about the amount needed and the best way to get that into your body. I feel great with some rice free sushi now and then with a side of seaweed salad.[/QUOTE]
Paleobird - Yeah. I figured after I wrote it. The timing was just weird. :)
[QUOTE=Radialhead;917824]I too have had athlete's foot for as long as I can remember, which lead to fungal nail infection on all toes.[/QUOTE]Well, athlete's foot has been with me for something like 20 years, although it didn't spread as far as I know outside of the interdigit space.
[QUOTE=Radialhead;917824]I've been taking around 12mg Lugol's per day too for the last few weeks, also for experimentation purposes, & for the last week or so my feet have been peeling like crazy.[/QUOTE]I have being gradually increasing (even slower than Jaminet's style) my iodine/iodide intake for something like a year and now I am at 4 drops of Iosol (something like 7.2mg/day) and staying there. Not so long ago the sole of my feet started to peel just like yours, although it only was for something like a week. No discomfort at any time, but it is reassuring seeing that I haven't been the only one :rolleyes:.
I did have two (little) pimples on weird places for me though, I suppose that could be blamed on bromine.
It seems that my athlete's foot disappeared along the way too.
I think that I made the correct risk/benefit analysis about iodine supplementation, selenium and several things more included.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;921620]This is the full study as published in the Journal of Cancer : [url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.25650/full]Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years - Hellquist - 2010 - Cancer - Wiley Online Library[/url]
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.[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't show it clear. They used the [I]"refined mortality, ie, breast cancer death"[/I] measure and total mortality is nowhere to be found: it doesn't smell right, just like those complex measures on statins trials. I urge anyone to read [URL="http://www.thennt.com/about-thennt-team/"]theNNT[/URL] take on the matter: [url=http://www.thennt.com/blog/2011/12/mammography-hard-truths/]Mammography: Hard Truths | Closer to the Truth[/url].
I am not denying your experience, perhaps it was correctly diagnosed and the biopsy correctly assessed. Then, the data point towards someone else being screened and dying due to any cause from stress induced heart attack to whatever could be imagined.
Overall mortality is the only unbiased measure we should care, except if there is some previous genetic factor, I suppose.
Sorry if this has already been pointed out. I [I]only[/I] read the first 20 pages of this thread :rolleyes:.