Page 15 of 91 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 909

Thread: Iodine: a discussion, and perhaps a civilized debate page 15

  1. #141
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Paysan View Post
    Seriously, does anyone really believe that any doctor would say in so many words, "Learn to live with your breasts or cut them off"?
    I do. Doctors are people, and when frustrated by patients that they have been unable to help, are apt to blurt out inappropriate responses. It tends to empty their examining room faster.
    Any doctor at my HMO who said such a thing would be fired. But Grizz likes to tell a story with flair.
    Last edited by Paleobird; 08-05-2012 at 04:02 PM.

  2. #142
    jo's Avatar
    jo
    jo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by jammies View Post
    To be completely fair here though, mammogram use for detection of breast cancer is quite controversial. Do I recall correctly that you started your mammograms before age 50? Really that goes against what is supported by the data. So you did what you thought was right for you, in spite of what science supported. That is every persons right. Whether that be for iodine use or mammograms.
    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.

  3. #143
    ljbprrfmof's Avatar
    ljbprrfmof is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The SunKissed Southern Shore of Lake Erie in PA.
    Posts
    366
    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
    Quote help.jpg
    Place cursor in between these two quotation markers (it is already there) and press paste when you right click
    Hope that helps.


    LJ
    Learning the intricacies of healthy eating and nourishing my body the right way.
    I am not bald, that is a Vitamin D collector. Time to Grok and Roll!
    Eased into a primal diet starting at Christmas 2011. Goal weight - 205 started: 240 pounds waist 40, now 227 pounds and waist 38 Summer 2012 - weight =215 and waist is actually still 39"
    ljbprrfmof = LJ = Little John = John

  4. #144
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote 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.
    You have the right to do whatever you like but what if you have a cancer like mine that was invisible and not palpable but clearly visible on a mammogram? It depends where in the breast it is located. Mine was right in the middle and back by the ribcage. Had I not had a mammogram I would be dead. That is not speculation, just facts. Please, reconsider.

    30-Year Trial Confirms Mammograms Save Lives - ABC News

    The point made in the report on this study is that the benefits of mammograms=fewer deaths from cancer only show up if you follow a population long enough. Many of the studies claiming that mammograms don't really help that much were much shorter in duration. This Swedish study had 130,000 women followed over 3 decades.

    There was a 30% reduction in mortality.
    Last edited by Paleobird; 08-05-2012 at 07:08 PM.

  5. #145
    jo's Avatar
    jo
    jo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    You have the right to do whatever you like but what if you have a cancer like mine that was invisible and not palpable but clearly visible on a mammogram? It depends where in the breast it is located. Mine was right in the middle and back by the ribcage. Had I not had a mammogram I would be dead. That is not speculation, just facts. Please, reconsider.

    30-Year Trial Confirms Mammograms Save Lives - ABC News

    The point made in the report on this study is that the benefits of mammograms=fewer deaths from cancer only show up if you follow a population long enough. Many of the studies claiming that mammograms don't really help that much were much shorter in duration. This Swedish study had 130,000 women followed over 3 decades.

    There was a 30% reduction in mortality.
    I don't know your history, but just based on the post you have made, how do you know that you would be dead? Some cancer tumours grow so slowly that the woman dies before she even knows she has it. You illustrate the problems with debate on this issue perfectly. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of women have been diagnosed with cancer and treated successfully. Many will probably pile in here with their own near death experiences. However, the studies show that the same number of women are dying of breast cancer as did before screening was introduced. How can this be?

    Also, if you are going to claim the above as facts, please post a link to the study, not an ABC press release please.

    I will be keeping fully abreast of the research as it comes out, but I see no good research to justify screening at this point in time.
    Last edited by jo; 08-05-2012 at 09:11 PM.

  6. #146
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jo View Post
    I don't know your history, but just based on the post you have made, how do you know that you would be dead? Some cancer tumours grow so slowly that the woman dies before she even knows she has it. You illustrate the problems with debate on this issue perfectly. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of women have been diagnosed with cancer and treated successfully. Many will probably pile in here with their own near death experiences. However, the studies show that the same number of women are dying of breast cancer as did before screening was introduced. How can this be?

    Also, if you are going to claim the above as facts, please post a link to the study, not an ABC press release please.

    I will be keeping fully abreast of the research as it comes out, but I see no good research to justify screening at this point in time.
    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.

  7. #147
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    975
    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.
    So I think some leeway should be given in that there is not much financial incentive to do a study which shows you can cut your medical bill by popping a bit of iodine or any other non patentable nutrient for that matter. 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.
    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.

  8. #148
    ecksvedge's Avatar
    ecksvedge is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by RobinNM View Post
    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... That actually was an interesting study and thank you for finding it and posting it.

    Let's revisit the whole "scientific ignorance" question, though. You posted a scientific study that had very interesting results on breast cancer cell lines in a laboratory setting. It's a good start and it definitely has some merit. It does NOT, however, state anywhere that orally ingested iodine "Successfully Treats Breast Cancer" as was implied in an earlier post, which I objected to. On that same track, a response to me included this statement: "Read all about it here, chapter Cancer" and included a link to that writer's iodine resource document. After I got through all of the script debugging notifications and actually was able to click on some of the links, it was very apparent that the "resources" were anecdotal and led back to Dr. Brownstein's books and advertisements. I have nothing against Dr. Brownstein. I have never read his work and probably won't. I have nothing against people who want to follow his protocol. If it works for them, more power to them and I wish them well.

    What I DO have an objection to, however, is wide-ranging statements such as "iodine cures breast cancer" and then absolutely NOTHING with which to back that up. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.

    Your link was interesting, but again, doesn't support the phrase "iodine cures breast cancer." What it does support is the knowledge that molecular iodine helped to kill some breast cancer line cells in a laboratory setting. That is good knowledge and it's a good start and I hope there are researchers out there in the world building on that.
    RobinNM,

    Yes, I was being sarcastic.

    I have not brought up Grizz or Brownstein, and have not quoted either of them. They are not relevant to my previous post. My post was about the apoptosis comments Paleobird made.

    Paleobird accused someone of "basic scientific ignorance" because they have a different view than she has. She took the opportunity to attack and insult that poster based on information you provided as fact, and I am simply saying what you claim as "fact" is incorrect. So that ironically makes Paleobird the person who is guilty of "basic scientific ignorance"

    Here is the exchange I am talking about.

    Claim from RobinNM in response to Grizz:
    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.
    Paleobird's response:
    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.
    My Response to Paleobird:
    Paleobird, here is some more scientific ignorance.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16679319

    Molecular iodine induces caspase-independent apoptosis in human breast carcinoma cells involving the mitochondria-mediated pathway.

    Abstract

    Molecular iodine (I2) is known to inhibit the induction and promotion of N-methyl-n-nitrosourea-induced mammary carcinogenesis, to regress 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced breast tumors in rat, and has also been shown to have beneficial effects in fibrocystic human breast disease. Cytotoxicity of iodine on cultured human breast cancer cell lines, namely MCF-7, MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-453, ZR-75-1, and T-47D, is reported in this communication. Iodine induced apoptosis in all of the cell lines tested, except MDA-MB-231, shown by sub-G1 peak analysis using flow cytometry. Iodine inhibited proliferation of normal human peripheral blood mononuclear cells; however, it did not induce apoptosis in these cells. The iodine-induced apoptotic mechanism was studied in MCF-7 cells. DNA fragmentation analysis confirmed internucleosomal DNA degradation. Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick-end labeling established that iodine induced apoptosis in a time- and dose-dependent manner in MCF-7 cells. Iodine-induced apoptosis was independent of caspases. Iodine dissipated mitochondrial membrane potential, exhibited antioxidant activity, and caused depletion in total cellular thiol content. Western blot results showed a decrease in Bcl-2 and up-regulation of Bax. Immunofluorescence studies confirmed the activation and mitochondrial membrane localization of Bax. Ectopic Bcl-2 overexpression did not rescue iodine-induced cell death. Iodine treatment induces the translocation of apoptosis-inducing factor from mitochondria to the nucleus, and treatment of N-acetyl-L-cysteine prior to iodine exposure restored basal thiol content, ROS levels, and completely inhibited nuclear translocation of apoptosis-inducing factor and subsequently cell death, indicating that thiol depletion may play an important role in iodine-induced cell death. These results demonstrate that iodine treatment activates a caspase-independent and mitochondria-mediated apoptotic pathway.
    Please note the title of the study:
    Molecular iodine induces caspase-independent apoptosis in human breast carcinoma cells involving the mitochondria-mediated pathway.

    Brownstein is not in the credits. The instructions to get access to the complete study are on PubMed.gov
    Last edited by ecksvedge; 08-06-2012 at 01:14 AM. Reason: fixed broken link

  9. #149
    Radialhead's Avatar
    Radialhead is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Purton, UK
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by ecksvedge View Post
    Paleobird accused someone of "basic scientific ignorance" because they have a different view than she has. She took the opportunity to attack and insult that poster based on information you provided as fact, and I am simply saying what you claim as "fact" is incorrect. So that ironically makes Paleobird the person who is guilty of "basic scientific ignorance"
    Grizz said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizz View Post
    There is a lot of doctor documented articles on Iodine killing cancer cells. The process is called apoptosis.
    which could easily be inferred as 'The process of Iodine killing cancer cells is called apoptosis'. I suspect that's what RobinNM thought Grizz meant, especially with this line:

    Quote Originally Posted by RobinNM View Post
    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.
    So Paleobird saying:

    Quote 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.
    was perfectly valid. People may (& apparently did) read what Grizz said & assume he meant that apoptosis specifically meant the process of iodine killing cancer cells.

  10. #150
    Radialhead's Avatar
    Radialhead is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Purton, UK
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Paysan View Post
    But here's the kicker - "As the Japanese transitioned from a traditional to a Westernized diet, beginning around the 1950's [20], consumption of certain seaweed species declined while others increased. A decrease in kombu consumption (844 to 685 g/year per household) and an increase in wakame consumption (727 to 1234 g/year per household) can be seen between the years of 1963 and 1973 [21]. Consumption of kombu per Japanese household dropped further to 450 g in 2006 (elders ate up to four times more than those under the age of 29. "
    So, depending when that estimate first surfaced, depending on theirage and the availability of seaweeds especially kombu, the original estimates may very well have been correct AT THE TIME. Current figures are only estimates and based entirely on averages. So, apparently, you can select any figure between 3.0 and 13.8 , and for some parts of the Japanese population, you'd be correct.
    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.

Page 15 of 91 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •