Page 39 of 91 FirstFirst ... 2937383940414989 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 910

Thread: Iodine: a discussion, and perhaps a civilized debate page 39

  1. #381
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferti View Post
    I do most mornings a 1/2 tsp salt (gray) with water, sometimes I add lemon or DE (dia. earth sp?). I don't find that works for me for kidney function though. When I first started with the iodine (even the kelp tablets) I would get headaches and the salt works great for that but not so much the kidney function for me.
    People need to keep in mind that the salt also pushes iodine out.

    Lemon juice is good and I love food grade diatomaceous earth (DE). But I don't take large amounts. Silica is essential to the body primarily for the production of structural proteins. But silica is poorly absorbed, especially as we age due to the decline in stomach acid. So I add my DE to a large container of water and let it settle out. Then I drink the water part way down and add more water, then let it settle out again. Each time water is added the water dissolves traces of the silica forming orthosilicic acid, which is the form silica is absorbed in and utilized by the body.

  2. #382
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferti View Post
    I've had kidney functions issues, urinate a lot - really a lot., need pads for normal living (ie, walking, breathing - never mind jumping, coughing). Started kegel (10 seconds holding them, every hour (when I remember a few time a week). Things have been better with focus but always worse during the end of my cycle (right before period), started to think it was my body not removing things it wanted remove (hence all the peeing). So right now it's me thinking I'm not eliminating what needs to be eliminated.
    Have you been checked for sugar diabetes as well as diabetes insipidus (DI)? DI does not involve blood sugar. Both conditions can cause excessive urination. In fact, that is the what "diabetes" means, excessive urination.

    Drinking purified waters, such as distilled or reverse osmosis water, will also increase urination.

  3. #383
    katemary's Avatar
    katemary is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesS View Post
    No, it will help the liver to function more efficiently. But again, start out slow and build up to three times daily and drink plenty of water throughout the day. Also remember not to do bitters if you have had your gallbladder removed. Not sure if you have or not, but people need to be aware to not use bitters in these cases.


    Lemon juice is acidic and acids are considered sour, not bitter. Unless you want to chew on the lemon peels.
    Thanks, I'll start out with a morning dose.

    and umm, yeah. Lemons are sour, not bitter, how embarrassing! No wonder I am a crappy cook

  4. #384
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,089
    this is the weirdest thread ever.

    here is my take, coming from a different yet somewhat similar experience.

    It's ok to allow someone to refuse medical treatment. It's not your responsibility to convince them away from their path, even if it is risky -- or in your mind, stupid.

    My aunt died of breast cancer. Everyone in the family was very, very angry with her because she refused allopathic care. Seriously, the rage that ran through the family was intense as can be. It still has ripples.

    But then there was her own POV.

    She was following allopathy, and they didn't discover the problem until late (apparently -- so she says). The doctors suggested that she had a slim chance of surviving, and only if she went the hard road. We all know the story, right?

    What she saw for herself was a lot of time spent in hospitals, a lot of time in pain, a lot of time too sick to do what she loved to do most: be and play with her grandchildren. She also figured that she had a greater chance of dying than living either way, and so the question was -- how did she want to spend the time that she had?

    So her primary focus was not necessarily on desperately trying to cure cancer, but rather to live well until she died of cancer. She refused allopathy at the first.

    Secondarily, she did things that she thought would help her feel better, and it if happened to cure her cancer then great. She took a weekend retreat about juice fasting and raw veganism -- and decided to get big into juicing. She couldn't get massage, apparently, but she would get this "hands on healing" every week that really made her feel great.

    And in between, she played with her grandchildren.

    her doctors gave her -- without treatment -- about 1-2 years to live. With treatment, they gave her 1-3 if the cancer/treatment didn't kill her. And she lived 5 years with cancer before dying from it. She died at home with very, very basic hospice care, and her grandchildren were playing video games in her room when she passed.

    So I say, good for my aunt. She did what she wanted to do. She was really only in her mid-50s -- and I know some of you are around that age and would say "oh hell no!" but she made her choice.

    It's ok to choose that path, that greater risk of death by avoiding allopathy. It's also ok to advocate allopathy.

    I think it's fair to assert that any information about alternatives should be taken cautiously -- and recognize that there is risk in choosing an alternative to allopathy.

    I think it's "fair enough" either way. But I don't think it's normal to "feel guilt" or assert that someone should feel guilt for some inter-web person's decision to forgo or go with allopathy.

  5. #385
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    this is the weirdest thread ever.

    here is my take, coming from a different yet somewhat similar experience.

    It's ok to allow someone to refuse medical treatment. It's not your responsibility to convince them away from their path, even if it is risky -- or in your mind, stupid.

    My aunt died of breast cancer. Everyone in the family was very, very angry with her because she refused allopathic care. Seriously, the rage that ran through the family was intense as can be. It still has ripples.

    But then there was her own POV.

    She was following allopathy, and they didn't discover the problem until late (apparently -- so she says). The doctors suggested that she had a slim chance of surviving, and only if she went the hard road. We all know the story, right?

    What she saw for herself was a lot of time spent in hospitals, a lot of time in pain, a lot of time too sick to do what she loved to do most: be and play with her grandchildren. She also figured that she had a greater chance of dying than living either way, and so the question was -- how did she want to spend the time that she had?

    So her primary focus was not necessarily on desperately trying to cure cancer, but rather to live well until she died of cancer. She refused allopathy at the first.

    Secondarily, she did things that she thought would help her feel better, and it if happened to cure her cancer then great. She took a weekend retreat about juice fasting and raw veganism -- and decided to get big into juicing. She couldn't get massage, apparently, but she would get this "hands on healing" every week that really made her feel great.

    And in between, she played with her grandchildren.

    her doctors gave her -- without treatment -- about 1-2 years to live. With treatment, they gave her 1-3 if the cancer/treatment didn't kill her. And she lived 5 years with cancer before dying from it. She died at home with very, very basic hospice care, and her grandchildren were playing video games in her room when she passed.

    So I say, good for my aunt. She did what she wanted to do. She was really only in her mid-50s -- and I know some of you are around that age and would say "oh hell no!" but she made her choice.

    It's ok to choose that path, that greater risk of death by avoiding allopathy. It's also ok to advocate allopathy.

    I think it's fair to assert that any information about alternatives should be taken cautiously -- and recognize that there is risk in choosing an alternative to allopathy.

    I think it's "fair enough" either way. But I don't think it's normal to "feel guilt" or assert that someone should feel guilt for some inter-web person's decision to forgo or go with allopathy.
    Thanks for sharing your story Zoebird.

    I agree with you completely. There are no guarantees regardless if someone goes allopathic, holistic or does nothing at all. So the decision really needs to be the person's own decision.

    Personally, if I were in your aunt's position I would not go with chemotherapy or radiation therapy either if I had cancer. But that is my personal position based on my life experience in the field. That does not make my decision right for everyone.

    For the record I am not 100% against allopathic treatments. I have had people ask me in the past about going with holistic therapies for their cancers but the cancers were so advanced despite their allopathic therapies. Still I have recommended certain allopathic therapies such as more localized radiation therapy first to help knock back large amounts of the tumor to buy them more time if they were going to go with less aggressive holistic therapies.

    In an ideal world there would be a blend of of allopathic and holistic utilizing the best of both worlds. This has been happening slowly because the public is demanding more natural remedies. People would even be surprised to find out how many herbal companies have been bought up by pharmaceutical companies. And practices such as acupuncture, aromatherapy and healing touch are now being allowed in some hospitals.

  6. #386
    KathyH's Avatar
    KathyH is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesS View Post
    I would consider too low anything below 100. Below this point the risk of adverse effects such as heart attack and stroke start increasing greatly.

    As far as dangers go there is no real limit as to what is too high since high cholesterol does not cause heart disease or other diseases. High cholesterol though can indicate other problems. As I mentioned earlier the reasons for high cholesterol are in improperly functioning liver or hypothyroidism. So what I would consider high here would be above the 200 mark.
    So what I gather is that high cholesterol is still bad but not for the heart but for other reasons and we should be paying attention to our cholesterol level and not completely dismiss it.
    What do you recommend as far as lowering cholesterol if the liver and thyroid are functioning properly? Or is that impossible since you mentioned that the only two factors contributing to higher cholesterol level are liver and thyroid gland not functioning properly? If so, when one changes the diet and the total cholesterol goes up does that then indicate that you are basically damaging your liver by the food your consuming?

  7. #387
    Ferti's Avatar
    Ferti is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Boston Area
    Posts
    211
    Have you been checked for sugar diabetes as well as diabetes insipidus (DI)? DI does not involve blood sugar. Both conditions can cause excessive urination. In fact, that is the what "diabetes" means, excessive urination.
    I'm not sure if I was checked for DI, have to look next time I go to doctors but looking it up it doesn't seem likely in my case. I did recently buy a sugar meter to test my sugars (although they've been checked in the past and have been fine).
    For the kidneys my favorite herbs are schisandra berry and nettle leaf, both of which are supportive to the liver as well.
    Would I be taking them as a tea? I will try some bitters as well. Thanks for your response.

  8. #388
    KellyS's Avatar
    KellyS is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Concord, NH
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferti View Post
    I detoxed (what I'm not sure) on kelp tablets (one tablet >300 mcg iodine), we could assume that was iodine overload/detox (although I'm pretty sure I was deficient in iodine, which would make it a bromide detox - and yes I could test but I do allow my own personal judgement to have the biggest vote). I'm now at 100 - 125 mg. Lugol's iodine (Pulse dosing, weekends off). I still detox the same way, scalp acne. My breast cysts are gone. I will probably do another month of lugol's at a high dose, drop down to 50 and then 25 and decide if I think that works for how I feel. I really do think it's important to have your selenium - i've been at 200 mcg in selenium.
    I've had detox issues, as I've said, from the get go, I would really like some suggestions on detoxing liver (maybe more kidney). I have found that juicing seems to help (greens, beets, I've thrown in some dandelion). I don't find that NAC or Milk Thistle has helped. Any suggestions, especially about kidney function would be appreciated.
    Ferti - How long did it take for you to get up to 100mg? Was it a gradual titrate up or did you just jump right in to 100mg?

  9. #389
    Ferti's Avatar
    Ferti is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Boston Area
    Posts
    211
    Ferti - How long did it take for you to get up to 100mg? Was it a gradual titrate up or did you just jump right in to 100mg?
    I started in January with kelp tablets and in February I started Iodoral 12.5 mg. and moved up every week or so. I use Lugol's 5% now - much cheaper.

  10. #390
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by KathyH View Post
    So what I gather is that high cholesterol is still bad but not for the heart but for other reasons and we should be paying attention to our cholesterol level and not completely dismiss it.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by KathyH View Post
    What do you recommend as far as lowering cholesterol if the liver and thyroid are functioning properly? Or is that impossible since you mentioned that the only two factors contributing to higher cholesterol level are liver and thyroid gland not functioning properly? If so, when one changes the diet and the total cholesterol goes up does that then indicate that you are basically damaging your liver by the food your consuming?
    Let's start by discussing the tests for liver and thyroid so the rest will make sense.

    Many people think that the ALT and AST tests actually show liver function, which is one of the reasons they are often referred to as "liver function" tests. These tests do not determine liver function. These are actually enzyme tests that look for enzymes leaked from damaged cells. Furthermore, contrary to popular belief these enzyme tests are not specific to the liver either. So elevated ALT and AST do not confirm liver function nor liver damage.

    Thyroid tests can show low thyroid function in some cases, but they often miss cases of mild hypothyroidism for a couple of reasons. Therefore, they are not really to be relied on either. Abnormally low basal body temperature readings in conjunction with symptoms of hypothyroidism can confirm hypothyroidism even when lab values come back false normal.

    High cholesterol will indicate a problem with one of these two.

    Even a diet high in cholesterol would not cause high cholesterol since a rise in cholesterol would cause the liver to reduce synthesis and break down the excess. Although it would be possible that a really excessive consumption of cholesterol could be higher than the amount that the liver could metabolize even if healthy this would be highly unlikely. The reason is that our diets also tend to contain sterols that bind cholesterol preventing its absorption or lecithin that make cholesterol water soluble and easier to remove. This is why dietary cholesterol is not really considered a significant factor for cholesterol levels.

    Dietary wise sterol sources such as olive oil are good since this will bind not only bind dietary cholesterol but also bile cholesterol. Legumes, nuts, seeds and grains are all good sterol sources.

    If diet is not enough alone herbs can also provide sterols. Jiaogulan (gynostemma) is the highest source I know of sterols. Yucca root is also excellent.

    The other thing that can help are bitter tasting foods such as bitter melon , dandelion greens, arugula, etc.

    Liver function can be impaired for a number of reasons. Pharmaceutical drugs are one of the biggest offenders. Even over the counter drugs such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin, Nuprin, etc.), or acetaminophen (Tylenol). Alcohol can also impair the liver, as well as exposure to excess toxins, infections, etc.

Page 39 of 91 FirstFirst ... 2937383940414989 ... 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
  •