Study n effectiveness of Iodine
Comments
-
Adjuvant online. I'm referring to absolute survival benefit for some breast cancers. Often relative risk is presented to the patient rather than absolute survival benefit. This can be misleading to patients who are seeking to understand the absolute survival benefits, which is why it is so important for us to ask questions and do our research. Here's some articles which discuss this topic.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/01/23/d...
http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/rr.html
0 -
Pipers, ok, I am glad and relieved to know that you have the support and insurance you need. That is great.
I also think my perspective is a little different because I live in Europe, where medical treatment just isn't as expensive as it is in the US. There are all kinds of problems with medical care in general, and additional problems with the US way of doing health care.
Rates in the 50s were lower because of lower detection and because people died of other stuff that doesn't kill these days.
Also, the average American diet is really bad, agreed. Europeans are a little behind in that regard, but catching up as best they can. I happen to live in Greece, which still offers a pretty decent diet to the average person, including a lot of seafood, i.e. iodine. I got stupid BC anyway.
I wish you all the best with your treatment.
0 -
This is one study that shows the effectiveness of chemo to be just 2% in 5-year survival rates.
0 -
Light, the Forbes article is talking about how to present the info. The 2% given as an example is a hypothetical.
Doctors are getting better at weighing the wisdom of chemo, through things like the Oncotype test, and this is a good thing.
In my particular case, the benefit of chemo was far greater than 2%. Basically, without chemo and AI, I had less than a 50% chance of living 5 years. With both of those treatments, my odds rose to about 75% survival for 5 years. I do not remember the statistical portion of each treatment, but the chemo part was significant.
I completely agree that chemo should not be given willy-nilly, but increasingly doctors are, in fact, not doing that.
0 -
my chemo/rads/tamoxifen benefits are similar to Momines. Without all three I'm not sure I would make it to five years. There is no cure fir dancer so it will likely get us all in the end. I'm just hoping that end is many years from now.
Early stage BC? I may agree with your 1-2%.
0 -
Does chemotherapy provide only a 2% benefit? Here's what one surgical oncologist says about that claim.
As for the beneficial effects of iodine in breast cancer treatment, I haven't been able to find anything (including the links in this thread) that supports such claims. Breastcancerchoices.org's "iodine protocol" is heavily promoted here and elsewhere, but they are an agenda-based pseudo-medical organization that promotes lots of dangerous misinformation and just happens to sell iodine, so this raises lots of red flags for me.
0 -
Newme: From the article you posted:
"What needs to be understood is that chemotherapy is very good for some things. For instance, it’s very good for treating and curing leukemias and lymphomas. For certain cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, it’s very good at decreasing the chance of relapse after curative surgery."
Orac is, btw, a BC doc.
0 -
Momine,
Yes, yes, and yes! (and yes!)
0 -
Mardi, we have very similar diagnoses, and we were DXed around the same time. The only real difference seems to be that you had ductal and I had lobular. I agree that the objective is to push the return of the cancer as far into the future as possible.
I went back and plugged my numbers into cancer math (not adjuvant online). Only thing is that I can't get it to calculate for 3B, but for 3A ER+ lobular, these were the numbers:
No adjuvant treatment: 15-yr death from cancer: 60%. IOW, less than 50% survival.
Chemo only, no hormonal treatment: 15-yr death from cancer: 27%, so survival just jumped from 40% to 73% (absolute numbers).
AI only: 15-yr cancer death rate: 40%. Still a lot better than 60, but not as good as:
Chemo+AI: 15-yr death from cancer: 19% or 82% survival.
I realize this is only counting death from cancer and is not calculating in death from other causes or death from side effects of treatment etc. Still, those numbers seem rather significant all the same. I also realize that if you have a DX of stage 1 with no nodes, the picture is completely different.
0 -
I also, just for kicks, plugged in a node-negative, large tumor, ER+ ductal, so a stage 2A.
15-yr cancer death with:
No therapy: 20%
Tamox only: 14%
Chemo only: 10%
Chemo+tamox: 6%
Thing is that even with nothing, the odds for this stage are about the same as my odds with every treatment possible. Still, the advantage of the treatment, even in this much lower stage, is fairly significant and greater than 2%.
0 -
Dear Lucy88
I would very much like to read or listen to this presentation - do you have a link to it please?
I am so upset. I met my MO on Thursday and asked her what her opinion of iodine is. She responded in the most agressive and rude manner - without giving me any explanation for her negativity.
What a miserable excuse for a human being.
So am starting my own research and would welcome any links.
Thanks
0 -
The treatments one chooses is a very personal and individual decision. For me, the proof is in pudding- nearly 40,000 deaths from breast cancer this year.
I wish those survival risk predictions were able to convince me Momine. I would so like to believe that we are in completely safe hands with conventional treatments and that pharmaceutical corps didn't have a monopoly on cancer care and did not have the power to manipulate survival risks for their own interests. I would much rather trust. But how can I trust what's not working? If these risk numbers are correct, and chemo or chemo and hormonal increases survival, wouldn't the number of deaths of the many people who have used conventional methods exclusively actually be much smaller? It concerns me that many chemos cause normal cells to emit a protein WNT16B that encourages the growth of cancer. Can someone please prove that these articles are based on conspiracy? I would love to know that is the case.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/08/06/chemother...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2184277/.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19111700
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/shock...
There is a great deal of info out there in regards to iodine and breast cancer that doesn't come from breastcancerchoices.org. There are many places to purchase various brands of lugols/iodine besides breastcancerchoices.org. Here's some links to studies on iodine and breast cancer.
http://www.medsci.org/v05p0189.htm
0 -
Light, I am sorry you believe that. Not really sure what else to say.
Obviously conventional treatment is not working well enough. I have no illusions of being "cured." All I am hoping for is to delay the inevitable as much as possible.
As for the iodine, I have seen a few, small, preliminary studies suggesting that it would be worth investigating further, but not much else.
Also, my basic idea is that we should try to get as many helpful nutrients as possible, including iodine, from diet. I am very leery of the idea of iodine supplementation in the absence of an established deficiency. However, making sure you eat adequate amounts of seafood and seaweed is a different matter from my POV. Maybe I am just quirky that way.
Put another way, if a study suggests that the iodine-rich Japanese diet may provide some protection that may be true. But I do not conclude from that ingesting loads of iodine will cure cancer. One does not logically lead to the other, in my mind anyway.
0 -
I am neither for nor against iodine but it seems to me that although a minority of people may present iodine as THE CURE for cancer, most others just think it might be one of the nutrients lacking in our diets that enables (possibly along with other conditions as well) cancer to take hold.
However, when the VERY ANTI iodine group hear anything about iodine they get very extremely against it.
I think the truth will be found somewhere in the middle with the majority of moderates. The question is how do we go about finding genuine research and furthering the research?
(Same goes for the effect of Vitamin D.)
0 -
Good point about the large quantities of iodine causing concern.
By the very anti group I don't mean an organized group of people (I am not a conspiracy theory type
) just anyone who is completely and utterly against the very mention of iodine. I do get your explanation of it being a knee jerk reaction type of thing.Surely there is an accurate way to test iodine in the blood and to be prescribed the safe dose necessary for healthy functioning by a doctor?
Has anyone who takes iodine and who might be reading this been prescribed iodine by a doctor?
If so, what type of doctor? Oncologist? Endocrine doctor?
0 -
Bounce, I remember back in the midst of my treatments I decided on reconstructive surgery that wasn't available locally. I wanted DIEP reconstruction. I told my local surgeon of my decision. First, he said he hadn't ever heard of it. I handed him information. Upon glancing through it for 30 seconds, he proceeded to tell me how dangerous this surgery could be. From ignorance to pronouncing it dangerous in just 30 seconds! Imagine that!
Well, you don't have to imagine that, do you. You've already encountered what doctors tend to do when something outside their paradigm enters their world. You want to know what else? I had the best medical experience of my life when I traveled to get my surgery. At first I was upset. Then I made an extra trip to meet with the DIEP surgeon personally in advance. I did more homework. I compared notes with others. I listened to my heart. My surgery was in 2005, and I'm happy with my results to this day. I shudder to think what my results would have been locally.
I think I still have a copy of Dr Derry's book on iodine and breast cancer around here somewhere. I'd be happy to send it to you if you want to send me your mailing address (privately of course).
0 -
Dear althea
I am so glad you were able to have a positive experience thanks to your hard work and perseverance. It takes strength to face up to the medical establishment. Well done.
Thank you so much for the offer of the book but I am out of the USA so not practical for you to mail it.
I will look for it locally or order it over the internet after doing some research on who Dr. Derry is.
0 -
Hi Bounce,
If you want to get a book, Dr Brownstein is a really good choice, Iodine: why you need and why you can't live without it.
There's a lengthy q&a at this link that gives a taste of what you would find in Dr Derry's book
0 -
Iodine in Health and Civil Defense
Presented at the 24th
Annual Meeting of Doctors of Disaster Preparednessat Portland State University, August 6, 2006
by Donald W. Miller,
Jr., M.D.Recommended Reading:
- Miller DW. Iodine in Health and Civil Defense. Presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness in Portland, Oregon, August 6, 2006. The text for this talk, with 68 references, can be found here, and the PowerPoint slides I used for it, here.
0 -
I am so tired of the back and forth of chemo/pros and cons.
I use Lugol's iodine and wondering if I should switch to iodoral? I have terrible bromide detox issues. Dr. Wong does highly recommend I also use iodine. Breastcancerchoices.org is THE site to follow and Lynn Farrow is an awesome expert who is so helpful at any forum she runs.
0 -
jojo- as long as false or misleading info regarding chemo or iodine or herbs or whatever are presented then you can expect people to correct it. You can always choose to ignore.
0 -
Sorry Jojo. I didn't mean to offend anyone. Your thread was being taken over by conspiracy theorists. Had to bring them back down to earth (just kidding). Great info Mfwine! Thanks for posting. Really shows the historical evolution of iodine for health. Fascinating about the mice tumors.
0 -
light - who are the conspiracy theorists ??? Both Momine and I benefit from chemo and hormonals far more than the suggested 1-2%. Is that what you are referring to?
0 -
Miff, thanks for posting that. There is also some newer research out of Drexel on a possible link between iodine, estrogen and breast cancers. It is intriguing, certainly. Thing is that none of it even suggests that taking massive doses of iodine is either helpful or a good idea. We would need a lot more research to establish how the link even works, what it really means, how much iodine is enough etc.
0 -
Jojo, this is the comp forum, where discussion is allowed. Personally, I think some lively discussion is helpful in terms of gathering solid information.
I have a packet of seaweed in my pantry, and I eat it. I also eat a lot of seafood. The study from Japan is certainly interesting.
What bothers me with a lot of the supplement stuff is that there seems to be a common assumption that if lack of vitamin D or iodine, as examples, MAY be related to cancer, then taking massive doses of the lacking nutrient will cure/prevent cancer. It is simply not a logical conclusion, and in the case of iodine (and several other supplements) taking massive doses may well be a really bad idea.
In some ways it reminds me of the discussions I used to have with people about child rearing. It is decided that kids respond well to positive feedback and that this is good for their self esteem, so suddenly parents are going bananas clapping and praising junior every time he says "boo." Eventually junior grows up to be an entitled brat who falls apart if someone is not there to chirp "GOOD JOB!" all the time.
So, it seems to me that the key is to get just enough.
0 -
Sometimes I am surprised at the disinformation that can be found via the internet...! So important to discriminate vis a vis what you read, and what you choose to believe (and repeat or respond to), especially when it is unsourced, and anonymous.
0 -
Momine, that is a funny analogy. Fortunately the psychological world is a bit more ambiguous than the physiological one. I get what you're saying but there seems to be some scientific backing which supports the use of these protocols. Obviously the mice study is an example. Pretty convincing to me, even though I'm not a mouse. Mfwine, can you point us to any human studies. which can support the use of these amounts of iodine?
Also Momine, what I like about what you said is that you have done some of your own research and found out those supporting iodine are not all a bunch of quacks, that there does seem to be some reason to have a daily intake of iodine. This is a far more acceptable attitude to me than one that scares innocent people into using chemo and away from using alternatives of any kind, telling them they are "committing suicide" if they don't choose chemo, when according to Adjuvant online, in many cases, chemo doesn't help us much anyway, and as Mardibra says, cancer is just going to "get us all in the end." This is the dismal outcome Adjuvant online details in most any high risk case, leaving us with a huge likelihood of death from cancer, even when we use the whole conventional shebang.
So...I'm not satisified with my choices of just chemo, and hormonals when they haven't been proven to help much, they hurt alot, and the outcome is that cancer is just going to get me in the end. I choose to look at the possibilities outside of that, which to me seems very reasonable and logical. Surely, everyone who is looking for other ways to stay alive isn't a quack, especially when there is supporting evidence of many different alternative treatments out there such as iodine, black seed oil, grape seed exrtrt, cucumin, IC3/DIM, pycogenol, lycium barbarum, medicinal mushrooms, proteolytic enzymes, brocolli sprts/sulphorphane, artemisinin/butyrate, reservatrol, querticiin, and many, many more.
0 -
Light, one of the reasons I frequent this forum is to learn of any alternatives that may yield some good. If my approach was just to dismiss it all out of hand, it certainly wouldn't make any sense for me to read along here.
I know the psych analogy is a bit flippant, but I stand by the basic point all the same.
As for the distinct possibility that the cancer may kill me in the end anyway, that is a given. Currently all treatments, conventional and alternative, leave much to be desired. The thing is, though, that to me, personally, it still makes a big difference whether I die in the next 2-3 years vs dying in 15, 20 or 25. It may be BC that kills me either way, but however many disease-free years I can gain from whatever treatment available are still precious to me.
The other point I have tried to make (several times, I am afraid) is that the cost/benefit analysis of, for example, chemo is a very individual thing and depends on many factors: age, histology, stage, co-morbidities etc. I don't think you can say across the board that it is either great or virtually useless, because it all depends. As already outlined, in my case, it vastly improves my odds of attaining my 3-score and ten.
0 -
Yes Momine, my point exactly. I guess considering what surgeries and hormonals did to me in terms of my overall health, my quality of life, zest for life, and at times even on my will to live, I'm of the belief I'd be a poor candidate for chemo. I'm now fully convinced I'm super sensitive and prone to debilitating side effects that may themselves (if I let them) take years from me. Again, not saying I would never try certain chemos, but for now I intend to fight every step of the way while boosting and maintaining my quality of life (a healthy mind and body).
There's some positive research out there on Alpha lipoic acid (ALA), alpha linoleic acid (ALA), conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), N-acytel cysteine (NAC), olive leaf extract, fish oil, cod liver oil, vit d, evening primrose oil (GLA), astaxanthin from beets, cats claw, chinese skullcap, graviola, fucodian,calcium d glucarate, astragalus, MSM, holy basil, LDN, rath protocol, beta glucans, lingzhi, asparagus. These kinds of studies give me hope. The studies and stats, combined with the realities and the outcomes of conventional treatment do not. I have to place my bets where my heart has hope.
I'm just so sorry to us both and to everyone here who has to find themselves gambling with their lives. May 2014 bring brighter days, more frequent joys, and bigger hopes for all of us.
0 -
Light, yes, you have to go with what you can get behind and what you believe will help your particular situation. Other than the stupid BC, I was in good health when DXed and I recovered quite well from the whole ordeal of treatment. It never really occurred to me (stupidly perhaps) that it would be otherwise. My mom had ovarian cancer 7 years ago, had a grueling surgery and a bunch of chemo. Most times she rode her bike to and from chemo. A few years later her sister did the same with breast, endometrial and lung cancer (3 separate primaries). Both ladies are 70+ and so far, so good, although my aunt is technically stage 4 at this point (she had more chemo a year after the first round and has been NED since).
I am sorry for your troubles with the treatment. That must be very difficult.
0
