Study n effectiveness of Iodine
Comments
-
Light, I didn't "defend" anyone. I said I could understand why people questioned someone, who is not a patient, posting here. I have seen quite a few salesmen come through this forum, just in the last 2 years.
I also understand why regulars here may question the "Dr." title and the "Ph.D" title. Sometimes they refer to real titles, but often they refer to Ph.Ds from dubious institutions or in dubious disciplines.
Other than the Japanese study, I have not seen much that would argue for taking iodine, especially not iodine in very large doses. However, as already said, it is only a correlation, so that too is iffy. Most of the other studies are preliminaries or prelims to prelims. If you feel well and you think it is helping you, that is great, but rather different.
0 -
Also Momine are you confusing radioactive iodine with potassium iodide when
you mentioned that it causes thyroid cancer? Many sources say that potassium iodide (KI), which is what we are talking
about here, is used to protect against thyroid cancer. Here's one w/
statements from the FDA, the World Health Organization, and others that
say it is a safe effective treatment to protect people from thyroid
cancer.0 -
He also provided a slideshow with 68 references which regardless of whether he is altruistic or not, he provided research which contributes to the discussion at hand.
Those of you saying their head is in the sand and calling people creepy are contributing nothing but negative opinions about other members. I just don't know how that's respectful, relevant, or productive to the discussion about iodine.
0 -
Actually, Miff is breaking community rules along with Abigail. You have to have breast cancer to participate or be the caregiver for someone who has breast cancer. Neither of them has been diagnosed with BC.
0 -
What constructive information have you contributed to the discussion on iodine? Looking at your posts, you only seem to come here to jeer and dismiss. Why is that?
Both people you want banned have been consistently well meaning.
Don't you want to participate in a constructive conversation?
0 -
At this point I can add nothing other than the use of iodine in prevention or treatment is unproven. No need to state what has already been mentioned here a gazillion times. Sorry, didn't realize that you had to contribute in order to point out a rule. Please point out where I have "jeered and dismissed". Whether well meaning or not, there are other folks who read here and actually HAVE breast cancer who are creeped out by both Abigail and Miff. Those individuals are entitled to their opinions.
I would be happy to constructively participate if someone can point me to something that passes the "me" test. Nothing has so far.
0 -
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. All hypotheses need to be scientifically researched and validated in order for the public to trust them. If there isn't solid evidence supporting an hypothesis, it is incumbent on others to point this out. But it seems that concept is highly threatening to some.
0 -
Um, there is no hypothesis. There is an investigation into new treatments.
That investigation thing is only threatening if one is so desperately insecure about one's conventional treatment that one posts selfies.
Seriously, you don't have to be defensive. We're just exploring here. No reflection on your personal choices. Really, we wish you well.
0 -
I'm going to let this issue go so JoJo's OP doesn't get hijacked by people who have nothing to contribute to the investigation.
Carry on!
0 -
a classic incoming grenade....
0 -
Um, to have an investigation one must have an hypothesis of some sort. No need to bring out the natty nasties.
Blessings and hugs to all!
0 -
http://www.jbc.org/content/281/28/19762.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270361...
http://iodineresearch.com/breastpg1.html
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/content/13/4...
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/content/15/4...
http://www.medsci.org/v05p0189
http://guardianlv.com/2013/01/jd-breast-cancer-iod...
http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/iodineref.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16679319
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22027149
http://buildingstrengthwebinars.com/articles/iodin...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200610/ai_n16809836/
Research Calls for Use of Molecular Iodine to Treat Breast Cancer. Market Wire, October, 2006http://iodine4health.com/research/cann_2000_iodine_selenium_breast_cancer.pdf
Cancer Causes and Control 11: 121±127, 2000. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hypothesis:
Iodine, selenium and the development of breast cancer. Stephen A. Cann ,
Johannes P. van Netten Christiaan van Netten. Canada Department of
Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada0 -
Nice, Light! I'm looking forward to reading those with my breakfast tomorrow.
0 -
There were some pdfs too but I couldn't figure out how to post them on here.
0 -
Hi Lucy88
I was so happy to see you write that your Onc had provided you with info but am distressed that you won't share.
From my posts you must gather by now that I am keen on finding the correct dose of iodine to be taking - but can't just take it because someone on a website told me to!
I understand that not everything that passes between my doc and I is to be shared on this site but for those of serious about iodine - not looking to disprove or debunk it but learn how to use it in moderation without causing harm - it is very stressful to hear you "know" facts or names of docs doing research but won't share any of the info.
Please consider sending me a Private Message.
I am off this thread now but ladies please remember - both sides have made your point. You don't need to carry on insisting each one is right and the other one is wrong.
Anyone else reading these posts will get the idea and think for themselves.
Best wishes
0 -
Light, no, I am not confused. Check any of the major medical sites. Blocking the thyroid in an emergency situation, like a nuclear disaster, is a one-time event. That is a well known "trick" and is why emergency kits typically contain iodine tablets. When large doses of iodine are taken as a regular thing it can cause thyroid cancer.
From the NIH:
"Studies have also shown that excessive iodine intakes cause thyroiditis and thyroid papillary cancer [2,58]."
The same article explains that it is still not clear how much iodine is safe for supplementation. It cites two studies done for different reasons, one showing problems even in low doses, the other showing that women with fibrocystic breast disease had improvement in symptoms and no adverse effects with doses as high as 6000 mcg (6 mg) a day. However, 6 mg a day is still a way lower dose than what is being advocated by many here.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iodine-HealthProf...
Thanks for collecting all the studies in one post. Here is another paper, which gives a fairly good overview:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC245297...
Also, as this discussion progressed, I wondered about the stat that Japanese consume 12mg a day. Considering the other info on doses, toxicity etc, it seemed awfully high as a regular thing. Here is a recent study (2011) trying to make a more accurate assessment of Japanese iodine consumption and concluding that the daily average is probably more like 1-3mg a day: http://www.thyroidresearchjournal.com/content/4/1...
0 -
Great investigation. Interesting that the substance (KI) that the FDA and the The World Health Organization assert is "safe, effective and protective for thyroid cancer" is also considered to cause it. I looked at the references in the article and couldn't find the studies of people who got papillary cancer from taking potassium iodide. Did you see it? If there were people who took it and got papillary cancer, I'd like to know how much they took, and if they took potassium iodide, like lugols or iodoral, or some other type of iodine.
0 -
Light, it is protective in the event of a catastrophic nuclear event, as an emergency measure against radiation-induced thyroid cancer. It really isn't the same thing as ingesting large doses daily.
The reference to papillary thyroid cancer association with high iodine intake is on page 280 of footnote #2 in the article. That section, starting on page 279, discusses various adverse effects to be on the look-out for.
Reference #2, which has a whole chapter on iodine, also discusses the fact that iodine obtained through diet rather than supplements seems to be better tolerated, even if excessive. It also notes that some people seem to be able to tolerate larger doses than others and that it is not known why or how that is the case. Again, "large doses" in this context is not anything near the 50mg discussed earlier.
0 -
Light, further, you may well be someone who can tolerate a lot of iodine. I just hope that everyone taking large doses is being followed by a doctor. I am guessing an endo would be the best person to monitor the toleration and spot any problems.
0 -
Okay Lucy and Natty... let's see some authoritative research on the effectiveness of iodine for breast cancer. Post your references... but you can't use Google or any other web browser. I'd like to see actual books, research papers, journal articles, bibliographic lists from reputable medical schools and research facilities, etc listed. Provide me with a list of these resources, but not if you've found them on the internet. I want to see good old-fashioned research techniques, involving travel to world-renowned research facilities, hours of time spent in medical libraries, or post a facsim of the journal article you are referring to. I want to see textbook citations, clinical trial submissions to the FDA/CDC, published conference notes, ANYTHING that shows me that you haven't, also, found your primary information on the internet.
Lucy... the very fact that you have consistently refused to share your "sources", says to me that you have no authoritative sources whatsoever and what you are providing is heresay only. Unless you can provide sources - and remember, you cannot use links from the internet - then, of course, the rest of us are going to question the validity of your information. It would be like taking 100,000 mg of aspirin because someone's aunt said that it would cure what ailed you. Yep, it sure would. You'd be dead.
Therefore, you can't be upset that we are questioning your sources based on the current body of authoritative medical knowledge that states that iodine in massive doses when not warranted is dangerous. Why should we believe you when you won't provide proof and refuse to share that "secret body of knowledge" that your onc shared with you because it is "not meant for the masses". Hello? Could you be any more insulting?
The internet can provide a starting point for anyone's research. Just because it's "googled" doesn't mean it's worthless; conversely, just because it's "googled" doesn't mean it's accurate either. What Momine is pointing out is that Google is the starting point for many people who use the web browser as a springboard to get started on some serious research. It's not Google that's the problem, it's how people interpret the information, use it as the absolute truth, and twist it to suit their own ends. Critical thinking is key. Context is key. Bias is key. So is the interest group funding the article.
Google isn't the problem. People are.
You can't have it both ways. You can't post links to articles and websites to support your claims, then turn around and tell someone that "google" isn't a valid research tool. You can't use the internet to flesh out your research and then criticise other people for doing so. You can't claim that you have "inside information" on something that supports a medical breakthrough, refuse to share your sources, then expect anyone to believe you. You can't use the same argument to support your position that you use to undermine someone else's and not be called up on your logic.
And PS. Just because we are questioning sources and information, and the validity of data doesn't mean that we are being "abusive". It means we are trying to get to the scientific heart of the claim. And, once we get there, we want to assess it ourselves to see if it has merit for our own personal situations. We want to discuss it, deconstruct it, and put it back together to see if it makes sense for us. None of us are close-minded against complementary or alternative therapies. That's why we're here, for goodness sakes! We just want to see the proof, not the heresay or the half-truthes. And, if there is no proof, then we don't want to see it presented as truth. It's that simple. But, if- and when the proof materialises? We'll be right there: reading, assessing, discussing, deconstructing, and deciding if it's something that would work for us.
0 -
Please accept my sincere apology. I should not have disputed anybody's reference style. You are 100% correct in everything you say.
I'll let you discuss the research undisturbed. I'm sure you'll find satisfying answers. Again, sorry.
0 -
Lucy, I would prefer that you contribute to the discussion by sharing with us who the doctors and/or institutions are that are researching this question (other than the several already cited here), according to your sources.
0 -
By the way, Lucy, when you say "the Iodine Medical Conference," do you mean the one in CA in 2007?
0 -
Momine, I think several people in favor of iodine have mentioned that it is important to have our levels tested. I have said myself that I'm not a good one to ask about the amounts because I haven't had my levels tested and I simply do not know. We are all just trying to figure out the right safe amounts that will fight disease and keep us healthy. I have seen that some posted 50mg to 150 mg. I thought that was a lot too. Never advocated for taking that amount.
On page 280 of that reference regarding the papillary cancer, they referred to another study (Fransechi, 1998) I tried to find it. I would really like to see it.
Don't you think it's interesting that the same thing that the WHO and the FDA say is safe and protective for children to take at high doses (in tablet form) regularly, if they live near a nuclear disaster to protect them against thyroid cancer, is not safe and causes thyroid cancer in any other situation?
- “Potassium iodide pills should be available to everyone age 40 or younger…living near a nuclear power plant…Federal agencies should keep a backup supply and be prepared to distribute it to affected areas in the event of a nuclear incident… The US government should… help states implement plans for distributing potassium iodide.” [US National Academy of Sciences: Distribution of Potassium Iodide in the event of a Nuclear Accident; National Research Council, 2004]
World Health Organizationwww.who.org
“The FDA recommends potassium iodide (KI) … for thyroid blocking in radiation emergencies. … KI can be used to provide safe and effective protection against thyroid cancer caused by irradiation … The known potential for potassium iodide to cause serious side effects in a small sensitive population is not sufficient grounds from which to continue to conclude, or even suggest, a significant and quantifiable proportion of serious reactions.”
[Federal Register, December 15, 1978; FDA: "Potassium Iodide as a Thyroid Blocking Agent in Radiation Emergencies", December, 2000.]Here is a well researched article that mentions the relationship between thyroid and iodine. Franseschi 1998, one of the authors of your reference who indicated the high risk associated w/ the iodine and papillary cancer is also cited in the below quote. Sounds like he is saying the opposite here.
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/content/16/4/1065.full
"Iodine deficiency causes a reduction in the level of circulating thyroid hormones associated with a consequent rise in serum TSH concentrations, and chronic iodine deficiency is a well-established risk factor for the development of goitre and follicular thyroid carcinoma (Belfiore et al. 1992, Franceschi 1998, Lind et al. 1998, Feldt-Rasmussen 2001, Nagataki & Nystrom 2002)."
0 -
Light, once more, and I really don't know how to explain this any better, your quotes about nuclear disasters do not say what you think they say. The iodine pills are on hand for an emergency, not for regular consumption.
As for the thyroid cancer, also once more, there are two kinds mentioned in these sources: follicular and papillary. The former is associated with iodine deficiency, the latter with excess iodine (according to the sources cited).
I think we would all like to know what are safe and reasonable doses, that, to me anyway, was the point of much of this discussion.
It appears that Drexel is, in fact, one of the centers for iodine research, because of a doctor there, Bernard Eskin, who has been researching this for decades. He did a study to treat fibrocystic breast disease: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8221402 20 years ago, and the doses he has - of "molecular" iodine (the study says that one of the other forms caused to many SEs) - are 0.07-0.09mg per kilo of body weight. If we use the average - 0.08 - that would mean 8mg a day for a woman weighing 220 pounds, or 1mg a day per 27.5 pounds of body weight.
He is also the one who did the rat study on iodine and breast cancer. This appears to be a book chapter he wrote on that experiment, it is quite interesting actually: http://iodineresearch.com/files/eskin_1977_iodine...
It seems to me that you should have your levels of iodine and of thyroid hormones tested, for a start. Also, going by the paper above (1977), I wonder how relevant this is if you have had a BMX and/or are surgically/chemically estrogen-deprived.
Maybe we should ask Dr. Eskin to weigh in.
PS: Do note that the 1977 paper states that they researched using large doses of iodine to treat breast neoplasia and found no benefit. However, that is a paper that does not seem available on the interwebz
0 -
Momine, When the tsunami in Japan happened they were giving potassium iodide to families daily, including children for quite some time after the event. I just wondered how they thought they could protect them from cancer without giving them cancer. Its like robbing Peter to pay Paul. I would think the WHO and FDA would have a little more sense than that.
0 -
Yes, they probably were giving it for more than one day. It is still not the same as a chronic overdose. I would assume that it is a cost/benefit analysis, where any potential health problems from a short period of iodine overdose are deemed less costly than a bunch of radiation-induced thyroid cancers.
0 -
2007 study regarding safety and amounts of potassium iodide and it's effect on the thyroid- suggesting use of iodine (potassium/iodide) for treatment in breast cancer. One of the references is World Health Organization.
0 -
Here are some current studies that the US government has funded for iodine and health. See more at clinicaltrials.gov
iodine and obesity.
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01985204?ter...
Maternal iodine supplementation and effect on thyroid function and child development
0 -
Light, that first paper, the one from 2007, defines therapeutic supplement dose as 3-15mg a day. They define "excessive" dose (and potentially damaging/dangerous) as above 20mg. 15mg is still high, but it is nowhere near the 50 that Brownstein and some here advocate.
The other two studies have to do with iodine deficiency, which is indeed a serious problem and something that affects many people around the world (which is why it is a concern for the WHO). However, even if there is deficiency, it is not necessary to take 50mg doses of iodine daily. You may have noticed that both the clinical trials you cite are going to give treatment-arm participants 200 micrograms a day. That is one fifth of a milligram. 20mg, defined as the cut-off for safety in the 2007 study, is 100X that amount, and Brownstein's favorite dose is 250X the amount used in the trials. It should also be noted that in terms of treating fibrocystic disease, Eskin found doses much lower than 15mg a day to be therapeutic.
Let's hope some of that secret research mentioned earlier in the thread will soon be published, so that these questions might be clarified some. Clearly there is quite a lot left unanswered on this. It does seem clear, however, from all this thread has unearthed (which is great, btw, and exactly the benefit of a good discussion) that daily doses of 50mg are most likely a bad idea.
0
