Study n effectiveness of Iodine
Comments
-
-
The NCI funded those studies.....They make HUGE profits off of cancer. I thought we were supposed to look for studies from people NOT making any profit?
A new book by leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, skewers the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer.
In the book, "National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest," Epstein argues that the NCI and ACS have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars focusing on treatment to the exclusion of prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket, with the disease now affecting nearly one in two men and more than one in three women. Furthermore, the author claims that not only do numerous conflicts of interest exist within the NCI and ACS, but the NCI and ACS are also withholding a mass of information on avoidable causes of cancer.0 -
The author, Epstein, who has served as a consultant for the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, is an internationally recognized authority on avoidable causes of cancer, particularly carcinogen exposure through conduits such as food, air, water, household products, cosmetics, prescription drugs or industrial carcinogens in the workplace.
Epstein is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has published more than 270-peer reviewed articles and 20 books, including the prize-winning 1978 The Politics of Cancer, and has appeared on national media, including NPR, 60 Minutes, Face the Nation, Meet the Press, The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Good Morning America and The Today Show. He was a key expert in the banning of hazardous products including DDT, chlordane and aldrin. In his new book, he is now the leading critic of the cancer establishment for its indifference to prevention of the disease, which, for the ACS, he claims, borders on hostility.0 -
Jojo, do you really believe that the NCI will put out false info in order to keep people sick? How does the NCI profit from conventional treatment?
0 -
Yes! He did publish books....guess that makes him non-credible? does that mean that every book published, including those on standard of cancer care, are non-credible???
0 -
Jojo, this is a complimentary thread and we are discussing SCIENCE, not profits of mainstream medicine versus profits of supplement companies. That belongs on an alternative thread. If you believe mainstream medicine and scientific research are some vast conspiracy there is no point in my trying to have a rational discussion with you.
0 -
I don't know what to believe Momine. I am just pointing out that they are making huge profits. Many of you discredit our studies from those making any kind of profit! I am not discussing any kind of conspiracy here...just questioning some of you like you pose questions.
0 -
Again, Melissa..NOT discussing conspiracy here! Why do you all throw 'conspiracy' around when we question your profitable studies? You have not answered my question...
0 -
What makes your study, funded by NCI, anymore scientific than the iodine studies?
0 -
because they are done by SCIENTISTS and yours are not, Jojo.
0 -
Jojo, it is a government-run institute. How exactly is it profiting and from what? There are serious problems, according to many researchers, with how the whole system for funding studies is set up. Not in any conspiracy sense, but just that it is not efficient and does not serve the needs of researchers. But that is a different matter and also mainly what Epstein is getting at, as far as I can glean.
Legit studies are done according to certain norms and are published in peer-reviewed journals. Some of the studies on iodine are perfectly legit, btw, I and others have posted several in this thread. What is not legit is some article based on some guy's opinion. He is welcome to his opinion, but it does not make for a legit study. Like the article by some naturopath lady, for example, that was posted here.
0 -
Momine...I am not going to talk conspiracy here....just calling some out on what they were asking of us...to provide studies from those not making a profit.
Those scientists are hired and paid for by someone making a profit/?
Dr. Brownstein, iodine expert, is a DOCTOR.
0 -
Hmm, that looks like an interesting book by Dr. Epstein, Jojo.
Momine, I guess that is my concern with the research being done, that funding does not necessarily go down the most promising avenues, meaning research is not being done in the most productive way possible. Scientific research does not seem to be methodically directed, but haphazardly chosen. As far as I know there is no governing body that tries to maximize efficiency of effort and funding dollars.
0 -
The National Cancer Institute study about
whether vitamin E and selenium can prevent prostate cancer, saying that they cannot and that they might even cause slightly elevated risks for more prostate cancer and diabetes . However, upon further examination it becomes apparent that the study was flawed to begin with due to the forms of vitamin E and selenium chosen for the study.Instead of the natural forms of the two supplements, the study opted to use a synthetic petroleum based form of vitamin E and a form of selenium derived from industrial ore processing byproducts. The flawed study also illustrates how easy it is to manipulate studies on natural alternatives to the highly profitable drugs and treatments of mainstream medicine.0 -
Fallleaves....GREAT points!
0 -
Jojo, no, not all researchers are working for profit outfits. A lot of them work in research institutes, universities etc. They apply for funding and that funding then pays for the research, including, obviously, some sort of wage for the researchers. That still doesn't answer how the NCI profits on cancer treatment, however, one way or the other.
Falls, as already noted, yes, there are serious problems with how the funding is given. Many people are looking at this problem and also looking at ways to make the research itself more effective (faster, basically).
0 -
Jojo, what are the "natural" forms of vitamin E that can be taken as a supplement? How do you know what kind was used in the study, and where are you reading these explanations? On one of the yahoo groups?
0 -
This thread is for people who use conventional AND alternative "holistic" approaches. Why are you guys that don't do alternatives and are not holistically minded, separating mind body and soul, trying so hard to discredit everything that people who use alternative "holistic" medicine do? If that is the purpose of this thread, is to fight about approaches to treatment then disproving conventional cancer methods takes half a second. The evidence is all over these boards, and the cancer stats. I've watched health deteriorate rapidly and have seen one death after another following conventional treatment throughout my life. What is the point of continuing this argument when people who use alternatives, will never convince you, nor will people who use conventional ever be convinced unless they hear their doctors say it? "Credible" is a matter of opinion, so it is an argument that can go nowhere. The outcomes of choices is where the stats really lie. Everyone is gambling.
0 -
Light, some of us were trying to parse out what the evidence for iodine is and how much iodine may be useful. I think that counts as a legit purpose for this forum.
I can't see why that should bother you or anyone else.
Also, I most certainly use alternative treatment, since I exercise 1-2 hours a day.
0 -
the reason cancer is increasing is because we are all living longer. Treatment for heart disease is keeping us alive longer which then allows many to get to an age where cancer is their killer.
0 -
And there are those of us who have, also, seen one death after another from alternative methods promoted by alternative practitioners with no background or specialization in cancer research or treatment. Not to mention the hundreds - sometimes thousands - of dollars an individual can spend on alternative treatments that, probably, don't work for the medical condition they are being taken for.
While I agree that "credible" is a matter of opinion, I do want my "credible" to be authoritative, i.e., data from accredited research facilities by accredited researchers whose credentials and experience are in the fields they are researching who utilize accredited methodologies and whos results are carefully scrutinized and tested by other accredited research facilities by other accredited researchers whose credentials and experience are in the fields they are researching who utilize accredited methodologies and whose results are carefully scrutinized and tested by OTHER accredited research facilities, etc. and so on.
I am simply not willing to risk my health otherwise. Yes, conventional treatment doesn't always work, but it's been proven, time and again ad nauseum that it has better outcomes than no treatment or treatment with alternatives alone. Until that reality changes, I will continue to debate the conventional vs alternative treatment issue in favour of conventional treatment with the use of alternative to alleviate treatment-related symptoms. I will continue to read all the research I can find, deconstruct it, question it and discuss it with others. And I am not prepared to bow out because the going gets a little tough.
0 -
Light...You are so right...no use continuing this fight. I am bowing out. Time and energy better used somewhere else.
0 -
LOL...I know I said I am bowing out...but, just have to ask Selena if she can back up her broad sweeping statement with a credible non-profit study?
... but it's been proven, time and again ad nauseum that it has better outcomes than no treatment or treatment with alternatives alone.
0 -
Good God, Jojo! Haven't you read anything other than alternative discussion boards, magazines, journals or thinktanks? Because the research is out there. If you are interested. Which, obviously, you are not or you would be familiar with it.
Start with following some of the research that's posted on BCO. It's updated regularly and summarized clearly by the editors of BCO. You don't have to agree with any of it, but it is there.
Edited to add: And if you are simply not interested in conventional research and don't wish to deconstruct or discuss anything which you do read, if you don't want anyone to question or discuss critically the information you provide references for, if you don't want an honest exchange of ideas unless they completely morph with your own, I would respectfully suggest that this thread is not the thread for you.
And, PS? There is no one fighting here except you. Everytime the discussion works it way back to the merits or dangers of taking iodine supplementation for breast cancer, you bring the thread back to your angst against conventional treatment and start the whole process all over again about whether conventional is better than alternative or vice versa Since this is the "Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment" forum, which is for those of us interested in exploring (questioning and discussing) complementary treatments in addition to conventional treatment, your persistence in pursuing that argument - and instigating further argument - is just a little inappropriate.
0 -
Jojo, cancer.math is one place that summarizes survival stats for you, with and without conventional treatments. The site is run by Mass General, which is the Harvard teaching hospital.
0 -
^^^From the cancermath site, here is the basis for the calculations:
"These studies [of outcomes] rely upon accurate information on cancer outcome, and thus a major part of our work is the organization of several collaborative efforts to create large databases on patients with cancer. Two large databases, containing information of the patients with breast cancer and melanoma seen at Partners Health Care over the past 40 years, contain information from multiple sources (tumor registry entries, electronic pathology reports, social security all-cause survival information, state and national death certificate data, hospital demographic data). These databases now contain information on more than 22,000 breast cancer and almost 8000 melanoma patients. http://www.lifemath.net/_old/Dr Michaelson Site/Index.html
0 -
WOW! Selena, relax!
I am simply asking the same simple question you all have been asking us on this thread whenever we have a thought or place a study. Whenever we make a broad sweeping statement such as yours, we are given images of ostriches with their heads buried in the sand or we are asked ENDLESSLY to provide proof "so as to not lead newbies astray down a dangerous path!"
Different when the shoe is on the other foot, is it not?
0 -
I am one, who like Momine is trying to figure out the best amount of iodine to be getting on a daily basis. I am trying to base my decision on the best available evidence to date. Since there are big gaps in the data, I am having to make an educated guess. I have the US RDA on the low end, and on the upper end are amounts based on the iodine intake of Japanese women. I am hesistant to base my intake on theirs. It may be that like soy, the main protective benefit could occur based on intake during childhood and puberty (which is also just a guess). Or it may be that Japanese women have physiological differences that enable their bodies to use the iodine in seaweed differently than Caucasian women (similarly to the gut bacteria found in Japanese people, but not North Americans, that enables them to digest seaweed http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100407/full/news.2010.169.html)
But there does appear to be some room to supplement iodine before reaching toxic levels, as with vitamin D. As far as I know, the US RDA for vitamin D is still 400 IU for adults, yet many people are now supplementing up to 10,000 IU a day (which is when toxicity occurs). Many MO's are even recommending supplementation.
I do appreciate and support people raising valid concerns with any therapy, as Momine has done, but I think others have been unnecessarily condescending and contemptuous in their comments, without raising any substantive points.
0 -
Agree, Fallleaves.
Also, I think (only my thought, please don't ask for research) from what I have read that seaweed is very dangerous to consume right now with fallout from Japan...but, then again everything is dangerous these days. We all decide the risks we are willing to take and studies from which to believe or not believe. I think Natty had previously brought up some discrepancies with cancer math in the past...something about overall survival vs. statistical etc?
0 -
Jojo, no, it is not the shoe on the other foot. Not even close. You are comparing apples and oranges. It is like comparing a 3-line composition by a 5yo with Shakespeare and claiming that you can't see the difference between the two.
Most legitimate research is not "for profit." You seem to believe that it is. There really isn't anything anyone can say to make you understand that this is not so.
The NCI is not for profit. Again, since you do not believe facts, nobody can really change your mind on that.
Etc.
0
