|
Originally Posted by ChristSavesAll
 They tested the amount that the japanese excrete through urine... I'm NAK so I can't put much but wanted to pop in... also I found some info, I'll have to see if I can find the link that says bf Japanese babies get around 20mg iodine from mommas milk... be back later...
Oh btw they've been getting iodine since before birth, there iodine stores have been passed down through the generations. This is my theory, that there was a lesser amount of bromide previously than there is now, as we have contributed to so much pollution in the water... So the Japanese maintain their sufficiency because they have always had high amounts of iodine that their bodies are able to quickly and efficiently excrete the bromide before it settles... hope that makes sense.. will see what I can find to back it up... |
|
Originally Posted by dannic
Okay, quick question--which is better, the lugol's or the iodine pill (forgive me, I just went blank as to the name)
Or is it that one is prescription and the other OTC? Wanting to discuss this with my ND in a couple weeks...thanks! |
We take Iodoral because it's easy, though I might call our local compounding pharmacy and see if they have/can get me Lugol's, depending on the dilution/strength. Oh, and I've heard Lugol's isn't the best tasting, if that might be an issue for you. But, I know that if/when I start dosing my boys, I will probably go with Lugol's (or Iosol - which I guess is also liquid iodine, but at a smaller dosage per drop than Lugol's). Clear as mud? 
|
Originally Posted by dannic
Thanks, MLW! I'd love the caps, but I'd probly get the drops for ease of use in DC.
|
|
Originally Posted by whoMe
But what I'm wondering is if the bromine in the seaweed doesn't buffer the iodine somehow, so even if they're absorbing it and excreting it, if the bromine is interfering, wouldn't that need to be taken into account when translating it into a dose of a purified supplement?
|
Sounds like the same logic of big pharma, only alternative $upplement$. I believe that "Science" looses the big picture when trying to isolate the "one thing" which is perceived to be the "benefit". Although, the "one thing" DOES NOT EXIST isolated from the whole.
: I'm saying that doesn't fit my world view. Each can choose his own belief system.| You aren't going to find THE "Right" answer. There is only what you feel is right for you and your family. People believe in different things in which to trust, or to keep them from fear. The journey to discovering what motivates you and upon what premises you make your decisions is an arduous one. Personally, I have 18 years of critical care experience, and I understand how *unscientific* medical practice and medical science is. True medical care is an Art, as much, if not more than a Science. I have seen so, so many "best practice protocols" subsequently disavowed as having some (previously unknown) danger, AFTER patients have utilized (and suffered from) them. We, the medical people, did *to* people, with all good intentions and full faith in the system of Science. However, science really is quite blind in its research; you can only learn what you are seeking to find. The myopia of separating the mind/body/spirit is a huge aspect of the limitations of medicine. And we have the System of Medicine, embodied by the (fiscal) monopoly of the AMA. I can only say that if you go to a surgeon, he will use the tools available to him: surgery. If you go to a internist, he will use the tools available to him: pills. If you go to a psychologist: a DSM-whatever diagnosis is utilized. They can only utilize what they know and what they are taught. Unfortunately, what is *taught* isn't necessarily current with what is known outside of their specialty. There is such a specialization in *parts* of the body that there is no *whole* patient. This isn't a system of *health*, but of illness, disease, and deficit focused care. So, we, medical people, have developed means of dealing with discrete illness and disease, rather than focusing on maximizing the *health* of the whole person. Because we can, because there is a market for 'fixing' a problem, because it is quicker, easier, because if it doesn't work the patient just comes back, and comes back, and comes back. A system that self-perpetuates is not working to eliminate the need for itself. There are no sure bets in life. But, you make your best guess based upon what you choose to believe in. Instead of an issue of *fear*, I made the decision based upon *Trust*. I trust and revere our amazing bodies to address diseases which are acquired naturally, more than I trust our medical system (or pharmaceutical company) to create a "solution" which is appropriate and safe for every body. I was a critical care nurse for too many years not to be aware of the fallibility of our medical system. I trust our body to be healthy! |
|
Originally Posted by aris99
I guess my question is...in the absence of testing how do you know when to cut back and start doing low level maintenance?
|
|
Originally Posted by whoMe
I'm curious. So the Japanese eating a ton of sea veggies is what's always sited as proof that lots of iodine is 'normal' and healthy, yeah? And we're saying that since we have such longstanding deficiencies, we need a more purified form to counteract that. Because lots of us are bromine toxic, and that bromine competes with iodine. So we're cautioned against using kelp as a source of iodine because it has so much bromine in it as well.
Here's my question: once the deficiency is corrected and we're no longer bromine toxic, what makes us think that we need a full 12.5mg (or whatever) iodine? Because at that point, we're not using it theraputically any more, right? And sure, kelp has that much, but it also has lots of bromine, and the bromine competes with iodine. What makes us think the Japanese are actually getting that much useable iodine from diet? Can you see the circle I'm stuck in? Are there other major food sources of iodine that are not also significant sources of bromine? |
|
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders
Here's a listing for Lugol's It seems like one drop of the 5% solution is 2.5 mg. So, for me to get the 25 mg that I'm taking in the form of Iodoral, I'd need 10 drops of Lugol's.
Here is a listing for Iodoral - 180 tablets, 12.5 mg each. |
|
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders
I'm curious how much iodine can be taken at once? (Basically is there an upper limit of what the body will absorb/utilize at one time?) Right now I am only taking two Iodoral a day (one in the morning and one at night), but plan on increasing and was hoping that I could take 2 at one time without wasting any of it. (I do okay if I only have to remember to take things twice a day, but if I have to try and fit things in the middle, I start missing doses.)
|
|
Originally Posted by treemom2
Do you order your iodine supplement from here? If so, which one?
|
|
Originally Posted by so_fetch
I just joined so forgive me for responding for the first post on such a very long thread. This statement confuses me though. I had thyroid cancer and as part of my treatment I received a dose of radioactive iodine. This was meant to kill off any remaining thyroid cells (I had already had my thyroid surgically removed). How then, if iodine is used by organs of the body besides the thyroid, would this treatment make sense? Can someone please explain?
|
|
Originally Posted by JaneS
What do you mean? If you started taking iodine supplements, even though your thyroid has been killed off, would iodine help the rest of your body? Absolutely.
Stephanie of www.naturalthyroidchoices.com might be the best person to help you, she had an RAI treatment too I believe but still has some thyroid function left. There is evidence that natural iodine rather than radioactive can treat thyroid cancer without the extreme damage. |
|
Originally Posted by JaneS
What do you mean? If you started taking iodine supplements, even though your thyroid has been killed off, would iodine help the rest of your body? Absolutely.
Stephanie of www.naturalthyroidchoices.com might be the best person to help you, she had an RAI treatment too I believe but still has some thyroid function left. There is evidence that natural iodine rather than radioactive can treat thyroid cancer without the extreme damage. |
: This information just blows me away! :| "Some countries are fluoridating their water supply for the theoretical benefits of fluoride helping to prevent cavities. What is happening is the ingested fluoride takes the place of iodine that should be there in the teeth, especially growing teeth. Iodine and thyroid for example have complete control of tooth growth along with some help from growth hormone. (6-8) It is only because our iodine intake has been decreasing over the years that fluoride has been mistakenly added to our water with the idea of helping children's teeth. It would have made more scientific sense to have added more iodine." "Fluoride has also been used against osteoporosis with beneficial results. This again is just replacing what iodine should be doing. The minor problems of osteopenia (minor loss of calcium) seen in some patients put on thyroid is related to the fact that the same patients are low in iodine. The low iodine causes the hypothyroidism and also the inappropriate short term bone response. If iodine is given with the thyroid hormone this abnormal response can be avoided. So persons taking adequate daily iodine will unlikely to ever develop osteoporosis." "Radioactive iodine injected into patients shows a full outline of the bones on a total body scan. This means one of the places iodine goes to immediately is bones. Thyroid hormone makes bones grow, mature and remodel, when necessary. Together thyroid hormone, iodine and growth hormone maintain a healthy bone structure. As vertebrates (animals with backbones) are the only animals with thyroid glands it makes sense that iodine and thyroid control bone structure and function." -David M. Derry MD http://www.iodine4health.com/special...y_halogens.htm |
| When Luke found out that the pineal gland - a little gland in the center of the brain, responsible for a very large range of regulating activities (it produces serotonin and melatonin) -was also a calcifying tissue, like the teeth and the bones, she hypothesized it would concentrate fluoride to very high levels. The gland is not protected by the blood brain barrier and has a very high perfusion rate of blood, second only to the kidney... She found that melatonin production... was lower in the animals treated with high fluoride levels compared with those treated with low levels... Significance? Huge. Melatonin is reponsible for regulating all kinds of activities and there is a vast amount of work investigating its possible roles in aging, cancer and many other life processes. The one activity that Luke is particularly interested in is the onset of puberty. The highest levels of melatonin ( produced only at night) is generated in young children. It is thought that it is the fall of these melatonin levels which acts like a biological clock and triggers the onset of puberty. In her gerbil study she found that the high fluoride treated animals were reaching puberty earlier than the low fluoride ones. |
| 1. I have been researching the literature on fluoride for just over three years. I approached this issue with an open mind. If I had any bias when I set out it was that those who were opposed to fluoridation were `crackpots'. 2. However, the more I have read the more concerned I have become over the dangers posed by fluoride and the very poor science underpinning its supposed efficacy in protecting children's teeth. How we ever allowed such a toxic substance into the drinking water is staggering. Even though fluoride's toxicity is rated higher than lead, the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum contaminant level for lead in water is 15 ppb (parts per billion) whereas the level allowed for fluoride is 4,000 ppb. The recommended level for artificial fluoridation of the drinking water of 1 part per million (1 ppm = 1,000 ppb) was established in 1945, and it hasn't been changed since, even though today we (and our children) are getting fluoride from many other additional sources, including toothpaste, other dental products, mouthwashes, processed food, some vitamin tablets, and beverages. |
|
Originally Posted by Panserbjørne
The cases I have read, noone was ever given iodine if they had thyroid cancer. In fact there are doctors that demand an ultrasound if a person is shown to be seriously deficient before starting supplementation to rule out thyroid cancer. If anything is found supplementation is not started.
|
Follow Mothering