37 replies to this topic

[BioFreak]

There is a supplement thats supposed to raise iq:

http://www.optimox.c...pt_Aurasol.html

The producer of the supplement also has a study about it, saying it raises IQ by about 20%, studies are on bottom of the linked page.

Now we all know that we should be very careful with studies from a company selling the stuff...

BUT... I actually have good experiences with studies by Abraham (esp. his studies about iodine).

So anyone tried it?

[1kgcoffee]

Bullshit

[Adaptogen]

send me your gold i'll send you piracetam

[BioFreak]

Thanks for those high quality answers.

[LBGSHI]

I seriously doubt any of the benefits this person claims will be achieved by ingestion of colloidal gold. Two of the six studies he referenced are his own, with no corroboration as to whether or not he even performed them.

I can't find anything on Reference 1 (which apparently refers to a study in which gold was found to be harmful).

Reference number 2 refers to this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1671630 - in which the author states explicitly:

CONCLUSION:

In our study of a community-based population of adults with rheumatoid arthritis who were under the care of community rheumatologists, we found that there was, on average, no statistically significant change in function or number of painful joints between 1983 and 1988. Patients receiving parenteral gold therapy for at least 2 consecutive years did not show a statistically significant difference in outcome when compared with those not receiving such therapy.

...so I think we can ignore that study, which directly contradicts Doctor Guy Abraham's statement that "Gold salts are currently used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with some success", which incidentally references only the above article.

Reference 3 refers to http://www.ncbi.nlm....best Alchemical, which I can't even believe is on PubMed. Apparently, it's somewhat of a deceptive article, as under Publication Types we find:

Publication Types

• Historical Article

MeSH Terms

• Alchemy*
• Folklore
• Gold*
• History, Ancient
• Humans
• India
• Longevity*
• Medicine, Ayurvedic*
• Mercury*
• Mercury Compounds*

Here is the entirety of the abstract:

Cinnabar-gold as the best alchemical drug of longevity, called Makaradhwaja in India.

Mahdihassan S.

Abstract

A drug of longevity, prior to alchemy, was peach, from which the god of longevity has emerged. Alchemy began by synthesizing red colloidal gold with gold to make the body ever-lasting and redness, as soul, to make life eternal. Its climax was reached with cinnabar-gold, which is blood-red, while red-gold is only brick-red. It was called Makaradhwaja in India. There have been fertility gods. Hermes was one and Alchemy has been named a hermetic art. Makara was crocodile-cum-fish, god of fertility. Makaradhwaja means Emblem of god of fertility, signifying a drug conferring vigour of youth.

I think we can discard that one.

References 4 and 5 are both from Abraham himself, and point directly to other pages on the same website as the product he's selling. I think we can discard these.

Reference 6 (the final reference) refers to this study: http://pubs.acs.org/...021/j100253a007, which Abraham cites to explain that "It is possible; however, that metallic gold in the colloidal form may play important roles in human health. Such colloids enhance the effects of antioxidants by catalyzing electron transfer in oxidation-reduction reaction."; here he is making conjecture, because the study referenced is concerned only with physical chemistry (as in, chemistry as it relates to physics), and makes no mention of effects on living organisms, much less colloidal gold playing "important roles in human health".

In all, Guy Abraham appears to be a quack. I would not recommend wasting your money on colloidal gold, especially if you're just going to flush it down the toilet (literally).

[BioFreak]

Hmm. Thanks for your review. You have good points.

...so I think we can ignore that study, which directly contradicts Doctor Guy Abraham's statement that "Gold salts are currently used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with some success", which incidentally references only the above article.

the sentence was not finished:

, sometimes severe enough to discontinue the gold salts: skin rashes, diarrhea, anemia, abnormalities in blood and urine tests. Because of those immune reactions, gold salts cease to be effective after 1-2 years and are rarely used in RA at the present time because of their toxicity.

Hes arguing here that gold salts and their toxic effects are the cause for them not to be effective after 1-2 years. He presents no evidence of this claim though(Edit: he has done at least one study of collodial gold in RA). But then, I'm not interested in gold salts for RA. I think he wanted to point out that gold salts has some applications, but they are not good enough so nobody uses them.

You see hes focused on historic applications of elements, so many of the sources he would cite he can not because they are too old and not being found on pubmed etc. This is how he started work on iodine, arguing that weak evidence led to the belief that high doses of iodine are harmful (high by todays standards) and that in history, iodine was like a miracle cure. With iodine he was right. Doesn't mean he is with collodial gold too though... So this is why he often cites weak evidence, because he focuses on historic applications, and guess what, there were no randomized double blind studies with a high count of samples in the farther past.
Hell, he himself is somewhat historic. Hes been around a long time (see below) and is probably way more used to using and interpreting weak evidence then we are today.
Don't forget every time we try a herb, and argue that its "been used traditionally for centuries" or similar, we are using the same kind of weak evidence. However, I think thats a very interesting source of evidence, that should and often does give pointers for studies that are properly designed.
Or let's put it that way: not having strong evidence is not the same as having strong evidence that it indeed does NOT work. Actually that are two totally different animals...

When it comes to Abraham himself, he did a lot of work on iodine which benefited a lot of people.

Lets look at who he is and what he has done (what I could find):

Dr. Abraham is a former Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Endocrinology at the UCLA School of Medicine. Some thirty-seven years ago, he pioneered the development of assays to measure minute quantities of steroid hormones in biological fluids. He has been honored as follows: General Diagnostic Award from the Canadian Association of Clinical Chemists, 1974; the Medaille d’Honneur from the University of Liegc, Belgium, 1976; the Senior Investigator Award of Pharmacia, Sweden, 1980. Twenty-six years ago, Dr. Abraham developed magnesium emphasized nutritional programs for women with premenstrual tension syndrome and post-menopausal osteoporosis. Eight years ago he initiated the Iodine Project, a re-evaluation of the role of the essential element iodine in medical practice.

Basically all the groundwork of orthoiodosupplementation was his studies, which can be found on the same site. People following protocols based on his studies, and are having good success with them... like for detoxification of bromide, fluoride, lead, or even shrinking of breast cysts. This I do know from people who have had success with these issues, including me. So I seriously doubt Abraham is a quack. And a lot of people would agree with me.

But it may be that hes on the wrong track with this one, since the evidence is weak as you pointed out, his studies are only pilot studies with a few ppl, that alone can turn out to be a wrong lead even if the study was done properly (aside from the sample size for example). But, I think we can only say that we simply don't know if he is right or not.
Also I've found noone on the net trying the product and saying wether it worked or did not work for him/her.

However, while being good practice to not trust studies from ppl selling the same product, like you do by discarding his studies, I personally trust in these studies in this case and do not discard them. Its not like this rule ALWAYS works...

So lets get down to the facts (my view):
there is weak historical evidence,
there is weak evidence from Abrahams studies,
there seem to be no studies contradicting that collodial gold could raise iq,
there are no reports of people trying it and saying if it worked for them or not,
there is the fact that he is selling the stuff, and at the same time is providing studies for it which is usually a bad sign,
but then there is also the fact that he is selling iodoral and has done a lot of studies with iodine too(similar style), and in this case he was right. Just talk to people using iodoral or lugols for detoxification of halogens or mercury, lead. Or ask Brownstein, Fletchas... or other doctors working with the iodine protocol.

Because of the last point and his history I give him the benefit of the doubt for selling and doing studies, so we are left with weak evidence and no case reports.

I just wanted to know if someone here tried it. But apparently the longecity folks didn't try everything thats out there yet, lol. Had to give it a shot though. I can understand the skepticism too, if I was not familiar with his work on iodine, I'd say exactly the same.

I'll gonna try it out when my budget allows me (and when raising IQ is on the top of my list, which is it not at the moment).
I thought about using another product, there are cheaper ones on the market, but Abraham insists that particle size is the key to making it work - and none of the other products I found has the right particle size and dosage. mhh. I might search again.


Found some studies for human applications of colloidal gold:


Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Rationale for the Use of Colloidal Metallic Gold
http://informahealth...ournalCode=cjne
Also by abraham, about colloidal gold injections into joints

Phase I and pharmacokinetic studies of CYT-6091, a novel PEGylated colloidal gold-rhTNF nanomedicine.
CONCLUSIONS:

These data indicate that rhTNF formulated as CYT-6091 may be administered systemically at doses of rhTNF that were previously shown to be toxic and that CYT-6091 may target to tumors. Future clinical studies will focus on combining CYT-6091 with approved chemotherapies for the systemic treatment of nonresectable cancers.

Colloidal gold for tumor drug delivery:
http://www.cytimmune...gold-tnf_ms.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/jp984796o

Here are some testimonials, BUT from a producer of colloidal gold, so take with a grain of salt...
http://www.purestcol...estimonials.php

Edited by BioFreak, 01 February 2013 - 10:37 AM.

[LBGSHI]

I understand that you've apparently followed this person's advice, and feel that you've benefited from it. However, let's be honest with ourselves. Can you find Dr Guy Abraham published in any reputable journals? Is he even referenced anywhere reputable? Doing a quick Google search for "Guy Abraham" just brings up a bunch of homemade websites about iodine and gold treatment, and a couple of books he wrote or was involved in, none of which mean anything significant except that Guy Abraham is capable of putting some words together and convincing people to buy his products.

I mean no offense to you or anyone else who feels satisfied with the advice and products Guy Abraham is offering, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you can come up with anything that confers any credibility to his claims or his purported accomplishments. However, short of you doing so, there is every reason to believe that this person is a fraud, and no reason to believe otherwise.


[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
the sentence was not finished:

[quote], sometimes severe enough to discontinue the gold salts: skin rashes, diarrhea, anemia, abnormalities in blood and urine tests. Because of those immune reactions, gold salts cease to be effective after 1-2 years and are rarely used in RA at the present time because of their toxicity.[/quote]

Hes arguing here that gold salts and their toxic effects are the cause for them not to be effective after 1-2 years. He presents no evidence of this claim though(Edit: he has done at least one study of collodial gold in RA). But then, I'm not interested in gold salts for RA. I think he wanted to point out that gold salts has some applications, but they are not good enough so nobody uses them.
[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. The point I was making was that, in the sentence I quoted, he stated that colloidal gold was used to treat rheumatoid arthritis "with some success", and as his only citation for this statement, he referenced a study that explicitly stated that it had no success at all. What kind of competent, honest doctor would do that?



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
You see hes focused on historic applications of elements, so many of the sources he would cite he can not because they are too old and not being found on pubmed etc.
[/quote]

So your point is, "He's only working with old, historical applications of elements, so of course nobody else in current times has done any research supporting his claims"? He's been making these claims for some time now, and colloidal gold has been used in many other applications. If his 'research' had any merit, others would follow up on it, and the scientific and medical communities would pick it up and run with it. Why haven't they? Hopefully your response will not be one related to conspiracies or the scientific and medical community "not wanting us to know about" such breakthroughs.




[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
This is how he started work on iodine, arguing that weak evidence led to the belief that high doses of iodine are harmful (high by todays standards) and that in history, iodine was like a miracle cure. With iodine he was right.
[/quote]

He was right that iodine was a "miracle cure"? Can you cite specific evidence to support this? Again, when I look for Guy Abraham and iodine, all I find are homemade websites and books Guy Abraham was involved with, most of which accompany products for sale. This is not citation-worthy, so we must reference legitimate research or come to the logical conclusion that Guy Abraham did not establish iodine as a "miracle cure", or even as beneficial in any other sense than the scientific and medical communities had already done.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
Doesn't mean he is with collodial gold too though... So this is why he often cites weak evidence, because he focuses on historic applications, and guess what, there were no randomized double blind studies with a high count of samples in the farther past.
[/quote]

Sure, but that's why we perform proper studies today. If some people claim that quinine is effective at treating malaria, we perform studies to verify this, and if the studies confirm the claimed effect (as they did in the case of quinine, though it has since been replaced by more effective drugs with fewer side effects), it is accepted as established. Plenty of "historical remedies" are incorrect or entirely fabricated, but we don't take them at their word simply because we don't have any current studies to cite - we perform real research, because that's how science works.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
Hell, he himself is somewhat historic. Hes been around a long time (see below) and is probably way more used to using and interpreting weak evidence then we are today.
Don't forget every time we try a herb, and argue that its "been used traditionally for centuries" or similar, we are using the same kind of weak evidence. However, I think thats a very interesting source of evidence, that should and often does give pointers for studies that are properly designed.
Or let's put it that way: not having strong evidence is not the same as having strong evidence that it indeed does NOT work. Actually that are two totally different animals...
[/quote]

As noted above, I agree: just because something hasn't been proven or even evidenced to confer some benefit to human health, doesn't mean it does not do so. However, as also noted above, proper research makes short work of such a problem, and in any case, if you're saying there's no 'strong evidence' for colloidal gold's claimed effects, then there's no real reason to take it unless you enjoy taking shots in the dark to hopefully improve health. If anything, it's easily as likely that there will be negative effects.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
When it comes to Abraham himself, he did a lot of work on iodine which benefited a lot of people.
[/quote]

Again, please give citations or reference something that states that his work "benefited a lot of people". Homemade websites and books he wrote or helped write do not count, in case you were considering them as evidence.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
Lets look at who he is and what he has done (what I could find):


[quote]Dr. Abraham is a former Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Endocrinology at the UCLA School of Medicine. Some thirty-seven years ago, he pioneered the development of assays to measure minute quantities of steroid hormones in biological fluids. He has been honored as follows: General Diagnostic Award from the Canadian Association of Clinical Chemists, 1974; the Medaille d’Honneur from the University of Liegc, Belgium, 1976; the Senior Investigator Award of Pharmacia, Sweden, 1980. Twenty-six years ago, Dr. Abraham developed magnesium emphasized nutritional programs for women with premenstrual tension syndrome and post-menopausal osteoporosis. Eight years ago he initiated the Iodine Project, a re-evaluation of the role of the essential element iodine in medical practice.[/quote]
[/quote]

I searched for the quotation above, and found it on only two websites. One of them is http://www.healthsal...y-e-abraham-md/, a website run by Barbara "Arrow" Durfee, known for her articles on bellaonline.com, where her bio states that she has "studied with psychic healers" - http://www.bellaonli...t/stomachissues. The other result was at http://www.cpmedical.net/our_experts, cpmedical.net being a website where Guy Abraham helps sell alternative medicine-related vitamins and supplements. There are eight other doctors listed on that page, every one of which is known as a proponent of alternative medicine and nothing else I see any trace of. Performing a quick Google search on each one of them turns up nothing but homemade alternative medicine websites, their FaceBook, Twitter, and LinkedIn accounts, and occasionally a forum thread on places like curezone.com, a place not exactly known for serious, scientific content. Did you find the quotation above somewhere else? If not, I think we can discard it in favor of reputable, unbiased, 3rd party information, if such can even be found.


[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
Basically all the groundwork of orthoiodosupplementation was his studies, which can be found on the same site. People following protocols based on his studies, and are having good success with them... like for detoxification of bromide, fluoride, lead, or even shrinking of breast cysts. This I do know from people who have had success with these issues, including me. So I seriously doubt Abraham is a quack. And a lot of people would agree with me.
[/quote]

Orthoiodosupplementation...yet again, I find nothing of merit concerning this, and in the three pages of Google results for the term, I see nothing but Abraham's own online store, cheesy-looking homemade websites concerning iodine treatment as such, web sites operated by the other doctors listed with Abraham at cpmedical.net, and more threads and articles at places like curezone.com. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea of orthoiodosupplementation and Guy Abraham's involvement and importance therein, if you can point me to something substantial confirming this.


[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
But it may be that hes on the wrong track with this one, since the evidence is weak as you pointed out, his studies are only pilot studies with a few ppl, that alone can turn out to be a wrong lead even if the study was done properly (aside from the sample size for example). But, I think we can only say that we simply don't know if he is right or not.
Also I've found noone on the net trying the product and saying wether it worked or did not work for him/her.
[/quote]

Fair enough; since there is no reason to definitely believe him and no reason to definitely not believe him, but a plethora of information which makes him look like a third-rate quack peddling magical elixers online to vulnerable people with real illnesses that would likely benefit from proven medical methods and only might benefit from unproven and in fact contradictory 'alternative' methods, let's just say that it would be unwise to believe him, but that if the supplements he's promoting (and selling) aren't harmful, then it's acceptable to try them at your own risk. I think it would be unfair to other members of the community to represent this person in any other way than to say that he is either deceptive or inept, and for his conclusions he cites work that is either directly in contradiction to his own statements, is irrelevant (and mythical, at that!), or is unrelated to the claims he is making.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
However, while being good practice to not trust studies from ppl selling the same product, like you do by discarding his studies, I personally trust in these studies in this case and do not discard them. Its not like this rule ALWAYS works...
[/quote]

No, it's not a universal rule to always mistrust salespeople. However, if you cannot verify their claims with any reliable information other than that which is directly from them, and if in fact they contradict themselves and are known only in relatively fringe circles, you must accept the fact that you're trusting them at your own risk, and that at the very least, you are likely to receive a placebo for your money.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
So lets get down to the facts (my view):
there is weak historical evidence,
there is weak evidence from Abrahams studies,
[/quote]

Agreed.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
there seem to be no studies contradicting that collodial gold could raise iq,
[/quote]

But there are also no studies implying that it does. There are also no studies proving that drinking hand lotion doesn't increase IQ...but that doesn't mean it does. What we're looking for here is not just an absence of studies disproving Abraham's claims, but any reliable studies supporting them.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
there are no reports of people trying it and saying if it worked for them or not,
there is the fact that he is selling the stuff, and at the same time is providing studies for it which is usually a bad sign,
[/quote]

Agreed.


[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
but then there is also the fact that he is selling iodoral and has done a lot of studies with iodine too(similar style), and in this case he was right. Just talk to people using iodoral or lugols for detoxification of halogens or mercury, lead. Or ask Brownstein, Fletchas... or other doctors working with the iodine protocol.
[/quote]

Again, I would like to see any reliable data indicating that Abraham has been involved in any iodine treatment that is accepted by the legitimate scientific or medical communities. The two doctors you just mentioned were two of the eight doctors helping Abraham sell things on cpmedical.net, and as I've already mentioned, I can't find anything of note about them from legitimate sources. As a side-note, quacks reference quacks; that's one of the ways quackery works.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
Because of the last point and his history I give him the benefit of the doubt for selling and doing studies, so we are left with weak evidence and no case reports.
[/quote]

Agreed; giving him the benefit of the doubt is acceptable, if you understand what I've discussed above. It is very likely that Abraham is intentionally being deceptive rather than being ignorant or inept at medicine. If this is the case, you would do well to take into account the possibility that you will ingest either a placebo or a substance deleterius to your health. I have no doubt that Abraham would sell great supplements with a proven track record if he could make more money doing so, but the fact that he instead sells things with no evidence of efficacy indicates to me that he is either not good enough at actual medicine to perform in the actual field, or that he has determined it to be more lucrative to engage in his current practices.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
I just wanted to know if someone here tried it. But apparently the longecity folks didn't try everything thats out there yet, lol. Had to give it a shot though. I can understand the skepticism too, if I was not familiar with his work on iodine, I'd say exactly the same.
[/quote]

Perfectly reasonable; I'm glad you made the thread.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
I'll gonna try it out when my budget allows me (and when raising IQ is on the top of my list, which is it not at the moment).
I thought about using another product, there are cheaper ones on the market, but Abraham insists that particle size is the key to making it work - and none of the other products I found has the right particle size and dosage. mhh. I might search again.
[/quote]

Indeed, he is correct in that regard; the size of colloidal gold is directly related to its absorption via the gut. Multiple PubMed studies confirm that, but they're only concerned with this for the purpose of medical imaging in relation to cancer.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
Found some studies for human applications of colloidal gold:


Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Rationale for the Use of Colloidal Metallic Gold
http://informahealth...ournalCode=cjne
[/quote]



Right; the above link references Abraham's self-published study in the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, and the study makes no claim to have been double-blind, to have used a control group with placebo, to have been peer-reviewed, or to even have been performed alongside any peers at all. In reference to test subjects, it only states, "It is postulated that the active ingredient in aurotherapy is AUo and the side-effects are caused by AU III. To test this postulate, ten RA patients with long-standing erosive bone disease not responding to previous treatment were recruited from a private practice." The study was not corroborated anywhere, and despite Abraham's claims of colloidal gold having improved rheumatoid arthritis in some of these patients all the way back in 1997, this treatment is virtually unknown to the massive consortium of doctors worldwide trying to treat rheumatoid arthritis. There are all kinds of excuses one might come up with to explain this, such as worldwide conspiracies, too many other things to research resulting in doctors just not "getting around to it" yet, and so forth, but the logical explanation is that it has no foundation in reality. There is, of course, the alternate (generous) possibility: that it does in fact alleviate some RA symptoms, but given that it's an incredibly expensive substance, other substances are cheaper and more effective.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
Phase I and pharmacokinetic studies of CYT-6091, a novel PEGylated colloidal gold-rhTNF nanomedicine.
CONCLUSIONS:

These data indicate that rhTNF formulated as CYT-6091 may be administered systemically at doses of rhTNF that were previously shown to be toxic and that CYT-6091 may target to tumors. Future clinical studies will focus on combining CYT-6091 with approved chemotherapies for the systemic treatment of nonresectable cancers.
[/quote]

You're referring to this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20876255, in which colloidal gold was used as a binding agent for novel anti-cancer drugs. In the study, the purpose of the colloidal gold was to allow the researchers to use imaging techniques that can identify gold but not such particles as those of the anti-cancer drugs in question: "Using electron microscopy to visualize nanoparticles of gold in patient biopsies of tumor and healthy tissue showed that patient biopsies taken 24 hours after treatment had nanoparticles of gold in tumor tissue." Using metals as identifiers is a common practice, but has nothing to do with using colloidal gold as a treatment on its own. The fact that there were nanoparticles of gold in tumor tissue was merely an indicator that the drugs which were bound to the gold were also present in these tumors; the gold itself was irrelevant.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
Colloidal gold for tumor drug delivery:
http://www.cytimmune...gold-tnf_ms.pdf
[/quote]

Cytiimmune, whose site you linked to for the above PDF, sells a "proprietary pegylated colloidal gold". Take a look at their website's home page: http://www.cytimmune.com.That aside, and aside from the fact that they don't cite any outside sources but only refer readers to PDFs contained on their own website, if we assume that their references are legitimate, then we're left with some evidence for gold being a drug delivery method for cancer drugs...which is what we've already mentioned above, and which doesn't have anything to do with gold as a treatment itself.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/jp984796o
[/quote]

The entire abstract of the above study is the following:

[quote]
The size and temperature dependence of the plasmon absorption is studied for 9, 15, 22, 48, and 99 nm gold nanoparticles in aqueous solution. The plasmon bandwidth is found to follow the predicted behavior as it increases with decreasing size in the intrinsic size region (mean diameter smaller than 25 nm), and also increases with increasing size in the extrinsic size region (mean diameter larger than 25 nm). Because of this pronounced size effect a homogeneous size distribution and therefore a homogeneous broadening of the plasmon band is concluded for all the prepared gold nanoparticle samples. By applying a simple two-level model the dephasing time of the coherent plasmon oscillation is calculated and found to be less than 5 fs. Furthermore, the temperature dependence of the plasmon absorption is examined. A small temperature effect is observed. This is consistent with the fact that the dominant electronic dephasing mechanism involves electron−electron interactions rather than electron−phonon coupling.
[/quote]

This study only refers to the importance of particle size and temperature in absorption of colloidal gold, which I've already addressed, and which has no bearing on whether or not colloidal gold does anything positive for human health.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359714951' post='563126']
Here are some testimonials, BUT from a producer of colloidal gold, so take with a grain of salt...
http://www.purestcol...estimonials.php
[/quote]

Right; these are 'testimonials' on a website selling colloidal gold. Assuming these testimonials were even written by real customers and not the people selling the colloidal gold, we have no indication as to whether or not the people that wrote them are being honest, whether or not they're experiencing a placebo effect, or whether or not they're the 1% in contrast to the 99% who wrote this company complaining that the product didn't do anything for them (or even made them sick, etc).

Incidentally, among other metal supplements, the above site sells and promotes colloidal silver, stating that claims of its negative effects are fraudulent and false. Colloidal silver can cause serious and potentially irreversible side-effects such as argyria (http://en.wikipedia....native_medicine); the FDA banned colloidal silver sellers from claiming any therapeutic or preventive value for the product in 1999, and continues to send warning letters to those who sell colloidal silver (and issued a "Consumer Advisory" warning about the potential adverse effects of ingestible colloidal silver, and reiterated that "...there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth"); QuackWatch characterizes colloidal silver as "risk without benefit"; Consumer Reports lists colloidal silver as a "supplement to avoid", describing it as "likely unsafe"; and even the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) warns that marketing claims about colloidal silver are scientifically unsupported, the silver content of marketed supplements varies widely, and ingesting colloidal silver products can have serious side effects such as argyria. All of this suggests that the site above is yet another quack shop, intent on conning people out of their money in exchange for largely useless and potentially dangerous substances.

In conclusion, Guy Abraham and his claims of colloidal gold increasing IQ are almost certainly intentionally bogus; if they are not, they are accidentally bogus, and he is an incompetent doctor.

In any case, I'm glad you created this thread, as it got me interested in the subject and allowed me to do a little homework on Abraham and colloidal gold. This kind of discussion is of the utmost importance at a place like Longecity, and I welcome it and others like it. I hope I have not offended you (unless you're secretly Guy Abraham ), and please continue to initiate such discussions as interest allows.

Edited by LBGSHI, 01 February 2013 - 08:39 PM.

[BioFreak]

I am Guy Abraham and I curse you!!!

lol. Nope. That guy has probably 60 years on me. I'm not offended and I understand your skepticism. For the record: I am not really skeptical, I just acknowledge that I simply don't know, and I think this is all the evidence says. And what Abraham shows is simply an interesting idea, which not you, not me can judge as real or bogus.

Yes, I understand that. The point I was making was that, in the sentence I quoted, he stated that colloidal gold was used to treat rheumatoid arthritis "with some success", and as his only citation for this statement, he referenced a study that explicitly stated that it had no success at all. What kind of competent, honest doctor would do that?

Maybe age had it's toll on his brain. Here is at least one of the studies he meant when referencing to collodial gold in RA:

Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Rationale for the Use of Colloidal Metallic Gold
Read More: http://informahealth.../13590849762411
The study he referenced was clearly not about colloidal gold, but about gold salts.

So your point is, "He's only working with old, historical applications of elements, so of course nobody else in current times has done any research supporting his claims"? He's been making these claims for some time now, and colloidal gold has been used in many other applications. If his 'research' had any merit, others would follow up on it, and the scientific and medical communities would pick it up and run with it. Why haven't they? Hopefully your response will not be one related to conspiracies or the scientific and medical community "not wanting us to know about" such breakthroughs.

This is all or nothing thinking. Its like saying So many people have been running the 100m, and none of them broke the world record. Until... someone did. Maybe not the best example. OK, lets have an example thats closely related: In the early days of medicine, iodine was something like a panacea. Nobody knew what it did, but it did it well. Then came the "chemical revolution" in medicine, where artificial created medicines could be patented, which was a exiting new field. And it is how it always is with new things: New good, old bad, esp. if its a revolution of some kind. So it happened that someone created artificial thyroid hormone. Two studies followed, not only to prove that t3 I believe it was works well, but to show that all history of iodine science was wrong. That its bad. That Its even toxic in dosages normally prescribed. That picture was one people at that time saw over and over again, because much of medicine was using other high dose elements, and indeed, those were toxic and better alternatives were a blessing. Well, this was not true for iodine, but if fit in the picture, and two studies, by the same physicians, that wanted to promote a competitor to iodine, never replicated, made iodine a bad medicine, in fact banished it from the world (unless it is in mcg amounts). Now I don't say that t3, t4 are useless, they have their place, thats not the point. The point is that not everything gets replicated, and even if it does, the mechanisms may be to complex to be understood at that time. So the community comes to a conclusion which later can prove to be wrong. Iodine is in fact a very good way to get cells to excrete lead, bromide, fluoride, and some other stuff I forgot. It also is an anti cancer agent, which is being used a lot in breast cysts. They simply slowly disappear over months or years instead of becoming cancer. And the main actor who got iodine back, mostly with his own studies, was abraham.

Gold can not be patented, and colloidal gold can not, too. So the only money coming from pharmacy is for applications of gold for applications which they can patent. Its the same for iodine. Despite the historical evidence, despite the actual evidence, do you see a change in mind in medicine? Nope. Do you see big studies using Iodine for detoxification, or for breast cysts? Nope. Now iodine has some very important uses, and modern medicine is still more occupied with creating new molecules they can patent, or with researching gene technology. making studies on elements seems old school, lol. And if iodine does not get the attention it deserves, why should gold be so well researched, if its only for raising iq? I know this may be important for US, but for the rest of the world cancer research may be more important. Its like saying look, every time the traffic light turned red, I saw the cars stop. So I know its impossible that cars will not stop, once it turns red. So let me rephrase it to be reflecting reality: every time I see the traffic light turn red, I saw the cars stop. So its very likely that they will stop once it turns red, but I would as sure as hell not bet my life on it.

Long story short: it may be unlikely, but that proves nothing. In fact I have shown you several reasons why it might not be so unlikely at all. If you look carefully you will see that NONE of his iodine studies can be found on pubmed too. Why? Maybe because his studies lack financing and are therefore badly setup (no double blind studies with lots of samples). Maybe it is because its killing your career as a researcher if you oppose "common knowledge", even if it is flawed, and won't even get published. I've seen examples of this now in several sciences, at least in physics, or medicine. So because of this reasons, it can be that you do not get published, and if you do, who will take the risk on his career and follow your lead? And then, its not only your career you should be worried about, and future funding of studies, but who the hell will fund a study to replicate a study like that?

So the only thing that proves that abraham is wrong with his gold studies, is someone replicating his studies, with the same settings, but more samples, and doubleblind. Have you seen this? I haven't, but would be glad if you could point me to such a study. Unless we have such a study, all I can say is: It looks interesting. All you can say is: there is no proof. But you can not say that its a scam, bogus, or simply not true. We simply have not enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

Now you might be arguing that a guy who has only published stuff on his website is a scam, and I totally agree. But this is not the case. Search on pubmed for Guy abraham, or for abraham ge. You'll see that the studies fit the summary about him I posted earlier. He's done a lot of research, he's done this time. To me it seems he does not prove anymore that he can do research, he simply stopped researching what he can get funds for and researches what hes passionate about. With less funding and thus, less quality. Maybe he's showing some mental decline too, as you stated by referencing that RA study, maybe he is not so careful about writing his studies because he knows they won't be published anyways. Who knows.

All I know is that he did exactly the same for iodine, and he was right all along. Believe me, you'll be more willing to trust less evidence when you have precancer in your breast, then to increase your iq, esp. when its expensive. So it happens that lots of people have tried iodine, but we still can find no case studies for colloidal gold. No data does not mean it does not work. No data means we don't know!

And then there is the problem with assessing if it worked or not. Of those people who have tried it, may not have felt much different. I mean, it's likely that you really feel the effects when you are working on complicated stuff. And you have to be aware of it. And the last point is tricky. So one would have to get a good iq test, do it before, and after taking that stuff, and then report the results. Noone did. So even if it worked for the people who took it, it might not be enough to say "wow 20 points iq more is huge try it too!!!", maybe they just didnt feel enough for it to be worth reporting.

And then there is the case with the "target group". I guess I am the first one to bring this to attention of a group who is a) willing to try new things b) being aware of sensing psychological changes because we have experience with trying out stuff that might only be subtile, and sensing it and c) where some people are willing to do a proper test setup with pre, mid and post test, in this case iq tests and nback would be interesting. But here we have a problem: its not hip to take old school elements. Maybe. I mean, what can they do? thats so last century at best. lol. ok, maybe I am exaggerating a bit now. But what I want to say is that because of these circumstances, it is at least possible, that there is something that may work that hasn't been tested, or put to trial by the community yet.

Listen, its a fine line between all this conspiracy and "they dont want us to know" shit and stating facts, how they happened. With iodine, it was no conspiracy of the medical community, it was the circumstances that let the system fail by not replicating 2 key studies, or by not understanding how iodine worked because it was simply too complex to comprehend at that time. There is a big difference between this and the usual "they dont want us to know bla bla" paranoid thinking. With gold its simply, that it's not hip to study it, and too hard to find funding, I guess.

He was right that iodine was a "miracle cure"? Can you cite specific evidence to support this? Again, when I look for Guy Abraham and iodine, all I find are homemade websites and books Guy Abraham was involved with, most of which accompany products for sale. This is not citation-worthy, so we must reference legitimate research or come to the logical conclusion that Guy Abraham did not establish iodine as a "miracle cure", or even as beneficial in any other sense than the scientific and medical communities had already done.

Its no miracle cure. It simple does a lot of good stuff. Imagine you are deficient in a substance that has a lot of biological roles in the human body. You take it, and for you it would be like a miracle cure, but in reality you just gave the body what it needed to maintain optimal health in respect to all biological functions that depend on given substance. See, iodine has a lot of uses, and they are scientifically backed, and with a lot of case reports. For example, breast cysts. It just so happens that the breast tissue is after the thyroid the body tissue with the highest amount of iodine.

Iodine Alters Gene Expression in the MCF7 Breast Cancer Cell Line: Evidence for an Anti-Estrogen Effect of Iodine
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2452979/

before I go on and cite literally thousands of studies on iodine, why don't you take a look yourself?
iodine4health.com summarizes all studies, and usually you can find those studies on pubmed(I suppose, I haven't checked them all)
See, I have to better describe the role abraham plays in iodine. He did not invent the medical use of iodine, that was done in the 1819.
If I remember right was using iodine as medicine the birthplace of modern medicine, because it was the first isolated compound to treat a disease. I might be wrong however, my memory is bad and this is the main problem I am working on right now. But you can read all about iodines history in a paper published by who - right - abraham on his website. The main role abraham plays is in re-recognizing that iodine must be used in much higher amounts then being used today to make the body sufficient on iodine, and by doing that, increasing health greatly. This is no new knowledge, it was known in 1800 and 1900, until the medical community replaced iodine with t3/4. But since iodine has so many uses in the human body, you will see that it was a very bad desicion. So his mission was to correct this historical error. So he did studies about that, and ilnesses that are correlated closely with whole body iodine status.
There are, like I mentioned, thousands of studies describing iodine for human health on that website, just check them out. It'll take probably decades until its "common knowledge" in the medical field that the bodies need for iodine is much higher then is recognized today. But this is how it works. Once a belief has been established, no matter in what field, it is much more difficult to change it.

Sure, but that's why we perform proper studies today. If some people claim that quinine is effective at treating malaria, we perform studies to verify this, and if the studies confirm the claimed effect (as they did in the case of quinine, though it has since been replaced by more effective drugs with fewer side effects), it is accepted as established. Plenty of "historical remedies" are incorrect or entirely fabricated, but we don't take them at their word simply because we don't have any current studies to cite - we perform real research, because that's how science works.

Exactly. But if there is no funding, or noone is interested for various reasons to perform studies, then there will be no proof that it works or not. And we are back to square one. Then the only thing left is to not try a substance, because there is not enough evidence, or to try it, because the little evidence sounds promising. If we always do the first one, then we will be at the mercy of the willingness and funding of those who might have no interest at all or would find publishing such a study counterproductive for various reasons. I for one, and that is my personal opinion, prefer the second if I am convinced by the evidence to find out if it works for me. If I wasn't so sure about abraham however, I probably would not. Sure, plenty of historical remedies are wrong, but weak evidence is often the basis for medical advance, if we use that to create studies to find out for certain. In this case it is sad to see noone has done so. So I could argue in this case science does not work, because noone studied this topic, and I am left to try it myself to see if it works.

As noted above, I agree: just because something hasn't been proven or even evidenced to confer some benefit to human health, doesn't mean it does not do so. However, as also noted above, proper research makes short work of such a problem, and in any case, if you're saying there's no 'strong evidence' for colloidal gold's claimed effects, then there's no real reason to take it unless you enjoy taking shots in the dark to hopefully improve health. If anything, it's easily as likely that there will be negative effects.

I trust Abrahams research enough to see potential. By your reasoning, a lot of supplements would never have been tried, because there was no strong evidence - by that I mean doubleblind human studies, that have been replicated, with a sample size of at least a several hundred. Hell, we take supplements that prove to work in elderly or altzheimer patients. I would also call this no strong evidence, as long as mentioned study designs have been done on the right target group. We OFTEN take leap of faith by using supstances that *might* work for our goals. I would agrue that this is actually standard procedure. Because if we would not, we would have to wait an endless time until studies have been done with strong evidence for our purposes. I bet you do that, too. The main thing people are concerned with is toxicity issues, and if it could have a benifical use that we are interested in. Heck, we don't care if the studies are being done on rats or on ants or in a petri dish as long as we are exited about what could happen and are convinced that we will not come to harm. You call that strong evidence? At least that small pilot study was being done on humans. :D

Again, please give citations or reference something that states that his work "benefited a lot of people". Homemade websites and books he wrote or helped write do not count, in case you were considering them as evidence.

iodine4health.com - pretty much summarizes most studies etc on iodine and orthoiodosupplementation
lecture on iodine by dr flechas
http://jeffreydach.c...md.aspx?ref=rss
http://health.groups...m/group/iodine/ (join and ask yourself)

Dr's to use high dose iodine for breast cysts, detoxification etc:
Dr Flechas http://cypress.he.ne...echas/index.htm (if you google him, you will find some more video lectures on iodine)
Dr. Brownstein http://www.drbrownstein.com/ (also, he has some videos up, and a book about iodine)
There is more for sure...

See when a lot of people believe that something is wrong when it indeed isn't it takes a LONG time to convince them. That takes time, and if you ask again in 30-40 years, I am sure there will be plenty more of evidence. Although, if you are interested you could look at the history of iodine, the evidence availiable and judge yourself - after being thorough.

I searched for the quotation above, and found it on only two websites. One of them is http://www.healthsal...y-e-abraham-md/, a website run by Barbara "Arrow" Durfee, known for her articles on bellaonline.com, where her bio states that she has "studied with psychic healers" - http://www.bellaonli...t/stomachissues.

True. In fact its hard to find direct evidence of what I have pasted. But you have to remember that most of whats been written there has happened before the internet. He is like most old people, he does not give a rats ass about the internet. If I were him, I would too, think "they can check my records in the real world, I have to prove nothing else". But he might not even be aware of this problem. So be my guest, track down the institutions, call them or email them, and ask if they indeed had a professor named abraham, if he got a award, etc. There will be no newspaper articles writing about his awards or discoveries because the internet didnt exist at this time. I have enough indirect evidence to convince me that above is true though: check pubmed for Guy Abraham, Abraham E, Abraham GE, and look in the timewindow 1970ies and above if he has done studies and got published in the areas mentioned. It should be the case that his studies got referenced quite often if he indeed "pioneered the development of assays to measure minute quantities of steroid hormones in biological fluids" esp for those studies, I didn't check.

But there are also no studies implying that it does. There are also no studies proving that drinking hand lotion doesn't increase IQ...but that doesn't mean it does. What we're looking for here is not just an absence of studies disproving Abraham's claims, but any reliable studies supporting them.

You forgot, there is his study. How many studies do you know of of drinking hand lotion does increase iq?
And the main problem is that the internet does not have all the information we need to find more evidence. By that I mean historical evidence. There is so much historical information that didn't make its way into the web yet. And in cases like this, when there is only one study, and this one, I bet has been done because abraham had access to information with historical pointers to gold and cognition, we do not have the same database to look at and see if gold was i.e. at one time used to increase congnitive abilities. Quite the contrary, anyone can write on the web about some historical cure for something (and this is often being done), and we have no way to see for ourselves what happened in those centuries. There is lots of bullshit, and a few gems to be found, I can tell you. In fact, a lot of supplements that came out just a few years ago are based on historical application, until people decided to make studies to verify those claims. But you can bet they didn't use the internet to get the first hints, they had other databases... Heck, we don't even have access to a lot of studies that are not in english, like russian, japanese, indian... Remember - now almost all studies are in english. but what about the countless studies that were made in a time where english was not recognized to be important as a study language? Russia, during the iron curtain time, etc. And lots of research of elements dates back farer then the internet and is just lost to us for now. So you can only say there is an absence of studies that we have access to. Not that it has not been researched.

Again, I would like to see any reliable data indicating that Abraham has been involved in any iodine treatment that is accepted by the legitimate scientific or medical communities. The two doctors you just mentioned were two of the eight doctors helping Abraham sell things on cpmedical.net, and as I've already mentioned, I can't find anything of note about them from legitimate sources. As a side-note, quacks reference quacks; that's one of the ways quackery works.

iodine4health.com should provide all the resources you need. True, quacks reference quacks. But if a bunch of people are pioneers in a field, and you ask me to reference people until I run out of people who drive this field forward, then well, I can't do magic. I said it before, the medical community is still thinking all above I dont know 200mcg/day is unhealthy, and above 1mg is toxic, when there is in fact NO EVIDENCE that it is(toxicity I mean). Research that statement, if you have the time. I assure you, the more you research about iodine, the more you will think what the fuck? How can modern medicine be so contradicting in its own statements(about dosage)? As long as you do not look for iodine-131 or other radioactive versions of iodine, and conclude from them, that elemental iodine must be bad, you will be on the right track. Now because iodine is a powerful detoxification agent, there can be adverse reactions(at first). It is important to take this into consideration when doing your research. It is relatively complicated, but if you insist I can explain it to you, but we should probably make another thread...

but the fact that he instead sells things with no evidence of efficacy indicates to me that he is either not good enough at actual medicine to perform in the actual field, or that he has determined it to be more lucrative to engage in his current practices.

Or that he does not give a shit about others telling him what to research, does his own thing with his own funding, and due to that, having only small studies. But others do, and/or get no funding, thus no replication.

I won't comment on the studies, because they served only the "hey what look colloidal gold studies I found" without special purpose then to know a bit more about colloidal gold in general. bascially the main thing I am interested in right now when it comes to studies is safety, because I think we will find no more evidence on raising iq. Maybe there are some studies on the brain and colloidal gold that I haven't found yet, I'll check again later.

Listen, I am strongly believing in what abraham has done with iodine. However if you find evidence to contradict him, let me know and we'll discuss it. I surely do not want to believe in quacks, after all, if the evidence is there. And if hes right, maybe you become a abraham fan too. lol.

[LBGSHI]

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Maybe age had it's toll on his brain. Here is at least one of the studies he meant when referencing to collodial gold in RA:

Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Rationale for the Use of Colloidal Metallic Gold
Read More: http://informahealth.../13590849762411
The study he referenced was clearly not about colloidal gold, but about gold salts.

[/quote]

Even if that is one of the studies he "meant" to reference, it was a study by Abraham himself, with no peer review or even peer participation. This doesn't mean it didn't happen or was undertaken dishonestly, but the reason we have peer review and peer participation in medical and scientific studies is so that, if someone performs a study fraudulently or incorrectly, more than one person in a given field must risk their reputation and professional standing to corroborate such a study. It's not a perfect system, but it generally works quite well, and those that sidestep this system do not endear themselves to the scientific community or people at large who are interested in the results of serious research.

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
[quote]So your point is, "He's only working with old, historical applications of elements, so of course nobody else in current times has done any research supporting his claims"? He's been making these claims for some time now, and colloidal gold has been used in many other applications. If his 'research' had any merit, others would follow up on it, and the scientific and medical communities would pick it up and run with it. Why haven't they? Hopefully your response will not be one related to conspiracies or the scientific and medical community "not wanting us to know about" such breakthroughs.[/quote]


This is all or nothing thinking. Its like saying So many people have been running the 100m, and none of them broke the world record. Until... someone did. Maybe not the best example. OK, lets have an example thats closely related: In the early days of medicine, iodine was something like a panacea. Nobody knew what it did, but it did it well. Then came the "chemical revolution" in medicine, where artificial created medicines could be patented, which was a exiting new field. And it is how it always is with new things: New good, old bad, esp. if its a revolution of some kind. So it happened that someone created artificial thyroid hormone. Two studies followed, not only to prove that t3 I believe it was works well, but to show that all history of iodine science was wrong. That its bad. That Its even toxic in dosages normally prescribed. That picture was one people at that time saw over and over again, because much of medicine was using other high dose elements, and indeed, those were toxic and better alternatives were a blessing. Well, this was not true for iodine, but if fit in the picture, and two studies, by the same physicians, that wanted to promote a competitor to iodine, never replicated, made iodine a bad medicine, in fact banished it from the world (unless it is in mcg amounts). Now I don't say that t3, t4 are useless, they have their place, thats not the point. The point is that not everything gets replicated, and even if it does, the mechanisms may be to complex to be understood at that time. So the community comes to a conclusion which later can prove to be wrong. Iodine is in fact a very good way to get cells to excrete lead, bromide, fluoride, and some other stuff I forgot. It also is an anti cancer agent, which is being used a lot in breast cysts. They simply slowly disappear over months or years instead of becoming cancer. And the main actor who got iodine back, mostly with his own studies, was abraham.

[/quote]

Certainly, there is give and take in science and medicine. Over time, certain methodologies are emphasized or de-emphasized, and occasionally this occurs counter to proper scientific method, or even truth. However, this is a self-correcting process, and given millions of researchers studying simultaneously without end for decades upon decades, sooner or later the communities involved make short work of incorrect beliefs via cold, hard, factual studies. Let us take a look at iodine, since this seems to be the focal point of your support for Abraham's legitimacy.

We can start simply, with a link to Iodine's Wikipedia page, sub-section Dietary Intake (http://en.wikipedia....#Dietary_intake): "The daily Dietary Reference Intake recommended by the United States Institute of Medicine is between 110 and 130 µg for infants up to 12 months, 90 µg for children up to eight years, 130 µg for children up to 13 years, 150 µg for adults, 220 µg for pregnant women and 290 µg for lactating mothers. The Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for adults is 1,100 μg/day (1.1 mg/day). The tolerable upper limit was assessed by analyzing the effect of supplementation on thyroid-stimulating hormone".

These measurements are in micrograms, or thousandths of a milligram. This is not a couple of greedy, patent-holding doctors making a statement - it is the collective determination of the United States Institute of Medicine. But don't take them at their word; let's get information from other sources as well.

You mention and emphasize that various forms of iodine are indeed harmful, but that elemental iodine is not. I believe you merely misspoke, but let's look at elemental iodine. A quick Google search for "iodine MSDS" (Material Safety Data Sheet, a standard document in scientific, medical, and engineering circles) turns up the following as the first two results:

http://www.sciencela...?msdsId=9927547

http://www.nvcc.edu/...msds/iodine.pdf

The first is direct from ScienceLab.com, a well-known and reputable supplier of laboratory chemicals and equipment; the second is a reprint of a Fisher Scientific MSDS. Both are companies which sell elemental iodine, which as you mentioned has various uses across multiple fields of work.

Though both documents agree that the LD50 for iodine is quite high (the LDlo, all that's currently available for humans, is 28 mg per kg), neither minces words about the danger of consuming ANY measureable amount of elemental iodine. Let us keep in mind that, although a substance may not kill you, it may still be extremely harmful to you, especially if taken for long periods of time. Here is the ScienceDirect iodine MSDS section on Hazards Identification as well as the section on First Aid Measures:

[quote]

Section 3: Hazards Identification

Potential Acute Health Effects:
Very hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Hazardous in case of skin
contact (corrosive), of eye contact (corrosive). Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator). The amount of tissue
damage depends on length of contact. Eye contact can result in corneal damage or blindness. Skin contact can produce
inflammation and blistering. Inhalation of dust will produce irritation to gastro-intestinal or respiratory tract, characterized by
burning, sneezing and coughing. Severe over-exposure can produce lung damage, choking, unconsciousness or death.
Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching. Skin inflammation is characterized by itching,
scaling, reddening, or, occasionally, blistering.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS:
Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL
TOXICITY: Not available. The substance is toxic to thyroid. The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, skin, eyes.
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure of the eyes
to a low level of dust can produce eye irritation. Repeated skin exposure can produce local skin destruction, or dermatitis.
Repeated inhalation of dust can produce varying degree of respiratory irritation or lung damage.

Eye Contact:
Check for and remove any contact lenses. In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15
minutes. Cold water may be used. WARM water MUST be used. Get medical attention immediately.
Skin Contact:
In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes while removing contaminated clothing
and shoes. Cover the irritated skin with an emollient. Wash clothing before reuse. Thoroughly clean shoes before reuse. Get
medical attention immediately.
Serious Skin Contact:
Wash with a disinfectant soap and cover the contaminated skin with an anti-bacterial cream. Seek medical attention.
Inhalation:
If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. Get medical
attention.
Serious Inhalation:
Evacuate the victim to a safe area as soon as possible. Loosen tight clothing such as a collar, tie, belt or waistband. If
breathing is difficult, administer oxygen. If the victim is not breathing, perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. WARNING: It may
be hazardous to the person providing aid to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation when the inhaled material is toxic, infectious or
corrosive. Seek immediate medical attention.
Ingestion:
Do NOT induce vomiting unless directed to do so by medical personnel. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious
person. Loosen tight clothing such as a collar, tie, belt or waistband. Get medical attention if symptoms appear.
Serious Ingestion: Not available.

[/quote]

...and here is the Fisher Scientific MSDS section on Hazards Identification:

[quote]

Section 3 - Hazards Identification
EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
Danger! May cause allergic skin reaction. Harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin. Causes burns by all
exposure routes. At ordinary temperatures, iodine sublimes to a violet gas with a characteristic, irritating odor. Target
Organs: Respiratory system, eyes, thyroid, skin.
Potential Health Effects
Eye: Causes severe eye irritation. May cause eye burns. Vapors cause eye irritation.
Skin:
Harmful if absorbed through the skin. May cause severe irritation and possible burns. Rare instances of allergic
reactions to topical iodine solutions characterized by fever and generalized skin eruptions have lead to death. At
least one death after topical application of a strong iodine tincture to one-third of the body has been recorded.
Ingestion: Harmful if swallowed. May cause burns to the digestive tract.
Inhalation: Harmful if inhaled. Causes severe respiratory tract irritation. Extreme exposures could result in a build-up of fluid
in the lungs (pulmonary edema) that might be fatal in severe cases.
Chronic:
Chronic exposure can lead to iodism characterized by headache, excess salivation, nasal discharge,
conjunctivitis, laryngitis, bronchitis, stomatitis, enlarged submaxillary glands, and skin rashes. Chronic ingestion of
iodides during pregnancy has resulted in fetal death, severe goiter, and cretinoid appearance of the newborn.
Chronic exposure can affect thyroid function. Some references (e.g. Dreisbach's Handbook) say that iodine and
iodine compounds are potent sensitizers and that repeated contact may cause sensitivity dermatitis, laryngeal
edema, serum sickness with lymph node enlargement, and joint pain and swelling.
Section 4 - First Aid Measures
Eyes: In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Get medical aid
immediately.
Skin: In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes while removing
contaminated clothing and shoes. Get medical aid immediately. Wash clothing before reuse.
Ingestion: POISON material. If swallowed, get medical aid immediately. Only induce vomiting if directed to do so by
medical personnel. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.
Inhalation: If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen.
Get medical aid.

[/quote]

Given the above, it would be a mistake to say that elemental iodine is safer than other forms. In fact, it is very dangerous to consume on its own. Do we require iodine for health? Yes. But we don't ingest it in the form of pure, elemental iodine...we ingest it in bound forms such as iodide, which are broken down in the body to yield iodine in very small amounts, as required by the thyroid gland, and so forth. Even Lugol's iodine (or Lugol's solution), as referenced by Abraham and your oft-cited iodine4health.com, a solution of between 1% and 5% elemental iodine, though used very sparingly in the past by doctors treating very specific illnesses, is "irritating and destructive to mucosa, such as the lining of the esophagus and stomach. Doses of 10 mL of 5% solution have been reported to cause gastric lesions when used in endoscopy. The lethal dose of free iodine for an adult human of 2 to 3 grams (2000-3000 mg) free iodine represents 40 to 60 mL (less than 2 fluid ounces) of 5% Lugol's solution." (http://en.wikipedia....iodine#Toxicity).

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Despite the historical evidence, despite the actual evidence, do you see a change in mind in medicine? Nope. Do you see big studies using Iodine for detoxification, or for breast cysts? Nope.

[/quote]

Yes, I do see big studies related to iodine and breast cysts and tumors. These have been going on for decades, without the need for Abraham and his co-salesmen. For example (just in the first page of a quick PubMed search for ["iodine" "breast" -milk]):

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8221402 - "Iodine replacement in fibrocystic disease of the breast."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23171625 - "The potential of iodine for improving breast cancer diagnosis and treatment."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14757962 - "Role of iodine in antioxidant defence in thyroid and breast disease."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12927031 - "The thyroid, iodine and breast cancer."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10720070 - "Tissue iodine content and serum-mediated 125I uptake-blocking activity in breast cancer."

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8637209 - "Suppressive effect of iodine on DMBA-induced breast tumor growth in the rat."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15239792 - "The effect of supraphysiologic levels of iodine on patients with cyclic mastalgia."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21688833 - "Targeted delivery in breast cancer cells via iodine: nuclear localization sequence conjugate."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22027149 - "Inhibition of autophagy stimulate molecular iodine-induced apoptosis in hormone independent breast tumors."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....v/pubmed/343535 - "Iodine and mammary cancer."

Note that none of these involve or cite Abraham or any of the other doctors you've mentioned, all of whom are only notable for the fact that they all work together selling these obscure products on a few websites together. Isn't it just a little strange that the community at large does not have any interest in these doctors, and that they all happen to work together at the same places to sell products based on references to the supposed work of one another?

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Now iodine has some very important uses, and modern medicine is still more occupied with creating new molecules they can patent, or with researching gene technology.

[/quote]

"Modern medicine" is interested in all avenues of improvement, not just those that offer the most profit regardless of efficacy. Of course profits drive a huge amount of research, but there is also research driven by the desire to cure and treat illnesses, which is after all the very concept of the Hippocratic Oath (http://en.wikipedia....ippocratic_Oath). It is always possible for a person or group of people to conspire to do the wrong thing for monetary gain, but it isn't reasonable to assume that EVERY legitimate doctor and researcher has conspired to do so. "Modern medicine" isn't some shadowy organization with fanatical members all sworn to secrecy and intent on making as much money as possible regardless of helping or harming people - it's a consortium of many different organizations and individuals. If there are indications that a certain treatment is more effective than other treatments, SOMEONE will look into this, and if its cost or efficacy is better than the current treatment options, this will lead to its adoption by the medical community in general. This happens regularly in medicine, and isn't at all shunned or suppressed; it is encouraged.

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Long story short: it may be unlikely, but that proves nothing. In fact I have shown you several reasons why it might not be so unlikely at all. If you look carefully you will see that NONE of his iodine studies can be found on pubmed too. Why? Maybe because his studies lack financing and are therefore badly setup (no double blind studies with lots of samples).

[/quote]

I don't believe you have shown any reasons why it "might not be so unlikely at all". According to all relevant studies, there is no evidence for colloidal gold improving you IQ. Abraham's study, which was performed by him and two other people working for Optimox (the company and site which you pointed to, that sells the colloidal gold you're referring to) were not corroborated by anyone (and hence, may not have even occurred), and despite the fact that the study states that the "encouraging results of this pilot study warrant further evaluation of colloidal metallic gold in a larger number of subjects of different age groups.", this 1998 study was never followed up by anyone, including Abraham himself. Certainly you don't expect anyone to accept that Abraham can't afford to perform more studies and at the same time, everyone else in the medical community is either conspiring against us in order to make more money, or too scared of those engaged in this conspiracy to speak up. This is not impossible in the literal sense, but being honest, you must admit it is extremely unlikely.

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Maybe it is because its killing your career as a researcher if you oppose "common knowledge", even if it is flawed, and won't even get published.

[/quote]

Actually, if you oppose common knowledge and provide evidence in a proper, double-blind, placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed study to the contrary of current practice and understanding, you don't "kill your career" - you become famous (at the very least, within your field). This is how science is propelled forward. If we never challenged the existing understanding of the universe, we would never invent or discover anything. To say that this does not occur in science is completely incorrect. If you're saying that Abraham will eventually become famous when science catches up to his discoveries and performs some real studies, then that's an opinion and you're entitled to it. However, you should keep in mind that there is no evidence for this and much evidence to the contrary, and Abraham gives all the indications of being intentionally deceptive.

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
I've seen examples of this now in several sciences, at least in physics, or medicine. So because of this reasons, it can be that you do not get published, and if you do, who will take the risk on his career and follow your lead? And then, its not only your career you should be worried about, and future funding of studies, but who the hell will fund a study to replicate a study like that?

[/quote]

Out of curiosity, who are you referring to when you say you have "seen examples of this now in several sciences, at least in physics, or medicine"?

The kind of people and groups that will fund studies like the one you're describing are manifold and diverse. Needless to say, such entities exist, and if science dictates, they will carry out such studies, even for no profit. Academia is immersed in studies with no profit in sight, and that's just one place you'll find research being performed for the sake of science and not just profit. In any case, the fact that no one has performed studies linking colloidal gold ingestion with increased IQ except for Abraham and two co-workers at a place selling the stuff (assuming this study took place and bore the results they claim, which we have no choice but to accept at face value or discard in disbelief) points to only two options: "It doesn't work", or "We don't know if it works". If this is all you're proposing, great. Otherwise, you'll have to point to something providing evidence for Abraham's claims. In the absence of evidence, all we have is his reputation, and given what we've discussed, that doesn't shine too favorable a light on his prospects for believability.

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
So the only thing that proves that abraham is wrong with his gold studies, is someone replicating his studies, with the same settings, but more samples, and doubleblind. Have you seen this? I haven't, but would be glad if you could point me to such a study. Unless we have such a study, all I can say is: It looks interesting. All you can say is: there is no proof. But you can not say that its a scam, bogus, or simply not true. We simply have not enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

[/quote]

Agreed; I cannot state for certain that Abraham is being intentionally deceptive and selling a bogus product. All I can say is that, based on the evidence already discussed, it certainly looks that way, and there is no evidence to support his claims. We have a guy (no pun intended) who does not appear to be legitimate, selling something with no evidence of its effect. Your statement above is correct.

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Now you might be arguing that a guy who has only published stuff on his website is a scam, and I totally agree. But this is not the case. Search on pubmed for Guy abraham, or for abraham ge. You'll see that the studies fit the summary about him I posted earlier. He's done a lot of research, he's done this time. To me it seems he does not prove anymore that he can do research, he simply stopped researching what he can get funds for and researches what hes passionate about. With less funding and thus, less quality. Maybe he's showing some mental decline too, as you stated by referencing that RA study, maybe he is not so careful about writing his studies because he knows they won't be published anyways. Who knows.

[/quote]

Yes; he has been involved in legitimate research with other doctors at real universities in the past. Whether today he is prone to make mistakes in studies as you stated above, or mis-cites intentionally to deceive prospective buyers, this does not improve his standing. There are plenty of doctors in the world, and not all of them are honest professionals who would do no wrong. Unfortunately, there are some people in the world who have no problem selling snake oil.


[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
All I know is that he did exactly the same for iodine, and he was right all along.

[/quote]

What was he right about "all along", and when did he state that this was the case, but was "ignored" by the community? I don't think this occurred. It appears that iodine has had its place for quite a while, and is still used and researched by many institutions, but that Guy Abraham's claims concerning iodine are incorrect and potentially harmful.

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
And then there is the problem with assessing if it worked or not. Of those people who have tried it, may not have felt much different. I mean, it's likely that you really feel the effects when you are working on complicated stuff. And you have to be aware of it. And the last point is tricky. So one would have to get a good iq test, do it before, and after taking that stuff, and then report the results. Noone did. So even if it worked for the people who took it, it might not be enough to say "wow 20 points iq more is huge try it too!!!", maybe they just didnt feel enough for it to be worth reporting.

[/quote]

Yes; this is always the case, with anything intended to improve cognitive ability. We get past this hurdle by performing very specific tests. Search for the various nootropics on PubMed or elsewhere, and you will see the specific ways we determine what a substance will and will not do.


[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
And then there is the case with the "target group". I guess I am the first one to bring this to attention of a group who is a) willing to try new things b) being aware of sensing psychological changes because we have experience with trying out stuff that might only be subtile, and sensing it and c) where some people are willing to do a proper test setup with pre, mid and post test, in this case iq tests and nback would be interesting.

[/quote]

Yes, Longecity is a great place for this sort of discussion, and I'm glad you brought it here. And yes, pre, during, and post tests are always great for determining effects on cognition; I wish more tests of this sort were performed by regular nootropic users, and people partaking in other forms of attempted cognitive improvement.

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
But here we have a problem: its not hip to take old school elements. Maybe. I mean, what can they do? thats so last century at best. lol. ok, maybe I am exaggerating a bit now. But what I want to say is that because of these circumstances, it is at least possible, that there is something that may work that hasn't been tested, or put to trial by the community yet.

[/quote]

Yes, it is possible. Many things are possible. The next step after making a hypothesis is to test that hypothesis, and determine whether or not it is correct.

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Listen, its a fine line between all this conspiracy and "they dont want us to know" shit and stating facts, how they happened. With iodine, it was no conspiracy of the medical community, it was the circumstances that let the system fail by not replicating 2 key studies, or by not understanding how iodine worked because it was simply too complex to comprehend at that time. There is a big difference between this and the usual "they dont want us to know bla bla" paranoid thinking. With gold its simply, that it's not hip to study it, and too hard to find funding, I guess.

[/quote]

Based on what I could dig up, it doesn't seem like this occurred at all. What was iodine's hidden usefulness, and how was this suppressed? I'd like to know specifics, if possible. From what I can tell, iodine never fell from use in its specific applications, except when other methods proved more effective, less costly, or less harmful or dangerous.

(post continued in a few minutes, as apparently making my entire post at once exceeded the maximum allowed quotes

Edited by LBGSHI, 04 February 2013 - 07:30 AM.

[LBGSHI]

[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Its no miracle cure. It simple does a lot of good stuff. Imagine you are deficient in a substance that has a lot of biological roles in the human body. You take it, and for you it would be like a miracle cure, but in reality you just gave the body what it needed to maintain optimal health in respect to all biological functions that depend on given substance. See, iodine has a lot of uses, and they are scientifically backed, and with a lot of case reports.
[/quote]

Yes; iodine is required by the body, but in very small amounts, and it should be ingested in other forms than elemental iodine. As noted above, this is corroborated by the medical community in general, not just a small clique of conspiratorial plutocrats diving around in their gold silos.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
For example, breast cysts. It just so happens that the breast tissue is after the thyroid the body tissue with the highest amount of iodine.

Iodine Alters Gene Expression in the MCF7 Breast Cancer Cell Line: Evidence for an Anti-Estrogen Effect of Iodine
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2452979/
[/quote]

Great stuff. But Abraham had nothing to do with this.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
before I go on and cite literally thousands of studies on iodine, why don't you take a look yourself?
iodine4health.com summarizes all studies, and usually you can find those studies on pubmed(I suppose, I haven't checked them all)
[/quote]

OK, let's take a look at iodine4health.com. Specifically, after looking around the site, I found two pages relevant to our topic of discussion: their page on Orthoiodosupplementation, and their page on Iodine's toxicity.

Interestingly, the website is pretty even-handed: in http://iodine4health...ho/toxicity.htm it states the "traditionalist point of view" and the "orthoiodosupplementation point of view", and gives explanations for each. Essentially, the "traditionalists" state that the average person in the United States gets sufficient iodine, and that supplementing iodine in any form poses the risk of toxicity. The "orthoiodosupplementationists" claim instead that humans require more iodine, that this should be administered in the form of elemental iodine or one of several forms of iodide, and that the risk of toxicity is not as big of a problem as the medical community in general believes it to be. OK, so far so good. Other than that, there is only one statement in this fairly small page on orthoiodosupplementation that interests me:

"The primary proponents of Orthoiodosupplementation are Abraham, Brownstein, and Flechas."

These are three of the same eight people we talked about earlier, who are working for the same company, selling colloidal gold together on the internet. Doesn't that strike you as a little strange, that the three main proponents of an alternative medical practice concerning iodine which the medical community does not accept as legitimate would also be collaborating to sell colloidal gold together on the internet, another practice that the medical community does not accept as legitimate? Yet another thing that could be nothing, but doesn't add up in Abraham's favor.

At the end of this page, iodine4health's author summarize: "At this point, there is significant disagreement on how much iodine is ideal and what the consequences are of various levels of iodine."

Next, let's take a look at http://iodine4health...o/toxicity.htm. In this page, which is pointed to quite often on other pages of iodine4health.com when the topic of toxicity comes up, we find three references (and nothing else).

First, we have a link to http://iodine4health...e_toxicity.pdf. This study states:

[quote]
It is concluded that some individuals can tolerate very high levels of iodine with no apparent side effects and that iodine intakes less than or equal to 1.000 mg/day are probably safe for the majority of the population, but may cause adverse effects in some individuals. Determination of maximum tolerable levels of iodine intake will require human experimental studies at levels between 0.150 and 1.000 mg/day for normal subjects, subjects with autonomous thyroid tissue, and iodine-sensitive subjects.
[/quote]

So, this simply corroborates the determination of the medical community in general: 1000 micrograms (1 milligram) should be safe for most people, although it might be harmful to some.

Next, we have a link to http://books.nap.edu...10026&page=258. This study states:

[quote]
The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for adult men and women is 150 μg/day. The median intake of iodine from food in the United States is approximately 240 to 300 μg/day for men and 190 to 210 μg/day for women. The Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for adults is 1,100 μg/day (1.1 mg/day), a value based on serum thyrotropin concentration in response to varying levels of ingested iodine.
[/quote]

...and a little later,

[quote]
Adverse Events. Summary. Challenged thyroid function shown by TSH concentrations elevated over baseline is the first effect observed in iodine excess. While an elevated TSH concentration may not be a clinically significant adverse effect, it is an indicator for increased risk of developing clinical hypothyroidism. Therefore, an elevated TSH concentration above baseline was selected as the critical adverse effect on which to base a UL.
[/quote]

...and a little later,

[quote]
Uncertainty Assessment. There is little uncertainty regarding the range of iodine intakes that are likely to induce elevated TSH concentration over baseline.
[/quote]

...and a little later,

[quote]
Studies have correlated an increase in the incidence of AITD [AutoImmune Thyroid Disorder] with a population’s higher intake of iodine (Foley, 1992).
[/quote]

So, once again, we have agreement with the general medical consensus, and specific warnings about increased iodine intake.

Finally, we have a link to http://www.atsdr.cdc...les/tp158.html. This study has actually been moved to http://www.atsdr.cdc...p?id=479&tid=85, but luckily that is stated after we follow the first link. This study states:

[quote]
How can iodine affect my health?

Iodine is needed for your thyroid gland to produce thyroid hormones. You and your thyroid gland are healthy when there is just enough iodine in your body, about 10–15 milligrams, so that just the right amount of thyroid hormones are produced. This amount would look like much less than a pinch of table salt if placed in your hand. This amount of iodine is in most people when they eat the foods that people normally eat in the United States. Your thyroid gland can become unhealthy if more or less than this amount of iodine is in your body.
[/quote]

Once again, agreement with the medical community at large: the body's total iodine content should be between 10 and 15 milligrams of iodine, which is easily obtained through normal dietary intake in the United States. More than this is unhealthy, and could result in problems.

That's it: the Toxicity page on iodine4health.com doesn't list anything else. I also notice nothing else of particular interest anywhere on iodine4health.com. Let me know if there's something relevant to this discussion that I didn't comment on.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
The main role abraham plays is in re-recognizing that iodine must be used in much higher amounts then being used today to make the body sufficient on iodine, and by doing that, increasing health greatly.
[/quote]

No, he claims this to be the case, despite the fact that all evidence points to the contrary. Earlier you stated that he pioneered the concept that people need more iodine and he "turned out to be right", but this was not the case. Even the primary website for iodine-related alternative medicine, iodine4health.com, is very explicit that taking more than the amount specified by established medical practice is potentially dangerous and likely to be harmful. It states both sides of the argument, but points to established medical practice when answering the question of toxicity.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Exactly. But if there is no funding, or noone is interested for various reasons to perform studies, then there will be no proof that it works or not. And we are back to square one. Then the only thing left is to not try a substance, because there is not enough evidence, or to try it, because the little evidence sounds promising. If we always do the first one, then we will be at the mercy of the willingness and funding of those who might have no interest at all or would find publishing such a study counterproductive for various reasons. I for one, and that is my personal opinion, prefer the second if I am convinced by the evidence to find out if it works for me. If I wasn't so sure about abraham however, I probably would not. Sure, plenty of historical remedies are wrong, but weak evidence is often the basis for medical advance, if we use that to create studies to find out for certain. In this case it is sad to see noone has done so. So I could argue in this case science does not work, because noone studied this topic, and I am left to try it myself to see if it works.
[/quote]

Agreed; after noting that there is no scientific evidence to support a claim, it's up to you to try whatever you like.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
I trust Abrahams research enough to see potential. By your reasoning, a lot of supplements would never have been tried, because there was no strong evidence - by that I mean doubleblind human studies, that have been replicated, with a sample size of at least a several hundred. Hell, we take supplements that prove to work in elderly or altzheimer patients. I would also call this no strong evidence, as long as mentioned study designs have been done on the right target group. We OFTEN take leap of faith by using supstances that *might* work for our goals. I would agrue that this is actually standard procedure. Because if we would not, we would have to wait an endless time until studies have been done with strong evidence for our purposes. I bet you do that, too. The main thing people are concerned with is toxicity issues, and if it could have a benifical use that we are interested in. Heck, we don't care if the studies are being done on rats or on ants or in a petri dish as long as we are exited about what could happen and are convinced that we will not come to harm. You call that strong evidence? At least that small pilot study was being done on humans. :D
[/quote]

The studies performed on nootropic supplements are many, and quite a few of these have indeed been performed on humans. What's more, they were performed properly, and by more than one organization, none of which were selling the stuff at the same time.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
[quote]Again, please give citations or reference something that states that his work "benefited a lot of people". Homemade websites and books he wrote or helped write do not count, in case you were considering them as evidence.[/quote]

iodine4health.com - pretty much summarizes most studies etc on iodine and orthoiodosupplementation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoMfg76gAUo lecture on iodine by dr flechas
http://jeffreydach.c...md.aspx?ref=rss
http://health.groups.../iodine/ (join and ask yourself)

Dr's to use high dose iodine for breast cysts, detoxification etc:
Dr Flechas http://cypress.he.ne...echas/index.htm (if you google him, you will find some more video lectures on iodine)
Dr. Brownstein http://www.drbrownstein.com/ (also, he has some videos up, and a book about iodine)
There is more for sure...
[/quote]

First, you just provided some links to people supporting the use of iodine supplements, not what I requested, which was evidence that Abraham did anything related to iodine which "benefited a lot of people". Second, in answer to each of the six links you referenced:

1. I've already covered iodine4health.com, which explains very directly that Abraham and his co-workers are going against the general medical community, and that doing so is likely to result in harm to people. I hardly consider this website complementary to Abraham.

2. A YouTube video, by Dr Flechas, one of the other eight doctors selling iodine and colloidal gold treatments on the internet with Abraham here: http://www.vrp.com/meet-the-doctors.

3. Jeffrey Dach doesn't actually state that he performed a study here; he just references other peoples' studies supporting iodine supplementation. Incidentally, at the very top of this page, he references as his headline article the supposed study by David Brownstein, one of the eight doctors selling things with Abraham here: http://www.vrp.com/meet-the-doctors

4. A Yahoo.com support group is not a reference to evidence supporting Abraham's supposed work in the field of iodine research. It may be a good reference for placebo research, or at best, anecdotal reports not founded in any reality or backed by any research, or even corroborated by any serious medical organization, including associations of doctors, of which there are many.

5. A link to a website owned by Dr Flechas, as noted above, one of the eight doctors selling stuff with Abraham here: http://www.vrp.com/meet-the-doctors

6. A link to a website owned by Dr Brownstein; as noted above, one of the eight doctors selling stuff with Abraham here: http://www.vrp.com/meet-the-doctors



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
[quote]But there are also no studies implying that it does. There are also no studies proving that drinking hand lotion doesn't increase IQ...but that doesn't mean it does. What we're looking for here is not just an absence of studies disproving Abraham's claims, but any reliable studies supporting them.[/quote]

You forgot, there is his study. How many studies do you know of of drinking hand lotion does increase iq?
[/quote]

None. My point was, all I have to do is say I've performed a study, post that on my own website, and I've done what Abraham has done with colloidal gold. Then of course, I need to write an article about it and reference things that either don't make sense, don't apply to the topic at hand, or directly contradict my claims, then start selling IQ-increasing, drinkable hand-lotion for a nice profit, and associate myself with a bunch of other guys also selling fringe alternative medicine with no hard evidence. As a bonus, we can also cite one another in place of actual evidence. Nobody will be inquisitive or ask questions, so we won't bother obscuring this activity - we'll actually sell these products all on the same website (as well as our own individual web sites), while simultaneously citing one another as references.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
And the main problem is that the internet does not have all the information we need to find more evidence. By that I mean historical evidence. There is so much historical information that didn't make its way into the web yet.
[/quote]

Sure. Time will resolve this. No evidence other than a study claimed to have been performed by Abraham supports the use of colloidal gold to increase IQ (by 20%!), and Abraham himself doesn't seem reliable or trustworthy, so it's up to you to decide whether or not to take it.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
And in cases like this, when there is only one study, and this one, I bet has been done because abraham had access to information with historical pointers to gold and cognition, we do not have the same database to look at and see if gold was i.e. at one time used to increase congnitive abilities.
[/quote]

I don't think Abraham has access to a secret database of historical information. Anything he has access to regarding ancient remedies is also accessible by you and I, either on the internet or in a book. This means that many other people have access to this information, so any hypothesis regarding a lack of studies having been caused by lack of access to ancient databases of information is incorrect.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Quite the contrary, anyone can write on the web about some historical cure for something (and this is often being done), and we have no way to see for ourselves what happened in those centuries. There is lots of bullshit, and a few gems to be found, I can tell you. In fact, a lot of supplements that came out just a few years ago are based on historical application, until people decided to make studies to verify those claims. But you can bet they didn't use the internet to get the first hints, they had other databases... Heck, we don't even have access to a lot of studies that are not in english, like russian, japanese, indian... Remember - now almost all studies are in english. but what about the countless studies that were made in a time where english was not recognized to be important as a study language? Russia, during the iron curtain time, etc. And lots of research of elements dates back farer then the internet and is just lost to us for now. So you can only say there is an absence of studies that we have access to. Not that it has not been researched.
[/quote]

No, we can say that we don't have any evidence of it having been researched, especially by reliable sources. Even if research was conducted long ago, we would still have to perform new research, as studies were not historically conducted according to the rigorous processes we now accept as necessary.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
iodine4health.com should provide all the resources you need. True, quacks reference quacks. But if a bunch of people are pioneers in a field, and you ask me to reference people until I run out of people who drive this field forward, then well, I can't do magic. I said it before, the medical community is still thinking all above I dont know 200mcg/day is unhealthy, and above 1mg is toxic, when there is in fact NO EVIDENCE that it is(toxicity I mean). Research that statement, if you have the time.
[/quote]

iodine4health.com agrees with the medical community, as I pointed out above in detail. As for you not being able to perform magic in referencing important people involved in promoting much higher iodine supplementation than normal, that's fine. You pointed out people who all happen to be selling iodine together on the same website, and who reference one another in place of hard evidence. If this is all that you can point to, then that's that. This doesn't leave much room to give your opinion the benefit of the doubt.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
I assure you, the more you research about iodine, the more you will think what the fuck? How can modern medicine be so contradicting in its own statements(about dosage)?
[/quote]

I don't see any contradiction in the medical community's statements concerning iodine toxicity. I could be wrong; please show me what you're referring to.


[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
As long as you do not look for iodine-131 or other radioactive versions of iodine, and conclude from them, that elemental iodine must be bad, you will be on the right track.
[/quote]

I have already pointed out to you above that elemental iodine is indeed harmful, in a slew of ways, and that this is not in legitimate dispute. However, even Abraham and his friends selling this stuff are only selling it in extremely diluted solutions, and advising very small doses even then...and generally, it is not in the form of just elemental iodine...it is part elemental iodine, part iodide (frequently potassium iodide), and then the remaining collection of inactive ingredients as 'filler'.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
[quote]but the fact that he instead sells things with no evidence of efficacy indicates to me that he is either not good enough at actual medicine to perform in the actual field, or that he has determined it to be more lucrative to engage in his current practices.[/quote]

Or that he does not give a shit about others telling him what to research, does his own thing with his own funding, and due to that, having only small studies. But others do, and/or get no funding, thus no replication.
[/quote]

Fine. He's a renegade doctor with a secret cure that "the man" doesn't want you to know about, and he doesn't give a damn if you want research, because his word alone should be good enough for you. Sounds reasonable enough to me.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
I won't comment on the studies, because they served only the "hey what look colloidal gold studies I found" without special purpose then to know a bit more about colloidal gold in general. bascially the main thing I am interested in right now when it comes to studies is safety, because I think we will find no more evidence on raising iq. Maybe there are some studies on the brain and colloidal gold that I haven't found yet, I'll check again later.
[/quote]

OK. Nothing seems to point to any grave danger from taking colloidal gold (except that excessive amounts seem to cause skin rashes and a few other side effects, apparently), so you're really just risking flushing your money down the toilet. If you don't mind knowing that your money went to funding this guy, and you have a few bucks to spare, and you'd rather not try a more established route such as one or more of the many nootropic supplements already proven to have various beneficial effects to human cognitive performance, then by all means, buy some colloidal gold from Guy Abraham, and let us know how it works out. It will just be anecdotal, but I'd still read your report.



[quote name='BioFreak' timestamp='1359812573' post='563436']
Listen, I am strongly believing in what abraham has done with iodine. However if you find evidence to contradict him, let me know and we'll discuss it. I surely do not want to believe in quacks, after all, if the evidence is there. And if hes right, maybe you become a abraham fan too. lol.
[/quote]

I've pointed out just about everything I could find concerning Abraham and iodine, and it doesn't look good for Abraham's claims. I can't find much of anything related to colloidal gold increasing IQ by 20%, but given a lack of evidence and Abraham's other activities, I don't give that too much confidence either.

In the end, it's up to you to decide whether to try it or not. Maybe you can get a micro-sieve, and catch it after it exits the body, purify it, and reuse it :P I know, that sounds a bit gross, but I was actually being half-serious. It seems a waste to literally flush gold down the toilet.

Edited by LBGSHI, 04 February 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[BioFreak]

Let's sum it up, there is debatable evidence for c.gold to increase iq, and certainly not enough to come to any conclusion. "try at your own risk - BUT PLEASE REPORT BACK". lol.

This thread is more becoming a debate about iodine and abraham, and while I would really enjoy discussing it - partly because of self interest because I am supplementing with 24mg iodine/day and I am doing fine with it, contrary to what the "modern view" of science is (I should have a hypothyroid, be tired, get fat, and possibly die because its 2/3 elemetal iodine if I remember right, lugols solution). But the contrary is the case: I am LESS tired, I am keeping my weight. I had what some call an iodine acne, others would call it a bromide rash, but it eventually went away without changes in dosage, which would suggest that it is indeed not toxification by iodine but depletion of the actual source causing the acne.

Actually I have been dosing iodine far higher in the past, 100mg for months, and I felt better, not worse. I can even suppress symptoms of a cold by dosing iodine about 150mg/day, I've replicated that enough times.

After a few weeks on high dose iodine, I had one of the most emotionally enjoyable episodes of my life. Well that one could be placebo, because I could not really replicate it, but at the same time I am enjoying life much more no, but that is probably, or in part, due to other stuff, primarly raising catecholamines.

You're assuming Elemental iodine = iodine-131, which is wrong. In fact there are studies saying that some human tissue can utilize elemental tissue better then iodine salts, which, if I remember includes the breast and the prostate(?). Those studies can surely be found on iodine4health.com. There are iodine salts, elemental iodine, and radioactive forms of iodine, which indeed are harmful.

High amounts can lead to thyroid problems, but only if the thyroid is selenium deficient. And this is a problem, because areas low in iodine are usually also low in selenium. If you increase iodine intake in those areas, some people will get sick. If they would also get enough selenium, it would be no problem.

During a radioactive fallout, you could get your hands on iodine tablets with 50-100mg iodine - per tablet. You'll saturate your body with it, making it unlikely that any radioactive iodine will be absorbed in your body. Now think about it for a minute:
How can it be that the body wants more iodine, if it is "already saturated" and has all the iodine it needs? Why is, all over sudden, high dose iodine better then low dose radioactive iodine? Sounds strange to me, since iodine is supposed to be that bad. Especially(!) at dosages that under none-radioactive fallout conditions are called toxic. Yea, well, maybe some miracle happens and only in the event of a fallout, they are nontoxic, but otherwise they are. lol. Really?

See the topic iodine is a very complex one, and this is why medicine has it wrong. Some facts:
iodine without selenium may be harmful to some thyroids. Generally that happened only in the past when iodine was artificially increased in areas that were deficient in selenium which most iodine deficient areas are. Woops! there you have proof that iodine is harmful, when in reality the relationship is more complicated.
high doses of iodine push bromide, fluoride, and some heavy metals out of the cell into the bloodstream. Again, someone with high levels of those will feel / get sick when using high amounts of iodine. Again you could blame iodine, while it could also be the case that those toxic compounds cause sideeffects because they are now active to cause intoxication symptoms, while as long as they were stored in the cell they would cause long term damage, but no immediate effects.
Not only that, depending on how much toxins are being released into the bloodstream, the kidney may not be able to filter the blood fast enough, which results in more accumulation during iodine treatment, and therefore in more symptoms. And even after iodine intake has been stopped, it may take weeks or months for the kidney to detoxify the blood (and some will certainly be reabsorbed into cells.)
high iodine intake does increase tsh, which is a marker for low thyroid function. But it seems NOT to affect t4 and t3 levels which makes TSH a useless indicator for thyroid function - and for argumentation that iodine does indeed decrease thyroid function.
And then there are a few forms of radioactive iodine, which indeed are main used ones in medicine, ironically, and they ARE HARMFUL. Now we are only humans, and its easy to generalize from them to iodine, and say they are all harmful. (like with lithium, when everybody looks funny when talking about lithium, but in this case, they think about almost toxic doses of lithium, while we would talk about small amounts which are a completely different animal.)

Now with those points in mind look at the evidence, step back and ask yourself if this evidence has taken all those points into account. It is my belief that because of those facts that iodine has been missjudged, and that it's role does need to be reexamined. And Abraham does a good job in that regard.

Ask yourself, if the medical community is so perfect that it didn't spot iodine indeed being beneficial in high doses, why is bromide still allowed in the US as food ingredient? Its toxic, thats a fact. Many countries banned it. It displaces iodine in the cell because its structure is very similar (as is with fluoride). Why are there fluoride tablets out there if there is no beneficial role in human health other then its effect on teeth (for which it does not need to be digested)? Why were amalgam filling allowed and still are when there is evidence that they are toxic?
Do you realize that those elements may not be detectable in the bloodstream because they accumulate in the cell, and will only be detectable if a detoxifier, such as iodine is given in proper amounts to force those compounds into the blood stream - and that this makes proof of intoxication with certain elements hard?
Your reasoning that medicine is founded on, perfect knowledge is flawed. While most of it is true, there will be enough discoveries in front of us that will show us otherwise, thats a fact. Not only that, the above examples I have given you are DIRECTLY related to the iodine topic. They show how bad medical knowledge treats the topic of halogens and heavy metals in the human body, and bromide and fluoride have a direct impact on human health. In fact, because both elements are similar to iodine in their structure, they DISPLACE iodine, where the body needs it. This is why high doses of iodine are needed, because bromine and fluoride seem to be able to displace iodine, being somewhat stronger in that regard somehow. So iodine levels need to be high enough to reverse this force and push them out of the cell.

Again, think about it. The more complex a topic, the more wrong facts will be "common knowledge" until there is enough knowledge to get it finally right. Thats just how it works.

Bromide and fluoride btw mess up thyroid function. and you can bet, they do not only do that in the thyroid.

japanese with a traditional diet get aprox 13mg iodine a day. Yet japanese have less cancer and live longer. Americans used to have, I think 1mg iodine in a slice of bread if I remember right!! After those 2 studies I mentioned, ironically, iodine got replaced by bromide as a baking ingredient, and guess what, cancer increased from that point on.

Where is the evidence for iodine being toxic? I've been searching a lot. And there is not one, not a single one that proofs that iodine is toxic in amounts higher then 1mg. In fact the WHO just uses 1mg as the probably upper save limit. The only studies that I found that say iodine is toxic look at TSH, and what good is it if t3 and t4 are ok?! There have been case studies of several hundred mg iodine being toxic, like 300 or 400mg, but hey, at some level everything has to be toxic. I could not find conclusive proof that iodine is in fact not save at levels above 1mg. Well let me correct this statement: Unless you take the points I mentioned above into consideration (selenium deficit, massive detoxification side effects) There may be evidence that iodine will lower t3 and/or t4 in higher amounts, above 50, or 100mg, unfortunately I do not remember exactly...

I'd love, I'd really love it to start a study referencing war, not only because I'd love to convince you over to the iodine camp, but also I'd like to know if I would run out of arguments and be proven false. But the problem is, right now I have not the time to do that (maybe later?).

I encourage you to get over to iodine4health.com, and read the site. Obviously you have just clicked on a few links, otherwise a lot of your questions would have been answered, and some statements you made that are wrong can be corrected by studies accumulated there. There is overwhelming evidence for iodine, and increasing evidence for high dose iodine.

I also encourage you to read abrahams studies about iodine, beginning with the history of iodine and the townsend letter in iodine4health.com, and try to find flaws in abrahams logic. This is where I started too when I researched the topic about 4 years ago. Do not stamp them as quack studies, see them neutral and check the facts.

You'll just have to connect the dots. Think about the historical applications of iodine. think about what the people knew when they made the studies that banished iodine. look at those studies and ask yourself if they were correct. If I remember right all their reasoning was based on an increase of TSH, they did not look at t3 and t4. Ask yourself why people in america today are more fat then in the time where iodine was in high amounts in bread - since iodine would have been a KEY factor in getting fat at those amounts (oh, yea, and being toxic to generations of americans...) why did obesity get out of hand AFTERWARDS? Shouldn't there be at least some improvement?

I'd love to discuss it with you, but my answers may take time, especially if I need to search for studies, and not just type what I can remember from the time where I researched it.

All I can say is that I've looked at the facts. I've looked at quite some studies. And the medical consensus simply makes NO SENSE.

I would not believe you if you'd reply tomorrow or this week and say you've researched all about iodine, simply because there is too much confusion, too many studies to go through to get a broad picture of the subject. So please... take your time. It took me at least weeks to get through it all and to be able to differentiate between fact and bad science.

damn, so much time is getting eaten up by those posts. I appologize that I don't hit you up with studies, but I simply have not the time right now.

And maybe...we should start a new thread about iodine, if you're interested.

[LBGSHI]

Let's sum it up, there is debatable evidence for c.gold to increase iq, and certainly not enough to come to any conclusion. "try at your own risk - BUT PLEASE REPORT BACK". lol.

Yes, but this "debatable evidence" is debatable even in the sense of its very existence...and was provided by Guy Abraham alone, without corroboration, and in the midst of selling the stuff on his own website. In the page (on his website) in which he explains the benefits of colloidal gold and attempts to convince readers that it will improve IQ, all six of his citations are either to other pages on his own website (studies he apparently performed), mythological references, or studies that directly contradict his statements. Moreover, the other topics we've discussed thus far shine a very negative light on Abraham; if not in your opinion, certainly in mine, and I would wager to say that the vast majority of people upon reading our discussion would agree with me.

This thread is more becoming a debate about iodine and abraham,

It became a debate about iodine and Abraham when you used that to prop up his reputation and standing as a competent, honest doctor. I used very simple and concise information to indicate, if not prove, otherwise.

You're assuming Elemental iodine = iodine-131, which is wrong.

No, I'm not. I was very specific in my response, and did not reference any radioactive isotopes, such as iodine-131. Everything I stated above refers directly to i2, which is commonly referred to as "elemental iodine" (http://en.wikipedia....lemental_iodine). There is no ambiguity here. The only people disagreeing with the scientific and medical communities about the harmful effects of supplementing raw, elemental iodine are Abraham and his fellow quacks. If you think it has benefited you, great. I would, however, caution you seriously to keep an eye on your health, as what you're doing has been proven to cause harm. If your response is that you still feel and seem perfectly healthy, I would remind you that alcoholics often feel and seem perfectly healthy, despite the fact that they've damaged their livers and brains with excessive alcohol consumption.

High amounts can lead to thyroid problems, but only if the thyroid is selenium deficient. And this is a problem, because areas low in iodine are usually also low in selenium. If you increase iodine intake in those areas, some people will get sick. If they would also get enough selenium, it would be no problem.

Independent of selenium deficiency, elemental iodine has been proven to be harmful to human tissue. The references I cited above apply, regardless of selenium deficiency.

During a radioactive fallout, you could get your hands on iodine tablets with 50-100mg iodine - per tablet. You'll saturate your body with it, making it unlikely that any radioactive iodine will be absorbed in your body. Now think about it for a minute:
How can it be that the body wants more iodine, if it is "already saturated" and has all the iodine it needs? Why is, all over sudden, high dose iodine better then low dose radioactive iodine? Sounds strange to me, since iodine is supposed to be that bad. Especially(!) at dosages that under none-radioactive fallout conditions are called toxic. Yea, well, maybe some miracle happens and only in the event of a fallout, they are nontoxic, but otherwise they are. lol. Really?

You're kidding, right? What you're thinking of is potassium iodide (http://en.wikipedia....adiological_use). Giving someone 50mg of pure, elemental iodine would be a very bad idea. Moreover, even this dose of potassium iodide is only given in the life-threatening event of nuclear fallout, to avoid death via radiation exposure. Whether potassium iodide might make someone sick or not isn't really a concern when you're trying to survive nuclear fallout.

high iodine intake does increase tsh, which is a marker for low thyroid function. But it seems NOT to affect t4 and t3 levels which makes TSH a useless indicator for thyroid function - and for argumentation that iodine does indeed decrease thyroid function.

This is simply incorrect. As I already cited above, from the US Institute of Medicine:

The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for adult men and women is 150 μg/day. The median intake of iodine from food in the United States is approximately 240 to 300 μg/day for men and 190 to 210 μg/day for women. The Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for adults is 1,100 μg/day (1.1 mg/day), a value based on serum thyrotropin concentration in response to varying levels of ingested iodine.

Adverse Events. Summary. Challenged thyroid function shown by TSH concentrations elevated over baseline is the first effect observed in iodine excess. While an elevated TSH concentration may not be a clinically significant adverse effect, it is an indicator for increased risk of developing clinical hypothyroidism. Therefore, an elevated TSH concentration above baseline was selected as the critical adverse effect on which to base a UL.

Uncertainty Assessment. There is little uncertainty regarding the range of iodine intakes that are likely to induce elevated TSH concentration over baseline.

Studies have correlated an increase in the incidence of AITD [AutoImmune Thyroid Disorder] with a population’s higher intake of iodine (Foley, 1992).

This specifies that, while increased TSH may not be a clinically significant adverse effect (it may not immediately harm you in an obvious way), its presence indicates high likelihood of various medical problems (Auto-Immune Thyroid Disorder, hypothyroidism, etc). You can also use pure lead as chewing gum and probably not experience any negative side effects right away, but down the road you'd likely regret it.

japanese with a traditional diet get aprox 13mg iodine a day. Yet japanese have less cancer and live longer.

No, a very small portion of Japanese people consume up to 13mg of iodine per day, in bound form within seaweed (not in pure elemental form), and even then, these people do suffer adverse health effects:

http://en.wikipedia....aweed#Herbalism - "Seaweed is a source of iodine, necessary for thyroid function and to prevent goitre. However, an excess of iodine is suspected in the heightened cancer risk in Japanese who consume a lot of the plant, and even bigger risks in post-menopausal women."

Americans used to have, I think 1mg iodine in a slice of bread if I remember right!! After those 2 studies I mentioned, ironically, iodine got replaced by bromide as a baking ingredient, and guess what, cancer increased from that point on.

Actually, iodine is still in bread (http://ods.od.nih.go...thProfessional/). Moreoever, everywhere I look to find out when "iodine got replaced", there is only some vague reference to sometime in either the late 1970's or early 1980's when the WHO and FDA apparently conspired to pressure bread companies to remove iodine, and that thereafter Americans experienced a dramatic increase in cancer rates. However, if you take a look at Cancer.gov's year-by-year statistics, you'll see that US cancer rates had been rising very steadily at least since 1975 (before which we have no reliable records), peaking in 1992, and then steadily decreasing since then (that's right, we have lower cancer rates than we did in 1992). How exactly does iodine play into this? It doesn't.

Ask yourself why people in america today are more fat then in the time where iodine was in high amounts in bread

I don't have to ask myself that. Fast food is being consumed at record levels, and the vast majority of our population works inside and doesn't get any significant exercise. I've never had a problem with obesity, or even been out of shape, because I eat properly on the whole, and I exercise regularly. It's that simple. Are there bizarre cases of glandular disorders causing obesity? Yes, but these are exceedingly rare. If an overweight person increases exercise and decreases food consumption (particularly if the types of foods being eaten are healthy ones), that person will lose weight and become more healthy. In addition, the 3rd-world nations you alluded to earlier which have low iodine levels do not have high rates of obesity...because they don't have much food, and they certainly don't have many citizens with a penchant for greasy hamburgers and pizza.

I'd love to discuss it with you, but my answers may take time, especially if I need to search for studies, and not just type what I can remember from the time where I researched it.

That's OK; I think we've taken care of the topic of "colloidal gold increases IQ". That was, after all, the main event in this thread. I'm certainly willing to continue discussing iodine with you if you like, as any time we're challenged about specifics, both of us get educated And anyway, the other members and visitors get to see both sides of the debate, which means it's good for everyone.

As a note, if you're intent on taking elemental iodine and colloidal gold anyway, then I wish you the best of luck, I hope it doesn't go badly (seriously), and I invite you to post updates of your results.

Edited by LBGSHI, 07 February 2013 - 01:48 AM.

[alexburke]

http://www.gizmag.co...e-cancer/26136/

Published on the 6th.

[LBGSHI]

http://www.gizmag.co...e-cancer/26136/

Published on the 6th.

Cool. But it's not really relevant to this topic.

[protoject]

yes it is true that Brownstein and all those people are quacks with a convoluted load of wizardry who will feed off any ounce of sensational excitement in your soul,, iodine does cause thyroid problems, and does reduce breast cancer. Don't be offended if it seems cynical. It's really just clear as day if you can get out of the "us and them" mentality. [us- alternative practitioners with obscure knowledge about things that will save us. them- mainstream practitioners who are only out to get the world and control you.] Many people love Jesus but he is just a fictional character.

What you have to ask yourself when reading quackery is... why are the people involved so obsessed with this one single supplement as the holy grail cure-all for all diseases that will help the world? and they act like they have some kind of exclusive special unknown knowledge [bits of knowledge floating around in bullshit is what it is]. . and an exclusive power that the public couldn't possibly grasp without taking some collodial gold to increase their IQs. Only then could they understand. Special, occult knowledge for special misunderstood geniuses.

Trust me. I used to believe it to. But I wasn't fervent with that belief. More likely caught off guard and undereducated. If you actually question what they are doing from a critical standpoint you realize it truly is convoluted in bullshit , regardless of what faults the "magical mainstream wizards" have. No point in clinging onto an idea of possible possibility wafted away in some zany zoned out dream world. These individuals may or may not have intended to dupe you. But they did.

Random Fact:. Iodine enhancements added to food [such as iodized salt for example] actually vary in levels quite a bit. It could be, and dont quote me on exact figures but it's very close, between 5%-90% of the actual dose they added due to packaging conditions [type of material used to bag the salt, where the salt came from, the temperature, humidity etc].


In any case, I've also taken high doses of iodine. Some kind of iodide. Iodoral 50 or some shit. I had the same idea that it could help me, of course not being very well educated person I will believe anything that will "help" me. I also subscribed to the idea that if I took selenium with it, then it's good for my thyroid. Well, I'm not dead and I took it for over a month. No signs of damage a couple years later. Was I lucky? Probably. In any case the iodine didn't make me feel any better.

elemental iodine in the MCGs [ well it might not have been straight up elemental? whichever is in the tincture] sometimes made me feel better and sometimes worse.

The only thing i really noticed is it made me feel "different' and i would have sneezing attacks on it. hope that helps.

Maybe whoever is taking it should have their TSH checked on a constant basis.

I guess im off topic since this thread is about gold but whatever.

Edited by protoject, 09 February 2013 - 02:33 AM.

[BioFreak]

@LBGSHI

The citation from wikipedia links to a dead link. Without references, its not very helpful.

Also, while elemental iodine is an oxidant, and I agree that it might be causing health problems, once you mix it with vitamin c it does not react anymore, but is still elemental if I am right. I did it this way, because I found it would not be a good idea to ingest high amounts of an very reactive oxidant.
All of elemental iodine seems to be found as iodide in the bloodstream anyways which is not reactive anymore. I would fully agree that elemental iodine can cause harm, but the reactive danger is not present in iodide anymore, harm would have to be done through another way then.

Also, when I researched literature on the internet, the only reference to elemental iodine was it is considered dangerous above 250mg, if I remember right. There was some anecdotal evicence about someone drinking a whole bottle of lugols solution, and not dying from it.

I've been thinking about how we could approach the discussion about iodine the best way, and as I see it the problems of scientific consensus are with the following points:

• whats are the actual toxicity levels for potassium iodide, iodide, and elemental iodine in general
• are high levels of various forms of iodine really harmful to the thryoid, are they only without selenium, or are they not
• are high levels of various forms of iodine harmful to other organs or beneficial
• Can iodine really detoxify the body from mercury, fluoride, bromide etc, and how many side effects can be attributed to higher blood levels of those elements?

Because of the complexity of the (supposed) ways iodine works, I think it is the best if we would only approach one topic at a time. Actually I think generalized answers, quoting websites but not knowing what sources they base their statements on gets us nowhere. The best start would be to start with one topic, general iodine toxicity.

I'll open a new thread in the bioscience forum soon, and would be happy if you'd join me.

[LBGSHI]

The citation from wikipedia links to a dead link. Without references, its not very helpful.

Which Wikipedia citation?

All of elemental iodine seems to be found as iodide in the bloodstream anyways which is not reactive anymore.

The problem is, you're ingesting it as elemental iodine, not iodide. In this form, it is harmful to organic material (as in, tongue, throat, stomach, remaining GI tract, liver, etc). Just a glance at the MSDS for iodine (as referenced above) will tell you that.

There was some anecdotal evicence about someone drinking a whole bottle of lugols solution, and not dying from it.

The question isn't whether or not you'll die from a particular dose, but whether or not it will be harmful. There are plenty of things that won't kill you in small enough doses, but are still very harmful.

I'll open a new thread in the bioscience forum soon, and would be happy if you'd join me.

OK; post a link when you've created it.

[mait]

Hello! I have used 2 bottles of Aurasol colloidal gold two years ago. From my lone subjective and possibly placebo loaded data point I can tell that no other "supplement" has had so dramatic effect on my working memory as this (measured by gains achieved in dual n back task). I stopped using this supplement because the health concerns of ingesting gold colloids I came across after researching about colloidal gold in PubMed.

Edited by mait, 26 February 2013 - 10:50 AM.

[Logic]

Hello! I have used 2 bottles of Aurasol colloidal gold two years ago. From my lone subjective and possibly placebo loaded data point I can tell that no other "supplement" has had so dramatic effect on my working memory as this (measured by gains achieved in dual n back task). I stopped using this supplement because the health concerns of ingesting gold colloids I came across after researching about colloidal gold in PubMed.

Holey Cow!; a post on collodial gold experiences in a thread named ...collodial gold, any experiences?!
Thx Mait!

(note that the info on Iodene is very interesting )

[mait]

Hello! I have used 2 bottles of Aurasol colloidal gold two years ago. From my lone subjective and possibly placebo loaded data point I can tell that no other "supplement" has had so dramatic effect on my working memory as this (measured by gains achieved in dual n back task). I stopped using this supplement because the health concerns of ingesting gold colloids I came across after researching about colloidal gold in PubMed.

Holey Cow!; a post on collodial gold experiences in a thread named ...collodial gold, any experiences?!
Thx Mait!

(note that the info on Iodene is very interesting )

Please DO NOT TAKE MY POST as recommendation to start using Aurasol colloidal gold. Vice versa:

1) my experience my have been placebo fueled and subjective
2) possible health risks of colloidal gold - for example possibility to kidney damage


I choose Aurasol because the manufacturer could somewhat prove me that the minimal colloid particle size in their product was over 2nm. Gold nanoparticles can bind irreversibly to DNA strands.

Edited by mait, 26 February 2013 - 01:25 PM.

[Logic]

Please DO NOT TAKE MY POST as recommendation to start using Aurasol colloidal gold. Vice versa:

1) my experience my have been placebo fueled and subjective
2) possible health risks of colloidal gold - for example possibility to kidney damage


I choose Aurasol because the manufacturer could somewhat prove me that the minimal colloid particle size in their product was over 2nm. Gold nanoparticles can bind irreversibly to DNA strands.

Not at all: I was just taking the piss outa all the interesting, but missplaced Iodine posts.
I also want to encourage more people who have tried it to post due to the lack of studies.

You seem to have done some homework with regards to colloid size and DNA binding..? '

Edited by Logic, 26 February 2013 - 01:37 PM.

[BioFreak]

Kidney damage? dna binding? Other health concerns? Got any sources? I'd really like to know. When I searched pubmed I did not find anything, but I didn't go through all studies. When I looked colloidal gold was being considered a save means of delivering anti cancer drugs.
I'd really like to see what I missed...

Thanks for the actually colloidal gold related posts.

[Logic]

Kidney damage? dna binding? Other health concerns? Got any sources? I'd really like to know. When I searched pubmed I did not find anything, but I didn't go through all studies. When I looked colloidal gold was being considered a save means of delivering anti cancer drugs.
I'd really like to see what I missed...

Thanks for the actually colloidal gold related posts.

+1

NB: Silver,gold are inert=dont react easily, which is why they stay shiny. (my precous!)
As such colloids of them shld be more abundant in nature than the more reactive metals?

[mait]

In addition, the authors demonstrated that 1.4nm clusters induced cell necrosis after 12h incubation and that 1.2nm clusters induced apoptosis. Data on the toxicity of 1.4nm gold clusters to healthy and tumor human cells were also assessed by Tsoli et al. [133]. It was noted in the abovementioned paper [56]
that the high toxicity of 1.4nm Au55 clusters can be associated with a size similarity to Bform DNA. Thus, these works suggest that a transition to the sizes of classical colloid particles (15 nm) drastically decreases cytotoxicity when compared with atomic clusters of about 1–2 nm, which are capable of irreversibly binding to DNA and, possibly, other key molecules.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21082078

Edited by mait, 27 February 2013 - 08:01 PM.

[BioFreak]

Outch. That sucks. Question is, how likely are these particle sizes from supplements?

[dz93]

I've been taking colloidal gold for about a month now and have definitely noticed an improvement in clarity of mind and the way I think. My memory has never been sharper. My whole life runs on my memory. I never write anything down I solely rely on my memory for everything.

However, I can't base all that JUST on the gold. I also take a full spectrum vitamin, mineral, and trace mineral mix along with 2.4g of essential fatty acids everyday which includes 900mg ALA (omega 3), 513mg EPA, and 342mg DHA every day and finally Zeolites to detox the bad things daily. But I did notice improvements when I added the gold. I will be adding gold to my daily regime now after my experience with it. It works for me and that's all I care about.

Edited by dz93, 02 March 2013 - 03:50 PM.

[BioFreak]

what product do you use?

[dz93]

I use MesoGold.

I've also taken nano silver for about 3 months and I haven't seen any change in skin color. The people who claim silver turns you blue usually use a damn 9 volt battery and a silver bar to make their own colloid which is just stupid. That's why they turn blue. The quality of the silver makes all the difference. I don't take any right now because I'm out and need to buy more but this is my experience with it. In case anyone is interested I used Super Natural Silver. I base all my recommendations off personal experience.

My job is also very labor intensive and requires a very good working brain so that's how I test my experiences. If I notice a decline in my job performance I'll discontinue a product to see if that's what's causing it but I have yet to experience any negative effects. If I do I will not hesitate to admit my mistakes so others won't be hurt by it. I only want to help people. Not guide them in the wrong direction.

Edited by dz93, 02 March 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[mait]

Mesogold particle size distribution: http://www.purestcol...om/MesoGold.pdf

[Luminosity]

LBGSHI,

You're brilliant, and we're lucky to have you aboard. I wish you have a catchier name, though. Thanks for your work.

BioFreak,

I've never heard of gold being used for I.Q. I would listen to LBGSHI. His critique of the medical papers sounded very salient to me. Beware of taking metal into your body. There was a guy who made his own colloidal silver, and took too much. He turned blue and it can't be cured. Metal can be hard for your body to purge, if it is unwanted or unneeded. I've never heard of a supplement that would raise a healthy person's I.Q. One of the writings critiqued mentioned cinnabar, which contains mercury and is very toxic. A hundred years ago or so people took other forms of mercury in the mistaken belief that it would cure them of some diseases. Doctors probably prescribed it. It likely just drove them insane. Two or three hundred years ago people ate arsenic to look "pale and interesting." They dilated their pupils with a plant poison to look sexier. Not a good idea. They used to use lead oxide face powder because they didn't know better. Bad news. Gold and silver aren't toxic like heavy metals, but they can be something your body doesn't need, and cause problems. This guy is reminding me of these historical mistakes, and I would be wary of it.

It is interesting that at least two people here think gold helps their memories, but if take too much or your body doesn't need it or can't process it, it might not go away, and might cause problems. There is always a risk/reward ratio. There are other things that help your brain, like EFA's and ginkgo, which are harmless.

Edited by Luminosity, 03 March 2013 - 03:47 AM.