bromine, fluoride and related items are doing damage. Iodine will help with that whether Lugol's or straight potassium iodide. We have many many sources of both and you can add perchlorate (rocket fuel) contamination to the list as well.
I never said they aren't.
As kind of negative proof, I can't find any evidence of death or serious illnesses by iodine, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, it just means that it's flying under the radar if it has occurred. I could, however, likely compile in short order a large list of medical drugs that have caused death and disability that we still prescribe.
Quick google search:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15796735There are many more, if you digg deep enough. Iodine, as lugols for example was popular at some time to commit suicide.
Listen, you seem to missunderstand me. Every substance at some point is harmful. I am not against iodine in mg dosages, but for everything there is a limit. And when your only evidence for lugols at 300mg is a doctor that heard from another doctor that he seemed to use that dosage in cancer patients, then this is not only no evidence, it is also completely beside the point. If you have cancer, you certainly have another tolerance level for side effects, because the only other choice would be death. In those cases, higher doses might be used but you can be certain that Dr.Brownstein does not simply prescribe them dosages this high,
but also closely monitors them during treatment because it's getting more dangerous. Also, iodine for for cancer is being used with a timeframe of months to years, I can not see how every now and then taking high dosage would make sense from this perspective. I can only assume that constant high dosages need to be given, as is the case for cystic fibrosis (but those dosages are lower, normally.
The next bit is the Material Safety Data Sheet AKA MSDS. I looked up about 15 of them on Lugol's. Many of them had no LD50 listed at all. Those that did have had an LD50 of 14000mg for the Iodine portion. Here is a part of the LJCrows MSDS:
Iodine: ORAL (LD50): Acute: 14000 mg/kg [Rat]. 22000 mg/kg [Mouse]. Potassium Iodide LD50: Not available. LC50: Not available.
By comparison, table salt is about 3000mg/kg, sodium fluoride 52mg/kg, caffiene 192mg/kg all taken from here:
https://en.wikipedia...ian_lethal_dose
Even water is listed in that table!
It is highly unlikely that this number is right. Iodine is highly reactive, while table salt is not. I am pretty certain that this is an error.
Due to our increasing environmental loads of toxic halogens and heavy metals, I lean toward a daily dose of 50-100mg.
Do you have evidence of what actually increases, and what decreases? I haven't looked much into this yet. But I know that bromide sources in medicine and nutrition are on the decline, and do not increase(USA and other countries where bromide in food is not banned yet may be an exception). Same is the case for many other toxins that intoxicated the population years ago, that is why there are now laws in place that regulate this stuff. I'm not trying to be a critic here. Its just that everyone is fast to say this"because I heard it somehwere", while few actually know what is happening.
So if you have the time, why don't you do some digging (on pubmed or government sites) and provide some links? I'd be interested in some facts no matter what direction they take, cause like I said, I haven't looked into it much yet.
As for the iodine dosage, I must say that this may be highly individual, but I am right now on 100mg, and feel better on it then on lower dosages.
When treating life threatening diseases we do not have months to fool around with low dosages. We need to zoom up iodine levels quickly. And we need to get it concentrated to certain tissues or organs. Just to give you an idea of how high iodine dosages have been taken to we have to revisit the 1930s when iodine was still a universal medicine, present in the US Pharmacopeia and was used at much higher dosages than anyone even dreams of using today.
The usual dose for treatment was 300 mgs (46 drops of full strength Lugol’s) to 1 gm (1000 mg, 154 drops). It is very important to realize that today’s Lugol’s is not universally the same as it was because of new federal legal requirements about concentration levels. The best company offers Lugol’s at varying concentration levels. (2.2, 3 and 7 percent) Nascent is a 2 percent solution."
We have only this doctors word for those historic dosages. If he found papers stating that, then we should too. I did'nt, yet. I can tell you that I have only found dosages this high and higher for potassium iodide, but NOT for lugols. Again, if you want, digg on pubmed (instead of citing someone who is citing someone) and search for proof. I am not challenging you, but I'd be happy to see proof, if you find it. Believe me, if you play around with search terms on pubmed, you will find more studies, esp from the early 20th century, in full text, then you would think. If lugols was used historically in those high dosages regularly (! meaning toxic effects were low enough that it was common - I am sure that lugols has been
tested in even higher dosages on humans, but that does not mean that those dosages were then used as
regular treatments... And if something was not used regularly, you can be pretty sure it was because at those dosages, the sideeffects were too problematic), you should be able to find papers from that time on pubmed. Look at my earlier posts for urls leading to pubmed from that time, and see if you can find keywords you can use to narrow down the search.
Of course they are very biased! Again, the closest thing to proof in those groups is that many folks (not all) are getting better in some way or another. When they have problems, they talk about them. It's all out in the open. Of course, the majority are all the folks who are watching and doing (or not) and not saying anything. It's not perfect but if it were that harmful, people would talk about it. It would bubble up (or shoot up) to the surface. Most of the arguments are from folks who are being theoretical and have not tried it. Those who have been careful and tried it may hit some bumps but work through them. Some have been on it for many many years. I did some digging last night and apparently I started back in June of 2010 at 12.5mg Iodoral. A year later I started to mix in some Lugol's so I've been at it a while as well. If it was really that dangerous (in spite of the precautions), I really think we would know about it and it would be banned like Ephedra.
Again, you keep kicking me into the "iodine is dangerous above the 150mcg mark" corner...
I've been on up to 150mg of iodine, I also started in 2010, and I recently started again with 100mg max dosage. I am just saying that higher dosages are not the standard, should not be tried unless under supervision of a doctor that knows what he's doing, and probably only if you have confirmed (pre-)cancer. There is no other reason for dosages this high. But the risk WILL increase at some point.
Look again at how high the doses were in the 1930s, as high as a gram of Lugol's!!! That's 333mg elemental Iodine! That scares me! They were considered safe at that time with taking adequate precautions and I'm not sure we know what those were. Now we have a lot of toxic heavy metal and halogen build up and so one needs to take it slow lest the release of those things could be dangerous from sudden large amounts of Lugol's or KI.
Source? Please don't cite a Dr who says he has read that it was used. Cite sources that he could have seen to get to that conclusion instead (pubmed search!).
See, to be honest, I would wish you were right. But only citing a doctor is not good enough, especially when the evidence should be on pubmed as well. So the only thing we can say at this point that is a 100% sure is: "We've read that people say its XY, but we haven't seen the sources of their claims". This is simply not good enough for me. This is what most people on the internet repeat over and over again, half truths, or information, of which they don't even know the background. This is especially the case for iodine, and it scares me. How do you know that this endless repeating of statements without sources is being correctly repeated by those people? We need facts, and I think this forum is the right place to finally get them straight.
Also just repeating iodine propaganda (from whatever view) does get us nowhere...
I remember how pissed the owner of the iodine group was when I repeated my questions over and over, because she didn't have the sources back then to back up her claims but wanted to be right.
She said things like some dr took iodine, and he died with 90, and put this as evidence that he lived 90 years, while there is simply nothing in that statement that could be of any evidence. Heck, I know people who lived to be 90 and were smoking all the time. Are cigarettes now the new longevity drug? Neutral discussion of the subject was impossible. But here its different, I would say the view is mostly neutral.
So please, go on, digg around in pubmed, find evidence, and post it, just like I did.
And then we'll discuss the evidence.
My Multi contains 100µg selenium, a few Brazil Nuts as well as this should suffice?
In theory, but I would rather take another selenium supplement because selenium content can vary and you never know how much you actually get. Selenium has a small therapeutic window, which means that
either under or overdosing might be possible with natural sources and you don't want either.
