The HealthWyze article above contains a mix of wrong, dubious, and good advice. I certainly agree that Lugol's should not be ingested. Chemically, that's like drinking bleach.
If you dilute a few drops in water, it's more like drinking water from the tap. If you can taste the chlorine in tap water, for instance, then it has at least 5 mg/L.
But iodine isn't chlorine. Chlorine's electronegativity is between that of oxygen and nitrogen, while iodine's is similiar to elements with antioxidant properties. Looking at a list of elements sorted by electronegativities, the following group is bunched together--
Iodine—2.66Xenon—2.6Sulfur—2.58Carbon—2.55Selenium—2.55Gold—2.54
To which I replied:
That's a good point, Turnbuckle. While iodine is electronically analogous to the other halogens, it does have a lower electronegativity, and engages in a wide range of reactions. Molecular iodine is corrosive and can cause burns when it contacts tissues in high concentration, but the dose makes the poison, and a low concentration is probably fine. The Aceves paper talks about moderate concentrations of I2 in water, like 0.05%. (500mg/l) (I'm not sure how they get that, as it exceeds the solubility of I2 in water. There's probably some iodide formation involved.) Lugol's doesn't actually have a ton of I2 in it, since the combination of iodide and I2 produces triiodide ions. Maybe they disproportionate back into I- and I2 in vivo? At any rate, Aceves et al. is calling for people with certain pathologies to use 3mg/day of I2, "under the care of a physician". Give it a shot and see how it goes. I'm still concerned about all those people on high dose iodine protocols that seem to develop thyroid problems.
But this never seemed to fully add up, with Iodine, a known caustic thing, being the same as Xenon, a nominally inert gas. It finally dawned on me that electronegativity wasn't the right way to look at this. Electronegativity is a measure of an atom's tendency to attract electron density from an atom that it's bonded to. That doesn't take into account the driving force of the atom obtaining a closed shell electron configuration. Instead we should look at Electron Affinity, the energy obtained when the atom acquires an electron to form a negative ion. In this case, Iodine is the fourth highest on the periodic table, exceeded only by Cl, F, and Br. (in that order) Although I2 isn't chlorine, it's pretty reactive stuff. It also reacts with, for example, amines and olefins, both of which would be found in a living organism. Somewhere amidst all this reactivity, there is something beneficial happening, according to Aceves et al., who summarize evidence for beneficial effects from moderate doses of I2. I don't know how one is supposed to determine which of the various forms of iodine are optimal, what with all the pseudoscience surrounding it, and the various adverse event reports like posts #212 and 213. Go slow with it.