[Skybird]

The Historical Background of the Iodine Project (2005)

https://www.optimox.com/iodine-study-8

The goal of this manuscript is to have, under the same cover, an update on the Iodine Project which started five years ago; an exposé of the Wolff-Chaikoff forgery; and contributions from two clinicians with a combined experience with 4,000 patients using Lugol tablets within the range recommended by pre-World War II physicians. This range of daily intake of iodine is called orthoiodosupplementation because it is the amount of iodine required for whole body sufficiency based on an iodine/iodide loading test recently developed by the author (1).
During the first half of the 20th century, almost every U.S. physician used Lugol solution for iodine supplementation in his/her practice for both hypo- and hyperthyroidism (1), and for many other medical conditions (2). In the old pharmacopeias, Lugol solution was called Liquor Iodi Compositus. The minimum dose called minim, was one drop containing 6.25 mg of elemental iodine, with 40% iodine and 60% iodide as the potassium salt. The recommended daily intake for iodine supplementation was 2 to 6 minims (drops) containing 12.5 to 37.5 mg elemental iodine. During the second half of the 20th century, iodophobic misinformation disseminated progressively and deceitfully among the medical profession resulted in a decreased use of Lugol, with iodized salt becoming the standard for iodine supplementation (1). The bioavailable iodide from iodized salt is only 10% and the daily amount of iodide absorbed from iodized salt is 200 to 500 times less than the amount of iodine/iodide previously recommended by U.S. physicians. After World War II, U.S. physicians were educated early in their medical career to believe that inorganic non-radioactive forms of iodine were toxic. Adverse reactions to radiographic contrast media and other iodine-containing drugs were blamed on iodine. If a patient told his/her physician that he/she could not tolerate seafood, the physician told him/her that he/she was allergic to iodine.

Also, here are a series of papers and studies on Iodine, years 2002-2008. They can be downloaded as free PDFs from their site, I only give a content list below.

I add this link also to the first post in this thread, under "Iodine".

https://www.optimox.com/iodine-research

Abraham, G.E., Flechas, J.D., Hakala, J.C., Optimum Levels of Iodine for Greatest Mental and Physical Health. The Original Internist, 9:5-20, 2002

Abraham, G.E., Flechas, J.D., Hakala, J.C., Orthoiodosupplementation: Iodine Sufficiency Of The Whole Human Body. The Original Internist, 9:30-41,2002

Abraham, G.E., Flechas, J.D., Hakala, J.C., Measurement Of Urinary Iodide Levels By Ion-Selective Electrode: Improved Sensitivity And Specificity By Chromatography On An Ion-Exchange Resin.The Original Internist, 11(4):19-32,2004

Abraham, G.E.,The Wolff-Chaikoff Effect: Crying Wolf? The Original Internist, 12(3):112-118,2005

Abraham, G.E., The safe and effective implementation of orthoiodosupplementation in medical practice. The Original Internist, 11:17-36, 2004

Abraham, G.E., The concept of orthoiodosupplementation and its clinical implications. The Original Internist, 11(2):29-38, 2004

Abraham, G.E., Serum inorganic iodide levels following ingestion of a tablet form of Lugol solution: Evidence for an enterohepatic circulation of iodine. The Original Internist, 11(3):112-118, 2005

Abraham, G.E., The historical background of the iodine project. The Original Internist, 12(2):57-66, 2005

Brownstein, D., Clinical experience with inorganic, non-radioactive iodine/iodide. The Original Internist, 12(3):105-108, 2005

Flechas, J.D., Orthoiodosupplementation in a primary care practice. The Original Internist, 12(2):89-96, 2005.

Abraham, G.E., Brownstein, D., Evidence that the administration of Vitamin C improves a defective cellular transport mechanism for iodine: A case report. The Original Internist, 12(3):125-130, 2005

Abraham, G.E., Brownstein, D., Validation of the orthoiodosupplementation program: A Rebuttal of Dr. Gaby’s Editorial on iodine. The Original Internist, 12(4): 184-194, 2005

Abraham, G.E., Brownstein, D., Flechas, J.D., The saliva/serum iodide ratio as an index of sodium/iodide symporter efficiency. The Original Internist, 12(4): 152-156, 2005.

Abraham, G.E, MD., The History of Iodine in Medicine Part I: From Discovery to Essentiality.The Original Internist, 13: 29-36, Spring 2006

Abraham, G.E.,The History of Iodine in Medicine Part II: The Search for and the Discovery of Thyroid Hormones The Original Internist, 13: 67-70, June 2006

Abraham, G.E.,The History of Iodine in Medicine Part III: Thyroid Fixation and Medical Iodophobia. The Original Internist, 13: 71-78, June 2006

Abraham, G.E, MD, Roxanne C. Handal, BS & John C. Hakala, RPhA Simplified Procedure for the Measurement of Urine Iodide Levels by the Ion-Selective Electrode Assay in a Clinical Setting The Original Internist, Vol 13, No. 3, 125-135, September 2006

Abraham, G.E.,The Combined Measurement of the Four Stable Halides by the Ion-Selective Electrode Procedure Following Their Chromatographic Separation on a Strong Anion Exchanger Resin: Clinical Applications The Original Internist, 171-195, December 2006

Abraham, G.E, MD, and David Brownstein, MD, A Simple Procedure Combining The Evaluation of Whole Body Sufficiency for Iodine with The Efficiency of the Body To Utilize Peripherall Iodide: The Triple Test The Original Internist, Vol. 14, No. 1, 17-23, March 2007

Abraham, G.E, MD, The bioavailability of iodine applied to the skin The Original Internist, Vol. 15, No. 2, pg. 77-79, June 2008

The Iodine/Iodide Loading Test

Abraham, G.E., MD, The Importance of Bioactive Silicates in Human Health

For downloading and reading, click the site link I provided above.

The group around Abraham (+), Brownstein and Flechas are the practical founders of the neo iodine movement amongst American health practitioners, and since over two decades form the spearhead of combining lab stuying and practical experience that is being called the Iodine Project. They base on several tens of thousands of anonymous patient data records now, from laboratories from across all of the US. In result they practically reconnect to the tradition of healing with Iodine as was common until the time around WWII.

The defamation of Iodine however began already in the mid- late 20s, when in 1926 pharmaceutical producer Herring released the first artificial Tyroxin drug and immediately began to aggressively advertize for it. Part of that campaign of course was also the defamation of the much cheaper and more logical alternative and rival, Iodine. After WWII, the Soviet Union and its allies continued to use Iodine in clinical use and were the first to restart research on it again, the Americans came second and the Europeans last. But the Sovjets science done on Iodine was leading. Since this could not be admitted openly in the West, Cold War and rivalling systems and all that, and since one could not just say "Its Sovjet success, so it must be bad success becauses its the Sovjets", one instead reinforced attempts to defame Iodine and to bagatellize it, and by this: rendering the Sovjet success useless.

Tyroxin drugs since those times and until today year after year belong to the three most-sold drugs categories worldwide, I read. Which of course has nothing to do with why Iodine get demonised and med students do not get told much about it at university... Heck, I got the impression the even get told that it is toxic! Absurd. All halogenes like Flourid, Bromide and Chloride are extremely aggressive cellular toxines - and we allow them to be used in water and added to flour, medical drugs and what else. The only non-toxic halogene is Iodine - and this one gets demonised!? Big Food and Big Pharma lobbyism, I tell you.

Do not be angry at your doctor, he is not the one guilty for faulty curriculae and has learned what they demanded him to learn and learned not what they withheld from him. In a way, he is a victim.

But maybe tell him about such things, and if then he refuses to learn what he missed earlier, you maybe do not argue but better start looking for a new doctor.

Thats what I did. The new however is not really that much more in the knowing on these things than the old one, so maybe I need to look again.

Its your health, doctors are humans, training is deficitary (necessarily), and industrial lobby interests additionally poison the medical branch. So retake responsibility for yourself and your health. You only have this one body. Do not just blindly trust somebody with a PhD.

Not even me, without my PhD.

Read. Learn. Teach yourself.

If your doc does not like that, flee from him. Doctors are advisors only, and they owe it to you to be right in most of the questions you raise to them, and to continue to learn new things all their career long. If you find they aren't, then you are dealing with no good doctor. Find another one then. You owe them no blind loyalty.