It seems there's been a fairly sizable misinterpretation/misunderstanding of my words/posts.
>>Your assumption is that my post in some ways speaks for everyone. You are in error.<<
I never assumed your post speaks for everyone (I don't know how you came to that conclusion). But after posting for a couple of years on CZ, I really am aware that no one's posts speaks for anyone but themselves. (I don't see how an individual post COULD speak for anyone but the original poster).
>>And to assume that the contrary opinion needs expression in direct rebuttal to me is not supportive, Uny. I do not appreciate it.<<
"Contrary opinion"? I certainly didn't feel contrary and thought I was being extremely cautious to not seem unsupportive. I agreed with your information (as it is factual) and provided more information that showed how bromine is assisted out of the body by sodium chloride. I simply pointed out that you/others/MDs have ever explained how a seriously increased level of bromine output in the urine (caused by the sodium/potassium chloride), is easier/less stressful to the kidneys. I didn't rebut you...I supported your information with a clinical study and pointed out that increased halogen in the urine possibly/probably produces more stress on the kidneys.
This IS a support forum. Supporting someone with supplementation of any element, mineral, vitamin or 'natural' product involves far more than unbridled enthusiam and a gung-ho "d*mn the torpedos, full speed ahead" approach (not that I'm saying you do that, I'm simply explaining where I'm coming from). In order to solve/prevent ANY possible negative consequence of ANY protocol, one must clearly & logically examine the potential consequences...with unbiased thinking.
There is nothing non-supportive about being concerned over the kidneys, especially when one is starting to replenish an element that is known to chelate far more than bromide. Sodium/potassium/magnesium chloride increases renal output/clearance of bromide...and an increased presence of a poison running through the kidneys, certainly has the potential to cause the need of being 'kidney careful'). But salt and...mercury? cadmium? lead? arsenic? aluminum? fluoride? Salt is not known to increase renal clearance of these poisons. But Iodine
You/others may not be aware of the countless cases of various levels of kidney damage (some permanent) that have beene experienced by those chelating metals...much caution & concern is ALWAYS advised by the professional healers & MDs regarding kidney stress.
Helping one to see all the aspects of any given protocol is the most supportive thing any one can do. That certainly doesn't make them anti-iodine. In my case, I risk being labeled as non-supportive, a 'disrupter', an antagonist, and all variety of negative name-calling and innuendos because I continue to simply post various aspects of this very new protocol...when all I'm trying to do is truly care for my fellow man.
And while Iodine
has been used in various dosages for longer than century to treat various/specific diseases, the idea of taking the larger doses for any length of time IS relatively new (except for an extremely few reports of those like Svent-Gyorgi that took 1000mg daily over time...and of course, we have no IDEA what other protocols they utilized and what condition there bodies were in before they started).
Please don't think or assume that my 'adding of information', encouraging caution, and/or the seeking of more complete knowledge is 'contrary' to your posts (or "contrary" to iodine in any way). To me, "support" involves ensuring safety and preventing ANY type of discomfort, stress, or possible damage to our bodies...as well as enthusiam and posts that report positive results.
"Physician, first, do no harm"