Saying it does not burn the skin is NOT scientific proof minute amounts of Iodine is not present"
Only a scientist would know what does, and what does not, constitute "scientific proof". From your statement, you have shown that you too are indeed a scientist.
"...science knows practiclaly nothing about plant chemicals"
I disagree, as would all of us who have studied plants, their steroidal constituents, essential oil constituents, cell structure, etc. There is quite a large body of knowledge of plant chemicals, so your statement that science knows practically nothing about plant chemicals is problematic. Only those who have not invested time in reading and studying are the ones who know practically nothing about plant chemicals.
"is the 2 chemical salts made by chemist that are used to produce what we call LUGOL's IODINE"
My understanding is that it's well-known that preparation of Dr. Lugol's solution does not use "2 salts". You may wish to re-consider that.
I don't have any comment regarding semantical issues you've raised.
I will be grateful when someone, somewhere, finally puts up some showing that walnut contains iodine. It's presence would be rather easily verified. Odd isn't it, the great lengths people will go to, to defend dogmatic beliefs , such as the one that walnut contains iodine ? That's how the Holy Roman Church kept control over its minions for centuries, via dogma. Evidently god was ok with it.