They have not been able to present any evidence to counter what I presented on mercury so now the shift is going to iodine, which is necessary for the body but can be toxic in high amounts or in certain thyroid conditions. Here is the latest:
|Re: Are you going to slay him mikey B, or do i get to sink my mouth watering canines in?
PM Hveragerthi email Hveragerthi
Date: 5/30/2012 12:01:49 AM ( 8 min æ ago )
Hits: 2 Size: 9441 char.
Edit This Message
there is a difference between facts and dogma. if a person is going to lie, they will lie about there evidence as well. there is no way to compete with that.
Yes, as we have been watching one of the trolls coming after me do. In all fairness though I cannot for sure say that he was deliberately trying to lie about the evidence. It could just as easily been that he had no idea what he was reading meant. Or it could have been both.
But people have to be willing to look at the evidence to know the facts. Simply reading some sales site then claiming what they say must be fact is hardly basing a view on the "best evidence".
It is like the troll did that has been attacking me. He clearly claimed that mercury was estrogenic based on some opinion piece he found. Yet the actual studies show that mercury is an estrogen antagonist.
This is really no different than the people who keep bashing soy as well particularly the ones falsely claiming that soy is so estrogenic it is like taking 5 birth control pills or something stupid like that. To start with the phytoestrogens in soy are 200-400 times weaker than the body's own estrogen. And these phytoestrogens are found in EVERY plant we consume. Therefore, you would have to consume a truck load to get to the equivalent of 5 birth control pills and to avoid phytoestrogens you would have to stop eating plants. Even people who are well recognized in the field have fallen for this hype. Mercola for example keeps repeating the same old disproven claims about soy. What it really funny though is that he claims flax seed is a health food even though it contains nearly 4 times the more phytoestrogens than unfermented soy. Fermented or cooked soy has even lower levels. So are we supposed to accept claims just because people keep repeating the same old misinformation from sales sites? Or should we rely on some real form of evidence?
A lot of the claims about iodine are in the same boat. They are simply unsubstantiated claims being repeated over and over and over and over..... because most people are too lazy to look up the facts, have no idea how to do research or they simply don't care to know the truth.
So it will remain speculation, not fact. It is a convenient excuse, but studies are done all the time on things such as herbs, ozone, even mercury and iodine. If there was a substantial basis for the claims then the studies would likely be done.
But even basic chemistry calls in to some of the claims being made. For example, if you look at the reactivity series of metals most heavy metals are low on reactivity, especially mercury. This means that nearly anything can displace it such as calcium, potassium, sodium, etc. Considering how common these compounds are in the diet mercury should be readily displaced by something as simple as a calcium supplement. So why is it that the same reaction you are claiming from iodine stirring up the heavy metals is not experienced by everyone since the more reactive elements are so common in the diet? So it does not even take a study to see the claim is bogus.
See my last statement again. All the iodine supporters are providing is speculation, much of which that can be disproven with a basic knowledge of chemistry.
And again, the potassium is highly reactive, which means it will displace heavy metals. This is a well known fact in chemistry. The same cannot be said about iodine.
if the pimples were iodism, i should be covered.
This is another reason the iodine supporters are so friggin irritating. They read what they want to read, not what was wrote. How many times have I repeated myself, and even bolded, underlined or highlighted the fact that this only occurs in SOME sensitive individuals to iodine! I cannot make it any clearer, yet the iodine supporters keep ignoring that little word over and over just to given them an argument!!! The word "SOME" means that NOT EVERYONE WILL HAVE THIS REACTION!!! It is a very simple concept for most people to comprehend!
if they are bromism, as we have deduced on the iodine forum, then taking iodine will produce the pimples only at first, which has been the case every time.
And this has been proven to be false. It has nothing to do with bromine, it is the iodine as the studies have shown. I even posted that but again the iodine supporters completely ignored the evidence and keep repeating the same misinformation.
Out of all the people on Curezone I hate dealing with the iodine supporters more than anyone because they read what they want, ignore the evidence, ignore the science, come up with more excuses, say people said things they never said....... all to make their arguments. I feel like they are a bunch of Moreless Mini Mes.
If they want to choose to believe their crap and put themselves at risk then that is their business. But people should be allowed to present contrary evidence without the fear of a pack attack so people who read the claims can decide for themselves what evidence is factual and they can choose what route to follow based on the evidence. Anytime anyone says anything they consider negative about iodine out come the daggers!!!
0.164 sec, (7)