121–130 of 282 posts
A really pleasant to read story. It's funny because I live in Switzerland and some of my friends debate the "ioded salt", and prefer to consume "natural salt" without the additives. Funny how history can repeat itself. I'm always impressed with all these doctors that would question the approach, try new protocols, and end up by finding a cure
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much the same as against fluorine in water in the States: it’s unnatural/a globalist conspiracy/killing our traditional way of life/a plot to subdue the people for . There is no scientifically sound reason against it.
This from a country where tapwater unfortunately typically tastes like crap? (b/c it is chlorinated)
I am increasingly convinced that the "thyroid hormones" T1, T2, T3, and T4 are simply a place to store iodine. When iodine is needed somewhere in the body it can be taken from T4, converting it to T3. But it's not the case that "T3 is the active form" as you'll read in the literature, it's that the removed iodine is the active or useful thing. Changing the ratio of T3/T4 does cause a change in TSH (thyroid stimulatin…
Supplementation with T3 yields a rapid correction in bradycardia and hypothermia caused by hypothyroidism. We treat with T4 because it has a longer physiological halflife and thus yields more consistent serum levels; but the evidence is incredibly clear that it's T3 which is having an effect, not T4.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article mentions that blind taste testing couldn’t detect it at 10x the strength. Surely people test before claiming such things? “Unicef, concerned about the sensitivity of children to odd flavours, commissioned a study in which rice was prepared with salt iodised at ten times the maximum recommended concentration. In double-blind taste tests, the iodine was undetectable.”
Iodized salt is almost always the industrially produced variety, pure NaCL and much more salty than the natural varieties - either sea or mountain salts that typically include other minerals and are milder in flavor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you want me to say masks? That's probably the best example of a failed public health policy that was more about tribalism than science. Forcing restaurant owners to impose masking guidelines that did nothing to prevent disease or shut down was quite the failure. The public health "experts" also made very bold claims about the vaccine which turned out not to be true as well. Then there was the media (who cla…
Masks were a case of bad communication, they absolutely do work. For others around you more than for yourself so. And vaccines worked wonders, everybody who got two, or three, shots allowed anti-vaxxers to not get theirs and not catch a hard Covid strain regardless of that decision. But please, tell me more about the "UV-based cleaning thearapy" and Monoclonal Antibody Therapy. Or, on second thought, don't. Edit: Mon…
By the "experts" who according to themselves and the media are extremely good at comms. Why are you so invested in defending these people? Just hatred of the other side?
> Monoclonal Antibody therapy doesn't work with Covid > Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have been shown to have clinical benefits in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection > these products are not expected to be effective treatments or preventives for COVID-19
That's textbook cognitive dissonance right there. Monoclonal Antibody Therapy did show promise in treating COVID-19. It certainly didn't hurt anyone. You don't see the clear hand of public policy that attempted (and mostly succeeded) to create a monopoly on treatment for the drug companies?
> And vaccines worked wonders, everybody who got two, or three, shots allowed anti-vaxxers to not get theirs and not catch a hard Covid strain regardless of that decision
What wonders did it work? It's not effective at stopping transmission, so your statement comes across as a bit dated tbh. Why can't you admit that it didn't do what the state-level "public health experts" promised it would? You're just going to follow these people wherever they lead you no matter how many times they fail publicly?
Edit: Whoever flagged my post above is breaking the HN rules but I'm not surprised. People are still very offended by perspectives that deviate from state-media narratives on this topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't kosher salt literally just regular salt but in a particular particle size? I also use Himalayan and kosher salt but thats because I eat a ton of junk food which has iodised salt. If you're health conscious and don't do that, it's probably not a bad idea to keep iodised salt and add it in times it's not that important you need to pinch the exact right amount in your fingers or whatever.
You pretty much cannot have too much iodine. It is a good idea to use iodised salt in general. [edit] fair enough, I need to qualify that. You pretty much cannot get too much iodine with something that looks like a normal diet, and in any case iodised salt is not what push iodine levels over the top. And in a normal diets, iodine deficiency is much, much more likely than iodine overload.
Based on what reasoning?
Lovely article. It reminds me of the relationship of scurvy and Vitamin C. Despite scurvy being largely understood around 1750 the knowledge was forgotten or replaced with wrong theories as late as 1911. https://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm