Do you know of any specific reason for specifying inositol hexanicotinate, and not the other forms of niacin?
I personally have been taking niacin as nicotinic acid (the flush form) for a number of years, and for various reasons, including blood lipid benefits, long before I discovered the Iodine Protocol.
I don't mind the flush.
I was influenced by "Niacin: The Real Story" by Hoffer, Saul and Foster. He recommended inositol hexanicotinate (he actually calls it inositol hexaniacinate - just another name for the same thing I guess) for people who just could not tolerate the flush of nicotinic acid, but otherwise recommended nicotinic acid, because it was cheaper, and in most respects more effective.
By the way, I'm afraid I said something incorrect in another post elsewhere today: I said only the flush version reduces cholesterol. Checking the book again, all versions except niacinamide reduce cholesterol (and raise HDL). However, I think he thought that nicotinic acid was more effective than inositol hexanicotinate/hexaniacinate in this respect.
(If I can find that post again, I will edit it).
But anyway, to summarise/rephrase my question again: Is there any reason not to use the flush version of B3 (niacin as nicotinic acid) as part of the Iodine Protocol, as far as you know?