Re: Re: Science-Based Medicine Low Dose Naltrexone - Bogus or Cutting E

May 11, 2010

ITA, This group is supposed to ONLY be about LDN, anything Extra should be taken elsewhere when it comes up.

People disagree about everything else, the ping ponging should be taken elsewhere too.

Good point

[low dose naltrexone] Re: Science-Based Medicine Low Dose Naltrexone - Bogus or Cutting E

Everybody--I'm taking LDN. I am a scientist. Do you want to reduce the chances of LDN becoming an accepted therapy? Keep talking about ALA, colloidal silver, mistletoe, Prokarin, and anything that falls under the heading of alternative medicine.The track record of alternative medicine has been so poor that most scientists aren't going to bother wasting their time with it. You need to be throwing around the terms "placebo controlled double blind longitudinal study," not "crystal power" or "I know it works because someone on an internet forum said so."The best thing you can do is tell people about methods of preparation, or your symptoms and side-effects. Anything that actually works is going to have side-effects; although keep in mind that people have withdrawn from taking a placebo because of side-effects. Even this isn't going to convince a scientist; not when someone is complaining about bloody stools and then revealing that they are taking iron supplements, which are notoriously hard on the GI tract. LDN is worth further study. It does seem to do something measurable, and it's not immediately dangerous. For patients who don't have any other options and are undergoing a slow death anyway, it's worth the gamble. For patients whose disease can be controlled with drugs whose mechanisms, efficacy, and risk are well-understood, LDN is a poor choice. Don't try to argue that it's safe, or that naltrexone is safe, so LDN is safe. Naltrexone is safe in the sense that when used for addiction or alcoholism, it's less likely to cause harm than continued alcoholism is. Nobody knows what the risks of long-term endogenous opioid modulation of the immune system is. -RK

May 12, 2010

So like CHEMO for stomach cancer? When, in March 2007, the oncologists told my sister my dad had, AT BEST, SIX months to live, but they'll Do Chemo anyway.

a week later we got him on LDN, and they did their chemo every Tuesday. Every Wednesday and Thursday my dad did feel like he had 6 months to live and was hoping it'd come quick.

SIX months later they did a CT Scan, his TUMORS SHRUNK IN HALF and they stopped the CHEMO

3 months later they Declared him in Remission and Stable, told my sister they never saw anything like that before, APOLOGIZED for saying he ONLY had SIX months to live, they'd NEVER told a family their loved one was going to DIE, and been Wrong; in both their careers.

3 months later they did another CT, so, one year after diagnosis, 6 months after being predicted to be dead, and 6 months ON LDN ALONE; they showed my sister his tumors had SHRUNK IN HALF AGAIN.

His last CT scan a few months ago showed his tumors are STILL SHRINKING

yah, SURE WAS WORTH A GAMBLE

Now, my Brother. He was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis and was getting worse by the week. He started LDN a month after my dad, 4/2007. He's going on 60 and has gone back to playing softball and enjoying life with his stable sarcoidosis.

Plus I've been on LDN, and Stable, since April 2003, and have the MRIs to show Progression prior to 2003 and NONE since.

I have Allergy tests from 1972 and 2/2003 that pretty much match, and a re-test in 9/2007 showing ALL MY FOOD ALLERGIES ARE GONE

I don't care about the rest of the planet's opinion, I know what it's done for me, my blood, and many other LDNers I've met through the years.

LDN is THE BEST CHOICE

You want to risk the planet's economic collapse, put everyone on LDN and then re-evaluate everyone's health in 6 months, without a Star Trek type Federation, the world economy would be DOOMED and people's health would be NO COMPARISON to how it is now

JMHO OC YMMV HAND

[low dose naltrexone] Re: Science-Based Medicine Low Dose Naltrexone - Bogus or Cutting E

LDN is worth further study. It does seem to do something measurable, and it's not immediately dangerous. For patients who don't have any other options and are undergoing a slow death anyway, it's worth the gamble. For patients whose disease can be controlled with drugs whose mechanisms, efficacy, and risk are well-understood, LDN is a poor choice.

May 12, 2010

i don't much give a rats ass about convincing scientists. only some of us are on the bandwagon to bring LDN into widespread acceptance by mainstream medicine while many of us are just trying to take care of our own needs and help with others to the extent we can. i suspect once LDN is snapped up thoroughly by mainstream medicine i'll somehow lose access to it bacause i won't be able to afford it. i like things as they are just fine. i do care about sharing info that's likely to help people with their conditions and picking up more from others who share.

a critical thinking scientist worth his salt won't throw out the wheat along with the chaff...being dissuaded from a potential good thing because of some judgment about something unrelated brought up by some other of many persons on an email list.... that would be just too F---ing stupid.

colloidal silver saved my ass and improved my life since starting with it so that i've never been so well, despite hosting HCV. and LDN has allowed me to contine that state with lower amounts of CS, and hopefully i'll never even know what it's protected me from down the road.

my houisemate uses Iscador injections and other things for breast cancer... prescribed by a swiss born & trained PhD, MD cancer specialist that uses alternatives. voted best CAM doctor in the baltimore area. 5 years post lumpectomy her thermogram is perfectly clean and she's doing great despite the stress of our failing biz in this greedscum afflicted economy.

the chemo and rad either failed her sister, or killed her by the 5th year after her surgery.... that and other administrative bungling by her docs and staff.

ALA isn't exactly alt-med, is it? AFAIK it's an anti-oxidant nutritional supplement with powerful medicinal properties particularly well suited to address issues important to many of us... in my case the liver..

we don't have much in the way of placebo controlled double blind longitudinal studies to throw around, except for some work at stanford and penn state... the reasons why encourage me to grind my teeth. not good. sure, more would be good.

correct, clear thinkng risk/benefit analysis is imperative. i do wonder about long term effects of LDN. and also about using LDN concurrently with CS long term... even less is known about that. but then i never expected to live as long as i have already, and if i am in any kind of decent condition in another 10 years after the life i have lived i'll be even more amazed. and i'm only by god's will doing better than lots of folks who've relied on pharma & big med and been screwed to death mercilessly.

From: low dose naltrexone [mailto:low dose naltrexone ] On Behalf Of KnightSent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:34 PMlow dose naltrexone Subject: [low dose naltrexone] Re: Science-Based Medicine Low Dose Naltrexone - Bogus or Cutting E

Everybody--I'm taking LDN. I am a scientist. Do you want to reduce the chances of LDN becoming an accepted therapy? Keep talking about ALA, colloidal silver, mistletoe, Prokarin, and anything that falls under the heading of alternative medicine.The track record of alternative medicine has been so poor that most scientists aren't going to bother wasting their time with it. You need to be throwing around the terms "placebo controlled double blind longitudinal study," not "crystal power" or "I know it works because someone on an internet forum said so."The best thing you can do is tell people about methods of preparation, or your symptoms and side-effects. Anything that actually works is going to have side-effects; although keep in mind that people have withdrawn from taking a placebo because of side-effects. Even this isn't going to convince a scientist; not when someone is complaining about bloody stools and then revealing that they are taking iron supplements, which are notoriously hard on the GI tract. LDN is worth further study. It does seem to do something measurable, and it's not immediately dangerous. For patients who don't have any other options and are undergoing a slow death anyway, it's worth the gamble. For patients whose disease can be controlled with drugs whose mechanisms, efficacy, and risk are well-understood, LDN is a poor choice. Don't try to argue that it's safe, or that naltrexone is safe, so LDN is safe. Naltrexone is safe in the sense that when used for addiction or alcoholism, it's less likely to cause harm than continued alcoholism is. Nobody knows what the risks of long-term endogenous opioid modulation of the immune system is. -RK

__

May 12, 2010

since i might be moderated here and got a bit off-color, and this hasn't posted yet, i'm reposting it slightly edited.

i don't much give a rats rear about convincing scientists. that's for others. only some of us are on the bandwagon to bring LDN into widespread acceptance by mainstream medicine while many of us are just trying to take care of our own needs and help with others to the extent we can. i suspect once LDN is snapped up thoroughly by mainstream medicine i'll somehow lose access to it bacause i won't be able to afford it. i like things as they are just fine. i do care about sharing info that's likely to help people with their conditions and picking up more from others who share.

a critical thinking scientist worth his salt won't throw out the wheat along with the chaff...being dissuaded from a potential good thing because of some judgment about something unrelated brought up by some other of many persons on an email list.... that would be just too (foul expletive delted) stupid.

colloidal silver saved and improved my life since starting with it so that i've never been so well, despite hosting HCV. and LDN has allowed me to contine that state with lower amounts of CS, and hopefully i'll never even know what it's protected me from down the road.

my housemate uses Iscador (mistletoe) injections and other things for breast cancer... as prescribed by a swiss born & trained PhD, MD cancer specialist that uses alternatives. voted best CAM doctor in the baltimore area. 5 years post lumpectomy her thermogram is perfectly clean and she's doing great despite the stress of our failing biz in this greedscum afflicted economy.

the chemo and rad either failed her sister, or killed her by the 5th year after her surgery.... that and other administrative bungling and mis-diagnosis by her docs and staff.

ALA isn't exactly alt-med, is it? AFAIK it's an anti-oxidant nutritional supplement with powerful medicinal properties particularly well suited to address issues important to many of us... in my case the liver..

we don't have much in the way of placebo controlled double blind longitudinal studies to throw around that i've seen, except for some work at stanford and penn state... the reasons why encourage me to grind my teeth. not good. sure, more would be better.

correct, clear thinkng risk/benefit analysis is imperative. i do wonder about long term effects of LDN. and also about using LDN concurrently with CS long term... even less is known about that. but then i never expected to live as long as i have already, and if i am in any kind of decent condition in another 10 years after the life i have lived i'll be even more amazed. and i'm only by (ref to spiritual power deleted) doing better than lots of folks who've relied on pharma & big med and been screwed to death mercilessly. don't misinterpret: i'm not a doctor or pharma hater. due to my experiences in this life and understanding of some dominant patterns i just don't trust anyone more than i have to, and especially large power bases where i'm not particularly of significant importance except as maybe a tasty morsel.

From: low dose naltrexone [mailto:low dose naltrexone ] On Behalf Of KnightSent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:34 PMlow dose naltrexone Subject: [low dose naltrexone] Re: Science-Based Medicine Low Dose Naltrexone - Bogus or Cutting E

Everybody--I'm taking LDN. I am a scientist. Do you want to reduce the chances of LDN becoming an accepted therapy? Keep talking about ALA, colloidal silver, mistletoe, Prokarin, and anything that falls under the heading of alternative medicine.The track record of alternative medicine has been so poor that most scientists aren't going to bother wasting their time with it. You need to be throwing around the terms "placebo controlled double blind longitudinal study," not "crystal power" or "I know it works because someone on an internet forum said so."The best thing you can do is tell people about methods of preparation, or your symptoms and side-effects. Anything that actually works is going to have side-effects; although keep in mind that people have withdrawn from taking a placebo because of side-effects. Even this isn't going to convince a scientist; not when someone is complaining about bloody stools and then revealing that they are taking iron supplements, which are notoriously hard on the GI tract. LDN is worth further study. It does seem to do something measurable, and it's not immediately dangerous. For patients who don't have any other options and are undergoing a slow death anyway, it's worth the gamble. For patients whose disease can be controlled with drugs whose mechanisms, efficacy, and risk are well-understood, LDN is a poor choice. Don't try to argue that it's safe, or that naltrexone is safe, so LDN is safe. Naltrexone is safe in the sense that when used for addiction or alcoholism, it's less likely to cause harm than continued alcoholism is. Nobody knows what the risks of long-term endogenous opioid modulation of the immune system is. -RK

__

May 13, 2010

I'm with Larry and Bob-- if you read the websites there is plenty of info

about MRIs showing either clearing of MS lesions or no progression, tests

showing HIV and HEP C and Hashimoto's antibodies going to zero, etc. I

don't need a double-blind study to accept these truths. And, I know what

it's done for me, and that's good enough for me.

And, I am extremely glad that LDN is available to me and is affordable.

Western medicine has nothing else to offer me for my ailments, but even if

it did, I would prefer to be taking a medicine that stimulates my own

body's healing responses (via enhanced endorphin production), allowing my

body's own wisdom to heal itself, than to be taking a medicine that tells

my body what to do, creating side effects in the process and not

necessarily taking the best route, just the one that happened to get

invented. My body is the best healer for itself. Therefore I think LDN

should be a frontline treatment, not a last resort.

Above all, do no harm. LDN is as close as that gets in Western pharmaceuticals.

--

>So like CHEMO for stomach cancer? When, in March 2007, the oncologists

>told my sister my dad had, AT BEST, SIX months to live, but they'll Do

>Chemo anyway.

>

>a week later we got him on LDN, and they did their chemo every

>Tuesday. Every Wednesday and Thursday my dad did feel like he had 6

>months to live and was hoping it'd come quick.

>

>SIX months later they did a CT Scan, his TUMORS SHRUNK IN HALF and they

>stopped the CHEMO

>

>3 months later they Declared him in Remission and Stable, told my sister

>they never saw anything like that before, APOLOGIZED for saying he ONLY

>had SIX months to live, they'd NEVER told a family their loved one was

>going to DIE, and been Wrong; in both their careers.

>

>3 months later they did another CT, so, one year after diagnosis, 6 months

>after being predicted to be dead, and 6 months ON LDN ALONE; they showed

>my sister his tumors had SHRUNK IN HALF AGAIN.

>

>His last CT scan a few months ago showed his tumors are STILL SHRINKING

>

>yah, SURE WAS WORTH A GAMBLE

>

>Now, my Brother. He was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis and was getting worse

>by the week. He started LDN a month after my dad, 4/2007. He's going on

>60 and has gone back to playing softball and enjoying life with his stable

>sarcoidosis.

>

>Plus I've been on LDN, and Stable, since April 2003, and have the MRIs to

>show Progression prior to 2003 and NONE since.

>

>I have Allergy tests from 1972 and 2/2003 that pretty much match, and a

>re-test in 9/2007 showing ALL MY FOOD ALLERGIES ARE GONE

>

>I don't care about the rest of the planet's opinion, I know what it's done

>for me, my blood, and many other LDNers I've met through the years.

>

>LDN is THE BEST CHOICE

>

>You want to risk the planet's economic collapse, put everyone on LDN and

>then re-evaluate everyone's health in 6 months, without a Star Trek type

>Federation, the world economy would be DOOMED and people's health would be

>NO COMPARISON to how it is now

>

>JMHO OC YMMV HAND

>

> [low dose naltrexone] Re: Science-Based Medicine Low Dose

>Naltrexone - Bogus or Cutting E

>

>LDN is worth further study. It does seem to do something measurable, and

>it's not immediately dangerous. For patients who don't have any other

>options and are undergoing a slow death anyway, it's worth the gamble. For

>patients whose disease can be controlled with drugs whose mechanisms,

>efficacy, and risk are well-understood, LDN is a poor choice.

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

May 13, 2010

Very well said, Margaret