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

[Guest guest]

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 Anything that actually works is going to have side-effects; although keep in mind that people have withdrawn from taking a placebo because of side-effects.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

[Guest guest]

Group Rules

http://ldn.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display & board=personal & thread=867 & page\

=2#6566

>

> 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

>