Science-Based Medicine » Low Dose Naltrexone - Bogus or Cutting Edge Science?

May 6, 2010

After reading that article, it looks to me like the author (I'm a writer myself

with a scientific background and 20+ years experience writing for major

publications) entered into it with a predetermined conclusion: LDN is snake oil

and any benefits are being overstated by people who " want to believe. " Basically

lumping it into the same category as homeopathy and other " fringe " treatments

(no offense to anyone who believes they've been helped by homeopathy; in a few

cases it may be valid, IMHO, but in general my opinion is that it's based on

some extremely unscientific concepts).

I think that the author was also EXTREMELY over-verbose without really

communicating much useful information in most of those run-on paragraphs. Just

ranting ad nauseum. This is a sign that someone doesn't have a solid central

point, and is trying to overwhelm you with numerous minor/peripheral jabs at the

concept.

This article oversimplifies a lot of the science underlying LDN, and doesn't

seem to have much perspective about the fact that *countless* promising

treatments for chronic diseases have been languishing for years if not decades

because there is no major financial incentive (at least not competitive with

putting the same effort into other pharmaceutical categories) for anyone to do

the necessary clinical studies.

The way the author assails posts on LowDoseNaltrexone.org for advocating LDN as

if that somehow undermines the validity of patients' results and the associated

science (even as " unproven " as that science is, it fits with known facts and we

actually do know a fair amount more than the author seems to suggest).....tells

me that he's grasping at straws to prove a predetermined point: that LDN's

growing popularity and its effects on such a wide range of conditions are based

on wishful thinking/placebo effect.

One can debate just how effective LDN/ULDN are for actually treating various

conditions directly -- but clearly, they are helping people cope better with a

very wide range of chronic conditions, and anecdotally there are quite

impressive effects on almost any condition that involves the immune system

(which is a huge number, as we all know). More research is absolutely

indicated....but in the meantime, there has to be a balance between what we know

as individual patients and what the science has yet to " prove. "

IMHO, this article is almost entirely one-sided and the author seems to have a

clear predetermined point of view. Thusly, I don't give the article much weight.

- from Maine, USA

Recommended Posts