LDN & pregnancy

[Guest guest]



As a MALE I can only answer one of 2 questions....

Would I want my Wife/mother of an unborn child of mine, OR my own Daughter, on LDN, During/Before/After pregnancy?

YES YES YES

Without a doubt I would Put them on it, if I could.

I'd just ask for the experience to be journaled.

But it's Your choice as owner of the ovaries and womb.

Re: [low dose naltrexone] (unknown)

I have to weigh in on this slightly since I am using LDN and trying to become pregnant.The problem with stopping LDN while pregnant for most who use LDN is the fact that we use it to control our chronic illnesses, which for me is UC. If I get pregnant and go off LDN, then I run the huge risk of my UC flaring up, which happens a lot for UC people while pregnant. Then I am stuck with my body being in a very ill state, one that is even less conducive for pregnancy than if I were to be on LDN controlling my UC. That is a far more unhealthy state to be in and runs the huge risk of damage to the fetus along with a higher than normal chance of miscarriage and losing the baby altogether. Since there is no actual evidence of the claims you are making in regards to long term effect on a human body there is no way of knowing if anything at all would hurt in future or not, and since it is well documented that not everything crosses the placebo, or that the fetus and placebo have the ability to fight back all on its own, alla HIV mothers giving birth to perfectly healthy non-HIV babies, you cannot be sure using LDN in pregnancy is a bad thing. For IBD patients we are usually stuck having to use some sort of medicine to control our diseases. I know for fact that using some of the heavy IBD drugs like 6-MP, Asacol, Lialda, Humira and Remicade can in fact not only damage the fetus but are not allowed for nursing moms, or that moms who take the drugs being unable to nurse.

I personally would rather stick to using LDN, nursing the child, which is such a hugely important thing to do for mother and child, and taking a chance that maybe or maybe not using LDN while pregnant will hurt in future. The most important thing to do when pregnant is for the mother to remain healthy so that the mother can get pregnant, carry the pregnancy, nourish the child and then give birth, all without incident. Running the risk of being ill with serious illness like IBD, and other illnesses LDN controls, to me, is a far scarier and damaging situation while pregnant. Using LDN would be a far better and safer overall option even based on your knowledge, because one cannot control nature and how it works, meaning that sometimes the human body, nature, fixes things or rights things all on their own, when healthy. But when mothers are unhealthy in the first place, using something like LDN, which is a far better option for people like me with IBD who don’t want to be on those heavy pharma drugs, it becomes almost the only option.

On top of that you must remember that mother and child are two separate issues here. It is the fetus that is growing and whose cells are replicating, not the mother’s. It is the child growing that is doing all this, therefore I do not think you can claim that LDN would slow the rate of cell growth when it is a separate being inside the mother that is growing, replicating and forming. Yes, LDN may slow cells in the user, but the user is not the fetus. Not how I view it.

You are correct that it is a serious issue, since there is not enough scientific evidence on either end, that is a concern and that is a choice. However sometimes there is no choice, and if the option is no pregnancy because of no LDN, because of being infertile, which itself is an abnormality, or running the risk of IBD damaging or miscarrying, then sometimes the options are the only solution. Besides, hate to say this, but no one can see into the future. Sometimes children die from being hit by buses in freak accidents, or like as happened in my school twice when I was in middle school, two kids died in car crashes and one in a boating accident, so they didn’t even get to live until they were 18. But giving birth to a child really is a freak of nature, considering how perfectly balanced everything has to be in a human body in order to get pregnant, keep it, and then give birth to a child. I would have to say using LDN sure will for me not be a second thought. That is something to also weigh in on heavily to add to your concerns. Because sometimes using a far lesser damaging drug like LDN is far safer than, like for IBD people, highly damaging pharma drugs. IBD people many times have no choice on having to take drugs, just like other serious chronic illnesses, and if we must take, then LDN to me would be the best option.

Just my thoughts as a long time UC patient who has used and finds LDN far less damaging and a better option than big pharma that has damaged me in the past.

And if I become pregnant, I will post how it all goes, long term and all ….Cathleen

[Guest guest]



"JMHO, OC, YMMV, HAND"

Re: [low dose naltrexone] (unknown)

I have to weigh in on this slightly since I am using LDN and trying to become pregnant.The problem with stopping LDN while pregnant for most who use LDN is the fact that we use it to control our chronic illnesses, which for me is UC. If I get pregnant and go off LDN, then I run the huge risk of my UC flaring up, which happens a lot for UC people while pregnant. Then I am stuck with my body being in a very ill state, one that is even less conducive for pregnancy than if I were to be on LDN controlling my UC. That is a far more unhealthy state to be in and runs the huge risk of damage to the fetus along with a higher than normal chance of miscarriage and losing the baby altogether. Since there is no actual evidence of the claims you are making in regards to long term effect on a human body there is no way of knowing if anything at all would hurt in future or not, and since it is well documented that not everything crosses the placebo, or that the fetus and placebo have the ability to fight back all on its own, alla HIV mothers giving birth to perfectly healthy non-HIV babies, you cannot be sure using LDN in pregnancy is a bad thing. For IBD patients we are usually stuck having to use some sort of medicine to control our diseases. I know for fact that using some of the heavy IBD drugs like 6-MP, Asacol, Lialda, Humira and Remicade can in fact not only damage the fetus but are not allowed for nursing moms, or that moms who take the drugs being unable to nurse.

I personally would rather stick to using LDN, nursing the child, which is such a hugely important thing to do for mother and child, and taking a chance that maybe or maybe not using LDN while pregnant will hurt in future. The most important thing to do when pregnant is for the mother to remain healthy so that the mother can get pregnant, carry the pregnancy, nourish the child and then give birth, all without incident. Running the risk of being ill with serious illness like IBD, and other illnesses LDN controls, to me, is a far scarier and damaging situation while pregnant. Using LDN would be a far better and safer overall option even based on your knowledge, because one cannot control nature and how it works, meaning that sometimes the human body, nature, fixes things or rights things all on their own, when healthy. But when mothers are unhealthy in the first place, using something like LDN, which is a far better option for people like me with IBD who don’t want to be on those heavy pharma drugs, it becomes almost the only option.

On top of that you must remember that mother and child are two separate issues here. It is the fetus that is growing and whose cells are replicating, not the mother’s. It is the child growing that is doing all this, therefore I do not think you can claim that LDN would slow the rate of cell growth when it is a separate being inside the mother that is growing, replicating and forming. Yes, LDN may slow cells in the user, but the user is not the fetus. Not how I view it.

You are correct that it is a serious issue, since there is not enough scientific evidence on either end, that is a concern and that is a choice. However sometimes there is no choice, and if the option is no pregnancy because of no LDN, because of being infertile, which itself is an abnormality, or running the risk of IBD damaging or miscarrying, then sometimes the options are the only solution. Besides, hate to say this, but no one can see into the future. Sometimes children die from being hit by buses in freak accidents, or like as happened in my school twice when I was in middle school, two kids died in car crashes and one in a boating accident, so they didn’t even get to live until they were 18. But giving birth to a child really is a freak of nature, considering how perfectly balanced everything has to be in a human body in order to get pregnant, keep it, and then give birth to a child. I would have to say using LDN sure will for me not be a second thought. That is something to also weigh in on heavily to add to your concerns. Because sometimes using a far lesser damaging drug like LDN is far safer than, like for IBD people, highly damaging pharma drugs. IBD people many times have no choice on having to take drugs, just like other serious chronic illnesses, and if we must take, then LDN to me would be the best option.

Just my thoughts as a long time UC patient who has used and finds LDN far less damaging and a better option than big pharma that has damaged me in the past.

And if I become pregnant, I will post how it all goes, long term and all ….Cathleen