Re: HELP! Pregnant and Diabetes

May 20, 2010

Thanks for writing, Cathleen. The literature tells us it is safe for

pregnant women. Whatever the mechanisms of LDN, the way it works is by

furnishing our bodies with the natural opiates that it needs to heal

itself. I'm confident about the body's ability to utilize these opiates

appropriately. That is the greatness of LDN, is that it empowers the

wisdom of the body, not disempowers.

--

>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 donâ€™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 motherâ€™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 didnâ€™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

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

--A.J. Muste

May 20, 2010

There is a paucity of actual literature in the scientific sense on this subject. So whatever has been written is not based in actual understanding of what is going on biologically.There are some informed and knowledgeable speculations but nothing like rigorous scientific understanding...yet. Hopefully that will come sooner than later.JackieFrom: Baker <vbaker@...>Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] HELP! Pregnant and Diabeteslow dose naltrexone Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 6:07 PMThanks for writing, Cathleen. The literature tells us it is

safe for pregnant women. Whatever the mechanisms of LDN, the way it works is by furnishing our bodies with the natural opiates that it needs to heal itself. I'm confident about the body's ability to utilize these opiates appropriately. That is the greatness of LDN, is that it empowers the wisdom of the body, not disempowers.-->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 donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 motherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 >â€¦.Cathleen~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~ --A.J. Muste------------------------------------

May 20, 2010

I have more trust for doctors' observations in practice than I do drug

" studies " which are notoriously biased in a multitude of ways, from out and

out lying about results to skewed questions about what to study in the

first place (and there is plenty of information to Google on this). It was

doctors' observations that noticed thalidomide was bad for pregnant women,

and it was doctors' observations that noticed that children born to women

taking LDN are exceptionally vigorous. I trust this kind of " folk "

knowledge more than the medical-industrial sort of knowledge.

We live in a bath of toxins of all sorts-- chemical, electrical,

microwaves, noise, interpersonal stress, survival stresses. No wonder such

babies are stronger. Their mothers have had an advantage a lot of women

don't have.

As far as I am aware, science still does not understand exactly how opiates

stop pain. There are also lots of studies that show that surgery patients

who receive opiates for pain following the surgery heal markedly faster and

better than those who do not, and science does not understand exactly why

this is so. As we know, LDN stimulates endogenous opioids. Therefore, I

hold that it is reasonable to think that LDN works in mysterious ways, ways

that science may well not ever understand.

Because, it's not really the LDN at all-- the rise in endogenous opioids is

the body's response to what LDN actually does, which is simply to block the

receptors for a short period. LDN is really just a trigger. Thus to say

that LDN is doing this work is really incorrect. It is the body's own

healing wisdom at work, which has been potentized in the face of massive

toxic burdens. This is part of why I would be aghast if LDN were give a new

use patent, because it's not the naltrexone that is doing the work of

healing. You can't patent endogenous opioids.

As an aside-- I'm a strong adherent of iodine supplementation and the

iodine protocol, which includes iodine plus a short list of mandatory

companion nutrients. It is estimated that at least 75% of the world's

population is iodine deficient. Infertile women have conceived after

starting iodine supplementation. It's not a good idea to start iodine

supplementation if you're already pregnant, at least not at the therapeutic

levels of the protocol (but okay to do the moderate 6.5mg/day), but it's a

great help to strengthen and detoxify on the way to becoming

pregnant. Iodine also balances hormones, in fact thyroid hormones cannot

be produced without iodine, so it's basic for anyone with thyroid

issues. Cell apoptosis also requires iodine, which is why iodine helps

with cancer. www.breastcancerchoices.org has a lot of information about

iodine, and there is a great iodine discussion group here on . A

number of people here on the LDN list are also on the iodine list, the

protocols are compatible and improve on each other. For instance, I started

taking LDN and my brain fog and pain levels went way down, and I had more

energy than previous. About a month later I started taking iodine and my

energy levels went way up.

with best wishes,

--

At 06:50 PM 5/19/2010, you wrote:

>There is a paucity of actual literature in the scientific sense on this

>subject. So whatever has been written is not based in actual

>understanding of what is going on biologically.

>There are some informed and knowledgeable speculations but nothing like

>rigorous scientific understanding...yet. Hopefully that will come sooner

>than later.

>

>Jackie

>

>From: Baker <vbaker@...>

>Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] HELP! Pregnant and Diabetes

>low dose naltrexone

>Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 6:07 PM

>

>Thanks for writing, Cathleen. The literature tells us it is safe for

>pregnant women. Whatever the mechanisms of LDN, the way it works is by

>furnishing our bodies with the natural opiates that it needs to heal

>itself. I'm confident about the body's ability to utilize these opiates

>appropriately. That is the greatness of LDN, is that it empowers the

>wisdom of the body, not disempowers.

>

>--

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

--A.J. Muste

May 20, 2010

I am not talking about drug studies. And I think this tone is silly. Doctors are just as biased as the rest of the human race. And besides - it isn't either/or - either drug studies and science or doctors' observations - it's both/and. All of it is valuable.Someone said earlier that LDN does not affect babies in the womb. That person cannot know that. It has not been scientifically determined to be true. In rat studies LDN was found to cross the placenta and harm the fetuses. That does not mean the same would happen with humans - but the truth is we don't know for sure - and doctors' observations are limited to the obvious, and cannot see the very subtle, the minute.Also pigeon hole thinking doesn't really get us far. There is a Big Pharma monopoly on drugs and medical

research, but not everyone in research is tied to Pharma. Don't put good people in the same category as thugs. In the long run you will suffer for that mistake withlack of much knowledge you could have acquired and benefitted from yourself and helped others by sharing.No they can't patent endogenous opioids, but synthetic analogs can be.Good night,Jackie>>From: Baker <vbaker@...>>Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] HELP! Pregnant and Diabetes>low dose naltrexone >Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 6:07 PM>>Thanks for writing, Cathleen. The literature tells us it is safe for>pregnant women. Whatever the mechanisms of LDN, the way it works is by>furnishing our bodies with the natural opiates that it needs to heal>itself. I'm confident about the body's ability to utilize these opiates>appropriately. That is the greatness of LDN, is that it empowers the>wisdom of the body, not

disempowers.>>--~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~ --A.J. Muste------------------------------------

May 20, 2010

Excuse me? You think this tone is silly? I challenge your statements and

you call me silly.

The question has been asked and you have not answered, what are your

credentials to be making these authoritarian statements that directly

contradict the knowledge base we have on LDN?

--

>I am not talking about drug studies. And I think this tone is

>silly. Doctors are just as biased as the rest of the human race. And

>besides - it isn't either/or - either drug studies and science or doctors'

>observations - it's both/and. All of it is valuable.

>

>Someone said earlier that LDN does not affect babies in the womb. That

>person cannot know that. It has not been scientifically determined to be

>true. In rat studies LDN was found to cross the placenta and harm the

>fetuses. That does not mean the same would happen with humans - but the

>truth is we don't know for sure - and doctors' observations are limited to

>the obvious, and cannot see the very subtle, the minute.

>

>Also pigeon hole thinking doesn't really get us far. There is a Big

>Pharma monopoly on drugs and medical research, but not everyone in

>research is tied to Pharma. Don't put good people in the same category as

>thugs. In the long run you will suffer for that mistake with

>lack of much knowledge you could have acquired and benefitted from

>yourself and helped others by sharing.

>

>No they can't patent endogenous opioids, but synthetic analogs can be.

>

>Good night,

>

>Jackie

>

> >

> >From: Baker <vbaker@...>

> >Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] HELP! Pregnant and Diabetes

> >low dose naltrexone

> >Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 6:07 PM

> >

> >Thanks for writing, Cathleen. The literature tells us it is safe for

> >pregnant women. Whatever the mechanisms of LDN, the way it works is by

> >furnishing our bodies with the natural opiates that it needs to heal

> >itself. I'm confident about the body's ability to utilize these opiates

> >appropriately. That is the greatness of LDN, is that it empowers the

> >wisdom of the body, not disempowers.

> >

> >--

>

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

> --A.J. Muste

>

>------------------------------------

>

May 20, 2010

Hi Jackie,

>In rat studies LDN was found to cross the placenta and harm the

>fetuses.

Do you have a reference for this? When I told my OBGYN I was taking LDN, she

looked it up and I remember she said it did cross the placenta in some rat

study, but I have no recollection of her saying it harmed the fetuses. The study

was regular-dose naltrexone though (whatever the rat equivalent would be) and

not LDN. Have there actually been rat studies with LDN? Thanks for any info you

have.

May 20, 2010

Please re-read. Nowhere did I state that LDN does not affect babies in the womb, I said you do not know if the LDN crosses into the fetus or not, and again, rats are not humans and again in that study they used a very high dosage of Naltrexone, not LDN. My comparison was to HIV mothers giving birth to non-HIV babies. Please take care not to make the error of re-quoting incorrectly, it would be appreciated. And my whole post was an opinion post. I am not a doctor, nurse or other health care professional. I am however a long time chronic illness patient and unfortunately a long time prescribed medicine user, huge reader and one always studying medicine, and that does count for a lot. Thanks -Cathleen From: carcinoidwarrior

<carcinoidwarrior@...>Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] HELP! Pregnant and Diabeteslow dose naltrexone , " Baker" <vbaker@...>Someone said earlier that LDN does not affect babies in the womb. That person cannot know that. It has not been scientifically determined to be true. In rat studies LDN was found to cross the placenta and harm the fetuses. That does not mean the same would happen with humans - but the truth is we don't

know for sure - and doctors' observations are limited to the obvious, and cannot see the very subtle, the minute.Cathleen Kenny, MezzoVoce A Unique American Solo Vocal Act email: mezzovocekenny@...web: http://www.youtube.com/catandchar telephone: (410) 446-6188MezzoVoce--Rich, Vivid and Harmonious-A Voice of the 21st CenturyMaster & Bachelor of Arts- music performance, summa cum laude honors

May 20, 2010

Because I believe that iodine supplementation is a highly compatible and

synergistic protocol to add with LDN, I'll take a moment. If we need to

continue to talk about it, you should join the Iodine list on , or my

list which is iodineholistichealth, or we can talk offlist.

Just briefly, here is info:

http://breastcancerchoices.org/iprotocol.html

http://www.naturalthyroidchoices.com/ThyroidNutrients.html

The requirements are (daily): Magnesium 400-500mg; selenium 200-400mcg; Vit

C 2000-5000mg; unrefined salt 1/4 to 1/2 teaspoon per day. Iodine, 6 to

50mg/day.

It's very important to use unrefined salt, which has the full mineral

complement and therefore does not throw the body's mineral balance off,

which is the source of disease caused by refined table salt. The adrenal

glands need salt, it is a necessary nutrient for humans. Simply changing

to unrefined salt would help most people's health-- that we ever changed to

refined salt as a culture has been very damaging to general health.

Unrefined salt is Celtic Sea Salt, Himalayan salt, Redmond's Real Salt-- it

must say " unrefined " on the label.

with best wishes,

--

>, do you mind sharing what the other supplements are that are used

>in the iodine protocol. My doctor prescribed iodine for me but didn't

>suggest anything else.

>

>Thanks,

>(not trying to get pregnant Jan)

>

>From: Baker <vbaker@...>

>low dose naltrexone

>Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 9:24:01 PM

>Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] HELP! Pregnant and Diabetes

>

>I have more trust for doctors' observations in practice than I do drug

> " studies " which are notoriously biased in a multitude of ways, from out and

>out lying about results to skewed questions about what to study in the

>first place (and there is plenty of information to Google on this). It was

>doctors' observations that noticed thalidomide was bad for pregnant women,

>and it was doctors' observations that noticed that children born to women

>taking LDN are exceptionally vigorous. I trust this kind of " folk "

>knowledge more than the medical-industrial sort of knowledge.

>

>We live in a bath of toxins of all sorts-- chemical, electrical,

>microwaves, noise, interpersonal stress, survival stresses. No wonder such

>babies are stronger. Their mothers have had an advantage a lot of women

>don't have.

>

>As far as I am aware, science still does not understand exactly how opiates

>stop pain. There are also lots of studies that show that surgery patients

>who receive opiates for pain following the surgery heal markedly faster and

>better than those who do not, and science does not understand exactly why

>this is so. As we know, LDN stimulates endogenous opioids. Therefore, I

>hold that it is reasonable to think that LDN works in mysterious ways, ways

>that science may well not ever understand.

>

>Because, it's not really the LDN at all-- the rise in endogenous opioids is

>the body's response to what LDN actually does, which is simply to block the

>receptors for a short period. LDN is really just a trigger. Thus to say

>that LDN is doing this work is really incorrect. It is the body's own

>healing wisdom at work, which has been potentized in the face of massive

>toxic burdens. This is part of why I would be aghast if LDN were give a new

>use patent, because it's not the naltrexone that is doing the work of

>healing. You can't patent endogenous opioids.

>

>As an aside-- I'm a strong adherent of iodine supplementation and the

>iodine protocol, which includes iodine plus a short list of mandatory

>companion nutrients. It is estimated that at least 75% of the world's

>population is iodine deficient. Infertile women have conceived after

>starting iodine supplementation. It's not a good idea to start iodine

>supplementation if you're already pregnant, at least not at the therapeutic

>levels of the protocol (but okay to do the moderate 6.5mg/day), but it's a

>great help to strengthen and detoxify on the way to becoming

>pregnant. Iodine also balances hormones, in fact thyroid hormones cannot

>be produced without iodine, so it's basic for anyone with thyroid

>issues. Cell apoptosis also requires iodine, which is why iodine helps

>with cancer.

><http://www.breastcancerchoices.org>www.breastcancerchoices.org has a lot

>of information about

>iodine, and there is a great iodine discussion group here on . A

>number of people here on the LDN list are also on the iodine list, the

>protocols are compatible and improve on each other. For instance, I started

>taking LDN and my brain fog and pain levels went way down, and I had more

>energy than previous. About a month later I started taking iodine and my

>energy levels went way up.

>

>with best wishes,

>--

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

--A.J. Muste

May 20, 2010

,I apologize for this misunderstanding - it isn't YOU I was referring to but the thinking modeof 'either/or', putting doctors' observations in opposition to scientific exploration as if one is more valid than the other and holds more weight. I do think 'both/and' thinking is far more productive and far less divisive.I haven't time right now to address the other issues you raised, so they will have to wait for another day.Meanwhile, I am merely sharing what I know, as you are, from my own experience and study. I don't claim or even entertain a notion that I am an 'authority'. If my words indicate that attitude, then they are poorly chosen and I'll choose better in the future. I am well aware that in order to learn one must be 'empty', so I look forward to learning a great deal from people here and their long term experience with LDN. But I do do my research, can't help it - it's a

compulsion. Maybe others will benefit from it - I certainly hope so.Jackie>>From: Baker <vbaker@...>>Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] HELP! Pregnant and Diabetes>low dose naltrexone >Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 10:24 PM>>I have more trust for doctors' observations in practice than I do drug>"studies" which are notoriously biased in a multitude of ways, from out and>out lying about results to skewed questions about what to study in

the>first place (and there is plenty of information to Google on this). It was>doctors' observations that noticed thalidomide was bad for pregnant women,>and it was doctors' observations that noticed that children born to women>taking LDN are exceptionally vigorous. I trust this kind of "folk">knowledge more than the medical-industrial sort of knowledge.>>We live in a bath of toxins of all sorts-- chemical, electrical,>microwaves, noise, interpersonal stress, survival stresses. No wonder such>babies are stronger. Their mothers have had an advantage a lot of women>don't have.>>As far as I am aware, science still does not understand exactly how opiates>stop pain. There are also lots of studies that show that surgery patients>who receive opiates for pain following the surgery heal markedly faster and>better than those who do not, and science

does not understand exactly why>this is so. As we know, LDN stimulates endogenous opioids. Therefore, I>hold that it is reasonable to think that LDN works in mysterious ways, ways>that science may well not ever understand.>>Because, it's not really the LDN at all-- the rise in endogenous opioids is>the body's response to what LDN actually does, which is simply to block the>receptors for a short period. LDN is really just a trigger. Thus to say>that LDN is doing this work is really incorrect. It is the body's own>healing wisdom at work, which has been potentized in the face of massive>toxic burdens. This is part of why I would be aghast if LDN were give a new>use patent, because it's not the naltrexone that is doing the work of>healing. You can't patent endogenous opioids.>>As an aside-- I'm a strong adherent of iodine supplementation and

the>iodine protocol, which includes iodine plus a short list of mandatory>companion nutrients. It is estimated that at least 75% of the world's>population is iodine deficient. Infertile women have conceived after>starting iodine supplementation. It's not a good idea to start iodine>supplementation if you're already pregnant, at least not at the therapeutic>levels of the protocol (but okay to do the moderate 6.5mg/day), but it's a>great help to strengthen and detoxify on the way to becoming>pregnant. Iodine also balances hormones, in fact thyroid hormones cannot>be produced without iodine, so it's basic for anyone with thyroid>issues. Cell apoptosis also requires iodine, which is why iodine helps>with cancer. www.breastcancerchoices.org has a lot of information about>iodine, and there is a great iodine discussion group here on .

A>number of people here on the LDN list are also on the iodine list, the>protocols are compatible and improve on each other. For instance, I started>taking LDN and my brain fog and pain levels went way down, and I had more>energy than previous. About a month later I started taking iodine and my>energy levels went way up.>>with best wishes,>--

May 20, 2010

Hello,Here are some references - I haven't got hold of the full papers so I can't say much about all this.http://fred.psu.edu/ds/retrieve/fred/publication/11489341http://fred.psu.edu/ds/retrieve/fred/publication/11812520http://fred.psu.edu/ds/retrieve/fred/publication/10519055http://fred.psu.edu/ds/retrieve/fred/publication/9488100Jackie--- On Thu, 5/20/10, tierneywayne <tierney.wayne@...> wrote:From: tierneywayne

<tierney.wayne@...>Subject: [low dose naltrexone] Re: HELP! Pregnant and Diabeteslow dose naltrexone Date: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 10:20 AMHi Jackie,>In rat studies LDN was found to cross the placenta and harm the>fetuses. Do you have a reference for this? When I told my OBGYN I was taking LDN, she looked it up and I remember she said it did cross the placenta in some rat study, but I have no

recollection of her saying it harmed the fetuses. The study was regular-dose naltrexone though (whatever the rat equivalent would be) and not LDN. Have there actually been rat studies with LDN? Thanks for any info you have.

May 21, 2010

Jackie-- thank you for being more clear. However, it was my impression

that you yourself were privileging only scientific research over the

experiences of the doctors and patients who have been using LDN for quite a

few years now, and that was what I was seeking to balance.

A number of us are worried that the push for scientific study of LDN will

result in LDN becoming less accessible to us, especially those of us with

limited incomes. Part of the great power of LDN is that it is affordable

even to those on disability income. Dr Skip, the pharmacist, posted an

example of a drug that was re-patented a few months ago and the price went

obscenely sky high-- $2,000/month.

In terms of safety, naltrexone has already been researched for safety and

it's been on the market for a very long time now. You will not convince me

that 100 to 200mg of naltrexone daily is safe for pregnant women but the

tiny doses of LDN are not. It makes no sense. If LDN only stopped cell

proliferation, then people with MS would not be healing nerve pathway

lesions because that is what is required to clear those lesions, visible on

MRIs. Again, makes no sense to say that LDN only produces slowed cell

growth. I think that the influx of endogenous opiates that LDN spurs is

used by the body to cure whatever ails ye. That some people don't respond

is unfortunate, but it definitely does work for the majority, as the

existing scientific studies do show.

LDN, as I was saying, is not doing this healing. It is simply creating the

conditions for increased endogenous opiate production, natural substances

that the body then uses to heal itself, in all its native wisdom.

with best wishes,

--

>Vistoria,

>

>I apologize for this misunderstanding - it isn't YOU I was referring to

>but the thinking mode

>of 'either/or', putting doctors' observations in opposition to scientific

>exploration as if one is more valid than the other and holds more

>weight. I do think 'both/and' thinking is far more productive and far

>less divisive.

>

>I haven't time right now to address the other issues you raised, so they

>will have to wait for another day.

>

>Meanwhile, I am merely sharing what I know, as you are, from my own

>experience and study. I don't claim or even entertain a notion that I am

>an 'authority'. If my words indicate that attitude, then they are poorly

>chosen and I'll choose better in the future. I am well aware that in

>order to learn one must be 'empty', so I look forward to learning a great

>deal from people here and their long term experience with LDN. But I do

>do my research, can't help it - it's a compulsion. Maybe others will

>benefit from it - I certainly hope so.

>

>Jackie

>

>Jackie

>

> >

> >From: Baker <vbaker@...>

> >Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] HELP! Pregnant and Diabetes

> >low dose naltrexone

> >Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 10:24 PM

> >

> >I have more trust for doctors' observations in practice than I do drug

> > " studies " which are notoriously biased in a multitude of ways, from out and

> >out lying about results to skewed questions about what to study in the

> >first place (and there is plenty of information to Google on this). It was

> >doctors' observations that noticed thalidomide was bad for pregnant women,

> >and it was doctors' observations that noticed that children born to women

> >taking LDN are exceptionally vigorous. I trust this kind of " folk "

> >knowledge more than the medical-industrial sort of knowledge.

> >

> >We live in a bath of toxins of all sorts-- chemical, electrical,

> >microwaves, noise, interpersonal stress, survival stresses. No wonder such

> >babies are stronger. Their mothers have had an advantage a lot of women

> >don't have.

> >

> >As far as I am aware, science still does not understand exactly how opiates

> >stop pain. There are also lots of studies that show that surgery patients

> >who receive opiates for pain following the surgery heal markedly faster and

> >better than those who do not, and science does not understand exactly why

> >this is so. As we know, LDN stimulates endogenous opioids. Therefore, I

> >hold that it is reasonable to think that LDN works in mysterious ways, ways

> >that science may well not ever understand.

> >

> >Because, it's not really the LDN at all-- the rise in endogenous opioids is

> >the body's response to what LDN actually does, which is simply to block the

> >receptors for a short period. LDN is really just a trigger. Thus to say

> >that LDN is doing this work is really incorrect. It is the body's own

> >healing wisdom at work, which has been potentized in the face of massive

> >toxic burdens. This is part of why I would be aghast if LDN were give a new

> >use patent, because it's not the naltrexone that is doing the work of

> >healing. You can't patent endogenous opioids.

> >

> >As an aside-- I'm a strong adherent of iodine supplementation and the

> >iodine protocol, which includes iodine plus a short list of mandatory

> >companion nutrients. It is estimated that at least 75% of the world's

> >population is iodine deficient. Infertile women have conceived after

> >starting iodine supplementation. It's not a good idea to start iodine

> >supplementation if you're already pregnant, at least not at the therapeutic

> >levels of the protocol (but okay to do the moderate 6.5mg/day), but it's a

> >great help to strengthen and detoxify on the way to becoming

> >pregnant. Iodine also balances hormones, in fact thyroid hormones cannot

> >be produced without iodine, so it's basic for anyone with thyroid

> >issues. Cell apoptosis also requires iodine, which is why iodine helps

> >with cancer. www.breastcancerchoices.org has a lot of information about

> >iodine, and there is a great iodine discussion group here on . A

> >number of people here on the LDN list are also on the iodine list, the

> >protocols are compatible and improve on each other. For instance, I started

> >taking LDN and my brain fog and pain levels went way down, and I had more

> >energy than previous. About a month later I started taking iodine and my

> >energy levels went way up.

> >

> >with best wishes,

> >--

>

>No virus found in this incoming message.

>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

>Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2886 - Release Date: 05/20/10

>13:26:00

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

--A.J. Muste

May 21, 2010

I wrote that I have more trust for doctors' observations in practice. I

never said I have zero trust for science. You betray your own prejudices

when you misread me thusly.

You materialists need to realize that you're sharing a discussion group

with people who have a larger, more holistic view of health and healing.

Just because you think what we have to said is invalid, does not make it

so. We will be vindicated, I promise you. Meanwhile, our levels of health

and vigor are greater. Remember that medical error is in the top 5 causes

of death every year in the USA.

And, I will not continue this discussion except as it directly pertains to

LDN.

with best wishes,

--

At 01:22 AM 5/21/2010, you wrote:

>Current time: Friday, 2010/05/21, 06:48

>

>Hello ,

> I will apologise first as what I am about to say will no doubt not

> be welcomed.

>So, sorry about that but I feel it is SO important it cannot go unnoticed.

>What you are claiming here is nothing but unsubstantiated pseudoscientific

>erm, nonsense I am sorry to say.

>If you were really wanting to know the HARD and PROVEN facts then you

>would NEVER be telling people how babies born with LDN in their system are

>more vigorous or that they are born with an advantage - this is nonsense!

>lease, I am always willing to accept I am wrong and, if you show me some

>actual papers, scientific data to show your claim is based in truth then I

>will amend my opinion on this to match the latest accepted data. As it

>stands I can find nothing to confirm this claim.

>Iodine supplementation is a what? A 'synergistic protocol to add with LDN?

>This is surely just pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo that doesn't really have

>a meaning.?

>Your statement on salt - absolutely wrong. Yes we do NEED salt and yes it

>is important to bopy function but no, changing to sea salt or any other

>kind of salt (except perhaps LO-Salt!) would not have the benefits you

>suggest. again, please feel free to provide me with some solid scientific

>evidence to the contrary because I am always willing to update my

>knowledge and correct it to go with the currently accepted science.

>

>I think though, one of your most telling and nonsensical statements has to

>be the following:

>

>Thursday, May 20, 2010, 8:59:47 PM, you wrote:

>

> >I have more trust for doctors' observations in practice than I do drug

> > " studies " which are notoriously biased in a multitude of ways, from out and

> >out lying about results to skewed questions about what to study in the

> >first place (and there is plenty of information to Google on this).

>

>This is in fact true to a point. OF COURSE there will be bad studies,

>poorly equipped, poorly done, bad methodology and yes, even skewed results

>and results biased in favour of the result the scientist wanted...however!

>

>This IN NO WAY means that all scientific studies are flawed.!!!

>Can you not see the flawed logic in this thinking?

>Are you seriously believing that science is BAAAD because of the supposed

>'errors' in it's method?

>It isn't acceptable to say 'science is bad' because science is not

>something tangible, not something constant that you can pick up and throw

>away! Science is the METHOD, just a method we have created that enables us

>to keep a measure on the world around us. It enables us to find out, by

>repeated experiment and peer review, the what's why's how's and wherefores

>of our planet and our world, including us. If it wasn't for science we

>would not even have electricity not to mention the computer we are using

>to talk!!

>So often people will criticize 'science' when it is wrong to do so.

>Science is the method, not the result! Science doesn't change depending on

>what you are using it for. Science is a set of natural laws and a method

>for evaluating evidence. You can never say 'science' is wrong, right, bad,

>good or anything because it is only the method. Although I will say it IS

>right in my opinion, as the best possible method we have for evaluating

>evidence and collating and collecting data. If you know of a better method

>then I would love to hear it!

>

>All you are doing is saying that because we know there are bad apples in

>the barrel we must disregard the whole of the barrel and in fact, let us

>say that all apples are not worth the effort. They are all bad. Well I

>don't really have to point out the fallacy in this logic!

>

>You are using a similarly bad logical approach in the next thing you say too:

>It was

> >doctors' observations that noticed thalidomide was bad for pregnant women,

> >and it was doctors' observations that noticed that children born to women

> >taking LDN are exceptionally vigorous. I trust this kind of " folk "

> >knowledge more than the medical-industrial sort of knowledge.

> >

>

>This in NO WAY means that Dr's and their own personal opinions (which, do

>not kid yourself, are based on their beliefs, biases, feelings and maybe

>how they felt at the time they were asked!) are more valid or worthy than

>a scientifically properly executed study. In fact I would go on to say

>that it is absolutely definite that this is NOT the case.

>aghain, because you can show SOME bad studies and SOME good Dr's

>discoveries, predictions or diagnoses, this doesn't automatically mean

>that they are ALL bad and should be condemned or thrown out as useless!!

>That is preposterous!

>Of course it is entirely up to you to believe in whatever you like but I

>feel it is a bit misleading for anyone joining here with no knowledge, or

>very little and to find such recommendations as you provide. The amount of

>cash that is 'extracted' from scammers selling things like the things you

>recommend, is abhorrent and I think we should be trying to STROP such

>practises, not encourage them.

>

>Also it seems almost as if everyone is forgetting something here: LDN IS a

>drug! it is a DRUG.

>So the argument against 'drugs' from 'big pharma' is a pointless one if

>you are going to take a drug anyway...

>

>Like I said, this wasn't intended to offend. I know it [probably will

>offend but hey, we all get offended sometimes in life, it is part of life

>and we are all equipped to deal with that. My point was to highlight the

>failings of logic that are being thrown around that is all.

>

>You may wish to look into the powers of the SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN effects

>of...the Placebo. It is highly probably that you and many others are

>experiencing just this effect - which is a real and very positive effect!

>- when trying all these so called remedies and cures which, when looked

>into, do nothing physiological to the body.

>

>That's all I wanted to say really.

>

>KEEP an OPEN mind and look at the science because science, as a METHOD,

>cannot be disregarded. It would be like disregarding air because it has a

>little carbon monoxide in it. You would soon die if you were to follow

>that line of thinking right.

>Thanks for reading