It’s said that over 300,000 people worldwide are taking LDN on a daily basis. But, if it’s as good as its claimed, why aren’t there 300 million?
Normally, when it’s thought that a new medication may have been discovered, there’s a pharmaceutical company that’s prepared to invest the large amounts of money needed to carry out the extensive research required to establish what conditions it may be the most useful to treat, and to get the approval of the FDA for it’s use in treating those conditions, as, if and when this approval has been obtained, the company ends up with an FDA approved medication on which patents have been obtained, which gives them a monopoly for long periods of time to manufacture and sell it. FDA approval has enormous significance for doctors in that they feel comfortable treating patients with conditions with medications that have it, and don’t feel nearly as comfortable treating patients with medications that don’t have it, if they’re prepared to prescribe it at all.
Note: The FDA, (Food and Drug Administration,) is the organisation in the US responsible for maintaining standards – the Australian equivalent is the TGA, (Therapeutic Goods Administration.)
These facts are so significant for Low Dose Naltrexone. Naltrexone, (as opposed to Low Dose Naltrexone – which isn’t a new drug, it’s just the same drug taken in smaller doses,) was first made in 1965 and WAS approved by the FDA in 1984 – but to treat people with an addiction to heroin, in 50 mg doses. But then subsequently, from about 1984 on, in something probably almost unique, it started to be found that the SAME DRUG taken in smaller doses was amazingly successful in treating people with a whole range of OTHER DIFFERENT health problems.
But, to quote David Gluck:-
So, as someone else has said, “Naltrexone is old, out of patent and low cost, so LDN won’t be produced/marketed by big Pharma. They focus on new, patented, expensive medicines.”
So for those doctors thinking of prescribing Low Dose Naltrexone for their patients for all the conditions it’s supposed to help with, and for those patients thinking of using it any way for help with any of these condition, FDA approval ISN’T available, and isn’t likely to ever be avaialble
The great strength of LDN is claimed to be in it’s effectiveness in getting the body to strengthen it’s own mechanisms, (endorphins, immune systems, and so on,) to keep us fit and well and happy, and to fight diseases, pain, addictions etc. etc. BUT the problem is that it’s extraordinarily difficult and expensive to establish where these mechanisms are at. Everything would be so simple if one could say, “My body’s mechanisms were at such and such level, but after I’d been on LDN for a month they were at this other level.” But it appears that this is just not possible. As a result one feel as though they’re flying blind if they’re taking it
David Gluck says he started taking it every day in 2001, but at the end of 15 years or so of taking it, there’s no way he could know or say that he was any different to how he would have been if he hadn’t been taking it all those years.
Another aspect of this is that if your body’s mechanisms are already strong, going on to taking LDN every day is not going to make a scrap of difference.
The answer to this, of course, is what have you got to lose by going on to it – it’s only going to cost you 2 or 3 dollars a day, and it’s not going to cause you any harm. (We’re still checking this out.)
Of course, it’s going to be easy if you go onto it and experience an immediate benefit or benefits. One of our readers claims to have perhaps experienced 5 benefits – certainly 2 anyway – after only 2 or 3 weeks! If that sort of thing happens, of course, you’ll keep taking it. But it doesn’t always happen. If you feel no benefits, you are perhaps going to feel like an idiot if you keep taking it.
To us, all the indications are that if every one in, say, Australia, started taking it, Australia would need 20% less doctors.
There seems to be a resistance to it amongst doctors that doesn’t make any sense, and perhaps this is the reason.
How else do you explain that when emails were recently sent to 16 Sydney neurologists asking them if they ever prescribed low dose naltrexone for their patients, and if not, did they know anyone who did, and not one of them answered “yes” to either of these questions?
A lot of those, almost certainly the majority, who should be going on to Low Dose Naltrexone have nothing wrong with them – they should only be going on to it for preventative purposes. And doctors are just not used to treating people with nothing wrong with them, prescribing medications for preventative purposes.
If any of our readers knows of a better explanation of why Low Dose Naltrexone in not more widely known and prescribed, we would be grateful if they could let us know so we could direct other readers to it.
For your comments and answers to any questions we may be able to provide, and to provide us with any relevant information you may have, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org