LDN as Alternative Treatment for Crohn's?
anon
shows promise as an effective treatment for Crohn's disease. The home page
for information about this treatment is as follows:'
http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/
Lest people think that this is just another example of alternative-medecine
quackery, the page features a report of a scientifically sound study done
last year at Penn State University--and reported in the American Journal of
Gastroenterology--that reported success in a limited trial of this
treatment. Here's a link to an abstract of that article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17222320
Even if one wanted to try this treatment, there are two hurdles to surmount:
finding a doctor willing to prescribe this off-label use of the drug, and
finding a compounding pharmacist willing and able to make up the
uncharacteristically low dose. If anyone out there has tried this treatment,
please post your experiences. Thanks.
Vanny
http://www.drugs.com/search.php?searchterm=Naltrexone&is_main_search=1 ,
such as Loperamide (aka Imodium), Codeine, Tincture of Opium (aka Laudanum)
or opiod painkillers, such as Oxycodone, Tramadol, Morphine, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Opioids
Vanny
"anon" <shopa...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:6t6dnR0_xuJAabHV...@earthlink.com...
anon
a small dose (so small that it requires a compounding pharmacist to make the
pills) that I wonder if the same precautions would apply in that case. This
would be something to consult with one's doctor about if one could find one
willing to prescribe it.
"Vanny" <Vanny...@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:g0j9ml$4o1$1...@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
herutmost
you will find past postings on this. I had spoken to my doctor at the
IBD clinic I go to and she had said that even at low dose Naltrexone
blocks the uptake of opiods. As Vanny mentioned this can be a problem
for any of us taking these to control liquid stool.
anon
Imodium is an opiod--but is Lomotil? From what I can tell, Lomotil is not,
but I'm not sure about this. Please verify if you can. Thanks.
"herutmost" <necu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:abf51850-fa56-42e5...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Vanny
dephenoxylate - an opiod (see the pethidine family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Opioids ) and atropine sulfate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomotil
Lomotil is not marketed in some countries including Germany.
I suggest that you do your own research before posting to ensure the
usefulness of your posts and to prevent misleading other especially newbies.
Vanny
"anon" <shopa...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:A-OdnavF4bIqmLLV...@earthlink.com...
CrohnsMom
I live in FL and know where this is compounded-the owner swears it
"cures" crohn's. He sells it mostly to MS patients and has quite a
following of people in California trying it. I too am skeptical but if
you are interested his name is skips pharmacy in boca raton. The LDN
is very inexpensive there. The only side effect I have heard of is
insomnia. Good luck
anon
called attention to an article in the the American Journal of
Gastroenterology by a dedicated, trained medical specialist--a journal and a
doctor with impeccable credentials--unlike you, who have no professional
credentials of any kind. Unlike you, I expressed no opinions, nor did I
attempt to make any authoritative evaluations. I made no claim for the
treatment but merely informed people on the newsgroup of its existence and
asked if anyone had had any experiences with it.
In addition, I made no definitive claim that Lomotil is or is not an
opioid--I did a bit of cursory research but the sources I consulted were
inconclusive--notice I wrote the very qualified, "From what I can tell,
Lomotil is not, but I'm not sure about this," and I invited someone with
more knowledge to verify this issue. How could that possibly mislead anyone
with normal powers of reading comprehension?
Moreover, many people with Crohn's do not take either Lomotil or
Imodium to control diarrhea, and so the LDN treatment might be beneficial to
many readers of the newsgroup. Finally, no one has produced any conclusive,
authoritative evidence from a recognized authority that such low doses of
Naltrexone would interfere with the effect of Lomotil or Imodium--only
hearsay from someone purported to work at a clinic, not a definitive
judgment from a recognized authority. You are obviously no authority of any
kind--neither a pharmacist nor a gastroenterologist-much less a renowned
research specialist in either area--so your inferences based on cursory
Interntet searches--hardly a substitute for four years of medical
school--are not to be taken very seriously. I suggest that you obtain a
degree in pharmacology and/or medicine before mounting your high horse and
presuming to lecture well-intentioned posters about what they should or
shouldn't post about, especially since your opinions are worth no more than
those of any other rabid dilettante. It is you, with your sense of heated
certitude--in the absence of any qualifications--who are likely to mislead
the unwary, not people who post in a spirit of modest inquiry.
I'm no professional either, but I do have a medical suggestion for you
anyway: Why don't you try taking a nice pill--that would probably do you
more good than a whole barrel of LDN, Lomotil, and Imodium.
Have a nice day, Mr. Not-a-Doctor-Even-Though-I-Pop-Off-Like-One-Vanny.
"Vanny" <Vanny...@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:g0nlm2$8vj$1...@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
Doc
news:-bmdnUhEYsdjAbLV...@earthlink.com:
> I made no claims about anything when posting to this group. I
> merely
> called attention to an article in the the American Journal of
> Gastroenterology by a dedicated, trained medical specialist--a journal
> and a doctor with impeccable credentials--unlike you, who have no
> professional credentials of any kind. Unlike you, I expressed no
> opinions, nor did I attempt to make any authoritative evaluations. I
> made no claim for the treatment but merely informed people on the
> newsgroup of its existence and asked if anyone had had any experiences
> with it.
The PubMed article states:
-=-
CONCLUSIONS: LDN therapy appears effective and safe in subjects with active
Crohn's disease. Further studies are needed to explore the use of this
compound.
-=-
What can we infer from this? That it is safe to take, but that is ALL we
can infer from the abstract. There are no treatments yet.
> In addition, I made no definitive claim that Lomotil is or is not
> an
> opioid--I did a bit of cursory research but the sources I consulted
> were inconclusive--notice I wrote the very qualified, "From what I can
> tell, Lomotil is not, but I'm not sure about this," and I invited
> someone with more knowledge to verify this issue. How could that
> possibly mislead anyone with normal powers of reading comprehension?
And that question was answered. But you seem to have an issue with the
answer?
> Moreover, many people with Crohn's do not take either Lomotil or
> Imodium to control diarrhea, and so the LDN treatment might be
> beneficial to many readers of the newsgroup. Finally, no one has
I'd like to see the research that supports that statement.
> produced any conclusive, authoritative evidence from a recognized
> authority that such low doses of Naltrexone would interfere with the
> effect of Lomotil or Imodium--only hearsay from someone purported to
> work at a clinic, not a definitive judgment from a recognized
> authority. You are obviously no authority of any kind--neither a
> pharmacist nor a gastroenterologist-much less a renowned research
> specialist in either area--so your inferences based on cursory
> Interntet searches--hardly a substitute for four years of medical
> school--are not to be taken very seriously. I suggest that you obtain
> a degree in pharmacology and/or medicine before mounting your high
> horse and presuming to lecture well-intentioned posters about what
> they should or shouldn't post about, especially since your opinions
> are worth no more than those of any other rabid dilettante. It is you,
> with your sense of heated certitude--in the absence of any
> qualifications--who are likely to mislead the unwary, not people who
> post in a spirit of modest inquiry.
> I'm no professional either, but I do have a medical suggestion for
Since you are not a medical professional, take your own advice. A
websearch (which is what you presented) are hardly a substitute for real
information. You presented two sources. One that states that the drug in
question is safe for people with active Crohn's (no specifics on what
drugs/interactions) and one that promotes LDN as a treatment for the
disease (and many others) without any scientific backing. I checked the
links, the drug isn't even into Phase II trials yet. The doctor is still
looking for people to be part of the trial.
There is no information which states that Naltrexone would not interfere
with an opiate, and by the nature of the drug (an opiate inhibitor) it will
interfere with opiates since that is what it is designed for. There is
evidence, which you stated, that it does interfere.
As for the "someone purported to work at a clinic" comment, that is a bit
rude. That is, to the person who posted it at least, an authorative
comment. It is their doctor who told them this.
> you
> anyway: Why don't you try taking a nice pill--that would probably do
> you more good than a whole barrel of LDN, Lomotil, and Imodium.
> Have a nice day, Mr.
> Not-a-Doctor-Even-Though-I-Pop-Off-Like-One-Vanny.
And what are you coming off as?
Your attitude suggests that you have a preconceived notion and will not
accept ANY opinions or evidence to the contrary.
For the record:
Yes, LDN will have an effect on people who are on Opiates.
-=-
One contraindication to the use of low dose naltrexone is if the patient is
receiving opioid narcotics for pain (painkillers, such as codeine,
morphine, Demerol or the Duragesic patch). In such a case, the effect of
low dose naltrexone is lost and it may interfere with the pain reducing
effects of the opioid narcotic. Also, a patient on opioids may experience
withdrawal symptoms if he starts the naltrexone treatment. A patient on
opioids must be taken off these drugs by tapering them down, prior to
beginning low dose naltrexone.
-=- http://www.mbschachter.com/protocol_for_low.htm
-=-
LDN blocks the opiate receptor for approximately 4 hours. This intermittent
blockade causes a rebound effect resulting in a dramatic increase in
endogenous opiate production.
-=-
http://autoimmunedisease.suite101.com/article.cfm/benefits_of_low_dose_nalt
rexone
-=-
Because LDN blocks opioid receptors throughout the body for three or four
hours, people using narcotics pain pills such as Ultram (tramadol),
morphine, Percocet, Duragesic, Oxycontin or codeine, should not take LDN
until after complete withdrawal from their narcotic drugs. The use of LDN
may induce narcotics withdrawal.
-=- http://jeffreydach.com/2007/08/01/low-dose-nalotrexone-ldn-by-jeffrey-
dach-md.aspx
As Vanny mentioned, you might want to do some research before posting.
anon
notwithstanding--beware newbies and others easily misled by unscrupulous
nicknames!). I'll answer your points one by one:
"Doc" <d...@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote > The PubMed article states:
> -=-
> CONCLUSIONS: LDN therapy appears effective and safe in subjects with
> active
> Crohn's disease. Further studies are needed to explore the use of this
> compound.
> -=-
> What can we infer from this? That it is safe to take, but that is ALL we
> can infer from the abstract. There are no treatments yet.
RESPONSE TO "DOC" (who is not a doctor):
We need not INFER anything. The abstract STATES OUTRIGHT that "LDN therapy
appears EFFECTIVE and safe in subjects with active Crohn's disease." Plain
English. Surely you can read, Doc? Can you read the following, which you
somehow failed to quote:
"Eighty-nine percent of patients exhibited a response to therapy and 67%
achieved a remission (P < 0.001). Improvement was recorded in both quality
of life surveys with LDN compared with baseline." What can you INFER from
those facts and figures? (Play Jeopardy waiting music here.)
"Doc" (who is not a doctor) wrote:
> And that question was answered. But you seem to have an issue with the
> answer?
That was not the issue. First of all, the question was NOT answered. Lanny
has no clue about whether the tiny doses involved with LDN really interfere
with the effectiveness of either Lomotil or Imodium--he produced no studies
or documentation to this effect. The issue was thatLanny accused me of
potentially misleading people when I made no categorical statements--in
fact, carefully hedged my statements on this issue and invited further
verification--the responsible thing to do, unlike Lanny's purveying of
categorical judgments for which he has no documentary evidence (in the
specific case of LDN and lomotil and imodium. Clear enough, "Doc"?
"Doc" (who is not a doctor) wrote:
>> Moreover, many people with Crohn's do not take either Lomotil or
>> Imodium to control diarrhea, and so the LDN treatment might be
>> beneficial to many readers of the newsgroup. Finally, no one has
>
> I'd like to see the research that supports that statement.
RESPONSE TO "DOC" (who is not a doc):
Sheesh, Doc--maybe you need to be treated not for Crohn's but for short-term
memory loss. Here's the evidence, AGAIN, from the Penn State study:
""Eighty-nine percent of patients exhibited a response to therapy and 67%
achieved a remission (P < 0.001). Improvement was recorded in both quality
of life surveys with LDN compared with baseline." From which the GI research
physician (a REAL "Doc") who conducted the study concluded, "LDN therapy
appears effective and safe in subjects with active Crohn's disease." So,
"Doc," you said you'd like to see the research--and now you have, TWICE in
the same post, no less? Think you'll retain it this time?
> > Since you are not a medical professional, take your own advice. A
> websearch (which is what you presented) are hardly a substitute for real
> information. You presented two sources. One that states that the drug in
> question is safe for people with active Crohn's (no specifics on what
> drugs/interactions) and one that promotes LDN as a treatment for the
> disease (and many others) without any scientific backing. I checked the
> links, the drug isn't even into Phase II trials yet. The doctor is still
> looking for people to be part of the trial.
I never stated that LDN IS a proven remedy for Crohn's--here's what I wrote:
"LDN treatment might be beneficial to many readers of this group."
That's MIGHT BE, as in NOT CERTAIN, but POSSIBLE. Again--carefully
hedged. You really seem to have a serious reading-comprehension problem.
Doc (Who is not a doctor) wrote:
> There is no information which states that Naltrexone would not interfere
> with an opiate, and by the nature of the drug (an opiate inhibitor) it
> will
> interfere with opiates since that is what it is designed for. There is
> evidence, which you stated, that it does interfere.
There is no documentation that LOW-DOSE Naltrexone--in this case, ONE-TENTH
of the normal dose,
would interfere with the workings of lomotil or imodium. No authoritative
source has made such a claim.
Doc (who is not a doctor) wrote:
> As for the "someone purported to work at a clinic" comment, that is a bit
> rude. That is, to the person who posted it at least, an authorative
> comment. It is their doctor who told them this.
RESPONSE:
A doctor working at a local clinic cannot be considered an authoritative
source for
this matter. This doctor is not a researcher or a published, recognized
authority
from a university hospital. Moreover, the opinion was reported by hearsay,
not by
direct experience--double jeopardy. For someone who is so big on hard
evidence,
you seem rather lenient--lax, really--in this case. Tsk, tsk.
Doc (who is not a doctor) wrote:
> And what are you coming off as?
>
> Your attitude suggests that you have a preconceived notion and will not
> accept ANY opinions or evidence to the contrary.
RESPONSE:
I have NO preconceived notions about anything. I have made ZERO categorical
statements about anything. Echoing an authoritative study from the country's
leading medical journal on gastroenterology, I merely stated that the
treatement
MIGHT BE beneficial--which is a more hedged formulation than the one
contained
in the report itself, which, to repeat for the third time, states:
"LDN therapy appears effective and safe in subjects with active
> Crohn's disease."
Doc (who is not a doctor) wrote:
> For the record:
>
> Yes, LDN will have an effect on people who are on Opiates.
>
> -=-
> One contraindication to the use of low dose naltrexone is if the patient
> is
> receiving opioid narcotics for pain (painkillers, such as codeine,
> morphine, Demerol or the Duragesic patch). In such a case, the effect of
> low dose naltrexone is lost and it may interfere with the pain reducing
> effects of the opioid narcotic. Also, a patient on opioids may experience
> withdrawal symptoms if he starts the naltrexone treatment. A patient on
> opioids must be taken off these drugs by tapering them down, prior to
> beginning low dose naltrexone.
> -=- http://www.mbschachter.com/protocol_for_low.htm
>
RESPONSE:
Doc--who is clearly not a doctor nor even someone with rudimentary powers of
reading comprehension)
quotes a report that refers to POWERFUL OPIOID NARCOTICS such as codeine,
morphin, Demerol, and Duragesic. Not ONE WORD about lomotil or imodium.
I'd like to see hard evidence on such an interaction, "Doc," but you have
failed to provide any. And
your tendency to misread, misquote, and misinterpret ensures that no one
will repose any confidence
in your ability to find any.
Doc (who is not a doctor--and probably not even a college graduate, I'll
bet) wrote:
> As Vanny mentioned, you might want to do some research before posting.
\
RESPONSE:
Research? I'm the only one in this exchange who quoted an authoritative
medical-research
study that was ON-TOPIC. Moreover, I ventured NO categorical opinions on ANY
matter. By contrast, you and Vanny, both untrained in any health field (and
probably
not even a college degree in your case, judging by the crude tone of your
posts), make
categorical statements about drug interactions about which your have
produced NO
SPECIFIC studies and about which you are unqualified to make any inferences
from
the studies you do quote, which pertain to drugs other than the ones in
question.
Have a nice day.
Vanny
that one again.
I wouldn't bother answering the poster if I was you. There appears to be
something amiss - one wave short of a shipwreck sort of thing.
Vanny
"Doc" <d...@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns9AA263DD...@216.168.3.44...
Debs
sister really, the anti-depress/mind chick, the multi enzyme guy and the
shoe guy, etc... Now he's the politeness police and doing exactly what
he accuses me of doing, somehow he knows if people have strictures or
not without asking them. This is why I don't post here too often. Too
many crazy, dangerous ideas put forth by folks with their own agenda
which doesn't include helping others. Every so often I just can't take
it any more and... I use bad words... OH MY!!
Debs
anon
We all breathlessly await the documentation of your 100-percent
undocumented--and therefore completely irresponsible claim--that there is an
interaction problem between the SPECIFIC DOSE of LDN indicated in the Penn
State Crohn's study and lomotil and/or imodium. So far all you have managed
to produce is a personal insult and talk of "killfiles"--personal nastiness
and sticking your head in the and when someone calls you out as a pompous
fraud. Sorry, but the truth is the truth, flattering or not.
"Vanny" <Vanny...@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:g0pufs$nic$1...@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
anon
people. Talk about chutzpah!
I notice that she jumped in this thread to join in the frenzy of insult and
abuse--her specialties, evidently--without adding a syllable on the topic at
issue. It takes all kinds.
"Debs" <YOURFOOT...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:69bdktF...@mid.individual.net...
anon
place where I imputed a stricture to anyone, as you did to that poster on
whom you piled your fetid heap of verbal abuse.
I'm sorry that the idea of politeness sends you into such paroxysms of
disgust. Nice hierarchy of values, there. As a "research scientist," your
main concern should be Vanny's irresponsible tossing around of generalities
and conclusions for which he provides no documentary evidence. But you're
not out here for the issues--you're out here for blood sport--a sociopath
referring OTHERS for psychiatric treatment--IMAGINE THAT!
"Debs" <YOURFOOT...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:69bdktF...@mid.individual.net...
Doc
news:gcWdnef7AMwr-63V...@earthlink.com:
> Dear "Doc" (who is also not a trained health professional, his
> nickname notwithstanding--beware newbies and others easily misled by
> unscrupulous nicknames!). I'll answer your points one by one:
>
> "Doc" <d...@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote > The PubMed article states:
>> -=-
>> CONCLUSIONS: LDN therapy appears effective and safe in subjects with
>> active
>> Crohn's disease. Further studies are needed to explore the use of
>> this compound.
>> -=-
>> What can we infer from this? That it is safe to take, but that is
>> ALL we can infer from the abstract. There are no treatments yet.
>
> RESPONSE TO "DOC" (who is not a doctor):
Actually I do have a doctorate, but am not a health professional
> We need not INFER anything. The abstract STATES OUTRIGHT that "LDN
> therapy appears EFFECTIVE and safe in subjects with active Crohn's
> disease." Plain English. Surely you can read, Doc? Can you read the
> following, which you somehow failed to quote:
It also states "Further studies are needed to explore the use of this
compound."
> "Eighty-nine percent of patients exhibited a response to therapy and
> 67% achieved a remission (P < 0.001). Improvement was recorded in both
> quality of life surveys with LDN compared with baseline." What can you
> INFER from those facts and figures? (Play Jeopardy waiting music
> here.)
In a case study of 17 people. But then, that is just the information in
the abstract, and is not the conclusion of the article. Without the entire
article, little more can be discussed regarding these people.
We can just go on the conclusion. That more study is needed.
> "Doc" (who is not a doctor) wrote:
>> And that question was answered. But you seem to have an issue with
>> the answer?
>
> That was not the issue. First of all, the question was NOT answered.
> Lanny has no clue about whether the tiny doses involved with LDN
> really interfere with the effectiveness of either Lomotil or
> Imodium--he produced no studies or documentation to this effect. The
> issue was thatLanny accused me of potentially misleading people when I
> made no categorical statements--in fact, carefully hedged my
> statements on this issue and invited further verification--the
> responsible thing to do, unlike Lanny's purveying of categorical
> judgments for which he has no documentary evidence (in the specific
> case of LDN and lomotil and imodium. Clear enough, "Doc"?
First, it is Vanny.
Second, the post you made stated:
> "anon" <shopa...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:A-OdnavF4bIqmLLV...@earthlink.com...
>> Hi--
>> Imodium is an opiod--but is Lomotil? From what I can tell, Lomotil is
>> not,
>> but I'm not sure about this. Please verify if you can. Thanks.
And Vanny replied:
"Vanny" <Vanny...@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:g0nlm2$8vj$1...@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
> Lomotil (aka Lofene, Logen, Lomanate and Lonox, etc.) is made up of
> dephenoxylate - an opiod (see the pethidine family
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Opioids ) and atropine sulfate.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomotil
Which I think answered your question.
>
> "Doc" (who is not a doctor) wrote:
Do you Stutter? Hm.
Maybe I should look the fool as well and do the same to you.
Or not.
>>> Moreover, many people with Crohn's do not take either Lomotil
>>> or
>>> Imodium to control diarrhea, and so the LDN treatment might be
>>> beneficial to many readers of the newsgroup. Finally, no one has
>>
>> I'd like to see the research that supports that statement.
>
> RESPONSE TO "DOC" (who is not a doc):
> Sheesh, Doc--maybe you need to be treated not for Crohn's but for
> short-term memory loss. Here's the evidence, AGAIN, from the Penn
> State study: ""Eighty-nine percent of patients exhibited a response to
> therapy and 67% achieved a remission (P < 0.001). Improvement was
> recorded in both quality of life surveys with LDN compared with
> baseline." From which the GI research physician (a REAL "Doc") who
> conducted the study concluded, "LDN therapy appears effective and safe
> in subjects with active Crohn's disease." So, "Doc," you said you'd
> like to see the research--and now you have, TWICE in the same post, no
> less? Think you'll retain it this time?
I'd still like to see the research I asked you for. I responded, inline,
to your statement that many people with Crohn's don't take either Lomotil
or Imodium to control diarrhea. Your "answer" doesn't address that.
>> > Since you are not a medical professional, take your own advice. A
>> websearch (which is what you presented) are hardly a substitute for
>> real information. You presented two sources. One that states that
>> the drug in question is safe for people with active Crohn's (no
>> specifics on what drugs/interactions) and one that promotes LDN as a
>> treatment for the disease (and many others) without any scientific
>> backing. I checked the links, the drug isn't even into Phase II
>> trials yet. The doctor is still looking for people to be part of the
>> trial.
>
> I never stated that LDN IS a proven remedy for Crohn's--here's what I
> wrote:
>
> "LDN treatment might be beneficial to many readers of this group."
>
> That's MIGHT BE, as in NOT CERTAIN, but POSSIBLE. Again--carefully
> hedged. You really seem to have a serious reading-comprehension
> problem.
How can you even suggest it might be beneficial without knowing anything
about it? There isn't even an LDN treatment yet...
And nowhere did I say you claimed it was a remedy, or that it was proven.
I just pointed out there isn't even any treatment available yet. So
presenting this to the group is kind of odd, isn't it? How can something
be beneficial when we don't even know anything about it yet?
> Doc (Who is not a doctor) wrote:
>> There is no information which states that Naltrexone would not
>> interfere with an opiate, and by the nature of the drug (an opiate
>> inhibitor) it will
>> interfere with opiates since that is what it is designed for. There
>> is evidence, which you stated, that it does interfere.
>
> There is no documentation that LOW-DOSE Naltrexone--in this case,
> ONE-TENTH of the normal dose,
> would interfere with the workings of lomotil or imodium. No
> authoritative source has made such a claim.
Other than the sources I listed at the bottom of my post. All Doctors.
> Doc (who is not a doctor) wrote:
>> As for the "someone purported to work at a clinic" comment, that is a
>> bit rude. That is, to the person who posted it at least, an
>> authorative comment. It is their doctor who told them this.
>
> RESPONSE:
> A doctor working at a local clinic cannot be considered an
> authoritative source for
> this matter. This doctor is not a researcher or a published,
> recognized authority
> from a university hospital. Moreover, the opinion was reported by
> hearsay, not by
> direct experience--double jeopardy. For someone who is so big on hard
> evidence,
> you seem rather lenient--lax, really--in this case. Tsk, tsk.
So, doctors aren't authorative sources?
Kind of blows your source then. The doctor who did the trial you are
pointing to is a teacher at a university who also does research.
But then as I said, I am sure it is authorative to the person whose doctor
this is.
> Doc (who is not a doctor) wrote:
> > And what are you coming off as?
>>
>> Your attitude suggests that you have a preconceived notion and will
>> not accept ANY opinions or evidence to the contrary.
>
> RESPONSE:
>
> I have NO preconceived notions about anything. I have made ZERO
> categorical statements about anything. Echoing an authoritative study
> from the country's leading medical journal on gastroenterology, I
> merely stated that the treatement
> MIGHT BE beneficial--which is a more hedged formulation than the one
> contained
> in the report itself, which, to repeat for the third time, states:
>
> "LDN therapy appears effective and safe in subjects with active
>> Crohn's disease."
Wonderful. It appears effective and safe. But we need to study it further
to find out if it actually does anything. This is important?
> Doc (who is not a doctor) wrote:
>> For the record:
>>
>> Yes, LDN will have an effect on people who are on Opiates.
>>
>> -=-
>> One contraindication to the use of low dose naltrexone is if the
>> patient is
>> receiving opioid narcotics for pain (painkillers, such as codeine,
>> morphine, Demerol or the Duragesic patch). In such a case, the
>> effect of low dose naltrexone is lost and it may interfere with the
>> pain reducing effects of the opioid narcotic. Also, a patient on
>> opioids may experience withdrawal symptoms if he starts the
>> naltrexone treatment. A patient on opioids must be taken off these
>> drugs by tapering them down, prior to beginning low dose naltrexone.
>> -=- http://www.mbschachter.com/protocol_for_low.htm
>>
> RESPONSE:
>
> Doc--who is clearly not a doctor nor even someone with rudimentary
> powers of reading comprehension)
> quotes a report that refers to POWERFUL OPIOID NARCOTICS such as
> codeine, morphin, Demerol, and Duragesic. Not ONE WORD about lomotil
> or imodium. I'd like to see hard evidence on such an interaction,
> "Doc," but you have failed to provide any. And
> your tendency to misread, misquote, and misinterpret ensures that no
> one will repose any confidence
> in your ability to find any.
3 different sources which all indicate that there are difficulties with
opiates and this drug at these levels. And that was just off the first
page of the search site.
Why don't you do some research before you post. Maybe even some that
supports your opinion.
> Doc (who is not a doctor--and probably not even a college graduate,
> I'll bet) wrote:
Funny. Stooping to attacks on me because you realize you can't argue with
the sources I quoted or the information I stated.
>> As Vanny mentioned, you might want to do some research before
>> posting.
> \
> RESPONSE:
> Research? I'm the only one in this exchange who quoted an
> authoritative medical-research
> study that was ON-TOPIC. Moreover, I ventured NO categorical opinions
> on ANY matter. By contrast, you and Vanny, both untrained in any
> health field (and probably
> not even a college degree in your case, judging by the crude tone of
> your posts), make
> categorical statements about drug interactions about which your have
> produced NO
> SPECIFIC studies and about which you are unqualified to make any
> inferences from
> the studies you do quote, which pertain to drugs other than the ones
> in question.
>
> Have a nice day.
You quoted a single piece of research. Research at a Phase I level, which
proved nothing other than more research is nescessary. Research being done
by one doctor at one University. A doctor who typically researches cancers
of the GI tract.
Sorry, I don't agree that this means much. If there were more studies
being done, more had been done, some meaningful results... then maybe. But
with as little as has been done and reported on, not really a meaningful
bit of information.
Doc
news:g0pufs$nic$1...@newsreader2.netcologne.de:
> Another one for the kill-file bin. At least I don't have to waste my
> time on that one again.
>
> I wouldn't bother answering the poster if I was you. There appears to
> be something amiss - one wave short of a shipwreck sort of thing.
>
> Vanny
Actually, I am suspecting this is someone who has been here before to stir
up problems. There are aspects of the style which seem familiar.
I might kill-file them. Or ignore, but that's hard to do sometimes when
such utter manure is being spread.
I just don't use a killfile, often.
anon
You said you wanted to see evidence that LDN MIGHT help people with Crohn's.
I provided very authoritative evidence to that effect. You claimed that I
had provided no evidence. The Penn State study concludes that LDN is
effective for TREATING CROHN's.
Vanny showed that Lomotil is an opioid. He has yet to provide a scintilla of
evidence that the very LOW DOSE in LDN inhibits the effectiveness of,
specifically, lomotil or imodium. Yet you support Vanny's CATEGORICAL claims
in the absence of any SPECIFIC documentation, whereas you attempt to cast
doubt on HEDGED claims that are based on an AUTHORITATIVE STUDY published in
the world's leading scientific journal on gastroenterology. A gross
hypocrisy on your part.
Many people with IBD do not have diarrhea and hence to not use either
lomotil or imodium. Many do have diarrhea, many don't. It is a common but
not universal symptom. If you don't know this, then you are just plain
ignorant and should not presume to post here.
Not every doctor is an authority on everything. You claim to be a stickler
for documentation but then accept the hearsay--not direct--report of what a
clinic doctor said on this subject--not the opinion, much less the written
study, of an authority in pharmacology or gastroenterology. So you're a
complete hypocrite again here.
You're also a complete hypocrite on the question of comportment as well.
When Debs doled out her vomitorium of abuse initially, you said not a word.
When someone called her on it, you rose to the defense of her repugnant
behavior. Third strike of hypocrisy.
So we see three major examples of hypocrisy on your part: on the question:
two on the question of evidence (rejecting authoritative evidence that is
inconvenient for your personal prejudices, but accepting nonexistent
evidence proffered by your friends (Vanny's UTTER LACK of evidence that LDN
interferes with, specifically, lomotil or imodium, and accepting hearsay
from a nonauthoritative source.)
What do these three hypocrisies add up to? That you are not remotely serious
about thinking rationally and arriving at an approximation of the truth--but
you are concerned, rather, to defend your pals, even if it means making a
joke of your claim to insist on rigorous documentation and even if it means
defending abominable behavior. Your orientation here is not to help or to
inform but to feel part of a clique. It's so . . . HIGH SCHOOL.
And if you don't like trouble on this group, don't get involved in threads
for such obviously petty personal reasons, and don't defend your pals'
disgusting abuse of other posters. Be a man. Stand on your own, "Doc" (who
is not a doctor or even very intelligent, by the looks of things.)
Doc
news:CO2dnf2wY-J5B63V...@earthlink.com:
> Doc--
> You said you wanted to see evidence that LDN MIGHT help people with
> Crohn's. I provided very authoritative evidence to that effect. You
> claimed that I had provided no evidence. The Penn State study
> concludes that LDN is effective for TREATING CROHN's.
In what way is it effective?
How long do the effects last.
How long will treatment be nescessary?
ALL you have shown is one study that indicates it could be effective but
needs more study. That is all that study says, you seem to be reading
more into it than what is posted.
> Vanny showed that Lomotil is an opioid. He has yet to provide a
> scintilla of evidence that the very LOW DOSE in LDN inhibits the
> effectiveness of, specifically, lomotil or imodium. Yet you support
> Vanny's CATEGORICAL claims in the absence of any SPECIFIC
> documentation, whereas you attempt to cast doubt on HEDGED claims that
> are based on an AUTHORITATIVE STUDY published in the world's leading
> scientific journal on gastroenterology. A gross hypocrisy on your
> part.
I posted 3 articles, by doctors, who have shown that LDN does interact
with opiates. That is cited in all 3 articles I posted links to. How
many do I need to produce? You haven't cited one article that indicates
it doesn't have any effect.
In fact, the article you keep going back to doesn't even mention opiate
use by any of the subjects.
> Many people with IBD do not have diarrhea and hence to not use either
> lomotil or imodium. Many do have diarrhea, many don't. It is a common
> but not universal symptom. If you don't know this, then you are just
> plain ignorant and should not presume to post here.
Many do but many don't? Could you possibly get any more general or
vague.
Diarrhea is a very universal symptom of IBD.
-=-
Crohn's disease can cause a variety of symptoms of gastrointestinal
distress. The three classic (though not specific) symptoms of
inflammatory bowel disease are:
* Persistent or recurrent diarrhea (possibly with blood, mucus, or pus)
-=- http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/crohnsdisease/CD_symptoms.html
-=-
Common symptoms of Crohn's disease include abdominal pain, diarrhea, and
weight loss.
-=- http://www.medicinenet.com/crohns_disease/page3.htm#toce
-=-
Signs and symptoms
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Illustration showing digestive tract Crohn's disease
Signs and symptoms of Crohn's disease can range from mild to severe and
may develop gradually or come on suddenly, without warning. They
include:
* Diarrhea. The inflammation that occurs in Crohn's disease causes
cells in the affected areas of your intestine to secrete large amounts
of water and salt. Because the colon can't completely absorb this excess
fluid, you develop diarrhea. Intensified intestinal cramping also can
contribute to loose stools. In mild cases, stools may simply be looser
or more frequent than usual. But people with severe disease may have
dozens of bowel movements a day, affecting both sleep and ordinary
activities.
-=- http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/crohns-disease/DS00104/DSECTION=2
> Not every doctor is an authority on everything. You claim to be a
> stickler for documentation but then accept the hearsay--not
> direct--report of what a clinic doctor said on this subject--not the
> opinion, much less the written study, of an authority in pharmacology
> or gastroenterology. So you're a complete hypocrite again here.
Show me the authority in pharmacology.
So far all you have quoted is a MD in gastroenterology.
As for the unnamed doctor, they are a doctor at an IBD clinic. While I
don't know the credentials, I do know they work in the field. The
statement is supported by the links I posted, plus numerous others.
> You're also a complete hypocrite on the question of comportment as
> well. When Debs doled out her vomitorium of abuse initially, you said
> not a word. When someone called her on it, you rose to the defense of
> her repugnant behavior. Third strike of hypocrisy.
Look in the mirror. If you had mentioned politeness, etc. then
continued on politely... I probably wouldn't have said a thing either.
But to lecture someone on politeness, then do the same or worse is
incredibly hypocritical. My skin is thick enough to weather some
colourful language and strong emotions. But hypocracy annoys me. You
don't like the way someone else posts, then post better.
> So we see three major examples of hypocrisy on your part: on the
> question: two on the question of evidence (rejecting authoritative
> evidence that is inconvenient for your personal prejudices, but
> accepting nonexistent evidence proffered by your friends (Vanny's
> UTTER LACK of evidence that LDN interferes with, specifically, lomotil
> or imodium, and accepting hearsay from a nonauthoritative source.)
>
> What do these three hypocrisies add up to? That you are not remotely
> serious about thinking rationally and arriving at an approximation of
> the truth--but you are concerned, rather, to defend your pals, even if
> it means making a joke of your claim to insist on rigorous
> documentation and even if it means defending abominable behavior. Your
> orientation here is not to help or to inform but to feel part of a
> clique. It's so . . . HIGH SCHOOL.
>
> And if you don't like trouble on this group, don't get involved in
> threads for such obviously petty personal reasons, and don't defend
> your pals' disgusting abuse of other posters. Be a man. Stand on your
> own, "Doc" (who is not a doctor or even very intelligent, by the looks
> of things.)
Again, you continue to prove that you are incapable of supporting your
previous posts or position. Instead you make attacks on me and the
other people who post. And you think I am juvenile.
It basically looks like this. You didn't like the way the discussion
went regarding LDN, you have no evidence that it won't interfere with
opiates, you can't point to a single treatment (which is what your first
posting mentioned, a treatment) and you won't even try to research your
end of the discussion. And to top it off, you appear to think that
proper and fruitful discussion is done by attacking the people who post.
I don't see where there is any further room for discussion then. You
have nothing except personal attacks. Nothing for us to discuss there.
anon
You have posted articles that state that REGULAR LARGE DOSES of Naltrexone
interact with UNSPECIFIED opioids, and you posted one doctor's opinion--not
a research article--that low-dose Naltrexone interacts with HIGHLY POTENT,
PSYCHOACTIVE opioids, but not necessarily lomotil or imodium, which are not
mentioned in that doctor's opinion. What you HAVE NOT produced is any
documentation SPECIFICALLY tying LDN to reduced effectivenes of,
specifically, lomotil and imodium.
As for the effectiveness of LDN in treating Crohn's--I never stated
categorically that it WOULD DEFINITELY help all or most people. I REPORTED
THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY A LEADING GI MEDICAL RESEARCHER, PUBLISHED IN the
world's MOST AUTHORITATIVE JOURNAL of gastroenterology, that is LIKELY to be
effective based on the sample of the study.
So . . . let's line up these two opinions:
1. FIVE leading gastroenterologists conduct a rigorous study at a major
university and publish their opinion, in the world's leading GI journal,
that "LDN therapy appears EFFECTIVE and safe in subjects with active
Crohn's disease."
2. "Doc"--a Usenet crank with no professional credentials in any healthcare
field and who intervenes on Usenet not to clarify points in good faith but
to defend his pals at all costs, even when they post vulgar abuse of other
posters--this "Doc" says "nay" to the conclusion of the world-class
gastroenterologists.
Let's see now, which opinion to trust . . . 1 or 2, 1 or 2. Hmmmm . . . I'm
stumped!
zumon...@yahoo.com
Doc wrote:
> Actually, I am suspecting this is someone who has been here before to stir
> up problems. There are aspects of the style which seem familiar.
I could be wrong but I think William (two monkeys) Kaufman is back.
No wonder the posts were so irrational and the poster took offense
with everyone who disagreed with him.
I hope you're doing well,
--
Luke
anon
persists unabated. Your double standards are truly appalling: If "Debs"
spews vulgarity and cruelty at a poster, that's fine; if someone objects,
it's not. If someone disagrees with everything I post, that's fine. If I
disagree with something, it's not. The criterion is clear: if someone is a
member of your clique, they're cool; if not, they're not. That's as
preadolescent callow as it gets. Seems like you never really got over high
school.
You might consider reading some of the great works of spiritual wisdom
and insight from various traditions: Vedanta, Buddhism, Kaballah, whatever.
They tap a common pool of ancient wisdom: the importance of compassion and
love, the destructive and corrosive effects of the kind of petty anger and
spite you so readily display and endorse in your clique-mates like Debs.
Your net contribution to human reality is to destroy kindness and compassion
and to exalt hatred and spite and cruelty. You should really reconsider your
entire spiritual orientation.
<zumon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5e368bee-95d0-4340...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Carole Allen
On Mon, 19 May 2008 21:05:58 -0400, "anon" <shopa...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
anon
robustly lining up in support of "Publicly ridicule and abuse the
emotionally disturbed Week." You must be SO PROUD of yourself!
"Carole Allen" <caro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:48323678...@news.individual.net...
Carole Allen
wrote:
>he he he... I have him in there with the bleu cheese guy, well his
>sister really, the anti-depress/mind chick, the multi enzyme guy and the
>shoe guy, etc... Now he's the politeness police and doing exactly what
>he accuses me of doing, somehow he knows if people have strictures or
>not without asking them. This is why I don't post here too often. Too
>many crazy, dangerous ideas put forth by folks with their own agenda
>which doesn't include helping others. Every so often I just can't take
>it any more and... I use bad words... OH MY!!
>
Ah, I kind of like the shoe guy!
Carole Allen
Dwight
> Well, if you aren't WK, you sure sound like him!
>
Thanks Carole, that's what I needed to hear. The last time I stepped in
the middle of it here it was WK that got me going. :)
Dwight
anon
you the latest spritually/morally bankrupt endorser of "Publicly Ridicule
and Abuse an Emotionally Disturbed Person Week"? Congratulations! Dive right
into the moral cesspool with your pals! The muck is fine! Ain't life great
as a herd animal?
"Dwight" <Dwight@not_real.com> wrote in message
news:%_qYj.9214$nl7....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
Dwight
Well "anon" if that is really your name. :) My name is Dwight Moore from
Texas. I'm a real person and I've been here off and on for a very long
time and I've never hidden my name. If you read my post you'll see that
I have never used abusive language in my warning against bad
information. William Kaufman is a person from a few years back, and for
all I know that may be you, I really don't care one way or the other. I
don't have anything against you, just people that propose cures that may
be harmful if taken seriously. If you are mad because I found it
humorous that someone would equate you to William Kaufman, that's your
problem not mine. Personally, I hope you have as good a life as you can
have, just as I do for everyone here. I also hope that you take any post
for a cure with a grain of salt, just as I do anyone here. I don't care
how the message is delivered as much as I care that no harm comes from
bad and thoughtless information.
Still Dwight after all these years and still hoping that one day there
will be a cure for all of life's illnesses.
anon
and abusive posts as you do in attacking the people who stand up to
them--whatever your name is. Now go read the Bible or something and
recalibrate your ethical priorities. This is a support group, not a playpen
for people like you with a blood-sport addiction.
"Dwight" <Dwight@not_real.com> wrote in message
news:LMrYj.9220$nl7....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
zumon...@yahoo.com
anon posts from shopa...@yahoo.com
In November 2005 shopa...@yahoo.com posted to this tabletop
baseball board under the nom de troll William Kaufman (http://
games.groups.yahoo.com/group/tabletopbaseball/messages/264)
In January 2006 someone posting under the name William Kaufman posted
about tabletop baseball in another forum (http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/
scripts/wa-PLUTO.exe?A2=ind0601E&L=STRAT-BB&T=0&F=&S=&P=57593) with a
posting style we've seen too many times.
anon wrote:
> No, I am not that person
I never said Willy was a person, he probably is but the ravings we
seen here could be produced by a Perl script. A small, badly coded
Perl script.
> , but your penchant for ugly personal insult
> persists unabated.
You got me here. Most people would consider being called or even
compared to “William Kaufman” an ugly insult.
>Your double standards are truly appalling: If "Debs"
> spews vulgarity and cruelty at a poster, that's fine; if someone objects,
> it's not.
This is why you sound like Willy, this rambling rant is pure
fantasy. If I thought you had a chance of understanding, I tell you
to read my post again; at no point did I defend Debs use of vulgar
language. Nor did I protest your objecting to her use of language. I
pointed out a few of the myriad errors your posts contain, and the
insults you made to many people giving specific examples.
>If someone disagrees with everything I post, that's fine. If I
> disagree with something, it's not. The criterion is clear: if someone is a
> member of your clique, they're cool; if not, they're not. That's as
> preadolescent callow as it gets. Seems like you never really got over high
> school.
Again more ranting about things that don't exist except in your
limited imagination. Sounds like Two Monkeys to me.
> Your net contribution to human reality is to destroy kindness and compassion
> and to exalt hatred and spite and cruelty. You should really reconsider your
> entire spiritual orientation.
See Willy, you're confused again. At no point did I support any of
your hatred, spite or cruelty.
--
Luke
Dwight
Last time for the night. Anon, I have never attacked you and never will.
I have only wished the best for you. The only thing I have attacked is
bad information that can be harmful. I didn't even attack the OP. To
make it as clear as I possibly can at this time I have stated that (1) I
would rather have a warning with abusive language over no warning and
(2) there are times when abusive language would be more effective than a
polite warning. Make of it what you will, you don't need my permission.
Dwight
Dwight
Thanks Luke. You made my night. Good night one and all.
Dwight
Vanny
Do NOT use Naltrexone if:
a.. you are allergic to any ingredient in Naltrexone
b.. you are taking narcotic medications for pain, are dependent on
narcotics, are experiencing withdrawal symptoms from narcotics, have failed
the challenge test with Naltrexone , or have tested positive for narcotics
c.. you have hepatitis, liver failure, or liver disease
Contact your doctor or health care provider right away if any of these apply
to you.
"Vanny" <Vanny...@antispam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:g0j9ml$4o1$1...@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
> No good for anyone who is on opiods
> http://www.drugs.com/search.php?searchterm=Naltrexone&is_main_search=1 ,
> such as Loperamide (aka Imodium), Codeine, Tincture of Opium (aka
> Laudanum) or opiod painkillers, such as Oxycodone, Tramadol, Morphine,
> etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Opioids
>
> Vanny
>
> "anon" <shopa...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:6t6dnR0_xuJAabHV...@earthlink.com...
>>A friend recently alerted me to the fact that low-dose Naltrexone (LDN)
>>shows promise as an effective treatment for Crohn's disease. The home page
>>for information about this treatment is as follows:'
>>
>> http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/
>>
>> Lest people think that this is just another example of
>> alternative-medecine quackery, the page features a report of a
>> scientifically sound study done last year at Penn State University--and
>> reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology--that reported
>> success in a limited trial of this treatment. Here's a link to an
>> abstract of that article:
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17222320
>>
>> Even if one wanted to try this treatment, there are two hurdles to
>> surmount: finding a doctor willing to prescribe this off-label use of the
>> drug, and finding a compounding pharmacist willing and able to make up
>> the uncharacteristically low dose. If anyone out there has tried this
>> treatment, please post your experiences. Thanks.
>>
>
>
Vanny
spot of diarrhoea and discomfort. It is these people that tend to push
treatments, particularly if they have written a book or have merchandise to
off-load - note that they do not suffer from IBD (not to be confused with
IBS) themselves.
There is no cure for Crohn's and anyone in the USA or wanting to market in
the USA who claims that their product is a 'cure' will be jumped on from a
high height by the FDA, sent a warning letter and probably fined. It can
even result in their establishment (shop, pharmaceutical company, etc.)
being closed down or their license to otherwise trade taken from them.
There are a number of factors involved in someone reacting strongly to the
trigger word 'cure', these include:
1) There is no cure. We know this. We have done the research. We are the
living experiments. There are one or two patients who are lucky enough to
just have a single flare in their lives, but this is the absolute minority
of the Crohn's population. There is no literature on Crohn's and Naltrexone
to indicate that the latter is a cure, but there is preliminary evidence to
indicate that it might help mild to moderate Crohn's cases to achieve
remission as an adjunct therapy to their current treatment, but this does
not including concomitant treatment with Remicade and opioid
narcotics/painkillers.
2) People trivialising our condition. Crohn's is not a trivial disease - it
can be life-threatening particularly in children (because they can't express
themselves as most adults can and often their parents are in denial), the
newly diagnosed (because they haven't learnt enough about the disease and
how to manage the doctors and demand treatment) and those resistant to
current therapies (self-explanatory). There are enough case studies on the
internet to underpin this. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001576/
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=Crohn%27s+patient+stories&meta=
3) People patronising us. Healthy people that appear and tell us that we are
making ourselves ill because we are not taking some or other preparation, or
not buying their book, or following their diet or drug or lifestyle regime,
are ignorant and patronising and potentially endangering naive patients'
lives. This, understandably, gets our backs up, as we try and protect our
own kind. Genetics, i.e. dodgy genes, plays a significant part in this
disease, not lack of light or vegetables or good air or wearing ill-fitting
shoes or telepathic transmission of bad Crohn's inducing vibes from
stimulant users.
4) Conmerchants trying to part us from our money. Chronically ill patients
are very vulnerable and there are a lot of charlatans who try to exploit
this. The majority of us are super-sensitised to this because we know we are
vulnerable, some of us have been conned and most of us are not in the
position to throw cash away as we are on state benefits or have lost our
jobs and are relying on our partners to support us.
I, for one, are fed up with laypeople coming up to me and telling me what to
do in order to regain my health. I have tried everything possible that I
can, obviously not starting a new treatment without the blessings of my
doctors. It is no fun to be chronically ill and we have certainly not
brought it upon ourselves. If anyone is to blame then I would blame my
parents for passing on dodgy genes, smoking and drinking alcohol, throughout
the pregnancy, doing drugs prior to conception (Who knows? It was the 60s),
etc., etc., etc.
If you are going to believe that someone down the road with a shop sells the
cure for Crohn's then by all means believe it, but do not put someone else's
life in danger, for example your child's by trying to force this belief on
them.
Never start a treatment without the doctor's permission - it could save your
life. If you don't have a good relationship with your doctor, then find a
new one and build up a trust relationship where you admit when you are not
compliant and be as open with him/her as you possibly can.
Vanny
"CrohnsMom" <pharma...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:82f46f55-669d-43a3...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 10:43 pm, "anon" <shopatho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A friend recently alerted me to the fact that low-dose Naltrexone (LDN)
>> shows promise as an effective treatment for Crohn's disease. The home
>> page
>> for information about this treatment is as follows:'
>>
>> http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/
>>
>> Lest people think that this is just another example of
>> alternative-medecine
>> quackery, the page features a report of a scientifically sound study done
>> last year at Penn State University--and reported in the American Journal
>> of
>> Gastroenterology--that reported success in a limited trial of this
>> treatment. Here's a link to an abstract of that article:
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17222320
>>
>> Even if one wanted to try this treatment, there are two hurdles to
>> surmount:
>> finding a doctor willing to prescribe this off-label use of the drug, and
>> finding a compounding pharmacist willing and able to make up the
>> uncharacteristically low dose. If anyone out there has tried this
>> treatment,
>> please post your experiences. Thanks.
>
> I live in FL and know where this is compounded-the owner swears it
> "cures" crohn's. He sells it mostly to MS patients and has quite a
> following of people in California trying it. I too am skeptical but if
> you are interested his name is skips pharmacy in boca raton. The LDN
> is very inexpensive there. The only side effect I have heard of is
> insomnia. Good luck
anon
Clouseau Usenet lunacy: Zumone at detective Javert. This is all ad hominem
irrelevancy. All anyone has to know is that zumone and the usual gang of
coconspirators have spent most ot he past few days ardently defending a post
that called someone else's views "bullshit" and recommended that he seek
psychiatric care. From this fact one can discern the ethical/spiritual
bankruptcy of the small crew of diseased Usenet addicts who dominate this
group.
Whether I am person A or person B is irrelevant--what's irrelevant is
that, on an unmoderated group like this, viciousness and psychosis are free
to roam at the expense of rationality and human decency--zumone and his pals
being people's exhibits A, B, C, and D--this same zumone who considers it an
act of valor to extoll someone else's cruelty and who was not even honest
enough to quote that person's entire remarks--especially her recommendation
that someone else seek psychiatric help--in his pathetic effort to suck up
to his fellow Usenet psychos.
<zumon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0c00ded3-4cd7-422c...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
anon
publicly delcared that he feels that abusive language is just fine-another
reason to cling to this demented credo.
As Shakespeare wrote, "What's in a name?" It's the ideas that count--and
zumone's and dwight's defense of vulgarity and abuse is truly sickening,
whether I'm Joe Shmo or Mork from Orc. Given their disgusting views, trolls
by any other names--not just Dwight and zumone--are just as sickening.news:hGsYj.2269$l97...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
anon
main interaction dangers to be aware of: regarding opioids:
- LDN will block only systemic narcotics (NOT imodium and lomotil), which
are taken simultaneously with LDN. LDN is taken at bedtime and is active for
only 4 hours or so.
anon
irrelevancy. No one in this thread has claimed that there is any cure for
Crohn's disease. The most that has been claimed--with extensive
documentation from the world's leading journal of gastroenterology--is that
LDN can be an effective TREATMENT for Crohn's. People who are intereted can
find out more about it for themselves.
Moreover, this Vanny--who holds no degree in any healthcare
field--ignorantly purveyed the idea that LDN will block the action of
lomotil or imodium. This is completely false. The truth is this:
- LDN will block only systemic narcotics, which are taken simultaneously
with LDN. LDN is taken at bedtime and is active for only 4 hours or so.
From this thread I hope people have learned two things: that, even
though there is no cure for Crohn's, LDN might prove to be a significantly
helpful treatment for some people; and that Vanny is an irresponsible,
pompous fraud.
mgbio
:) mgbio
anon
Dwight:
"there are times when abusive language would be more effective than a
polite warning"
No decent, rational human being would ever make or endorse such a statement.
Ergo . . . well, draw your own conclusions about Dwight.
Carole Allen
>
>Carole Allen wrote:
>> I am getting out my foil hat!
>>
>Now THAT is the best idea I've heard yet!
>
>:) mgbio
And I am going to stuff myself with virtual chocolate!
Rufus
...red wine. It's not for everybody, but it seems to be hitting the
spot for me tonight...
--
- Rufus
Doc
news:5e368bee-95d0-4340...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> Hi Doc,
>
> I hope you're doing well,
>
> --
> Luke
Actually, I am doing just fine. Life is a bit more stable than in the
past.
Debs
Debs
mgbio
:) mgbio
Kofi
<shopa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A friend recently alerted me to the fact that low-dose Naltrexone (LDN)
> shows promise as an effective treatment for Crohn's disease. The home
> page
> for information about this treatment is as follows:'
>
> http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/
LDN probably works by upregulating mu opioid receptor levels in the gut
and making up for defective gut flora and/or butyrate uptake. I've
posted on LDN before if you're interested in reading about it.
It's not "alternative" if it's actual medicine. "Alternative" is what
doctors sometimes label legitimate scientific research they can't be
bothered to read.
anon
State study and the numerous positive personal testimonies of users who have
posted on the Yahoogroups group devoted to LDN. The trick is to find an M.D.
who is willing to defy convention--and the pressures of Big Pharma--by
prescribing it.
"Kofi" <ko...@anon.un> wrote in message
news:kofi-FB6699.1...@news.east.earthlink.net...