I'd like to toss something out here (although I'm not 100% sure if this is the best thread to toss this idea around in... not that there's anything wrong with this thread. No, it is more a case of not wanting to inadvertantly hijack it, OK?). Anyway, here are the thoughts that crossed my mind. One of the key reasons I had when I plunged into trying LDN was that I was hoping it would prove itself to be 'safer' than the alternatives yet equally effective on the off chance that my children would develop IBD. I think any parent would understand that... no one wants to see their children bear this monster, plus with the heredity aspect, the guilt would kill me. So I did. And LDN did. But here's the thing... if I hadn't, and I was reading someone elses story how LDN worked for them, I'd be sceptical, VERY sceptical, and if I was reading about it not for myself, but for my kids.... well, I'd be very hard pressed to take that gamble. You know what I'm saying? There have been so few tests, and the way the medical world works, it looks as if there won't be a whole lot more coming down the pipe to re-assure anyone soon.
If only there was a similar case, involving another drug, where there wasn't a profit motive.... just research for the sake of research, and just a handfull or so of studies to back it up. That's when the light went on in my head. Pardon me for taking so long, but it is a rather dim bulb. There is a close precedent, if you will. A drug originally intended for another purpose altogether. Then someone, somewhere, theorized that a fractional dosage of this drug, taken daily, might offset or eliminate a potentially deadly disease. I know there was some testing done (I haven't researched how many, but I think it was only a handfull or so), and it showed very good results. Not only could a small dosage of this drug ameliorate this deadly disease, it could also help in life threatening events to improve ones chances of survival dramatically. And, like LDN, this drug was way past patent protection... there were/are generic versions available. It is very modestly priced, so no pharmaceutical giant would stand to profit from researching it any further.
But, here is where this story differs from LDN. It wasn't treated with overt suspicion by doctors, or considered voodoo, or snake oil, or untested (tho it is similar in that aspect to LDN). No, it was promoted, advertised, brand name and generic pharmaceuticals got on board, and produced these pills in their fractional form; and the general public ate it up. In fact, I'd estimate that you'd find this drug (in that form) in millions of homes. Yet it does have some nasty potential side effects, up to and including the possibility that a person taking it might bleed to death internally. Think I'm making this up? Care to guess what drug I'm alluding to? It's the lowly aspirin (ooops, brand name). Make that an ASA.
Yet, if you have coronary artery disease, or suffer a heart attack (like Rosie O'Donnell) an 85mg dose of ASA (approx. 1/4 of a standard 350mg pill) daily might save your life. Or, if you have an undiagnosed ulcer ready to pop, could threaten your life with 1 pill.
Anyone who feels this analogy is overstating things, please feel free to jump all over me.
Personally, I think it shows that the perceived risks of a drug depond on whose side the doctors AND/OR media come down on. I believe low dose AS er, ASA, is a bona fide life saver. I also think low dose Naltrexone is a bona fide life saver. It just has not had good press. Shame that our available treatments need to win a popularity poll with doctors.
