ThisIsMS, NMSS, and LDN

A board to discuss Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN) as a treatment for Multiple Sclerosis

ThisIsMS, NMSS, and LDN

Postby NHE » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:21 am

I'm confused. ThisIsMS has published a critique of the NMSS's article concerning LDN. While this area of research is new to me, I've noted that there appears to be an error in ThisIsMS's critique.

Please allow me to explain my confusion.

ThisIsMS states...
the recommended LDN intake of 4.5 mg’s total per day

and further down states...
Neuroimmunotherapy of untreatable metastatic solid tumors with subcutaneous low-dose interleukin-2, melatonin and naltrexone: modulation of interleukin-2-induced antitumor immunity by blocking the opioid system (Lissoni P et. al., Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2002 Aug;23(4):341-4).

with 'low-dose" and "naltrexone" in italics to highlight them as though they go together.

However, upon reading the abstract, I discovered that the naltrexone dosage used in this study was 100mg every 2 days and that the "low-dose" apparently refers to treatment with IL-2. Clearly, 100mg every 2 days is above and beyond the 4.5mg/day dosage cited above for LDN.

Perhaps I'm confused, but I don't see how this study is in support of LDN if these numbers are indeed correct.

I'm also confused about another point. The abstract for the above study states...
a cancer neuroimmunotherapy with IL-2 plus both MLT and NTX to activate TH1 and suppress TH2 cells respectively

This statement appears to further suggest that this particular study may not be relevant for the treatment of MS. It has been my understanding that activation of Th1 immune responses, such as was done with IFN-gamma, actually worsen MS and that activation of Th2 immune responses help MS. Activation of Th1 may be good for cancer, as this study and others have demonstrated, however, I don't believe that it's good for MS.

I would like to make it clear that my post is in no way meant to be critical of ThisIsMS as they have provided a great site and venue for the exchange of information. My post is made only with the hopes of clearing up any confusion regarding the observations I have made.

Sincerely, NHE
User avatar
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:00 pm


Postby Arron » Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:38 am

good post, i'm happy to try to clear this up on behalf of the author. What that particular section was referring to was the NMSS claim that naltrexone was dangerous particularly because it had never been trialled for any of the illnesses that Dr. Bihari claims it works on. However, this particular citation showed Naltrexone's use in treating tumors.

”There are, however, no published reports of placebo-controlled clinical trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy of naltrexone in any of these diseases [various types of cancers, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), emphysema, as well as MS and other autoimmune diseases]. The marketing efforts rely entirely on anecdotal reports.”

It seems the author incorrectly assumed the "low dose" applied to all three items in the test, instead of just interleukin-2:

"subcutaneous low-dose interleukin-2, melatonin and naltrexone"

As such, the tumor study result would indeed be inconclusive for the efficacy of LDN with respect to tumors, as they used the regular dose of naltrexone and not the low dose form.

Great catch! I'll discuss it with the author and hopefully get an errata published. Nevertheless, a clinical trial for LDN versus Crohn's as well as MS is now underway, so the NMSS claim is still damaging and false.
Disclaimer: Any information you find on this site should not be considered medical advice. All decisions should be made with the consent of your doctor, otherwise you are at your own risk.
User avatar
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 893
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: California, USA

Return to Low Dose Naltrexone


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Contact us | Terms of Service