This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.
It is currently Wed May 22, 2013 3:54 pm


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: ThisIsMS, NMSS, and LDN
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:21 am 
Offline
Volunteer Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:00 pm
Posts: 2715
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...
Quote:
the recommended LDN intake of 4.5 mg’s total per day

and further down states...
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:38 am 
Offline
Volunteer Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:00 pm
Posts: 889
Location: California, USA
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.

[NMSS]:
”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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. NMSS "Lie" About LDN

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

willysnout

16

5947

Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:03 pm

HarryZ View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. NMSS on LDN

NHE

0

2353

Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:33 pm

NHE View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. NMSS softens position on LDN

SammyJo

0

1727

Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:15 am

SammyJo View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: