NMSS "Lie" About LDN
Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 3:32 pm
I have read the article on This Is MS accusing the NMSS of lying about low-dose naltrexone. I think the NMSS article is inaccurate for at least some of the reasons This Is MS has listed, but an inaccurate statement is a "mistake" unless there it is intentional. This Is MS presented no evidence that NMSS intentionally misled anyone.
Until such evidence is produced, I think it's going too far to call the NMSS article a lie. That sort of language is inflammatory (pardon the pun) and intemperate. Without proof of intent to mislead, I think it undermines the credibility of This Is MS to publish the accusation.
Some of the inaccuracies cited are trivial, such as the NMSS's misdating of the FDA's approval of naltrexone for addiction treatment. This could easily have been an oversight. Other citations are matters of opinion, such as This Is MS's negative view of the ABCR drugs. Which brings me to another point, the following pledge by This Is MS:
We have no corporate "unrestricted" grants, no big pharma allegiances, and no ties to any medical hospital. This site is funded out of pocket, born out of a desire to combine interests in web communities, personal experiences with people living with MS, and research skills into an entity that will help people whose lives have crossed paths with MS in some way. You will never find an agenda being pushed here.
The article accusing NMSS of lies and fraud, and the attack in that article on the ABCRs, are indicative of an agenda, namely to cast doubt on currently approved treatments and those who support them, while promoting untested alternatives. It makes me wonder why those the founders of This Is MS have chosen to remain anonymous, and what other commercial or organizational affiliations they might have, if any.
Are any of the founders or operators of This Is MS members of the Church of Scientology? It has conducted aggressive campaigns against pharmaceutical companies. Are any of the founders or operators of This Is MS connected in any way to other entities that might stand to benefit from non-standard alternative therapies promoted on the website? I'm not making any accusations, I am asking the questions.
All of that said, I share This Is MS's concern about the inaccuracy of the NMSS statement. My issue is the way in which that concern has been stated. I use Avonex at the present time. I don't use LDN. I regard LDN as unproven but interesting, and I think it ought to get an independent double-blinded trial against placebo to see if it works. But that doesn't justify this site's jihad against the NMSS, which I think does outstanding work.
Until such evidence is produced, I think it's going too far to call the NMSS article a lie. That sort of language is inflammatory (pardon the pun) and intemperate. Without proof of intent to mislead, I think it undermines the credibility of This Is MS to publish the accusation.
Some of the inaccuracies cited are trivial, such as the NMSS's misdating of the FDA's approval of naltrexone for addiction treatment. This could easily have been an oversight. Other citations are matters of opinion, such as This Is MS's negative view of the ABCR drugs. Which brings me to another point, the following pledge by This Is MS:
We have no corporate "unrestricted" grants, no big pharma allegiances, and no ties to any medical hospital. This site is funded out of pocket, born out of a desire to combine interests in web communities, personal experiences with people living with MS, and research skills into an entity that will help people whose lives have crossed paths with MS in some way. You will never find an agenda being pushed here.
The article accusing NMSS of lies and fraud, and the attack in that article on the ABCRs, are indicative of an agenda, namely to cast doubt on currently approved treatments and those who support them, while promoting untested alternatives. It makes me wonder why those the founders of This Is MS have chosen to remain anonymous, and what other commercial or organizational affiliations they might have, if any.
Are any of the founders or operators of This Is MS members of the Church of Scientology? It has conducted aggressive campaigns against pharmaceutical companies. Are any of the founders or operators of This Is MS connected in any way to other entities that might stand to benefit from non-standard alternative therapies promoted on the website? I'm not making any accusations, I am asking the questions.
All of that said, I share This Is MS's concern about the inaccuracy of the NMSS statement. My issue is the way in which that concern has been stated. I use Avonex at the present time. I don't use LDN. I regard LDN as unproven but interesting, and I think it ought to get an independent double-blinded trial against placebo to see if it works. But that doesn't justify this site's jihad against the NMSS, which I think does outstanding work.