RE: It's too bad

[Guest guest]

, I know where you are coming from and I agree with part

and disagree with part. A lot of medical treatment is based on fear of

malpractice suits. Many doctors limit their practice to treatments that

are specifically approved by the FDA for treating the specific disease being

treated. Even then they may be sued for malpractice when a patient fails

to get better or develops a rare side effect even if the patient has been

warned of these possible outcomes. I think our medical treatment is more

determined by the court system and legal profession than it is by doctors and

pharmaceutical companies. LDN (I presume that is Low Dose Naltrexone) has

many compelling anecdotes in favor of it but I am not aware of the many

large-scale clinical trials usually required before getting FDA approval.

It is approved by the FDA for many things but not for RA or related illnesses

(as far as I know). A doctor who prescribes it for RA might be sued by

someone who does not get better because the doctor did not prescribe the best

available treatment. I am not in either the medical, pharmaceutical, or legal

profession so this is just personal opinion based on personal

observations. I think malpractice claims and unreasonable settlements are

the biggest cause of the exorbitant medical costs today and these are not being

addressed in the push for affordable medical care for everyone. End of

soap box. God bless.

From:

Rheumatoid Arthritis

[mailto:Rheumatoid Arthritis ] On Behalf Of

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:24 AM

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Subject: It's too bad

because this group appears to have real ADVOCATES for the pharmaceutical

companies . . . I'm guessing through the medical community.

All I know for sure is for the last six years I've tried everything

that came down the road.

Something would start out promising and end up nowhere. I spent a TON of money

for it - money I didn't have and the big drug companies make a

fortune. I was in pain and tired of hoping for the next new drug that might be

on the horizon.

When I switched to a medication not even for immune disorders, I received the

first relief Ive had in years.

It's possible it wouldn't work for everyone just as I kept trying new

pharmaceutical's with little or no effect. But the cost for LDN is so low, the

side effects are next to none and the benefits are profound (for

me and others). I would say it's certainly worth a " look-see " .

Rheumatolgists and MOST GP's resist - why wouldn't they? The drug

companies aren't " courting " them for this medication. Their

fellowships could be jeopardized . . . there is NO INCENTIVE ($) or otherwise

for docs to get on board. The only possible advantage to them would be their

patient's good outcome. Sorry to say - in this big money medicene world - not

enough.

I've been a part of the pushing of drugs on the seriously ill for the benefit

of drug companies . . . I don't see anything different with this group . . . so

not interested

K

[Guest guest]

(From a

different )

Is LDN

prescription-only?

(TN)

From: Rheumatoid Arthritis [mailto:Rheumatoid Arthritis ] On Behalf Of Harold Van Tuyl

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:47

AM

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Subject: RE:

It's too bad

, I know where you are coming from and I agree with part

and disagree with part. A lot of medical treatment is based on fear of

malpractice suits. Many doctors limit their practice to treatments that

are specifically approved by the FDA for treating the specific disease being

treated. Even then they may be sued for malpractice when a patient fails

to get better or develops a rare side effect even if the patient has been

warned of these possible outcomes. I think our medical treatment is more

determined by the court system and legal profession than it is by doctors and

pharmaceutical companies. LDN (I presume that is Low Dose Naltrexone) has

many compelling anecdotes in favor of it but I am not aware of the many

large-scale clinical trials usually required before getting FDA approval.

It is approved by the FDA for many things but not for RA or related illnesses

(as far as I know). A doctor who prescribes it for RA might be sued by

someone who does not get better because the doctor did not prescribe the best

available treatment. I am not in either the medical, pharmaceutical, or

legal profession so this is just personal opinion based on personal

observations. I think malpractice claims and unreasonable settlements are

the biggest cause of the exorbitant medical costs today and these are not being

addressed in the push for affordable medical care for everyone. End of

soap box. God bless.

From: Rheumatoid Arthritis

[mailto:Rheumatoid Arthritis ]

On Behalf Of

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:24

AM

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Subject:

It's too bad

because this group appears to have real ADVOCATES for the pharmaceutical

companies . . . I'm guessing through the medical community.

All I know for sure is for the last six years I've tried everything

that came down the road.

Something would start out promising and end up nowhere. I spent a TON of money

for it - money I didn't have and the big drug companies make a

fortune. I was in pain and tired of hoping for the next new drug that might be

on the horizon.

When I switched to a medication not even for immune disorders, I received the

first relief Ive had in years.

It's possible it wouldn't work for everyone just as I kept trying new

pharmaceutical's with little or no effect. But the cost for LDN is so low,

the side effects are next to none and the benefits are profound

(for me and others). I would say it's certainly worth a " look-see " .

Rheumatolgists and MOST GP's resist - why wouldn't they? The drug

companies aren't " courting " them for this medication. Their

fellowships could be jeopardized . . . there is NO INCENTIVE ($) or otherwise

for docs to get on board. The only possible advantage to them would be their

patient's good outcome. Sorry to say - in this big money medicene world - not

enough.

I've been a part of the pushing of drugs on the seriously ill for the benefit

of drug companies . . . I don't see anything different with this group . . . so

not interested

K