Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Thanks ! On the contrary, I think you have added considerably to the discussion: Actually I have been rather dismayed at the silence of almost every one regarding this serious question of the use of placebos! "FIRST DO NO HARM" -Hippocrates admonition to physicians- I consider respect for the well being of the individual to be a mark of a truly civililized society, in contrast to the quiet writing someone off as "expendable" When I raised this issue some days ago, I think it was only Marcie & just possibly Bev (-not really clear from her posting!) that acknowledged the problem at all. One prominent, keen proponent of testing chose to attempt to justify his position at some length , including talking about how it would be unethical to "leave behind those poor souls"..." who absolutely refuse to take LDN"! -At least "those poor souls" are making their own conscious decison to refuse LDN! -I noticed that this proponent of testing was completely silent on the REAL question that I raised, ie. the unethical nature of knowingly giving a placebo to someone who needs LDN, & WHO IS PREPARED to take it! (-For some reason this proponent chose to respond to this, the real question I raised with with only a deafening silence!!! - no concern at all was expressed at the prospect of THESE "poor souls" being fobbed off with only a placebo to help them!!!) He also asserted that trials were necessary in order to know whether or not LDN has a higher response rate than the ABCR`s! -Certainly doesn`t look necessary to me! The sustained flow of delighted reports of people stabilizing their MS progression, nearly all with AT LEAST some dimunition of symptoms & this being coupled with the absence of "side effect horror stories" has has been so powerfully & consistently expressed that even people like me, who have been resolutely declining drugs for so long that it had become automatic! have noticed & have "come over" to benefit from it! -I`m somewhat reluctant to use the expression, but I really do concur with pharmacist Dr Skip`s statement that for anyone with MS, the taking of LDN is a "no brainer". The unprecedented & continuing unremitting growth of this body of positive feedback in addition to the obviously safe tiny dosage level of a drug which has long been approved by the FDA as safe for use at very much higher levels coupled with my own personal experience of it`s use convince me that it is appropiate to press strongly for LDN`s immediate recognition as a the most effective medication yet discovered for the effective management of MS . Unlike the approved ABCR`s, LDN is consistently effective, safe, mostly near zero likelihood of unpleasant side effects, extremely easy to take & cheap! What are we waiting for? Surely it has already demonstrated it`s effectiveness sufficiently emphatically to be worthy of a sustained effort at raising it`s profile in the world?! I believe that this must become clearly apparent to any unbiased clear thinking individual who takes the time to carefully consider the facts: Shouldn`t we cease playing tired old games & simply turn our growing energy to making the already known facts very much more readily accessable to a suffering world? At this juncture, would not the further delaying of the recognition & wider utilization of LDN by the procastination of insisting on further time consuming & unnecessary testing have the same effect as ignoring Hippocrates wise & compassionate admonition to "First do no harm" ? I am inclined to think it likely that many sick people would agree, if they were truly aware of the facts! Thanks again for your consideration. Be happy! Gerald ----- Original Message ----- From: " " <jatrac1@...> <low dose naltrexone > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:00 AM Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] Re: regarding the letter > I share your concern about the ethics of giving a placebo to someone in need> of real medicine. In this case we all believe LDN IS an effective> treatment, so who gets the placebo? It would be difficult to sell anyone on> the idea of simply providing LDN to a large group of people and tracking> their progress. That doesn't provide the control group the scientists are> going to want.> > But is this another situation where the cost to the individual is outweighed> by the overall benefit for many? That's another concept that really> troubles me. That concept is great if you're one of the "many" and not the> individual...> > There have been clinical trials in which the drug being trialed was so> effective the trials were ended so all participants could be given the drug.> I wish I could name one right now, but I doubt I'm in my right mind since> I'm pretty fatigued.> > Boy, this letter didn't add much to the discussion!> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "gerald rollason" <grollason@...>> <low dose naltrexone >> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:48 PM> Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] Re: regarding the letter> > > > I would like to say that, in my opinion, , clear & concise, factual> personal> > accounts, like this one from Tom B. are to the point & have an impressive> > authenticity about them which encourages the mind to focus on the> appropiate> > relevant issues. ( Not so sure about Titanics & Arks! -possibly too> > selective & liable to lead off at tangents? Though it is an interesting> > allegory when you think about it!....)> >> > Changing context somewhat, re. my posting of a few days ago which> suggested> > that focussing on organizing the dissemination of info which clearly> > emphasizes the effectiveness, low dose safety, ease of use & cheapness of> > LDN might be effective course.> > In my post, I also questioned the need for further LDN testing & also the> > ethics of knowingly giving or even ADVOCATING the giving of a mere> placebo> > to sufferers of degenerative or potentially lethal diseases, when one> knows> > there is a effective, safe, & cheap treatment already available: I note> that> > though there were responses (Yash.esp..) focussing on the potential> > advantages of clinical testing (which are fairly obvious IF one ignores> the> > questions of urgent need AND the unethical nature of knowing withholding> an> > effective already available treatment,) the silence of the keen> proponents> > of clinical testing re.these ethical problems was....DEAFENING!!! ( & no> LDN> > users volunteered for inclusion in the placebo group> > . -Surprise!......)> >> > Giving a placebo to someone in this situation is like knowingly giving> > someone with a dangerouus fire to deal with a dummy fire extinguisher.> >> > Doubtless R & D will continue & anyway! So again I suggest that it might> now> > be helpful for those of us who really know about LDN, from the reality of> > our own experience to focus on making very clear what is already known & > > happenning ( & not happening!) with LDN & so increase it`s profile & usage> > that way.> >> > (If anyone knows of clinical testing procedures that are neither time> > consuming nor dependent on the use of placebo controls, would you please> be> > kind enough to let me know?!)> >> > Otherwise, I suggest that "we who know" from our own usage continue to> > organize, clarify & amplify the information that was powerful enough & > > convincing enough for us to try using LDN in the first place! -Even> though,> > in some cases (myself included), we had previously been dis-inclined to> use> > ANY pharmaceuticals!!! -If the info was already strong enough to convince> > even us, then what`s the problem?> >> > There is an old illustration about "a finger pointing at the moon", the> > purpose being to draw attention to the moon, if we simply stare at the> > finger, we have missed the point!> > There are now very many fingers pointing, I hope we aren`t going to get> > lost in reinforcing the apparently chronic instutionalized habit of> staring> > at fingers!> >> > Thank you,> >> > Gerald> >> > From: " Bayuk" <tbayuk@...>> > <low dose naltrexone >> > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:05 PM> > Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] Re: regarding the letter> >> >> > > Aegis,> > > If you don't mind I would also like to add my> > > "Two Cents". I am not a professional by any means. However, I have> been> > > diagnosed with MS since 1984. Since that time I have been under the> care> > of> > > the neurology dept. at the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Ma. I had the> same> > > doc for 16 yrs. until she retired 3 or 4 yrs. ago. Back in 1984 there> > were> > > no treatments for ms other than steroids which I refused to take. Some> > time> > > in 1986 or 87 the "Beta-Serons" became available. I also refused those> > due> > > to the "Fine Print" or so-called side effects.> > >> > > Formal studies as you describe now conclusively show that these> treatments> > > are marginal at best and still in fact produce adverse side effects for> > many> > > that take them.> > >> > > Two yrs. ago I started looking into "LDN". It took me almost a year to> > > finally decide to take LDN. I have "Primary Progressive MS". The very> > > first night of taking LDN the following occurred: 1. Increased sensation> > and> > > lessening of numbness in my feet and ankles. 2. Increased leg strength> > and> > > improvement of balance. 3. Significant lessenoning of urinary urgency> and> > > frequency. I had to get up ONCE during the night to urinate, it had> been> > > 3-5 times every night for several years.> > >> > > No further improvements have occurred other than the fact that I have> not> > > gotten worse with anything in the past year and those improvements> > mentioned> > > have remained constant.> > >> > > I have been in touch with several hundred ms'er's that have had similar> > > experiences. The simple fact of the matter is that I personally> > experienced> > > more improvement in one day than I had experienced in 19 yrs. of> > recognized> > > and accepted medicine. The only adverse side effect to date was 1 week> of> > > sleeping pattern interruption.> > >> > > My questions to you are: 1. Why such incredible resistance to this> > > harmless and inexpensive solution for so many? 2. When will the> > "Experts"> > > at least take a look? 3. Could the answer be "Pride" or the lack of> > money> > > involved?> > >> > > Remember this: " PROFESSIONALS BUILT THE TITANIC............AMATEURS> BUILT> > T> > > HE ARK"> > > Regards,> > > Tom> >> >> >> >> >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 " FIRST DO NO HARM " -Hippocrates admonition to Doctors practice hypocrisy of Hippocrates - terrific pretence isn't it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.