Analysis

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I did some number crunching with 's data and found some

interesting patterns.

I analyzed the how the 3 measurements of the effectiveness of LDN

(Symptoms are improving, progression has stopped, LDN is working)

change among different subsamples.

1. Gender

GENDER NO. SYIMPR PROSTOP LDNWORKING

FEMALE 174 71% 40% 76%

MALE 93 62% 43% 68%

TOTAL 267 68% 41% 73%

Females are slightly more likely to have symptoms improvements and

saying that LDN is working than males.

However, males are slightly more likely to say that LDN stopped their

progression. I attribute this to a higher placebo effect in females.

2. Type of MS

MSTYPE NO. SYIMPR PROSTOP LDNWORKING

PPMS 34 53% 50% 76%

RRMS 116 82% 34% 75%

SPMS 105 57% 43% 70%

PRMS 12 75% 58% 83%

TOTAL 267 68% 41% 73%

It is great news that LDN seems to help MSers accross the board.

There are no statistically significant differences between PPMS, SPMS

and PRMS. In case of RRMS, however, people are more likely to have

symptoms improvements and less likely to have stops in progression.

This is probably to due to the fact that in case of RRMS one does not

know that a lack of relapse is due to LDN or to the usual remission of

MS, so these people are more cautious to say that have not

progressed. The other three groups have constant prograssion so they

know exactly when LDN helps with progression.

As a consequence, I would guess that the ratio when LDN stops the

progression is more likely to be 50% (without calculating the RRMS

people).

3. Dosage

DOSAGE NO. SYIMPR PROSTOP LDNWORKING

D<=1.5 2 50% 0% 50%

1.5<D<=3.0 102 64% 32% 69%

1.5<D<=4.5 157 71% 45% 76%

4.5<D 6 83% 83% 100%

TOTAL 267 68% 41% 73%

There is a clear pattern of having better results at higher doses.

However, it may be the case that higher dose is more a consequence

than a cause of better results. It is possible that people who do not

experience side effects on LDN, and thus can increase their dosage

easily can benefit from the drug most.

3. Relapses

Regarding relapse rate I did not do calculations as I think most people

have not spent enough time on LDN to give relevant data. If one used

to have relapses once a year, and she uses LDN only for 6 months then

the lack of relapses is not the effect of LDN. I think relapse rate can

only be calculated from users who use LDN for more than 2-3 years,

and one should compare the relapse rate of pre LDN period to post LDN

period individually.

4. Years since diagnosis

There is no difference between the measurements of effectiveness and

the years since the diagnosis.

5. Months on LDN

There was a significant improvement on the measurements as one had

more months on LDN.

However, this is also a consequence, not a cause - the ones who do

not think LDN works will abandon it. So it is obvious that as time goes

only those will use it who think it is effective.

6. Conclusion

As a summary I can conclude that these variables are not enough to

explain the differences between the effectiveness of LDN, so a new

survey should search for new clues on the explanation of why LDN

works for some people and why not for others. However, this is

something that is not known even for the approved drugs, but one

should try to explain it better.

Yours,

M.