Re: ReVia and H2O mixture versus Pure compound LDN

[Guest guest]

Ok, everyone,

we have talked about fillers till the cows come home, but we all

agree that the actual LDN dose and its accuracy is more important

right?

I'd like to know how effective LDN is in regards to Revia V's Pure

Naltrexone compounded capsules or even Versus Revia compounded

capsules, or even LDN cream/patch method?

Really, there are 4 ways to take LDN arent there?

Can anyone who has tried the diffent methods tell me what differences

they have noticed in their effectiveness - which is better in their

opinion?

Friday

>

[Guest guest]

Friday, theoretically, your question is unanswerable. Each MSer is

different and will respond differently to any given dose of LDN.

Therefore, your question should really be, not which forms of LDN

work best, or even what is the best dose, but rather how does oral

LDN compare with the cream format.

To me there is no good reason to prefer the cream format over oral

therapy (except to line the pockets of your friendly pharmacist). The

cream format would bypass the initial metaboilism in the liver (first

pass metabolism) and go straight to the blood stream, but you can get

the same effect by increasing the oral dose by a mg or so. Even this

theoretical advantage of the cream format is not proven, for there is

no information suggesting that naltrexone is absorbed well through

the skin.

Revia with filler or pure compound is a non-question. Even the pure

compound will have to be put with some filler by the pharmacist. It

is not easy to reliably measure 3-4 mg of a crystalline compound.

A

--- In low dose naltrexone , " Friday " <paraschick@y...>

wrote:

> Ok, everyone,

>

> we have talked about fillers till the cows come home, but we all

> agree that the actual LDN dose and its accuracy is more important

> right?

>

> I'd like to know how effective LDN is in regards to Revia V's Pure

> Naltrexone compounded capsules or even Versus Revia compounded

> capsules, or even LDN cream/patch method?

>

> Really, there are 4 ways to take LDN arent there?

>

> Can anyone who has tried the diffent methods tell me what

differences

> they have noticed in their effectiveness - which is better in their

> opinion?

>

> Friday

> >

[Guest guest]

Aegis,

I've thought about your suggested question, and its all fine and

well, but no, I think I will stick with my origin chain of thought -

otherwise, I would be Aegis, not Friday, hehehe.

I'm sure there should be alot of feedback, no matter how we dress up

this issue or re-vamp it.

What type/dose do you take, even though you posted that you are

confused about LDN (and with this, I'm still not clear on whether

that means you take it or not?) As for whether you have MS according

to your specialist, I'm sort of glad you indicated that you were not

sure of this because I take that to mean you are doing well and are

managing well. And thats good news.

I dont think the questions are unanswerable. Especially for others

here who do have feedback because they are living proof - just as

those who have different experiences with something as seemingly

irrelevant as filler. (and NO, I dont think filler is totally

irrelevant)

I dont believe Revia versus Pure Naltrexone compounded is a non-

question. If we are going to knit-pick about fillers and how much of

a difference they make, its far more productive and logical to ask

how the active ingredient, Naltrexone,effects each of us according to

its make-up.

Of course pure Naltrexone has to have a filler, as does ReVia.. BUT!!

If a pharmacy is working with ReVia tablets which already contain the

manufacturers filler, compounding it, and adding more filler - you

cant tell me that is as accurate as straight Naltrexone powder being

compounded from 'scratch'.

I am currently mixing Revia with water, and every night, no matter

how much i mix and shake the contents, the strength of the taste is

different. If I had pure naltrexone compounded from scratch, i would

be getting a significantly more even dose every night.

Can I honestly say I am on 4.5mg ? when i dont know how evenly this

insoluble ReVia is distributing when i shake the bottle and try to

draw out 4.5mg with a syringe before it has time to settle to the

bottom of the bottle again? NO, I cant.

Is this ReVIa partially soluble? Are the fillers soluble, some more

than others? What dose am I really taking?

We need to know we are really taking 4.5mg, or whatever dose we

intended to take, to have more consistency and see the results being

reflected better in our symptoms over a long time.

In 3 month's time, I should be finishing my current batch of ReVia

tablets and I am looking forward to having a specialist compounder

use accuracy and pure Naltrexone from then on. I have the new

prescription ready.

Do you think a clinical researcher in a laboratory will be so slack

with accuracy when his data and quality control will be scrutinised?

Would you trust the results of such a clinical trial?

So, whilst you say there is no information with regards to absorption

efficiency using the cream LDN method, isn't it all a 'stab in the

dark' and thats why we are here? Asking, probing, comparing our LDN

methods for optimum outcome?

In Dr Bihari's clinical experiences with LDN as a treatment for Aids,

Cancers, Crohns, CFS etc, Im sure there is better quality control and

he uses pure naltrexone powder and maybe his suggestions for accuracy

will help us all. Has anyone asked him about how he uses Naltrexone

for his investigations in these diseases? Has he ever injected

directly into the bloodstream of his patients, and by-pass all the

digestive system, etc? Who knows how different bugs, gut imbalances

etc change the Naltrexone if at all, and how much is waisted and

passed out in urine.

Maybe this is why the CRAB MS drugs are injected directly into the

blood? Any Ideas?

If someone is in touch with Dr Bihari, or has an up-coming

appointment, can they ask this? I'm curious.

Everyones responses to medication are different, I believe due to

some factors in the equation, like:

1. accuracy of dose, quality control, timing and consistency.

2. individual allergies and reactions to fillers.

3. degree of illness, type of illness.

4. LIfestyle (stress, diet, external stress (heat/humidity) and maybe

age.

So, in closing, my questions remain to the forum. What method of LDN

works best from each individual's experiences and how can we

eventually collate this information? Lets compare by assessing our

symptom relief outcomes/successes and failures. It's all trial and

error and doesnt it help the new-comers some? How many times have we

been asked here, how do i make up ldn, what is the best method, etc -

out of all the websites on ldn, where is the help and guidance

written?

Friday

[Guest guest]

Hi, Friday. Just wanted to throw a thought in the mix here. I have

a friend in Southern Ontario who tried to get the LDN transdermal

patches from Skip. Skip told her that he would not advise anyone to

use them, that he didn't believe they would be as beneficial as the

oral LDN. I'm not sure of the particulars, since I didn't talk to

Skip myself, but she was very interested in trying the patches, and

he talked her out of it. Interesting and thought provoking for me,

since Skip's is considered one of the top reputable pharmacies for

compounding LDN. I believe he also has the most reasonable pricing,

if I am not mistaken.

Have a great day!

Kim

--- In low dose naltrexone , " Friday " <paraschick@y...>

wrote:

> Ok, everyone,

>

> we have talked about fillers till the cows come home, but we all

> agree that the actual LDN dose and its accuracy is more important

> right?

>

> >

[Guest guest]

Friday, you are obviously on a roll here :-), Aegis touched a

demyelinated nerve there!, these are important questions you ask.

Aegis did not want you to reinvent the wheel, so Aegis waits until

you finish your own voyage of discovery.

A

--- In low dose naltrexone , " Friday " <paraschick@y...>

wrote:

> Aegis,

>

> I've thought about your suggested question, and its all fine and

> well, but no, I think I will stick with my origin chain of

thought -

> otherwise, I would be Aegis, not Friday, hehehe.

>

> I'm sure there should be alot of feedback, no matter how we dress

up

> this issue or re-vamp it.

>

> What type/dose do you take, even though you posted that you are

> confused about LDN (and with this, I'm still not clear on whether

> that means you take it or not?) As for whether you have MS

according

> to your specialist, I'm sort of glad you indicated that you were

not

> sure of this because I take that to mean you are doing well and

are

> managing well. And thats good news.

>

> I dont think the questions are unanswerable. Especially for others

> here who do have feedback because they are living proof - just as

> those who have different experiences with something as seemingly

> irrelevant as filler. (and NO, I dont think filler is totally

> irrelevant)

>

> I dont believe Revia versus Pure Naltrexone compounded is a non-

> question. If we are going to knit-pick about fillers and how much

of

> a difference they make, its far more productive and logical to ask

> how the active ingredient, Naltrexone,effects each of us according

to

> its make-up.

>

> Of course pure Naltrexone has to have a filler, as does ReVia..

BUT!!

> If a pharmacy is working with ReVia tablets which already contain

the

> manufacturers filler, compounding it, and adding more filler - you

> cant tell me that is as accurate as straight Naltrexone powder

being

> compounded from 'scratch'.

>

> I am currently mixing Revia with water, and every night, no matter

> how much i mix and shake the contents, the strength of the taste

is

> different. If I had pure naltrexone compounded from scratch, i

would

> be getting a significantly more even dose every night.

>

> Can I honestly say I am on 4.5mg ? when i dont know how evenly

this

> insoluble ReVia is distributing when i shake the bottle and try to

> draw out 4.5mg with a syringe before it has time to settle to the

> bottom of the bottle again? NO, I cant.

>

> Is this ReVIa partially soluble? Are the fillers soluble, some

more

> than others? What dose am I really taking?

>

> We need to know we are really taking 4.5mg, or whatever dose we

> intended to take, to have more consistency and see the results

being

> reflected better in our symptoms over a long time.

>

> In 3 month's time, I should be finishing my current batch of ReVia

> tablets and I am looking forward to having a specialist compounder

> use accuracy and pure Naltrexone from then on. I have the new

> prescription ready.

>

> Do you think a clinical researcher in a laboratory will be so

slack

> with accuracy when his data and quality control will be

scrutinised?

> Would you trust the results of such a clinical trial?

>

> So, whilst you say there is no information with regards to

absorption

> efficiency using the cream LDN method, isn't it all a 'stab in the

> dark' and thats why we are here? Asking, probing, comparing our

LDN

> methods for optimum outcome?

>

> In Dr Bihari's clinical experiences with LDN as a treatment for

Aids,

> Cancers, Crohns, CFS etc, Im sure there is better quality control

and

> he uses pure naltrexone powder and maybe his suggestions for

accuracy

> will help us all. Has anyone asked him about how he uses

Naltrexone

> for his investigations in these diseases? Has he ever injected

> directly into the bloodstream of his patients, and by-pass all the

> digestive system, etc? Who knows how different bugs, gut

imbalances

> etc change the Naltrexone if at all, and how much is waisted and

> passed out in urine.

>

> Maybe this is why the CRAB MS drugs are injected directly into the

> blood? Any Ideas?

>

> If someone is in touch with Dr Bihari, or has an up-coming

> appointment, can they ask this? I'm curious.

>

> Everyones responses to medication are different, I believe due to

> some factors in the equation, like:

>

> 1. accuracy of dose, quality control, timing and consistency.

> 2. individual allergies and reactions to fillers.

> 3. degree of illness, type of illness.

> 4. LIfestyle (stress, diet, external stress (heat/humidity) and

maybe

> age.

>

> So, in closing, my questions remain to the forum. What method of

LDN

> works best from each individual's experiences and how can we

> eventually collate this information? Lets compare by assessing

our

> symptom relief outcomes/successes and failures. It's all trial

and

> error and doesnt it help the new-comers some? How many times have

we

> been asked here, how do i make up ldn, what is the best method,

etc -

> out of all the websites on ldn, where is the help and guidance

> written?

>

> Friday

[Guest guest]

The idea of transdermal patches is likely misguided. This is an

attempt by some misguided pharmacist to gain from the LDN gravy

train. Aegis has learnt that LDN itself has become a business. There

is now intense competition amongst pharmacists to dispense LDN.

Consider

- Absorption characteristics of transdermal LDN are unknown

- Patches are applied when you want continuous absorption, every

minute of the day. If Dr.Bihari is right, we want to boost only the

morning endorphins.

The only argument for a patch is the hypothesis or assumption that

24 hrs of continuous LDN is better than episodic LDN. This idea is

worth testing, but to my knowledge, the argument has never been

specifically proposed with the patches. Instead they talk of first

pass hum-bug.

- What we should be discussing is how MS patients can take advantage

of the business they provide to the pharmacies. If there is interest

around this theme, Aegis can throw some ideas to get the ball (not

Friday :-)) rolling.

A

> > Ok, everyone,

> >

> > we have talked about fillers till the cows come home, but we all

> > agree that the actual LDN dose and its accuracy is more

important

> > right?

> >

>

> > >

[Guest guest]

Demylenated Nerve? Hey, I resemble that remark!!!

lol

> Friday, you are obviously on a roll here :-), Aegis touched a

> demyelinated nerve there!, these are important questions you ask.

[Guest guest]

> - What we should be discussing is how MS patients can take

advantage

> of the business they provide to the pharmacies. If there is

interest

> around this theme.

LDN and other compounded " products " are clearly a " growing " business

for those pharmacies doing it. Given their " interests " with respect

to LDN etc. they certainly should be interested or willing in

participating (at least financially) in the upcoming conference. The

problem may be that should we get far more interest in LDN it will

be produced in a Low dose form negating the need for compounding. It

is a fine line.

But, perhaps the issue of importance is our combined " buying power " .

If we identified one or 2 compounders that we all would use we would

represent a fair chunk of business. Other than potentially lower our

price (volume) which is reasonable already, I am not sure what other

benefits we might expect.

Additional thoughts would be interesting!

Best

Alan

[Guest guest]

I will agree with you on this point the transdermal patch is only a pipe dream or should be used by addicts not by us with M.S. then of course the addicts would use a much higher dose too.

I found that rubbing a capsule of L.D.N. into my forearm every night had the same effects on me as taking the pill every night but it wasn't too neat. In fact it was a pain in the arm as the filler ( I would assume ) didn't dissolve good and was like rubbing pumice stone on my arm.

I have been using just the pill for over nine months now and I won't change as it works, is easy to take and really where,s the advantage in using a patch if it would work? or a transdermal cream? or even, injected (shudder) (

Nope...... I will be on the pill for as long as I can get it.

My compounder knows how much filler is used in each Revia pill that he has to grind up and compound, so now I know why he went to school for that time period. Kind of like why I went to school for my mechanics license. Just don't question me on if I know how to rebuild a tranmsmission.After all you brought it to me in the first place.

Reg.

-------Original Message-------

From: low dose naltrexone

Date: 08/11/04 06:54:41

low dose naltrexone

Subject: [low dose naltrexone] Re: ReVia and H2O mixture versus Pure compound LDN

____________________________________________________ IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

[Guest guest]

> - What we should be discussing is how MS patients can take advantage

> of the business they provide to the pharmacies. If there is interest

> around this theme, Aegis can throw some ideas to get the ball (not

> Friday :-)) rolling.

>

> A

Aegis: Please throw those ideas our way especially if it relates to

getting a clinical trial done using the pharmacists as a

resource/connection. Gail

[Guest guest]

Hello Friday and people here, I am going to start the LDN next week

and i am with MS, excuse my English speaking. My friend in Italy

told me about this new drug.

After my research in the web and talking, and looking news reports,

and my work with chemicals and experience, ok I will take my ldn by

the following form:

4.5mg of pure naltrexone hydrochloride in demineralised water because

i think in this way i will not have any filler worry and, yes Friday-

pure powder is soluble in water in opposition of Revia or tablet

generic names for this.

Friday, I believe you have good questions, and I like to help you and

be helped with this method after talking to my colleags.

I will email private if you want. but dont know the address?

The Crow

" cant rain all the time... "

>

>

> > I dont believe Revia versus Pure Naltrexone compounded is a non-

> > question. If we are going to knit-pick about fillers and how

much

> of

> > a difference they make, its far more productive and logical to

ask

> > how the active ingredient, Naltrexone,effects each of us

according

> to

> > its make-up.

> >

> > Of course pure Naltrexone has to have a filler, as does ReVia..

> BUT!!

> > If a pharmacy is working with ReVia tablets which already contain

> the

> > manufacturers filler, compounding it, and adding more filler -

you

> > cant tell me that is as accurate as straight Naltrexone powder

> being

> > compounded from 'scratch'.

> >

> > I am currently mixing Revia with water, and every night, no

matter

> > how much i mix and shake the contents, the strength of the taste

> is

> > different. If I had pure naltrexone compounded from scratch, i

> would

> > be getting a significantly more even dose every night.

> >

> > Can I honestly say I am on 4.5mg ? when i dont know how evenly

> this

> > insoluble ReVia is distributing when i shake the bottle and try

to

> > draw out 4.5mg with a syringe before it has time to settle to the

> > bottom of the bottle again? NO, I cant.

> >

> > Is this ReVIa partially soluble? Are the fillers soluble, some

> more

> > than others? What dose am I really taking?

> >

> > We need to know we are really taking 4.5mg, or whatever dose we

> > intended to take, to have more consistency and see the results

> being

> > reflected better in our symptoms over a long time.

> >

> > Do you think a clinical researcher in a laboratory will be so

> slack

> > with accuracy when his data and quality control will be

> scrutinised?

> > Would you trust the results of such a clinical trial?

> >

> > So, whilst you say there is no information with regards to

> absorption

> > efficiency using the cream LDN method, isn't it all a 'stab in

the

> > dark' and thats why we are here? Asking, probing, comparing our

> LDN

> > methods for optimum outcome?

> >

Who knows how different bugs, gut

> imbalances

> > etc change the Naltrexone if at all, and how much is waisted and

> > passed out in urine.

> >

> > Maybe this is why the CRAB MS drugs are injected directly into

the

> > blood? Any Ideas?

> >

> > If someone is in touch with Dr Bihari, or has an up-coming

> > appointment, can they ask this? I'm curious.

> >

> >

> > So, in closing, my questions remain to the forum. What method of

> LDN

> > works best from each individual's experiences and how can we

> > eventually collate this information? Lets compare by assessing

> our

> > symptom relief outcomes/successes and failures. It's all trial

> and

> > error and doesnt it help the new-comers some? How many times

have

> we

> > been asked here, how do i make up ldn, what is the best method,

> etc -

> > out of all the websites on ldn, where is the help and guidance

> > written?

> >

> > Friday

[Guest guest]

G'day Friday and all

I think you have made some very good points here. There are lots of

questions to be asked about the use of LDN in the battle against MS

as well as other conditions.

We do not know all the answers and at this stage, no one does.

Untill we get some trial data, it will all be up in the air. There

may be no difference in some of the useage application techniques but

there may be hudge variations. If the initial experimental data

indicated dosages from 1.7 to 4.5 mg had effect, and lets be

pratical, this is a very small range within the known useage of

Naltrexone, then the mixture and purity of the dose would seem

important.

Around the world there are many fronts on a trial in progress so lets

hope one or all come off.

Cheers

Hennry

-- In low dose naltrexone , " Friday " <paraschick@y...>

wrote:

> Aegis,

>

> I've thought about your suggested question, and its all fine and

> well, but no, I think I will stick with my origin chain of thought -

> otherwise, I would be Aegis, not Friday, hehehe.

>

> I'm sure there should be alot of feedback, no matter how we dress

up

> this issue or re-vamp it.

>

> What type/dose do you take, even though you posted that you are

> confused about LDN (and with this, I'm still not clear on whether

> that means you take it or not?) As for whether you have MS

according

> to your specialist, I'm sort of glad you indicated that you were

not

> sure of this because I take that to mean you are doing well and are

> managing well. And thats good news.

>

> I dont think the questions are unanswerable. Especially for others

> here who do have feedback because they are living proof - just as

> those who have different experiences with something as seemingly

> irrelevant as filler. (and NO, I dont think filler is totally

> irrelevant)

>

> I dont believe Revia versus Pure Naltrexone compounded is a non-

> question. If we are going to knit-pick about fillers and how much

of

> a difference they make, its far more productive and logical to ask

> how the active ingredient, Naltrexone,effects each of us according

to

> its make-up.

>

> Of course pure Naltrexone has to have a filler, as does ReVia..

BUT!!

> If a pharmacy is working with ReVia tablets which already contain

the

> manufacturers filler, compounding it, and adding more filler - you

> cant tell me that is as accurate as straight Naltrexone powder

being

> compounded from 'scratch'.

>

> I am currently mixing Revia with water, and every night, no matter

> how much i mix and shake the contents, the strength of the taste is

> different. If I had pure naltrexone compounded from scratch, i

would

> be getting a significantly more even dose every night.

>

> Can I honestly say I am on 4.5mg ? when i dont know how evenly this

> insoluble ReVia is distributing when i shake the bottle and try to

> draw out 4.5mg with a syringe before it has time to settle to the

> bottom of the bottle again? NO, I cant.

>

> Is this ReVIa partially soluble? Are the fillers soluble, some

more

> than others? What dose am I really taking?

>

> We need to know we are really taking 4.5mg, or whatever dose we

> intended to take, to have more consistency and see the results

being

> reflected better in our symptoms over a long time.

>

> In 3 month's time, I should be finishing my current batch of ReVia

> tablets and I am looking forward to having a specialist compounder

> use accuracy and pure Naltrexone from then on. I have the new

> prescription ready.

>

> Do you think a clinical researcher in a laboratory will be so slack

> with accuracy when his data and quality control will be

scrutinised?

> Would you trust the results of such a clinical trial?

>

> So, whilst you say there is no information with regards to

absorption

> efficiency using the cream LDN method, isn't it all a 'stab in the

> dark' and thats why we are here? Asking, probing, comparing our

LDN

> methods for optimum outcome?

>

> In Dr Bihari's clinical experiences with LDN as a treatment for

Aids,

> Cancers, Crohns, CFS etc, Im sure there is better quality control

and

> he uses pure naltrexone powder and maybe his suggestions for

accuracy

> will help us all. Has anyone asked him about how he uses

Naltrexone

> for his investigations in these diseases? Has he ever injected

> directly into the bloodstream of his patients, and by-pass all the

> digestive system, etc? Who knows how different bugs, gut

imbalances

> etc change the Naltrexone if at all, and how much is waisted and

> passed out in urine.

>

> Maybe this is why the CRAB MS drugs are injected directly into the

> blood? Any Ideas?

>

> If someone is in touch with Dr Bihari, or has an up-coming

> appointment, can they ask this? I'm curious.

>

> Everyones responses to medication are different, I believe due to

> some factors in the equation, like:

>

> 1. accuracy of dose, quality control, timing and consistency.

> 2. individual allergies and reactions to fillers.

> 3. degree of illness, type of illness.

> 4. LIfestyle (stress, diet, external stress (heat/humidity) and

maybe

> age.

>

> So, in closing, my questions remain to the forum. What method of

LDN

> works best from each individual's experiences and how can we

> eventually collate this information? Lets compare by assessing our

> symptom relief outcomes/successes and failures. It's all trial and

> error and doesnt it help the new-comers some? How many times have

we

> been asked here, how do i make up ldn, what is the best method,

etc -

> out of all the websites on ldn, where is the help and guidance

> written?

>

> Friday

[Guest guest]

ReVia must have less filler than a capsule of LDN, definitely less than 1 or 2 1.5 MG caps

----- Original Message -----

From: aegis_on_ms

low dose naltrexone

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 14:06

Subject: [low dose naltrexone] Re: ReVia and H2O mixture versus Pure compound LDN

Revia with filler or pure compound is a non-question. Even the pure compound will have to be put with some filler by the pharmacist. It is not easy to reliably measure 3-4 mg of a crystalline compound.A

[Guest guest]

I would tend to agree with you, LarryGC. I was thinking the same

thing.

--- In low dose naltrexone , " LarryGC " <larrygc@s...>

wrote:

> ReVia must have less filler than a capsule of LDN, definitely less

than 1 or 2 1.5 MG caps

>