RE:Funding a Study for LDN and MS

[Guest guest]

The problem is that insurance companies are really in favour of high priced treatments because that gives them the fear factor on which to base there marketing strategy. If all treatment was within the reach of average people then there would be no reason to buy health insurance. There are many cheap treatments for most things but orthodox medicine rubishes them to keep the expensive things in business, that give bucks for advertising, funding charities, political parties, fear to sell doctors time and medical insurance. LDN is only one drug but look how much that would knock out of the system if it was used for all it works for. How many neurologists would now be out of work if it had been in mass use just for MS for the last 20 years?

Dave

Message: 3 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:35:35 -0000 From: "morrrelll" <bmr323@...>Subject: Funding a Study for LDN and MSIn my opinion, the two most logical places to campaign for funding for studies to gain approval for LDN in the treatment of MS are with the non-profit MS organizations who should have ALREADY funded the studies on their own, and with the health insurance companies, most notably Blue Cross. With profits as a detracting feature for pharmaceutical companies, it would seem that MILLIONS could be saved by insurance companies if LDN proved to be a worthy substitute for the ABCRs. It certainly has replaced them for me, and the total cost of LDN is lower than the co-pay for the ABCRs.The problem here, however, lies in being able to actually talk to a human being at the insurance company. I think it's easier to find a four-leaf clover in a lawn of zoysia than talking to a person at Blue Cross. Thanks, BMR