Re: Re: Endorphins' role in MS progression; Italian own check.

[Guest guest]

I have MS, and I think someone healthier should be doing this work.

In the meantime...

A research paper says it is now known that cannabinoids protect the CNS from

damage.

It gives 5 references just to that one statement. It says things about

cannabis receptors and

antagonists that lead one to guess that there may be a similar

excitatory/inhibitory model at work

I think it would be an awful and devastating irony if the cure for MS were

related to pot, considering

how many lives have been and still are being ruined by its mean spirited and

cynical prohibition.

(A more personal irony would be that when a guy I knew when I was a teenager

was

on his MS deathbed he said he wished he had some grass. I didn't have it

to give him.)

Hippocrates *should* have said, " First, we kill all the lawyers. *Then* do

no harm. " :-)

Re:

>Again I ask the question- Why don't people with AIDS, who have low

>endorphin levels, develop MS?

>

>The ANSWER- because endorphin levels are an indicator and not a cause

>of MS.

Dr. Bilhari adds that people who get MS are genetically prone, and I add

that

the explanation *may* be that these people who are susceptible may need

their

endorphins (or something they affect) more than most, and that the action of

LDN

may be not only to increase endorphin levels but to increase their

effectiveness

due to antagonizing the excitatory reception of endorphins, reducing

inflammation.

Or not. We *need* *research*, dammit!

Re: EAE -

this is a lab model of MS - a manmade disease which can be conveniently (not

for the mice)

induced in mice for research purposes. It is *not* MS, and the results

*may* *not* be valid

in humans with real MS. That is why clinical trials are done.

Re Lipitor, which they also prescribed to me -

I think the MS and medical establishments are playing fast and loose with

Lipitor by

prescribing it before the human trials are done, as a drug of choice to

treat MS. Why is

that OK and not prescribing LDN? Because with LDN, the patient *asked* for

it, and

thus usurped the gatekeeper role of the doctor.

L-Tryptophan used to be a supplement. In Canada, it is now a prescription

drug. So if

gatekeeping is so important why don't they want that role for the so-called

" gateway drug " ,

marijuana, which is 100x cheaper for chemo nausea than the drugs they

prescribe? And

is preferred by of all people the patients? (What would *they* know?)

Perhaps because

like everyone else they are afraid to buck the DEA? Don't forget, aspirin

is a weapon of

mass destruction.

Well, from now on I'm only taking something because *I* did the research and

*I* asked for

it, and *I* am going to make sure that they increase the evidence base by

doing baseline

and post-treatment testing of *my* treatment plan, which includes LDN.

This is not a contest. This is my *life*.

Sorry for venting.

-Sullivan

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

From: " Tracie Woodall " <traciewoodall@...>

<chris_sullivan@...>

Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:54 AM

Subject: Re: [low dose naltrexone] Re: Endorphins' role in MS progression;

Italian own check.

>

> Fascinating! Thank you so much for sharing!

>

> Tracie

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Express yourself with MSN Messenger 6.0 -- download now!

> http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_general

>

>