Many drugs have achieved fame overnight whilst some have earned their place over a period of time.
Whilst studying new drugs and experimenting with them for various diseases, one must exercise great caution to see that the claims made about the "medicine" are not beyond the bounds of medical science and the tools of scientific research.
One of the drugs for which this applies is- Low dose Naltrexone.
Whilst Naltrexone is no doubt one of the proven drugs in the field of de-addiction, its role as a wonder drug, a sort of panacea for all diseases deserves much scrutiny.
In therapeutic doses used for alcohol and opiate de-addiction, Naltrexone has without doubt proven itself to be a drug that is the ultimate drug of choice here.
However, it is the lower doses of this drug (Naltrexone) -the so-called Low dose Naltrexone, that is proving to be a hotbed of contention with claim and counter claim about the true usefulness of this drug.
Both supporters and antagonists of Low dose Naltrexone abound on the internet with web sites supporting both claims.
So the query is which camp is to be believed? Any scientific claim must be based on thorough investigation, and unfortunately, Low dose Naltrexone, has failed here.
This is the truth, as most studies of this drug (Low dose Naltrexone) have been in very few surveys and clinical trials have not included scientifically conducted double blind studies.
Most of the published work on Low dose Naltrexone reveal only preliminary studies.
Outside of addiction control, none of the work done on the drug has been on a class-1 clinical trial.
On the contrary, there have been only a few studies on a few diseases, with limited subjects.
Some studies of Low dose Naltrexone for fibromyalgia have found symptomatic relief of pain and tenderness in some of these patients.
Whilst some merit must be given to this report, it does not make for conclusive medical evidence to support the claims made by supporters of LDN.
So far, we have shown the negative aspects of what opponents of the drug, call pseudoscience.
But there is more to LDN than meets the eye.
Many patients have taken great pains and risks to experiment with this drug and have found great relief from their symptoms and disease.
Of these groups, perhaps the strongest support comes from patients of multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia and Crohn's disease of the bowel.
These claims cannot be dismissed as rumor mongering and the degree of relief has been very remarkable.
The absence of significant side effects is another strong point in favor of this drug.
But caution should be exercised when using this drug as a cure-all for diseases as varied as HIV-AIDS, and cancers of all hues and shades.
Such hype actually destroys any chance for serious research into the merits of LDN.
To summarize, the jury is till out and patience must be exercised before branding this drug as a cure-all or label LDN as pseudoscience.
Serious research must prove the efficacy of Low dose Naltrexone.
Whilst studying new drugs and experimenting with them for various diseases, one must exercise great caution to see that the claims made about the "medicine" are not beyond the bounds of medical science and the tools of scientific research.
One of the drugs for which this applies is- Low dose Naltrexone.
Whilst Naltrexone is no doubt one of the proven drugs in the field of de-addiction, its role as a wonder drug, a sort of panacea for all diseases deserves much scrutiny.
In therapeutic doses used for alcohol and opiate de-addiction, Naltrexone has without doubt proven itself to be a drug that is the ultimate drug of choice here.
However, it is the lower doses of this drug (Naltrexone) -the so-called Low dose Naltrexone, that is proving to be a hotbed of contention with claim and counter claim about the true usefulness of this drug.
Both supporters and antagonists of Low dose Naltrexone abound on the internet with web sites supporting both claims.
So the query is which camp is to be believed? Any scientific claim must be based on thorough investigation, and unfortunately, Low dose Naltrexone, has failed here.
This is the truth, as most studies of this drug (Low dose Naltrexone) have been in very few surveys and clinical trials have not included scientifically conducted double blind studies.
Most of the published work on Low dose Naltrexone reveal only preliminary studies.
Outside of addiction control, none of the work done on the drug has been on a class-1 clinical trial.
On the contrary, there have been only a few studies on a few diseases, with limited subjects.
Some studies of Low dose Naltrexone for fibromyalgia have found symptomatic relief of pain and tenderness in some of these patients.
Whilst some merit must be given to this report, it does not make for conclusive medical evidence to support the claims made by supporters of LDN.
So far, we have shown the negative aspects of what opponents of the drug, call pseudoscience.
But there is more to LDN than meets the eye.
Many patients have taken great pains and risks to experiment with this drug and have found great relief from their symptoms and disease.
Of these groups, perhaps the strongest support comes from patients of multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia and Crohn's disease of the bowel.
These claims cannot be dismissed as rumor mongering and the degree of relief has been very remarkable.
The absence of significant side effects is another strong point in favor of this drug.
But caution should be exercised when using this drug as a cure-all for diseases as varied as HIV-AIDS, and cancers of all hues and shades.
Such hype actually destroys any chance for serious research into the merits of LDN.
To summarize, the jury is till out and patience must be exercised before branding this drug as a cure-all or label LDN as pseudoscience.
Serious research must prove the efficacy of Low dose Naltrexone.
Source...