“Why, when low dose naltrexone is been described as so significant, are we not hearing more about it?” is a question that naturally arises.
There seem to be two reasons.
Firstly, because of it’s unusual nature and unusual history. According to the Wikipedia article on Naltrexone, it was first made in 1965, and in 1984 got FDA approval for it’s use, in 50 mg doses, in treating patients with “alcohol and opioid dependence.” And it wasn’t until after that that, in work largely pioneered by one man, Dr Bernard Bihari, that it was found to be effective in treating a whole range of medical problems and diseases, often taken in 3 or 4 or 5 mg doses, less than one tenth of 50 mg – hence the name Low Dose Naltrexone. As it was being used by Dr Bihari, it was cheap to make, out of patent, and you only needed only really small doses of it anyway.
Some so-called experts have critcised it, almost poked fun at it, for being “unsupported by rigorous clinical research,” but the truth is no one is interested in spending money on subjecting it to “rigorous clinical research,” least of all the Pharmaceutical Industry, to help establish that it’s good or no good – it’s said that the Pharmaceutical Industry is only interested in new high priced medicines that they can establish some sorts of monopolies with, because they’re still under patent.
Secondly, (which we’re still thinking about, and it may be too cynical,) because it’s going to reduce the work available to doctors so much. Perhaps there will be lots of patients who, when they have some sort of medical problem, will think, “I’ll take LDN for a couple of weeks before I go and see a doctor,” and when they do this, they end up not going to see a doctor at all.
For your comments and answers to any questions we may be able to provide, and to provide us with any relevant information you may have, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org