Norwegian Review of LDN

Posted on Posted in Film Issues, Treatments

This is a Norwegian review of the use of low-dose naltrexone in various autoimmune conditions, including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Original article: http://tidsskriftet.no/article/2099398

Translated article: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftidsskriftet.no%2Farticle%2F2099398&act=url

I once called a local compounding pharmacy to ask if it’s possible that pharmaceutical companies could pick up LDN, repatent it and hike up the price to profit from it’s wide spread use. The pharmacist I spoke with said absolutely, it happens all the time and it can be beneficial for patients because it can get promoted more, they learn about it sooner and see benefit.

But the following quote from the article in the final “Talk” section makes me see that this might not happen.

The pharmaceutical industry seems to have little interest in investigating the effect of low dose naltrexone, probably because the patent has expired. The treatment is most likely in conditions where the so-called biological drugs may be appropriate. Such drugs are very expensive…

That is a frickin’ excellent point! The companies that have developed biologic drugs have invested millions (I’m assuming, haven’t researched) of dollars into the development and marketing of their biologic drugs. To abandon that freight train and switch to LDN will hurt them economically. But even more important is that the biologic drugs are expensive, and even if they hike up the price of LDN, they probably won’t be able to match the price of their biologics, so they still will want to use the biologics for profit potential.

… and can be associated with several serious side effects. If naltrexone in low doses proved to be effective, it is conceivable that the use of several of the most expensive drugs can be reduced for some patients. Such potential savings should encourage research in the direction of the public.

It’s rare to see such a clear cut statement like that in a medical article or study, not sure why it is, perhaps it has to do with funding.