A trial to prove that LDN is effective for slowing disease progression and/or reducing attacks would be EXTREMELY expensive, and take many years.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there now about LDN, and more and more people are becoming convinced it's the best option we have. If our ongoing health is the primary concern, I wonder why not do a trial just to prove it's NOT working?

I suspect it's the bottom line that generally dictates where trial monies will be spent, i.e. how much money can be made off a drug?

The good news is that perhaps the NMSS is starting to help in this regard. They have apparently recently granted Dr. Zagon, a researcher who works with Dr. Jill Smith (who is a Crohn's/LDN trial researcher) a pilot grant to start working on LDN with MS.

I believe the thinking is still to test LDN on a single MS symptom (i.e. bladder), and if it proves effective for that, then any other improvements would just be a huge bonus.

Quite honestly, I don't hear of many doctors/neuros these days who are still refusing to rx, so long as the patient is informed and determined.

Like all drugs, I'm sure it works for some, and not so well for others, but it appears to be a safe and effective drug for many with MS.

Cherie