Same ole same ole; no ticky no washy. :rolleyes:

There are NEVER going to be the kind of clinical trials on LDN to meet neurologists' satisfaction. That argument is too old to care about any more.

In the meantime, people are using LDN and doing well . . . so that's all that really matters. :D

Cherie

As I posted in the LDN thread to Sally's response, I think it falls short because at least to me, the tone implies that the very small studies actually proved it didn't do certain things and tons more anecdotal reports say otherwise. If it was worded differently I don't think I would have had the same problem with the article. And, I really was wondering if it was just my interpretation or if others shared the same view.

I thought that at first too, Bearygood . . . but then I just ended up saying "who cares?". :p

He hand-picked some negative "highlights" out of a few clinical trials, but has neglected to anaylze the "why's". The Cree trial was on people who were using EVERY type of CRAB, and the trial was only (8?) weeks. The PPMS trial was longer and had GREAT results ... but he really wasn't looking to see that.

Even if everything had come out roses, they would still say the trials didn't prove anything, because they were "too small", "not placebo controlled", "not double blinded", "all done in one location", "not published", "not peer reviewed", blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:

Unless the neurologists get the exact "type" of "scientific proof" they feel is needed, which will likely NEVER happen with LDN, they won't be satisfied. Like I said though . . . who cares as long as we have access to it? :D

I think the average PwMS believes anecdotal evidence from REAL people over what the large pharma's spew anyway, don't you?

Cherie