Opioids Reversing opiate effects

[spaceyourbass]

There's tons of information on low dose naltrexone therapy on the web. Most of it is for its use with autoimmune diseases, some cancers, HIV/AIDS (LDN was first discovered and used with HIV/AIDS patients in the 80s), Parkinson's, MS, the list goes on. This is where most of the interest is, of course. A proper LDN dosage for people with these diseases is just under 5mg I believe, while opioid potentiation requires less than a milligram. The FDA still hasn't approved large-scale tests for LDN therapy, which should be considered distinct and seperate form naltrexone therapy, despite the 50mg pills being approved in the 80s for opiate addicts and later alcoholics. It would costs millions to test the drug, and no pharmaceutical company wants to spend money to lose it (this is my theory). There was even a CBS special on LDN a while back.

 

[adder]

Well, the guy from the video states it has been confirmed by researches that naltrexone does act against cancer. I'm suspicious, it might be some pseudoscientific thing. Even if naltrexone is readily available in the US, still people have to pay for it. Then any claimed use brings some money to pharmaceutical companies producing naltrexone pills, right?

 

[spaceyourbass]

Well, the guy from the video states it has been confirmed by researches that naltrexone does act against cancer. I'm suspicious, it might be some pseudoscientific thing. Even if naltrexone is readily available in the US, still people have to pay for it. Then any claimed use brings some money to pharmaceutical companies producing naltrexone pills, right?

The only thing I can reccommend is to do research. You will see that this therapy is not a pseudoscience. Astrology is a pseudoscience. Just because a pharmaceutical company hasn't stepped up to do large-scale clinical trials, which would allow FDA approval, doesn't mean the roughly 100,000 people around the world who use/have used LDN are getting placebo effects. Low-dose naltrexone needs FDA approval because it does have specific effects and uses that regular-dose naltrexone does not. Have you tried a Google search? You should read the wikipedia. I don't have all the answers, I really just use it for opiate potentiation, and my research is limited.

 

[yb62338]

You're best bet is to learn your body well and understand your own reaction to different drugs. I understand that many people can perform well at whatever they may need to while high, but I don't think you can perform at your full potential unless you've got a clear head. I think separating recreation from responsibility is an important skill.

I don't like the idea of taking naltrexone, naloxone, caffeine, or any other drug for two reasons: everything has side effects, and combined drug effects are not always what one would predict. Better to judge your day in advance and plan your dose accordingly.

 

[adder]

I see no point in taking naltrexone as I'm not seeking any potentation. I've been addicted to opioids for enough time and I'm currently trying to get off methadone. So this is just an interesting phenomenon yet without enough proof for me. I've never been a guinea pig and I don't plan to . Also, I don't recruit people for any testings.

Concerning potentation of opioid analgesic action, there are many ways to do it and not all are even used. A research on potentation of opioids with low dose of naltrexone for opioid addicts would be very strange as the world struggles with increasing number of addicts. Why would anyone research this for this purpose? Like I wrote, there are many ways to decrease the dose of an opioid by adding a drug that augments analgesic action and these aren't debatable like the case with naltrexone is. Maybe hence there's no rush to research this deeper? And naltrexone isn't really the most sought after treatment after drug detox to block the receptors. There's little demand for it in my country to be honest.

I've read about low-dose naltrexone. It has so many uses that it's too good to be true (also given the variety of diseases it "magically" cures: morbus Leśniowski-Crohn, colitis ulcerosa, sclerosis multiplex, polyarthritis reumatoidea, neoplasmas... come on). I'm not saying I wouldn't give it a shot if I suffered from some of these diseases but it would still be something like homeopathic drugs unless it really would do something.

EDIT: Actually, it could have been researched on a larger scale if not for all these advocates of low-dose naltrexone. It's been known for quite a long time opioid systems might modulate not only pain and it's known for sure opioids act on the immune system. But I guess some people just got it too far stating stimulating endogenous opioids production is equal to resolving so many diseases in which the immune system damage is involved. They just added B to A and this is totally unprofessional, this is not how biochemistry and/or neuropharmacology works. This is wrong, this is not plain math.

 

[spaceyourbass]

I see no point in taking naltrexone as I'm not seeking any potentation. I've been addicted to opioids for enough time and I'm currently trying to get off methadone. So this is just an interesting phenomenon yet without enough proof for me. I've never been a guinea pig and I don't plan to . Also, I don't recruit people for any testings.

Concerning potentation of opioid analgesic action, there are many ways to do it and not all are even used. A research on potentation of opioids with low dose of naltrexone for opioid addicts would be very strange as the world struggles with increasing number of addicts. Why would anyone research this for this purpose? Like I wrote, there are many ways to decrease the dose of an opioid by adding a drug that augments analgesic action and these aren't debatable like the case with naltrexone is. Maybe hence there's no rush to research this deeper? And naltrexone isn't really the most sought after treatment after drug detox to block the receptors. There's little demand for it in my country to be honest.

I've read about low-dose naltrexone. It has so many uses that it's too good to be true (also given the variety of diseases it "magically" cures: morbus Leśniowski-Crohn, colitis ulcerosa, sclerosis multiplex, polyarthritis reumatoidea, neoplasmas... come on). I'm not saying I wouldn't give it a shot if I suffered from some of these diseases but it would still be something like homeopathic drugs unless it really would do something.

EDIT: Actually, it could have been researched on a larger scale if not for all these advocates of low-dose naltrexone. It's been known for quite a long time opioid systems might modulate not only pain and it's known for sure opioids act on the immune system. But I guess some people just got it too far stating stimulating endogenous opioids production is equal to resolving so many diseases in which the immune system damage is involved. They just added B to A and this is totally unprofessional, this is not how biochemistry and/or neuropharmacology works. This is wrong, this is not plain math.

The point of researching low-dose naltrexone for opiate potentiation is to make pharmaceutical pills with it. So people who take the pills for pain (which is what they are made for, not for abuse) won't have to take such massive doses of oxycodone or whatever. Naltrexone is very cheap, and people won't have to worry so much about not being able to afford their prescriptions or the dreaded "donut hole." Low-dose naltrexone does not "magically" cure any diseases; it only helps the symptoms. Basically your argument seems to be "its too good to be true so it is probably not." Every drug out there that cures a disease was once discovered and tested on a massive scale. They too probably seemed too good to be true at one point.

Again, this is not like some homeopathic drug. Opioid growth factor is in almost every cell in the body, and naltrexone has a definite effect on them. The drug itself is relatively new and LDN is an even more recent discovery.

I don't get your EDIT. That made no sense to me:

Actually, it could have been researched on a larger scale if not for all these advocates of low-dose naltrexone.

So the (very) few people advocating use of low-dose naltrexone are to blame? THEY are the reason that the FDA has not yet approved wide-scale tests and a pharmaceutical company hasn't paid for and set-up the tests? I'll say it one more time - no pharma company wants to pay millions to test this drug and end up LOSING money because it is so cheap. It could potentially make super-high doses of opiates unnecessary (or not, but that is why it needs to be tested).

You are being very pessimistic about low-dose naltrexone, which you were initially getting confused with regular ole' naltrexone. You need to find out about the thousands of people with auto-immune diseases that successfully use this therapy. No, it is not a cure-all. But it should be given a chance by the FDA and big pharma. The fact is that neither one of us can say FOR SURE that LDN works or not, because it hasn't been tested!

You sound like you work for a pharmaceutical company: "this is nonsense...people are using B to mean A unprofessionally blah blah blah biochemistry doesn't work like that." You are simply ignoring all of the people with serious diseases for which the drug is helping. Just because they didn't teach you about LDN in school doesn't mean it is bullshit!