User talk:Cbeymer

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There have been quite a few successful studies on low dose naltrexone, here is the link http://lowdosenaltrexone.org/ldn_trials.htm. This person "Novella" is a noted skeptic and for some reason doesn't bother to update his out of date blog post which is so heavily cited in this Wiki article. Does this mean I can write a blog post and use that as a citation? Seriously. My mother has a glioblastoma grade IV brain cancer and her improvement on Low Dose Naltrexone is astounding. There's only a 1% cure rate with GBM using standard of care. Standard of care would work better if they checked her MGMT gene to see if the use of temozolomide (chemo) would be beneficial. But standard of care is not named because it's personalized to the person, it's the same for all even though half of us (approximately) would not benefit from temozolomide. Look back over the history and find a better version of this article that is not citing Novella all over the place. Use words such as anecdotal evidence, not words like "bogus" because the latest clinical studies indicate that it's not bogus. Lots of people use LDN on their pets, and their pets get healthy. Unless dogs and cats can read, this is not a placebo effect. Cbeymer (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Last warning
I suggest you check the article's talk page history. Your arguments have already been hashed out by other uses, and there is no consensus for removing reliably sourced information. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Chill out
That is not "removing reliably sourced information". I only removed two sentences that are opinion. At least have the courtesy to quote the source, not just allow someone to write their opinion. I also added that Novella, who is cited all over the place in this Wiki article, is a member of the New England Skeptical Society. This is a fact. What you are doing here is against Wiki's policy. This should be an unbiased article. Cbeymer (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Help
Here's some new information about the claims and the science, not bogus claims.

Research: Low-Dose Naltrexone (LDN): Tricking the Body to Heal Itself? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110902133047.htm Researchers at The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania have discovered the mechanism by which a low dose of the opioid antagonist naltrexone (LDN), an agent used clinically (off-label) to treat cancer and autoimmune diseases, exerts a profound inhibitory effect on cell proliferation.

Dr. Steven R. Goodman, Editor-in-Chief of Experimental Biology and Medicine said: "These researchers from the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center have made the important discovery of the mechanism by which a low dose of the opioid antagonist naltrexone (LDN) can suppress cell proliferative-related disorders such as cancer and autoimmune diseases. This is an exciting new direction for future therapy."

A Clinical Study: Impact of low dose naltrexone (LDN) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) treated HIV+ adults in Mali: A single blind randomized clinical trial http://www.academicjournals.org/jahr/PDF/Pdf2011/October/Traore%20et%20al%20(1).pdf

Abdel K. TRAORE, Oumar THIERO, Sounkalo DAO, Fadia F. C. KOUNDE, Ousmane FAYE, Mamadou CISSE, Jaquelyn B. McCANDLESS, Jack M. ZIMMERMAN, Karim COULIBALY, Ayouba DIARRA, Mamadou S. KEITA, Souleymane DIALLO, Ibrahima G. TRAORE and Ousmane KOITA

To implement an immuno-regulatory approach for reducing or preventing the onset of AIDS symptoms in HIV+ individuals we conducted a single blind nine-month randomized clinical trial to evaluate the impact of low-dose naltrexone (LDN) on asymptomatic HIV+ Mali adults undergoing antiretroviral (ART) treatment with CD4 counts below 350 cell/mm3. We measured differences between groups in CD4 count, CD4%, hemoglobin, viral load, interferon alpha, and standard chemistry panel five times during the clinical period. The random mixed model and restricted maximum likelihood method for estimating slopes for repeated measures on subjects were used to predict CD4 counts and CD4%.

The improvement in CD4 count in the treatment group (51 subjects) was significantly greater than the control group (49 subjects) at 6 months (p = 0.041) and marginally at 9 months (p = 0.067). Improvement in CD4% in the treatment group also was observed throughout the clinical period but these increases were not significant relative to the control group. Since, for this period of time, the combination of LDN + ART appears to be more effective in increasing CD4 count, and since LDN is inexpensive, easy to administer and without side effects, further exploration of LDN together with ARV treatment is recommended.

Cbeymer (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cbeymer (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)