It is currently Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:17 pm



All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Our Sponsors





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline
Average Poster
Average Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:05 pm
Posts: 19
Another compilation of studies for the convenience of those who wish to educate themselves further about the liver issue:

http://nolahepper.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... liver.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:54 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:35 am
Posts: 2877
Location: Southwest
Per the OP's request, this thread was moved in the Buprenorphine and Mood section. It is their thread BTW.

_________________
Don't take yourself so damn seriously


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:06 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:42 am
Posts: 4427
You totally missed the point, Char. Dr. Junig is not trying to prove that naltrexone at the doses prescribed are harmful to the liver. He is saying that the potential is there for hepatotoxicity from naltrexone at a large enough dose. Buprenorphine, on the other hand, has no record in research of damaging the human body. It has been found in scientific research to be safe again and again, to the extent that the safety is considered to be proven by those who understand science. However, there are people blaming negative subjective effects on buprenorphine.

So, on the one hand, you have a drug that you and others are singing the praises of, but at high enough doses can cause liver damage. On the other, you have a drug that has been proven benign with scientific evidence, that you, in particular, have said in other posts is not benign. So Dr. Junig is setting up the juxtaposition in a "what if?" scenario, asking what you might be saying and how you might be reacting if it were buprenorphine that caused liver damage in high enough doses. And yet you are willing to ignore that naltrexone has a hepatotoxicity risk in high enough doses because you have a favorable opinion of naltrexone.

I didn't think his scenario was hard to understand, and I have no doubt that you understood it, Char, but just cherry picked a small part of his overall message so you could snidely suggest that Dr. Junig doesn't know what he is talking about. Perhaps because he is pointing out that the use of LDN in the ways being suggested has an incredibly weak scientific foundation, and you don't like that.

Amy

P.S. Jeffg, you are correct that you cannot provide a link to the site that sells LDN.

_________________
Done is better than perfect!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:22 pm 
Offline
Average Poster
Average Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:05 pm
Posts: 19
I think my post was very clear and in context. I didn't cherry pick anything. I expounded on an arguably incomplete representation. And provided scientific studies that you keep going on about.

The doctor did not qualify his reference to hepatotoxicity by saying it was in obese subjects in one study at the 300 mg dose, nor did he bother to mention the numerous other subsequent studies about its safety. Why not?

We are also taking about 1/66th - 1/100th of the warning dose with regard to LDN. In fact, studies have shown that LDN improves liver function. Did you even know that?

You people are spouting off on things you know nothing about. Why?

Furthermore, I think most reasonable people would agree that acute joint pain and debilitating headaches as the result of ingesting a drug is not subjective. Worth mentioning that these side effects ceased after stopping said drug. That's not rocket science my dear. We can let the readers decide that one.

I've stopped posting on any suboxone thread, but this thread is about naltrexone. If you guys don't want the discussion let us know. I'd be asking why though you discourage intelligent conversation about furthering research for recovering drug addicts and sick people. What's your agenda?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:22 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:42 am
Posts: 4427
Char are you saying that you think that you understood Dr. Junig's point and responded to the scenario he presented? It's ok if you didn't get that his point had nothing to do with debating under what circumstances naltrexone causes hepatotoxicity. Some people don't grasp abstract concepts easily, and that's how their brains are wired.

I tried to explain that Dr. Junig's point had nothing to do with arguing that the dosages of naltrexone one might receive from a doctor could cause hepatotoxicity, but I guess you're not getting that. Just so it's clear, we know that the dosage levels one might be prescribed by a doctor will not typically cause hepatotoxicity. There, now you can stop spending time finding research. We are not arguing that point.

As to the rest of your post, I'll let Dr. Junig do the talking:

"The most frustrating thing about the forum is that sometimes people come and 'talk science', but then talk with terms and claims that nobody involved in research would respect, or even recognize. It is also frustrating when people describe vague symptoms that can't be impeached, because doing so opens the door to accusations of insensitivity, or worse-- something like 'all I know is this is how I feel'. You'll never read THAT in a peer-reviewed publication!"

The "research" and "evidence" that has been put forth regarding using LDN with suboxone during withdrawal, would not pass muster with a rocket scientist. Any scientist knows that what is being discussed is no more than conjecture and supposition, because that's what anecdotal evidence is to a scientist. I have no problem with BD presenting the process she is going through. I'm interested!

You suggest that I have an agenda here and you're right! As a moderator, and in furtherance of Dr. Junig's wishes, I will continue to point out what is real scientific study. Scientific evidence must be proven by the scientific method, which includes replicable, double blind study.

"The double blind method is an important part of the scientific method, used to prevent research outcomes from being 'influenced' by the placebo effect or observer bias. Blinded research is an important tool in many fields of research, from medicine, to psychology and the social sciences, to forensics. Blinding is a basic tool to prevent conscious and unconscious bias in research." (https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/double_blind.htm)

So I think BD's journey will be interesting, not as science, but as a story with intrinsic value because it comes from a fellow human being.

Meanwhile, for the sake of anyone who comes along and reads this thread, if there are links to what is supposed to be scientific evidence, I and my fellow mods will check to see if it is evidence proven by the scientific method. If anyone wants to learn more about the scientific method, they can find it here:

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science- ... fic-method

We only have to continue to do this if posters continue to present anecdotal evidence as fact instead of as their experience. If posters can refrain from presenting anecdotal evidence as fact, I won't be having to repeat myself. Until then, I'll be seeing you soon.

Amy

_________________
Done is better than perfect!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:09 pm 
Offline
Average Poster
Average Poster

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:50 am
Posts: 23
Wallowing in the virtue of true science vs the truth of cause and affect is all very well but it's important to keep in mind that most research is funded by the company looking to sell a product and history has shown us that research is hardly an altruistic maiden but more a creature for hire with very few scruples who lays at the feet of the reptillians of greed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
Average Poster
Average Poster

Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:44 pm
Posts: 7
Amy-Work In Progress wrote:
So I think BD's journey will be interesting, not as science, but as a story with intrinsic value because it comes from a fellow human being.


Amen!

Way to go LDN for inspiring so much passionate discussion! I'm sort of kidding though. Come on guys, I'd prefer to not have to take a bath in a pool of competitive antagonistic (pun intended!) remarks each time I read these posts. Some of the put downs on here deserve their own chemical names.

Can I just take a moment to quote a line from Breaking Bad?

[size=200]Yeah Science![/size]

But in all seriousness, it's great but with less negativity. I'm hanging my emotional privates out here on the fiber optic line people lol. Just asking for a little more gentleness? I get that we all have bad days, maybe if you have a bad day share it on this thread, seriously! No problem with me. Oh dear, I'm going to say it, it's bubbling up... this is a forum about a drug that saves lives!
Maybe I inadvertantly set the wrong tone in my posts but I think the responsibility for setting the right tone should be with the owner and moderators of this forum.

March 1
Today I don't really have much to report because I didn't take the LDN last night because of neck pain and I took an extra suboxone for it and didn't want the LDN to kick it off. I barely got any sleep and by the time I did it was too late to take the LDN. It turns out I'm having some complications from surgery. It's hard to say how I feel today with the sleep deprivation and pain but I think not as bad as I could be feeling? Who's to know. BTW I had a horrible, horrible, horrible experience with controlling my post-operative pain. I think it's partly to blame for my complications? I developed a compensatory mechnism in my muscles in order to avoid the pain and that has thrown things out of alignment? Not sure. And thesurgery center says it's unrelated to the surgery?? And they don't want me to see a specialist for another month for all the swelling to go down when I am in discomfort and pain from muscle spasms. Tangent sorry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:22 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:42 am
Posts: 4427
Much of the current research related to addiction and medication comes from NIDA. NIDA gives out grants to people who are willing to do the research. NIDA receives much of its funding from the federal government and here is a quote from NIDA's website:

"NIDA is one of 27 institutes and centers that comprise the National Institutes of Health (NIH), so the NIH governs our grants review process. We fund meritorious and innovative scientific research on all aspects of drug use and addiction. Information for funding opportunities is available on the NIDA webpage, Funding Opportunities. " Here is a link to this statement: https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/fr ... s#research

Wallowing in pure science, as you eloquently put it, requires rigor and attention to detail. It's definitely not for the faint hearted. That's for sure!

Amy

_________________
Done is better than perfect!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:43 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:42 am
Posts: 4427
Quote from BD:

"Maybe I inadvertantly set the wrong tone in my posts but I think the responsibility for setting the right tone should be with the owner and moderators of this forum."

This forum is run by Dr. Junig, who pays thousands of dollars each year to keep it up and running. We mods are volunteers who do our best at keeping track of each and every post. None of us deserve the mocking and snide comments that are made. (I'm not saying that you, BD, has name called or made snide comments.) Being a mod is no picnic! I don't know how we could set the tone any better, without undermining the purpose of the forum.

Amy

_________________
Done is better than perfect!


Top
 Profile  
 
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:52 am 
Offline
Average Poster
Average Poster

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:50 am
Posts: 23
I'm pretty sure you understood what i meant unless I'm wrong in thinking you are intelligent so why you would take the pressure off the multinationals that manufacture , market and sell pharmaceuticals suggesting by omission that they are not involved in the organisations you mentioned is puzzling. Its been common knowladge for anyone with an interest that these companies have people in key places in all government departments including the FDA and are instrumental in pushing there own agenda and public health has very little to do with it.
No doubt you are going to conveniently cry conspiracy but that would only be relevant if it preceded the act but we are so many acts into a very long season of plays that to use that expression shows a lazy intellect.
When the WHO named the swine flu as a pandemic several voting members of the board that made that decision were later found to have vested interests in the outcome ie shares in the company that manufactured the vaccination.
This was acknowledged by WHO and can be verified by anyone interested.
This is one example of the ethical integrity of multinational pharma and if you think altruism drives the scientific research industry then for whatever reason knowingly or not your commentary is questionable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:42 am
Posts: 4427
Knock it off, Jeffg. If you imply that I'm not intelligent or that my commentary is questionable without reason again, I will have to give you a warning. I am tired of the pushback you are giving. I'm intelligent enough to read between the lines that you and others have been trying to discredit our rigorous adherence to scientific evidence on this forum by implying that I'm not intelligent.

If you'll notice, I didn't even disagree with you. I just gave an example of addiction research that is being funded by government grants. I'm hoping that the research NIDA funds is not tainted by corporate greed. Where did you get the idea that I am not against corporate greed and big pharma? Just because I didn't bring up examples of it? I just don't have a ton of knowledge in that area because I'm not interested in researching it. And I don't make a lot of comments on stuff I haven't researched. It's not my area of interest right now. And I'm not going to be goaded into an argument that I would never make. I talk a lot about NIDA so I wanted to look up how their research is funded. I spent two minutes doing that. I don't have time or the inclination to look farther than that, not because I'm intellectually lazy, but because I have other priorities.

I was upset that Tom Price was picked as the Secretary of HHS because his background is corporate and I assumed that he would make it easier for big pharma corporations to do things like raise the prices of epipens just to increase profits. So don't assume you know what I'm thinking just because I posted about the research at NIDA.

I do not want to debate this any further because I don't disagree with you, and I'm tired of being attacked, whether blatantly or not. You guys need to find someone else to debate with if that is your desire, because I'm done with it. From here on out I will start giving warnings or banning people who are being snarky with me. Or my fellow mods will do it.

All of the mods know that we don't get paid enough (or anything) to have to deal with people questioning what we do here. It's time to drop it by not including me in your arguments. Make your points without directing them at me. The one perk we do have as mods is that we are able to ban people who argue with us. Or, if you still have an axe to grind with me, you can choose to leave. I'm not going anywhere.

Amy

_________________
Done is better than perfect!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:33 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:59 pm
Posts: 1069
I feel badly that this thread has turned argumentative, because I think the topics of LDN and just plain naltrexone are fascinating and very important for addicts to consider in treatment. I’ll admit that I had to learn a lot about naltrexone (Vivitrol) before I began my MAT group, and that I had a very negative opinion of it for some very UNSCIENTIFIC reasons (i.e. if opiate agonists make you feel fantastic, then opiate antagonists must make you feel horrible), and also because of negative information I had read on this site.
Since that time I have worked with dozens of recovering addicts who did very well on naltrexone with very few side effects. Many of them ultimately failed for the same reasons many Suboxone patients ultimately fail - the drug was working so well that they felt they didn’t need it anymore and stopped taking it. Or the patient didn’t want to be “on something” anymore, or someone from AA/NA said they should stop taking it.

Sadly, the arguments are detracting from what is a potentially a breakthrough idea. Dr. Junig has been a pioneer in combining very low doses of buprenorphine (as an antagonist) with agonists for treating pain. The antagonist mitigates the euphoria, and therefore the addictive properties, of the full agonist. What I’m getting out of the OP’s experience is that combining a very low dose of naltrexone with buprenorphine seems to mitigate the dysphoric properties of buprenorphine. This seems logical even if it is anecdotal.

I know that most people don’t find buprenorphine to be dysphoric, and many even feel that it helps with depression. There are some of us (like the OP) who experience bupe as a mood stabilizer, but with more negative than positive emotional or cognitive effects. If there is any chance at all that naltrexone could mitigate that, it would be a huge breakthrough for me (and others). I hope we can keep the conversation going. Let’s keep in mind that most double blind scientific studies are ultimately carried out because observational data suggest that a compound might have a particular effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:52 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:15 pm
Posts: 2691
Location: Tennessee
AMEN AMY!!

I have watched Char & jeffg come bk with passive aggressive comments (and some not so passive aggressive and just rude) over and over again. Enough is enough. Is it that big of a deal to get the last word and antagonize a moderator and even Dr. Junig? U were even rude to him at one point. From what I'm seeing, I'm starting to think it has become a personal agenda to just keep going and going at Amy. I'm tired of seeing it and if u don't like it that's too bad. If u don't think it's fair then I don't care.

I was biting my tongue because I don't know anything about LDN, or big pharma for that matter. I don't read case studies or anything like that. My area of knowledge is in the trenches of addiction and wanting to help the addicts that are still suffering. Amy, in my personal opinion, is more educated in that area than me, she's in graduate school to become an addiction counselor. I leave the studies and things to her, so no, I don't know what ur talking about. I'm not going to sit by though and have her ganged up on. I'll ban u both myself before I'll keep watching this go on.

I am sorry to the other members here that mean so much to me, but I'm losing my temper a little bit! Insulting a mods intelligence and all the other jabs are too much. I'd rather give a warning to make it stop. Amy doesn't deserve it and the rest of us are tired of watching it happen. As far as I'm concerned, this is my warning to Char and jeffg. There's ways to communicate without insulting ppl.

_________________
Jennifer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:49 pm 
Offline
Average Poster
Average Poster

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:50 am
Posts: 23
Scietifically verified through double blind studies, approved by the FDA and marketed to millions as safe and non addictive.
Suprised you can't relate to where i am on this subject given your history of addiction to oxycodone.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a ... oxycontin/

I apologize for taking this thread off topic, ldn is very interesting and may well be relevant to many addicts and non addicts alike. The conversation that was started wasn't enciting anyone to do anything illegal it was a discussion in theory only so the reaction to stomp it down is dissapointing as it curtailed the discussion.
Taking responsibility for acting on any information is a given so moderators how about letting the conversation flow a little before jumping in with warnings that are already understood.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:42 am
Posts: 4427
Thank you for taking it down a notch. I really appreciate it.

The only thing I was stomping down was the implied aspersions on my intelligence and character.

You should start a whole new topic on the corporate influence on research. It would be a great freestyle topic, I think.

I've been a mod here for over 5 years and I know I don't do everything perfectly, but try to understand my motivation in giving the warnings I do. I am here for the newbie who has no clue, but is trying to learn about suboxone/buprenorphine. That person doesn't know what is conjecture, what is subjective, what is evidence, and what isn't. That is the person I give warnings for. I am here for the person who can't tell anyone in their life that they are addicted, let alone that they are on suboxone, so they can have a safe place to ask questions and be open about their experience. Most of the warnings we give are there to educate people who are new to the forum and naive, not to beat the people who already understand over the head with it.

If you looked at most of my posts, however, you would see the support I give to people and the questions I answer for people who are in crisis, in pain, or are very confused. I try to be as accurate as I can and as compassionate as I can. When I see someone with a chip on their shoulder and an agenda to disparage buprenorphine or Dr. Junig, I can take it too much to heart.

These are the areas we mods will often respond to:

1. Opinion is not fact and should not be presented as such. 2. Dr. Junig should not be a target of rudeness and vitriol as we are all guests on his forum. 3. We strive to make this a safe place for people who feel positive about their choice to be on buprenorphine. 4. If you are purporting to present scientific evidence, make sure it rises to that level. 5. Try to respect the job we mods do here, or if you can't respect it, then at least don't argue about it. We invest a lot of time and effort here that is, for the most part, not appreciated and that brings us far more grief than accolades. The quickest way to get my dander up is to start being antagonistic toward my fellow mods or Dr. Junig. They are good folks who are here to help.

Maybe knowing the areas that we are more careful about can help those of you who enjoy the conversation and the debate avoid potential pitfalls. And by the way, the Freestyle section is less likely to be moderated than any other place on the forum.

I have no idea whether I have given you any insight that is appreciated or if this is just more fodder for people to dislike. The truth is that I don't like banning people. I would rather get along than not, but I will be the bad guy if I feel backed into a corner. I have no plans to post in this thread anymore if there are no more jabs in my direction.

Amy

_________________
Done is better than perfect!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:03 pm
Posts: 1557
I haven't caught up with this entire thread. I was blunt in my last post--- I knew I was being blunt as I wrote it-- and I assume I caused some tension. I don't know if I'll be able to explain my thought process or if anyone even cares, but I'll give it a shot. On one hand there is a person sharing personal experiences, which is something that I appreciate. On the other hand, the one thing I would like to accomplish with this forum is to separate fact (peer-reviewed studies being the closest to fact) from fiction (personal anecdotes being the closest thing to fiction, when it comes to science).

After I wrote the post I was thinking 'here is this person excited to share his/her personal experiences and I was dismissive of those experiences'. I was also thinking 'so much of the research about naltrexone these days comes from the makers of Vivitrol, who seem to push their product too hard, even to the point of encouraging people to leave buprenorphine to go on naltrexone'.

This latter issue is a HUGE problem because small-town, Midwestern drug courts are completely ignorant about the actions, uses, and risks of various treatments for opioid addiction. Vivitrol marketing plays into that ignorance.

People who have read the older parts of my blog know my anger over the war against buprenorphine, a war fueled by the huge profits made by abstinence-based programs. People love to complain that their buprenorphine treatment is too expensive if they pay, say, $300 per month, which is $3600 per year. Compare that to any abstinence-based treatment. The comparison would be one thing if those 30, 60, or 90 day treatments worked, but they don't! And across the country most states have several or those programs in every major city, and others throughout small towns. The 'spa treatments' take tens of thousands of dollars per patient, with expenses of $80K or more not unusual.

Who pays for those failed treatments? You and I do through higher insurance premiums. Families do through taking out second mortgages when they are at their most-desperate. Society does by losing the members of the workforce who are potentially among the most-productive.

So the whole thing pisses me off.

I'll move on... I am sharing an article about cannabis and dementia to provide an example of how science moves forward. I chose this topic because it is far more interesting than whether vitamin C treats the common cold, or whether vaccines cause autism. I didn't read all of it, for reasons you will see if you try doing so yourself (there is no point in reading more than the brain can assimilate, in my opinion!). But what you will see is that a very simple question-- does THC treat dementia-- will take many, many, many studies, seminars, reviews, and statistic analyses to answer. The paper discusses studies from animals to humans, basic science to clinical trials, and one can see how difficult it is to sort through the findings and get to the truth. Maybe I'm hyping it too much.... but you will find it here: http://www.suboxforum.com/cannabis.dementia.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Our Sponsors
Suboxone Forum latest topics RSS feed Subscribe to the entire forum

 
Fond Du Lac Psychiatry
Dr. Jeffrey Junig, M.D., Ph.D.

  • Board Certified Psychiatrist
  • Asst Clinical Professor, Medical College of Wisconsin

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group