Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Low Dose Naltrexone

FDA-approved naltrexone, used to block opioids in the brain. Used in a low dose, can also boost the immune system.

Naltrexone itself was approved by the FDA in 1984 in a 50mg dose for the purpose of helping heroin or opium addicts, by blocking the effect of such drugs. By blocking opioid receptors, naltrexone also blocks the reception of the opioid hormones that our brain and adrenal glands produce: beta-endorphin and metenkephalin. Many body tissues have receptors for these endorphins and enkephalins, including virtually every cell of the body's immune system.

It is one medication that according to Dr. William Shaw Ph.D should be added to the anti-yeast and free of casein and gluten diet and Nystatin protocol for children with autism. Naltrexone blocks opioids in the brain. The opioids from milk and wheat may slow the brain down.

At low doses, naltrexone may help clear the brain of opioids which have already gotten into the brain. In the past studies of this protocol have been done using doses that were to high and therefore showed that sometimes naltrexone has the opposite effect of what is intended. The doses used were 25 to 50 milligrams per day, which can cause pain. These studies failed to include the combination of the elimination of dairy and wheat products.

In autistic children where immune deficiencies are present, naltrexone can boost the immune system and given in low doses.

Reicheit KI et al. Gluten, milk proteins and autism: Results of dietary intervention on behavior and urinary peptide secretion. J. Applied Nutrition 42: 1-11, 1990.

Bovard, et al. Low-dose naltrexone effects on plasma chemistries and clinical symptoms in autism: a double-blind-placebo controlled study Psychiatry
Research 58: 191-20, 1995

Roy S, Loh HH. Effects of opioids on the immune system. Neurochem Res 1996;21:1375-1386


ANB said...

Ashley, you REALLY don't want lay people prescribing quack remedies on your blog. Zurama is not a medical doctor, and the drug she recommends is not approved for the treatment of autism. It's bad enough when your viewers level unsubstantiated allegations - let's not add "playing doctor" to their list of transgressions.

Dr. Fogarty said...

These childredn can be helpoed greatly by out of the box artful clinical practice, if there is anyone seeking to improve the function of their autistic child seek the medical opinion of a Defeat Autism Now! physician. Also read Bryan Jepson, MD's book "Changing the Course of Autism" thats this big picture. Medicine has already demonstrated its errors of approach on this, its not bad mothering after all.


ANB said...

That's one vote for lay people playing doctor, and one against. Do we have a tie breaker?

Fogarty said...

Missing the big picture again Autism News Beat.

ANB said...

No, just sticking to the script.

Anonymous said...

Why does every discarded treatment that was first used in attempting to treat CFS show up, sometimes a decade later as in this case, as some kind of alleged remedy for those on the spectrum.

Zurama L. Johnston said...

My article was just intended to share information and not intended to give medical advice.

There is no one remedy for kids with autism. What works for some, won't work for others. The article was referring to those who respond to the gf/cf diet and those with immunodeficiencies.

ANB said...

My comment was just intended to share information and not intended to give medical advice.

Autism is a developmental disorder. These kids continue to develop and grow and learn. You could "treat" them with tap water, and given enough time, and lack of a control group, a parent will see improvement.

So how could you know a purported treatment is working? Show a little skepticism, people.

eforelmo said...

Clearly self diagnosis and self prescriptions carry real hazards. However you will probably be hard pressed to find a doctor that will bring it up as a possible treatment because there have been no clinical studies. This drug has already gone to generic form and there is no billion dollar pharmaceutical company willing to pay for an expensive clinical study and market the drug. I came across this page because I was googling this drug as a possible treatment for my wife’s MS. The drug has been prescribed off label for MS since 1984 but my wife’s neurologists didn’t bring it up as a possible treatment because of the lack of clinical studies. Zaurama makes a compelling hypothesis and it is probably worth studying. Just because a drug company hasn’t paid for a clinical study doesn’t mean that it won’t be beneficial. I am not a doctor but this drug has few side effects and it might be useful to discuss an off label prescription with your doctor. That said, while this drug has shown to be helpful to a number of conditions, it is important not to jump to conclusions without solid science backing it up.

ANB said...

" is important not to jump to conclusions without solid science backing it up.

Excellent point, IMO.

FOGARTY said...

As a physician I see time and time again where great opportunities for helping people in medicine get left behind for capital needs of research. You have made some valid observations eforlmo.