did any one here how the debate in the house of commons,about,the use of LDN,go,did the motion get passed or are we still not allowed it ?
I did not even know this was happening, so thanks for the reminder. If I’ve got this link right, it should take you to the right bit of Hansard. The debate starts at column 490, so you might have to scroll down a bit. As far as I can gather, the gist of it is that requests for Government funding for trials of LDN from (for instance) a university department are likely to be well-received.
You can read about the debate here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-12-08a.490.0
I have been taking ldn on the NHS for eight years, so it is already perfectly possible.
The law was quite clearly spelt out that LDN can be prescribed by any doctor and that it can be funded by the NHS .
However for it to be licence there is insufficient clinical trial data to justify it, which I do not believe can or should be disputed.
Where the argument falls down in my view is that MS is more often than not treated by multiple drugs not one of which is licensed for MS. These drugs not tested in the combinations they are used in for any condition. Who knows in a scientific sense what the combinations of drugs might do together. That is no doubt true of many conditions.
So what is the big fuss about using a further of label drug to treat MS and why do some people have so much problem getting it prescribed and why do some PCT’s refuse to fund it?
The latter point of PCT funding is not really peculiar to LDN and is common with many treatments licensed or not. There are also many other things funded by PCT’s where the evidence is far from licensing standard or maybe lacking altogether.
Here for instance is a cochrane review of flu vaccines for the over 65’s
That puts the provision of flu vaccines for the over 65’s in exactly the same position as prescribing LDN for MS.
Note as with LDN the review just says there is no evidence to justify doing it, it does not say it does not work or that it is a safety hazard.
What bothers me is the continual pretence that western medicine is all evidence based when in many cases it clearly is not.
The debate is the first step. Next is to engage the near 30 MP’s who supported the debate and form them into an APPG (All party parliamentary group). This then is to lead to a Health Select Committee.
Until something changes or research is done, LDN will remain difficult to get on the NHS. Whammel should try moving to another doctor.
LDN is a safe drug with unprovenh efficacy, but LDN will do no harm so there is no good argument to deny it to patients who ask for it. However, much work is needed to blow up the myth culture that has formed around LDN too, it is giving LDN a bad name!
We want it now firrst, and we want it trialled next. This debate might just get this resolved, because when a system forms a system fault, it takes politics or intelligence to solve it. Never doubt that a samall group of determined individuals can change the world! Indeed it is the onl thing that ever has.