Sibby - It is a good question. There has been some discussion of how much can be absorbed, and some discussion of the therapeutic effects of slower absorption. I think there was some confusion about
whether enough could be absorbed, because low-dose is off-label, and some doctors/pharmacists may have been thinking about
higher doses used for other purposes. There do seem to be many anecdotal accounts of folks who perceive a benefit from trans-dermal administration. (It is not clear how many of these are getting a placebo effect and/or benefiting from other treatments they are taking. It has not been scientifically studied.) My speculation, after reading various accounts and arguments, is that enough gets absorbed through the skin to amount to the low-does needed.
The rate question is another matter. I do not believe in magic, and I always ask "how" something is supposed to be working. The idea of LDN's benefit is a short temporary opiate receptor blockage, that in in rebound-fashion produces a therapeutic effect once the blockage is removed. There is discussion, even in pro-LDN communities, that this requires quick uptake of the dose, and that skin absorption is too slow. However, if your GI-trac absorption is impaired by disease, oral may not be all that fast either. (I think this is why there is also anecdotal accounts of LDN working better/faster when difficult to digest proteins are removed from the diet.)
Consider this opinion offered on the LDN-Science site:
http://www.ldnscience.org/questions-and-answers/low-dose-naltrexone-ldn said...
For LDN to work, the full LDN dose must be delivered to the body in one go. Transdermal delivery methods by nature result in slow continuous delivery of a drug. This will result in continuous opiate receptor blockade - quite the opposite of the purpose of LDN which is to deliver a very short term blockade in order to create the beneficial rebound effect.
It may be that it does work, but just take a bit longer to train the body. IT is not clear, because it has not been scientifically studied, and it is difficult to weigh anecdotal accounts, and because of well-intentioned but foolish people like InSoFla, who overstate things to be "facts", who make up scientific sounding numbers, who never qualify comments to note that they are opinion, or based on an accumulation of anecdotal accounts, or are otherwise uncertain.
I did easily get a script
form my GI, I had a bad feeling about
6mp, and wanted to try other things. I am still 6mp free, but I did not take the LDN because of what I read about
it causing sleep problems. I have enough trouble sleeping, and have to take sleep meds, I fight anemia, and need all the rest I can get. It seemed like it might be one step forward and two steps backward. I may try LDN in the future if my condition gets worse and I run out of other options. I just try to be
open-eyed about
all the benefits and risks, and tradeoffs, and scientific issues ... etc.