I had to use Google-translate to read the site properly, and I’m sad to have wasted my time.
This blog-entry is one of the crappier posts I have read about LDN, and so is the outdated (2010) article by «Steven Novella», which you so eagerly cite. Steven Novella refused to change his article over time when new research results came along. In fact he also stopped the comment-section after 12 days, so no further discussion could be continued after may 2010. As his page is pretty high on the Google-ranking for LDN, that means a lot of people get very outdated information. Apart from Steven Novellas ideas, you continue rambling about your owb skeptical feelings – which granted I had too before doing actual research.
Anyway, your article was published 3 years later, and it seems you did not bother doing actual research. For example looking at the 81(!) scientific publications/trials which have been done or are in progress at the moment (2014):
Google can find you more trustworthy information sources besides the official research. www.lowdosenaltrexone.org is one site, although a not very pretty or modern one. It seems it has also been targeted by some people manipulating the WOT-extension to give it bogus reviews, which have nothing to do with the content.
I myself only encountered your blog when I heard that the doctors in Norway may be more educated about LDN-usage than the ones in Finland, and Google for norwegian articles. If you represent the current «Norwegian LDN-knowledge», then I probably heard wrong.
PS: And no, I was not paid to write this by any LDN-conspiracy-movement, nor do I even use LDN myself.
Kommentatoren er kritisk til at jeg åpenbart ikke har fulgt med på forskningen, og at jeg derfor presenterer utdatert informasjon til leserne mine.