Glutathione...not a believer yet????

[Ender]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NoExcuses</b></i>

I would only trust "eradication of PA" if that was demonstrated by a bronch.</end quote></div>

That's ridiculous. Wouldn't you have to do a bronch before and after the trial for each individual. That's pretty invasive even for a clinical trial.for each subject??

 

[Ender]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NoExcuses</b></i>

I would only trust "eradication of PA" if that was demonstrated by a bronch.</end quote></div>

That's ridiculous. Wouldn't you have to do a bronch before and after the trial for each individual. That's pretty invasive even for a clinical trial.for each subject??

 

[Ender]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NoExcuses</b></i>

I would only trust "eradication of PA" if that was demonstrated by a bronch.</end quote></div>

That's ridiculous. Wouldn't you have to do a bronch before and after the trial for each individual. That's pretty invasive even for a clinical trial.for each subject??

 

[Ender]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NoExcuses</b></i>

I would only trust "eradication of PA" if that was demonstrated by a bronch.</end quote>

That's ridiculous. Wouldn't you have to do a bronch before and after the trial for each individual. That's pretty invasive even for a clinical trial.for each subject??

 

[Ender]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NoExcuses</b></i>
<br />
<br />I would only trust "eradication of PA" if that was demonstrated by a bronch.</end quote>
<br />
<br />That's ridiculous. Wouldn't you have to do a bronch before and after the trial for each individual. That's pretty invasive even for a clinical trial.for each subject??

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Actually, no. You would technically only need a post-trial bronch. Clearly if you culture PA in a sputum sample that is coughed up, there is no need for a bronch to prove its presence. The problem is that the same is not true the other way around: i.e., while PA in a coughed up sample does clearly indicate its presence, the LACK of PA in a coughed up sample does not clearly indicate that PA is NOT present. So you could prove eradication of PA by selecting individuals who cough up samples with PA at the start of the trial and who, at the end of the trial, have no PA even using a bronch.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Actually, no. You would technically only need a post-trial bronch. Clearly if you culture PA in a sputum sample that is coughed up, there is no need for a bronch to prove its presence. The problem is that the same is not true the other way around: i.e., while PA in a coughed up sample does clearly indicate its presence, the LACK of PA in a coughed up sample does not clearly indicate that PA is NOT present. So you could prove eradication of PA by selecting individuals who cough up samples with PA at the start of the trial and who, at the end of the trial, have no PA even using a bronch.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Actually, no. You would technically only need a post-trial bronch. Clearly if you culture PA in a sputum sample that is coughed up, there is no need for a bronch to prove its presence. The problem is that the same is not true the other way around: i.e., while PA in a coughed up sample does clearly indicate its presence, the LACK of PA in a coughed up sample does not clearly indicate that PA is NOT present. So you could prove eradication of PA by selecting individuals who cough up samples with PA at the start of the trial and who, at the end of the trial, have no PA even using a bronch.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Actually, no. You would technically only need a post-trial bronch. Clearly if you culture PA in a sputum sample that is coughed up, there is no need for a bronch to prove its presence. The problem is that the same is not true the other way around: i.e., while PA in a coughed up sample does clearly indicate its presence, the LACK of PA in a coughed up sample does not clearly indicate that PA is NOT present. So you could prove eradication of PA by selecting individuals who cough up samples with PA at the start of the trial and who, at the end of the trial, have no PA even using a bronch.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Actually, no. You would technically only need a post-trial bronch. Clearly if you culture PA in a sputum sample that is coughed up, there is no need for a bronch to prove its presence. The problem is that the same is not true the other way around: i.e., while PA in a coughed up sample does clearly indicate its presence, the LACK of PA in a coughed up sample does not clearly indicate that PA is NOT present. So you could prove eradication of PA by selecting individuals who cough up samples with PA at the start of the trial and who, at the end of the trial, have no PA even using a bronch.
<br />
<br />

 

[NoExcuses]

piper is right.

to bring new PO antibiotics to the market with an FDA indication for sinusitis, often they do a pre and post therapy sinus puncture. that's pretty invasive but how else will you tell if bacteria are eradicated?

you can't just randomly decide that a coughed up sputum culture and expect with any reasonable certainly that an organism is actually eliminated. You certainly can't make any clinical trial claims with that method.

 

[NoExcuses]

piper is right.

to bring new PO antibiotics to the market with an FDA indication for sinusitis, often they do a pre and post therapy sinus puncture. that's pretty invasive but how else will you tell if bacteria are eradicated?

you can't just randomly decide that a coughed up sputum culture and expect with any reasonable certainly that an organism is actually eliminated. You certainly can't make any clinical trial claims with that method.

 

[NoExcuses]

piper is right.

to bring new PO antibiotics to the market with an FDA indication for sinusitis, often they do a pre and post therapy sinus puncture. that's pretty invasive but how else will you tell if bacteria are eradicated?

you can't just randomly decide that a coughed up sputum culture and expect with any reasonable certainly that an organism is actually eliminated. You certainly can't make any clinical trial claims with that method.

 

[NoExcuses]

piper is right.

to bring new PO antibiotics to the market with an FDA indication for sinusitis, often they do a pre and post therapy sinus puncture. that's pretty invasive but how else will you tell if bacteria are eradicated?

you can't just randomly decide that a coughed up sputum culture and expect with any reasonable certainly that an organism is actually eliminated. You certainly can't make any clinical trial claims with that method.

 

[NoExcuses]

piper is right.
<br />
<br />to bring new PO antibiotics to the market with an FDA indication for sinusitis, often they do a pre and post therapy sinus puncture. that's pretty invasive but how else will you tell if bacteria are eradicated?
<br />
<br />you can't just randomly decide that a coughed up sputum culture and expect with any reasonable certainly that an organism is actually eliminated. You certainly can't make any clinical trial claims with that method.

 

[AnD]

I think that the point of the article is this (bold and italics mine):


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Use of a daily GSH regimen appears to be associated in CF patients with significant improvement in lung function and weight, and a significant decline in bacteria cultured in this uncontrolled study. <i><b>These findings bear further clinical investigation in larger, randomized, controlled studies.</b></i> </end quote></div>

Not that they are saying that everyone should jump on the bandwagon now, but that there is evidence to support further testing/clinical trials. It's a just a study to gather evidence about whether or not it is worth pursuing (pre-clinical trial work), and from their uncontrolled (basically, not far from simple observational) study, it is worth looking into further. And since there are several people here who are taking it and it is working for them too, that's good news! <img src="http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j213/boxart/smilies/2cents-1.gif">

 

[AnD]

I think that the point of the article is this (bold and italics mine):


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Use of a daily GSH regimen appears to be associated in CF patients with significant improvement in lung function and weight, and a significant decline in bacteria cultured in this uncontrolled study. <i><b>These findings bear further clinical investigation in larger, randomized, controlled studies.</b></i> </end quote></div>

Not that they are saying that everyone should jump on the bandwagon now, but that there is evidence to support further testing/clinical trials. It's a just a study to gather evidence about whether or not it is worth pursuing (pre-clinical trial work), and from their uncontrolled (basically, not far from simple observational) study, it is worth looking into further. And since there are several people here who are taking it and it is working for them too, that's good news! <img src="http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j213/boxart/smilies/2cents-1.gif">

 

[AnD]

I think that the point of the article is this (bold and italics mine):


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Use of a daily GSH regimen appears to be associated in CF patients with significant improvement in lung function and weight, and a significant decline in bacteria cultured in this uncontrolled study. <i><b>These findings bear further clinical investigation in larger, randomized, controlled studies.</b></i> </end quote></div>

Not that they are saying that everyone should jump on the bandwagon now, but that there is evidence to support further testing/clinical trials. It's a just a study to gather evidence about whether or not it is worth pursuing (pre-clinical trial work), and from their uncontrolled (basically, not far from simple observational) study, it is worth looking into further. And since there are several people here who are taking it and it is working for them too, that's good news! <img src="http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j213/boxart/smilies/2cents-1.gif">

 

[AnD]

I think that the point of the article is this (bold and italics mine):


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Use of a daily GSH regimen appears to be associated in CF patients with significant improvement in lung function and weight, and a significant decline in bacteria cultured in this uncontrolled study. <i><b>These findings bear further clinical investigation in larger, randomized, controlled studies.</b></i> </end quote>

Not that they are saying that everyone should jump on the bandwagon now, but that there is evidence to support further testing/clinical trials. It's a just a study to gather evidence about whether or not it is worth pursuing (pre-clinical trial work), and from their uncontrolled (basically, not far from simple observational) study, it is worth looking into further. And since there are several people here who are taking it and it is working for them too, that's good news! <img src="http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j213/boxart/smilies/2cents-1.gif">

 

[AnD]

I think that the point of the article is this (bold and italics mine):
<br />
<br />
<br /><div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Use of a daily GSH regimen appears to be associated in CF patients with significant improvement in lung function and weight, and a significant decline in bacteria cultured in this uncontrolled study. <i><b>These findings bear further clinical investigation in larger, randomized, controlled studies.</b></i> </end quote>
<br />
<br />Not that they are saying that everyone should jump on the bandwagon now, but that there is evidence to support further testing/clinical trials. It's a just a study to gather evidence about whether or not it is worth pursuing (pre-clinical trial work), and from their uncontrolled (basically, not far from simple observational) study, it is worth looking into further. And since there are several people here who are taking it and it is working for them too, that's good news! <img src="http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j213/boxart/smilies/2cents-1.gif">