gsh and valerie hudson

C

Chaggie

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

Didn't someone else post about NAC vs. GSH -- one being a better supplement?</end quote></div>

NAC is the precusor to GSH, while not necessarily better, it is easier for the body to absord and less is needed to actually replenish the GSH supply. But one isn't necessarily better than the other, just more efficient.
 
F

Foody

New member
I would agree with Chris...they are often complimentary, with some people doing both. I don't see it as an either or thing...one may work fine for someone while someone else may benefit from the other or even both together. As Dr. Warwick says we all must be willing to experiment together. If you have a wonderful doctor who is willing to experiment along with you as he allows his patients to do, then why not do so. If you don't, you have to choose whether you are comfortable either finding a good naturopath/integrative physician to help guide your supplement choices OR become an expert yourself and make some well thought out decisions with slow careful observation. The later has been our approach...simply expanding our medical team when needed but doing most of the study and observation ourselves.

From recent press release about the study: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents/NewsReleases/2006/cysticFibrosisTreatment.html
">http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents...ibrosisTreatment.html
</a>
"Despite the improvement and the relatively safe profile of NAC, Conrad and Tirouvanziam strongly caution cystic fibrosis patients against self-medicating with NAC or any other drug. Although NAC can sometimes be found as a food supplement, many of these formulations contain little or no active compound, and some even contain a form of NAC that is potentially harmful to cystic fibrosis patients. <span class="FTHighlightFont">The NAC that was used in this study is specially formulated for medical use by a Canadian company and is not licensed for sale in the United States</span ft>."

We chose GSH because, at the time, there was much more research available and even in higher doses (which we of course do not do) the body gets rid of it with not toxicity to organs. GSH is a natural substance and therefore unpatentable (and in this country unregulated), so I believe this slows major research from happening. This has been, IMHO, the stumbling block for GSH and until recently NAC. I believe NAC has received some good attention and funds for study because of "pharm grade" NAC being used in the Stanford trials. I have just always wondered if directly inhaling GSH and taking oral GSH raises the blood GSH levels as much or more than NAC or vice versa. This would be interesting to know. Whichever one does the trick is fine with me...we just feel it is a major component of lung health in CF, and until something better comes along we will use it.

Either one right now is not going to be recommended by your clinic physician because they have not gotten THE definative affirmation from the research groups and the CFF. We feel comfortable not having approval for the things we do for our son...many may not and that's okay too. Do what works for you and your child, either way it is worth the research in my opinion.
 
F

Foody

New member
I would agree with Chris...they are often complimentary, with some people doing both. I don't see it as an either or thing...one may work fine for someone while someone else may benefit from the other or even both together. As Dr. Warwick says we all must be willing to experiment together. If you have a wonderful doctor who is willing to experiment along with you as he allows his patients to do, then why not do so. If you don't, you have to choose whether you are comfortable either finding a good naturopath/integrative physician to help guide your supplement choices OR become an expert yourself and make some well thought out decisions with slow careful observation. The later has been our approach...simply expanding our medical team when needed but doing most of the study and observation ourselves.

From recent press release about the study: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents/NewsReleases/2006/cysticFibrosisTreatment.html
">http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents...ibrosisTreatment.html
</a>
"Despite the improvement and the relatively safe profile of NAC, Conrad and Tirouvanziam strongly caution cystic fibrosis patients against self-medicating with NAC or any other drug. Although NAC can sometimes be found as a food supplement, many of these formulations contain little or no active compound, and some even contain a form of NAC that is potentially harmful to cystic fibrosis patients. <span class="FTHighlightFont">The NAC that was used in this study is specially formulated for medical use by a Canadian company and is not licensed for sale in the United States</span ft>."

We chose GSH because, at the time, there was much more research available and even in higher doses (which we of course do not do) the body gets rid of it with not toxicity to organs. GSH is a natural substance and therefore unpatentable (and in this country unregulated), so I believe this slows major research from happening. This has been, IMHO, the stumbling block for GSH and until recently NAC. I believe NAC has received some good attention and funds for study because of "pharm grade" NAC being used in the Stanford trials. I have just always wondered if directly inhaling GSH and taking oral GSH raises the blood GSH levels as much or more than NAC or vice versa. This would be interesting to know. Whichever one does the trick is fine with me...we just feel it is a major component of lung health in CF, and until something better comes along we will use it.

Either one right now is not going to be recommended by your clinic physician because they have not gotten THE definative affirmation from the research groups and the CFF. We feel comfortable not having approval for the things we do for our son...many may not and that's okay too. Do what works for you and your child, either way it is worth the research in my opinion.
 
F

Foody

New member
I would agree with Chris...they are often complimentary, with some people doing both. I don't see it as an either or thing...one may work fine for someone while someone else may benefit from the other or even both together. As Dr. Warwick says we all must be willing to experiment together. If you have a wonderful doctor who is willing to experiment along with you as he allows his patients to do, then why not do so. If you don't, you have to choose whether you are comfortable either finding a good naturopath/integrative physician to help guide your supplement choices OR become an expert yourself and make some well thought out decisions with slow careful observation. The later has been our approach...simply expanding our medical team when needed but doing most of the study and observation ourselves.

From recent press release about the study: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents/NewsReleases/2006/cysticFibrosisTreatment.html
">http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents...ibrosisTreatment.html
</a>
"Despite the improvement and the relatively safe profile of NAC, Conrad and Tirouvanziam strongly caution cystic fibrosis patients against self-medicating with NAC or any other drug. Although NAC can sometimes be found as a food supplement, many of these formulations contain little or no active compound, and some even contain a form of NAC that is potentially harmful to cystic fibrosis patients. <span class="FTHighlightFont">The NAC that was used in this study is specially formulated for medical use by a Canadian company and is not licensed for sale in the United States</span ft>."

We chose GSH because, at the time, there was much more research available and even in higher doses (which we of course do not do) the body gets rid of it with not toxicity to organs. GSH is a natural substance and therefore unpatentable (and in this country unregulated), so I believe this slows major research from happening. This has been, IMHO, the stumbling block for GSH and until recently NAC. I believe NAC has received some good attention and funds for study because of "pharm grade" NAC being used in the Stanford trials. I have just always wondered if directly inhaling GSH and taking oral GSH raises the blood GSH levels as much or more than NAC or vice versa. This would be interesting to know. Whichever one does the trick is fine with me...we just feel it is a major component of lung health in CF, and until something better comes along we will use it.

Either one right now is not going to be recommended by your clinic physician because they have not gotten THE definative affirmation from the research groups and the CFF. We feel comfortable not having approval for the things we do for our son...many may not and that's okay too. Do what works for you and your child, either way it is worth the research in my opinion.
 
F

Foody

New member
...from same article..."Other Stanford and Packard Children's researchers involved in the research include Leonore Herzenberg, PhD; Leonard Herzenberg, PhD, and Richard Moss, MD. Teodoro Bottiglieri, PhD, of Baylor's Institute for Metabolic Diseases also contributed to the study. The Stanford researchers are listed as inventors on a provisional patent application covering NAC as a therapeutic agent for cystic fibrosis. Two of the authors (Leonore and Leonard Herzenberg) hold a small amount of equity in BioAdvantex (Mississauga, ONT, Canada), which sells European GMP NAC and provided this NAC for the current
study."

This has not happened for GSH therefore the lack of major research studies.
 
F

Foody

New member
...from same article..."Other Stanford and Packard Children's researchers involved in the research include Leonore Herzenberg, PhD; Leonard Herzenberg, PhD, and Richard Moss, MD. Teodoro Bottiglieri, PhD, of Baylor's Institute for Metabolic Diseases also contributed to the study. The Stanford researchers are listed as inventors on a provisional patent application covering NAC as a therapeutic agent for cystic fibrosis. Two of the authors (Leonore and Leonard Herzenberg) hold a small amount of equity in BioAdvantex (Mississauga, ONT, Canada), which sells European GMP NAC and provided this NAC for the current
study."

This has not happened for GSH therefore the lack of major research studies.
 
F

Foody

New member
...from same article..."Other Stanford and Packard Children's researchers involved in the research include Leonore Herzenberg, PhD; Leonard Herzenberg, PhD, and Richard Moss, MD. Teodoro Bottiglieri, PhD, of Baylor's Institute for Metabolic Diseases also contributed to the study. The Stanford researchers are listed as inventors on a provisional patent application covering NAC as a therapeutic agent for cystic fibrosis. Two of the authors (Leonore and Leonard Herzenberg) hold a small amount of equity in BioAdvantex (Mississauga, ONT, Canada), which sells European GMP NAC and provided this NAC for the current
study."

This has not happened for GSH therefore the lack of major research studies.
 
C

Chaggie

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





From recent press release about the study: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents/NewsReleases/2006/cysticFibrosisTreatment.html
">http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents...sTreatment.html
</a>


"Despite the improvement and the relatively safe profile of NAC, Conrad and Tirouvanziam strongly caution cystic fibrosis patients against self-medicating with NAC or any other drug. Although NAC can sometimes be found as a food supplement, many of these formulations contain little or no active compound, and some even contain a form of NAC that is potentially harmful to cystic fibrosis patients. <span class="FTHighlightFont">The NAC that was used in this study is specially formulated for medical use by a Canadian company and is not licensed for sale in the United States</span ft>."



We chose GSH because, at the time, there was much more research available and even in higher doses (which we of course do not do) the body gets rid of it with not toxicity to organs. GSH is a natural substance and therefore unpatentable (and in this country unregulated), so I believe this slows major research from happening. This has been, IMHO, the stumbling block for GSH and until recently NAC. I believe NAC has received some good attention and funds for study because of "pharm grade" NAC being used in the Stanford trials. I have just always wondered if directly inhaling GSH and taking oral GSH raises the blood GSH levels as much or more than NAC or vice versa. This would be interesting to know. Whichever one does the trick is fine with me...we just feel it is a major component of lung health in CF, and until something better comes along we will use it.

</end quote></div>

If you're looking for pharmacy grade NAC, and you're Doctor IS willing to work with you, it's actually quite easy to get. Mucomyst is 20% NAC solution. There is a generic version of it.
 
C

Chaggie

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





From recent press release about the study: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents/NewsReleases/2006/cysticFibrosisTreatment.html
">http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents...sTreatment.html
</a>


"Despite the improvement and the relatively safe profile of NAC, Conrad and Tirouvanziam strongly caution cystic fibrosis patients against self-medicating with NAC or any other drug. Although NAC can sometimes be found as a food supplement, many of these formulations contain little or no active compound, and some even contain a form of NAC that is potentially harmful to cystic fibrosis patients. <span class="FTHighlightFont">The NAC that was used in this study is specially formulated for medical use by a Canadian company and is not licensed for sale in the United States</span ft>."



We chose GSH because, at the time, there was much more research available and even in higher doses (which we of course do not do) the body gets rid of it with not toxicity to organs. GSH is a natural substance and therefore unpatentable (and in this country unregulated), so I believe this slows major research from happening. This has been, IMHO, the stumbling block for GSH and until recently NAC. I believe NAC has received some good attention and funds for study because of "pharm grade" NAC being used in the Stanford trials. I have just always wondered if directly inhaling GSH and taking oral GSH raises the blood GSH levels as much or more than NAC or vice versa. This would be interesting to know. Whichever one does the trick is fine with me...we just feel it is a major component of lung health in CF, and until something better comes along we will use it.

</end quote></div>

If you're looking for pharmacy grade NAC, and you're Doctor IS willing to work with you, it's actually quite easy to get. Mucomyst is 20% NAC solution. There is a generic version of it.
 
C

Chaggie

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





From recent press release about the study: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents/NewsReleases/2006/cysticFibrosisTreatment.html
">http://www.lpch.org/NewsEvents...sTreatment.html
</a>


"Despite the improvement and the relatively safe profile of NAC, Conrad and Tirouvanziam strongly caution cystic fibrosis patients against self-medicating with NAC or any other drug. Although NAC can sometimes be found as a food supplement, many of these formulations contain little or no active compound, and some even contain a form of NAC that is potentially harmful to cystic fibrosis patients. <span class="FTHighlightFont">The NAC that was used in this study is specially formulated for medical use by a Canadian company and is not licensed for sale in the United States</span ft>."



We chose GSH because, at the time, there was much more research available and even in higher doses (which we of course do not do) the body gets rid of it with not toxicity to organs. GSH is a natural substance and therefore unpatentable (and in this country unregulated), so I believe this slows major research from happening. This has been, IMHO, the stumbling block for GSH and until recently NAC. I believe NAC has received some good attention and funds for study because of "pharm grade" NAC being used in the Stanford trials. I have just always wondered if directly inhaling GSH and taking oral GSH raises the blood GSH levels as much or more than NAC or vice versa. This would be interesting to know. Whichever one does the trick is fine with me...we just feel it is a major component of lung health in CF, and until something better comes along we will use it.

</end quote></div>

If you're looking for pharmacy grade NAC, and you're Doctor IS willing to work with you, it's actually quite easy to get. Mucomyst is 20% NAC solution. There is a generic version of it.
 
F

Foody

New member
Thank you Chris. We are watching the NAC trials right now and continuing GSH since it works so well for our son. This may change as time goes on...it is so great to keep an open mind and stay abreast of research. We all really have to I think...until that cure comes down the pike ;-)
 
F

Foody

New member
Thank you Chris. We are watching the NAC trials right now and continuing GSH since it works so well for our son. This may change as time goes on...it is so great to keep an open mind and stay abreast of research. We all really have to I think...until that cure comes down the pike ;-)
 
F

Foody

New member
Thank you Chris. We are watching the NAC trials right now and continuing GSH since it works so well for our son. This may change as time goes on...it is so great to keep an open mind and stay abreast of research. We all really have to I think...until that cure comes down the pike ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top