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...ibrosisTreatment.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. 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."
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 no 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 and the vested interest in some of the researcher in the company who is making the NAC used in the study.
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.
