You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Member
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
Thanks Brad. My son is doing fine.
Let's quickly talk about GSH. I know that some are using it, from what I read. This is what we have found: There is an imbalance of this antioxidant in CF cells. The CFTR is able to transport it, but because of the CF mutation, the CFTR cannot. Research has clearly shown that the ELF of CF lungs is deficient in this compound.
HOWEVER, what I am going to say now may come as a surprise to some, especially those who have been using GSH orally.
We think that the CFTR mutation which blocks the transport of GSH from the inside of the cell to the outside, causes an increase of GSH on the inside. The idea is that if GSH cannot get out, it MUST be trapped inside.
There is a whole lot of evidence that supports this idea, and there is way too much to try and explain here. But, what I am saying is that it 'could be' dangerous to take GSH orally, as you may be contributing to the imbalance in these cells. Now, although what I say makes logical sence, it is going to be difficult for some to agree, especially if you have been using oral GSH and having good results.
There are intracellular functions that are directly related to cellular GSH homeostasis, and again, I encourage you all to read Sharktank's research. Further, the lactoperoxidase bacterial defense system, which is known to be abnormal in CF, is affected by the lack of GSH-thiocyanate transport. Thiocyante is necessary for the proper functioning of the lactoperoxidase antibacterial defense system. There is a plathora of data that supports the idea of supraphysiological levels of intracellular GSH. Again, please read the paper. I would like to try and answer questions. I may not know them all, but I will try my best.
The idea proposed by Sharktank, and published in Medical Hypotheses has already gained lots of attention from some of the most brilliant researchers and universities in and out of the US.
The only thing left to do now, is test the hypothesis. We need objective evidence. Something testable, not subjective acecdotal stories. The trial which is being held by an independent company, should show if it works or not. I will try and discuss this more tomorrow. I would like to read some of your thoughts.
Let's quickly talk about GSH. I know that some are using it, from what I read. This is what we have found: There is an imbalance of this antioxidant in CF cells. The CFTR is able to transport it, but because of the CF mutation, the CFTR cannot. Research has clearly shown that the ELF of CF lungs is deficient in this compound.
HOWEVER, what I am going to say now may come as a surprise to some, especially those who have been using GSH orally.
We think that the CFTR mutation which blocks the transport of GSH from the inside of the cell to the outside, causes an increase of GSH on the inside. The idea is that if GSH cannot get out, it MUST be trapped inside.
There is a whole lot of evidence that supports this idea, and there is way too much to try and explain here. But, what I am saying is that it 'could be' dangerous to take GSH orally, as you may be contributing to the imbalance in these cells. Now, although what I say makes logical sence, it is going to be difficult for some to agree, especially if you have been using oral GSH and having good results.
There are intracellular functions that are directly related to cellular GSH homeostasis, and again, I encourage you all to read Sharktank's research. Further, the lactoperoxidase bacterial defense system, which is known to be abnormal in CF, is affected by the lack of GSH-thiocyanate transport. Thiocyante is necessary for the proper functioning of the lactoperoxidase antibacterial defense system. There is a plathora of data that supports the idea of supraphysiological levels of intracellular GSH. Again, please read the paper. I would like to try and answer questions. I may not know them all, but I will try my best.
The idea proposed by Sharktank, and published in Medical Hypotheses has already gained lots of attention from some of the most brilliant researchers and universities in and out of the US.
The only thing left to do now, is test the hypothesis. We need objective evidence. Something testable, not subjective acecdotal stories. The trial which is being held by an independent company, should show if it works or not. I will try and discuss this more tomorrow. I would like to read some of your thoughts.
Thanks Brad. My son is doing fine.
Let's quickly talk about GSH. I know that some are using it, from what I read. This is what we have found: There is an imbalance of this antioxidant in CF cells. The CFTR is able to transport it, but because of the CF mutation, the CFTR cannot. Research has clearly shown that the ELF of CF lungs is deficient in this compound.
HOWEVER, what I am going to say now may come as a surprise to some, especially those who have been using GSH orally.
We think that the CFTR mutation which blocks the transport of GSH from the inside of the cell to the outside, causes an increase of GSH on the inside. The idea is that if GSH cannot get out, it MUST be trapped inside.
There is a whole lot of evidence that supports this idea, and there is way too much to try and explain here. But, what I am saying is that it 'could be' dangerous to take GSH orally, as you may be contributing to the imbalance in these cells. Now, although what I say makes logical sence, it is going to be difficult for some to agree, especially if you have been using oral GSH and having good results.
There are intracellular functions that are directly related to cellular GSH homeostasis, and again, I encourage you all to read Sharktank's research. Further, the lactoperoxidase bacterial defense system, which is known to be abnormal in CF, is affected by the lack of GSH-thiocyanate transport. Thiocyante is necessary for the proper functioning of the lactoperoxidase antibacterial defense system. There is a plathora of data that supports the idea of supraphysiological levels of intracellular GSH. Again, please read the paper. I would like to try and answer questions. I may not know them all, but I will try my best.
The idea proposed by Sharktank, and published in Medical Hypotheses has already gained lots of attention from some of the most brilliant researchers and universities in and out of the US.
The only thing left to do now, is test the hypothesis. We need objective evidence. Something testable, not subjective acecdotal stories. The trial which is being held by an independent company, should show if it works or not. I will try and discuss this more tomorrow. I would like to read some of your thoughts.
Let's quickly talk about GSH. I know that some are using it, from what I read. This is what we have found: There is an imbalance of this antioxidant in CF cells. The CFTR is able to transport it, but because of the CF mutation, the CFTR cannot. Research has clearly shown that the ELF of CF lungs is deficient in this compound.
HOWEVER, what I am going to say now may come as a surprise to some, especially those who have been using GSH orally.
We think that the CFTR mutation which blocks the transport of GSH from the inside of the cell to the outside, causes an increase of GSH on the inside. The idea is that if GSH cannot get out, it MUST be trapped inside.
There is a whole lot of evidence that supports this idea, and there is way too much to try and explain here. But, what I am saying is that it 'could be' dangerous to take GSH orally, as you may be contributing to the imbalance in these cells. Now, although what I say makes logical sence, it is going to be difficult for some to agree, especially if you have been using oral GSH and having good results.
There are intracellular functions that are directly related to cellular GSH homeostasis, and again, I encourage you all to read Sharktank's research. Further, the lactoperoxidase bacterial defense system, which is known to be abnormal in CF, is affected by the lack of GSH-thiocyanate transport. Thiocyante is necessary for the proper functioning of the lactoperoxidase antibacterial defense system. There is a plathora of data that supports the idea of supraphysiological levels of intracellular GSH. Again, please read the paper. I would like to try and answer questions. I may not know them all, but I will try my best.
The idea proposed by Sharktank, and published in Medical Hypotheses has already gained lots of attention from some of the most brilliant researchers and universities in and out of the US.
The only thing left to do now, is test the hypothesis. We need objective evidence. Something testable, not subjective acecdotal stories. The trial which is being held by an independent company, should show if it works or not. I will try and discuss this more tomorrow. I would like to read some of your thoughts.
Thanks Brad. My son is doing fine.
Let's quickly talk about GSH. I know that some are using it, from what I read. This is what we have found: There is an imbalance of this antioxidant in CF cells. The CFTR is able to transport it, but because of the CF mutation, the CFTR cannot. Research has clearly shown that the ELF of CF lungs is deficient in this compound.
HOWEVER, what I am going to say now may come as a surprise to some, especially those who have been using GSH orally.
We think that the CFTR mutation which blocks the transport of GSH from the inside of the cell to the outside, causes an increase of GSH on the inside. The idea is that if GSH cannot get out, it MUST be trapped inside.
There is a whole lot of evidence that supports this idea, and there is way too much to try and explain here. But, what I am saying is that it 'could be' dangerous to take GSH orally, as you may be contributing to the imbalance in these cells. Now, although what I say makes logical sence, it is going to be difficult for some to agree, especially if you have been using oral GSH and having good results.
There are intracellular functions that are directly related to cellular GSH homeostasis, and again, I encourage you all to read Sharktank's research. Further, the lactoperoxidase bacterial defense system, which is known to be abnormal in CF, is affected by the lack of GSH-thiocyanate transport. Thiocyante is necessary for the proper functioning of the lactoperoxidase antibacterial defense system. There is a plathora of data that supports the idea of supraphysiological levels of intracellular GSH. Again, please read the paper. I would like to try and answer questions. I may not know them all, but I will try my best.
The idea proposed by Sharktank, and published in Medical Hypotheses has already gained lots of attention from some of the most brilliant researchers and universities in and out of the US.
The only thing left to do now, is test the hypothesis. We need objective evidence. Something testable, not subjective acecdotal stories. The trial which is being held by an independent company, should show if it works or not. I will try and discuss this more tomorrow. I would like to read some of your thoughts.
Let's quickly talk about GSH. I know that some are using it, from what I read. This is what we have found: There is an imbalance of this antioxidant in CF cells. The CFTR is able to transport it, but because of the CF mutation, the CFTR cannot. Research has clearly shown that the ELF of CF lungs is deficient in this compound.
HOWEVER, what I am going to say now may come as a surprise to some, especially those who have been using GSH orally.
We think that the CFTR mutation which blocks the transport of GSH from the inside of the cell to the outside, causes an increase of GSH on the inside. The idea is that if GSH cannot get out, it MUST be trapped inside.
There is a whole lot of evidence that supports this idea, and there is way too much to try and explain here. But, what I am saying is that it 'could be' dangerous to take GSH orally, as you may be contributing to the imbalance in these cells. Now, although what I say makes logical sence, it is going to be difficult for some to agree, especially if you have been using oral GSH and having good results.
There are intracellular functions that are directly related to cellular GSH homeostasis, and again, I encourage you all to read Sharktank's research. Further, the lactoperoxidase bacterial defense system, which is known to be abnormal in CF, is affected by the lack of GSH-thiocyanate transport. Thiocyante is necessary for the proper functioning of the lactoperoxidase antibacterial defense system. There is a plathora of data that supports the idea of supraphysiological levels of intracellular GSH. Again, please read the paper. I would like to try and answer questions. I may not know them all, but I will try my best.
The idea proposed by Sharktank, and published in Medical Hypotheses has already gained lots of attention from some of the most brilliant researchers and universities in and out of the US.
The only thing left to do now, is test the hypothesis. We need objective evidence. Something testable, not subjective acecdotal stories. The trial which is being held by an independent company, should show if it works or not. I will try and discuss this more tomorrow. I would like to read some of your thoughts.